[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I agree completely, but was that really O'Donnell's point? Weren't they debating something to do with teaching creationism in public schools? I don't see how your argument translates to that. I would say that religious instruction is significantly different from religious expression. If this really was her point then it was a poor one, and, IMO, demonstrated poor understanding of both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.

First of all, O'Donnell referenced this teaching as Intelligent Design whereas Coons referred to it as the more popular wedge issue of "Creationism" which he considers a "religious doctrine". I have a problem with the idea that Intelligent Design invokes a specific religion that it would qualify as a "religious doctrine". Intelligent Design could be referring to extra-terrestrial life for all it's concerned.

Anyway, Coons argued that this ideal violates the First Amendment in that the amendment explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state. No... the amendment does not explicitly enumerate the separation of church and state. That was a notion merely penned by Jefferson to a concerned Baptist and is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment explicity or otherwise. Jefferson penned this letter btw in the spirit of keeping the government out of religion, not the other way around, but we'll leave the "wall" a "wall" for the sake of argument. After all, this "wall" is not found in the Constitution. On this O'Donnell was correct. Either way, Coons seems to be adhering to the popular notion of suppression, not separation. There is no specific relgion at play that the government would be establishing and not only is separation not suppression, neither are found in the First Amendment. Based on the fact that she's arguing for inclusion, he's arguing for separation based on a Constitutional principle that does not exist, and she's challenging him on where he's getting the idea; it seems apparent that she's arguing that Intelligent Design can be taught in the classroom without a constitutional conflict.

It should also be noted that she supports this ability among local school districts, not as a Federally-mandated curricula.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Intelligent Design could be referring to extra-terrestrial life for all it's concerned.

You're absolutely right, it *could* refer to extra-terrestrial life. To back up your argument, could you find for us one proponent of Intelligent Design who proposes that the Intelligent Designer is a being other than the Christian god?

[CreepDogg]

Call it whatever you want, creationism or intelligent design, it still isn't science. And therefore has no relevance in a science class.

And if you want to water it down to the concept of 'intelligent design', then I'd simply argue that it has no educational value anyway. 'God did it' is a pretty short chapter in the textbook (or even 'aliens did it' or whatever).

So perhaps schools could do that, if they want to make kids stupid.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're absolutely right, it *could* refer to extra-terrestrial life. To back up your argument, could you find for us one proponent of Intelligent Design who proposes that the Intelligent Designer is a being other than the Christian god?

Well I'm one. Creationism is a particular variation of Intelligent Design. But Intelligent Design is not necessarily Creationism. Additionally, the Theory of Intelligent Design is not necessarily in conflict with the Theory of Evolution.

In the early 19th century, Paley's argument from design in Natural Theology (1802), used the watchmaker analogy,[19] and such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as way of understanding "the mind of God". This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which ultimately led to Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Now having said that, it is also quite clear that the groups who are harping the loudest about "Intelligent Design" are actually Creationists who are trying to obfuscate their long-held goal of promoting fundamentalist Christianity in public schools with less overtly religious terminology.

Also, there is the official establishment of religion ... and there is de facto establishment of religion. And promoting any particular religion in a public school setting falls into the latter category. And that is why it has been deemed unconstitutional. Justifiably so.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So perhaps schools could do that, if they want to make kids stupid.

I'd settle for kids who know the difference between "there" and "their" ("you're / your" etc.).

I recently encountered a fresh-out-of-school lawyer who had to reach for a calculator to work out the VAT (17.5%) on £100.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'd settle for kids who know the difference between "there" and "their" ("you're / your" etc.).

I recently encountered a fresh-out-of-school lawyer who had to reach for a calculator to work out the VAT (17.5%) on £100.

Hey, we agree on something. I got into an argument with someone because they thought quotation marks could be used for emphasis. This is stuff you should learn in the first year of primary, and we have people somehow graduating college not knowing how to use an apostrophe, or the difference between there, they're, and their, it's and its, or to and too.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Hey, we agree on something. I got into an argument with someone because they thought quotation marks could be used for emphasis. This is stuff you should learn in the first year of primary, and we have people somehow graduating college not knowing how to use an apostrophe, or the difference between there, they're, and their, it's and its, or to and too.

I know - it drives me mental. I was looking at some aftermarket stuff for a Cessna the other day and every plural on their web site had an apostrophe in it. My immediate thoughts were along the lines of "so I'm going to trust a bunch of illiterates with something that could fall out of the sky with me in it, am I?".

I thought it was bad enough back in the day when schools were churning out people who didn't know binary or hexadecimal and I had to crash-course them in it. Now I despair completely.

In the context of this thread: Don't worry - pretty soon there won't be any people literate enough to actually read the US constitution.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'd settle for kids who know the difference between "there" and "their" ("you're / your" etc.).

I recently encountered a fresh-out-of-school lawyer who had to reach for a calculator to work out the VAT (17.5%) on £100.

Absolutely - I was trying to be kind. Of course, spending finite class time teaching kids pseudo-science in science class instead of these basics wouldn't really help.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't worry - pretty soon there won't be any people literate enough to actually read the US constitution.

We're already well on our way -- on both sides of the aisle.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Of course, spending finite class time teaching kids pseudo-science in science class instead of these basics wouldn't really help.

I agree.
But then how long does it take, when discussing origins, to say "some religions believe in creation or intelligent design theory - see your R.E.* class for details"?
(* do they still call it that these days?)

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I agree.
But then how long does it take, when discussing origins, to say "some religions believe in creation or intelligent design theory - see your R.E.* class for details"?
(* do they still call it that these days?)

Not very long at all, which was kind of my earlier point. And I don't have a problem with that if that's all that's said. But I don't really think that's all Ms. O'Donnell and her ilk are pushing for.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I agree.
But then how long does it take, when discussing origins, to say "some religions believe in creation or intelligent design theory - see your R.E.* class for details"?
(* do they still call it that these days?)

Would that really be enough for the Creationists, or would they just try to turn that inch into a mile?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You're absolutely right, it *could* refer to extra-terrestrial life. To back up your argument, could you find for us one proponent of Intelligent Design who proposes that the Intelligent Designer is a being other than the Christian god?

If I can establish this, will you renounce your Yeshuaphobia and accept the idea that fighting Intelligent Design isn't doing a thing to address why the US is 29th among developed nations in science? I mean... tell me why it matters whether ID is referring to God or ET or how that conflicts with origins theory as yet in its infancy. Otherwise, this sounds like a litmus based on fear, ignorance, and intolerance.

To the others: show me any study, abstract, report, statement or otherwise that says merely "God did it" because I'm certain by your standards I could as easily say BOYA (billions of years ago) did it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Would that really be enough for the Creationists, or would they just try to turn that inch into a mile?

A sticker in a textbook merely reminding students that there are disagreements on origins and to employ critical thinking on this issue with no mention of other hypotheses, no mention of God, and no mention of Christianity was enough for Creationists, but it was too much for Naturalists.

I ask you, can Naturalists be happy that evolution is taught as the prevailing theory or does the curriculum have to include why all other theories are mythology?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To the others: show me any study, abstract, report, statement or otherwise that says merely "God did it" because I'm certain by your standards I could as easily say BOYA (billions of years ago) did it.

Well, the study of evolution is seeking repeatable observations on how exactly 'BOYA' could have done it. You know, science.

What is it precisely that you'd like to teach with regard to 'God did it', and how is it relevant to science?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A sticker in a textbook merely reminding students that there are disagreements on origins and to employ critical thinking on this issue with no mention of other hypotheses, no mention of God, and no mention of Christianity was enough for Creationists, but it was too much for Naturalists.

I ask you, can Naturalists be happy that evolution is taught as the prevailing theory or does the curriculum have to include why all other theories are mythology?

I suspect that behind this is some misunderstanding (not on your part) about evolution not pertaining to the origins of life, but the origins of species. I would say that there is no significant disagreement about the theory (not "hypothesis") of evolution by natural selection as being the best current explanation for the origins of species. Most secondary school textbooks will not even attempt to discuss the origins of life, because on that topic there is much less agreement.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, O'Donnell referenced this teaching as Intelligent Design whereas Coons referred to it as the more popular wedge issue of "Creationism" which he considers a "religious doctrine". I have a problem with the idea that Intelligent Design invokes a specific religion that it would qualify as a "religious doctrine". Intelligent Design could be referring to extra-terrestrial life for all it's concerned.

Intelligent Design does not have to invoke a specific religion, but it has to invoke a god. Extra-terrestrials with the power to do what Intelligent Design proposes are essentially gods.

Anyway, Coons argued that this ideal violates the First Amendment in that the amendment explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state. No... the amendment does not explicitly enumerate the separation of church and state. That was a notion merely penned by Jefferson to a concerned Baptist and is nowhere to be found in the First Amendment explicity or otherwise. Jefferson penned this letter btw in the spirit of keeping the government out of religion, not the other way around, but we'll leave the "wall" a "wall" for the sake of argument. After all, this "wall" is not found in the Constitution. On this O'Donnell was correct. Either way, Coons seems to be adhering to the popular notion of suppression, not separation. There is no specific relgion at play that the government would be establishing and not only is separation not suppression, neither are found in the First Amendment. Based on the fact that she's arguing for inclusion, he's arguing for separation based on a Constitutional principle that does not exist, and she's challenging him on where he's getting the idea; it seems apparent that she's arguing that Intelligent Design can be taught in the classroom without a constitutional conflict.

I understand all that. I'm just not confident that's what she was actually doing at the time, as opposed to after the fact to salvage her failed gotcha moment. Either way, the whole incident reflects poorly on her. The fact is that we are in a territory here where reasonable people can disagree, based on different, but valid interpretations of the law. She did not come off as reasonable.

It should also be noted that she supports this ability among local school districts, not as a Federally-mandated curricula.

Irrelevant for the purposes of conflict with the First Amendment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Intelligent Design does not have to invoke a specific religion, but it has to invoke a god. Extra-terrestrials with the power to do what Intelligent Design proposes are essentially gods.

I guess it depends on the degree of wiggle-room in "essentially". Certainly vastly more intelligent and a great deal more industrious and resourceful if true. IMO, it's simply a mathematical problem (or not) either way. When you're stretching what we know of nature to quantum fluctuation for example, we're proposing ideals that are essentially supernatural. I think people get too attached to their line in the sand over this stuff as if inquiry has suddenly outlived its usefulness. (not directed at you)

I understand all that. I'm just not confident that's what she was actually doing at the time, as opposed to after the fact to salvage her failed gotcha moment. Either way, the whole incident reflects poorly on her. The fact is that we are in a territory here where reasonable people can disagree, based on different, but valid interpretations of the law. She did not come off as reasonable.

I understand your perspective SpaceMonkey, but there's another perspective that is very familiar with the argument behind the question. This perspective does not see it as a failed moment, but another opportunity to express the ideal that Separation has been conjured and accepted as common vernacular or worse; written law. She challenged him on his use of this concept as an argument for his view. She used the question as an opening for her view. It served to separate the two candidates and now we eat popcorn. (although, I don't think this one's close)

Anyway, it might be tempting to define "reasonable" by whether or not you find her agreeable, which of course is entirely subjective. To be honest, the laughter was a little uncomfortable for me.

Irrelevant for the purposes of conflict with the First Amendment.

I agree. I threw it in as an afterthought.

[hyteckit]

Conservatives freak out at the idea that Pres. Obama is giving a speak to school children.

Imaging Christine O'Donnell getting her way and allowing students to be taught witchcraft or satanism.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If I can establish this, will you renounce your Yeshuaphobia and accept the idea that fighting Intelligent Design isn't doing a thing to address why the US is 29th among developed nations in science? I mean... tell me why it matters whether ID is referring to God or ET or how that conflicts with origins theory as yet in its infancy. Otherwise, this sounds like a litmus based on fear, ignorance, and intolerance.

Nope, because technically, even *I* am a believer in Intelligent Design. However, if you can show to me that one of the people pushing hard to have Intelligent Design included in school curricula believes that the designer is something other than the Christian god, then I will consider that the push to get the theory of Intelligent Design into schools isn't just an attempt to create a backdoor for more religious propaganda.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Nope, because technically, even *I* am a believer in Intelligent Design. However, if you can show to me that one of the people pushing hard to have Intelligent Design included in school curricula believes that the designer is something other than the Christian god, then I will consider that the push to get the theory of Intelligent Design into schools isn't just an attempt to create a backdoor for more religious propaganda.

Well... here's an excerpt from the Discovery Institute regarding what they're "pushing"
Discovery.org
In most cases it is only asking that problems of evolution theory also be taught that one might apply critical thinking.

Consider this excerpt in Of Pandas and People;
"The intelligent design explanation has unanswered questions of its own. But unanswered questions, which exist on both sides, are an essential part of healthy science; they define the areas of needed research. Questions often expose hidden errors that have impeded the progress of science. For example, the place of intelligent design in science has been troubling for more than a century. That is because on the whole, scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science. The concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source.”

Or these quotes from the "loudest" of those at the forefront of ID (Behe and Dembski):
"Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy."

"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."

"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that."

“The designer need not be a deity. It could be an extraterrestrial or a telic process inherent in the universe. ID has no doctrine of creation. [Eugenie] Scott and [Glenn] Branch at best could argue that many of the ID proponents are religious believers in a deity, but that has no bearing on the content of the theory.”

While the Discovery Institute is comprised of fellows they claim range from Catholic to Agnostic, their having attained funding through their "Wedge Document" (long-removed from the Institute) has given rise to the assumption that they are diabolical. Well... research requires funding and at times what some may view, unsavory bedfellows. This does not mean the participating scientists themselves, their abstracts, their studies, or their publications push their theory as affirmation of the Judeo-Christian God. As above, actually quite the contrary. The problem here is that many proponents of the Judeo-Christian God will no doubt latch on to the theory, but this is not to preclude the fact that there are a wealth of atheists, and naturalists that would exploit evolution theory as affirmation of their views; this does not retard the scientific process.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Imaging Christine O'Donnell getting her way and allowing students to be taught witchcraft or satanism.

Do you really believe this or is this just silly partisanship run amok?

[BadKosh]

Who created the aliens according to the Intelligent Design types?

[andi*pandi]

They evolved from martian apes.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I mean... tell me why it matters whether ID is referring to God or ET or how that conflicts with origins theory as yet in its infancy. Otherwise, this sounds like a litmus based on fear, ignorance, and intolerance.

It simply doesn't matter what ID refers to because it is not a testable theory, ergo it isn't science and doesn't conflict with evolutionary theory.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To the others: show me any study, abstract, report, statement or otherwise that says merely "God did it" because I'm certain by your standards I could as easily say BOYA (billions of years ago) did it.

The important difference is you can test BOYA, but you can't test God. By measuring radioactive decay in certain elements, we know within a reasonable amount of certainty how old something is. We can take snapshots of the past by measuring these. When we look at fossile evidence, we can test how old it is. We can place it in a time line and measure its progress. We record the changes and the evolution of a species. Using simpler organisms that evolve even faster, we can directly observe evolution in a matter of decades.

Light only moves so fast. When our telescopes peer into the depths of the universe, we are seeing the past. By the time the light from those most distant galaxies reach us, it has been billions of years. We are literally seeing something 4 billion years in the past.

Edit: Also, the Discovery Institute is completely wrong. There is no consideration for Intelligent Design in science except by religious folk.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The important difference is you cant test BOYA, but you can't test God.

The difference is apostrophes?

[SpaceMonkey]

To be agnostic about the identity of the designer in Intelligent Design strikes me as completely useless for the purposes of further examination. What is the point of a theory ascribing the complexities of life to some unknown "intelligence" without trying to examine who that is? Isn't that pretty fundamental? For all we know the intelligence is actually an idiot and we're being had. That's why I can't take seriously any pseudo-scientific talk about Intelligent Design not being about religion. It is. And the fact that some people can profess to identify with Intelligent Design and evolution speaks to my point above about the two answering fundamentally different things. Whether an intelligence designed a system that is explained by evolution via natural selection is irrelevant for scientific study unless you want to start talking about the identity of that intelligence, and then you get into religion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It simply doesn't matter what ID refers to because it is not a testable theory, ergo it isn't science and doesn't conflict with evolutionary theory.

Sure it is. The mechanisms for testing ID are already employed in numerous fields of science including archeology, anthropology, forensics, and SETI. The primary reason why ID and evolution are not in conflict is because evolution does not generally address origins. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently destructive behind a "god hypothesis" as the very science we practice today was founded on the principles of those who felt that by knowing more about nature, we might know more about God. It does not hamper nor retard the scientific process. Simply put, the folks most passionately opposed to this notion are ardent atheists and their interest is no more rooted in scientific integrity than they suppose of theists.

The important difference is you can test BOYA, but you can't test God. By measuring radioactive decay in certain elements, we know within a reasonable amount of certainty how old something is. We can take snapshots of the past by measuring these. When we look at fossile evidence, we can test how old it is. We can place it in a time line and measure its progress. We record the changes and the evolution of a species. Using simpler organisms that evolve even faster, we can directly observe evolution in a matter of decades.

And yet through these snapshots and demonstrations we've had to continuously modify what had been accepted by the establishment prior. These modifications are an integral part of the scientific process and advancement. To draw such a rigid line in the sand as yours does not show respect for this process IMO. Ultimately, all we've really been capable of doing is pushing BOYA farther into the past.

Light only moves so fast. When our telescopes peer into the depths of the universe, we are seeing the past. By the time the light from those most distant galaxies reach us, it has been billions of years. We are literally seeing something 4 billion years in the past.

What you're saying is something akin to; I can see Iraq on a map therefore I know its GDP. I think you're expressing a remarkable disregard for the infancy of origins science olePigeon.

Edit: Also, the Discovery Institute is completely wrong. There is no consideration for Intelligent Design in science except by religious folk.

Oh and BTW, you're wrong. See, we can do this all day long.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Good for you.

In God We Trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh, yeah I know. Just 70 years after the First Amendment was put into place, "God" was apparently still enough a part of the fabric of our country for those in charge to recognize it's in him who we trust. Not exactly the suppression of religion that those who back the Jeffersonian "wall" like to see in an age much closer to that of our founders.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree that there is a huge expanse and that we should not be in the business of suppressing any religion.

Does this relate to what Christine O'Donnell said, or has that matter been settled?

No, I think that it's been settled, in regards to the fact that it was a knee-jerk attack based on personal biases.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Also, there is the official establishment of religion ... and there is de facto establishment of religion. And promoting any particular religion in a public school setting falls into the latter category. And that is why it has been deemed unconstitutional. Justifiably so.

A theory in regards to an intelligent designer (who as eBuddy stated, could be ET or some other yet undiscovered power source other than the "God of Abraham" for it matters) could not promote any "particular" religion as it doesn't mention any "particular" faith or any entity worshipped as a deity at all. It doesn't violate either the language of the intent the founding fathers had in regards to the first amendment and a suggestion that it is "unconstitutional" is totally illogical given the facts.

Really, are you guys trying to argue that at the time of our founding, those in charge intended for schools to be suppressed from any mention of the possibility of a generic "God"? Really? Despite the fact that it was allowed at the time, based on historical precedent and culture at the time it likely wouldn't have pasted muster from "the people" and that the language in the 1st doesn't actually require such suppression? I GET that many believe that this is how is SHOULD be, including Thomas Jefferson. But, that standard isn't one that can constitutionally be acted upon by courts. That doesn't always stop them though, I understand.

In fact, forcing children to accept teaching as fact things that goes against their religious values seems to be more of a violation of the Constitutional right to not have the government infringe on freedom of religion than a mention that there are other theories supported by many people which disagree with the theory of evolution as the origin of the species.

This is clearly a notion based on a fear of faith than something that our founders would have wanted.

[stupendousman]

double post

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

To be agnostic about the identity of the designer in Intelligent Design strikes me as completely useless for the purposes of further examination. What is the point of a theory ascribing the complexities of life to some unknown "intelligence" without trying to examine who that is?

The point is to be able to say "Intelligent Design isn't religion".

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sure it is.

Please explain to me the scientific process to test the existence God. Please explain to me how searching for intelligent life actually tests the theory that all life on this planet was designed by a higher power. You're also forgetting the inadvertently intelligent question from BadKosh: who made the aliens that made us? Who made the aliens that made the aliens that made us? Et cetera. Intelligent Design, regardless if you claim it's aliens or God, inevitably boils down to a completely untestable variable.

You very obviously don't even understand the basic requirements for scientific theory, otherwise you wouldn't be making this argument.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And yet through these snapshots and demonstrations we've had to continuously modify what had been accepted by the establishment prior.

Yes, because as we obtain more data, the certainty of something becomes more or less valid. As I said before, you can not test Intelligent Design. The certainty of ID is the same as a magic teapot, meaning there is none.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What you're saying is something akin to; I can see Iraq on a map therefore I know its GDP. I think you're expressing a remarkable disregard for the infancy of origins science olePigeon.

Once again, this is not about origins, this is about evolution. Intelligent Design is to challenge evolution, not the origin of species; though with Intelligent Design, absolutely anything is possible because, apparently, magic fairies designed life and the Candy Cane Forest.

If you don't see that magic fairies designed all life, it's because you're not clapping hard enough.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Oh and BTW, you're wrong. See, we can do this all day long.

You can not make a valid argument, only continuously bring up religious and nonsensical talking points? Yes, apparently you can do that all day.

As for the Oregon Institute, they're wrong that Intelligent Design is continuously tested in science because it is not testable. How does searching for intelligent life test Intelligent Design? It doesn't.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Please explain to me the scientific process to test the existence God.

I'll wait for eBuddy's response.

In the mean time, could you explain to me the specific process to test evolution as the means to the origins of human life? I'm pretty sure there's no repeatable test to determine such a thing, but I could be wrong.

[SpaceMonkey]

Again, you are missing the point. The theory of evolution is a model to explain speciation. There is no "repeatable test" to determine the origins of human life because such a thing would be impossible after the fact. What we have is a scientific model that can be tested, and then applied to various situations. Because of the robustness of the model under this testing, and the degree of fit to the specific circumstances surrounding what we know of early human life, there is significant consensus that evolution is the best model for the mechanism behind the emergence of human life, notwithstanding whatever variances you want to cite. One can even believe in evolution as a model (i.e. a tool for scientific inquiry) without necessarily believing that it actually was responsible for the emergence of human life (in the same way that you can use Newton's Theory of Gravity to solve certain problems, even though we now know that it is not entirely accurate). In contrast, Intelligent Design as a "model" cannot be tested and applied. It is a faith-based belief that is useless for scientific inquiry.

[Uncle Skeleton]

First off, the question of how you might test something is far afield from the question of whether it should be taught in school. Intelligent design trails far behind cosmology, for example, and we don't try to teach cosmology in school (because it's not established enough yet). In the past, ebuddy has agreed that intelligent design is not ready for the classroom (far from it), even if it's a worthwhile scientific pursuit for the laboratory. I haven't seen any new advancement that could change his mind about this, so I don't know why he seems to have changed his position. Now that that's out of the way...

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Please explain to me the scientific process to test the existence God. Please explain to me how searching for intelligent life actually tests the theory that all life on this planet was designed by a higher power.

SETI tests a component of the hypothesis: that there actually is life in the universe independent of us. Similar to how Darwin gave 6 methods that might disprove evolution back in 1853, none of those methods alone would have "tested" the theory (assuming of course that they support the theory which we know they do), but they did test components of the theory.
And technically, the being that created us wouldn't have to be "higher" than us, merely "intelligent," even if less intelligent than we are. Obviously though, more intelligent would be more likely.

You're also forgetting the inadvertently intelligent question from BadKosh: who made the aliens that made us? Who made the aliens that made the aliens that made us? Et cetera.

Intelligent design is not invalidated if the aliens that made us evolved. Especially if they come from a planet/universe that had more favorable conditions, time, or cosmological constants. And once they're outside of our groundrules, we don't even know if they need an origin, they might simply always have been. Just food for thought.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, you are missing the point. The theory of evolution is a model to explain speciation. There is no "repeatable test" to determine the origins of human life because such a thing would be impossible after the fact.

So the standard to "prove God" that was given isn't the same standard that those forwarding the theory of evolution as the origin of the species have to follow?

Gotcha.

What we have is a scientific model that can be tested, and then applied to various situations.

You have a a scientific model that can be tested. Correct.

Since you aren't actually testing the theory in question itself, and instead are just applying it in this case because you BELIEVE it might apply, it is a matter of faith. Since it is "impossible" to test and replicate the theory in question.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So the standard to "prove God" that was given isn't the same standard that those forwarding the theory of evolution as the origin of the species have to follow?

Gotcha.

Yes, because they answer different things. One (evolution) describes a mechanism to explain the occurrence of phenomena in the natural world, the other (intelligent design) describes an intent. They can be complementary or contradictory, depending on what you believe that intent was. But the "design" or the intent cannot be tested because it is fundamentally arbitrary. As in the ET example, one can keep moving the chains back to ask "okay, so who designed that designer?" and so on. It's an article of faith in a way that evolution simply isn't. In order to "test" the ID model you need physical phenomena like the existence of god.

You have a a scientific model that can be tested. Correct.

Since you aren't actually testing the theory in question itself, and instead are just applying it in this case because you BELIEVE it might apply, it is a matter of faith. Since it is "impossible" to test and replicate the theory in question.

The theory is the model in scientific parlance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_as_models

It is applied to humans because so far it fits what we know about speciation in general, including humans.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In the mean time, could you explain to me the specific process to test evolution as the means to the origins of human life? I'm pretty sure there's no repeatable test to determine such a thing, but I could be wrong.

"Once again, this is not about origins, this is about evolution. Intelligent Design is to challenge evolution, not the origin of species; though with Intelligent Design, absolutely anything is possible because, apparently, magic fairies designed life and the Candy Cane Forest."

Evolution does not address the origin of species.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The theory of evolution is a model to explain speciation.

Correct, but not origins.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

There is no "repeatable test" to determine the origins of human life because such a thing would be impossible after the fact.

Yes, which is why I said, "Once again, this is not about origins, this is about evolution. Intelligent Design is to challenge evolution, not the origin of species; though with Intelligent Design, absolutely anything is possible because, apparently, magic fairies designed life and the Candy Cane Forest."

However, numerous experiments lend credibility to the panspermia theory, that life may have originated elsewhere and landed on our planet. Several species of bacteria and more advanced organisms such as lichens can exist in the vacuum of space and resist harsh radiation. We also know from experiments that certain organic proteins, amino acids, peptides, and polypeptides can combine to form DNA under certain conditions.

Basically, although evolution and origins are intertwined, one does not require the other for explanation or testing.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In contrast, Intelligent Design as a "model" cannot be tested and applied. It is a faith-based belief that is useless for scientific inquiry.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

First off, the question of how you might test something is far afield from the question of whether it should be taught in school. Intelligent design trails far behind cosmology, for example, and we don't try to teach cosmology in school (because it's not established enough yet).

I learned cosmology in high school, and again in college. It may depend on the school. You do briefly cover basic cosmology in general sciences (at least, I hope you did.) Elementary particle physics, concepts of space-time, basic relativity, our solar system, etc. Having access to a more specific cosmology and astronomy course might have something to do with my high school actually having a planetarium (which I operated for a year as my elective. )

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

SETI tests a component of the hypothesis: that there actually is life in the universe independent of us.

I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis, it's merely conjecture. I could argue that all life originated from pizza. The fact that I can prove that pizza exists does not test my "theory" of the Pizza Origins of Life.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

"Once again, this is not about origins, this is about evolution. Intelligent Design is to challenge evolution, not the origin of species; though with Intelligent Design, absolutely anything is possible because, apparently, magic fairies designed life and the Candy Cane Forest."

Evolution does not address the origin of species.

Uh .... I think Charles Darwin would disagree with you.

On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you meant to say "origin of life"?

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Uh .... I think Charles Darwin would disagree with you.

No. On the Origin of Species covers how life in all its diversity developed the way it did. The book does not indulge in how life started in the first place.

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps you meant to say "origin of life"?

The terminology has changed, so yes, I did mean the origins of all life on this planet. However, given the context of the discussion, I thought that was clear.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I learned cosmology in high school, and again in college. It may depend on the school.

Elective or required?

I wouldn't even call it a hypothesis, it's merely conjecture. I could argue that all life originated from pizza. The fact that I can prove that pizza exists does not test my "theory" of the Pizza Origins of Life.

I could argue that diversity of life originated from "mutation." The fact that I can prove that mutations exist does not test my theory of the mutation origins of life's diversity. But it does test a necessary component of the theory.

Please try to take care not to overstep. It weakens your argument when you do.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Elective or required?

I suppose technically it was an elective, but it met Federal and State requirements for a physics class. I took it instead of standard physics. It was basically a physics class with emphasis on cosmology. My teacher was also a part time professor at Stanford. We got to play with liquid nitrogen almost every week.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I could argue that diversity of life originated from "mutation." The fact that I can prove that mutations exist does not test my theory of the mutation origins of life's diversity. But it does test a necessary component of the theory.

The point I was making was that scientists are not looking for intelligent life because they're testing Intelligent Design, they're simply looking for intelligent life. Only Intelligent Design people claim their theory is being tested. It isn't.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The point I was making was that scientists are not looking for intelligent life because they're testing Intelligent Design

Irrelevant. If you discover penicillin or radioactivity by accident, it's not inadmissible just because a different theory was written on the warrant. If the question is "can/does scientific research happen that pertains to intelligent design," the answer is yes, barely.

Edit to address your earlier post: the correct analogy would be I could argue that life originated from a flying spaghetti monster. The fact/question of whether I can prove spaghetti monsters exist does not test my "theory." But it does test a necessary component of the theory. Regardless of whether the ultimate discoverer of the first spaghetti monster will have been attempting to test my theory or in fact is entirely ignorant of my theory.

Oh yeah and that's cool about your science class, I reckon you were lucky. So.... how much of what you learned in it is still considered accurate?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Please explain to me the scientific process to test the existence God.

Umm... the same way you'd test the existence of quantum fluctuation or anything else. You pick it apart piece-by-piece and study the hell out of each one.

What I can say is that it makes no sense at all to even ask if you're not willing to learn what you can of it. i.e. you ain't gonna find shxx if you ain't lookin'. To wholesale reject any potential contribution from this inquiry because you don't appreciate the direction, is... well it doesn't strike me as interested in the integrity of science to be honest. We just disagree fundamentally here.

I'm also not sure why you think science has to answer your questions. To be clear, I understand that questions like "who" and "why" burn in the minds of many, but it is not necessary for science to answer these questions. How much of science do you truly believe is interested in the origin of species olePigeon? Seriously. If all a bunch of ID proponents did was manage to identify aspects of nature with greater specificity, it would be a worthy contribution to science. Again, this is why I challenge your degree of concern for science.

Please explain to me how searching for intelligent life actually tests the theory that all life on this planet was designed by a higher power.

Please provide me with the worldview and/or religion of each of SETI's contributors before I answer. In other words, why does it matter what you regard a "higher power" or "why they're a higher power"? I'm sure the good folks in SETI would love to discern the equivalent of Mary Had a Little Lamb at this point, let alone who it's coming from or why they're talking to us. I can tell you that you'll likely not look for something you don't think is possible. I'm glad someone's doing it even if it's not me.

You're also forgetting the inadvertently intelligent question from BadKosh: who made the aliens that made us? Who made the aliens that made the aliens that made us? Et cetera. Intelligent Design, regardless if you claim it's aliens or God, inevitably boils down to a completely untestable variable.

Okay. So... don't test for aliens or gods then.

You very obviously don't even understand the basic requirements for scientific theory, otherwise you wouldn't be making this argument.

Odd. I'm sitting here thinking that you're so dug into your antagonism and BS that you can't see the forest for the trees.

Yes, because as we obtain more data, the certainty of something becomes more or less valid. As I said before, you can not test Intelligent Design. The certainty of ID is the same as a magic teapot, meaning there is none.

They're not testing Intelligent Design. They're engaging various methods of known disciplines and applying them to nature. As if you're somehow concerned it will slither its way back into academia as a prevailing field of study.

Well, you're certainly motivated in all this. I deleted the entire latter-half of your post because it comes off as the rantings of a paranoid delusional, grasping desperately to... I couldn't muster a guess.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'll wait for eBuddy's response.

In the mean time, could you explain to me the specific process to test evolution as the means to the origins of human life? I'm pretty sure there's no repeatable test to determine such a thing, but I could be wrong.

Very few people ever reference the theory of evolution in an attempt to explain the origins of human life, and most of those people are Creationists trying to debunk the theory. The theory of evolution can be extrapolated the speculate about the origin of humans, but speculation is a far as anyone can currently get.

Likewise, Intelligent Design can also only be speculation about the origin of humans.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Uh .... I think Charles Darwin would disagree with you.

On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you meant to say "origin of life"?

OAW

The book is titled "On the Origin of Species". As in "Where do different species come from?". The title is not "On the Origin of the Species", as it is commonly misquoted.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Originally Posted by olepigeon

You very obviously don't even understand the basic requirements for scientific theory, otherwise you wouldn't be making this argument.

Okay. So... don't test for aliens or gods then.

OK, I'm done here.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

OK, I'm done here.

You should at least get the quote context in order before you go. I'll help:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Originally Posted by olePigeon

You very obviously don't even understand the basic requirements for scientific theory, otherwise you wouldn't be making this argument.

Odd. I'm sitting here thinking that you're so dug into your antagonism and BS that you can't see the forest for the trees.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

One (evolution) describes a mechanism to explain the occurrence of phenomena in the natural world, the other (intelligent design) describes an intent. They can be complementary or contradictory, depending on what you believe that intent was. But the "design" or the intent cannot be tested because it is fundamentally arbitrary.

It's impossible to test for intent, therefore it is not scientific to teach that an intelligent designer might be responsible for the origins of our species.

It's impossible to test what was responsible for the origins of our species, therefore it is not scientific to teach that it was due to us evolving from other lifeforms.

I'm following you.

I'm pretty sure to remain intellectually honest, you've got to pick a standard and stick with it. I'm not sure that's what the "scientific community" has in mind though.

If the standard is that if it can't be proven by testing, it can't be claimed, then there's a whole lot of things in science classes that need to be prohibited, based on my recollection of the types of topics discussed.