Topic awaiting preservation: The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design (Page 1 of 6)

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/05/02/1059247.shtml?tid=146&tid=191&tid=14

This controversy is making SlashDot now. You will see a whole lot more responses posted here than I think you will find anywhere else. It is a bit (horribly) slanted against the ID viewpoint, but that is what happens when you publish to a forum of nerds. However, I still think that a lot of good ideas will pop out of here.

My thing with SlashDot is that with the number of people who post you are bound to stumble upon one or two good ideas.

Dan @ Code Town

"Intelligent Design" has no foundings in Science as a Theory.

Evolution does.

Just because some cannot "accept" that things have evolved to how they are now, doesn't make Evolution false.

ID is just the Trojan Horse being used by the Religious Right to try to accomplish what they failed to do before - replace the Theory of Evolution with Creationism.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-02-2005 17:23)

I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning ID in a science class. I guess it depends on how its being taught.

When I was in school, I remember our book having a paragraph about Creationism (which I guess is now termed ID). It said something to the effect of:

There are many faiths that believe that a god or gods created the earth and the universe as we know it. Many people believe in these ideas, but as they can not be tested scientifically we will not discuss them further.

I believe that it also listed about 10 different faiths that all had different ideas.

Creationism or whatnot, if it can not be tested scientifically, it does not belong in a science class. I don't see why that is so hard to accept.

The bullshit about "The Science of God" is just crap, it isn't science if you don't use the scientific method.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

I don't think there's anything wrong with mentioning ID in a science class. I guess it depends on how its being taught.

---

IT'S NOT SCIENCE! In fact it's practically the antithesis of science "We can't explain it so it has to be some sort of God"



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

(Edited by bitdamaged on 05-02-2005 20:34)

Wow, a bunch of ignorants opposing another bunch of ignorants.

When will people realize WHAT EVOLUTION IS. It is not a theory of creation, it is a theory of EVOLUTION - that's why it's called that.
Anyone who's spent five minutes in a half-decent science class knows this.

quote:

---

Anyone who's spent five minutes in a half-decent science class knows this.

---

Well, that is the whole point, isn't it? If ID starts getting teached in Science class, it's free-fire for the Religious Right to pump more Creationism into Science class...

Bye-bye, Evolution. And then you don't have a "half-decent" Science class anymore...

This whole ID stuff isn't about real Science. It is about politics and control over what children are taught.

No, that's not the point. The point is that people so ignorant to think the theory of Evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design are explanations for the same thing are so ignorant that it doesn't matter what they do. They apparently didn't understand Evolution, so it won't matter if they start teaching Intelligent Design - they won't understand that either.

While personally I think discussion about Intelligent Design is more appropriate in a philosophy class, it's certainly not inappropriate in a science class. Teaching both in a science class is fine if the instructor knows what he's talking about, and not if he doesn't; and if he doesn't, then the problem is that the instructor is ignorant, not that he's teaching the 'wrong' thing.

(Edited by reisio on 05-03-2005 12:44)

quote:

---

The point is that people so ignorant to think the theory of Evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design are explanations for the same thing are so ignorant that it doesn't matter what they do. They apparently didn't understand Evolution, so it won't matter if they start teaching Intelligent Design - they won't understand that either.

While personally I think discussion about Intelligent Design is more appropriate in a philosophy class, it's certainly not inappropriate in a science class. Teaching both in a science class is fine if the instructor knows what he's talking about, and not if he doesn't; and if he doesn't, then the problem is that the instructor is ignorant, not that he's teaching the 'wrong' thing.

---

Blocks are mine.

That is utter nonsense. ID has nothing scientific about it (re: Scientific Method of establishing a Theory).

As for not understanding Evolution or ID - that is really not the point. Those pushing this agenda want ID in for political and religious reasons, not because they understand or do not understand either it or evolution.

Past discussions (and this thread) are evidence enough of this - it is not a problem of understanding, it is more an agenda resulting from not wanting to accept Evolution fact.

To me, mentioning ID in a science lesson, is about as relevant as talking Maths in an English lit. class!

I don't see why they should mention anything about ID in a Science lesson when talking about Evolution. They're not relevant to each other as far as i'm concerned, leave ID to Religous Education or Phylosophy.

Yes, but the Religious feel that you should take about Religion in Math, English, Science and Gym. To religious people, religion is everything, it is not something that has bounds, it affects every area of their life.

When you present an idea that is contrary to their beliefs, they are going to attack it with all abandon. You all like to harp on the idea that the Theory of Evolution doesn't disprove God. And you are right it does not. But it does make two allusion that are very contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

1) Man is probably descendant of monkeys
2) Evolution would have taken millions of years

These directly contradict the idea that the Earth was created and populated with all things as they are now in a literal 6 days, or 518,400 seconds, and the idea that Adam and Eve were created, like we make a computer, by God.

You can't tell me that these ideas are not contradicting. It doesn't surprise me that these ideas come to a big ugly head.

The solution is also rather easy, but requires work. The solution is more education. You don't like an idea, learn more about it, then learn a shit load more about it, and after that continue to learn about it, and if you still don't like it, come up with a contradiction and disprove the bitch scientifically. Science is really easy to work with, you have a bunch of ground rules that are designed to make it possible to disprove something, actually it is designed to disprove things, it isn't really all that capable of proving anything.

It is easy for those who understand Science to say that religion shouldn't be in a science class, but it is just showing our ignorance of religion.

And it finally comes down to power. Those in power using Religion do not want to have to deal with peoples doubts because of Science. Science is a big obstacle for Religion, it goes on to give rational explanations for things which were before attributed to their god. Those in power will do anything to remain in power, and if they have to step on Science to do it, they will, without hesitation.

Dan @ Code Town

Not that I plan on being very active in this thread, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents (on the off chance that someone might care ).

I would agree that ID does not belong in science classes--not necessarily because it is wrong, but because it isn't science. As others have mentioned, it belongs in philosophy classes instead, because that's what it is--a philosophy. "Intelligent Design" is the underlying premise behind the teleological argument for the existence of God. Of course, the way it is being presented in this case is more as following from an a priori argument for the existence of God, and thus it is a natural consequence rather than a proof. Whichever way you look at it, though, it is philosophy, not science.

Question: do high school kids even study philosophy? I don't remember studying philosophy in high school in the States. In fact, I didn't study Western philosophy in any depth until I came to Korea, and even then it was only because a) I needed to compare it to Eastern philosophy and b) everyone expected me to be an expert on it (kind of like how they expect me to automatically be a big whiskey fan because whiskey is "Western liquor" and I am a Westerner... can't stand the stuff, by the way).

Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I happen to believe in "Intelligent Design," if that's what the kids are calling it these days.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

I studied Philosphy in High School. I don't know if it is teached these days, though.

One thing, WM -

quote:

---

1) Man is probably descendant of monkeys

---

Man did not descend (evolve) from monkeys. Evolution says that Apes and Man both have a common ancestor.

That is something totally different.

ID is such a broad topic, and there are so many different theories on it, it isn't really a question of whether it should be taught, but if it can be taught. My thing is that if you are going to teach something, you better do it so that the students can hear all angles. If a classroom just taught Evolution and Big Bang (or whatever) that would be bad, because there are other views. If a classroom just taught ID or Genesis, that would be bad because there is no Evolution in there. I think that they should at least touch upon the others, because like it or not, there is science in the ID and Genesis stuff. You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that there is good evidence on both sides, and if only one is taught, then children are not getting their monies worth.

BTW, no philosophy now.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

If a classroom just taught Evolution and Big Bang (or whatever) that would be bad, because there are other views. If a classroom just taught ID or Genesis, that would be bad because there is no Evolution in there.

---

And this is the problem with the fucking world.

Intelligent design and bilbical creationism are not sicence.

Intelligent design and biblical creationsim are not equatable with evolution. They cannot be taught as alternatives, because they are not alternatives.

They are entirely seperate concepts.

Philosophy and mythology have no place in science class.

Period.

Religion belongs in the home and in the church. Every parent has the right to teach their children whatever personal belief system they desire. The public school system has the obligation to not teach such things.


Any claim of scientific evidence in support of either intelligent design or biblical creationsim is purely ignorant.
As we have shown repeatedly in these discussions.

amen.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Philosophy and mythology have no place in science class.

---

Just like English has no place in a math class, right? Unfortunately I just took a course of Statistical Analysis, and guess what one of the key factors in Statistics is? English.

Like it or not, DL, you cannot seperate science from Creation. If that happens, then there is no way whatsoever to either prove or disprove that Creation happened. In that instance you leave a possibility of Creation, simply because it was ignored. Science plays a key role in Creation because there have been Archeological finds, historical documents, statistical analyses, etc. suggesting that an Intelligent Design was possible.

I understand that from your perspective the idea of the Earth and everything on it being formed in 6 days is as ludicrous as some of the stories from Australia or the Natives of North America are to me. If someone would suggest putting those in a science class I would suggest it better in a History class. That would be the same for Creation, however, some scientists in their respective fields are now using their scientific knowledge to uncover interesting facts that the world may not be as we have thought. And yes, these are scientists with all their training, Phds, and experience behind them.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Philosophy and mythology have no place in science class.

---

True, and religion does not belong in schools. But, I don't want to see religion forced upon kids at schools, I want to see the science behind those beliefs suggested as a possibility. What you are implying is that since Creation cannot happen without a supernatural being, then it is not science and should not be taught in school. That would be like saying that the Declairation of Independance is related to God and should therfore not be taught in a history class.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Gideon:

quote:

---

True, and religion does not belong in schools. But, I don't want to see religion forced upon kids at schools,

---

I'm glad to hear that from you. Though personnaly I don't want to see religion, or any irrationnal state of mind, forced on anyone.

quote:

---

I want to see the science behind those beliefs suggested as a possibility. What you are implying is that since Creation cannot happen without a supernatural being, then it is not science and should not be taught in school.

---

He's not implying that all. He -- and actually many inmates before him -- said -- a countless number of times -- that Creation and ID has no scientifical fundings and thus does not have its place in a Science class. Actually it can be evoked during few minutes as a concept that was taken for granted in the dark age of science before introducing the students to "real" science and facts. At best those concepts have a place in a philosophy or a history class.



(Edited by poi on 05-03-2005 23:12)

quote:

---

Just like English has no place in a math class, right?

---

Wrong.

English, being the language we speak, is essential for every subject of study.

Properly expressing oneself and properly understanding what is being expressed are functions that are necessary for all disciplines.


I won't address the rest of your drivel because it is just that - drivel, and we have covered all of that ad nauseum in other threads.

quote:

---

That would be like saying that the Declairation of Independance is related to God and should therfore not be taught in a history class.

---

No, it would not. The declaration of independence has nothing to do with god or religion, first of all.
Second of all, no matter what it is related to, it is an important historical document.

Thie relationship has nothing to do with the relationship you want so desperately to exist between biblical creation and science.

quote:

---

IT'S NOT SCIENCE! In fact it's practically the antithesis of science "We can't explain it so it has to be some sort of God"

---

Thats just extremist nonsense bit.

Both are two theories on the origins of creations. One happens to be considered scientifically correct. Neither one disproves the other. Regardless, both are science - you're just partisan. You wouldn't be typing in all CAPS if we were talking about banning Darwin's work in schools. If you'd have studied him you'd know that a good portion of his work turned out to be scientifically incorrect. His theories on genetics are worth as much as garbage. Should he and his work be left out of science classes?

Reisio is entirely right. If the instructor knows what they are talking about it there shouldn't be a problem. Intelligent Design cannot be scientifically proven, which is different then not being science.

As you say much of what Darwin theorized has been proved false and supplanted by better ideas and quantitative data. And the work that he did that was proved wrong should 100% be left out of the classroom. The part that holds its water should be what is taught. The history of his work is often discussed, much like the misconceptions of the history of the atom are discussed.

Not much can be proved, I don't think that anything can be proved. The law of gravity could be disproved tomorrow if say a graviton is discovered, or we discover a region of space where the traditional laws of gravity do not apply. You can not prove anything in science, you can only disprove something.

ID is not science because they do not any science. They are a propaganda machine, and a group of politically oriented lairs. They take random statements from self appointed "leading professionals" and use them as the basis of their arguments. They then go on to backup their position by claiming that nature is too complex, therefore it must be created by some higher power. There is no science, just propaganda.

ID is not science it is politics, it is not even Religion. There is absolutely no science on the ID platform, unless lying is considered a science now. For every argument that ID presents there are valid counter arguments that actually disprove the ID position.

It is a bunch of political lies, and you faithful masses are buying into their propaganda machine. It is really sad.

Dan @ Code Town

Jestah - you are completely incorrect on this issue.

Please re-read the rest of the thread if you are unsure why...

What am I incorrect about DL?

quote:

---

I think that they should at least touch upon the others, because like it or not, there is science in the ID and Genesis stuff. You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that there is good evidence on both sides, and if only one is taught, then children are not getting their monies worth.

---

There is no evidence on the side of ID and Genesis. We have covered this, and you have never been able to present one fucking iota of evidence!

Drivel.

quote:

---

Both are two theories on the origins of creations. One happens to be considered scientifically correct. Neither one disproves the other. Regardless, both are science - you're just partisan.You wouldn't be typing in all CAPS if we were talking about banning Darwin's work in schools. If you'd have studied him you'd know that a good portion of his work turned out to be scientifically incorrect.

---

Jesus fucking christ! One "happens" to be scientifically correct, tested, has evidence for it, has been studied, proven, and re-evaluated ad nauseum. The other is a politically driven bit of religious nonsense, that has no scientific basis in fact.

And we are not talking about just Darwin here. We are talking about the Theory of Evolution (which should be the Fact of Evolution, seeing as how some in this thread seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between a Scientific definition of Theory, and a plain theory, like ID, Philosophy, etc).

I am personally stunned and dismayed by some of the responses here.

No, I am shocked.

I used to think bringing my Daughter to America, to let her learn in the American School system, would allow her access to a great system, one free of religious influence and classes (like those here in Germany).

I am sickened and appalled with what I am reading in some posts here.

Science is NOT a subject of belief and faith!

ID is trying to "roll back" the last 100 years of progress.

In the years I've been a member of the Asylum I don't think I've ever taken part in a religious discussion WebShaman. Nor do I believe I've ever been asked to provide "one fucking iota of evidence!" so why don't you turn it down a notch. At best I could give you circumstantial evidence much like you could give me. No one knows for sure how creation came about, hence why its theory and not laws being discussed here.

You're drivel, your argument is worth less then drivel.

Go easy guys. By "you", WebShaman certainly meant 'the people in favor of creationism, ID or any other "science" influenced/driven by religious opinions'.

I've taken part to several religious and scientific discussions in the Philosophy and other Silliness and I gave up counting the number of time Creationnism and ID have been debunked though some zealots stood still and tried again and again to find a single evidence of the things they claimed.



(Edited by poi on 05-04-2005 11:46)

First of all Jester, get a grip - I was not talking to you with the "drivel" remark - I was talking to Gid (and that is the reference to the religious stuff as well). So the Iota evidence remark is not for you specifically.

Second,

quote:

---

No one knows for sure how creation came about, hence why its theory and not laws being discussed here.

---

That is true.

But Evolution has nothing to do with that. All Evolution states, is that things evolve from other things. It does not state how things originally came into being, nor does it attempt to.

But the Theory of Evolution is much different than the theory of ID. Even the definition is different.

The Theory of Evolution is a scientific Theory, with all that it entails. The theory of ID is just a theory, which is like every other general theory (including mine that there is a planet beyond Pluto that is made entirely of cheese that we haven't discovered yet).

That is a very big difference.

[offtopic]
WebShaman: I thought it was the moon that was made of cheese
[/offtopic]

[offtopic]
WebShaman: I thought it was the moon that was made of cheese
[/offtopic]

Yes, but that is easily disprovable - we've already been there! - my planet cannot be disproved/proved - that is the point (well, someday we might be able to prove/disprove my theory, but until then, it is just a theory...just like ID)

Now on with the topic.

Jestah:

as stated, biblical creationsim and the idea of intelligent design simply have no scientific basis, period.

But this is the important part:

Evolution is *not* something that attempts to explain how the world was created. What it explains is the diversity of species on this planet, and the manner in which they arrived.

Creationsim and Evolution are *not* simply alternate theories on the same subject.

Evolution happens. We know this because we have observed it, and because we have a great deal of fossil and genetic evidence for it in the past.

The scientific principle of evolution which we know to be true does not exclude the philosophical concept of intelligent design, or the mythical concept of biblical creationism.
It does not exclude precisely because they are not equatible concepts.

Nobody knows for sure how creation came about.

But when we teach science classes, we stick to science - not mythology, religion, and philosophy.

As has been said over and over, if we are going to start teaching biblical creationism in science class, we then need to be sure to cover all the other mythological creation stories - the greeks, norse, egyptians, several series of african myth, a slew of asian myth, south american, etc etc etc.

None of them are science either.

So we won't be teaching them in science class.

^Amen!

Echo that!

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

poi said:

Though personnaly I don't want to see religion, or any irrationnal state of
mind, forced on anyone.

---

Me neither. I like choices, and forcing people to think in certain ways is totally depriving the person of any individualistic qualities.

quote:

---

poi said:

He's not implying that all.

---

Well, I apologize, then. There I go jumping to conclusions, again. I don't know if Creation or ID is only an archaic form of science and philosophy. Esp. with some of the findings that are pointing to a young earth. Now, granted, there are few, but if there is even one, doesn't that open the door for at least the possibility?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

English, being the language we speak, is essential for every subject of study.

---

English is not the language that the entire world speaks, however. Just America (even though I think the language is changing here), England, and a few other, less prominent countries. Granted most people in other countries learn English as a second language, but Mathematics is a universal language. Everyone uses math, and everyone can understand it. But not everyone uses English. I guess you could make a parallel with religious philosophies and Science. Not everyone has the same religious philosophies, but Science goes to extreme lengths to become universal, and I think that it is doing a pretty good job.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

The declaration of independence has nothing to do with god or religion, first of
all.

---

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created Equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."(going off memory there, hope I got it right)

Actually Jestah, if someone says what that quote says, then they would be right. If you can't explain it, then attribute it to God, that is the "God of the Gaps" theory, and a very bad theory at that.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

One "happens" to be scientifically correct, tested, has evidence for it, has
been studied, proven, and re-evaluated ad nauseum.

---

Caps mine. I thought you can't prove anything in science?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

The other is a politically driven bit of religious nonsense, that has no
scientific basis in fact.

---

I don't know about political, but the Creation theory is a "religious nonsense" base. It is not based in Science, but in Genesis. I believe in Creation because of my belief in the Bible. Now it is hard to convince others who do not believe in the Bible that Creation happened, especially when they just dismiss scientific and archeologic findings as "drivel" or "political lies." Oh well. As for the general ID, however, there are Atheists who confess that it would be difficult for there not to have been a designer for this planet.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Science is NOT a subject of belief and faith!

---

Correct (I could argue that, but I really don't feel like it). But the extrapolation of science into a past that is not documented is not science, it is guess work. That guess work is taken on the prior belief systems of the guesser.

The problem that theologists have with evolution is time...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

I think I've said this before, but I normally just read these things, as my viewpoint is pretty well covered by others much more eloquent than me, so I try not to add to the noise.

But at this moment, I feel compelled to jump in. Perhaps it's the fact that I haven't been sleeping well, or that a favorite Web site I created is slowly being turned to crap by some third-party idiot, or that I'm tired of the moron next door turning up his subwoofer at nine in the morning ... I'm just easily irked right now. So things like this ...

quote:

---

quoteL-44 said:

English, being the language we speak, is essential for every subject of study.


English is not the language that the entire world speaks, however. Just America (even though I think the language is changing here), England, and a few other, less prominent countries. Granted most people in other countries learn English as a second language, but Mathematics is a universal language. Everyone uses math blah blah blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH ..............

---

... make me wish I were too stupid to follow an intelligent discussion.

Gideon, do you ever have any bloody idea what the hell anyone's talking about? This response of yours is so nonsequiter it makes me want to kick my own dog and take away his yummy treats.

The fact the the whole world doesn't speak English hasn't one thing to do with what DL said -- not even anything to do with what you said originally! Most of what you say has nothing to do with the course of any known debate.

Construct a logical set of paragraphs that poses a point relevant to what is being discussed; stop simply listing quote after quote taken out of context, following each with an aberrant reponse you've plucked merrily from your anus.

OK -- sorry, folks, I know I'm just adding to the noise. I'm just getting tired of intelligent exchange being interrupted by Gideon's verbal dysentery.

^ You are right - Awesome!

^ ROTFL!!!

Something else I want to point out, that I think is missed by a few.

ID and Creationism are not the same.

ID might be a jumping point at putting creationism back into schools.

But right now ID is just a political movement to spread lies about science. It is a movement that is setting the groundwork for a scientific backlash. It is not about facts or truths, it is about propaganda to invalidate current scientific works.

You mention your Young Earth Theory. Discussing this can be valid science. This might be something that could some day make it into school texts. But, it needs more work, it is not ready yet, especially since there is a lot of evidence that would lead to a contradiction (and the Apparent Age Theory does not add evidence).

However, ID has nothing to do with the Young Earth Theory. ID is a political movement, that looks to invalidate the tried and tested validity of the Theory of Evolution with propaganda. Do not confuse the two. That is their goal, to confuse the two so much so that people don't know what is up and down. Do not let them do this.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

I don't know if Creation or ID is only an archaic form of science and philosophy. Esp. with some of the findings that are pointing to a young earth. Now, granted, there are few, but if there is even one, doesn't that open the door for at least the possibility?

---

No, there aren't any credible findings pointing to a young earth.

Thank you wes.

you've saved me from pulling my hair out trying to respond to that...

Gideon - when you have the faintest idea what you are talking about...feel free to post something worth responding to. All of your "points" are either totally irrelevant or things we've proven wrong over and over in these discussions.

You may enjoy going round and round in pointless circles....I've got better things to do.

DL, I think you are a bit harsh, but I can understand why.

Gideon. You have some ideas that do have some merit. But you pesent them in such a fashion that they all appear foolish. I would say that your excessive use of responding to individual quotes is what does this. Pick a focus and then spend some time really thinking about the one topic and respond to it. Also, things like the small retorts don't earn you points. This is a heated discussion and you have to make some allowances (my spelling and grammar for instance). I do believe that you have a lot you could contribute, but you fail to do this on more occations than not.

Dan @ Code Town