Return to General Talk

Intelligent Design

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Fireball Express » Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:30 pm

da1chipo wrote:And what are these holes in evolution you speak of? I'd like to hear.


I'm not, nor pretend to be a scientist. I do my experimenting in the kitchen.
Apparently though there are gaps in the Theory of Evolution or it would be the Law of Evolution. Even critics of ID say that ID is an attempt to fill the gaps. So to some extent they are related and are not totally exclusive.

I'm not here to debate which I consider to be correct. I'll be damned if I know. I'm just saying ID, or any other option for that matter, should not be ignored in the classroom, science class or not. To teach them side by side just gives a better understanding to it all.
Fireball Express
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2504
(Past Year: -12)
Joined: 17 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Basking in the Sunshine

Postby Amazinz » Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:33 pm

da1chipo wrote:
Amazinz wrote:
da1chipo wrote:How is "irreducible complexity means intelligent things made us" a scientific theory?

Because ICS can and is tested and experimented in many science fields: biology, astrophysics, computer science. I'm not saying that the theory is correct. I don't know although I find it interesting and I think we should teach a broader array of views than one viewpoint that may turn out to be false. ID does not necessarily point to a god.


What are some of these tests?

Since this is far outside my area of expertise I suggest you take a look at the study of IAs in neural networks and genetic algorithms. In the molecular field you should probably investigate nanotechnology and molecular engineering.
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: 18680
(Past Year: -120)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Re: Intelligent Design

Postby j_d_mcnugent » Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:43 pm

da1chipo wrote:I was reading an article about it in Time today, and it was just so dumb. For those of you who don't know, intelligent design is a theory that nature and everything in it was designed by some "intelligent entity" (obviously God, but no one who supports the theory will admit that). The whole premise is that nature and the organisms in it are just way to perfect and complex to have been created by random mutation and evolution, so some "intelligent being" must have helped natural selection along the way.

So anyway, this whole idea just pisses me off. Since a few people refuse to accept evolution because it doesn't make sense to them how something so complex as the human eye, or immune system or anything of a million different parts of nature could be made by chance, they decide, "Well since we can't understand it, it can't be right. So let's fix that and make some crap about divine intervention and all that, so it makes sense to us." There you have it, people, Intelligent Design. I find it so incredible that people reject ideas because they don't understand them.

Now the president and the conservatives want this crap taught in schools. In science classes nonetheless. Let me get this straight. This isn't science. You can't prove or disprove this theory like you can evolution. No experiment can change a view on this topic. This is what you would call "faith-based." This faith-based "science" does not belong in our country's public schools' science classes. Maybe in a few years, you can teach it as history class, just like what people used to believe as science. But definitely not in a science class. You don't still hear in class that the Earth is flat, do you? Leave religion out of science. I hear the Constitution calling...separation of church and state, right? I believe so.

The conservatives pressing for this to be taught just love the term of "intelligent design." They think that by providing an alias for God, that it somehow removes religion from the concept. (Well they probably don't actually think that, but they just say so.)

Anyway, thats my rant...feel free to argue or agree...


i agree in some respects, disagree in others. intelligent design isnt something created by people who cant understand evolution or refuse to accept it. it is not in competition with evolution. they are apples and oranges. science attempts to explain things using natural causes. religion attempts to explain the things beyond natural causes.

a scientist would look at a painting and examine what the paint was made of, what it was painted on, the kind of brush, and so on. an art lover would look at the image, attempt to understand the message of the work of art. thats basically what intelligent design is. its not science, its a different sort of discipline altogether. but that doesnt mean its a bs "theory" concocted by someone who couldnt come to grips with evolution. basically, its an attempt to answer a different question altogether. but i agree with you, intelligent design is religion or philosophy, it doesnt belong in a science class.

i dont believe that intelligent design is the Truth, just as i wouldnt be so arrogant as to believe evolution is the Truth. evolution is a good and reasonable theory. its not the truth, its just what the scientific community has decided, based on the evidence at hand, is the most likely scenario. for all the early human fossils we find, i dont beleive we will ever find one that shows exactly how we came to be how we are, that is, how we became self aware.
back from the dead
j_d_mcnugent
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 3474
(Past Year: -292)
Joined: 1 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: bored at work

Postby RugbyD » Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:33 pm

davidmarver wrote:IT takes as big a leap in faith to believe in the Big Bang as it does to believe in Intelligent Design. Big Bang is just a theory as is Intelligent Design; if you teach one, you teach the other...otherwise you're enforcing your beliefs onto the students, which is what you were telling us is so wrong in the first place.


There is a world of difference between the two. Cosmological science is now mostly about backing into conclusions rather than the "reaching out" experiments of Mendl and others. For example we don't know that atoms exists because we've seen them. We know that they exists because we can observe a chain of events that leads us to only one possible conclusion: something must exist and with the given information, that thing is what we now know as the atom.

Big Bang is similar. String theory has been able to identify at least 10, up to 12 dimensions (so far) by backing into the conclusion based on observable evidence. Many, including ID supporters, will accept said evidence and say that a higher power started the Big Bang (somehting had to, right?). This is fine and I don't deny the possibility, but it is totally devoid of science. All ID does is piggyback along the existing pool of scientific data and assumptions and makes the next step a totally unstudiable leap of faith. ID has not a shred of original thinking to it. There is nothing to teach.

For those interested, Hugh Ross is an excellent read. He's an astrophysicist/cosmologist who began as an avowed atheist and one day decided to study the texts of all major religions in relation to what he knew as a hardcore scientist. He is now an avowed christian because the christian texts are the only ones that mesh with what he knows as a cutting-edge scientist-of-the-universe. I think his case is a little thin at points, but he does an excellent job of explaining. If you are going to read him, it helps to have an understanding of physics, but its not totally necessary. His explanation of the Divine Trinity opened a whole new path of thinking for me, tho I am still a totally disinterested agnostic.
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5589
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby Amazinz » Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:16 pm

RugbyD wrote:ID has not a shred of original thinking to it. There is nothing to teach.

That isn't correct. The scientists that are supporting ID are some of the same scientists doing the research and original thinking and beginning to believe that not everything can be explained under the current (accepted) scientific paradigm. Most importantly what needs to be taught is a counter-balance, not necessarily ID, to the current scientific curriculum which is often incorrectly taught as fact. Currently in our school system we indoctrinate and that needs to and will be changed.
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: 18680
(Past Year: -120)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby RugbyD » Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:32 pm

Amazinz wrote:
RugbyD wrote:ID has not a shred of original thinking to it. There is nothing to teach.

That isn't correct. The scientists that are supporting ID are some of the same scientists doing the research and original thinking and beginning to believe that not everything can be explained under the current (accepted) scientific paradigm. Most importantly what needs to be taught is a counter-balance, not necessarily ID, to the current scientific curriculum which is often incorrectly taught as fact. Currently in our school system we indoctrinate and that needs to and will be changed.


I didn't mean to imply that ID is pure hokum. What distinguishes ID from the non-theological propositions is that it requires a leap of faith, no more no less. You can't teach that, people must simply decide to accept it or not. The faith element is the key to ID, otherwise it's just science as usual, exploring new directions.
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5589
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby Amazinz » Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:38 pm

I agree with that. Misunderstood what you were saying.
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: 18680
(Past Year: -120)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby baseball6791 » Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:02 pm

da1chipo wrote:
Fireball Express wrote:It's not about letting the students decide for themselves. It's about comparing and contrasting both schools of thought. It's about showing how they intertwine with each other. It's about soley teaching one thing as fact when it has not been proven to be fact. It's about offerring explanations for the holes in that teaching.


But that does not belong in a science class under the label of science. It can be part of a science class, in the form of a debate or whatever, as long as it is not presented as science. Darwinian theory is not part religion; it is not based on the shortcomings of another theory; it is it's own entity. Until there is some sort of scientific evidence that ID is possible, it should not be taught it science classrooms as scientific theory, which its not. That systems are too complex to have been created by nature is not evidence. Even if all the ID people's arguments against natural selection were successful, the probability of ID being correct would not be increased at all, because its a theory based on disbelief in another.

I do believe it's perfectly okay for science classes to be having this debate, however. As long as teachers make it clear that there is no scientific backing to this idea, there's no problem.

And what are these holes in evolution you speak of? I'd like to hear.


I agree completely again. As dannyolbb said, ID is a hypothesis, and one that is thought of on the basis that another THEORY has holes in it. The ToE has scientific evidence backing it and those who support it have followed the Scientific Method in attempting to prove or disprove it (which they have not yet done).
At this point, the fact is, belief in ID has obvious religious connotations, and that just doesn't belong in a classroom.
http://baseball6791.deviantart.com/
My DeviantArt
baseball6791
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Graphics ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4268
(Past Year: -100)
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Half Massed » Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:40 pm

What I always find interesting about this arguement is that people seem to believe strongly one way or the other. Why can't the truth be somewhat of a mix of the two, or even a mix of all religious/scientific beliefs? Maybe God created the Earth and life and all that stuff (there's creationism) for a personal reason, something like wondering "Who am I?" From there He sent pieces of himself, such as drops from an ocean, to Earth where they would go through many lives and forms (there's reincarnation) experiencing evolution, experience, and involution (there's evolution) until this drop returned to God.

The point is, nothing is proven, so really nothing can be said to be the correct idea. There may be more physical proof of evolution than any creationist theory, but that doesn't make it better or even right.

So that brings about the question, what should be taught in schools? One answer would be nothing, but that is unsatisfactory as such a complex topic should not be ignored and children are curious about such things. However, if a school decides to teach one, the others should have fair representation also, and that means ALL the others. This would take a very long time to teach and the teacher with their natural bias would most likely focus on one and slightly ridicule the others. Another solution would be to put the different ideas in different classes, as has been suggested earlier. Science for evolution, religion for creationism and so on. This doesn't allow a student to study them side-by-side though and natural connotations with each class name would put subconcious biases in a student's head. Another possibility would be to create a whole semester class on the topic to examine each in depth. This is the best option in my mind, but not every school can manage this.

Really, it is up to the school and no law should be created to make one be taught over the other as no one can really be proven. This topic will always be open to debate and controversy. As Art said earlier in this thread, anyone who claims to be right on either side is a fool.
Image
Half Massed
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 3978
(Past Year: -106)
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Busting ghosts

Postby DK » Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:24 pm

Half Massed wrote:What I always find interesting about this arguement is that people seem to believe strongly one way or the other. Why can't the truth be somewhat of a mix of the two, or even a mix of all religious/scientific beliefs? Maybe God created the Earth and life and all that stuff (there's creationism) for a personal reason, something like wondering "Who am I?" From there He sent pieces of himself, such as drops from an ocean, to Earth where they would go through many lives and forms (there's reincarnation) experiencing evolution, experience, and involution (there's evolution) until this drop returned to God.

The point is, nothing is proven, so really nothing can be said to be the correct idea. There may be more physical proof of evolution than any creationist theory, but that doesn't make it better or even right.

So that brings about the question, what should be taught in schools? One answer would be nothing, but that is unsatisfactory as such a complex topic should not be ignored and children are curious about such things. However, if a school decides to teach one, the others should have fair representation also, and that means ALL the others. This would take a very long time to teach and the teacher with their natural bias would most likely focus on one and slightly ridicule the others. Another solution would be to put the different ideas in different classes, as has been suggested earlier. Science for evolution, religion for creationism and so on. This doesn't allow a student to study them side-by-side though and natural connotations with each class name would put subconcious biases in a student's head. Another possibility would be to create a whole semester class on the topic to examine each in depth. This is the best option in my mind, but not every school can manage this.

Really, it is up to the school and no law should be created to make one be taught over the other as no one can really be proven. This topic will always be open to debate and controversy. As Art said earlier in this thread, anyone who claims to be right on either side is a fool.


That's the exact point, though. Evolution isn't supported by any specific religion, it's supported by science. Creationism isn't supported by any specific science, it's supported by religion. It's the same as saying let's teach math in history.

Creationism is directly connected to religion, therefore it should be taught in religion class. Evolution is directly connected to science, therefore it should be taught in science class. It's relatively simple.

Also, your first two paragraphs essentially define where I am on the subject (I am an agnostic, although I lean towards no God).
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9077
(Past Year: -456)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests