ID Update - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

ID Update

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Coppermine » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:12 pm

This isn't about primordial goop, it's about evolution. An Intellgent Design takes a "leap of faith" while science can prove that evolution is a continual and ongoing process.

Let's just look at this from another angle...

The vast majority of Americans take the literal translation of the Bible that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Yet every single scientific fied --- astronomy, biology, chemistry, anthropology, archeology, geology, botony, oceanography, etc, etc, etc --- as PROVEN, overwhelmingly, that the Earth is billions of years old... unless, of course, you want to continue "leaping faith" proclaim that these scientific studies are either wrong or have been misled by an intelligent diety as well.

So perhaps we should read statements and provide alternative views for everything in science, because everything in science is debatable by the exact presumptions of the majority of religious people.

Forget the origins of life and the big bang and all that garbage... the ID case was to present ID as an alternative to evolution, and also stated that evolution is not proven or factual... when in reality, it is. I also don't understand the problem here because no one is being denied the right to believe what they want to believe or come to the conclusions that they want. While some of you may have had evil, athiest science teachers, i was never told right or wrong, or this is true and religion is false in school... I was taught science, and there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to support a theory of intelligent design, unless your argument is simply that "life is too complex to have evolved." That's your prerogative, but it's not science.
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby dannyolbb » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:43 pm

I completely agree w/Coppermine and would like to add that I would be more likely to see the ID proponents as non-religious if they would act that way. From the recent Dover, PA case:

1. The board members wanted a 50-50 ratio between the teaching of creationism and evolution in biology classes.

2. The President also wanted to inject religion into social studies classes, and supplied the school with a book about the myth of the separation of church and state.

3. Another board member said "This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such."

4. At a meeting, a board member's wife gave a speech, saying that "evolution teaches nothing but lies," quoted from Genesis, asked "how can we allow anything else to be taught in our schools," recited gospel verses telling people to become born again Christians, and stated that evolution violated the teachings of the Bible.

5. Other statements by board members included "Nowhere in the Constitution does it call for a separation of church and state," and "liberals in black robes" are "taking away the rights of Christians, " and "2,000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

I don't understand this need to teach religion (or "philosophy," as one poster euphemistically called it) in science class. Teach it in religion class. Teach it in philosophy class. For the love of God, teach it in Sunday School. But keep it out of my science class.
[size=18]03[/size]
dannyolbb
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 711
Joined: 7 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Sittin' on Trent Lotts porch

Postby knapplc » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:10 pm

Coppermine wrote:This isn't about primordial goop, it's about evolution. An Intellgent Design takes a "leap of faith" while science can prove that evolution is a continual and ongoing process.

Evolution IS about primordial goop. Evolution teaches that life evolved to the complex forms we see today from basic forms in eons past. It states that ONE POSSIBLE explanation (the one most accepted today) for where life came from is that primordial goop. Other theories, not generally accepted, are that life originated in comets and was transported here, or that it originated on another planet and traveled here via meteorites or some other method. But the current, widely accepted belief (the one most scientists have ‘faith’ in) is that all the basic building blocks of life were present in one place (the most likely culprit being tidal pools) and “something happened” which caused them to coalesce into a living organism.

Coppermine wrote:The vast majority of Americans take the literal translation of the Bible that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Yet every single scientific fied --- astronomy, biology, chemistry, anthropology, archeology, geology, botony, oceanography, etc, etc, etc --- as PROVEN, overwhelmingly, that the Earth is billions of years old... unless, of course, you want to continue "leaping faith" proclaim that these scientific studies are either wrong or have been misled by an intelligent diety as well.

Religious explanations for the origins of life are inherently “leaps of faith.” But let’s not let science off the hook by saying their theories are “PROVEN” – they are simply other leaps of faith that are currently more acceptable to scientists than any other. If Evolution was “proven” it would not be called a theory, it would be called a fact. A scientific theory is proven when it can be quantitatively verified in independent tests. Once the theories of evolution and the origins of life are replicated in a laboratory, these arguments will begin to go away. Until then, free your mind enough to not blindly believe what you’re taught in classrooms.

Coppermine wrote:So perhaps we should read statements and provide alternative views for everything in science, because everything in science is debatable by the exact presumptions of the majority of religious people.

It’s not just “religious people” that have issues with the things science would have us taught in classrooms. Science textbooks differ from state to state, even school district to school district. Some of them are contradictory of each other. Many persons in the field of science disagree on many, many things. All of these are open to debate. What’s funny is that the one thing that is NOT open to debate is the possibility that a “greater being” is responsible for anything, whether that be the origin of life, the universe, or why women are so enthralled by having 90 pairs of shoes. In science there is NO WAY that anything even remotely resembling the supernatural can exist. How’s that for free thinking?

Coppermine wrote:Forget the origins of life and the big bang and all that garbage... the ID case was to present ID as an alternative to evolution, and also stated that evolution is not proven or factual... when in reality, it is. I also don't understand the problem here because no one is being denied the right to believe what they want to believe or come to the conclusions that they want. While some of you may have had evil, athiest science teachers, i was never told right or wrong, or this is true and religion is false in school... I was taught science, and there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to support a theory of intelligent design, unless your argument is simply that "life is too complex to have evolved." That's your prerogative, but it's not science.

Evil, atheistic science teachers are much fewer and farther between than the Religious Right would have us believe. I was taught about the primordial goop and the Big Bang and all that, but nobody in any classroom I was ever in told me that God doesn’t exist.

I think there are three camps in this argument:

1) The Religious Zealots who hate science and what it stands for, thinking it goes against their belief.
2) The Scientific Zealots who hate anything supernatural and what it stands for, thinking it goes against their belief.
3) Those in the middle who think that both theories have a possibility of being correct, that neither has been proven or disproven, and who are eagerly awaiting that sign from God or Science that proves either argument.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Postby Amazinz » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:22 pm

Coppermine wrote:This isn't about primordial goop, it's about evolution. An Intellgent Design takes a "leap of faith" while science can prove that evolution is a continual and ongoing process.

Let's just look at this from another angle...

The vast majority of Americans take the literal translation of the Bible that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. Yet every single scientific fied --- astronomy, biology, chemistry, anthropology, archeology, geology, botony, oceanography, etc, etc, etc --- as PROVEN, overwhelmingly, that the Earth is billions of years old... unless, of course, you want to continue "leaping faith" proclaim that these scientific studies are either wrong or have been misled by an intelligent diety as well.

So perhaps we should read statements and provide alternative views for everything in science, because everything in science is debatable by the exact presumptions of the majority of religious people.

Forget the origins of life and the big bang and all that garbage... the ID case was to present ID as an alternative to evolution, and also stated that evolution is not proven or factual... when in reality, it is. I also don't understand the problem here because no one is being denied the right to believe what they want to believe or come to the conclusions that they want. While some of you may have had evil, athiest science teachers, i was never told right or wrong, or this is true and religion is false in school... I was taught science, and there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to support a theory of intelligent design, unless your argument is simply that "life is too complex to have evolved." That's your prerogative, but it's not science.


There are multiple aspects to the Theory of Evolution. You're referring to adaptation which is scientifically observable. The contested aspect of the ToE is NOT fact. There is no observable evidence to prove that humans are the result of a prolonged period of adaptation. That's not to say that the theory doesn't have merit but the theory does not have enough evidence that we should dismiss alternatives. I am not going to get into another debate on the merits or lack of concerning ID but you are oversimplifying what the ID theorem states. There is both mathematical and biological evidence that support the idea that life is not an achievement reachable via bootstrapping. Bootstrapping is a requirement of the ToE.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby Coppermine » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:56 pm

Technically, Evolution is a fact and theory. It is widely misconceived that the theory of evolution "could be disproven" when in fact, it has already been proven. Evolution, as you understand it, is a real and observable event. It has been going on for millions of years and continues to this day. While scientists disagree on the methods and mechanisms of evolutionary adaptations, the theory that evolution is a fact as a biological process is unanimously held by the entire scientific community. This is where ID proponents are short-sighted... not wrong, simply misinformed.

Biologist Stephen J. Gould:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html:

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution


Biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky:
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.


Biologist R. C. Lewontin
"Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.


Neil A. Campbell
Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.


Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes
Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.


Douglas J. Futuyma
Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.


Quite simply, people do not understand the term "theory" in the scientific sense, and in the sense that it is not "speculation" or a "probability" but a scientifically held principle based on facts that so, enormously overwhelming, that they cannot be discredited.

And in FACT, the evolution of all species is observable, testable and understood, it's simply the mechanisms that come under debate. If you believe that an Intelligent Designer is the mechanism, then that's your prerogative... but there is no such scientific study, observation or explanation that could support such a statement. Such, it is not science.

H. J. Muller
School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.


Basically, promoting Intelligent Design in public schools and science class is ignorant of scientific facts; and, i'm sorry to say, violates the constitution.

I have more facts, articles and citations ready to go if anyone wants to continue the debate... after all, you don't have to take my word for it. Now I understand arguing the merits of ID to a believer in the concept is an exercise in futility; rather, what I'm trying to do is help my fellow FBCers realize that evolution is real and there is no viable, SCIENTIFIC, alternative.

Quite simply, the details presented in the above scientific journal articles and biology textbooks infringe on the faith and beliefs of the vast majority of people. What I can understand is an embrace of both; why can't you be religious and believe in evolution? You will have to look beyond the fact that the entire book of Genesis is not a literal translation of the creation of the Earth... if you believe that, then all of this scientific nonsense is moot to you, which is fine, but in that case I suggest that you be content with your beliefs and not argue with scientific facts because scientific facts are hogwash to you anyway. As for most people, just the thought of evolution is seen as a threat... yet even the Catholic church has embraced evolution as a fact and merely suggested that theoretical mechanisms that control it are influenced by God. This is a perfectly rational and non-secular belief to have, and yes, it could be true. But it's not science. Again, that's just not science. Science does not support any "theory" that, in any way, places the possibility of the existence of life in the hands of an Intelligent Designer.
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby Arlo » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:26 pm

JTWood wrote:Since when have courts had the right to throw out a philosophy being taught in a science class?

I think JT asks the key question here, and the answer is that ID isn't a philosophy. Nor is it science. It's simply a political tool, and was "designed" - exclusively - as such.

Before everyone starts jumping on me: I certainly see no problem with raising philosophical issues in a science class, intelligent design (lower-cased ;-) ) included. Nothing wrong with asking the big questions. ID in this form, however, does not belong in the classroom. Frankly, I think it does both science and religion a disservice.
Arlo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 8847
Joined: 4 Jan 2002
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Cheap Seats

Postby Amazinz » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:27 pm

Coppermine, we can play the semantics game and refer to it as a "mechanism" but the fact that the "mechanism" has not been proven is a pretty big deal. The "mechanism" is at the heart of the ToE, Creationism and Intelligent Design debate.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby JTWood » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:25 pm

Coppermine wrote:It violates the Establishment Clause of the constitution.... which was set up specifically by our founding fathers to prevent religion from influencing the government... schools are federally funded, so there ya go.

It does not violate that clause. ID is godless creationism, so it is not religious. People who argue that it is religious are usually just upset that religious people support ID. That's why they always have to say it's creationism "disguised."

Coppermine wrote:On the other side of all this is that Intelligent Design is religion. It's religious in nature, it refers to a higher being, a deity, a God and it's principles are mostly specific to Christianity. While the idea of intelligent design, as I said, is noble; it is not a scientific theory in any way, shape or form and is simply not a reasonable alternative to the theory of evolution as far as scientific studies go.

If aliens were to suddenly appear and say that they had indeed created mankind and the order of the universe that we now observe, would that be a religious incarnation? I think not. This idea that a higher form of life, not a supernatural being, created life as we know it is not religious anymore than science itself is a religion.

Again, I must stress that I don't believe much in the scientific aspect of ID. I just feel that the treatment ID supporters receive from our government is akin to the treatment that scientific people received from religious governments back in the day. It seems to me that our amoral powers are just upset that the religious people have grasped on to a non-religious/almost-scientific way to express their beliefs about the foundation of life as we know it.

It's just spite.
Last edited by JTWood on Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Postby JTWood » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:32 pm

acsguitar wrote:
JTWood wrote:
ironman wrote:
Madison wrote:Teaching only one possibility in the classroom----BRILLIANT!


;-7 ;-7 ;-7 ;-7 ;-7


Its science class. Not mythology.

Since when have courts had the right to throw out a philosophy being taught in a science class?

I'm not so much for Intelligent Design as I am against the reasoning for which it is being rejected by the courts. There is nothing illegal about teaching a philosophy packaged in a non-religious context, which is what this is. There are many school topics that fit that description, and they are not illegal. Since it's not illegal, each school system should be allowed to deal with the subject matter as it sees fit and the courts should stay the heck out of this.

Make no mistakes about it. This was thrown out because religious people support it, not because it's religious. That's bullcrap in my book because it's the exact opposite of what religious governments used to do to scientific people back in the day.


Um....Are you arguing that philosophy should be taught in science class?

Yea there is no arguement for that one

Read it again. I'm saying that schools have right to choose how they teach material as long as it is legal. If a school wanted to teach a philosophy such as ID in a science class, there is nothing illegal about that.

And again, to beat a dead horse here, ID is not religion any more than psychology is.
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Postby curious_george_43545 » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:47 pm

knapplc wrote:1) The Religious Zealots who hate science and what it stands for, thinking it goes against their belief.
2) The Scientific Zealots who hate anything supernatural and what it stands for, thinking it goes against their belief.
3) Those in the middle who think that both theories have a possibility of being correct, that neither has been proven or disproven, and who are eagerly awaiting that sign from God or Science that proves either argument.


4)Think That God created the World and animals evolve in the sense that they change over time due to changes in earth's climate and to better adapt to their enviorment. I don't believe we all came from one common ancestor though, like Darwin.
Image
Go Braves!
curious_george_43545
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 5200
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Saturday, Oct. 25
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Kansas City at San Francisco
(8:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact