GeoffP- actually, the global notion of ID relies upon lots of dupes and fundies who will accept what they are told. Like Creationism in fact. Fortunately ID is already on the way out as a Creationist tactic, and here in the UK our home grown ones are still heavy on the Creationist lies.
Agreed. I've never understood Biblical - or any other - religious literalism. There's enough room for everyone without taking things at face value. I was shocked at the poll about creationism in the UK recently. For my sanity, I just pretend that it's a lie.
Interesting question. Let's see, any of the following processes define something as alive: Metabolism. The deities of the ancient pantheon ate but we have no accounts of the Abrahamic god eating, breathing or excreting. Reproduction. Hmm. The ancient gods were prolific and had entire family trees, but the Abrahamists are split on this one. The Jews and Muslims say no, the Christians say yes. Let's see if we can find something on which they agree. Feeding on negative entropy. In other words, increasing its own complexity at the expense of its environment. It could be reasoned that the ability to create artifacts is an extension of this since the artifact is an extension of the organism, and this is an ability of the more intelligent tool-building animals like humans. However, the Abrahamists believe that their god creates things out of nothingness without disturbing the complexity of his surroundings, so this process doesn't give us a very strong argument. Keep looking, Responding to stimuli. BINGO! Boy does that god ever respond to stimuli, especially in the Old Testament before he took those anger management classes. Tick him off and he'll turn you into salt, send your tribe off into bondage, or maybe on a really bad day flood your entire planet. Q.E.D. God is a living thing. Excuse me if I'm not terribly bothered by what theologians think. In any case it's a rather sophistic argument since it does not resolve the ultimate question, "So where did god come from, daddy?" Well finally they're cozying up to cosmology. I've always said that the science of physics is merging with mathematics, which is about pure logic and abstractions and therefore not a science, and even starting to blur with philosophy. Perhaps it will ultimately encompass theology too, in the Grand Unified Theory of Everything that is the holy grail of cosmology. A good case can be made for the thesis that the universe has always existed. Especially if you graph time my way, on a log scale, so it has an unreachable Absolute Zero just like temperature, perhaps a point of zero entropy. So I can't criticize someone who says a god always existed. Except for the fact that we know an awful lot about the early universe, a few femtoseconds to the right of Absolute Zero, and it defies credulity to hypothesize the existence of any living thing under those conditions. Still that does not falsify the hypothesis but merely renders it extraordinary, placing the burden on its proponents to provide the extraordinary evidence that would obligate us to take it seriously. This is probably where the debate will stall for a while. We can't disprove their hypothesis of a god that has always been part of the universe, but it's such a wacky hypothesis that it's up to them to do all the work necessary to make it more respectable. Meanwhile we'll continue furiously trying to unlock the secrets of abiogenesis. It would sure be helpful if we had the perspective of completely unrelated life on another planet, but because of pesky relativity it will be decades if not centuries or longer before any of us travels far enough to hope to find it.
Bells, And exactly what does that have to do with your bullshit statement "Many schools around the world Geoff, including the US. The founder of FSM started his 'religion' after a school teacher was fired for refusing to bow down to pressure and teach creationism instead of evolution." No teacher in the US has been fired for refusing to teach evolution instead of creationism. Agreed, only schools funded by religion should have the option of teaching ID alongside evolution. Another bullshit statement. The authority to teach evolution in the schools was never challenged. All schools in the US teach evolution. The court challenges were whether ID could be considered as an 'alternative' view to be presented in the classroom along with evolution. In the US, the Supreme court has ruled long ago that the teaching of creationism as science in public schools was unconstitutional. The teaching of ID as science has been ruled as unconstitutional by the lower courts. I don't think the movement for ID ever made it to the Supreme Court. In short, evolution is taught in every public school in the US and ID is taught in none.
Shouldn't you have qualified that with: "except for the ones that don't, because they deny Evolution, and have a religious doctrine to protect"...? Like certain southern states, where some schools don't mention the word at all, or that guy's name (Darwin). Or they teach a standard version of the theory but don't mention that humans are evolved too; or they teach it in a manner designed to show young minds how "wrong" it is, and how there must be another explanation? Like those "religious state" schools do.
Right. Because I say ID is creationism, I am stuck in the 1800's? Tell me John, the paling digging into anywhere uncomfortable from that fence you're sitting on? ID works off the basis that God or some higher entity started it all and then guided 'evolution' to what we are today. Hence the term, Intelligent Design. Actually no. The courts in many instances have left it wide open. Therefore, school districts can teach both or one or the other. It is only the moderates on the school boards who are able to ensure evolution is still taught in many of these schools. For example, the state of Louisiana is passing (or has passed a bill), which is called the Louisiana Academic Freedom Act, would allow teachers in public schools to teach both creationism and ID as well as pure creationism.(Source) "In June 2007, Texas governor Rick Perry (R) signed into law legislation that changes the process by which the state adopts textbooks and supplemental instructional materials. In short, the law makes it easier for the state to introduce alternatives to accepted science into the curriculum. Also capturing the attention of scientists and educators is the new chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, Don McLeroy. Appointed by Governor Perry, McLeroy—a Republican who served on the board before his appointment as chairman—voted against the state's current biology textbook because it fails to discuss the weaknesses of evolution. "Chairman McLeroy is an admitted young-earth creationist and supporter of intelligent design creationism," says Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education. "Although he seems to have received the memo from the Discovery Institute about not openly advocating for intelligent design to be taught in the schools, and instead to argue...'teach the controversy'...he is in a more powerful position now than in 2003, when he and his allies on the board almost succeeded in watering down the coverage of evolution," Scott said. Education, science, and religious liberty advocates in Texas worry that political pressure from the governor's office or his political appointees will be brought to bear, particularly as the state considers its next textbooks and revisits Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science, the state-mandated curriculum guidelines." Source Some schools label science books that teach evolution as being an unfounded theory. Christian schools have taken to the such stickers or notes in books with zeal: "Biology for Christian Schools, for example, declares on its first page, "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them," and "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible.".." Source Fun huh? I was certain I had heard and read somewhere that a teacher was dismissed for refusing to teach ID and creationism. Can't find the link at the moment, so I retract that statement. I'll look into it further when I get the chance.
At least in one landmark court case, a judge regarded ID as having developed out of creationism. The Wikipedia summary of the case in its article "Intelligent Design": This would make ID and creationism two somewhat different things.
ID is creationism wrapped in a fairly shoddy cloak of pseudoscientific pretense designed to give legitimacy to the obviously (even to most fundies) childishly incorrect picture creationism presents. It's an embarrassment.
We've far from made certain that there is not life on another of the planets or moons in our solar system. I'll chalk that up to a simple oversight, since you're not generally a pessimist.
Good point. I'm just pissed that I'll probably be dead long before they ever get around to sending an ice-drilling/melting probe to Europa or some other likely place. I'd settle for fossil microbes on Mars though...
Bells, Again, Bullshit, Bells. No school districts have the option to not teach evolution. The moderates on school boards may object to ID being taught along side evolution, but their objections are just statements of personel opinion. By US law, evolution must be taught in all public and accredited private schools. I am not sure if parents that home-school their children are required to teach them evolution if they are not accredited. Do you ever read what you link to, Bells? Aren't you supposed to have some knowledge in law? The bill was introduced in the US senate, not in the state of Lousiana. The bill has not "passed" and is not "passing". Many nutty bills are introduced in the senate, usually to just pacify some large contributor to the introducing Senator's election campaign. They are not taken seriously by the senate. Even if they were passed, the US Supreme Court has the final say whether the bills are constitutional or not. District school boards have no say in whether evolution is taught in their districts or not. No, your quote was from one so-called 'Christian' textbook, one that has not been approved for use in any Christian school, let alone any public school. It is not a disclaimer sticker to be placed in standard science textbooks.
Honestly Bells sometimes i have a hard time understanding Australian slang. If you want to limit yourself to what was taught to you in the seventh grade then go right ahead. Evolution is not hard to understand at all so the excuses about not understanding is just a cop out and an insult to anyone possessing even average intelligence and frankly that will longer fly. We need to come to terms with certain aspects and when i refer to ID i am not only referring to life on this planet or even organic life itself, and why should I? Furthermore, i really have no interest in what a judge believes on this subject and again why should I? That represents a segment of people who believe ID. I dont discount anything and that includes what 'fundies' may believe. Is it what i personally believe or maintain to be absolute fact. Not really but what i believe is not really important, what is important is finding out the truth or getting just a little closer because who knows what we may discover. We, as a civilization, are making a big mistake to limit these discussions to a few words or catch phrases. Examples: Evolution Creation Supernatural Nature Science Take a look at the link below. If anyone agrees with that then you are limiting yourself. The term Supernatural should have been left where it belonged and that is in the distant past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design All supernatura\extranatural means is what we do not understand. This is not beyond nature it is just that we dont understand it or cannot explain it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural If someone cannot see the possibility of design or purpose right here on Earth then there really isnt much more to say. I am not saying by whom or what but at least i have the courage to admit this and it is high time that others do to. Because if you want to debate me and tell me that you know with 100% certainty that life began and developed with the limitations i see being imposed then i believe that you will lose or the outcome would be inconclusive. The reason is because i am presenting you with an impossibility. It is just that simple.
Its sad now stubborn people can be when taking things word for word. We must move our understanding with time. Like how animals adapt to their surroundings, we must also move on with our thought. ------ http://wikichem.net
Florida only just changed the law to require their schools to teach evolution. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/u...baad0c160280c2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Whoops! Small error; corrective text in bold. Sorry. Obviously we can assign percentages to "error"; quantifying them on such large scale is a different story.
I didn't even know people were still having this evolution vs creationism being taught in schools debate. I don't think they talk about it much where I am. Even the christians here believe in evolution to an extent. I should read up on what other parts of the country are doing more often.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle i guess most here are aware of this, still worth pointing out. Lets get down to brass tacks:
I have to admit I had the same experience. I recall one guy speaking up about creation in class about it when I was about 11; "well, what about God and the Bible?" he asked. The entire class rained abuse on him and he promptly shut up. I've never seen it being taught myself; but then again I haven't lived everywhere.
