Why must intelligent design be stopped

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
So you have read the book that I cited earlier by the gentleman who is an MD, has a PhD in Molecular biology and is well known for his papers in biololigal research. And on top of that you have read all the other scientists that he cites in his book who point out flaws and are not convinced of teh "purity" of the theory..

You prefer "there are no shortcomings" be taught. I suppose anyone who disagrees should meet your wrath.

That attitude reminds me more of the "Spanish Inquisition" than science.

So you decide to believe one group of academics as opposed to the bigger group of academics. Fine, whatever. But have you any reaons for teaching non-science in science class, which is what any mention of "divinity" would be since there is 0 empirical evidence for any sort of divinity?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
So you have read the book that I cited earlier by the gentleman who is an MD, has a PhD in Molecular biology and is well known for his papers in biololigal research. And on top of that you have read all the other scientists that he cites in his book who point out flaws and are not convinced of teh "purity" of the theory..

You prefer "there are no shortcomings" be taught. I suppose anyone who disagrees should meet your wrath.

That attitude reminds me more of the "Spanish Inquisition" than science.

Behe is an idiot who uses "god-in-the-gaps: arguments. He thinks not knowing how how a certain structure evolved because of lack of data meanis it couldn't of evolved.

[Deity Dude]

As I pointed out earlier, history is full of "Scientific Fact and Theories" being proven to be either partially or totally wrong.

The people that initially lead the contrary point of view are by definition either an individual or a small minority.

So, I ask again, do you feel that it is OK in a Science classroom, to have the opinions of well recognized and degreed scientists who are in a minority heard and debated.

If not, I think your approach is closer to those that you claim to abhor than to the open scientific approach you claim to love.

Again, for the thread skippers, I don't believe in Creationism or ID. I don't think they should be taught as Science because they have no evidence. But, I doubt anyone here has a PhD in Molecular Biology AND is an MD AND is well repected for his other research in the field of biology. So if a person like this comes along, pokes holes in evolution and DOESN'T offer an alternative theory (ID, aliens, God) that has no evidence, I think his research and opinions are acceptable material for a Science Classroom. And, I respect his opinion, whether or not I agree with it, more than the less qualified people here, who arrogantly spout that "EVOLUTION IS TOTALLY CORRECT AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS AN IDIOT"

I guess I am a little more open minded than that. And a better student of history.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

But, I doubt anyone here has a PhD in Molecular Biology AND is an MD AND is well repected for his other research in the field of biology. So if a person like this comes along, pokes holes in evolution and DOESN'T offer an alternative theory (ID, aliens, God) that has no evidence, I think his research and opinions are acceptable material for a Science Classroom. And, I respect his opinion, whether or not I agree with it, more than the less qualified people here, who arrogantly spout that "EVOLUTION IS TOTALLY CORRECT AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS AN IDIOT"

According to that logic, Fred Hoyle's crackpot ideads of viruses coming from space must be taught in the science classroom because he was such a great astrophysicist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
As I pointed out earlier, history is full of "Scientific Fact and Theories" being proven to be either partially or totally wrong.

The people that initially lead the contrary point of view are by definition either an individual or a small minority.

So, I ask again, do you feel that it is OK in a Science classroom, to have the opinions of well recognized and degreed scientists who are in a minority heard and debated.

If not, I think your approach is closer to those that you claim to abhor than to the open scientific approach you claim to love.

Again, for the thread skippers, I don't believe in Creationism or ID. I don't think they should be taught as Science because they have no evidence. But, I doubt anyone here has a PhD in Molecular Biology AND is an MD AND is well repected for his other research in the field of biology. So if a person like this comes along, pokes holes in evolution and DOESN'T offer an alternative theory (ID, aliens, God) that has no evidence, I think his research and opinions are acceptable material for a Science Classroom. And, I respect his opinionwhether or not I agree with it, more than the less qualified people here, who arrogantly spout that "EVOLUTION IS TOTALLY CORRECT AND ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS AN IDIOT"

I guess I am a little more open minded than that.

This is a discussion on the basis of high school science classes. Yes, given the nature of the scientific enterprise, accepted theories on any subject can be discredited. There are no sacred cows.

BUT a theory, specially a large multifaceted theory that has tons of evidence for it can onyl be disproven by tons of evidence against it. No such situation exists when it comes to Evolution. Certainly, some (a minority) question whether there is sufficent evidence for some of the claims of the theory to be substantiated. BUt skepticism is not the same as evidence against. And a theory can only be replaced by another- that minority has yet to create an alternative theory that would explain those question using evidence.

The question becomes whether the staments of one individual matter- and in a science classroom in High School the answer is simply, NO. Science classes in high school, due to the knowledge level of the stundets and the time involved, can only give people an overview of the topics. Much indepth analysis is not possible if only because students are not capable of handling it. So, in such a setting, teaching them what is the accepted standard of the time is exactly what should be done. Debates within the community can be brought forth, but only if the debate is significant, ie. there is a real conflict between opposing theories afoot. Small local debates are not something to teach because stundents will simply serve no prupose other than the confuse students, simply because the second you start teaching that "arguement" you give it validity, but the point remains that if 5% of respectible academic disagree, that means 95% agree, and there is simply no equivalence at that point. If the 5% are correct, in time they will be able to marshall evidence and they themselves, as has happened in the apst, will become the 95%, and by then HIgh school courses will reflect this change.

Your position then is not "open minded" because it ignores the basis and point of the class, which is to impart a basic understanding of the scientific consensus of the time. If the students were taught well, they will understand that there is still experimentation and obsevration and reasearch afoot, and that what they learned might not be the be all end all, and if they are interested, they can get more involved. It is critical to make sure students leave science classes understanding what the basis of scientific knowledge is. It is not the point to teach them "every side" since at least in science, all sides are not equal. Claims need to be substantiated.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Odin



Behe is an idiot who uses "god-in-the-gaps: arguments. He thinks not knowing how how a certain structure evolved because of lack of data meanis it couldn't of evolved.

LOL. (Deity Dude keeps losing respect for the supposed enlightened ones who don't even read the post)

1) Behe was not the author of the book I cited

2) The author never proposed God or ID as an alternative theory. He merely pointed out problems with the current theory that were currently un explainable by the theory.

3) As I predicted earlier, you obviously havn't read the book as your post shows.

4) Not that it matters, but I happen to believe evolution, in general, is probably correct. I just don't have a problem listening to an opposing point of view.

.

[Deity Dude]

Reply to Gepop without posting his whole quote:

I totally disagree. I guess at this we can agree to disagree.

I have no problem telling a class that (A) is the generally accepted principle or theory but a group of qualified scientists believe that there are problems with (A) and these are the problems.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that because some qualified scientists feel there are problems with (A) that GOD is the answer.

I would not spend an inordinate amount of time on the opposing point of view. Not being a teacher and just guessing, if I were teaching a semester long class on evolution, I would probably have a 1 day lecture on the "problems some scientists have with it". And probably follow that up with a 1 day discussion.

Probably slightly less than 5% of the total class time spent on the subject.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Do you not understand that ID actually gets Christians and other religious types to ACCEPT EVOLUTION!!!

This is news to me.

Otherwise ID'ers wouldn't be pushing an "alternative to evolution" into high school classrooms in Kansas and elsewhere in the US.

Michael Behe has also flatly stated that certain "irreducible complexities" could not have been evolved.

That doesn't sound like evolution at all.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Reply to Gepop without posting his whole quote:

I totally disagree. I guess at this we can agree to disagree.

I have no problem telling a class that (A) is the generally accepted principle or theory but a group of qualified scientists believe that there are problems with (A) and these are the problems.

We certainly will, because there is no basis for the assumption of equality, especially if the people claiming problems have no alternative hypothesis.

It is incorrect to act as if the two sides were of equal importance, which is the impression you would give. They aren't. You keep saying you read 1 book by 1 respected scientist. You know what? WHO CARES? There are thousands of respected scientists. Science class is not there to give them all a say.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that because some qualified scientists feel there are problems with (A) that GOD is the answer.

I would not spend an inordinate amount of time on the opposing point of view. Not being a teacher and just guessing, if I were teaching a semester long class on evolution, I would probably have a 1 day lecture on the "problems some scientists have with it". And probably follow that up with a 1 day discussion.

Probably slightly less than 5% of the total class time spent on the subject.

The problem with that idea is giving the impression that there is something special to this opposition. IF you were ginving a whole semester class just on evolution (highly unlikely in any high school, as most biology would be spent on anotomy, biochemistry and so forth) then the time to bring up any debate would be as you discussed each particular piece of the theory. That way students can understand the debate in context. So if there is a disagreement about speciation in the macro level but not in the micro level, then the time and place were it would make sense to bring it up would be when discussing macro-level speciation, not as some sort of "disclaimer" class.

[Deity Dude]

I never called it a disclaimer, I called it a minority point of view.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
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.

A quick search reveals a large number of reviews for Denton's book, most of them quite critical. Here are some:

Michael Denton - Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

A Critique of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1995) (also in Talk Origins)

This is also an interesting note:

In Nature's Destiny Denton refers to Kaufmann(1) and deDuve(2), to show that, given the right initial conditions, the origin of life and evolution is inevitable.

Can we find crucial evidence in his book which converted him to evolution ? The key passage, I think, occurs in the paragraph "The Closeness of All Life in DNA Sequence Space" of CH 12 (p276). It must have been the key insight for Denton.
It reads:

"One of the most surprising discoveries which has arisen from DNA sequencing has been the remarkable finding that the genomes of all organisms are clustered very close together in a tiny region of DNA sequence space forming a tree of related sequences that can all be interconverted via a series of tiny incremental natural steps."

"So the sharp discontinuities, referred to above, between different organs and adaptations and different types of organisms, which have been the bedrock of antievolutionary arguments for the past century (3), have now greatly diminished at the DNA level. Organisms which seem very different at a morphological level can be very close together at the DNA level."

link

[emphais added]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Patroklos
My participation in this thead was inspired by gerneal attacks on ID by intself.

Rightly so. "Intelligent Design" is just thinly veiled Creationism that should be made to shown its true colour.

Originally posted by Patroklos
Excellent, so now you have blind faith.

Not true. You can scrutinise any areas in science.

Originally posted by Patroklos
No matter what, you were told something you do not know by someone else and believe it.

Initially. You can come back and look at it later. You are not required to accept anything on "faith" in science.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If we are all determined by natural selection, then what choices do people have? How can they exercise free will?

This is a loaded question. You are already assuming there is freewill.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Even before I had read one, I knew that there was something out there, I just couldn't be sure what it was. Call it whatever you want, it couldn't be expressed in a physical manner.

I have also read the bible a few times, but I didn't sense anything "out there."

It must be my temporal lobes not sensitive enough.

[Patroklos]

What an ignorant statement. Anyone who has even a basic understanding of how waves reflect off surfaces or who has watched waves bounce off of and reflect from the wall of a swimming pool has more basis of fact on how radar works then any creationist does on how species developed.

Unless of course they are an IDer who accepts the evolution theory in its entirety, like myself. This is where you fall from being a person who believes in science trying to preserve its purity, and being nothing more than a fundie with an ax to grind. There are two IDers in this thread, Ben and myself. You continue to crusade against me when I already stated I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, ID IS NOT SCIENCE, AND ID SHOULD NOT BE IS SCIENCE CLASS!!!!

You pick fights where none exist, and you claim your not a zealot?

So light and kenetic energy transfering through a liquid are the same as RF energy moving through different density mediums and vacuum are the same? Do you even know what ducting is? Thanks for the proof that the average person understands little about the science behind the things they use/rely on from day to day, and that they use their faith in science to reconcile what they do not understand (in your case, radar).

You Oerdin, have a basic (very basic) understanding of radar that lets you accept the premise, and simply believe nuances work because of your faith in science.

It is so sad you could not glean this from the almost 3 pages of this thread where it was discussed at nauseum, rationally.

Otherwise ID'ers wouldn't be pushing an "alternative to evolution" into high school classrooms in Kansas and elsewhere in the US.

Since when did these people include even the majority of IDers, let alone most religious people. If you want to crusade against some fundies be my guest,when you intentionally include millions of people who are keeping the various worlds properly seperated you come of as a fundie, and daft as hell.

But my basic stated fact is true. It matters not what force you think is behind evolution, and science really shouldn't care, and unperverted doesn't. Fact is the religious people are not attacking either mechanics or thte premise of the theory itself if they are IDers.

ID and evolution are simply not at odds.

[Patroklos]

Initially. You can come back and look at it later. You are not required to accept anything on "faith" in science.

Unless you achieve omniscience, you have no choice. Most people are experts in one field, intimate in a few others, and totally ignorant in an infinity of others. What they don't completely understand but accept, they do so on faith.