Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Q&A on "Intelligent Design"
Blogger Mark has a wheelbarrow full of righteous indignation up at his place, which he is trying to pass off as "intelligent design debate." Not even close.
There is the usual laundry list of direct quotes, which one should double-check for legitimacy and veracity, as well as a gratuitous slap at the ACLU. It's his place. The amen chorus will egg him on.
This post, which I do not pretend to be an argument or a debate, is in answer to his -- here, because I've opted not to track what he considers "evil" mud into his blogging living room.
--ER
From Americans United for the Separation of Church and State:
Q: What is intelligent design?
A: Intelligent design, or ID, is a modified version of creationism promoted by Religious Right activists who have been unable to get full-blown creationism taught in public schools. ID purports that life on earth is too complex to have evolved through natural selection, and therefore must be the product of a designer, or intelligent force.
Q: Is ID a scientific theory?
A: Unlike traditional creationists, ID proponents frequently have advanced degrees and cloak their agenda in academic language, giving their movement the veneer of respectability. Proponents of intelligent design claim the idea isn’t religious. Yet the very name of what they are pushing belies that. Mainstream scientists, who no longer regard evolution as controversial, flatly reject intelligent design as pseudo-science and a thinly veiled attempt to bring religion into public schools. Proponents of intelligent design have not been able to get their papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The battle here is political, not scientific. Science regards the issue as closed because intelligent design has no scientific merit. But that does not mean it cannot be forced into the schools anyway. The Religious Right is using the political system to give them something the scientific community will not.
Q: Isn’t the teaching of evolution anti-religious?
A: Evolution is neutral on the question of religion. The theory deals with how life on earth changed over many millions of years. It does not address the question of the origin of the universe and says nothing about personal morality. These questions belong to the realm of theology. Many religious leaders accept evolution, including Pope John Paul II, who has said that the Bible is a book about how to get to Heaven, not about how Heaven was made.
Q. Why is the Religious Right pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools?
A. Religious Right leaders view intelligent design as a stepping stone to the introduction of full-blown creationism and religion into public schools. Phillip Johnson, one of the main proponents of intelligent design, pioneered a strategy called the Wedge in which ID is a vehicle to get people thinking about religion. He argues that by moving the debate from evolution vs. creationism to the question of God’s existence, people will be ready to be introduced to the truth of the Bible, the question of sin, and ultimately Jesus. Proponents of intelligent design are no different than other creationists who want to preach a religious message to students.
Q. What about equal time?
A. Religious Right activists often argue that students would benefit from teachers giving equal time to learning about ideas other than evolution. They claim that the more young people learn about different ideas, the more educated they will be. The problem with this claim is that intelligent design is not just another idea or scientific theory. It is a religious teaching that has no place in public school science classes. When ID advocates ask for time in science classes, they are no different than other creationists who want to preach a religious message to students. In 1987 the Supreme Court issued a decision in Edwards v. Aguillard that struck down a Louisiana law that required public schools to offer balanced treatment between evolution and creationism. No federal court has ever upheld school-sponsored religious indoctrination.
There is the usual laundry list of direct quotes, which one should double-check for legitimacy and veracity, as well as a gratuitous slap at the ACLU. It's his place. The amen chorus will egg him on.
This post, which I do not pretend to be an argument or a debate, is in answer to his -- here, because I've opted not to track what he considers "evil" mud into his blogging living room.
--ER
From Americans United for the Separation of Church and State:
Q: What is intelligent design?
A: Intelligent design, or ID, is a modified version of creationism promoted by Religious Right activists who have been unable to get full-blown creationism taught in public schools. ID purports that life on earth is too complex to have evolved through natural selection, and therefore must be the product of a designer, or intelligent force.
Q: Is ID a scientific theory?
A: Unlike traditional creationists, ID proponents frequently have advanced degrees and cloak their agenda in academic language, giving their movement the veneer of respectability. Proponents of intelligent design claim the idea isn’t religious. Yet the very name of what they are pushing belies that. Mainstream scientists, who no longer regard evolution as controversial, flatly reject intelligent design as pseudo-science and a thinly veiled attempt to bring religion into public schools. Proponents of intelligent design have not been able to get their papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The battle here is political, not scientific. Science regards the issue as closed because intelligent design has no scientific merit. But that does not mean it cannot be forced into the schools anyway. The Religious Right is using the political system to give them something the scientific community will not.
Q: Isn’t the teaching of evolution anti-religious?
A: Evolution is neutral on the question of religion. The theory deals with how life on earth changed over many millions of years. It does not address the question of the origin of the universe and says nothing about personal morality. These questions belong to the realm of theology. Many religious leaders accept evolution, including Pope John Paul II, who has said that the Bible is a book about how to get to Heaven, not about how Heaven was made.
Q. Why is the Religious Right pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools?
A. Religious Right leaders view intelligent design as a stepping stone to the introduction of full-blown creationism and religion into public schools. Phillip Johnson, one of the main proponents of intelligent design, pioneered a strategy called the Wedge in which ID is a vehicle to get people thinking about religion. He argues that by moving the debate from evolution vs. creationism to the question of God’s existence, people will be ready to be introduced to the truth of the Bible, the question of sin, and ultimately Jesus. Proponents of intelligent design are no different than other creationists who want to preach a religious message to students.
Q. What about equal time?
A. Religious Right activists often argue that students would benefit from teachers giving equal time to learning about ideas other than evolution. They claim that the more young people learn about different ideas, the more educated they will be. The problem with this claim is that intelligent design is not just another idea or scientific theory. It is a religious teaching that has no place in public school science classes. When ID advocates ask for time in science classes, they are no different than other creationists who want to preach a religious message to students. In 1987 the Supreme Court issued a decision in Edwards v. Aguillard that struck down a Louisiana law that required public schools to offer balanced treatment between evolution and creationism. No federal court has ever upheld school-sponsored religious indoctrination.
Comments:
<< Home
Got a busy day today, so I can't comment properly. For the record ER, is this your view on creationism? Seems like I've read somewhere around here that you consider it a 'myth'. Just curious. I'll be back to weigh in a little later.
Go ahead and weigh in. There is nothing in this post that says anyting about what I believe about how this here heaven and earth came together. Nada.
But, if I believed that we all woke up under cabbage leaves, I wouldn't want it taught as science in the public schools.
"Myth" don't mean "made up." So, to call the creation story in Genesis a "myth" does not mean what the unlearned thinks it means. As with most things that unnerve the Religious Right, "myth" is more complicated than that.
In a nut: I don't care how we got here. The fact remains that we are here. The task before us all is to find, accept, receive, seek -- pick a verb -- a right relationship with God NOW.
Science classes are for science. Religion classes are for religion -- and if they're in the public schools, they better be "history" or "impact" or "literature" of religion, taught dispassionately, or it's indoctrination, not instruction.
--ER
But, if I believed that we all woke up under cabbage leaves, I wouldn't want it taught as science in the public schools.
"Myth" don't mean "made up." So, to call the creation story in Genesis a "myth" does not mean what the unlearned thinks it means. As with most things that unnerve the Religious Right, "myth" is more complicated than that.
In a nut: I don't care how we got here. The fact remains that we are here. The task before us all is to find, accept, receive, seek -- pick a verb -- a right relationship with God NOW.
Science classes are for science. Religion classes are for religion -- and if they're in the public schools, they better be "history" or "impact" or "literature" of religion, taught dispassionately, or it's indoctrination, not instruction.
--ER
Thanks for the linkage, ER.
With all due respect, the point of my post wasn't whether creationism or evolution is fact or myth, although I did throw in some quotes supporting my belief that evolution is wrong. I grant you that.
I also grant you that the term Intelligent Design is nothing more than an attempt to make the term creationism sound more non-controversial and antisptic.
I suppose I could have condensed my argument to say this:
The debate going on presently in Pennsylvania is whether it is lawful to make a statement on a classroom that evolution, which is a theory being taught as fact, is not the only theory on the origin of the universe.
That is all thay want. To let students know that there are other theories. You have to ask yourself why anyone would want to deny the right of schools to teach their students to think for themselves.
There are some who don't want the schools to make that statement, and that is an issue of free speech, not religion.
With all due respect, the point of my post wasn't whether creationism or evolution is fact or myth, although I did throw in some quotes supporting my belief that evolution is wrong. I grant you that.
I also grant you that the term Intelligent Design is nothing more than an attempt to make the term creationism sound more non-controversial and antisptic.
I suppose I could have condensed my argument to say this:
The debate going on presently in Pennsylvania is whether it is lawful to make a statement on a classroom that evolution, which is a theory being taught as fact, is not the only theory on the origin of the universe.
That is all thay want. To let students know that there are other theories. You have to ask yourself why anyone would want to deny the right of schools to teach their students to think for themselves.
There are some who don't want the schools to make that statement, and that is an issue of free speech, not religion.
Well, obviously I think you're wrong, Mark, and that you've oversimplified the issue. Not the first time we've disagreed. Won't be the last.
--ER
--ER
I agree that myth has several meanings. From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society (seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs) b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
Two of the four definitions have to do with 'make-believe'. So take it easy on the so-called Religious Right.
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society (seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs) b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
Two of the four definitions have to do with 'make-believe'. So take it easy on the so-called Religious Right.
??
I'd say the top two definitions might apply to the Genesis account of creation. But maybe it's literally the way it unfolded.
I don't think I'm saying "creation" is a myth -- in fact, I know I'm not saying that.
I believe God created all there there is outside of Himself. There. Plain as punch.
How He did so is up for arguing. Mighta done it with a snap of His fingers. Mighta done it in 7 days. Mighta done it using evolution. Mighta took millenia.
C.S. Lewis (I think) wondered whether the conscious decision to accept God's grace and salvation might be the next step of evolution of man: In other words, the first instance of a specie consciously deciding and taking action (repenting) to avoid the "negative selection" (form of "artificial selection," as opposed to "natural selection," see Wikipedia) that the rest of humanity is following to its detriment.
Or maybe I dreamed that up. Interesting, though. :-)
--ER
I'd say the top two definitions might apply to the Genesis account of creation. But maybe it's literally the way it unfolded.
I don't think I'm saying "creation" is a myth -- in fact, I know I'm not saying that.
I believe God created all there there is outside of Himself. There. Plain as punch.
How He did so is up for arguing. Mighta done it with a snap of His fingers. Mighta done it in 7 days. Mighta done it using evolution. Mighta took millenia.
C.S. Lewis (I think) wondered whether the conscious decision to accept God's grace and salvation might be the next step of evolution of man: In other words, the first instance of a specie consciously deciding and taking action (repenting) to avoid the "negative selection" (form of "artificial selection," as opposed to "natural selection," see Wikipedia) that the rest of humanity is following to its detriment.
Or maybe I dreamed that up. Interesting, though. :-)
--ER
Oh, another thought: I believe it was no other than Paul the Apostle his own self (mighta been someone else, tho), who declared that the creation itself cries out in witness to God. So, I'm pretty sure a "statement" in a science class would be redundant. So, to argue that ID is an effort to "let kids know" there are alternative ideas about how we all got here is weak. Seems to be one ultimate reason to get ID in science classes: to use public schools to further a religious aim. And that's a no-no.
From the new (2000) Baptist Faith and Message. I've capped the saliant parts. (BTW, before anybody starts hollering about this: "The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind." Teachers, as agents of government, ARE "the state," and anything they "do" is an action, not an "opinion.")
--ER
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. CHURCH AND STATE SHOULD BE SEPARATE. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. THE CHURCH SHOULD NOT RESORT TO THE CIVIL POWER TO CARRY ON ITS WORK. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A FREE CHURCH IN A FREE STATE IS THE CHRISTIAN IDEAL, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
--ER
XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. CHURCH AND STATE SHOULD BE SEPARATE. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. THE CHURCH SHOULD NOT RESORT TO THE CIVIL POWER TO CARRY ON ITS WORK. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A FREE CHURCH IN A FREE STATE IS THE CHRISTIAN IDEAL, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
I'm running ragged today, so excuse me if I'm not intelligible or if I ramble on without making a point.
The concept of Intelligent Design (ID) is without a doubt a thinly veiled atttempt to bring the Word of God into the public school system. It's too bad that it has to be couched at all. I was taught the story of Genesis (not for the first time, of course)in my ninth grade biology class during the same timeframe that evolution was introduced. To the best of my knowledge, ninth grade was the first time that evolution was introduced to students back home.
The fact of the matter is that most science teachers (at the primary and secondary levels) do not fully comprehend the subject which they teach. In a rural setting (especially), such as where I was raised, the teachers are much more likely to be versed in 'ID' than in evolution. What does it hurt to teach it? I know, I know - some people want absolute separation of Church and State.
The concept of Intelligent Design (ID) is without a doubt a thinly veiled atttempt to bring the Word of God into the public school system. It's too bad that it has to be couched at all. I was taught the story of Genesis (not for the first time, of course)in my ninth grade biology class during the same timeframe that evolution was introduced. To the best of my knowledge, ninth grade was the first time that evolution was introduced to students back home.
The fact of the matter is that most science teachers (at the primary and secondary levels) do not fully comprehend the subject which they teach. In a rural setting (especially), such as where I was raised, the teachers are much more likely to be versed in 'ID' than in evolution. What does it hurt to teach it? I know, I know - some people want absolute separation of Church and State.
From your own post, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. To say that man was not created in God's image, but instead evolved over millions of years seems to me to be contrary.
Re, "To say that man was not created in God's image," ...
I said nothing of the sort
... "but instead evolved over millions of years seems to me to be contrary."
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive in my book(s). But one is a matter of faith, the other is a matter of science, and that's why there are two books!
Dang it, this is keeping me from Choctaw history, which is what I'm suposed to be workin' on today. .. I wonder what THEIR aboriginal creation story was?
--ER
I said nothing of the sort
... "but instead evolved over millions of years seems to me to be contrary."
Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive in my book(s). But one is a matter of faith, the other is a matter of science, and that's why there are two books!
Dang it, this is keeping me from Choctaw history, which is what I'm suposed to be workin' on today. .. I wonder what THEIR aboriginal creation story was?
--ER
Re. this:
""Myth" don't mean "made up." So, to call the creation story in Genesis a "myth" does not mean what the unlearned thinks it means. As with most things that unnerve the Religious Right, "myth" is more complicated than that."
AMEN! Myth, story, allegory, allusion--these are different ways of thinking, different ways of understanding. Part of the undercarrige of this whole "intelligent design" "debate" is the idea that somehow everything boils down to scientifically verifiable fact, and that anything that isn't scientifically verifiable fact is meaningless--which you'd think would be the last thing truly religious people would believe, but I find it hard to understand why people want to take the bible literally unless they think that only literal fact is worth anything.
It's kind of the goal of my life to get people to understand that stories contain a kind of truth that is different from, but no less important than (and in many ways more important than) scientific truth. Jesus spoke in parables, after all.
All of which is to say, on "intelligent design," teach it all you want--but not in a science classroom, because it isn't science. Teach it in a classroom on literature, or on religious traditions, or on the history of religious thought, or whatever.
The whole argument that evolution is "just a theory" misunderstands what "theory" means in a scientific context, by the way.
""Myth" don't mean "made up." So, to call the creation story in Genesis a "myth" does not mean what the unlearned thinks it means. As with most things that unnerve the Religious Right, "myth" is more complicated than that."
AMEN! Myth, story, allegory, allusion--these are different ways of thinking, different ways of understanding. Part of the undercarrige of this whole "intelligent design" "debate" is the idea that somehow everything boils down to scientifically verifiable fact, and that anything that isn't scientifically verifiable fact is meaningless--which you'd think would be the last thing truly religious people would believe, but I find it hard to understand why people want to take the bible literally unless they think that only literal fact is worth anything.
It's kind of the goal of my life to get people to understand that stories contain a kind of truth that is different from, but no less important than (and in many ways more important than) scientific truth. Jesus spoke in parables, after all.
All of which is to say, on "intelligent design," teach it all you want--but not in a science classroom, because it isn't science. Teach it in a classroom on literature, or on religious traditions, or on the history of religious thought, or whatever.
The whole argument that evolution is "just a theory" misunderstands what "theory" means in a scientific context, by the way.
Dr. B,
You are correct there. I'm no stranger to science. It makes me wince to hear people try to invalidate evolution on the basis that it is 'just a theory'. The term theory does not equate to hypothesis.
You are correct there. I'm no stranger to science. It makes me wince to hear people try to invalidate evolution on the basis that it is 'just a theory'. The term theory does not equate to hypothesis.
Question for ya'll.
Before I got to high school, I had one, or at the most, two teachers that split all the subjects. How do you separate 'the science classroom' from the others in that case? Because isn't that a big part of your argument? Where do you draw the line?
Before I got to high school, I had one, or at the most, two teachers that split all the subjects. How do you separate 'the science classroom' from the others in that case? Because isn't that a big part of your argument? Where do you draw the line?
"So, to argue that ID is an effort to "let kids know" there are alternative ideas about how we all got here is weak."
Yes, I suppose it would be weak if the schools weren't already teaching evolution as fact. The kids need some kind of balance. Teaching just one theory without teaching others is not conducive to a well rounded education. Could any of us be able to post an informed opinion on our blogs without knowing at least part of the opposing arguments?
Most kids in schools today, particuarly elementary and middle schools, get no other instruction as to the origin of the universe. Not even at home.
And the teaching only one theory and belief exasperates{sic?} that problem. Therefore, perhaps instead of informing them that there are other theories, we should stop teaching them any theory at all, including that of evolution.
Yes, I suppose it would be weak if the schools weren't already teaching evolution as fact. The kids need some kind of balance. Teaching just one theory without teaching others is not conducive to a well rounded education. Could any of us be able to post an informed opinion on our blogs without knowing at least part of the opposing arguments?
Most kids in schools today, particuarly elementary and middle schools, get no other instruction as to the origin of the universe. Not even at home.
And the teaching only one theory and belief exasperates{sic?} that problem. Therefore, perhaps instead of informing them that there are other theories, we should stop teaching them any theory at all, including that of evolution.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art (music theory)
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action (her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn) b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory (in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all)
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (wave theory of light)
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject (theory of equations)
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
Pretty much explains what evolution is.;)
Hey ER! the word verification this time is ERSUKS! No kidding! lol
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art (music theory)
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action (her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn) b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory (in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all)
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (wave theory of light)
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject (theory of equations)
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
Pretty much explains what evolution is.;)
Hey ER! the word verification this time is ERSUKS! No kidding! lol
So, Mark, did you see No. 1? Which is usually No. 1 for a reason?
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
I say we quit teaching the theory of gravity, too, then.
Har de har on the verification thing.
Rem, in a small school, then, you need teachers rigorously dedicated to keeping things straight. "The next hour we will talk about the science of evolution." "The next hour we will talk about the Bible and its role in religion." And when students ask questions, answer most of them -- because if a student asks, "What do you believe?" or something like that, a conscientious(sp?) teacher should reply, "That has no bearing on this discussion. I'd be glad to discuss that with you outside of school."
How the heck hard is that? Class discussions take on lives of their own, yes. But a good teacher can lead discussion without joining it directly, in other words, without dragging their own opinions and beliefs into it.
--ER
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
I say we quit teaching the theory of gravity, too, then.
Har de har on the verification thing.
Rem, in a small school, then, you need teachers rigorously dedicated to keeping things straight. "The next hour we will talk about the science of evolution." "The next hour we will talk about the Bible and its role in religion." And when students ask questions, answer most of them -- because if a student asks, "What do you believe?" or something like that, a conscientious(sp?) teacher should reply, "That has no bearing on this discussion. I'd be glad to discuss that with you outside of school."
How the heck hard is that? Class discussions take on lives of their own, yes. But a good teacher can lead discussion without joining it directly, in other words, without dragging their own opinions and beliefs into it.
--ER
Ok Ok, God was a designer, right. So he used blueprints, right. Ok, can you read a blueprint? I doubt it, but here goes. What is it in the lower right side of the blueprint? The issue date, and all the revisions, or CHANGES to the design. Now look at evolution. God step by step made changes until he got it close enough to start production. Not perfect but close enough to start stamping out warm bodies. Hell, he said it himself; he created animals and didn’t like what he saw so he kept trying. Let’s face it early man was an animal. So heck ID and evolution are the same thing. I’m sure if the (D)’s win in 08 ER couldn’t care less about ID, religion, FOTF, or the ACLU. He lost his vote and he’s not going to be happy until he casts a winning one.
# posted by 
: 2:56 PM
: 2:56 PM
Yellow alert.
Interesting contribution, Anon. But why the non-sequitur at the end? Do you also watch TV channels you hate, just to keep your blood pressure up?
--ER
Interesting contribution, Anon. But why the non-sequitur at the end? Do you also watch TV channels you hate, just to keep your blood pressure up?
--ER
There you go with them big hi falootin words. I wouldn’t know a non-sequitur if it bit me in the ass!
# posted by : 3:21 PM
: 3:21 PM
LOL. OK. Why did you have to take a swipe at me? It gets old. ... Wait! I'll bet you were THAT kid in class! Lightin' fire to the trash can and shit. Carry on. Consider me a sub. :-)
--ER
--ER
Oh my ER, what a subject for today. I noticed an attempt to define theory, and then ignored the one that defined scientific theory.
Scientific theory has a defined set of conditions before it can be called "Scientific Theory".
What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would (in principle) logically prove the theory wrong. Or to say it another way, it must be testable, You must be able to preform experiments to test the truth of the theory. If the theory, or elelments of the theory are not true then they will fail the test (experiment).
A scientific theory is a complex model of why something works the way it does, it is distinguised from a scientific "Law" in that a law is always much simpler and is held to be always true. If a 1957 Chevy represented a scientific theory then the explosion of gasoline in an engine cylynder would represent a law.
Scientific thory is a step in scientific methodolgy. Simplified the methodolgy goes like this:
Observations-hypothosis-experiments-theory-experiments(tests)-revision of theory.
Experiments (tests) are the only judge of scientific truth.
Intelligent Design does not meet these criteria, therefore it is not a scientific theory. It is an idea, it is a belief. It maybe true, in fact in general principle I beleive that God design the universe, but ID is not testable with experiments therefore does not rest within the realm of science.
And if you take ID a serious concept into any science class in post secondary education you will flunk the class.
Scientific theory has a defined set of conditions before it can be called "Scientific Theory".
What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would (in principle) logically prove the theory wrong. Or to say it another way, it must be testable, You must be able to preform experiments to test the truth of the theory. If the theory, or elelments of the theory are not true then they will fail the test (experiment).
A scientific theory is a complex model of why something works the way it does, it is distinguised from a scientific "Law" in that a law is always much simpler and is held to be always true. If a 1957 Chevy represented a scientific theory then the explosion of gasoline in an engine cylynder would represent a law.
Scientific thory is a step in scientific methodolgy. Simplified the methodolgy goes like this:
Observations-hypothosis-experiments-theory-experiments(tests)-revision of theory.
Experiments (tests) are the only judge of scientific truth.
Intelligent Design does not meet these criteria, therefore it is not a scientific theory. It is an idea, it is a belief. It maybe true, in fact in general principle I beleive that God design the universe, but ID is not testable with experiments therefore does not rest within the realm of science.
And if you take ID a serious concept into any science class in post secondary education you will flunk the class.
# posted by : 4:07 PM
: 4:07 PM
Hey Man show some more dawgs and kats. Run if you see blood running down the walls and under the doors. I’m afraid we’ll come here some day and all it will say is:
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy,
All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy, All Work and No Play Will Make ER a Dull Boy
# posted by : 4:33 PM
: 4:33 PM
All right: one more time.
Evolution is a Theory, and therefore can be either proved or disproved. Creationism is a Belief, and can only be believed or dis-believed.
So if Belief is let into the temple of learning, then is Theory (including Evolution) to be allowed into churches, in the interest of fairness?
Evolution is a Theory, and therefore can be either proved or disproved. Creationism is a Belief, and can only be believed or dis-believed.
So if Belief is let into the temple of learning, then is Theory (including Evolution) to be allowed into churches, in the interest of fairness?
Howdy, Cabe.
From the header: "Praecipitatum verius quam editum" -- means "threown together, not edited."
Nice flag yer flyin' there.
:-)
--ER
From the header: "Praecipitatum verius quam editum" -- means "threown together, not edited."
Nice flag yer flyin' there.
:-)
--ER
And of course, Mark said himself that he admitted that ID is just a smokescreen against sounding superstitious: the scientists who are proponents of this theory tend to buckle into Faith again, when deeply questioned.
And last time I disagreed with that guy on his page, it was about global warming, which is something that the better part of the scientific community accepts as existing. That wasn't the point of the post. The post was a one-note joke with political motivations, and naturally I had my ass handed to me along a certain fallacious syllogism, which follows:
Those who don't like Bush believe in Global Warming.
I (Mark) like Bush.
Therefore, Global Warming doesn't exist.
Or the A+B=12 fallacy, as I like to call it.
Aside from a swipe at SUV's (and come on-there isn't a decent argument in favor of them), I never once said that the current administration is wholly to blame for Global Warming, however, their denial of its reality is politics playing with the lives of the world at large, and is deplorable.
In short, I don't really take anything Maness has to say about science especially seriously.
And as always, it's a damn shame there aren't more people like me, LOL.
And last time I disagreed with that guy on his page, it was about global warming, which is something that the better part of the scientific community accepts as existing. That wasn't the point of the post. The post was a one-note joke with political motivations, and naturally I had my ass handed to me along a certain fallacious syllogism, which follows:
Those who don't like Bush believe in Global Warming.
I (Mark) like Bush.
Therefore, Global Warming doesn't exist.
Or the A+B=12 fallacy, as I like to call it.
Aside from a swipe at SUV's (and come on-there isn't a decent argument in favor of them), I never once said that the current administration is wholly to blame for Global Warming, however, their denial of its reality is politics playing with the lives of the world at large, and is deplorable.
In short, I don't really take anything Maness has to say about science especially seriously.
And as always, it's a damn shame there aren't more people like me, LOL.
Rich Bachelor said:
"All right: one more time.
Evolution is a Theory, and therefore can be either proved or disproved."
Wrong WRONG: By definition a scientific theory must be provable and have a stated test (experiment) that will be able to disprove it if it is wrong!
It is astonding that we are making this concept of "scientific theory" what we want it to be rather than what it is defined to be.
"All right: one more time.
Evolution is a Theory, and therefore can be either proved or disproved."
Wrong WRONG: By definition a scientific theory must be provable and have a stated test (experiment) that will be able to disprove it if it is wrong!
It is astonding that we are making this concept of "scientific theory" what we want it to be rather than what it is defined to be.
# posted by : 8:44 PM
: 8:44 PM
Rich, you are delusional. I never said anything about your theory that SUV's caused Global warming. That was Pator Tim.
I didn't even address your comment.
My post on that day was a humor piece and you attempted to start a serous discussion on global warming which I did not engage in save in the post itself, which as I said was a humor piece.
I didn't even address your comment.
My post on that day was a humor piece and you attempted to start a serous discussion on global warming which I did not engage in save in the post itself, which as I said was a humor piece.
Fodder for tomarrow's Sunday school lesson:
Enough of this talk about theory and myth and belief. Let's talk about perception and imagination.
In 1952 J.B. Phillips wrote a little book entitled "Your God is Too Small".
Now this is J.B. Phillips as in the Phillips translation of the Bible.
There are a number of premise in the book but the one pertinent to this Blog is that when we create God in our image rather than trying to imagine ourselves in his image we by our nature make him too small.
This is the falicy of Intelligent Design. The ID God is so small that he can't take his own good time of 20 billion years to organize the Universe into what it is today. The God apparent in ID thinking has built a static universe that can not change. The ID God is not sophisticated enough to devise a set of rules that will eventually lead to man by using four billion years or so of God's evolutionary system to do so.
The ID God is restricted to the finite time lines and formats that we can imagine, he is not a God of AWE because we have defined him down to a size that we are comfortable with. The ID God ignores his own Devine Text that declares that time and space have no meaning for Him.
In Phillip's concept, it is not that God is too small, it is that we make him small in order to make him fit into our small concepts. The God of the Intelligent Design advocates fits neatly within the scope of their needs.
Enough of this talk about theory and myth and belief. Let's talk about perception and imagination.
In 1952 J.B. Phillips wrote a little book entitled "Your God is Too Small".
Now this is J.B. Phillips as in the Phillips translation of the Bible.
There are a number of premise in the book but the one pertinent to this Blog is that when we create God in our image rather than trying to imagine ourselves in his image we by our nature make him too small.
This is the falicy of Intelligent Design. The ID God is so small that he can't take his own good time of 20 billion years to organize the Universe into what it is today. The God apparent in ID thinking has built a static universe that can not change. The ID God is not sophisticated enough to devise a set of rules that will eventually lead to man by using four billion years or so of God's evolutionary system to do so.
The ID God is restricted to the finite time lines and formats that we can imagine, he is not a God of AWE because we have defined him down to a size that we are comfortable with. The ID God ignores his own Devine Text that declares that time and space have no meaning for Him.
In Phillip's concept, it is not that God is too small, it is that we make him small in order to make him fit into our small concepts. The God of the Intelligent Design advocates fits neatly within the scope of their needs.
# posted by : 9:13 PM
: 9:13 PM
Alright, I know, tomarrow is not Sunday. When you are retired however every day is Sarturday.
# posted by : 9:18 PM
: 9:18 PM
Anon says, "God step by step made changes until he got it close enough to start production. Not perfect but close enough to start stamping out warm bodies."
I don't know about Anon's God, but my God gets it right the first time.
I don't know about Anon's God, but my God gets it right the first time.
No crap, Drlobojo.
The thickness of Mark's, um, convictions, is amazing.
I just wish the righty-rights would come clean:
"I believe it, that settles it."
Rather than the presumptious: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
--ER
The thickness of Mark's, um, convictions, is amazing.
I just wish the righty-rights would come clean:
"I believe it, that settles it."
Rather than the presumptious: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
--ER
When I hear or participate in this particular debate there are two things that gall me the most. First is the presumption by "Creationist" that if you hold evoultion to be a valid scientific theory you are athiestist, anti-God, anti-Christian. Then there is the collary presumption by many sciencetist and pro-evolutionary thinkers that belief in evolution precludes a God.
Secondly it is the off/on nature or the arguments mostly from the Creationist but often from the scientist as well. You are either with us or against us, anything else is either religious or scientific heresy. Such a postion is neither good science nor good religion. Many of the commentors on this blog have avoided these pitfalls, but some have not.
Secondly it is the off/on nature or the arguments mostly from the Creationist but often from the scientist as well. You are either with us or against us, anything else is either religious or scientific heresy. Such a postion is neither good science nor good religion. Many of the commentors on this blog have avoided these pitfalls, but some have not.
# posted by : 10:25 AM
: 10:25 AM
How does offering the theory of ID along side the theory of evolution violate the sentence in the constitution that says, congress shall make no law establishing a religion?
Or how about this: there was some debate as to what actually constitutes a theory up there.
Mark, you are mistaken (though not 'delusional'. Again with the unnecessary verbiage). Read what my comment was and you'll see that I wasn't accusing you of attacking me about the SUV thing, etc. etc.
But that theory thing was strange. I think it was drlobojo who said it, and either it was another way of stating what I feel the definition of a theory is anyway, or maybe it was the suggestion that evolution is, in fact, a hypothesis, not a theory.
I think my definition and dr's basically agreed, actually, but that raises questions, too. Like:
It would be kind of hard to truly "prove" that humans are descended from lower primates, though there are a number of strong indications it might be true.
"Disproving" it would be even trickier. It would either require scientific proof of a Creator (and all the proof a believer needs is their belief, but for scientists, we need a Signature, you know?), or some other source of humankind. A factory somewhere, perhaps.
Mark, you are mistaken (though not 'delusional'. Again with the unnecessary verbiage). Read what my comment was and you'll see that I wasn't accusing you of attacking me about the SUV thing, etc. etc.
But that theory thing was strange. I think it was drlobojo who said it, and either it was another way of stating what I feel the definition of a theory is anyway, or maybe it was the suggestion that evolution is, in fact, a hypothesis, not a theory.
I think my definition and dr's basically agreed, actually, but that raises questions, too. Like:
It would be kind of hard to truly "prove" that humans are descended from lower primates, though there are a number of strong indications it might be true.
"Disproving" it would be even trickier. It would either require scientific proof of a Creator (and all the proof a believer needs is their belief, but for scientists, we need a Signature, you know?), or some other source of humankind. A factory somewhere, perhaps.
Kris, because "intelligent design," aka creationism, is a specific religious belief. Teaching it opposite evolution, as if it were science, makes it into something its not, and privileges that particular religious belief in terms of fact in ways that other creation stories aren't privileged.
Which is why talking about creationism or the bible in, say, a literature class, is okay: then you're treating it as a (culturally specific) story, rather than primarily as a fact-claim about the world.
Which is why talking about creationism or the bible in, say, a literature class, is okay: then you're treating it as a (culturally specific) story, rather than primarily as a fact-claim about the world.
How is ID a "specific religious belief"?
Where is "the" bible mentioned?
Couldn't ID be used to answer some of the questions that are still asked about the gaps in the evolution theory? ID is not talking about the bible. Evolution has to have a starting point doesn't it? So couldn't the starting point be ID. Even the single cell watchamacallit had to start somehow.
I still don't get how any of this violates the constitution. I don't want congress making laws establishing a religion, but how does this even come close to that?
Where is "the" bible mentioned?
Couldn't ID be used to answer some of the questions that are still asked about the gaps in the evolution theory? ID is not talking about the bible. Evolution has to have a starting point doesn't it? So couldn't the starting point be ID. Even the single cell watchamacallit had to start somehow.
I still don't get how any of this violates the constitution. I don't want congress making laws establishing a religion, but how does this even come close to that?
Also just believing in "intelligent design" doesn't mean the intelligence behind it is God. That would be left up each person of who or what or it is intelligent. It could be mother-earth, mother-universe, mother-f__ker as far has I'm concerned.
We are just grasping at the definition of is when we say it violates the constitution.
We are just grasping at the definition of is when we say it violates the constitution.
Kris, are you drinkin'?
The theological possibilities behind the concept of anything less than "God" being the intelligence behind the existence of everything there is are pretty profound.
--ER
Post a Comment
The theological possibilities behind the concept of anything less than "God" being the intelligence behind the existence of everything there is are pretty profound.
--ER
<< Home
