Firstly, you do realise that ID is a form of 'creationism' right? Secondly, public schools should not be teaching religious dogma, such as that of ID. Thirdly, when one has to take a school board to court to teach evolution in a public school, you know something is seriously wrong. You know what is scary? This: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Source Another scary thing? Evolutionary biology is mysteriously missing from the list of undergraduate subjects eligible for a US federal grant. Source Apparently that was a "mistake". Strange though, eh? I would suggest you look up the name Chris Comer, who was forced to resign before she was fired for being critical of ID being taught in public schools in Texas. Comer was the State's Director of the Science Curriculum. The Texas Education Agency had recommended that she be fired for an email, which promoted a lecture which was critical of ID. Former science director Chris Comer says she resigned from the Texas Education Agency to avoid being fired after officials told her she had improperly endorsed evolution. She had forwarded an e-mail announcing a speech by a prominent scholar on evolution, which the state requires schools to teach. "For all the years I was there, I would always say the teaching of evolution is part of our science curriculum. It's not just a good idea; it's the law," Ms. Comer said last week during an interview in her Leander home. "We have teachers afraid to teach it, parents who don't want it taught and parents who do want it taught. It comes from all different angles." -------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 26, Ms. Comer received an e-mail from the National Center for Science Education announcing a speech in Austin by Barbara Forrest, an author and scholar who has criticized the intelligent design movement for undermining science education. Dr. Forrest also testified in a prominent federal district court case in Pennsylvania in 2005 that resulted in a ruling that struck down the Dover school district's policy of introducing intelligent design in the classroom as unconstitutional. Ms. Comer forwarded the message to some science teachers and professors with a short message: "FYI." An hour later, Ms. Comer says, a TEA official came to her office and showed her an e-mail from Lizzette Reynolds, another official in the agency, who said the FYI e-mail was worthy of termination or reassignment because it implied that TEA supported the speaker. Ms. Reynolds came to the TEA to run the agency's educational initiatives after working with the Bush administration. Ms. Comer said she doesn't know who forwarded the e-mail to Ms. Reynolds. Ms. Comer said she quickly sent out another e-mail stressing that her original message didn't express the views of the TEA. After spending the next week out of the office, Ms. Comer said, she returned to hear that she had one day to resign or she would be fired. Source Lizzette Reynolds was a former deputy legislative director during George W. Bush's term as governor, and she also worked in the U.S. Department of Education.
Well, the Creationists or other nutters appear to be here. Firstly, ID is creationism. This was accepted in the Dover trial by a federal judge, after a certain historian of science laid out the steps from Creationism to INtelligent Design, and how the people who came up with ID were trying to get around the non-estabslishment thingy in the US. You only have to go to ID websites to find that yes, ID'ers are religious believers looking for ways of pretending they have scientific backing for believing god created everything, especially humans. As for woods hole, the guy had decided he didn't want to do the work: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/slackjawed_creationist_surpris.php
Bells, that graph was astoundingly scary. I actually didn't know undergrad boursaries in evolutionary biology weren't available in the US (did my thesis stuff in a different nation, actually). Myles, calm yourself down. I called you on your chip, because you basically freaked out on me because I have the temerity to disagree with you. I'm sorry if that further offends you, but there it is. Think about it. You strike me very strongly as a kid a bit embittered about his perceived notions of truth and atheism. Why would I bother with debating you until you've matured a bit more? You call my beliefs "ignorance" and accuse me of deception, without taking a moment to post Spinoza's position; I am quite aware of his philosophy and am - or was, anyway - waiting patiently for you to bring it up; in fairness to my side, why don't you present Spinoza's case, then, since you have such strong feelings on the issue? Put your money where your mouth is on Spinoza, since you feel so keenly that NOMA can be trampled by it. I assume you have heard of NOMA, of course. Personally, I am not entirely interested in the philosophy of deism per se, and it would be ludicrous to start posting reams of philosophical arguments for one side and then the other - ad nauseam. I am merely pointing out - as I have been - that NOMA is a more acceptable interpretation of the system. If you feel I haven't had anything "sognificant" to say so far then, really, you haven't been listening. Sorry. Best, Geoff
Copied from an entity called "raven" who posts on Pharyngula and Pandas thumb. Now, I recall reading about many of these when they happened, and have no reason to doubt the summary.
When there was the possibilty of avian flu jumping to humans, Bush asked scientists to develop a vaccine. I'm not aware that there was an outcry from Creationists that it would be a waste of money because god had not created such a virus. The real reason for their silence is their frightening ignorance of what evolution is all about. I say frightening because such ignoramuses can elect others of their ilk to high office.
Some are but you are getting confused by the term 'Creationism'. Intelligent Design as it pertains to the development of an ecosystem on a planet can mean may things. You cannot limit exploration and learning just because of a word, thats just not a wise thing to do.
John- this is precisely how science works. By limiting the use of words to specifics, you avoid liars, charlatans and others misusing them to make money from people. INteligent design theory says nothing about the development of ecosystems. In fact it says nothing about the development of life. Well, I am being a bit harsh. Make that says nothing with any real world import.
John, how would ID be "proven", within a 5% confidence interval, by anything we might do in evolutionary biology? Investigation is all well and good, but what is our range of predicted outcomes? If guided evolution is just really that much more likely than naturalistic evolution, how is one to separate out such influence from the concurrent effects of natural selection (letting alone correlated selection), drift and sheer bloody-minded stochasticity? Isn't it written that "you shall not put your God to the test"? Why are you now leaping at the same barrier that supports our mutual tolerance?
I take it your thesis was on sophistry. Look at your record. You refer to Spinoza and Einstein to support a claim. In rational debate this puts the onus on you to explain in what sense they support your argument. . You have failed to do so and resorted to veiled invective instead; that's a sure sign of a loser, as you will know if you have ever taken part in a formal debate. You then try to get off the hook by asking me to qoteSpinoza. Another no. no. Next you argue that philosophy falls on both sides of the question. I ask you to put forward an argument that supports the esxistence of a god, telling you that I will refute it. Instead of taking the opportunity to show me the error of my ways, you sidestep the issue by saying you are not really interested. More bullshit ! You again resort to an ad hom, hoping to get off the hook. Well, you clearly have nothing to offer other than bluster and bullshit, so you are unworthy of further attention.
ID does not negate evolution and it is much more intelligent to explore all possibilities than just accepting things that are basically unanswered.
Ah, you are overlooking the fact that kidneys have stones, not rocks Well done, by the way, for seeing off that idiot who denied global warming. You may be interested to know that an examintion of solar energy variations has shown that there is no correlation between solar activity and global warming. I may be wrong but I think it was puiblished by scientists at the university of Sheffield. Another nail in the coffin if those who claim that our actions do not affecr global warming/ Myles
I stand corrected. I confused evolutionary theory, which does not address abiogenesis, with well known philosophical arguments for and agains a deity. Thanks for drawing my attention to my error/
:yawn: Cover up quickly now. Your educational deficits are showing. You could claim they were spandrels, of course, but only if you'd won. Why not? If he doesn't support the notion of a "carpetbagger God" - and I can tell you that he doesn't in fact - why not simply drag out his statement and display it proudly on your dialectical mantlepiece? This is what I was hoping you would...eventually...come round to. But you refused to comment further. Why are you so afraid to do so? It's astounding that one person makes so much out of a minor point; or not so astounding, if it's integral dislike for the other person's philosophy motivating the game. It does. There are philosophical arguments both for and against God. I was stating the fact of their existence; I cannot believe for a moment that you were actually unaware there were such arguments, but I for one am generally uninterested in them. You find this a difficult position? How, exactly? Rather, you refused to present Spinoza and accused me of deception when I called you on pointless name-dropping. If you can't get around to describing Spinoza in a sentence or two (see above) then I have no hope you'll go any further. Your accusation also relates to your next point, BTW: It is a schoolyard tactic to point fingers and claim "he started it", but unfortunately you did. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please review your first response to me. I'll give you full measure of your respect of me, I can assure you: ask iceaura, if you care to learn anything. And thus, exeunt, fleeing Dawkinsian. Your opposition appears motivated more by your biases than your reason, or so one hopes. Best regards, Geoff
Ahh, you mean ID is unsanswered. Yes, thats right. ID Creationists have not answered any questions in any way.
I'm going to repeat my point because, as all my other points, it is of such incredible importance as to bear repeating: The global notion of ID relies on predicability of the parameters it measures over wide, wide evolutionary scales. I can only guess at the kind of massively wide true confidence intervals involved - and so can Michael Behe. The complexity of the evolutionary forces - selection, drift, mutation, recombination - to say nothing of the massive levels of completely unknown complexity in sheer stochasticity (or a derivative of drift anyway) not only among taxons, but within taxons and within and between populations within taxons, presents him with a hopeless task and an impossible estimate. The prediction of previous forms from extant ones is, by comparison, a simple one; but to assume so precise a mechanistic understanding of the evolutionary process at this point (!) as to pretend that, somehow, the partitioned residuals of predictive factors can be construed into "God" is to defy not only the very level of human knowledge regarding these processes - which is clearly incomplete! - but to pretend to our capacity to quantify the error variance itself; to describe the structure of that which we do not know! Now, some scientists are working with residuals in regression within families and the like, but this is nothing like deciding that things are "just too odd to be possible" and throwing up our hands in the air; and then using that decision to claim God. Such is my opinion.
