President Bush Endorses Intelligent Design?

[AlexCrowley 0]

I'm in total agreement with you. My comments were in response to certain posters attitudes towards science and ID, and it sorta snowballed from there. Unintentional thread hijack. My apologies.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Thanks Jack, solid link. The Kuro5hin link earlier was pretty good from my recollection.

also in response to Kelp:

I dont think a scientist needs to defend itself from ID. While there are some intelligent comments being made there were also (when I first commented on it) some 'wow, you crazy god guys suck, everyone knows evolution is real' type posts, which seemed hypocritcal. Following through the thread it stopped the interesting comments on ID and evolution and became a 'god is cool/science rocks!' over simplification.

But if science is all knowing and all you need to intelligently discuss a complex theory is high school biology then I'll be teaching freeflying next weekend.

I guess I'll bow out here, Im either unable to make my point clearly or in error. Feel free to PM me to continue,esp if you can point out my mistake :)

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But if science is all knowing and all you need to intelligently discuss a complex theory is high school biology then I'll be teaching freeflying next weekend.

I guess I'll bow out here, Im either unable to make my point clearly or in error. Feel free to PM me to continue,esp if you can point out my mistake :)

No need for PMs - it's already been mentioned that valid (as opposed to conspiracy) theories can be disproved, whereas ID can't be proved or disproved. That's why you only need high school science to discuss, and why you won't be teaching freeflying next week, unless your coach jumps go a little unstable.

[AlexCrowley 0]

I guess that's where I disagree. I've seen papers on ID completely debunked based on science.

ID tries to ignore it's creationist roots by using science (or psuedoscience) to explain itself. Maybe I'm still missing something but from my reading of the ID papers available it would appear that they try to say things like 'this eye could not form by chance bacause X Y Z, therefor a creator must have had a hand in it'. The biologist (with a slightly better than high school understanding) can argue (and has in the debunking papers) 'you misunderstand X Y Z, evolution answers them'.

Creationists use god.

Intelligent Design tries to subvert available scientific data to fit with their Creator-led, chance cant do it, model.

Please correct me if Im wrong, cos right now I'm totally confused :)

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[JackC 0]

Quote

But if science is all knowing and all you need to intelligently discuss a complex theory is high school biology then I'll be teaching freeflying next weekend.

I don't get your point. Surely it all depends on the level of the discussion. The stuff from this discussion isn't going to get published in Nature, it's not a discussion on someone getting a PhD thesis finished, it's just a pointless internet discussion between a bunch of skydivers. Do you vote? I'll presume you do but I'll bet you don't have a PhD in political theory.

Now if I wanted to publish scientific theories in a peer reviewed journals, I'd better know what I'm talking about and have be able to back my theory up with hard data. But dropzone.com isn't Physical Review.

Quote

ID tries to ignore it's creationist roots by using science (or psuedoscience) to explain itself......

......Intelligent Design tries to subvert available scientific data to fit with their Creator-led, chance cant do it, model.

As I see it, all the ID brigade have done is dusted off creationism and wrapped it up in some pseudo-scientific language. ID is basically the old theisitic argument form personal incredulity dressed up to look like science which I think is rather dishonest.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

But if science is all knowing and all you need to intelligently discuss a complex theory is high school biology then I'll be teaching freeflying next weekend.

ah the strawman...

No. Science isnt 'all knowing', but it is 'all seeking', and yes, all you really need to know to intelligently discuss, compare and contrast competing theories, is a base understanding of the Scientific Method. (What it is, how is works as a process and its fundamental definitions ie. What a Theory really is..) the ability to read, and to think critically...part of the ‘power of Science’ is that its observations and conclusions are repeatable by anyone, anywhere, capable of recreating the conditions, or studying available data...

In contrast, freeflying isnt an ‘applied process' in the same manner... sure you could teach somone the basic forms (assuming you knew them) with little actual experience, and you could even discuss the hows and whys, assuming you'd put some study time into the applied physics, but you still dont need a physics degree to fly or discuss freeflying.. being able to fly it is something else entirely... but what should be apparent is no one is actually trying to TEACH or 'PERFORM' biology here.. We are simply discussing the relative merits of competing ‘theories’, and why ID simply doesn’t qualify under the Scientific Definition..... something that you should have been taught to do in 9th grade...


the "God" crowd is sidelined in this discussion because they lack the basic understanding of the subject (Science) and so make what are fundamentally flawed arguments in relation to their 'theory' and its relative validity. A PhD who lowers himself to a point by point argument with someone who doesn’t grasp the core definitions under discussion is a fool…. But to demand qualifications and resumes for admittance into an internet discussion, and then pronounce that no one is capable of reasoned argument because they lack the relative diploma, is very very shortsighted..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Dont really think it's a strawman because I was talking about a small section of posts. Luckily someone was kind enough to explain everything to me in an email, much of it echoing your post here. Light has dawned and I now understand the argument better.

But I still wasnt asking for a resume ;)

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Everon 0]

For those who may be concerned, I am sending this letter to the editor of our local paper:

To the editor:

The subjects of organic and inorganic chemistry presented to our high school and college students are merely theories. They are zealously defended by the scientific community, to be sure, but only because scientists are determined to protect the "orthodox" version of chemistry that has been so long entrenched.

In order to inform America's students of an alternative method of viewing reality (and surely they deserve no less), I propose that right-thinking adults confront local school boards and college administrators and demand, yes DEMAND, that the ancient and honorable science of alchemy to be added to each school's curriculum.

It should be mandated that alchemy should be taught together with chemistry so that students gain the opportunity to decide for themselves which better corresponds to reality, and therefore may lead to career opportunities.

Before the theory of chemistry unfortunately supplanted it, alchemy was on the verge of transmuting base metals into gold. Think of it. Into gold! Isn't this the sort of knowledge students are entitled to?

I hope other local residents will join me at the next meeting of our school board. You can help defend academic freedom and integrity by insisting that alchemy find its rightful place in our science curriculum.

Sincerely, D.J.S.

[wmw999 2,447]

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[AlexCrowley 0]

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[wmw999 2,447]

Obviously I thought it was funnier than you did

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Everon 0]

Hey, what's this? Wendy and Alex - I was being serious, and you're laughing????
Blue sky to you!

[billvon 2,991]

>What scientific evidence is there that honestly proves evolution?

Paleontology (fossil records)
Archaeology (species change within man's existence)
Molecular biology (molecular clocks that measure 'distance' between species)
Convergent evolution (similar pressures creating similar species with wildly different ancestors)
Epidemiology (bacteria evolving resistance to drugs and immune systems)
Animal studies (speciation occurring within recorded history)
DNA studies (similarities between species with common ancestors)
Parallel evolution (eye designs)

>I don't have the desire to waste my time getting into a huge science debate.

Hmm. If you don't want to debate the science, people may not take you seriously when you want to change it.

>I would look up a video put out by Illustra Media called "Unlocking the
> Mystery of Life." It's simply a scientific video with no religious bias.

It was produced by the Discovery Institute. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about them:

"The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 by Bruce Chapman and George Gilder as a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA. Its areas of interest, social and political action include intelligent design, science, technology, environment and economy, international affairs, culture, defense, legal reform, religion and public life, transportation, and institutions of representative democracy, as well as bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region."

[billvon 2,991]

>Creationists have no problem with microevolution, it's macroevolution
> that the problem lies with.

Macroevolution is microevolution over a long time. Microevolution gives a squirrel a slightly wider arm so it can slow itself down a bit when it falls out of a tree; a million years of that and you have the 'macroevolutionary' result of a flying squirrel.

"Climbing Mount Improbable" is an excellent book on how what you call macroevolution is just a lot of very small steps up a very tall mountain. The mountain from prokaryote to human is incredibly tall; it would take billions of years to climb it through the gradual processes of mutation, natural selection and inheritance. Fortunately, we have had billions of years.

>Macroevolution had not been observed . . .

It can be and has been observed in the fossil records of countless animals and plants. Our evolutionary distance from our closest relatives has been documented dozens of ways.

>You divorce science from religion like the two are not related somehow.

They are not related. One is science, one is faith. Science is what you can prove and explain, faith is what you believe but cannot prove or (completely) explain. When you try to replace one with the other, or try to force them into the same mold, you run into trouble. They are, to use Gould's term, non-overlapping magisteria.

>Depends on your presuppositions. There's more credence for a
> world-wide flood than you probably realize or have researched.

Not sure about that; I've seen a lot of 'proofs' for the Deluge that are more wishful thinking than science.

"the idea that you can see the entire earth from a tall mountain"
>Not sure where that one comes from, mind showing me from the bible?

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

Daniel 4:10-11
I was looking, and behold,
A tree in the midst of the earth,
And its height was great.
The tree grew and became strong;
Its height reached to the heavens,
And it could be seen to the ends of all the earth.

>Belief that macroevolution is fact is faith, because it cannot be
>reproduced, measured, observed... its just a theory.

We can indeed reproduce it. We can create very simple mutations (HOX gene mutations) that cause fruit flies to grow new wings, or extra eyes. Since we evolved from the same basic genes, we can even use those fly genes to create mutations in mice to do the same things.

We can see beetles evolve into different species, ones that cannot interbreed. If we lived long enough we could see them develop into animals that we would not recognize as the original beetle (or, more likely, watch them go extinct, as have 99% of all species on the planet at one time or another.) To imagine that microevolution might change an animal slightly and then stop dead is a very odd concept, one with no scientific support.

>Take a poke around this site http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and
> read some of the material. They have a really good magazine with
>interesting reading, that is, if you have an open mind and willingness
> to consider a differing point of view...

It is indeed a completely different point of view, but again, it is religion, not science. Here is their take on the age of the earth:

"Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator."

If you accept the Word of God blindly instead of questioning the issue and arriving at the conclusion that is scientifically (rather than theologically) valid, then you are not a scientist, and your views belong in a religion class, not a science class.

>I know science knows quite a bit, but teaching things as fact when
>they are theory is the bit that bugs me.

Hmm. Do you have a problem with teaching the theory of relativity as fact? After all, no human has ever approached the speed of light, and we have never generated enough antimatter to prove conclusively that E=MC^2.

How about electromagnetic theory? Should we teach that radio waves might not really propagate, and that there may be a theological explanation? After all, there are still some open questions in that area. God might be doing it all.

>If you had extensively studied both sides, you might see this. What
> you and most everyone else has seen is only what they are fed in
> schools and universities though.

I have never taken a class on evolution (beyond basic biology.) In a similar vein, I would suggest you not use the Internet as your primary source of information. It is quite heavily used as a medium to peddle misinformation.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I have never taken a class on evolution (beyond basic biology.) In a similar vein, I would suggest you not use the Internet as your primary source of information. It is quite heavily used as a medium to peddle misinformation.

Hey just to brag a little.

When I was at Boston University I got to take a course in Evolution by Lynn Margulis, who originated the theory of Endosymbiosis as a way of explaining the origin of the Eukaryotic Cell.

She was the wife of Carl Sagan.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mr2mk1g 10]

I studied evolution at collage. I was taught by a guy whose surname was "Bates". He had a Masters degree.

[JackC 0]

Quote

>You divorce science from religion like the two are not related somehow.

They are not related. One is science, one is faith. Science is what you can prove and explain, faith is what you believe but cannot prove or (completely) explain. When you try to replace one with the other, or try to force them into the same mold, you run into trouble. They are, to use Gould's term, non-overlapping magisteria.

I agree that religion is not science, but religion does make scientific claims so Gould's NOMA principle is flawed.

For example, ID is religion masquarading as science, ie religion is trying to overlap on sciences turf. Genesis and the creation myth is a theory about the origin of the universe, clearly sciences turf. Even the main underpin of all religions is subject to scientific scrutiny in as much as we might expect a created universe to look somewhat different from one without a creator at the helm. Even though religion it not science by any stretch of the imagination, as soon as it starts making existence claims religion is firmly in sciences turf. There is no escaping that.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

>You divorce science from religion like the two are not related somehow.

They are not related. One is science, one is faith. Science is what you can prove and explain, faith is what you believe but cannot prove or (completely) explain. When you try to replace one with the other, or try to force them into the same mold, you run into trouble. They are, to use Gould's term, non-overlapping magisteria.

I respectfully disagree, Bill. The two are related in the fact that they both seek to explain the unknown mysteries of life. Einstein once claimed to simply be seeking "the mind of God."

Science is not without its own assumptions either. Don't we presently just faithfully accept that the Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic and Gravitational forces can in fact be unified? Where would the Big-Bang theory be without that assumption? Don't get me wrong, I fully expect the fundamental forces will eventually be unified, and I am aware that there is other evidence in support of the Big Bang.

According to some, the conclusions that have been reached by many of the world's religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Kabbalah. Similarities with the first three are highlighted in Fritjof Capra's book The Tao of Physics.

One of the interesting things he talks about is how many mystical "experiments" achieve reproducable results. The ability to reproduce results is the cornerstone of science.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Macroevolution is microevolution over a long time. Microevolution gives a squirrel a slightly wider arm so it can slow itself down a bit when it falls out of a tree; a million years of that and you have the 'macroevolutionary' result of a flying squirrel.

So evolution is the Calculus of Biology?

[billvon 2,991]

>but religion does make scientific claims so Gould's NOMA principle is flawed.

Well, science has made moral claims as well; consider the idea that whites are a superior race based on biology. Both are instances of people trying to use a tool in a manner it was not intended.

[billvon 2,991]

>The two are related in the fact that they both seek to explain the
> unknown mysteries of life.

In other words, they are both areas of study. I agree there. But that's where the similarity ends.

>Science is not without its own assumptions either. Don't we presently
> just faithfully accept that the Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic and
> Gravitational forces can in fact be unified?

No. The UFT is just one of the many competing theories. The difference here is that once someone disproves a theory like the UFT, it is discounted, and scientists everywhere breathe a sigh of relief that the solution is a little closer. Creationists, it seems, redouble their efforts every time some part of the bible is disproved; perhaps they feel they are 'losing the battle' or something. Which is the problem when you confuse science (which can be proved or disproved) and faith (which can't be.)

>According to some, the conclusions that have been reached by many
> of the world's religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and
> Kabbalah. Similarities with the first three are highlighted in Fritjof
> Capra's book The Tao of Physics.

I agree there. Things that man (and other animals!) do bear many similarities to each other and to the underlying forces of nature, since we all live in the same world and are bound by the same laws. The rows of seeds in a sunflower obey Fibonacci's sequence; a nautilus shell contains a series of golden-mean rectangles. That is not evidence that sunflowers are good at math though.

[JackC 0]

Quote

>but religion does make scientific claims so Gould's NOMA principle is flawed.

Well, science has made moral claims as well; consider the idea that whites are a superior race based on biology. Both are instances of people trying to use a tool in a manner it was not intended.

I could spout the "guns don't kill people," argument or the "two wrongs" argument but they're both well past their sell by date.

First you need to define what you mean by superior. Superior in what sense? To say that one species is evolutionary superior (whatever that means) is not the same as one species having superior worth (whatever that means).

Personally I'd have tried something along the lines that legislation is the scientific equivalent of morals instead of relying on the ambiguousness and negative connotations of the word superior.

But in any event, you made my point for me. If science has indeed made moral claims as you suggest, then Gould's NOMA is still flawed. Despite the nice idea that science and religion should not overlap, the reality is that they do. Evidently Gould was not a realist.

[billvon 2,991]

>First you need to define what you mean by superior. Superior in what sense?

The original science book, as quoted in one of Dawkins' books, described the Malay, Negro, Mongolian etc races and then conlcuded that the superior Caucasian race was the end result of evolution. Here's a modern-day version of the same sentiment, from the Nationalist Library, a white supremacist group:

Quote

Actually, racism is good and necessary for the continued branching off of new types of human beings from the existing stocks. Evolution, so far as we know, operates primarily by such branching, and racial feelings are an important part of what keeps the branches apart. At some point, homo sapiens sapiens refused to breed with the sub-men around him.
. . .
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my eyes the European race, imperfect as it may be, is a race of light and beauty. It is the race of Shelley and Keats and Poe and Shakespeare, the race of the Parthenon and Chartres Cathedral and Stonehenge, the race of Mozart and Beethoven and Liszt and Brahms, the race of Vermeer and Raphael and Rossetti, the race of Caesar and Alexander and Washington and Jefferson, the race of Ford and Marconi and Goddard and Von Braun and Shockley.

And our race is threatened. Nowhere is our birthrate above replacement level. Everywhere our borders have been opened and the new elite teaches our children that intermarriage is good and desirable. Everywhere the new elite teaches our children that to defend our genetic heritage is the very definition of evil.

The end result, if trends continue, will be genocide. The end result will be death for the uniquely beautiful, intelligent, and creative people called by the name of the goddess Europa.

>But in any event, you made my point for me. If science has indeed
>made moral claims as you suggest, then Gould's NOMA is still
>flawed.

?? Are you claiming that if you can find an example that contradicts something, it is not generally true? Are white christian veterans terrorists because Timothy McVeigh built a car bomb and killed 168 people a decade ago?

Science and religion should not overlap, and usually do not. There are, of course, exceptions, generally from people who have a desperate need to believe something and will take support from any source. That does not make it right.

[rasmack 0]

Jeez Bill, would you put some quote tags around that? You nearly gave me a heart attack.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[tsisson 0]

In my opinion, President Bush isn't qualified to endorse a candy bar...let alone a religious or scientific theory.

That guy is a clown...