Creationism strikes back
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
Baron Max said:
Let me guess...Supergod created god...
Baron Max said:
Religious nuts can claim whatever they want to claim. The quesiton here is if it is scientific as they claim it is.
As I showed you ID isn't a scientific theory.
I keep repeating myself baron...
spuriousmonkey said:
Ahh, Spurious, I don't believe that ID advocates are even making the claim that ID is "scientific" ....in fact, I believe that they go so far as to say that it is NOT. They also are not planning to teach ID as a science, but as only an answer to what science can not answer.
Ye're right, Spurious, ID is NOT a scientific theory, nor was it ever touted as such!
But lest we forget, it wasn't so many years ago that science claimed that salt intake caused high blood pressure. And a few years ago, science claimed to have evidence that salt did NOT cause high blood pressure!
A few years ago, science claimed that coffee caused hyper-tension and other similar things. Then just recently, science has shown that coffee is, in fact, good for us!
But remember, ID advocates are not, NOT touting ID as a science ....AND... they are not planning to teach ID in that way. ID is simply a theoretical view of how "it" all began .....which science does not answer.
And I still keep wondering why anyone should care what Kansas wants to teach it's children? They voted for it, overwhelmingly, so why are y'all so bent on forcing them not to teach it?
Baron Max
Why then want to teach it as an alternative to a scientific theory?
I'm not stupid you know.
(So, i think you just lied actually)
I'm not stupid you know.
(So, i think you just lied actually)
spuriousmonkey said:
It's my understanding that they are NOT teaching it as an alternative!!! Where did you get that info? And if it's correct, then I'm going to swing over to the other side!!!!!!!!!
As I understand it, they're wanting to teach the creation as an answer to the problem of science NOT having an answer for "Where did it all begin?".
Spurious, I've never ever accused you of being stupid. Misinformed, perhaps, or having a piss-poor opinon, but never stupid!
But, seriously, does anyone actually know, for sure, exactly how Kansas schools are planning to teach ID? What are the parameters for the classes? How will they tie it into the normal science classes? I don't know, and haven't been able to find out.
Baron Max
No response to my post then, Baron?
Not surprised.
Don't know why I even took the time to write it. I knew you'd simply ignore it.
The key issue is that the idea that life is intelligently designed is untestable and therefore not scientific. It's mythos.
Anyway.
Was reading in last week's science that what is going on is that NAS (National Academy of Science) and NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) has blocked the move from going forward for the time being. The same thing happened in 99 the first time around, and before the school board was able to get around the block, they were voted out. (It seems that the voters in Kansas do have something to say about the issue, Baron. Imagine that.) The various associations are hoping that the same thing will happen this time. Elections are next year. Once this goes into effect, it will be much more difficult to eradicate.
What happened is this. In drafting educational standards, state school boards basically copy what is said in various publications by the above organizations (NAS's National Science Education Standards and NSES's Pathways to Science Standards). Kansas is no exception. They did so in the case of evolution but they sprinkled in little goodies such as: "in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution." And: "[The student] understands methods used to test hypotheses about the cause of a remote past event (historical hypothesis) that cannot be confirmed by experiment.)
The organizations bring up copyright issues and therefore the Kansas school board has to rewrite the entire 123 page paper from scratch. They're trying to say they'll have it done by December. Most think it'll take longer. The organizations are hoping that it takes long enough for elections to get rid of these monkeys like last time.
Not surprised.
Don't know why I even took the time to write it. I knew you'd simply ignore it.
The key issue is that the idea that life is intelligently designed is untestable and therefore not scientific. It's mythos.
Anyway.
Was reading in last week's science that what is going on is that NAS (National Academy of Science) and NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) has blocked the move from going forward for the time being. The same thing happened in 99 the first time around, and before the school board was able to get around the block, they were voted out. (It seems that the voters in Kansas do have something to say about the issue, Baron. Imagine that.) The various associations are hoping that the same thing will happen this time. Elections are next year. Once this goes into effect, it will be much more difficult to eradicate.
What happened is this. In drafting educational standards, state school boards basically copy what is said in various publications by the above organizations (NAS's National Science Education Standards and NSES's Pathways to Science Standards). Kansas is no exception. They did so in the case of evolution but they sprinkled in little goodies such as: "in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution." And: "[The student] understands methods used to test hypotheses about the cause of a remote past event (historical hypothesis) that cannot be confirmed by experiment.)
The organizations bring up copyright issues and therefore the Kansas school board has to rewrite the entire 123 page paper from scratch. They're trying to say they'll have it done by December. Most think it'll take longer. The organizations are hoping that it takes long enough for elections to get rid of these monkeys like last time.
Baron Max said:
Once again: ID doesn't explain where it all began either.
Ooops.
When I posted I totally missed this last page.
I also missed that the Baron did actually respond to some tiny portion of my post.
So. I've a couple more things to say then.
Hmm.
Isn't it you that said this (among other things)?
"As I understand it, they're simply teaching the "theory" of intelligent design as an extension to the science of evolution."
So. If it's not science, but they're using it as an 'extension' to science then... what do we have? Some strange chimera? Pseudoscience? Should pseudoscience really be a worthwhile thing to teach our children?
And as to answering questions that science can't answer... How fucking wrongheaded is that? If science is presently unable to answer it, then why should you fill the void with nonsense? Shouldn't you simply teach the truth that science is presently unable to answer it and allow the children to grow up and lend their brains to the search rather than making them feel fulfilled by giving them the 'answer'?
If science is unable to answer the question, then where does the answer come from?
It comes from religion.
There is a seperation of church and state.
Therefore intelligent design should not be taught in school.
If the various churches wish to fill in the 'gaps of science' then do so in Sunday School.
You also stated that you don't know what science is. Let me explain briefly. I already have, but it seems you didn't understand.
Science is, at heart, about explanations. But, not just random bullshit spewed from the creative areas of the brain (like religion) but rather a rigorous treatment based on observations and tests of hypotheses. Hypotheses are made to explain certain problems perceived in the world. A vital component of hypotheses is that they must be testable. There must be tests that can be conducted upon the hypotheses that could invalidate the hypotheses. Often, several of these tests are recommended by the person who comes up with the initial hypothesis in the first place. He then runs these tests and if it stands, he publishes and allows others to verify his results. Others than come up with more tests and run it through the drill. After testing, the hypothesis moves up to theory. Theory is as good as it ever gets. A theory is a well-tested hypothesis and has, so far, eluded falsification.
The thing about science is that at no point will a theory ever become absolute truth. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Because, no matter how well-tested and well-fitted any theory might be, there always remains the possibility that some new observation or new test will show that the theory is wrong.
The only proof in science is disproof.
This is the problem of induction.
This is the problem of the justification of knowledge.
We can never be sure. We never find 'final proof'. We are always seeking. Always advancing.
In truth, they're not problems at all. Only to those who seek the absolute are they problems.
The religious don't care for science because they seek the absolute. The want the final proof. They want the final answer. They want to touch god.
Fools.
When I posted I totally missed this last page.
I also missed that the Baron did actually respond to some tiny portion of my post.
So. I've a couple more things to say then.
And.
Hmm.
Isn't it you that said this (among other things)?
"As I understand it, they're simply teaching the "theory" of intelligent design as an extension to the science of evolution."
So. If it's not science, but they're using it as an 'extension' to science then... what do we have? Some strange chimera? Pseudoscience? Should pseudoscience really be a worthwhile thing to teach our children?
And as to answering questions that science can't answer... How fucking wrongheaded is that? If science is presently unable to answer it, then why should you fill the void with nonsense? Shouldn't you simply teach the truth that science is presently unable to answer it and allow the children to grow up and lend their brains to the search rather than making them feel fulfilled by giving them the 'answer'?
If science is unable to answer the question, then where does the answer come from?
It comes from religion.
There is a seperation of church and state.
Therefore intelligent design should not be taught in school.
If the various churches wish to fill in the 'gaps of science' then do so in Sunday School.
You also stated that you don't know what science is. Let me explain briefly. I already have, but it seems you didn't understand.
Science is, at heart, about explanations. But, not just random bullshit spewed from the creative areas of the brain (like religion) but rather a rigorous treatment based on observations and tests of hypotheses. Hypotheses are made to explain certain problems perceived in the world. A vital component of hypotheses is that they must be testable. There must be tests that can be conducted upon the hypotheses that could invalidate the hypotheses. Often, several of these tests are recommended by the person who comes up with the initial hypothesis in the first place. He then runs these tests and if it stands, he publishes and allows others to verify his results. Others than come up with more tests and run it through the drill. After testing, the hypothesis moves up to theory. Theory is as good as it ever gets. A theory is a well-tested hypothesis and has, so far, eluded falsification.
The thing about science is that at no point will a theory ever become absolute truth. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Because, no matter how well-tested and well-fitted any theory might be, there always remains the possibility that some new observation or new test will show that the theory is wrong.
The only proof in science is disproof.
This is the problem of induction.
This is the problem of the justification of knowledge.
We can never be sure. We never find 'final proof'. We are always seeking. Always advancing.
In truth, they're not problems at all. Only to those who seek the absolute are they problems.
The religious don't care for science because they seek the absolute. The want the final proof. They want the final answer. They want to touch god.
Fools.
Doesn't evolution basically teach that life just began from the primodial soup on the planet? That cells just got together for a party or something and never left the party?
Doesn't evolution basically teach that all life evolved from one, single-celled animal ...and thus became what is life on the planet today?
And all of that without a single shred of evidence or proof?!
Doesn't that sound very similar to the concepts of intelligent design? ...just 'poof', life is started from nothing (instead of primodial soup). And it, too, has no evidence or proof. So what's the difference? Y'all like to use the word "science" as if it actually means anything, or worse, that it's the answer to all things!
The ID people simply want to propose the theory that life came into being by "intelligent design" ...instead of from slim. So ...what's wrong with that? Neither theory can be proven, neither theory has any evidence ...and yet y'all are making it out like "science" is the "know-it-all" for everything. It ain't!
I also think that most people who believe in god, actually believe in evolution ...that species evolve due to a variety of outside influences. I believe that Carl Sagan believed strongly in evolution, and yet he also believed that it was possible that an intelligent force was involved. But many scientists are avid believers in god ...yet, from what y'all are saying, that's simply not possible. ....yet it is.
Baron Max
Baron Max
Doesn't evolution basically teach that all life evolved from one, single-celled animal ...and thus became what is life on the planet today?
And all of that without a single shred of evidence or proof?!
Doesn't that sound very similar to the concepts of intelligent design? ...just 'poof', life is started from nothing (instead of primodial soup). And it, too, has no evidence or proof. So what's the difference? Y'all like to use the word "science" as if it actually means anything, or worse, that it's the answer to all things!
The ID people simply want to propose the theory that life came into being by "intelligent design" ...instead of from slim. So ...what's wrong with that? Neither theory can be proven, neither theory has any evidence ...and yet y'all are making it out like "science" is the "know-it-all" for everything. It ain't!
I also think that most people who believe in god, actually believe in evolution ...that species evolve due to a variety of outside influences. I believe that Carl Sagan believed strongly in evolution, and yet he also believed that it was possible that an intelligent force was involved. But many scientists are avid believers in god ...yet, from what y'all are saying, that's simply not possible. ....yet it is.
Baron Max
Baron Max
That is just trolling. The body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is of gigantic proportions. And so far there hasn't been a single set of data that compromises this theory. The theory of evolution is THE framework of modern biology. Without it there is NO biology at the moment. So please drop the charade of no evidence. I'm getting tired of that broken record.
ID explains nothing in scientific terms. ID is a dead theory if it has to be looked at from a scientific perspective. It poses no questions, and ironically also no answers.
We keep repeating the same shit here over and over and you just ignore it. This can only last so long before you end up on my ignore list.
ID explains nothing in scientific terms. ID is a dead theory if it has to be looked at from a scientific perspective. It poses no questions, and ironically also no answers.
We keep repeating the same shit here over and over and you just ignore it. This can only last so long before you end up on my ignore list.
The problem of abiogenesis remains. The theory of evolution has not adequately explained it. That's why there is a 'gap' available for absolutists to fill in with nonsense.
The formation of the first multi-cellular organisms is a great distance away from abiogenesis and is far from fantasy. There are examples of this progression still extant today. Colony organisms advanced to true multicellular organisms. There is loads of evidence for this.
No. Plants didn't evolve from animals.
No. There are lots of shreds of evidence.
The problem is the very beginning, Baron. Abiogenesis.
Also, somewhat problematic, is the progression of the earliest forms of self-replicating molecules to the first cells. Many questions need answered. Which came first? Self-replication? Metabolism? Cellular membrane? What?
But, these are questions that remain to be answered.
And arent' answered by saying "God did it."
Once the first cell is on the scene, we have more questions to answer.
When did mitochondria enter the picture? Chloroplast? How did the organelles develop? How did the nuclear membrane develop? Etc...
There are loads and loads of questions to answer.
Each answer leads to more problems.
This is the nature of science, Baron.
This is the nature of a knowledge that is not absolute and never will be.
We will always progress closer and closer (sometimes with setbacks due to faulty reasoning and interpretation of evidence) but always on the move.
You and your kind want answers. They want answers now. They don't relish the idea of moving forward. They want to be moved. They want to be done moving. They want the illusion of absolute truth rather than the reality of non-justifiable truth.
They want god.
But. No matter what you say. No matter what you do.
God does not answer any of the questions that are unanswered in evolution or any other branch of the sciences.
None.
Saying "God did it" merely relieves the onus of answering those questions. It comforts the listener. "Ah," the person says, "God did it. That means that if I'm a good boy and follow my cultural norms and achieve transcendence in whichever religion I choose to call the correct one, then I will be assured of finding the answers... somday... when I die. Ah. Life is sweet. All I have to do is die..."
Such a wonderful incentive to advance scientifically, yes?
What does intelligent design have to do with evolution?
It has nothing to do with it.
If the religious want to push the simple, oh so simple, idea of "God did it" then they can (and do) push it at Church and at Sunday School. That's where it belongs. That's where it has value.
What value does it have in the classroom?
Providing answers that have no basis in science. Where is the basis of the answer, Baron? Answer that and you've answered why it has no place in the classroom.
No. Evolution doesn't contain the word 'poof'. That's a religious concept. Similar to magic.
See. Intelligent design, as I've stated way too many times only to be ignored as I'm sure this will be too, provides no true explanatory value. It merely says "God did it." It doesn't explain how God did it. It doesn't even explain why God did it. The how depends entirely on science someday working it out. The why would be very particular to a religion and if the idea of intelligent design wants to remain nondenominational then why must be carefully eradicated.
No. The only important concept that intelligent design is apt to input into the equation is god.
However, does intelligent design also cover genetic seeding by the aliens?
As I've been trying to explain to you ad nauseum, Baron, that is not what anyone is trying to say. That is what you are trying to say. That is what the religious are trying to say about science.
Science is fallible.
Science has no absolute answers.
Science is merely rigorous. It follows rigorous protocols in order to weed out undefendable truths.
It's done rather well, as well. Far better than saying "God did it" ever did.
Hey, Baron, if God wanted us to fly, he'd have made us born with wings. Airplanes are ungodly. As is everything else that results from science.
I guess you should go join the Amish or Mennonites.
If it's not scientific. Then it's not a theory.
See how they borrow from the jargon to make it sound scientific?
Why would they do that?
Already answered. But to repeat myself, it provides false answers. It reduces science to pseudoscience. It is a lie.
Neither theory can be absolutely proven. No.
However, evolutionary theory has so much evidence that it is about as true as it can be. There are still many details to be worked out. All the methods of evolution are not known. And the beginnings of the process are shaky. But, for you to peremptorily state that there is no evidence is misleading and ridiculous.
And. Once more. Only people like you call science a 'know-it-all'. That's because you're jealous. You see God as the real 'know-it-all' and that science is trying to supplant god. Therefore you hold a bitter spot in your heart for anything that claims the knowledge that only god can have.
"God did it" is good enough for you. Eh, Baron?
Has anyone here said otherwise? Many scientists are also churchgoers. Science does not equal atheism. Although, many religious do fear that it does.
Influences... plural? Are you proposing a pantheon of deities? Careful, Baron, you might get the stake for this.
I'm not sure what Carl Sagan believed about God or 'intelligent forces' manipulating evolution. I can be sure of one thing though. No matter how intuitionally he might have believed in something, he would never push it as science without some type of evidence and rigorous treatment. Ever read Demon-Haunted World? You should give it a once over sometime.
Oh, Great King of the Red Herrings, please quote any passage from the above text which would lead you to believe this has been presented by any of those posting in this thread. It would be greatly appreciated by your humble followers. We would make a golden calf in your honor.
Do any of you (or me?) know how and what the schools are going to teach? I've not been able to figure it out because so many people are "screaming" about it, that no one is willing to discuss any of the realities of it all. I do know that they are NOT planning to do away with the study of evolution; I do know that the ID classes will be elective, not mandatory; I do know that the ID classes will NOT try to refute the basics of evolution, but only provide a possible alternative to the beginnings of evolution.
But then, I keep asking myself: Would y'all be so quick to condemn, say, the Kansas school system if they wished to provide classes in ...how to make healthy, tasty cookies using buffalo shit? Or if they provided classes in how to weave baskets out of wheat straw?
So here, now, they're only planning to teach an ELECTIVE class on the theory of intelligent design .....what's the difference between that class and the buffalo-shit-cookie class? And would you be as upset?
Baron Max
But then, I keep asking myself: Would y'all be so quick to condemn, say, the Kansas school system if they wished to provide classes in ...how to make healthy, tasty cookies using buffalo shit? Or if they provided classes in how to weave baskets out of wheat straw?
So here, now, they're only planning to teach an ELECTIVE class on the theory of intelligent design .....what's the difference between that class and the buffalo-shit-cookie class? And would you be as upset?
Baron Max
Read Inverts posts on the why.
The difference is that the buffalo-shit-cookie class teaches something useful.
Another difference is that the buffalo-shit-cookie class does not violate the seperation of church and state stricture.
It doesn't matter if its elective or not. In fact, if it is elective, then this implies that it is a whole seperate class. An entire year teaching intelligent design? That's a long time to say "God did it" isn't it?
I doubt he'll do that.
What is happening in this thread is EXACTLY what I was talking about.
The debate is not about whether or not Darwin's view of Evolution is correct or complete.
Nor is it about whther or not ID does or does not replace or augment Darwin's theories.
If you frame it about which is correct, not only will the two sides ever reach an understanding or any kind of agreement or compromise, but many "on the side" of ID will see it as the difference between whether or not they want their kids to believe in God and their religion.
This has NOTHING to do with the validity and truth of ID.
(and no, Max ID is not a theory, it is am hypothesis at best and if you care to know the difference, it's no so hard to find).
This has everything and only to do with whether or not children should be taught religious beliefs as science (as opposed to Social Studies or History) in public schools.
As a side note.
Maybe if you do, you will know what it is we are all supposed to remember.
The problems between Galileo and the RC chuch had nothing to do with the world being flat or round. Galileo was claiming that Copernicus' theory of heliocentricity was correct.
The debate is not about whether or not Darwin's view of Evolution is correct or complete.
Nor is it about whther or not ID does or does not replace or augment Darwin's theories.
If you frame it about which is correct, not only will the two sides ever reach an understanding or any kind of agreement or compromise, but many "on the side" of ID will see it as the difference between whether or not they want their kids to believe in God and their religion.
This has NOTHING to do with the validity and truth of ID.
(and no, Max ID is not a theory, it is am hypothesis at best and if you care to know the difference, it's no so hard to find).
This has everything and only to do with whether or not children should be taught religious beliefs as science (as opposed to Social Studies or History) in public schools.
As a side note.
Perhaps you should learn a bit more about Galileo and his legacy that inspires you, then?Huwy said:Lest we forget Galileo!!!
Remember Galileo!!!
Galileo said the earth was "round" but the church went and threatened to put their collective fingers in his anus - as usual.
His legacy is an inspiration to me
Maybe if you do, you will know what it is we are all supposed to remember.
The problems between Galileo and the RC chuch had nothing to do with the world being flat or round. Galileo was claiming that Copernicus' theory of heliocentricity was correct.
Baron:
2. You are equivocating by insinuating that a 'theory' in everyday life is somehow similiar to a 'theory' in science. A theory in science is an explaination which explains all available data, is supported by mounds of evidence, appeals only to natural forces, and hence is falsifiable. A scientific theory makes testable predictions.
Nope, that's abiogenesis. And just one possible hypothesis on how life could have came about. But then again, it's no surprise that someone who advocates ID doesn't even know what constitutes as evolution.
There is plenty of evidence. I suggest you take Biology 101.
No. There are many differences. For instance, evolution makes predictions, and can be falsified. It explains the natural world by only appealing to natural forces. Ergo, evolution theory is science, ID is not.
I'm glad that you admit that ID has no evidence or proof to support it. You further enhance the credibility of evolution theory, and diminish the credibility of ID.
The scientific method is the most reliable method of obtaining knowledge about the natural world.
Now you're creating strawmen.
It isn't science. They are quite free to push their views in religious classes, but not in a science class.
1. A scientific theory is never proven. I find it rather humourous that someone attacking good science displays ignorance of what constitutes science.
2. You are equivocating by insinuating that a 'theory' in everyday life is somehow similiar to a 'theory' in science. A theory in science is an explaination which explains all available data, is supported by mounds of evidence, appeals only to natural forces, and hence is falsifiable. A scientific theory makes testable predictions.
Correct. Most theistic scientists think that ID is a joke.
Why would you need an outside influence, exactly? If it has been shown that random mutation and natural selection are all that are needed, why enter God into the equation? Ever heard of parsimony and Occam's razor?
He's welcome to that belief, but 'intelligent forces' have no place in science, since science is agnostic.
Nobody here said such a thing. Either you didn't read their posts properly, or you have language comprehension problems.
Last edited:
On a side note:
A particular religion or doctrine shouldn't be pushed in a religion class either. What happened in my 'religion' class was that we got an overview of all major religions on earth and a few cults, what they meant for society, their differences, their similarities, what the nature of religion is, the dangers of religion etc.
Never did we have 'bible' class (this was supposed to be a catholic school). We just opened the bible once or twice, one of which was to look up the sexual content in it.
religion class was all about the analysis of religion and its role in society, not about learning the proper religion or finding answers to higher questions.
But then again, I went to a proper school, where you were prepared for higher education (university life) and critical thinking. Not for lapping up information and reproducing it accurately and giving the teacher an apple in the morning.
A particular religion or doctrine shouldn't be pushed in a religion class either. What happened in my 'religion' class was that we got an overview of all major religions on earth and a few cults, what they meant for society, their differences, their similarities, what the nature of religion is, the dangers of religion etc.
Never did we have 'bible' class (this was supposed to be a catholic school). We just opened the bible once or twice, one of which was to look up the sexual content in it.
religion class was all about the analysis of religion and its role in society, not about learning the proper religion or finding answers to higher questions.
But then again, I went to a proper school, where you were prepared for higher education (university life) and critical thinking. Not for lapping up information and reproducing it accurately and giving the teacher an apple in the morning.
Muaha!!
From the Dec. 2 issue of Science:
From the Dec. 2 issue of Science:
Merry Christmas, Kansas.
Now that the Kansas Board of Education has redefined “science” to include the supernatural, this paleontology game’s makers are fighting back, offering a 20% discount to anyone in Kansas. Bone Wars (www. zygotegames.com) teaches players how to form and test hypotheses as they pretend to be “ruthless paleontologists” from the late 1800s U.S.“Dinosaur Rush.”
Now that the Kansas Board of Education has redefined “science” to include the supernatural, this paleontology game’s makers are fighting back, offering a 20% discount to anyone in Kansas. Bone Wars (www. zygotegames.com) teaches players how to form and test hypotheses as they pretend to be “ruthless paleontologists” from the late 1800s U.S.“Dinosaur Rush.”