How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Jonathan]

I had an interesting idea today. What if a large group of scientists one day said:

"Let's rewrite the Bible and make room for some scientific observations!"

And what if every library in Kansas had to throw out their old Bibles and replace them with the new ones?

Boy would Christians protest! . So to all of you creationists out there, don't complain when you think people are overzealous when it comes to protecting the very definition of science - you would be equally concerned about preserving the Bible if it was in danger

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I had an interesting idea today. What if a large group of scientists one day said:

"Let's rewrite the Bible and make room for some scientific observations!"

And what if every library in Kansas had to throw out their old Bibles and replace them with the new ones?

Boy would Christians protest! . So to all of you creationists out there, don't complain when you think people are overzealous when it comes to protecting the very definition of science - you would be equally concerned about preserving the Bible if it was in danger

First of all, you are correct that it would be unacceptable to rewrite the Bible. However, science is rewritable and should be rewritten from time to time. If you don't want anyone to rewrite science, just go back to the days of "the world is flat" and "the sun orbits around the earth", both considered sound science in their day. And have I mentioned spontaneous generation?
Second, the Bible does not and should not have "scientific observations". It is not a textbook. Fundamentalists who maintain a strict 7-day Creation view are looking at it the wrong way.
So, the problem with your analogy is that science is very unlike the Bible. The analogy cannot and does not apply.

[Jonathan]

There is a difference between rewriting the definition of what science is and to rewrite science textbooks. But it's good that you agree that science should be "updateable" if new discoveries are made. However Intelligent Design is a dead-end and doesn't leave a door open for correcting earlier observations. If we decide that a supernatural being designed us it's the end of science right there, since we can't possibly obtain new observations that show us there isn't a designer.

[edit] Oh yes, my analogy was quite good

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

science is very unlike the Bible

exactly the point i've been trying to make

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I had an interesting idea today. What if a large group of scientists one day said:

"Let's rewrite the Bible and make room for some scientific observations!"

And what if every library in Kansas had to throw out their old Bibles and replace them with the new ones?

Boy would Christians protest! . So to all of you creationists out there, don't complain when you think people are overzealous when it comes to protecting the very definition of science - you would be equally concerned about preserving the Bible if it was in danger

I really like you, Jonathan

I just like how you're kind and open-minded and intelligent and thoughtful and funny, too! I really appreciate your presence on this thread

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

However Intelligent D is a dead-end and doesn't leave a door open for correcting earlier observations.
[edit] Oh yes, my analogy was quite good

All science is supposed to lead to a "dead end", because then science has fulfilled its purpose. And how doesn't ID leave a door open for correcting earlier observations? It's actually very open to interpretation. All it says is that a designer exists, the details are up for debate.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

All science is supposed to lead to a "dead end", because then science has fulfilled its purpose. And how doesn't ID leave a door open for correcting earlier observations? It's actually very open to interpretation. All it says is that a designer exists, the details are up for debate.

Science isn't "supposed" to lead to anything except greater understanding.
Intelligent design is a dead-end idea for science. As Nobel Prize winning physicist Eric Cornell said on the topic of intelligent design:

If you want to recruit future scientists, you don't draw a box around all our scientific understanding to date and say, "Everything around this box we can explain only by invoking God's will".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Science isn't "supposed" to lead to anything except greater understanding.

I totally agree!!!!! So why squelch something that some scientists are interested in?!??!

Intelligent design is a dead-end idea for science. As Nobel Prize winning physicist Eric Cornell said on the topic of intelligent design:

It is NOT a dead end - it's an interesting new area! If scientists don't like it, they don't have to research it; but don't stop those who DO think it has promise! Broaden your minds and research this!

And again, that quote is, IMHO, just rather ignorant. ID does NOT say that by any means. That's TOTALLY off-base, and to my mind, shows that he didn't do any reading from those that think this area has promise. To me, it looks like he's only listening to the uber-evolutionists' scare tactics

If you're interested in reading what people have to say on ID and who are researching it (where they will say NOTHING about "this is done by God's will" or whatever ) then I suggest the Discovery institute for a good start. It is a think-tank place that covers various issues like transportation, finance, and things like that, in addition to ID. There are religious people there, and non-religious people, too. ID is NOT just a "religious person" phenomenon, altho those against it would like that false idea to prevail.

Follow the link I gave to Nurvi a few posts back. Most of the ID articles are on the right.

[BeardofPants]

ID is nothing more than re-worked creationism. Why ID can never be considered a science is because it seeks truth on a supernatural (ie philosophical) level, instead of on a natural level. I don't understand why IDers don't get this fundamental flaw (in trying to pass off ID as a science). It is a PSEUDO-science at best. I note with interest that a lot of the creationists now seem to be removing themselves from that camp, and attempting to disassociate ID from that of creationism. Feh.

[Rían]

No, it does NOT seek truth on a supernatural level any more than SETI does It seeks to study observable things in NATURE for characteristics of design of a type that we can recognize. I think it's an interesting new field, and I'm angry that it's being squashed because of people's beliefs and fears. I worked in radar for many years, and have seen and heard signals, and you can TELL the difference between "noise" and an information-bearing signal. Have you actually read any info from the IDers, or do you just go off of articles critical of them? I'm severely disappointed in that article that was posted on the last page, and that comment by Eric Cornell. As I said before, that only shows that they do NOT go off of primary-source material.

[BeardofPants]

Really?

Intelligent Design supporters generally hold that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations of phenomena. They assert that excluding supernatural explanations artificially limits the realm of possibilities, particularly where naturalistic explanations fail to explain certain phenomena. Supernatural explanations provide a very simple and parsimonious explanation for the origins of life and the universe. Proponents claim that the evidence strongly supports such explanations, as instances of so-called irreducible complexity and specified complexity appear to make it highly unreasonable that the full complexity and diversity of life came about solely through natural means.

wikipedia.com

[Nurvingiel]

Well, to be fair, Wikipedia does have the odd mistake.

However, doesn't ID assert that there is an intelligent designer? How would this designer not be God, or some other supernatural being?

EDIT: I did go to discovery.org RÃ*an. I read (okay, skimmed, but thouroughlly) Definitions of State Science Standards and Intelligent Design: Professors discuss Teaching the Controversial Subject. I quoted bits and made a few comments in post #355.

EDIT2: I can't really find any ideas behind Cascadia. It appears to be about transportation, and generally makes no sense at all.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It is NOT a dead end - it's an interesting new area! If scientists don't like it, they don't have to research it; but don't stop those who DO think it has promise! Broaden your minds and research this!
And again, that quote is, IMHO, just rather ignorant. ID does NOT say that by any means. That's TOTALLY off-base, and to my mind, shows that he didn't do any reading from those that think this area has promise. To me, it looks like he's only listening to the uber-evolutionists' scare tactics

It is an interesting idea and area and it should definitely be discussed in theology class for instance. It being interesting doesn't make it science, just as little as parapsychology is science.
Cornell used the words "God's will" but the point is that if we say that life is designed, it implies that the supernatural exists (because face it, nothing but a supernatural entity can have the power to design all life on earth).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Really?

[wikipedia quote]

wikipedia.com

Wikipedia is not a researcher of ID, BoP. What I was asking was if you had read anything by researchers/proponants of ID, in order to give it a fair hearing.

[Jonathan]

I looked to Google for concrete examples of ID, signs of ID and evidence for ID. To my surprise I didn't find much at all. Even though it's not surprising that no peer-reviewed scientific journal wants to publish ID studies (because of their being considered substandard), there should IMO still be websites where IDists can upload their studies. However most ID websites out there seem to focus on the ongoing debate about the status of ID and discuss evolution and its potential flaws. Websites that actually present the discoveries of IDists seem rare. I found a couple, but the studies were poorly written and claimed it is indesputably God who is the designer.

Could someone post a link to a site that present ID studies in a scientific manner? That is, in the form of a scientific publication and not an argumentative essay - neither God nor flaws in the theory of evolution should be used as arguments if the publication is to be scientific, only objective observations should be presented.

havethat has information about the findings of IDists with arguments as to why these findings are signs of intelligence? Objective arguments please (that is, God or evolution shouldn't be brought forth as arguments for or against the findings). I'm sorry if such a link has already been posted before.

[edit] I did visit Discovery.org but I couldn't find much there either. Most articles there also seem to focus on questioning Darwin rather than to defend the theories that this and that biological structure is designed.

[Nurvingiel]

RÃ*an's arguments are probably the most well-thought out. You should make a website RÃ*! I'll help you code it if you want to. (Though you can probably do that.) I know basic HTML anyway.

Jonathan, I really liked your "Let's change the Bible to allow for scientific observations" scenario. What a creative way to think about the situation!

Needless to say, if someone was attempting to change the Bible to allow for science, I'd be pissed. Similairly, science should not bend to accomadate religion. (New findings yes, religion no.)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

However, doesn't ID assert that there is an intelligent designer? How would this designer not be God, or some other supernatural being?

once again, that is basically what removes ID from the realm of science... the cause is something completely created via human imagination

seti tries to look for intelligence like ours, or like we think we may develop into one day... ID looks to a cause that is simply unprecedented in the observable world

also, science looks for the simplest explanations... look at the theories of star formation... it is possible a supernatural being created the sun... it is also conceivable that an advanced alien race created it... but science asks: is it possible that stars can form just by the elements and forces we observe today in the universe?

that's what current theory reflects... and take special note that i asked "is it possible" and not "is it the truth"

the rest is fine to speculate on... a grand designer, aliens, etc... but it is closer to philosophy (and exercise of the human mind), than science (an excercise of the human mind and senses)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

seti tries to look for intelligence like ours, or like we think we may develop into one day... ID looks to a cause that is simply unprecedented in the observable world

No, no, no! They both look for intelligence of a TYPE that is the same as ours, by analyzing things that are available to us.

also, science looks for the simplest explanations... look at the theories of star formation... it is possible a supernatural being created the sun... it is also conceivable that an advanced alien race created it... but science asks: is it possible that stars can form just by the elements and forces we observe today in the universe?

I disagree - I think science looks for the explanation that best fits the available data.

the rest is fine to speculate on... a grand designer, aliens, etc... but it is closer to philosophy (and exercise of the human mind), than science (an excercise of the human mind and senses)

ID is an exercise of the human mind and senses and observation. IMO, you guys need to get over this "supernatural being" thing. If SETI deciphered a signal from outer space showing a being creating something, would they instantly drop it and send it over to the philosophy/religion class? No!!!! They would seek to find out MORE.

SCIENCE is about seeking knowledge; its very NAME means "knowledge".

I think ID is an interesting new field of SCIENCE, altho it is definitely in its infancy. Do you guys know why the first stealth plane had lots of angles? DO you?

Because

the modeling/simulation technology was in its infancy, and planes (as in flat surfaces, not aircraft planes) are easier to model than curves, and the computers we had at the time didn't have the processing power to handle curve modeling efficiently. I've mentioned before that my major was computer science, with a minor in math and simulation, and I understand the importance of simulation, and taking things from nature and modeling them accurately, and what a great source of information and learning that is.

ID is like that now - we're at the very beginning of learning to identify/model/simulate/research characteristics of intelligent design. It needs to be studied and analyzed and experimented on. We could learn a lot from these things, and I honestly think the main reason that the ballistic-type people are fighting it is fear and ignorance and their own personal belief system and not being open-minded.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

also, science looks for the simplest explanations... look at the theories of star formation... it is possible a supernatural being created the sun... it is also conceivable that an advanced alien race created it... but science asks: is it possible that stars can form just by the elements and forces we observe today in the universe?

Occam's razor - Given two equally predictive theories, the simpler tends to be the right one. It is the basic scientific principle, RÃ*an.

[Spock]

==

From The World of Dilbert:

Weaseliest Behavior (poll results)

Advocating the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools
9661

Gas price gouging
7828

Reporting it as "finding supplies" when white people loot
6157

Corporate boards approving CEO pay packages
6149

Politicians blaming other politicians
6131

Outsourcing
2687

Downloading music or movies without paying
--------------------------------------

Dear Dogbert,

Why do bad things happen to good people?

Marty


Dear Barfy,

God loves you. Unfortunately, the alien overlords who put you on this planet are using you to test cosmetics.

Sincerely,

Dogbert