digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS

pbs.org — At the end of the trial, Judge John Jones issued a 139-page verdict supporting the teaching of evolution and characterizing intelligent design as a religious idea with no place in the science classroom. It was a landmark decision, all the more so because Judge Jones was appointed by President Bush and nominated by Republican Senator Rick Santorum.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • LizardonaStick, on 11/15/2007, -11/+158Religion masquerading as science eventually becomes unmasked when faced with reasoned arguments under oath.
    • Wrathernaut, on 11/12/2007, -9/+34Any use of science to prove religion only serves to insult them both, and any god used to account for the unexplained is only weakened as man continues to learn and explain our universe.

      Religion's only hope to maintain the delusion of a god worth worshiping is to make sure that intelligence gaps are no longer filled - and "God willing" - wedged further apart through imposing ignorance on our children.
      • virtualmadden, on 11/12/2007, -6/+7God doesn't have to be a physical being to be prayed to. I know people like this idea of a "physical" god, but it doesn't have to be. The idea should be teaching the values, "do unto others...", and then presenting god as someone who is a support figure. You can be into science and still be religious. I've gone to 12yrs of Catholic school and no one ever told me that creation didn't happen through biological evolution.
        • joegibes, on 11/12/2007, -4/+8I'm a Christian that loves God and I'm a firm believer in scientific principles (I'm working on my BS in Engineering)... I'm like a walking contradiction to some people.
          • chaosium, on 11/09/2007, -0/+8It's silly, there are a ton of theists working in evolutionary biology and no desire to act like idiots.
          • Wrathernaut, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6Not so much a walking contradiction as a skilled double-thinker, or (as an engineer) not required to make hypocritical judgments in their field of science.
          • eviltandem, on 11/09/2007, -2/+10You are a walking contradiction. I doubt you believe in unicorns, zeus, or amon-ra. So why are you skeptical of the religions and ideals of others, but not your own?
        • Wrathernaut, on 11/12/2007, -0/+12According to the Christian Bible, god is a real being that MUST be prayed to. Otherwise you must be killed, or spend eternity in misery. Hey, these are the Catholic beliefs, not mine, bitch to your proper clergy to have "divine inspiration" (like the removal of babies from purgatory, black getting the priesthood, women being priests or any other recent changes to the dogma of various churches) that it shouldn't be so.
          Teaching the values of "do unto others..." and other sound moral judgments do not require religion. If you believe it's so, then you should take all moral guidance from the Bible without question, because if you pick and choose from your religion's "unerring" inspired books then you are proving that you are capable of making sound moral judgment WITHOUT it, otherwise you better start killing everyone not praying in the exact same way to the the exact same god as you are. You can't pick and choose from the Christian Bible, it says so in the Christian Bible.
          Religion DOES NOT own a monopoly on morality.
          • virtualmadden, on 11/12/2007, -5/+3You can pick and choose as long as you uphold the most basic of beliefs. As far as my Jesuit education, that doesn't put me in the wrong. Also not every person is a religious literalist. Times change and religion is adapting. You have to remember that sometimes a religious leader may want to make a anti-religious decision, eg. abortion, but politically they can't. I'll admit that religion is handicapped by old school ideals, but trust me...things change.
          • robbielaney, on 11/08/2007, -3/+4And where does it say that you MUST pray to God or you will be killed? It doesn't say that. I've read it numerous times.
      • InvisibleMan, on 11/08/2007, -7/+1Ya, Don't you know that in science when we are unable to explain things, we just stick a prefix like dark or missing in front and everyone buys it.
        Begin Rant.
        Let science stay science, and let religion stay religion. They don't even overlap, so stop comparing them. In science, we know so little of how things work its almost laughable. In religion, you don't need to know how everything works in the Grand Scheme of things so to speak. So don't prove religion with science, and DO NOT try to disprove religion with science. We may know a lot more about the world then we did 300 years ago, but are still pretty much stuck on our small piece of the Universe called Earth, so we are like ants in an ant farm declaring it possesses knowledge of the entire world. The point of this rant I guess is this. Both science and religion assume things and take things as 'faith' that they happen, so neither is allowed to get on their high horse and declare supremacy over the other.
        End Rant.
        • ICSU, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2They don't overlap? So we are not commenting on an article related to creationism/intelligent design?
        • zeitgueist, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Most of your rant is a strawman...however you do say that both science and religion assume things and take things as 'faith'. This is entirely wrong, and betrays your misunderstanding of science. Science takes nothing on faith...that's the whole point. If anything is assumed in an experiment, it is listed as an assumption beforehand and acknowledged as contributing to error. EVERY credible scientific study gives you an error percentage. What's the stated error % on the bible?
    • actionscripted, on 11/08/2007, -12/+13See you in hell, religion.
      • 01l0, on 11/08/2007, -1/+12Says the guy with a Hindu user icon.
        • cmpshotty, on 11/08/2007, -2/+5But it looks cool!
        • potp, on 11/08/2007, -3/+5We believe in reincarnation so no hell for us bitches. although he might be born again as a dog or something so that might probably suck.
          • rspeed, on 11/08/2007, -1/+8I can think of much worse things to be reborn as than a dog.
          • OneLess, on 11/11/2007, -2/+18Like a creationist.
          • Bhima, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Obviously you haven't met my Mum's dog
          • HBNDonut, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4Im not even going to bother making a joke about Bhima's mum's dog.
    • sotopheavy, on 11/08/2007, -2/+12Well Said lizard. It's almost as if the plot to take down intelligent design was too complex to have happened by chance.
    • p0ss, on 11/08/2007, -5/+16"..under oath" funny how that oath is to god.
      • xpankrat, on 11/08/2007, -0/+11Perhaps in _US_ there is no other option.
        In Canada however you don't have to reference any god when being put under an oath.
      • ClunkClunk, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8In the US, you have the option of choosing affirmation over an oath. An affirmation is legally identical, however the language avoids any religious mention. Also some lower courts won't mind if you simply don't repeat the "so help me god" portion of the standard oath.

        You also have the legal right to swear to any deity you prefer and/or place your hand on any holy book you prefer. Personally, it's the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
    • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -17/+2Then you wouldn't mind bringing Darwinism to court.
      • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+14It's been done and won already, every time you get a judge that understands science.
        • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -6/+1Time for you to look up Darwinism.
        • zeitgueist, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Jeolmeun, How is "Darwinism" relevant to evolution? One is a philosophical concept, the other is a scientific model.
      • Bilabrin, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Look up the scopes monkey trial. Also a play called "Inherit the Wind."
    • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -10/+1You can't really argue thoroughly when "the publisher of the textbook Of Pandas and People, Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), was denied the right to become a party to the Kitzmiller trial despite the fact that its intellectual property rights were implicated in the lawsuit." http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/eg/20 ...
    • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -12/+3"The Theory of Intelligent Design may well have implications that are supportive of theistic belief, but the theory is not based on theistic belief. It's based on the discovery of digital code in cells, miniature machines in cells, the fine tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry, and standard ways of scientific reasoning about the remote past and the history of life." -Stephen Meyer
      • Wrathernaut, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10All of his examples have been proven to be reducible down to more "primitive" cellular structures.
        It is entirely based upon a theistic belief with no evidence to support it. And despite what the ID movement would have you think, unexplained does not equal "God did it." by default. Science makes theories and makes predictions based on those theories, the proving or disproving of those predictions validates or invalidates the theory. A testable theory is not "You'll find something in the universe that is presently unexplainable. That thing you can't explain, but which I can't say what it will be, that's evidence of god. Theory proven, look no further."
        • KingCook, on 11/08/2007, -3/+2I digg you up so others can laugh with your comment (was supposed to be a reply to wrathernaut)
        • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -2/+2What do ""primitive" cellular structures" have to do "discovery of digital code in cells, miniature machines in cells, the fine tuning of the laws of physics and chemistry, and standard ways of scientific reasoning about the remote past and the history of life."? We're telling you it's not based on theistic belief and you just assert it is with straw man.
        • zeitgueist, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1@Jeolmeun: Intelligent Design is the belief that a "designer" is responsible for the perceived flaws in evolutionary theory. If you think that evolution does not explain these things adequately, feel free to take that up with experts in the field. If your hypothesis is that there is a designer, then you need to provide POSITIVE support for that designer. Criticizing evolution is not that. Your quote does nothing to change that. Finding things in evolution that you do not understand or that science can't yet explain does not support ID.
    • ubergeek09, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1Evolution is a basically a religion, in fact I would say it takes more faith to believe than to believe in than intelligent design.
      • FrankButcher, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Err....what?
      • FenderF4i, on 11/12/2007, -0/+2Evolution is not a religion or anything like it. there's no belief in a supernatural power in evolution. Don't be an idiot. How does it take MORE faith to believe in something like evolution where evidence actually exists?
  • lebruf, on 11/09/2007, -47/+18Although I believe in intelligent design, I'm not necessarily an advocate for it being taught in schools.
    First off, there's too many versions of this argument (one that can't be proven with the available evidence) for us to choose a standard.
    Second, it's the responsibility of Parents and the Churches they attend, not the public schools or the Government, to teach their children whatever Religious beliefs and values they wish them to espouse. I don't want my child being forced to accept something as easily disputed as intelligent design just because a bunch of activists wish to impose their worldview on everyone else.
    Lastly, we need to be careful to not let the pendulum swing too far away from allowing any type of exposure to religious teachings and traditions. Where else would I have learned the Dreidel song, Native American raindances etc... The last thing I want is a culturally sterile society because we're all afraid of offending someone and having them sic the ACLU on us.
    • actionscripted, on 11/08/2007, -8/+32It should be the responsibility of the remaining rational, non-religious people in this world to shake all forms of believers from their holy trance.

      Religion will be the death of humanity.
      • HBNDonut, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Or if you're a really smart athiest, you could very easily find a way to get rich from religion... So what if you dont believe in God, make some stuff up and Religious people will buy it.
      • source1984, on 11/14/2007, -5/+0lol. Religion will save humanity. If it wasn't for religion things would be 10 times worse off. Stop looking at the negative of religion and be fair.
      • source1984, on 11/08/2007, -5/+0lol. Religion will save humanity. If it wasn't for religion things would be 10 times worse off. Stop looking at the negative of religion and be fair.
        • CasinoJack, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3No matter how many times you say it, it wont make it true.
    • pintomp3, on 11/09/2007, -5/+30teaching about religions is not only ok, it should be done. teaching that one religion's version as fact is not ok.
      • Mrstupid7, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2The only problem with teaching religion is that most people tend to have a very hard problem not being biased. I know that I wouldn't be able to not point out flaws against christianity while not doing it so much to other religions (being raised southern baptist will do that to ya).
        • pintomp3, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7well, i said teaching about religion, not teaching religion. the teacher (hopefully) would know enough about other religions to teach. one of the biggest problems we have is ignorance, there are a lot of people who don't know what jews, muslims, hindus, etc believe. the primary ingredient for racism and bigotry is ignorance.
      • catalytica, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2teaching religion is NOT ok in school. school is to educate children about reading writing and arithmetic NOT one groups opinion about a completely irrelavent topic. if any religion is even touched upon it should be in the context of world history and culture.
        • douggmc, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3catalytica ... maybe you should consider going back to this school and learning more ... because you are not a very critical reader. pintomp3 said "teaching about religions" ... not teaching (a) religion. There is no reason teaching about religions of the world in a comparative fashion, etc.(hopefully in a historical fashion ... someday ... we can only wish) in a history or humanities class for example would be anything but good. Education is good.
    • airiox, on 11/08/2007, -4/+12As Religious person and a conservative, the last thing I want in this world is a school teaching my future children about Jesus. That is my responsibility. I would also never accept prayer in schools either. I don't want some school teacher teaching my kids about anything I hold sacred, due to the fact that many Christians have different views on things and I wouldn't want them to be taught incorrectly. I believe the Constitution to be divinely inspired and feel that included in that inspiration is the seperation of church and state. The government has their hands in our lives enough as it is, stay away from my religion.
    • Mrstupid7, on 11/08/2007, -2/+15Just to let you know, the ACLU defends Christians a lot more than it attacks them (in private areas). The ACLU rightly attacks all religious implementations of our government.

      http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/index.html
    • shmatt, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4Although i don't know how anyone can believe in ID, it was a reasonable comment and I dugg you up anyway..
  • pixelbeat, on 11/09/2007, -9/+18Intelligent design it is a lousy religion upgrade. Things are moving really fast and religion leaders needs to keep advocating people to still have faith in God.
    I found myself very agnostic at this moment of my life. But I can't believe the things I see. I can believe in science and facts, but I need to believe that we as humans kind are not following just another human generated trend to buy and waste every resource we got.
    • DashingLeech, on 11/08/2007, -2/+6Everyone is free to believe what they want (but not force or legislate those beliefs), so this is an honest question. Did you notice that you said "I need to believe ..."? Do you base what you think is true about the reality of our existence on your needs? I don' t mean to make this sound as an answer. I do know people who explicitly do base (or cling to) their beliefs on their personal needs for feelings of safety and comfort even when they agree it doesn't make sense. It's a mode of thinking I can't understand but I'm trying to because it is real and I'm trying to understand how it works to trump reason in their minds.
    • Wrathernaut, on 11/08/2007, -0/+12So you're saying that you're going to pick what god you want to follow? That's one of the most blatant admissions that all gods are creations of men I've seen lately. Find comfort in helping others, some day you could be laying on your death bed knowing that you helped whenever you could, and that clearly if there is some divine entity keeping score, you'll come out on top.
      Sounds much better than hoping that you don't wake on on the other side answering to Thor's Hammer for wasting your life praying to the wrong god.
  • ophello, on 11/12/2007, -11/+87Intelligent design is as unprovable as God. Believe in them, sure. But don't teach them as absolutes.
    • ghostfish, on 11/12/2007, -62/+2Kind of like evolution. Sure allele frequency works, but macro evolution's evidentiary support is sketchy at best.
      • gudnbluts, on 11/12/2007, -2/+39And then there's all the peer reviewed science that says otherwise. I'm never sure who to believe - people who use ridiculous unscientific religious buzzwords like "macro evolution" or the mountains of evidence. Can somebody help?
      • sockpuppets, on 11/12/2007, -2/+30Macro evolution argument = you're a creationist. Do you know what the SCIENTIFIC (evolutionary biology) definition of the term is?

        "macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. "
      • pintomp3, on 11/12/2007, -2/+31so what's it like living on a flat earth?
      • cranium, on 11/12/2007, -3/+35You're completely full of *****. Since the term "macro evolution" has been obsolete for decades, I have to assume you're getting your science education at church. Big mistake.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 11/12/2007, -2/+32Yeah, speciation is hard to prove, what with all of the different species running around sharing genes.
      • kinerry, on 11/08/2007, -8/+7micro and macro are the same thing you ***** ignorant fool
        • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -2/+2If we destroy the meanings of words, evolutionists have a chance of winning the debate.
          • cranium, on 11/12/2007, -0/+5"Evolutionists" won this debate decades ago, Lightnin'.
      • nycmac247, on 11/09/2007, -15/+3 ghostfish
        Admit you're gay, come out now -- and save a whole lot more pain later to those around you.
        IT'S OK TO LOVE *****!!!
      • khpmli, on 11/08/2007, -4/+5dude, you fail at life
      • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -18/+1How dare you demand proof of evolution. Just Belieeeeevah! . . . and don't look behind the "evolution science" curtain.
        • wiskers69, on 11/08/2007, -2/+15would that curtain be made of scientific journals?
        • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8You're functionally retarded. God of the gaps is as unscientific as it gets.
      • Bilabrin, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1I suppose both require some amount of faith. I find that intelligent design requires alot more faith to believe in than evolution.
      • yaroslavik, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1can you please watch the NOVA's documentary first and then talk?
    • khpmli, on 11/14/2007, -5/+2goddamn
    • Wrathernaut, on 11/12/2007, -2/+9The ability to be proven is what makes science _SCIENCE_.
      This is why intelligent design has no place in any science classroom. Any "evidence" of ID brought forth by creationists is rather quickly shot down. In the world of real science this disproves the theory and you move on.
      • solarsavior, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Intelligent Design is not a theory in terms of being a scientific theory. Scientific theories are far from being a guess or assumption. Scientific theories are built upon tons and tons of FACTS. Evolution is a theory, just like gravity is a theory. We KNOW that both occur and we have a fair understanding of how each work, but we don't know the details. Is gravity caused by a force or is it caused by a folding of space due to mass or something else? We don't perfectly understand it, but we can trust gravity to work every time and can calculate its effects.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Technically gravity is just a special case of Relativity, but your meaning is well taken.
          Evolution is both a fact and a theory. We have the fact that it happens, and the theory explaining HOW it happens.
      • ChromaticDragon, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0To be a tad pedantic...

        The ability to BE DISPROVEN is what makes science _SCIENCE_.

        It is very important to understand this point to have a rational discussion on the issue at hand. The lack of falsifiability is one of the primary problems with things like Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory.


        P.S. Digg's Captcha system is simply pathetic
    • carpeclunes, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Of course, only the Sith deal in absolutes.
    • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1You don't really have alternatives for an Eternal Creator unless you believe "nothing comes from nothing" and that the universe is eternal.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Evidence points to the Big Bang as the start - everything came from everything, it has just changed forms from quarks and gluons to matter and energy as we see (or don't see, in the case of dark matter) it today.
    • ManicA, on 11/08/2007, -1/+0Actually, intelligent design is MORE unprovable than God (if that's possible), I can't say with any certainty that God doesn't exist (although I intuit that He doesn't). I can, however prove over and over that intelligent design is a load of crap.
  • vwvan, on 11/08/2007, -7/+35truth is truth, scientific truth is testable, religious truth is not, therefore it is ripe for fallacy and deception. Those who choose to be religious must err on the side of reduction of harm and tolerance because they follow an untestable dogma.
    • empiric, on 11/08/2007, -23/+3Well, except ID is testable (calculate the probability of sufficient mutations for the necessary biological effect over the given population size and time), evolution (as an exhaustive model of origins, rather than "evolution occurs") isn't testable, and no scientist raises an eyebrow when inferences from empirical knowns that aren't themselves testable are called "scientific", in fact it's done in every domain of science every single day (e.g. anthropology, string theory)--and you have absolutely no way of even vaguely-validly asserting it "isn't testable" other than by the subset of science that is "scientific method" specifically (and it is unarguably only a subset)...

      Other than that, yeah.
      • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -2/+14ID is not testable in any scientifically valid way. All "tests" proposed by ID morons are purposefully crafted to attempt to arrive at a predetermined outcome. That is the opposite of science.
        Also, the "test" you mention overwhelmingly supports evolution, as does our ability to observe these mutations forensically.
        It's true that "soft sciences" depart from the scientific method, that's why they call them "soft", however, biology is NOT one of them.
        • empiric, on 11/08/2007, -12/+2Look, it is neither my position, nor anyone advocating ID's, that evolution doesn't occur, so your "supports evolution" point is totally moot. The bar that must be met from a naturalistic evolution standpoint is that -all- instances of apparently-irreducible biological structures can happen with a reasonable probability given the time and population at hand at that point. I fully expect the majority to be reasonably explained by random mutation--and that poses not the least issue for the ID stance. The interesting point will be at which we understand the genome precisely enough to propose the exact mutations, with their corresponding physical manifestations, to address whether or not a given structure could reasonably, probabilistically, occur without being "irreducibly complex". Though you're sidetracking the issue, the question at hand is whether there are testable predictions--I'll not only provide you with a test, eventually, I'll provide you with a -number-.

          Now, please, redirect again and suggest I can't provide that calculation -now-, and ignore the vast scope of scientific theories that made predictions that weren't testable -given contemporary technology-, including Einstein's Relativity. At which point I'll suggest you read Kuhn, or actually avoid thinking any scientific ideas without accompanying complete testing models--and watch you immediately fail. :p

          Not that I'd want to suggest there's any, say, hypocrisy, involved in the anti-ID stance, naturally.
          • Mrstupid7, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9Einstein came up with hypotheses. When they were able to be tested, they became theories.
          • empiric, on 11/08/2007, -4/+0Mrstupid7 (Digg comment threading is horribly broken):

            Why did they allow that?
          • empiric, on 11/08/2007, -4/+0Mrstupid7 (Digg comment threading is horribly broken):

            Why did they allow that?
          • trogdoor, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Allow what?
          • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Relativity isn't testable? *****. There have been several tests of the predictions of relativity. Its effect has been measured in the lab countless times. Astronomers even take advantage of gravitational deflection of light to make some of their observations.

            You need to quit getting your science education from preachers, dude.
          • empiric, on 11/08/2007, -3/+0Relativity is testable. Don't say I said things I didn't--my point is that Relativity made, in part, predictions that were untestable as a practical matter at the point of time in which they were proposed--and there was no hysteria to exclude those parts as "unscientific untestable hypotheses" at the time. Nor should there have been, nor should there be now with regards to ID--it just directly reveals the hypocrisy and willingness to lie about what science if necessary to exclude ID. Fortunately, it takes literally 5 minutes to look around at the history of science and note, as a clear fact, that inference from tested knowns that aren't themselves testable (I'll stipulate ID "isn't testable" for the moment, even though it is, per my previous comments) have been accepted as "scientific" in the past, are now, and always will be--or we'd be defining "science" to a tiny dysfunctional subset of what it actually is.

            So, although I understand the motivation to deny ID can be posited as a "scientific hypothesis" in the first place, and thereby eliminate any possibility of it becoming considered a "scientific theory"--I ask again, why not apply the same criteria to Einstein, and state that Relativity as originally proposed, when originally proposed, should never have been allowed to be considered, as it contained then-untestable propositions? As long as you're damaging science by declaring it is as it isn't, and works as it doesn't, with obvious intellectual dishonesty, you may as well be consistent about it.
          • zeitgueist, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Now, please, redirect again and suggest I can't provide that calculation -now-, and ignore the vast scope of scientific theories that made predictions that weren't testable -given contemporary technology-, including Einstein's Relativity. At which point I'll suggest you read Kuhn, or actually avoid thinking any scientific ideas without accompanying complete testing models--and watch you immediately fail. :p
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

            Please please PLEASE provide that calculation and the results. I'd be happy to examine them.
      • Mrstupid7, on 11/08/2007, -1/+10You have got to be joking me. So what's the theory of ID, give me all the hypotheses and testable mathematics.
      • Dustin00, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1If our universe is so complex it had to be made by another being, then that being, by definition, is also too complex to spontaneously exist.

        So I choose to worship the being that made the thing that made this universe!

        My God > than yours!
    • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -12/+1Religious truth is truth since it's a subset of "truth is truth" therefore if a truth is religous it is still truth. If it wasn't truth you don't call it religious truth.
      • Matri, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Tell that to the scientologists.
        • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Are you saying vwvan's comment is like the logic of scientologists since they both say religious truth is something other than truth?
  • exomni, on 11/08/2007, -7/+22*applauds*
  • thedarkrabbit, on 11/09/2007, -10/+42parents should teach their children religious views and whatnot... Schools, however, Should NOT.
    • actionscripted, on 11/08/2007, -8/+11I might argue that both would be wrong in teaching religious views (dugg anyways for rationality).
    • SovereignGFC, on 11/08/2007, -2/+15Agreed. As state actors, public schools cannot and should not promote anything religious. Comparative religion classes are one thing (and those are few in number), but to try to discredit evolution with religion in a public school (which is bound as a government entity to remain neutral in religious matters) is simply folly.
      If parents want their children to learn about creationism, they can send their kids to Sunday school. And the idea that parents should "opt-out" of biology entirely is equally fallacious. Simply tell the kids to "pass the tests," kids already do this anyhow so the only difference is the motivation. If you want a religious education, don't send your children to public school. Period.
    • elijahalcantara, on 11/08/2007, -9/+2I disagree, teach them all religions and all sciences from school and let them decide for themeselves.
    • alexhengen, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2I would actually argue that it is irresponsible to force any view on anyone from any age. Do you raise your children forcing them to be a democrat or republican? Some parents and organizations refer to certain children as young christians, young muslims, etc, but should we force this on them at all? Isn't it terribly irresponsibly to shape their minds to follow your own beliefs? I say it is.
  • gkniffen, on 11/08/2007, -7/+10God bless Judge John Jones for, .....wait a second....DOH!
    • Wrathernaut, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9May he be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
      Ramen.
  • SuperMoses, on 11/09/2007, -6/+54I wonder if Ben Stein is going to go cry in a corner. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/438551/ne ...

    As if Intelligent Design ever had any scientific bases. It's whole purpose is to find something that they THINK evolution can't prove then say "There! This proves that a 'designer' did it". In the words of Bill Hicks: Well, how *****' scientific is that?
    • brainScan, on 11/08/2007, -4/+21Wow... I had no idea Ben Stein supported ID. He's actually a pretty smart economist, but I've just lost all respect for him.
      • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9He's excellent at memorizing, but he's apparently a flaming idiot when it comes to politicized science.
    • jeranon, on 11/08/2007, -24/+3"As if Intelligent Design ever had any scientific bases"
      If you have a read on the website you're commenting on... I think Intelligent Design has a very valid scientific basis... at least as much as evolution. As Johnson says in his linked Q&A section on this site (speaking of the position that secularist scientists and organizations are taking) : "I don't think they speak for science. I think they speak for an ideology that is widely held among contemporary scientists." It's not science that is being defended here... It's a belief system. Honestly, what does the evolution side have to lose by saying there was a designer involved? Beliefs? Isn't that what we (Intelligent Design supporters) are being asked to lose by swallowing everything Darwinism supplies w/o any thought? Evolution has as much proof as Intelligent Design. Frankly, they're both theories.
      • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -2/+19ID is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy, and is entirely unrelated to anything scientific. You guys really need to get a clue. There are important fundamental concepts to science, you can't just mimic the buzzwords and claim the mantle of science. Sorry.
        • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -9/+2Since another one parrots the "ID is a textbook argument from ignorance" line, let me parrot http://www.discovery.org/a/3699 and paste:

          "Over the protestations of many critics, Wells explains that it isn’t an argument from ignorance, it isn’t an argument for God, it isn’t an argument for perfection, and it isn’t an argument against all forms of evolution. It’s an argument that some aspects of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. As Wells puts it, “[m]ost people who consider themselves ID advocates maintain not only that design is empirically detectable in the cosmos as a whole, but also that some features of the natural world (such as shapes of rocks at the base of a cliff) are not designed in the same sense that other features (such as the information in DNA) are designed.”"

          • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+11- It’s an argument that some aspects of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause -
            *****. You assume an intelligent cause because of (the pretense of) ignorance of a natural explanation.
            Denying that it's an argument from ignorance is laughable.
          • litt8899, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0That is so ludicrous, your interjecting a factor into the equation for evolution and biology that we just simply don't need. There are a number of things that are explained simply and cleanly with the physical evidence all around us and the fact that there are still many mysteries that we have not explained is not an argument for "God" or higher being but simply a matter of time and human understanding. Throughout human history our understanding of how our world and the things in it work has grown and progressed with our advancement of science and technology and there is no reason to assume that we will not understand those things which we currently cannot fully explain given enough time. And furthermore the notion that ID is not an argument for God is laughable at best and an outright hypocritical, bold faced lie at worst because we both know that if the schools agreed to teach ID with the understanding that the intelligent beings who started the biology on this planet were space aliens from another galaxy and not an omnipotent being, the ID community would raise hell. Also your argument against that, which will probably be something like "ID doesn't say who or what created the biology on this planet, simply that it was created" proves the point that ID doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on and that the argument is pointless and unwarranted as a scientific argument for the simple reason that you're saying you don't know and can't know who or what did all this, so therefore there is no point in saying it in the first place.
      • caboosemoose, on 11/08/2007, -2/+18As nicely expressed by the US National Academy of Sciences:

        "The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

        Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."

        There's no need to get into detail about the philosophy of science here and the quite large number of sociological and epistemology problems with scientific enquiry. But it is quite simply the case that deployment of the supernatural inherently is not amenable to investigation in a way that claims are which can be called "scientific".
        • avengingturnip, on 11/08/2007, -11/+4And the mischaracterization of Intelligent Design is a straw man fallacy. Creationism denies macroevolutiion outright by insisting on a literalistic understanding of the book of Genesis. ID does not go any farther than making room for a designer by questioning the supposition that all biological diversity can be attributed to random mutation and natural selection and studying apparent irreducible complexities in biological organisms. The first rests upon revelation and so has no relation to the scientific method. The later is strictly scientific in approach. The notion that random mutation/natural selection accounts for all biological diversity and should be accepted on the basis of faith alone is not scientific.
          • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+12Your characterization of evolution is a strawman, and your use of the term "faith" with respect to biology is wholly inappropriate.

            There is nothing scientific about the argument from ignorance fallacy you call ID. It's is not assumed by scientists that random mutation/natural selection accounts for all biological diversity. Natural selection is supplemented by other evolutionary theories, e.g. sexual selection, that account for portions of biological diversity that natural selection does not. If we were to observe diversities that we can't explain, that does NOT lend credibility to ID (such a notion would be a false dilemma fallacy). Rather, there are many mechanisms that make evolution work, scientists do not pretend to have a complete understanding of all of them, so such a discovery would require further study, scientists don't just give up and say "god did it".
  • alex7575, on 11/08/2007, -11/+2Oh no! They didn't!!!
  • Flame500, on 11/08/2007, -5/+12I can't believe it has taken this long, if anyone has ever seen an intelligent design text book they see immediately that is just a totally unsupported list of why the church doesn't like Evolution.
    • JergoR, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4I never knew complete textbooks devoted to ID existed. But yeah i agree this time has been long overdue
    • empiric, on 11/08/2007, -8/+1Well, except for your erroneous notion an "intelligent design text book" exists, anyone actually reading Behe would know by, you know, referring to the words (and diagrams of the specific chains of specific biochemical reactions involved) that actually exist, like, on the pages, that your characterization is wholly inaccurate.
      • zeitgueist, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Behe's entire basis is "irreducible complexity", which ignores the fact that H.J. Muller(Nobel Prize-winning geneticist) PREDICTED and described these same "evidences" nearly 100 years ago, as an expected result of evolution. These "irreducibly complex" features actually support evolution...I can go into much greater detail if you'd like.

        Of course you would know this...if you know, you actually read anyone besides Behe and ID papers. Speaking of, where were those peer-reviewed ID documents again?
  • TheLoneWolf071, on 11/09/2007, -10/+44Flying Spaghetti Monster Be Praised!
    • actionscripted, on 11/08/2007, -2/+4http://www.venganza.org/
    • whatever01, on 11/09/2007, -1/+9Ramen!
    • jeolmeun, on 11/08/2007, -12/+2The intention of the parady is to ridicule the idea of Intelligent Design (ID) being taught in schools, by claiming that if ID is taught, the creation of the world by the Flying Spaghetti Monster has as much right to be taught as well. The parody misses its mark, however, as it overlooks some key factors that make it different to Intelligent Design. The following table compares and contrasts a number of similarities and differences between the Flying Spaghetti Monster, evolution, Intelligent Design, and the creation model.

      Flying Spaghetti Monster Evolution Intelligent Design Creationism
      Intended as parody Intended as science Intended as science Intended as a scientific model of intelligent design
      Creator (the Flying Spaghetti Monster itself) assumed to exist and identified Creator assumed not to exist Creator (designer) inferred from the evidence but not identified Creator assumed to exist and specifically identified
      Evidence for evolution claimed to be planted by the creator Evidence for evolution is not to be questioned Evidence for evolution challenged with academic arguments Evidence for evolution challenged with academic arguments
      Creator makes things appear older than they are as a test of faith Accepts uniformitarian ages Generally accepts uniformitarian ages Rejects uniformitarian ages as based on unprovable presuppositions
      Has no genuine support in the scientific community Has the support of the vast majority of scientists Has the support of (at least) thousands of scientists Has the support of (at least) thousands of scientists
      Has no supporting evidence Has supporting evidence thst is highly contested Has supporting evidence Has supporting evidence

      The Flying Spaghetti Monster used in a parody of Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam.It can be seen from the comparison above that there is no basis for teaching students about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but the same cannot be said for Intelligent Design nor creation.

      http://creationwiki.org/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
      • wiskers69, on 11/08/2007, -1/+7Well if its from a website as esteemed and fair minded as "creationwiki" then it must be true.
      • bullhead2007, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Creationism is religion under a veil of pseudo science. It isn't science and should have no place in a science class. Philosophy, maybe, but not science.
  • chubbybubba, on 11/14/2007, -67/+8Intelligent Design is not as crazy as it sounds when one considers Abiogenesis. (google it) Evolution fails MISERABLY in explaining the most basic beginning of life. Without a beginning there is no Evolution. Evolutionist like to forget that last part.
    • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -4/+42Intelligent design doesn't explain anything. If anything, it's an attempt to remain as ignorant as one can be.
    • dildoolielly, on 11/09/2007, -6/+37Oh, utter and complete bullsh!t!! Did you ever pass third grade science?

      That Evolution occurred is a FACT.

      The mechanisms by which it occurred is the THEORY part.

      Lets compare and contrast Evolution with Intelligent Design.

      Its a great way to teach kids to tell the difference between good Science and non-Science.

      Good Science changes, we learn more, it begins with Observation and moves to hypothiesis testing and debate, while non sciene is rigid, it begins with works of fiction and precedds to asserting, insisting, twistign the fact snad somethimes even torchuring those who dissagree. You can learn something from that. Whether intelligent design makes sense to you or sounds just ***** crazy deosnt matter, it just not science.

      Damn. Still too complicated for ignorant nutbars?

      Me will try later. Me will try make shorter sentences. Smaller words.
      • jeolmeun, on 11/09/2007, -15/+2"In the best cases, when it has the most opportunity, Darwinian processes have been demonstrated to not be able to make sophisticated molecular machinary, have been demonstrated not to do anything other than make little tweaks in the shapes or properties of molecules they already have." Behe
        • Matri, on 11/08/2007, -1/+9Behe has not only been proven to be a complete idiot, he also doesn't have any qualifications whatsoever to speak about biology.

          He is as much a qualified biologist as Cindy Crawford is a brain surgeon.
        • zeitgueist, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Behe's wrong and maybe you can stop quoting him. He's actually proved himself wrong in debates before, I can find you the quotes.
      • chubbybubba, on 11/11/2007, -7/+1lol. Buddy, you're a nut. You really need to relax. Anyway, my point is that evolution is not complete without a beginning. Intelligent design can even explain evolution. Evolution is only partial explanation. Let me say it slowly. EVOLUTION can Not exist without a BEGINNING. Even renown scientists accept the impossibility that life began from non life. YOU need to accept FACTS... You're wrong. Hurts doesn't it.
        • glory2God, on 11/08/2007, -6/+1VERY WELL SAID!!!
          • pakiman47, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2This is retarted, if your argument is that evolution must have a beginning, and your answer is that beginning is God, why doesn't He have to have a beginning either? You Fundamentalist Christians are dumb as *****. Muslims and Jews and many other Christians have no problem at all with Evolution. It is your literal, and quite frankly asinine interpretation of the Bible that is the problem.
        • dildoolielly, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4I'm a "nut"?

          I'm not the one who still believes in Santa Claus

          Wake up will ya pal?
        • snarfyboy, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. Clearly you don't know anything about the theory. It only deals with how life evolves.
    • cranium, on 11/14/2007, -7/+39The basic beginning of life is totally outside the scope of evolution, idiot.
      • SpykerSpeed, on 11/08/2007, -13/+2Why? If you make a theory about the progress of a system, you should be able to trace that system all the way back to the beginning.
        • Mrstupid7, on 11/08/2007, -0/+12So every theory made should reference the big bang?
        • Matri, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Evolution is the process.
      • chubbybubba, on 11/08/2007, -4/+1No, we can just ignore that part.
        /sarcasm
    • thecatfish111, on 11/08/2007, -3/+34Evolution is not a theory that explains the creation of life. There is nothing in Origin of the Species that tries to explain the creation of life.
      • chubbybubba, on 11/09/2007, -9/+1That's why it's so flawed.
        • chaosium, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4What the ***** are you talking about? Evolution is the study of how being EVOLVE.
        • thecatfish111, on 11/16/2007, -0/+0Like ANY scientific theory, there are flaws. No one is arguing that evolution is completely flawless, because then it would be a religion, kinda like intelligent design. You have no facts to prove the theory of intelligent design because it relies solely on BELIEF. Pointing out the flaws in one theory does not prove another. If I say that the earth can't be round because then people would fall off, does not prove my theory of the earth being flat. I have merely expressed a flaw in the belief that the earth is round. If you Intelligent Design were a truly scientific theory, you would be able to give me some type of evidence that does not rely on either the flaws of evolution or belief.
        • yaroslavik, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1chubbybubba, please tell me you are just kidding? after reading many of your comments, I can't prevent myself from thinking that people are talking about different things..
    • turbojugend23, on 11/08/2007, -2/+27Evolution does not even attempt to explain the most basic beginning of life. How can it fail at something which it is not designed to explain?
      • chubbybubba, on 11/09/2007, -8/+1It fails because you can't have a middle without a beginning. I don't mind people who like to believe in evolution. But accept the facts. Evolution could not have existed without intelligent design. Take your own advice, research what science has proven or not proven. Not just what you WANT to believe.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 11/09/2007, -1/+3*BZZT!* Incorrect. The purpose of the Theory of Evolution is to explain the means by which evolution (the observable fact) occurs. It says nothing about the beginning, that's for abiogenesis to figure out (a separate, although related, field). However, evolution does just fine without needing a designer to guide it - environmental and other pressures do a fine job and requiring life to either change, move, or die. No designer necessary.

          If you must look at abiogenesis, we have a good idea how it all happened there too, from creation of increasingly complex organic molecules on a young Earth, to amino acids combining to create crude proteins in the primordial soup, to tidal and glacial generation of lipid membranes.
          • SpykerSpeed, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1This is a cute trick evolutionists pull that exonerates them from any debate about the origin of life, while allowing them to continue to hawk their half-baked 150 year old theory as if it were the final answer to everything having to do with life. Why does the cat have claws? Evolution. Why does the bird have red feathers? Evolution. Why don't humans have fur? That's evolution. Okay. But ask anything about the BEGINNING of life, and they get indignant that it should even have an indirect relationship to evolution. Instead it's a rant about the "complex molecules" and the "crude proteins" and "lipid membranes" - no account of precisely how this created a functioning, reproducing cell. You'd think scientists could recreate this in a lab by now, but thus far they're more interested in the literary account of it.
          • ApokalypseNow, on 11/10/2007, -1/+1Stop using the term "evolutionist". I'm a Scientist.

            The Theory of Evolution explains exactly that - evolution. It does not explain the origins of life. It is not a "cute trick", it is a question of scope. As for reproducing the creation of simple cellular life in a lab, it took millions upon millions of years for that to occur in nature. We've been working on a good model of that for only a few decades at best. If you are correct, and there was some "designer" responsible, and it took them THAT long, how long do you think it will take us, hmm?
        • yaroslavik, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1facepalm.jpg
      • snarfyboy, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3You cut your hand. It bleeds. Do you need to know how life started to explain how it is that your hand bleeds?
    • thebellmaster1x, on 11/08/2007, -1/+12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experimen ...
      Oh, look, an incredibly plausible beginning.
      Get a new argument.
      • SpykerSpeed, on 11/08/2007, -9/+1Um, no. Implausible because we can't come close to replicating the early-Earth atmosphere or even simple amino acids. Nice try, though.
      • chubbybubba, on 11/09/2007, -5/+1Far from it buddy. The way the experiments were portrayed it was like they were getting close. But damn, that was way back in the 50's... its 2007. It takes alot of faith to believe solely in science. Personally the meteor theory at least has some style.
    • dpl_, on 11/08/2007, -1/+13Evolution is the change in allele frequency in populations; it has nothing to say about the beginning of life.
    • bowens44, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6evolution doesn't explain nuclear reactions either. So what? It doesn't try to.
      • chubbybubba, on 11/09/2007, -4/+1nice argument.
        • zeitgueist, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1It is. This whole thing is just buzzing past your head isn't it? Lets try caps lock: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT REMOTELY TRY TO EXPLAIN ABIOGENESIS. IT IS A PROCESS NOT AN ORIGIN. THERE ARE OTHER THEORIES EXPLAINING THE ORIGINS OF LIFE, AND YOU CAN GO DEBATE WITH THOSE. CONTINUING TO TRY TO GET AN APPLE TO BE AN ORANGE IS MAKING YOU LOOK DENSE, AND IS PROBABLY EMBARRASSING THE FEW INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO ARE ON YOUR SIDE.
    • murf43143, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA. Oh these silly people make me laugh. Or was be being serious?
    • HBNDonut, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1"Water". Scientists still dont fully understand water... There has to be a reason that we depend on that stuff.
    • Dustin00, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1You're right -- all this complexity must have been created by an "Intelligent Designer", who would also be too complex to simply exist.

      So I shall worship the being that created the "Intelligent Designer", he must be UBER-L33T!!!!!!
  • insomniacal, on 11/08/2007, -34/+5Judge Jones used his written opinion to preach a religious message: “the theory of evolution … in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.” This sentence directly conflicts with the Constitutional separation of church and state. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, adherents to any religion must determine for themselves whether evolution can be reconciled with the existence of a divine creator. No federal judge has the authority to craft doctrine for a religion.
    Jones went far beyond ruling simply whether or not Intelligent Design is science. Courts need to stay out of religion.
    • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -3/+18The judge did absolutely nothing to prevent people from deciding that for themselves.
    • silkyd, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1OK, Dwight Shroot.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 11/08/2007, -3/+12...Except that evolution is part of science and religion is part of social studies so the two, therefore, are not even close to each other, as he stated.

      And as long as we're talking about the separation of church and state, where the hell do you get off having intelligent design, a wholly religious concept, in publicly-funded schools?
      • insomniacal, on 11/08/2007, -6/+2... umm, excuse me? Who said I wanted Intelligent Design in public schools?
        One might wonder where _you_ get off making such flagrant assumptions about other people. Sheesh.
        • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Stop making stupid claims and you'll stop getting called on them.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7Oh, my bad, I thought you were talking about something relevant to the story.
    • pintomp3, on 11/08/2007, -3/+7it's not his problem if you choose to build your beliefs based on literal interpretations of a book that was written thousands of years ago and has been translated multiple times. if your faith conflicts with reality, you need to reevaluate your faith. people got used to the fact that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun. they will get used to this reality too.
      • insomniacal, on 11/08/2007, -5/+2Where did I say I sided with ID?
        The problem with most commenters on Digg is that they assume there are only two sides to any issue. Anyone who doesn't seem to support their side must clearly agree with the worst of the opposition.
        • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2There are only two sides, those who believe evolution is how the species have changed throughout life, and those who don't. Any "alternative" information will help bolster evolutionary theory, it will not remove it.
        • socketscientist, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0"The problem with most commenters on Digg is that they assume there are only two sides to any issue."

          How appropriate ... as false dichotomy is also at the heart of the ID argument--i.e. the only two possibilities are evolution (exactly as we understand it today) or intelligent design. If there are any flaws or gaps in our knowledge of evolution, then ID must be the correct answer.

          For a law professor, Phillip Johnson (the "father of ID") employs astonishingly poor logic.
    • gudnbluts, on 11/08/2007, -2/+5Nope, because he didn't promote any preference for religion. He just said it didn't conflict with or deny it.
      • insomniacal, on 11/08/2007, -7/+1"He just said it didn't conflict with or deny it."
        That alone is a doctrinal religious statement. You're comfortable with it? Suppose the decision had gone counter to what you believed. Suppose the judge stated that Christian faith is diametrically opposed to evolutionary theory. Would you be happy with that? Does a federal judge have authority to issue such a judgment?
        • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7No, it isn't a doctrinal statement, it's a fact. The theory of evolution does not attempt to address the question of the existence of a deity. Science is not concerned with the supernatural, period. Nothing wrong with the judge repeating this fact.
    • AnitraWeb, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1Judge John Jones did not pronounce on what the people who believe in a divine creator think about evolution. He noted what evolution says about a divine creator, pro or con -- absolutely nothing.
  • dildoolielly, on 11/09/2007, -12/+62"When it comes to *****, big time major-league *****. You have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims... religion. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man… living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time... But he loves you... He loves you... He loves you, and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing and all-wise, yet somehow, just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more, now, you talk about a good ***** story... Ho-ly *****!"
    -George Carlin
  • brentinkc, on 11/08/2007, -6/+12How dare you challenge the power of the Spaghedeity. Better be on the lookout for pirates.
  • kneeofwisdom, on 11/08/2007, -5/+8Judge John Jones Jingleheimer Schmidt.....his name is my name too.
  • LeeSoong, on 11/09/2007, -4/+20Rick Santorum was removed from office by an overwhelming majority of the voters.

    If I.D. is true, the Earth was built, and we have unknown aliens to thank for the nice home.
    The only problem is a total lack of evidence supporting I.D., and a vast amount of evidence that contradicts everything I.D. suggests.

    The three little pigs could not be reached for comment.

    • swordedge, on 11/08/2007, -2/+8Dude, you need to understand that Intelligent Design believers are more likely to stick their fingers in their ears and go THTHTHTHTH then proclaim there isn't one shred of evidence for evolution either.
      Mary's little lamb couldn't be reached either, it was dinner for someone higher in the food chain
    • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+12By the way, ID is not compatible with the "alien" theory, it reduces to creationism. Why? Because according to ID, something must have designed the aliens themselves, and something must have designed the designer, until you finally get to an undesigned designer who is necessarily supernatural.
      • taintedzodiac, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Evolution falls apart under that requirement as well. There has to be something that didn't evolve but was just "created" by some type of force.

        My opinion? We don't understand the larger system that evolution is a part of.
  • wddwmmandalore, on 11/09/2007, -6/+37@chubbybubba

    ....what ***** are you talking about!?!

    Evolution doesn't theorize how life began, only how life evolved....even I know that and I'm a dumbass....
    • chubbybubba, on 11/12/2007, -9/+1True... but isn't that the point. Evolution and Intelligent design do not have to be mutually exclusive. Think about it. Why are evolutionists all pissed off about intelligent design. Evolution doesn't necessarily disprove intelligent design. Personally I'm just keeping an open mind. Evolutionists just seem so closed minded. (kinda like the religious)
      • BoneheadFarker, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4"Why are evolutionists all pissed off about intelligent design."

        First off, probably because they don't like being called "evolutionist". I think they prefer the term "scientist". Second, it might also have something to do with the fact that the ID pushers come in and tell scientists they are completely wrong about everything because this one certain book tells them so, instead of providing real evidence...
      • snarfyboy, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2You'll have to ask the creationists that. They are the one that say evolution is wrong. They are the ones that don't want it taught.
        You seem to be under the impression that ID is about how life started. IT isn't. ID says we were all designed as is. YOU know as well as I do that the creationist/ID crowd's biggest beef with evolution is that is says humans evolved from - as the creationists like to say - "apes". (Technically not true, but that's how they see it.)
    • mindovermat, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1what about the evolution of non-life to life.. hmm??? that must of taken place.
  • Yondelldude, on 11/08/2007, -1/+7Isn't this just a redux of the events of Inherit the Wind?
    • MJG2007, on 11/11/2007, -0/+6ID supporters think Inherit the Wind is the sequel to Gone with the Wind.
      • bonhoeffer, on 11/11/2007, -4/+0Evolutionists think Inherit the Wind is historical, maybe even scientific. lol.
  • Sputs, on 11/09/2007, -9/+32This religion ***** has gone to far, believe in what the ***** you want to but when you start impeding science and teaching lies to people you need to ***** off and die
    • SpykerSpeed, on 11/08/2007, -11/+3Or how about: People can learn / believe / be exposed to whatever ideas they want, because some judge and the government shouldn't be deciding what's taught to kids.
      • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -2/+10Science and only science should be taught in science classes. Religion such as ID should be kept to mythology and world religion classes where it belongs.
    • boxoman, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1way to contribute thought out points to the conversation, your an idiot!
  • swordedge, on 11/09/2007, -5/+14I went to a catholic high school. They taught taught evolution. They teach that Abraham is the first figure in the bible that is provable. Anyone before him may not have existed but the lessons are valid. As for God's part in evolution, they simply stated that somewhere along the line, God say, "that ape is man." Makes more sense then denying something that can be proven is a lab in an afternoon.
    • bullhead2007, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Catholics, as far as science go, seem to not take the bible as literally. But then you have ignorant Popes telling you not to use condoms or birth control, and declaring people saints. I was raised Catholic, but I'm now an atheist ;)
  • Richandler, on 11/08/2007, -8/+3It's time for DANCING IN THE STREET. (R)evolution for the win!
  • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -20/+1A very sad day for science.
    BTW: Does anyone know what the "illogical dualism that doomed creationism" is?
    • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -10/+0Just officious smoke and mirrors. I thought so.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6Actually this is a GOOD day for science, as it means that fewer unsupported ideas will be touted as "theory", while Scientific Theory will remain the standard by which real science is taught.

      ID: Starts with an idea based on theology, then cherry picks evidence to support itself
      Science: Look at all the available evidence, come up with a theory that explains it all, observe how new evidence does or does not fit in, and modify your theory accordingly.

      Evolution was not created just to piss off Christians, it was created by looking at all the evidence - it just so happens that in doing so it pissed of Christians anyways. Thus, a bunch of Christians who misunderstand the meaning of a Scientific Theory decided to make their *own* theory, but neglected to follow the scientific process in doing so.
    • AnitraWeb, on 12/02/2007, -0/+1The quote (from Judge Jones's verdict) that you are referring to, bonhoeffer, was "The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's." The dualism used is to present the theory of evolution and the theory of design by an intelligent creator as the only two options, and claim that if the theory of evolution is wrong or incomplete in any particular, then the theory of ID must be true.

      The theory of gravity is not complete. Therefore my theory, that God has placed a giant suction pump at the center of the earth, is proved true. The theory of electromagnetism is not complete. Therefore electricity is the sparks from angel wings.

      There are two additional examples of flawed, contrived and illogical dualism.
  • tmyprod, on 11/09/2007, -3/+20I saw Santorum mentioned and I have to.


    Pronunciation: san-TOR-um
    Function: noun
    1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
    2. Senator Rick Santorum
    • MacEnvy, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3The first definition is more fun to use in casual conversation.
  • thebrawl, on 11/09/2007, -3/+19I've read books by the leading Intelligent Design authors. It's just more illogical Watchmaker reasoning (if it looks designed then it must be designed). William Dembski twists math (if it looks improbable to William Dembski then it must be designed) and Micheal Behe twists biology (if Micheal Behe can't figure it out then it must be designed).
    • empiric, on 11/08/2007, -8/+2Yeah, pretty much standard argumentation on this--analogize it as "the Watchmaker" argument and suggest that's wrong (with no backing whatsoever, just vague gestures of disapproval), and then claim that the ID position is that evolution doesn't happen, which it isn't.
      • Mrstupid7, on 11/08/2007, -2/+8Watches don't reproduce and change their innards...
  • sophiaperennis, on 11/08/2007, -2/+10I'm glad the Intelligent Design notion is not accepted and allowed to be taught as an exact science. It is simply a flawed representation of theology, an inverse of how traditional metaphysics is very capable of explaining it. In an extreme sense, it is a cop-out for any serious theological scholar who has any grasp of the religious doctrine.
  • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -9/+0Dean Kenyon can't be relied upon because he is a creationist?! Good grief, Prof. Kenyon was the most convinced and convincing biologist evolutionists have produced. He co-authored Biochemical Predestination, THE textbook used in colleges which advocated natural chemical evolution. You have to believe Kenyon to believe evolution - no one has built a better case.
    But scientific research took Dr. Kenyon beyond the ability of evolution theory. So he abandoned evolution in favor of science. And for that, we cannot follow him? The triumph of a false theory over science. That's what makes it a sad day.
    • mcelreb, on 11/08/2007, -1/+7Actually he took his research beyond science and smart people can come up with some pretty incredible reasons to believe dumb things.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Evolution *is* science, it is fact, we can observe it in labs, and you probably fall victim to it every year with a new variation of the flu (and yes, small changes like that ARE evolution - evolution is just change to fit and better compete in an environment), so abandoning it is NOT science.
  • nycmac247, on 11/08/2007, -13/+1Judge to ID guy:
    "Admit you're gay, come out now -- and save a whole lot more pain later to those around you.
    IT'S OK TO LOVE *****!!!"
    • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -6/+2If you are a science lunatic, get vulgar. Maybe that will chase the pro-ID's away without scientific argument.
    • luchid, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Dude, seriously, you're posting that crap all over the place. Stop it.
  • byrdgang, on 11/08/2007, -1/+11OH NOESS!

    PS: PBS rocks. Quality programming.
  • MJG2007, on 11/08/2007, -4/+11The easiest way to piss off ID proponents is to say "If your theory is that the universe must have been designed by a supreme being because it's impossible that life could evolve randomly, then how do you explain the existence of God? Did He just evolve randomly or was designed by an even more supreme being?"

    Then sit back and watch them drool.
    • pentalive, on 11/08/2007, -5/+7You forgot the third choice, "He always existed"

      There fixed it for you.
      • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -2/+12Then complexity doesn't necessarily imply design. QED.
        • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -4/+0It does if the complex entity (material things) did not always exist.
        • bullhead2007, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5If God did exist then he must be more complex and intricate than anything else in existence, by definition. All knowing, and all powerful. Therefor if everything else is too complex to have always been here, then so too is god.
    • sophiaperennis, on 11/08/2007, -2/+3An answer to this wouldn't depend on your dilemma (the two choice you present here). Not even on the trilemma that pentalive suggests. It is neither of the three. In traditional metaphysics, e.g., St. Augustine's or St. Thomas Aquinas' representations, this Being you speak of, really should be explained as a Supreme Principle (being metaphysical). Where this Supreme Being is a term for Immutability. A requirement to discuss this in the theological sense, on which the christian religion is founded in its core doctrine, is to have a basic understanding of traditional metaphysics.
      • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -6/+0As evolutionists are happy to remind us, evolution ( and intelligent design) do not address the origin of life, but the descent and variation of life. That is the realm of science, therefore, the realm of Intelligent Design.
        • sophiaperennis, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5I disagree, it is not that simple. To get a broad perspective on this, especially to start out at the two extremes, read Richard Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker', and Jacques Monod's 'Chance and Necessity'. Furthermore, sample the findings of Michael Denton's book 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis', and lastly Phillip E. Johnson's 'Darwin On Trial'. This also will shed light on the invalidity of the teleological argument in the strict sense in which Intelligent Design attempts to mold it.
  • stox, on 11/08/2007, -3/+5I'm sticking with my peanut butter.
    • askegg, on 11/08/2007, -3/+1Dugg up for being funny.
    • mashw, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1I'll take mine nutty please!
    • taintedzodiac, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3Ah, peanut butter. A fine example of intelligent design. Humans are very, very crafty.
    • taintedzodiac, on 11/11/2007, -0/+2Ah, peanut butter. A fine example of intelligent design. Humans are very, very crafty.
  • dadavexx, on 11/08/2007, -2/+5So the poor old doctor became demented in his old age and took to the Babel of creationists. It has happened before and will happen again no doubt.
    Thank "god" for PBS and NOVA for sharing the Dover Trial with the educated part of country. The problem is that it never reaches the mass of the red states. They cant get past fox flimflam.
  • otakushark, on 11/08/2007, -2/+11Let's hope voters in Topeka, KS are taking notes on this. Then maybe they won't embarrass themselves by electing a bunch of ID-loving morons to the school board again .
    • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -8/+1We can't accept Intelligent Design, because only morons accept it. We know they are morons because they accept Intelligent Design.
      Without circular reasoning, evolutionists would have no reasoning at all.
      • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+7You're considered stupid because you have stupid ideas, you also make stupid decisions because you're not very smart on top of the outward perception. It's not circular.
      • otakushark, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2There is no evidence to support ID. It is not scientific. ID lovers are morons because they refuse to accept these facts and want it taught in science classes. Period. If you want the reasoning for evolution, look here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        If you want circular reasoning, look to religion. "We know God exists because He wrote the Bible that says He exists."
  • brokencode, on 11/08/2007, -2/+4Nova = Digg!

    I grew up watching it and I'll love it for the rest of my life.
  • aseaton, on 11/08/2007, -11/+4As a "Christian" I would agree that much has been done in the name of "religion" to turn people off to the idea of it-even in a discussion such as this. It just seems to me deeply unfair and loaded to offer "evolution" as the only possibility for what we see today in a science textbook without offering the alternative of intelligent design. So many people talk as if evolution is scientifically sound and rock solid and the only "logical" possibility. Many would say the religious are narrow minded and exclusive but I argue a move like this is just as narrow minded and exclusive. No one if forcing a person to believe in intelligent design, but it is offered up (in my opinion very appropriately) as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent design is a hypothesis, evolution is a hypothesis- both lack things to completely test them like other experiments in the lab. I also find it interesting that people have to call people who believe in intelligent design morons. Most of us are adults, is this necessary? Lets reason together.
    • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -2/+12ID is NOT science. It doesn't even qualify as BAD science. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy. ID crafts its assumptions and spins its data to attempt to support a predetermined outcome. That is the opposite of science.

      Sorry, but if you fall for that garbage then yes, you are a moron.
      • jeranon, on 11/08/2007, -6/+2So... evolution is different how? You ASSUME that everything evolved, so we spin our data to support a predetermined outcome... I'm not seeing the difference cranium.
        • howie, on 11/08/2007, -1/+6Evolution is different because it is a scientific theory, supported by huge amounts of empirical data.

          Furthermore, Evolution has practical applications (such as understanding diseases).

          Evolution also offers predictions that turn out to be true. Darwin himself made many predictions based on his theory that later turned out to be true.

          NEITHER of these are true for Creationism/Intelligent Design.

          ID has no empirical data to support it. No research.

          ID has no practical applications. It hasn't given us one single thing we can use it for.

          ID makes no predictions.

          ID is basically the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Therefore, it is useless, and it is not science.
        • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3No, evolution follows the scientific method. We observed biological diversity, the currently operative hypothesis is that such differences *could* arise through genetic mutation/natural selection/etc. We test this hypothesis against all observations to see if it fits. So far, every piece of data fits within this framework. If a verifiable data should show up that does not fit, we would need to start again with an amdended hypothesis to explain it, then test that hypothesis against further observation, etc.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Evolution is different in that the concept was developed as a reaction to actually seeing the evidence. ID was crafted as an idea first, then evidence was cherry-picked to fit it. If all the evidence is taken into consideration, however, evolution becomes obvious.

          Science looks at all the evidence, THEN comes up with an explanation for it, not the other way around.
        • SpykerSpeed, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1Cranium and others are wrong. Evolution makes no predictions, either. They simply find a fossil and say "oh, that must fit here." It's retroactive "theory".
          • ApokalypseNow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Incorrect - evolution looks at the fossil record and sees a gap in the lineage of two morphologically similar species, then it predicts that there is a series of intermediate steps that must have taken place to go from one to the other. This is what is so often touted by creationists as a "missing link", where it is more akin to a missing page in a family album. However, just because a picture of your father is missing, you do not assume that Prometheus breathed life into some dust to go from your grandfather to you.
            Further, the theory did not just come about by random guesswork in an attempt to piss off creationists, it was constructed after looking at the available evidence, which itself pointed towards change over time as the explanation for what was seen.
    • tybris, on 11/08/2007, -1/+10"So many people talk as if evolution is scientifically sound and rock solid and the only "logical" possibility."
      There is so much empirical evidence supporting the argument that it is unrealistic to expect a viable alternative other than nuances within evolution theory itself.
    • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+9"It just seems to me deeply unfair and loaded to offer "evolution" as the only possibility for what we see today in a science textbook without offering the alternative of intelligent design"

      Life is unfair. Science is "unfair". Facts are "unfair".

      They just are.

      There is no "alternative" to evolutionary biology because none exist. ID is Creationism which is fine as a philosophy but lacks intellectual rigor, and even ID-supporting scientists only improve the base of Evolutionary thought, they offer no alternatives but "GOSH I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS HAPPENS" ignorance.
      • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -7/+0Intelligent Design does not lack intellectual rigor at all, it is intellectually honest. It is willing to drop the evolution security blanket and face nature as it really exists and functions.
        It carries the name of the alliterative it offers; intelligent design.
        • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3"evolution security blanket and face nature as it really exists and functions."

          Nature exists and functions to find niches for particular species. You don't need a theological security blanket to witness these changes.
        • cranium, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4ID is NOT intellectually honest. Construing/cherry picking data and crafting arguments to arrive at a predetermined outcome is not intellectually honest.
    • Wrathernaut, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3So much has been done on the name of religion... you mean like the stuff commanded in the Bible? Either believe it to be true and do as is commanded or stop clinging to the superstitions of ignorant cultures and move into the modern world. It's good here.
    • howie, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10 Here's the thing, aseaton:

      1. ID is not an alternative to evolution, because ID is not science.

      2. There is nothing unfair about only teaching science in a science class.

      3. It doesn't matter if evolution is "logical" or not. A great many things in science may seem illogical, at least to most people. However, evolution is supported by huge amount of empirical evidence.

      4. Evolution is not just a hypothesis, but a scientific theory. As far as science goes, "theory" is the highest order of things.

      5. Evolution has been observed, and even tested in labs.

      6. I don't know if you are a moron or not, but you are clearly uneducated (at least on this issue), and instead of asking questions you make claims for which there is no basis.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2Thanks for covering all the bases on this one - I think you hit just about everything wrong with that guy's post. Good show old bean.
      • SpykerSpeed, on 11/08/2007, -1/+11. Evolution is not science, either. It isn't a testable theory.
        2. See above.
        3. This is another way of saying that evolution is incapable of predicting anything, and is therefore a useless theory. i.e. "illogical"
        4. Cool, you know the definition of theory. Welcome to third grade.
        5. Evolution has not been observed or tested in higher vertebrates, however, and Haldane's dilemma proves that it is impossible mathematically.
        6. You're a poophead, too. Ad hominems are fun.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 11/09/2007, -1/+21) Evolution is absolutely testable - we have done so and observed it in labs. Further, we see evidence of it throughout the fossil record - look up Foraminifera some time, it is a COMPLETE and CONTINUOUS fossil record of the species back to the mid-Jurassic, with all the evolutionary steps in between. Educate yourself.
          3) When you actually understand the science behind it, it does make sense - it is intuitive and obvious. You appear to lack that knowledge.
          4) There is a difference between a theory used in the layman's hierarchy of certainty and a Scientific Theory. Scientific Theory is an explanation of a body of knowledge - it isn't just some unsupported idea like ID. When scientists speak of the Theory of Relativity, they are not expressing doubt about it.
          5) No one has ever proven that fingernails can grow significant amounts by observation either. I mean, we can look at them under a microscope and see tiny amount of growth happening while we watch. But that is just micro-growth. Macro-growth -- as in growing an actual amount that requires them being clipped -- has never been observed. No one has actually observed a fingernail changing from not needing to be clipped, to needing to be clipped.
          Further, Haldane's Dilemma has been picked apart by better minds than myself - for starters, ReMine's simulation only assumes a population size of SIX individuals. Also, it assumes that mutations only occur one at a time, and that most changes will be neutral (which means they will simply accumulate over time and are not subject to natural selection). Also, genetic drift can speed up the substitution of mutation events. My only contribution to this summary debunking is that there are other selection means beyond Natural Selection - for example, Darwin wrote a whole book on SEXUAL selection.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Also, you should read the following for a good example of vertebrate evolution.
          http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/is ...
        • howie, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1SpykerSpeed:

          Evolution *is* science. It matches all the criteria for science, including being supported by empirical data, making predictions, having practical applications, and so on.

          Evolution does in fact make predictions, and those predictions turn out to be true. Darwin himself made a number of predictions based on his theory, and yes, they turned out to be true. Indeed, as I said, evolution has specific practical applications, such as understanding diseases.

          What's quite amazing is that a random non-scientist on an internet site with a poor understanding of evolution (you didn't even know about evolution making predictions) claims, contrary to what actual scientists say, that evolution is not science!
  • SpykerSpeed, on 11/08/2007, -10/+1This is part of the reason why we should ditch the public school system. Nobody can agree on anything.
    • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5That's the best reason for public schooling, Creationism is objectively wrong on a scientific level. There is no reason to teach religion in a science class.
    • bowens44, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Your comment makes no sense.
      • chaosium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Homeschooling lets parents "teach the controversy"!
  • draebor, on 11/09/2007, -3/+8Evolution FTW!
  • earcheck81, on 11/08/2007, -12/+1Give me one scientifically proven example of macroevolution!
    • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+7http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm ...
      • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -4/+0So we have 5 examples of Intelligently Designed hybridization; none of which produced survivable offspring. Maybe your stronger argument was , "People who believe ID are gay!"
        • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10FTFA:

          "Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
        • bonhoeffer, on 11/08/2007, -3/+01. People claiming speciation in goatsbeard plants might be so eager to jump to their conclusion they are making the same mistake Linnaeus made 200 years ago when he claimed to have created two new species of goatsbeard by cross-pollination. His claim was disproved when the progeny of the "species" were not constant, but diversified, some drifting back to the parent species. Time will tell.
          2. Two new species of goatsbeard "appeared" (is that a scientific term?) in Washington State. New species are discovered often enough. The idea that they came from another species is assumption, of course.
          3. Also, this is not the case of new genetic material evolving in in parent plant; it was inserted from an existing, external source. Could be just a case of shared alleles, not speciation.
          • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+41. The new species can only reproduce with itself and NOT with a parent species. By the very definition of species this is a case of speciation.
            2. Earlier you objected to work because it was done in a lab. Now you object because it occurred in nature. You need to get yo