Why must intelligent design be stopped

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos



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.

What world are you living in? of course they are. The whole ID'ers argument is that certain structures are so complex they could not evolve. How can one say "an eyeball could never evolve" and not be at odds with the simple statement that eyeballs DID evolve!?!?!?!?!?

I mean, COME ON!

[Kuciwalker]

Oh the irreducible complexity argument was actually disproven completely. On purely philosophical grounds. By... computer scientists

/me looks for the thread

[Kuciwalker]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128359

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


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.

There is a difference between faith in empiricism and faith in any particular scientific notion. This is what you fail to understand.

You can call it faith for an individual to believe that the only solid and dependeble method of gaining knowledge about the physical world lie through experimentation and observation by yourself or others.

BUt it is incorrect to call belief in the fruits of such a system faithbased, because the individual understands the basis for the claims, and is willing to surrender them if empircal observation and experimentation refute it.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Patroklos

ID and evolution are simply not at odds.

ID is an invention of creationists purposely designed (pun intended) to get around that supreme court decision that kept creationism out of the science classroom.

[Patroklos]

What world are you living in? of course they are. The whole ID'ers argument is that certain structures are so complex they could not evolve. How can one say "an eyeball could never evolve" and not be at odds with the simple statement that eyeballs DID evolve!?!?!?!?!?

I mean, COME ON!

Where in ID does it say that. All ID says is that the system of evolution, of all science if logically extended, is by the design of God. Doesn't even say he is guiding the thing by hand, just tha the DESIGN is his. I always think of it as a computer program running while God is popping popcorn.

The problem here is you are foisting your own narrowed interrpretation of ID on all IDers. ID is not a complex idea at its heart.

ID is an invention of creationists purposely designed (pun intended) to get around that supreme court decision that kept creationism out of the science classroom.

The concept of ID has been around as long as Christan scientists had to reconcile their profession and their religion. I can't help it if a few zealots gave it a name that everyone ran with. Hell, this has been the way I have viewed science and God since at least the mid eighties.

Didn't keep me from aceing every biology course I ever took, believing in evolution, and OH MY GOD, having faith in the scientific method!!!

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well like I said, I am not a teacher, and as I openly stated earlier I don't know the best way to present all appropriate material to a classroom. (Send me your teaching certificate and I may defer to your approach) I do believe, however, that it is appropriate material and should be presented with appropriate weight and in appropriate context.

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.

OK, back to my classroom. 90%-95% of ym final exam would be based on an understanding of the generally accepted theory and principles. 5%-10% would be on what other accredited scientists in the field feel are problems with the theory. (No discussion about theories which have no evedence, i.e. GOD, ID, ALIENS, GOOD LUCK etc.)

If some sort of independent research assignment were required, I would allow a paper on just about anything related to evolution as long as it had some sort of scientific basis. That would include a paper that pointed out all the "problems" with the theory. If a student has been given a solid background and wants to go in that direction, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as he understands the other 90-95% of the material. That really would be no different than someone choosing to do a paper on the evolution of birds (one of many minor topics covered during the class that a student chose to research)

My personal take on it is, that right now, evolution is the best theory available to explain what it attempts to explain. It is however, not an overwhelmingly convincing theory, especially when compared to other generally accepted theories/facts in science.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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:



link

[emphais added]

Very interesting and typical.

You havn't read the book, nor will you.

So you did a quick web search.

Then you chose the reviews that support your predeterminied opinion. (I notice you even admitted MOST were critical. We all know the scientific majority has never been wrong)

Then you took selected quotes from someone elses review of a book you never read and changed the emphasis.

Is that an open examination of an opposing point of view or a quick attempt to silence it.

[Deity Dude]

It is amazing, while it isn't 100% analagous it is pretty damn close.

Im gonna call it - Evolution Fundamentalism

Me I'm just a believer. (In evolution that is )

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Patroklos


All ID says is that the system of evolution, of all science if logically extended, is by the design of God.

That's an opinion taken by a surprising number of my colleagues including many who are not 'religious'. OTOH, the ID case in PA is not about white-coated experts seeing 'god' in the complexity of life, it is about pushing religion back into the science classroom.

[Patroklos]

OTOH, the ID case in PA

That is hardly a reason to attack the conceot if ID itself.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Patroklos


That is hardly a reason to attack the conceot if ID itself.

I dont attack the concept of ID as theology. It's not science, though, and should not be taught as 'science' unless someone provides experimental data that supports the intervention of the 'intelligent designers' in evolution. Without that evidence, 'god' is no more a valid mechanism of ID than martians or pixies. The question I'd like to ask the people involved in the PA case is whether we should teach our children that martians or magic pixies created life on earth. I very much doubt that they would agree to that. If they refuse to include martians etc, then what they mean by 'intelligent design' is that god created life on earth. There is no scientific evidence to support that claim and that belief is not science.

Its one thing to believe that god exists and therefore god guided the origins of life and another to believe that god exists and therefore evolution is a fallacy.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=128359

I missed that article. Very interesting. Thank you for reposting that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

That is hardly a reason to attack the conceot if ID itself.

But Kici's article is. 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.

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

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Where in ID does it say that. All ID says is that the system of evolution, of all science if logically extended, is by the design of God. Doesn't even say he is guiding the thing by hand, just tha the DESIGN is his. I always think of it as a computer program running while God is popping popcorn.

The problem here is you are foisting your own narrowed interrpretation of ID on all IDers. ID is not a complex idea at its heart.

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