On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote:
On February 23 2012 11:03 BallinWitStalin wrote: [quote]
Allright, I'm going to stop you right there. As a biologist, this statement is ridiculous. Please, please god show me where there is scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. I can, of course, save you the time, and assure you that IT DOESN'T EXIST.
Holy crap, how is this even coming up? There is absolutely, positively, no evidence supporting it, and there IS evidence for evolution. An overwhelming amount of evidence. So much evidence that it is, in fact, A FACT.
I'm going to break it down for you:
Evolution is a fact. Evolution, as defined by a change in genotypic frequencies from one generation to the next, occurs. It just does. There's no disputing it. People have literally sequenced these changes, and in a lot of cases, related them directly BACK TO SELECTION ON THE POPULATION.
That is fact. Evolution, occuring in the real world, right now, is fact. Industrial melanism in moths, fisheries induced size changes, antibiotic resistant bacteria (again, we even know the mutations in the genome responsable for a lot of these), the world is full of examples of evolution. Hell, scientists have actively IMPOSED evolution on populations (changing bristle numbers on populations of fruit flies, eye-colour in fruit flies, in agricultural species the examples are endless....), and related them directly back to genotypic changes in populations. Change in genotypes over generations = evolution. IT IS FACT. That's why it's retarded to not teach it in school, because it occurs everyday, constantly, and has important, real-world implications.
Now, here's where you get into the realm of theory: Whether or not human beings evolved. Iit is not a "fact" in the same sense that modern evolution is. No-one was around to document the evolution of human beings, and experimentally observe it. However, we can infer things, given factual processes that we already know occur (i.e. evolution by natural selection), and make predictions about the origins of human beings. We can then test these predictions using evidence from fossil records, GENOTYPIC DATA (think molecular markers that can trace human origins to Africa), etc. THAT is the scientific evidence to support the hypotheses that human beings evolved. And, when you put it all together using the scientific method, the most parsimonious result is just that: the conclusion that human beings evolved.
Now please, show me the science behind intelligent design. It doesn't exist. Existing processes that we know exist and occur, coupled with substantial evidence in the form of genetic and fossil records, pretty much provide overwhelming support for the THEORY that humans evolved.
TLDR: Evolution is a FACT, whether or not humans evolved is a THEORY, but it is one supported by a mountain of scientific evidence.
I don't think you read anything I said
Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway.
As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit.
Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class.
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome.
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
Santorum is scary. Whats odd is he is far more conservative than even the most ardent catholics I have come into contact with. His religious ideas are so bogus and make it completely obvious that he has never even entertained looking at other peoples opinions on his philosophical topics.
This whole contraceptives idea is pathetic as well. Its like everyone is completely neglecting the fact that condoms help reduce the spread of STD's. Everyone seems to be focused on the pill as well as the morning after pill and completely leaving out the STD angle.
Hes a tool. Period.
I actually have to agree with most of this even though I am a conservative. Santorum is a bit too extreme. No one who opposes birth control will have my support. (I'm not counting abortion as birth control).
I'm actually in favor of making brith control MORE accessible, even to high school kids without their parents knowledge or approval, because when all is said and done, what I want is fewer abortions to occur. Better to prevent a preganancy with a pill/condom/IUD than to destroy a growing fetus.
My 2 cents and why I do not support Santorum.
EDIT: My 2 cents on ID: Let the schools teach what our best understanding is based on science (which is the currently theory of evolution) and if you wanna teach about creation or ID, lets do that in church, which is where we learn what our bebst understading of spiritual matters are. I don't think learning about evolutionary theory will damage faith at all. I had evolution taught in my schools and colleges and I appreciated it although I am a very religious person. That being said, I am not against a teacher telling her class what ID is either.
The problem is, depending on the nature of the discussion you can give the impression that it has some type of validity (which it doesn't) and you can also give the impression that it is scientific (it isn't).
If you want to bring it up, show that news report that came out after the fiasco in Missouri. At least that would give people the truth behind the origins of ID and will let people see how much of a scam it is.
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class.
Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know.
Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion.
The court ruling was not that you can't mention intelligent design in a classroom, you are makign a case against a censorship that doesn't exist.
There is a world of difference between something being allowed to be mentioned in a classroom, and something actively being taught.
On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote: [quote]
I don't think you read anything I said
Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway.
As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit.
Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class.
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
Nothing that fails to conform to the scientific method belongs in a science class: nothing. Period. End of story.
Can you talk about the Spanish language and how it relates (or conflicts) with the English language in an English class?
You shouldn't, unless the students speak Spanish and need a reference frame, but it could be taught in a linguistics course, which specifically deals with questions like that. Just like how intelligence design could be taught in a theology course at a university. The issue is that intelligent design, as a hypothesis, is pretty much the opposite of science: it is a hypothesis completely lacking in testable evidence: by design the hypothesis cannot be tested, when science is all about answering questions through experiments and testing. It's difficult to come up with a good analogy that adequately explains just how bad that is.
And ID is a nonsense hypothesis that is just a scam attempt to sneak religion past the court system to get it into schools.
Bold part: why?
Everything else: I find it really hard to believe you'd object to the proposed scenario if it happened. But I guess I can't prove it.
Because the courts ruled you couldn't teach creationism in schools, so they attempted to give it a scientific cover (they failed miserably) to sneak it into schools that a deity created life.
you can't say something is ridiculous because it's ridiculous. I'm curious why it's such a scam, since everybody is kind of just taking that idea for granted.
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class.
Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know.
Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion.
The court ruling was not that you can't mention intelligent design in a classroom, you are makign a case against a censorship that doesn't exist.
There is a world of difference between something being allowed to be mentioned in a classroom, and something actively being taught.
It's not related to a specific religion. How does it violate the constitution? Strictly speaking it could be about aliens, no?
On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote: [quote]
I don't think you read anything I said
Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway.
As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit.
Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class.
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome.
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
Santorum is scary. Whats odd is he is far more conservative than even the most ardent catholics I have come into contact with. His religious ideas are so bogus and make it completely obvious that he has never even entertained looking at other peoples opinions on his philosophical topics.
This whole contraceptives idea is pathetic as well. Its like everyone is completely neglecting the fact that condoms help reduce the spread of STD's. Everyone seems to be focused on the pill as well as the morning after pill and completely leaving out the STD angle.
Hes a tool. Period.
I actually have to agree with most of this even though I am a conservative. Santorum is a bit too extreme. No one who opposes birth control will have my support. (I'm not counting abortion as birth control).
I'm actually in favor of making brith control MORE accessible, even to high school kids without their parents knowledge or approval, because when all is said and done, what I want is fewer abortions to occur. Better to prevent a preganancy with a pill/condom/IUD than to destroy a growing fetus.
My 2 cents and why I do not support Santorum.
EDIT: My 2 cents on ID: Let the schools teach what our best understanding is based on science (which is the currently theory of evolution) and if you wanna teach about creation or ID, lets do that in church, which is where we learn what our bebst understading of spiritual matters are. I don't think learning about evolutionary theory will damage faith at all. I had evolution taught in my schools and colleges and I appreciated it although I am a very religious person. That being said, I am not against a teacher telling her class what ID is either.
The problem is, depending on the nature of the discussion you can give the impression that it has some type of validity (which it doesn't) and you can also give the impression that it is scientific (it isn't).
If you want to bring it up, show that news report that came out after the fiasco in Missouri. At least that would give people the truth behind the origins of ID and will let people see how much of a scam it is.
On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: [quote]
Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway.
As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit.
Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class.
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome.
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
From wikipedia
Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n
It has everything to do with religion.
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005.
edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance.
where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested.
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ”
And no, intelligent design is not based on a "generic idea of religion", it is play by christian conservatives to push forward christianity. Maybe you should read up on what exactly it is.
On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: [quote]
Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway.
As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit.
Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class.
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
Nothing that fails to conform to the scientific method belongs in a science class: nothing. Period. End of story.
Can you talk about the Spanish language and how it relates (or conflicts) with the English language in an English class?
You shouldn't, unless the students speak Spanish and need a reference frame, but it could be taught in a linguistics course, which specifically deals with questions like that. Just like how intelligence design could be taught in a theology course at a university. The issue is that intelligent design, as a hypothesis, is pretty much the opposite of science: it is a hypothesis completely lacking in testable evidence: by design the hypothesis cannot be tested, when science is all about answering questions through experiments and testing. It's difficult to come up with a good analogy that adequately explains just how bad that is.
And ID is a nonsense hypothesis that is just a scam attempt to sneak religion past the court system to get it into schools.
Bold part: why?
Everything else: I find it really hard to believe you'd object to the proposed scenario if it happened. But I guess I can't prove it.
Because the courts ruled you couldn't teach creationism in schools, so they attempted to give it a scientific cover (they failed miserably) to sneak it into schools that a deity created life.
you can't say something is ridiculous because it's ridiculous. I'm curious why it's such a scam, since everybody is kind of just taking that idea for granted.
I believe that evolution is a very real thing and yet I'm appalled by how unscientific and non-factual these claims by the "defenders of science" are. Clearly, the motivation for attacking in such a manner is emotional and belief-based, and not logical.
On February 23 2012 12:54 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: We do not teach English in Science, we do not teach Drama in Science and we do not teach Religion in Science. We teach Science in Science, and that involves following ceirtan procedures and methods. Science is not as much about teaching kids how the World was created but teaching them a method for proving a theory through observable evidence. Atleast that is how I was taught.
If a student wrote an interesting english paper regarding a scientific topic of some sort, I don't see any problem with having it in a science classroom. You're really not understanding my point.
It would merit very little scientific discussion, unless the nature of the paper itself were quite scientific. How good the English is in the paper is irrelevant to the subject at hand unless it were so bad that it became unintelligible. There is no problem with having it in the classroom, there is a problem with attempting to teach everyone to write like that in a science class, because thats not the point of the class, we have a seperate class for that.
On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote:
On February 23 2012 11:03 BallinWitStalin wrote:
On February 23 2012 10:35 Holophonist wrote: [quote]
Great, I'm pulled into another lengthy waste of time that will probably turn into people ignoring what I say and sidestepping my points. No offense, I don't know you. It just always seems to end up that way on the internet. You try and try to explain your point of view and when push comes to shove, they just stop posting.
Intelligent Design is not a religion, it's an argument for pretty much any religion at all. So you can't really say it's shoving my religion down somebody's throat. There is science behind it. If you want to claim that everything taught in every science class follows the entirety of the scientific method, good luck. I don't agree with the increasing censorship of the idea of religion being the answer to anything in schools. And yes, I'm blowing through this as quickly as possible because I despise long winded arguments on the internet because it almost ALWAYS turns into a gotcha word game.
Your paragraph about the Judeo-Christian values comment started out ok but ended a little ridiculous. I don't think his quote (or any of his quotes, I hope) implies that we should follow every single part of the bible literally. Christianity doesn't even say that! That's what the new testament is for. As far as him speaking for the whole country when he says that... are you serious? Clearly he's generalizing! You're reading WAYYY too much into that quote. I mean my goodness, following that logic you couldn't say anything about the citizens of the country ever! The fact is that Christianity is, by a very wide margin, the most widespread religion practiced in the country.
You're also being far too rigid about the reality of legislating anything at all, including morality. But the idea of legislating morality just gets more airtime and more of a mention (particularly on the internet!) The fact is that there is new legislation all the time that is just as preposterous as any of the things Rick Santorum has ever proposed, it's just not as much of a hot button issue. Also clearly this stuff is more important to you than the governemnt spending all of our money (not meant maliciously).
I would be ok with anybody who is as much of a religious zealot as Rick Santorum (of any religion!), if I believe they would at least get the other stuff right. By the way, I strongly prefer Gingrich or Paul over Santorum or Romney.
Allright, I'm going to stop you right there. As a biologist, this statement is ridiculous. Please, please god show me where there is scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. I can, of course, save you the time, and assure you that IT DOESN'T EXIST.
Holy crap, how is this even coming up? There is absolutely, positively, no evidence supporting it, and there IS evidence for evolution. An overwhelming amount of evidence. So much evidence that it is, in fact, A FACT.
I'm going to break it down for you:
Evolution is a fact. Evolution, as defined by a change in genotypic frequencies from one generation to the next, occurs. It just does. There's no disputing it. People have literally sequenced these changes, and in a lot of cases, related them directly BACK TO SELECTION ON THE POPULATION.
That is fact. Evolution, occuring in the real world, right now, is fact. Industrial melanism in moths, fisheries induced size changes, antibiotic resistant bacteria (again, we even know the mutations in the genome responsable for a lot of these), the world is full of examples of evolution. Hell, scientists have actively IMPOSED evolution on populations (changing bristle numbers on populations of fruit flies, eye-colour in fruit flies, in agricultural species the examples are endless....), and related them directly back to genotypic changes in populations. Change in genotypes over generations = evolution. IT IS FACT. That's why it's retarded to not teach it in school, because it occurs everyday, constantly, and has important, real-world implications.
Now, here's where you get into the realm of theory: Whether or not human beings evolved. Iit is not a "fact" in the same sense that modern evolution is. No-one was around to document the evolution of human beings, and experimentally observe it. However, we can infer things, given factual processes that we already know occur (i.e. evolution by natural selection), and make predictions about the origins of human beings. We can then test these predictions using evidence from fossil records, GENOTYPIC DATA (think molecular markers that can trace human origins to Africa), etc. THAT is the scientific evidence to support the hypotheses that human beings evolved. And, when you put it all together using the scientific method, the most parsimonious result is just that: the conclusion that human beings evolved.
Now please, show me the science behind intelligent design. It doesn't exist. Existing processes that we know exist and occur, coupled with substantial evidence in the form of genetic and fossil records, pretty much provide overwhelming support for the THEORY that humans evolved.
TLDR: Evolution is a FACT, whether or not humans evolved is a THEORY, but it is one supported by a mountain of scientific evidence.
I don't think you read anything I said
Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway.
As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit.
Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class.
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome.
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
I must point out that you are also missing his point, the fact that he finds science awesome/interesting is irrelevant to his main point, he is not arguing that we don't have intelligent design because it's not as awesome as science, just noting that he finds science more awesome. I'm not saying that this is particularly relevant in anyway, just pointing out the reason why you feel so derailed in 'internet debates' is because we all place different emphasis on things, and you get sidetracked into trivial minutae as easily as anyone else.
More importantly, while irreducible complexity might or might not be intersting, the problem is that it's not scientific, in any way. In fact, that is not even the problem at heart, the problem is that the 'theory' is framed in such a way science is not even equipt to discuss it, it not only does it not fit into the scientific framework, it's formulation itself is not compatible with the scientific method.
I'm am going to go back to my analogy of not teaching music in an economics class because it is elegantly similar. You don't teach music in an economics class, not because music itself is 'invalid' or 'false' according to economic theories, but because economics is not equipt with the tools to discuss music in a meaningful way. You can skirt around the issue by discussion the economics of music sales etc, but you can't talk about music because economics doesn't intrinsically have a framework with which to analyse and discuss music.
It is the same way between intelligent design and science. You can skirt around the issue by discussing the scientific merit of way intelligent design is formulated, but it would be a very short conversation. But ultimately you can't truly discuss intelligent design in a scientific way because it's very formulation makes it impossible to interface to modern scientific theory.
Point taken about the bunny trail. I was more refering to long drawn out arguments where I keep trying to reiterate my point while continuously being sidetracked. If he came back and said "ok ok, I didn't mean it was totally mundane, I just meant....", it'd be a different story.
On February 23 2012 13:45 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On February 23 2012 13:43 Holophonist wrote:
On February 23 2012 13:40 Probulous wrote:
On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class.
Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know.
Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion.
The court ruling was not that you can't mention intelligent design in a classroom, you are makign a case against a censorship that doesn't exist.
There is a world of difference between something being allowed to be mentioned in a classroom, and something actively being taught.
It's not related to a specific religion. How does it violate the constitution? Strictly speaking it could be about aliens, no?
I think you quoted the wrong guy, but I'll have a go.
It's not unconstitutional even if it were related to a specific religion.
It's unconstitutional because you are trying to force people to teach something in a science classroom thats clearly got nothing to do with science. And the courts interperated it as an attempt to ram religion down the throats of students in a class that has nothign to do with religion.
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class.
Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know.
Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion.
So it's irrelevant then
What are you arguing? That ID is a decent theory available to explain the development of the earth? Well that sounds like it has nothing to do with religion and so can be debated on its logic. When you drill down to its core it is based on faith and so is a religious belief and therefore does not belong in a class that is supposed to teach children science. Sure you could teach them religion, or english or history or geography but why? It is a waste of time and the only reason I can see for this is to try and make the "theory" of ID seem more scientifically relevant. If it is not based on reason and the scientific method it does not belong in a science class. That goes for pottery as well as ID.
On February 23 2012 11:26 Holophonist wrote: [quote]
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome.
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
From wikipedia
Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n
It has everything to do with religion.
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005.
edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance.
where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested.
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ”
And no, intelligent design is not based on a "generic idea of religion", it is play by christian conservatives to push forward christianity. Maybe you should read up on what exactly it is.
I know what it is. Just because it was created by Christians doesn't mean that what it says is specific to Christianity. Shit, if I made a religion based around the evolution god, would we stop teaching evolution in schools? I don't care who you think planted it covertly in the schools to brainwash our kids, the core idea of intelligent design is very generic and at the very least valid to the point of being worthy of discussion.
On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote: [quote]
I don't think you read anything I said
Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway.
As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit.
Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class.
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome.
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
Santorum is scary. Whats odd is he is far more conservative than even the most ardent catholics I have come into contact with. His religious ideas are so bogus and make it completely obvious that he has never even entertained looking at other peoples opinions on his philosophical topics.
This whole contraceptives idea is pathetic as well. Its like everyone is completely neglecting the fact that condoms help reduce the spread of STD's. Everyone seems to be focused on the pill as well as the morning after pill and completely leaving out the STD angle.
Hes a tool. Period.
I actually have to agree with most of this even though I am a conservative. Santorum is a bit too extreme. No one who opposes birth control will have my support. (I'm not counting abortion as birth control).
I'm actually in favor of making brith control MORE accessible, even to high school kids without their parents knowledge or approval, because when all is said and done, what I want is fewer abortions to occur. Better to prevent a preganancy with a pill/condom/IUD than to destroy a growing fetus.
My 2 cents and why I do not support Santorum.
EDIT: My 2 cents on ID: Let the schools teach what our best understanding is based on science (which is the currently theory of evolution) and if you wanna teach about creation or ID, lets do that in church, which is where we learn what our bebst understading of spiritual matters are. I don't think learning about evolutionary theory will damage faith at all. I had evolution taught in my schools and colleges and I appreciated it although I am a very religious person. That being said, I am not against a teacher telling her class what ID is either.
The problem is, depending on the nature of the discussion you can give the impression that it has some type of validity (which it doesn't) and you can also give the impression that it is scientific (it isn't).
If you want to bring it up, show that news report that came out after the fiasco in Missouri. At least that would give people the truth behind the origins of ID and will let people see how much of a scam it is.
It should be presented exactly as the situation is:
1. Our best scientific understanding is that evolution....Our understanding is still limited but this is our best understanding at the moment. 2. However, some people in the religious community believe...ID....but this has not been backed up by scientific understanding. 3. Now you are aware of the debate going on.
Actually, ID has nothing to do with religion except in that religions try to copy it and apply it to their beliefs after-the-fact.
Consequently, it isn't really scientific either.
Intelligent Design is philosophy, not science, not religion. The rational basis of the argument definitely gives it a place in schools (within the relevant class, which is not a science, or more specifically a biology class, but briefly covered in an intro to philosophy class as mentioned above), but it shouldn't be taught as if it were a dogmatic truth and criticisms of the argument should be taught alongside it like any good philosophical theory.
I'm not personally convinced by it at all by it but you can't seriously argue that it wouldn't be educational to teach the theory of ID and it's flaws/shortcomings as a theory.
On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On February 23 2012 11:07 Holophonist wrote:
On February 23 2012 11:03 BallinWitStalin wrote: [quote]
Allright, I'm going to stop you right there. As a biologist, this statement is ridiculous. Please, please god show me where there is scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. I can, of course, save you the time, and assure you that IT DOESN'T EXIST.
Holy crap, how is this even coming up? There is absolutely, positively, no evidence supporting it, and there IS evidence for evolution. An overwhelming amount of evidence. So much evidence that it is, in fact, A FACT.
I'm going to break it down for you:
Evolution is a fact. Evolution, as defined by a change in genotypic frequencies from one generation to the next, occurs. It just does. There's no disputing it. People have literally sequenced these changes, and in a lot of cases, related them directly BACK TO SELECTION ON THE POPULATION.
That is fact. Evolution, occuring in the real world, right now, is fact. Industrial melanism in moths, fisheries induced size changes, antibiotic resistant bacteria (again, we even know the mutations in the genome responsable for a lot of these), the world is full of examples of evolution. Hell, scientists have actively IMPOSED evolution on populations (changing bristle numbers on populations of fruit flies, eye-colour in fruit flies, in agricultural species the examples are endless....), and related them directly back to genotypic changes in populations. Change in genotypes over generations = evolution. IT IS FACT. That's why it's retarded to not teach it in school, because it occurs everyday, constantly, and has important, real-world implications.
Now, here's where you get into the realm of theory: Whether or not human beings evolved. Iit is not a "fact" in the same sense that modern evolution is. No-one was around to document the evolution of human beings, and experimentally observe it. However, we can infer things, given factual processes that we already know occur (i.e. evolution by natural selection), and make predictions about the origins of human beings. We can then test these predictions using evidence from fossil records, GENOTYPIC DATA (think molecular markers that can trace human origins to Africa), etc. THAT is the scientific evidence to support the hypotheses that human beings evolved. And, when you put it all together using the scientific method, the most parsimonious result is just that: the conclusion that human beings evolved.
Now please, show me the science behind intelligent design. It doesn't exist. Existing processes that we know exist and occur, coupled with substantial evidence in the form of genetic and fossil records, pretty much provide overwhelming support for the THEORY that humans evolved.
TLDR: Evolution is a FACT, whether or not humans evolved is a THEORY, but it is one supported by a mountain of scientific evidence.
I don't think you read anything I said
Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway.
As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit.
Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class.
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome.
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
just stop it.
ID is a scam conjured up by the religious right to "combat" evolution. It is not science. Do a bit of reading on the topic and its origins and you see how much of a scam it is. I find it sad you don't get it, its one of the most transparent things the religious right has ever put out.
Please don't try to tell us we obviously dont "understand" ID. We do, its a scam, get over it.
Santorum is scary. Whats odd is he is far more conservative than even the most ardent catholics I have come into contact with. His religious ideas are so bogus and make it completely obvious that he has never even entertained looking at other peoples opinions on his philosophical topics.
This whole contraceptives idea is pathetic as well. Its like everyone is completely neglecting the fact that condoms help reduce the spread of STD's. Everyone seems to be focused on the pill as well as the morning after pill and completely leaving out the STD angle.
Hes a tool. Period.
I now realize the error of my ways. I guess it took a well thought out and unbiased argument like yours to finally convince me. By the way, I never even said I liked Santorum. Also, I'm not catholic and am not against contraceptives. WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT??!?
In response to your earlier assumption that, since there are things we cannot (at least not currently) explain there must be a God:
Investing some time in Neil DeGrasse Tyson is worth it, trust me. He's smarter than both you and me and it's wonderful to listen to his reasonings. He's also a great lecturer (good humor, clear and precise, etc).
For the above quote I'd like to point out that the Santorum part was obviously not aimed at you and I find it hilarious that you thought so. You really should look up the origins of intelligent design as it is, as has been said by multiple people, a giant scam created to "combat" evolution and sneak it in to (American) schools.
Would one of you kindly use SCIENCE, LOGIC, and EVIDENCE to back up the claims that ID is a scam and a conspiracy by the religious right? Or do I have to take it on faith? Don't tell me to look it up as the burden of proof is yours.
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class.
Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know.
Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion.
So it's irrelevant then
What are you arguing? That ID is a decent theory available to explain the development of the earth? Well that sounds like it has nothing to do with religion and so can be debated on its logic. When you drill down to its core it is based on faith and so is a religious belief and therefore does not belong in a class that is supposed to teach children science. Sure you could teach them religion, or english or history or geography but why? It is a waste of time and the only reason I can see for this is to try and make the "theory" of ID seem more scientifically relevant. If it is not based on reason and the scientific method it does not belong in a science class. That goes for pottery as well as ID.
Mainly it challenges the science that says complex organs can come about through anything except a specific design laid out by something knowing the end result.
Seriously, this is silly. All I want is an honorable mention that the theory exists and to lay out the basics behind it. And I still don't get why you think anything that's related to religion can't be mentioned in schools....
On February 23 2012 11:48 BallinWitStalin wrote: [quote]
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome.
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
From wikipedia
Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n
It has everything to do with religion.
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005.
edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance.
where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested.
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ”
And no, intelligent design is not based on a "generic idea of religion", it is play by christian conservatives to push forward christianity. Maybe you should read up on what exactly it is.
I know what it is. Just because it was created by Christians doesn't mean that what it says is specific to Christianity. Shit, if I made a religion based around the evolution god, would we stop teaching evolution in schools? I don't care who you think planted it covertly in the schools to brainwash our kids, the core idea of intelligent design is very generic and at the very least valid to the point of being worthy of discussion.
How is it valid to the point of discussion? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT
Just because something is generic or interesting, does not give it that level of importance. I think the concept of alien abduction is rather interesting, but that doesn't mean it should be taught.
On February 23 2012 13:53 Nylan wrote: One last and I'm out:
Would one of you kindly use SCIENCE, LOGIC, and EVIDENCE to back up the claims that ID is a scam and a conspiracy by the religious right? Or do I have to take it on faith? Don't tell me to look it up as the burden of proof is yours.
The burden of proof always lies with the one trying to prove something is true. I don't need to disprove ID, because it has no proof whatsoever.
On February 23 2012 11:16 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: [quote]
Where is he not reading anythign you said? The part where he bolded in the quote seems to be the exact part he is answering. You said there was science behind intelligent design, there is not. He explained why there was actual science behind evolution, which admittedly you didn't even dispute anyway.
As for censoring religion, I fail to see how teaching evolution in science classes, or not teaching intelligent design in science classes equate to religious censorship. It is a science class, you teach science in it, you don't teach non science, eg intelligent design. Whether or not it has merit as a theory is irrelevant, it has no SCIENTIFIC merit.
Not teaching intelligent design in science class is as much censorship as not teaching singing in an economics class. It's not censorship, there is just no reason to teach it in that particular class.
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly.
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome.
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
From wikipedia
Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n
It has everything to do with religion.
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005.
edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance.
where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested.
First amendment: the supreme court ruled that any form of religious education in school is tantamount to government sponsorship of that religion, which inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion.
On February 23 2012 13:45 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On February 23 2012 13:43 Holophonist wrote:
On February 23 2012 13:40 Probulous wrote:
On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion.
Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class.
Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know.
Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion.
The court ruling was not that you can't mention intelligent design in a classroom, you are makign a case against a censorship that doesn't exist.
There is a world of difference between something being allowed to be mentioned in a classroom, and something actively being taught.
It's not related to a specific religion. How does it violate the constitution? Strictly speaking it could be about aliens, no?
Out of curiosity, have you done any research on the evolution (I use this term tongue in cheek) of Intelligent Design?
It was first called Creationism, and it explicitly referred to Biblical Creation. It ignored all other Creation stories and myths, because it was only pushed by Christians.
Then it was ruled unconstitutional because it was religious.
Then- using the same definition- they called it Intelligent Design (and it was shot down again- Dover Trial).
They wrote a book called Of Pandas And People, which was total nonsense. Watch:
Furthermore, nearly every famous IDer is a Christian fundamentalist, and explicitly admits that the "intelligent agent" that is purposely left ambiguous is, indeed, not only a god, but the Christian God. It's all a cop-out. That, by definition, makes it generally religious, unscientific, and specific to one particular religion. Any proposed mechanisms of ID (e.g. irreducible complexity) are either fundamentally flawed, unscientific, or have no scientific backing whatsoever. They're not even brought up in scientific gatherings because of how ridiculous they are. It's nonsense.
The only reason ID ever gets passed through legislature is not through a scientific process, but because these religious cowards cheat and take a roundabout way and attempt to insert their faith into education. That's not how science or education is supposed to work.
IDers complain about it not being *fair* that their *alternatives* aren't also taught in science classes... except their ideas aren't scientific to begin with! Watch:
EDIT: I'll quote you in here too...
On February 23 2012 13:53 Nylan wrote: One last and I'm out:
Would one of you kindly use SCIENCE, LOGIC, and EVIDENCE to back up the claims that ID is a scam and a conspiracy by the religious right? Or do I have to take it on faith? Don't tell me to look it up as the burden of proof is yours.
Hope this post helps. Intelligent Design is thinly veiled Creationism, as explained here. While a person can believe in one of many different Creation stories, the Creationism that is pushed in science classes has always been Christian-based, as has Intelligent Design. There has never been any scientific reason to propose Creationism or ID. Please read this post. IDers are Creationists.
EPT
