Bush endorses Intelligent Design in the Classroom

[Deudalus]

You need to look at the history of the ID creationism movement, which is outlined in their Wedge document, where the founders outline their multi-pronged legal and public relations strategy to put creationism in the public sphere by removing obvious references to religion. They explicitly spell out their religious agenda in the Wedge document, in individual writings of the founders, and even in early versions of the Discovery Institute web site, though they've scrubbed the current version clean of any Christian references.

Are you really so petty as to say "this movement can't be supported because these other people happen to support it?"

Then you don't understand one or both ideas.

I understand both sides very well actually. There is absolutely nothing that has given any evidence to show that evolution or intelligent design exists, not both.

I think you don't understand intelligent design and what it effectively says. Intelligent design is not an endorsement of genesis of the bible. Intelligent design is simply the theory that all the fact that the universe was created and life appeared wasn't blind ass luck.

It's quite easy, because ID creationism is not a scientific theory: it makes no testable predictions and has no observational or experimental support.

In a way nor does the Big Bang Theory yet it is taught everyday. I believe in the Big bang Theory, yet the concept of the singularity and all of that is really just a blind guess and no scientist can give even the vaugest explanation as to the origins of the singularity.

Yet it is taught everyday to children. How is that any more or less substantiated?

 

[Czar]

Deudalus,
evolution, creation of the universe and all that is based on science

creationism and ID is simply not based on science

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

It's quite easy, because ID creationism is not a scientific theory: it makes no testable predictions and has no observational or experimental support.

In a way nor does the Big Bang Theory yet it is taught everyday. I believe in the Big bang Theory, yet the concept of the singularity and all of that is really just a blind guess and no scientist can give even the vaugest explanation as to the origins of the singularity.

Yet it is taught everyday to children. How is that any more or less substantiated?

What is this then?

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

You need to look at the history of the ID creationism movement, which is outlined in their Wedge document, where the founders outline their multi-pronged legal and public relations strategy to put creationism in the public sphere by removing obvious references to religion. They explicitly spell out their religious agenda in the Wedge document, in individual writings of the founders, and even in early versions of the Discovery Institute web site, though they've scrubbed the current version clean of any Christian references.

Are you really so petty as to say "this movement can't be supported because these other people happen to support it?"

Then you don't understand one or both ideas.

I understand both sides very well actually. There is absolutely nothing that has given any evidence to show that evolution or intelligent design exists, not both.

I think you don't understand intelligent design and what it effectively says. Intelligent design is not an endorsement of genesis of the bible. Intelligent design is simply the theory that all the fact that the universe was created and life appeared wasn't blind ass luck.

It's quite easy, because ID creationism is not a scientific theory: it makes no testable predictions and has no observational or experimental support.

In a way nor does the Big Bang Theory yet it is taught everyday. I believe in the Big bang Theory, yet the concept of the singularity and all of that is really just a blind guess and no scientist can give even the vaugest explanation as to the origins of the singularity.

Yet it is taught everyday to children. How is that any more or less substantiated?

There is plenty of scientific evidence for the Big Bang Theory, for Evolution Theory, for Gravity, for Relativity. There is NO scientific evidence for ID. You can make all the points you want about how the chances of x happening are one in a ten trillion to the trillionth power, and it still doesn't make a logical case for studying ID. Evolution doesn't go into how life was created, because scientists don't have an answer. It doesn't say whether God exists or doesn't exist, but it simply takes all the data available and tries to explain it the best way possible.

That's the difference between science and non-science. Science attempts to explain things, and doesn't have any qualms about altering theories when new information comes along. You won't find a scientist resisting change because that's what it is all about, understanding the world. ID, on the other hand is not science, in that they can't explain their own theory, but have to denounce certain evolutionary claims to seem legitimate.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

You need to look at the history of the ID creationism movement, which is outlined in their Wedge document, where the founders outline their multi-pronged legal and public relations strategy to put creationism in the public sphere by removing obvious references to religion. They explicitly spell out their religious agenda in the Wedge document, in individual writings of the founders, and even in early versions of the Discovery Institute web site, though they've scrubbed the current version clean of any Christian references.

Are you really so petty as to say "this movement can't be supported because these other people happen to support it?"

I didn't say that. I'm pointing out what the Intelligent Design movement is--it's a Trojan Horse (or a wedge in their parlance) used to get creationism into American schools. It is explicitly religion. Read the first sentence of the Wedge document at http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.

or read the first few sentences of the second section:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.

ID creationism is an explicitly religious agenda founded to save Western civilization from science.

Deudalus wrote:
I understand both sides very well actually. There is absolutely nothing that has given any evidence to show that evolution or intelligent design exists, not both.

The ID movement disagrees with you. The intelligent design movement attacks evolution in every one of their books and conferences. Look at their testimony in the Kansas trials too and you'll see the same types of attacks. While it's true that those arguments are invalid, so they don't disprove evolution, it doesn't change was ID creationists believe and are attempting to do.

I think you don't understand intelligent design and what it effectively says. Intelligent design is not an endorsement of genesis of the bible. Intelligent design is simply the theory that all the fact that the universe was created and life appeared wasn't blind ass luck.

You're right that the ID movement avoids directly endorsing Genesis, but ID creationism is not a scientific theory, because it makes no testable predictions. No one holds the position that life was the result of luck, so ID creationism is more than a refutation of such an idea. ID creationism argues that an intelligent being operating outside the rules of nature was responsible for the creation of the universe, life, and its subsequent development, contradicting both modern cosmology and biology. The whole point of ID creationism is to open science to supernatural causes (see their attack on "scientific materialism" in the Wedge document) which cannot be studied and which must be accepted on faith.

It's quite easy, because ID creationism is not a scientific theory: it makes no testable predictions and has no observational or experimental support.

In a way nor does the Big Bang Theory yet it is taught everyday.[/quote]

Testing the main predictions of the Big Bang against experiment is an exercise I did in one of my physics classes. You can test each of the three main predictions. You can calculate the current average temperature of the universe as a result of the Big Bang. You can derive Hubble's expansion law about the proportionality of the recession rate of galaxies to their distance from us. Finally, you can calculate the proportions of light elements (hydrogen, helium, and lithium) generated by Big Bang nucleosynthesis and compare them to the observed proprtions.

I believe in the Big bang Theory, yet the concept of the singularity and all of that is really just a blind guess and no scientist can give even the vaugest explanation as to the origins of the singularity.

It sounds like you're making one of the common mistakes about the Big Bang--assuming that it was an explosion of something that existed inside a pre-existing spacetime. It's not. The Big Bang describes the origin of spacetime itself. As such, the idea of a cause of the Big Bang is fraught with difficult, because what can a cause mean without time, i.e. without the concept of "before."

I'm also not sure if you understand what a singularity is. It's an area where we don't understand the physics. We physicists understand that general relativity has problems at distances smaller than 10^-43 meters, far below the subatomic scale, which is why it produces these singularies. The problem is that while we have several hypotheses about what happens in such situations, we're currently unable to experimentally test them as we don't know how to produce high enough energies on Earth to access such small scales.

Science isn't faith and it doesn't explain everything right now, but it does not continually increase our knowledge of the universe in testable ways, something that intelligent design creationism has yet to do.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Well, unless you're a believer in ID, which is merely justification for christian dogma- within that theory, the earth is only ~8000 years old, and all the geological, astrometric and radioactive decay evidence was just an elaborate ruse by the Diety to convince us otherwise...

You couldn't be further from the truth.

While the ID creationists try to avoid the age of the Earth question, let's look at what they say when pinned down as the Kansas trials this summer.

there?s ID witness Roger DeHart who taught biology at the high school level for 28 years -- 20 of those years being in public schools. Mr. DeHart taught intelligent design for about 10 years, and is is the author of Icons of Evolution- A Study Guide.


PEDRO IRIGONEGARAY: "How old, in your opinion, is the world?"

ROGER DEHART: I'm going to answer like Dr. Sanford earlier, I would say between probably a lot younger than most people think.

PI: That doesn't say anything to me. What is your opinion in years the age of the earth?

RD: I'm fine with 5,000 to 100,000.


Then there?s Daniel L. Ely who holds a Ph.D. in Physiology from the University of Southern California, School of Medicine. Since 1976, he has been Professor of Biology at the University of Akron in Ohio.


PEDRO IRIGONEGARAY: ? What is your opinion as to the age of the earth?

DANIEL ELY: In light of time I would say most of the evidence that I see, I read and I understand points to an old age of the earth.

PI: And how old is that age?

DE: I don't know. I just know what I read with regards to data. It looks like it's
four billion years.

PI: And is that your personal opinion?

DE: No. My personal opinion is I really don't know. I'm struggling.

PI: You're struggling with what the age of the earth is?

DE: Yeah. Yeah. I'm not sure?

[Skipping ahead through more back and forth as Irigonegaray attempts to extract an answer from Ely ? RSR]

PEDRO IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Abrams, please instruct the witness to
answer the question.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: I think --

PEDRO IRIGONEGARAY: The question was-- and winking at him is not going to do you any good. Answer my question. Do you believe the earth may be as young as 5,000 years old?

DANIEL ELY: It could be.


And let?s not forget Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D. who, according to his bio, is nationally recognized for his work on the scientific, philosophical, educational and legal aspects of the biological origins controversy. Dr. Meyer is currently Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.


PEDRO IRIGONEGARAY: I have a few questions for you first that I want to establish for the record. In your opinion, your personal opinion, what is the age of the earth?

STEPHEN MEYER: Do you want my personal-- why are you asking me about my personal--

PI: You're here to answer my questions. First of all, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?

SM: I understood I was being called as an expert witness.

PI: What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?

SM: I'm unclear. I understand--

PI: The question is simple. What is, in your opinion, the age of the earth?

SM: Well, I'm just wanting to clarify the ground rules here. I thought I was being called as an expert witness, so why are you asking me about my personal--

PI: That's not the issue. Now, please answer my question. What is your personal--

SM: I would like to understand the ground rules first. Why am I being asked about?

PI: Mr. Chairman, if he's not going to answer my questions, I'd ask that his testimony be stricken from the record.

SM: I'm happy to answer your question. I'd like to know why you're asking about?

[SM goes on an on without ever answering the question...]

 

[dannybin1742]

pretty amazing that people can look evidence in the face and simply not beleive what they are being shown, but hey as they have said on the daily show, the evidence has no credibility anymore

 

[Todd33]

There is absolutely nothing that has given any evidence to show that evolution or intelligent design exists, not both.

Wow! People like you do exist, and they can work the internets? Scary stuff, you think there is no evidence to evolution? I guess hundreds of years and volumes of data mean nothinng to stupid people. Next you can start to convince us that the Earth is flat and is the center of the Universe.

 

[Deudalus]

Wow! People like you do exist, and they can work the internets? Scary stuff, you think there is no evidence to evolution? I guess hundreds of years and volumes of data mean nothinng to stupid people. Next you can start to convince us that the Earth is flat and is the center of the Universe.

Maybe, before you criticize you could work on your level of reading comprehension.

Read that again twice, slowly, and then realize what it really says.

It says to put it more simply just for you........

"There is no evidence that states that evolution and Intelligent Design cannot co-exist. It does not have to be one or the other."

Now back to your room and be quiet please the grown ups are talking.

 

[Deudalus]

You won't find a scientist resisting change because that's what it is all about, understanding the world. ID, on the other hand is not science, in that they can't explain their own theory, but have to denounce certain evolutionary claims to seem legitimate.

You must not know or interact with many scientists.

They are just as pig headed and stubborn as Christians can be believe it or not.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Wow! People like you do exist, and they can work the internets? Scary stuff, you think there is no evidence to evolution? I guess hundreds of years and volumes of data mean nothinng to stupid people. Next you can start to convince us that the Earth is flat and is the center of the Universe.

Maybe, before you criticize you could work on your level of reading comprehension.

Read that again twice, slowly, and then realize what it really says.

It says to put it more simply just for you........

"There is no evidence that states that evolution and Intelligent Design cannot co-exist. It does not have to be one or the other."

I agree, but one is science (with evidence to support it) and one is a matter of faith at this point.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

You won't find a scientist resisting change because that's what it is all about, understanding the world. ID, on the other hand is not science, in that they can't explain their own theory, but have to denounce certain evolutionary claims to seem legitimate.

You must not know or interact with many scientists.

They are just as pig headed and stubborn as Christians can be believe it or not.

True, but we do have evidence to base our claims on.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Deudalus

You won't find a scientist resisting change because that's what it is all about, understanding the world. ID, on the other hand is not science, in that they can't explain their own theory, but have to denounce certain evolutionary claims to seem legitimate.

You must not know or interact with many scientists.

They are just as pig headed and stubborn as Christians can be believe it or not.

True, but we do have evidence to base our claims on.

Plus, I don't ever recall scientists threatening each other with execution for proposing theories that didn't mesh with writings in a non-scientific text. I would call that the ultimate level of pig headedness.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Wow! People like you do exist, and they can work the internets? Scary stuff, you think there is no evidence to evolution? I guess hundreds of years and volumes of data mean nothinng to stupid people. Next you can start to convince us that the Earth is flat and is the center of the Universe.

Maybe, before you criticize you could work on your level of reading comprehension.

Read that again twice, slowly, and then realize what it really says.

It says to put it more simply just for you........

"There is no evidence that states that evolution and Intelligent Design cannot co-exist. It does not have to be one or the other."

Now back to your room and be quiet please the grown ups are talking.

LOL, you write one thing and mean another and it's my reading comprehension? Sure science and children's fables can coexist, one in science class, the other in church. As an adult with a Ph.D in science the whole idea of ID is just a slap in the face of logic, education and thousands of years of human progress. The thought of a US President supporting ID in public in 2005 is just sad, really sad.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

You won't find a scientist resisting change because that's what it is all about, understanding the world. ID, on the other hand is not science, in that they can't explain their own theory, but have to denounce certain evolutionary claims to seem legitimate.

You must not know or interact with many scientists.

They are just as pig headed and stubborn as Christians can be believe it or not.

If I were a scientist being confronted with a "theory" as non-scientific as ID, I would be pretty damn stubborn to. Imagine that you're an astronomer trying to figure out the composition of a neutron star or black hole (whatever). You've spent your entire life studying in the field, and then some random person who knows nothing about your science comes up to you and says, "well, neutron stars are so complicated that we can't figure out exactly what they're made of, so we're going to start teaching how the theories you developed aren't perfect." How "stubborn" would you be in resisting that stupidity?

Have you not gotten the point that there is no (zero, zilch, nada) scientific evidence for ID. The only argument they can make is, "we can't explain everything so here is a really vague and untestable answer." When you can test ID against data, and present actual evidence of it being a possible explanation of life on the earth, then you can teach it in my biology classes.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

You won't find a scientist resisting change because that's what it is all about, understanding the world. ID, on the other hand is not science, in that they can't explain their own theory, but have to denounce certain evolutionary claims to seem legitimate.

You must not know or interact with many scientists.

They are just as pig headed and stubborn as Christians can be believe it or not.

I am a scientist, and I won't deny that scientists can be stubborn, but I think you underestimate the competitiveness of the research world. The Standard Model of Particle Physics has withstood every test that we could throw at it for over 30 years, but every time that a single (i.e., not confirmed by other scientists) experimental result is more than a standard deviation away from the Standard Model's predictions, there's a flood of hundred or more papers proposing alternatives like sub-quark particles, supersymmetric partners, and more exotic ideas, to satisfy the new result.

In biology, look at all the new discoveries in evolutionary development, especially the discovery of how important regulatory RNAs are in eukaryotic organisms, and showing that what people once called "junk DNA" because it didn't produce proteins is actually one of the most strongly conserved areas of the genome, indicating its vital importance.

 

[dannybin1742]

They are just as pig headed and stubborn as Christians can be believe it or not.

but they tend to be smarter and usually have some form of evidence, or a testable hypothesis

 

[dannybin1742]

Have you not gotten the point that there is no (zero, zilch, nada) scientific evidence for ID. The only argument they can make is, "we can't explain everything so here is a really vague and untestable answer." When you can test ID against data, and present actual evidence of it being a possible explanation of life on the earth, then you can teach it in my biology classes.

one of the best quotes iv'e read all day

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
Have you not gotten the point that there is no (zero, zilch, nada) scientific evidence for ID. The only argument they can make is, "we can't explain everything so here is a really vague and untestable answer." When you can test ID against data, and present actual evidence of it being a possible explanation of life on the earth, then you can teach it in my biology classes.

:thumbsup: :beer:

 

[DealMonkey]

You can't have an ID thread without Riprorin blathering on about why he thinks evolution doesn't explain everything and blah, blah, blah.

I almost feel sorry for him that he can't join in. :brokenheart:

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: redhatlinux
Bush bashers, you are all so full of SH!T, its not funny. Get your chicken sh1t asses over to IRAQ and see first hand. Remember, a terrorist bomb, at this moment is waiting to blow you and your family to pieces.

There is something pretty funny about combining fearmongering with calling someone a chickensh!t. "You chickensh!t, you need to be afraid and terrified and believe that only Bush can save you from the terrorists who are otherwise going to kill you and everyone you care about. AHHHHHHH!"

QFT.

 

[cquark]

One of the Discovery Institute's leading writers and speakers for ID creationism confirms that the purpose of ID creationism is to be a Trojan Horse to move Christianity into the public sphere:

"In its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration,? Dembski wrote in a reply to [scientific creationist leader] Morris.

 

[dannybin1742]

why can't they just leave science alone for those of us who choose to live in reality


sadly the reality is that american' don't care about higher education anymore which is making our entire country fall way behind of europe in biotech, this is very evident when you go to seminars,

like one of my lab mates went to a seminar at oakridge a few weeks back for a neutron difraction seminar (a sweet from of x-ray crystalography that allows hydrogens to be seen in structures of porteins), he was telling me that the oakridge phacilites needed 32M+ to construct a collection grid and all the quiptement to start allowing scientists to use neutron difraction, in contrast, france already had 1 or 2 up an running, and several other universities in europe were working on their already, on top of this, he also said the majority of people who attended the seminar were not american, but came from american universities

now i look at the students in my grad college here and i see 90% chinese, 5% american 5% other


teaching ID in school will further waterdown our science taught in school, though if taught as an elective, that si not a requirment, i really dont' have a problem wtih that, so long as the students learn core science, biology, chem, physics


IMO ID is an easy way out for people who don't want to take the time to understand how things in nature work

 

[GoPackGo]

Evolution doesn't even care to explain how any life began.

Life is a battle against nature. Have you ever noticed?

Got a forest? Along comes a lightning strike to burn it down.

Got a field of grass? Along comes a drought.

Wind, Rain, Heat, Volcanoes all do more to destroy life and to wash away the earth.

The elements of the earth all work to break down things complex to simplex.

A mountain erodes a way. Shore line washes away. It's all about entropy.

So if anyone can care to explain how such complexity was created from a chaotic environment which seems to default to decay, I would be most grateful.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Have you not gotten the point that there is no (zero, zilch, nada) scientific evidence for ID. The only argument they can make is, "we can't explain everything so here is a really vague and untestable answer." When you can test ID against data, and present actual evidence of it being a possible explanation of life on the earth, then you can teach it in my biology classes.

The origins of our universe are a matter of speculation, and that applies to both intelligent design and evolution.

I happen to believe that intelligent design and evolution do not necessarily contradict one another...there is no concrete scientific evidence that proves how the universe came into existence.

The Big Bang theory may explain the origins of our universe, but where did the matter come from to begin with? Human comprehension of our very existence almost demands a definitive beginning, yet scientific theory suggests that the universe is an infinite entity.

Evolution may demonstrate a scientifically proven progression of species on this planet, which I happen to agree with...but the balance of water, nutrients and other requirements for supporting and sustaining life...hard for me to believe that it all just happened randomly...I do not necessarily believe in the Genesis explanation for humanity's existance on this planet...not everyone who believes in intelligent design accepts the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, as historical and scientific proof.

But I do believe that there was intelligent design involved in the creation of the universe, and not just our galaxy or our planet...intelligent design is either beyond human comprehension or we currently lack the technology to understand it.

Scientists cannot explain everything, and also maintain vague and untestable theories for supporting their understanding of how life came to be on this planet...if they did have concrete evidence, there would be no debate.

That being said, intelligent design is nothing more then a Trojan Horse that keeps Judeo-Christian Creationism in the classroom...however, I think you can take religion out of the equation when discussing intelligent design.