Intellagentdesign - Page 2

quote:

---

That really gets to me, because no matter what scientific argument or evidence one could present, you could just say that the intelligent being was responsible for it. How perfect.

---

I agree, it does make it convenient - I tossed that in there because I could, not because it belonged there. I'm sorry it offended you. But that however does not validate or invalidated intelligent design.

quote:

---

because it is founded on true ignorance

---

But now you offend me - Einstein was not ignorant.

quote:

---

What benefits or progress would be yielded from teaching intelligent design?

---

And what is the benifit of teaching we came from apes?

quote:

---

cover creationism or even Christianity

---

This is a fear - and I don't doubt that an attempt will be made to teach the story of Adam and Eve - for this and the fact that it will be a million years if ever intelligentdesign would be proven a fact - I just believe this fear is over exaggerated.

While I agree God would be the end of the investigation for some it would be the drive for others and this has been documented - people are different, what works for one may not work for another.

Concerning the imperfections of design, there is an explanation in religion, you'll find it in the teachings of Gnosticism.

I really did not want to jump into this, but I think we are going to far on this. We're making a big deal out of nothing.

The intelligentdesign folk have admitted that they made a mistake when they forced teachers to read a statement denouncing evolution and promoting intelligentdesign and that's how it landed in court. If you visited Europe after living your life in America you soon discover that Americans are extremists in everything we do and often we go to far, but once the dust settles there will be a certain amount of balance.

My wife is a science teacher, she says evolution is a theory and intelligentdesign is a theory and any teacher should be able to teach these theories. Kids are not as dumb as we make them out to be, they only act that way sometimes. They can decide for themselves what to believe, they will anyways. They're not going to be brain washed or anything else - the world will still turn and tomorrow will still come.

As for me, I believe in both theories - it is not hard to believe that intelligentdesign designed evolution. Though I'm not real confident that we came from apes.

As a parting word or two on this discussion...

quote:

---

My wife is a science teacher, she says evolution is a theory and intelligentdesign is a theory and any teacher should be able to teach these theories. Kids are not as dumb as we make them out to be, they only act that way sometimes. They can decide for themselves what to believe, they will anyways. They're not going to be brain washed or anything else - the world will still turn and tomorrow will still come.

---

All I'm saying is that yeah, they are both explanations that deal with life and it's origins, but one is science. The other is cleverly disguised creationism. If it was a class on origins, then maybe you could work both in. But you can't teach something in a science class that isn't true science. Oh, and I apologize if I did offend you earlier.

quote:

---

And what is the benifit of teaching we came from apes?

---

The same argument could be made against Intelligent Design.

It seems there is some dispute about what the word theory means. For an idea to be a SCIENTIFIC theory it must be falsafiable. Intelligent design cannot be proven true or false in it's current wording, so therefore it is not a theory. If a school wants to teach ID, then it should teach it in a seperate optional theology class, and not in a science class. Religion has no place in science.

Okcitykid: 'intelligent design' is not a theory its a postulate. What right does it have to be taught in biology classes? its not scientific, its theology. The pseudo-code algorithm for how a scientific idea develops is:

1. Consider a particular phenomenon.
2. Propose a postulate to explain that phenomena.
3. Present evidence to support the postulate.
4. Allow others the opportunity to present evidence to either support or contradict the postulate.
5. If after a reasonable amount of time and evidence the postulate still stands up strong, it may be promoted to the rank of theory.
6. If it is disproven, goto 1.
7. If, after a much longer time, the theory is very strong and essentially unchallenged, it may be promoted to the rank of law.

Most scientific ideas have followed this whole process. Based on these criteria, 'intelligent design' is not a scientific theory at all. The reason for this is that it completely sidesteps the all-important points (3) and (4). The argument for intelligent design in every account I have read is something along the lines of 'the universe is incredibly complex, therefore it must have been created by a higher power'. Let's be very clear about one thing. This is not a theory. It's a postulate (and one which it not logically defensible at that). There is no science to ID. Its a cover up of creationism. A propaganda tool if you like. Almost an illusion if you will, to the idea that it encompasses the theologies of religion. It's farcical to promote ID as a scientific theory.

Geez, while I don't believe that ID should be taught in school at all, if it is it should at least go by the title of 'unsubstantiated postulate that immaterial and supernatural phenomena are responsible for human life', which would be far more scientifically accurate than 'intelligent design' which gives the false impression that in some way the idea is in fact intelligent!

quote:

---

what is the benifit of teaching we came from apes

---

Ok lets start with this:
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. -- Theodosius Dobzhansky.

Evolution is the cornerstone of Biology. Evolution explains the development of life on earth, by the theory of common descent, and with paleontology we can even find out how life developed, and what the world used to look like. Shared traits, features, processes, distributions and behaviours of organisms can be understood.

Beautifully explained, summit.

I found this on a web site:
'The reason why vaccines have not succeeded in eliminating influenza, for example, is because the viruses change. Soldiers trained to attack only enemies in grey uniforms will be useless if the enemy changes into blue uniforms. Effective vaccines against particular strains of flu virus constantly need to be updated for this reason.

The same potential problem plagues the development of an effective vaccine against HIV. As the virus multiplies, the 'copies' which are made of it often have copying mistakes (mutations) which can change those parts of the virus that your body's defences are geared to recognize. Only a very small change may be enough-a change which otherwise is completely irrelevant to the structure or function of the virus. So a 'new strain' emerges, and although you were able to fight off the first one, now you can't.'

It is important to recognise that no new information is created. When Richard Dawkins (the famous and ardently atheistic evolutionist) was asked to asked to provide one single example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that increases the information in the genome. He had no answer to this at all.

The full link is:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimmer.asp

quote:

---

Evolution is the cornerstone of Biology. Evolution explains the development of life on earth, by the theory of common descent, and with paleontology we can even find out how life developed, and what the world used to look like. Shared traits, features, processes, distributions and behaviours of organisms can be understood.

---

But does that improve the human condition or degrade it?

My personal belief is that both evolution and ID are theories.

Theory is apart of science because in science we work to prove or disprove a theory.

While it might be easier to prove evoluition than ID, I think niether one of them should be taught in science, but a new class of study "theory of the origins of life".

While I do believe they can both be taught in science, because neither will ever go from theory to fact in my life time or my children's life time it is not worth the conflict.

All the arguments as to why ID should be or shouldn't be taught in science, I could say about evolution. Concerning creationism not being science I think is a narrow minded point of view.

Things that we can't understand we push them over to that Religion/Magic side of the house. But if we could understand it or it could be explained to us, then it would be science.

quote:

---

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. " Albert Einstein.

"It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature." Albert Einstein

---

If God is, then God can be proven, God is a science. Only when you put God in that room called Myth does it not belong in science. Unfortunatly because of limits it can only be a personal decision. But one of the smartest persons in the world believed in God, that should mean something, at least enough to be open minded about it.

I still ask - why are we afraid of creationism that it should be banned from our schools?

Check this link out.

http://www.apologeticscourses.com/Courses/Evol.htm

Read especially "The Evolution/Creation Models"

quote:

---

According to the principle of Creation, everything in the universe has a plan and purpose behind it. According to it, the origin and destiny of the world is in the firm control of a Creator.

---

Thanks Pete - but that's an opinion and we can't be teaching that in science.

My opinion is different - and I don't expect it to be taught in science.

I don't really care if I.D. is taught in science or not - I just am a little upset about how people are reacting to this, as if some great crime of the century has been committed.

If it is so terrible for I.D. to be taught in science, then it is so terrible for evolution to also be taught in science.

This is something that should be decided by teachers and parents not courts of law or front page media.

We are facing global warming and it doesn't even make second page news.

Okcitykid: What turns true belief into knowledge is the reliability of our cognitive processes. An opinion can't be reliable if its not accurate. So:
a. why do you think evolution shouldn't be taught in science (when evolution is science!)
b. why don't you care if ID is to be taught in science
c. why then do you go on to say that you think neither of them should be taught in science
d. why do you think ID is scientific. Because let's be very clear on this- ID is not a scientific theory, its a postulate.

Intelligent Design is not scientific. It should not be taught as a 'science'. There's two working ideas. One would be science is what scientists say it is. The second would be that science involves testable hypotheses. Intelligent design isn't testable in the way that we normally think about scientific hypothesis being testable (as I have previously stated the pseudo-code algorithm for how a scientific idea develops). They don't provide the details by which that design happened because they couldn't. They couldn't possibly show us the designer.
Intelligent Design has been rejected by all scientific institutions, academies and societies around the world. For the scientists, the case of 'intelligent design' is closed- it's simply not science.


Petesmith: Regarding genetic mutations and evolutionary processes- this is well understood now.

quote:

---

But does that improve the human condition or degrade it?

---

The human condition is evolution. Understanding natural and sexual selection; speciation and the fossil record; the evolution of language; the role of genetics and environment in shaping the human condition; the relevance of evolutionary theory for understanding the life-history traits, and the sexual and social behaviour of humans; the evolution of pathogen virulence and immune responses, and the application of evolutionary theory to understanding medical, veterinary, psychological, sociolinguistics, primary production and environmental practices, have all improved the human condition. Thats just a start.

I'm going to have to do some research - its late - But without insult, I will get back.

I did do a little bit of research and discovered its whereabouts:

Discovery Institute - a conservative Christian think tank.

Evolution has been around for a long - ID has also, it just wasn't called ID and was kicked out of school by evolution.

I'll get back with ya

a. As if my vote would count - if I.D. can't be taught in science then neither should evolution, but if we agree to teach I.D. then I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in science. Evolution kicked ID out of science because I.D. tried to prevent Evolution from being taught - I think this is prejudice and narrow minded and we I would hope in the modern world would be more open minded.

b. I believe that teaching I.D. in science is pushing that gray line, but it can be taught in science and I wouldn't make a scene about it.

c. I believe if we took I.D. and evolution out of science and put them into a theory class, there would be less conflict, and we could go onto more important things.

d. ID is not science only if you believe there is no intelligence behind creation, but if you believe there is an intelligence, then clearly it is a science. A belief that everything has been created by chance I believe is less logical then believing that there is intelligence behind creation.

Scientists who dispute Darwinism
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

quote:

---

Intelligent Design is not scientific.

---

Saying that Intelligent Design is not scientific does not make it so.

quote:

---

Intelligent design isn't testable in the way that we normally think about scientific hypothesis being testable (as I have previously stated the pseudo-code algorithm for how a scientific idea develops).

---

Inside the box you will only discover what is inside the box, but should you leave the box, you might discover there is more.

quote:

---

They don't provide the details by which that design happened because they couldn't. They couldn't possibly show us the designer.

---

Neither can natural selection explain how it just naturally selects.

I did find the argument here - by no means is it complete, but it appears to be non bias for and against.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html#forrestlinks

Science is not always right - imagine if we still believed the world was flat. If you are never wrong you will never learn.

I may not know a lot about science, but I know a lot about this world and how it works.

Mammon is the ruler of this world. We will continue to believe in evolution forever because there is a whole industry funded by this thought and if we stopped believing in it tomorrow, lots of people would be looking for work.

The only reason we are discussing I.D. is because the religious community has lots of money.

Because money talks it is disappointing to find that both sides of the argument are tainted with narrow minded prejudice. Both sides are paid to win, neither side is paid to consider or compromise - this is disappointing.

The only ones who can have an honest to goodness open discussion on this is us who have nothing to win or loose. But we as a people require leaders, so we follow suit those we decide will lead us, rather than think for ourselves. They we have chosen to lead us argue for money.

It is sad, no wonder we will still use windows on hard drives that spin 17000 rpm and haven't yet revisited the moon and have found ourself in a stupid war.