# Intelligent Design... at it again



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Looks like they are at it again...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/26/evolution.debate.ap/index.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

They should extend Intelligent Design to all sciences.

Civil Engineering could, for example teach about stress factors, maximum load etc... AND teach that you can build whatever you want and it will stand up if the IDer wants it to. 

After all, if we don't have 100% certainty in real science, then we should also teach theology in science class because...well, just because.  

Note: Social conservatives feel underrepresented and are beginning to organise the way their U.S. bretheren did 30 years ago. So much for evolution...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

What a bunch of idiots.

I find it funny how Christians feel science threatens their beliefs because the bible said the earth was created 6000 odd years ago. If you take everything from the Bible literally, then what else do you believe? 

Evolution does not threaten Christian beliefs. It does not take away from the possibility that a god created the universe or that he could have created the present world through evolution.

I guess some people still believe the earth is flat and that we are the centre of the universe (I heard it was Toronto actually).


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It's the insidious nature of intelligent design that everyone should be concerned about. This is a "theory" that was specifically built to counter the elegant scientific fact base of evolution. While there are holes in evolutionary theory, its not because of a cover up or an inherent bias. It's simply that there is much more to be discovered. We cannot consider intelligent design as a rational theory because it is based on faith, not fact. It is antithetical to science. While this does not and should not stop people from believing in the "Maker", it should not be taught in schools alongside factually based scientific knowledge. It should be kept in the churches.

There is an upcoming episode of the West Wing in October that deals with ID in schools. This is a hot topic.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hot topic ONLY in the US. 

They should concentrate on the basics - their math and science scores nationally are dismal.......wonder why. Theocracy in the making.......


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I think ID is behind the recent rash of hurricanes in the U.S.
God ain't happy.
Where did I put those "ark plans?"


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Maybe we should be teaching philosophy and theology at an earlier age in public schools. ID provokes the mind and science shouldn't detract from it.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I think ID is behind the recent rash of hurricanes in the U.S.
> God ain't happy.
> Where did I put those "ark plans?"


yeah, but remember the rainbow - his promise he'd never do it again


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

darkscot said:


> Maybe we should be teaching philosophy and theology at an earlier age in public schools. ID provokes the mind and science shouldn't detract from it.


the only thing ID provokes is an abstention of personal responsibility, sorta' like the U.S. Marines credo; "Kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out."

Semper Fie baby, semper fie.

As for God promising not to do it again, well, She lied.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

that's a limiting view, macspectrum. to dismiss ID as merely a means to avoid taking repsonsibility seems a bit heavy-handed. you're entitled to limit yourself, though. enjoy your 1 + 1 = 2


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

darkscot said:


> Maybe we should be teaching philosophy and theology at an earlier age in public schools. ID provokes the mind and science shouldn't detract from it.


How does ID provoke the mind? It offers nothing if you are unwilling to believe in a divine Maker. Is that limiting? Is someone less limited than another because he/she is willing to believe in something that cannot be proven?

ID offers no objectivity. Science is objective yet as far as I am aware it does not and cannot detract from belief. Belief is in the mind of the individual. The only reason to teach theology at an earlier age in school would be to increase the possibility of indoctrination. Philosophical discussion naturally emerges when people begin to question their surroundings. Let children define their own journeys. Let them decide what to believe and what to ignore.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, that was about as logical and concise an arguement for the distinction between science and faith as I have heard in a long time. Kudos to you for bringing some clarity to this issue. It should prove interesting to see how the two Bush Supreme Court justices confront this issue when (rather than if) it comes before the Supreme Court next October. We shall see.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> How does ID provoke the mind? It offers nothing if you are unwilling to believe in a divine Maker. Is that limiting? Is someone less limited than another because he/she is willing to believe in something that cannot be proven?
> 
> ID offers no objectivity. Science is objective yet as far as I am aware it does not and cannot detract from belief. Belief is in the mind of the individual. The only reason to teach theology at an earlier age in school would be to increase the possibility of indoctrination. Philosophical discussion naturally emerges when people begin to question their surroundings. Let children define their own journeys. Let them decide what to believe and what to ignore.


I agree, science doesn't have to detract from belief. Yes, I believe someone is less limited than another because he/she is willing to believe in something that cannot be proven. Many theories have been proven and then disproven. Suspend your beliefs and allow for another possibility, that's freedom.

Teaching theology at a younger age lets young ones learn about other's cultures and beliefs. Definitely let the children decide for themselves. Intelligent design is much more than religious indoctrination. And NOBODY is in the position to preach what is truth. Ever wonder why so many scientists believe in a Creator? Mere indoctrination?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> so many sicentists believe in a Creator?


how many and which ones?
or just something God told you?


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

ah, thanks macspectrum. **** off. 

metaphysics is the realm of reality performing the impossible. i am no die hard of any religious mold, just trying to look beyond.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

darkscot said:


> I agree, science doesn't have to detract from belief. Yes, I believe someone is less limited than another because he/she is willing to believe in something that cannot be proven. Many theories have been proven and then disproven. Suspend your beliefs and allow for another possibility, that's freedom.
> 
> Teaching theology at a younger age lets young ones learn about other's cultures and beliefs. Definitely let the children decide for themselves. Intelligent design is much more than religious indoctrination. And NOBODY is in the position to preach what is truth. Ever wonder why so many scientists believe in a Creator? Mere indoctrination?


ID does not challenge the analytical capability of the mind to even remotely the same degree as science, because it has no objective basis. For any given challenge, unknown or unproven aspect of mathematics, biology, physics etc. you can always just say 'ID did it'. That has nothing to do with schooling and serves no purpose in the pursuit of truth. Religious truth 'is', scientific truth 'may be'.

This does not argue against teaching religion in the context of culture, which can be tremendously valuable to understanding and thinking about humanity and its social constructs. Religion is a major building block of many civilisations and much of modern philosophy. Teaching it, as a part of humanity's cultural heritage is important.

However, teaching religion as a means to explain what isn't 100% analytically certain teaches nothing other than an immediate alternative to research and thought with no value. 

Why's the sky blue? 
Scientific models explain 99.9% of it's blueness. 
Oh, then someone must have made it blue. 

All of the ID approach to science and 'truth' can be taught in 10 seconds, from there analytical knowledge (as distinct from faith) can proceed for many years.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

darkscot said:


> ah, thanks macspectrum. **** off.
> 
> metaphysics is the realm of reality performing the impossible. i am no die hard of any religious mold, just trying to look beyond.


I'd return the favour, but then the creator of ehmac would ban me. Hell I may be banned because of what you just typed. It's happened to me before.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Shampoo is Better, I go on first and clean the hair!










I shake my vestigial tail in your general direction!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Let children define their own journeys. Let them decide what to believe and what to ignore.


Brilliant as always utbjw. We were temporarily shunned by family members when we told them that "We are not going for a baptism" oh the horror. And we were going to "let our daughter decide what she wanted to believe in when she was old enough". 

Just the other day I was looking at the NYT website and there was a stylized picture of a God. May daughter piped up and asked "Is that God?" Didn't learn it from us but she has overheard or been told something about it. I let her know that it was an artists impression of what "God" may look like to some people. Interesting discussion for a 5 year old.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vinnie Cappuccino said:


> Shampoo is Better, I go on first and clean the hair!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ERROR

The requested URL could not be retrieved


boooooooo


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Odd, I was able to retrive that URL (spiders in the router again MS?). Might want to try again. Excellent cartoon from Time.

Darkscot, I have to disagree that willingness to believe in a Creator somehow makes one less limited. Indeed, I'd argue that its more challenging not to settle for spiritual explanations that fill in the currently unknown gaps in understanding. I do agree that a closed mind is a wasted mind, but one can surely keep an open mind and yet not have to believe in a supreme being?


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

darkscot said:


> ah, thanks macspectrum. **** off.
> ...


...and so the rational arguments in favour of creationism pour forth.  


While you may not wish to list some names of the "scientists" who support Intelligent Design, (the christian right _does_ maintain these lists), there is a list of prestigious scientists who are *against* Intelligent Design, and they are represented playfully by scientists named "Steve":

_Since the early Twentieth Century, evolution deniers have been fond of creating lists of "scientists" who do not accept evolution. This tactic is an attempt to give the erroneous impression that, among scientists in general, support for evolution is in decline or that evolution is a "theory in crisis."

*Project Steve* is a parody of these lists conducted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). It is a listing of scientists with doctorates who support the following statement:

*Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.*

The catch is that the NCSE tied an arm and two legs behind its back by making an arbitrary requirement that the scientists be named "Steve," "Stephanie," "Stefan," or some other form of "Stephen." It estimates that about one percent of the population of the United States has such a name. When the Project was first publicly announced on February 16, 2003 it had 220 Steves, which corresponds to about 22,000 scientists with doctorates agreeing with the statement. By May 23, 2003 that number had increased to 367 Steves which corresponds to about 36,700 scientists. The current total can be found by consulting the Steve-o-meter. The NCSE expresses the hope that in the future when lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" are presented that it will be asked "but how many Steves are on your list!?"

The list of Steves is far more prestigious then any list of living scientists the creationists have ever produced. It includes Nobel Prize winners, members of the National Academy of Sciences, and influential authors such as Stephen Hawking. It is telling that creationist lists tend to be lean on practicing research biologists. In contrast, about two-thirds of the scientists on NCSE's list are biologists, who are the most qualified to evaluate whether the evidence favors evolution. Another point is that the NCSE's list includes the information on where the Steves got their degrees and their current position. By not doing so, the creationist lists do not make it obvious how many of the people listed are not practicing scientists...._

To see the entire article, please go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Odd, I was able to retrive that URL (spiders in the router again MS?). Might want to try again. Excellent cartoon from Time.
> 
> Darkscot, I have to disagree that willingness to believe in a Creator somehow makes one less limited. Indeed, I'd argue that its more challenging not to settle for spiritual explanations that fill in the currently unknown gaps in understanding. I do agree that a closed mind is a wasted mind, but one can surely keep an open mind and yet not have to believe in a supreme being?


Hmm, this time, after reading UtbJ comments, I was able to link to the image.
Spiders or perhaps......
Is UtbJ "the Creator?"
Was that thunder?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I've never designed anything intelligently. Must have been the field mice, eh, Arthur Dent.

Oooh..... 4000 posts.... did I just hear thunder?


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

here's a radical idea. squash the religious nuts and stop teaching the bible altogether. as a work of fiction it's not even that good.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I love Intelligent Design!

I was putting together an Ikea Desk Set, and after an hour and a half, with no extra bits, I stood back and proclaimed "Damn! Whoever designed that sure was intelligent."

Oh wait...

Let me read that article...

Oh it's about religious nut jobs...

Never mind.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> I love Intelligent Design!
> 
> I was putting together an Ikea Desk Set, and after an hour and a half, with no extra bits, I stood back and proclaimed "Damn! Whoever designed that sure was intelligent."
> 
> ...


maybe you're on to something
God is the holder of the Alan key to the universe
It came pre-packaged and She just assembled it in 6 days
Now, THAT makes some sense


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I'd return the favour, but then the creator of ehmac would ban me. Hell I may be banned because of what you just typed. It's happened to me before.


I don't enjoy saying it. It was a kneejerk reaction to your sarcasm. I'm sorry.

That'd be funny if it did get you banned, though, like it was meant to be. In the beginning...

You sound like the robot in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

darkscot said:


> I agree, science doesn't have to detract from belief.


I would hope not. What better way of formulating beliefs about nature could there be than letting nature answer our questions?



> Yes, I believe someone is less limited than another because he/she is willing to believe in something that cannot be proven.


Science is indeed very limiting. You can't go around believing whatever you like. Scientists are compelled to believe what their data tells them, whether they like it or not.



> Suspend your beliefs and allow for another possibility, that's freedom.


Yes, the freedom to be wrong. 



> Intelligent design is much more than religious indoctrination.


It's worse. It's anti-education. The task of teaching people what science is, and just importantly, what it isn't, is extraordinarily difficult without this sort of nonsense obfuscating the issue. ID purports to be a scientific theory, and it is well camouflaged to _look_ like a scientific theory, but it is, in fact, the antithesis of a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. When you're trying to get students to understand that if something isn't empirically falsifiable it isn't science, and they're just starting to get it, springing ID on them is going to completely undo any learning that may have happened.

Almost as important as the falsifiability of scientific hypotheses, are the roles of humility and imagination in science. It is imperative that scientists remember that their understanding of phenomena may be flawed, and to always try to imagine other ways of explaining their data. What ID fundamentally says is that "I can't imagine a way this complexity could've evolved, therefore it couldn't have." It is the height of hubris to take this position, and anyone making such a claim has no business calling themselves a scientist. Furthermore, by claiming that the remaining gaps in our understanding of evolution require a supernatural explanation implies (falsely) that the questions are answered, leaving no work for more imaginative scientists to address these fascinating questions.



> And NOBODY is in the position to preach what is truth.


Indeed. I wish churches would stop doing it.



> Ever wonder why so many scientists believe in a Creator?


After decades of working in the biological sciences, I've met very few. And, in a society in which roughly 90% of people are religious adherents of some flavour, the fact that scientists in general, and biologists in particular, are so uncommonly atheistic is quite remarkable, don't you think?

Although some scientists may have religious convictions, science itself is inherently atheistic. One of the fundamental assumptions of the scientific method is that phenomena have natural causes, and that supernatural entities either don't exist or don't have measurable effects (science makes no distinction between these possibilities, because, as far as science is concerned, things that don't have effects may as well not exist).

Cheers


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Odd, I was able to retrive that URL (spiders in the router again MS?). Might want to try again. Excellent cartoon from Time.
> 
> Darkscot, I have to disagree that willingness to believe in a Creator somehow makes one less limited. Indeed, I'd argue that its more challenging not to settle for spiritual explanations that fill in the currently unknown gaps in understanding. I do agree that a closed mind is a wasted mind, but one can surely keep an open mind and yet not have to believe in a supreme being?



Definitely! And one can keep an open mind and believe in a supreme being as well. I'm not arguing that you should or shouldn't believe in a supreme being. Only that I would like more possibilities thrown out there. I want kids to know that there are other beliefs and possibilities. 

The people that filled these gaps in understanding encountered that challenge, utbj, a long time ago. some settled on an answer and some people continue to search. I'm in favour of continuing to search. there comes a point, and it's individual, where one asks "but why is it here?". what if that person decides he "God" is the answer to that question? what right does anyone have to say "keep on looking, that's not the right answer". on the same hand, zealots should temper their teachings.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "

Some people think there's a reason for it all happening, other's think it just happened and we're here. What else could there be, really? Non-existence? Sure. I am NOT in favour of dictating that we came from Adam and Eve. Science clearly shows that we evolved as other species have. Some ID proponents believe the process was started by a higher being with a purpose or end result in mind. Or maybe the evolution in action is the purpose, too.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

children should be armed with tools of reason and comprehension
then they can choose their own belief system

apology appreciated
no autopsy, no foul
sarcastic? moi?
Now I'm really gonna get banned for that comment.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

Science and Religion can coexist. 

I don't think its any nuttier to entertain the possibility that there is a higher being who was invovled in our existance than thinking our existance is just a matter of random events. Our whole existance is pretty nutty if you ask me. 

Science makes me go ooooh! My faith makes me go aaaah!


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> children should be armed with tools of reason and comprehension
> then they can choose their own belief system


and art, music, wonder and magic? you make a great case for a world of robots but our minds (or souls) demand higher pursuits as well.

i'll repeat myself for clarity: teach theology and philosophy alongside the sciences.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

ehMax said:


> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
> 
> Science and Religion can coexist.
> 
> ...


well said!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
> 
> Science and Religion can coexist.
> 
> ...


normally a smartly worded retort would be here, but the "creator" doesn't like being questioned
his wrath is well known

i, like galileo, will have to wait until i die to publish my views, else suffer at the hands of "the church"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

" teach theology and philosophy alongside the sciences". True, but don't teach theology AS science. I liked my university courses about the various religions of the world, especially the Eastern religions. I really liked my philosophy courses. I liked biology and chemistry, and wanted to enjoy physics (being poor in math did not help this desire). I excelled in the social sciences and English. French was a totally different matter.

Still, in the final analysis, I was able to attain a sense of metacognitive awareness, along with the ability to critically analyze various things based on various sources of information.

Is there a God? I cannot say yes or no. At times I would like to believe, but not in a formal manner (i.e., conventional religions). The closest I can possibly accept to ID is the Deist view of God the clockmaker.............one who creates the clock and after winding it up, lets it tell time on its own. 

However, as Jim so eloquently stated in a previous posting, science is an attempt to discover the unknowns, and such theories are understandable when tested against certain truths that can be verified. ID is a belief that really cannot be tested via any sort of assessment using empiracle knowledge or facts. Thus, ID is accepted on faith, and faith is not science. You have the right to your faith, just as I have the right to believe in what I believe.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> teach theology and philosophy alongside the sciences.


By alongside, what do you mean. If theology and ID are being taught in science alongside evolutionary theory then I disagree wholeheartedly. Stick them where they belong, in a social studies class under the heading "Religions of the World and their Beliefs" or something like that. I'm hoping they include Islam, Buddism, Hinduism in there as well. Do NOT teach it in science or biology. It does not belong there.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a)


> "NATURE" SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF
> The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), *while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.*


as Carex was saying

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

b)
Just keep access religious teaching in the same range as drinking, driving and voting and seeing violent movies ........
Wonder what the numbers of "adherents" would look like after a generation or two.

Europe is considered "missionary territory" now. Good on them.

Kids deserve astronomy not astrology....nor ID ..pseudo-science at its worst . 
Dark Ages II in the making down south of us.  

'Course look at the "calibre" of leadership.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> normally a smartly worded retort would be here, but the "creator" doesn't like being questioned
> his wrath is well known
> 
> i, like galileo, will have to wait until i die to publish my views, else suffer at the hands of "the church"


Go ahead with your smartly worded retort! (Hey, why not try everything at least once!) 

I, like Galileo, "..do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

- Galileo Galilei


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> Kids deserve astronomy not astrology....nor ID ..pseudo-science at its worst .
> Dark Ages II in the making down south of us.


i agree completely. i'm disgusted by the thought of this crap being force fed to impressionable minds.

gotta get 'em while they're young ...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> i agree completely. i'm disgusted by the thought of this crap being force fed to impressionable minds.


Re-read your sentence as if a neo-con right winger was saying it. 
 You're just as bad. 

Maybe we should have ourselves a book burning!


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

If you are going to teach theology in school, ya best be theachin all of the different religions, and with a disclaimer that these are only IDEAS. Make sure you teach Buddhism too, no creator figure in that line of thought. Ideas are vrey important, more so than beliefs, Like that Kevin Smith guy said in his highly acclaimed and loved by the church movie, "Dogma", you can change an Idea. Save the church teachin for Sunday School!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mr. Mayor, an interesting perspective. Still, count me out of the book burning.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Re-read your sentence as if a neo-con right winger was saying it.
> * You're just as bad.*


There is NOT an equivalency here. 
Are you condoning teaching astrology in a science course?? Numerology in a mathematics course?? "Salt over the shoulder tossing" in statistics?? Thaumaturgy in engineering??

If not why not?


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

some zealots want to teach ID instead of science. cooler heads should prevail and the various beliefs can be taught in the "how we came to be here" course. imagine the discussions and ideas the kids would come up with?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> There is NOT an equivalency here.
> Are you condoning teaching astrology in a science course?? Numerology in a mathematics course?? "Salt over the shoulder tossing" in statistics?? Thaumaturgy in engineering??
> 
> If not why not?


No. I think science class should remain just science class. There's no need to discuss religion in it. 

What I'm against is extremism on both ends. Extreme right wing thinking there should be no talk of evolution and extremist atheist who think there should be no discussion at all about religion. 

In other words, I'm with Dr. G: Count me out of the book burning.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> In other words, I'm with Dr. G: Count me out of the book burning.


Count me in with you two please.

I must admit I am very surprised that all you secularists are so offended by what they describe as "fairy tales" to begin with.

Where is the big threat here guys?

Side by side theories is all I see. Secularists on one side, religious beliefs on the other, and neither proven other than by the rules of mankind's science, and most days I doubt either rules or beliefs.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Side by side theories is all I see.


If that is what you see, then the people that are presenting ID as a "theory" have done their job and done it well. One is a theory and one isn't. They should not be presented 'side by side'.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax, Sinc, we are a "band of brothers" for the moderate cause. Still, I don't feel that I am being extreme in wanting ID kept out of science class.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mankind's science "rules" are no more than theories. Just because a minority of mankind called scientists say it is so, does not make it so.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Correct, evolution is a theory. 

Unfortunately, ID is not a scientific theory. 

Also unfortunately, is that science or scientists have not been able to relate or translate many of their fascinating theories and findings to the average person (you and me).


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Dr.G. said:


> ehMax, Sinc, we are a "band of brothers" for the moderate cause. Still, I don't feel that I am being extreme in wanting ID kept out of science class.


I agree Dr. G, that's not extreme. But I think this is:



> here's a radical idea. squash the religious nuts and stop teaching the bible altogether.


I don't think ID should be taught in science either. I do think, it could get a little mention during a discussion about what the scientific method is and why it isn't taught in class in a respectful manner. Science is not a class about disproving or proving the existance of God.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Interestingly, many parts of the scriptures were attempts at scientific theories, in an age before science really existed. That is, they, like science, tried to answer the questions of how we got here, and why things work the way they do, and they tried to reach those conclusions based on the best evidence available.

That said, scripture is NOT science as we now know it, and neither is religion. Can both be taught respectfully? Sure. But religious belief should no more pretend to be science, than science should pretend to be religion. Don't ask me to "prove" the existence of God, and I won't tell you how scriptures "prove" how the world came to be.

The part about this whole ID fad that bothers me the most is how it represents a fundamental refusal to let go of the historical relationship between religion and politics - the days when the church made all the calls. (The proper term is Christendom). Instead of learning how to be faith in a new reality, the closed minds behind ID are instead repackaging an old power grab in new language, and making anyone who claims to have faith look stupid in the process.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> _Go ahead with your smartly worded retort! (Hey, why not try everything at least once!) _
> 
> I, like Galileo, "..do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
> 
> - Galileo Galilei


Fool me once. Shame on you..... Fool me, can't get fooled again.
- George W. Bush


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

1 + 1 = 2
is in the same category of "theory" as
ID?

separation of Church and State
religious teachings should be done in homes or privately funded houses of worship, NOT publicly funded schools


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Mark Twain's Repsonse...*



darkscot said:


> ....Teaching theology at a younger age lets young ones learn about other's cultures and beliefs...


" The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean. I know this by my own experience, and to this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was fifteen years old. None can do that and ever draw a clean, sweet breath again this side of the grave."
- Mark Twain

Also from Mark Twain;

"It is best to read the weather forecast before praying for rain."

_(Not really a comment on the bible itself, I just threw in this second one as a bonus.  )_


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*Other Albert...*



ehMax said:


> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein
> ...


But Wacky ol' Albert also said:

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
- Albert Einstein


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> separation of Church and State
> religious teachings should be done in homes or privately funded houses of worship, NOT publicly funded schools


Well not in Canada... given that access and funding for the Catholic (or Seperate) Boards are guaranteed as a Charter right.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Well not in Canada... given that access and funding for the Catholic (or Seperate) Boards are guaranteed as a Charter right.


and I don't agree with funding of "private" schools that teach religon as part of the cirriculum


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and I don't agree with funding of "private" schools that teach *religon* as part of the *cirriculum*


And apparently, you also don't agree with schools that teach spelling.   
_(I'm one to talk)_


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I've been following this for some time now...

My real issue with ID is its affiliation with the extreme religous right and promoting their agenda. ID is not science... it is philosophy plain and simple.

But to play Devils advocate... There are plenty of theories which cannot be proven at the moment. My favorate is String Theory. While mathematically it is sound, there is no way to empirically test it. The question then is... is it a theory or a philosophy?

Given that there is solid math being used to describe String Theory I think it falls into the science category.

ID has no scientific backing... and unlike String Theory there are no related disciplines other than faith to support it.

More on this tomorrow...


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

For all you evolutionists out there, here's a quick way to make $1000.00 (US).

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/evochallenge.htm

Bet you can't do it


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And here's one for God
http://www.randi.org/


> One Million Dollars awaits the individual who can prove, in a controlled setting, that they have "super" powers.


Bet he can't do it...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, I would not bet against the Amazing Randi on anything. I have been fascinated with his "magic" and illusions and slight of hand since I was a boy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

With society becoming more secular every day, no one seems to notice the fallout from leaving children with nothing to believe in, or ever being exposed to any kind of belief or religion for that matter.

That to which I refer is to the breakdown of the family as we used to know it. No longer are children instilled with sets of values by their parents, rather they are brainwashed by the educational system to question or doubt everything and only believe in almighty science.

The world in which we now reside is going faster and faster with each generation and traditional values are being lost along the way. The family unit has descended to any combination or mix of genders anyone wishes to create and children are taught this is normal.

If one could read the minds of the thugs that roam the streets of our cities shooting each other with real handguns like they are playing some exotic video game, one would likely find a blank canvas of morality.

We are what we sow and the seed is too often rotten.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> ehMax, Sinc, we are a "band of brothers" for the moderate cause. Still, I don't feel that I am being extreme in wanting ID kept out of science class.


that's exactly what i'm saying, so i don't know why you and ehmax are disagreeing with me. any reason, other than the strong language perhaps?


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> That to which I refer is to the breakdown of the family as we used to know it.


what does this have to do with religion? i have seen families that don't go to church that have stayed together, and families that did go to church fall apart.

i've seen the children of very religious parents turn to drugs and drop out of school, and the opposite.

edit: and for that matter, i've seen children of single parents go on to be successful, and children of married parents end up in the gutter.

you're talking like it was somehow different when you were young. this is nostalgia talking.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

SINC said:


> rather they are brainwashed by the educational system to question or doubt everything and only believe in almighty science.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I call that critical thinking.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SoyMac said:


> " The mind that becomes soiled in youth can never again be washed clean. I know this by my own experience, and to this day I cherish an unappeasable bitterness against the unfaithful guardians of my young life, who not only permitted but compelled me to read an unexpurgated Bible through before I was fifteen years old. None can do that and ever draw a clean, sweet breath again this side of the grave."
> - Mark Twain



Quoting from famous people means nothing. If I quoted Madonna as big defender of the Jewish faith would you let that persuade you?

Mark must have been the unfortunate victim of religious diehards who did not let him think different ever. That should not happen.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> If one could read the minds of the thugs that roam the streets of our cities shooting each other with real handguns like they are playing some exotic video game, one would likely find a blank canvas of morality.


i guess you've never seen a 'gansta rap' video. they all wear giant gold encrusted crucifixes round their necks.

and the italian mafia, are you going to tell me they weren't religious?

again, what's religion got to do with it?


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> i guess you've never seen a 'gansta rap' video. they all where giant gold encrusted crucifixes round their necks.
> 
> and the italian mafia, are you going to tell me they weren't religious?
> 
> again, what's religion got to do with it.



the religious families that hurt each other and beat their kids, pedophile priests, mafias pay lip service to their faith. they are not true adherents.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

"I have nothing against God -- It's the fan club I can't stand"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> what does this have to do with religion? i have seen families that don't go to church that have stayed together, and families that did go to church fall apart.
> 
> i've seen the children of very religious parents turn to drugs and drop out of school, and the opposite.
> 
> ...


Note that I stated "religion OR beliefs". I am not a religious person and never have been, but I believe that certain values should be instilled within children at an early age. Values like honesty, fairness, treatment of others in a respectful manner, compassion, love, freedom, non-violence to name but a few.

It seems to me our schools no longer teach these types of beliefs or values and they are becoming far less prevalent in todays changing family structure. Those gunslingers I refer to are missing these basic human traits. Who taught them what little they know?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ehMax said:


> And apparently, you also don't agree with schools that teach spelling.
> _(I'm one to talk)_


Ah, yes. The ID-ers last refuge. Shoot the messenger. Ignore the message.
What a Christian thing to do. What's next? A Crusade on those that disagree with dogma?

Please follow the logic from my understanding of scripture;
God is a decision making being.
Man/Woman was made in God's image.
Ergo, Man/Woman is a decision making being.
Why would God want to take away your ability to make decisions by having everything be pre-destined?
It just doesn't make sense and God ain't stupid. Well, ok, that "flood thing" wasn't a bright idea, but overall, not stupid.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc what a crock - if the "good ol days" were so good why is crime down consistently.
A secular public education creates a common ground for ALL kids and removes the impetus for sectarian violence that breeds in "we're the best they're going to hell" religious indoctrination.

You make this assumption somehow that "families" are automatically "better" - yet far and away sexual and physical abuse occurs within the family.

A more open and accepting society provides escape and protection for those trapped in abusive and oppressive authoritarian structures, be it familial, religious, socially driven or cult derived.
Variety and exposure to different cultures and outlooks at an early age makes for world citizens cognizant of change and difference and able to cope with these differences in a spirit of tolerance.
Common ground based on secular education. If parents wish to inform their kids they will but at least all will have a common reference to offset widely divergent worldviews that are often in essence completely contrary to the values and expectations of a modern democracy.

The attitudes and restrictions towards women within many religions is not the least of questionable ideas in conflict with an egalitarian democracy as is the hierarchical structure of most religions. There is a basic conflict between religious dogma and modern democratic principles that in my mind needs stay out of the child's curriculum until they have the reasoning tools to make informed decisions about that conflict.

Or do you propose a theocracy ??


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Sinc what a crock


MacDoc, why does someone else's opinion have to be a "crock"?

Seems to me whenever you have a differing viewpoint that haughty know-it-all better than thou attitude of yours comes boiling through and frankly I have as much right to hold an opinion as you do.

By all means feel free to express your opinions. Just don't expect some of us to swallow your thinking without question. It ain't gonna wash with me.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Happy 3000 Mr. Mayor !!!!!



MS take note: these little gestures buy me a lot of rope for future scruups.

In EhMax we Trust


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Mankind's science "rules" are no more than theories. Just because a minority of mankind called scientists say it is so, does not make it so.


A disappointing comment SINC. Very disappointing in the context of this otherwise interesting discussion. 

The fact is that scientists do not regard their work or theories as anything but theories. Scientists base their theories on experimental facts and work continuously to dispute those facts. They do not "give up" and ascribe what they don't understand to "a greater power". To do that would have left us in the middle ages - which is perhaps the age you are pining for?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> It seems to me our schools no longer teach these types of beliefs or values and they are becoming far less prevalent in todays changing family structure. Those gunslingers I refer to are missing these basic human traits. Who taught them what little they know?


I look to the parent(s) who doesn't do their job. Too many children are exposed to "adult" themes at early ages (violence, sex, drugs, etc.) on many fronts - music, video games, television, movies, etc. combined with a severe lack of direction and discipline. I think we're seeing the after-effect of the "kids having kids" era. If Mommy didn't know better than to use birth control at such a young age, what other pearls of wisdom can she pass along to her child with only a grade 8 education?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> Mankind's science "rules" are no more than theories. Just because a minority of mankind called scientists say it is so, does not make it so.





used to be jwoodget said:


> A disappointing comment SINC. Very disappointing in the context of this otherwise interesting discussion.
> 
> The fact is that scientists do not regard their work or theories as anything but theories. Scientists base their theories on experimental facts and work continuously to dispute those facts. They do not "give up" and ascribe what they don't understand to "a greater power". To do that would have left us in the middle ages - which is perhaps the age you are pining for?


I do not see why it should disappoint.

You, yourself admit it is true that scientists only have theories. Who is anyone to say they are always right?

And don't put words in my mouth. I never once said anything about giving up or ascribing to a "greater power".

I simply say there is room for error, even on the part of a scientist.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Sinc what a crock - if the "good ol days" were so good why is crime down consistently.



Hey, i don't care if there were 10 less murders these year as oppossed to last year; i believe that society is going down the drain, an a REALLY big hike in crime rates and whatnot is coming our way. Bigtime.
I'm a little over 30 years old and still miss the good old Days, but definately believe "religion " is not the answer to turn to. In fact, I'm the sort that blames religion .


ZZZZAPPPP!!!!!!!

OMG, a bolt of lightning just killed one of my dogs!!!! Forgiver my arse


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Let's see. Scientific theory - room for error. Indeed, error is fundamental to the scientific process which develops theories and then tries to disprove them.

Intelligent Design. No room for or consideration of error. Intelligent Design is inherently correct because it cannot be proven and therefore cannot be disproven. It is non-scientific. It is a religious doctrine.

My disappointment in your original comment is that you smeared scientists with a property they embrace (error), yet which is also a property that cannot pertain to Intelligent Design. Very even-handed!

This is the fundamental problem with Intelligent Design. Scientists are expected to defend their position with factual evidence which they admit is theory and thus theoretically prone to errors. Whereas proponents of ID simply point to something which is unprovable and happily sit on their hands.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

gastonbuffet said:


> Happy 3000 Mr. Mayor !!!!!
> 
> MS take note: these little gestures buy me a lot of rope for future scruups.
> In EhMax we Trust


Ass kissing is NOT one of my strong points.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Let's see. Scientific theory - room for error. Indeed, error is fundamental to the scientific process which develops theories and then tries to disprove them.
> 
> Intelligent Design. No room for or consideration of error. Intelligent Design is inherently correct because it cannot be proven and therefore cannot be disproven. It is non-scientific. It is a religious doctrine.
> 
> ...


I buy that statement entirely UTBJ, except for the reference to smearing. I certainly did not intend to "smear" anyone. Sorry you saw it that way.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

as I understand it, Scientists are a very conservative lot, they need the data, they need the results, and they test them over and over again. The scientific method demands this, that's why it's so difficult to get scientists to talk about gobal warming and it's causes.

As for rising crime and society going down the tubes, well, we have to set moral standards for ourselves, but that's really all we can do. 

Here's an example, I don't enjoy watching the BET channel at the gym, why? It promotes objectification of women, glorifies crime and really focuses on material welth. These are standards that are being set and broadcast around the country, do I blame rap music, nope, I love DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince, Run DMC, Beastie Boys, etc. 

I do wonder about the conditions that make this type of communication possible, society just has to demand better, it's hard to demand better when your eyes and mind are full of material dreams, think that a life of crime is actually honourable, and look up to men who make their money off selling womens bodies... I think "Pimping all over the world" is a very offensive song. But ya know what, when I go to the gym today, I can be sure that BET will be on because people love to work out to that music, almost like the message doesn't matter.... I close my eyes, count my breath, and focus on my posture. hey, I'm not going to be the jerk that turns off BET (nor do I think that I would be allowed!).


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

If the defendants win then I demand to also insert a four-page reading at the start of all biology classes stating that life on earth originated from Zargon III, the habitable moon of the planet Zot.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Eukaryotic said:


> If the defendants win then I demand to also insert a four-page reading at the start of all biology classes stating that life on earth originated from Zargon III, the habitable moon of the planet Zot.


 Complete bunk! It has been well established through repeated psychic readings that life on earth originated on Zargon IV and later teleported to Zargon III by making angels giggle. This was, as we all know, followed by the exodus to earth on the backs of giant turtles that, to this day, remain stacked below the planet to prevent it from falling. These phenomenon are, of course, undetectable by conventional means, but remain the Truth. I demand that the education system that I fund through my taxes provide discussion of this alternative theory in biology class to ensure that students' critical thinking is not limited and that all avenues are considered.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:....exactly.

BTW - "fair play" is built in to the majority of humans and their near relatives adn many other animals.

Kids know the difference between make believe and video violence and kids that don't ie FAS kids or other with "outside the norm" responses won't be helped within the school system by teaching fairy tales.

Population growth and stress on resources will fund way more violence than any possible "band aid" at schools will affect - that said teaching about the wider world, other cultures will at least buffer the impact.

Criminal and gangster behaviour is learned, cultural and has and will always exist and there will always be those in any population curve that "differ" in their responses.

One "size" does not fit all......shoes nor teaching - providing a consistent set of "tools" to communicate and rationally inform kids of the world they have been born into is I think a worthwhile goal but no panacea.
It's only a start towards peaceable coexistence of differences in the human tribes.


----------



## med8or (Jan 18, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Fool me once. Shame on you..... Fool me, can't get fooled again.
> - George W. Bush


The exact quote, taken from my Bushisms desktop calendar:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee-I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee-that says, fool me once, shame on-shame on you. Fool me-you can't get fooled again."

Quoted as: Nashville, Tennessee; September 17, 2002.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, you make an excellent point with your comment that "Intelligent Design. No room for or consideration of error. Intelligent Design is inherently correct because it cannot be proven and therefore cannot be disproven." This is where faith comes into play, and faith needs to remain outside of a science classroom. 

I once asked a person who viewed the Bible quite literally what could change his opinion on the various beliefs he held, and he said "Nothing". I went on to question him re the chance of a devine intervention that might disprove something in the Bible, and this person was unsure. "Why would God want to change something in the Bible?" was his reply.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

med8or said:


> The exact quote, taken from my Bushisms desktop calendar:
> 
> "There's an old saying in Tennessee-I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee-that says, fool me once, shame on-shame on you. Fool me-you can't get fooled again."
> 
> Quoted as: Nashville, Tennessee; September 17, 2002.


so much for validity of a Yale education
Ivy League, my ass


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Bush studied Anthropology, so that he could learn about all the different cultures of the world, I wonder if he learned anything and how much he paid to get people to write his papers for him!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GWR said:


> For all you evolutionists out there, here's a quick way to make $1000.00 (US).
> 
> http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/evochallenge.htm
> 
> Bet you can't do it


Here's what's at that site:


> CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that all we see in the universe is a result of natural transformism (or even intermittent supernatural transformism). If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI.


So all you have to do to 'win' is explain the entire universe, and prove that your explanation is correct. And if you fail, the Catholics must be right!

Who comes up with these things? I've met 3-year-olds that think more clearly.

Furthermore, the 'challenge' betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Science doesn't prove things, it only DISPROVES things. We can use science to FALSIFY incorrect hypotheses, provided (and this is the essential failure of ID) that they make empirically testable predictions. If the predictions of an hypothesis are found to be correct, that doesn't prove that the hypothesis is true, it just doesn't falsify the hypothesis.

Evolutionary theory forms the basis of countless hypotheses, whose predictions have been tested in countless ways, and always found to be correct. That doesn't prove that evolution is true, it just gives it a lot of support. But the point is that nothing science can ever do could _prove_ evolutionary theory...it can only add more support. Alternatively, there are many ways that evolutionary theory could be falsified (someone could find a fossil primate in Precambrian shale, or an organism that uses entirely novel molecular signalling mechanisms to regulate it's development, or a species with a radically different genetic code, etc. etc. etc.). ID, in contrast, makes no falsifiable predictions. It simply states that there are some aspects of living organisms that (the adherents of this belief claim) are difficult to explain by known evolutionary mechanisms. Firstly, it's not clear that this is the case: as far as I know, no biochemical pathway or biological structure has been identified that is 'irreducibly complex' as the ID'ers claim. Secondly, their failure to imagine a natural mechanism for some phenomena is not evidence of supernatural intervention.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ehMax said:


> Extreme right wing thinking there should be no talk of evolution and extremist atheist who think there should be no discussion at all about religion.


I'm a pretty extreme atheist, and I think discussing religion in school is a great idea. In particular, I've found the study of comparative religion a very valuable tool in understanding how these memetic viruses evolve and survive. And, at the risk of stretching the viral analogy, there's no better protection against infection than immunization - intentionally exposing yourself to components of the infectious agent in a context where you aren't likely to be infected.

However, taking an un-immunized child and immersing them in an environment rich in fully-infectious forms of the agent (i.e. a church) should be treated as abuse.

Cheers


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

bryanc, if i knew how to make the 'hands clapping' emoticon i would insert one right here --->

as i said before, gotta get 'em while they're young, cuz the bs doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny by an 'uninfected' adult mind.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

And this one is for all the silly intelligent designers out there:
http://www.venganza.org/


> An Open Letter To The Kansas School Board:
> 
> I am writing you with much concern after I read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design to be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design..
> 
> ...



I will add that theSpagetti Monster folks are now offering a reward to anyone who can dissprove their belief.


> http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/boing_boings_250000_.html
> 
> Boing Boing’s $250,000 Intelligent Design challenge (UPDATED: $1 million)
> 
> ...


This I think says it all.
All hail the Flying Spegetti monster! Let's hear it for the Pastafarians!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

My father was one of the main agitators that got the Lords Prayer removed from Ontario schools. Unfortunatly not before I had to have my religious rights impringed upon by the Christian majority in our society. 
These idiots in PA and esleware are regresives. I don't want to fight the same battles my father did. These asses really piss me off.
If you want to believe the Earth is 6 or 8 thousand years old: good for you but you have no buisness teaching children these fantasies.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I was one of the kids that was singled out and made to stand outside of the classroom because I wouldn't say the Lord's Prayer along with the others.

That, and the fact that I was shorter than any other kid in the class, were the primary reasons the thugs that beat me up on a regular basis cited as motivating their pummelling.

My school principle's suggestion, when I complained about the situation (while trying not to bleed on his carpet), was to offer to teach me to "fight like a man!" 

I learned to run fast and am to this day uncomfortable with situations where there aren't several good escape routes.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

As I remember back to my school days, from Jr High to highschool, my science teachers always noted that evolution was just one theory. I don't think that we have too worry too much about this... or maybe we do? Do you think ID will catch on in Canada, or just fizzle away? I love that Spaghitti Monster..... Perhaps he is just one of many pasta gods trolling through the universe!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I don't know what's more illogical...
Believing in intelligent design or believing that you can put a bunch of cogs in a box, shake it for a few million years and produce a rolex. It takes a leap of faith to support either argument. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

darkscot said:


> Quoting from famous people means nothing. If I quoted Madonna as big defender of the Jewish faith would you let that persuade you?
> ...


Hmmm. Darkscot, I notice that this earlier post did not elicit the same response from you;
_Originally Posted by ehMax
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein..._
Curious.


Also, did you really mean to put Madonna in the same category as Samuel Clemens and Albert Einstein?!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I don't know what's more illogical...
> Believing in intelligent design or believing that you can put a bunch of cogs in a box, shake it for a few million years and produce a rolex. It takes a leap of faith to support either argument.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I'd say both of those are equally illogical. Of course, nobody believes the second, although you often hear creationists using the 'parts-in-a-box-shaken-to-produce-a-complex-machine' analogy. I've yet to met someone who actually understands evolution who also denies it's plausibility and empirical support.

But, I do hang around with very smart people.

Cheers


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SoyMac said:


> Hmmm. Darkscot, I notice that this earlier post did not elicit the same response from you;
> _Originally Posted by ehMax
> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein..._
> Curious.
> ...


Why would I repeat myself? Besides, ehmax's quote takes a conciliatory approach to both sides of the argument. You took a famous person's diatribe and used it to further your POV which was decidedly anti-ID. Plus I liked his quote better. It suits my feelings on the matter more.

DId I really mean to put Madonna in the same category as Samuel Clemens and Albert Einstein?! Fer Christ's sake, SoyMac, it was just another celebrity name that came to mind.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The problem with the "cogs in a box" analogy is that there is no selection for parts that fit together well (success), no competition between different partial assemblages, no adaptation of the cogs to changes in other cogs, no ...... 

O, never mind...... what's the point in arguing with IDologists? Actually, the point is that if they are left to their own devices, they threaten the logical and scientific basis of the world. Scientists have an obligation to explain why scientific theories such as evolution are entirely reasonable means to explain complexity.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

...and how we really ARE all stardust 

••

BTW Einstein had a long battle with what his intellect informed him of and his "feeling" wished to be so. He had raging battles with his peers over his difficulty accepting "indeterminancy".

The heart of the issue is well laid out here

http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/dice.cfm

and Hawking takes a step further

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

In my opinion creationists often incorrectly interpret natural selection and get caught up in the argument that, since **** sapiens are so apparently supreme compared to other biological forms, there's no way that evolutionary theory (i.e., mutations!) could produce such a perfect human specimen. I have discussed this with several creationists who understand natural selection to be a straight line from eukaryotes  all the way to joe blow. Of course, there are many pathways, some ending, some branching, humans are just a snap-shot in time on one branch...

That being said, there is often miscommunication (for lack of a better word) on both sides.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> ...and how we really ARE all stardust
> 
> ••
> 
> ...


Einstein's inability to accept "randomness" in the universe prevented him from moving on to the next level and doing even more impressive work.
"God doesn't play dice." - A. Einstein

So, one might say that his belief in God limited his abillity to better understand the universe.

Not only does "God play dice," but He's the grand casino master.
"Probability is the stuff of life." - MACSPECTRUM


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Ode to an Athiest

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.
And only God who makes this tree,
Also makes the fools like me.
But only fools like me, you see,
Can make a God that makes a tree.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SoyMac said:


> Hmmm. Darkscot, I notice that this earlier post did not elicit the same response from you;
> _Originally Posted by ehMax
> "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein..._
> Curious.
> ...


I can see why you quoted Twain there, SoyMac. Many a good mind has been blemished and there is so much to atone for. The abuse of a children's mind and body is an unparalleled sin in my mind.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*This one's for both sides...*

"Indeed he knows not how to know
who knows not also how to un-know."
- Sir Richard Francis Burton


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I am that I am."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So, it appears that from a biblical view, God = language. Very interesting.

I exist.....I have language.....I think......I express these thoughts.....I think therefore I speak........."I think therefore I am."

"I am that I am."

Maybe God is thought? Interesting..........


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

- Charles Darwin


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "I am that I am."
> 
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." So, it appears that from a biblical view, God = language. Very interesting.


God = language is not quite what is being driven at, there. Language in the ancient world was a source of power, and if God is The Word, then God is the power that underlies all other power. But, more accurately, you are seeing a hint of what became known as trinitarian thought. This is John's gospel, and John often referred to Jesus as The Word, so here he is expressing that early concept of there being a unity between the parts of God, and yet also a separatness.



Dr.G. said:


> I exist.....I have language.....I think......I express these thoughts.....I think therefore I speak........."I think therefore I am."
> 
> "I am that I am."
> 
> Maybe God is thought? Interesting..........


I am is the oldest way of God referring to God's self. God is not thought, God simply is. It stood, in the context of the time, as a highly radical concept, directly contrary to other religions and cultures for whom deities were always embodied somehow, either in reality or in idols.

Much of the scripture is concerned with defining who the Hebrew people are, and how they are different from the others around them. And almost all of that difference stems from how they understood God, and their relationship to God.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Eukaryotic said:


> "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
> 
> - Charles Darwin


How appropriate that quote is when applied to politicians in general and one in particular.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/science/sciencespecial2/06canyon.html?hp

Apparently, the Grand Canyon was formed 4500 years ago during a large flood.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Carex, I have been to the Grand Canyon, and I find it very difficult to believe that it is only 4500 years old. Of course, another great flood would swamp most of Vancouver Island and the island part of Newfoundland and Labrador. Good bye, my friend.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I mentioned this in another thread, it is so appropriate for this thread.



> According to the Hitchhiker's Guide, the Babel fish was put forth as an example for the non-existence of God:
> 
> "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
> "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
> "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.


I hadn't realized in the context of Intelligent design how applicable that argument is...

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." 
"But," says Man, "then Intelligent Design is a dead giveaway isn't it? If man could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

God says a lot of stuff when he's drunk, and shouldn't be held to account. He has, after all, got a very stressful job in constantly checking up on a tweaking the universe.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> God says a lot of stuff when he's drunk, and shouldn't be held to account. He has, after all, got a very stressful job in constantly checking up on a tweaking the universe.


Hey, that's no excuse. We charge people with DWI? He is liable to get a DWMTU charge.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

That would be tougher than convicting in mobster in the 30s...who in their right mind would sit on that jury? What is a jury of God's peers? 

I say we let it slide, but warn God that we will logically disprove his existence if God doesn't smarten up.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> That would be tougher than convicting in mobster in the 30s...who in their right mind would sit on that jury? What is a jury of God's peers?


Oh I'm sure we could muster up a jury of his peers... There are whole pantheons of deities that we could summons for jury duty.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah start a WGW circuit.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> Of course, another great flood would swamp most of Vancouver Island and the island part of Newfoundland and Labrador. Good bye, my friend.


Dr. G, of course you are kidding, there can't be another flood. He promised and made rainbows!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tell that to n'Awlin's


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Interesting angle: re-define "science"

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Eukaryotic said:


> Interesting angle: re-define "science"
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/



It will only last so long... here is what happened to the school board invloved in the original article I had quoted at the start of this thread.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/09/evolution.showdown.ap/index.html

Each and everyone of them out on their a**es... handed their hat so to speak... not letting door hit them on the way out...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

da_j, let's wait until it gets to the US Supreme Court. If they can somehow find a way to state that ID is not part of a formalized religion, and thus, not violating the separation of church and state, then the current school board may see its wishes overturned, even though the voters spoke lourdly and clearly with their votes.

When I taught in Waycross, Georgia, I was told that I had to sign a "loyalty oath" (this was back in 1973 and 1974). I refused, saying that they could not ask me such questions. Thirty years later, I would be fired for not signing this oath, and nothing could be said about it, in that it is part of the Patriot Act.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> da_j, let's wait until it gets to the US Supreme Court. If they can somehow find a way to state that ID is not part of a formalized religion, and thus, not violating the separation of church and state, then the current school board may see its wishes overturned, even though the voters spoke lourdly and clearly with their votes.


NPR Science Friday has been covering this story very well on their podcasts. It appears that both sides want to see this case go past the current court and escalate to the supreme court.

So it looks like even though the 8 pro ID trustees were turfed out, the new board is not going to automatically reverse the previous board's edict because they want to play this out in the courts.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

As I contend, if it gets to the Supreme Court and they rule that this inclusion is legal, there is no going back. Of course, when the first heretics are burned at the stakes for not wanting to teach ID, then there might be problems. I know that I would have fundamental problems as a teacher in carrying out an order to teach ID.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Intervention, devine. When a country/poltical system starts inventing its own rules of nature, it's a sure sign of its own impending collapse.


----------



## district (Sep 14, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Hot topic ONLY in the US.


And on university campuses in Canada. I'm taking a class that studies the social significance of evolution by natural selection (also referred to as Darwinism) and since day one, every tutorial group turns into a two-hour shouting match  .


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

district said:


> I'm taking a class that studies the social significance of evolution by natural selection (also referred to as Darwinism) and since day one, every tutorial group turns into a two-hour shouting match  .


The social significance of the theory being publicized and propagated or of the evolutionary process? Both?


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Intervention, devine. When a country/poltical system starts inventing its own rules of nature, it's a sure sign of its own impending collapse.


I met my first USA-to-Canada refugee last night. I've heard of them before but never actually seen one in person (that I knew about).
She and her husband and 2 kids are from Florida. They got so sick and afraid of the political power of the Religious Right in their homeland that they packed it all in and moved to Ottawa, Canada, last February!
She says it's amazing to her to hear Canadians talking about politics, criticizing, arguing, and not being afraid to express an opinion.
She was almost manic in her expression of happiness and relief at having moved here.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free." As one who was born and raised in America, and has now spent nearly half his life in Canada, I am glad I am here. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> The social significance of the theory being publicized and propagated or of the evolutionary process? Both?


perhaps Amerika could benefit from a bit of the (r)evolutionary process


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SoyMac said:


> I met my first USA-to-Canada refugee last night. I've heard of them before but never actually seen one in person (that I knew about).
> She and her husband and 2 kids are from Florida. They got so sick and afraid of the political power of the Religious Right in their homeland that they packed it all in and moved to Ottawa, Canada, last February!
> She says it's amazing to her to hear Canadians talking about politics, criticizing, arguing, and not being afraid to express an opinion.
> She was almost manic in her expression of happiness and relief at having moved here.


you should get them to tell their story to the CBC


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I am glad I am here


.......so are we.
Our gain -the US loss.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Merci, mon ami. Deep inside you, MacDoc, there is a basic goodness that sometimes gets glossed over by the reactions of others to your views. Still, that goodness is there nonetheless, and we are all better here in ehMacLand for its existence. Paix.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I've lost the reference, but one of the jurisdictions in the States that had a pro-Intelligent Design schoolboard, just had six of the whackos booted during an election. The people have spoken and they were sick and tired of the issue being debated and the fact that some of these folks were involved in the National agenda being taken to the Supreme Court (or on its way there).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you should get them to tell their story to the CBC


Yes, and for added perspective they could talk to people who went the other way.

By the way, what's with the 'k' spelling?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
> 
> http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html


That guy is an ass. A true, dyed in the wool, ass. I just wish I could be there to see the look on his face when God calls him in to explain how pissed She is.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

If you believe in an all-encompassing and forgiving God, then you already know the answer to your question to the look on God's face. 

Sadness and forgiveness.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

RevMat, imagine a God that is a woman of color from Harlem, with an attitude. There shall be a great many so-called "evangelists" on TV that are going to be in a great deal of trouble.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> If you believe in an all-encompassing and forgiving God, then you already know the answer to your question to the look on God's face.
> 
> Sadness and forgiveness.


It's Pat's face that I was missing, not God's. And Dr. G., I imagine God that way regularly. For exactly that reason


----------

