[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course not Uncle, they weren't supposed to be. That's why I used the word "crudely" twice.

Yeah that was supposed to be agreeing. The word "descriptions" was supposed to be "caricatures," but I couldn't come up with it yesterday.

I'm personally not much for the analogy in the first place...

It's getting stretched too far, yes, but one more question. Supposing you think it was designed, what then? Maybe you keep it as art, but you could do that regardless of whether it was designed on purpose. The only reason I can see to jump to the design conclusion is to try to find the designer and ask him to do his magic again (or compensate him, or maybe bill him for the paint). If you take the position that the designer is out of reach, jumping to the conclusion of design is kind of a dead end, isn't it?

I guess you've alluded to this already:

not to mention the numerous questions this raises. Is there evidence that the shelving is unstable? Did wind cause this calamity? What klutz left their paint cans on an unstable shelf next to their canvas?

Further avenues of enlightenment are a strength. If the "accident" hypothesis is true, then the answers to these questions will give us a better understanding about our world (which in this analogy is composed of paint and shelves and klutzes), whereas jumping to the designer conclusion would leave us not even knowing to ask those questions. Hey, this analogy turned out to be more apt than I thought 5 minutes ago...

No, but don't you think if a group of people were investigating the scene, they may have a varying degree of opinions and curiosity on the matter?

Here's what I think about that. Suppose this was a crime scene in a cop show. You're a detective, you get to the scene and start bouncing ideas off your partner. Any wild idea that might work, you follow all leads, and weigh all opinions. Then, as you say, you follow your many opinions and curiosities on the matter. You start to find clues, such as the paint cans weren't sealed properly, and the shelves were a touch unstable, or there is a klutz who works in the area. When you first got to the scene, yes you might be expected to draw the design conclusion, but after you have gathered evidence and all of it points to accident, you wouldn't "safely assume" design. If you're the guy who assumes design at this point despite all the evidence you just gathered, you're the eccentric wacko who Columbo-like makes an absurd assumption that surprises the audience by being right. Of course, in real life the evidence isn't stacked to deceive the audience into some delightful twist at the end of the hour.

What I'm getting at is that we're not in Act 1 here, where we just got to the scene and we're coming up with wild conjecture with no evidence. We're in Act 4, where a new idea can still arise, but it really should explain the evidence we've already gathered. And if you're the type of personality that thinks we're in a world written for the purpose of amusement, where the evidence was prepared in anticipation of a twist ending, I guess you could be expected to conclude design, on the grounds that "it's always the person you least suspect" or "the butler did it." And I guess I can see a deeply religious person thinking that God designed the world for our amusement, and he designed the evidence to point to evolution so there could be a twist ending for us to enjoy. But then your God is a trickster, and that really doesn't fit what what I know about the God of most people who support ID. What do you think?

What proponents of ID are saying is that if you're investigating this event, and you exclude the possibility of an intelligent agency, you're not giving yourself an opportunity at viewing the entire picture.

Yeah, I get that, but no one is excluding it, they're just not endorsing it. It seems the only valid objection of ID people is that they want science to endorse ID, and that's not a fair request.

If the "what" appears complex enough to invoke an intelligent agency, no purely natural "how" will suffice in overcoming the presuppositions of the ID proponent.

This is another fundamental flaw in their reasoning. It depends on a quantifiable measure of complexity, otherwise their objection always includes "I think" which as we all know is not convincing. How complex is "too" complex? If it was just one unit of complexity less than it is now, would it still be "too" complex?

The question; "where did the first cell come from?" seems to suggest that the ID story is designed to fill gaps in evolution theory. Notably, origins. IMO, this is ironic for several reasons including the fact that most proponents of ID are not accepting enough (nor in many cases knowledgeable enough) of evolution to attempt filling gaps in the theory and spend far more time attacking evolution than addressing what evolution does not, origins.

The biggest irony for me is that a very reasonable answer to "where did the first cell come from" is "God made it." Evolution doesn't care where the first cell came from, it still works no matter what the answer is.

Also I was thinking what a good experiment would be to show evolution in something as unbelievable as intelligence, or consciousness. These are things that certainly aren't necessary for a creature or its line to thrive, and it may be just chance that our line began to develop it (or it may be that in any world at least one line would emerge to fill that niche, I don't know). But in an experiment, you would want to design a selection pressure to favor intelligence, and maintain it long enough for your animal model to evolve into it. It's not a far reach to imagine that an intelligent agent designed the earth in this way, and humans are the result of the experiment. This possibility doesn't contradict evolution either, it just requires divine selection in place of natural selection. Of course, if we can't detect the difference between God's work and nature, the distinction is semantics. Anyway, just a thought.

Lest you forget however, this is a political forum and you are encountering the opinionated. As I've said before, bias runs deep among the opinionated and what is rare in this discussion is a true interest in science.

True enough

[olePigeon]

If you get 12 Evolutionary Biologists, all 12 will have roughly the same idea of how organisms evolve.

If you get 12 Intelligent Design proponents, you'll get 12 different explanations. Some will argue Earth is 4.5 billion years old, some will argue it's only 6,000 years. Some will say humans lived with dinosaurs, some will say they didn't live together, and some will say that dinosaurs never existed in the first place.

Intelligent Design/Creation proponents seem to be sputtering retorts with no real cohesion. They can't even agree on what the intelligent source is. The reason this is happening is because there is zero evidence. They're literally making s**t up.

The major problem with arguing that Intelligent Design/Creation need to be proposed as alternate "theories" is that, quite literally, absolutely anything can be an alternate "theory." The moment you agree to allow Intelligent Design/Creation in a science room, is the moment you throw absolutely all evidence, logic, and testing out the window, as none of that applies anymore.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's getting stretched too far, yes, but one more question. Supposing you think it was designed, what then? Maybe you keep it as art, but you could do that regardless of whether it was designed on purpose. The only reason I can see to jump to the design conclusion is to try to find the designer and ask him to do his magic again (or compensate him, or maybe bill him for the paint). If you take the position that the designer is out of reach, jumping to the conclusion of design is kind of a dead end, isn't it?

I think the interesting thing about both sides (one to a greater degree than the other) is that they are not 100% convinced God is unreachable... or at least the "God question". What motivates ID proponents to jump to the design conclusion? IMO;

- Not all those of faith are high-faith individuals. Some are still interested in answering the "god-question". Is there one?
- They would naturally be quick to say; "See?!? There is one!!!"
- Many believe the fun is in the searching and seeking until God's return. The Intelligent Agency is invoked and assumed and science is argued with the assumption that God exists. The problem is, most of science is not for casual dabbling. ID proponents who want an equal seating at the table have an awful lot of cooking to do.

Further avenues of enlightenment are a strength. If the "accident" hypothesis is true, then the answers to these questions will give us a better understanding about our world (which in this analogy is composed of paint and shelves and klutzes), whereas jumping to the designer conclusion would leave us not even knowing to ask those questions. Hey, this analogy turned out to be more apt than I thought 5 minutes ago...

While reading along and catching its new angle, it seemed a bit more apt to me too. I agree with you and the "accident" hypothesis might likewise lead us to produce spill-proof cans, more stable shelving with lips for paint cans, and paint-proof canvas.

Here's what I think about that. Suppose this was a crime scene in a cop show. You're a detective, you get to the scene and start bouncing ideas off your partner. Any wild idea that might work, you follow all leads, and weigh all opinions. Then, as you say, you follow your many opinions and curiosities on the matter. You start to find clues, such as the paint cans weren't sealed properly, and the shelves were a touch unstable, or there is a klutz who works in the area. When you first got to the scene, yes you might be expected to draw the design conclusion, but after you have gathered evidence and all of it points to accident, you wouldn't "safely assume" design. If you're the guy who assumes design at this point despite all the evidence you just gathered, you're the eccentric wacko who Columbo-like makes an absurd assumption that surprises the audience by being right. Of course, in real life the evidence isn't stacked to deceive the audience into some delightful twist at the end of the hour.

This is of course assuming that crime scenes aren't tampered with by the police to fit the saving of one or more officer's jobs. (I've watched a few cop shows) No amount of scientific evidence no matter how plausible the mechanism can overcome the design inference of an ID proponent. This might make them wackos, but in most cases they aren't bothering me a bit. In fact, they may be raising other little wackos with an actual interest in science and they may become the most noteworthy wackos of our time. I don't know.

What I'm getting at is that we're not in Act 1 here, where we just got to the scene and we're coming up with wild conjecture with no evidence. We're in Act 4, where a new idea can still arise, but it really should explain the evidence we've already gathered. And if you're the type of personality that thinks we're in a world written for the purpose of amusement, where the evidence was prepared in anticipation of a twist ending, I guess you could be expected to conclude design, on the grounds that "it's always the person you least suspect" or "the butler did it." And I guess I can see a deeply religious person thinking that God designed the world for our amusement, and he designed the evidence to point to evolution so there could be a twist ending for us to enjoy. But then your God is a trickster, and that really doesn't fit what what I know about the God of most people who support ID. What do you think?

I wouldn't necessarily call God a trickster any more than you for pretending to take your child's nose. Pretty innocent and loving scheming really and what the heck else would we do with all the time? *As an aside; I would fully expect if given enough time, science would find a way to empirically, answer where the first cell came from. For this reason I think we're more like in mid to late Act III. No rush.

Also I was thinking what a good experiment would be to show evolution in something as unbelievable as intelligence, or consciousness. These are things that certainly aren't necessary for a creature or its line to thrive, and it may be just chance that our line began to develop it (or it may be that in any world at least one line would emerge to fill that niche, I don't know). But in an experiment, you would want to design a selection pressure to favor intelligence, and maintain it long enough for your animal model to evolve into it. It's not a far reach to imagine that an intelligent agent designed the earth in this way, and humans are the result of the experiment. This possibility doesn't contradict evolution either, it just requires divine selection in place of natural selection. Of course, if we can't detect the difference between God's work and nature, the distinction is semantics. Anyway, just a thought.

A selection pressure to favor intelligence? Have you seen my blasted keys?

What if you accidentally produced a model that affirmed ID? Can such a thing happen on accident?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Are you mocking your own idea?

No. Your irrational bias as to what is "science".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Please elaborate. ID has no testable hypothesises thus fail the very definition of theory:

Come on. You can do better than that!

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Note that I do not even need to qualify this with "scientific", because applying the word as ID people use it (so called "common usage") is muddling of the word "theory" when we have perfectly good descriptors for that already: ideas, opinion, speculation, conjectures etc. etc. Or in the case of ID itself: myths and beliefs.

There's already a good set of descriptors for "theory", which ID (whether I agree with it or not) meets the criteria for. See above. No need to make up new ones to justify irrational bias.

You can believe that the theory isn't sound, or that there isn't any credible evidence to support it, but you can't just start making up new definitions just because the old ones make it harder to unfairly discriminate.

[Uncle Skeleton]

That is so sad.

Behe already admitted that under the same expanded definition of science necessary to include ID, it would include astrology too. Do you think astrology should be taught in schools too?

What exactly is your goal here? Do you want the scientific community to give up on evolution and focus on ID? Or do you want them to endorse ID as the brilliant idea it is, singing its praises?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Not all those of faith are high-faith individuals. Some are still interested in answering the "god-question". Is there one?
- They would naturally be quick to say; "See?!? There is one!!!"

Good point, I didn't realize that.

While reading along and catching its new angle, it seemed a bit more apt to me too. I agree with you and the "accident" hypothesis might likewise lead us to produce spill-proof cans, more stable shelving with lips for paint cans, and paint-proof canvas.

This is of course assuming that crime scenes aren't tampered with by the police to fit the saving of one or more officer's jobs.

See, I always forget about this reasoning, because it's such an untenable claim. Scientific findings are transparent; the methods are published. If anyone thinks the results aren't reproducible, it's a simple matter to show as much. Publishing unreproducible findings is a one-way ticket to unemployment. I can see how calling "liar" was fashionable when the bulk of the evidence was archaeological, but nowadays it just reveals that you haven't done your homework.

No amount of scientific evidence no matter how plausible the mechanism can overcome the design inference of an ID proponent. This might make them wackos, but in most cases they aren't bothering me a bit. In fact, they may be raising other little wackos with an actual interest in science and they may become the most noteworthy wackos of our time. I don't know.

I'm inclined to agree, and if the wackos can demonstrate flaws in the status quo, more power to them. The problem is when they decide the status quo is a lie and then take to the streets, without first bothering to verify it.

I wouldn't necessarily call God a trickster any more than you for pretending to take your child's nose. Pretty innocent and loving scheming really and what the heck else would we do with all the time?

I didn't mean it as an accusation, just that it seems out of character. When has God been deceptive, for our amusement or for any other reason? I'm no expert, but I always took him as a "straight shooter."

A selection pressure to favor intelligence? Have you seen my blasted keys?

What if you accidentally produced a model that affirmed ID? Can such a thing happen on accident?

Of course it can, it's not Intentional Design.

PS, people who lose their keys aren't selected against. If they're lucky enough to have something that needs keys, they're pretty much taken care of until they die of Natural Causes. Or, wait, Intelligent Causes. No, wait, Natural Designs.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No. Your irrational bias as to what is "science".

You believe that "science" covers things to which the scientific method does not in any way apply? How on earth does that work?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Come on. You can do better than that!

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

You are literally arguing semantics now.

[Kevin]

This thread has gotten so far off topic it's not even funny.

You guys take your evolution debate elsewhere please.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What for? Are we taking valuable time away from your discussion of Russian teens?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

This thread has gotten so far off topic it's not even funny.

You guys take your evolution debate elsewhere please.

Oh no, a natural flow of conversation. The world is falling apart.

[stupendousman]

You are literally arguing semantics now.

Yes. When someone argues that something doesn't meet a definition of a word, and therefore is not valid, "semantics" are required to prove that claim false.

se·man·tics /sɪˈmæntɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-man-tiks]
the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.

You can't claim something as is invalid based on it's definition, then cry "semantics" when someone points out that the thing in question most certainly does meet the criteria for inclusion.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Come on. You can do better than that!

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.



There's already a good set of descriptors for "theory", which ID (whether I agree with it or not) meets the criteria for. See above. No need to make up new ones to justify irrational bias.

You can believe that the theory isn't sound, or that there isn't any credible evidence to support it, but you can't just start making up new definitions just because the old ones make it harder to unfairly discriminate.

Thing is, erik isn't "making up new definitions;" what he quoted is the precise definition of the word Theory as relates to science. Scientific Theories have to both explain the current data and be able to make testable predictions about how further evidence/experiments will relate to the current state of knowledge.

ID does not satisfy either part of those requirements. It simply and blindly asserts that there are mechanisms/genes/what have you that were designed and could not have evolved. It offers no method by which to test this assertion. It answers no questions in any way that can possibly further our knowledge, and cannot make predictions that might help to explain new data that comes in. The simplest way to restate the approach that ID is taking is, "We don't know how this happened and we can't know, so it must be designed."

That's not a theory by any definition -- it's an intellectual cop-out.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

That's not a theory by any definition

Don't confuse the poor guy. It satisfies the last two of the definitions he posted:

6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

[Snow-i]

must you always talk down on people who don't agree with your views or see things your way?

[Uncle Skeleton]

G Barnett doesn't disagree with me

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

G Barnett doesn't disagree with me

And it wasn't G Barnett you were speaking of condescendingly; it was stupendousman.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Oh, I read the "on" as "to". Stupendousman can talk for himself. Hopefully he'll answer that astrology question too.

Snow-i, if you're so hip to step in for him, maybe you'd like to answer it: do you think that ID is any more scientifically valid than astrology, and if so on what basis do you make that claim, given that Behe, ID's only scientific champion, disagrees?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Thing is, erik isn't "making up new definitions;" what he quoted is the precise definition of the word Theory as relates to science. Scientific Theories...

A theory is a theory. You can apply further precision to the term, AS I STATED and add "scientific" to the word, and that would at least make the claim technically correct.

You can't state that something isn't a "theory" when it fits the definition of one perfectly (as shown). If you want to get technical, and start weeding out certain types of theories, then sure...you can use newer terms designed specifically to allow for bias if you choose. I know it makes the argument less convincing, but that's simply something you guys will have to live with.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A theory is a theory. You can apply further precision to the term, AS I STATED and add "scientific" to the word, and that would at least make the claim technically correct.

You can't state that something isn't a "theory" when it fits the definition of one perfectly (as shown). If you want to get technical, and start weeding out certain types of theories, then sure...you can use newer terms designed specifically to allow for bias if you choose. I know it makes the argument less convincing, but that's simply something you guys will have to live with.

OK. Since evolution is a scientific theory, how does the theory of Intelligent Design compare to it from a scientific stand-point? If you want ID to be treated as a theory worthy of being taught in a science class, how does it satisfy the scientific criteria of testability, verifiability, and predictability like the theory of evolution?

If it can't meet these criteria for being a scientific theory you could advocate for teaching the theory of Intelligent Design in another school class, perhaps philosophy or history. I, and many others, would certainly support that effort. But, if you continue to insist on it being worthy of teaching along-side evolution in a science class, you need to explain how the theory of Intelligent Design qualifies to be taught in a science class. So, how does the theory of Intelligent Design qualify to be taught as a scientific theory?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

OK. Since evolution is a scientific theory, how does the theory of Intelligent Design compare to it from a scientific stand-point?

The question is moot.

I don't debate that evolution has more scientific evidence. I debate that government entities should not be allowed to show bias against theories taught in schools in ways which violates a person first amendment rights. If a student is required to learn as fact something that goes against their religious beliefs...something that itself is simply an unproven theory (though our best guess so far) and other options which are believed (by Nobel winning scientists in fact) are forced out simply because they COULD support someone's religious beliefs, that would seem to violate their right to freedom of religion.

There is a middle ground, and it's being ignored due to religious bias, not some set-in-stone scientific law. As it's been shown, "science" has not required the burdens put on theories regarding the origin of our species as far as other ideas as to how things happen.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oh, I read the "on" as "to". Stupendousman can talk for himself. Hopefully he'll answer that astrology question too.

Snow-i, if you're so hip to step in for him, maybe you'd like to answer it: do you think that ID is any more scientifically valid than astrology, and if so on what basis do you make that claim, given that Behe, ID's only scientific champion, disagrees?

i didn't contend your argument I contended your manner in responding to those with whom you do not agree. I will step in for any person who you refer to as unintelligent simply because they hold different views than you.

When you can control yourself I'll partake in debates with you again.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't debate that evolution has more scientific evidence. I debate that government entities should not be allowed to show bias against theories taught in schools in ways which violates a person first amendment rights. If a student is required to learn as fact something that goes against their religious beliefs...something that itself is simply an unproven theory (though our best guess so far) and other options which are believed (by Nobel winning scientists in fact) are forced out simply because they COULD support someone's religious beliefs, that would seem to violate their right to freedom of religion.

Perhaps it seems that way to you, but you seem to be mistaken. Freedom of religion forbids the government from specifically discouraging or encouraging any religious belief, but if a religious belief happens to conflict with something that the government is doing for entirely unrelated reasons, that isn't enough to violate the First Amendment. For instance, your religion may prescribe animal sacrifice, but that doesn't exempt you from animal cruelty laws.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

other options which are believed (by Nobel winning scientists in fact) are forced out simply because they COULD support someone's religious beliefs

I don't think this is happening. Please prove this claim or stop making it.

[asd]

I happened to see a show last pm on TLC about Galileo. He was JAILED by the church for his writings that the earth revolved around the sun - the so-called heliocentric theory which went against the church's view. Can u imagine a debate now wheter the heliocentric theory should be tought in school and should other "earth-centric" theories also be tought? It's freakin rediculous. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory (NOT fact) based on observation and the scientific method. It has nothing to do with religion. If evolution happens to violate your specific religious beliefs (like heliocentrism did in Galileo's day) -- too freakin bad. Pick another religion or modify yours to fit the observable universe. I hate to sound mean-spirited but have we learned nothing from history?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Perhaps it seems that way to you, but you seem to be mistaken.

Your opinion is noted.

Freedom of religion forbids the government from specifically discouraging or encouraging any religious belief...

Which forcing a person to accept as fact something that which goes contrary to their religious beliefs, based on a credible but unproven theory, does.

...but if a religious belief happens to conflict with something that the government is doing for entirely unrelated reasons, that isn't enough to violate the First Amendment.

My point exactly. The restrictions on discussing alternatives to evolution as a means for the origin of the species are arbitrary. The same standards do not apply to other possibilities in science as to how things happen. There are no "laws of science" which prevent possible alternatives to be discussed even if those alternatives may show less promise in regards to evidence that can be found. The only time this is stopped is for any explanation which might be used to support that there is some kind of supreme being or power intelligently assisting the process. Again, there's no need to teach that "God Exists". It's quite possible the mechanism is assisted via other, non-deity type extra dimensional forces. The restrictions are put in place precisely to deny believers of supreme beings the right to express a belief which coincides with their faith and what can be proven with science.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Behe already admitted that under the same expanded definition of science necessary to include ID, it would include astrology too. Do you think astrology should be taught in schools too?

I think you are making an apples to oranges comparison.

Are there any credible mainstream scientists who believe in astrology? Not that I know of. Why? Are there any credible mainstream scientists who believe that a supreme being or ultra-dimensional force play some part in the origin of our species. Sure. Lots of them. Why?

Apples to oranges....

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which forcing a person to accept as fact something that which goes contrary to their religious beliefs, based on a credible but unproven theory, does.

How can they be forcing someone to accept as fact a theory which they admit is not a fact?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by asd 

Can u imagine a debate now wheter the heliocentric theory should be tought in school and should other "earth-centric" theories also be tought? It's freakin rediculous.

I agree. I think it's terrible that an unproven theory (in this case "earth-centric" theory) should be forced on students and they be made to accept it as fact and other possible explanations be restricted due to religious consideration.

Doh..yeah..I keep forgetting that's the same thing happening now, but in reverse. Sad.

[Taliesin]

Don't have much time, but it seems like the theory of evolution from water/minerals over plants to animals and then to humans, was already developed and formulated by islamic philosophers, zoologists and scientists from the 8th-11th century.
They claimed that the environment and the fight for survival were the main-reason, but also were convinced that without God nothing of this would happen.

I hope I can join the discussion again sometime in the next few days.

Taliesin

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A theory is a theory. You can apply further precision to the term, AS I STATED and add "scientific" to the word, and that would at least make the claim technically correct.

You can't state that something isn't a "theory" when it fits the definition of one perfectly (as shown). If you want to get technical, and start weeding out certain types of theories, then sure...you can use newer terms designed specifically to allow for bias if you choose. I know it makes the argument less convincing, but that's simply something you guys will have to live with.

You seem to be missing the primary reason that dictionaries offer multiple definitions for the same word -- different meanings for different contexts. When discussing ideas within a specific contextual framework, there is one and only one definition that is appropriate for use in that context. The definition of "theory" which you are applying to ID is not the appropriate definition for use within a scientific context. The further precision that is used is the difference between a scientific theory and the casual use of the term.

When deciding if something qualifies as a scientific theory, only the precise scientific definition of the word matters. By that standard, ID does not qualify and will never qualify unless/until it starts actually making testable predictions about future discoveries -- something its proponents seem to have zero interest in doing and something which it is incapable of doing as its only answer to the unknown is "Poof! A Designer did it!"

ID is not a scientific theory. It should not be taught in a science class. Being taught in a comparative philosophy class is a whole other matter -- it would be an appropriate thing to discuss there.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The restrictions on discussing alternatives to evolution as a means for the origin of the species are arbitrary. The same standards do not apply to other possibilities in science as to how things happen. There are no "laws of science" which prevent possible alternatives to be discussed even if those alternatives may show less promise in regards to evidence that can be found.

There's no restriction on discussing them. Check it out, we're discussing them right now! What we should not be doing, however, is teaching unscientific ideas in a science class.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Are there any credible mainstream scientists who believe in astrology?

Using "scientist" to mean "somebody who has a degree in a field completely unrelated to the issue in question" (like we must to find a "credible, mainstream scientist" who believes in intelligent design), I'm sure there are.

Besides that, science is about methodology and proof, not personalities. Many brilliant scientists have had ideas that are demonstrably false (e.g., Galileo refused to accept that the planets had eliptical orbits). That doesn't mean we should teach them.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The restrictions are put in place precisely to deny believers of supreme beings the right to express a belief which coincides with their faith and what can be proven with science.

 

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree. I think it's terrible that an unproven theory (in this case "earth-centric" theory) should be forced on students and they be made to accept it as fact and other possible explanations be restricted due to religious consideration.

Doh..yeah..I keep forgetting that's the same thing happening now, but in reverse. Sad.

Oh, more of this "ZOMG RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!" crap — and still completely unsubstantiated. Awesome.

The reason a geocentric solar system should not be taught in a science class is because it is not scientific. This is the same reason unscientific theories of the origin of species on earth should not be taught. All this talk of the First Amendment and all that does not change this very basic fact.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I will step in for any person who you refer to as unintelligent simply because they hold different views than you.

And I'm sure stupendousman is very grateful to you for calling his intelligence into question, but you're way off base. He's gone on at great length about his confusion over this exact issue (the definition of "theory"). And I wasn't even replying to him!

When you can control yourself I'll partake in debates with you again.

Yeah, I'll be waiting for that with bated breath.

If you insist on raising arguments that are illogical and factually incorrect, don't expect everyone to coddle you. This whole forum is dedicated to contention, remember.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which forcing a person to accept as fact something that which goes contrary to their religious beliefs, based on a credible but unproven theory, does.

That's an outrageous claim. For one thing, school lessons are a far cry from "forcing to accept as fact." Forcing to accept is religious-style teaching, not academic. Academic teaching is "hoping you'll memorize until the test." Secondly, there's something taught in school that is at least partially in contradiction to every religion. Do you think we have to teach that turtles hold up the hemi-globe? Do you think we have to teach about imaginary aliens in a nod to scientologists? Third, Pope John Paul somehow found a way to accept evolution and reconcile it with his faith. Obviously evolution isn't "contrary" to Christianity.

Finally, as always, you diminish your credibility by using the terminology wrong. There is no such thing as an "proven theory" in science, they are all either unproven or disproven. To call scientific theories "unproven" is similar to going around calling people "organism Jim" and "organism Jane," in other words, a crazy person.

The restrictions on discussing alternatives to evolution as a means for the origin of the species are arbitrary.

You switch back and forth a lot between "discussion" and "teaching" or as you sometimes put it "forcing to accept as fact." What is your actual objection? Is it to discussion or teaching?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think you are making an apples to oranges comparison.

Are there any credible mainstream scientists who believe in astrology?

Do you mean who go to astrologers in their private life? Or who are superstitious (in their private life)? Yes, I'm positive there are. Do you mean scientists who champion astrology from their professional positions? No. Do you see the difference?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree. I think it's terrible that an unproven theory (in this case "earth-centric" theory) should be forced on students and they be made to accept it as fact and other possible explanations be restricted due to religious consideration.

Doh..yeah..I keep forgetting that's the same thing happening now, but in reverse. Sad.

You insist on implying that ID is similar to past scientific discoveries, yet you fail to acknowledge that the only reason past discoveries succeeded was because they had discovered evidence to support them (and ID has not). Do you in fact realize that there is NO EVIDENCE to support ID, at this time? Not the tiniest scrap? Do you accept this?

Do you think that heliocentrism should have been put in the classroom before Galileo made his observations and measurements that supported it? When it was still just an idea in his head? Do you think that scientific advancement is driven more by hearing a new idea and saying "oh that probably right?" or by hearing a new idea and saying "oh that's a good thing to verify empirically?"

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, there's no need to teach that "God Exists". It's quite possible the mechanism is assisted via other, non-deity type extra dimensional forces. The restrictions are put in place precisely to deny believers of supreme beings the right to express a belief which coincides with their faith and what can be proven with science.

No, not the right to express a belief, the right to establish that belief in the public school system. Do you honestly not understand the difference?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

You seem to be missing the primary reason that dictionaries offer multiple definitions for the same word -- different meanings for different contexts.

The word "theory" fit the item in the context it was used.

When discussing ideas within a specific contextual framework, there is one and only one definition that is appropriate for use in that context. The definition of "theory" which you are applying to ID is not the appropriate definition for use within a scientific context. The further precision that is used is the difference between a scientific theory and the casual use of the term.

...which is why if you require further precision, you use further precise terms. Like "scientific theory". Don't blame me of the laziness of other's communication and their expectation for everyone to fall into lockstep when they make incorrect statements because they refuse to be precise in their language.

I didn't dispute whether the further precise "scientific theory" fit ID. I argued that the claim that it wasn't a theory at all is simply false. And it is.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Using "scientist" to mean "somebody who has a degree in a field completely unrelated to the issue in question" (like we must to find a "credible, mainstream scientist" who believes in intelligent design), I'm sure there are.

No. Just give me someone who is credible, mainstream and is regarded as an expert in science who believes in Astrology. Shouldn't be too hard - unless this was an "apples to oranges" comparison.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And I'm sure stupendousman is very grateful to you for calling his intelligence into question, but you're way off base. He's gone on at great length about his confusion over this exact issue (the definition of "theory").

PURE COMEDY! Thanks!

(psst..for those not paying attention, I'm not the one incapable of understanding basic definitions and sticking to them in my arguments).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's an outrageous claim. For one thing, school lessons are a far cry from "forcing to accept as fact."

Well then, there should be no restrictions on learning about religion either. Simply learning about it in school would be a far cry from establishing religion, using your logic.

Of course...the courts have disagreed with your logic when it comes to disseminating anything having to do with promoting religion, but your free to force children to learn that their religious beliefs aren't true, based on an uproven theory. Some bulletproof, non-double standard stuff yah got there!

Finally, as always, you diminish your credibility by using the terminology wrong. There is no such thing as an "proven theory" in science, they are all either unproven or disproven. To call scientific theories "unproven" is similar to going around calling people "organism Jim" and "organism Jane," in other words, a crazy person.

A better example would be A Girl Named Kris, or a Boy Named Kris. Since "Kris" can either a boy or a girl (as a theory can be unproven or disproven), and it's not always clear which it is, it's proper to clarify. I understand that such clarification makes it harder to justify the irrational bias shown in these matters...but that's just something you'll have to live with.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You insist on implying that ID is similar to past scientific discoveries, yet you fail to acknowledge that the only reason past discoveries succeeded was because they had discovered evidence to support them (and ID has not). Do you in fact realize that there is NO EVIDENCE to support ID, at this time? Not the tiniest scrap? Do you accept this?

You do realize that accepted theories of the past didn't always succeed and some didn't have the "tiniest scrap" of evidence at first either? They were simply a "best guess".

Do you think that heliocentrism should have been put in the classroom before Galileo made his observations and measurements that supported it? When it was still just an idea in his head?

I see nothing wrong with discussing possibilities of how things might happen in a classroom, even when you don't have concrete support for it. You never now it if might inspire a pupil to either find evidence to support the theory, or to disprove it.

Do you think that scientific advancement is driven more by hearing a new idea and saying "oh that probably right?" or by hearing a new idea and saying "oh that's a good thing to verify empirically?"

"Oh, that's a good thing to TRY and verify empirically". You won't always have the technology (as in my example for radiation) or know how to verify in all cases. But you might in the future or you may uncover other important data in you quest.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Well then, there should be no restrictions on learning about religion either. Simply learning about it in school would be a far cry from establishing religion, using your logic.

I don't believe there are any restrictions on learning about religion in school. There might be restrictions on learning about religion in a science class (religion not being science, after all), but then there are probably restrictions on learning about religion in math classes as well.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

PURE COMEDY! Thanks!

(psst..for those not paying attention, I'm not the one incapable of understanding basic definitions and sticking to them in my arguments).

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We've already gone over this in the other thread. I tried and tried to get a solid definition of "theory", but every time I showed that alternative theories which students are being denied access fall under all but the most purposefully exclusive defintion (that no one I know of subscribes to and doesn't mesh with any credible dictionary definition of "theory" I can find).

Again...I'll leave it to people to browse that thread. I'm not interested in drudging up the same logically fallacious attempts to justify bigotry.

Meanwhile, no acknowledgment that my comment that brought this on supported your side...

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Well then, there should be no restrictions on learning about religion either. Simply learning about it in school would be a far cry from establishing religion, using your logic.

Yep. Public schools teach classes about religion. Next?

but your[sic] free to force children to learn that their religious beliefs aren't true

As has been pointed out many times by religious people in this thread, evolution does not mean that anyone's religious beliefs aren't true. Pope John Paul agrees.

A better example would be A Girl Named Kris, or a Boy Named Kris. Since "Kris" can either a boy or a girl (as a theory can be unproven or disproven), and it's not always clear which it is, it's proper to clarify.

So by saying "an unproven theory" you were trying to distinguish it from "a disproven theory?" You're complaining that the theories taught in science classes aren't the ones that have already been disproven? You're not making yourself sound any less crazy here...

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You do realize that accepted theories of the past didn't always succeed and some didn't have the "tiniest scrap" of evidence at first either? They were simply a "best guess".

Yes. They were a "best guess." You'll notice of course the term "best guess" includes the adjective "best." This is because "accepted theories" become accepted because they offer more evidence, or more explanatory power, than the previous "best guess." ID offers neither of those, and your "mysterious powers" offer even less than ID.

I see nothing wrong with discussing possibilities of how things might happen in a classroom, even when you don't have concrete support for it.

How things might happen? Flying Spaghetti Monster? You're describing philosophy class. Science class is for evidence.

In fact, forgetting about science specifically, public schools are for teaching students the state of the field. In history you learn what historians agree is history. In english you learn what linguists agree is English. In math you learn what mathematicians agree is math. You don't learn that 2 + 2 = 5 (even though it might, who knows?), you don't learn Ebonics, you don't learn that aliens created the pyramids or that the holocaust was a hoax.

If you want to expand on the state of the field, and let students' minds go forth and be creative, and imagine "how things might happen" as you describe, that's great, but that's not science class, that's philosophy class.

While we're here, let's make this thread interesting again. What would come of a philosophy class with you, stupendousman, and ID? After the prompt "suppose life on earth was designed..." what then? What new insights could be gleaned from this hypothetical? What new directions of thought does it open your mind to? Is the sole benefit of this idea that God does exists, or that you can gloat over scientists' foibles? Or is it a completely empty subject without the benefit of evidence?

You never now it if might inspire a pupil to either find evidence to support the theory, or to disprove it.

That's another problem with ID, it can't be disproven (as stated), which is another reason it's not considered a scientific theory.

"Oh, that's a good thing to TRY and verify empirically". You won't always have the technology (as in my example for radiation) or know how to verify in all cases. But you might in the future or you may uncover other important data in you quest.

If you can't even test your idea, it's not ready for the (science) classroom. That's all there is to it.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Come on. You can do better than that!

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.



There's already a good set of descriptors for "theory", which ID (whether I agree with it or not) meets the criteria for. See above. No need to make up new ones to justify irrational bias.

You can believe that the theory isn't sound, or that there isn't any credible evidence to support it, but you can't just start making up new definitions just because the old ones make it harder to unfairly discriminate.

Come off it. Do you REALLY want to argue semantics? Fine then I'll qualify it:

ID fails to qualify as a SCIENTIFIC theory. Until it has ANY testable hypothesises it should not be allowed anywhere NEAR a science class.

Happy now?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No. Just give me someone who is credible, mainstream and is regarded as an expert in science who believes in Astrology. Shouldn't be too hard - unless this was an "apples to oranges" comparison.

I don't know anybody who is regarded as an "expert in science." Science is such a broad subject that nobody just generally an expert.

Besides that, astrology does not have a huge industry trying to get it taught in schools like creationism does, so I don't see why you think this shouldn't be too hard. I have never seen any polls or studies that would contain the kind of data you are asking for. However, given any cockamamie idea, I can almost guarantee you there's somebody who believes in it and fits the broad definition of "scientist."

And besides even that, like I already said, this is irrelevant, because science is not a cult of personality.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Many scientists believe in God, but "believe in" is different from "thinks is science." Ken Miller believes in God, but he's also the current foremost opponent of ID on the grounds that it's not scientific! This appeal to authority is illogical.

Apparently Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology, believed in Astrology. Now will you answer the question, Stupendousman:
Do you think Astrology should be added to the public school science curriculum as well?

[dcmacdaddy]

So, I think it is safe to say we all can finally agree that Intelligent Design is one theory of how life originated on Earth.

Also, I think it is safe to say we all can finally agree that it cannot be considered a scientific theory as it does not conform to the principles of testability, verifiability, predictability necessary to be considered a scientific theory.

As for the teaching of the theory of Intelligent Design in school, there still seems to be some contention as to the appropriateness of doing that. Some don't want it taught at all; Some want it taught in science class along-side evolution; Some want it taught only if it is in a non-science class.

So, I guess that is where we are left at, arguing about in what context the theory of Intelligent Design is taught in schools. Carry on with the arguments.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't know anybody who is regarded as an "expert in science." Science is such a broad subject that nobody just generally an expert.

I'm simply speaking of someone who is considered an expert in a scientific field. ANY scientific field. Someone who has a higher degree in a scientific field, who is considered an expert in their area of study. Someone who knows what "science" is and still believes in Astrology.

I know of none.

I do know of such people who accept ID or related theories.

That doesn't make them right, but it does make your comparison to Astrology off base.

[G Barnett]

The comparison to Astrology is quite relevant due to one simple fact:

During the Dover court case, one of the leading proponents of ID admitted under oath that in order for ID to qualify as science the definition of science would have to be expanded such that Astrology would then also qualify as science. The comparison was explicitly made by the ID camp themselves.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm simply speaking of someone who is considered an expert in a scientific field. ANY scientific field. Someone who has a higher degree in a scientific field, who is considered an expert in their area of study. Someone who knows what "science" is and still believes in Astrology.

Apparently Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology, believed in Astrology. Now will you answer the question, Stupendousman:
Do you think Astrology should be added to the public school science curriculum as well?

[Taliesin]

I have taken a bit of time to research on the theory of evolution and also the arguments of its opponents, but most of the arguments of the opponents were not very strong. So in a nutshell that is what I have understood about the theory of evolution:

Natural selection seems to be the basis of the evolution theory, although it is complemented by genetic drifting. Natural selection means that random mutations in lifeforms, (ie. cells divide and produce not perfectly identical copies of the DNA or DNA breaks down, gets repaired, but not perfectly or occur within a newly born lifeform, then there are the DNA-sheffling through (sexual)reproduction...), which might or might not help them to better cope with the environment, but those with a mutation that helps them to better cope with their environment will have more lifetime to reproduce and therefore more descendants than those with a mutation that helps not or is even hindering.
Usually mutations are selected when the environment changes in some way or the other, leading to the death of parts of the population, while those parts of the population that have the life-saving mutation will survive and reproduce.
Gradual accumulation of small benifitting mutations through generations lead eventually to a new species.

The opponents of the theory of evolution are motivated by an abhorrance of pure materialism as an explanation for life.

But these religiously motivated opponents should just imagine that biologists would study the life on this planet and come to the conclusion that there is nothing random in mutations, that there is a clear direction and purpose which would make it impossible to ignore intelligent design and control... where would that leave religion and faith?

God would be a fact, faith would be vanishing and being replaced by knowledge of God's existence...

No, in order for God's trial of humanity's free will and deeds, it is of crucial importance, that there will never be a full proof of God's existence (at least not until judgment day), and that's why imho God chose to create all life evolutionary, and eventhough God is imho enabling and empowering evolution including the seemingly random mutations, there is always the possible interpretation to look upon life as strictly materialistic and purposeless and therefore ensuring that religion and faith and the trial of human's free will is not hampered.

Taliesin