Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Professor Slams Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design Science Education

  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#41 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 05:44 AM

gsmonks, on Oct 14 2005, 11:22 AM, said:

Another similar wacky belief is one I can't remember the name of off-hand, but it's a belief that the planet is a conscious, living organism. If I recall rightly, it was mentioned in Final Fantasy. It was something like "Gaya", or something like that.

Various Final Fantasy games, as well as the movie toyed with the 'Gaia' notion of a living planet. in FF7 for the playstation the heroes main quest was to stop the evil corporation from draining all the life energy out of the planet.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#42 Hawkeye

Hawkeye

    I regret I have but one life to waste infront of videogames.

  • Islander
  • 8,278 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 06:59 AM

Quote

I want to bring back throwing Christians to the lions, just so's I can watch a few argue "intelligent design" with a hungry lion.
A while back didnt a religious dude climb into a lions enclosure and try to convert the lions or something? It was going quite well till the lion got annoyed and tried to maul him...
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits, and Are melted into air, into thin air; And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind.

Posted Image

#43 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 07:01 AM

LORD of the SWORD, on Oct 14 2005, 01:20 AM, said:

Godeskian, on Oct 13 2005, 04:18 PM, said:

Because one is science and one isn't. This isn't about insecurity in beliefs, it's about the fact that science class is for science. ID may be many things, but it is not science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hmmm. Interesting. And how long ago was it that it was taught that the world was flat. Back then it was considered FACT! Or, how bout the belief that the world WAS the center of the universe, and everything revolved around it, which was also taught as FACT!

So the whole excuse of: "it isn't science fact" is BS IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Was it taught in science classes? Even in Christopher Columbus's time, I remember hearing/reading most educated people believed the earth to be curved.

If it was taught, it was taught because of either religion controlling education (and therefor was never a true science class to begin with) or was the best information they have available at the time. The sun and the moon *appears* to revolve around the earth, as do all the stars, a millenia ago there wasn't an easy way to proved that instead of them going around us, but we were actually turning with the earth. And religion didn't make it any easier.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#44 Eskaminzim

Eskaminzim

    Head eggs and butt toast

  • Islander
  • 559 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 07:04 AM

LOTS:

The minute we start discussing the Constitution, the Declaration and the origin of the various "God" mottos on paper money and coinage in science class, I'll be willing to bow to your point.  But we don't.  

Yes, some of, many of, whatever, our Founding Fathers believed in a Creator.  Aside from that not being science fact, and only opinion, they also believed that drawing substantial amounts of blood from one's system would get rid of a fever.

Should we continue to believe in that because the Founding Fathers did?

My thought is that "Life is much too complex to have formed spontaneously, therefore there MUST have been a grand designer" is very much akin to "cancer is much too complex for us to cure, therefore God MUST have wanted it to be a death sentence."

It's not science.  It's not fact.  And all it does is hamper man's search for verifiable truth by encouraging them to believe that such a 'natural' (as opposed to spiritual or supernatural') cause simply canNOT be found.

That's not science to me, LoTS.  That's anti-science.

#45 benesound

benesound

    Ben Eternal Sound

  • Islander
  • 2,504 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 09:10 AM

I believe in creation. I haven't read exactly what they are trying to add to the schools science classes.
But if they continue to teach Evolution, I think they should teach it as what it is. Theory, and NOT fact. It hasn't been proven or it would no longer be a theory.

If anybody would like to find out more about Creation Science go here.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php

Thank You.

#46 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 09:29 AM

benesound, on Oct 14 2005, 03:10 PM, said:

I believe in creation. I haven't read exactly what they are trying to add to the schools science classes.
But if they continue to teach Evolution, I think they should teach it as what it is. Theory, and NOT fact. It hasn't been proven or it would no longer be a theory.

Actually, it will always remain a theory. Much as the theory of gravity is a theory despite being considered fact.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#47 Eskaminzim

Eskaminzim

    Head eggs and butt toast

  • Islander
  • 559 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 09:39 AM

One of the most (if not THE most) common creationist arguments against evolution is the "it's only a theory" argument.  Many creationsits (and ID people) know that there is a vast well of difference between an individual's theory (which is more like a guess) and a scientific theory which is more like a scientific law, and has been verified, multiple times, by independent witnesses. There are some creationists that like you to think that they don't know that and that a theory has no more weight to it than a flat out guess.

Here is a good site that talks about exactly what a SCIENTIFIC theory is.  (And gode, you're right.  I wonder why they don't use the theory of gravity as an example in the theory argument).

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Thankfully, the "it's only a theory" argument is one of the most easily refuted of the bunch.

Evolution, which, quite simply, is the adaptation of a species to change over time, has been proven, again and again, and again and again to no one's surprise or detriment.

One of the most recent are the Indian (I believe, though it could be the African) elephants and their tusk lengths in relaton to poaching.

Elephants are poached for the ivory in their tusks.  Elephants with long tusks are poached much more often than elephants with short tusks.  Therefore only elephants with short tusks (which are much less desirable to hunters and therefore have longer lifespans because of it) breed.  Studies of the populations of these elephants prove that they are evolving genetically to have short tusks, therefore dramatically extending their lifespans by keeping them out of the interested gazes of predators with guns.

That is evolution. That is fact.

Bacteria is another example.  Prior to antibiotics, bacteria ran wild.  Then penicillin was developed, and bacteria died.  But then some bacteria survived and bred and made offspring that were also immune to penicillin.  Other antibiotics were made to kill THESE bacteria.  Some of THESE bacteria survived, until now we have bacteria that is immune to every single antibiotic yet known to man.

That is evolution.  That is fact.

Everywhere in this world, you can see evolution happening before your very eyes.  It is a fact of life, not a 'guess'.

Edited by Eskaminzim, 14 October 2005 - 09:46 AM.


#48 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 09:52 AM

Here is a definition of the word "theory."  While most of us use definition #6 in everyday usage, it is not the definition at work when talking about evolution. MOREOVER - does anyone think that "music theory" is really a guess at how music works?

Quote

the·o·ry   Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

   1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
   2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
   3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
   4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
   5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
   6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Intelligent design is not science, although there can be science done from the intelligent design theory (in the sense of definition #6).  The problem is (in my opinion), that the results of that science will not lead to a literal interpretation of the Bible, and the people who are pushing Intelligent Design or Creationism are looking for results, not answers.  In other words - they want to cook the books - make the answers come out to what they already believe, instead of letting the answers be the answers.

The problem with positing a "creator" scientifically, is that there seems to be no necessity for one - the universe "works" without one, so far as the science we have now is concerned.  I believe that we will discover in some other way the necessity of God in the Universe - but that discovery will HAVE to have as its features - that no other answer fits just as well - and that discovery will most likely not confirm ANY religious conceptions of God/Goddess/Gods.  Rather - it will be a standalone phenomenon around which people are free to believe whatever they wish - and in response to which people will probably need to modify their beliefs.  We haven't gotten there yet, though, and disallowing true science means that we won't get there anytime soon.

Wouldn't it be something if an atheist discovered God in the universe, while the "believers" were busy obscurring the facts to protect their personal interpretations?

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#49 JchaosRS

JchaosRS

    Ordered Chaos

  • Islander
  • 2,373 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 09:52 AM

I have spoken with a lot of people regarding this issue and I have read this thread twice.

I still cannot understand why ID MUST be taught in science class. I learned about different religious belief systems and doctrines in my Religious and Cultural Studies classes.

It’s just that simple:
Scientific Theories in Science classes
Religious Beliefs in a Religions Class

And that way the student gets exposed to multiple belief structures besides just what most Christians believe.

And if the school doesn't offer a Religious Studies course then the local Religious centers (i.e. churches) should offer to teach their children their own beliefs. No need to drag everyone else along by using the public school system.
Will be eternally Rommie's Slave
Jays Music Videos | Jeremy Farnum | LexaFans

#50 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:14 AM

Godeskian, on Oct 14 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

Actually, it will always remain a theory. Much as the theory of gravity is a theory despite being considered fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Interesting that they don't mind teaching one theory but have such a problem teaching another theory. Talk about cooking the books.

But, given the lowering of standards in most public schools, and the fact that the US school system, in general, is far behind other countries(but that's a topic for another thread)...this attitude doesn't really surprise me.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#51 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:19 AM

Actually, a scientific theory makes a prediction that can be verified. If the prediction fails to hold, the theory is disproven. If the prediction is verified, the theory has gained evidence supporting it but remains unproven. Why? For the same reason that seeing 100 computers running Windows doesn't prove that the next computer you see will be running Windows. We cannot reason from specific examples to generality with 100% confidence. This is the problem with inductive reasoning.

If you actually observe bacteria mutating and the favorable mutations surviving, you've observed facts, not a theory.

The elephant example is misleading. The genes for short tusks already existed. They didn't evolve before our eyes. The poachers killed the long-tusked elephants, and the already existing short-tusked elephants survived and bred. That's not evidence of evolution, just a larger percentage of a population having an already existing gene.

Edited by Solar Wind, 14 October 2005 - 10:28 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#52 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:21 AM

LORD of the SWORD, on Oct 14 2005, 11:14 AM, said:

Godeskian, on Oct 14 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

Actually, it will always remain a theory. Much as the theory of gravity is a theory despite being considered fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Interesting that they don't mind teaching one theory but have such a problem teaching another theory. Talk about cooking the books.

But, given the lowering of standards in most public schools, and the fact that the US school system, in general, is far behind other countries(but that's a topic for another thread)...this attitude doesn't really surprise me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Did you skip over my and Eska's posts entirely?  The theory in question has nothing to do with what you are saying.  Intelligent Design is not a theory in the sense required by science.  It isn't even really a theory in any other sense - it is an assumption based on belief.  

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#53 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:25 AM

Eskaminzim, on Oct 14 2005, 07:04 AM, said:

It's not science.  It's not fact.  And all it does is hamper man's search for verifiable truth by encouraging them to believe that such a 'natural' (as opposed to spiritual or supernatural') cause simply canNOT be found.

That's not science to me, LoTS.  That's anti-science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Alright, how would teaching the belief of some sort of "creator" or ID hamper man's search for  truth? What does believing in a creator have to do with not searching for truth, or questioning things?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#54 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:31 AM

QueenTiye, on Oct 14 2005, 09:52 AM, said:

The problem with positing a "creator" scientifically, is that there seems to be no necessity for one - the universe "works" without one, so far as the science we have now is concerned.
QT

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


And as I said before, in a previous post, the odds of there not being some design behind the origin of life is too huge. Casinos wouldn't take that bet.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#55 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:32 AM

QueenTiye, on Oct 14 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

Did you skip over my and Eska's posts entirely?  The theory in question has nothing to do with what you are saying.  Intelligent Design is not a theory in the sense required by science.  It isn't even really a theory in any other sense - it is an assumption based on belief. 

QT

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


No, I didn't skip over your comments, or Eska's...just hadn't responded yet. I'm still waking up, so if I'm a little slow in replying to some posts, please bear with me.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#56 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:45 AM

LORD of the SWORD, on Oct 14 2005, 04:14 PM, said:

Godeskian, on Oct 14 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

Actually, it will always remain a theory. Much as the theory of gravity is a theory despite being considered fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Interesting that they don't mind teaching one theory but have such a problem teaching another theory. Talk about cooking the books.

And again, and again you ignore the fact that one is a SCIENTIFIC theory, and one is NOT a scientific theory. Therefore one does belong in science class and one does not.

I will keep repeating this untill you respond to the fact that whatever ID may or may not be, it is not a scientific theory.

Edited by Godeskian, 14 October 2005 - 10:46 AM.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#57 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 10:56 AM

LORD of the SWORD, on Oct 14 2005, 11:31 AM, said:

QueenTiye, on Oct 14 2005, 09:52 AM, said:

The problem with positing a "creator" scientifically, is that there seems to be no necessity for one - the universe "works" without one, so far as the science we have now is concerned.
QT

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


And as I said before, in a previous post, the odds of there not being some design behind the origin of life is too huge. Casinos wouldn't take that bet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



The odds of something happening are fine... but the odds of there being life on earth are astronomically against us (or have been - the more we learn about the universe the less true that seems to be) - and yet here we are.  That could be taken as proof of there being a God or proof that just because something is astronomically unlikely doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

When I say the universe works without a designer - I mean this: one can come up with a working theory of the universe without positing a designer.  One can also come up with a working theory of the universe positing a designer.  Which means exactly this: We have no basis for asserting one over the other.  AND... evolution does not make any such assertions. Evolution simply states that from a particular molecular organism, others arose. It doesn't say if anyone designed that original molecular organism - it doesn't say if anyone designed the stuff that the original molecular organism is made of, etc.  What it says is - this is the process by which this grew into this this this and this.

We still haven't gotten a scientific necessity for a creator - the one you are talking about is a mathematical probability of one - which means it would be taught in MATH class or statistics class - still not science, and STILL not the body of ideas called "intelligent design."  Moreover - the statistics you are thinking of - do NOT lead to any particular theology - which is why nobody is content with just teaching that and leaving out the rest.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#58 SilverNeonASH

SilverNeonASH
  • Islander
  • 387 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 11:22 AM

Solar Wind, on Oct 14 2005, 03:19 PM, said:

Actually, a scientific theory makes a prediction that can be verified. If the prediction fails to hold, the theory is disproven. If the prediction is verified, the theory has gained evidence supporting it but remains unproven. Why? For the same reason that seeing 100 computers running Windows doesn't prove that the next computer you see will be running Windows. We cannot reason from specific examples to generality with 100% confidence. This is the problem with inductive reasoning.

If you actually observe bacteria mutating and the favorable mutations surviving, you've observed facts, not a theory.

The elephant example is misleading. The genes for short tusks already existed. They didn't evolve before our eyes. The poachers killed the long-tusked elephants, and the already existing short-tusked elephants survived and bred. That's not evidence of evolution, just a larger percentage of a population having an already existing gene.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The elephants is about survival. If long tusked elephants ( Mammoths) are prized for their ivory ( ivory may have been the earliest form of currency), then short tusk elephants have a better survival prognosis. The genes aren't changing. What ensures survival? The ability to pass genes to the next generation. If the long tusks are taken out, no genes are changed, but a dead elephant can not reproduce. If the short tusk are passed over, they have a longer time to make more elephants before, they themselves meet their demise. Case in point. The mega elephants ( mammoths, mastodons) went extinct in the old world circa 10000 BC. Humans were not in the Americas in significant numbers until around 9000 BC. The mega elephants in America don't die out until around 8000 years ago, the dawn of the Neolithic. In a nutshell? If long tusk produces one offspring and is killed, that's one baby. No more. If short tusk lasts long enough to produce two offspring, short tusk has double the population. Add to that, are short tusks dominant or recessive? The one time, long tusk gets the girl, will SHE be a long or a short? A Long may have to produce 4 offspring to get ONE long, two Mediums, and one short. With a gestation of two years, I don't think the long tusk will last that long.

#59 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 11:32 AM

^ Yes, that's what I said.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#60 Eskaminzim

Eskaminzim

    Head eggs and butt toast

  • Islander
  • 559 posts

Posted 14 October 2005 - 11:41 AM

SolarWind:

It's not misleading, in that evolution is many things, and one of those things is not ONLY the spontaneous mutation of a gene where none before existed but ALSO the adaptation of a stronger gene that was once weaker (or vice versa), to ensure the survivability of a species...or at least how I was taught as much in my classes on the subject.

Fact:  The "short tusk" gene DID exist prior to elephant poaching by man, but

Fact:  The bulls with longer tusks were the ones who usually won the rights to mate with the females in estrus, so

Fact:  Therefore, the "long tusk" gene was predominant, genetically and 'evolutionally' speaking.

Fact:  Since fewer long tusked bulls (and cows) are living long enough to pass on their dominant gene to their offspring, the lessor or recessive gene is becoming the dominant gene and incidentally prolonging the lifespan of the species by making it less desirable to one who would prey upon it.

That IS evolution.

There are many examples of genes which were "evolutionally" undesirable and then became, over the course of time and changing habitat, "evolutionally" desirable.  That is evolution, just as much as a spontaneous, desirable and unique genetic mutation is evolution.

Where we run into problems is when people say that "evolution can only be this" or "evolution can only be that".  Evolution is many things all pointing to the adaptation of a species to change over time.  That encompasses a whole plethora of changes, kept, discarded, and kept again.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Intelligent Design, Science, Education

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users