Why must intelligent design be stopped

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Do you really believe because I read "1 book by 1 respected scientist" that there is only 1 scientist who believes that there are problems with evolution. In his book he cites numerous other scientists and thier concerns.

Numerous, WOW. SO? He could site one hundred and he would still be in the vast minority-and is.

Besides, I havn't read any books about global warming nor have I read any books about those who don't believe in global warming. The debatability of an issue is not based on whether I read 0 books, 1 book or 1,000 books on a subject. Nor, is it really based on how many books are written on each side. If someone proposes a valid scientific challenge, I have no problem acknowledging it, whether I believe it, disbelieve it or aren't sure about it. I also hope that the challenges will continue to be looked into until there is a universal agreement on the issue in the scientific community.

The debate regarding global warming is not that the Earth has warmed, but why. There is little debate on the data, the question is on what explains the data. This is in no way analogous to the non-existant scientific debate on the data about Evolution.

I would not act as if the 2 sides were equal. I would merely point out that there are opposing scientific points of view. I think I clearly stated that by saying that, about 95% would be spent on the generally accepted theory and 5% would be spent on problems with the theory.

If the two isdes are so vastly unequal then mentioning this is really irrelevant, since as long as the students understood the prupose and workings of the scientific method it should be clear in their minds that what they are being taught is open to dicussion and possible future refutiation by new evidence-given the nature of the scientific process.

Also, I think there should be a slightly extra emphasis placed on new theories and challenges to existing theories. I think that would encourage students to be open minded and perhaps accelerate the pace at which they develop and discover. If nothing else it would help them develop the skills to "punch holes" in bogus theories.

There are no theories challenging Evolution. As for being open minded, there is no such thing in science. Science is not about "keeping an open mind", its about seeking knowledge in a rigorous and intelletucally honest manner. I don't have to listen to anyone who has no evidence for their prepositions. That simple. What I do need to do is understand that I can't make a claim unless I can back it up, and seriously examine any evidence that may counter my claims, and either find a way to explain it given my theories, or accept that my theory is wrong. That has **** to do with "being open minded".

Any science teacher wroth their salt, inmstead of prancing about trying to "be open minded", will instead impart to their students the most of the current accepted scientific information out there while having made it clear to them that this is science after all, not faith, and that they need to understand that in science nothing is writen in stone.

[Patroklos]

I find it absurd that you are arguing without even knowing WHAT people like Behe actually say and write.

What part of I think both sides are being hard headed do you not understand, to include the people in PA you don't like?

The sole claim ID proponents make is that structures such as the eye can't possibly evolve so there must be a god/alien out there who created all life or at least all life with eyes. The CalTech team has shown that these structures can indeed form under known and observed evolutionary principles.

No Oeridn, it does not say that the sturcture can not evolve, it says it does evolve and does so because or the system god made, ie evolution. It basically says evolution can't exist without god. The very principles of CalTechs own damn experiments would follow the same design. So if your an IDer, Cal Tech just proved God's system worked.

That pretty much negates ID's whole basis for existance.

Did you just try to use science to disprove ID? There is your problem, stop throwing yourself in from of IDs car.

Unless of course it is just a religious belief in a god. If that is the case then it still isn't science and still doesn't have any evidence to back it up.

Agreed. Now just realize PA is a micro example of IDers gone mad.

[Kuciwalker]

Did you just try to use science to disprove ID? There is your problem, stop throwing yourself in from of IDs car.

He's using science to disprove the central argument of ID. Without any argument for its truth beyond faith, ID is... religion.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos

No Oeridn, it does not say that the sturcture can not evolve, it says it does evolve and does so because or the system god made, ie evolution. It basically says evolution can't exist without god. The very principles of CalTechs own damn experiments would follow the same design. So if your an IDer, Cal Tech just proved God's system worked.

WRONG

Jesus H Christ. Wrong.

They DO NOT allow for an eye to evolve because god exist. They specifically state that it must have been DESIGNED (hence the name of the damned movement). Being designed implies, states, that the structure was pre-planned and then made according to that plan.

[Patroklos]

Fine Gepap, show me the text that definitively states this theological position?

Point me the movements leaders?

Your semantic point is unimportant regardless, because even if we assume God personally has blueprints on the human eye, why could he have not produced it through evolutuon?

Face it, you are simply unconcerend with reconciling anything. You are simply grinding your ax. You don't care if ID interferes with science or not, you don't like it regardless.

[GePap]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

For your edification, the intellectual heart of the ID movement is the Discovery Institute.

Here is a nice link: http://www.discovery.org/csc/

Feel free to browse their writings so you know what the hell they say in real life.

This one specially:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2885&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20History%20and%20Philosophy%20of%20Science%20-%20MainPage

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


what does your grocery list attempt to explain?

The same as ID does - nothing.

[Jon Miller]

Dude

I think we are in agreement, you just don't understand what I say

JM

[Last Conformist]

Well, some pages ago, you were claiming that ID was an attempt to explain science.

[Patroklos]

For your edification, the intellectual heart of the ID movement is the Discovery Institute.

According to who, you? The Discovery Institute? The people in PA?

Perhaps you will realize the impossibility of finding what your looking for, probobly not. Either way it STILL doesn't change what IDs relationship to science.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


According to who, you? The Discovery Institute? The people in PA?

Perhaps you will realize the impossibility of finding what your looking for, probobly not. Either way it STILL doesn't change what IDs relationship to science.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
According to who, you? The Discovery Institute? The people in PA?

Perhaps you will realize the impossibility of finding what your looking for, probobly not. Either way it STILL doesn't change what IDs relationship to science.

Without any argument for its truth beyond faith, ID is... religion.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap


Numerous, WOW. SO? He could site one hundred and he would still be in the vast minority-and is.

Well its getting a little repetitive here, but as I stated earlier, throughout history that established scientific facts or theories were later proven wrong or partially wrong. Those who initially proposed the new theory were either an individual or in the minority. If you don't accept what I just said you know nothing about the history of science. If you do accept what I said your comment above is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant si the new theory, or in this case, the objections to the current theory.

The debate regarding global warming is not that the Earth has warmed, but why. There is little debate on the data, the question is on what explains the data. This is in no way analogous to the non-existant scientific debate on the data about Evolution.

Why is it a non-existant scientific debate? Because it questions your paradigm? First of al, the debate exists or there wouldn't be this thread. The fact that I pointed out a PhD in Molecular Biology and other scientists, who have problems with theory as stated, proves it is a scientific debate.

I totally agree, supplying God as answer to a question is wrong. I totally disagree, and have pointed out, that no credible scientists question all the major elements of Evolution.

If the two isdes are so vastly unequal then mentioning this is really irrelevant,

Mentioning credible scientists' objections to the theory being taught is irrelevant? I think it is highly relevant, assuming the objections come from a credible source. I consider a PhD in Molecular biology a credible source on this topic. I see no need to blind students from another credible scientific point of view. Besides, if you feel these viewpoints are so outlandish than you will do your class a service pointing out why.

since as long as the students understood the prupose and workings of the scientific method it should be clear in their minds that what they are being taught is open to dicussion and possible future refutiation by new evidence-given the nature of the scientific process.

You just don't want to discuss the new evidence.

There are no theories challenging Evolution.

I agree that we have not found a compelling scientific alternate theory. That doesn't mean that apparant shortcomings to the existing theory shouldn't be discussed.

As for being open minded, there is no such thing in science. Science is not about "keeping an open mind", its about seeking knowledge in a rigorous and intelletucally honest manner.

Without an open mind one would never question the existing theory.

I don't have to listen to anyone who has no evidence for their prepositions. That simple. What I do need to do is understand that I can't make a claim unless I can back it up, and seriously examine any evidence that may counter my claims, and either find a way to explain it given my theories, or accept that my theory is wrong. That has **** to do with "being open minded".

Again, it is not necessary to propose an alternate theory to point out flaws in the current one.

People originally thought the earth was the center of the universe.

Later they placed the sun at the center. While this seemed to make sense someone noticed that certain lights in the sky didn't jive with that theory.

You are saying at this point, he should not be heard and his observations aren't science until he comes up with an alternate theory. That's ridiculous.

It would be equally ridiculous to state that the non-conforming movements in the sky were due to God, ID, etc.

[Arrian]

There is an undeniable agenda behind "Intelligent Design." The creationists lost a battle, regrouped, worked on their image and language, and came back for another try.

The cool part, though, is that in order to have ANY hope of being taken seriously, they had to adopt liberal/secular language and at least PRETEND to be scientific. Which, viewed in a broader sense, means that they've already lost.

I keep trying to look at it that way. Otherwise, I start frothing at the mouth, and that's scary for my co-workers.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Without any argument for its truth beyond faith, ID is... religion.

How many times do I have to tell you retards I AGREE WITH YOU!!!

There is an undeniable agenda behind "Intelligent Design." The creationists lost a battle, regrouped, worked on their image and language, and came back for another try.

If that makes you feel better about youself, go ahead and believe it. But in reality, this is how Christian scientists, which is most of them in the US, have reconciled their faith and profession for hundreds of years.