PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Design Case Begins in PA



Race
09-27-2005, 09:06 AM
From USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-09-26-evolution-case_x.htm?csp=N007 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-09-26-evolution-case_x.htm?csp=N007)


Science enters landmark case of 'intelligent design' teaching HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP)

The opening day of a landmark trial over whether a school district should require students to hear about "intelligent design" felt a lot like a science lecture.
Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers suing the Dover Area School District for exposing its students to the controversial theory, sprinkled his testimony with references to DNA, red blood cells and viruses, and he occasionally referred to complex charts on a projection screen.

Even U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was a little overwhelmed.

"I guess I should say, 'Class dismissed,'" Jones mused before recessing for lunch.

Dover is believed to be the nation's first school system to mandate students be exposed to the intelligent design concept. Its policy requires school administrators to read a brief statement before classes on evolution that says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Intelligent design holds that Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.

Eight families sued, saying that the district policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

Miller, whose cross-examination was to resume Tuesday morning, said the policy undermines scientific education by raising false doubts about evolutionary theory.

"It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process," he said.

But the rural school district of about 3,500 students argues it is not endorsing any religious view and is merely giving ninth-grade biology classes a glimpse of differences in evolutionary theory.

"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," said Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., in his opening statement. The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.

The non-jury trial is expected to take five weeks.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs began their case by arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory inserted in the school district's curriculum by the school board with no concern for whether it has scientific underpinnings.

"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," attorney Eric Rothschild said.

Miller, who was the only witness Monday, sharply criticized intelligent design and questioned the work that went into it by one of its leading proponents, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who will be a key witness for the district.

The statement read to Dover students states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered." Miller said the words are "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.

"What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said.

"There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory," he added.

On the other hand, Miller said, "intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."

During his cross-examination of Miller, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin's theory.

"Would you agree that Darwin's theory is not the absolute truth?" Muise said.

"We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller responded.

The Dover lawsuit is the newest chapter in a history of evolution litigation dating back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.


What the Dover Students hear:


Text of the statement on intelligent design that Dover Area High School administrators are reading to students at the start of biology lessons on evolution:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.''

RebootedCorpse
09-27-2005, 09:09 AM
Zeus and Odin are watching this case closely.
"If this case succeeds, we expect to be included next year as well," said Montazuma.

badpoet
09-27-2005, 09:10 AM
http://www.venganza.org/ (http://www.venganza.org/)

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that Iím writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. Iím sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people donít understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

Iím sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we donít.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

MattKrizan
09-27-2005, 09:14 AM
http://www.venganza.org/ (http://www.venganza.org/)

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
...


:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's hilarious.

Kody
09-27-2005, 09:17 AM
http://www.venganza.org/ (http://www.venganza.org/)
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.


BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's got to be the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Brilliant!

Opus Croakus
09-27-2005, 09:17 AM
Zeus and Odin are watching this case closely.

"If this case succeeds, we expect to be included next year as well," said Montazuma.

I bet the Raelians are watching this closely too.
And THAT will be the most hilarious textbook of all.


On the 13th of December 1973, French journalist Rael was contacted by a visitor from another planet, and asked to establish an Embassy to welcome these people back to Earth.

The extra-terrestrial human being was a little over four feet tall, had long dark hair, almond shaped eyes, olive skin, and exuded harmony and humor. Rael recently described him by saying quite simply, "If he were to walk down a street in Japan, he would not even be noticed." In other words, they look like us, and we look like them. In fact, we were created "in their image" as explained in the Bible.

He told Rael that:

"We were the ones who designed all life on earth"
"You mistook us for gods"
"We were at the origin of your main religions"
"Now that you are mature enough to understand this,we would like to enter official contact through an embassy"

Race
09-27-2005, 09:25 AM
What's wrong with a simple introductory lesson to the concept of Intelligent Design as the work of a Supreme Being - regardless of how he may be recognized by some as God and others as the Flying Spagetti Monster.

It's not supposed to be indoctrination, but making students aware of all the various categories of thought. If you close your mind to all but one possibility before you learn, you run the risk of not learning anything.

RebootedCorpse
09-27-2005, 09:31 AM
What's wrong with a simple introductory lesson to the concept of Intelligent Design as the work of a Supreme Being - regardless of how he may be recognized by some as God and others as the Flying Spagetti Monster.

It's not supposed to be indoctrination, but making students aware of all the various categories of thought. If you close your mind to all but one possibility before you learn, you run the risk of not learning anything.
Becasuse gods cannot be proven or disproven scientifically and therefore have no place in a science class. Ther is no evidence, NONE, of so-called intellgent design which is really just a way to get Jesusism into the classroom even more than it is already.

badpoet
09-27-2005, 09:38 AM
What's wrong with a simple introductory lesson to the concept of Intelligent Design as the work of a Supreme Being - regardless of how he may be recognized by some as God and others as the Flying Spagetti Monster.

It's not supposed to be indoctrination, but making students aware of all the various categories of thought. If you close your mind to all but one possibility before you learn, you run the risk of not learning anything.

1) It's not science. It's being taught AS SCIENCE in a SCIENCE class. If you want your kid to get the low down on religion, I'd suggest either a theology course or taking them to church.

2) Science isn't about various categories of thought. It's about what's proveable. Evolution is largely proveable (which is why it's a theory and not a hypothesis), intelligent design (by design of the fucktards who bring this shit up) isn't proveable in any sense.

3) Intelligent design is an avenue to work around religious indoctrination in schools. Pure and simple. There's a minimal amount of vaneer put over it is simply to make it more palatable to most people. Anyone who takes more than a cursory glance at it realizes the true aim and retardedness of putting it in a science class.

4) If we include Intelligent Design, shouldn't be include alternate reasoning for everything. Like, say for example, I don't believe in gravity. Should I be able to teach that what scientists call "gravity" doesn't exist and that we're all actually held in place by the hand of the Great Spaghetti God?

tjtolosa
09-27-2005, 10:12 AM
Intelligent Design Network (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/)
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

Ray G.
09-27-2005, 10:15 AM
Yay for the flying Spaghetti monster!

Matt Jay
09-27-2005, 10:17 AM
I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
This just made my day.

xyzzy
09-27-2005, 10:24 AM
What's wrong with a simple introductory lesson to the concept of Intelligent Design as the work of a Supreme Being - regardless of how he may be recognized by some as God and others as the Flying Spagetti Monster.

It's not supposed to be indoctrination, but making students aware of all the various categories of thought. If you close your mind to all but one possibility before you learn, you run the risk of not learning anything.

That would be fine in a comparative religions class or somethign like that, but it's not appropriate for the science classroom, where they should be teaching about science, not flying spaghetti monsters.

badpoet
09-27-2005, 10:27 AM
Intelligent Design Network (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/)
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

A disagreement with virtually no basis and no facts behind it. Other than that, it's completely based in science.



ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.

Other than the fact that they're basically starting out with a unproveable hypothesis (that somehow, somewhere, SOMETHING -- 1 something to be more specific --- designed the universe), it's great science. Oh, wait... they said it was objective...


Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

I would sum it up differently: Intelligent design is a religious movement running under the auspice of an intellectual moment that includes a bare minimal scientific research program filled with kooks and pseudo-scientists for "investigating" "intelligent" causes and that can't really challenge naturalistic explaination of origins which currently drive science education and research because it lack any sort of scientific proof whatsoever.


It's a load of bullshit. Plain and simple. It's like saying, "Little Jimmy says that the world is flat, and even though we have a pluthera of scientific evidence to back up that the world is not flat, we're going to present Little Jimmy's hypothesis and also pimp books about it to a class".

McAfee
09-27-2005, 10:28 AM
That open letter to Kansas should be published in editorial pages of the nation's newpapers. Brilliant! :D

ThisSpaceForRent
09-27-2005, 11:11 AM
I think any school should be able to teach Intelligent Design. But then they have to stop calling them SCHOOLS and put up a sign that says CHURCH.

Fucking ID jackoffs. I gotta believe Karl Rove had something to do with that one. They're too detached from reality to come up with something that organized on their own.

TyPierce
09-27-2005, 11:18 AM
Thank you, badpoet! As soon as I saw the title of this thread, I was going to bring the Pastafarianism, but you beat me to it!

badpoet
09-27-2005, 11:35 AM
No charge : ) One does one's best.

mario
09-27-2005, 11:42 AM
I pity the Pennsylvanian kids when ID can be taught. Not only will they be gunned down eventually by goth nerds but they'll die ignorant as well!

Ben
09-27-2005, 11:56 AM
I've seen a LOT of discussions of ID in the last few years, and I can honestly say it's not ALL wacky religious nuts pushing for it. HOWEVER, I would still argue that it is not a parsimonious explanation for things and definitely should not be taught to high schoolers. Maybe to college students. But high school students aren't equipped yet to understand the nuances involved. They do a shitty job of teaching the scientific method and evolution alone. There's no way I trust the public schools to do a good job of ID.

Here's the issue, to me. The REAL scientists/theologians/philosophers (they're usually at least 2 of these, never only one if they make any sense scientifically) explain the practice of studying ID (as explained above) as detecting when things appear to be designed by some sort of intelligence (not necessarily God). Now, this IS something that can at least be verbally tested. A good example is the human eye. It's horrible designed. There's a blind spot in the back! If you were designing a human eye from scratch, you would not put that blind spot in there. Insect eyes do not have a blind spot, so we know that it's possible. So that's a perfect case where we can reject ID as a good explanation. But the ID supporters do not claim that ALL structures are intelligently designed. Here's where the problem arises, in my opinion. Basically, the ID people would say that, while it's not all structures, many structures appear to be designed by some intelligence. On the other side, the Natural Selectionists (like me) would say that they simply APPEAR to be designed by intelligence, but they actually arose through the process of natural selection (NOT chance, which has NOTHING to do with the evolution of complex traits - saying that evolutionists think species arose by chance is a STRAW MAN). There's absolutely no way that I can imagine of testing whether a structure WAS designed by intelligence or only APPEARS to be intelligently designed. Faced with that problem, since it's impossible to untangle, scientists typically employ the principle of parsimony and go with the simplest explanation. Since ID requires an unknown intelligent force, the NS explanation is the simplest and is the one that is accepted by the scientific community (at least, until new evidence shows up, if it ever does).

Race
09-27-2005, 11:56 AM
Fucking ID jackoffs. I gotta believe Karl Rove had something to do with that one. They're too detached from reality to come up with something that organized on their own.What? Where did that come from? Watch "Conspiracy Theory" much?

badpoet
09-27-2005, 12:01 PM
What? Where did that come from? Watch "Conspiracy Theory" much?

No, actually he's probably close to on track. The reason we're seeing more and more of this ID stuff is that politically, it sells to a group of people. Mainly Christian fundamentalist types. Who's out there working on getting that highly motivated group of folks to the polls and to the field to work for them?

It's just like gay marriage in that respect.

Race
09-27-2005, 12:12 PM
A good example is the human eye. It's horrible designed. There's a blind spot in the back! If you were designing a human eye from scratch, you would not put that blind spot in there. Insect eyes do not have a blind spot, so we know that it's possible. So that's a perfect case where we can reject ID as a good explanation.I think the human eye is perfectly designed for what it was intended to do. Despite having a blind spot - which is negated by the fact that we have two eyes set slightly apart to help us determine motion and distance - it is the most complex camera in existence, made with nothing more than some water and some goo. Not even the most sophisticated camera made my man comes close to it, and we are nowhere close to even attempting to duplicate such a "flawed" design with similar materials.

BTW, I'm one of those "fucking ID jackoffs."

WinterRose
09-27-2005, 01:35 PM
Athletes start signing up for intelligent design courses in droves to maintain their GPA to stay on their respective teams.

Butch: "God did it. Where's my freakin A? M'going out to the Senior Court for a smoke for the rest of the quarter..."

Ben
09-27-2005, 01:45 PM
I think the human eye is perfectly designed for what it was intended to do. Despite having a blind spot - which is negated by the fact that we have two eyes set slightly apart to help us determine motion and distance - it is the most complex camera in existence, made with nothing more than some water and some goo. Not even the most sophisticated camera made my man comes close to it, and we are nowhere close to even attempting to duplicate such a "flawed" design with similar materials.

BTW, I'm one of those "fucking ID jackoffs."
It's not perfectly designed. It's adequate, but the blind spot IS a problem. A true intelligent designer, who presumably designed both insect eyes and human eyes, would not design the human eye the way it's designed, with the blind spot. A human eye would not have to be a compound eye like an insects to not have the blind spot. But if your position is that it's intelligently designed enough, then that just brings up another problem with the whole ID paradigm. We're stuck debating degrees. How poorly does something have to be designed before we reject that it was intelligently designed? This kind of question (one of degree) comes up a lot in science and it's pretty hard to move forward through it because it's often hard to test.

The other thing is that, while you are now altering the ID hypothesis to fit the eye example (it's good enough for what it does), natural selection is a much more complete explanation because not only does it account for these kinds of flaws and imperfections, but it actually PREDICTS them. That isn't something that ID can do. You could look at the evolutionary history of the insect and human eyes and actually PREDICT that the flawed blind spot would arise in the human but not the insect eye (explaining this would be way too much work than I'm willing to put into a comic book message board... so please don't ask). Natural selection PREDICTS this imperfection. Another example is the human appendix. Natural selection explains its existance IN ADDITION to it's persistance. There is a reason why we still have it. It is not just a case of a "time lag" which it hasn't been selected out yet. There is an adaptive reason why a functionless organ continues to exist in humans.

I don't see ID generating any testable predictions. If you can name any, it'd be cool to discuss them. I don't consider anyone an ID jackass who actually discusses the scientific points scientifically, which you've done. So don't worry, I'm not lumping you into the wacko camp.

RebootedCorpse
09-27-2005, 01:48 PM
I think the human eye is perfectly designed for what it was intended to do. Despite having a blind spot - which is negated by the fact that we have two eyes set slightly apart to help us determine motion and distance - it is the most complex camera in existence, made with nothing more than some water and some goo. Not even the most sophisticated camera made my man comes close to it, and we are nowhere close to even attempting to duplicate such a "flawed" design with similar materials.
So the logical jump is made to a giant sky fairy speaking the universe into existance over a week.
I know that ID types deny it, but this is clearly an atempt to get the judeo-christian creation myth into science classes.

Ben
09-27-2005, 01:54 PM
So the logical jump is made to a giant sky fairy speaking the universe into existance over a week.
I know that ID types deny it, but this is clearly an atempt to get the judeo-christian creation myth into science classes.
The problem is that the people pushing to have it inserted into already-underfunded and poorly taught science classes have no real crasp of what ID is really about. To them it really is about shoe-horning God into science. When mocking them, it is valid to suggest that they also teach the "Kree altered our DNA millions of years ago" hypothesis (though, they'd call it a theory because they don't know what theory means) or the "Purple monkeys made us out of their poop" hypothesis. And these people will mention certain FEW scientists who support ID. But those scientists (which are hardly a blip in the grand scheme of the scientific community) don't support the kind of ID that these people want taught. The real scientific/philosophical ID supporters have very specific, rational arguments, many of which have NOTHING to do with God and Jesus and Buddah, etc. But the differences between ID and NS can often be VERY subtle. I have zero confidence in the public schools' (or any high schools', public or private) ability to teach this material well. It belongs in a college course or a 'philosophy of science' course.

RebootedCorpse
09-27-2005, 01:56 PM
The problem is that the people pushing to have it inserted into already-underfunded and poorly taught science classes have no real crasp of what ID is really about. To them it really is about shoe-horning God into science. When mocking them, it is valid to suggest that they also teach the "Kree altered our DNA millions of years ago" hypothesis (though, they'd call it a theory because they don't know what theory means) or the "Purple monkeys made us out of their poop" hypothesis. And these people will mention certain FEW scientists who support ID. But those scientists (which are hardly a blip in the grand scheme of the scientific community) don't support the kind of ID that these people want taught. The real scientific/philosophical ID supporters have very specific, rational arguments, many of which have NOTHING to do with God and Jesus and Buddah, etc. But the differences between ID and NS can often be VERY subtle. I have zero confidence in the public schools' (or any high schools', public or private) ability to teach this material well. It belongs in a college course or a 'philosophy of science' course.
I have yet to meet anyone for whom belief in ID did not stem from a particular religious belief system.

Ben
09-27-2005, 02:13 PM
I have yet to meet anyone for whom belief in ID did not stem from a particular religious belief system.
I haven't MET any either, and I'm surrounded by scientists all day. That's because they're rare. I've only seen them on TV and heard them on NPR. I'm not saying that most of the ID people are coming from a rational place. Probably 99% of them are religious nuts. But that 1% is coming from a completely non-religious place and shouldn't necessarily be instantly dismissed. I don't particularly agree with them, but I find the discussion to be important to science.

RebootedCorpse
09-27-2005, 02:15 PM
I haven't MET any either, and I'm surrounded by scientists all day. That's because they're rare. I've only seen them on TV and heard them on NPR. I'm not saying that most of the ID people are coming from a rational place. Probably 99% of them are religious nuts. But that 1% is coming from a completely non-religious place and shouldn't necessarily be instantly dismissed. I don't particularly agree with them, but I find the discussion to be important to science.
I don't think its a scientific discussion at all. ID or creationism or whatever is a religious/philosophical discussion.

Ben
09-27-2005, 02:18 PM
Here are some links for anyone interested. These are two shows on one of the Los Angeles NPR stations discussing ID with Michael Shermer of the Skeptic Society arguing for NS. Don't dismiss the ID side as wackos. They make interesting arguments. I still have no idea how you actually DO the science of ID, but the people arguing in these shows are not religious zealots.

Scroll down to Aug. 10th
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/listings/2005/08/airtalk_20050808.shtml

Scroll down to Dec. 17th
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/listings/2002/12/airtalk_20021216.shtml

Ben
09-27-2005, 02:21 PM
I don't think its a scientific discussion at all. ID or creationism or whatever is a religious/philosophical discussion.
And I'm telling you that you're wrong. I think it's about as likely to be true as evolution through a Lamarckian process, but you still can discuss ID as a scientific hypothesis. In the mainstream media, more often than not it is NOT a scientific discussion. But there are places, like in the links I posted above, where it is a very real scientific discussion. Surprisingly, the panel discussion on the Daily Show was a pretty good start to a conversation (they obviously had time and boredom constraints).

The Human Target
09-27-2005, 02:26 PM
You're all so dumb.



The nanites made the world.

Xander Boune
09-27-2005, 02:30 PM
And I'm telling you that you're wrong. I think it's about as likely to be true as evolution through a Lamarckian process, but you still can discuss ID as a scientific hypothesis. In the mainstream media, more often than not it is NOT a scientific discussion. But there are places, like in the links I posted above, where it is a very real scientific discussion. Surprisingly, the panel discussion on the Daily Show was a pretty good start to a conversation (they obviously had time and boredom constraints).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if ID is a hypothesis, they can't generate any reproducible experiments that provide evidence for it as a model, let alone put out a peer-reviewed study in a respectable journal that supports their belief. If that's the case, why should it be seriously discussed in schools and the mainstream media as plausible alternative to evolution? A hypothesis without evidence is leagues away from a scientific theory.

Edit: Forget it, I just read your earlier posts and you don't believe it should be taught as an alternative and don't hold it in the same regard. You actually explain unability to test the hypothesis pretty well on page 2. My bad for jumping straight to page 4.

Jamie Howdeshell
09-27-2005, 07:39 PM
it is the most complex camera in existence, made with nothing more than some water and some goo. Not even the most sophisticated camera made my man comes close to it, and we are nowhere close to even attempting to duplicate such a "flawed" design with similar materials.


i don't think that's true. there are plenty of cameras that do a better job than the human eye. what are you talking about?

:mistrust: