What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.301 Comments
- GeneralFault, on 11/10/2007, -11/+103I wish I wrote the following, but it is a funny view of the "debate" on ID vs evolution.
grabbed from an ongoing discussion about teaching ID in schools:
------------------
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of ***** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form *****; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu. - Hermitwise, on 10/12/2007, -10/+97Theories are testable, ID is faith.
- toekneebullard, on 10/12/2007, -10/+94No matter which way you believe, I think everyone agrees that ID is not Science. Even I, as a Christian, know it's not science, and thusly, it should not be taught in a science class. We don't teach Art in Math class, don't teach Theology in a Science class.
Oops, meant to reply to Scott1 - Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -7/+84"Intelligent Design is just theory anyway."
No, it is not. The conjecture termed "Intelligent Design" does not meet the minimum requirements to be termed "theory". - shakin, on 11/10/2007, -4/+73"It must be part of god's plan I suppose."
No, the accented 'e' evolved from a regular 'e'. - snupples, on 11/10/2007, -11/+78I have a bias against long-winded *****. So I'm going to have to mod you down.
Try actually watching the video next time. He explains EXACTLY why the theory of evolution is gaining more and more scientific weight as research continues into various genomes, and as paleontologists etc. make more discoveries in so-far-unturned corners of the natural world.
Until you come up with a better theory that gains the respect and passes the critique of the entire scientific community, keep your opinion out of our science classes. You're welcome in the theology courses though. - Xanin, on 11/10/2007, -11/+61You really don't know what you are talking about, do you Jereome? Science is seperate from politics and religion, it's just the ignorant or those with an agenda that try to bring it into those topics.
- xutopia, on 11/10/2007, -10/+50How is it more extraordinary to believe that the universe "created itself" than to believe someone did?
We have evidence that the universe is here and none that God has anything to do with it. So far evidence of God is nil. Universe is all around you. - chosenone-, on 11/10/2007, -11/+50Forgive me, but I think it's time we drive this through to the masses who don't get it:
Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact.
Theories are what explain facts. Theories aren't lower than fact. - inactive, on 11/10/2007, -5/+44Er, not totally familiar with this specific situation, but it sounds like he was invited to do such a debate, but the Intelligent Design guy didn't show, so he just had to give a lecture.
- dpalmer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37The bottom line is that scientific theory can be tested and evaluated empirically. Intelligent design cannot be tested (therefore not proven or disproven), thus it is not science and should not be taught to impressionable young students who often believe everything presented in a classroom to be fact.
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35"Everything just created itself. !!?? "
If you are ignorant enough to believe that anyone actually postulates such a thing, then you are insufficiently educated on the subject to make any credible statements. - feylanks, on 11/10/2007, -3/+32yep its official. Jaymoon has had the least amount of proper education of anyone in the history of the internet.
- BlakeEM, on 11/10/2007, -15/+43Evolution is fact; the process by which it happens is the theory (natural selection). It is fact because we can observe and replicate it in microevolution. Microevolution is the same as normal evolution, the only difference is the organisms are replicating so fast that it doesn’t take many years for each generation so we are able to observe them evolve in our lifetimes.
- Feanor, on 11/10/2007, -4/+31Evolutionists? You mean Scientists. Its not like evolution is some cult people follow, its not a way of life. Its simply something that has come about through scientific evidence. ID may be a theory, but it is one with little evidence to back it up. Scientist take evidence and attempt to classify it and learn the detail behind it. Currently scientist think that Evolution has the best explanation given the evidence they have. Theories are fluid because the evidence could change; we haven't studied everything in the Universe yet.
As for this bull about the creation of the Universe - It has nothing to do with evolution. BIG BANG THEORY covers the origins of the universe, NOT evolution. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28"Creationism IS science."
Please explain how creationism satisfies the scientific method. Be specific. - Dimensio, on 11/10/2007, -4/+29"If you believe that the universe created itself, how exactly would that be possible?"
Who has professed such a belief?
"Here's a little sceince experiment for all the little diggers... Take a glass box. Remove all air from the box. Remove all the "matter" in the box. Remove every single possible ounce of anything from that box. Leave the box alone, in an envirornment with no light.
Now let's see if anything "evolves" out of nothing after a few million years, and get back to me with your "proof"."
That you suggest that anyone has stated that evolution can occur in the abscence of any matter demonstrates that you are fundamentally ignorant of the theory of evolution and, as such, you are not qualified to speak on the subject. - feylanks, on 11/10/2007, -9/+34Thanks for using the term "evolutionists" because it saved me from reading that spam.
These idiots want you to believe science can be discredited and so they give you a new term to use on scientists with absolutely no agenda other than to learn. Then they tell you absurd reasons why their unbiased thorough processes are an attack on your beliefs.
Way to be a tool for an arcane and illogical cause. - speedstream, on 10/12/2007, -15/+40exposé actually wasn't a typo - I hit the back button and checked. Oddly, it just came out that way. It must be part of god's plan I suppose.
- vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30"Easy to rip something apart in a speech. Much harder during a good discussion"
Umm, yeah...that discussion was made in court. Did you watch the video? Ken Miller basically went though what happened to the Dover ID trial. I just finished reading the judgement in that case and the judge blasted the ID camp. - CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30Everybody knows that the universe was in fact created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.venganza.org/
Check out this site and feel His noodly appendages - garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23As a guy who just graduated from a Kansas high school just 4 years ago, I can say that during my sophomore year, in Biology, the teacher had to give a handout stating that evolution is just a theory and he will not press us on the issue. He was even considering not teaching it at all because of angry parents... In the end though, he pretty much made us go over everything, just having us keep that paper in handy, which we had to sign along with having our parents sign.
Don't think everyone in Kansas is anti-evolution-teaching, because they aren't. It's just the few who are anti-evolution have a much larger voice in the communities, specifically with lawsuits. I'm glad to say though that the Judiciary system in Kansas has done a great job with the issue, several times. The legislature however hasn't done a great job, especially on election years. - daverules, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Good God, it's two hours long!
- poipoipoi, on 11/10/2007, -3/+25scott -- some of us got the joke, don't worry.
- sinfree, on 10/12/2007, -21/+42Pretty much everything we hold as true is a theory. The fact the the existence of God cannot be proven says nothing of his existence, it only says something about the nature of proofs. When you get right down to it pretty much nothing can be proven. Testable, perhaps, but not proven beyond doubt. You can't prove to me that we all weren't just created 10 minutes ago with our memories in place ;).
- maxman137, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Evolution has, in fact been observed. That's how the theory was created in the first place, as well as the occasional modern alteration of an organism to its environment. I would advise having paid attention in science class before making such accusations.
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24"Neither ID or Evo are Science as neither has ever been observed and cannot be replicated...period."
Evolution has been observed. Moreover, direct observation of an event is not required for the postulated event to carry scientific credibility.
Your ignorance of the scientific method does not demonstrate that the theory of evolution is not science. - jonathono2000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24@jerome209
Just because you read one book written from a scientific viewpoint that claims evolution is impossible because it doesn't jive with recent research in microbiology doesn't mean that you can use that as point to say that evolution is bull. The reason scientists write that kind of literature is to challenge other scientists to make a better case, not for ***** like you to use as "proof" that evolution is not a plausible theory. - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"In a nutshell, the fossil record does not adequately support the "Origin of the Species"."
You are incorrect.
" It supports adaptations within the species, longer beaks in birds, different types of fish, different characteristics becoming more prominent. It does not adequately describe, how completely new species arise. "
No one claims that the fossil record describes the means by which new species arise, only that it shows that new species arise over time. The conclusion that speciation is the result of descent with modification is the result of observation of living organisms. - SmudgeTheFirst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Evolution CAN be observed, at least on the smaller scale. Animal populations are constantly adapting to change -- the individuals in the population who are better suited to survival end up surviving and reproducing, due to genetic variations that happen to be in their favor. Evolution traces that to the long-term, trying to find the ancestry of these populations. Sure, you can argue, rabbits will always be rabbits and dogs will always be dogs, but the line gets fuzzy when you look at the hundreds of thousands of years these populations can be changing and shifting and splitting off into multiple variances. Evolution doesn't say we can put a monkey in a vat of water and watch it grow gills -- that's absurd -- but it DOES say that a population of monkeys will constantly adapt due to the fact that the individual monkeys less suited to survival, in whatever conditions occur (either rapid changes or gradual), will have a lesser probability of reproducing and passing on their less-desirable traits.
- cybermort, on 11/10/2007, -3/+22there isn't enough time and users to digg down your comment to a number that accurately represents its value.
- Glugory, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19LOL @ all the stupid religious people marking this for inaccurate.
- circusbred, on 11/10/2007, -5/+23I am sick and tired of Christians claiming that they are persecuted. The fact of the matter is the majority of this country is Christian, if anyone is being persecuted, it is the non-Christians.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Now you know how the rest of us feel about Intelligent Design...
- cybermort, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27no is not. doesn't fit anywhere in the scientific process, just like religion.
- fantasticFlan, on 11/10/2007, -3/+20@Jaymoon
First of all, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the origin of the universe. Second, what the hell is random matter? Did you hear that from an actual scientist? - shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19some student's blog is your proof? If your google query only returns this to support your argument, you may want to rethink how rational ID is.
- davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18How is it science? Where's the evidence? The Bible? How do you know you can trust all of that? Because it's God's word? How do you know it's God's word? Because the bible says so!
Flawless logic! - mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Scott made a joke. The joke is that Kansas was seriously considering putting this sticker on the inside cover on science textbooks in its state's schools:
http://whyfiles.org/216evolution_qu/images/book_sticker.gif
From the sticker: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origination of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Here's why calling evolution a theory does not discount it's reality. From Stephen Jay Gould:
"evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27No, ID is just stupid.
- masterkenobi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Oh well, I guess we are all a bunch of Godless sodomites! ;)
- poipoipoi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28MUST RESIST reading the comments for fear of entering a homicidal rage...
(creationists are just so. *****. stupid.) - david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Seriously, what assclowns marked this as inaccurate?
Better yet, why can't you see a list of people who bury an article like you can for those who DIGG it? - dpalmer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@ iceperson
The different theories on the origins of the universe can and should be taught in science classrooms as long as these theories can and have been evaluated using empirical data obtain from endeavors such as the COBE and other exploratory satellites. An example of a theory on the origins of the universe that should not be taught is one of creationism because it is not possible for science to collect any data on the presence or absence of a God who created everything. - GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I'm a scientist. I don't know any scientists who study the theory of creationism. Please tell me how you would test this theory? I'm curious. You see, all theories are testable and by testing them they may be proven false. This falsification is the hallmark of the scientific method. If you cannot come up with a test that seeks to prove creationism wrong then it is not a theory and as such isn't science either.
Of course if you can come up with a test then we can call it science. But... If you execute the test and creationism is found to be lacking. Well then, by using science you have refuted creationism.
It's simple really. This is a the most powerful way to explore the natural world. - tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14inaccurate ?
wtf - Feanor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Jereome "It really is. The only difference is your false prophets are scientists who believe in evolution. But I understand this is not something you want to admit."
False Prophets?? This isn't religion! Science is a study of fact, Religion is a group of people with a Faith. Scientist aren't following Evolution because they have faith in it, they are following it because it offers a good explanation for fact.
Evolution is observable. ID is not. Hell they aren't even in the same category. Evolution is the study of how organisms adapt over time, ID is a theory for the initial creation of life. ID requires a leap of Faith, whereas Evolution is observable in a relatively short order of Human Time. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13You're just jealous, when I die, I get a beer volcano and stripper factory.
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -17/+29Yeah, but they go by pretty fast. Even though I'm an ID proponent, I like Dr. Miller. I find his disposition to be pleasant and likable, unlike many of the people who usually do these kinds of lectures. He's very intelligent, and is also very religious.
The two hours is worth it, even if you disagree with what he says. He makes some strong points, and some weak ones, but if you're going to watch this, you'll probably want to balance it with another video that gives the other side. Let me make a recommendation:
http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archived/WME.cfm?EVNum=2006040103&TYPE=V
It's a debate between Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Peter Ward. It gives a good overview of what ID is, and what ID is not. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@democracysucks
You are a sad little troll -
Show 51 - 100 of 300 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 