Intelligent Design

[Kadarin]

The ONLY reason to mention Intelligent Design in a science class would be to hold it up as an excellent example of something that is not science. Any other discussion of it belongs in a class on religion.

 

[BeauJangles]

You're 1 for 2. Evolution proves that a creator is not necessary not that one does not exist.

Many Christians (which I'm not) accept evolution as natural law, along with carbon dating, old Earth / old universe, etc. They just hold that mankind is a special case where their creator intervened in the natural process, just like miracles sidestep natural laws to do things like part the red sea.

In other words, the universe has default behavior, but there is something that has the cheat codes for, ahem, God mode.

Sorry, it precludes a creator from participating the steps of evolution, not in the creation of life or the mechanism that guides evolution.

 

[StageLeft]

First, you have a terrible misunderstanding of the Big Bang and how it happened.

Second, how does injecting a supernatural deity into the equation make things simpler?

So a deity answers the question of how the singularity got there, but doesn't that simply raise the question of what created the deity or how it got there (even though "there" can't really be defined as a place)?

No. If you are going to introduce a deity into explaining how the singularity came into existence you've already divorced from the necessity of science's cause and effect and thus need not explain how it got there in a scientific way.

I don't think evolution ever tried to explain the Big Bang.

So why bring it up?

The only reason science can't go any further at this point is because we don't understand the physics of a singularity...yet.

That's kind of like saying this car I'm selling you works great it's just missing its ECU so in actual fact it doesn't work at all. I have read on what science says about what came "before" the big bang theory and basically it resorts to "well in quantum physics some things just happen. We don't know why, but they do, and that's what we think happened with the big bang".

We are getting extremely close to being able to synthesize life.

Science has been "really close" for a while now.

Theory of Evolution has only become stronger, more well-supported, and better understood. There is no scientific counter-argument. There is no discussion.

A lot of scientists disagree.

Anyway I'd pull back my original vote, since ID though a plausible cause of existence, is not a scientific concept so not really applicable in science class.

 

[Udgnim]

ID is grounded in religion

it has no place in a science class

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Neither does the Big Bang theory.

That's simply false. The big bang predicts an expansion of the universe.

Both are beliefs. One is the belief in an intelligent creator, the other is the belief that a 1 in a googolquadrigazillionbajillion chance of energy acting in exactly the right way to create matter,

Calculations, please. Let's see them.

...which then bound in just the exact way to form impossibly long and complex chains of molecules to form the basis of organic matter which found its way to create organs which found their way to combine in such a way as to create a complex, sentient being.

And? Why is this impossible?

To be honest, both are pretty hard to believe.

Please do not project your own incredulity onto the rest of us with reasonable intelligence.

 

[drebo]

As I said above, it does make sense to bring up creationism / ID and explain how they aren't testable or disprovable and hence are not scientific theories, just faith-based beliefs.

No more of a faith belief than any other theory of how the universe began. At least, until one of them is provable.

 

[jacc1234]

Should Alchemy be taught alongside Chemistry?

 

[drebo]

That's simply false. The big bang predicts an expansion of the universe.


Calculations, please. Let's see them.


And? Why is this impossible?


Please do not project your own incredulity onto the rest of us with reasonable intelligence.

Hang on, wait a minute here.

You're the one claiming that one theory is correct and the other wrong, without any basis in experimentation or fact.

My belief that BOTH theories should be taught as equally plausible has no need for either one theory to be justified. Until one theory or the other is proven, neither is more plausible than the other.

You're the one claiming that Big Bang is the correct theory. Let's see YOUR calculations and YOUR proof which justifies it as being the only appropriate theory to teach children.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Evolution does not address the creation of life. That would be abiogenesis and science is slowly moving towards beings able to create life by simply combining chemicals.

As far as the root of the Big Bang, it can indeed be subjected to the scientific method. Science such as M-Theory postulates the root cause of the BB, is subject to mathematical proofs, and is therefore testable. In fact, science can mathematically test BB theory right up to the point of the singularity. The only reason science can't go any further at this point is because we don't understand the physics of a singularity...yet. Once we do have that capability the BB can be fully subjected to the scientific method. ID, however, by its very nature, will never be subject to the scientific method because it is not science, it's ultimately pure guesswork that employs an unknown mediator.

And that should be the end of the thread.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Wrong. If you ever bothered to read what Theory of Evolution states, you would realize that it is completely incompatible with the idea that there is a supernatural guiding force.

False. Nothing is incompatible with the idea that there is a supernatural guiding force. That's why it isn't scientific.

Why don't you try learning about the science you're trying to disprove before you repeat the same crappy arguments that have been put forth countless times before?

Eat your words.

It's insulting to think that I know more about Intelligent Design than you know about Evolution, considering one is a fantasy and the other is scientific fact.

Hmmm... that's pretty embarassing for you.

In science, a theory is something that is conclusively proven. Take the Theory of Gravity.

NOTHING in science is "conclusively proven." "Proof" is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. Science deals with testable hypotheses and observations.

Secondly, Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. It is not scientifically testable.

Then how can it be incomapatible with evolution?

So, fail on two counts.

Not quite so, chief.

the opponents of evolution have had 200 years to come up with anything that even remotely disproves, modifies, or contradicts evolution. You've failed time and again. This isn't a debate. Evolution is a scientific fact and the faster you and your backwards religion come to accept that, the sooner our country can move forward and deal with real issues.

You've reached the right conclusion, but the reasoning by which you arrived there is in need of some re-examination.

 

[BeauJangles]

No. If you are going to introduce a deity into explaining how the singularity came into existence you've already divorced from the necessity of science's cause and effect and thus need not explain how it got there in a scientific way.So why bring it up?

Right, that's what these nutbags want. They want a nice little explanation that stops scientific progress, pursuit, and inquiry in its tracks and substitute scientifically-grounded questions with fabricated fantasy stories about a magic man / woman / thing.

Don't you see why introducing some sort of supernatural being into the Big Bang makes it more complicated and more difficult to explain? After all, you seem to want science to explain how the singularity got there. Why can't I demand that you explain how some entity created our entire universe?

Oh right, because you can just say he's omniscient and omnipotent, can do what he plays (translation: "magic!"). That's a shitty explanation for anything.

That's kind of like saying this car I'm selling you works great it's just missing its ECU so in actual fact it doesn't work at all. I have read on what science says about what came "before" the big bang theory and basically it resorts to "well in quantum physics some things just happen. We don't know why, but they do, and that's what we think happened with the big bang".Science has been "really close" for a while now.A lot of scientists disagree.

What drives me nuts is when people get upset with scientists because they can't explain everything. Whatever existed before the Big Bang are, by definition, very difficult to explain, considering everything we know existed inside that singularity -- time, space, physics, matter -- it was all contained within a singularity. Trying to explain what was outside that singularity, in a place where our laws don't apply is incredibly difficult.

Anyway I'd pull back my original vote, since ID though a plausible cause of existence, is not a scientific concept so not really applicable in science class.

Intelligent Design is a nice story, that's it. By adopting it as any sort of stance you are precluding any further pursuit or study of the subject matter.

 

[sandorski]

Science Class is for Science, not Stupidity.

 

[drebo]

Should Alchemy be taught alongside Chemistry?

Alchemy is a subject of chemistry. It's not an important subject within chemistry, and I don't think it deserves time in a high school intro chemistry course, but that doesn't negate its existence.

It is 100% possible to turn one substance into another substance (yes, even gold) using nothing but chemical processes. That is alchemy. Alchemy should be taught and mentioned to the point where children realize that popular culture references to it (such as those in sci-fi/fantasy books and stories) are incorrect and not factual. But the entirety of the field should not be ignored simply because fiction has characaturized it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hang on, wait a minute here.

You're the one claiming that one theory is correct and the other wrong, without any basis in experimentation or fact.

No, I'm not. The Big Bang predicts an exanding universe. We observe an expanding universe. Therefore it has been tested and shown useful. Creation, on the other hand, makes no predictions.

My belief that BOTH theories should be taught as equally plausible has no need for either one theory to be justified. Until one theory or the other is proven, neither is more plausible than the other.

Sorry, not every fanciful idea that vomits out of a religious nut's mouth gets to contend for scientific validity. The Big Bang makes testable predictions and creation does not. Therefore, creation is a scientifically meaningless idea. QED.

You're the one claiming that Big Bang is the correct theory. Let's see YOUR calculations and YOUR proof which justifies it as being the only appropriate theory to teach children.

I just did. Now its your turn. Cough em up, sport.

 

[drebo]

Then how can it be incomapatible with evolution?

Intelligent Design is NOT incompatible with evolution. They are theories for two completely different things.

 

[TheVrolok]

What science of ID is there to teach?

 

[drebo]

I just did. Now its your turn. Cough em up, sport.

You did? Where?

I didn't see any calculations which prove that the big bang happened. Didn't see any photographic evidence. Didn't see any recreations of the circumstances. You haven't provided proof for anything, which is exactly the point.

You may have provided "maybes" and "almosts". Those aren't proof, and they certainly aren't conclusive.

When you can start with energy and end up with an ameoba, I'll be impressed. Until then, you have nothing...which, incidentally, is the same as people who only believe in ID.

 

[BeauJangles]

False. Nothing is incompatible with the idea that there is a supernatural guiding force. That's why it isn't scientific.


Eat your words.


Hmmm... that's pretty embarassing for you.

Sure, god could have created natural selection. Great.

NOTHING in science is "conclusively proven." "Proof" is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. Science deals with testable hypotheses and observations.

oh whoops I mis-spoke, I suppose you never do that.

Not quite so, chief.

thanks chief.

You've reached the right conclusion, but the reasoning by which you arrived there is in need of some re-examination.

fabulous.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You did? Where?

I didn't see any calculations which prove that the big bang happened.

Not really necessary. You're just being obtuse.

Didn't see any photographic evidence. Didn't see any recreations of the circumstances. You haven't provided proof for anything, which is exactly the point.

Please note, that there is no such thing as "proof" in science. You only betray your own ignorance by demanding it.

2nd, google WMAP data, or red shift. There's all sorts of info at your disposal.

You may have provided "maybes" and "almosts". Those aren't proof, and they certainly aren't conclusive.

Yeah, you're an idiot.

When you can start with energy and end up with an ameoba, I'll be impressed. Until then, you have nothing.

See? Enjoy wallowing in your own ignorance.

 

[yllus]

It can't be subjected to the scientific method so I suppose it has no place in a science class. No need to be argumentative about it, that's just the facts.

 

[woolfe9999]

You did? Where?

I didn't see any calculations which prove that the big bang happened. Didn't see any photographic evidence. Didn't see any recreations of the circumstances. You haven't provided proof for anything, which is exactly the point.

You may have provided "maybes" and "almosts". Those aren't proof, and they certainly aren't conclusive.

When you can start with energy and end up with an ameoba, I'll be impressed. Until then, you have nothing...which, incidentally, is the same as people who only believe in ID.

This is a scientific fail. The test of a theory is its ability to make an accurate empirical prediction. This is why they were able to confirm that Einstein's General Relativity was correct as opposed to Newtonian physics. Because relativity predicted the motion of celestial bodies more accurately than Newtonian physics. Captain Cert just explained to you that the big bang theory predicted an expanding universe before we knew if the universe was expanding, static, or contracting. And indeed, it is expanding.

- wolf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It can't be subjected to the scientific method so I suppose it has no place in a science class. No need to be argumentative about it, that's just the facts.

Fact vs fiction...it's become very clear that many on both sides of the ID question struggle with this.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sure, god could have created natural selection. Great.



oh whoops I mis-spoke, I suppose you never do that.

Not about this, no. You "misspoke" the same "misspeaking" in at least two posts, though. That seems less like "misspeaking" and more like being simply wrong.

thanks chief.

You're welcome, slick.

fabulous.

Take it to heart.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why would it be mentioned at all? Are we going to mention every hokey religious creation myth?

 

[brandonb]

What drives me nuts is when people get upset with scientists because they can't explain everything. Whatever existed before the Big Bang are, by definition, very difficult to explain, considering everything we know existed inside that singularity -- time, space, physics, matter -- it was all contained within a singularity. Trying to explain what was outside that singularity, in a place where our laws don't apply is incredibly difficult.

I voted Yes on the poll, because of this exact point... Our laws, scientifically proven, can't explain things which don't follow our laws of science. It's a paradox. Cause and effect, big bang happened was the effect, nobody knows the cause, and because of our laws, it's very likely we can never scientifically prove the cause. Chicken and the Egg. The only way to do that is master the universe, create our own laws that we can transform and configure, and wouldn't we all effectively be Gods?

Who's to say there isn't already Gods out there already? Shouldn't we have an open mind and think of that possibility? Granted, it may not be supernatural in nature, but from our perspective, is, because we see our laws being broken, and we can only explain that unknown as "magic!"

I'm not going to have a closed mind and discard the possibility. I have absolutely no problems with science, but I also have absolutely no problems with concepts as ID or religion. I think one shouldn't disqualify the other just "because..." There is more to our universe than meets the eye.