GWB endorses teaching "intelligent design" to schoolchildren!

[laserboy]

LINK TO ARTICLE (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12278497.htm)

[ QUOTE ]

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Chris Alger]

From the article: "President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and "intelligent design" Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.

"Both theories"? The other one beginning with "once upon a time, there was an invisible king . . . ?"

"Intelligent design" is merely a backdoor for compulsory indoctrination about an intellgent designer. It's proponents still can't offer a satisfactory reply to Lord Spencer (1852): "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Or even Monty Python ("all things scabbed and ulcerous, all pox both great and small . . . ").

[ACPlayer]

I am not surprised. I believed, from the start of the second term, that this term the Christian theological agenda was likely to be Bush's top domestic concern.

See Today on Dr Dobson's radio broadcast (http://www.family.org/fmedia/broadcast/a0037251.cfm). Coincidence?


[ QUOTE ]
On other topics, Bush said he has no idea how Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts would vote in a case challenging the legality of abortion because he never asked him about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this hard to believe. I would be willing to wager that someone asked him the question, directly or indirectly. If the quote is accurate, then it is only so because HE did not ask the question, not that the question was not asked.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, [insert polititian du jour] essentially endorsed efforts by [insert special interest group] to give [insert controversial theory] equal standing with the theory of [insert other theory] in the nation's schools.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would anyone let the government "educate" their kids?

[etgryphon]

As an American...

How can anyone argue with teaching various theories about the origins of life and leave it up to people to decide?

Boy, doesn't seem like you have a whole lot of confidence in people ability to choose for themselves.

If a theory is erronous, it will become clear at some point, but until that point comes. Anyone who says that this theory or that theory is correct at the expense of another theory is just hiding behind ignorance and prejudice.

-Gryph

[CollinEstes]

We teach our kids about Communism but that doesn't make them believe in it.

Can't teaching our kids promient relgious and scientific theories be considered educational, if taught in an objective manner?

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
How can anyone argue with teaching various theories about the origins of life and leave it up to people to decide

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the theory that the earth sits on a turtles back? Should that be given equal weight?

[ QUOTE ]
Boy, doesn't seem like you have a whole lot of confidence in people ability to choose for themselves.



If a theory is erronous, it will become clear at some point, but until that point comes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, they are children. And secondly from a personal point of view, no, I do not have a whole lot of confidence in peoples abilities judge different theories on their merits.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who says that this theory or that theory is correct at the expense of another theory is just hiding behind ignorance and prejudice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just so wrong. Do you realise this argument has been used throughout history to perpetuate some of the worst crimes in all humanity. Try getting the word evidence into this sentence and you may have something.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
We teach our kids about Communism but that doesn't make them believe in it

[/ QUOTE ]

We do not. We teach our children that communism is evil. When they go to college or university they actually get taught about stuff where they can form an opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Can't teaching our kids promient relgious and scientific theories be considered educational, if taught in an objective manner?

[/ QUOTE ]

A nice ideal but unfortunately the people pushing for these kind of reforms have absolutely no interest in objectivety.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]

If a theory is erronous, it will become clear at some point, but until that point comes. Anyone who says that this theory or that theory is correct at the expense of another theory is just hiding behind ignorance and prejudice.


[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying all theories are created equal?

[CollinEstes]

I am pretty sure in high school you get taught what communism is.

And besides if you don't believe in evolution or creatism then talk to you own kids about it.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

What about the theory that the earth sits on a turtles back? Should that be given equal weight?


[/ QUOTE ]

Some Native American religions which are on par with this theory are taught in History and Socialogy classes for information sake.

[ QUOTE ]

Firstly, they are children. And secondly from a personal point of view, no, I do not have a whole lot of confidence in peoples abilities judge different theories on their merits.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it is your job or the governments to protect people from their own ignorance? When has that been anybodies business. That is a scary place to live in. You want to live under thought police?

[ QUOTE ]

This is just so wrong. Do you realise this argument has been used throughout history to perpetuate some of the worst crimes in all humanity. Try getting the word evidence into this sentence and you may have something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I mispoke. I think there needs to be evidence and some evidence is more compelling than others. I just think that it is ignorant to not hear varying theories. Crime was never perpetuated by the free airing of ideas\theories. It has always been at behest of a few who believed it was their gift to humanity to police thoughts and pervade ignorance at the expense of information. Tell me who is doing that in this instance?

And to steal from MIB:
[ QUOTE ]
1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat...Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theories are just that theories. We are a smart species. Let people decide what to believe no matter how old or if your are worried so much trust their parents ability/right to raise their children.


-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
As an American...

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to citizens of other nations, who indoctrinate their kids in school? Haven’t traveled much in life, huh?

[ QUOTE ]
How can anyone argue with teaching various theories about the origins of life and leave it up to people to decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a similar vein, should we also teach kids 2+2 = 3, 2+2 = 4, 2+2=5 and leave it up to them to decide? How about teaching them alchemy in chemistry class? What’s the harm in that?

Please, may I never again hear the right (at least the right that defends equal time for creationism) criticize the left for being relativist and politically correct; the Christian Right’s assault on knowledge is the most abhorrent type of relativism and political correctness – denying objective truth and facts in favor of wishy-washy proclamations demanding equality for what’s clearly wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Boy, doesn't seem like you have a whole lot of confidence in people ability to choose for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we’re talking about students here, then no, I don’t. I assume you don’t have the same confidence in children to make lifestyle decisions about drugs and sex. Considering the Christian Right fights just as hard to remove sex education from classes as they do evolution, you’ll excuse me if I laugh heartily at statements such as this that make appeals toward putting our faith in children to exercise sound judgment.

I wonder if James Dobson would like high school students to be given a menu of birth control options and allow for them to ‘choose for themselves.’ I have a feeling he won’t share your confidence in their abilities, etgryphon.

[ QUOTE ]
If a theory is erronous, it will become clear at some point, but until that point comes. Anyone who says that this theory or that theory is correct at the expense of another theory is just hiding behind ignorance and prejudice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you may want to consider finding a dictionary or a science textbook and reviewing what a theory is.

You apparently still don't know what scientific theory is (here’s a hint: scientific theory (which evolution is) is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon which originates from observable facts or is supported by observable facts); as opposed to yours and the Christian Right’s definition of a theory, which is something like "some stuff I kind of made up and can't really prove."

As someone who often sympathizes will the left, I’ll take responsibility for donkey’s like Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg if the right will take responsibility for donkey's like creationism advocates (at least the advocates who try to include it as a viable theory alongside evolution in public school; I'm more than willing to allow people to believe whatever they want, and teach their kids whatever they want in their own homes or in private school).

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Some Native American religions which are on par with this theory are taught in History and Socialogy classes for information sake

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to schoolchildren and not with an authority of 'this is a reasonable explanation of the way things are'. This is the difference with the Intelligence design/religious crowd.

[ QUOTE ]
So you think it is your job or the governments to protect people from their own ignorance? When has that been anybodies business. That is a scary place to live in. You want to live under thought police?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with anyone saying anything they want. I have a problem with with baseless theories being taught to impressonable minds. Lets be clear about this, Intelligent design has no basis in fact, has no physical evidense to build on and cannot be tested at even the most rudimentary level. It is not a theory it is a philosophy. This to me is a scary place where opinion is taught as fact, where evidence that doesn't hold up to scrutiny is routinely ignored.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I mispoke. I think there needs to be evidence and some evidence is more compelling than others. I just think that it is ignorant to not hear varying theories. Crime was never perpetuated by the free airing of ideas\theories. It has always been at behest of a few who believed it was their gift to humanity to police thoughts and pervade ignorance at the expense of information. Tell me who is doing that in this instance?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree no one should be muzzled at all. Freedom of speech is probably the most important freedom there is but that doesn't mean unscientific opinions should be taught as science, this really would be thought police tactic.

[ QUOTE ]
Theories are just that theories. We are a smart species. Let people decide what to believe no matter how old or if your are worried so much trust their parents ability/right to raise their children.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a lot more faith in humankind that I do, maybe its an age thing /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[FishHooks]

heck we are taught what communism is in Middle School.

[CollinEstes]

What if God designed evolution? Then we would be in a pickle wouldn't we.

[BeerGolfPoker]

The issue is whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in science class.

The problem is that Intelligent Design, at least to this point, does not constitute a scientific theory. It is neither testifiable nor falsifiable - two of the hallmarks of a scientific theory.

So go ahead and teach kids about Intelligent Design in a Sociology or World Religion class, but keep the non-science out of science classrooms.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with with baseless theories being taught to impressonable minds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lefties in here seem to be up in arms that "impressionable" (and persumeably young) minds could be taught intelligent design.

So I propose a compromise. Don't teach any creation theories (evolution included) until high school. That way, these people can think for themselves and decide what to believe.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Lefties in here seem to be up in arms that "impressionable" (and persumeably young) minds could be taught intelligent design.

[/ QUOTE ]

This comment is irrelevant, except that I think just you wanted to say 'leftists' and 'up in arms' in the same sentence to make leftists sound alarmist, despite the fact that your comment wasn't particularly cogent to the discussion at hand. A silly red herring, to be sure.

[ QUOTE ]
So I propose a compromise. Don't teach any creation theories (evolution included) until high school. That way, these people can think for themselves and decide what to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Evolution isn't a creation theory. I suggest you consider further study into what the theory of evolution actually is.
2) That's not a compromise, it's just giving creationists exactly what they want - which is putting creationism (not a scientific theory, or a theory at all) alongside actual science (in other words, the study of observable facts about the world and theories which test demonstrable phenomena, like evolution).

Your 'compromise' is ridiculous (and as I said, not a compromise at all).

[adios]

What might be interesting and educational is a comparison of how the scientific method has been applied to develop the theories of evolution and how it would need to be applied in order to develop "intelligent design" theory. To be honest though, not sure that schools really have all that much time to get that deeply into it. Perhaps if some breakthroughs in the development of "intelligent design" theory are forthcoming it can become a subject in school at that point (I almost wrote this with a straight face but not quite btw). Anyway this site claims that "Intelligent Design" is a product of the Scientific Method:

FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method? (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154)

[tolbiny]

The problem is that there is a push to include "creationism" in a science class- giving it equal weight to scientific thoeries- when it really belongs in a religion class. Putting it in the science classroom gives it an amount of weight that it shouldn't have as a "thoery".

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What might be interesting and educational is a comparison of how the scientific method has been applied to develop the theories of evolution and how it would need to be applied in order to develop "intelligent design" theory. To be honest though, not sure that schools really have all that much time to get that deeply into it. Perhaps if some breakthroughs in the development of "intelligent design" theory are forthcoming it can become a subject in school at that point (I almost wrote this with a straight face but not quite btw). Anyway this site claims that "Intelligent Design" is a product of the Scientific Method:

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who's a strong opponent of having creationism taught in science class, I'm more than willing to give ID a day in court, so to speak, to prove it's the product of scientific method; but I'd be surprised if ID proponents could do so in any kind of legitimate way (specifically how ID could be used to predict anything, or how those predicitions could be tested). Like you said, it takes quite the poker face to believe ID could satisfy the scruitny of objective scientific inquiry.

[tolbiny]

Nice link- i almost pity those who try to assail the infallible logic on that site.

[etgryphon]

Wow, DVaut1...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an American...

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to citizens of other nations, who indoctrinate their kids in school?


[/ QUOTE ]

It was only a qualifying statement meaning I can only speak as a citizen of the US who believes in the free exchange of ideas.

[ QUOTE ]

Haven’t traveled much in life, huh?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, comments like this do great to harm the perception of your objectivity and logic.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How can anyone argue with teaching various theories about the origins of life and leave it up to people to decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a similar vein, should we also teach kids 2+2 = 3, 2+2 = 4, 2+2=5 and leave it up to them to decide? How about teaching them alchemy in chemistry class? What’s the harm in that?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very poor example. The math and chemistry is easily proven erroneous from the outset.

Can you prove that Intelligent Design is incorrect? Can you prove that Macroevolution is correct? Both are theories that are in the process of providing evidence in their favor. The Evolutionary Model has a ton of interpretive data to back it up. Intelligent Design is a relatively new scientific theory and bases most of it's validity on math modeling which is scientific. To throw this out would be effectively like saying Einstein's General Theory of Relativity need not be taught or scrutinized because it couldn't be experimentally proven and was proved half-true and half-false in the 1919 eclipse expedition by Arthur Eddington to Principe Island. And not until recently has it been proven with the advent of better technology.

[ QUOTE ]

Please, may I never again hear the right (at least the right that defends equal time for creationism) criticize the left for being relativist and politically correct; the Christian Right’s assault on knowledge is the most abhorrent type of relativism and political correctness – denying objective truth and facts in favor of wishy-washy proclamations demanding equality for what’s clearly wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how is it clearly wrong? How is it denying objective truth and fact? ID has a growing following because of some very basic and compeling mathimatical evidence.

Macroevolution has no objective proof other than the interpolation of process on the microevolutionary scale which has been proven. A lot of the "proof" for Macroevolution is based on mathimatical modeling as well.

So Macroevolution is "proved" by the presence of the observable fossil record, interpolation of a lessor scientific process of microevolution which can be experimented and observed and repeated, and the presence of mathimatical modeling of the genesis of species based on the above presupositions. This is good science. I have no problems with this process nor should anyone.

Intelligent Design is a theory that is also based on the observable fossil record, the observable nature of present natural structure, the interpolation of a lessor scientific process of "irreducable complexity" which can be experimented on and interpreted, and the mathimatical modeling of the above presupositions. Doesn't sound all the dissimilar...

[ QUOTE ]

Since we’re talking about students here, then no, I don’t. I assume you don’t have the same confidence in children to make lifestyle decisions about drugs and sex. Considering the Christian Right fights just as hard to remove sex education from classes as they do evolution, you’ll excuse me if I laugh heartily at statements such as this that make appeals toward putting our faith in children to exercise sound judgment.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, here is a bit of irrational logic. We are not talking about lifestyles only about science. Please stick to topics that are germane. But since you have brought them up, drugs are talked about in school in civics and sociology. Kids are taught about consequences of drug and they are still given the choice to live that way or not. As to sex education? Those are lifestyle choices and not science. Why should my kids be subjected to indocrination of lifestyle choices? They should be taught subjects not lifestyles. That is my job as a parent.

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if James Dobson would like high school students to be given a menu of birth control options and allow for them to ‘choose for themselves.’ I have a feeling he won’t share your confidence in their abilities, etgryphon.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are unmasking your true feelings. I think, if I am reading correctly, you hear "Intelligent Design" you automatically hear "Creationism", "Right Wing", "Ignorance" etc. I don't believe you have actually research or read anything from Intelligent Design advocates with an open mind. You also don't seem to understand the "proofs" of macroevolution and its evolving nature as new information comes to light.

I'm not here to prove "Intelligent Design" is correct and "Macroevolution" is incorrect. I don't really know, but I have taken the time to look at the evidence on both sides and I have my opinions and am swayed by the arguements.

I think it is only smart to provide both as a part of the educational process.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you may want to consider finding a dictionary or a science textbook and reviewing what a theory is.

You apparently still don't know what scientific theory is (here’s a hint: scientific theory (which evolution is) is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon which originates from observable facts or is supported by observable facts); as opposed to yours and the Christian Right’s definition of a theory, which is something like "some stuff I kind of made up and can't really prove."


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, wow...Such hostility. Do you really believe that someone will take you seriously when such emotionalism and prejudice is present in your writing. Thank you for explaining scientific theory to me I can't believe that I missed that in all the years of school and college I attended.

The enemy of science has always been the current established mindset. People don't like to think that they could be wrong because they are so smart. Science needs to be held lightly. We never know all the fact or know all aspects. We must never hinder scientific discovery and innovation because it doesn't fit with what we believe currently.

[ QUOTE ]

As someone who often sympathizes will the left, I’ll take responsibility for donkey’s like Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg if the right will take responsibility for donkey's like creationism advocates (at least the advocates who try to include it as a viable theory alongside evolution in public school; I'm more than willing to allow people to believe whatever they want, and teach their kids whatever they want in their own homes or in private school).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good then we are in agreement. But "Creationism" does not equal "Intelligent Design" even though a lot of creationist believe in "Intelligent Design". Evolutionist believe in an "Intelligent Design" often but they call it "Mother Nature" and "finding a way" etc. They are not far off from each other. Its only the fanatics of the established scientific tradition that are threatened.

-Gryph

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Some Native American religions which are on par with this theory are taught in History and Socialogy classes for information sake.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a HUGE difference between teaching it in History and Sociology versus teaching it in Science classh

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It was only a qualifying statement meaning I can only speak as a citizen of the US who believes in the free exchange of ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, what’s this opposed to? Other countries which indoctrinate their children in school? Since we all agree this is wrong, you’re meaning to imply that those who don’t want to allow creationism along side of evolution in public school are somehow akin to people who don’t want the free exchange of ideas. So the “As an American” was merely meant to portray creationism opponents (that is, those who feel is has no place in a public school science class) as somehow opposed to the free exchange of ideas, and by association, they’re un-American.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven’t traveled much in life, have you?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, comments like this do great to harm the perception of your objectivity and logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could care less if my arguments are taken seriously (although this especially true of those who think ID is somehow equivalent in legitimacy to the theory of evolution).

Regardless, if you think America is the only place where the free exchange of ideas happens, then I believe you haven’t traveled/read/lived very much.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove that Intelligent Design is incorrect?

[/ QUOTE ]

No more than I can prove aliens don’t exist, which is to say no one should be responsible for trying to disprove the improvable.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you prove that Macroevolution is correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Making this kind of distinction between marco-evolution and micro-evolution is just a tired strategy that creationists use to discredit evolution. There is a different between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, namely (and only) that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus.

But creationists will use micro-evolution to mean something like “natural selection” and then use the distinction to claim they believe in what’s obviously true (natural selection) while still continuing to have skepticism about ‘macro-evolution.’

Creationists have tried to create some other category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. In other words, anything that takes a long time and can’t be observed in a human lifespan, creationists call ‘macro-evolution.’

Regardless, if you accept micro-evolution (selection, mutation, genetic drift) to be true, you’re by definition accepting the veracity of ‘macro-evolution’.

[ QUOTE ]
Both are theories that are in the process of providing evidence in their favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligent Design isn’t a theory that can be proven or disproved by the scientific method. ID doesn’t predict anything, therefore it can’t be falsified. But since it’s not predicting anything, it’s not a scientific theory, just idle speculation that isn’t equivalent to actual, testable theories like evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
The Evolutionary Model has a ton of interpretive data to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

By ‘interpretive’, you mean ‘legitimate conclusions to be drawn from observable phenomena’, also known colloquially as the study of science.

[ QUOTE ]
Intelligent Design is a relatively new scientific theory and bases most of it's validity on math modeling which is scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only ‘math modeling’ that ID does is claim that because life is so complex, it couldn’t have happened randomly. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of probability knows that merely because the probability of some occurrence is extraordinarily unlikely doesn’t mean that it’s impossible, and ID advocates deceptively play on our intuitive sense that if something is unlikely, it’s synonymous to being impossible. Poker players should be even better equipped to spot this fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
To throw this out would be effectively like saying Einstein's General Theory of Relativity need not be taught or scrutinized because it couldn't be experimentally proven and was proved half-true and half-false in the 1919 eclipse expedition by Arthur Eddington to Principe Island. And not until recently has it been proven with the advent of better technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely unrelated. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity can be proven/disproved using the scientific method, ID cannot. ID isn’t science, and it’s not accountable to the scientific method.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, how is it clearly wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

ID/creationism isn’t provable or improvable. It doesn’t adhere to the scientific method, since it can’t predict, so it’s clearly wrong to teach it as science. It has no place in a science classroom. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
How is it denying objective truth and fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists who want to attempt to discredit evolution by
placing creationism along-side of it in a high school science class are denying truth and fact.

[ QUOTE ]
ID has a growing following

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. Just because lots of uninformed people believe something doesn’t make it true, and just because ID proponents were able to convince other ignorant people of the same isn’t proof of ID’s viability.

[ QUOTE ]
because (ID has) some very basic and compeling mathimatical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s not evidence, it’s just a fallacy that people with a low level of knowledge of probability find convincing...or people who are so dogmatic they’ll grasp at straws.

[ QUOTE ]
Macroevolution has no objective proof other than the interpolation of process on the microevolutionary scale which has been proven. A lot of the "proof" for Macroevolution is based on mathimatical modeling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The exact same processes which are the foundation of ‘micro-evolution’ are the same processes which exist in ‘macro-evolution’, which is to say that it’s the same process, no distinction exists, and if you believe in micro-evolution, than you (by definition) believe in marco-evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
So Macroevolution is "proved" by the presence of the observable fossil record, interpolation of a lessor scientific process of microevolution which can be experimented and observed and repeated, and the presence of mathimatical modeling of the genesis of species based on the above presupositions. This is good science. I have no problems with this process nor should anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

So long as you agree it’s good science, then you should ridicule those who would put creationism along-side it, since creationism/ID is just bunk pseudo-science.

[ QUOTE ]
Intelligent Design is a theory that is also based on the observable fossil record,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, ID merely takes the same fossil record that evolutionists use and claim that the conclusions actual scientists come up with are “highly unlikely;” this isn’t science, it’s just throwing [censored] against the wall to see what sticks.

[ QUOTE ]
"irreducable complexity" which can be experimented on and interpreted, and the mathimatical modeling of the above presupositions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irreducible complexity is essentially a rehash of the famously flawed watchmaker argument advanced by William Paley at the start of the 19th century. Mostly, it goes like this:

1. Irreducible complex things cannot evolve
2. If it can't have evolved it must have been designed

Except that the only ‘proof’ for the claim that ‘irreducible complex things cannot evolve’ is that they’re complicated, therefore it’s unlikely to have happened randomly.

Again, anyone with just a small knowledge of probability knows that unlikely isn’t equivalent to impossible, and ID advocates are just preying on those who don’t understand that.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, here is a bit of irrational logic. We are not talking about lifestyles only about science. Please stick to topics that are germane.

[/ QUOTE ]

We’re talking about whether or not we trust the judgment of children to ‘decide for themselves,’ which is what you proposed we let children do.

[ QUOTE ]
But since you have brought them up, drugs are talked about in school in civics and sociology. Kids are taught about consequences of drug and they are still given the choice to live that way or not. As to sex education? Those are lifestyle choices and not science. Why should my kids be subjected to indocrination of lifestyle choices? They should be taught subjects not lifestyles. That is my job as a parent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in other words, you don’t trust the ability of children to make correct judgments on their own (and neither do I). Yet that is the standard you chose to use in the science classroom. Perhaps you may also want to look up ‘hypocrisy’ in the dictionary.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are unmasking your true feelings. I think, if I am reading correctly, you hear "Intelligent Design" you automatically hear "Creationism", "Right Wing", "Ignorance" etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to creationism/ID, then yes, I think people who advocate that are ignorant. I said nothing about right-wingers. I know one poster here (adios) is solidly on the right, yet can’t keep a straight face when trying to argue for ID. Because it’s clearly ignorant to do so. Claiming that I’m calling everyone on the right ignorant is just trying to create martyrs where they don’t exist. I said nothing of the right-wing (other than they align themselves with creationism advocates), and they’re not a victim of any kind of cruel generalization. I never called right-wingers ignorant, and it’s disingenuous to claim that I did.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you have actually research or read anything from Intelligent Design advocates with an open mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I have unfortunately been subjected to work from ID advocates, and had an open mind while doing so. It doesn’t take much of an open mind to discover ID’s blatant fallacies, though.

[ QUOTE ]
You also don't seem to understand the "proofs" of macroevolution and its evolving nature as new information comes to light.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ‘proofs’ of macroevolution are the same as the proofs of ‘microevolution’, and as new information comes to light, the theory of evolution is adapted (like all theories) to include this new information, which creates a stronger, more unified theory – which means the theory of evolution gets stronger with time. Doubters should be less inclined to have any skepticism as the theory gets stronger and incorporates new evidence. This is how science works.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not here to prove "Intelligent Design" is correct and "Macroevolution" is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you can’t prove evolution is incorrect, which is why you’re smartly choosing not to try. And ID can’t be disproved scientifically, since it’s not accountable to the scientific method.

But if you’re not here to prove ID, I don’t know why you wasted your time spouting all that ID nonsense before.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really know, but I have taken the time to look at the evidence on both sides and I have my opinions and am swayed by the arguements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read more and reconsider, you’ve obviously been swayed in the wrong direction.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is only smart to provide both as a part of the educational process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, one (evolution) is fact and the other (creationism/ID) is just bogus pseudo-science. So, no, I think it’s a terrible idea to include both as part of the educational process (if by this, you mean presenting them as equivalents in a science class).

[ QUOTE ]
Again, wow...Such hostility. Do you really believe that someone will take you seriously when such emotionalism and prejudice is present in your writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You’re not a victim here. I’m not being emotional, nor prejudiced. Facts are facts. I apologize if strong arguments come across as hostility to you, but I wouldn't argue against nonsense any other way but forcefully.

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for explaining scientific theory to me I can't believe that I missed that in all the years of school and college I attended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you apparently needed them explained.

[ QUOTE ]
The enemy of science has always been the current established mindset.

[/ QUOTE ]

The enemy of science is a refutation of empiricism, not the establishment mindset; unless the establishment mindset attacks empiricism.

[ QUOTE ]
People don't like to think that they could be wrong because they are so smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

This comment is just silly anti-intellectualism.

[ QUOTE ]
Science needs to be held lightly.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn’t.

[ QUOTE ]
We never know all the fact or know all aspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one claimed we could. This isn’t a sound argument for openly trying to confuse school children, though.

[ QUOTE ]
We must never hinder scientific discovery and innovation because it doesn't fit with what we believe currently.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I hope the Christian Right agrees.

[ QUOTE ]
But "Creationism" does not equal "Intelligent Design"

[/ QUOTE ]

They’re both pseudo-sciences like astrology and alchemy.

[ QUOTE ]
Its only the fanatics of the established scientific tradition that are threatened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think the scientific community feels threatened; that’s why hardly anyone in the scientific community feels the need to argue in favor of evolution; it’s proven fact. I don’t hear anyone in the ‘fanatical’ scientific community trying to debunk astrology, because it’s clearly as non-scientific as Intelligent Design.

[natedogg]

This is what happens when you have state run schools. Eventually someone gets into power that wants to change your agenda. All of the sudden, leftist supporters of state indoctination are squirming because the system they built is going to bite them in the ass now that an ignorant superstitious buffoon takes the reigns.

The litmus test for any govt intervention or expansion should always be: do I want to give the power to the worst possible person to wield it?

When it comes to state run schools, the answer is obviously no.

natedogg

[Snoogins47]

How about this.



"While the mechanisms of evolution are almost unequivocally true, it is slightly more of a gray area as to whether or not this can be extrapolated as the origin of all lifeforms alive today. Many (most? A statistic? I really don't know) in related fields believe this to be the case, but critics of this theory often offer alternate explanations, some of them religious in nature. For further reading about this topic, go to your library. Regardless, the evolutionary model is by far the most widely accepted, and therefore will be covered in detail in this chapter. At the end of the chapter, we will touch on the critics of the evolutionary model, and their alternate theories."

The biggest problem with this that I can see is that it's far too reasonable to appeal to either side. By leaving out the terms "Godless Atheist," "masturbators," and "moral cess-pool," the Christian right won't be happy, and without a direct comparison of The Bible to "Horton Hears a Who" the left won't shut up.

Anyway, you can all go on tooting your own horns about this nonsense, while I'll go on believing what any reasonable person believes: that we're actually all just clones of the master, and he will come to Earth on Halley's Comet with his race of hyper-advanced man-boy aliens and give us the gift of poisoned punch.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't teaching our kids promient relgious and scientific theories be considered educational, if taught in an objective manner?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you meant to type "prominent". If so, how can you possibly consider Intelligent Design "prominent"? It's just recently getting a lot of public notice, even on right-leaning outlets like Fox News. And the scientific community is generally rejecting it. So how is it prominent?

-ptmusic

[Chris Alger]

Anyone can fill the inherent gaps in scientific knowledge (understandings based on a rational, methodical analysis of evidence) with theology, scripture, ancient myths or, like Ptolemy, imagination. There's nothing wrong with this leap of faith practice until we contend that it's mandated by science itself. Then it's fraud. We can prove the fraud if we find false statements of fact that purportedly mandate such leaps of faith.

The fraudulent statement in your link is this one: "Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. . . . Because they exhibit high levels of [complex-specified information], a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these 'irreducibly complex' biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed."

The following dispositive reply by Richard Dawkins' indicates why virtually the entire scientific commmunity, with the exception of a handful of eccentrics, absolutely rejects this claim: <ul type="square">The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong. There are at least three different ways that an IC system can be produced by a series of small modifications: 1) Improvements become necessities, 2) Loss of scaffolding 3) Duplication and divergence. By Behe's definition, many systems we see around us are IC, and yet have developed gradually. Think of the chaotic growth of towns into large cities, the self-organizing forces behind market economies, and the delicate causal webs that define complex ecosystems. Evolutionary algorithms run on computers routinely evolve irreducibly complex designs. So given an IC system, it could either be the product of coordinated design, or of a gradual, cumulative, stochastic process. The truth is, we should expect Darwinian evolution to produce such systems in biology, and not be surprised to find them. The underlying processes are called co-adaptation and co-evolution, and they have been understood for many years. Biochemical structures and pathways are not built up one step at a time in linear assembly-line fashion to meet some static function. They evolve layer upon layer, contingency upon contingency, always in flux, and retooling to serve current functions. The ability of life to evolve in this fashion has itself evolved over time. Detecting IC does not indicate design, and therefore Behe's hypothesis collapses.

H. Allen Orr says it best in his perceptive review: "Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong. [/list] Dawkins' site (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml)

Since the "complexity = design" argument is fradulent, all that's left of ID is the leap of faith to plug any holes scientific understanding. This is the erason that ID is just juiced-up "creationist science" bunkum.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is he doing this, he doesn't need the votes anymore, the only explanation left is that he really is clinically insane. Two theories? please give me a break.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
A nice ideal but unfortunately the people pushing for these kind of reforms have absolutely no interest in objectivety.

[/ QUOTE ]

A nice ideal but unfortunately the people pushing for these kind of reforms have absolutely no objectivity.

FYP

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
The litmus test for any govt intervention or expansion should always be: do I want to give the power to the worst possible person to wield it?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the extremely important question for everyone, you talk a lot of sense, this was my basic starting point for the 'shoot to kill' policy and ID card scheme that will be implemented in the UK, Tony might be okay, but what about Adolf? Anyway sorry for the brief hi-jack, as you were.

Regards Mack

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]

As someone who's a strong opponent of having creationism taught in science class, I'm more than willing to give ID a day in court, so to speak, to prove it's the product of scientific method; but I'd be surprised if ID proponents could do so in any kind of legitimate way (specifically how ID could be used to predict anything, or how those predicitions could be tested). Like you said, it takes quite the poker face to believe ID could satisfy the scruitny of objective scientific inquiry.

[/ QUOTE ]

using a theory to predict future patterns/behaviours is one reasonable test of a theory having a scientific basis, but the ultimate one, in my book, if that it is possible to define and implement a test that can lead to the refutation of that theory (ie it's wrong). There is nothing we can do that may lead to proof that ID is wrong - therefore it is unscientific, and therefore it's just a belief system, and should not be part of any scientific syllabus.
QED

[FishHooks]

If most of the people here are so set that evolution is correct (whic of course its just a theory) whats the harm in teaching ID?

My main problem with evolution is the way the teacher teach it, they teach it as a fact when in really its just a theory. Most science teachers (or teachers in general) most of whom aren't even qualified to teach, most of them having teaching degrees but not much education on the substance they teach.

[superleeds]

Did you read any of this thread? Heres an argument against Intelligent design - You.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If most of the people here are so set that evolution is correct (whic of course its just a theory) whats the harm in teaching ID?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we're talking about kids who can't (nor should they be expected to) judge for themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
My main problem with evolution is the way the teacher teach it, they teach it as a fact when in really its just a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theories and facts aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution is theory and fact, like gravity, relativity, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Most science teachers (or teachers in general) most of whom aren't even qualified to teach, most of them having teaching degrees but not much education on the substance they teach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Because we're talking about kids who can't (nor should they be expected to) judge for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
So because they can't judge for themselves lets just each them one THEORY.

[ QUOTE ]
Theories and facts aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution is theory and fact, like gravity, relativity, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you generalizing all theories into one category? are you saying all theories are fact? However you can prove something like gravity but you can't prove evolution. Evolution is a THEORY, and bunch of peices of evidence that scientists just want to peice together to fit what they want to happen.

[ QUOTE ]
Most science teachers (or teachers in general) most of whom aren't even qualified to teach, most of them having teaching degrees but not much education on the substance they teach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think so.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
So because they can't judge for themselves lets just each them one THEORY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the one correct theory.

[ QUOTE ]
So are you generalizing all theories into one category? are you saying all theories are fact? However you can prove something like gravity but you can't prove evolution. Evolution is a THEORY, and bunch of peices of evidence that scientists just want to peice together to fit what they want to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have absolutely no idea what the difference between scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word theory is. Please find this out, and then come back when you're done. This is just abject foolishness.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
If most of the people here are so set that evolution is correct (whic of course its just a theory) whats the harm in teaching ID?

[/ QUOTE ]

Phew...Nothing, as long as it's presented as a theory of belief rather than a theory of science. Evolution can be subjected to the rigour of scientific stufy, ID can't, so is therefore not a science subject. To present it otherwise is just trying to lend validity to something that doesn't deserve it.

[FishHooks]

I dont know how you can say gravity is a theory, from what I understand its a fact. If its not explain why.

[tolbiny]

ID isn't a thoery.
For something to become a thoery it has to be testable and reapeatable - and all kinds of other groovy stuff so that we know that is more than just an idea. The main argument for ID is that Evolutiionary theory isn't capable of explaining the deep complexities of the life that surrounds us. As many computer simulations have shown us- very small differneces taken over long periods of time can (and will) result in very complex systems. Add to that the collected mass of data about the relationsip of genomes from one species to another, and then toss some antibiotics into a uddle of bacteria and watch them become resistant- and what you get is a very real picture of how evolution works- and how most people who study it are able to fend of these feeble attacks.

[FishHooks]

Well the thing is they do put evolution in science books, put just one paragraph out of the whole 15 page chaper about evolution. Since schools can't have anything to do with teaching a religious class I think they should at least spend some time with ID, they dont have to justify it but explain it to the kids so they know there is an alternative. I'm not saying they should preach the bible, just let the kids (who may not even know what ID is) that it is a viable alternative to evolution.

[FishHooks]

Well there is no question that what you said is correct, but that example about antibiotics is all about natural selection. Natural selection is proven, but whats not proven is if man was created by this evolution.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know how you can say gravity is a theory, from what I understand its a fact. If its not explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

For example, in the simplest terms possible:

Fact are like this - "Apples fall from the air to the ground when tossed." That's a fact. We see it and observe it.

Theories are like this - "Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles due to their mass, which explains why apples fall from the air to the ground when tossed."

So the theory of gravity is used to explain sets of facts we observe; in this example, apples fall from the air.

Theories are just a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, like apples falling or fossil records.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying they should preach the bible, just let the kids (who may not even know what ID is) that it is a viable alternative to evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a viable alternative. I could care less about Bible preaching; ID trys its best not to name an intelligent designer. It's just not a viable alternative.

[FishHooks]

Accoring to you it might not be, but about half the people (just guessting but its proboly between 30-50%)in the country believe in ID, so its a major concept in the eyes of Americans, so it is a viable alternative.

[adios]

I think Tolbiny understood the spirit in which I posted the link. For the record I don't think that the link I provided supports ID as being validated by the scientific method in the least.

You wrote in part:

[ QUOTE ]
Since the "complexity = design" argument is fradulent, all that's left of ID is the leap of faith to plug any holes scientific understanding. This is the erason that ID is just juiced-up "creationist science" bunkum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. If ID is to be considered "science" it must stand the scrutiny of the scientific method which I don't think it ever will (and that is an understatement on my part).

[Bez]

Where do you get these figures from? I'm also guessing and I reckon it's a lot less than 30%.

[tolbiny]

"but whats not proven is if man was created by this evolution."

No thoery is ever proven- only continually supported by more and more evidence untill it is believed sufficient to explain the phenomena that we nave created it to. All thoeries could be explained away simply by saying "God makes it do that". And that's all that intelligent design does.
I could drop an apple and say, look gravity, and repeat it a million times. And every time you could say, nuh uh god makes it do that. And you could even attack my argument by demonstrating how the laws of gravity and relativity to break down on a very small scale (at the atomic level). So we should teach kids in science class that gravity is simply god moving things around right? At least give them that option, no?

[tolbiny]

YOu should not, and i reapet this NOT base an education cirriculum on the opinions of the UNeducated.

[superleeds]

Your doing all this 'I'm as dumb as a stump stuff' for a bet aren't you?

[hurlyburly]

You say it yourself:

"Well there is no question that what you said is correct, but that example about antibiotics is all about natural selection. Natural selection is proven, but whats not proven is if man was created by this evolution."

Evolution is the product of natural selection. ID can't have this. Everything must exist statically for it to be correct. The plight of the Cavendish banana currently and the previous Gros Michel would be the end result for ALL species if ID is correct. Therefore, ID needs to include some form of equilibrium to prevent extinction due to species interaction in order to fit our environment, otherwise it would be unintelligent design, aka natural selection leading to evolution.

[FishHooks]

Woo he is the spin master.

[FishHooks]

Wow what a bunch of anti-religious people. Bashing it to the fullest extent, not in this topic necessarly, but in others trying to talk about violent religions. I dont know why people have this fixation on trying to prove religion wrong.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow what a bunch of anti-religious people. Bashing it to the fullest extent, not in this topic necessarly, but in others trying to talk about violent religions. I dont know why people have this fixation on trying to prove religion wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this rant come from?

[FishHooks]

All these different threads that bash any religion or religious idea/belief. I started my own thread on it.

[hurlyburly]

Saying that facts are different than theory and providing an example of why is "spin"?

Dictionary.com has 7 definitions for the word theory. You use context to determine which definition is correct for the discussion. Elementary concept that you fail to grasp.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you get these figures from? I'm also guessing and I reckon it's a lot less than 30%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd bet you're right. In fact, I'd bet far less than 30% have ever even HEARD of ID.

I can't believe how many people on this forum are actually defending and arguing for ID. Is it because Bush spoke about it? Or are any of you actually experts in the field of ID?

Here's my "theory": ID is not a fact nor a theory; it is a fad.

-ptmusic

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
Accoring to you it might not be, but about half the people (just guessting but its proboly between 30-50%)in the country believe in ID, so its a major concept in the eyes of Americans, so it is a viable alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ay carumba! If this figure is anywhere near correct (and I doubt it is), it demonstrates why schools need to teach science and educate the children as to why ID fails as a scientific theory.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow what a bunch of anti-religious people. Bashing it to the fullest extent, not in this topic necessarly, but in others trying to talk about violent religions. I dont know why people have this fixation on trying to prove religion wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this rant come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not showing real understanding of the detailed arguments against teaching ID in science classes made by previous posters, FishHook resorts to ad hominem attacks about the posters being anti-religion. Typical.

Frank

[FishHooks]

I'm not mad people are anti-religious, I could care less but the fact that they feel they have to bash religious people is what pisses me off. I guess its one of the only battles liberals can win because arguing on the side of religion is hard its all based on faith.

[Bez]

I think it's fair to say that many people who don't believe in religion are not liberals. What an outrageous generalisation.


[ QUOTE ]
I guess its one of the only battles liberals can win because arguing on the side of religion is hard its all based on faith.




[/ QUOTE ]
Are you also saying that the battle has been won by the atheists?

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
... because arguing on the side of religion is hard its all based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly why it has no room in a science class.

[Edit] The Catholic Church has endorsed the idea of evolution, so when you say that those against the teachings of ID as scientific theory are anti-religion you are being misleading. I think your issue is that these people are not followers of your religion.

[FishHooks]

I never said there was scientific evidence to back up ID, and I'm not even a Catholic, so maybe that post should be directed to eveyone else.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's fair to say that many people who don't believe in religion are not liberals. What an outrageous generalisation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of the double negative here is bad english, it should go, " many people who dont believe in religion are aslo conservatives" I agree with you but this forum likes to associate any religon with the right so for the forum my statement is correct.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said there was scientific evidence to back up ID, and I'm not even a Catholic, so maybe that post should be directed to eveyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uggghhh. Ok, please pay attention:

[ QUOTE ]
Wow what a bunch of anti-religious people. Bashing it to the fullest extent, not in this topic necessarly, but in others trying to talk about violent religions. I dont know why people have this fixation on trying to prove religion wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not mad people are anti-religious, I could care less but the fact that they feel they have to bash religious people is what pisses me off. I guess its one of the only battles liberals can win because arguing on the side of religion is hard its all based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was your contention that people who are not proponents of intelligent design are 'anti-religion'. The reason I brought up my religion is because we don't believe in ID. By your definition, that ludicrously makes me 'anti-religious'. You feel that we are anti-religious and religion bashers because we disagree with at least this one facet of your religion. That is closed-minded and simplistic.


[ QUOTE ]
I never said there was scientific evidence to back up ID

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush's whole statement yesterday was that ID should be taught alongside evolution to "expose people to different schools of thought"(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8806938/). ABSOLUTELY NO ONE that I have seen has said that ID should never be taught to anyone, simply that IT SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT AS A COMPETING THEORY TO EVOLUTION. There have been a number of people on this thread that have advocated teaching it as philosophy, and no one has voiced any sort of objection to this. As you said, there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to back up ID, so why do you think Bush wants it to be taught in science class?

Just a nickle's worth of free advice ... if you insist on presenting yourself as a pundit for the Republican Party, it might be wise to actually educate yourself on your party's positions. Bush clearly came out and said that ID should be taught alongside evolution as a competing theory. This clearly means that it should be taught in science class along with evolution.

[malorum]

intelligent design is not a competing alternative to evolution.
It's true. Says so in the bible.
They shouldn't be allowed to teach that neo-darwin rubbish to kids. It's like feeding them drugs.
If America was really a Christian nation it would ban all that whacko darwin stuff.
God will not be mocked.

[FishHooks]

Yea... I beleive is should be taught, but even he knows there is no scientific evidence to back up. Your getting your facts messed up. Just read my previous posts before you think you know where I stand on issues.

[BCPVP]

Stop...just stop...

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with with baseless theories being taught to impressonable minds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lefties in here seem to be up in arms that "impressionable" (and persumeably young) minds could be taught intelligent design.

So I propose a compromise. Don't teach any creation theories (evolution included) until high school. That way, these people can think for themselves and decide what to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't we just teach them the truth?

[Daliman]

Really the biggest proof that this is a bunch of crap is that 3 of the biggest Bush defenders on this forum, MMMMM, BGC, and Felix, did not weigh in on the subject. We got the right-wing second-string intead, and they are getting CRUSHED.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with with baseless theories being taught to impressonable minds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lefties in here seem to be up in arms that "impressionable" (and persumeably young) minds could be taught intelligent design.

So I propose a compromise. Don't teach any creation theories (evolution included) until high school. That way, these people can think for themselves and decide what to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't we just teach them the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

....if their parents deny the truth, what chance is there that their kids will be able to absorb it?

Sissyphusian, at best.

[MMMMMM]

Hi Daliman,

I am not really familiar with the Theory of I.D. (as distinct from Creationism), and so can't really comment meaningfully at this point.

My *guess*, however, is that I.D. is a flawed theory--and therefore probably does not belong being taught alongside Evolution.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Daliman,

I am not really familiar with the Theory of I.D. (as distinct from Creationism), and so can't really comment meaningfully at this point.

My *guess*, however, is that I.D. is a flawed theory--and therefore probably does not belong being taught alongside Evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite posts are the ones, like this one, where someone is willing to go against the grain of his/her party leaders. Bravo!

-ptmusic

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Daliman,

I am not really familiar with the Theory of I.D. (as distinct from Creationism), and so can't really comment meaningfully at this point.

My *guess*, however, is that I.D. is a flawed theory--and therefore probably does not belong being taught alongside Evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're talking about it in the Science, Math, and Philosphy forum.

ID getting crushed (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=3033514&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1).

[bills217]

This argument has become more about semantics than anything else.

I can't say for sure, but I'm gonna go wayyy out on a limb and say that our President is not an expert in either Intelligent Design or Evolution.

Again, speculating here, but I'm gonna say that when he used "intelligent design" in his quote, that he used it incorrectly, and actually meant it in the general sense of creationist thought, rather than the actual philosophy of intelligent design and irreducible complexity and so forth. (Is anyone willing to offer odds on if Bush would be able to explain what irreducible complexity is?)

IF my assumptions here are true, then the whole argument becomes moot as long as it revolves STRICTLY around ID rather than creationist thought as a whole. (Note how careful I'm being by referring to it as thought rather than "theory.")

There is a clear difference in the two. There are many pro-creationist ideas that have nothing to do with ID, which seems to be flawed. (What does your appendix do for you? Other than burst and rupture your key internal organs?)

Now, if we assume Bush meant "creationist thought in general," then we may have a legitimate source of debate.

Let me start by saying that frankly, if a person is not intelligent enough to make an informed decision on their own, then I don't care what they're taught.

That said, it seems appropriate that only "science" should be taught in "science" class. I think this is something that everyone who has contributed to this thread can agree on.

Then the debate becomes, can creationist thought be classified as science? This is where the waters get a bit murky.

A lot of very intelligent people say no, and some of them have posted in this thread. That camp has been plenty well-represented.

However, a lot of other very intelligent people say yes, although unfortunately none of them have posted in this thread.

For a more accurate and detailed description of the pro-creation camp's argument, I would recommend visiting www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com)

I have read on this site at length, and Intelligent Design/Irreducible Complexity is basically a non-factor in their argument, so much so that I cannot even remember it being mentioned at all.

No, they are not an objective source. But, when you find one, be sure to let me know about it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'd hope that we're all mature enough to evaluate ideas based on their own merit rather than the source.

I'll close with this final thought:

I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall when the 23-year-old science teacher, wielding an education degree, is posed with this question from a confused student:

"Well, then how did life originate from non-life?"

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall when the 23-year-old science teacher, wielding an education degree, is posed with this question from a confused student:

"Well, then how did life originate from non-life?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Merely because our young pedagouge can't answer this question doesn't mean we ought to fill in the gap with voodoo, psuedo-science, mysticism, Intelligent Design, astrology, creationism, etc.

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
about half the people (just guessting but its proboly between 30-50%)in the country believe in ID, so its a major concept in the eyes of Americans, so it is a viable alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Merely because our young pedagouge can't answer this question doesn't mean we ought to fill in the gap with voodoo, psuedo-science, mysticism, Intelligent Design, astrology, creationism, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

So instead we fill it with evolution, which also fails to answer the question.

I agree with your last post to an extent.

But, allow me to suggest that maybe we just ought not to fill the gap at all, since we, you know, don't actually know. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

For an area of real "science" that is taught in the "We-don't-really-know" manner, I offer you: Wave-Particle Duality of Light. Would love even MORE to see our "young pedagouge" explain THIS to the confused student...("Wait! Doesn't it have to be one or the other?")

Contrast that with evolution, which many teach in the "We-already-absolutely-certainly-know-everything" manner, which is shaky at best and false indoctrination at worst.

I think all Bush was really asking for was some objectivity of thought, which can be hard to find, on both sides. He should hire me as an advisor. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
So instead we fill it with evolution, which also fails to answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory of evolution doesn't claim to answer questions of abiogenesis. So, no, I don't propose to fill in knowledge gaps here with evolution.

But that doesn't mean we should fill it with creationism or ID (at least in public school science class - what goes on in a philosophy/religion class is a different story, and what parents choose to teach their children at home is their own legitimate choice to make).

[ QUOTE ]
But, allow me to suggest that maybe we just ought not to fill the gap at all, since we, you know, don't actually know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Models have been created that help explain how life originates from non-life. The Miller-Urey experiment comes to mind; they were able create amino acids (that basic building blocks of life) with only elements that existed in the Earth's early atmosphere. I think others have hypothesized supplementary abiogensis scenarios.

Regardless, I'm not sure it's entirely true to claim we can't answer questions regarding the origins of life; I think there are scientists who would disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
Would love even MORE to see our "young pedagogue" explain THIS to the confused student...("Wait! Doesn't it have to be one or the other?")

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, merely because a young teacher can't answer all the questions students may pose doesn't mean that answers don't exist. I’m not sure why you keep using this example. It’s a criticism of teachers, not the inability of science to answer questions (at least the hypothetical questions you’ve posed, which are largely answerable)

[ QUOTE ]
Contrast that with evolution, which many teach in the "We-already-absolutely-certainly-know-everything" manner, which is shaky at best and false indoctrination at worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clearly not taught like this; hence all the doubt which exists about the veracity of evolution. In fact, I think it's taught with too much doubt, leading many (read the posts here for evidence) to have a complete misunderstanding about what scientific theories are - many here see that evolution is a 'theory', and mistakenly think that, because it’s a ‘theory’, it is somehow lower on the hierarchy of certainty. I think much of this stems from teachers who don't clearly explain what a scientific theory is.

[ QUOTE ]
I think all Bush was really asking for was some objectivity of thought

[/ QUOTE ]

He clearly wasn't asking for objectivity of thought; asking for ID (bunk psuedo-science) to be taught along side of evolution (a theory beholden to the scientific method) isn't objectivity, it's pandering to an ill-informed constituency who demands such nonsense.

Here's Bush's quote:

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about...Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

The problem is, there's no 'debate'; ID isn't science. It's just a reworking of Paley's tired Watchmaker fallacy.

I agree that one purpose of education to expose students to different schools of thought; but imagine a similar argument that claimed we should teach Holocaust denial alongside the history of the Holocaust, merely because debate exists about it.

Of course, Holocaust deniers different from ID proponents in their motives, as Holocaust deniers are motivated by anti-Semitism. But there is a similarity of strategy. In both cases, an enormous body of evidence points inexorably to a single unifying explanation, which becomes the target of people who can offer no remotely comparable alternative.

The only debate that exists here is a faux debate, one which we shouldn’t subject impressionable school-children to.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if we assume Bush meant "creationist thought in general," then we may have a legitimate source of debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was assuming in most of my posts because it makes the most sence, but was getting flammed for all my responces.

Nice post by the way.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that one purpose of education to expose students to different schools of thought; but imagine a similar argument that claimed we should teach Holocaust denial alongside the history of the Holocaust, merely because debate exists about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

We haven't been taught this, but have been exposed to this in the school systems where I live. Watching moves on Holocaust hoaxes, learning about them, etc. I dont necessarly think you have to teach creationalism (which is better than ID in my opinion) just expose the kids to it so they know their is another way of thought. Most schools are banned from teaching any religious classes anyways.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
We haven't been taught this, but have been exposed to this in the school systems where I live. Watching moves on Holocaust hoaxes, learning about them, etc. I dont necessarly think you have to teach creationalism (which is better than ID in my opinion) just expose the kids to it so they know their is another way of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your high school taught you that there is a legitimate debate concerning the Holocaust? I seriously doubt they did.

If your high school brought up Holocaust deniers, I'd bet that it was to debunk their outlandish claims, not to present it as somehow equivalent to the real history of the Holocaust. If ID/creationism advocates want to present their theories in science class and allow science teachers to demonstrate why those theories are bunk pseudo-science and why evolution is clearly the only legitimate theory, then by all means, I think that's fair. But I think creationism advocates would cry foul (very, very loudly) if their theories were given the dubious treatment they deserve in a science class.

I’m highly skeptical that your high school presented Holocaust denial as a serious debate unless your school is run by Hamas.

[ QUOTE ]
Most schools are banned from teaching any religious classes anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true, but misconceptions like this probably go a long way into having people of faith creating fictional narratives of marginalization and victim-hood.

[tolbiny]

"So instead we fill it with evolution, which also fails to answer the question."

The failure here is inherent in the question- you don't define "life" and "nonlife".

[John Cole]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, Holocaust deniers different from ID proponents in their motives, as Holocaust deniers are motivated by anti-Semitism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't remember the name of the article or which volume of Best American Essays I read it in, but it was written by a scholar who accepts an invitation to address a convention of Holocaust deniers. Much to his surprise, he finds out that most attendees were not anti-semitic, and were not motivated by anti-semitic thinking. Instead, according to the author, they seemed motivated by the desire to do accurate historical research. For all he knew, the convention might have been a convention of Shriners.

Errol Morris's documentary, Dr. Death, also sheds light on such a researcher, a pathetic dupe really, who never seems to reveal any anti-semitism.

Of course, I am not dismissing the rabid anti-semitism of many Holocasut deniers, such as Ernst Zundle, for whom Fred Leuchter (Dr. Death) carried out his "research."

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Models have been created that help explain how life originates from non-life. The Miller-Urey experiment comes to mind; they were able create amino acids (that basic building blocks of life) with only elements that existed in the Earth's early atmosphere. I think others have hypothesized supplementary abiogensis scenarios.

Regardless, I'm not sure it's entirely true to claim we can't answer questions regarding the origins of life; I think there are scientists who would disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...there are a whole bunch of scientists who would all disagree with one another. By saying "we don't know," all I'm saying is that there is a lack of a clear consensus on that issue, as opposed to say, gravity. I'm not saying we are completely ignorant on the entire subject. And saying "there is no clear consensus" seems more practical to me than to outline 847 conflicting explanations. Of course you could pick a few in particular to outline, but that's where the problem of lack of objective thought comes in...which ones do you pick? Who should determine that?

[ QUOTE ]
Again, merely because a young teacher can't answer all the questions students may pose doesn't mean that answers don't exist. I’m not sure why you keep using this example. It’s a criticism of teachers, not the inability of science to answer questions (at least the hypothetical questions you’ve posed, which are largely answerable)


[/ QUOTE ]

I keep using this example because it's important to remember that the science that is taught in public schools isn't taught by leading evolutionary experts, but rather, teachers that are often poorly equipped to explain complicated scientific ideas. The result oftentimes is oversimplification and misinformation. It is relevant to this argument since this argument is about what should be taught in public schools.

That and I like to bash government education whenever possible. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

A specific instance where I think there is a huge misconception spread by poor teaching is that evolution and creationism are completely mutually exclusive, when in fact they are not. You said yourself that evolution doesn't say anything about abiogenesis, leaving the door open for explanations such as that by Catholics that God initially created life and set the process of evolution in motion. I respectfully submit that there are anti-religious people who want our impressionable schoolchildren to be taught that evolution renders Christianity as mindless drivel, as a means of furthering their own agenda. I know because I once had a teacher like this, even in the heart of the Bible Belt in rural Kentucky, so I assume they also exist elsewhere. It's not anti-intellectualism, it's just a fact. And in fairness, there are religious people as well who are more concerned about furthering their own agenda than they are with the truth. It's a problem on both sides.

[ QUOTE ]
It's clearly not taught like this; hence all the doubt which exists about the veracity of evolution. In fact, I think it's taught with too much doubt, leading many (read the posts here for evidence) to have a complete misunderstanding about what scientific theories are - many here see that evolution is a 'theory', and mistakenly think that, because it’s a ‘theory’, it is somehow lower on the hierarchy of certainty. I think much of this stems from teachers who don't clearly explain what a scientific theory is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you answer your own question about why I keep using the example of the young pedagouge.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's Bush's quote:

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about...Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, you make the argument for me, this time being that Bush was asking for objectivity of thought.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, there's no 'debate'; ID isn't science. It's just a reworking of Paley's tired Watchmaker fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you skirt the real issue by going back to ID/IC, which I've already conceded to be flawed and it's been outlined on this thread in some detail. As far as I'm concerned we are done discussing ID/IC.

The point you're missing is that their IS a scientific debate on the subject that has nothing to do with ID/IC. www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) makes scientific arguments based on scientific evidence using the scientific method...even to the point of predicting future events, since a Christian scientist correctly predicted the orbital pattern of Neptune based on a formula where the Earth is only assumed to be 10,000 years old. I could continue to further outline a litany of creation science claims, but rather than do that I'll let you visit the website, which you obviously haven't done.

I'll add a disclaimer here by saying that I'm not a scientist myself and don't necessarily vouch for 100% validity of every creation scientist's claim, but the point is that there IS legitimate SCIENTIFIC debate on the subject, which you deny.

[FishHooks]

It was actually in middle school where we watched the videos on holocaust hoaxes, we didn't have much discussion on them just watched them. In High school we didn't even deal with the holocaust in history, we did a little bit on it in my English class but for the most part they just expected you to know what it was, which most people did.

Well maybe most schools aren't "banned" but it is a big hassle to have religious classes, parents or people in the community are always getting really mad. I know my high school didn't have any religous classes, like classes that just teach about each religon.

[DVaut1]

Before I start, this entire thread is about GWB claiming we should teach ID alongside evolution. I know that you, bills217, would have this turn into a discussion of something much higher, like the compatibility of science and religion, which is a much larger topic and belongs on the Science, Math and Philosophy Board; but this thread isn't about that. So when you say things like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Here you skirt the real issue by going back to ID/IC, which I've already conceded to be flawed and it's been outlined on this thread in some detail. As far as I'm concerned we are done discussing ID/IC.

The point you're missing is that their IS a scientific debate on the subject that has nothing to do with ID/IC.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm frankly not sure what you're talking about. This thread is specifically about ID. The debate on this subject is most assuredly about ID. I can't be 'skirting' the issue by constantly returning to ID. Look at the title of the thread; look at what President Bush said. Trying to make this about something other than a discussion of the legitimacy of teaching ID to school-children is just a red herring.

I'm glad you're 'done' discussing ID, because it's not actual science. In which case, I'm curious as to what you're still posting about. If we can agree ID is crap, let's repudiate Bush for supporting the placement of ID alongside of evolution in the science classroom and move on. If you want to challenge science in regards to its inability to answer philosophical questions about life, I think that's a legitimate discussion in some thread, just not this one.

[ QUOTE ]
but the point is that there IS legitimate SCIENTIFIC debate on the subject, which you deny.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there really isn't. I don't doubt you could produce millions of links to creationist sites claiming there's legitimate scientific debate about evolution and the origin of life; and they're right, there is certainly legitimate debate, creationists just aren't part of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly...there are a whole bunch of scientists who would all disagree with one another. By saying "we don't know," all I'm saying is that there is a lack of a clear consensus on that issue, as opposed to say, gravity. I'm not saying we are completely ignorant on the entire subject. And saying "there is no clear consensus" seems more practical to me than to outline 847 conflicting explanations. Of course you could pick a few in particular to outline, but that's where the problem of lack of objective thought comes in...which ones do you pick? Who should determine that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because there are gaps in scientific knowledge doesn't justify filling those gaps with creationist 'theories'. Of course, debate exists, and always will exist in science. Teach children about the legitimate debate that exists; unfortunately for creationists, they're not part of that legitimate debate, which is why they've had to go to great lengths to set up their own 'scholarly' culture around creationism; because their 'studies' wouldn't stand the scrutiny of genuine scientific inquiry. For example:

[ QUOTE ]
www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) makes scientific arguments based on scientific evidence using the scientific method...even to the point of predicting future events, since a Christian scientist correctly predicted the orbital pattern of Neptune based on a formula where the Earth is only assumed to be 10,000 years old.

[/ QUOTE ]

The absolute outrageousness of studies such as this demonstrates the hollowness of the creationism.

Legitimate scientific theories not only have to reflect a limited scope of empirical observations, they have to remain compatible with everything else we know/have observed. Merely because a scientist can correctly predict Neptune's orbit doesn't necessarily mean his hypothesis about the age of the Earth is correct; such studies must also remain compatible with the evidence which exists in other fields of science, such as geology, paleontology, developmental biology, anthropology, seismology, etc. – all of which the theory of evolution successfully does; a study demonstrating the Earth is only 10,000 years old couldn’t hope to have the necessary compatibility to make it legitimate.

After perusing the www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) website, I couldn’t help but notice their scientific journal dedicated to creationist research, titled “Creation”; I wonder why creationists feel the need to create alternative scientific journals, rather than just submit their research to the established peer-reviewed journals of science, such as Science Magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/) or Nature. (http://www.nature.com/index.html)

To be honest, I really don’t wonder why. I know why.

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, you make the argument for me, this time being that Bush was asking for objectivity of thought.


[/ QUOTE ]

He's not asking for objectivity of thought; he's asking to put crap science (ID) alongside of legitimate science (evolution). That's NOT objectivity! It's just denying reality.

[ QUOTE ]
I keep using this example because it's important to remember that the science that is taught in public schools isn't taught by leading evolutionary experts, but rather, teachers that are often poorly equipped to explain complicated scientific ideas. The result oftentimes is oversimplification and misinformation. It is relevant to this argument since this argument is about what should be taught in public schools.

That and I like to bash government education whenever possible.

A specific instance where I think there is a huge misconception spread by poor teaching is that evolution and creationism are completely mutually exclusive, when in fact they are not. You said yourself that evolution doesn't say anything about abiogenesis, leaving the door open for explanations such as that by Catholics that God initially created life and set the process of evolution in motion. I respectfully submit that there are anti-religious people who want our impressionable schoolchildren to be taught that evolution renders Christianity as mindless drivel, as a means of furthering their own agenda. I know because I once had a teacher like this, even in the heart of the Bible Belt in rural Kentucky, so I assume they also exist elsewhere. It's not anti-intellectualism, it's just a fact. And in fairness, there are religious people as well who are more concerned about furthering their own agenda than they are with the truth. It's a problem on both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Merely because science is taught poorly in public schools, and teachers have agendas says nothing about what legitimately ought to be in the curriculum. This is just another red herring.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember the name of the article or which volume of Best American Essays I read it in, but it was written by a scholar who accepts an invitation to address a convention of Holocaust deniers. Much to his surprise, he finds out that most attendees were not anti-semitic, and were not motivated by anti-semitic thinking. Instead, according to the author, they seemed motivated by the desire to do accurate historical research. For all he knew, the convention might have been a convention of Shriners.

Errol Morris's documentary, Dr. Death, also sheds light on such a researcher, a pathetic dupe really, who never seems to reveal any anti-semitism.

Of course, I am not dismissing the rabid anti-semitism of many Holocasut deniers, such as Ernst Zundle, for whom Fred Leuchter (Dr. Death) carried out his "research."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll concede not all Holocaust deniers are anti-Semitic.

For simplicity's sake, I was just trying to preemptively deflect the criticism of my analogy (Holocaust deniers are akin to creationism advocates) by those who would site motive as a distinction.

I realize the analogy isn't perfect, either; but I think there are some parallels to be drawn between the two movements, in that the overwhelming body of evidence lies on one side, while they propose alternatives which are not even distantly equivalent.

[elwoodblues]

I think other scientific theories should be held to the same standards as evolution with regard to whether we should teach alternative ideas consistent with a god-made world in science class.

Gravity -- alternative theory is (obviously) that there is a higher being pushing things down.

Plate Techtonics (sp??) -- alternative theory is that there is a higher being shaking the land to create things like earthquakes

Weather related phenomenon - I always thought that thunder was the angels bowling

I really don't know why we don't teach phsycic healing at med school, or numerology in math class.

Just because there is an alternate theory out there doesn't mean that the theory needs to be taught. What is most disturbing to me about the whole intelligent design discussion is that people want to teach it in SCIENCE class. I really don't have a problem with a sociology class or some other social science class discussing various cultures response to current scientific thinking. In fact, I think it is probably a good thing. But to hold out one particular religious theory and place it on equal footing as the generally accepted scientific theories is just silly. As someone mentioned in an earlier post, I question how this is different than teaching that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. There are just too many "theories" out there that aren't scientific in nature. Learning about those theories is fine...just not in science class.

[bills217]

DVaut1, do you read my posts? You quote them, sure, but you certainly aren't understanding them. Maybe it's my fault, I don't know.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm frankly not sure what you're talking about. This thread is specifically about ID. The debate on this subject is most assuredly about ID. I can't be 'skirting' the issue by constantly returning to ID. Look at the title of the thread; look at what President Bush said. Trying to make this about something other than a discussion of the legitimacy of teaching ID to school-children is just a red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, all semantics.

In an earlier post I thought I very clearly explained that I was going to proceed assuming that Bush meant GENERAL creationist science, rather than the specific "theory" of intelligent design derived from the philosophy of irreducible complexity (ID/IC). As a matter of fact, I believe FishHooks quoted the exact place where I said it in one of his posts.

You're missing the forest and the trees for the leaves.

BELOW IS A VERY KEY POINT:

CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARE NOT SYNONOMOUS.

Creationism is general, Intelligent Design is specific.

Unless you think Bush is an expert on Irreducible Complexity and the philosophy behind it, which I don't think he is, then the only logical interpretation of his quote (beyond inferring that he's asking for more objective thought) is to say that he was referring to creationism in GENERAL, rather than SPECIFICALLY ID/IC. ONCE AGAIN, VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE TWO ARE NOT SYNONOMOUS.

[ QUOTE ]
No, there really isn't. I don't doubt you could produce millions of links to creationist sites claiming there's legitimate scientific debate about evolution and the origin of life; and they're right, there is certainly legitimate debate, creationists just aren't part of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there really isn't. I don't doubt you could produce millions of links to evolutionist sites claiming there's legitimate scientific debate about creation and the origin of life; and they're right, there is certainly legitimate debate, evolutionists just aren't part of it.

Since all you did there was make a blanket unsupported statement to reflect your point of view, I thought I'd show you that I'm perfectly capable of doing the same thing. But, to tell you the truth, I'd really rather not do that because that's not debate, it's just cockroach-racing.

Unfortunately, this is a common tactic used by evolutionists, a prime example being when pro-evolution organizations boycotted an education hearing in Kansas, apparently on the premise that its purpose was to insert some mention of creationism into the science curriculum.

If creationism is so clearly "bunk," "pseudo-science," etc., then it should be really easy for evolutionists to explain why, you know, giving reasons and support and all that stuff, right?

But, they never actually DO that. They just attack. Which makes sense, because it's the same thing their natural political allies, the Democrats, do. Zero ideas, zero debate, zero solutions, all attack.

Evolutionists play the role of the robber who sticks his finger in his jacket pocket and pretends it's a gun. This has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science, and clearly belongs on this forum. The evolutionists won't allow the debate to be about science, just like the Democrats won't allow the debate to be about real solutions. As Forrest Gump would say, they're like peas and carrots.

[ QUOTE ]
Legitimate scientific theories not only have to reflect a limited scope of empirical observations, they have to remain compatible with everything else we know/have observed. Merely because a scientist can correctly predict Neptune's orbit doesn't necessarily mean his hypothesis about the age of the Earth is correct; such studies must also remain compatible with the evidence which exists in other fields of science, such as geology, paleontology, developmental biology, anthropology, seismology, etc. – all of which the theory of evolution successfully does; a study demonstrating the Earth is only 10,000 years old couldn’t hope to have the necessary compatibility to make it legitimate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure the www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) people and others maintain that their theory is consistent in every way you mention. Their word against yours, as I see it, and you've given me no specific reason to conclude that theirs is incorrect, or that yours is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
After perusing the www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) website, I couldn’t help but notice their scientific journal dedicated to creationist research, titled “Creation”; I wonder why creationists feel the need to create alternative scientific journals, rather than just submit their research to the established peer-reviewed journals of science, such as Science Magazine or Nature.

To be honest, I really don’t wonder why. I know why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your implication here is clear, but I disagree, on two fronts.

1) I'm sure creation science-related work has appeared in the forums you mentioned and others, though perhaps without the tag of it being pro-creation.

2) Because, if it DID have that tag, it would clearly never make it into those forums because, as a whole, the intellectual community, the scientific community, and the far-left wing DESPISE any mention of God. Notice I said as a whole, not every individual. I think you may dispute this as I see you have disputed similar claims, but if you do, you're just not being honest. (Ahead of time, I have absolutely no desire to be anyone's victim, and I'm not, anyway. That's just how things are.)

[New001]

I took a look at the website you've provided a link for. I read through two of their "introductory articles," and I'm sorry, but you cannot say to me that they are making scientific arguments.

A young Earth - it's not the issue! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp)

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either. [See Q&amp;A: Radiometric dating and Q&amp;A: Young age evidence for more information.]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Question: Why would any Christian want to take man's fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you honestly, with a straight face, tell me that this man is using the scientific method to prove his points? Now, he is saying that the Bible is more accurate than scientific dating methods we have today because it is his word of God? Well, I was curious. He told me that carbon dating wasn't very accurate, and provided an explanation for why.

From his Q&amp;A on carbon dating: [ QUOTE ]
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here, a story from the Bible (which, as far as I can tell, was hugely exaggerated if it even occured at all, but I have not done much research), is being used to refute the efforts of scientists trying to accurately date objects. Do you see why this is met with such scorn? Find real proof that this particular event (the flood) occured on such a massive scale that carbon dating is renderred inaccurate. Until then, you are only using an ancient story to explain why modern science is not right.

[ QUOTE ]
The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is bogus. Different dating methods are better for different materials, or more importantly, for different time periods. There is more than one way to date an object, and whether that object is 40,000 years old or 40 years old or 40 million years old, it may be more correct to use a different method. It also makes sense to have an idea of what you're looking for before you start looking. If your best guess is that a bone is 20,000 years old, and then a test that says it's 2 million years old just doesn't make sense. These things aren't perfect; scientists know that and accept it, but apparently not everyone does. Instead, this website says any "abnormal" dates given by modern dating techniques must mean the Earth isn't as old as science says it is, and that must mean that his God created everything.

This could go on. What this website does is pick and choose their arguments to "proove" that Creationism is correct. If it's written in the Bible, then it must be true. After all, God's word is infallible and man's word isn't, right?

In the first article on this website I read through, he states that Creationists and Evolutionists all see the same facts, but they just have two different sets of assumptions that they view these facts from. These are that there is a God and that there is not a God (or any similar statement you wish to make). Now, he then states that it is easy for Creationists to see the Evolutionists point of view, but hard for the reverse. Why is that? My personal feeling on that is because evolution makes no claims regarding religion. You can believe there is a God and accept that evolution is real. You can enjoy old stories in the Bible, and accept your religion's ideals and morals, and still agree that evolution is correct. However, to someone who is not religious, it is almost impossible to accept as truth something that one cannot prove nor disprove. I know it is for me.

Either way, believe what you want to believe. Hell, people far smarter than I am are religious. But please, if it requires "faith" or "belief" or "religion" to be true, it does not belong in a science class.

[Cyrus]

I think this should be in the Science, Math, Philosophy forum : Advantage Players, Rock 'n Rollers and Intelligent Design (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=3075392&amp;page=34&amp;view= expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;fpart=)

[Utah]

I am the last guy to give the religous nuts any credit and these intelligent design people are just your run of the mill religious whack jobs.

However, the whole idea of evolution is still fatally flawed because it has no beginning. We still can't explain where life came from. Heck, we have a hard time even describing what life is.

There are some very interesting stuff about time, life, evolution, etc. that should be introduced into the science curriculum. unfortunately, it should be introduced by the science community and not by the religious nuts as is now the case.

I think part of the problem is the smugness that the science communities take towards their own discoveries and knowledge while at the same time skipping over the gaping and fundamental holes in their knowledge.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

However, the whole idea of evolution is still fatally flawed because it has no beginning. We still can't explain where life came from. Heck, we have a hard time even describing what life is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's important to remember that evolution only attempts to explain the diversity of species. The origin of life, abiogenesis, is another matter entirely. Our understanding, or lack thereof, of the latter does not impact the validity of the former.

A bad analogy in physics - we can and do understand electromagnetism quite well without knowing what precisely happened in the first 10^-35 seconds of the universe.

[Utah]

I understand what you are saying and I agree to a point. However, evolution just doesn't attempt to explain diversity. it also attempts to explain where we came from and it delves into deep questions. Heck, if it didn't, there wouldn't be a controvery over Intelligent Design.

I believe a big part of the fascination with evolution is man's question about where he came from and his place in the universe.

Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution might be true in a pure scientific sense. However, in common thought of evolution those two ideas are blurred together.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution might be true in a pure scientific sense. However, in common thought of evolution those two ideas are blurred together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that to say that we should now teach the layman's definition of evolution in schools as opposed to the scientific definition? Moreover, are you suggesting that evolution is somehow invalid because it does not include the answer to the origins of life within its framework?

Analyst is completely correct in stating that while evolution does not explain the origins of life, it does not have to in order to be valid. When the question of "how did life originate" is posed by a student, the proper answer is "We do not yet know."

I must say, though, when people ask me why the U.S. sucks at science I will point to this thread. It is clear to me that most of those arguing for the incorporation of ID have little understanding of fundamental science and even less self-control when it comes to the ability to keep their belief in God out of science class.

[bills217]

First, New001, I just want to say I really appreciate your post and the effort you put into it.

You do touch on one area that is somewhat problematic, that being that creationists generally start out with a certain set of assumptions derived from the Bible. However, this doesn't make their claims false in and of itself.

Much of the www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) website DOES deal with religious and spiritual issues, and obviously views the Bible as truth and so forth, and some of the particular passages you cited are not at all scientific in nature. And, even regarding the scientific content, I posted an earlier disclaimer that I didn't vouch for 100% of the content on there.

I was simply using that website as an example that there is scientific debate, as a way of refuting an earlier point made by DVaut1.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I am the last guy to give the religous nuts any credit and these intelligent design people are just your run of the mill religious whack jobs.

However, the whole idea of evolution is still fatally flawed because it has no beginning. We still can't explain where life came from. Heck, we have a hard time even describing what life is.

There are some very interesting stuff about time, life, evolution, etc. that should be introduced into the science curriculum. unfortunately, it should be introduced by the science community and not by the religious nuts as is now the case.

I think part of the problem is the smugness that the science communities take towards their own discoveries and knowledge while at the same time skipping over the gaping and fundamental holes in their knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best post of the thread so far.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Analyst is completely correct in stating that while evolution does not explain the origins of life, it does not have to in order to be valid. When the question of "how did life originate" is posed by a student, the proper answer is "We do not yet know."

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is where my problem is. This is not the way it is currently taught. As Utah said, evolution and abiogenesis, largely due to the poor teaching in our gov't schools, are blurred together, leading to a lot of misinformation. If evolution were taught CORRECTLY, I would have absolutely no desire to incorporate creationism, because there would be no need to.

[bills217]

This whole thread reflects a much bigger problem that is purely political in nature.

It's hard for one side to play fair when the other side refuses to.

Rather than abusing their majority, the Republicans have tried to play it straight on social security reform, the Supreme Court, etc., and the Democrats use it to take advantage of them in every way possible.

Well...what goes around comes around...maybe Bush is tired of being bullied with filibusters on judicial nominees and the like, and now he's bullying back by pushing ID into the science curriculum, whether it actually belongs or not.

In this forum we might be debating the REAL issue of whether ID belongs in science class, but the Democrats won't allow this in Washington.

The debate in Washington is about one thing: how to stick it to the other side.

And if it means bullying ID into the science curriculum, no matter how inappropriate it is, to stick it to the Democrats...I won't lose a lot of sleep over that.

There are only two kinds of students anyhow: students who are capable of making their own decisions, in which case it doesn't really matter what they're taught in HS science class, and students who aren't. And the students who aren't have much, much bigger problems than what they're taught in science class.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is where my problem is. This is not the way it is currently taught. As Utah said, evolution and abiogenesis, largely due to the poor teaching in our gov't schools, are blurred together, leading to a lot of misinformation. If evolution were taught CORRECTLY, I would have absolutely no desire to incorporate creationism, because there would be no need to.

[/ QUOTE ]


I AGREE 100% GOOD POST MY FRIEND.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

In this forum we might be debating the REAL issue of whether ID belongs in science class, but the Democrats won't allow this in Washington.


[/ QUOTE ]

I call BS. Please point me to any evidence to support this contention.

edited to add: I would suspect that the Demos would absolutely love to have this debated in the bright lights of Washington. It would show a lot of the middle-of-the-road Republican voters (way, socially mainstream, fiscally conservative) just who is the force of the Republican party.

[ QUOTE ]
Rather than abusing their majority, the Republicans have tried to play it straight on social security reform, the Supreme Court, etc., and the Democrats use it to take advantage of them in every way possible.

Well...what goes around comes around...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, were you around for the period 1992-2000? The Dems may not be perfect, but to turn a blind eye to Republican nonsense during the Clinton presidency -- to say they didn't abuse their majority -- is specious.

You are right, though, about "what goes around comes around". The Dems are doing just what they perceived the Republicans to be doing when the Dems held the White House.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I call BS. Please point me to any evidence to support this contention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any evidence. I was just going on the fact that they never allow the debate to be about the actual issues so I don't see why they would start now.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, were you around for the period 1992-2000? The Dems may not be perfect, but to turn a blind eye to Republican nonsense during the Clinton presidency -- to say they didn't abuse their majority -- is specious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was specifically referring to the post-2004 election Republican groundswell and what has happened since then. Perhaps I should have more clearly articulated this.

[tolbiny]

"I think part of the problem is the smugness that the science communities take towards their own discoveries and knowledge while at the same time skipping over the gaping and fundamental holes in their knowledge."

There really aren't that many "gaping and fundemental holes" in any major branch of science right now. This is a huge misconception- with the major exception of what happend in tghe very early moments of the creation of the universe. The origin of life is only a great problem for people who believe that there is an enourmous distinction between life and non life, and set their definitions up in such a way to exaggerate this.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
There really aren't that many "gaping and fundemental holes" in any major branch of science right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilarious. I'm sure plenty of 1800's scientists agreed with that sentiment.

[ QUOTE ]
with the major exception of what happend in tghe very early moments of the creation of the universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, well, except for that, we know almost everything! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is where my problem is. This is not the way it is currently taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt in a future post you will back this up with evidence.

[tolbiny]

I never said or meant to imply that we know everything. But the nothion that there are "gaping" holes in the three major branches of science (physics, biology and chemistry) is absurd. the scientists of the 1800's were working on terribly incomplete information - thoeries about quantum mechanics obviously couldn't exist since the knowledbe of those particles didn't exist at that point. This was easily demostrated by the inability to accurately describe phenomena (like electricity) in a meaningful way. If you currently asked a well thought out question of an expert in that field you would very likely get a detailed answer that would be verifiable.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is where my problem is. This is not the way it is currently taught.

[/ QUOTE ] I have no doubt in a future post you will back this up with evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only evidence is my personal experience at every level of my education, and the similar experiences of others that have been related to me. It may not be in the form of a directory within the curriculum that demands it be taught in a certain way, but rather, how the teachers themselves actually teach it. If it were only one, or two, or three, it would just be a red herring. But it's a lot more prevalent than that, and stems from the attitude a science teacher has that causes them to want to be a science teacher in the first place, which is very similar to the anti-religious attitude of the scientific community in general. Rather than being intellectually honest, many do everything they can to blur evolution with abiogenesis, and in the process undermine creationist claims made by many religions.

Further, I personally have heard direct condemnations of religion by science teachers in the setting of a science class at both the public high school and public university level, and I'm sure many others share that experience. Teachers who have that kind of attitude are obviously inclined to teach evolution and for that matter all science in such a way that it furthers their agenda, and in my experience and that of others, this attitude is prevalent. That is my evidence.

Not all teachers do this...there are some good ones. I'm just saying it may be more prevalent than you think or want to admit.

[fluxrad]

Well then, your anecdotal evidence has convinced me that the wrong things are being taught in our schools.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
DVaut1, do you read my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do.

[ QUOTE ]
You quote them, sure, but you certainly aren't understanding them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand. Just because you’re obviously wrong and I’m not caving in doesn’t mean you’re arguments are so sound that I’m not capable of understanding them. I'll admit I’m pretty bored with all of this, though.

Anyway, nice try trying to infer you’re arguing on some higher plane than the rest of us, but this is just tired creationism non-sense that gets argued ad nauseum.

[ QUOTE ]
In an earlier post I thought I very clearly explained that I was going to proceed assuming that Bush meant GENERAL creationist science, rather than the specific "theory" of intelligent design derived from the philosophy of irreducible complexity (ID/IC).

[/ QUOTE ]

So...you’re claiming President Bush doesn’t want to teach ID because it’s flawed; he just wants ‘general’ creationism taught? At least ID trys (and fails) to apply the scientific method. I’d say that ‘general’ creationism ‘theories’ are even more flawed than ID, but that might give the impression that creationism is given a legitimate standing as a testable ‘theory’ in the first place, which it isn’t.

So I’ll just leave it at this: if you’re correct, and President Bush is doesn’t want ID taught, but wants ‘general creationism’ taught instead, then his support of creationism being taught alongside of evolution is even less tenable and demonstrates an even higher level of ignorance/pandering.

[ QUOTE ]
CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARE NOT SYNONOMOUS.

Creationism is general, Intelligent Design is specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have a lot in common, in that they’re both non-scientific. I realize there’s a distinction. ID advocates purposely don’t even name a ‘creator’ when propounding their theories; but they’re equivalently pseudo-scientific and don’t belong alongside evolution in a science classroom.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you think Bush is an expert on Irreducible Complexity and the philosophy behind it, which I don't think he is, then the only logical interpretation of his quote (beyond inferring that he's asking for more objective thought) is to say that he was referring to creationism in GENERAL, rather than SPECIFICALLY ID/IC. ONCE AGAIN, VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE TWO ARE NOT SYNONOMOUS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know. You’re just repeating yourself.

And I’ll take this as an opportunity to repeat myself. If he’s actually in favor of teaching ‘creationism in general’, that’s even worse than just advocating for ID.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, there really isn't. I don't doubt you could produce millions of links to creationist sites claiming there's legitimate scientific debate about evolution and the origin of life; and they're right, there is certainly legitimate debate, creationists just aren't part of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there really isn't. I don't doubt you could produce millions of links to evolutionist sites claiming there's legitimate scientific debate about creation and the origin of life; and they're right, there is certainly legitimate debate, evolutionists just aren't part of it.

Since all you did there was make a blanket unsupported statement to reflect your point of view, I thought I'd show you that I'm perfectly capable of doing the same thing. But, to tell you the truth, I'd really rather not do that because that's not debate, it's just cockroach-racing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Merely because a statement is blanket doesn’t mean it’s untrue. Creationists aren’t part of the legitimate debate over evolution. My statement isn’t unsupported. Creationism/ID aren’t even scientific, therefore they aren’t part of the legitimate debate.

And in regards to your ‘blanket’ statement, I admit evolutionary biologists aren’t part of the debate about the origins of life. The theory of evolution doesn’t purport to make claims about abiogenesis.

So, as you demonstrated, blanket statements can often be true – just like the fact that creationists aren’t part of the legitimate debate over evolution is true.

I assume you’d rather not make ‘blanket statements’ because creationism/ID is often (correctly) dismissed without much discussion. It’s not science, just as astrology and alchemy aren’t science; therefore there isn’t much reason to have a discourse about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, this is a common tactic used by evolutionists, a prime example being when pro-evolution organizations boycotted an education hearing in Kansas, apparently on the premise that its purpose was to insert some mention of creationism into the science curriculum.

If creationism is so clearly "bunk," "pseudo-science," etc., then it should be really easy for evolutionists to explain why, you know, giving reasons and support and all that stuff, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationism is clearly bunk pseudo-science. Evolutionists do easily explain why. They certainly provide evidence in numerous venues.

Please visit a local college/university near you and visit the biology department. Talk with a professor. Buy an encyclopedia, or a textbook about genetics/anthropology/biology. Or use some other method. But there’s lots of information available concerning evolution, and it’s relatively easy to acquire. So I don’t know how you can justify a claim such as “then it should be really easy for evolutionists to explain why, you know, giving reasons and support and all that stuff, right? But, they never actually DO that,” because it’s obviously not true. They do use evidence and support their claims; it's patently false to suggest otherwise.

Just because creationists apparently need the better-informed to play nurse-maid for them (and explain basic science) doesn’t mean the better-informed have to comply.

I’m sure that the tarot card readers, astrologists, alchemists, eugenicists, clairvoyants, telepathists, etc. of the world also feel that science has unfairly attacked them. But they’re wrong, just like creationism/ID advocates are.

Secondly, creationists aren’t ‘attacked’, they’re just thoroughly debunked. Claiming creationists are ‘attacked’ is just you trying to make martyrs out of creationists, when they’re really just ill-informed and incorrect. Sounds like another in the long list of ways some Christians have paranoid delusions of persecution, but I guess that’s a discussion for another day.

Speaking of discussions for another day:

[ QUOTE ]
But, they never actually DO that. They just attack. Which makes sense, because it's the same thing their natural political allies, the Democrats, do. Zero ideas, zero debate, zero solutions, all attack.

Evolutionists play the role of the robber who sticks his finger in his jacket pocket and pretends it's a gun. This has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science, and clearly belongs on this forum. The evolutionists won't allow the debate to be about science, just like the Democrats won't allow the debate to be about real solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No red herrings here. Oh well, I’ll take your bait anyway.

It’s not Democrats who are politicizing the evolution debate; it’s the Christian Right demanding the party they support to go to bat for them and look foolish advocating for ID in the science classroom.

Secondly, I can only imagine that Democrats on this board are jumping for joy that their party has now (according to you, bills) been given evolution as a natural ally. I should hope Republicans don’t see themselves as so diametrically opposed to empiricism as you do.

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure the www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) people and others maintain that their theory is consistent in every way you mention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they can ‘maintain’ whatever they want, but they’re wrong. Obviously, claiming the world is 10,000 years old isn’t consistent with the mountains and mountains (and mountains) of empirical evidence to the contrary.

[ QUOTE ]
1) I'm sure creation science-related work has appeared in the forums you mentioned and others, though perhaps without the tag of it being pro-creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Obviously creationism/ID can’t survive the scrutiny of credible peer-review, so they have no interest in submitting such studies.

But your claim is funny anyway. You think studies which advocated creationism stealthily made their way into credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals merely by removing a ‘pro-creation’ tag? You think creationists have pulled a fast one a few unsuspecting scientists and gotten their crap published in actual scientific journals? I laughed heartily when I read that.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Because, if it DID have that tag, it would clearly never make it into those forums because, as a whole, the intellectual community, the scientific community, and the far-left wing DESPISE any mention of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the scientific community and the far-left are now the same? As I said before, I think the far-left would be pleasantly surprised to find out they have such natural allies.

Anyway, your claim here is ludicrous. Please show me a shred of evidence that the scientific community ‘DESPISES’ God. This is just silliness.

[ QUOTE ]
Notice I said as a whole, not every individual. I think you may dispute this as I see you have disputed similar claims, but if you do, you're just not being honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m being completely honest. The scientific community as a whole does not ‘DESPISE’ God, and you can’t prove they do.

[ QUOTE ]
(Ahead of time, I have absolutely no desire to be anyone's victim, and I'm not, anyway. That's just how things are.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think you do. Christians aren’t persecuted in this country, but I’m starting to believe that they revel in the fictional narratives (such as this, which claims the scientific community ‘despises’ God) that claim they are.

I can’t read minds, and I certainly can’t prove it…but I think deep down, conservative Christians do have a desire to be someone’s victim, since they spend so much time whining about how unfairly they think they’re treated despite the fact they’ve never had it better. The fact we’re even having such a ridiculous debate (about ID in the science classroom) proves how far political correctness has stomped all over prudent judgment and given creationism/ID advocates a forum to spout such nonsense. Regardless, Chrstians aren't persecuted, but they do seem to adore claims (like yours) that state they are.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only evidence is my personal experience at every level of my education, and the similar experiences of others that have been related to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then, your anecdotal evidence has convinced me that the wrong things are being taught in our schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but don't you realize how much anecdotal evidence he has?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I was simply using that website as an example that there is scientific debate, as a way of refuting an earlier point made by DVaut1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their claims aren't 'scientific', hence why it's bunk science.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If evolution were taught CORRECTLY, I would have absolutely no desire to incorporate creationism, because there would be no need to.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's irrelevant if evolution is taught correctly or not. This is an argument for training teachers better, not incorporating creationism.

If teachers are telling students that the theory of evolution relates to the origins of life, they should be reprimanded for being wrong. But it doesn't follow we should introduce creationism merely because some teachers are bad.

[$DEADSEXE$]

I don't have a problem with this being taught in science classes as long as they also teach about Bigfoot, unicorns, dragons, and magic as being real too.

Now if this is a class being taught about religion, philosophy, or cultural beliefs then discussing basically the "creator" theory of how we came to be is fine.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Well then, your anecdotal evidence has convinced me that the wrong things are being taught in our schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without a poll available, anecdotal evidence on this topic is all there is, as long as you haven't shared my experiences. However, I'm sure many reading this thread HAVE shared my experiences, so it'll be plenty enough for them.

I guess I could buy a bunch of tape recorders and record every science class that goes on in the USA within the next year, and then mail all the recordings to you, but I decided it might be easier just to relate the story and that you might be good enough to take my word for it. I'm sorry that didn't suffice.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
But the nothion that there are "gaping" holes in the three major branches of science (physics, biology and chemistry) is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, please answer the following basic questions:

Physics:
1) How many dimensions make up space?
2) What is time? When did it start?
3) Why did the universe form the way it did? Are there other universes? If so, are they the same?
4) What is the theory of everything that solve the old problem of large scale physics disagreeing with quantum mechanics?
5)What laws of physics govern the behaviour in a black hole?

Biology
1) How did life form?
2) What is life and when does it begin?

Chemistry:
1) What are the basic building blocks of the universe?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You quote them, sure, but you certainly aren't understanding them.

[/ QUOTE ] I understand. Just because you’re obviously wrong and I’m not caving in doesn’t mean you’re arguments are so sound that I’m not capable of understanding them. I'll admit I’m pretty bored with all of this, though.

Anyway, nice try trying to infer you’re arguing on some higher plane than the rest of us, but this is just tired creationism non-sense that gets argued ad nauseum.

[/ QUOTE ]

In no way did I intend to imply that I was "arguing on a higher plane" than anyone else in this forum. All I did was state that you didn't understand my posts, which at that point, you did not. Maybe it was my fault for not being clear. I apologize, and I hope you'll take no offense.

[ QUOTE ]
And in regards to your ‘blanket’ statement, I admit evolutionary biologists aren’t part of the debate about the origins of life. The theory of evolution doesn’t purport to make claims about abiogenesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and I know that this is true, but (and I don't have any EVIDENCE), I'd be willing to bet a lot of people who went through our public education system do not.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because creationists apparently need the better-informed to play nurse-maid for them (and explain basic science) doesn’t mean the better-informed have to comply.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, creationists aren’t ‘attacked’

[/ QUOTE ]

How convenient for me that you would follow up an attack on creationists with a claim that creationists aren't attacked. Now I have rock-hard evidence! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

That said, many creation scientists have already forgotten more science than you will ever know. Try perusing the degrees of some of the www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) CEO's and other contributors.

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like another in the long list of ways some Christians have paranoid delusions of persecution

[/ QUOTE ]

And where is YOUR evidence?? /images/graemlins/smile.gif See, this works both ways.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, I can only imagine that Democrats on this board are jumping for joy that their party has now (according to you, bills) been given evolution as a natural ally. I should hope Republicans don’t see themselves as so diametrically opposed to empiricism as you do.


[/ QUOTE ]

My fault for being unclear and careless. I apologize. What I meant was, the Democrats are natural political allies of the scientific community in the area of doing everything possible to undermine all things religious.

I'm not opposed to scientifically-sound education on evolution, nor have I ever claimed to be.

[ QUOTE ]
You think studies which advocated creationism stealthily made their way into credible, peer-reviewed scientific journals merely by removing a ‘pro-creation’ tag?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you missed my point. Although I will take all the blame for it before you accuse me of putting you down.

I doubt any studies that openly advocated creationism made their way into any of the scientific journals you mentioned, for reasons I've previously outlined in some detail.

In my earlier post, when I said, "without the tag of it being pro-creation," I meant that to be synonomous with "not directly advocating creationism."

But, alas, I have EVIDENCE that a creationist's work has made it's way into peer-reviewed scientific journals, which is apparently now necessary since you can't just take my word for it.

"(Dr. Johan Kruger) has authored/co-authored 22 research articles which have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

The link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=26

Maybe you should give Dr. Kruger a call and explain some basic science to him so he can see the err of his ways. Even though he has a master's in animal reproductive physiology, I'm sure he barely knows any real science. In fact, he prolly made it up. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Unfortunately they don't link to any of the specific studies...they prolly pulled the number 22 out of the air and made that up too.

[ QUOTE ]
I’m being completely honest. The scientific community as a whole does not ‘DESPISE’ God, and you can’t prove they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equally, can you prove they don't?

[ QUOTE ]
Christians aren’t persecuted in this country

[/ QUOTE ]

And your evidence is? Or does that only apply to me?

[ QUOTE ]
I can’t read minds, and I certainly can’t prove it…but I think deep down, conservative Christians do have a desire to be someone’s victim

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than be dishonest, I'll go ahead and acknowledge that there are probably some Christians who do revel in the thought that they are persecuted, but I'm not one of them. I agree with you that things on the whole are not bad at all for Christians in the USA right now, though I'm not sure they've never had it better...they certainly had it better before the ACLU.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact we’re even having such a ridiculous debate (about ID in the science classroom) proves how far political correctness has stomped all over prudent judgment and given creationism/ID advocates a forum to spout such nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another agreement we share...we both hate the way political correctness has stomped all over prudent judgment.

Although, I'm gonna go ahead and say political correctness is a creation of liberals. I don't have any evidence, but I'll say it anyway! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

DVaut1, I don't think me and you as far apart here as it may seem.

We both think good science should be taught in science class.

We both agree that ID, specifically, is flawed. (Yes, it should be obvious, but as you know there are those who support it.)

We have lots of different takes on issues that can't be proved either way and are really more matters of opinion than anything else, i.e., does the scientific community hate God, etc.

Our only serious disagreement on this issue is that you claim that no creationism is scientific, and I claim that some creationism is. This I don't think we'll get past. But I have enjoyed the discussion.

[bills217]

I'll never forget this statement from my professor on the first day of Organic Chemistry:

"Many organic chemists don't believe electrons behave like this at all, but for the next two semesters we will assume that they do."

DVaut1 probably can't believe it, but as a chemical engineer with a math minor I've had about as much chemistry as you can take at the undergrad level, and a lot of physics as well, although I admit I haven't had biology since HS.

[lastchance]

Certainly there are gaping holes in our understanding of Chemistry, Biology, and especially Physics, but Creationism doesn't answer them scientifically.

The simple fact that there is a gaping hole in our knowledge does not mean we need to fill it with subpar explanations that aren't backed up by any reasonable thought.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

That said, many creation scientists have already forgotten more science than you will ever know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if they remembered more science, they wouldn't have become creation "scientists".

[ QUOTE ]


My fault for being unclear and careless. I apologize. What I meant was, the Democrats are natural political allies of the scientific community in the area of doing everything possible to undermine all things religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I call BS. Yes, there are some virulently anti-religious scientists (Dawkins comes to mind), but for the most part I suspect that scientists frankly just aren't that concerned about any conflict with religion.

Only in the minds of the religious, and I suspect very few of them, is the scientific community at large trying to undermine all things religious.

[FishHooks]

I agree with this man 100%.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That said, many creation scientists have already forgotten more science than you will ever know.

[/ QUOTE ] Maybe if they remembered more science, they wouldn't have become creation "scientists".

[/ QUOTE ]

I may disagree with you...but I give credit where credit is due. That's a good one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this man 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you do. He's telling you what you want to hear.


q/q

[FishHooks]

Just like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN do for you?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just because creationists apparently need the better-informed to play nurse-maid for them (and explain basic science) doesn’t mean the better-informed have to comply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Secondly, creationists aren’t ‘attacked’

[/ QUOTE ]

How convenient for me that you would follow up an attack on creationists with a claim that creationists aren't attacked. Now I have rock-hard evidence!

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling out ill-informed people as ill-informed isn’t ‘attacking’ them.

You said you despise political correctness as much as I do; one component of political correctness is, at least to me, denying objectively reality because someone may become hurt by said reality.

Calling creationists ill-informed is just objective reality. I’m sorry you feel attacked, but it’s not an attack.

[ QUOTE ]
That said, many creation scientists have already forgotten more science than you will ever know. Try perusing the degrees of some of the www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) CEO's and other contributors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly not. AnswersInGenesis advocates Young Earth Creationism; that is, they purport that the Earth isn’t 5 billion years old, but 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Obviously, to believe in YEC, you have to have forgotten much about science, and that’s an understatement.

[ QUOTE ]
And where is YOUR evidence?? See, this works both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

For evidence, scan posts by you and FishHooks who immediately claim victimization every time they’re told that the crap you believe in is in fact legitimately crap. Not only that, you even claimed that the scientific community has it in for religious people. If that’s not paranoid delusions, I don’t know what is.

[ QUOTE ]
But, alas, I have EVIDENCE that a creationist's work has made it's way into peer-reviewed scientific journals, which is apparently now necessary since you can't just take my word for it.

"(Dr. Johan Kruger) has authored/co-authored 22 research articles which have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

The link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=26

Maybe you should give Dr. Kruger a call and explain some basic science to him so he can see the err of his ways. Even though he has a master's in animal reproductive physiology, I'm sure he barely knows any real science. In fact, he prolly made it up.

Unfortunately they don't link to any of the specific studies...they prolly pulled the number 22 out of the air and made that up too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this wasn’t clear, one of the criteria of peer-review is that the journal has to be reputable; but obviously, since Dr. Kruger is a Young Earth Creationist, it’s evident his work has never made it into a reputable, peer-reviewed journal of science. His 22 articles are certainly in the alternate scholarly universe creationists have created because actual scientists wouldn’t stand for such nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’m being completely honest. The scientific community as a whole does not ‘DESPISE’ God, and you can’t prove they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equally, can you prove they don't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay…more tortured logic. So you claim the scientific community despises God. I say you can’t prove it. Then you ask me to prove that they don’t despise God.

YOU MADE THE CLAIM! IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILTY TO PROVE IT!

You’re just throwing crap against the wall, acknowledging you have no proof for the crap you’re saying, but asking me to prove it’s not true.

Try some similarly bad logic out:

You: Pigs can fly.
Me: No, they can’t. What proof do you have that they can?
You: Can you prove they can’t?

I’m not here to be your huckleberry. You’re just exhibiting awful, awful, awful logic here.

If you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide proof. No one is responsible for debunking crap you make up when you admit its crap by not providing proof.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christians aren’t persecuted in this country

[/ QUOTE ]

And your evidence is? Or does that only apply to me?

[/ QUOTE ]

per•se•cute
TRANSITIVE VERB:
per•se•cut•ed , per•se•cut•ing , per•se•cutes
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.

So let’s think of some actual oppression and harassment contemporary Christians face:

http://www.opendoors.org/content/wwlist.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
North Korea: “Our local co-worker reports that at least 20 Christians were arrested for their faith in 2004. It is believed that tens of thousands of Christians are currently suffering in North Korean prison camps, where they are faced with cruel abuses. North Korea is suspected to detain more political and religious prisoners than any other country in the world. Though no exact figures can be given, our staff discovered that more than 20 Christians were killed by open air shootings or by beatings in the prison camps during the past year.”

Saudi Arabia: “Christians and other non-Muslims are prohibited from gathering for public worship. Christians spreading their religion are likely to be imprisoned, as was Indian citizen Brian O’Connor who was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment and 300 lashes during the past year. While in prison, he discovered other Christians in prison for their faith in Saudi Arabia. O’Connor was physically mistreated and pressed to convert to Islam, then released unconditionally from prison after seven months and deported.”

Vietnam: “A new law on religion was introduced during the past year and bans any religious activity deemed to threaten national security, public order or national unity. The new ordinance was also used to prohibit unregistered church services in private houses. More than 100 Christians -- mainly from a tribal background -- were imprisoned. Many were forced to renounce their faith. During Easter, hundreds of ethnic minority Montagnards were arrested or injured and an unknown number killed in demonstrations against religious oppression and confiscation of tribal lands in Dak Lak province. Though the demonstrations resulted from a larger Montagnard issue and cannot be attributed solely to Christian repression, they probably brought additional repression to minority Christians.”

Laos: “Several Christians were arrested and accused of engaging in illegal church activities outside of their church premises because they didn’t have an official permit to travel outside of their villages. They were also accused of speaking negatively about the government. Some local officers have threatened to kill believers if they do not renounce their faith.”

Iran: “Although Christians belong to one of the recognized religious minorities who are guaranteed religious freedom, they have reported imprisonment, harassment and discrimination because of their faith. Iranian authorities have banned the Bible and closed down Protestant churches that accept worshippers from an Islamic background. Hundreds of Christian converts were arrested throughout the year. Iranian Christians considered the detention of 85 Christian pastors in September to be the biggest crisis in 10 years. Most of the prisoners have been released, but many reported they received severe beatings and threats in jail. A former army colonel was sentenced to three years in prison for hiding his Christian faith, despite documented proof that the army knew he had become a Christian before he was ever given officer rank. There is a risk that he will be charged before a sharia court. In sharia legislation, apostasy is punishable by death.”

Maldives: “Sharia law is observed, which prohibits the conversion from Islam to another religion. A convert could lose citizenship as a result. It is prohibited to practice any other religion than Islam, which is considered to be an important tool in stimulating national unity and maintenance of the government’s power. Hence it is impossible to open any churches, though foreigners are allowed to practice their religion in private if they don’t encourage citizens to participate. The Bible and other Christian materials cannot be imported apart from a copy for personal use.”

Somalia: “Less than one percent of ethnic Somalis are Christian, practicing their faith in secret. Having no central government, the country lacks a constitution or other national laws to protect religious freedom. Islam is the official religion and social pressure is strong to respect Islamic tradition, especially in certain rural parts of the country. Somali Christians indicated that they face heavy pressure to join Islam. During 2004, several Christian converts from Islam reported physical assaults due to their new faith, and some had to escape to other villages. In those regions, even the possession of a Bible can lead to a dangerous situation. Three converts were killed by fundamentalist Muslims because of their beliefs. There is a saying that a Christian Somali is a dead Somali”

Bhutan: “Officially, the Christian faith does not exist and Christians are not allowed to pray or celebrate in public. Priests are denied visas to enter the country. Christians are being deprived of their rights, such as children’s education, government jobs and setting up private businesses. Society exerts strong pressure to comply with Buddhist norms. During Easter, three house churches were raided by the police. The church members were warned not to gather for worship and told that the government considered their meetings to be “terrorist activities.” The import of printed religious matter is restricted, and only Buddhist religious texts are allowed in the country.”

China: “Local Christians reported intimidation, harassment and detention of believers. Several mass arrests took place in which hundreds of unregistered Christians were detained. A Christian woman was beaten to death in custody for handing out Christian tracts.”

Afghanistan: “During 2004, five Afghan Christian converts were killed for abandoning Islam and spreading their new faith. Some parts of the country, mainly in the south and east, are still under the influence of the Taliban. Afghanistan’s new provisional constitution does not provide sufficiently for religious freedom. The document stipulates that the country is an Islamic republic. Followers of other religions are free to practice their religion provided that these practices are within the limits of the provisions of the law and that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” This clause basically gives the official and unofficial religious leaders the right to question every action that they might consider contrary to their beliefs. Blasphemy and apostasy still fall under sharia law and are officially punishable by death. Christian converts face social discrimination and threats.”
------------------------------------------------------------


Now, after carefully considering what happens to actual persecuted Christians, let’s not insult the word persecute, nor these Christians who live in torment and fear, by claiming that American Christians are anything close to persecuted.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Just like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN do for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. That's some STRONG Kool-Aid you're drinking, kid. You have my pity.


q/q

[FishHooks]

Oh true true, I forgot to list all the Newspapers

[QuadsOverQuads]

My goodness, it must be simply terrible to be you. Not only are you intellectually and morally superior to all that surround you (as witnessed by your IQ-related boasts), but, on top of that, your great superiority goes unrecognized -- nay, ridiculed -- because of a pervasive conspiracy by evil newspaper and TV station owners.

My best suggestion: go to a dictionary, and look up the words "paranoia" and "vanity".


q/q

[FishHooks]

At least I can admit Fox news leans to the right and I'm a conservative, you're just in the denile phase, next step is to conquer your denile and move forward.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Lemme guess: home-schooled?


q/q

[FishHooks]

Public schooled, a very good one might I add.

[QuadsOverQuads]

I doubt that sincerely. My money is still on home-schooling, probably of the Northern Idaho variety.


q/q

[FishHooks]

Ok think want you want.....your now being ignored by this user.

[bills217]

I was about to give up on this thread, but when, in his last post, DVaut1 continued to make the same unsupported and, far worse, completely false claims and treat them as clear fact that anyone could see, I felt like I owed it to everyone who has been a part of this thread to show the complete lack of credibility of one of his claims, so that you can judge for yourselves the value of his other claims that are more difficult to prove one way or the other.

Here are a few of the specific claims I'm referring to, although some of them are more like shallow attacks than anything else:

[ QUOTE ]
Calling creationists ill-informed is just objective reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
AnswersInGenesis advocates Young Earth Creationism; that is, they purport that the Earth isn’t 5 billion years old, but 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Obviously, to believe in YEC, you have to have forgotten much about science, and that’s an understatement.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The scientific community as a whole does not ‘DESPISE’ God

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the crap you believe in is in fact legitimately crap

[/ QUOTE ]

And, finally:

[ QUOTE ]
If this wasn’t clear, one of the criteria of peer-review is that the journal has to be reputable; but obviously, since Dr. Kruger is a Young Earth Creationist, it’s evident his work has never made it into a reputable, peer-reviewed journal of science. His 22 articles are certainly in the alternate scholarly universe creationists have created because actual scientists wouldn’t stand for such nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]

This claim was either incredibly ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or both, and I can and will show it to be absolutely false, so that it may be a reflection on the credibility of DVaut1's other claims for the benefit of those involved in this thread.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp

This link answers the question, "Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?" It also answers the question, "Why did creationists create their own publications?" The answer given is that the scientific community is biased against religion, a claim I have made throughout this thread, that DVaut1 has attributed to the desire to be victimized.

This link contains an extensive list of specific creationist works that have been published for secular, reputable, peer-reviewed journals:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

However, I ran into a problem when trying to show DVaut1's claim to be completely false in a way that would be abundantly clear to everyone.

Throughout this thread, DVaut1 has refused to be intellectually honest, and as a result, he would have simply attacked any journals mentioned in the link as being disreputable, even though these journals include Advances in Genetics, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Theoretical Biology, etc.

So how do I counter that?

The following is from an earlier post by DVaut1:

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why creationists feel the need to create alternative scientific journals, rather than just submit their research to the established peer-reviewed journals of science, such as Science Magazine or Nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, although this left me very little wiggle room, he has already stated that he believes Science Magazine and Nature to be established, reputable, peer-reviewed journals of science.

The following excerpt can be found at this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp (same as an earlier one)

"Physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn't publish openly creationist conclusions."

This excerpt, which shows that a creation scientist had a work published in Nature, clearly shows DVaut1's claim in that regard to be false, and further reveals the disregard for intellectual honesty and absurdity in many of DVaut1's claims.

The previous excerpt and some of the following excerpts from that link are very damaging to some of his other, mainly opinion-based claims, while supporting mine:

"When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry's connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish."

"On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * 'Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps' to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a 'slight bias' exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement."

"Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott &amp; Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications."

"In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had 'a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.' Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, 'It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.' This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent 'the range of opinions received.' e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones."

"Another example of blatant discrimination is Scientific American's refusal to hire Forrest Mims as their 'Amateur Scientist' columnist when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was 'fabulous', 'great' and 'first rate'. Subsequently Mims invented a new haze detector praised in the 'Amateur Scientist' column, without mentioning that Mims was rejected for this very column purely because of religious discrimination. So it's hardly surprising that some creationists write creationist papers under pseudonyms to avoid being victimised by the bigoted establishment."

I hope everyone who has been a part of this thread will take into consideration the material I have provided here with respect to DVaut1's claims, and, further, the general tactics used by evolutionists to attack creationism while avoiding legitimate scientific debate.

I didn't plan or desire to spend this much time on this thread, and with reasonable people it wouldn't have been necessary, but this kind of depth is a must when fighting blatant, indefensible lies.

I apologize for not providing multiple sources, but after researching to find the material contained in this post, it became apparent that DVaut1's claims were so completely ridiculous that anything further wasn't worth my time. But I hope you'll agree that the material here is plenty sufficient to prove my point.

[hurlyburly]

Nice defense!

I only read one article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp

And it pretty much summed up what I needed to know. Literal translation = self-preservation. Creationist "truth" is nothing of the sort.

[ QUOTE ]
The major reason why people doubt that the days of creation are 24-hour literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but comes from outside influences. For example, many believe that because scientists have supposedly proved the earth to be billions of years old then the days of creation cannot be ordinary days.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of millions of years came from the belief that the fossil record was built up over a long time. As soon as people allow for millions of years, they allow for the fossil record to be millions of years old. This creates an insurmountable problem regarding the gospel. The fossil record consists of the death of billions of creatures. In fact, it is a record of death, disease, suffering, cruelty, and brutality. It is a very ugly record.

The Bible is adamant though, that death, disease, and suffering came into the world as a result of sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed. As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. The doctrine of original sin, then, is totally undermined.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If we allow our children to accept the possibility that we can doubt the days of creation when the language speaks so plainly, then we are teaching them a particular approach to all of Scripture. Why shouldn't they then start to doubt that Christ's Virgin Birth really means a virgin birth? Why shouldn't they start to doubt that the Resurrection really means resurrection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, my thoughts exactly. Why shouldn't they start to doubt...

I would be pretty irate if my kid started hearing this in science class.

EDIT: I need to thank you, that site is really funny!

[bills217]

Admittedly, and I've stated this before in this thread, the site is very spiritual and religious rather than scientific in some if not most areas, and I understand how the basis of a Biblical worldview is troubling for a non-Christian. At the same time, that doesn't make it false.

I used this particular site because I was already mildly familiar with it.

One reason I like the site is it does have extensive material on arguments for creation that ARE flawed.

(Yeah, I think I laid that one up nice and easy for my opponents in this thread to make jokes about...:))

[FishHooks]

Very good posts. I allready know what your critics will do.

1. Won't even respond at all, not waiting to admit their wrong.
2. Will examine only one little sentence that they will pick away at rather than talking about the entire post and point of your post.
3. Last and certainly not least they will create a tangent and ask you a question that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, thinking they outsmarted you into a corner.
4. Just get mad at me for saying this.
I wonder which it will be

[hurlyburly]

Not true at all, I have been reading that site since I logged on, I'm reading every article. It might even convert me, who knows?

And I gave props for a great counter-position in earnest. That's why I followed the link.

Why would anyone get mad at you?

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would anyone get mad at you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some people here like to lash out at me because I'm 18.

Good thing you liked the articles. I dunno what it is but I just hate reading things online, maybe my monitor just sucks but my eyes start to hurt when I try to read a lengthy article on my monitor.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I was about to give up on this thread,

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should have just given up.

[ QUOTE ]
but when, in his last post, DVaut1 continued to make the same unsupported and, far worse, completely false claims and treat them as clear fact that anyone could see, I felt like I owed it to everyone who has been a part of this thread to show the complete lack of credibility of one of his claims, so that you can judge for yourselves the value of his other claims that are more difficult to prove one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you failed, but I’m sure you’ll try again.

[ QUOTE ]
Here are a few of the specific claims I'm referring to, although some of them are more like shallow attacks than anything else:

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling out nonsense for being nonsense isn’t an attack, it’s just the truth. Young Earth Creationism is bunk. Sorry. I really am. I’m not trying to say anything about Christianity; I’m really not concerned with it here. I just want to ridicule people who support teaching kids crap alongside established science.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this wasn’t clear, one of the criteria of peer-review is that the journal has to be reputable; but obviously, since Dr. Kruger is a Young Earth Creationist, it’s evident his work has never made it into a reputable, peer-reviewed journal of science. His 22 articles are certainly in the alternate scholarly universe creationists have created because actual scientists wouldn’t stand for such nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This claim was either incredibly ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or both, and I can and will show it to be absolutely false, so that it may be a reflection on the credibility of DVaut1's other claims for the benefit of those involved in this thread.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/question.asp

This link answers the question, "Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?" It also answers the question, "Why did creationists create their own publications?" The answer given is that the scientific community is biased against religion, a claim I have made throughout this thread, that DVaut1 has attributed to the desire to be victimized.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I never saw anything regarding Dr. Kruger’s work; I stand by my conclusion that, since he’s a Young Earth Creationist, his work regarding creationism has never appeared in a reputable scientific journal.

2) I know Dr. Kruger has a Ph.D. in the study of nematology; so I’ll grant that perhaps he has had work on worms which doesn’t regard evolution appear in a reputable scientific journal. But since he’s a Young Earth Creationists, rest assured any research he produced which suggests the world is 6,000 – 10,000 years old hasn’t appeared in a reputable scientific journal – not bebecause these journals are biased against religion, but because such claims represent lunacy.

[ QUOTE ]
This link contains an extensive list of specific creationist works that have been published for secular, reputable, peer-reviewed journals:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

However, I ran into a problem when trying to show DVaut1's claim to be completely false in a way that would be abundantly clear to everyone.

Throughout this thread, DVaut1 has refused to be intellectually honest,

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ad hominem. Refute what I claim. It has nothing to do with me personally why creationism theories fail.

But rest assured, I’m certainly not trying to dupe anyone here.

[ QUOTE ]
and as a result, he would have simply attacked any journals mentioned in the link as being disreputable, even though these journals include Advances in Genetics, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Theoretical Biology, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have absolutely no objections to this; these are certainly reputable journals, from what I know of them.

[ QUOTE ]
So how do I counter that?

The following is from an earlier post by DVaut1:

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder why creationists feel the need to create alternative scientific journals, rather than just submit their research to the established peer-reviewed journals of science, such as Science Magazine or Nature.

[/ QUOTE ]


So, although this left me very little wiggle room,

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying that work has to appear in reputable, peer-reviewed journals is leaving you ‘very little wiggle room’? It’s not asking much for scientists to 1) have their work peer-reviewed and 2) have that peer-review be objective.

[ QUOTE ]
he has already stated that he believes Science Magazine and Nature to be established, reputable, peer-reviewed journals of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I maintain they are.

[ QUOTE ]
The following excerpt can be found at this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp (same as an earlier one)

"Physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn't publish openly creationist conclusions."

This excerpt, which shows that a creation scientist had a work published in Nature, clearly shows DVaut1's claim in that regard to be false, and further reveals the disregard for intellectual honesty and absurdity in many of DVaut1's claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

More ad hominem. Let’s put that aside for the moment. Let’s get a little more information regarding Dr. Gentry, and I think we’ll discover how his work made it into reputable journals:

“Dr. Robert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist who worked 13 years for the Oakridge National Laboratory ('69-'82). He has spent the major part of his scientific career investigating traces of polonium radioactivity inscribed in granite and is arguably the world's leading authority on polonium halos. His research has resulted in authoring or co-authoring over twenty research papers in scientific publications, such as Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, and Earth and Planetary Science Letters. When he began his research, he was an evolutionist. Today, Dr. Gentry is a fully convinced young earth creation scientist. ” (link: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Robert_Gentry )

Now, let’s examine Dr. Gentry’s work that has appeared in reputable, scientific journals, and why he fails:

“Gentry has spent most of his professional life studying the nature of very small discoloration features in mica and other minerals, and concluded that they are proof of a young Earth…

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.” (link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html )

So, here’s what’s more or less occurred with our good Dr. Gentry:

1) His work on polonium halos is actual, reputable work that has received recognition in peer-reviewed journals; but…

2) He (a physicist) incorrectly tries to extend his work to demonstrate something observable in geology:

“He doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. For his research, Gentry utilized microscope thin sections of rocks from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s). He also does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples that make up his studies - i.e., the abundance and distribution of major, accessory, or trace minerals; the texture, crystal size and alteration features of the rocks; and the presence or absence of fractures and discontinuities.

Gentry does not acknowledge that the Precambrian time period represents fully 7/8 of the history of the Earth as determined by decades of intensive field and laboratory investigations by thousands of geologists. Consequently, he does not recognize the wide diversity of geologic terranes that came and went over that enormous time span. His claim that his samples represent "primordial" basement rocks is patently incorrect . In Gentry's model, any rock looking vaguely like a granite and carrying the label Precambrian is considered to be a "primordial" rock. True granites are themselves evidence of significant crustal recycling and elemental differentiation (see for example, Taylor and McLennan, 1996), and cannot be considered primordial. A little detective work by Wakefield (1988) showed that at least one set of rock samples studied by Gentry are not from granites at all, but were taken from a variety of younger Precambrian metamorphic rocks and pegmatite veins in the region around Bancroft, Ontario. Some of these rock units cut or overlie older, sedimentary and even fossil-bearing rocks.

Gentry provides no explanation for how polonium alone finds its way into biotite and fluorite, or why radiation damage haloes in these minerals are common in areas of known uranium enrichment, but rare where uranium abundance is low. Gentry's hypothesis would seem to suggest that there should be a uniform distribution of all polonium isotopes in primordial rocks, or at least no particular spatial association with uranium. Gentry (1974), himself, notes that haloes have not been found in meteorites or lunar samples, rocks known to be very low in uranium abundance. Lorence Collins (1997) has noted these and several other contradictory situations between the polonium halo hypothesis and observed geological relationships in the field.” (link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html )

Therefore, his work on polonium holes is accepted because his work is consistent with everything else physicists have so far observed; yet, reputable science journals haven’t published his work which purports creationist conclusions because they’re bad science.

Let’s review two components of legitimate scientific theory:

1. It is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2. It is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

So, here’s where Gentry’s creationism work fails. He’s not a geologist; he’s a physicist. His work is inconsistent with the observable, empirical knowledge that has been tested and verified by geologists. The rejection of his creationist work isn’t institutional bias; it’s merely the rejection of work that fails to be legitimately scientific.

[ QUOTE ]
The previous excerpt and some of the following excerpts from that link are very damaging to some of his other, mainly opinion-based claims, while supporting mine:

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it’s really not damaging – and I’m not stating opinion, just facts.

[ QUOTE ]
"When Oak Ridge National Laboratories terminated Gentry's connection with them as a visiting professor (shortly after it became nationally known he is a creationist) the number of his articles slowed down, but he continues to publish."

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, his work on polonium holes is apparently sound; it’s just the geological conclusions he draws that are not.

[ QUOTE ]
"On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article * 'Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps' to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications).

[/ QUOTE ]

I sincerely doubt this is true, in that the process of peer review for scientific journals is usually meant to specifically curtail situations such as these. Articles are typically submitted anonymously; and then the editors of said journals will usually call upon one to three fellow, also anonymous scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. Perhaps there were strange circumstance with Humphrey’s article, but I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a 'slight bias' exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement."

[/ QUOTE ]

So, because one article was rejected, that demonstrates institutional bias on behalf of the entire scientific community?

Creationists don’t submit their work because it gets rejected. It gets rejected because it’s bunk science that doesn’t adhere to the scientific theory.

[ QUOTE ]
"Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, the only work creationists do get into reputable journals are non-creationist work. This doesn’t demonstrate bias, just fidelity to legitimate and reputable peer-review, as scientific journals are under no obligation to accept non-scientific work from scientists who posit other, legitimate scientific work. As I said, since the editorial process is typically anonymous, this makes sense. It becomes obvious why creationists have to fall back on bias; any other inquiry as to why their creationist work doesn’t appear in reputable journals is that it’s just bad work.

[ QUOTE ]
As mentioned previously, the article by Scott &amp; Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this seems pretty consistent. Creationist work doesn’t get published because it’s bad.

[ QUOTE ]
When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications."

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I’m not sure how this is a tenable claim; the editorial process in scientific journals is done almost exclusively anonymously, as the review is almost always double-blind.

[ QUOTE ]
“In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had 'a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.' Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, 'It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.' This admission is particularly significant since Science's official letters policy is that they represent 'the range of opinions received.' e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones."

[/ QUOTE ]

They don’t print articles concerning alchemy or astrology either, because, like creationism, they aren’t science.

[ QUOTE ]
"Another example of blatant discrimination is Scientific American's refusal to hire Forrest Mims as their 'Amateur Scientist' columnist when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was 'fabulous', 'great' and 'first rate'. Subsequently Mims invented a new haze detector praised in the 'Amateur Scientist' column, without mentioning that Mims was rejected for this very column purely because of religious discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rejecting someone because they’re a creationist isn’t religious discrimination, it’s just rejecting ‘scientists’ who (by their belief in creationism) clearly aren’t qualified to hold positions.

[ QUOTE ]
So it's hardly surprising that some creationists write creationist papers under pseudonyms to avoid being victimised by the bigoted establishment."

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps creationists are just afraid that their other, reputable work will be tarnished by the creationist non-sense they believe.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope everyone who has been a part of this thread will take into consideration the material I have provided here with respect to DVaut1's claims, and, further, the general tactics used by evolutionists to attack creationism while avoiding legitimate scientific debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I don’t know where I’ve tried to avoid debate; I think I’ve got something like 20-odd posts in this thread.

Again, it’s not ‘attacking’ creationism, it’s just calling crap out for what it really is – crap.

Lastly, no one is reading this thread anymore. It's just you, FishHooks, me, and some other vagrants who wander in. This post was abandoned by most long ago, because people who aren't as sadistic as I am don't feel like wasting their time arguing against fanciful things like unicorns, magicians, and creationism.

So when you say "I hope everyone who has been reading this thread," I'm not quite sure who you're talking to. It's pretty much just you and me now, buddy.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't plan or desire to spend this much time on this thread, and with reasonable people it wouldn't have been necessary,

[/ QUOTE ]

More ad hominem

[ QUOTE ]
but this kind of depth is a must when fighting blatant, indefensible lies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not lying; creationism can’t withstand actual scrutiny, and that’s a fact.

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize for not providing multiple sources, but after researching to find the material contained in this post, it became apparent that DVaut1's claims were so completely ridiculous that anything further wasn't worth my time. But I hope you'll agree that the material here is plenty sufficient to prove my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is that creationists can’t get their work into reputable scientific journal because you (wrongly) claim there’s some huge institutional bias against religion. This is just absurd.

You have no evidence. Your ‘evidence’ is that some creationists cite some anecdotal stories of rejection by the established community, then claim these anecdotal stories prove some larger, institutional bias. Obviously this kind of argument fails when any kind of logic is applied.

Their non-scientific work gets rejected because it’s non-scientific, not because of bias. As I said, lots of other pseudo-scientists (such as tarot card readers, astrologists, alchemists, eugenicists, clairvoyants, telepathists, etc.) also probably feel that there is institutional bias among the scientific community; but they’re wrong, just like you and other creationists are.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would anyone get mad at you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some people here like to lash out at me because I'm 18.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. People "lash out" at you because your arguments are poor.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno what it is but I just hate reading things online, maybe my monitor just sucks but my eyes start to hurt when I try to read a lengthy article on my monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, you need a monitor with the Refresh Rate set to at least 75 Hertz *if* you are using a CRT. This is very important. The Refresh Rate on your monitor can probably be adjusted; fish around until you figure out how to do it. Too low a refresh rate on a CRT WILL give you eyestrain and/or headaches.

Second, if you are using a CRT you should have an anti-glare filter (can be bought at Staples for around $30-$40 I think) which will cut down on glare as well as blocking radiation.

Third, you are really best off using a good LCD monitor like Dell 2001FP. Kinda pricey though.

Also, try adjusting the brightness, contrast etc. to find a lower or more comfortable level of intensity under which you can still read OK.

[FishHooks]

Yea I think my monitor only runs at 60 hertz, my monitor is very weird it lets me run resoultions of 1900x1080 and not 1600x1200, also much smaller resoultions. However I play poker and I need the best resoultion. Getting a laptop in the upcoming weeks I hope this will help, and might be investing in one of those 2001FP's soon, 6 tabeling is starting to get "boring".

[bills217]

First, let me thank you for that detailed reply...I might have even learned something.

The only claim I was specifically refuting in your last post was this one:

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Kruger is a Young Earth Creationist, it’s evident his work has never made it into a reputable, peer-reviewed journal of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

and along with it, the implication that no creationist had ever been published in any reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. This was dishonest and patently absurd, and I pointed it out.

And judging from other replies and the views on this thread, it looks like there are/were a few people still on it. This thread has over 1100 views. See hurlyburly's replies. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered...you're obviously pretty set in your ways.

As for the unscientific portion of Dr. Kruger's work, which you pointed out, I agree that only pure science and nothing involving religious assumptions has a place in science class. As a side note, just because religious assumptions are made doesn't make the conclusions inherently false.

But, there is scientific evidence that points to a Young Earth, the Flood, etc., some of which is detailed on www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com) , among other sites, books, etc. And many in this thread have been exposed to that...the value of it is for them to decide.

All I ask is that ALL the relevant scientific evidence be provided to our students in an objective manner.

I seriously doubt this will ever happen. Objectivity is a difficult thing to achieve. But, no matter how science is taught in our public schools, it won't have any effect on the underlying truth of the matter.

Further, I can't see much about the debate in general changing for a while. Neither side is proven. What can you prove? (This lends itself to a whole 'nother argument about what is provable, what isn't, the value of science, etc...but that's not for this forum. Food for thought: How would you prove the Civil War actually happened? Then extend that to proving, say, Dinosaurs became extinct X million number of years ago.)

[Ortho]

Mom, I wanna go to Dinosaur Adventure Land! It's the place where dinosaurs and the bible meet! (http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/kidos/index.html)

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
Our goal is to win souls to Christ, by giving everyone another choice. You can believe that you came from a rock, or you can believe that a loving God created you for a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Brilliant. Evolution has no chance against this.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
Our goal is to win souls to Christ, by giving everyone another choice. You can believe that you came from a rock, or you can believe that a loving God created you for a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no expert, but assuming the op of this quote is a fundamental christian, doesn't he also believe we come from rocks? God used clay, doesn't he? Clay is tiny particulate rock...


However at least it's not hypocritical, unlike those suggesting ID is suitable for 'science class', when it's really all about their hidden evangelical urges.

[New001]

It's straight from the Dinosaur Adventure Bible Fun Theme Park's website. Or whatever it's called. To be fair though, I highly doubt it was supposed to be more than a catchy hook, but it's still ridiculous and more than a little funny.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
In a similar vein, should we also teach kids 2+2 = 3, 2+2 = 4, 2+2=5 and leave it up to them to decide? How about teaching them alchemy in chemistry class? What’s the harm in that?


[/ QUOTE ]

That sums it up nicely.

[Shaun]

"You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake. You are the same decaying matter as everything else. We are all part of the same compost heap."

I want my kids to know that they are only here because, as luck would have it, a bunch of infinitely unlikely circumstances happened to come together in the deadness of space and formed some sludge on some rock heap that eventually some equally unlikely critter grew out of and so on and so forth until the world was inhabited by OJ, Britney Spears, Karl Rove, and Barabara Streisand among other similarly worthless lifeforms.

I will be sure to emphasize that there is absolutely no "purpose" in anything, and that the idea that any of this is intentional is religious fanaticism. If history has taught us anything it's that SCIENTISTS ARE INFALLIBLE.

Insisiting that there might be purpose or "intelligent desgin" behind existence is just plain scary! I mean who do these religious kooks think they are?

I feel that the state must cleanse my child from any unfortunate sense of wonder that may arise from a somewhat mystical/spiritual outlook on life. Schools must eliminate the notion of God so that it can be replaced by the State.

Clearly, we used to be apes. Furthermore, the fact that we were once apes PROVES that there is NO GOD. Suggesting that their is "intelligence" behind the laws of nature is so crazy it's not even worth discussion, especially not in public schools. The mere mention of such nonsense is dangeous and must be avoided at all costs!

To sum up:
Humans = apes.
Children = meaningless decaying matter.
Religious Kooks = scary!
Scientists = thumbs up!
God = what are you kidding me???

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
"You are not a unique and beautiful snowflake. You are the same decaying matter as everything else. We are all part of the same compost heap."

[/ QUOTE ]

Pointless hyperbole.

[ QUOTE ]
I want my kids to know that they are only here because, as luck would have it, a bunch of infinitely unlikely circumstances happened to come together in the deadness of space and formed some sludge on some rock heap that eventually some equally unlikely critter grew out of and so on and so forth until the world was inhabited by OJ, Britney Spears, Karl Rove, and Barabara Streisand among other similarly worthless lifeforms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlikely is not = impossible, unless you don't understand probability.

The rest is more pointless hyperbole.

[ QUOTE ]
I will be sure to emphasize that there is absolutely no "purpose" in anything, and that the idea that any of this is intentional is religious fanaticism. If history has taught us anything it's that SCIENTISTS ARE INFALLIBLE.

[/ QUOTE ]

No scientist has ever claimed there is " no purpose in anything." No one claims scientists are infallible, either.

[ QUOTE ]
Insisiting that there might be purpose or "intelligent desgin" behind existence is just plain scary! I mean who do these religious kooks think they are?

[/ QUOTE ]

The ID 'theory' proposed by ID advocates is wrong.

If you think there is a God, and he created life, enjoy.

Good luck trying to prove it using the scientific (i.e. accountable) method, though.

If you're looking to do battle about a belief in God, go find Sklansky in the philosophy forum for that. My guess is you'll get pwned though - and not because there isn't a God, but because it will be you and your asinine arguments trying to advocate on 'His' behalf.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that the state must cleanse my child from any unfortunate sense of wonder that may arise from a somewhat mystical/spiritual outlook on life. Schools must eliminate the notion of God so that it can be replaced by the State.

[/ QUOTE ]

Red herring.

This debate is merely about fidelity to science, empiricism, truth, and ensuring that non-science has no place in a science class.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, we used to be apes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first good point.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the fact that we were once apes PROVES that there is NO GOD.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one claimed this here.

[ QUOTE ]
Humans = apes.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Humans evolved from apes.

[ QUOTE ]
Children = meaningless decaying matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hyperbole.

[ QUOTE ]
Religious Kooks = scary!

[/ QUOTE ]

Some religious peoples willingness to reject reputable science and replace it with garbage could be considered frightening.

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists = thumbs up!

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess so?

[ QUOTE ]
God = what are you kidding me???

[/ QUOTE ]

Not relevant here.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think there is a God, and he created life, enjoy.

Good luck trying to prove it using the scientific (i.e. accountable) method, though.


[/ QUOTE ]

Same goes for evolution.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
No scientist has ever claimed there is " no purpose in anything."

[/ QUOTE ]

Another in a long line of ignorant absolute claims by DVaut1.

I suppose he has tape recordings of every statement made by every scientist in the history of the world.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Same goes for evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is fact. It's proven.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
No scientist has ever claimed there is " no purpose in anything."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose he has tape recordings of every statement made by every scientist in the history of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No scientist, in the course of their work, has claimed that "there is no purpose in anything." If you think such work exists, by all means, link away.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No scientist has ever claimed there is " no purpose in anything."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose he has tape recordings of every statement made by every scientist in the history of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No scientist, in the course of their work, has claimed that "there is no purpose in anything." If you think such work exists, by all means, link away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, self-important science guy, I DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. But when people like you get so bent out of shape over a freaking scientific theory it makes my skin crawl. I'm not even religious, I'm agnostic. And guess what? I still think people like you are sad. I mean what the heck is wrong with, in the midst of the 1 or 2 page discussion of evolution, bringing up the possibility that the thoery isn't 100% perfect??? Religious kooks are funny and frightening, but irreligious kooks are even worse-I mean who the hell gets so bent out of shape over the theory of evolution?

Why do you care if ID theory is taught in conjunction with evolution?

How come kids have to be taught to be "tolerant" of "alternative lifestyles" and crap like that but don't have to be tolerant of an alternative science lecture? No one is saying the moon is made of cheese. ID theory is harmless. Say it with me. What are you afraid it will do to children?

The point is, it's sick that so many of you have become zealots over a scientific theory. It's laughable. At least religious zealots are fanatical over noble ideals...

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
ID theory is harmless. Say it with me. What are you afraid it will do to children?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid that it will teach children that it is a scientific theory with enough basis in scientific logic to be fit into a curriculum. I'm afraid we will be teaching sociology/philosophy/religion as a hard science instead of a social science and kids will blur the two. I'm afraid that this is a step in the wrong direction in curriculum development, not a step in the right direction.

We should be teaching kids the best scienific theories that are available. If the theory turns out to be incorrect, so be it. Just because something is a scientific "theory," doesn't devalue it as you post suggests.

[tolbiny]

"At least religious zealots are fanatical over noble ideals"

Nobel idea number 1-
Kill everyone who doesn't believe and act the way that you do.

Number 2-
Tell everyone you can that god hates those who use contraception which would likely curb the spread of Aids which is currently killing millions.

Number 3- ring my effing doorbell at 7:30 am when i am trying to fall alseep after a long poker session to spread the "good word"

[jj_frap]

The good thing about the religious right and everybody who believes in that ID and young-earth creationism crap is that people naturally that dumb or brainwashed to be that ignorant create a virtually limitless fountain of easy poker money for us good folks at 2+2. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is fact. It's proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I'd let this go, but since you've jumped on other people for basically the same thing, I have to point this out as untrue, and, frankly, I'm really disappointed that someone who at first glance appears to be educated in these matters would make yet another ignorant and completely false claim. I suspect that you do know better and are just being dishonest to further your agenda, but it's sad either way.

Perhaps certain things can be PROVEN, such as specific genetic mutations, etc., which may then be used as evidence for the THEORY of evolution.

But if evolution were PROVEN, it wouldn't be called a THEORY.

Below I offer some various definitions of "theory" from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory :

"a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena, 'a theory of organic evolution'"

"a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation"

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

Now, obviously these definitions indicate that a theory is "probable," "generally accepted," "a well-substantiated explanation," etc., but PROVEN it is not, contrary to what you claimed.

You should try investing in a basic science textbook. I'm not here to be your huckleberry. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Now, if I were dishonest, as you have been throughout this thread, I would have listed the other definitions of theory which are clearly not applicable here, such as, "conjecture" and "speculation," but I'd rather have an honest debate than race cockroaches.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty much just you and me now, buddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you pointed that out.

Because if you didn't, all these replies by other people would've led me to believe it wasn't just me and you. Thank goodness for DVaut1. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[New001]

Evolution is as much of a theory as gravity and relativity and any other scientific theory you can think of.

[New001]

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
[ QUOTE ]
In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). (In contrast, a hypothesis is a statement which has not been tested yet). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations.

The term theoretical may be used to to describe a certain result that has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, but failed predictions do occur. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics, there can also be confirmed experimental results which are not yet explained by theory.

For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.

Unfortunately, the usage of the term is muddled by cases such as string theory and "theories of everything," each probably better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data, and is often a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.

Other claims such as Intelligent Design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.



[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.” At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.

Some examples of theories that have been disproved are Lamarckism and the geocentric theory or model of Ptolemy. Sufficient evidence has been described to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence supporting them and better explanations have taken their place.



[/ QUOTE ]

Emphasis my own, but please read the whole thing.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Look

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how I could read without looking. Clearly, I'm looking.

[ QUOTE ]
self-important science guy

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really consider myself to be anymore important than anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
I DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to the club. We should get jackets.

[ QUOTE ]
But when people like you get so bent out of shape over a freaking scientific theory it makes my skin crawl.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by 'bent out of shape', you mean that I'm angry, I'm not. This is just entertainment for me. The point where 2+2 gets me angry is the point where I'm finding something else to do with my time.

But I suppose claiming I'm 'bent out of shape' is just some coded way of saying I'm being irrational. The only thing I'm advocating is using reason when discussing how we ought to educate.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even religious, I'm agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay? What do I care?

[ QUOTE ]
And guess what? I still think people like you are sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of self-importance...

Do you think I’m going to have a tough time getting to sleep tonight because some guy on 2+2 thinks I’m sad? I don’t care what you think.

[ QUOTE ]
mean what the heck is wrong with, in the midst of the 1 or 2 page discussion of evolution, bringing up the possibility that the thoery isn't 100% perfect???

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm against teaching children that the theory isn't settled, and claiming that because it isn't settled, we ought to fill in the gaps with non-science like creationism/ID. That's patently wrong and not logical.

[ QUOTE ]
Religious kooks are funny and frightening, but irreligious kooks are even worse-I mean who the hell gets so bent out of shape over the theory of evolution?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really know any people who advocate the theory of evolution that are 'bent out of shape'. If there are emotions involved, I think it’s more disillusionment and cynicism than anger.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you care if ID theory is taught in conjunction with evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because ID isn't science, and evolution is - and I find virtue in being well-informed, and condemn those who would willingly ill-inform children; and as this post demonstrates, there are clearly too many people with serious knowledge gaps regarding the study of science.

[ QUOTE ]
How come kids have to be taught to be "tolerant" of "alternative lifestyles" and crap like that but don't have to be tolerant of an alternative science lecture?

[/ QUOTE ]

That 'alternative science lecture' you speak of isn't science at all.

[ QUOTE ]
No one is saying the moon is made of cheese.

[/ QUOTE ]

Claiming the moon is made of cheese is about as equally supportable as Intelligent Design is.

[ QUOTE ]
ID theory is harmless.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nonsense, and isn't particularly harmless. It tries to imply to school children that there is legitimate debate where none exists.

[ QUOTE ]
Say it with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it matter if I said it with you in unison, or can I say it at my own pace? I don't see how synchronizing our speech would add anything useful to the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
What are you afraid it will do to children?


[/ QUOTE ]

Mislead them/contribute to ignorance about science.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, it's sick that so many of you have become zealots over a scientific theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's zealotry to remain unendingly loyal to scientific method, empiricism, observation, etc. then I will accept the label of zealot with pride.

[ QUOTE ]
It's laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is?

[ QUOTE ]
At least religious zealots are fanatical over noble ideals...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get into a debate about whether or not religious zealots have noble ideas, I'm guessing Sklansky will engage you in the Science, Math, and Philosophy Forum, but it's not particularly relevant to the discussion here. But I think those who wish to give esteem to truth and empirical knowledge are indeed behaving nobly, and I would be glad to fight for such values fanatically.

[bills217]

New001, I understand and generally agree with what you posted there. But, apparently, DVaut1 does not.

All I did in the post you replied to was show DVaut1's claim that evolution is "proven" to be false, which you also showed, here:

[ QUOTE ]
In science, a theory can never be proven true


[/ QUOTE ]

I also concur with the content of your post here:

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

[/ QUOTE ]

We may very well see this day come for evolution.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is fact. It's proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps certain things can be PROVEN, such as specific genetic mutations, etc., which may then be used as evidence for the THEORY of evolution.

But if evolution were PROVEN, it wouldn't be called a THEORY.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right. I clearly mispoke. Evolution isn't proven and I was wrong to say so.

I should have said something more along the lines of "Evolution is FACT - confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

No dishonesty, just an honest mistake.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
We may very well see this day come for evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

We may very well see this day come for gravity, too.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, obviously these definitions indicate that a theory is "probable," "generally accepted," "a well-substantiated explanation," etc., but PROVEN it is not, contrary to what you claimed.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the scientific context a theory cannot be proven. I am sure of the fact, however, that you misunderstand why it cannot be.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that you do know better and are just being dishonest to further your agenda, but it's sad either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm honestly curious - what in the world do you think my agenda is? Rest assured this question isn't tinged with sarcasm; I'm genuinely curious what kind of agendas you're assigning to people who advocate keeping ID out of the science classroom.

If you think this question is hijacking the thread and somewhat off topic, by all means start another post or PM me or something, but I'm honestly curious as to what kind of agenda, other than respect for science, you think people who reject ID have.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ID theory is harmless. Say it with me. What are you afraid it will do to children?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid that it will teach children that it is a scientific theory with enough basis in scientific logic to be fit into a curriculum. I'm afraid we will be teaching sociology/philosophy/religion as a hard science instead of a social science and kids will blur the two. I'm afraid that this is a step in the wrong direction in curriculum development, not a step in the right direction.

We should be teaching kids the best scienific theories that are available. If the theory turns out to be incorrect, so be it. Just because something is a scientific "theory," doesn't devalue it as you post suggests.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but since evolution isn't 100% understood and mapped out completely, to suggest alternative theory doesn't seem like such a catastrophe.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how I could read without looking. Clearly, I'm looking.

[ QUOTE ]
self-important science guy

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really consider myself to be anymore important than anyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
I DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to the club. We should get jackets.

[ QUOTE ]
But when people like you get so bent out of shape over a freaking scientific theory it makes my skin crawl.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by 'bent out of shape', you mean that I'm angry, I'm not. This is just entertainment for me. The point where 2+2 gets me angry is the point where I'm finding something else to do with my time.

But I suppose claiming I'm 'bent out of shape' is just some coded way of saying I'm being irrational. The only thing I'm advocating is using reason when discussing how we ought to educate.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even religious, I'm agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay? What do I care?

[ QUOTE ]
And guess what? I still think people like you are sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of self-importance...

Do you think I’m going to have a tough time getting to sleep tonight because some guy on 2+2 thinks I’m sad? I don’t care what you think.

[ QUOTE ]
mean what the heck is wrong with, in the midst of the 1 or 2 page discussion of evolution, bringing up the possibility that the thoery isn't 100% perfect???

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm against teaching children that the theory isn't settled, and claiming that because it isn't settled, we ought to fill in the gaps with non-science like creationism/ID. That's patently wrong and not logical.

[ QUOTE ]
Religious kooks are funny and frightening, but irreligious kooks are even worse-I mean who the hell gets so bent out of shape over the theory of evolution?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really know any people who advocate the theory of evolution that are 'bent out of shape'. If there are emotions involved, I think it’s more disillusionment and cynicism than anger.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you care if ID theory is taught in conjunction with evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because ID isn't science, and evolution is - and I find virtue in being well-informed, and condemn those who would willingly ill-inform children; and as this post demonstrates, there are clearly too many people with serious knowledge gaps regarding the study of science.

[ QUOTE ]
How come kids have to be taught to be "tolerant" of "alternative lifestyles" and crap like that but don't have to be tolerant of an alternative science lecture?

[/ QUOTE ]

That 'alternative science lecture' you speak of isn't science at all.

[ QUOTE ]
No one is saying the moon is made of cheese.

[/ QUOTE ]

Claiming the moon is made of cheese is about as equally supportable as Intelligent Design is.

[ QUOTE ]
ID theory is harmless.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nonsense, and isn't particularly harmless. It tries to imply to school children that there is legitimate debate where none exists.

[ QUOTE ]
Say it with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would it matter if I said it with you in unison, or can I say it at my own pace? I don't see how synchronizing our speech would add anything useful to the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
What are you afraid it will do to children?


[/ QUOTE ]

Mislead them/contribute to ignorance about science.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, it's sick that so many of you have become zealots over a scientific theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's zealotry to remain unendingly loyal to scientific method, empiricism, observation, etc. then I will accept the label of zealot with pride.

[ QUOTE ]
It's laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is?

[ QUOTE ]
At least religious zealots are fanatical over noble ideals...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get into a debate about whether or not religious zealots have noble ideas, I'm guessing Sklansky will engage you in the Science, Math, and Philosophy Forum, but it's not particularly relevant to the discussion here. But I think those who wish to give esteem to truth and empirical knowledge are indeed behaving nobly, and I would be glad to fight for such values fanatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you didn't care what I thought you wouldn't respond, you'd simply ignore this and go about other things.

You like to talk about red herrings, and that is exactly what this debate is. It's a way for the right and the left to fight over yet another meaningless issue all the while distracting people from real problems. Anyway I will maintain my position (as an ignorant, non-science guy I suppose) that whether ID is taught or not really makes little difference. We will agree to loathe one another and part ways. Have a nice decomposition.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
"At least religious zealots are fanatical over noble ideals"

Nobel idea number 1-
Kill everyone who doesn't believe and act the way that you do.

Number 2-
Tell everyone you can that god hates those who use contraception which would likely curb the spread of Aids which is currently killing millions.

Number 3- ring my effing doorbell at 7:30 am when i am trying to fall alseep after a long poker session to spread the "good word"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah well, the idea that one should love thy neighbor etc. are noble ideals. No one ever said they held to these ideals.

Yeah, organized religion sucks. But ideas of God, eternal life, and love are things that understabdably inspire passion (because of the emotions involved) no? Creatures evolving from primordial sludge? Not so much.

[tolbiny]

But this is the whole point- ID isn't a thoery, it doesn't fit the criteria of being scientifcally testable in any way (and mnay of the objections to evolution have thosery's about mechanisms that explain a lot of the discrepancies).

[tolbiny]

His post was critisizing scientific zelotry- and comparing it to religeous zelotry. Religeous fantics don't often take phrases like "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor" to the extremes and build their entire life around them. REligeous fanatics tend to attack and destroy anything around them not like them.
On the other hand there are a lot of inspiring things about science. Doctors spending lifetimes trying to cure desiese, technology alloing us to live longer and healthier lives, ect ect.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
His post was critisizing scientific zelotry- and comparing it to religeous zelotry. Religeous fantics don't often take phrases like "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor" to the extremes and build their entire life around them. REligeous fanatics tend to attack and destroy anything around them not like them.
On the other hand there are a lot of inspiring things about science. Doctors spending lifetimes trying to cure desiese, technology alloing us to live longer and healthier lives, ect ect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons. Biological warfare.
Yay science!

Obviously there are evils that arise from both. Neither is totally to blame for its misuses.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If you didn't care what I thought you wouldn't respond, you'd simply ignore this and go about other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what you think.

As I said, this is just entertainment for me. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you are saying this in the sence that "Evolution is a term for the latest scientific theory, that brings together many disciplines, about the cosmos and how Man and the other kinds of Life came to be".

Emphasis on "scientific".

[ QUOTE ]
But when people like you get so bent out of shape over a freaking scientific theory it makes my skin crawl. What the heck is wrong with, in the midst of the 1 or 2 page discussion of evolution, bringing up the possibility that the thoery isn't 100% perfect?

[/ QUOTE ]
No theory is "perfect" - in the sense that we can always go beyond it someday. We know enough by now not to be arrogant.

But the (strongly held) scientific theory right now about the cosmos, Life and Man is what we call Evolution. And if we are gonna teach science, we should be teaching Evolution. Same way we are teaching children that the human body is made of matter (and we can perform autopsies on it without committing a sin), or that Earth is round (and not flat nor the center of the universe), or that airplanes can fly (and not just angels). Such things are the latest in scientific knowledge -- and the latest in scientific knowledge is what we are supposed to pass on to our children, if we wanna pass Science on to them.

All other "theories" (brackets indicate they are not truly scientifically posited/proven theories) can be taught at school, of course, but in another class. I would suggest Modern Comedy.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even religious, I'm agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Coulda fooled me. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution isn't 100% understood and mapped out completely.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are confused. Evolution theory is a totally robust and "well mapped out", as you put it, theory. It embraces a number of disciplines (Biology, Archaeology, Radiology, Astronomy, Geology, etc) which all subscribe to the paradigm of evolution.

What is "lacking" is not some piece of "logic" or some "arguments" in the paradigm but, rather, data (findings) that will fill in the blanks for certain periods in cosmological History. (Say, some hundreds of millions of years, nothing much...) There is nothing out there that could fill in the blanks and (even remotely) contradict the theory and its basic tenets.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is an embarassment of arbitrary thinking and baseless assertions. The only good thing about teaching it in scientific classes would be that it'd show the kids how stupid some grown-ups can be.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The only good thing about teaching it in scientific classes would be that it'd show the kids how stupid some grown-ups can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is a subject which should be mandatory. Especially when you read some of the youngsters on here who are just repeating parrot-fashion some of the garbage their parent spout.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that you do know better and are just being dishonest to further your agenda, but it's sad either way.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm honestly curious - what in the world do you think my agenda is? Rest assured this question isn't tinged with sarcasm; I'm genuinely curious what kind of agendas you're assigning to people who advocate keeping ID out of the science classroom.

If you think this question is hijacking the thread and somewhat off topic, by all means start another post or PM me or something, but I'm honestly curious as to what kind of agenda, other than respect for science, you think people who reject ID have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to know specifically what that agenda is...I just couldn't see any other reason for someone as apparently well-educated as you to make such a clearly false statement as "Evolution is proven." But that was apparently just a mistake, which I can accept...we all make mistakes...even scientists! /images/graemlins/smile.gif So I retract the claim about your agenda entirely.

However, I will say (and I don't know if you are one of these people) that there are people who will distort the facts and do anything to undermine any mention of God or a religious claim, just as, IN FAIRNESS, there are people who will distort the facts and do anything to PROMOTE God or a religious claim. Both sides have their black sheep.

The political climate in America has become so absolutist it's absurd. (I just made "absolutist" up...it's time we thought of something else to say besides "divided.") Clearly there are good Democrats and bad Democrats, good Republicans and bad Republicans, good scientists and bad scientists, good preachers and bad preachers, good teachers and bad teachers, good CEO's and bad CEO's, etc. Any person who can't acknowledge this (and there are surprisingly many who can't) is just another Kool-Aid drinker.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm honestly curious as to what kind of agenda, other than respect for science, you think people who reject ID have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's funny how you phrase that.

I understand your position that only science should be taught in science class, and it's a rational one and I completely agree.

But, seriously...respect is something you give another person or spiritual entity, not an object and definitely not an idea. Why waste time trying to "respect science?" Who cares? Does science send you a Christmas card? I guess I'm not on the list. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Generally, mocking religious zealots (a favorite hobby of some here at 2+2) is a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black...for me, personally, it's easier to justify zealotry over the belief in a being that controls your eternal destiny rather than "science," or, "art," or whatever else people are zealous about that won't matter one bit on their deathbed. (Curiously, all the science in the world hasn't been able to cure this ongoing death epidemic. Rather than "respect science," I think we ought to file a class action lawsuit against it for medical malpractice. /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

P.S. This reminds me of how some sports analysts wax poetic about the importance of "respecting the game." Seriously...how stupid is that? Does that annoy anyone else?

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
LINK TO ARTICLE (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12278497.htm)

[ QUOTE ]



In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

An irony just struck me about this topic ...

G-Dub is an oilman, right? Where does he think that all that oil came from?

[tomdemaine]

Hate to ressurect old topic but... (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&amp;n=2)

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
G-Dub is an oilman, right? Where does he think that all that oil came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument for this is often along the lines of 'god put em there to test our faith by giving an alternative explanation of how we got here' or similar. At least, that's how they explain carbon dating, dinosaur fossil ages etc etc

If I believed in God, I'd be insulted by this, makes him sound like some enourmous trickster ('better leave some dinosaur bones here to keep em on their toes....'.

But then, I've never understood why you need to believe in the garden of Eden, the ark, that there's only been 6000 years of existence etc et to believe in God, but that's 'isms' for ya (in this case Christian fundamentalism).


I gotta stop adding to this thread - it's ridiculous!

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Hate to ressurect old topic but... (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&amp;n=2)

[/ QUOTE ]


Intelligent Falling......yup, that's the ticket.

next thing we'll have is 'Intelligent Stupidity'.

[CORed]

I have no objection to teaching "intelligent design" in public schools -- in a philosophy or comparative religion class. Teaching it in a science class, however, is absurd. "Intelligent design" is a religious or philosphical theory. It is not a scientific theory, because there is no experiment or data gathering process which can verify or falsify it.