How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So old people have no intrinsic value in themselves - they just have societal value? Is that your opinion?

two people, father and son or mother and daughter, are a small "society"... the "intrinsic value" is placed by one upon the other for their own reasons... nothing more, nothing less

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IT DOESN'T MATTER who the designer is or isn't; what is being looked at is this: are there measureable characteristics of design; if so, what are they and how can they be quantified; and can we find these in nature or not?

no, there are no "measurable characteristics of design" because we have no example in nature that exhibits the ability to "design" the way ID claims the unnamed designer does... there is nothing to measure against

on the flip side, we have endless examples of very complex occurances that seem to have no intelligence behind them at all

let's imagine what you call "microevolution" did not exist... people, animals, plants, insects, etc. remained almost identical in appearance (size, hair color, skin color, etc.) over as far back as we could discover... and the climate on our earth also seemed to have always been stable, calm and almost unchanging

if someone introduced the idea of evolution as science in such a world, people would call him crazy... they'd say, "as far as we can tell, nothing has changed one bit on this planet for 100,000 years"... the theory might still be right, maybe evolution had basically stalled for hundreds of thousands of years due to a stable environment, but there would be nothing in the observable world to support it... at best it's philosophy, or an untestable hypothesis

science must be able to "measure" against the real world in at least some way

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The whole point is that who the designer IS doesn't matter; it's whether or not what we see in our environment can be determined to be design-based or not, based on ideas that are being developed and fleshed-out, despite determined efforts by the opposition to squash this interesting area of research.

This is misleading. The court system is not attempting to "squash research". What is happening is creationists are attempting to force a religious concept (philosophical concept if you prefer) into our science CLASSROOMS. So to say this is about the creationists being on the defensive is ridiculous.

Seems to me if someone came up with verifiable evidence of design it would win you a Nobel Prize at the very least because it would be revolutionary. But so many proponents of intelligent design begin and end their argument by pointing out problems with the current science and not evidence FOR anything.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

on the flip side, we have endless examples of very complex occurances that seem to have no intelligence behind them at all

*thinks of certain people's posts... * ) (not yours, brownie, btw!)

(JOKE! JOKE! but it was just cryin' out to be made! )

Originally Posted by IRex

What is happening is creationists are attempting to force a religious concept (philosophical concept if you prefer) into our science CLASSROOMS.

Nope. IDers are realizing that there are "signatures" that designed things have. Much like when I was working in radar, we knew the difference between noise and a signal. Now noise can be faked (i.e., designed to look non-designed), but a signal of any sustained length just can't.

Originally Posted by brownie

no, there are no "measurable characteristics of design" because we have no example in nature that exhibits the ability to "design" the way ID claims the unnamed designer does... there is nothing to measure against

I've disagreed with this over and over, and pointed out over and over that IDers are talking of a TYPE of intelligence, not a MAGNITUDE of intelligence. And the TYPE of intelligence we're evaluating and looking for is the TYPE of intelligence that humans have.

[Lotesse]

This recent ruling on teaching (or actually, NOT teaching) ID is very encouraging. Check it out, you guys...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

[Rían]

Oh, ok, it's only 1 judge, and evidently one who thinks he can read minds, at that, since HE claims to know the true motives of the people involved (unless I am missing something and the people actually SAID their purpose was to promote religion, and then said somewhere else that it was NOT.) I just think this "well, we know what these people REALLY want and REALLY think" thing is insulting and arrogant, as well as ridiculous, unless they have shown scientifically that they can read minds.

I think referring the students to a textbook may be going too far, if it's officially required, but the rest of the goals seemed to be just and reasonable, IMO.

[Lotesse]

Yes, it is one judge; it's a very good start.

[Cirdan]

They funded the "Pandas" books with funds raised at a local church and funneled the money through a third party. Then they lied about it in their deposition. Not very Christian of them.

Behe testified that ID was much easier to believe if you believe in God.

The drafts of the book were supoened from ther publisher contained references to "Creationism" that were replaced in Situ with the phrase "Intelligent Design" dating to the Supreme Court decision against Creationism.

The motives of the people were fairly clear to all who paid attention.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

They funded the "Pandas" books with funds raised at a local church and funneled the money through a third party. Then they lied about it in their deposition. Not very Christian of them.

The lying is certainly wrong, if that's the case. But if a bunch of people at an organization, church or otherwise, feel that they want to fund a project that they think is a good one, then good for them I'd be interested to see the deposition.

Behe testified that ID was much easier to believe if you believe in God.

I don't see how his opinion is relevant. Evolution is easier to believe if you're an atheist, IMO.

The drafts of the book were supoened from ther publisher contained references to "Creationism" that were replaced in Situ with the phrase "Intelligent Design" dating to the Supreme Court decision against Creationism.

Then it was a poor job, as the two things are different. I wish they could have ruled against the book part, but kept the rest.

The motives of the people were fairly clear to all who paid attention.

Perhaps these people, specifically - but by no means ALL IDers. I don't have the same motive. Personally, my motive is to promote all means to find out the truth about the universe, whatever it may be, and however much it is find-able.

The Pennsylvania thing was a mess; the Kansas stuff will pass, I hope, as IMO it increases the chances of finding out more scientific truth

[Lotesse]

I don't agree at ALL that evolution is more easy to accept if one is atheist. For one thing, if a God really did create the universe, who's to say he didn't do it with the intentions of letting it evolve and grow for millions of years? If one is going to believe in ID, then who's to say the design was not one involving gradual evolution?Isn't it in the bible somewhere that human beings are sinning when they presume to know God's will, or try to force their ideologies about what God's will may or may no be upon others?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I don't agree at ALL that evolution is more easy to accept if one is atheist.

That's your opinion, which you certainly have a right to, but several prominent evolutionists have said things like Darwin's theory has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, so to them, there is a clear link.

My point is that these are ALL opinions, and opinions differ, and I don't see how Behe's opinion is even relevant at ALL to the issue.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

My point is that these are ALL opinions, and opinions differ, and I don't see how Behe's opinion is even relevant at ALL to the issue.

He was the ID star "science" witness so someone on the ID thought his opinion was relevant.

The emperor has no clothes.

It would be better to "find out the scientific truth" about ID in a research lab or in the field, and NOT in the classroom. While the precedent of the ruling is not binding, most judges will be lothe to retry the same case, so a different approach will be needed.

Someone brought up an amusing point. A recent poll showed ~50% of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth. That many people can't be wrong so we should teach that theory too.

The lawyers were on PBS. The lawyer for the plaintiffs really knew his stuff, while the Thomas More lawyer just trotted out the same tired arguements. Maybe there needs to be a new term for "Scientific Theory" since its confusion with "theory" has been relentlessly exploited. How about "Hypertherion"?

[Lotesse]

The bottom line is that MAKing children in public schools learn Intelligent Design theories and myths as Science is in glaring violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. Period.

[Rían]

No, it's not. Period. Or rather, many intelligent people fall on both sides of the question, so it will be battled out in the courts.

Originally Posted by Cirdan

He was the ID star "science" witness so someone on the ID thought his opinion was relevant.

My point is that if they trot out an evolutionist that thinks that evolution supports atheism, will you want to throw out evolution?

Having God is NOT NECESSARY to ID.

[Lotesse]

Making children in public schools learn Intelligent Design as a Science, rather than as a Mythology or Philosophy or Religious Theory, is in direct, glaring violation of the constitutionality of the separation of church and state. YES, it is.

[Rían]

Since ID DOES NOT REQUIRE God, then in my opinion and in the opinion of many, no, it isn't.

[Lotesse]

Yes, it is. I can do "No, it isn't/ yes, it is, no it isn't, yes it is" ALL day long! Sorry, I guess I'm not that fantastic at debating! Plus, anyway, maybe it doesn't technically require God, but it requires SOME kind of mystery sentient being - aliens, perhaps?

[Rían]

yes, aliens is fine That's what the SCIENTISTS at SETI are looking for, and what SCIENTISTS who work the Mars landers and things like that are looking for - signs of intelligent design. That's all that ID is - it does NOT require any religion at all. And that's why I - and many others - feel that it is different.

[Lotesse]

But did aliens deliberately DESIGN the universe in totality, or did the energy & properties of the universe already exist and then accidentally get planted with alien life-forms? I think the whole idea of a being, or beings, having thought up and created the universe & life on earth to be ultimate fantasy, beautiful and fun to fantasise about and theorise about, but totally unrealistic. The opposite of scientific reason - fantastical mythicism.

[Rían]

And I think the opposite - aren't people amazing and wonderful?!

SOMETHING was obviously here, because here we are! That something can either be a sentient being, or non-sentient stuff - those are the two choices, as far as I can see. And it seems more reasonable to me that a sentient being created the universe than that it just happened.

And IMO it's also completely in the realm of science to explore this possibility, completely independent of any religious ties. It's a new discipline and needs some work, tho - I don't think it was ready to be taught in schools. What I object to is when the editors of scientific journals refuse to print articles by valid scientists, and the reason they give is that it's not science because it's not printed in scientific journals. Well, if they won't print it, it can't be printed in scientific journals But there ARE a few articles that have been in mainstream journals now, thank goodness. I mean, really, it IS a distinct possibility that an intelligent being IS behind our world, so why limit scientific exploration to only the theory of evolution? After a while, we may find that we CANNOT quantify design characteristics to our satisfaction, but until then, let's at least allow the research to be in journals so other scientists can read it and add their ideas/thoughts.

[Count Comfect]

"it's also completely in the realm of science to explore this possibility, completely independent of any religious ties. "

Read the Court decision - it has some very good quotes about how the Intelligent Designer has to be supernatural (from both sides), and therefore outside the bounds of science.

Science is the observation of empirical phenomena. So perhaps looking for a being capable of ID (and thus making it empirical) would be scientific (though not likely to be productive, given how long people have looked for God in nature). But postulating such a being's existence WITHOUT such proof is UNscientific.

And Science is not interested in what may be philosophically true - it is interested in what is empirically true. And it is my and basically everyone who testified at all in the Dover case's opinion that the "distinct possibility that an intelligent being IS behind our world" is a philosophical truth, if that, and not an empirical one.