Proud to be a Pennsylvanian

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I beg people to look at the first page of any science textbook and read and understand exactly what the scientific method is. People are arguing philosophy, history, quasi-science and all matters of bunk and saying its science cause it uses theories and we all have theories and other bullshit.

Science is not like you. Science is a self-contained universe of double-blind testing, hypotheses and theories, and a specific method that is so clinical that one amount of bullshit treated as science can bring it all down. One of the key factors of science is being able to use previous scientific thories and methods to build new experiments and make new discoveries. This is why "fundamental" scientific theories are tested so damn often. No geneticist would be able to do anything these days if evolution was totally fictitious or was tempered with ID. The methods would be compromised and my job, my livlihood, my life's passion would be rendered meaningless.

Was Darwin devout? You bet your ass and I would welcome the humanities classes or the philosophy classes or the history classes to talk about that. You could even add it in one of those "isn't it interesting (historical sidenote)" things where in they give background on the lives of scientists and indicate that it is a SIDENOTE.

Our scientific knoweldge in this country is appalling as evident by the inability of many people to see that it is a big deal. They go "oh, I believe in evolution and that makes this right, I'm just saying give other viewpoints a chance" or "why not call evolution fact instead of theory" or "it's only a theory". This is anathema to a scientist. Akin to reccomending someone add stricnine to their coffee because "it adds flavor". Messing with fundamental science, the rules by which something becomes worthy of being explained in a textbook, messes with science, trashes it so that someone's philosophy, someone's belief can be spared, regardless of the fact that evolution makes no FUCKING validation or invalidation of whether a divine being could be fundamentally responsible for it. It makes no value statement whatsoever, saying only this is the process, these are the connections, this is how it went down as best as we are able to deduce scientifically and which is reproducable in the lab in specific techniques ranging as far as agriculture, medicine, criminal investigation, ecology, animal husbandry, the existence of most types of dog, etc...etc...

What we are doing is destroying science through our ignorance over something that will be as big of a deal to Christianity in a hundred years as the sun being the center of the solar system is to us today. We are destroying a system that has given us all of our tecchnology, all of our "tools", our lifespans, our cultures, our everything, because we are a bunch of retards who couldn't be arsed to read the first page of the science textbooks in school (were they "boring", assholes?).

Sorry for the snarky tone, but c'mon.

 

[Alfie Higgins]

Earl:
Why can't ID be tested?

ID can't be tested because it's a catch-all for anything we don't understand. If something we didn't understand suddenly becomes understandable, the ID people will merely adjust their model: "okay not that stuff, but all the other stuff is explained by Intelligent Design". It's a win-win situation for them. They can never be wrong because they can never be tested.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

G

But there is no gradual progression TOWARDS eyes, we have cells that can sense light. Then we have eyes. Nothing in between, even the most primitive eye is extreamly complex compared to light sensitive cells.

Dead wrong, Foxy ID people picked eyes as an example of "irreducible complexity" because they know damned well that the soft tissue of an eye is not preserved in the fossil record, so they figured they could make that "all at once" argument and get away with it. They forgot to consider trilobytes.

Trilobytes are related to pill bugs today, and they ruled the ocean for a couple hundred million years or so during the Silurian. They make great fossils and there were tons of them, and so we know a hell of a lot about them. Because their eyes were contained in a chitonous shell, the fossil record tells us plenty about the evolution of the external parts of the eyes.

They started out with compound vision, like flies. New species evolved (evolved!. They weren't designed from the ground up) with unicellular eyes. This kind of structure was found primarily in the predators, for whom depth perception and the ability to focus were an advantage.The bottom feeders kept the compound eyes high on their heads, useful for spoting danger from above.

As far as the first eyes, we know there are one-celled organisms today that have primitive eyespots that can detetct light and dark. These cells use the same chemistry involving modified vitamin A (rhodopsin) that's used in our own rod and cone cells today. If the eye was intelligently designed, it was done by cobbling together spoare parts that were in existence for millions of years.

Here's another fascinating example on unintelligent design: Did you know that a molecule of chlorophyll is identical to a molecule of haemoglobin except for the metal atom that's bound there? Chlorophyll uses Magnesium, haemoglobin uses Iron. In other words, the same molecular framework is used for the defining molecule in plants and animals.

If these molecules were designed from the ground up, you'd think that an intelligent designer would show more imagination.

 

[Guest]

... you'd think that an intelligent designer would show more imagination.

Great comment, Mab. I am enjoying your very informative posts here. You must be a very fine teacher in the classroom.

best, Perdita

 

[elsol]

Here's another fascinating example on unintelligent design: Did you know that a molecule of chlorophyll is identical to a molecule of haemoglobin except for the metal atom that's bound there? Chlorophyll uses Magnesium, haemoglobin uses Iron. In other words, the same molecular framework is used for the defining molecule in plants and animals.

If these molecules were designed from the ground up, you'd think that an intelligent designer would show more imagination.

Really?

So he's not an Intelligent DESIGNER but an Intelligent ENGINEER, I mean I think that's terrifingly efficient, LAZY shit there.

Change one atom and you go from human to grass.

Now, that's a design methodology I can get behind!

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[LadyJeanne]

Founders of today's ID campaign

"The term intelligent design came up in 1988 at a conference in Tacoma, Wash., called Sources of Information Content in DNA," claims Stephen C. Meyer, co-founder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, who was present at the phrase's re-creation, which he attributes to Of Pandas and People editor Charles Thaxton. The phrase appeared in the first edition Of Pandas and People in 1989, which is considered the first modern Intelligent Design book. The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture and is considered the "father" of the Intelligent Design movement.


Religion and leading Intelligent Design proponents

Intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately reintroducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson emphasizes "the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion" and that "after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact... only then can "biblical issues" be discussed."[9]

Johnson explicitly calls for Intelligent Design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having Intelligent Design identified "as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."[10]

Though not all Intelligent Design proponents are motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the principal Intelligent Design advocates including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells (actually a member of the Unification Church, headed by Reverend Moon), and Stephen C. Meyer, are Christians and have stated that in their view the designer of life is God. The preponderance of leading Intelligent Design proponents are evangelical Protestants. A notable Intelligent Design proponent who is neither a Christian, nor a traditional theist, but a practicing Buddhist, is Integral philosopher Ken Wilber. Wilber is not regarded as a leader within the Intelligent Design movement.

The conflicting claims made by leading Intelligent Design advocates as to whether or not Intelligent Design is rooted in religious conviction are the result of their strategy. For example, William Dembski in his book The Design Inference [11] lists a god or an "alien life force" as two possible options for the identity of the designer.

However, in his book Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology Dembski states that "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ." [12]

Dembski also stated "ID is part of God's general revelation..." "Not only does Intelligent Design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ." [13].

Phillip Johnson places the foundation of intelligent design in the Bible's Book of John, specifically, John 1:1. Johnson says: "Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. 'In the beginning was the word...' In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." [14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Pat Robertson Threatens Pa w/ God for Rejecting ID

Pat Robertson has come out and warned the citizens of Dover, Pa that if disaster strikes they'll have no one to blame but themselves for "rejecting God" by voting out the ID-supporting school board

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051110/ts_nm/religion_robertson_dc

Now there's a good, cogent argument to support Intelligent Design--threaten people with God's wrath unless they believe it.

Hey, fuck you very much, Pat.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Great comment, Mab. I am enjoying your very informative posts here. You must be a very fine teacher in the classroom.

best, Perdita

Well, it pisses me off. There are some ID advocates who have good intentions and are just misguided, but the rest of them are inetniuonaly mallicious, deliberately distorting and obfuscating in an attempt to get their agenda in the classroom. They know that most people don't know the jargon or the technicalities of science, and they come up with this business about the "human eye" and biochemistry because they know that's where the fossil record is weakest. Lucifer knows what I'm talking about, and that's why he's so livid too.

It's lies and distortions of the worst, most underhanded sort, the very same kind of things that mark politics today. Phony "research institutes" funded by bible colleges, expert "Ph.D's" whose degrees are in exercise physiology or "geology" from Bob Jones University.

As I say, not all ID scientists are liars, but enough are to taint the whole business and make legitimate scientists reluctant to get down and wrestle in the muck with them. And that's how they win.

 

[Penelope Street]

For more on the primitive eyes of some creatures, see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocellus

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I hope that one day I become arrogant enough in my beliefs to be convinced that I am absolutely right about everything that has ever happened since the beginning of time like some of you seem to be.

The bottom line is that no one really knows exactly what happened.

It all started with this big bang about 15 billion years ago. How did the big bang start? Where did that ultra dense ball of matter sitting in the middle of emptiness come from? How was it created? The big bang can't be the true beginning because it doesn't explain how the ball of matter got there.

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Where did God come from? Where is Gods beginning? If you believe that the ball of matter simply was, then logically you should be able to accept that God simply was. If one doesn't need a beginning, then why does the other?

What if we did evolve, but according to Gods plan? What if God planted the seeds a billion years ago that have led to what we are now? The hardcore christians say it was 6,000 years ago. What if that's 6,000 years in God time? A year is a helluva lot longer on Pluto than it is here. Who knows how long a year is in heaven?

What if we are the evolutionary result of a far advanced race from another world? What if we're little more than a culture in a pitri dish? What if they planted the seeds here just to see what grew?

Are we alone in the universe? Why are there all of these billions upon billions of planets, stars and galaxies if we're the only life? What makes us arrogant enough to think that we know where everything came from when we don't even know what's out there? If we are the only life out there, are we some kind of mistake because none of the other planets have life?

IF anyone on either side of the evolution/ID debate can answer all of the questions that I've just put forth with proof, I'll declare you the winner and admit that you are absolutely right and anyone that disagreed with you is a fool. Until that time, I'll stick with my humble opinion of "I don't know for sure, so I'll concede that anything is possible".

 

[cloudy]

I hope that one day I become arrogant enough in my beliefs to be convinced that I am absolutely right about everything that has ever happened since the beginning of time like some of you seem to be.

The bottom line is that no one really knows exactly what happened.

It all started with this big bang about 15 billion years ago. How did the big bang start? Where did that ultra dense ball of matter sitting in the middle of emptiness come from? How was it created? The big bang can't be the true beginning because it doesn't explain how the ball of matter got there.

In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Where did God come from? Where is Gods beginning? If you believe that the ball of matter simply was, then logically you should be able to accept that God simply was. If one doesn't need a beginning, then why does the other?

What if we did evolve, but according to Gods plan? What if God planted the seeds a billion years ago that have led to what we are now? The hardcore christians say it was 6,000 years ago. What if that's 6,000 years in God time? A year is a helluva lot longer on Pluto than it is here. Who knows how long a year is in heaven?

What if we are the evolutionary result of a far advanced race from another world? What if we're little more than a culture in a pitri dish? What if they planted the seeds here just to see what grew?

Are we alone in the universe? Why are there all of these billions upon billions of planets, stars and galaxies if we're the only life? What makes us arrogant enough to think that we know where everything came from when we don't even know what's out there? If we are the only life out there, are we some kind of mistake because none of the other planets have life?

IF anyone on either side of the evolution/ID debate can answer all of the questions that I've just put forth with proof, I'll declare you the winner and admit that you are absolutely right and anyone that disagreed with you is a fool. Until that time, I'll stick with my humble opinion of "I don't know for sure, so I'll concede that anything is possible".

What if I don't believe in YOUR God?

Sort of negates your whole argument, doesn't it?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

What if I don't believe in YOUR God?

Sort of negates your whole argument, doesn't it?

I don't have a God. I'm agnostic.

Does me saying God mean the Christian God? What if the Egyptians had it right and Rah is the true God? What if the word God was actually the name of the Captain of the spaceship that came here and planted the Primordial seeds?

 

[cloudy]

I don't have a God. I'm agnostic.

Does me saying God mean the Christian God? What if the Egyptians had it right and Rah is the true God? What if the word God was actually the name of the Captain of the spaceship that came here and planted the Primordial seeds?

What if there isn't one?

You can't use that whole "God created the world" with everybody, and be fair, and that's why I think it's just one step away from Nazi-ism to indoctrinate our children that way.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I don't have a God. I'm agnostic.

Does me saying God mean the Christian God? What if the Egyptians had it right and Rah is the true God? What if the word God was actually the name of the Captain of the spaceship that came here and planted the Primordial seeds?

This is precisely the point, Wildcard. God is not proven or disproven by scientific method. And therefore, belongs in religious studies, not astronomy, biology, phsyics, math, chemistry or geology class. Those sciences are based on observed, tested, revised and refined observations, tests, experiements, etc. Not faith or belief or possibility.

True, our advances in scientific study have not yet led us to an understanding of how the universe was created, Big Bang or otherwise. But God or gods or magic or space aliens or spaghetti monsters are not science and should not be taught as such.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

What if there isn't one?

You can't use that whole "God created the world" with everybody, and be fair, and that's why I think it's just one step away from Nazi-ism to indoctrinate our children that way.

There may not be a God. Then again there may be. I don't use "God created the world" as an absolute. I simply concede that I don't know what the true answer is, and allow for all possibilities.

Can anyone PROVE that there is or isn't a God? Most people act very convinced one way or the other, and carry on as if they know beyond any shadow of a doubt. I guess I'm not that fortunate. I don't know the answer.

I'm still perplexed as to how I am perceived as some form of bad guy when I'm the only one that seems to be admitting that I don't KNOW what the truth is.

 

[cloudy]

There may not be a God. Then again there may be. I don't use "God created the world" as an absolute. I simply concede that I don't know what the true answer is, and allow for all possibilities.

Can anyone PROVE that there is or isn't a God? Most people act very convinced one way or the other, and carry on as if they know beyond any shadow of a doubt. I guess I'm not that fortunate. I don't know the answer.

I'm still perplexed as to how I am perceived as some form of bad guy when I'm the only one that seems to be admitting that I don't KNOW what the truth is.

I've never said I know what the absolute truth is. I do, however, know that ID is NOT science.

 

[LadyJeanne]

There may not be a God. Then again there may be. I don't use "God created the world" as an absolute. I simply concede that I don't know what the true answer is, and allow for all possibilities.

Can anyone PROVE that there is or isn't a God? Most people act very convinced one way or the other, and carry on as if they know beyond any shadow of a doubt. I guess I'm not that fortunate. I don't know the answer.

I'm still perplexed as to how I am perceived as some form of bad guy when I'm the only one that seems to be admitting that I don't KNOW what the truth is.

You're not the only who doesn't know the truth. See my post above yours. But you did say you had no problem with teaching ID alongside Darwin in science class. And those of us who don't know the truth would rather teach our kids what can be observed and tested through scientific method in a science class. And we prefer to leave the faith-based views to parents and churches, because those beliefs will vary.

 

[rgraham666]

Wildcard, science does not claim to hold all the answers.

Any scientist worth his or her salt is going to include the caveat, 'with what we currently know'. They say that this is the theory that currently best explains how the universe works.

But science is testable. Anyone can grab a broom and pick and dig up fossils. They can take a camera and tape recorder into the jungle. They can buy a telescope and spectrometer and look at the sky.

They can gather data, form a hypothesis, then gather more data to test that.

The data for ID, as I understand it consists entirely of negatives. We can't explain the eye, they say. We can't explain the complexity of life. We can't explain the beginning of the universe.

Therefore they say, there must be a designer.

But there's no evidence of a designer and all the other questions are being worked on in science.

ID is an interesting idea. I've read enough SF to know how often it's been wondered about. Read David Brin's Uplift Saga for a very good example.

But it isn't science and it has no place in the classrooms of our public education system.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

This is precisely the point, Wildcard. God is not proven or disproven by scientific method. And therefore, belongs in religious studies, not astronomy, biology, phsyics, math, chemistry or geology class. Those sciences are based on observed, tested, revised and refined observations, tests, experiements, etc. Not faith or belief or possibility.

True, our advances in scientific study have not yet led us to an understanding of how the universe was created, Big Bang or otherwise. But God or gods or magic or space aliens or spaghetti monsters are not science and should not be taught as such.

But the very first premise of science, knowledge, understanding and everything that we have ever learned is "What if?"

Things that are reputable science now started as something less. To not allow for the "what if" in the learning process stifles the process. Science starts with imagination and seeing more than what is in front of us. You have to keep the possibilities open to encourage the imagination to look beyond the now.

What if Einstein had never been allowed to use his imagination? His theories were so out of touch with the reality of his time. He was allowed to explore the possibilities.

What if Darwin had never been allowed to see beyond what was proveable at the time?

To me, stifling the mind, the imagination, and the ability to say "What if" much closer to Nazi-ism than allowing for all possibilities.

 

[cloudy]

But the very first premise of science, knowledge, understanding and everything that we have ever learned is "What if?"

Things that are reputable science now started as something less. To not allow for the "what if" in the learning process stifles the process. Science starts with imagination and seeing more than what is in front of us. You have to keep the possibilities open to encourage the imagination to look beyond the now.

What if Einstein had never been allowed to use his imagination? His theories were so out of touch with the reality of his time. He was allowed to explore the possibilities.

What if Darwin had never been allowed to see beyond what was proveable at the time?

To me, stifling the mind, the imagination, and the ability to say "What if" much closer to Nazi-ism than allowing for all possibilities.

So...it's okay to teach a watered-down version of creationism to ALL children, just to cover the "what if?"

I don't buy it, and when they start trying to stifle my children by teaching them that instead of REAL science, I'll pull them out of school, and home school them. It's ridiculous.

You weren't taught ID in school were you? Yet you still can wonder "what if" so why won't you give your children the same credit?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Wildcard, science does not claim to hold all the answers.


The data for ID, as I understand it consists entirely of negatives. We can't explain the eye, they say. We can't explain the complexity of life. We can't explain the beginning of the universe.

Therefore they say, there must be a designer.

But there's no evidence of a designer and all the other questions are being worked on in science.

This seems to proceed under an assumption that I pointed out in an earlier post; Why does everyone assume that ID has to be exclusively about the Christian God? Granted, it's the argument that alot of christians use, but that doesn't mean that the term ID must be exclusive to the Christian God.

Take the example I gave earlier of a much advanced alien race planting genetically engineered primordial seeds on this planet. For arguments sake, say that it's true. Wouldn't that be intelligent design?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

I've never said I know what the absolute truth is. I do, however, know that ID is NOT science.

So if we genetically engineer something, and it grows and evolves, that's not Intelligent design or science?

I don't buy it, and when they start trying to stifle my children by teaching them that instead of REAL science, I'll pull them out of school, and home school them. It's ridiculous.

You weren't taught ID in school were you? Yet you still can wonder "what if" so why won't you give your children the same credit?

That's your right to pull them out of school and teach them what ever you want. You are their parent and I support parents rights 100%. How do you define real science though? When your parents were young, things like satellite telephones, robots and computers weren't real science. That was just stuff that was on Buck Rogers. 300 channels on TV was just a fantasy.

I was taught all concepts in school. I was taught both sides of the argument by a wonderful teacher that encouraged us to always look for possibilities and to be open minded.

 

[cloudy]

So if we genetically engineer something, and it grows and evolves, that's not Intelligent design or science?

That's not what ID is teaching, and you know it.

 

[LadyJeanne]

This seems to proceed under an assumption that I pointed out in an earlier post; Why does everyone assume that ID has to be exclusively about the Christian God? Granted, it's the argument that alot of christians use, but that doesn't mean that the term ID must be exclusive to the Christian God.

Take the example I gave earlier of a much advanced alien race planting genetically engineered primordial seeds on this planet. For arguments sake, say that it's true. Wouldn't that be intelligent design?

It would, and if there were any scientific observations that point to alien beings planting seeds here, that theory would also be taught in science class. But there is no scientifically observed evidence for it, so it stays out of science class.

 

[cloudy]

It would, and if there were any scientific observations that point to alien beings planting seeds here, that theory would also be taught in science class. But there is no scientifically observed evidence for it, so it stays out of science class.

THANK YOU.