Intelligent Design

[drebo]

This was drebo's way of letting us all know we can ignore him now. There's no reasoning with this level of indoctrination.

Indoctrination?

I have at no point stated that I believe EITHER theory is correct. My position is that BOTH leading theories should be taught until one is proven to be correct.

The only indoctrination here is the one you are trying to force on other people: "you can think this, but not that". Then again, I shouldn't really expect anything else from most of the people here. Heck, you probably believe that not collecting taxes is "spending". LOL!

 

[drebo]

When we teach science, we should focus on the actual science, aka "the process." To better explain and enforce the process, and to make use of it, theories and laws must be explained.

By your own rational, then, Big Bang Theory shouldn't be taught in a science classroom, because it can't be explained via "the process".

 

[ModestGamer]

Indoctrination?

I have at no point stated that I believe EITHER theory is correct. My position is that BOTH leading theories should be taught until one is proven to be correct.

The only indoctrination here is the one you are trying to force on other people: "you can think this, but not that". Then again, I shouldn't really expect anything else from most of the people here. Heck, you probably believe that not collecting taxes is "spending". LOL!

You sir are a dumbass of the highest order.

evolution is a thoery

Id is a philosphy

The fact that you don't know the difference.

Stunning.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It would only be pluasiable if such evidence existed to make such a claim be irrefutable. The problem is that the fundis still would ignore the evidence, thus proving they are mental slaves to theology.

...and you are not a mental slave to the ideologies you hold so dear? So why point to a manufactured problem about fundis and what you imagine they may do given a highly improbable scenario? You may want to look in the mirror at reality before casting your stones of bigotry at imaginary ghosts.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

When we teach science, we should focus on the actual science, aka "the process." To better explain and enforce the process, and to make use of it, theories and laws must be explained. Fantasy should not be brought into the picture. Schools need to stick with facts, and fact based theories. I am not suggesting we eliminate anything from an argument. What I am saying is that creationism/design does not have a scientific or rational argument. If you believe in "design" then you believe due to faith, not because it's based on observed or provable scientific facts. Thus, your argument is invalid.

I have friends and family who are conservatives and republicans. I have a friend who loves the tea party. I disagree with them on some issues sure, and agree on others. But, we pretty much universally agree about facts, just have different ways that we think will solve problems.

So, in short,
evolution vs antievolution isn't an argument. It's simply a matter of "correct" vs "incorrect." all arguments against evolution are based on faith/religion. faith and religion should not be taught in school.

Bolded for emphasis.

So critical thinking and the ability to reason on one's own aren't part of a fundamental common knowledgebase?

Sounds like a leftist idea to me. You know, with the whole telling-people-what-they-should-think thing.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Critical thinking and ability to reason both should be part of the education system. They are a cornerstone of science.

We should not be "telling people what to think" as you put it. Teaching what is the best scientific theory on a subject is not telling people what to think. It should be presented as the scientific theory it is. Showing the evidence that supports that scientific theory, and how science has arrived there is an important part of teaching a scientific subject.

ID has no scientific basis, and therefore has no place in an academic environment. If, a creationist/ID believer finds evidence (scientific evidence based in facts) that supports ID AND it goes through the scientific method that the Theory of Evolution was subjected to, then it can be part of a public academic environment (i.e. public schools). Your argument trying to state that not teaching ID means we are telling people what they should think is not a thought based in critical thinking and reason. ID is based on creationism which is based on religious beliefs. Evolution is based on supporting scientific evidence based on observations that is testable.

 

[Moonbeam]

Intelligent design was invented by Satin. He wanted Christians to commit blasphemy arrogance of the mind by assuming they have the brains to recognize the plan of a super-intelligent being, a being whose plan would be as evident as the Golden Gate Bridge is to an ant. When you hear intelligent design what you see is sin.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Indoctrination?

I have at no point stated that I believe EITHER theory is correct. My position is that BOTH leading theories should be taught until one is proven to be correct.

The only indoctrination here is the one you are trying to force on other people: "you can think this, but not that". Then again, I shouldn't really expect anything else from most of the people here. Heck, you probably believe that not collecting taxes is "spending". LOL!

Go back and read the explanation I posted in post #80.

Evolution is a scientific 'theory', ID is NOT a theory. Evolution has a scientific basis which is demonstrable time & again. ID is pure belief.

..

 

[BurnItDwn]

By your own rational, then, Big Bang Theory shouldn't be taught in a science classroom, because it can't be explained via "the process".

We have expansion of the universe, which if we trace back X billion years, leads to one point with essentially infinite mass/energy.

We've seen the result of supernova explosions, and how the matter gets distributed.

Essentially, big bang is just a scaled up supernova explosion.


To demo it, and explain via the scientific process, a school could essentially create a small explosion, and they can see how the process works. Big bang is essentially the same thing, only MUCH bigger scale. Note: Big bang doesn't explain the "trigger" for WHY it exploded, it just states that we had all the mass in one place, and something happened, and it expanded like crazy....

That said, maybe it would make sense to wait until after at least enough astronomy and cosmology are taught before teaching a theory like the big bang. In AP physics relativity should probably be covered, and basics of quantum physics, but, I don't see astronomy/cosmology in any real depth being covered at the pre-university level.

 

[ModestGamer]

...and you are not a mental slave to the ideologies you hold so dear? So why point to a manufactured problem about fundis and what you imagine they may do given a highly improbable scenario? You may want to look in the mirror at reality before casting your stones of bigotry at imaginary ghosts.

do you have a reading comprehension problem ?

becuase religous people belive the earth is 6000 years contrary to all the evidence otherwise.

Religion is a mental disorder.

Period.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Indoctrination?

I have at no point stated that I believe EITHER theory is correct. My position is that BOTH leading theories should be taught until one is proven to be correct.

This has already been refuted by several people independently in this thread. Deliberately ignoring those refutations and continuing to perpetrate such ignorance is a blatant sign of indoctrination.

The only indoctrination here is the one you are trying to force on other people: "you can think this, but not that".

Nobody has said anything like that. WTF are you smoking?

Then again, I shouldn't really expect anything else from most of the people here. Heck, you probably believe that not collecting taxes is "spending". LOL!

Dude, come on. You just declared that you believe alchemy is possible via ordinary chemical reactions. You are a moron. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and it's a mircale you can even manage to power on your PC.

 

[HumblePie]

We have expansion of the universe, which if we trace back X billion years, leads to one point with essentially infinite mass/energy.

We've seen the result of supernova explosions, and how the matter gets distributed.

Essentially, big bang is just a scaled up supernova explosion.


To demo it, and explain via the scientific process, a school could essentially create a small explosion, and they can see how the process works. Big bang is essentially the same thing, only MUCH bigger scale. Note: Big bang doesn't explain the "trigger" for WHY it exploded, it just states that we had all the mass in one place, and something happened, and it expanded like crazy....

That said, maybe it would make sense to wait until after at least enough astronomy and cosmology are taught before teaching a theory like the big bang. In AP physics relativity should probably be covered, and basics of quantum physics, but, I don't see astronomy/cosmology in any real depth being covered at the pre-university level.

Just to nit-pick, the Big Bang Theory isn't the only plausible scientific theory that supports the evidence. Another one, which I can not remember the name of at the moment was this.

There was no beginning. Since Time and Space warps that the further out you go, the more you turn around and circle back on itself. Eventually you reach the end which is the beginning. The shift we see is effect of a singularity so massive it both push from the "beginning" and pulls from the "end" of the circle of space that is the universe. This theory is what springs up other theories about folding space and time and using it to create "holes" or other singularities which may one day lead to faster than light travel.


There are other actual scientific theories that are also supported by the same evidence as the Big Bang Theory. Until singularities can be explained, or to a lesser extent black holes in general, there is no one scientific theory right now that is right. The Big Bang is just the most popular one because it deals with a "starting point" which most people feel comfortable with.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Indoctrination?

I have at no point stated that I believe EITHER theory is correct. My position is that BOTH leading theories should be taught until one is proven to be correct.

The only indoctrination here is the one you are trying to force on other people: "you can think this, but not that". Then again, I shouldn't really expect anything else from most of the people here. Heck, you probably believe that not collecting taxes is "spending". LOL!

Then you are intentionally ignoring evidence/facts, or you are just playing devils advocate.

ID is not a scientific theory. You may want to learn what one is, and why ID is not one and Theory of Evolution is.

Evolution has been "proven" as much as gravity has been "proven." Darwin's Finch experiment, research into the genome/DNA/etc, the fact you can show genetic drift and evolution in your own home (breed fruit flies or plants) with the right tools all show how evolution is as "correct" as other scientific theories. ID has not been "proven" to anybody outside of ID proponents.

I, for one, am not saying anything about indoctrination. The first thing that the education system should teach is the scientific method. Then, using that as a basis, present any current scientifically accepted Theory and show the supporting facts and evidence for that Theory. ID does NOT fall in this criteria.

By your own rational, then, Big Bang Theory shouldn't be taught in a science classroom, because it can't be explained via "the process".

Incorrect.

While the BBT is not easy to "test" (unlike Evolution where we can witness it in a short time span in lab environments), it has the supporting evidence based on scientific observations and facts. Hubble, Einstein, Hawking, etc all have presented evidence that supports the BBT. Based on our current understanding of the universe and how it works, the BBT is the best model for that. As with any Theory, it evolves as our understanding and knowledge evolve over time. The BBT has passed the scientific method to get to it's status as an academically accepted scientific Theory.

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

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

do you have a reading comprehension problem ?

becuase religous people belive the earth is 6000 years contrary to all the evidence otherwise.

Religion is a mental disorder.

Period.

Oh really? So that's what "religious people" believe? You paint with a damn big brush about a subject you obviously know little about.

BTW...the context of my comment was in regards to your response to TLC's hypothetical regarding Vishnu...yes, there does appear to be a reading comprehension problem here.

 

[her209]

Evolution has been "proven" as much as gravity has been "proven." Darwin's Finch experiment, research into the genome/DNA/etc, the fact you can show genetic drift and evolution in your own home (breed fruit flies or plants) with the right tools all show how evolution is as "correct" as other scientific theories. ID has not been "proven" to anybody outside of ID proponents.

Genetic engineering is intelligent design.

RAWR!!!!!!!!

 

[madeuce]

Genetic engineering is intelligent design.

RAWR!!!!!!!!

lol, very true.

People actually think macro evolution is proven? Far from it. The only place where fish turn into frogs and monkeys turn into people is some textbooks.

I don't think ID has a place in a classroom and it's the wrong way to go about what they are trying to accomplish.

I think they would get more done if they can just get the lies out of the textbooks that support evolution and let the students decide for themselves once they see how little real evidence there is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

lol, very true.

People actually think macro evolution is proven?

Do you think gravity is proven?

Far from it. The only place where fish turn into frogs and monkeys turn into people is some textbooks.

...and the fossil record, and the genetic nested hierarchy.

{snip}

I think they would get more done if they can just get the lies out of the textbooks that support evolution and let the students decide for themselves once they see how little real evidence there is.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If that collection of evidence is "little," it shouldn't take you long to read it. It seems you could use the education. After you're through, you're invited to come back and tell us why you don't think evolution is a convincing scientific theory.

 

[her209]

Do you think gravity is proven?

Gravity hasn't been proven. The effects of gravity haven been proven.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

Just a nit picky point, and that's the BB theory came after the discovery of the recession of the galaxies.

Also, a better observation than recession itself is the microwave background radiation, which indicates not only an initial event going back to a definite time, but had a hot origin.

Perversely perhaps, the idea of the expanding universe and an initial instant of creation was strongly opposed by the leading scientists of the day. Why? Because it opened the door to the possibility of something having a hand in it.

The favored theory was "Steady State" which said that matter was spontaneously generated as the universe grew. That being the case the universe was infinite but self regenerating. That failed because it didn't satisfactorily explain redshifting, and worse it failed to answer Obler's Paradox. Ultimately they had to give in to the "creationist" scientists.

Interesting eh?

 

[child of wonder]

lol, very true.

People actually think macro evolution is proven? Far from it. The only place where fish turn into frogs and monkeys turn into people is some textbooks.

I don't think ID has a place in a classroom and it's the wrong way to go about what they are trying to accomplish.

I think they would get more done if they can just get the lies out of the textbooks that support evolution and let the students decide for themselves once they see how little real evidence there is.

You consume evidence for evolution (or you should) a few times a week when you eat broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, and other vegetables all of which have a single, common ancestor: wild cabbage.

 

[brandonb]

We have expansion of the universe, which if we trace back X billion years, leads to one point with essentially infinite mass/energy.

We've seen the result of supernova explosions, and how the matter gets distributed.

How can we trace something back for certain X billion years?

You see, that's the problem. We have measured the speed of light by waves of light, energy a small distance, at the most, to the edge of this solar system. And we calculate that the speed of this light or energy is Y...

How do we measure that the light we receieve from a supernova is 40 light years from the Earth? We recieve the light when we do... How do we know when something was originated for certain? What if there is unknown forces out there that manipulate this energy? Does Gravity affect the photons? Does other photons affect the protons? Does the lack of matter in the universe between solar systems accelerate the speed, but when these light protons hit our suns protons does it slow down the speed? Speed it up? We have only done our tests within our solar system. What happens if we go past the edge of our solar systems do the properties change any? What happens if this light goes across the universe... Do the same rules apply?

The concept I can think of is you have a star in the night, we recieve it's light. To us it got to our eyes now. Now we have someone in the field 300 meters away flashing a flashlight... To my eye, the star and flashlight are the same intensity, got to my eyeball at the same time, but one was originated much later than the other. So how we calculate that the star or supernova is a certain amount of distance away, even though we know the flashlight in the field is 300 meters away.

We don't have anybody on that star to give us a timestamp that wasn't altered by external forces. We apply what we know on Earth in our limited existance and apply that Universally, assuming what we learned on Earth is a constant that equally applies to the Universe. It may not...

Speed of light to me cannot be proven universally. We can't use the speed of light to determine that the galaxy is moving at this speed, or that the universe is 8 billion years old. Because we cannot prove what happens with light across a universe. So doesn't that invalidate the test and anything that uses the speed of light as part of the equation?

Maybe that isn't the best example, but you see where I'm trying to go with this...

 

[her209]

You consume evidence for evolution (or you should) a few times a week when you eat broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, and other vegetables all of which have a single, common ancestor: wild cabbage.

So why do wild cabbage still exist?

DERP DERP

 

[HumblePie]

Gravity hasn't been proven. The effects of gravity haven been proven.

Correct. Science can not be proven, only dis-proven. One of the basic tenets of science. You create a theory to be disproved. So the theories of Gravity can not be proven. None of them. The laws of gravity, ie the measurable effects can be proven and demonstrated. Such as the universal constant can be measured out. Although even that fluctuates on a formulaic wave that has yet to be completed but that is another topic.

 

[ModestGamer]

Oh really? So that's what "religious people" believe? You paint with a damn big brush about a subject you obviously know little about.

BTW...the context of my comment was in regards to your response to TLC's hypothetical regarding Vishnu...yes, there does appear to be a reading comprehension problem here.

I doubt its mine considering considering my test scores. Feel free to continue to miss the point of the statement however.


I gladly paint religous people with a broad brush. Its all the same mental illness.Fanatical or not, submitting to any perscribing of religous doctrine is a mental illness.

Its just falling back to this ideaology.

Becuase the bible says so

Its the dumbest argument on the planet. anyone who supports it immediately abandons reason and logic.

Ergo.

Religous people are fucking stupid or mentally ill. Take your pick.

 

[ModestGamer]

Gravity hasn't been proven. The effects of gravity haven been proven.

No the underlying mechanics of how gravity is a force have not be proven. the behavior of it however has been proven. But I disagree with the way gravity is treated as a seperate force.

 

[ModestGamer]

trying to rationalize that the earth is 6,000 years old in any code language is just fucking stupid. You are stupid.

the universe is huge. If there is a all powerful being at the helm, we are less then ants in the scheme of things.

How can we trace something back for certain X billion years?

You see, that's the problem. We have measured the speed of light by waves of light, energy a small distance, at the most, to the edge of this solar system. And we calculate that the speed of this light or energy is Y...

How do we measure that the light we receieve from a supernova is 40 light years from the Earth? We recieve the light when we do... How do we know when something was originated for certain? What if there is unknown forces out there that manipulate this energy? Does Gravity affect the photons? Does other photons affect the protons? Does the lack of matter in the universe between solar systems accelerate the speed, but when these light protons hit our suns protons does it slow down the speed? Speed it up? We have only done our tests within our solar system. What happens if we go past the edge of our solar systems do the properties change any? What happens if this light goes across the universe... Do the same rules apply?

The concept I can think of is you have a star in the night, we recieve it's light. To us it got to our eyes now. Now we have someone in the field 300 meters away flashing a flashlight... To my eye, the star and flashlight are the same intensity, got to my eyeball at the same time, but one was originated much later than the other. So how we calculate that the star or supernova is a certain amount of distance away, even though we know the flashlight in the field is 300 meters away.

We don't have anybody on that star to give us a timestamp that wasn't altered by external forces. We apply what we know on Earth in our limited existance and apply that Universally, assuming what we learned on Earth is a constant that equally applies to the Universe. It may not...

Speed of light to me cannot be proven universally. We can't use the speed of light to determine that the galaxy is moving at this speed, or that the universe is 8 billion years old. Because we cannot prove what happens with light across a universe. So doesn't that invalidate the test and anything that uses the speed of light as part of the equation?

Maybe that isn't the best example, but you see where I'm trying to go with this...