Why must intelligent design be stopped

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
My experience is that in the heat of politics people of all persuasions will post contorted or dishonest arguements.

I suppose the fact that the issue is thought of as a political one is as good proof as any that the US is quite deep in the cacky here.

Now, if you want to compare the relative levels of dishonesty, I heartily agree you acquaint yourself with the Discovery Institute's so-called "Wedge Document".

I guess the difference is that I can accept that large numbers of Americans beleive in a "literal" interpretation of the bible, and I can feel their pain (so to speak) when they see it contradicted in the schools their taxes fund.

Compassion isn't in my job description. Chiefly because I do not have a job.

We should still teach proper science in science courses, but the overall problem needs to be approached with sensitivity and tact, not with adolescent ranting (sorry Ozzy ) It seems that many of the folks posting such rants are not genuinely concerned with healing the US polity.

There's a fine line between tact and appeasement.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
intelligent design is an attempt to explain science

No it isn't. It's an attempt to get round the US constitution.

[Jon Miller]

it is

they are calling it a scientific theory

which is fails at

that is its failing, I am fine with it being discussed outside of a science class, or with peopel believing it

Jon Miller
(a religionist)

[Ming]

I personally don't think it deserves a place in our school system, and creationism doesn't belong either. Sunday school, yeah... if that's what you believe, but not the public school system.

However, I would rather have people believe in ID than creationism. If people wish to believe that some supreme being was behind evolution... fine. In a way, at least that acknowledges the evolution of man... Better than them believing that the earth was created out of nothing in 6 days with god resting on the 7th

[Patroklos]

Pat, are you implying that Christian fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms?

I am saying that his reaction to this, which is nothing even remotely threatening to his beliefs, is not based on anything rational.

His escalation of ill will with no justification is the most irrational.

Sava is no biologist, he has a basic understanding of biology but takes the majoirty of the facts of evolution on faith becasue he BELIEVES in sceince.

There is nothing wrong with that, but when he starts threatening death and shouting insutls he is nothing but a fundamentalist of another color.

I say this in every ID thread I participate in, that those who treat science like a faith make it a religion. And that is much more dangerous, buecause Christians 99 percent of the time are not hindering something else to profess their faith, these people do.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
it is

they are calling it a scientific theory

which is fails at

that is its failing, I am fine with it being discussed outside of a science class, or with peopel believing it

Jon Miller
(a religionist)

So, by your reasoning, if I call my grocery list a scientific theory, it is ipso facto an attempt to explain science?

You're nuts.

[Patroklos]

However, I would rather have people believe in ID than creationism. If people wish to believe that some supreme being was behind evolution... fine. In a way, at least that acknowledges the evolution of man... Better than them believing that the earth was created out of nothing in 6 days with god resting on the 7th

Especially since this belief does not in any way contridict the mechanics of the theory. It is about time we except this generous compromise by one side, and move the **** on. Because after we move on for a few more decades, ID will probobly fall to the side like all the other times religion has made compromises with science. Read a science book fro 1960 and you will understand.

[Jon Miller]

I got this from a great physicist

imagine 3 circles (a Ven Diagram)

one of those circles is the natural world
another is technology
a third is mathematics

science is the intersection of all three...

science is of the natural world, which we have the technology to investigate, and the mathematics to attempt to explain

anything concerning God is currently outside the realm of science, since we have neither the mathematics nor the technology to investigate (and some would argue that God is not part of the natural world, in which case things concerning Him would always be outside the realm of science)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

So, by your reasoning, if I call my grocery list a scientific theory, it is ipso facto an attempt to explain science?

You're nuts.

what does your grocery list attempt to explain?

Jon Miller

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If folks were really concerned about science education, theyd be talking about the difficulty in attracting qualified science teachers at the Middle School and High School levels, not about some stupid stickers.

In my experience, it's not an either/or situation.

Anyway, I really wonder how many top-notch science educators would seriously consider teaching in a district that insists on affixing such "stupid stickers" to their science texts. If I'm going to work somewhere, it'd preferably be in an environment that's supportive of what I'm doing, not ambivalent or, worse, downright hostile.

Heh. School districts that cave in to such pressures from the religious folks WRT their science policies might very well be initiating a downward spiral that, in the end, screws over their students and every succeeding generation.

Gatekeeper

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I am saying that his reaction to this, which is nothing even remotely threatening to his beliefs, is not based on anything rational.

His escalation of ill will with no justification is the most irrational.

Sava is no biologist, he has a basic understanding of biology but takes the majoirty of the facts of evolution on faith becasue he BELIEVES in sceince.

There is nothing wrong with that, but when he starts threatening death and shouting insutls he is nothing but a fundamentalist of another color.

I say this in every ID thread I participate in, that those who threat science like a faith make it a religion. And that is much more dangerous, buecause Christians 99 percent of the time are not hindering something else to profess their faith, these people do.

I agree

most people believe things, they don't use rational and logic...

that includes people who beleive in the Big Bang or in Evolution

I (as a scientist and a physicist) dont' know enough to do other then beleive in the Big Bang/ Evolution (or not)

JM

[Whaleboy]

intelligent design is an attempt to explain science

No, intelligent design has taken an a priori conclusion (God created the universe) and essentially seeks to cherrypick evidence (if you can call it that) to support it. Proper science sees a phenomenon and attempts to explain it a posteriori, using the familiar notions of falsifiability, Occams Razor and sufficient reason.

heaven, angels, and the devil are all outside of the realm of current science, so beleifs (either positive or negative) are proper

I would include ID in that field, in which case, yes it is a "proper" belief, but not scientific. Beliefs cannot logically make inroads into scientific territory unless they lose what makes them a belief and subject themselves to the rigours of scientific method... then we can see if they sink or swim like every other scientific theory (used in the correct sense).

you have basically said that you can't be Christian (or religious, really) and be scientific

In as far as this debate is concerned, you can concur with evolution and be religious. I believe it to be contradictory to concur with evolution and believe that God had some part to play in the formation of life, for the simple reason that were his supposed influence has not been refuted, any mention would constitute a God in the gaps argument.

Moreover, taken to the extremes of both, I think that the Abrahamic religions and scientific method are mutually exclusive and I should like to hear arguments to the contrary. In as far as a given scientist is concerned however, with a normal professional career, he is not a hypocrite if he has faith and concurs with modern scientific theories like evolution, big bang, continental drift, m-brane theory etc.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Ming
I personally don't think it deserves a place in our school system, and creationism doesn't belong either. Sunday school, yeah... if that's what you believe, but not the public school system.

However, I would rather have people believe in ID than creationism. If people wish to believe that some supreme being was behind evolution... fine. In a way, at least that acknowledges the evolution of man... Better than them believing that the earth was created out of nothing in 6 days with god resting on the 7th

Why would you want that? I am all in favor of saying: Believe what enriches your life. If somebody feels better believing in creationism, well okay... BUT our school system should be fed by science and nothing else and I find it overly arrogant and I am also insulted that these people with their believes try to enter our scientific world, where we have certain principles which ID doesn't fullfill... I am not saying science is a perfect thing, but in theory it is and it doesn't mess with other people's believes, which is a good thing (unless religion which is evil, since it tells you what to believe and what not). Science just says what we can observe, what we can reproduce and measure.
Science is always open to new developments and if ID turns out to have significant potential, it WILL BE researched. Otherwise it will remain a believe.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No, intelligent design has taken an a priori conclusion (God created the universe) and essentially seeks to cherrypick evidence (if you can call it that) to support it. Proper science sees a phenomenon and attempts to explain it a posteriori, using the familiar notions of falsifiability, Occams Razor and sufficient reason.

I said that ID fails. And you have listed the reasons why it fails.

I don't see your issue with my post?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

you can believe ID and still be scientific, you can probably beleive ID and still be an evolutionist

however, the point still stands (which I said, and others have agreed) that ID fails as science

which means it shouldn't be taught in a science class

science, and beleifs are entirely seperate from eachother, unless your beliefs enter the realm of science (that area of the natural world which can be investigated using technology and explained using mathematics)

Jon Miller