[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution.

Incorrect.

If God then no evolution and no big bang. If no God then evolution and big bang. They're related.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Incorrect.

If God then no evolution and no big bang. If no God then evolution and big bang. They're related.

Incorrect.

There are MANY other potential scenarios. Perhaps the Universe *was* created by an intelligent being and perhaps that being created the universe in such a way that life would evolve on it's own to intelligent levels? Quit being so binary. Evolutionary theory does not require a lack of belief in Intelligent Design.

[imitchellg5]

The saddest part is that when any theory begins to be perceived as fact in the classroom. That is very bad science.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Quit being so binary.

I'm not being binary - I'm being lazy. You know the two concepts are related, stop being so belligerently geeky.

[subego]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The saddest part is that when any theory begins to be perceived as fact in the classroom. That is very bad science.

When I was in school, we had yet to find any evidence of extra-solar planets.

Now, everybody knew they were out there, so the topic came up on more than occasion, but every single time it was made clear the discussion wasn't merely hypothetical, it was really most sincerely hypothetical.

Looking back on it, one of the reasons they hammered on this was it's an easy to grasp instruction on the fundamentals of science. It doesn't matter how much you know something to be true, without evidence, it's just talk.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm not being binary - I'm being lazy. You know the two concepts are related, stop being so belligerently geeky.

They're only related insofar that those who take the Bible literally are unwilling to accept either.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by subego 

It doesn't matter how much you know something to be true, without evidence, it's just talk.

If only that were actually applied in the classroom. I took a intro to archaeology class last semester and the entire basis of the class was based off of evolution being a law, which seems incredibly dangerous academically. If I, as a historian, were to create a thesis for a class or paper that were not founded upon an absolute truth, I find myself expelled. I don't understand why it's okay for scientists to do it then. If evolution is the best scientifically tenable theory, it's still a theory.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Prove that a bunch of nothingness can one day decide it's bored and have itself a big bang without outside assistance and then we'll have a chat about what belongs in a science classroom and what doesn't.

It's called Cosmic Background Radiation. We can literally take a picture of the known universe. There are several competing theories about the origins of our universe, theories that can be tested. Theories that are being tested right at this moment. Because light moves at a fairly finite speed through a vacuum, we can literally look back in time to some of the earliest moments of our universe. We know relative certainty how old our universe is.

Right now it is looking like there are multiple universes, each one touching another. We can see echos of those other universes. It is probable that our universe was created from two other intersecting universes. These are things we can observe. These are things we can test.

You can not test your mythology.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

All you're doing is picking and choosing which beliefs are in the classroom. You're atheist, so you're picking atheist beliefs. So you're logically no better than those who try to push religion into the science lab.

As I already stated, it has nothing to do with belief.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

If evolution is the best scientifically tenable theory, it's still a theory.

I'm sick of saying this cliché, but so is gravity. They're on the same playing field.

[subego]

Hmmm... I'd pick a different theory.

Not sure which one, but not that one.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Why?

[subego]

It's a gut reaction.

The best I can come up with to explicate it at the moment is that gravity has had more time to be shaken out, as well as there are aspects to it which come into conscious play every day, unlike evolution.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm sick of saying this cliché, but so is gravity. They're on the same playing field.

No they aren't. Gravity isn't a law, it's a force that varies based upon variables that aren't universally exclusive. Gravity can't be a law. Unless you're saying that understanding of evolution varies upon variables.

Unless you are speaking specifically of Newton's law of universal gravitation, which was actually perceptibly true at its inception.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's called Cosmic Background Radiation. We can literally take a picture of the known universe.

You believe. For all you or anyone else knows, the solar system could be in a Truman Show type bubble which makes things look like there's more out there when there actually isn't.

Until you measure it directly, you can't be sure. It's a theory, a belief.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's a gut reaction.

The best I can come up with to explicate it at the moment is that gravity has had more time to be shaken out,

The concept of gravity _in general_ have proven right, but the details continue to be overturned, refined and equivocated over. Mysteries of the details still persist.

The exact same is true of evolution

as well as there are aspects to it which come into conscious play every day, unlike evolution.

I disagree. To biologists, evolution is leveraged every day, no less so than gravity is leveraged by astronomers or cosmologists.

True, gravity has certain advantages over evolution, such as being less probabilistic (more predictive). But evolution also has advantages over gravity, such as having a known and measurable mechanism.

[subego]

As I said, it was a gut reaction.

However, I should note I used the caveat "conscious play" to denote that for non-biologists (i.e. almost everyone) evolution doesn't enter into their awareness the way gravity does. The fact evolution has an important role (arguably as important as gravity) would be, for most people, unconscious play.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

No they aren't. Gravity isn't a law, it's a force that varies based upon variables that aren't universally exclusive. Gravity can't be a law. Unless you're saying that understanding of evolution varies upon variables.

Unless you are speaking specifically of Newton's law of universal gravitation, which was actually perceptibly true at its inception.

Gravity wasn't any more "perceptibly true at inception" than evolution was. When the Origin of Species was published, there was more than enough evidence presented to perceive it. It was necessary to be, as the reaction was even more hostile then than it is now (certainly more rigorous than the initial reaction to gravity, right?).

Many things go by the name "gravity," there is a theory, a fact, and a law. The theory is only what we can demonstrate through evidence, so like all theories it is merely tentatively accepted until proven false. The fact is the underlying natural reality that is measured by the theory. The law is the conceptual framework that defines the theory, the mathematical ideal that represents our best understanding of the fact, yet to this day remains shy of 100% accurate.

The same is true of evolution. The theory is the aggregate evidence, and tentative conclusion. The fact is whatever underlying reality exists for us to measure. And the law of evolution is whatever purely conceptual model we can muster to encompass, predict and explain the former.

You can always say that the theory of evolution is no "law," and the law of evolution is no "fact" (and the fact of evolution is no theory). Ditto with gravity or electricity. But... so what? All that shows is that you are going out of your way to be argumentative. There is no insight to be gained from this misdirection.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

However, I should note I used the caveat "conscious play" to denote that for non-biologists (i.e. almost everyone) evolution doesn't enter into their awareness the way gravity does. The fact evolution has an important role (arguably as important as gravity) would be, for most people, unconscious play.

Oh, so you mean "gravity" to be satisfied by "things fall down not up?" That's the most I can conjure for people consciously thinking about gravity on a daily basis, but it's not fair to call that the theory of gravity, because people knew that part just fine long before Newton. What aspects of gravity do "regular" people observe or test daily, that weren't known before Newton's time?

[subego]

None I can think of.

[Waragainstsleep]

FWIW, everywhere is (or was) the centre of the universe.

Doof, if taking a picture of the CMBR is not direct measurement, then there is no such thing worthy of the term 'direct measurement'.

As for evolution, once you establish certain initial conditions, it 'falls out of the maths'. Do you believe in DNA and genes? Do you doubt the methods of reproduction of life? Do you doubt that external factors can cause mutation of genes? If you buy all that, then you believe in evolution. If you buy all that and still deny evolution, then you simply don't understand it well enough.

Does evolution disprove the existence of god or ID? No, but its so overwhelmingly obvious (as well as overwhelmingly scientifically validated) that if you wish to believe that man was created by god, then you really should believe that evolution was how he did it or you risk perfectly justifiable ridicule by the rest of us.

The hilarious thing about religious people trying to argue with good science is that they don't always stop to consider the implications of their arguments on their own beliefs. What if god actually did 'paint the CMBR on his shower curtain' and drape it around the universe? Why would he do that if not purely to mislead us? Maybe he also made all these species of animals that look closely related as well as giving us humans local geographic similarities like skin, hair and eye colour, various facial features etc. And family resemblances. More deception. And the fossil record. Tricking us so we won't believe in him. What a loving god. Religious people raise these arguments because they are perfectly scientifically valid in terms of raising the possibility of a creator god, but he doesn't look much like their own particular creator god very often. Certainly not a god I'd want anything to do with if he existed. What a dick.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Aliens might destroy us for global warming" isn't discussed in schools

I'm betting that the possible existence of intelligent alien lifeforms often times is, and isn't banned from being discussed in classrooms.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm sick and tired of explaining it. Your personal views about what you or others believe are irrelevent to the discussion. It boils down to this: Evolution can be tested...

Not as to whether or not it was the impetus for the dawning of man. We've went over this before. It's speculation that this method was the means for our creation. Being able to test something does not mean that such a thing is a provable rationale for something. For instance I can test all kinds of different ways that you can make water, and then suggest that since we are made up of mostly water, that one of those ways is how we are created.

... and this is changing the point anyways. There are no consistent tests proving the existence of intelligent life on other planets, yet this has apparently been deemed scientifically acceptable points for discussion. It's no more testable or provable that the existence of a supreme being. People really have to remain consistent if they want to be taken seriously.

Intelligent Design can not; ergo, Intelligent Design is not a science and does not belong in a science classroom.

That's it.

See above. Space aliens are not "science" based on your standard, and therefore has no business in a scientific report, created by scientists if you standards are used. What good is "science" if you are trying to forward myths like little green men from Mars and an on-coming man-made global warming catastrophe using that label to give your inventions legitimacy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The saddest part is that when any theory begins to be perceived as fact in the classroom. That is very bad science.

This.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The concept of gravity _in general_ have proven right, but the details continue to be overturned, refined and equivocated over. Mysteries of the details still persist.

The exact same is true of evolution

I can test "gravity" specific to basic things and get repeating results and therefore make specific statement on how it it is believed it effects our world. I can't test "evolution" specific to the theory that it is responsible for the creation of human beings. Can't. Can't really test whether or not alien life exists either. There are no scientific tests which will prove either.

So, I believe there's a big difference in how we generally discuss and teach "gravity" than the less certain things like evolution as the origin of our species, space aliens and intelligent design.

And as such, I think that when you start trying to censor speculation about specific types of things I just listed, in scientific discussions, it's pretty clear that your interest is not in science, or discovery, but rather supporting your personal biases.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can't test "evolution" specific to the theory that it is responsible for the creation of human beings. Can't.

We can't design a test that will give us an absolute, direct answer to that question, that much is true. As has been pointed out ad infinitum, science only ever gives us the best available explanation of something that we are currently able to determine in order to work with it, until a better version or theory comes along. Given the massive amount of evidence for evolution, it is by far and away the best explanation we have for how life got from single celled organisms to people arguing about evolution on the internet.
Evolution itself, can be tested to a certain extent of course. You can run simulations by defining the initial conditions and rules for reproduction and mutation and evolution does occur.
There is also a trail of historical evidence that shows a pretty clear path back to a common primate ancestor. This sort of forensic evidence is held up in court daily in the solving of crimes.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Can't really test whether or not alien life exists either.

Oh dear. You can look for it. I suggest you google SETI. Of course if you don't find it, that doesn't mean it isn't there, a fact which no doubt pleases you greatly in other circumstances.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So, I believe there's a big difference in how we generally discuss and teach "gravity" than the less certain things like evolution as the origin of our species, space aliens and intelligent design.

You believe there is a big difference? Isn't that what you want?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

And as such, I think that when you start trying to censor speculation about specific types of things I just listed, in scientific discussions, it's pretty clear that your interest is not in science, or discovery, but rather supporting your personal biases.

Its not a personal bias, its a scientifically mandated one.

We have good scientific reason to believe that aliens life might exist. Life is everywhere on our own planet, it exists in some form to some extent in virtually every conceivable habitat on Earth from miles under ice to volcanic vents, the bottom of oceans to the top of mountains. Since there are definitely other planets, we have no reason to believe that whatever it was that caused life to exist on Earth couldn't just as easily have caused it to exist elsewhere in the universe. Therefore talking about and looking for aliens is good science.

We have good reason to believe that humanity evolved from other primates which evolved from other mammals going back eventually to fish and amoebae. We also know there is a mechanism that could have caused this to happen. Evolution is therefore good science, even as an explanation for the existence of humanity.

The only evidence we have for thinking that intelligent design might have occurred is religious texts and word of mouth. Since those texts were written by human beings mostly a long time ago the whole thing hinges on a few people (if not just one) starting the whole idea. Given there are rafts of more plausible explanations for all of the reasons that people believe in gods than the explanation that gods actually exist, this is not very good science. It has been pointed out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn are just as scientifically valid and this is correct. If we were to include ID within scientific education, then there should be no end to the other things we should also include. We could make kids watch Star Wars movies just in case humanity these days is weaker with the force than it used to be. I could go on.
Its not just about whether your theory can be tested, its about whether you have any logical justification for suspecting it in the first place. This is arguably not perfect science, but its more practical than teaching every untestable theory in history (and future).

I actually think there is a place for bringing up ID in science, but only to explain to kids why it is not good science.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think that any of the schools in question were teaching that intelligent design is what definitely was responsible for building life.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm betting that the possible existence of intelligent alien lifeforms often times is, and isn't banned from being discussed in classrooms.

"think". "betting". Do you *know*, or are you just making assumptions to fit what you want to believe?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Oh dear. You can look for it. I suggest you google SETI.

I look for God everyday, too. However, it isn't clear that we would "find" what we are looking for via the methods we try to use in either case.

The question is, when we look, have we "found"? I don't think we have solid evidence via "looking" for either. We can believe that something is "out there" in both cases - have a gut feeling that both or either SHOULD be out there when we look, but there really isn't sold, unquestionable scientific evidence for either.

Again...some need to pick a standard and stick with it, and hold EVERYONE to that same standard. You really can't credibility attack ID as being "bad science" then either support or ignore when another "scientist" forwards equally unprovable speculation in regards to inventions like space aliens.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

"think". "betting". Do you *know*, or are you just making assumptions to fit what you want to believe?

I'm basing on my best recollection. Are you saying that you don't believe that discussing intelligent design in science classes have been banned by courts anywhere?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can't test "evolution" specific to the theory that it is responsible for the creation of human beings. Can't.

Nope. You can't. However, there is evidence to suggest that Homo Sapiens were not the first walking-upright-intelligent species on the planet. Until you find evidence of Homo Sapiens existing prior to Australopithecus, Homo erectus or Neanderthal, the evidence suggests that Homo Sapiens evolved from them (unless you prefer to believe that God created Australopithecus the Homo erectus then Neanderthal prior to creating Homo Sapiens ... certainly possible, but it then suggests that God was experimenting and, therefore, not all knowing). Any further back than that is speculation and isn't covered explicitly by evolutionary theory.

Similarly with alien life. While there isn't any evidence to suggest that alien life exists, if there weren't any out there it "seems like an awful waste of space". The sheer size of the Universe is evidence enough to some that alien life exists.

However, I speculate that you might find as many scientists who believe in the possibility of God as there are scientists who believe in the possibility of Aliens. I speculate that it's merely your assumptions that make Science appear so anti-Christianity.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm basing on my best recollection.

So, the evidence for your entire argument is based on personal experience of no more than 3 classes back when you were in grade school? You do realize that not every classroom is identical? Each is almost as unique as each teacher teaching them.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Are you saying that you don't believe that discussing intelligent design in science classes have been banned by courts anywhere?

I'm saying that I don't know if "any of the schools in question were teaching that intelligent design is what definitely was responsible for building life". I'm also saying that I suspect (based on your own words) that you don't know either. They might have been, for all we know.

I'm saying that I don't know if "the possible existence of intelligent alien lifeforms often times is" discussed in the classroom. I'm also saying that I suspect (based on your own words) that you don't know either. They might not have been, for all we know.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

FWIW, everywhere is (or was) the centre of the universe.

Doof, if taking a picture of the CMBR is not direct measurement, then there is no such thing worthy of the term 'direct measurement'.

As for evolution, once you establish certain initial conditions, it 'falls out of the maths'. Do you believe in DNA and genes? Do you doubt the methods of reproduction of life? Do you doubt that external factors can cause mutation of genes? If you buy all that, then you believe in evolution. If you buy all that and still deny evolution, then you simply don't understand it well enough.

I believe evolution... But I'm just being realistic about the limitations of science at present. I have no idea why North America seems to get its panties in a twist over all this. Bunch of mentalists.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I believe evolution... But I'm just being realistic about the limitations of science at present. I have no idea why North America seems to get its panties in a twist over all this. Bunch of mentalists.

The evolution bit wasn't really aimed at you, just the bit about CMBR.

[The Final Dakar]

Aliens may destroy Pol Lounge to protect other fora, says poster

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I look for God everyday, too. However, it isn't clear that we would "find" what we are looking for via the methods we try to use in either case.

The question is, when we look, have we "found"? I don't think we have solid evidence via "looking" for either. We can believe that something is "out there" in both cases - have a gut feeling that both or either SHOULD be out there when we look, but there really isn't sold, unquestionable scientific evidence for either.

Again...some need to pick a standard and stick with it, and hold EVERYONE to that same standard. You really can't credibility attack ID as being "bad science" then either support or ignore when another "scientist" forwards equally unprovable speculation in regards to inventions like space aliens.

I wasn't offering 'looking for aliens' as evidence for their existence, I was offering it as proof that you can try to test for evidence of their existence. If they answer us, then we'll know they exist but of course there are perfectly good reasons why they might not such as, they are too far away or they don't have the technology to talk to us, or we haven't waited long enough for a reply. Or of course it might be that there aren't any there at all. Only one of these particular explanations applies to god not answering us.
Its not a 'gut feeling' that aliens are out there, its that we don't have any scientific reason to believe that they shouldn't be. It is more logical to assume that the Earth and therefore life is not unique among the billions and billions of other stars and galaxies than to assume that it is. Take a look at this:

Drake equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there are intelligent aliens commonly in existence, then it could take a long time to find them. We have been broadcasting radio signals into space, announcing our own existence for the last century or so. That means that for aliens to pick up our evidence of our existence, they would have to be within 100 light years of us. This is not very far in interstellar terms, that aren't very many planets in that kind of range that we have discovered yet. And even if they were say 80 light years away, their reply would still not get to us for another 60 years.

Aliens and gods might seem equally unprovable, but they aren't and they certainly aren't equally implausible. If we could quantify implausibility in these cases they would be many orders of magnitude apart.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, the evidence for your entire argument is based on personal experience of no more than 3 classes back when you were in grade school?

It's my recollection amongst many science classes I have taken, that intelligent life existing in the galaxy had been brought up, and it's my recollection that there has been no court orders banning such discussions as being not scientific. Correct.

Do you have evidence that there are bans in place for talking about the possibility of other intelligent life somewhere out in the cosmos?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Incorrect.

If God then no evolution and no big bang. If no God then evolution and big bang. They're related.

Wouldn't GOD had invented evolution ....

[Athens]

I don't discount intelligent design btw. It wont be long before us HUMANS will be able to build designer life. We could end up seeding other planets and thus be the GODS of future worlds if we live long enough to see them evolve. I can accept that we might have been placed here by another life form.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can test "gravity" specific to basic things and get repeating results and therefore make specific statement on how it it is believed it effects our world. I can't test "evolution" specific to the theory that it is responsible for the creation of human beings.

You're not comparing apples to apples. You can test (at home) the law of gravity, to predict new events. But you can't test the theory that gravity is solely responsible for past events like the origin of the solar system. Likewise, you can test the law of evolution, to predict new events. But you can't test the theory that evolution is solely responsible for past events like the origin of species.

You were comparing the law of one to the theory of the other.

Can't. Can't really test whether or not alien life exists either.

Well, there's always SETI@home

And as such, I think that when you start trying to censor speculation about specific types of things I just listed, in scientific discussions, it's pretty clear that your interest is not in science, or discovery, but rather supporting your personal biases.

Intelligent design is not censored in scientific discussions. It is tested. What's censored is lying about the results of the tests (lies like saying that it is competitive with evolution, based on evidence alone, for example). Science is not forgiving of dishonesty, remember the Korean cloning king who was crucified just for being dishonest? Same situation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

there has been no court orders banning such discussions as being not scientific.

If that's what you think the court orders are about, then it's no wonder you're confused

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The saddest part is that when any theory begins to be perceived as fact in the classroom. That is very bad science.

A classroom is not a laboratory, it's a simulation of a laboratory. There's too much material to get through to re-derive everything from scratch, Descartes-style. Of course, as much as possible should be "discovered" rather than "received," but the idea that *nothing* should be "received" is unrealistic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

As for evolution, once you establish certain initial conditions, it 'falls out of the maths'. Do you believe in DNA and genes? Do you doubt the methods of reproduction of life? Do you doubt that external factors can cause mutation of genes? If you buy all that, then you believe in evolution. If you buy all that and still deny evolution, then you simply don't understand it well enough.

I object to this mathification argument. It could easily be that even though hereditary mutation exists (at the same rate as reality), that deleterious mutations outpace neutral/beneficial ones, and the whole process is a slow spiral of doom. What makes the theory believable is that laboratory and field tests suggest this is not the case.

I'm no math expert, but I don't believe that any math could convincingly verify (without physical testing) that beneficial mutations outpace harmful ones (in the wild), because we don't have any mathematical (or any other sort of) understanding of why any particular mutation will be beneficial or harmful, before testing it. In fact that is the strength of the "genetic algorithm" in the first place: no understanding of the mechanics of the new trait is needed. That's why the genetic algorithm is actually able to outperform conscious algorithms (in some cases). If it had "fallen out of the maths," then this would not be the case.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I wasn't offering 'looking for aliens' as evidence for their existence, I was offering it as proof that you can try to test for evidence of their existence.

I can do the same in regards to God. I can do it right here. Watch.

::kneeling down:: "God...are you there? It's me? Please answer ::Get up::

You assume that by listening to outer space, you are going to get some kind of answer. I am assuming that by praying to God, I'm going to get an answer. Both assumptions could be wrong. There could be intelligent life out there and no answer via the method you chose. There could be a God and he won't verbally respond to my prayer. You are inventing a test for something that may not exist, that might not ever provide a response for your test even if it did exist because there's really no way of knowing what type of stimulus the thing in question will respond to.

Your trying to split hairs where none exist. Most likely due to personal bias.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well, there's always SETI@home

Listening for responses from life which may not respond in the way we imagine.

Again, I can pray too. I'm guessing I'll get as much quality data which goes towards proving or disproving God as you'll get in regards to aliens with SETI, when I perform that test.

Intelligent design is not censored in scientific discussions.

So there are no prohibition on it's discussion in American classrooms? Science teachers are free to offer speculation on other ideas on how life began, including ID?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Listening for responses from life which may not respond in the way we imagine.

Again, I can pray too. I'm guessing I'll get as much quality data which goes towards proving or disproving God as you'll get in regards to aliens with SETI, when I perform that test.

Agreed. Now, which classrooms are teaching SETI@home, and claiming that the results were positive, or even promising?

So there are no prohibition on it's discussion in American classrooms? Science teachers are free to offer speculation on other ideas on how life began, including ID?

If you meant "scientific discussions" to mean classrooms, that's intellectually dishonest. By calling it "scientific discussions" you imply that you are talking about when scientists talk to each other.

There is no prohibition on talking about ID. There is a prohibition on teaching ID. The same reaction you would get if you caught a teacher teaching that SETI had found alien life, when they hadn't.

We don't bother enacting bans on things that nobody ever does in the first place.

[OAW]

The problem with Intelligent Design discussions in school is that so often they aren't left at that. Inevitably, religion gets introduced into the mix because that tends to be the underlying agenda of the people pushing ID. If the proponents of ID were just as comfortable promoting the idea that life on earth had its origins in a group of "ascended beings called the Ancients" then that would be one thing. But it becomes pretty evident that while ID and Christian Creationism are not equivalent ... there are those Creationists who try to use ID to nullify evolution which is the ultimate goal of Creationism.

It's sad really ... because IMO it seems almost inconceivable that there isn't some sort of ID to the Universe. Someone said earlier ...

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Similarly with alien life. While there isn't any evidence to suggest that alien life exists, if there weren't any out there it "seems like an awful waste of space". The sheer size of the Universe is evidence enough to some that alien life exists.

A sentiment that I agree with wholeheartedly. Similarly with ID for me. The sheer size and complexity of the Universe indicates some sort of intelligence at work. If you visited another planet and found a fully functioning machine on the surface ... no one would think that it developed on its own by accident. So why do we persist in such thinking when it comes to the machine that is the human body? The machine that is the solar system? The machine that is the Universe? Now people can quibble about what they want to call it ... God, The Force, the Ancients, etc. Or perhaps the Universe is just the physical manifestation of Supreme Being Itself. But to look at the wondrousness of the Universe around us and not recognize some sort of intelligence at work is to be willfully blind IMO.

OAW

[Athens]

I could live with the idea of creation being taught in school if it was taught as a idea that a more advance power, not just god but also Aliens.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But to look at the wondrousness of the Universe around us and not recognize some sort of intelligence at work is to be willfully blind IMO.

The wonderousness is deceptive, due to the simple fact that we are a part of it, not outside observers. We are inherently tuned to find certain things wonderous, because those are the things we need in order to survive: clear water, healthy wildlife, blue skies, young fit healthy symmetrical humans, bright fruit-like colors, and brightly lit shiny or twinkly things (another proxy for water in part). If there was a dirt monster that fed on the most vile putrid scum of the earth/space, then it would find far more wonderousness in the dank and dark than it did in the things we find beautiful (waste of space is in the eye of the beholder).

This is aside from humans' inherent drive to find patterns, attribute agency, and pick strong testosterony pack leaders to follow/worship (other traits that helped us thrive in the natural world).

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This is aside from humans' inherent drive to find patterns, attribute agency ....

Guilty as charged! This is exactly what I'm talking about. The patterns and complex processes that we see all around us. It seems more rational to attribute their existence to some sort of agency (even indirectly) than sheer randomness. When the choice is between what's probable and what's possible ... I tend to roll with the former. My only point here is that there seems to be a hostility among some in scientific circles to the very idea of a higher intelligence. I totally understand the need to keep religion out of science ... with its anthropomorphized "explanations" for things we don't understand. I certainly think trying to explain the nature of the entire Universe based upon religious texts that are thousands of years old is folly at best. I'm just saying that clearly there are things that we don't understand about the universe. And if we don't fully understand them then the idea of a higher form of intelligence at work that is currently beyond our comprehension should not be dismissed out of hand.

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I can do the same in regards to God. I can do it right here. Watch.

::kneeling down:: "God...are you there? It's me? Please answer ::Get up::

You assume that by listening to outer space, you are going to get some kind of answer. I am assuming that by praying to God, I'm going to get an answer. Both assumptions could be wrong. There could be intelligent life out there and no answer via the method you chose. There could be a God and he won't verbally respond to my prayer. You are inventing a test for something that may not exist, that might not ever provide a response for your test even if it did exist because there's really no way of knowing what type of stimulus the thing in question will respond to.

Your trying to split hairs where none exist. Most likely due to personal bias.

I'm pretty sure I covered all of this in the hope you wouldn't think you could use it as a counterpoint. You are still conducting a test. Of course if you were to hear a disembodied voice reply to you there would still be a whole lot more rational explanations ahead of it being god, so as tests go its less useful than looking for aliens.

If you don't get an answer, then god or aliens, its almost the same (except there are good reasons why you might not get an answer from aliens and the excuses are much less convincing from an omnipotent overlord). If you get an answer from the aliens, you can do a bit more science to verify its source and come up with a good idea of whether or not its genuine. If you get a genuine answer from god, how do you check its authentic? It could be your neighbour whispering through an air vent with a Darth Vader voice changer box or a million other things that are more likely than it actually being god. In short the test is useless as a test for god, its not necessarily useless when you test for aliens.

You keep alleging bias but the only one really exhibiting it is you. It has been explained to you that there are many many many more ideas and concepts that are every bit as scientific as ID, the FSM, the IPU and the Force are barely even the tip of the iceberg here. You are fixating on one in a billion because you happen to believe in it. You also keep ignoring the various rebuttals and explanations to the contrary because they don't agree with your point of view. And of course you are starting with a conclusion rather than testing a theory.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Guilty as charged! This is exactly what I'm talking about. The patterns and complex processes that we see all around us. It seems more rational to attribute their existence to some sort of agency (even indirectly) than sheer randomness. When the choice is between what's probable and what's possible ... I tend to roll with the former. My only point here is that there seems to be a hostility among some in scientific circles to the very idea of a higher intelligence. I totally understand the need to keep religion out of science ... with its anthropomorphized "explanations" for things we don't understand. I certainly think trying to explain the nature of the entire Universe based upon religious texts that are thousands of years old is folly at best. I'm just saying that clearly there are things that we don't understand about the universe. And if we don't fully understand them then the idea of a higher form of intelligence at work that is currently beyond our comprehension should not be dismissed out of hand.

OAW

The point is humans tend to see patterns where there aren't any. Randomness is very counter intuitive to us. There is a well known test involving sheets of paper covered in dots but perhaps a better example here is the case where Steve Jobs and co had to make the shuffle function on the iPod less random because it kept picking the same songs and people thought it wasn't truly random.

If you look at the night sky and try to comprehend the sheer size and scale of what you are looking at you can sometimes get these incredible short lived sensations of it all but they are so fleeting and they slip away so fast you are just left feeling a bit mind-blown for a second. Again, its tempting to think that this perceived complexity is somehow evidence that there is something greater at work but we simply aren't evolved to deal with distances in parsecs. People walk miles and have done for tens of thousands of years, the concept of the light year is only a century or two old, our brains are not yet adapted to deal with it casually.