Intelligent Design On Trial

[Apostasius]

I've been following the trial of Kitzmiller et. al. vs Dover Area School District regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design here in the U.S. Strangely, I've been reading some of the trial transcripts and have found them rather interesting (especially Barbara Forrest's testimony on day 6).

As I see it, while the scope of the trial is limited to the issues in Dover Pennsylvania, it actually has vast implications for the status of evolution education particularly and the nature of science and science education generally in the U.S. The trial's significance could rival the Scopes trial of 1925 and is at least as important as the 1987 Edwards vs. Aguillard case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against teaching creationism in the public schools.

For anyone interested, the transcripts can be found at:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/?path=trans/

[Serotonin]

Well, i agree intelligent design theory can be brought up in religion and philosophy classes, but it should stay out of science classes, since, well, it's not science.

[Arioch]

The problem here is that it doesn't seem to fit within the scientific paradigm. However this is neither a strong argument for or against, since just because something is this way does not mean it has to stay that way. The implication of this is that intelligent design could very well become science. Although unless it gets financial funding it might stay a fringe science and even then it would take more then a courts decision to gain enough willing scientific minds to participate (although the bible belt might be happy to provide)

I would love to see the methodology though.

[Jacque]

Supernatural Selection (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/super.html)

:whistle:

[Zephyrus055]

Intelligent design - christianity/any other religion can be construed as science. And furthermore, such an intelligent design theory can co-exist with evolution. Hell, christianity and evolution can co-exist. I don't see why people have to make the two in to some polar dichotomy - it's really unintelligible.

[CoHo]

Intelligent design - christianity/any other religion can be construed as science.

What?

[Zephyrus055]

What? It is possible to scientifically claim that an intelligent designer played a role in creating our universe, but it would have to be independent of any religious influence.

[CoHo]

It is possible to scientifically claim that an intelligent designer played a role in creating our universe

Ok, prove it?

[Jacque]

What?

"Theos" or God + "ology" or study of/science of

= theology

= nonempirical science

=> dogmatism

[CoHo]

"Theos" or God + "ology" or study of/science of

= theology

= nonempirical science

=> dogmatism

Sweet, words.

Okay, provide me a situation that I can use to test the validity of Intelligent Design?

[Dunearhp]

Ok, prove it?

He can't. And I don't have the patience to expose myself to that drivel.

Creation science makes a mockery of both religion and science. It has the value of neither.

Teach science in science class and creation in religious studies.

Convert to Pastafarianism. It is all the rage, and more rigorous than creation science.

[Zephyrus055]

Ok, prove it? I never affirmed the conclusion that the universe was created by an intelligent designer. I said that it is possible to scientifically (not all scientific theories are reproduced) explain the origin of the universe to an intelligent designer. This means that there is cause/effect evidence that logically follows to the universe being created by an intelligent designer, while standing independent of a religious source. I don't have an arguement to explain how an intelligent designer created the universe, nor would I ever bother myself with creating one.

For example, Einstein believed that if you circled the earth at the speed of light you could go forward or backward in time depending on your direction. His theory has not been reproduced, but it is scientific and logically valid given the data he uses to support it.

The point I was trying to make was that it does not follow that an atheist perspective is true given our present scientific data, nor does it follow that religion/science and creationism/evolution must be inherently opposed to one another.

[CoHo]

I said that it is possible to scientifically (not all scientific theories are reproduced) explain the origin of the universe to an intelligent designer
...but


For a given body of theory to be considered part of established scientific knowledge, it is usually necessary for it to characterize a critical experiment, namely an experimental result not predicted by any existing established theory.

Unfortunately, the usage of the term theory is muddled by cases such as string theory and various theories of everything, all of which are better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data and often simply a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[meshou]

Intilligent design's arguments come from two or three major logic flaws:

1) Irreducible Complexity hinges on the idea that orgamisims do not have useless parts-- for example, some bacteria have flagellums that propell them, and a flagellor motor which basically is a motor. They argue that bacteria with a useless flagellum would have been selected out, and that because there are several parts which do not exist in other, nonflagellum'd bacteria, that it could not have evolved.

But this is false. Humans survive fine with both an appendix and a gall bladder, when one is useless and the other isn't strictly needed for survival. It's also false to assume that just because protiens are complex and there are a couple of parts that do not exist in other bacteria, that these could not have spontaneously evolved.

Basically, the excuse that "I can't imagine it" means that they believe it can't have happened.

2) The watchmaker argument. They say that the existance of a watch argues a watchmaker, and the existance of a creation argues a creator.

However, thinking of it in the beginning as a creation sneaks a diety in the back door.

3) "How could one thing want to be another? How can protien want to reproduce itself, and to become more complex? It can't! Therefore, something must have designed it to do such a thing."

This is actually similar to the watch/ watchmaker problem. By introducing a presupposed want, and then proving there is nothing natural that could want such a thing, the solution offered is that a diety must have wanted it. It is ignored that if this is all truly random, a protien does not have to want to reproduce, it merely has to do so, and one species does not have to want to evolve, you merely have to show it does.


Basically, intilligent design is based on sneaking a God in the back way and severe lack of imagination ("But... a dog isn't a kitty! My brain hurts!"). That it's entertianed as a scientific possibility is encouraging logical fallacy and stupidity as a source of valid theory. Not something I want in a classroom.

[Ivy]

Creation science makes a mockery of both religion and science. It has the value of neither.

What, you mean you weren't convinced by the human footprint inside the dinosaur footprint? http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm (we need an emoticon of a wanking smiley for this one)


Teach science in science class and creation in religious studies.


W0rd.

[KuJo]

ive been following news about intelligent design for awhile now, because its just a ridiculous attempt to put religion in science classes. The crazy thing is, George W decided that it was ok for ID to be taught alongside evolution in schools. It doesnt take a genius to see right through ID.

[Apostasius]

I think the thing that I find most annoying about the ID movement is the attempt to change the definition of science itself. Changing the definition is the only way ID could possibly be accepted as science, and ID proponents know it. Public ignorance regarding science and/or appeals to fairness in "teaching the controversy" have allowed ID to get a hearing. Yet, the objective of the ID movement seems far more insidious--that objective being the elimination of naturalism and the perceived hegemony of materialism. In short, ID proponents seek to redefine science so that supernatural explanations are permitted.

The spread of ID creationism is predicated upon successful implementation of what members of the Discovery Institute (the main wing for ID thought) have termed the wedge strategy (so named because the objective was to drive a wedge into the weakest part of materialism and split it wide apart). This strategy was to unfold in three phases: (1) research, writing, and publication, (2) publicity and opinion making, and (3) cultural confrontation and renewal.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Each phase was to happen chronologically, but it appears phase 1 never really got off the ground. That seems not to have discouraged creationists as they have gone into phase 2 and 3 with reckless abandon.

Perhaps some may applaud this effort, but it undermines the very foundation that has made science so successful in terms of discovery, cures for disease, and technological advancement. Furthermore, the attempt to overturn the naturalistic methodology of science reveals the ID movement's disregard for intellectual honesty. Knowing that they cannot openly teach creationism, ID theorists have attempted to cloak their agenda in superficially neutral terms. They attempt to make no mention of the designer's identity thus supposedly allowing for such ideas as an alien intelligence (even though their writings and actions leave no doubt who they think the designer is). They attempt to hide their agenda behind suggestions that to "teach the controversy" means nothing more than to encourage critical thinking. In fact, as one looks at some of the transcripts from the trial so far, one can begin to see the rhetorical prestidigitation that will be employed throughout.

I think what must be understood is that the question of whether or not ID is science is not the question after all. The reason scientists have been slow to challenge the pseudoscientific nature of ID is because there is no controversy in scientific circles. ID is not science. Certainly ID theorists have talked about fleshing out ID with scientific "meat", but they can only do this if they fundamentally alter the parameters that constitute legitimate scientific inquiry.

The only controversy is one that is both political and philosophical. Introducing (or re-introducing) ID in the science curriculum of public schools is only one prong of a multifaceted attack on the alleged evils of materialism and the dangers of atheism. Adorned as persecuted victims of an oppressive materialistic culture, these champions of polemical apologetics unabashedly fight the shadows of a hostile materialistic enemy. Such tilting at windmills would be amusing if not for the political power wielded by this so-called minority.

Ultimately, whether one agrees with supernaturalism or materialism, I think a distinction needs to be made with regard to science. I would caution people about conflating the methodological naturalism of science with philosophical naturalism. This distinction is made a bit more clear in the following article by Barbara Forrest:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html
I think such a distinction is warranted within the context of science education and the nature of science in general (even without getting into the philosophy of science).

Uh... anyway. This has gotten way too long.

[Jacque]

ID taking the naturalism out of supernaturalism?

Spreading the idea will either create a hurdle for discerning minds or create a new class of understanding. All in all, it seems we're very skeptical of our children. We are the intelligent designers and they the clay pigeons, eating only the seeds we throw them.

[Dunearhp]

ID taking the naturalism out of supernaturalism?

Spreading the idea will either create a hurdle for discerning minds or create a new class of understanding. All in all, it seems we're very skeptical of our children. We are the intelligent designers and they the clay pigeons, eating only the seeds we throw them.

We are still eating the seeds of our great grandparents. Don't underestimate the longevity of a bad idea.

Our memes shall outlast us all.

[Dolphin]

1. Science is a philosophy.
2. Science class teaches the science philosophy.
3. Religion is a philosophy.
4. Philosophy can teach both religion and science.

ID already has a place in education. Maybe instead of forcing it on science they should force philosophy to be taught? Get people to start thinking…


…
3) "How could one thing want to be another? How can protien want to reproduce itself, and to become more complex? It can't! Therefore, something must have designed it to do such a thing."

This is actually similar to the watch/ watchmaker problem. By introducing a presupposed want, and then proving there is nothing natural that could want such a thing, the solution offered is that a diety must have wanted it. It is ignored that if this is all truly random, a protien does not have to want to reproduce, it merely has to do so, and one species does not have to want to evolve, you merely have to show it does….
It seems like they are saying gravity does what it does because it wants to. The personification argument. The fault is in humans because humans apply emotions to things that do not have emotions.

”...one Nation under Kitten, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

I believe a magical Kitten created the universe. Are they going to teach that in science too?

[abathur]

Definitely agree with the teaching of Philosophy.

A question, though, for those speaking of the Christians trying to indoctrinate us with ID.

If evolution is so simple to follow and the ID proponents so laughably stupid for thinking otherwise... did you come up with evolution as explanation for the existance of things on your own, or did you have to be taught it?

[meshou]

Definitely agree with the teaching of Philosophy.

A question, though, for those speaking of the Christians trying to indoctrinate us with ID.

If evolution is so simple to follow and the ID proponents so laughably stupid for thinking otherwise... did you come up with evolution as explanation for the existance of things on your own, or did you have to be taught it?So because I did not come up with a 200 year old logically sound idea, and because I do not accept a newer idea full of glaring logical holes, it's... well, evidence of what, exactly? That we should all go back to the stone age and reinvent every credible idea out there, or else we haven't truly thought for ourselves?

OK. Until you can prove your computer doesn't run on demons, you aren't allowed to use it.

I refuse to give any credit to a psuedo-scientific idea based on logical fallacies that someone who'd gone through biology 101 should be able to spot. I do not want the future cancer researchers of America to be taught that ideas based on logical fallacy have a place in a science lab.

[Dunearhp]

1. Science is a philosophy.
2. Science class teaches the science philosophy.
3. Religion is a philosophy.
4. Philosophy can teach both religion and science.

Science is Natural Philosophy. Its methodology is strict and entirely different to the other strands of philosophy.

[abathur]

mmmm I like it when you shove words down my throat... *moans*

Don't get your panties all in a twist.

What I'm implying is that, seeing as the average IQ is around 100, and occupations typical of this level of intelligence are something like:
Machine Operators; Shopkeepers; Butchers; Welders; Sheet Metal Workers. it isn't all that fucking unbelievable that they accept what they're told on the topic by the person they respect most. In fact, many people who believe in evolution aren't all that bright either, and are also only believing it because they were taught it.

I'm implying that if the ~30 IQ points you likely have on "average" or "half of our population" (going off averages from the IQ voting thread--obviously far from a scientific measurement) isn't enough for us to be sprouting our own theories on the origin of things before we're taught them, then maybe it is a little unfair to expect people of significantly less intelligence to wrap their minds around the theory in the face of what is undeniably an absolutely incredibly complex universe.

Sure, evolution itself is a pretty sound principle, but if you're defining the abiogenesis evolution requires as "logically sound" does "logically sound" happen to be roughly equivalent to "so incredibly statistically unlikely as to be more or less considered impossible unless the timeline is so long that we can say 'it's possible, and we're here, and the evolution part works, therefore, clearly this must be the answer'"?

If so, I think you'd have a hard time denying that it isn't "possible" that a being far more powerful than those on earth with qualities completely unlike those of beings we find here could have evolved somewhere in the universe. I mean, all the raw components of life here are out there, and it's got what, 12 billion years instead of 4. Surely something cool could have happened in all that time, right? I fully believe evolution (and sure as hell don't agree with ID being taught in a science classroom,) but I have yet to see evidence that convinces me that abiogenesis is a sufficient explanation for the beginning of this process. I also see how it could be hard for Joe Average to grasp evolution as an explanation for the complexity he sees. How can you blame Joe Average for being a part of the evolutionary system--a product of genetics and environment?

[meshou]

I can find fault with people who are supposed to be above average (teachers are supposed to be abolve that level, as are polititions) teaching bullshit to children. Period. The people who came up with intilligent design were professors with doctorates (but not doctors, and as I understand it, philosophy majors interested in biology). Polititions graduate from Ivy Leage schools.

Saying that people aren't as smart as this is exactly why it should not be in a science classroom. The will average dictate the ideas the next generation believe are true. I do not want a compromised scientific method given any credit when that is what cures disease and improves the quality of life for my kids and grandkids.

The objection to it runs deeper than being illogocal and unsound. It is a deep, deep perversion of how scientific understandings must be come to.

Science and scientific method require that concrete, applicable, and observable things are its only concern. In order to be applicable, and in order to thurougly explore a thing, you must become amazingly unimaginative. You have to systematically search for any possible bias of language or idea, as this makes what you have done irreproducable and useless. Living more than a few seconds ahead in an experiment, thinking why you are seeing what you are seeing instead of taking time to see it always skews results.

You must be bloody-mindedly litteral, unwilling to think of any eventuality. You take notes. You do not think of what would have happened if you had some other result. You have to merely note what does exist.

In terms of science, all proofs of God are non-concrete, have no hard physical evidence, no conjectures you can set up a lab for, and no reproducable results.

It is not that science does not believe a God exists. He may. It is merely that a God can't possibly be explored by science. It is not the place for a God. The tools are wrong, and using them to talk about a God misrepresents them. It teaches them all wrong.

Allowing the leaps used in Intilligent Design in a chem lab, or even the leaps you made by saying it can't be disproven, you can KILL someone. You do not mix maybes and spiritual possibilities with a study requiring systematic litteralness and lack of imagination just so you don't blow people up.

[abathur]

There always have and always will be fruitcakes and zealots who are perfectly free to come up with their ideas. Their ideas will live and die by support (i.e. evolution) and ultimately, without support, the ID group are just another collection of nuts. Reprehensible, perhaps, but so was Darwin in his day.

Despite my lack of support for ID in science classrooms, there is a certain amount of logic in wanting to respond to a theory that attacks your belief system in the forum from which the attack originates. If you go on TV and say I make love to pigs and eat babies, I'm going to want to defend myself on TV, not down at the pigfarm and maternity ward.

Agree with the idea or not, I don't think there's really a course taught commonly nationwide which would really be a good place for that discussion to take place and I doubt you honestly think they're out to cause harm. Their kids are going through a system that teaches in opposition of their belief system--a defensive response is natural. Considering the importance of thiestic/athiestic debate to philosophy, clearly this is where the discussion belongs--but without that forum consistently available, I don't blame them from going where they can.

If I was teaching science and insisted that women were clearly inferior to men because they are not as tall or strong on average, while you teach your kids that men and women are equals, you'd probably have a bone to pick with me. And you probably wouldn't want that bone to be taken up in a gender studies course that is only available in some places and even then, optional. I could understand blaming them for some plot to introduce fallacy, or indoctrinate everyone in America with Christianity, but I don't really see this response as anything more than human nature.

[Serotonin]

Science and scientific method require that concrete, applicable, and observable things are its only concern. In order to be applicable, and in order to thurougly explore a thing, you must become amazingly unimaginative. You have to systematically search for any possible bias of language or idea, as this makes what you have done irreproducable and useless. Living more than a few seconds ahead in an experiment, thinking why you are seeing what you are seeing instead of taking time to see it always skews results.
Tell me about it. In terms of the practicality needed to perform experiments an ISTJ is ideal. INTJs can do it at a pinch, but even they get bored.


You must be bloody-mindedly litteral, unwilling to think of any eventuality. You take notes. You do not think of what would have happened if you had some other result. You have to merely note what does exist.

Not exactly true, but the potential for "what-does-this-mean" onanism while you're performing the experiment is immense for someone with strong Ne.
The pondering of eventualities should only be done in the discussion section of your paper or thesis, and even then each flight of fancy must be supported by copious references.
Science is all about Te. Something that doesn't tolerate the ID theory nor the specifics of the theory of abiogenesis.

However, abiogenesis, or the ability of DNA to self-replicate, had to have started somewhere. The fact that it happened isn't in doubt. The "how" it happened is. It is fairly easy for even a science student to imagine the molecular conditions that would have lent itself to abiogenesis. However, this is Ne, not Te, and therefore remains in the realm of philosophy instead of science, unless someone can replicate abiogenesis.

[PlayerOfGames]

Agree with the idea or not, I don't think there's really a course taught commonly nationwide which would really be a good place for that discussion to take place and I doubt you honestly think they're out to cause harm.

There is. It's called "Critical reasoning 101", specifically the "fallacious reasoning" section.
To my mind, it doesn't matter if they're out to cause harm, because they are in fact causing it.



Their kids are going through a system that teaches in opposition of their belief system--a defensive response is natural.

Many things are naturual responses, like for example killing your enemies and their children. But, we try to rise above. Natural does not mean "desirable in a modern society"



If I was teaching science and insisted that women were clearly inferior to men because they are not as tall or strong on average, while you teach your kids that men and women are equals, you'd probably have a bone to pick with me. And you probably wouldn't want that bone to be taken up in a gender studies course that is only available in some places and even then, optional.


On the contrary, if I was making the assertion above based on the evidence above, you could quite legitimately argue with me in a scientific context without changing any of the principles of science.
The assertion does not follow from the evidence - unqualified inferiority is not proved.
What is proved based on the evidence would be "women are on average of inferior strength and height to men", and no one could argue with that because it follows logically, assuming my evidence is correct.

Apples to apples, please.

[illusivemind]

Why do so many Americans want to put religion where it doesn't belong? If you are going to champion the ideals of a "liberal democracy", then remember liberalism (in part) means not getting to dictate your particular beliefs and tastes onto other people just because you happen to have that power.

If ID proponents were serious they would be trying to get scientific consensus for their theory not sneaking into the classroom where they can get to vulnerable minds. Nothing reeks more of religous tactics than that.

Let people study it at University, that's where I studied it. If they don't go to University they can read a book, rent a video, whatever. But it just isn't science. It is not science to hypothesize that the force behind the natural world is unscientific. Because then all scientific investigations cease.

"Gee, how do you think we should go about curing this cancer?"
"I dunno, it's all made by an intelligent designer, so he must have wanted it there..."

[illusivemind]

If I was teaching science and insisted that women were clearly inferior to men because they are not as tall or strong on average, while you teach your kids that men and women are equals, you'd probably have a bone to pick with me.

:blink:

Because height and physical strength are the universal barometers for supeirority?

Men and women being equals is not a scientific claim it's a political one. We all have equal rights, regardless of irrelevant individual differences. The theory goes that membership of the human race is enough to gurantee those rights, regarldess of class, gender or creed. I dunno what the hell you're talking about?

[NoahFence]

I get very angry with people who poo-poo intelligent design while fanatically defending evolution. I'm sorry, folks, but there is no proof that evolotion is true. A lot of the theory reminds me a hell of a lot of observations that the sun revolves around the earth. It's totally obvious, right? Sure...until someone notices Mars doing this weird back and forth thing and goes "Huh...wonder why it's doing that..."

In my view, Science is the religion of the times. People follow it with a fanaticism that is exactly equal to the fanaticism displayed in earlier times: they don't understand it and have no hope of doing so, but they trust that someone they call an authority on the subject knows what they're talking about, and get uncomfortable (or even violent) when it is questioned. Then they feel all superior for their "modern thinking", without realizing that they're just as trapped in a box as the primitive screwheads who told Chris Columbus he'd fall off the earth.

Question everything!


Why do so many Americans want to put religion where it doesn't belong? If you are going to champion the ideals of a "liberal democracy", then remember liberalism (in part) means not getting to dictate your particular beliefs and tastes onto other people just because you happen to have that power.

Illusive, it's not the liberals who want religion in school ;)

[CoHo]

I get very angry with people who poo-poo intelligent design while fanatically defending evolution. I'm sorry, folks, but there is no proof that evolotion is true.
There is no direct proof, but there are hundreds of thousands of observations and a few hundred million years of fossils.

There is nothing (zip, zilch, nada) to suggest intelligent design. No proof, no observation.

Sure, maybe evolution is wrong (sun-revolving-around-the-earth) but which would you rather have:

1) An idea based on repeatable evidence.
2) A lifestyle based on no evidence.

The idea can change. If we find evidence, or proof that suggests evolution is wrong then it goes away (Lamarckism).

Intelligent Design doesn't work that way. You'll never be able to prove the nonexistence of anything. Intelligent Design can go in religious studies but not in the science room.



Originally Posted by Dolphin
1. Science is a philosophy.
2. Science class teaches the science philosophy.
3. Religion is a philosophy.
4. Philosophy can teach both religion and science.

1. Men are humans
2. Men have penises
3. Women are humans
4. Both men and women have penises?

[NoahFence]

I didn't say I support intelligent design. I just don't support blind support of evolution, either. All I'm saying is that the theory of evolution is one interpretation of your hundreds of thousands of observations and millions of years of fossils, and should not be taken as gospel (pun intended)

[MacGuffin]

I didn't say I support intelligent design. I just don't support blind support of evolution, either. All I'm saying is that the theory of evolution is one interpretation of your hundreds of thousands of observations and millions of years of fossils, and should not be taken as gospel (pun intended)That one interpretation is far more likely than any other interpretation so far.

[CoHo]

I didn't say I support intelligent design. I just don't support blind support of evolution, either. All I'm saying is that the theory of evolution is one interpretation of your hundreds of thousands of observations and millions of years of fossils, and should not be taken as gospel (pun intended)
Reply With Quote


That one interpretation is far more likely than any other interpretation so far.

I agree with both these statements. For an interesting perspective on the concept I suggest: The Universe in a Single Atom : The Convergence of Science and Spirituality (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076792066X/102-1254822-3600942?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance) by the Dalai Lama

[NoahFence]

That one interpretation is far more likely than any other interpretation so far.

Agreed, as I said, it's compelling.

My only issue with evolution is a number of cases that seem to not fit too well. Cases in which there seems to be no way the early stages of a mutation could be survived, or cases in which a species must has a trait it would die without but must, at some point, have been absent.

Let me get home from work before I dig into this in detail, it's hard to collect my thoughts when a terminal server is freaking out.

[Ivy]

Agreed, as I said, it's compelling.

My only issue with evolution is a number of cases that seem to not fit too well. Cases in which there seems to be no way the early stages of a mutation could be survived, or cases in which a species must has a trait it would die without but must, at some point, have been absent.

Let me get home from work before I dig into this in detail, it's hard to collect my thoughts when a terminal server is freaking out.

What kinds of things do you mean? I know we've talked about it before but I can never quite grasp it. I read something once about "how could lactation have evolved," but it doesn't seem too difficult to imagine to me. Sweat glands, change by a mutation that causes them to produce a nutritive substance instead of sweat, the addition of which gives the young an advantage (readily available food source), and gradually over generations it gets more and more pronounced until it becomes the only food source for the young for a time.

I'm afraid this is another instance where I go with the commonly accepted theory, and leave the out-of-the-box thinking (anything other than evolution which in my belief system was put in place by a god I don't think belongs in science class) to the INTPs and others.

[CoHo]

My problem is this:

People say:
"Evolution is just a theory"
Then they say:
"Intelligent design is just a theory"
Then they say:
"Why cant we teach ID and Evolution?"

The problem is ID isn't a theory. If that were the case, I could make up my own theory:

Our universe is the result of a massave pie explosion billions of years ago
Done! I now have a theory and it should be taught in schools!

Like ID, my PIE theory has no observable evidence, it has no proof. It is equally as valid as the ID theory. You cannot disprove my PIE theory.

Should my PIE theory be taught in schools? If not, then why should ID?

A theory is not Valid until proven invalid it is Invalid until given evidence to support it

If I manage to find a interstellar pie sheet spinning near the red star galaxies then I have evidence and then it should be considered a theory.

So right now we have evolution, we have evidence to support it, and we have questions that are unanswered. The point is not to disband evolution, but to consider there are elements we have not answered yet, these elements may completely disprove evolution and form the foundation for a different theory, or they may coexist with evolution. We don't know!

[MacGuffin]

The problem is ID isn't a theory. If that were the case, I could make up my own theory:

Our universe is the result of a massave pie explosion billions of years ago
Done! I now have a theory and it should be taught in schools!

Like ID, my PIE theory has no observable evidence, it has no proof. It is equally as valid as the ID theory. You cannot disprove my PIE theory.
Wrong again! The universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6324)

[Xylix]

I didn't say I support intelligent design. I just don't support blind support of evolution, either. All I'm saying is that the theory of evolution is one interpretation of your hundreds of thousands of observations and millions of years of fossils, and should not be taken as gospel (pun intended)


Here are some more interpetations:


The world was created three minutes ago, intact, by a group of a billion billion hard working, ravenous, gerbils.

The world doesn't exist at all, but is being fed into your mind by an evil genius ala matrix style.

God, being an extermely tedious and exhaustively controlling, created a mind boggling complex system that percisely matches all the details, records and evidence supported by the theory of evolution... for no decipheriable reason.



An alternative explanation, makes not a good explanation. Nor does it make a scientific explanation. For it to be a scientific explanation it has to fit several criteria:


1) It must be falsifiable: (As in, there must be some mechanism through which it can be proved false {Note: It does not have to be provable as true})

intelligent design is not falsifiable

2) It must explain all existing evidence. Or at least far more than the next competing theory.

The theory of intelligent design seems to irrationally claim that the "Intelligence" is less capable, slower, and yet more meticulous and incomprihensibly broad than all real examples of intelligent design. E.g. selective breeding of horses, dogs, and dometication of some plants and animals. -- by humans

Note: Science doesn't discard examples of intelligent influence -- read human -- that it has found in specific!!! It never has!!!

3) It must have no unjustifiable premises.

The premise that there is necessarily an intelligence involved in evolution is as of yet still unjustified by Intelligent Design. There have been attempts including: Irreduciable complexity (interestingly enough this was concept was cited by Darwin...) no one has of yet found a case of irrefutable irreducible complexity -- infact all such attempted examples have been shown to be reducible.




Intelligent Design is neither a good explantion, nor a scientific one. Until it becomes both good and scientific it has no place in science or in a science class.

If it does becomes so I assure you that many scientists -- that vast majority of which are *gasp* religious / have religious backgrounds -- will be more than happy to support it.

[meshou]

I get very angry with people who poo-poo intelligent design while fanatically defending evolution. I'm sorry, folks, but there is no proof that evolotion is true.We have seen natural selection work. It's not a far step off. Evidence overwhelmingly supports it.

A theory MUST be supported by evidence. Thus, a "theory" has a lot of respect and weight to it.

Intilligent design is barely a conjecture. It is not scientific.

It may be true. Anything is possible. But that does not mean we should put philosophy in a science class.


A lot of the theory reminds me a hell of a lot of observations that the sun revolves around the earth. It's totally obvious, right? Sure...until someone notices Mars doing this weird back and forth thing and goes "Huh...wonder why it's doing that..." You mean the intilligent design conjecture?

No, there are no unexplained observations that Intilligent design fits.


In my view, Science is the religion of the times.Not correct.

I think they follow concrete rationalisim. This is different than science, although science is venerated within it.

Saying that not all that is in the world is rational, and there is a valid spiritual element to it is good. Living your life as a science experiment is not fulfilling to a great many people.

However. You must understand, science, as a way of thought and as a method is immensely and almost univerally useful where it is applicable. It does have its limits.

And one of its limits is it is not at all equipped to talk about an intangible being which, by most follower's accounts, has only intangible evidence of existance (faith).

Therefore, why should we muddy the teaching of a method inherently unable to explore God? Why not teach philosophy, a study more equipped to do so?

It does an injustice to both subjects to mix the two.

People follow it with a fanaticism that is exactly equal to the fanaticism displayed in earlier times: they don't understand it and have no hope of doing so, but they trust that someone they call an authority on the subject knows what they're talking about, and get uncomfortable (or even violent) when it is questioned.Excuse me! I think I have more than an elementary grasp of biology. I went to a biology-based high school. Two bloody years required, since the chemistry had a far stronger biology bent than most schools, and they snuk a good bit of it into history, astronomy, and english.

My father and boyfriend are both physics majors.

We are not in an age where scientists are magicians. We're at a point where all it takes to have a basic, applicable grounding in science is an associate's degree.

It's not incrutible. It's not magical. There is no underclass that needs to believe without understanding. The information is all there.


Then they feel all superior for their "modern thinking", without realizing that they're just as trapped in a box as the primitive screwheads who told Chris Columbus he'd fall off the earth.Again, you're confusing concrete rationalisim with science.

And I believe you are also confusing history. Being of a higher class than his men, Columbus had a good grounding in both history and science. He probably knew off the top of his head the circumference of the earth.

It hadn't been "proven." It was a theory. Please note once again that a theory MUST have overwhelming evidence.


Question everything!I do. I question intilligent design, and found holes I could jump through.


Illusive, it's not the liberals who want religion in school ;)Urk. Tell me about it.

[Ivy]

Quote:

I didn't say I support intelligent design. I just don't support blind support of evolution, either. All I'm saying is that the theory of evolution is one interpretation of your hundreds of thousands of observations and millions of years of fossils, and should not be taken as gospel (pun intended)




Here are some more interpetations:


The world was created three minutes ago, intact, by a group of a billion billion hard working, ravenous, gerbils.

The world doesn't exist at all, but is being fed into your mind by an evil genius ala matrix style.

God, being an extermely tedious and exhaustively controlling, created a mind boggling complex system that percisely matches all the details, records and evidence supported by the theory of evolution... for no decipheriable reason.


This is a big ol' straw man right here. The other interpretations that the evidence for evolution could support are probably very much LIKE evolution, but not exactly like it. You're drawing purposefully ridiculous examples out of thin air to counter the argument that it might not have happened exactly like Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould say it did.

I do think that there is a tendency to want evolution to be as air-tight scientifically as creation (and/or ID) is philosophically to its proponents. The problem is, it's just not. There's still a lot we don't KNOW about how life evolved, and the way evolution currently looks probably won't be the way it looks in 100 years.

[meshou]

This is a big ol' straw man right here. The other interpretations that the evidence for evolution could support are probably very much LIKE evolution, but not exactly like it. You're drawing purposefully ridiculous examples out of thin air to counter the argument that it might not have happened exactly like Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould say it did.

I do think that there is a tendency to want evolution to be as air-tight scientifically as creation (and/or ID) is philosophically to its proponents. The problem is, it's just not. There's still a lot we don't KNOW about how life evolved, and the way evolution currently looks probably won't be the way it looks in 100 years.Yes. But the leaps from "We don't know how it happened, merely that it did" to "it must have been a GOD what did it!" are not a good thing in terms of getting closer to any truth.

We don't know the exact mechanisims which would hole the key to curing viral infections. Therefore, a GOD must want them to be uncured!

His strawmen are closer to the leaps the ID conjecture makes than the likely future premutations in Evolution.

The weakest bit of evolution is the origin of protiens. Not reproducable at this point. However, the fact it is really far back in a chain of things we're damned sure did happen does not mean that the Rennisance and Elvis Presley were a lie.

All we know is that protiens did form. How would be immensely useful, but not nessicary to showing they did. That we are talking shows they did.

[Ivy]

Yes. But the leaps from "We don't know how it happened, merely that it did" to "it must have been a GOD what did it!" are not a good thing in terms of getting closer to any truth.

We don't know the exact mechanisims which would hole the key to curing viral infections. Therefore, a GOD must want them to be uncured!

The weakest bit of evolution is the origin of protiens. Not reproducable at this point. However, the fact it is really far back in a chain of things we're damned sure did happen does not mean that the Rennisance and Elvis Presley were a lie.

All we know is that protiens did form. How would be immensely useful, but not nessicary to showing they did. That we are talking shows they did.

I didn't see Noah pull the "it must have been GOD!" line, though. I read his point as merely "evolution is a little more fluid than people think it is," not a rejection of evolution or a scientific right-on to ID. (I realize I also have the benefit of many prior conversations on this topic and the knowledge that his admonition to question even evolution is not to say that no part of it is factual.)

[NoahFence]

I say "Evolution has not been proven to my satisfaction" and get hammered with "Oh, you think Intelligent design has?? What a moron!"

*Mutter*

At no point did I say Intelligent Design was defensible. It isn't, it has more holes than quantum foam and seems to me to be a blantatly obvious attempt to apply logic circles in the guise of science and they should have just stopped with the Prime Mover argument, at least that is somewhat compelling.

But neither is evolution the airtight thermos of intellect it's made out to be. Natural Selection does not satisfy me in every case. And I am perfectly comfortable with answering "How?" with "Insufficient Data." That's all I'm saying.


You mean the intilligent design conjecture?

No, there are no unexplained observations that Intilligent design fits.

No, I mean the Evolution conjecture.

Meshou, please don't think I'm picking on you, but your post seemed the best choice to respond to while still hitting the points raised by others.


However. You must understand, science, as a way of thought and as a method is immensely and almost univerally useful where it is applicable. It does have its limits.

I agree. This is exactly what I was trying to point out. I think the very same, but I see a great many people utterly ignoring those limits, and feeling superior because of it.


It does an injustice to both subjects to mix the two (scientific method and theology).

I concur and never suggested otherwise.


Excuse me! I think I have more than an elementary grasp of biology. I went to a biology-based high school. Two bloody years required, since the chemistry had a far stronger biology bent than most schools, and they snuk a good bit of it into history, astronomy, and english.

My father and boyfriend are both physics majors.

We are not in an age where scientists are magicians. We're at a point where all it takes to have a basic, applicable grounding in science is an associate's degree.

It's not incrutible. It's not magical. There is no underclass that needs to believe without understanding. The information is all there.

When I mean "all people", I assure you I'll include the word "all". I said "poeple", and though I refer to a great many, it is not all. You seem to have jumped in the way of my bullet there.

You, then, would be one who has gone to the authority and questioned, received answers, and nodded with satisfaction at what you found. Good on ya.

And FYI, my comment about Mars was meant to point out that future breakthroughs may shed new light on what we now believe we understand with clarity. "The sun goes around the earth" was only shattered because someone thought WAY outside the box.

That said... do you really think that the rednecks cruising Stratford Road in their pickups in my home town are going to casually top off their education with an associate's degree? With what income? The vast wealth that's flowing their way from government sources? These are the underclass, as you put it, and they can do nothing but take the word of those who are authorities. Many hold the church to be their authority, and so would likely support ID, but many do not, and know to their core that evolution is truth. To them, the scientists -are- magicians, who churn out miracles in their distant, glowing white labs. Their faith in what they are taught is absolute, and they grow restless and uncomfortable when it is questioned. I grew up with these people. They really think this way.


Again, you're confusing concrete rationalisim with science.

Pure semantics, from my view, but if you insist, I'll call it concrete rationalism. It boils down the same way, and I doubt those who make a religion of it would call it anything but "science", but as you will.

As for the rest of the posts, there seems to be an overwhelming idea that questioning evolution equals supporting intelligent design. I'm sure it feels good to bash intelligent design, but doing so has nothing at all to do with what I'm trying to say.

[abathur]

:blink:

Because height and physical strength are the universal barometers for supeirority?

Men and women being equals is not a scientific claim it's a political one. We all have equal rights, regardless of irrelevant individual differences. The theory goes that membership of the human race is enough to gurantee those rights, regarldess of class, gender or creed. I dunno what the hell you're talking about?
Is it that incredibly hard to wrap your mind around an example, containing words like "if I said this?"

The point being, I can make a statement that is, by definition of the criteria, true, and by no means win anyone's overwhelming support. In fact, in the time before modern societies arose, women WERE effectually inferior to men because the name of the game was survival, and men were more appropriately equipped to perform this function.

[abathur]

There is. It's called "Critical reasoning 101", specifically the "fallacious reasoning" section.
To my mind, it doesn't matter if they're out to cause harm, because they are in fact causing it. *is pretty sure none of his local high-schools, private or public, offer a mandatory critical reasoning course. There's a reason criminal law differentiates between degrees of killing someone: intent. Intentionally harming someone is far more reprehensible than doing so because you don't honestly know better.




Many things are naturual responses, like for example killing your enemies and their children. But, we try to rise above. Natural does not mean "desirable in a modern society"
*try. I believe, for a long time, "questioning religion" wasn't "desirable in a modern society." I'd certainly rather have people who are willing and are learning how to question the establishment than even more people learning to swallow everything they're given. If "learning to question the beliefs pressed upon you" is a horrible thing that certainly isn't "desirable in a modern society" then I suppose most of us in this discussion aren't "desirable in modern society."



On the contrary, if I was making the assertion above based on the evidence above, you could quite legitimately argue with me in a scientific context without changing any of the principles of science.
The assertion does not follow from the evidence - unqualified inferiority is not proved.
What is proved based on the evidence would be "women are on average of inferior strength and height to men", and no one could argue with that because it follows logically, assuming my evidence is correct.

Apples to apples, please.
Semantics. All of that hinges on the definitions of inferiority and superiority (and a logical+emotional assessment of the value of qualities posessed by men and women.) Unclear and vague perhaps, but by no means incorrect.

Ultimately, ID _and_ abiogenesis don't make a whole lot of logical sense, yet one of them is presumably true. The argument for both is the same, "we are here, aren't we?" and ultimately, neither are scientifically verifiable(EDIT:*note) or belong in a classroom. Of _course_ women being equal or not isn't a scientific issue, and until we can replicate the origin of things, neither is abiogenesis. Telling people their belief system is wrong because we're the result of a freak accidental process that is assumed to happen just because of the circular "we're here" logic when the assumption can't be verified isn't appropriate (that's that science thing for you.)

Every bit as hypocritical as the "Christian" religious fanatics. I guess a fanatic is going to make me want to vomit no matter what belief he wants to cram down my throat. Any more? (I'm trying to lose weight.)

*EDIT: "are" meaning now, at this time. Not that it is impossible for one or the other to be proven or falsified.

[PlayerOfGames]

*is pretty sure none of his local high-schools, private or public, offer a mandatory critical reasoning course. There's a reason criminal law differentiates between degrees of killing someone: intent. Intentionally harming someone is far more reprehensible than doing so because you don't honestly know better.

I'll totally concede on point two :)
Point one though, perhaps I wasn't clear enough - You started out by saying that it should be okay for the issue of ID to be debated in a science class because it is from science that the perceived "attack" against ID comes.
What I meant by the critical reasoning remark was this:
1. A prerequisite for science is rational thought.
2. The arguments for ID do not rest on rational thought
3. Therefor, the ID arguments cannot be discussed in a scientific context - they are flawed at a more fundamental level.
4. So, the solution is not to allow irrationality into science, this is by the definition of the scientific method impossible.
5. A better solution would be to enable the debate at the level appropriate to it, not negatively impact science as a whole by pretending that this kind of argument is ok.



*try. I believe, for a long time, "questioning religion" wasn't "desirable in a modern society." I'd certainly rather have people who are willing and are learning how to question the establishment than even more people learning to swallow everything they're given. If "learning to question the beliefs pressed upon you" is a horrible thing that certainly isn't "desirable in a modern society" then I suppose most of us in this discussion aren't "desirable in modern society."

I don't know if you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've said and creating a strawman, but I'll respond as if you aren't.
Ignore then the potentially loaded "desirable in modern society" - the point is equally made by:

natural does not mean good or desirable.

The reason that the statement above is a refutation of your earlier statement:


Their kids are going through a system that teaches in opposition of their belief system--a defensive response is natural
is because you are using the fact that such a response would be natural as a justification for the response. To break it down further, since not all natural responses are justifiable or good, a response being natural is not a reason for it to be ok.



Semantics. All of that hinges on the definitions of inferiority and superiority (and a logical+emotional assessment of the value of qualities posessed by men and women.) Unclear and vague perhaps, but by no means incorrect.


If by semantics you mean "what the words refer to" or "the meaning of the symbols", then yes, that is why you're wrong. What you are doing above is deliberately changing the meaning of what you said earlier - you originally made the men/women/inferiority statement as an example of an argument that science could make. This is fundamentally incorrect - as I pointed out, science would never make such a claim, precisely because it is a) a value judgement
b) to use your words "Unclear and vague"

The fact that you then go on to defend your example of a *scientific* argument with "Unclear and vague perhaps, but by no means incorrect." is either deliberate obfuscation or a lack of understanding on your part. Let me make it really clear - a scientific argument cannot be "unclear and vague", therefor your example is not valid, therefor the point it is supposed to support, namely that ID should be taken up in a scientific context, has no support.



Ultimately, ID _and_ abiogenesis don't make a whole lot of logical sense, yet one of them is presumably true.

No. This is a false either/or - the truth or falsity of one is not dependant on the other.
Also, nothing can be "true" in a logical sense, without, you know, making logical sense. Something can *apparently* not make sense, but to be true, it has to turn out that either the reasoning or one of the premises involved in making it look iffy was flawed/incorrect.



The argument for both is the same, "we are here, aren't we?" and ultimately, neither are scientifically verifiable


No, that is not the argument for both. The argument for ID consists of one of a few logical fallacies (prime mover, irreducable complexity, etc.) as others have stated above.
The argument for abiogenesis or evolution is, essentially
"Given the evidence, this is the best theory we have come up with so far. More evidence may come to light later, the theory may change or be discarded - but following the principles of logic, this is where we're at."

Important difference.



or belong in a classroom. Of _course_ women being equal or not isn't a scientific issue, and until we can replicate the origin of things, neither is abiogenesis.


I've addressed these above and below.



Telling people their belief system is wrong because we're the result of a freak accidental process that is assumed to happen just because of the circular "we're here" logic when the assumption can't be verified isn't appropriate (that's that science thing for you.)


This is the crux of the matter. In order:
1. The scientific method is not about telling people their beliefs are wrong. It's about saying "Based on what we see, and on logical reasoning, we think that we can explain things in a specific way. If you can find a flaw in our reasoning, or propose a superior theory, we will listen."
It is about learning to think, honestly and rationally. If you want your kids to learn about ID as a competing theory on equal intellectual footing with evolution, then you presumably don't want them to learn science - that's fine - but then rather campagin to allow your children to not go to school, or not to study science while they're there.
2. The logic used in the justification on evolution is not circular, and, although a theory can never truly be verified or proven true by evidence (just as it can never be 100% completely proved false by evidence, either), it can be corroborated, and evolution has far more corroboration than ID - thus, it is the currently accepted best theory to explain that evidence.



Every bit as hypocritical as the "Christian" religious fanatics. I guess a fanatic is going to make me want to vomit no matter what belief he wants to cram down my throat. Any more? (I'm trying to lose weight.)


Can you elucidate where you see this religious fanatacism in the statement that, since ID is not logical, it cannot be taught in the context of a logical structure of knowledge?



*EDIT: "are" meaning now, at this time. Not that it is impossible for one or the other to be proven or falsified.

That's just it. What you've said is true of the theory of evolution, but, because of the structure of the claim, is not true of ID. ID *cannot* be falsified. And that is, again, why ID cannot be debated scientifically.

[abathur]

I'll totally concede on point two :)
You started out by saying that it should be okay for the issue of ID to be debated in a science class because it is from science that the perceived "attack" against ID comes.
No. I didn't. I said I could understand why they want to reply to the issue there.





I don't know if you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've said and creating a strawman, but I'll respond as if you aren't.
Ignore then the potentially loaded "desirable in modern society" - the point is equally made by:

natural does not mean good or desirable.

The reason that the statement above is a refutation of your earlier statement:

is because you are using the fact that such a response would be natural as a justification for the response. To break it down further, since not all natural responses are justifiable or good, a response being natural is not a reason for it to be ok.
Yet still, a pretty good reason for them not automatically being the most vile thing on the planet of the earth. I'm still not wanting ID in the classroom, but you're still assuming that's what I'm saying. All I'm arguing is that I don't see them as morally reprehensible for attempting, due to the many factors you've assumed were proof that I wanted ID in the classroom.




If by semantics you mean "what the words refer to" or "the meaning of the symbols", then yes, that is why you're wrong. What you are doing above is deliberately changing the meaning of what you said earlier - you originally made the men/women/inferiority statement as an example of an argument that science could make. This is fundamentally incorrect - as I pointed out, science would never make such a claim, precisely because it is a) a value judgement
b) to use your words "Unclear and vague"

The fact that you then go on to defend your example of a *scientific* argument with "Unclear and vague perhaps, but by no means incorrect." is either deliberate obfuscation or a lack of understanding on your part. Let me make it really clear - a scientific argument cannot be "unclear and vague", therefor your example is not valid, therefor the point it is supposed to support, namely that ID should be taken up in a scientific context, has no support.
If by semantics I mean the fact that (as I said) superior and inferior are not static definitions by any means. When I say "You know X? Oh, you don't? That's the person, the superior person." do you know exactly what I mean? I think not.

Semantics, not because I'm creating definitions where they don't belong--but because you're assuming a static definition of superiority and inferiority where one doesn't belong. I never claimed that it was an argument science should make as YOU are thinking of equality, yet, none the less stating that women are inferior, from the evidence, in a science class, IS perfectly logical as the observable criterion dealing with the observable state of the being and the quality of those traits in the survivability of the being (another one of those things science deals with.) Science won't make such a claim--not because it couldn't, but because, as I said and you brilliantly regurgitated, the social definitions of superioriy, inferiority (and thus equality) are based on both logical and emotional value judgements.

I never "changed my argument," I merely gave an alternative argument that I could have made in a science classroom that would have been tantamount to proclaiming the greatness of abiogenesis. The example was chosen to push her buttons and illustrate an argument that can be made by science but doesn't belong there (like abiogenesis for now.) As for my intentional obfuscation: Is it incorrect to argue that "through evolution, humans are the descendants of other creatures," or is it correct and reasonable yet none the less, still rather vague and unclear?



No. This is a false either/or - the truth or falsity of one is not dependant on the other.
Also, nothing can be "true" in a logical sense, without, you know, making logical sense. Something can *apparently* not make sense, but to be true, it has to turn out that either the reasoning or one of the premises involved in making it look iffy was flawed/incorrect.
Thank you for the lesson on basic logic. I would be lost without you. Please provide an alternative creation scenario not involving: 1. our creation at the hands of superior(intelligent) beings, or, 2. the result of a natural process involving no intelligent intervention.

Both present problems for us, as we understand the universe, logic and causality. Both ultimately present the idea that (depending on how you propose them): 1.) something has been created from nothing, or, 2.) something has always existed. As is, this goes against observations on principles of causality. Yet, unless you've created another answer(that cannot be boiled down to one of the two,) it still seems one of the two is necessary to explain our existance. Clearly, since one must be correct, there IS a problem in our understanding. Yet for both, this is the SAME problem--causality.




No, that is not the argument for both. The argument for ID consists of one of a few logical fallacies (prime mover, irreducable complexity, etc.) as others have stated above.
The argument for abiogenesis or evolution is, essentially
"Given the evidence, this is the best theory we have come up with so far. More evidence may come to light later, the theory may change or be discarded - but following the principles of logic, this is where we're at."

Important difference.

"at" a conclusion that forces a breach of the laws of causality as we know them? I'll rephrase since we're insisting on ultimate precision. Both instances, as we know them, create a breach in causality that makes little to no sense. Were I to argue that "The Grand Eiffle Tower to end all Towers" (which is larger than the Eiffle tower but doesn't really exist) is the product of 1: intelligence, 2: natural process, presumably you would look at me and say: no, it does not exist--therefore, it is the product of your imagination.

We, however, do exist, and it is in this way that we use our existance as the primary reason necessitating an origin event. Perhaps it seems silly to say, yet none the less, both sides arguments are hinged on our existance. Abiogenesis, too, is not falsifiable without proving another method of origination. Perhaps someday it can be proven true, but it does not seem falsifiable (unless I'm missing something which you may kindly show me.) Ultimately--negligable difference. Two theories, neither readily falsifiable, both with their significant hinge point for their consitituencies being "we are here" where the two groups ultimately draw different conclusions from that hinge point.



This is the crux of the matter. In order:
1. The scientific method is not about telling people their beliefs are wrong. It's about saying "Based on what we see, and on logical reasoning, we think that we can explain things in a specific way. If you can find a flaw in our reasoning, or propose a superior theory, we will listen."
It is about learning to think, honestly and rationally. If you want your kids to learn about ID as a competing theory on equal intellectual footing with evolution, then you presumably don't want them to learn science - that's fine - but then rather campagin to allow your children to not go to school, or not to study science while they're there.
2. The logic used in the justification on evolution is not circular, and, although a theory can never truly be verified or proven true by evidence (just as it can never be 100% completely proved false by evidence, either), it can be corroborated, and evolution has far more corroboration than ID - thus, it is the currently accepted best theory to explain that evidence.

Oh blah de fucking blah. _please_ quit putting words into my mouth

I'm not even arguing for ID in classrooms, nor against evolution in classrooms, nor even against evolution at all.



Can you elucidate where you see this religious fanatacism in the statement that, since ID is not logical, it cannot be taught in the context of a logical structure of knowledge?
The fanatacism is in the zealous invalidation of anyone who does not say "aaaaaah" or nod their head in agreement.




That's just it. What you've said is true of the theory of evolution, but, because of the structure of the claim, is not true of ID. ID *cannot* be falsified. And that is, again, why ID cannot be debated scientifically.
True of evolution, but again, functional problems are keeping you from proper comprehension. This is *not* true of abiogenesis. Which is what I'm talking about. Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis. (the science of telling people living matter is of non-living origins without this theory being readily falsifiable.)

[Xylix]

This is a big ol' straw man right here. The other interpretations that the evidence for evolution could support are probably very much LIKE evolution, but not exactly like it. You're drawing purposefully ridiculous examples out of thin air to counter the argument that it might not have happened exactly like Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould say it did.

Nope, they aren't strawmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). For them to be strawmen I'd have to treat them as the entities being argued against.

Instead they are a direct and absolutely effective "counter-examples" to the often used concept: "There are other possibilities!"

To which the essence of my reply was: "There certainly are, but for them to considered they must first prove themselves to be worth considering."

Then I went on to say percisely why intelligent design ISN'T worth considering -- if I were using strawmen I'd intead argue why ravenous gerbils are ludicris ;). Until those reasons are addressed Intelligent Design is not a good theory. Period.


Once they are addressed then Intelligent Design can be considered, and science will alter as it has always done in the face of complex new findings, or better theorys. You know like "orbiting electrons" and "electron clouds", or the newest boy in town "String theory". Hell, such changes and arguments are going on right now in highly specific areas of the theory of evolution!


And if anyone is arguing about the real scientific debates amongst the scientfic community, it should be brought up seperately from Intellgent Design. Because they are seperate issues.

To do otherwise will just create confusion.



However, to say that science should give considertation to an obviously inferior theory is an affront to science. To say that the new theory has no burden of proof against an extremely well established, thriving, and effective theory like evolution is an affront to logic and the rules of rational debate.


Not necessarily that you are saying it, but I certainly get the feeling some here are implying it.



If anyone wants me, or science, to even consider Intelligent Design they must first show why it should be treated with any more respect than say "solipsism".

Just like any opposing scientific theory.




But neither is evolution the airtight thermos of intellect it's made out to be.

Evolution isn't made out to be an air tight theory. There are aguments and debates about the specifics of it all the time amongst even its adherants.

Now, Evolution has survived more rigerous testing than pretty much any other theory in science. Possibly including such laws as: themodynamics. So you can be damn sure the core concepts are solid as rock. However, like nearly all theories, it will undoubtedly fail at the extremes and at certain specifics.



But the question in science is never: "Is theory X good?" The question is always: "Is theory Y is better than theory X?"

So far no major theory Y has been proposed that is better than Evolution. Thus: end of story.




I agree. This is exactly what I was trying to point out. I think the very same, but I see a great many people utterly ignoring those limits, and feeling superior because of it.


I am well aware of the limits of science. It is an inductive process that can never, ever prove it has reached the truth. All it can do is accumulate such evidence that the probability that it is correct so completely outweights any other possible explanation as to render other explanations rediculous.

However, when arguing against a specific scientific theory you must inheriantly take one approach: The scientific one.

This is because science inheriantly only recognizes scientific arguments.


To take any other approach is to argue against science not a specific theory. If you are not using a scientific approach, which you appear not to be, then you are not arguing against evolution, you are arguing against science.


Now, I would agree that can be a completely interesting debate in and of itself, and I myself would be more than willing to point out science's failures -- it has quite a few.

However, we will erase a great deal of confusion if we make the subject matter of such an argument clear. ;)

[illusivemind]

Is it that incredibly hard to wrap your mind around an example, containing words like "if I said this?"

The point being, I can make a statement that is, by definition of the criteria, true, and by no means win anyone's overwhelming support. In fact, in the time before modern societies arose, women WERE effectually inferior to men because the name of the game was survival, and men were more appropriately equipped to perform this function.

The problem is your example is not true and doesn’t work.
I have no problem (nor I think would most people) with the idea of children begin taught that men are on average physically stronger and taller than women, in fact I hope that children are taught this. To conclude from this that men are superior to women is false and illogical. I think most rational people want illogical falsehoods out of the classroom.

The name of the ‘game’ of evolution is gene propagation, that is all it has ever been. To this end men are not superior to women, without the ability to reproduce the game is over. With the advent of asexual reproduction, it is men who are looking more and more redundant.

[PlayerOfGames]

abathur, since it seems I've been misinterpreting your arguments, let me restate them - then you can point out to me if I've understood them correctly.

1. Since the reaction of the ID people (attempting to argue that ID is a valid scientific theory) is natural and understandable, it is wrong to vilify them.

2. Abiogenesis is in the same boat as ID - there are no grounds for preferring one over the other.

3. There is no problem with the theory of evolution per se, but it is ultimately flawed as it relies on abiogenesis.

If I'm wrong on any of the points above, please correct me

Thanks

[NoahFence]

Now, I would agree that can be a completely interesting debate in and of itself, and I myself would be more than willing to point out science's failures -- it has quite a few.

However, we will erase a great deal of confusion if we make the subject matter of such an argument clear.
I had a number of responses for you, but when I read this, I realized I was indeed in the wrong thread. Maybe we should start a new one, "The problems with evolution."

Regardless, whether or not evolution has holes has no bearing on whether or not Intelligent Design has holes, and it was not my intention to suggest otherwise in either direction.

For this thread, my own take is that Intelligent Design is essentially based upon a single, festering logical fallacy: Argument from Ignorance.

"If I don't understand the theory, it must not work."

The entire framework of ID is that "I don't see how it could have happened randomly, therefore it must not be random."

The funniest part is that they then go on to commit yet another logical fallacy. "It cannot be random, therefore it must be the result of an intelligent planner." This is also an extension of Argument from Ignorance. "I can't see how it could be non-random without being the result of intelligence, therefore it is."

Lead balloons leap to mind right about now.

My favorite whine is that there's no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe. Um, sorry...how do you know there's no evidence anywhere else in the universe? Have you, say, gone and looked? No stone unturned? Pathfinder and Opportunity are a nice start, but it hardly qualifies as "anywhere else in the universe". You can't even say there's no evidence on Mars.

I'm glad the courts don't work this way...

"Your honor, we've seen no evidence that the defendant's allibi is valid."
"Did you question the people he claims he was with?"
"No your honor, we observed them through a telescope from the top of the Wachovia building. At no time did we receive any confirmation of his story."

[Xylix]

3. There is no problem with the theory of evolution per se, but it is ultimately flawed as it relies on abiogenesis.


This point is wrong.

The theory of evolution does not rely on the hypothesis of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is completely derived from concepts such as Natural Selection and is largerly created to describe the how the features of the creatures currently on earth came about.

It is also very succeful at describing virtually all older creatures as well.


Abiogenesis is just a hypothesis on how it all began. Abiogenesis relies on evolution to invoke the idea 'there must have not been life sometime'.

In a great deal of ways abiogenesis is like quantum gravity, as it attempts to describe the utmost extremes to which you can take evolution.

That is to say, no matter what happens with the hypothesis of abiogenesis there won't be any significant change, or indeed any change at all, to evolution itself.




I had a number of responses for you, but when I read this, I realized I was indeed in the wrong thread. Maybe we should start a new one, "The problems with evolution."

Perhaps indeed. We already have one possible victum listed above. Abiogenesis. I'm certain we can dig up many more. ;)

It would certainly be an educational debate if nothing more.

[abathur]

abathur, since it seems I've been misinterpreting your arguments, let me restate them - then you can point out to me if I've understood them correctly.

1. Since the reaction of the ID people (attempting to argue that ID is a valid scientific theory) is natural and understandable, it is wrong to vilify them.

2. Abiogenesis is in the same boat as ID - there are no grounds for preferring one over the other.

3. There is no problem with the theory of evolution per se, but it is ultimately flawed as it relies on abiogenesis.

If I'm wrong on any of the points above, please correct me

Thanks
1. Yes. That is not to say I agree with them, or want ID in science rooms. Treating people like shit doesn't make them agree with you, it makes them resist all the more. I see no legitimate reason to vilify them without evidence they are intentionally trying to harm someone.

2. Abiogenesis is in roughly the same boat as ID. Ultimately they (IMO) reduce to the same logical conundrums that don't fit what we know and understand. Depending on how these things REALLY work, both may remain possible, impossible, or only one may be possible. From here, however, it seems at least one must be correct, yet neither follow logically. Where I would say they ARE in the same boat, for now at least, is that neither should be taught as "this is how it happened."

3. I'm not sure evolution relies on abiogenesis... but they're generally sold as a package deal. Just as saying pink aliens created life on earth and set it going doesn't mean evolution won't take place (indeed, I'm by no means as intelligent as a pink alien, yet I believe I would be smart enough to see the value in varying populations better enabled to survive and adapt to changing circumstance.) I'm certainly not in the mind of all the ID proponents, but I imagine, when explained evolution, and only evolution in the appropriate terms to show the logic behind it, it will make sense to a good number of them. Bundling it with abiogenesis, when I've spent many many hours pondering the logic of ID and abiogenesis myself and have yet to find a way to see that either as a "logical" choice, I don't really blame people for resisting.

I imagine, but can't claim to have surveyed people to determine, that most people believing in abiogenesis OR ID are:
1. ignoring the logic of both choices and picking the one that supports their belief that there is/isn't a god/higher power
2. never thought about it, just swallowed
3. hedging their bets

[PlayerOfGames]

1. Yes. That is not to say I agree with them, or want ID in science rooms. Treating people like shit doesn't make them agree with you, it makes them resist all the more. I see no legitimate reason to vilify them without evidence they are intentionally trying to harm someone.

I find that perfectly reasonable, too. However, I think everyone also agrees that there comes a point where the damage done by someone is cause to dislike them, even if it is unintentional.
Pragmatically I also agree with you, you're never going to convince anyone without actually engaging them, and certainly not by treating them like shit.



3. I'm not sure evolution relies on abiogenesis... but they're generally sold as a package deal. Just as saying pink aliens created life on earth and set it going doesn't mean evolution won't take place (indeed, I'm by no means as intelligent as a pink alien, yet I believe I would be smart enough to see the value in varying populations better enabled to survive and adapt to changing circumstance.) I'm certainly not in the mind of all the ID proponents, but I imagine, when explained evolution, and only evolution in the appropriate terms to show the logic behind it, it will make sense to a good number of them. Bundling it with abiogenesis, when I've spent many many hours pondering the logic of ID and abiogenesis myself and have yet to find a way to see that either as a "logical" choice, I don't really blame people for resisting.

Okay, so you're saying that ID proponents have a valid bone to pick with abiogenesis, and not really with evolution - their argument is not with evolution as such.
This would make sense, if they were being specific like that - but they aren't. Many ID proponents disagree completely with evolution and natural selection, and want ID as a theory to be taught as on a level with evolution as a whole, not just abiogenesis.



2. Abiogenesis is in roughly the same boat as ID. Ultimately they (IMO) reduce to the same logical conundrums that don't fit what we know and understand. Depending on how these things REALLY work, both may remain possible, impossible, or only one may be possible. From here, however, it seems at least one must be correct, yet neither follow logically. Where I would say they ARE in the same boat, for now at least, is that neither should be taught as "this is how it happened."

Humor me, so I'm exactly clear:
You are saying that, right now, abiogenesis and ID are on completely equal grounds as scientific theories - there are absolutely no grounds for saying one is superior to the other.
Yes or no?

[NoahFence]

Humor me, so I'm exactly clear:
You are saying that, right now, abiogenesis and ID are on completely equal grounds as scientific theories - there are absolutely no grounds for saying one is superior to the other.
Yes or no?
I'd go there. Since there is no proof except our own existance to support either, then yes, they're on equal grounds. The problem with ID is it goes a few steps further, while abiogenesis is self-contained.

Evolution and its concepts are not dependant on abiogenesis being fact. It's simply the origin hypothesis slapped onto the beginning. The rest is based on observation of the present and theories to explain the diversity of the fossil record, and holds up even if their origin hypothesis gets shot down.

ID and its concepts fold if its origin hypothesis folds. Also, its logic is based on a logical fallacy: argument from ignorance. "I can't understand how it could be random, therefore it must be an intelligent plan." From a philosophical perspective, they're just as likely to be correct as abiogenesis. From a logical and scientific perspective, they've built a house of cards on an air hockey table, and all it takes to crush it is fifty cents.

[Mr. Beef]

Speaking of intelligent design, here's an advancement on the theory:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512