Why must intelligent design be stopped

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is neither traditional nor commonly used.

However, your blindness to the fact that most people treat their belief in science little different than their faith in God is troubling, because that is a far greater threat to science (if they are being fundies about it) than any minority held Christian opinion about putting a line of text in a book will ever be.

It is extremely common and I've seen it used multiple times. Next, you have no clue about my personal beliefs so please don't pretend you do. Lastly, the creationist view hardly seems to be a minority view (51% remember) so stop trying to pretend you are some poor persecuted minority.

You see the claim that science and the scientific method are nothing but a religion made all the time by creationists. They then attempt to claim that since science is a religion it can't be any better then their religion. The problem is this argument is based on a series of logical fallacies.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

No, I'm pretty sure most scientists couldn't care less what people believe. What they care about is the imposition of those beliefs in a place where they categorically do not belong. I cannot understand why this is so difficult to accept. If you will note, the whole issue is one sided - the IDers are trying to shove their non-scientific blather into a science environment. I don't see the scientists trying to impose their scientific theories in churches - do you?

The entire situation summed up in one paragraph.

[Patroklos]

pretty sure most scientists couldn't care less what people believe.

Who said anything about scientists? I said scientifically faithful. Those who constantly bash those who are religious when they basically take almost all science on faith because they know jack **** about it. In this case, it is fine to belive in science, but if you are not actually a scientist in the field you are absolutely no different than a religious nut trying to foist their beliefs on you through textbooks when you spend every ID thread bashing ALL ID believers for no good reason.

and most IDer (and most Americans it seems) disagree with you.

Are you sure about this? I'd check if I were you.

I don't see how you can call a scientist who wants this stuff out of science classes, something with which you agree, stupid for asking this...

Most of my activity in this thread was when we were talking about ID period, which is constantly attacked by itself here and in the world a large, not textbooks.

[Dinner]

So to trust the scientific method and peer review is the exact same as believing the world was made in 7 days, that women came from man's rib, and that snakes talk. :confused?

I don't think that's true at all.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Who said anything about scientists? I said scientifically faithful. Those who constantly bash those who are religious when they basically take almost all science on faith because they know jack **** about it. In this case, it is fine to belive in science, but if you are not actually a scientist in the field you are absolutely no different than a religious nut trying to foist their beliefs on you through textbooks when you spend every ID thread bashing ALL ID believers for no good reason.

Incorrect.

I am the first to admit I am no scientist; I know very little about evolutionary theory. I haven't read much Gould, and only a bit of the Origin of Species. It can be said that I have faith in the theory; that's fair. However, it certainly does not take a scientist to realize that evolution is scientific, while ID is not. I have been told by biology teachers, whom I respect, that evolution is the best explanation there is for why life exists as it does; to quote one, "without evolution, modern biology doesn't make sense." Even if I don't know the ins and outs of the theory, I can understand that it is science.

ID, on the other hand, while it is an explanation, is not a scientific explanation. Even the scientists that do support it are not claiming it is scientific; they can't. There are certain criteria for something being a scientific theory that are not met by the explanation "I disagree with the tenants of evolution, ergo an intelligent being designed life." This, while certainly a hypothesis - the first stage of the scientific method - is certainly not a theory. Once the scientific method is rigorously applied, and corroborating evidence is found, I think you will find that scientists will entertain it as a scientific possibility - but I find that highly unlikely. The only "evidence" that I am aware of, and indeed that biology teachers I have talked to are aware of, are the assertions that evolution has problems that cannot currently be explained.

This is not a big deal. All scientific theories are being continually appraised, modified, challenged, and altered. No theory claims to be the be-all and end-all of our knowledge on any subject. However, merely pointing out that there are evident flaws or problems with the theory does not make the theory useless in totality; there were problems with Newton's theories that were only solved by relativity theory, but that didn't make Newton useless.

Thus, while the arguments against evolution (not all of them, as many are specious or ignorant) may be valid points and problems for scientists to solve, they do not in themselves provide evidence for a specific alternative - in this case, ID - being correct. Once that evidence starts coming in, and my biology teachers tell me about it, I will take in on faith that ID is a legitimately possible explanation for life on this earth.

Until then, I must insist that what is not science, does not belong in science class.

[Patroklos]

If your understanding of Scientific Method is just that some guy in a lab coat told you it was good back in high school, yes. It is in fact the EXACT same thing. Which is most people understanding of it around the world.

The mechanism for believing and having faith do not change depending on what you apply them too.

99% of what makes radar work you have no clue about. You were given a cursory description and you bought the story, so you believe in it. Proboblyt most because you have faith in the fact that science was used to produce it and you see the result, so you have faith in fact there isn't a spirt in the dish asking God what object that is 200 miles away.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

The name of the book is probably important, because chances are it has been refuted.

Yes, the name of the book is important.

The name of the book is: "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"
Written By Dr. Michael Denton. He has PhD in Molecular Biology. In addition he is also a medical doctor and is best known for his work in biological research.

[Cyclotron]

99% of what makes radar work you have no clue about. You were given a cursory description and you bought the story, so you believe in it. Proboblyt most because you have faith in the fact that science was used to produce it and you see the result, so you have faith in fact there isn't a spirt in the dish asking God what object that is 200 miles away.

One can pick up any book on the history of invention or science and have it quite easily explained how generations of scientific work and occasionally accident led to the discovery of radar and the scientific principles that it is based on. This is a far cry from the "god in the gaps" explanation of radar, which requires no method or work at all, scientific or otherwise - one must simply state, "god made the radar screen work."

[Patroklos]

However, it certainly does not take a scientist to realize that evolution is scientific, while ID is not.

I think I have been very clear that I do not think ID and science are the same, and both sides are artificially making them collide.

I do think, however, that the complement each other nicely and as if handled right allow both sides to proceed forward hand in hand.

[Patroklos]

One can pick up any book on the history of invention or science and have it quite easily explained how generations of scientific work and occasionally accident led to the discovery of radar and the scientific principles that it is based on. This is a far cry from the "god in the gaps" explanation of radar, which requires no method or work at all, scientific or otherwise - one must simply state, "god made the radar screen work."

It is a simpe example, but untill you pick up you book it functions the same way as faith in anything.

[Patroklos]

This is a far cry from the "god in the gaps" explanation of radar, which requires no method or work at all, scientific or otherwise - one must simply state, "god made the radar screen work."

Is that honeslty how you think ID or the "God in the Gaps" idea works? Please say you are better than that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I think I have been very clear that I do not think ID and science are the same, and both sides are artificially making them collide.

I do think, however, that the complement each other nicely and as if handled right allow both sides to proceed forward hand in hand.

Certainly, it is possible to have a worldview in which both evolution and ID complement each other. I'm not disputing that. The problem is that a science class is a specific venue meant to teach science, and not overarching explanations of "why we're here." I will leave the construction of worldviews to the philosophy and religion classes, where they belong.

It is a simpe example, but untill you pick up you book it funtions the same way as faith in anything.

If I were a caveman, and somebody from the future showed me a radar screen, and said "it works because [insert scientific explanation here]," and I believed it, you would be correct - that would be no different than believing that Thor made radar with his mighty hammer. However, modern people - assuming we are provided a decent education - have a basic understanding of what science is and what processes must be undertaken before something is considered scientific. Knowing that something is a scientific theory automatically tells me that a certain process of discovery, experimentation, and hypothesis has gone into the acceptance of that theory, even without picking up a book on the subject.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Is that honeslty how you think ID or the "God in the Gaps" idea works? Please say you are better than that.

My understanding was that the "God in the Gaps" argument was that, if we cannot adequately explain a pheonomon or segments thereof, we assume that God must be responsible. If I have been using it incorrectly, I apologize.

[Patroklos]

problem is that a science class is a specific venue meant to teach science, and not overarching explanations of "why we're here.

As I said ealier, I am not discussing science classes. My participation in this thead was inspired by gerneal attacks on ID by intself.

have a basic understanding of what science is and what processes must be undertaken before something is considered scientific. Knowing that something is a scientific theory automatically tells me that a certain process of discovery, experimentation, and hypothesis has gone into the acceptance of that theory, even without picking up a book on the subject.

Excellent, so now you have blind faith.

No matter what, you were told something you do not know by someone else and believe it. And you believe it becasue you have faith in the scientific method. I am not saying you have faith in radar, but in science (and its heart, the method),

[Patroklos]

My understanding was that the "God in the Gaps" argument was that, if we cannot adequately explain a pheonomon or segments thereof, we assume that God must be responsible. If I have been using it incorrectly, I apologize.

Well of course since it is not "science," it is open to interpretation . However, as a general rule God is respondisble for not just the gaps, but for what we know as well. Science in this regard is simply understanding the world he made. Its like cracking a code. And it is not to assume that God is in that gap, so its okay to leave it there forever. Feel free to fill in all the gaps you want, but be definition there will always be gaps.