Why must intelligent design be stopped

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That I got in university, in a history of science, that also taught the critiques his contemporaries levelled at the theory. Particularly for the materialist and reductionist consequences.

As I said, your ****ty schools.

Secondly, regarding Darwin's observation, he went to Galapagos, and saw differences between different birds of the same species, in their adaptation to their natural habitat on the islands. That's all.

That's not true on many levels. He observed far more than just bird species in his travels. Further evidence that when it comes to Darwin, you talk out of your ass. I've had to correct you on so many false claims you've made about him and his writings, I'm astounded you still come up with wrong things to say. I suspect you've never even read Origin of the Species or the Descent of Man.

From that we get the whole theory that man came from apes, and further down the line, that we grew from organic molecules in a soup. Yet none of this has been directly observed.

That we come from apes is easily observed in molecular, genetic and physiological evidence. Demanding that such evolution be observed in the act is a ludicrous goal post that's established just so folks like you can deny the facts. Evolution has been observed on many levels, and the evidence for it abounds to such an extent that 99+% of biologists know it's true without question.

And that you would claim the theory of abiogenesis (which, I have to point out once again, is independent of evolution) relies on a "soup" shows you're again totally out of touch with the theories. The soup theory was known to be inaccurate long ago.

[Kuciwalker]

And that you would claim the theory of abiogenesis (which, I have to point out once again, is independent of evolution) relies on a "soup" shows you're again totally out of touch with the theories. The soup theory was known to be inaccurate long ago.

Sort of.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Has anyone yet observed evolution?

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

The answer is "yes," and it's a painfully easy-to-obtain answer.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Maybe it would be easier to change peoples minds if one didnt start by considering them idiots. I really doubt that most people who agree with evolution have actually read Darwin, Gould, etc.much less studied biology in depth. Its a cultural thing, as it is for the fundies. If theyre right, its cause they lucked out and happened to be raised in the culture that is right on this. They can and should argue for their viewpoint, but not by calling their adversaries idiots.

You're guilty of the same thing you chide the author of the "Idiot America" article for, although you don't specifically use the word "idiot".

In my experience, most people who have spoken for evolution have at least had basic biology and understand the mechanics of it, and most have thorough knowledge of the creation story as well.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

And that you would claim the theory of abiogenesis (which, I have to point out once again, is independent of evolution) relies on a "soup" shows you're again totally out of touch with the theories. The soup theory was known to be inaccurate long ago.

Sort of.

To clarify, "soup" as in the soup model traditionally thrown out by creationists as a strawman, which is quite old.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


As I said, your ****ty schools.

That's not true on many levels. He observed far more than just bird species in his travels. Further evidence that when it comes to Darwin, you talk out of your ass. I've had to correct you on so many false claims you've made about him and his writings, I'm astounded you still come up with wrong things to say. I suspect you've never even read Origin of the Species or the Descent of Man.

Ben should read The voyage of the Beagle, the book that first put Darwin on the intellectual map. He was one of the most f*cking brilliant naturalists of all time, he was even a excellent geologist (he was the first to realize that coral atolls were formed by sinking volcanic islands, for example).

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Odin
Science is not all about reductionism. There is this little thing called emergence, things are not allways just the sum of thier parts.. As I said earlier, Darwinian evolution is an emergent feature of a self-replicating system with heredity.

there are a fair number of physicists who only believe in reductionism

of course, there are others that argue for emergence

just wanted to point out that that was an argument

Jon Miller
(of course, most other fields are all in favor of emergence as science)

[GePap]

Why am I not surprised by Patrokolos being an ID'er?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then it does act contrary to entropy, in that entropy depends upon a closed system.

Hello! The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.

Boiling water on a stove also violates the Second Law by your definition.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's not the trouble. How do you get from molecules to complex organisms? That's the real problem in biochemistry, and it can't be explained away by appealing to the power of sunlight.

1. How do you know it can't be?
2. You are talking about abiogensis here, not evolution.

[Kuciwalker]

Hello! The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.

Boiling water on a stove also violates the Second Law by your definition.

Why are you seriously arguing with that statement rather than just staring blankly at its mind-boggling WTFness?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Darwin's theory has nothing to do with the modern theory besides the original observation.

Nope.

Darwin suggested that evolution comes from natural selection acting on differences between various individuals of a species. That still holds true. Mutations + natural selection = evolution.

That's not how evolution is formally defined today, of course.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Hello! The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.

Boiling water on a stove also violates the Second Law by your definition.

Why are you seriously arguing with that statement rather than just staring blankly at its mind-boggling WTFness?

Oh, I wasn't arguing with that statement. I was just pointing out its glaring error for the audience.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava
supposedly, there is a good article about this subject in the November 2005 edition of Esquire, called Greetings From Idiot America by Charlie Pierce

I think it comes out 11/01/05, I will post it if I can find a copy of it.

http://www.fraughtwithperil.com/blogs/ryuei/archives/000690.html

The best bit these nutters came up with was that people used to ride dinosaurs like cowboys ride horses.

They claim the bible is the literal truth and there are no errors or contradictions in it, claim it is the literal truth that Noah built an ship to carry all the animals of the Earth... Then say the dinosaurs died in Noah's great flood.

If he, as the bible says, all the animals were saved then why weren't the dinosaurs (not to mention innumerable other extinct species) not saved? Are they not animals?

[Dinner]

The traditional method the creationists use to discredit all the evidence that they are wrong is to claim the scientific method is some sort of religion which people accept purely on faith. Since, they claim, science is nothing but pure faith it cannot be better then their own religious faith.

That of course just shows they have no understanding of what the scientific method is and what it can and cannot do.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why does it have to be taught in high school, when it benefits the folks who go to university?

Most people agree that the purpose of education is to teach people how to think for themselves and to become familiar with basic sets of knowledge. Society is most certainly served when everyone has a basic understanding of scientific principles along with history, mathmatics, and the other subjects taught in public schools. It's part of creating a well rounded populous who is capable of critical thought.

Of course many of these fundimentalists absolutely do not want a population with critical thinking skills thus their opposition to just about all forms of scientific thinking.