Topic awaiting preservation: The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design (Page 2 of 6)

Warmage - when you have already been round and round on the same circle, explaining the same thing to the same person, the definition of 'harsh' changes a great deal. What I said was rather kind in comparison to the way most have put it

^Amen to that!

How you managed to remain so patient, for so long, is beyond me!

Thank you Warmage. I think you are...can't come up with the word right now, but it is good. You actually gave me advice and helped me, instead of just pointing out faults. Thanks, I will defintily take into consideration what you have said.

About the whole ID vs Evolution, though, I think you are mistaken. You do realize that ID is just a melding of the two, don't you?

BTW, wes, you are right. I need to follow things more closely. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I did have a point, but I guess I forgot to put it down. It had something to do with how people interpret mathematics into their own languages, and the parallels to religion and science, but I guess I won't mention that.

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

Yes, let us let WM go the rounds with Gid...should be amusing to watch WM melt down...

^I have no intention of attacking WM, I am just confused, because I always thought ID was a melding of Creation and Evolution. Apparently I was mistaken, and I would like to know why.

BTW, WM, the main reason I have so many comments (besides the little retorts, I should cut down on those) is because there are so many points being discussed. Perhaps I should just cut down, but then some get angry at me for not responding to them. Kinda a dilemma. Can't really please everyone, though, can you?

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

quote:

---

I have no intention of attacking WM, I am just confused

---

Exactly!

Web, you faith in me is inspiring

I am sorry but I really just have to restate the ID is political. All ID says is that we do not believe in chance so there must be something intelligent who created this complex stuff. You will also find the proofs for ID to follow in a similar fashion. They are a faulty proof by contradiction. They normally follow, we do not understand how to do X, therefore ID. A lack of understanding, means you do not understand something, it does not imply something else.

Back to you not understanding why. I would think it has to do with it coming somewhat in line with what your beliefs are, and because it is a powerful political force you jumped on. This does not mean that it is right or in line with what you might really believe. Any time someone trys to politicize science you are probably not looking at science.

If you like your Young Earth Theory stick with it. You are in the majority (44% majority) who believe in that. There is some work in science on it. I can't say it is good science. Anyways, make sure to read the following article in its entirety. It covers the 4 belief areas, and is a really good overview. Make sure to read the introduction.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

Onto the other issue. There might be a lot of points being discussed, as in this post I am touching on two of your points, along with attempting to slight Webshamam. If you want to respond to someones statements do it much like you would do any other expository essay. Start by having your thesis, and then work from there to explain it. Your thesis can often be implied by an above post by who and how you are responding.

And I think you are correct, you can not please everyone, you shouldn't try to. Respond to the things that you believe are important. If someone asks you for clarification, or "gets angry" for you not touching on something, let them know that you didn't think it was important enough to respond to at the time, and if you think it has its merits then respond to it in a later post. Not everything that is said has import, a lot can and should be ignored.

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 05-05-2005 17:26)

quote:

---

If you like your Young Earth Theory stick with it. You are in the majority (44% majority) who believe in that.

---

That is an appalling thing to say!

If you "like" the theory, stick with it? Because the mass of ignorant people agree with you???

That is, honestly, shocking advice coming from an intelligent person such as yourself, Dan.

As was stated earlier, there is simply no credible evidence to support the religious notion of a young earth. None.

As for 'ID' being a melding of the concept of evolution and creationism - it can be seen that way, yes. But that is not the point whatsoever.

The point is, evolution is a scientific principle that explains a natural process.

Intelligent design is a philosophical issue that states that whatever the natural process, "God" is behind it.
You want to beleive that? Fine. You want to teach your children that? Fine.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay tax money to have you teach *my* child such things!

It simply has *no* place in science class. Period.

Thanks Warmage.

I read a book recently about Creation vs Evolution that took arguments from both sides. Good arguments, too. But I read one that was by a lawyer who had gathered info in support of ID (not Creation or Evolution, but both). His view was pretty much the Creation by an intelligent being b/c of the statistics, and then from there accepted the old Earth theory, so in fact he accepted Evolution from the start of the world being made by a god. This basically says that with the small window it is so highly improbable that life could arrive on its own. I know it is jumbled, but is that the Id belief you have been talking about, or is it different?

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

I am not telling him that it is correct. I am telling him that if he believes in it that he should continue to research it. You will notice that my next sentence points out that I don't think that it is good science. As with anything, further study helps in the understanding of an issue.

My pointing out of the statistic was useless and has no real bearing on the important issues. I see that as a mistake, and as a justification for faulty reasoning. You are correct on that, and were I to spend a little more time thinking on how that factoid might be interpreted I would not have presented it.

I will go on to point out that I would much rather that Gideon stuck with the Young Earth Theory than the ID dogma because the Young Earth is IMO the lesser of two evils. ID does not lead to further understanding, it is a dead end. The Young Earth Theory can lead to a better understanding of the real science that is out there.

I can see how you might have misunderstood what I was saying. I often do not state my real ideas correctly. I am not as good with my words as you are, but I try.

Dan @ Code Town

Even if you did read a book on the two I would still point you back to the ReligiosTollerance page and have you read that. You can never have too many contrasting viewpoints on an issue.

That kind of work with statistics is the core of the ID belief. And it does not make it correct. I coupd throw statistics like that out all day. You will see statistics like this used to attempt to prove and disprove many things, but that is not a proof, nor is it even a good representation of reality.

This kind of statistics is the same that is used to present a probability that there is life on other planets. These problems hang on one or more values that are at best guesses, and poor ones at that. We do not have the scientific knowledge to make those kinds of guesses.

Dan @ Code Town

WarMage: You seem to forget Gordon Shumway aka ALF, who lived on melmac until it blow up.

And don't forget Mork from Ork!

Melding ID with Evolution is still not science.

Warmage - i can see your point, but clarification was certainly needed to illustrate it.

Gideon - all I can say is to repeat the suggestions that been made over and over to you:

Read up in the *real* sicence behind the principles of evolution and the age of the earth.

Read books by *real* scientists, reflecting known sicentific truth - as opposed half-educated people with a religious agenda to push.

Every source you talk about "learning" from in regard to scientific events is presented by somoeone who is either baltantly unqualified or blatantly biased in the cause for religion.
I am quite certain that you can read them, and their arguments make sense to you. Anyone can be persuasive to someone who already wants to believe what they have to say...

Get the facts - from qualified scientists who are not fighting to uphold an ancient belief system but are devoted to their subject.

Way too many generalizations of me DL. I have read different books by different authors. I don't know if you read it, but elsewhere I posted that I came from a strict Big Bang/Evolution up-bringing. I loved all the stories about a long time and dinos, and I read all the books I could and watched all the movies I could about EVOLUTION. I had a pair of friends who are twins and they were infatuated with the ancient Earth, and they pulled me in further. I have gone through a course where I had done research on Evolution and the timeline of the dinosaurs...

I have read material about Evolution. I will agree, though, that there is always room to listen to new ideas, and accept new thoughts, but I thought that reading things from the Creationist point of view was something I should try (I used to be one of those who put God as the one who started the big bang then sat back and watched...). I have only been researching the Creationist stand point for about 10 months in comparison to the rest of my life on Evolution. I am having a hard time cutting the crap away from the true scientfic findings, but I am also finding that there are some out there that could be true. When stuff like that is found, then there should be more investigation, not cover ups.

Okay, enough of that rant. Thanks WM, and I do agree on the statistics partially. I have been taking a course in Statistics and Probablilities, and those intrigue me. But, I know, more than many others, the chances that they are flawed some how. I am paranoid about people who use stats and just rely on them to prove a point. Stats aren't used that way. They are used to suggest. And with the suggestion that it is mathematically impossible that life arose on Earth spontaneously, I perk my ears. I will not accept that as a fact, but I will accept it as a possibility.

BTW, DL, you do know that Evolution taken without ID is atheistic, right? You do know that theists go to the same schools that your children go to, right? So do you think they feel any less strongly about the opposing argument than you do? Do you think that they will fight less than you to have their children the education that they want their children to have? What is the compromise, then?

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

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Anyone can be persuasive to someone who already wants to believe what they have
to say...

---

Looking back I paid more attention to this part of your post DL, and you do know that it doesn't only apply to me, right?

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

quote:

---

BTW, DL, you do know that Evolution taken without ID is atheistic, right?

---

Science class does nto exist to promote any religious view.

It does not exist to counter any religious view.

It exists to teach science, seperate from any concept of religion.

In that sense, it is a-theistic, in that it does not address the issue of god or gods.
It is not atheistic in the sense that it denies the existence of god or gods.

It is not a matter of the education I want my child to have.

It is a matter of the education that the public school system is obligated to provide - and that is one that does not endorse any religion, and does not promote religious philosophy and mythology as science.

There is nothing to comprimise.

quote:

---

you do know that it doesn't only apply to me, right?

---

Obviously.
But it applies very strongly to you.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

and that is one that does not endorse any religion, and does not promote
religious philosophy and mythology as science.

---

Is Atheism not a philosophy, then? Wouldn't making an agnostic compromise be the better of the two, so that neither has the upper hand, and neither can complain?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

But it applies very strongly to you.

---

Et tu, amicitiam.
[I think that word is correct, my Latin needs some work...]

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

I have been reading this thread very closely and currently I am absolutly speechless....I don't know how many times people, especially DL and Webs tried to spoon feed Gideon pretty much on any subject that has been covered here... but with every new replay Gideon comes up with, will surely lead me to blow my nuts off with the shotgun....it's actually becoming more and more painful to read anything he writes....

To Gid:

Please, go back and re-read what DL has stated....

quote:

---

Science class does nto exist to promote any religious view.

It does not exist to counter any religious view.

It exists to teach science, seperate from any concept of religion.

In that sense, it is a-theistic, in that it does not address the issue of god or gods.
It is not atheistic in the sense that it denies the existence of god or gods.

---

I remember some time ago, DL has explained to you the definition of "a-theism"

try to remember....(in the meantime am going to search for it)

----

the sad part is, I feel that so much time and effort has been wasted on Gideon, this leads me to believel that he is incapable or not interested(regardless of how much he pretends to) open his eyes and see the obvious.

I believe he comes here to argue topics in order to make himself feel better about his beliefs. I noticed that Gideon never really keeps up with the subject but really really tried to avoid them and brings up irrelevant discussions....as if he has his mind made up and no matter what you say or present to him, it will be deflected.

I dont know what else to say....it's all been said so many times, yet the nature of Gid is that to forget...so it must be repeated every morning....

My best advice is, do not guide the traveler if he is not going anywhere.

quote:

---

Is Atheism not a philosophy, then? Wouldn't making an agnostic compromise be the better of the two, so that neither has the upper hand, and neither can complain?

---

An 'agnostic compromise'??
what the hell are you talking about?

Nobody has any upperhand.

Evolution happens. We know this, and we can explain it in scientific terms.

"intelligent design" is a concept that has nothing to do with the science of evolution, and has no bearing on the science of evolution.

Inserting god into the equation (or attempting to prove that the process is free of god) is well outside the scope of science class.

What is it that you fail to understand here?

The sense in which all of our scientific principles are atheistic is in it's complete seperation from the concept of deities. It is not atheistic in any philosophical sense.

Atheism itself is not a philosophy, no.

Let's attempt to put this in better perspective for you Gid - how would you feel if you had a child in public school, and that school decided that it needed to start teaching the "real" truth, in accordance with the teaching of our great greek prophets, and let the science classes teach our children not about evolution, but about the role the Titans played in the creation of man? Rather than physics, we'll learn about how pleasing the gods can gain you favor by which you might earn a nice pair of winged sandals to fly around in. Instead of astronomy, we'll learn to appreciate the hard work of appollo, towing the sun across the sky every day.

How would that work for you? Would you support that alteration to our public schools? After all, it *would* please Zeus - the very king of the gods himself!

I consider him a prime example of fanatic belief.

This is the type of mentality that we are having to deal with in America on a number of subjects and among radical groups of fervent believers (like certain terrorist groups).

They beleive that they are right, and that a higher power is giving them that right to believe so. They believe that they are "helping" us lost sheep with what they are trying to do and furthermore, that a higher power has blessed their actions and is pressing them to do more.

Thus, they ignore all logic, all reason, all historic presidences, that are contrary to their belief.

These threads have served to prove this.

This quote says it all

quote:

---

Wouldn't making an agnostic compromise be the better of the two, so that neither has the upper hand, and neither can complain?

---

Obviously, Evolution says absolutely nothing about a creator, or god. It merely explains a process of life. Obviously Gid doesn't want to accept this (after all, we have spend threads ad infinitum attempting to teach him this).

It is because Gid believes in a Young Earth, and Evolution (and the rest of Science, for that matter) without a reasonable doubt proves that the earth is not young. To acknowledge this, Gid will have to either change or lose his faith.

So instead, he blocks it out.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-06-2005 07:44)

Typical fanatical, fundamentalist religious attitude;

quote:

---

Wouldn't making an agnostic compromise be the better of the two

---

The operative word being 'make'.

Force the religious POV upon all those who dare to differ.

Crusades anyone? Hey, where's my stake and dunking stool? We're off top Salem for the annual witch burning, bring you bibles.

Atheism, my version of it anyway, does not deny the existance of gods. One does not deny that which does not exist.

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

For some wonderful reason, the scene from Airplane just popped into my head where all the passengers are lined up, some with crowbars, trying to snap the inconsolable woman out of her hysteria.

You've hit it right on the head, Ruski. That's why I don't post responses to his posts much anymore. Just a waste of time!

quote:

---

For some wonderful reason, the scene from Airplane just popped into my head where all the passengers are lined up, some with crowbars, trying to snap the inconsolable woman out of her hysteria.

---

Oh! Can I be the guy with the boxing gloves?

Pass that crowbar, first ya got to get his attention!

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

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Inserting god into the equation (or attempting to prove that the process is free
of god) is well outside the scope of science class.

---

But proving that He is not in the equation is outside of the whole scope of Science, too, isn't it? I think we have said that before. That is why I would like to stand by my previous assertion. Science classes should not say that there is a God, true, but they should not say with certainty that there isn't.

Thus a compromise, where they confess of the possibility, but do not elaborate. Such as the case with the comparatively OE. They should say that the evidence they have complied points to an OE. But as a few have asserted before in Asylum, science is full of uncertainty.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Force the religious POV upon all those who dare to differ.

---

No E-man, force them to accept that some believe that way. Found anything on Lucretious yet?

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

quote:

---

But proving that He is not in the equation is outside of the whole scope of Science, too, isn't it?

---

you fucking idiot...Read what everything has been said to you over again and again until you "get it"

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH! For fuckers sake Gideon, why are you so stupid? Why drag everyone for a ride about the same and same thing that has been covered! Why???


We have said many and many times over and over again...The concept of Diety/Gods/God do not belong in science curiculum, the END!

no discussions about Gods in Science class!

Go to philosophy/literature/theology...


why dont you ever listen/read/take into concideration whats been said to you? shizz....

^ exactly. And this has been said over and over, and in fact teh quote you pulled from me says explicitly that proving that god is not part of the process is outside the scop of science class.

So the only question is this: are you really this ignorant? Or do you simply enjoy being a troll?

It is obviously one of the two, if not both.

God should not be a part of science class at all.

No "comprimise" is necessary because no matter how you look at it, god is not a matter of science.

So again the answer is "absolutely not!"

{{edit - and as for your 'statsitcal' approach, this says all that neds to be said about it:
http://www.eskimo.com/~spban/bread.html
as summed up in #12 =)




(Edited by DL-44 on 05-10-2005 18:33)

quote:

---

you fucking idiot...Read what everything has been said to you over again and again until you "get it"

---

Priceless. Simply priceless.

I'm saving this quote, Ruski. I hope you don't mind

quote:

---

So the only question is this: are you really this ignorant? Or do you simply enjoy being a troll?

It is obviously one of the two, if not both.

---

You know, I remember the days when Yannah was "terrorising" the forum. At least she had the excuse of not speaking or understanding english very well back then.

Unfortunately for Gid, he has no such excuse. And if he is being a Troll, then either he is a fucking genius, and is TwItch^ in disguise (which would be the joke of the century ), or he is the stupidest troll ever to attempt trolling.

Facit :

Gid is just ignorant, and perhaps the most ignorant Asylum member we have ever had.

I mean, just look at this "logic" - first he quotes DL with this

quote:

---

Inserting god into the equation (or attempting to prove that the process is free
of god) is well outside the scope of science class.

---

and then goes on to say

quote:

---

Science classes should not say that there is a God, true, but they should not say with certainty that there isn't.

---

Which is the same thing, really, since Science class makes no attempt to even try to answer the god question and therefore, does not say there is a god, or isn't. In fact, nothing is said about god one way or another.

I mean, no troll could be ignorant enough to attempt to troll in such an inane manner, right?

Or maybe Gid thinks that Science class says that there is no god with a certainty?

That is new. Maybe you can be more specific here, Gid. What do you think in Science class is saying that there is no god with certainty?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Gid:

Try this on for size.

In a science class you might learn 'why & how water boils.'(Much condensed of course) You need water, a vessel to contain the water. An energy source to first, heat the vessel...which in turn heats the water. When the water reaches a certain temperature the H2o molecules start dancing about producing the 'bubbles.'

A science class/teacher presents the 'details' of why & how water boils.

Now if you want to insert the 'god-factor' you start with 'in the beginning'... explaining the creationists theory on how water was 'created'...and all other components/materials required to conduct that little experiment.

That sort of 'instruction' & 'attribution' belongs in philosophy/theology classes NOT in a science class.

The existance or non, of a god, plays no part in explaining the pain associated with sticking your hand in boiling water. Just like you don't need a god to explain in detail just why chocolate ice cream tastes so damn good. Well to some of us anyway) =)

Science is all about.... 'mmmm that tastes good.... Fuck... that hurt!'

Now if you want to find out just how god does all that.... pick up your books go across the hall to Theology/Philosophy. Take the boiling water with you.... leave me the ice cream please, I have 'experimenting' to do.

Whis is it so hard for some Christians to believe that God created the earth, and that through life, evolution has been hapening and is also true? Why do Christians have to be so one-sided about everything? Does it say in the bible somewhere that evolution is not true? To quote Darwin: at the beginning of his paper that everyone now quotes as some evolution vs creation thing...

quote:

---

Darwin Letters - "He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God; but that you must remember that different persons have different definitions of what they mean by God."

---

Darwin, like a lot of people, was not sure whether or not there was a God, but he did not try to, or did not intend this idea to be in conflict with God.

Well,,
Can't really finish..
Have to go...
Super Busy...

----| Asylum Quotes

Gilbert to answear your question....


think of it this way...you believe in salvation of mankind through Jesus simply because there was a damnation of mankind in first place...and that exactly what Genesis is about...remove the literal interpretation...accept the evolution and you have no damnation of any sort (eden/paradise was supposedly on earth), just a biological development of mammal whose brain developed faster than anyones else and came to self awarness....

So yes even for me people who accept contemporary ideas on evolution/humantities and natural history...I am still puzzled what kind of "sin" are they trying to be saved from? As far as I am concerned....there is no such a thing since survival is a race and everything has it's cost.

So it's not just fitting in the grand designer of the universe...it's actually corrupting the core beliefs itself....

and that is why it's such a threat to them....


P.S. sorry for crappy spelling and composition.

Sorry about that DL. There was no excuse for missing that. I was so stupid. Again, my apologies. Thank you for catching it. I guess I didn't catch that because I was going so fast. Again, I am sorry.

You are correct NoJive. In that kind of instance, God would not really come in a factor for public schools. Unfortunately, that was not the kind of science I am peeved about. I am peeved when it is accepted as fact that the age of the Earth is millions of years. That is something disputed, and I am disturbed that classes don't even teach that there might be evidence other wise. I understand that God should not be forced upon younger children, but He should not be abdicated, either.

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

Holy fucking shit!!!

quote:

---

I am peeved when it is accepted as fact that the age of the Earth is millions of years. That is something disputed, and I am disturbed that classes don't even teach that there might be evidence other wise.

---

This is just not true. It is not disputed, it is a FACT. Just because you and a small band of religious nuts cannot accept it, does not disprove it.

It is taught in school, because it is a FACT. That is why it is taught. Not because it is "disputed" but becasue it is a fact. Schools don't teach that there might be something else. That has absolutley no fucking value, whatsoever.

We have proven this on this forum alone over, and over, and over again. You have lost every single time. Lost. Every single time.

WM, he's all yours.

Gideon:

quote:

---

I am peeved when it is accepted as fact that the age of the Earth is millions of years. That is something disputed, and I am disturbed that classes don't even teach that there might be evidence other wise.

---

Again gideon, we cannot teach every view point that exists.

We are talking about teaching SCIENCE.

There is no credible scientific evidence for any young earth view - none at all. Yes, there are people who feel otherwise.

It is 'disputed' by deluded religious nuts, and nobody else.

There are also people who still beleive the earth is flat (yeah...they're out there....), that the mothership is coming back to pick us up on its next trip through the galaxy, that Charles Manson is the messiah, that the Holocaust never happened, etc.

We cannot teach such wing-nut postulations in science class. And a 'young earth' theory is exactly that.

I agree, DL, that we cannot teach all the view points in science. I am just a little disturbed at what view points were chosen to be discussed.

Hey WS, you say that there is no evidence for a young Earth, none at all, correct? Has science ever been wrong because it had too little information? I am just saying that there is a possibility of it out there.

Even if a few people decide it is "religious," and only for "nuts," some of those "nuts'" sons and daughters are sharing the same schooling as yours. You have claimed over and over that you do not want your children to have religion down thier throats, well guess what? Many of these religious "nuts" don't want their children to have the point of view that there is no God shoved down thier throats. So what is the solution? Do you want the very thing you hate, the destruction of freedom of choice and decisions, to be destroyed in schools? Do you want others to have your opinion forced upon them? If you do, then you are no better than the image you have of those "fundy" Christians.

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

(Edited by Gideon on 05-12-2005 16:13)

Never is "there no god" shoved down anyones throat.

And I do not worry about this. Were I to want my children to get a religious education I can send them to a relgious school. There are many of these. If I want my children to get a religious education I can send them to a church. You do know that their are churches in almost every city, you do know that their are religious schools in almost every city.

On a further note, this has been said before and you seem to continue to ignore it.

Are you attempting to be obtuse on purpose?

<edit>I just wanted to be honest and point out that I almost did melt down at this previous post. I took about 10 deep breaths, inhale, exhale. Erased everything I had written and tried again. I was close, but I don't think it would have been as exciting as predicted.</edit>

Dan @ Code Town

(Edited by WarMage on 05-12-2005 17:10)