Why is being a victim so comfortable?

[Chato]

There have been proposals in over 40 States in the Union to teach ID in schools.

Everyone of them was motivated by Chrisitians to teach Christianity. They even admit it.

There are no problems with evolutionary theory. None.

But since we were not there to watch so to speak there are gaps in our understanding of the mechanics. Big gaps, some of which, by the very nature of the problem will never be completely resolved.

For example, there is no way that a functional cell could simply pop into existance. A simple cell is far to complex to randomly be created.

Science, contrary to The Great IDer's makes no such claim.

But amino acids, simple proteins have spontaniously been created in labratory conditions.

These experiments can be replicated by anyone who baths the chemicals that existed on the earth four billion years ago with the equivalent of lighting.

Simple proteins (prions) have mutated to the point where it's unclear whether they are alive or not alive. Those simple proteins cause diseases such as Mad Cow disease etc.

This is the problem... I have even provided you with lots of links

(snip)

There is no such thing as a non-religous believer in the Great ID. By definition it's a religious belief. Speculating on the existance of super powerful aliens simply pushes the question back to how THEY evolved or were created.

I barely attend church... I support legal Gay marriage..

(snip)

You are advocating a position whose ONLY practical attempts at implementation were made by Christian Fundamentalists. You cannot find in any of the attempts to implement this a non-fundmentalist Christian agenda.

Natural Selection is a proven system that occurs..
I have no doubt that people and other primates share a common

(snip)

I know you are fully on-board with them...

I mean that, even though you just made a typo. But in fact you are supporting THEIR agenda.

Radical Evolution is based on the assumption that it could occur
all the way back to simple amino acids.. One to the things ID is
doing is a very good analysis of the combined requirements for
life.. that include sun type, planet size and type including the
need for a rotating molten Iron core to create the magnetic shield
from solar particles... etc.

(snip)

Personally I would be shocked if life in the universe is a rare commodity. Moreover, human arrogance about intelligence as some sort of monopoly has been rapidly crumbling.

Answer one is, we may be alone in the universe when you start to do
the math.. (I find that sad)

While off the thread, I find it ludicrous, but then I'm not a scientist, and I know of no scientific consensus on this. If anything the majority takes the opposite opinion, although it's just opinion, not science, so cheer up.

Answer B is there was some intervention...that got the process
started here.
Answer C: Is there is a process not yet found that levels the odds,

(snip)

What questions? I believe I've shown that these are false questions, or an attempt to move the goal posts to "aliens."

Interestingly enough if you look as some of the newer theoretical
physics being done or maybe better called cosmology..

(snip)

The above is strictly opinion. Nothing scientific about it at all.

There are known issue with the extension of natural selection all
the way back to the spontaneous creation of complex
self-replicating molecules that would be the beginnings of crude
DNA...

Prions don't have DNA, yet they meet the criteria for life.

If we ignore them we will never learn the answers... I don't want
the schools teaching "There may be a way to prove God" because
right now we can't. but there is an anti-religious reactionary
aspect to teaching evolution that ignores teaching the problems...
and in doing so.. may be preventing that ah ha moment that creates
a question that drives a career that answers the question...

There is no way to teach Intelligent Design without bringing God into the question. This aside from the FACT that all attempts to introduce intelligent design were attempts by Chrisitan Fundamentlaists. Such being the case, as I've stated FOUR TIMES without a response, if you open that can of worms all sorts of things will pop out to haunt you.

There is no anti-religious motif in teaching evolution, or thermo-dynamics or the laws of gravity - All off which will be next on the hit list once we start debating whether the earth is flat or round.

This "Circle the wagons the Christians are coming" attitude about
evolution is not good. Sure some have adopted ID as a wedge to get
religion into science classes. But if you actually take the time

(snip)

Oh please, aren't you getting tired of recycling the same stuff, when we BOTH know that only Christian Fundamentalists are the ones actually trying to implement this.

It is not creationism...
It is not a Christian theory..

(snip)

ID has nothing to do with Christian Doctrine.

(snip)

intervened enough to make evolution work as it has.

ID services education in that it is the only movement that is
asking questions about a politically charges piece of science.

There is no politically charged piece of science, only in your dreams of aliens and non-existant "gaps" in science.

But people like you.. who shout "Christian Agenda" like they used
to shout "Witch" to shut down discussion are censoring inquiry and
learning.

Why because I don't want religion (which religion) taught in schools. Or is it because I don't want atheism taught in schools?

Just asked the questions and talk about the problems and gaps in
evolution as taught now and let the students grow up and look for
the answers.. that is my agenda.. sorry if it scares you so much

Since the Christian movement has an ACKNOWLEGED goal of turning my country into a Theocracy, and THEY state this is one of the first primary steps, you're damn right I'm afraid.

Dave

 

[dipics]

While I will talk about these comparisons of science and religion.
I'm not sure how valid the comparison is. What ticked me off is Ken
saying that my opposing teaching the Great ID in school is some
sort of censorship.

We teach Science in schools. We don't teach atheism in schools. Ken
is so anxious to both push his Chrisitan agenda and DENY pushing a
Christian agenda than he has no idea what he is proposing.

This is the problem... I have even provided you with lots of links
related to the non- religious parts of ID.. Because it has indeed
been co-opted by organizations with a religious agenda.

There IS NO non-religious part of ID. The entire concept is based on belief in a higher being with no evidence to support it. That IS religious belief.

I barely attend church... I support legal Gay marriage.. I am
hardly someone with a Christian Agenda.. but you are so reactionary
to an idea because you assume it is all about one religion that you
indeed not only censor your own learning by assuming but now seek
to censor discussion in the schools.

It's not necessarily about one religion. But is IS about religion. As I said, it assumes that there is a higher being of some sort. This is NOT the realm of science at all.

Natural Selection is a proven system that occurs..
I have no doubt that people and other primates share a common

...

Answer C: Is there is a process not yet found that levels the odds,
but since it is not PC to teach the problems.. few grow up asking
the questions.

There are two problems with that.

First, imagine the sentient puddle. It is looking at the depression it sits in and thinking "wow!, this depression fits me exactly. Someone must have designed it specifically to fit me." (no, this is not my original thinking. Douglas Adams came up with the analogy). Just because we evolved to fit our environment, this is not evidence in any way that this is the only environment that life could evolve in. Only that it is the one we did.

Second, the odds thing, that is math for non-math majors. I'll give you another anology. I have a meteorite sitting on my desk. It is one of my prized possessions. I found it in Arizona. Now, just picture the odds of this to yourself. The odds against this meteor hitting our small planet are absolutely astronomical. The odds against it coming to rest on the exact 4 or so square centimeters orders of magnitude higher. Imagine it occupying THAT SPECIFIC (about) 7 cm3 out of ANY POSSIBLE 7 cm3 in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Now, multiply that by the odds of me, out of the billions and billions of people, being the one to find it at that exact fraction of a second that I found it out of all the fractions of all the seconds in eternity. Multiply that by the odds of me moving it to the 4 or so square centimeters where it now sits instead of any other 4 centimeters that I have access to. The odds of all of that happening are MUCH higher than any that have been quoted for the life thing.

Yet, there it sits. It is a bass-ackwards way to do math. And it is the way that the ID'ers did it for this argument.

Interestingly enough if you look as some of the newer theoretical

...

aspect to teaching evolution that ignores teaching the problems...
and in doing so.. may be preventing that ah ha moment that creates
a question that drives a career that answers the question...

But, ID does NOT try to come up with answers. It's entire purpose is to AVOID answers. It is the Eric VonDaniken school of "someone else did it" science. If the answer they are seeking is "God or someone else did it", that ISN'T an answer at all. How was it done? That is what science is trying it's best to answer. ID isn't trying to answer anything at all.

This "Circle the wagons the Christians are coming" attitude about
...
creationism or just stupid answers to missing fossil links etc. you
and others have used.

I have read it. At length. It is all noise and distraction, nothing at all substantive. There is NO positive evidence at all supporting it. Perhaps you should read it again.

It is not creationism...
It is not a Christian theory.. (it would be a reach to extend it to
Judaism.. but since the New Testament has nothing to do with the
Creation story except that it carries a set of historical and
pseudo historical documents along with it in the Bible.

Why would it be a reach to extend it to Judaism? The share the same old Testament. Just curious.

ID has nothing to do with Christian Doctrine.
ID right now in its purest, unwarped form is a set of questions
that have posited one possible answer.. that something / someone
intervened enough to make evolution work as it has.

It is NOTHING but religion. It is purely the "God of the gaps" argument that has been used to support religion since minute one. Just rehashed for the unwary.

ID services education in that it is the only movement that is
asking questions about a politically charges piece of science.

No it isn't. Biologists ask questions about evolution all the time. But, unlike ID'ers, they actually try to answer them.

But people like you.. who shout "Christian Agenda" like they used
to shout "Witch" to shut down discussion are censoring inquiry and
learning.

Just asked the questions and talk about the problems and gaps in
evolution as taught now and let the students grow up and look for
the answers.. that is my agenda.. sorry if it scares you so much

As I said, the God of the Gaps. That's all it is. Very old, very tired and no answers at all.

DIPics

 

[dipics]

"Why not talk about an alternative View in school and then hash it
out... does the ID questions create enough doubt in traditional
science to start looking for a better theory... And I am not even
saying an ID based theory... Part of the problem is that discussion
is shut down..

Don't question Evolution as we have locked it down... etc... yet
there are things to question... but instead people like you prefer
no discussion takes place.... "
--------------------

That's an amazing analysis, because there is so MUCH debate within
the field of evolutionary theory. Sexual selection, what drives
the types of speciation, the rate of speciation, the explanation of
altruism... evolution is a fascinating subject, with many
disagreements that are heavily discussed.

But I'm guessing that's not what you mean. The problem with what
you want is that scientific theories are thrown out only when a
better one comes along--and there are no better ones. ID isn't a
theory because (among other problems) ID doesn't present any
explanation for anything--it just says "evolution can't explain x."
That isn't a theory.

Boy and I would be happy if it were just required that all the "Xs"
that can't be explained were part of the ciriculum vs the over
simplified.. its just the truth and accepts it attitude that
evoltion have taken on...

I'd LOVE to see more talk about evolution in schools. But ID
advocates and creationsists would flip if you actually talked about
evolution with their kids. They are fine with the caricatured
arguments and deliberate misstatements you get about evolution on
their websites--stuff like "Evolution says that a frog plus time
equals a prince."

Frog + time = prince makes a lot more sense than free floating
amino acids + time = frog.

But if you actually walked kids through the arguments in Darwin's
Origin of Species, and then showed them all the evidence we've
found since its publication to support the theory, how rock-solid
it is, why scientists use it to explain biodiversity, how vital the
theory is to understanding antibiotic resistance and other problems
we face, then ID/creationist parents would riot in the streets.
Their demanding to "discuss" evolution only means "let us go in the
classroom and say 'evolution is bunk!'"

And here you mix a lot of stuff together.. you mix proven natural
selection process and questions about is it really possible to take
mud and get amoebas

I have a post above that addresses your assumption filled,
simplification of the topic and what I am talking about.

I realize it makes your stand if you can turn me into some
evangelical zeolot but it just doesn't work because I am not.

You seem to be under some type of impression that Evolution attempts to explain ambiogenesis. This is obviously not the case though. Science doesn't claim to know how life started (unlike the ID'ers who don't need actual data supporting them to make a claim). There are some ideas but nothing that qualifies even as a theory yet. But, the difference between science and the religion based ID is that science is LOOKING for the answers. ID is not. ID just wants to say the equivalent of "well, we don't know so that means that God did it."

DIPics

 

[Chato]

I want a course that teaches Atheism. That starts with the premise that there is no God and attacks religion.

In fact, I want all courses to teach that there is no God. History, Sociololgy, Biology, you name it, I want them all to teach atheism.

And since this is coming from AUTHORITY I'm sure it will have weight.

JUST AS TEACHING the Great ID from an authority will have weight!

Questions of God existing or NOT existing should not be a part of Public Eduacation. That's what parochial schools are for, and no one is preventing you from going to one, or starting your own.

Public Schools represent not just the majority, but also the minority. They are NEUTRAL. And if not neutral, should be neutral, and there is no place in THEM for teaching relgion. There is no place because there are a multitude of religions, and each and every one of them is as valid as the next.

Dave

Teaching Athiesm in school? Ken equates science with athiesm. Wait
till he runs into a course that teaches athiesm...

Actually I equate some "science" with religion.. you will find high
priests, doctrine and tests for heresy..

I have never equated science with Atheism.. though some atheists
incorrectly equate science to being an anti-dote for religion..

It is just as silly as saying "now that I understand how my truck
works.. there can be no Ford"

If you're going to "open the debate" why not out and out talk about
there being no God?

actually I think that is a great idea... But it does mean you get
to have a frank discussion of at least a few of the planet's top
religions also.. which would be good because they are key factors
in shaping cultures.

No one teaches that now, so by his logic, Atheism is being censored
in the schools, and people like myself are the censors.

yes.. I agree.. until we stop fearing the discussion of God, god,
gods, goddesses in school .. there is no opening to discuss the
faith based idea that there is no God/godesss.

So if you are pushing to keep religion out of schools totally.. you
are also keeping the discussion of alternative philosophies out..

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Chato]

You seem to be under some type of impression that Evolution
attempts to explain ambiogenesis. This is obviously not the case
though. Science doesn't claim to know how life started (unlike the
ID'ers who don't need actual data supporting them to make a claim).
There are some ideas but nothing that qualifies even as a theory
yet. But, the difference between science and the religion based ID
is that science is LOOKING for the answers. ID is not. ID just
wants to say the equivalent of "well, we don't know so that means
that God did it."

DIPics

Two current trends in thought are that since pregenitors of what we now call life couldn't make a fossil record. And the recent discovery of prions, which are nothing but simple proteins, without DNA, and yet simulate life.

It's long been proven that simple proteins, amino acids, can be spontaniously generated in the chemicals that existed on earth, it's no big gap to see some of them becoming prions.

Dave

Dave

 

[dipics]

Teaching Athiesm in school? Ken equates science with athiesm. Wait
till he runs into a course that teaches athiesm...

Actually I equate some "science" with religion.. you will find high
priests, doctrine and tests for heresy..

Aah, but there is one part of the religious "equation" that is missing. Belief without evidence. The religious type of "faith". Religion requires it. Science doesn't.

I have never equated science with Atheism.. though some atheists
incorrectly equate science to being an anti-dote for religion..

It is just as silly as saying "now that I understand how my truck
works.. there can be no Ford"

If you're going to "open the debate" why not out and out talk about
there being no God?

actually I think that is a great idea... But it does mean you get
to have a frank discussion of at least a few of the planet's top
religions also.. which would be good because they are key factors
in shaping cultures.

No one teaches that now, so by his logic, Atheism is being censored
in the schools, and people like myself are the censors.

yes.. I agree.. until we stop fearing the discussion of God, god,
gods, goddesses in school .. there is no opening to discuss the
faith based idea that there is no God/godesss.

So, you think it is the government's place to teach religion? Or do you just think that they can do it in an unbiased manner? I think both of those ideas are recipes for disaster.

So if you are pushing to keep religion out of schools totally.. you
are also keeping the discussion of alternative philosophies out..

The founding fathers didn't think that government should be involved in religion. They made this abundantly plain with the very first law that they passed after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

I agree with them.

DIPics

 

[Mark56519]

It's long been proven that simple proteins, amino acids, can be
spontaniously generated in the chemicals that existed on earth,
it's no big gap to see some of them becoming prions.

That's part of what cracks me up about this debate. ID proponents continually say "none of this stuff could ever appear spontaneously" while amino acids and proteins do, in fact, occur spontaneously. It's a textbook case of the argument from incredulity being disproven in real-time. The building blocks of life do in fact spring into existence given the right physical conditions--no "designer" needed.

I've read a lot of theories on abiogenesis, from Dawkins' replicator to the idea (which I find elegant) that, in any environment capable of supporting life, life is inevitable because the physical properties of the matter and energy involved make the combination inevitable over time.

But even if someone reads these and doesn't like any of them, I can't imagine how they come to any answer other than "I don't know" -- how do they leap to positing an "intelligent designer?" That's a vastly more complicated postulate, which involves vastly more unanswered questions, than an extrapolation from the natural processes we see around us.

 

[Mark56519]

Frog + time = prince makes a lot more sense than free floating
amino acids + time = frog.

Next you'll show skepticism that freezing water can make a snowflake. Where did all that symmetry come from? Must be a designer. Or, natural processes can sometimes result in things that aren't immediately intuitive. Our gut feeling is a notoriously unreliable guage of how the world works.

Probability is a funny thing. Deal a single deck of cards--the probability of that precise ordering of the cards is 1/(8x10^67). That's 1 over a 68-digit number. Deal 2 decks of cards, and the chance drops to 1 over a 167-digit number. What are the odds of the cards being played as they are over an evening of poker? The word "astronomical" is inadequate.

If you were asking "you expect me to believe that something with a 1/(167-digit number) chance of happening happened?" it would seem like a reasonable question, but it happens all the time. That's the problem with assessing probability after something happened. Life exists, so asking "what is the probability of life existing?" is sort of like asking the odds against the cards being dealt as they are in a Vegas casino on a given night. It seems improbable, but if it already happened, it's an academic question.

And here you mix a lot of stuff together.. you mix proven natural
selection process and questions about is it really possible to take
mud and get amoebas

Well, here we stumble against the necessary assumptions of science. We exist, life exists, and we see natural processes around us. Science tries to explain things, in this case life and speciation, in terms of what we know--nature, i.e. matter and energy. We know that this "mud and water" you speak of contain the same elements that life does--it's just a different arrangement of the atoms. We see chemical metabolism (i.e. energy/matter transformations) in the non-live world, and we see chemical metabolism in the live world. They extrapolate to the conclusion that life works by the same chemical processes that the non-live world works by.

You can ALWAYS posit a "designer," or a god, or a genie, or a leprechaun, or a "life force," or a "plan," or whatever, behind the physical processes. Science doesn't address those--it just addresses matter and energy.

Why did I use the term "necessary assumptions"? They're necessary because science cannot investigate things--designers or otherwise--that lie outside the natural world. So anyone can sashay into any scientific discussion and say "no, I don't buy it, science can't explain it--must be a designer." They don't have any evidence other than their own incredulity--and incredulity isn't evidence. They couch their incredulity as "skepticism" or concern over "the limitations of science" but again, there is no evidence beyond their own "I don't accept what sceince says, so I'm going to posit something outside of science as the cause, but I'm not giving any specifics at all as to what it is, how it works, or anything." That isn't an argument.

I realize it makes your stand if you can turn me into some
evangelical zeolot but it just doesn't work because I am not.

I didn't say you were an evangelical, zealot or otherwise. You may be one of the handful of non-religious ID advocates. I'm sure the evangelical zealots love you, because your agnosticish skepticism gives a patina of legitimacy to a movement that sprung into existence only as a response to US Supreme Court cases banning the teaching of creationism in schools. ID came directly from creationism--even their main text, "Pandas and People," was just re-written after a court case, using the same text but replacing "Creator" and "God" with "designer." You wouldn't have an ID to believe in if it wasn't for the evangelical "zealots" you worry about me mistaking you for.

 

[dipics]

It's long been proven that simple proteins, amino acids, can be
spontaniously generated in the chemicals that existed on earth,
it's no big gap to see some of them becoming prions.

That's part of what cracks me up about this debate. ID proponents
continually say "none of this stuff could ever appear
spontaneously" while amino acids and proteins do, in fact, occur
spontaneously. It's a textbook case of the argument from
incredulity being disproven in real-time. The building blocks of
life do in fact spring into existence given the right physical
conditions--no "designer" needed.

I've read a lot of theories on abiogenesis, from Dawkins'
replicator to the idea (which I find elegant) that, in any
environment capable of supporting life, life is inevitable because
the physical properties of the matter and energy involved make the
combination inevitable over time.

But even if someone reads these and doesn't like any of them, I
can't imagine how they come to any answer other than "I don't know"
-- how do they leap to positing an "intelligent designer?" That's
a vastly more complicated postulate, which involves vastly more
unanswered questions, than an extrapolation from the natural
processes we see around us.

Because it's comforting. And, because they have little faith. People who have weak faith are always looking for "proof", however weak, of God. People whose faith is strong don't need it.

Me personally, I cannot think of a more elegant way for God to have gotten to us than for Him to have just started the Big Bang (or even something earlier) and known that, because of the way things are set up, we human types were inevitable.

So, as near as I can tell, there are two options here. Either there isn't a God and we should learn as much as we can about how things really happened, or there IS a God and he either used the Big Bang and evolution etc as his tools OR he wants us to believe that He did by planting the evidence to lead us to believe this. Either way, we should follow the evidence the way that science does. After all, who are we to call God a liar?

DIPics

 

[Ken_5D]

Three closed minds patting each other on the back because you can parrot incomplete and misleading representations of another point of view or rather pedantic understandings of high school biology / chemistry is getting boring.

I'm not sure some of you understand the difference between Church, Religion, and the philosophical discussion of god(s).

I hope you understand the differences between molecular structures like crystals and Amino acids and the massively more complex processes and systems that make up even the simplest bacterias.. but from the most recent posts I would have to assume not.

So have fun pretending you know enough to stop learning...

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

 

[Mark56519]

I hope you understand the differences between molecular structures
like crystals and Amino acids and the massively more complex
processes and systems that make up even the simplest bacterias..
but from the most recent posts I would have to assume not.

Strange... I never said they were the same. What's fascinating is the amount of research that is going on into the basic building blocks of life, and how common they are. Things like prions keep popping up to make us re-evaluate how simple primitive life might be.

So have fun pretending you know enough to stop learning...

------------

Stop learning about what? ID makes no postulates. I've looked at the ID literature, and all it says is "evolution can't explain ." Whenever I look to the scientific literature on , I find explanations that ID said don't exist. I'm all for learning--do you have some suggestions for some advances ID has made, other than "Evolution is a theory in crisis" or whatever? Evolution itself is a fascinating subject with wide-ranging applications--why would I stop learning about it?

What is the precise problem you have with evolution? Common descent? Abiogenesis? That last one isn't actually part of evolutionary theory, but it's often a sticking point. I'm just curious what you think ID brings to the table. Yes, yes, I keep reading that evolution is all about thinking you're too smart to learn, while ID is the new vanguard of science and all that, but what does ID postulate about the world and how it works? Can it offer anything other than supposed flaws with evolutionary theory?

 

[dipics]

Three closed minds patting each other on the back because you can
parrot incomplete and misleading representations of another point
of view or rather pedantic understandings of high school biology /
chemistry is getting boring.

I'm not sure some of you understand the difference between Church,
Religion, and the philosophical discussion of god(s).

And, I don't think that you realize the difference between the three you listed above and science. You see, ID claims to be a science. In reality, it falls into one or all of the three you listed above but NOT science.

I also wonder if you think that your average high school teacher can teach about God or religion(s) in anything close to an unbiased manner? Even if they TRY to be unviased, can they?

I hope you understand the differences between molecular structures
like crystals and Amino acids and the massively more complex
processes and systems that make up even the simplest bacterias..
but from the most recent posts I would have to assume not.

So have fun pretending you know enough to stop learning...

Know enough to stop learning? That's the ID approach. After all, they already know the answer. God did it. The rest of us? Well we keep trying to figure it out. Or at least admiring those scientists who do.

DIPics

 

[Mark56519]

I'm not fond of being called closed minded, so I went back and read through your ID-related posts in this thread. I'm still looking for something of substance about ID. I find repeated claims that discussion on evolution is "shut down" or that one party thinks they have "a lock" on the truth. Part of the problem you're facing in this thread may be that there is a large amount of discussion on the mechanisms of evolution--it is a very turbulent field, with a lot of articles being published. I'm a layman, and I've seen articles in National Geographic, Scientific American, Nature, and who knows where else. I'm always seeing articles on Slashdot and other blogs about new discoveries in mechanisms of speciation, rates of speciation, evolution of certain traits, and so on. So your claim that there is no discussion seems to be at odds with the plain facts of the activity within the scientific community.

You also ignore the plain fact of how scientists get famous--they produce new theories that better fit the facts. Darwin is famous because his theory was better than the ones before him; Einstein is the same. Every scientist wants to unseat the entire edifice of their field--the trick being that they have to do the science and show that their theory better fits the known facts. ID has produced no postulates, no theories of how things come about, no hypotheses, no theories on how biodiverisity developed, no theories as to abiogenesis, nothing. This passage you wrote is telling:

Inteligent Design actually looks at the probablity that "This all just
happened" When talked about properly it is regiously agnostic.. The
designer is not being talked about. The design is....

All you're saying, in essence, is that natural processes producing life and biodiversity are improbable. Once you've concluded that you don't find that probability credible, you postulate a designer, but refuse to go into who/what it is, or the mechanisms of design/implementation, how this designer interacts with matter and energy...and so on.

You claim to find natural processes an unlikely explanation, but then you give this magic but completely unexplained (on purpose, no less) phenomenon, and when people don't throw out evolutionary theory immediately, you conclude that science is a dogma-bound ideology, censorship of "true" science is rampant, and that we all think we're too smart to learn anything. All because no one respects an explanation that doesn't actually offer any information on anything.

And I'm not part of a team of three (or any number) ganging up on you. I just keep poking away, because other than your assurances that talking about evolution is forbidden, and now that I'm closed-minded and unwilling to learn anything, you haven't given me anything to look at. The arguments I've made, you've ignored.

The only interesting thing I can find about ID is that it purports to "detect design," and talk about that. Then they go into a Paley-esque vignette about a watch found on a heath or beach, and so on. It's interesting because they so pointedly ignore what makes the study of biology so different from the study of watches--descent with variation. If watches reproduced, and passed on slightly imperfect copies of their DNA to their descendants, which were then more or less successful than their peers in a given environment, which affected the rate of particular genes being passed down to future generations, then the watch-on-the-heath argument would be valid. I guess I just find it interesting that people use the same arguments time and time again, even after someone explains to them why their analogy is flawed.

 

[Mark56519]

So, as near as I can tell, there are two options here. Either
there isn't a God and we should learn as much as we can about how
things really happened, or there IS a God and he either used the
Big Bang and evolution etc as his tools OR he wants us to believe
that He did by planting the evidence to lead us to believe this.
Either way, we should follow the evidence the way that science
does. After all, who are we to call God a liar?

Well, I think there are a vast number of options, not all of which are comforting. There may be a God, and we may still not matter. The universe may have a hostile consciousness, but work slowly because it's more amusing that way. Creationism could be right, and the devil could have put all that evidence there to tempt the faithful. I'm not into cosmology, because I don't see the relevance to our everyday lives. It's interesting in an academic way, but not as interesting as real-world antibiotic resistance or other topics we could talk about.

As far as the value of science, my basic approach is that we're here, and we grope around to try to find out how the world works. We stumbled on a method that works to a certain extent--we know it works to this extent because we can exploit it to help us (air conditioning, medicine, space flight) and it predicts things about about world that we can test later. Great. Is it REALLY REALLY true, in a higher sense that transcends our perception and inteligence? Who knows...for all practical purposes, in our limited sphere of existence and capabilities, it's true. But it isn't always comforting, and to some people it robs the universe of its majesty. Ergo we have creationism, ID, and all the rest.

 

[Chato]

You also ignore the plain fact of how scientists get famous--they
produce new theories that better fit the facts. Darwin is famous
because his theory was better than the ones before him; Einstein is
the same. Every scientist wants to unseat the entire edifice of
their field--the trick being that they have to do the science and
show that their theory better fits the known facts. ID has
produced no postulates, no theories of how things come about, no
hypotheses, no theories on how biodiverisity developed, no theories
as to abiogenesis, nothing. This passage you wrote is telling:

Inteligent Design actually looks at the probablity that "This all just
happened" When talked about properly it is regiously agnostic.. The
designer is not being talked about. The design is....

All you're saying, in essence, is that natural processes producing
life and biodiversity are improbable. Once you've concluded that
you don't find that probability credible, you postulate a designer,
but refuse to go into who/what it is, or the mechanisms of
design/implementation, how this designer interacts with matter and
energy...and so on.

You claim to find natural processes an unlikely explanation, but
then you give this magic but completely unexplained (on purpose, no
less) phenomenon, and when people don't throw out evolutionary
theory immediately, you conclude that science is a dogma-bound
ideology, censorship of "true" science is rampant, and that we all
think we're too smart to learn anything. All because no one
respects an explanation that doesn't actually offer any information
on anything.

And I'm not part of a team of three (or any number) ganging up on
you. I just keep poking away, because other than your assurances
that talking about evolution is forbidden, and now that I'm
closed-minded and unwilling to learn anything, you haven't given me
anything to look at. The arguments I've made, you've ignored.

The only interesting thing I can find about ID is that it purports
to "detect design," and talk about that. Then they go into a
Paley-esque vignette about a watch found on a heath or beach, and
so on. It's interesting because they so pointedly ignore what
makes the study of biology so different from the study of
watches--descent with variation. If watches reproduced, and passed
on slightly imperfect copies of their DNA to their descendants,
which were then more or less successful than their peers in a given
environment, which affected the rate of particular genes being
passed down to future generations, then the watch-on-the-heath
argument would be valid. I guess I just find it interesting that
people use the same arguments time and time again, even after
someone explains to them why their analogy is flawed.

He ignores the history of this debate. It's been the mainstay of Chrisitanity since its inception. From St Augustine on down...

It was hotly debated when Darwin postulated the Theory of Evolution, and if they would have won then, none of what we know NOW would have been brought to light.

The bottom line of his posts is that, not us, but science itself is the closed mind here. That it is science which claims a lock on the truth, and that HE and others are seeking the real answers.

Scinence makes NO such claims. Any more than a detective arriving at a crime scene claims to know "who did it."

What he does know, is that only by following the rules (the scinetific method) will truth win out, if it is Possible to find the truth, only putting your evidence to the test can it be found.

All through history and today, there have been religious voices who leave it all to the Lord.

NB.

And this new wave of "scientific critics is not different in any fundamental way from those of the past.

Evolution has been challenged before, and even in Darwins times the evidence was overwhelming. But they didn't want Darwin theory thought in schools. And they succeded! And only time and objective reality have altered this equation.

Dressing up religion as science is NOTHING NEW. And always its been used to attack reality. Always. SO a guy like Ken is left, making posts which mindlessly repeat, "you can't jump from a protein to even thee simplest bacteria."

And he's RIGHT, you can't. But then again it's not scientists who repeat this over and over. HE'S repeating this over and over...

It can get kind of funny reading his posts as he states that science claims a lock on the truth and then listening to him repeating himself...

Dave

 

[aruzinsky]

Lets take a common statement on two of the forums I hang out on:

A) "Sony lenses are too expensive"

Or

B) "I went to Canon because Sony lenses are too expensive."

The first statement is false... Sony lenses must not be too
expensive for many people as they keep selling them.

The second statement seeks to blame a choice on a false premise.

I read this as:

A) "Sony lenses are too expensive (for me)"
B) "I went to Canon because Sony lenses are too expensive (for me)."

The "(for me)" is implicit. Such implicit constructs are used for the sake of brevity. A much bigger ambiguity problem is the use of the bare plurals such as, "Sony lenses." I really don't know whether the person is speaking about ALL Sony lenses or just SOME wants.
--
Author of SAR Image Processor and anomic sociopath
http://www.general-cathexis.com

 

[Mark56519]

I try to be a bit more diplomatic than you. Giving ID a "fair shake" in schools appeals to peoples' sense of fair play, and the arguments for it are superficially attractive. It appeals to our seat-of-the-pants intuition about probability, and it's populist in that it tells your average person that they can use their intuition and gut feeling to trump any old theory that the scientists come up with. I try to deal with specific arguments as they surface, rather than putting it in historical context.

It's true that ID, per the Wedge Strategy* is just a religious attack on science, the same we've seen since the Enlightenment. But that doesn't mean that your average person who thinks ID is "real science" is consciously lying--they were possibly persuaded by the arguments, and it's those arguments we have to address. Even if they are actually the real-deal ID commandoes, out gunning for secular humanism, we still have to engage their arguments, even if only for the sake of the bystanders. Is anyone reading, beyond the 3 or 4 of us? Probably not. But you either engage their arguments, or give up and walk away. Insulting them doesn't help, regardless of how frustrated you get.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy )

 

[dipics]

I try to be a bit more diplomatic than you. Giving ID a "fair
shake" in schools appeals to peoples' sense of fair play, and the
arguments for it are superficially attractive. It appeals to our
seat-of-the-pants intuition about probability, and it's populist in
that it tells your average person that they can use their intuition
and gut feeling to trump any old theory that the scientists come up
with. I try to deal with specific arguments as they surface,
rather than putting it in historical context.

See, that is a basic flaw in our thinking today. We think that we are all amateur journalists and have to give both sides of a debate. This doesn't apply even to journalism outside of politics. Whenever a newspaper does an article on evolution, they feel this strange need to give time to the ID pushers. Now, for the evolution side, they can find ANY biologist. But you see the same names from the Discovery institute crop up time and time again to argue their side. Why? Because there is no real debate in the scientific community. There is no "other side". We pay way too much attention to them as it is. Answering their purposefully misleading arguments only publicizes them.

It's true that ID, per the Wedge Strategy* is just a religious
attack on science, the same we've seen since the Enlightenment.
But that doesn't mean that your average person who thinks ID is
"real science" is consciously lying--they were possibly persuaded
by the arguments, and it's those arguments we have to address.
Even if they are actually the real-deal ID commandoes, out gunning
for secular humanism, we still have to engage their arguments, even
if only for the sake of the bystanders. Is anyone reading, beyond
the 3 or 4 of us? Probably not. But you either engage their
arguments, or give up and walk away. Insulting them doesn't help,
regardless of how frustrated you get.

Actually, calling a con artist a con artist is never a bad idea. Pointing out to a fool that he is being mislead is just being kind to him. I have no issue insulting people who are purposefully misleading others. Hopefully it will embarass them enough so that they will quit doing it. Up to now, most of the insults have been thrown by the ID types towards science and it's supporters. Everything from "closed minded" on up. So, I have no qualms pointing out who in this manufactured, so called "debate" are actually the closed minded ones.

DIPics

 

[gral]

Is anyone reading, beyond
the 3 or 4 of us? Probably not.

Hey, I'm reading and I'm patting you on the back. Unfortunately I don't have your patience to fight, in this case, ID. As I see it there are two types of people pushing this kind of pseudoscience: 1. the "originators" who push it to serve their agenda. It might be religious in the case of ID, or economic in the case of e.g. astrology). I firmly believe that most people in this category do NOT believing in whatever it is themselves. Arguing with them is hence pointless. 2. people who buy the often convincing arguments made by the above people because they lack the knowledge to critically analyse them. This second category I hope and think you can "save" with your sound reasoning. Good luck!

 

[Ken_5D]

I am going to reply to Mark as your posts have carried the fewest assumptions and insults.

A) I totally agree that basic ID straddles the line between science and Philosophy and that many people who are proponents have an agenda and that many have used the name to relabel creationism.

B) What I like about ID is that is asks questions I do not see being asked in the defecto evolution education (with glossed over Ambiogenesis issues)

C) Part of the problem with the anti-God reactionary view of science is that is basically seems to me to be like saying "Now that I understand how my car runs, there can be no Toyota" While the question "is there a creator?" (not God) is a valid question for Science to look at.. those that seem to almost panic at the mention of the concept would shut down the inquiry. I don't think we will find Slartibartfast's signature on a Fjord someplace. But, Starting with the assumption "there is no creator" so all discussion and investigations of the question are without merit is very unscientific.

Its a hard line to travel because as soon as one talks about a creator.. religion and churches get involved and want protect their power structures and dogma.. but until someone can prove there is no creator, it is as valid an inquiry as anything other line that seeks to understand the nature of the Universe. And I get frustrated when the religion.philosphy of atheism hijacks science and declares that discussion of a creator off-limits.

I guess since I tend to enjoy theoretical sciences I am very comfortable with the question and looking for indirect evidence. As is the nature of most of the unification theory work. Most of Einstein's work was indirect for years. So by some of the standards .. would not count as science until the experiments were created and run.

ID is of course right now a set of questions.. with an offered explanation. That is where most science starts. As the Discovery Institute suggested there is no place for more than the question in a High school classroom.

but I think slippery slope fears have gone so far that it is not talked about, and it is taught like we know it all, which would come as a shock to researches working to understand the gaps etc.

The best way to deal with the ID questions is scientifically. If they suggest that some aspect of nature is so improbable that design makes more sense. Find a way to make it happen without extensive interference and with repitition. And if you can point me to a successful experiment that has gotten past the spontaneous creation of Amino acids I would love to read it. I am not even aware of any experience with Prions working outside of the support of Cells.. (which would be needed to suggest they are related to the creation process and not just an result of it)

I am not locked into one set of beliefs. I choose to believe in a God and right now choose to accept some parts of the Christian dogma.. but I am well aware that I can't outside of an act of faith know there is a God.

In my mind the absence of Religion is agnosticism. It takes an act of faith to KNOW there is no God / Creator.. and I see evangelism to this faith all the time. Most of the athiests I have met are angery at a Church, religion, and/or God. And if they aren't they really are agnostic.

Science can never prove the absence of God and I doubt it can ever prove the existence either, but it is a valid question, but may never mature into more than a theoretical Philosphy. Because unless "God" left a backdoor for us to find at the right time.. we are stuck in the framework that is, created or not.

I get really tired of the knee jerk use of things like "Christian agenda," "creationism," put downs about "you must think a snow flake needs a creator" Those are all used to shut down discussion and are a type of intellectual censorship.

All I suggest is education formally talk about the questions.. and mention that some aspects are not understood and some are suggesting this might be evidence of design vs spontanious processes. Who the designer is a discusion for philosphy class or church.

for all we know this is all some large "Sim Universe" game being played on a computer that is even beyond the imagination of Douglas Adams for one fear the great BSOD..

------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com