Bush endorses Intelligent Design. Or does he?

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Just a note: Isn't ID built upon the back of evolution? I don't know what bastardised version the Christian Right uses, but AFAIK, ID is supported by all the evidence that there is for normal evolution. There's just an overlying belief that someone was pulling hte strings.

Okay, I'll be quiet now.

The Earl

No, but thanks for playing. But if it was that would be a nifty theological or philosophical hypothesis.

It would not be a scientific theory because it adds a non-testable, non-scientific compnent to a scientific theory. The present scientific theory which makes no statement on the purpose or on the existence or non-existence of an initial creator is the safest and most scientific theory and thus should be the one to be taught in science class.

 

[shereads]

If we are here by design, Bush's existence proves it's not that intelligent.

 

[elsol]

If we are here by design, Bush's existence proves it's not that intelligent.

*burp*

That's the other side of ID -- 'It's still God's fault.'

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Another point to make is that that which is science is not neccessarily that which is wholly right. The ID followers might be fully correct in their belief, their hypothesis, their hybrid theory, but that is not the same as qualifying as a scientific theory.

Science is an attempt to understand the world through a set of rules that allows manipulation and build-upon analysis. There are other ways to understand the world, some may be equally or more valuable than science. But they have no right calling themselves science. That is the point to be made.

 

[erise]

Mendering through, posting in the wrong threads.

 

[erise]

But since I'm here, I'd like to add my 2c.

As a believer, I have come to accept the Really Intelligent Design theory. It goes like this. God (Odin, Jahve, Allah, Slartibartfast or whatever you want to call him.) wrote the laws that holds the universe together, that spins black holes, that makes atoms vibrate, makes energy equal mass, 2+2 equal 4, and so on. This is so ingeniouly constructed that sustainable molecules of certain types are destined to merge and develop to larger, more complex ones, thus starting a singularity-like process of deleopment through exchange between internal chemical energy, external energy, and produced kinetic energy, a little thing we call "life".

Since this design at the heart of it all was done right in the first place, he didn't have to tweak anything along. If it hadn't been eyes as we know them, it would have been something else instead. And the appendix is a defect, but it's a minor one that will, with time and generations, also dissapear. This anticipated process of evolution is bound to eventually produce sentinent creatures and finally cultures and societies. Not until then has God inteferred, letting us know he's out there, watching, listening.

Why? And why letting this revelation split mankind into so diverse intepretations or religions, nearly making us destroy ourselves hammering out the differencies? I think that part had not yet been revealed.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think here, people use the word theory too lightly. It isn't a theory, until it's a hypothesis you have rigorously tested and refined.

So if you add god, or any other hyper intelligence as the primemover, you can't have a theory. You cannot test that precept. And if you can't test it, you can't refine it. So at most ID would be a hypothesis. It can never be a theory, as you can'tt st the existance of said primemover.

 

[erise]

I think here, people use the word theory too lightly. It isn't a theory, until it's a hypothesis you have rigorously tested and refined.

I used it out of ignorance. English words over three syllables is contexual guess-work for me most of the time.

It's not a theory. It's barely a hypothesis. It's a belief.

 

[Pure]

The Earl: ID is supported by all the evidence that there is for normal evolution. There's just an overlying belief that someone was pulling hte strings.

From what I can see, the best ID people, the scientists, admit 'selection' on a limited scale and timespan, e.g., bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant.

BUT, most do not simply say what the Earl does, above; nor what erise says.
This is to completely endorse the scientific account, so far as it goes, then claim--"But God is in charge" or "God set up the conditions for evolution" etc.

From what I've read, the ID folks believe there are some ineplicable interventions, as for instance, when humans appeared. You might say, it's 'punctuated' science.

 

[NoJo]

A couple of weeks ago, New Scientist carried a long article about Intelligent Design; basically many scientists are concerned that it's trying to let in Creationism by the back door.

Their arguments were along the lines of some of the arguments here, about what makes a good scientific theory (e.g. testability).

ID sneakily borrows some of the very latest concepts in cosmology and complexity theory; and deliberately misuses some highly technical terms.

The clearly observable emergence of complexity in the Universe is a topic that I find fascinating. Over twenty years ago I wrote a program that displayed beautiful, "natural" looking patterns from some simple rules, after seeing an article about Finite State Automata in Scientific American.

What you can see clearly from the program is how the wonderful variety and complexity in nature could possibly have some very simple "generating principle".

You can call this principle God, but it's usually known as an Iterated Function System.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I used it out of ignorance. English words over three syllables is contexual guess-work for me most of the time.

It's not a theory. It's barely a hypothesis. It's a belief.

That wasn't a barb aimed at you Erise. It was an observation on people who continue to insist ID is "an alternative theory to evolution". Proponents of ID have lifted what is basically a belief, to the same status as a rigorously tested and investigated and heavily refined theory.

Proponents misuse terms, deliberately trying to blurr the lines. They attempt, and often succeed in convincing people a theory is the same as a guess.

My father, is a very educated man, who happens to also be a deacon in his Church. He was on the ID wagon until we had a discussion of it. He is still anti-evolution, but at least now, he examines the spew coming out of the ID camp with a critical eye and like me, he more often than not finds his intelligence insulted.

One of evolution's major handicaps is the very fact that it is a scientific theory. It does not seek to explain things that aren't appropriate for the realm of scientific inquiry. It does not seek, for instance to tell us how life began, or why there is life, or answer any of the other existential questions most anti-evolutionists hurl about to show it's wrong. It seeks only to explain an observed natural phenomena, the brilliant diversity of species on planet earth.

ID dosen't seek to explain or understand. God, Aliens, Hyper intelligent shrews from plantet X made it like this dosen't explain anything. Like creationism, ID seeks to place a limit on what an investigator can ever discover or understand. If you will allow me the indulgence, it seeks a return to the dark ages, where all scientific investigation had to conform to Chruch Dogma. In this case, they are trying to build that controlling and limiting dogma into the very medioum by which we investigate. i.e. science.

But science dies if you change the underpinnings of it. At it's core, science is merely the methodology by which we investigate the world around us. That methodology stresses a disciplined, logical, and objective approach and seeks to eliminate subjective, unquntifiable, or supernatural explanation. That's why it stresses documentation of observed behavior and that's why it stresses testability and conformity. Not in the sense that you must conform to a stated position, but conformity of your results, that is to say repoduceability.

Hot fusion is a fact, it has been accomplished here on earth and the results of the experiment that produced it can be shown in any lab with sufficent equiptment to replicate the conditions in the original experiment. Cold fusion, has been claimed by several scientists over the years, but their results cannot be reproduced and thus it remains a theoretical possibility, but it isn't proven yet.

ID seeks to destroy the underpinnings of the methodology by adding a subjectiive, untestable, and thus unproveable prerequisite to inquiry. Science has progressed in baby steps across time, ID would like to take a huge giant step backwards.

Refusal to work within the accepted bounds of the definitions is just one of the least egrigious and sophistic methods used by proponents to advance their agenda. Which at heart, is to put God back at the center of all human endeavor.

 

[TheEarl]

No, but thanks for playing. But if it was that would be a nifty theological or philosophical hypothesis.

It would not be a scientific theory because it adds a non-testable, non-scientific compnent to a scientific theory. The present scientific theory which makes no statement on the purpose or on the existence or non-existence of an initial creator is the safest and most scientific theory and thus should be the one to be taught in science class.

Luc: I never said it was a scientific theory. All I said was that my idea of God guiding evolution is just as valid as an atheist's view of evolution. In a science class, you should not put forward atheist evolution as 'correct'. You should say that "Some people think it's totally random, some think that it could be controlled by God" when the inevitable smart kid asks the question. Leave the rest to the RE lesson.

To teach atheism is just as much creed-based schooling as teaching Christianity or Paganism would be.

The Earl

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Luc: I never said it was a scientific theory. All I said was that my idea of God guiding evolution is just as valid as an atheist's view of evolution. In a science class, you should not put forward atheist evolution as 'correct'. You should say that "Some people think it's totally random, some think that it could be controlled by God" when the inevitable smart kid asks the question. Leave the rest to the RE lesson.

To teach atheism is just as much creed-based schooling as teaching Christianity or Paganism would be.

The Earl

The problem Earl, is Evolution is not Atheistic, it's not mono theistic, it's devoid of religious connotation. It's a theory, one that enjoys a good deal of creedence in the scienific community. Where you think God fits in the scheme of things is not germaine. God, is not germaine. Nor is a lack of God. Science dosen't ever try to ascertain the existance of a supreme being, it isn't within the bounds of scientific inquiry.

When I read Shakesphere in Lit class, you aren't proposing the teacher point out that some people don't think it wasn't actually willie writing it, but God working thorugh him. You don't insist on bringing God into Lit class, I don't see anyone screaming that Trig is taught without mentioning God as the founder of Sin Cosin relationships. Nor does any history teacher feel pressure to mention God was working through his grace to guide columbus to the new world and thus found the greatest contruy on earth, the United states. Diferent people's religious beliefs don't show up in Polysci, or Psycology or any other realm, save where religion itself bears discussion.

Why is science and particularly evolution sudenly to be taught with a caveat?

We don't teach that Aliens might have seeded this planet as an experiemnt, but some beilieve it. We don't teach that this universe is just one of million sof multiverses, but some believe it. If you're going to qualify everything taught by mentioning that some people don't believe it we might as well all go to trade school.

 

[TheEarl]

The problem Earl, is Evolution is not Atheistic, it's not mono theistic, it's devoid of religious connotation. It's a theory, one that enjoys a good deal of creedence in the scienific community. Where you think God fits in the scheme of things is not germaine. God, is not germaine. Nor is a lack of God. Science dosen't ever try to ascertain the existance of a supreme being, it isn't within the bounds of scientific inquiry.

When I read Shakesphere in Lit class, you aren't proposing the teacher point out that some people don't think it wasn't actually willie writing it, but God working thorugh him. You don't insist on bringing God into Lit class, I don't see anyone screaming that Trig is taught without mentioning God as the founder of Sin Cosin relationships. Nor does any history teacher feel pressure to mention God was working through his grace to guide columbus to the new world and thus found the greatest contruy on earth, the United states. Diferent people's religious beliefs don't show up in Polysci, or Psycology or any other realm, save where religion itself bears discussion.

Why is science and particularly evolution sudenly to be taught with a caveat?

We don't teach that Aliens might have seeded this planet as an experiemnt, but some beilieve it. We don't teach that this universe is just one of million sof multiverses, but some believe it. If you're going to qualify everything taught by mentioning that some people don't believe it we might as well all go to trade school.

I'm not suggesting that God be brought into science classes except as a one sentence answer to the question from the smart and curious kid. Please don't assume that's what I'm saying.

Evolution as a pure theory is completely scientific, but I have seen it taught with an atheistic bent. The teacher effectively says "Here is neat and scienitfically backed theory that has no room for God. If you believe in God, then you're rejecting this scientific theory."

Evolution as a disciplinary science may have nothing to do with theism or atheism, but the scientists who teach it are a different matter.

The Earl

PS. And no fair trying to get me to rise on the 'Greatest Country on Earth' tosh.

 

[Guest]

I'm not suggesting that God be brought into science classes except as a one sentence answer to the question from the smart and curious kid. Please don't assume that's what I'm saying.

Evolution as a pure theory is completely scientific, but I have seen it taught with an atheistic bent. The teacher effectively says "Here is neat and scienitfically backed theory that has no room for God. If you believe in God, then you're rejecting this scientific theory."

Evolution as a disciplinary science may have nothing to do with theism or atheism, but the scientists who teach it are a different matter.

The Earl

PS. And no fair trying to get me to rise on the 'Greatest Country on Earth' tosh.

My husband has taught science both at the middle school and high school level. It's a very difficult road for a teacher to traverse.

No matter how the material is presented, someone will be offended.

After the section on evolution he always has a few students bringing in religious tracts, to save his soul, of course. And he'll have parents of other students very angry with him because God was mentioned when the one student felt the need to argue against evolution (thus provoking class discussion).

Religion shouldn't be brought into the classroom. Ever. (Unless it is a class on religion.) Same with politics. Unless it is a class about current events, it will generate too much off-topic discussion and angry feelings, students and parents.

Teachers aren't trained in all the separate ideologies. Of the 35 students in class you'll have 35 individual belief systems.

And I don't want a classroom teacher to teach my children about God. Or politics. Or even sex, for heaven's sake (yes, they'll get sex education at school, but they had the facts from home before that). There are some topics that should be covered by parents first - give kids some sort of base - before they learn differing viewpoints.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not suggesting that God be brought into science classes except as a one sentence answer to the question from the smart and curious kid. Please don't assume that's what I'm saying.

Evolution as a pure theory is completely scientific, but I have seen it taught with an atheistic bent. The teacher effectively says "Here is neat and scienitfically backed theory that has no room for God. If you believe in God, then you're rejecting this scientific theory."

Evolution as a disciplinary science may have nothing to do with theism or atheism, but the scientists who teach it are a different matter.

The Earl

PS. And no fair trying to get me to rise on the 'Greatest Country on Earth' tosh.

Thought that might get your attention

It is, however, the belief of many, including many of those who want to see ID in our classrooms. I don't think you would agree to bringing that to a classroom setting, but you are basically arguing we sould. It is, after all, their belief, and if we must mention every belief on every subject, reguardless of support of that belief, we are in a circular hell where nothing can be taught.

Religion should be left out of the classroom. So should every other off the wall belief people bandi about. If you are going to include a caveat for the teaching of evolution, that it should be taught in conjunction with a religious tennet that it's wrong, then you are constrained to teach every other belief system.

Evolution is teachable as science because it conforms to the methodology of science. Beliefs that do not, shouldn't be addreessed in a class devoted to teaching science.

 

[Liar]

A single light-sensitive cell cannot be taken as one mutation. If a creature has a light sensitive cell, then they must have the capability to do something the information. Even if it's as simple as a "see light, move towards it" reflex, it still has to come from somewhere. A light sensitive cell offers no advantage without the reflex and the very chance of a light sensitive cell and the reflex being present in the same random mutation at the same time is freakish as to not be worth considering at all.

So you say. I'm curious what you base that assumption on.

Of course my incredibly simplified four step description doesn't cover it. I hope that is not what you read out of it. If you have a thousand creatures with the "magic cell" and one of them happens to link the incoming signal to the neurological equivalence of a panic button...guess what? We have a winner. And there are probably millions upon millions of the little blighters to begin with. The sees-and-reacts specimens will eventually compete the blind ones and the sees-but-doesn't-care out of the market, and evolution ticks on.

I for one find that not only possible, not only plausible, but highly probable.

Religion shouldn't be brought into the classroom. Ever. (Unless it is a class on religion.) Same with politics. Unless it is a class about current events, it will generate too much off-topic discussion and angry feelings, students and parents.

This is why I think philosophy should be taught alongside with science, history, and so on as a separate subject.

 

[Guest]

This is why I think philosophy should be taught alongside with science, history, and so on as a separate subject.

Excellent idea, yes.

But at the high school level, perhaps, where students should have already had a solid foundation in facts.

 

[rgraham666]

Earl, if a teacher presented evolution as you said, that is saying there is no room for God, he was quite specifically stepping over the line in the same manner as creationists do. In other words he was just as wrong.

The problem is that many people mistake evolution as an ethical system. It isn't. It makes no pronouncements whatsoever on the nature of good and evil.

But understandable, people make the same mistake with capitalism, communism, socialism, hell, just the idea of government is assumed to be evil by some people. But none of these are ethical systems either.

Evolution draws an special ire from believers in that it directly contradicts the Creation myth of its Holy Book. From there, the believers assume that evolution therefore contradicts everything in the Bible. To them that must mean that evolution comes from Satan and is therefore evil.

A major set of logic leaps in my opinion, but human beings are skilled at that.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Let's be quite clear here.

Evolution is a theory. That is it is independently testable, offers problem solving tools specifically related to biology, and above all, it is falsifiable. It can be proved untrue.

That's exactly right, and that's the beginning and end of the entire discussion.

As the philosopher of science Karl Popper pointed out, a scientific theory has to be testable and capable of being disproved.

Intelligent design is neither. It's therefore an opinion, unsupported by fact or experiment.

Throwing up your hands and saying you can't explain how something evolved so God must have made it is not an acceptable proof of anythig but our ignorance.

 

[TheEarl]

Thought that might get your attention

It is, however, the belief of many, including many of those who want to see ID in our classrooms. I don't think you would agree to bringing that to a classroom setting, but you are basically arguing we sould. It is, after all, their belief, and if we must mention every belief on every subject, reguardless of support of that belief, we are in a circular hell where nothing can be taught.

Religion should be left out of the classroom. So should every other off the wall belief people bandi about. If you are going to include a caveat for the teaching of evolution, that it should be taught in conjunction with a religious tennet that it's wrong, then you are constrained to teach every other belief system.

Evolution is teachable as science because it conforms to the methodology of science. Beliefs that do not, shouldn't be addreessed in a class devoted to teaching science.

Colly. You missed the first line of my post. The bit where I said that I didn't believe any beliefs should be brought into a science classroom. I think you're pushing against a door that's already open.

Liar: The single light sensitive cell itself is billions upon billions to one, but we'll buy that as a single event. That means out of billions and billions of creatures, one of them has a light sensitive cell. It's doing nothing for it at the moment and it is just as likely to die as any of the others. So let's assume it does die.

Now we need another coincidence, billions upon billions to one for another creature to have a light sensitive patch. Maybe this one lives and breeds. However, mutations sometimes do not pass to the children and there's a good chance that the light sensitive cell is a recessive gene. Therefore our little creature dies and none of its offspring inherit its genetic treasure trove.

Another coincidence, billions upon billions upon billions to one, where we get a creature with the cell, which then goes on to survive, breed and turn out little creatures with the same light-sensitive cell. Assuming that these little ones survive (which they're not guaranteed to as this cell is not offering them any advantage as yet, but let's assume for the sake of things), they can breed and pass on their gene.

Due to the preponderence of normal genes, it is more than likely that we will still end up with only a small number of creatures with this cell for years and years to come as it offers them no advantage.

Now we've got to calculate those odds and then add them to the odds of a creature with a panic button in its head surviving, a creature with the linkages surviving and the billions upon billions upon billions upon billions to one shot that these three coincidental traits come together in one creature to form somethign which actually gives it an evolutionary advantage.

Unfortunately that creature gets eaten when it's young. And we have to start all over again. Even over billions of years with millions of creatures, that's strange odds to pay off.

I can't say that it couldn't happen without God, as that would be clearly risible. I cannot even offer a probability of God. All I can offer is my belief and I think it's something I cannot argue any further, so I think I'll duck out of this thread.

The Earl

 

[CharleyH]

Any Bush Quote that begins "I think..." is obviously a lie.

Any headline that has Bush and 'Intelligent' design in the same statement is an obvious satire.

 

[cloudy]

Any headline that has Bush and 'Intelligent' design in the same statement is an obvious satire.

Good point.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly. You missed the first line of my post. The bit where I said that I didn't believe any beliefs should be brought into a science classroom. I think you're pushing against a door that's already open.

Liar: The single light sensitive cell itself is billions upon billions to one, but we'll buy that as a single event. That means out of billions and billions of creatures, one of them has a light sensitive cell. It's doing nothing for it at the moment and it is just as likely to die as any of the others. So let's assume it does die.

Now we need another coincidence, billions upon billions to one for another creature to have a light sensitive patch. Maybe this one lives and breeds. However, mutations sometimes do not pass to the children and there's a good chance that the light sensitive cell is a recessive gene. Therefore our little creature dies and none of its offspring inherit its genetic treasure trove.

Another coincidence, billions upon billions upon billions to one, where we get a creature with the cell, which then goes on to survive, breed and turn out little creatures with the same light-sensitive cell. Assuming that these little ones survive (which they're not guaranteed to as this cell is not offering them any advantage as yet, but let's assume for the sake of things), they can breed and pass on their gene.

Due to the preponderence of normal genes, it is more than likely that we will still end up with only a small number of creatures with this cell for years and years to come as it offers them no advantage.

Now we've got to calculate those odds and then add them to the odds of a creature with a panic button in its head surviving, a creature with the linkages surviving and the billions upon billions upon billions upon billions to one shot that these three coincidental traits come together in one creature to form somethign which actually gives it an evolutionary advantage.

Unfortunately that creature gets eaten when it's young. And we have to start all over again. Even over billions of years with millions of creatures, that's strange odds to pay off.

I can't say that it couldn't happen without God, as that would be clearly risible. I cannot even offer a probability of God. All I can offer is my belief and I think it's something I cannot argue any further, so I think I'll duck out of this thread.

The Earl

I didn't miss it earl. But you aren't saying keep it out, you are saying keep it out but mention it. ???? IN other words don't teach it but explain it? Or don't make it part of the cirriculum, but tell them about it? Or offer it as an alternative for consideration in an informal manner? What?

 

[CharleyH]

Good point.

I now read that Sher kinda beat me to it. I also see he is quoted in only a sentance. I WANT TO KNOW, the rest of what he said! LOL