[OAW]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The point is humans tend to see patterns where there aren't any. Randomness is very counter intuitive to us.

Perhaps. But are you suggesting that there is no pattern to DNA? No pattern to the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. The Sun throughout the Milky Way? No pattern to mathematics? Clearly all these things aren't illusions?

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ubuntu doesn't work properly in Parallels 3. Fedora does.

Parallels 3? Dude, you live in the dark ages. Time to live in the present.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

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.

I may have oversimplified it just a touch.

[Uncle Skeleton]

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.

As was covered already on the last page, what I meant was we see too many patterns. This isn't to be "rational" and be the most correct (because it's not), it is a survival strategy. It is better to see 100 tigers where there are none than to miss one tiger. It is better to see 100 snakes when there are just leaves, than to miss a real snake even once. So that's what our brains do, we draw connections when there aren't any, more often than we miss connections where there are.

But just because this is what our brain does by default, doesn't make it rational.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps. But are you suggesting that there is no pattern to DNA? No pattern to the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. The Sun throughout the Milky Way? No pattern to mathematics? Clearly all these things aren't illusions?

This is an example. What pattern? A circle? How is a circle more pattern than any other shape? Would it still be a "pattern" if it were a square? To jump to the conclusion of agency because of a "pattern" as simple as a circle is distinctly not rational.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I may have oversimplified it just a touch.

I think my post addresses your real point more than it does the oversimplification.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

As was covered already on the last page, what I meant was we see too many patterns. This isn't to be "rational" and be the most correct (because it's not), it is a survival strategy. It is better to see 100 tigers where there are none than to miss one tiger. It is better to see 100 snakes when there are just leaves, than to miss a real snake even once. So that's what our brains do, we draw connections when there aren't any, more often than we miss connections where there are.

But just because this is what our brain does by default, doesn't make it rational.

It almost sounds as if you are equating observable phenomena with some sort of tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Making connections and seeing patterns between disparate things that are totally unrelated. Then again, I could just be taking it wrong. In all honesty I haven't been a major participant in this thread. I only chimed in recently on the whole ID thing. Later on I'll take the time to read the entire thread in earnest to see exactly where you are coming from.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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.

It's my recollection that no such discussions ever happened in the many science classes that I have taken.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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

Nope, but I'm not certain there should to be. Discussions about such possibilities are an excellent way to discuss how evolutionary theory works, especially since one of the premises of the theory is adaptation to new environments; what would life look like on a low gravity planet? on a hot planet? on a water planet?

Can you please explain why intelligent design needs to be in the science classroom? Can you outline the science behind intelligent design?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It almost sounds as if you are equating observable phenomena with some sort of tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.

Yeah ok. Assuming that you can have a "conspiracy" of one, and assuming that by "observable phenomena" you mean things analogous to observing the 911 crash photos or the Zapruder film (ie evidence that everyone can see, but people just disagree on the interpretation), how exactly is it different from a conspiracy theory?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Later on I'll take the time to read the entire thread in earnest to see exactly where you are coming from.

Actually a better analogy than "conspiracy theory" would be constellations. Humans tend to see shapes (of people) in the patterns of the stars. This happened independently across lots of cultures. But we now agree that these patterns were just random, and not important (don't you?). How is your observation of "patterns" in DNA, celestial orbits, or the the fibonacci sequence any more "rational" than the observation of "patterns" in mythical constellations?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

No they aren't.

Yes they are. The exact same principles used to develop and test modern understandings of how gravity works and interacts with objects are used to explain the process of evolution.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Unless you're saying that understanding of evolution varies upon variables.

Of course it does. Evolution by natural selection. Often outside circumstances can force changes. A changing climate can alter the future of evolution. Pure randomness can sometimes produce the most beneficial changes.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

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

Newtonian physics break down at micro and macroscopic levels. It works for basic principles and for a general understanding. That's why he helped invent calculus. That's also why a whole different level of mathematics and physics were created because Newtonian physics aren't enough to explain how the universe works.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not as to whether or not it was the impetus for the dawning of man. We've went over this before.

Yes, we have. Over and over and over again. And I keep explaining to you, over and over and over again, and you consistently (and I'm sure purposefully) forget that evolution does not deal with origins. These are two different fields of study. Intelligent Design is arguing that humans were designed. Evolution has been demonstrated and tested to show that you do not need an Invisible Pink Unicorn to evolve from proto-human to human, or indeed from proteins.

We have observed evolution and its processes. DNA and fossil evidence, we literally have mountains of it.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's speculation that this method was the means for our creation.

Evidence.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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.

Then someone else will test your theory, find faults in it, present the data, and so goes the process of a peer reviewed study. The irony is that you've just come up with a real hypothesis, and had you gone through with testing it, a real scientific theory. Your joke has more credibility than Intelligent Design ever will.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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.

Science is about the process of discovery. We can test the theory by sending a probe to another planet (which we are, we're sending another one to Mars for the actual purpose of looking for life) and actually look for life. The evidence that supports this theory are meteorites with what appear to be protein structures and bacteria. Extraterrestrial bacteria. Life not from our planet.

Experiments have shown that some species of lichen can survive in deep space regardless of the extreme temperatures and radiation.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's no more testable or provable that the existence of a supreme being.

It is infinitely more testable and provable than the existence of a supreme being. We can set up an experiment (which we have and are currently doing) to test these theories. It is impossible to test the existence of God.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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.

You are arguing on an internet forum, using computers and technology that were developed using the exact same principles and process used to understand the process of evolution. You are a contradiction. I find it unfathomable that you can sit here on your computer and argue against the theory of evolution.

This is our argument, simplified:

Me: 1+1=2. 1+2=3.
You: I'll admit 1+1=2, but you can't convince me 1+2=3.
Me: It's the same process.
You: I don't care. God tells me 1+2 can't possibly equal 3.
Me: Yow can you conclude that 1+1=2, but 1+2 can't equal 3?
You: Yeah, well, watermelons have water.
Me: What do watermelons have to do with 1+2=3?
You: They're divine watermelons. If 1+2=3, it's because watermelons make it equal 3.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

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

Your selective reading skills are impressive. Apparently you just ignored everything I typed.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Actually a better analogy than "conspiracy theory" would be constellations. Humans tend to see shapes (of people) in the patterns of the stars. This happened independently across lots of cultures. But we now agree that these patterns were just random, and not important (don't you?). How is your observation of "patterns" in DNA, celestial orbits, or the the fibonacci sequence any more "rational" than the observation of "patterns" in mythical constellations?

We can use our knowledge of these "patterns" to make reasonable predictions. This holds true for everything from celestial orbits, DNA, and even evolution. Because we can test these patterns, then make predictions using them, we know to a relative degree of certainty that they are true.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

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

I don't know. Which classrooms where teaching that the results of prayer in the search for God and an intelligent designer did the same?

There is no prohibition on talking about ID. There is a prohibition on teaching ID.

Often times, a distinction without much difference. I don't think that any of the classrooms in question where ever teaching that ID was the most likely answer to the question at hand, or even the most likely. Most that I've heard that it was just discussed as an option, which based on this thread would seem to be a topic fit for a discussion regarding science.

The same reaction you would get if you caught a teacher teaching that SETI had found alien life, when they hadn't.

I'd be opposed to a teacher claiming that ID was surely the answer to the question of where we all came from as well. I'd also be opposed to a teacher claiming that we surely evolved from lower primates. I have no problems with them giving either as potential answers to the question, since both would be (based on the standards given in this thread) suitable topics for discussion in regards to the subject. Again, I don't think that most science teachers who want to discuss this option are doing so without also explaining the reasoning and rationale as to why a lot of scientists feel more strongly about the evolution solution.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's my recollection that no such discussions ever happened in the many science classes that I have taken.

+"Science class" +alien life - Google Search

Went through the search results and found several examples of people discussing alien life in the classroom.

Can you please explain why intelligent design needs to be in the science classroom? Can you outline the science behind intelligent design?

I'm not arguing that it should here. I'm arguing that if the discussion of intelligent alien life is suitable for "science," then rationally so would ID, unless you are just so bigoted against religion that the thought of any discussion of scientific possibilities which might support the notion of some kind of "supreme being" or intelligence at the helm, simply can't be stomached.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

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.

...and if you expect to hear some sort of sound that might be an alien, there would normally still be a whole lot more rational explanations ahead of it being intelligent alien life as well. Unless of course you actually got a clear unambiguous message from an intelligent life form. It's my belief that this is about as likely to occur as hearing that disembodied voice. There's no data really which would give one a statistically greater chance than the other.

If you don't get an answer, then god or aliens, its almost the same

Right. Which is why if the possibility of intelligent life in the universe is suitable for a scientific discussion, so is ID.

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 right. There's lots of "possibilities". However, there is one that is being banned that does support the belief system of the majority of humans on the planet Earth. I think that sort of puts it in a different category as say, the "Force" and therefore suitable for special attention. I'm not the one wanting to ban discussion of certain possibilities in science class. I want no bias artificially injected. I'm for open discussions. It seems it's a lot of others whose personal biases against religion are so strong that they don't even want to fathom scientific possibilities that might challenge their forgone conclusions on certain subjects. That can't be good for "science."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think my post addresses your real point more than it does the oversimplification.

That said, if a genetic system were to be entirely wiped out because the rate of deleterious mutations was too high, this is also part of evolution. Extinctions happen within the scope of evolution, there is nothing to say that evolution has to sustain life. If that life can't adapt to its environment, it dies out whether its just some life or all of it.
If we don't get off this rock ~5 billion years from now, chances are Earth based evolution will reach the end of the road.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

+"Science class" +alien life - Google Search

Went through the search results and found several examples of people discussing alien life in the classroom.

There's no question that such conversations occur *in some classrooms*. Now, figure out how many classrooms DIDN'T have discussions about aliens. I'd be willing to bet that religion (not ID) ends up being discussed in the Science classroom almost as often as aliens.

You state your recollections in ways that suggest you think they occur in *all classrooms* simply because they occurred in *your classroom*. I guarantee that there will be A LOT more discussion of aliens if intelligent design ever gets into the classroom. Also, don't be upset if the intelligence speculated about ends up being aliens more often than God.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm not arguing that it should here. I'm arguing that if the discussion of intelligent alien life is suitable for "science," then rationally so would ID, unless you are just so bigoted against religion that the thought of any discussion of scientific possibilities which might support the notion of some kind of "supreme being" or intelligence at the helm, simply can't be stomached.

I think scientific possibilities that might support the notion of intelligent design absolutely should be included in the classroom. As soon as any such scientific evidence is uncovered, let us know.

But first, I think you need to understand what Science is. It *isn't* just coming up with an idea and sticking it in a text book.
- The idea needs more rigor around it than "well, if aliens are in the classroom in a few isolated cases, then my idea should be in every classroom as well!". Make a scientific argument for why your idea should be in the Science classroom rather than a political argument.
- The idea needs to have some plan to test it, the results of which can be displayed for all to see and the test such that it can be replicated by others. How do you plan to test for intelligent design? The biblical equivalent of SETI (prayer) only tests for one of many possible intelligent designers and is therefore inadequate for testing. You need a test plan that can uncover evidence of intelligent design, whether the designer is God, Zeus, The Creator, some unknown god, Aliens, Gaia, etc.
- or, you need to have scientific evidence as uncovered through scientific testing.

It's pretty clear, so far, that the backers of intelligent design have very little understanding of Science. THIS is why it's being banned from the Science classroom.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm arguing that if the discussion of intelligent alien life is suitable for "science," then rationally so would ID, unless you are just so bigoted against religion that the thought of any discussion of scientific possibilities which might support the notion of some kind of "supreme being" or intelligence at the helm, simply can't be stomached.

You try so hard to position Intelligent Design as science, yet, here, you admit it's religion. If it's religion, then it indeed has no place in the Science classroom and not for reasons of biggotry; Social Studies also has no place in the Science classroom.

If you want to argue that religion has a place in the Science classroom, then perhaps science should have a place in the Sunday School class? Also, expect conversations in the Science class covering religious persecutions of scientists who dared to question religion.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

We can use our knowledge of these "patterns" to make reasonable predictions. This holds true for everything from celestial orbits, DNA, and even evolution. Because we can test these patterns, then make predictions using them, we know to a relative degree of certainty that they are true.

Well, I was giving OAW the benefit of the doubt that his meaning was on topic (the subtopic he started), which would mean he was talking about the kinds of "patterns" that are attributable to "wondrousness" and therefore intelligent design, not whether there was a "true" pattern as opposed to pure randomness. For example, fairie rings are a pattern that's true, not false or random, but it's not because of any agent's intent, it's just because a circle is the shape that occurs when the fungus grows outward. Now a circle in and of itself might be wondrous or beautiful, but it does break the pattern of "wondrousness is the result of intent, and unintended things are not wondrous."

I didn't say that no patters are true, I just said that humans tend to identify more patterns than the amount that are actually true (for good reason, over-caution in a world of hazards). That's why any pattern we see must be verified by making predictions (I don't think the wondrousness hypothesis has been tested)

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are right. There's lots of "possibilities". However, there is one that is being banned that does support the belief system of the majority of humans on the planet Earth. I think that sort of puts it in a different category as say, the "Force" and therefore suitable for special attention. I'm not the one wanting to ban discussion of certain possibilities in science class. I want no bias artificially injected. I'm for open discussions. It seems it's a lot of others whose personal biases against religion are so strong that they don't even want to fathom scientific possibilities that might challenge their forgone conclusions on certain subjects. That can't be good for "science."

It doesn't matter how many people believe it. Its not a democracy. That matters for politics or social issues, not for science. If we allowed discussion of ID to masquerade as science, then we'd be artificially injecting bias. By banning it (we don't have to ban discussions of aliens because 1: They are more useful, 2: They are less far fetched and 3: There isn't rafts of people pushing for discussion of aliens to be included in the science curriculum) we are keeping bias out of the classroom.

[Waragainstsleep]

Here is some wonderousness for people to enjoy:

Scale of Universe - Interactive Scale of the Universe Tool

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think that any of the classrooms in question where ever teaching that ID was the most likely answer to the question at hand, or even the most likely.

Then you weren't paying attention

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

+"Science class" +alien life - Google Search

Went through the search results and found several examples of people discussing alien life in the classroom.

All I see is reference to the actual legitimate evidence suggesting microbial alien life. This thread is about intelligent aliens; did you find any at all about that?

I'm arguing that if the discussion of intelligent alien life is suitable for "science," then rationally so would ID

"Classroom?" You didn't say "classroom."

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which is why if the possibility of intelligent life in the universe is suitable for a scientific discussion, so is ID.

No, not "discussion," "classroom." Say "classroom." There's no specific rules about ID in "discussion," only in "classroom." The more you go out of the way to replace "classroom" with "discussion," the more clear it is you're making a huge stretch to try to fit your agenda to the facts.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

That said, if a genetic system were to be entirely wiped out because the rate of deleterious mutations was too high, this is also part of evolution. Extinctions happen within the scope of evolution, there is nothing to say that evolution has to sustain life. If that life can't adapt to its environment, it dies out whether its just some life or all of it.
If we don't get off this rock ~5 billion years from now, chances are Earth based evolution will reach the end of the road.

But the question isn't whether fitness can go down, it's whether fitness must go down. I can't think of any way to answer it without physical experiments. It's not a philosophical or mathematical question, it's an empirical one.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This is an example. What pattern? A circle? How is a circle more pattern than any other shape? Would it still be a "pattern" if it were a square? To jump to the conclusion of agency because of a "pattern" as simple as a circle is distinctly not rational.

A circle isn't more of a "pattern" than any other shape. My point is that we see the double-helix shape consistently in DNA. Not one shape here and another shape there ... and something that humans wouldn't even call a shape in other places. There's a "pattern" to how DNA is structured and how it functions. There's a "pattern" to the orbits of the planets in our solar system around the sun. Phenomena we can observe and then use to make predictions.

Presumably you typed this post on some sort of Mac or iOS device right? So again ... if every life form on earth was wiped out and an intelligent alien found your device and others like it on a barren earth ... would said alien be "irrational" to see an intelligence behind the design and construction of those devices after it was able to determine its function? It would not be unreasonable to assume some sort of "agency" because such things don't materialize out of thin air on their own. Similarly, my contention is that one can see agency or intelligence in how the Universe itself functions. Now bear in mind that I'm not one who subscribes to ID as an alternative to evolution. Quite the opposite ... I see an ID that set evolution in motion so to speak.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Actually a better analogy than "conspiracy theory" would be constellations. Humans tend to see shapes (of people) in the patterns of the stars. This happened independently across lots of cultures. But we now agree that these patterns were just random, and not important (don't you?). How is your observation of "patterns" in DNA, celestial orbits, or the the fibonacci sequence any more "rational" than the observation of "patterns" in mythical constellations?

Because what you describe as a "constellation" doesn't even exist. It is merely what we humans perceive as a familiar shape when we construct imaginary lines between clusters of stars in the night sky. And even that only "exists" from a certain vantage point ... Earth. What humans call the constellation "Orion" wouldn't appear the same from a planet in a neighboring solar system. What you are talking about is more along the line of a "seeing the face of 'Jesus' on the toast" type of thing. This is quite separate and distinct from the observable phenomena that I'm talking about.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

There's a "pattern" to the orbits of the planets in our solar system around the sun. Phenomena we can observe and then use to make predictions.

The pattern is simple physics. F=m₁*m₂/r². Are you seriously saying this is wondrous? Compared with what? A different equation? I literally can't understand what you mean by this. I think it would be far more wondrous if the planets were being pushed around manually, than if they are simply left on cruise control.

It would not be unreasonable to assume some sort of "agency" because such things don't materialize out of thin air on their own.
...
Now bear in mind that I'm not one who subscribes to ID as an alternative to evolution. Quite the opposite ... I see an ID that set evolution in motion so to speak.

You contradict yourself. You say that through evolution, complex mechanisms can arise unaided. Yet for a stranger to encounter a complex object, he must conclude it was NOT unaided.

Anyhow, this speaks directly to my point: they don't materialize on their own in our experience. My guess is that your alien would first assume whatever it was familiar with. If it was from a place where people never built things (like say, a dolphin), it would likely assume that the object was spontaneous. If it was from a place where nearly everything is built by people (like I am), then it would likely assume that the object was built. If it was from a place where things materialized from thin air fully formed by telepathy, then it would likely assume that origin of the object. None of these assumptions are rational, they're just a mental short-cut that is used to quickly approximate the most-common result, due to the fact that your own experience is relevant to your location. Rationality comes from being able to recognize a possible alternative to your first impression, and conducting a test to distinguish between the two. It doesn't come from relying solely on your gut feelings.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Because what you describe as a "constellation" doesn't even exist. It is merely what we humans perceive as a familiar shape when we construct imaginary lines between clusters of stars in the night sky. And even that only "exists" from a certain vantage point ... Earth. This is quite separate and distinct from the observable phenomena that I'm talking about.

Not really, both sides have observable and imaginary factors. The stars that make up the constellation are certainly observable (and consistent, from every location we look at them), but the connecting lines are imaginary. For you, the repetition of DNA and celestial orbits are certainly observable, but the intelligent agent that made it so is imaginary. In the case of fairy rings, the consistent circle of 'shrooms and discolored grass is observable, but the evil agent that created it is imaginary. This is just a typical god of the gaps scenario; ignorance of the mechanism is the only reason to suspect intentional agency (and the reason that is even an option is due only to our experience with intentional agents: us). Once you learn that the stars are different distances from us, or that the fairy ring is the edge of an underground organism, or that an orbit is just the result of a simple equation, the previous gap filling suddenly seems contrived.

[OAW]

@Uncle Skeleton

I never said evolution could create complex mechanisms "unaided". And what does that even mean anyway? Let me try to clarify what I'm saying. Let's say that evolution is the "how" when it comes to life unfolding on earth. We can readily observe that intra-species … whereas to my knowledge we have yet to observe that inter-species. But scientic theory postulates that the latter is because the process takes place over such long periods of time that direct observation is impractical. Ok fine. If one can accept that then why can't one accept that this "process" was set in motion by some sort of higher intelligence? The origins of the universe … especially the "why" it functions the way it does is not addressed by evolution. And if it is the case that Universe and all that it contains was set in motion by a higher intelligence … or better yet the Universe itself IS the higher intelligence … then the processes like evolution that seemingly take place "unaided" perhaps aren't on some level?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

@Uncle Skeleton

I never said evolution could create complex mechanisms "unaided". And what does that even mean anyway? Let me try to clarify what I'm saying. Let's say that evolution is the "how" when it comes to life unfolding on earth. We can readily observe that intra-species … whereas to my knowledge we have yet to observe that inter-species. But scientic theory postulates that the latter is because the process takes place over such long periods of time that direct observation is impractical. Ok fine. If one can accept that then why can't one accept that this "process" was set in motion by some sort of higher intelligence? The origins of the universe … especially the "why" it functions the way it does is not addressed by evolution. And if it is the case that Universe and all that it contains was set in motion by a higher intelligence … or better yet the Universe itself IS the higher intelligence … then the processes like evolution that seemingly take place "unaided" perhaps aren't on some level?

OAW

I understood this to be what you said the first time. Let me try to explain again...

Suppose that God created the first single-celled organism (let's call it Adam), the common ancestor to all modern life, with the express intention of watching it evolve on its own to see what came out. So in this sense, all of life was intelligently designed at the outset, yet all of the theory of evolution is still correct (since evolution is ambivalent to the origin of the first cell). Also, by this supposition, God actively created evolution, in the sense that the way he designed Adam was such a way as to facilitate evolution. But God is entirely hands-off from then on out.

This means that any new features that arise between then and now were unaided/spontaneous. If any modern organism possesses any complex trait that Adam lacked, then that trait came about without being designed. So if you spot an unknown feature, you don't know whether it was designed (Adam had one) or it materialized on its own (Adam didn't have one). This is why when you say that "these things don't materialize on their own," you contradict when you say that "evolution is true even if God created evolution."

Even if you're exaggerating when you say you believe in evolution (ie you only believe in "adaptation" within species), then you think that Adam was a human (or a chimp?), but you probably still agree that at least some advancement has been made since then, and modern humans possess at least some features that Adam lacked. Then these structures (now the minority among biological structures, but still present) were not designed, ie they "materialized on their own."

So an outsider (alien) who discovers one of these traits, can't safely assume that it was designed, because for all he knows it was one of those traits that evolved all on its own, after God made Adam. Then the same logic applies to non-life as well, now that we know that fanciful wonderful things can exist with or without having been designed, then how do we know that the sunset and the rainbow can't come into existence in a similar way? We really can't assume either way, at least not without reversing at least one of the opinions you've given

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yes, we have. Over and over and over again. And I keep explaining to you, over and over and over again, and you consistently (and I'm sure purposefully) forget that evolution does not deal with origins.

That's a semantic argument. I know you understand what is meant. Being obtuse doesn't help you make your point.

These are two different fields of study. Intelligent Design is arguing that humans were designed. Evolution has been demonstrated and tested to show that you do not need an Invisible Pink Unicorn to evolve from proto-human to human, or indeed from proteins.

It has shown no such thing. It has shown that species can likely adapt to their environment in small ways. It has been thought that enough of these adaptations might allow for the evolution from proto-human to human. That really can't be tested. It's an idea. A possibility. Just as having an intelligent force or power in the universe putting all this "nothingness" together is.

You are arguing on an internet forum, using computers and technology that were developed using the exact same principles and process used to understand the process of evolution. You are a contradiction. I find it unfathomable that you can sit here on your computer and argue against the theory of evolution.

I'm not arguing against it. Your inherent biases and prejudgement that you have all the answers is the only thing that could lead you to such a claim. I'm arguing against censoring other options when the option you give has not been proven, and really can't be tested. I'm all for teaching evolution as a likely option for how human life developed. I'm arguing against banning the discussion of other options due to bigotry and close-mindedness.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

There's no question that such conversations occur *in some classrooms*.

I was challenged based on my recollection that it ever happened. Apparently there was a question as to whether it occurs. I'm guessing though that the challenge wasn't sincere - but rather just a ploy to try and stop the discussion.

Now, figure out how many classrooms DIDN'T have discussions about aliens. I'd be willing to bet that religion (not ID) ends up being discussed in the Science classroom almost as often as aliens.

I'm not so sure "religion" per se. "Religion" is a reference to an organized group of individuals who share the same belief system. There's a vast difference between explaining that maybe the Earth was created in seven days and the first humans where Adam and Eve (religion), and simply pointing out the possibility that there might be some kind of a supreme being out there who has played a role in the creation of the universe.

The former is religion, the latter really isn't. Unless you are so bigoted against the notion that there might be intelligent powers in the universe (which might actually be "alien" as we would see it upon actual discovery), you can't truthfully call this religious regardless of what you might think the motives of those offering the suggestion might be, no more than you can argue that those who push alternative theories who happen to be atheist are doing so just to promote their particular (non)spiritual beliefs. Let's remember, the Constitution not only protects us from having to believe in a particular religious belief, but also from being forced to accept as fact that their religious beliefs are wrong. You are protected both ways. Religious bigots who want to censor broader discovery often times forget this. Sometimes these people are actually judges in courts as well!

You state your recollections in ways that suggest you think they occur in *all classrooms* simply because they occurred in *your classroom*. I guarantee that there will be A LOT more discussion of aliens if intelligent design ever gets into the classroom. Also, don't be upset if the intelligence speculated about ends up being aliens more often than God.

Why would I be upset? Why would actually trying to find the unanswered questions regarding the creation of the universe upset me? I think it's healthy to engage in such intellectual exercises. I think it's intellectually stunting to ban ideas in the classroom due to bigotry. Any ideas. Unless of course forcing people to accept those ideas as facts (when they are unproven) infringes on one's Constitutional rights.

But first, I think you need to understand what Science is. It *isn't* just coming up with an idea and sticking it in a text book.

I'll skip the condescending and nonsensical response posted. My purpose in this exercise was to come up with a consistent standard as to what was "scientific". It's clear that many here believe in bigoted double standards designed to support their preconceived notions. If something that scientists report on that can't really be tested any more than the existence of God, has no real evidence for, and is essentially pure speculation is "science," then the discussion of ID really can't be labeled as not fit for discussion in a scientific setting either. It simply isn't a credible argument. You're going to have to pick a standard and stick with it. Either the scientists in question were embarrassing themselves, wasting resources speculating on science fiction - or it's okay to speculate in this manner on things where no real evidence exists, and still be a fit "science" topic. If it's fit for scientific discussion, and it mentions no particular religious beliefs, it can't really and honestly be credibly banned from classrooms. That's just pseudo intellectuals hiding behind their own personal bigotry.

It's pretty clear, so far, that the backers of intelligent design have very little understanding of Science. THIS is why it's being banned from the Science classroom.

Nope. Your own inability to maintain a consistent standard due to your biases helps explain why it's banned. It really has nothing to do with "science" or what "science" is.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You try so hard to position Intelligent Design as science, yet, here, you admit it's religion.

I admitted (and believe) no such thing. I said that just because it discusses scientific possibilities which might support the notion of some kind of "supreme being" or intelligence, people with bigoted points of view automatically call it "religion" even though this same possibility could result in an intelligence that is not for instance, the traditional "God of Abraham" or any other particular God worshipped by established religions.

When you seek to censor ideas simply because you don't like what you think the motives of others are, or have an irrational bias against those ideas, the exercise isn't an intellectual one - it's a dishonest one.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It doesn't matter how many people believe it. Its not a democracy.

Well, actually the entity that creates the classroom, and the laws involved regarding it are based on a democracy. So, I'd suggest that if the entity in question is irrationally censoring information in ways that force the majority to believe unproven things that goes against the belief of the majority, that's not a really rational or fair thing to be done.

As I've pointed out, if it's illegal to have to have children learn anything religious in nature in a classroom, with the assumption that it's a violation of that American's rights not to have to be faced with the establishment of religion by the near mention of religious concepts (even as it applies to the topics in question), logically you can't then make it mandatory them to learn something unproven, that goes against their religious beliefs, as that would in the same way violate their right to believe in the way they chose.

Of course, there's a reasonable middle ground here, and that would be to discuss various possibilities, one of which would actually possibly support the views of the majority without actually delving into religion. Since we've already established that speculation on various unprovable possibilities most certainly are fairly in the realm of "science," (as evidenced by the lack of criticism and in fact, defense of the space alien report), doing so without mentioning religion can not really be seen as "religious" or have a censoring ban put into place, unless you are so blinded by bigotry against those who do have faith that you just can't allow alternative views to be expressed.

I say this with the caveat that I don't have a problem with teachers explaining the evidence (or lack thereof) of any of the possibilities - just to point out the truth - that there are many well held beliefs and ideas and none have been proven (even if there is evidence for some more than others). This protects those who share the religious beliefs of the majority, the minority who believe that there is no supreme being, and those who aren't sure - while still maintaining a discussion on the matter which would seem (based on this thread) to be fit for scientific investigation.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's a vast difference between explaining that maybe the Earth was created in seven days and the first humans where Adam and Eve (religion), and simply pointing out the possibility that there might be some kind of a supreme being out there who has played a role in the creation of the universe.

No, there isn't. The former is just something accepted as fact by most people, without a shred of evidence, simply because it's been handed down. The latter is just a disingenuous attempt by religious believers to inject their beliefs into the discussion, with the hopes of eventually getting the gullible to believe there is a supreme being.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's a vast difference between explaining that maybe the Earth was created in seven days and the first humans where Adam and Eve (religion), and simply pointing out the possibility that there might be some kind of a supreme being out there who has played a role in the creation of the universe.

The former is religion, the latter really isn't.

That would be true, *if* the latter weren't being pushed exclusively by believers of the former.

But, even if that weren't the case, there is no *science* behind intelligent design yet (as has been said *many* times in here so far). Devise a way that meets scientific criteria to test for intelligent design, and *then* propose including it in the Science classroom.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My purpose in this exercise was to come up with a consistent standard as to what was "scientific".

I don't believe that at all. There is very little that is more consistent and standard than science. What you are proposing here is to inject *inconsistency* into science.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It has shown no such thing. It has shown that species can likely adapt to their environment in small ways. It has been thought that enough of these adaptations might allow for the evolution from proto-human to human. That really can't be tested. It's an idea. A possibility. Just as having an intelligent force or power in the universe putting all this "nothingness" together is.

You've just explained why discussion of evolution as a possible origin for humanity might fit in a Science classroom. That possibility is based on a *scientific understanding* that species can adapt to their environment. It is an extrapolation based on scientific fact, and therefore it is fitting inside a Science classroom as a way to help explain the evolutionary process and scientific processes.

What science is the possibility of intelligent design based on?

[Wiskedjak]

Bringing this back to the OP, if there is an intelligent designer, and if it did determine that we had messed up it's design, I wouldn't be surprised if it wiped us out and started over.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My purpose in this exercise was to come up with a consistent standard as to what was "scientific".

ID is scientific. It is also religious. The ban from classrooms has nothing to do with being "not scientific enough," and everything to do with being "too religious." Evolution, ID, and "alien environmentalist" are all scientific, but only one of them also just happens to be religious.

If it's fit for scientific discussion, and it mentions no particular religious beliefs, it can't really and honestly be credibly banned from classrooms.

ID does mention particular religious beliefs. That was the specific finding of the Dover trial. Part of that decision was the evidence that the textbook pushed by the Discovery Institute was a crude find-and-replace update from a prior Creationism textbook.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When you have an irrational bias against those ideas...

It's not irrational, it's in direct response to a very real and documented agenda.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It has shown no such thing. It has shown that species can likely adapt to their environment in small ways. It has been thought that enough of these adaptations might allow for the evolution from proto-human to human. That really can't be tested. It's an idea. A possibility.

It can be tested. It has been tested. It has been demonstrated to work. Not in small ways, not in insignificant ways, but in ways tantamount to a human being relatively suddenly developing the ability to breath under water should the entire planet be nothing but an ocean.

I can not keep arguing with you if you refuse to even open an elementary book on evolutionary biology and at least make an attempt to understand the mechanics. I have linked to several studies and experiments numerous times in the past as this argument keeps coming up, and you either refuse to read them or don't understand them.

I am not going to make the same arguments. You simply do not have the capacity, will, and/or want. This is not close mindedness or bigotry.

I have explained to you the criteria for meeting scientific scrutiny. Evolution meets that criteria, Intelligent Design does not. I can not make this any more clear.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The ban from classrooms has nothing to do with being "not scientific enough," and everything to do with being "too religious." Evolution, ID, and "alien environmentalist" are all scientific, but only one of them also just happens to be religious.

No. It's banned from science classrooms (and only from public schools) because it isn't scientific. You can't test it. Religion became an important factor when counties and even entire states started electing morons to their school boards and changing what constitutes as a "scientific theory," then forcing the schools to teach their religious propaganda as science fact.

[olePigeon]

Molecules Imaged Most Intimately - ScienceNOW

Here is a spectacular example of the Scientific method in action.

1. Form a hypothesis about the shape of an electron cloud.
2. Devise a theory based on evidence, deductive logic, and/or direct observation.
3. Test the theory. (In this case, using biomathematics, quantum physics, and direct observation.)
4. Does the mathematic model resemble the shape of the electron cloud?
5. Can I use these mathematic model to make a prediction about the shape of electron clouds of other molecules?

Note the importance that sometimes these calculations are wrong, requiring revision of the theory, but in every instance they learn something through the process of discovery.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No. It's banned from science classrooms (and only from public schools) because it isn't scientific. You can't test it.

Well, specific cases that have come to trial aren't scientific. But the best-prepared iterations are on par with SETI as being scientific (they are valid questions but lack valid answers). And I don't think you will ever get SETI banned from public schools. The reason is because SETI is not a proxy for religion.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

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.

Most mutations are in fact negative or silent in all animals. A few species/families have relatively stable DNA though. And Since you mention it... It is a slow process of doom for most species... On the grand scale.

But the question isn't whether fitness can go down, it's whether fitness must go down. I can't think of any way to answer it without physical experiments. It's not a philosophical or mathematical question, it's an empirical one.

I may not understand what you were saying here; but while you can't give a confident answer without a physical experiment, I would give one based on probability. If I witnessed a mutation in an animal I would expect the fitness to go down before I ever needed to witness the mutations phenotypic effect.. It's the most probable outcome.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Well, actually the entity that creates the classroom, and the laws involved regarding it are based on a democracy.

Yes but science is NOT a democracy. Your point here is not relevant.

You keep asserting that discussing alien life is a preconceived conception when in actuality most such discussions are clearly qualified as speculative. These discussions are invariably filled with ifs and maybes. People who assert the existence of aliens as fact are just as unwelcome in a scientific environment as people who assert biblical creation and rightly so.

ID and a 7 day creation have as much place in a scientific classroom discussion as fire-breathing dragons, orcs, goblins and Humpty-Dumpty. The difference is that there aren't millions of deluded idiots trying to get those things scientific credibility by pushing them into classrooms. They aren't banned explicitly because they don't need to be.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

ID and a 7 day creation have as much place in a scientific classroom discussion as fire-breathing dragons, orcs, goblins and Humpty-Dumpty.

I've been to Tesco at 4pm - you can't convince me that these things don't exist.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Wouldn't GOD had invented evolution ....

Of course.
That's one of the reasons why everyone in this thread (including myself) who's bothering to have this argument again is a complete retard.

Aliens aren't Earth's enemies. It's the widespread of Earthlings' insecurities that are Earth's enemies and deserve to be exterminated. Aliens aren't the bad guys.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I've been to Tesco at 4pm - you can't convince me that these things don't exist.