NEW! Google Custom Search

Loading

"Intelligent Design:

StevenHB's picture

I haven't been around much lately and it's, sadly, likely to stay that way.


This morning I read the feature article in this week's Time or was it Newsweek talking about the "debate" about teaching "Intelligent Design" alongside evolution in American classrooms.  The President of the United States recently expressed support for the teaching of this religion-masquerading-as-science!


Clearly my values are significantly different than many, many other Americans'.  I can hardly believe that people are talking about such utter bullsh1t in the 21st century.  No wonder our high school students compare so unfavorably with those from other countries.


Thoughts?


Discuss, please.



Without coffee, chocolate, and beer, in that order, life as we know it would not be possible

Without coffee, chocolate, and beer, in that order, life as we know it would not be possible
Lword's picture

(post #43929, reply #261 of 266)

>you are a rascal


That brought a smile in these times, thanks Jean :) Rascal is sort of an old-fashioned word. So much to recall in the past now that my short term memory is out the window! 


L.
"If you can't feed a hundred people, then feed just one." Mother Teresa
L.
"If you can't feed a hundred people, then feed just one." Mother Teresa
Jillsifer's picture

(post #43929, reply #262 of 266)

HOW funny--I call Gillen a rascal all the time. Also a varmint and a rodent. (My family gets weirdly paranoid if I'm too sweet to them.)

 


 

Christmas is the season for kindling the fire of hospitality in the hall, the genial flame of charity in the heart.

-- Washington Irving

Gretchen's picture

(post #43929, reply #263 of 266)

I LOVE the word "rascal".  My mother always called me that and I call all my little grands "rascals" or "rascally rabbit", ala Bugs Bunny.

Gretchen

Gretchen
Biscuit's picture

(post #43929, reply #264 of 266)

My mother used the term "rascal", too.  I believe she defined it as a very benign, charming mischief-maker (G)

"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."  - George Bernard Shaw

Gretchen's picture

(post #43929, reply #265 of 266)

Oh, definitely.  I love it, as I said. Very much a term of endearment.

Gretchen

Gretchen
Jean's picture

(post #43929, reply #266 of 266)

Absolutely!!

Veni, vidi, velcro        I came,  I  saw,  I stuck around.


http://www.thebreastcancersite.com

A  clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need
diddidit's picture

(post #43929, reply #252 of 266)

*pout*

It's the only thing I like arguing about, and I got banned from the place I argued about it the most. I wanna argue some more!

did

Jean's picture

(post #43929, reply #254 of 266)

Are you the one who's deleting posts willy-nilly lately?
Or is someone else trying to do in this curious cat.

Veni, vidi, velcro        I came,  I  saw,  I stuck around.


http://www.thebreastcancersite.com

A  clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need
Biscuit's picture

(post #43929, reply #255 of 266)

There, there, Did.  You'll find something else to argue about. 

"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."  - George Bernard Shaw

Jean's picture

(post #43929, reply #256 of 266)

Good one! ROFL

Veni, vidi, velcro        I came,  I  saw,  I stuck around.


http://www.thebreastcancersite.com

A  clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need
doyenne's picture

(post #43929, reply #257 of 266)

Now THAT is intelligent design. Glenlivet, please.

More trees, less Bush.

Where is Monica Lewinski when you need her?

deejeh's picture

(post #43929, reply #258 of 266)

A woman after my own heart - make that two, please.


deej

JoeB2's picture

(post #43929, reply #236 of 266)

I'm not making any case.

diddidit's picture

(post #43929, reply #240 of 266)

>>Not to imply it is true, but it sort of flies in the face of the generic monolithic icon that represents "evolution" with the monkey progressively morphing into a human.

Uh, no it doesn't, not even remotely.

One species doesn't suddenly turn into another over it's entire geographic range, replacing all past forms.

Might I suggest you educate yourself a bit on the subject before making uninformed pronouncements? Start with http://www.talkorigins.org/...

did

samchang's picture

(post #43929, reply #23 of 266)

The interesting yet sad part about this all is that evolution and intelligent design can be seen to be different sides of the same coin. Evolution is scientific and has been brought about by empirical evidence and hypothesizing: as such, it tells us how, where, and when, but it cannot tell us why. Intelligent design is meant to answer that 'why' question. It is a natural result of the same sort of fundamental curiosity.

Where intelligent design proponents fail, of course, is to make intelligent design an alternative to science. That's rubbish. By its very nature it cannot be a science and science can never answer those big 'why' questions (it was never meant to in the first place).

This whole thing is a non-issue brought up by insecure people who find security in hypostatizing the ridiculous.

~~Bill's picture

(post #43929, reply #37 of 266)

Intelligent design is ok as long as it is taught in a Sunday school room.  Evolution is science, period.  By the way I played the part of "Hornbeck" (H. L. Mencken) in the play "Inherit The Wind" produced by our little theatre group some years back. My greatest stage experience.  I consider myself a Christian, but have a "Darwinian fish" on my car.  Regards, Bill

samchang's picture

(post #43929, reply #44 of 266)

I think it could easily be taught in social science or history courses--as long as a critical examination of it were given as well. Intelligent Design actually has 2 opposing viewpoints, and evolution is not one of them. One is No Design, and the other is Design Beyond our Intelligence. To level an ID critique against evolution is to complain that the apple you are eating is too sour when in fact it is an orange you are putting into your mouth.

Thinking of making a comeback to the stage?

~~Bill's picture

(post #43929, reply #51 of 266)

No.  My last role was the sheriff in "To Kill A Mockingbird". I never saw any roles that interested me after those two.  Regards, Bill 


 

~~joeb2's picture

(post #43929, reply #76 of 266)

>The interesting yet sad part about this all is that evolution and intelligent design can be seen to be different sides of the same coin. Evolution is scientific and has been brought about by empirical evidence and hypothesizing: as such, it tells us how, where, and when, but it cannot tell us why.

I disagree, Sam. Although evolution is a scientific theory, there are significant problems with (Macro) evolution as a "how" of origins. I don't know if I'd go as far as representing Intelligent Design along side of it, I'd be happy if schools would simply represent the current theories for what they are. Theories.

>This whole thing is a non-issue brought up by insecure people who find security in hypostatizing the ridiculous.

You consider the possibility that a superior intelligence is the source of creating an impressive being, such as yourself, "ridiculous"? I don't.

CHandGreeson's picture

(post #43929, reply #77 of 266)

Most of teaching science in schools is teaching scientific theory - not a theory, but the manner in which scientists, and theologians back in the day, attempt to make order out of chaos. You are correct, science teachers have become sloppy, or pressed for time, or whatever, and often neglect to explain that evolution is a theory: recorded history is so very recent.
However, without becoming ridiculous, a scientist, or a science teacher, can explain the theory of evolution through facts and provable data, i.e. carbon dating.
I know my Christian theologic history: we've been trying to "prove" the existence of God for centuries. Just because it can't be done, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but that's what faith is: the things hoped for, but unseen.

~~joeb2's picture

(post #43929, reply #82 of 266)

>Most of teaching science in schools is teaching scientific theory - not a theory, but the manner in which scientists, and theologians back in the day, attempt to make order out of chaos. You are correct, science teachers have become sloppy, or pressed for time, or whatever, and often neglect to explain that evolution is a theory: recorded history is so very recent.

This is prevalent though. So prevalent most people I have encountered (and I would wager most on here reading this) are convinced the theory of evolution is all but proven fact. The recent exposure of frauds of previous supporting data isn't really held up either, or even corrected in many text books I bet.

>However, without becoming ridiculous, a scientist, or a science teacher, can explain the theory of evolution through facts and provable data, i.e. carbon dating.

But can/will they also explain the assumptions that adorn this data to drive it to a preconceived conclusion? My experience is they do not. Even carbon dating relies on the assumptions of conditions over millions of years which we have no way (at this time) of confirming.

samchang's picture

(post #43929, reply #79 of 266)

>>This whole thing is a non-issue brought up by insecure people who find security in hypostatizing the ridiculous.

>You consider the possibility that a superior intelligence is the source of creating an impressive being, such as yourself, "ridiculous"? I don't.

You misunderstand me. I'm not bashing Intelligent Design as a cosmological concept: I'm bashing Intelligent Design as a scientific concept that ought to be taught alongside evolution in a science class. Many who insist that it is scientific are guilty of the above mentioned hypostatization, motivated by an insecurity of belief.

And of course there are problems with the how's of macroevolution. But what makes evolution scientific is the fact that these how's must be empirically verified and open to critique.


Edited 8/15/2005 1:08 am ET by samchang

Wolvie's picture

(post #43929, reply #80 of 266)

Perfectly stated!


How clever you are my dear, you never mean a single thing you say


Oscar Wilde 





 

 

~~joeb2's picture

(post #43929, reply #81 of 266)

>You misunderstand me. I'm not bashing Intelligent Design as a cosmological concept: I'm bashing Intelligent Design as a scientific concept that ought to be taught alongside evolution in a science class. Many who insist that it is scientific are guilty of the above mentioned hypostatization, motivated by an insecurity of belief.

Well, we are in agreement on teaching religion in schools, however, from a scientific point of view doesn't our own experience testify that nothing of significant order spontaniously leaps from chaos?

At the risk of sounding like I'm saying "I know you are but what am I?", I was thinking that it is the proponates of the evolution theory that are petrified at being challenged. If only for the challenge of exersizing critical thought, I think alternatives to evolution theory should be presented to developing minds. Religion, no. Critical thinking, yes.

I must say, you're a refreshing exception Sam. Most people I've seen engage in this discussion would die laughing at the mere suggestion evolution is anything but proven fact.

samchang's picture

(post #43929, reply #84 of 266)

>from a scientific point of view doesn't our own experience testify that nothing of significant order spontaniously leaps from chaos?

I think it's more likely that we inductively arrive at the belief that no significant order leaps from chaos. That induction, however, can never be verified (as no inductive argument can--that's just the nature of induction). The fact that science cannot verify these beliefs is telling of the limits of scientific inquiry. Science is just a tool. A powerful one, but one that has its limits. A hammer is a tool, too. But while a hammer can answer how a nail gets driven into a piece of wood, and where and when that nail gets driven, it can never ask the question why you, the wielder of the tool, wants to have a nail in that particular spot, at that specific space and time. The same thing holds for evolution. It is not meant to ask that which ponders the question of why. Which is another way of saying that evolution should not seen as a religious concept, and that ID is not to be seen as a scientific concept. All of which is yet another way of saying that ID does not belong in science classes.

Also, I do believe that evolution is a proven fact. What constitutes 'proof' and 'fact,' however, is in dispute. 'Proof' is the apotheosis of deductive reasoning, but deductive proofs are only as good as their premises, and we all know that premises change. 'Fact' is that which has been proven, but if the premises of proof change, then it follows that facts are also changeable. What I'm saying is that I agree with you in a certain sense: evolution is not an unchangeable law of the universe. Most serious biologists would probably agree with this. I don't think they're afraid of evolution being challenged: on the contrary, they WANT it being challenged, but cannot think of how such a challenge ought to look like. So they take it as fact. But then again, by its very nature, scientific facts are always subject to disproval. They are settled, but they are not carved in stone.

I have no difficulty of having religion taught in public schools. Students ought to be exposed to the wonder of divinity, and they should realize that religion is but one way for humans to make sense of the world by positing these fundamental 'why' questions. I would just ask that religion be taught systematically and critically. That means looking at the limits of religious inquiry and how it has been used against us even as it has given us some of our fundamental principles. Oh, and that means more than one religious point of view.

~~joeb2's picture

(post #43929, reply #86 of 266)

excellent response... I'll have to mull that :)

Aberwacky's picture

(post #43929, reply #88 of 266)

Samchang, your posts are a pleasure to read. You should know that you are the model of clarity in thought and expression that I strive to attain. 


(Clearly, based on that sentence, I have a long way to go.)


Leigh


 


Just because your children were born in the South doesn't make them Southerners.  If a cat has kittens in the oven, does that make them biscuits?

"Happiness does not depend on outward things, but on the way we see them." 
-Leo Tolstoy
shywoodlandcreature's picture

(post #43929, reply #89 of 266)

Perhaps Taunton should start a new magazine called "Fine Ontology".





"...very little has ever been accomplished by complacent people." Billmon


http://costofwar.com/

samchang's picture

(post #43929, reply #95 of 266)

Probably a better subscription base would be had if it were called "Fine Oenology." Toss back enough shiraz and the ontologizing comes naturally.


Edited 8/15/2005 5:08 pm ET by samchang