[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

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

If by that you mean aliens will be along shortly to annihilate us for plundering the environment (or to beat us to it), then I guess I can't dissuade you But if you mean that mutation and heredity are making us all less fit instead of more fit, well you'll have to explain why tens of thousands of years of selective breeding in agriculture show the opposite. Anything that "artificial selection" can do, "natural selection" can do just as well.

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

Yes. That's where the "selection" part of "natural selection" comes in. You can't have "trial and error" without "error."

As to whether any change is a bad one, it depends on where you start from. If you start with a person who is perfectly suited to their environment in every possible way, then any change is very likely to be a bad one. But if you start with a person who is terribly suited to their environment, then any change is far more likely to be a good one. Likewise, if you have a person perfectly suited to their environment, and then their environment changes, then suddenly they are less well suited and suddenly the likelihood of "good" changes increases. So there is no "one size fits all" measurement of "good" vs "bad" mutations, and the outcome is constantly changing as the environment changes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

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

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

I don't think you really understand "mutation" on the context of Biology. Mutations don't necessarily mean "horribly disfigured".

A mutation could be something as simple as a light haired individual in a species of dark haired members. When the climate shifted to an ice age, the light haired mutation would offer an advantage in hiding from predators and you'd see the population shift from dark to light haired.

That's just a simple example. But, it'll work for more dramatic mutations as well. Let's imagine a scenario where a an untreatable disease appears that targets human legs. Those humans born mutated without legs would have an advantage over those born with legs. Eventually, if the disease isn't cured, the human population would be giving birth to legless children.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If by that you mean aliens will be along shortly to annihilate us for plundering the environment (or to beat us to it), then I guess I can't dissuade you But if you mean that mutation and heredity are making us all less fit instead of more fit,

Aliens will be along shortly to wipe us out; but that wasn't what I was getting at.

Yes. That's where the "selection" part of "natural selection" comes in. You can't have "trial and error" without "error."

Ok I see what you meant now. But Ill just clear up what I was saying anyway. It seems you are talking about change on the population level. There is a difference between "natural selection" and "genetic mutation" though. I was just saying on an individual level, if we see an animal born with a genetic mutation it will usually lead to a degenerative trait; such as less efficient metabolism, less productive liver or whatever ( not addressing hair color here because that doesn't really affect the fitness of an animal, but it may affect its survival through camouflage). Now yes, on the population level it doesn't matter if 96% of the offspring are born weaker than their parents due to these negative mutations; because selection pressure will strongly inhibit those individuals from breeding. Only the top 4% (this is relative of course, some species it's only the top .1 percent who are able to breed in their lifetime) per say, would spread their genetics ensuring the genetic integrity or advancement of a population/species.

Now as far as most things being doomed to extinction; that was a bold statement so I'll give a scenario to demonstrate how it's true. The more stable the environment the more doomed the species that live there. The rainforest for example: It's said that there are more variety of species concentrated per area of the rainforest than any other habitat. However when I go expeditions in the rainforest it isn't exactly teeming with wildlife. And then there's stories of early Spanish settlers who starved to death in the rainforest.

In the rainforest I can walk up one small mountain for an hour and find frog species 'B'. I then can walk up another near by mountain and find frog species 'C'. All having evolved from species 'A' in the valley. Each mountain can contain dozens of its own frog species that don't exist on any other mountain even though they're all within a square mile. Whats happened here is that the environments on the tops of the mountains could be 10- 15 degrees cooler than the valleys. But they're so stable that the frogs lost their ability to deal with any temperatures outside that range. Unless the environment is putting strong selection pressure on a species, it's genetics will degenerate to the bare minimum necessary for its survival (yes I know that doesn't make 100% sense, Im too tired right now to reword it)... So they can no longer migrate down one mountain, into the temperature of the valley, and back up another mountain in the name of spreading. If any change ever comes to their environment, they will certainly die. This is contrary to species in norther parts of the US Where temperatures range from -10 to 95 degrees which helps maintain genetic fitness (as far as temp is concerned). Most rainforest species in general are so finely tuned for their environment there is no future for them; to ever evolve into anything else. This isn't the fate of all species though. Roaches, rodents etc., are some of the animals that can repopulated the planets diversity when the next mass extinction occurs. They are like the anchor families of the world; all the things we think of as 'invasive' are the things that all future life will constantly evolve from as each period progresses to the next, and finely tuned species reach the end of their line. That's just an in-a-nut-shell example on a much more complicated subject.

damn that was way too long a post.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

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

BZZT. Fail. If you want to look up what logical fallacy you just used to defend your bigotry, you can get some make up points for extra credit.

If this is the sort of logic and reasoning that is taught in "science, then I'd suggest our children have no part in it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

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

Not at all. Either the existence of alien life is or is not fit for a scientific discussion. If it is, then there really isn't a credible argument why a discussion regarding the possibility of (so far) unknown intelligent forces which might have a role in why things are as they are.

Neither can be proven. Neither have any real, known measurable variables that are consistent. Both really on speculation. Both are possible, though not proven.

If it's not fit - then people really should be up in arms about this total embarrassment of a scientific report. If it isn't, the same people who are silent about it should shut their traps when other possibilities that might happen in the universe are discussed.

It doesn't seem though that many who oppose ID want to similarly chastise the person who wrote the report mentioned in the OP. Some in fact have proposed the double standard I suggest exists, and have tried to use it to hide behind what seems clear is irrationally bigotry.

Pick a standard - stick with it. People shouldn't change the standard when it comes to subjects that make them uncomfortable, and that is what appears is happening here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

You've just explained why discussion of evolution as a possible origin for humanity might fit in a Science classroom. That possibility is based on a *scientific understanding* that species can adapt to their environment.

But that doesn't mean that such an adaptation can be, or was the impetus of a top to bottom change from nothing, to what we are today.

That would be like pointing out that phenomena not readily explained by science has been shown to exist, therefor the understanding that these things occur raises the possibility that there's some supernatural force that is yet unknown to us. Of course, like small evolutionary adaptation, there could be other, yet to be discovered reasons for these things.

It is an extrapolation based on scientific fact, and therefore it is fitting inside a Science classroom as a way to help explain the evolutionary process and scientific processes.

It's a guess, based on observations that have happened on a much smaller scale to other things. Really, not much better than my observation in regards to the supernatural.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

ID is scientific. It is also religious.

What religion? Seeing how people who may have no religious beliefs but may believe that intelligent "alien" lifeforms have had a hand in our creation and have even came back to help us later on, as evidenced by the huge numbers of UFO sightings throughout history - and ID would include such a belief, it's hard to take seriously your claim that it is "religion."

Really, unless you can explain how the only people who might consider this theory belong to some religion, this argument is a non-starter.

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

Fail. Your bigotry is showing through with flying colors. Do you really consider yourself to be a "deep thinker?" With an argument like that, I think you need to spend a little more time at the well. I don't like to throw out harsh criticism like that, but really - I can't even fathom how someone would create an argument like that unless they were just so totally blinded by their fear of faith in a higher being, that they can't think straight.

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

What specific religious belief? That a "higher power" exists? If so, which one did the text mention? Klaatu from the planet Xenu?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

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

You sound like those folks who picket with the "God Hates Fags" signs. Scary.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

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

Nope. You've never showed anything like this, because there's no testable, repeatable evidence that would show such a thing in humans.

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

I've conceded that evolution has a greater degree of scientific evidence - some of which may well be circumstantial. More so than say extra-terrestrial involvement of any kind ("God" or alien). AGAIN, I'm not the one suggesting that ideas like evolution be banned or censored. and that is irrelevant as to whether or not these other ideas we've been discussing are fit for a scientific discussion (which many here have finally conceded they are) or whether the fact that an idea like ID leaves open the possibility that a "God" might exist (or intelligent alien life) is enough to make it "religion" when it does not even require a set of specific spiritual rules, or even an actual "God" who judges us or who have passed any moral lesson down to us. Some still want to irrationally cling to that argument, apparently.

Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It would seem absent any kind of worship, devotion or "institutionalized system", you really are going to have a hard time making the case that it's "religion" unless you are just judging on (as some have done here) what you PERCEIVE the motives of those who belief in this idea. Of course, if that's the case, the opposite can be judged as well. There's no real reason to exclude these "scientific" (as even many on this thread concede) ideas given the fact that no principles that are exclusive to religion are forwarded in this school of thought, and can be used by people who have no particular religious faith.

I'm sorry, but I've yet to see an argument where you can get around any of that, without it just being clear that personal bias and bigotry is involved here.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Nope. You've never showed anything like this, because there's no testable, repeatable evidence that would show such a thing in humans.

Yep.
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've conceded that evolution has a greater degree of scientific evidence - some of which may well be circumstantial. More so than say extra-terrestrial involvement of any kind ("God" or alien). AGAIN, I'm not the one suggesting that ideas like evolution be banned or censored. and that is irrelevant as to whether or not these other ideas we've been discussing are fit for a scientific discussion (which many here have finally conceded they are) or whether the fact that an idea like ID leaves open the possibility that a "God" might exist (or intelligent alien life) is enough to make it "religion" when it does not even require a set of specific spiritual rules, or even an actual "God" who judges us or who have passed any moral lesson down to us. Some still want to irrationally cling to that argument, apparently.

No-one is saying you want to ban teaching of evolution, its being used as a benchmark in this discussion for something that constitutes a valid scientific theory, worthy of being taught in a science class. Bringing it up for comparison (to ID) is therefore perfectly rational.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It would seem absent any kind of worship, devotion or "institutionalized system", you really are going to have a hard time making the case that it's "religion" unless you are just judging on (as some have done here) what you PERCEIVE the motives of those who belief in this idea. Of course, if that's the case, the opposite can be judged as well. There's no real reason to exclude these "scientific" (as even many on this thread concede) ideas given the fact that no principles that are exclusive to religion are forwarded in this school of thought, and can be used by people who have no particular religious faith.

ID is not religion, its religious. It was specifically crafted to try and get around the rules of what constitutes a scientific theory by religious people trying to get religion into science classrooms where creationism failed. This because they were afraid their kids would be taught that evolution is science but creationism is not and might question their parents beliefs as a result.

ID is the religious equivalent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster which was crafted to be every bit as rational as other religions while still being obviously ridiculous (just like the other religions).

ID still falls down as science because there is no evidence to support it. Since there is planets, and there is life (I think we can all agree these two facts are irrefutable) there is good reason to speculate or even assume that there might be life on other planets and there is certainly scientific value in speculating what it might be like.
The only "evidence" offered in favour of the existence of a higher power is a bunch of peoples opinions and a bunch of people who can't accept spontaneous complexity without imagining a creator. This "evidence" does not stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. There are perfectly rational alternative explanations which indicate we should disregard it.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm sorry, but I've yet to see an argument where you can get around any of that, without it just being clear that personal bias and bigotry is involved here.

This is because every time someone has made such an argument, you have chosen to ignore it or label it as personal bias and religious bigotry. Most likely due to your own personal bias and pro-religious bigotry.

To summarise:

Aliens: Evidence suggesting that alien life is very likely, possible to test but not possible to rush the test, things to be learned by speculating about it.
ID: No evidence supporting it whatsoever, no way to test for it whatsoever, nothing to be learned by wasting time on it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What religion? Seeing how people who may have no religious beliefs but may believe that intelligent "alien" lifeforms have had a hand in our creation and have even came back to help us later on, as evidenced by the huge numbers of UFO sightings throughout history - and ID would include such a belief, it's hard to take seriously your claim that it is "religion."

Really, unless you can explain how the only people who might consider this theory belong to some religion, this argument is a non-starter.



Fail. Your bigotry is showing through with flying colors. Do you really consider yourself to be a "deep thinker?" With an argument like that, I think you need to spend a little more time at the well. I don't like to throw out harsh criticism like that, but really - I can't even fathom how someone would create an argument like that unless they were just so totally blinded by their fear of faith in a higher being, that they can't think straight.



What specific religious belief? That a "higher power" exists? If so, which one did the text mention? Klaatu from the planet Xenu?

Meow! Looks like I touched a nerve!

Look this isn't my assessment, it was proven in a court of law:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you have further questions, you can read the decision yourself, it's right there in black and white.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

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

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

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

I suppose this is a matter of perspective. If "God" designed "Adam" to evolve from the outset then when that process happens it's not completely "unaided" it would seem. Perhaps there is no direct involvement by "God" after the initial "programming" is done .... but there is an indirect involvement resulting from design of the evolutionary process itself ... n'est-ce pas?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Ok I see what you meant now. But Ill just clear up what I was saying anyway.

Now yes, on the population level it doesn't matter if 96% of the offspring are born weaker than their parents due to these negative mutations; because selection pressure will strongly inhibit those individuals from breeding. Only the top 4% (this is relative of course, some species it's only the top .1 percent who are able to breed in their lifetime) per say, would spread their genetics ensuring the genetic integrity or advancement of a population/species.

(I know the numbers you gave are arbitrary, but I'll keep using them). Maybe also 96% of species perish and the top 4% persist? Maybe also 96% of whole systems of life perish, and only the top 4% persist (maybe there were 24 different "lifes" before the DNA- and protein-based one we know today, but ours was the only one that survived)? IMO, this is par for the course. Better to have lived and lost, than never to have lived at all, amirite?

Most rainforest species in general are so finely tuned for their environment there is no future for them; to ever evolve into anything else. This isn't the fate of all species though. Roaches, rodents etc., are some of the animals that can repopulated the planets diversity when the next mass extinction occurs.

Overspecializers have a present, if not a future. If they hadn't overspecialized, they wouldn't even have a present, they would still be roaches and rodents. They are not displacing the generalizers, who will still be here to carry on our legacy no matter what, so what is the downside?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Nope. You've never showed anything like this, because there's no testable, repeatable evidence that would show such a thing in humans.

Yes, I have, on several occasions. I discussed not only human evolution in more recent times (as within the past 200 years), but also within the past 100,000 years. Everything from bubonic plague and the discovery of the ΓΔ-T gene mutation to recording the development of diabetes in Native Americans. I also covered perhaps one of the more important studies in 2008 by evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Lenski.

Just search the forums. Both you and I have had this argument countless times and you still insist that I've never shown you links to these studies. There must be 5 or 6 threads alone on the ΓΔ-T gene mutation alone.

So what did I do this time? Hack MacNN forums and change all the past discussions?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's no real reason to exclude these "scientific" (as even many on this thread concede) ideas given the fact that no principles that are exclusive to religion are forwarded in this school of thought, and can be used by people who have no particular religious faith.

In one ear out the other.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm sorry, but I've yet to see an argument where you can get around any of that, without it just being clear that personal bias and bigotry is involved here.

1. Form a hypothesis.
2. Make a prediction using your hypothesis.
3. Create an experiment to test your hypothesis.

Intelligent Design fails at step 2. Between step 1 and step 2, please demonstrate where bias and bigotry are involved.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I suppose this is a matter of perspective. If "God" designed "Adam" to evolve from the outset then when that process happens it's not completely "unaided" it would seem.

No it's not "completely" unaided. The parts that were designed were aided, and the other parts were (completely) unaided.

It's just like if Al Gore were to say he designed the internet. He may have (helped) set up rules that enabled the design of the internet, but to claim that he designed it undermines the definition of "design."

[Wiskedjak]

stupenousman,
If you are able to believe the idea that aliens might have created life in Earth (an idea for which zero evidence exists), why are you unable to accept that the evolutionary processes observed by science (for which much evidence exists) might have been created by those same aliens, or even your god?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yep.
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

Nope

"Evidence" can well be circumstantial and does not necessarily "prove" something, save for a possible "smoking gun" for which there can be no other reasonable explanation. Innocent men have been put to do death with more possibly circumstantial evidence than that.

For instance, I can provide evidence where people pray to God, and the thing they pray for comes to fruition despite the fact that all odds are against that thing happening. Of course, it could be God interacting - or it could be dumb luck.

Here’s the gist of the page you linked to:

Some things are, or have been a lot like other things. Therefore, the latter things absolutely have to have came from the former things. Assumption.

Some things have genetic material that is similar to other things, therefore the latter things had to have came from the former things. It’s like saying that because two houses built thousands of miles and years apart look very similar, they had to have been made from the very same blueprint and materials prior to building. Unprovable assumption. There is no way to test to see if this where the case with human development. It's possible - but not proven by showing similarities and likenesses in other things.

The assumption is that because genes can mutate in tiny ways, that they mutated from nothing to what we are today. It’s a set of very simple assumptions that seem reasonable, but in no way prove the point because as with the house example, a builder (or multiple builders) can create multiple houses that look similar without the requirement that they have taken building materials from the older house, or used the very same blueprint to do so. It could be very well that the same builder did use the same blueprint over the years to build separate, but similar houses - some with features that make them unique. You can also later renovate the house in small ways to make it more useful, but that does not mean you had to take building materials from one of the other houses in order to do so. It could have been an entirely different project all together. Similarity does not have to have been bread from common source - and if it is, that common source could well have been that these things where designed by a common builder.

While the information on the page you gave in no way proves evolution as the source for the creation of our species and is just a whole lot of unproven assumptions (based on what can be proven in other areas), it does provide “the best and most thorough explanation for a variety of facts concerning the geographical distribution of plants and animals across the world” as the Wikipedia states. That is why I support it being taught. However, being the best explanation so far (based on our limited ability to fathom the secrets of the universe at this point) does not eliminate other possibilities or the fact that even if this did occur that there could not be any no intelligent design behind this action. Artificially limiting possibilities or the scientific discussion of these possibilities isn’t done to further our knowledge and understanding - it’s done to censor beliefs that some are bigoted against.

ID is not religion, its religious. It was specifically crafted to try and get around the rules of what constitutes a scientific theory by religious people trying to get religion into science classrooms where creationism failed.

Again, you are classifying based on perceived motive, not the actual constitution of the thing itself. That is an example of bias, not a credible classification based on an examination of the idea itself. Not exactly an intellectually honest way of portraying it. Motive is irrelevant. Otherwise, all the atheist scientists who insist on limiting discussions of options that might allow for a supreme beings, should be labeled as religious bigots due to their actual motivations that go beyond science. I'll accept a consistent standard here.

I gave you a reasonable definition of "religion." For something to be "religious" it really, logically has to exhibit the qualities given in the definition. It doesn't. While those who may support it DO adhere to those qualities, that really isn't enough to brand the thing itself with that label. There's a logical fallacy you're engaging in here. Can you figure out which one?

When we dispense with the bias and logical fallacies, we'll come to a conclusion. Until then, I"m sure we'll see the same intellectually dishonest attempts to censor subject matter that scares some.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Meow! Looks like I touched a nerve!

Blatant bIgotry tends to do that.

Look this isn't my assessment, it was proven in a court of law:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... filled with many of the same logical fallacies seen here. Essentially, people who support it are religious, therefore the thing in question is also religious.

FAIL.

Basically, those opposed engaged in semantic arguments with a clear motive in limiting the ability of the school district to offer a reasonable "middle ground" in the protection of the first amendment rights of the students, while at the same time not offering explanations which could only be seen as religious in nature.

Again, if the possible existence of intelligent alien life is fit for examination as part of a scientific report where no real evidence is presented, then you can't logically say the same about an idea which essentially could support the idea that there is intelligent alien life out there. Unless they are forwarding specific possibilities that could only be possible if specific religious beliefs where true, then you can't logically label something as "religious" no matter how hard you semantically try to do it. Given that ID could very well be true and there BE NO GOD as all mainstream religions believe, an argument that it is STILL religious can't be taken seriously unless your personal biases already predispose you to being bigoted against the idea regardless of how it might play out.

Pick a standard. Stick with it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

stupenousman,
If you are able to believe the idea that aliens might have created life in Earth (an idea for which zero evidence exists), why are you unable to accept that the evolutionary processes observed by science (for which much evidence exists) might have been created by those same aliens, or even your god?

I am not unable.

I don't oppose the teaching of this particular possibility. I'm not one of the ones trying to push my personal biases by censoring ideas which are widely held, in an attempt to squash dissent.

We've seen it time and again. Political argument being made in a science setting in an attempt to limit debate. That has nothing to do with science - but rather everything to do with personal bias. Here's another great example where we were falsey assured that we had all the answers, and those who disagreed where simply idiots who couldn't understand "science".

Sun Causes Climate Change Shock – Telegraph Blogs

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

... filled with many of the same logical fallacies seen here. Essentially, people who support it are religious, therefore the thing in question is also religious.

FAIL.

If you just say "fail" 3 or 4 more times, it will become true

Basically, those opposed engaged in semantic arguments

Semantics? (from the dover link, which you obviously didn't read):

"Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands."

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera."

Even if it is pure coincidence that two editions of a book with the same title by the same publisher would arrive at such identical definitions (ha!), it shows that the two "theories" are the same since they share the same definition! From the horse's mouth! "Creation theory" is by definition identical to "Intelligent design." That's not semantics, that's evidence.

Again, if the possible existence of intelligent alien life is fit for examination as part of a scientific report where no real evidence is presented, then you can't logically say the same about an idea which essentially could support the idea that there is intelligent alien life out there.

No one is stopping ID from being "part of a scientific report." Only from being taught in public schools. You can even teach it in science classrooms, of private schools. That's a lot closer comparison than "part of a scientific report."

Pick a standard. Stick with it.

Are you talking about public school classrooms or are you talking about "part of a scientific report?" Come on Stupendousman, pick a standard and stick with it!

PS: F-F-F-FAIL !!!!1!one

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Some things have genetic material that is similar to other things, therefore the latter things had to have came from the former things. It’s like saying that because two houses built thousands of miles and years apart look very similar, they had to have been made from the very same blueprint and materials prior to building.

I can see why you used this example but it falls well short of the mark. Its not difficult to find two houses, one in Europe and one in the USA which look very similar. Same kind of bricks, same style of architecture etc, etc. Were they taken from the same blueprint? No. Not exactly. But on the other hand, yes.

First of all, we are well aware of the fact that people and things including building materials can be transported all around the world. London Bridge is a great example. Second, the chances are that one house is built in the style of the other, or even more likely that both are built in the style of an even older building. Without bothering to delve into the history of architecture and brick making and building techniques and a rather nice little metaphor where the rooms of a house are its limbs I just need to point out that we know all the avenues and vectors by which the knowledge, skills and building materials can be transported across the Atlantic.

Living things are much more complicated than houses. I don't think you appreciate just how unlikely it is that certain organisms are NOT related to certain others. If you think comparing the similarities between a domestic cat and a Lion is equivalent to comparing the rotunda at the University of Virginia to the Pantheon, then you are simply not fully appreciating the complexities involved here.

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p358...he_Rotunda.jpg
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...-c-paradox.jpg


Secondly, you are looking at observational evidence alone and trying to dismiss it as insufficient. You are forgetting to factor in the rest. We know how genetic reproduction works. We know mutations happen. It is simple logic to see that a life-form that is not well suited to its environment is more likely to die before it can reproduce compared to a life-form that is more suited to that environment. The observational evidence is not just convenient assumption, its what we expected to see based on our predictions generated by our theory of how different species evolve. You have completely missed the point (of science) again.

The part we are less sure about is the very beginning. We cannot be sure if life spontaneously appeared in a single puddle and everything evolved from that, or if it was several puddles in a particular region or if it has happened several times in the puddles of different regions on different parts of the Earth. It has also been postulated that life may have arrived from elsewhere on meteors. This is another reason its worth looking for alien life, even if its just microbes.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, you are classifying based on perceived motive, not the actual constitution of the thing itself. That is an example of bias, not a credible classification based on an examination of the idea itself. Not exactly an intellectually honest way of portraying it. Motive is irrelevant. Otherwise, all the atheist scientists who insist on limiting discussions of options that might allow for a supreme beings, should be labeled as religious bigots due to their actual motivations that go beyond science. I'll accept a consistent standard here.

Actually, this is not my classification but that of your (conservative) Supreme Court. The fact that people who in all likelihood would love to have forced ID into science classes could not bring themselves to do so should tell you a lot.

I don't know how many ways or times we can explain this to you. ID is not a scientific theory. Its a concept, an idea. There is nothing to promote it over other concepts like the FSM or the idea that the Universe was sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure. There is no observational evidence to lead us to think it might be true, and there are no predictions we can make let alone test to add the slightest hint of credibility to it.
If we were to include it in science classes, then we would have to include the Force, the FSM and every single other idea that anyone else ever came up with that could not be 100% ruled out by pure science or logic.

Motive should not relevant I agree, but motive was clearly at play in formulation of this concept which clearly started with a foregone conclusion. It is ID which is biased. A genuine scientific hypothesis can be ruled out by testing it, this one was built in such a way that it could never be tested. Even if its motives were genuine, if you can't test it, its not science.

The ruling is a (criminally rare) victory for common sense.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I gave you a reasonable definition of "religion." For something to be "religious" it really, logically has to exhibit the qualities given in the definition. It doesn't.

Except that it does. I'll take door number 2 please Bob.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When we dispense with the bias and logical fallacies, we'll come to a conclusion. Until then, I"m sure we'll see the same intellectually dishonest attempts to censor subject matter that scares some.

We have repeatedly shown you were the bias and fallacies truly lie, if you don't understand I'm sure I'm not the only one who is willing to try and explain it again, you just need to tell us which bits you don't get instead of assuming we are illogical bigots. The conclusion is plain to see for anyone willing to be genuinely impartial and rational.

Show me a copy of Nature that was pulled from shelves because it had a picture of a norwegian fjord with Slaartibartfast carved into it and I'll admit that scientists are censoring valid subject matter.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sun Causes Climate Change Shock – Telegraph Blogs

Poor choice. Dellingpole is a biased idiotic wingnut. You'd have done just as well to cite Fox "News".

[Wiskedjak]

stupendousman,
Let me see if I understand your points:

- Intelligent Design states that God or Aliens created life on Earth in exactly the state as it appears today (ie: no significant evolution and humans did not evolve from "lesser apes").
- Intelligent Design cannot be tested for using scientific methodology.
- Evolution also cannot be tested for using scientific methodology, despite evidence to the contrary.
- there is no evidence (scientific or otherwise) to suggest an Intelligent Designer, meaning that ID must be believed in on faith alone, though it has more weight than the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn because of the following:
- Intelligent Design "support[s] the belief system of the majority of humans on the planet Earth", even though you say it isn't religious (you're stating that a significant proportion of humans on the planet Earth believe that Aliens created life on Earth)
- because the existence of aliens is being speculated about at NASA and Pennsylvania State University, Intelligent Design must be taught as a possibility in Grade School Science classrooms.
- because of one example you found on the Internet of Aliens being discussed in a Science classroom and based on your own personal recollections, Intelligent Design must be taught as a possibility in ALL Grade School Science classrooms.

Does that sound about right?

[Waragainstsleep]

Funny how reasonable things (don't) sound when you summarize them sometimes. I always liked this one:

Christianity:
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree"

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Funny how reasonable things (don't) sound when you summarize them sometimes. I always liked this one:

Christianity:
"The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree"

Never heard that one before. Very good.

[Wiskedjak]

stupendousman,
Another thing I'm curious about: can you describe what you think Intelligent Design education would look like in the grade school Science classroom?

[subego]

As an aside, I'm listening to Dr. Kiki's Science Hour, and her guest (a theoretical physicist) is bending over backwards to qualify his statements:

"This is what we strongly believe..."
"There's a lot of evidence for..."

"We don't talk about what happened before the Big Bang because nobody knows..."

Not exactly what I'd call a dogmatic belief system, as science is sometimes accused of being.