The case for Intelligent DesignFollow

Got it. So pretty much your rub with it is that you feel it doesn't belong. That's where our two paths diverge in the woods, then. I for one,wouldn't have an issue with my child hearing diverging opinions on things. That means he/she could come home and we could have a chat about how some people believe that God made everything, and to them, that is the only way things could have possibly ocurred, but that there is no proof for it and that in scientific terms, it's not likely to be ever proven one way or another except when you die and find out what life was for (or not). A kid that is old enough to have a biology course is old enough to get that.

I understand the idea of going to court for it, I suppose. It's idealistic. I just wouldn't have gotten so upset about it to begin with.

Fundamental hypocrisy from people with a philosophical objection to mentioning ID in a classroom. That's what it boils down to. Because it needs it so, let me fix your partial statements for you...

The theory of evolution is a theory that, right or wrong, was arrive at by interpreting incomplete data.

Can that be rebutted? It is a simple statement of fact.

I do not believe you can effectively rebutt that statement. That being the case, why is it so difficult to acknowledge that incomplete and wholly circumstantial evidence, when viewed from opposing positions, can yield different differing conclusions?

Strict evolutionsists look at their data and say "See? All the animals today evolved on a random path adapting as best they can to their surroundings." ID proponants say "See? All the animals today got here, quite possibly through evolution, according to a grand design."

Neither statement is any less scientific than the other. The only issue arrises when evolutionists decide they don't like the possibility that they're wrong or incomplete. ID supporters simply want the theory acknowledged and given the same coverage.

EDIT:
Well, at least she can string together a couple of sentences. She still fails at conceptual grasp and open mindedness.

Define Irony. Declarative statements are bad.

Edited, Mon Oct 17 13:24:56 2005 by MoebiusLord

God is simply the undefined variable.

You still can't admit that all the mountains of evidence still leave you with a supposition that can not be proved with scientific testing. You can have all of the supporting documentation you want to, you still can not prove something you can not either recreate or witness.

Personally I believe the theory of evolution to be a fine starting place. Most people who believe in ID would agree. That still doesn't make it scientific fact that it happened the way it is presented in textbooks, and that there are opposing theories as to the mechanism behind evolution should be enough to get them included.

I would have no problem with my kid hearing that in Sunday school or in some other religious forum, or even in a philosophy class (like the hypothetical "Theories on the Origins of Humanity" class) but not in a science class. Science class needs to be about scientific theories that have been arrived at by scientific inquiry.

Diverging opinions are great, but if you allowed EVERY single class to teach EVERY single diverging opinion, our kids wouldn't ever learn anything, because the instructors would be too busy qualifying every statement of fact they tried to impart. Imagine the US History class that can't teach the Revolutionary War without having to disclaim that the British have an entirely different perspective on it. Or just recently, there was a post made here about how some people think Shakespeake didn't actually write the plays we attribute to Shakespeare...imagine the English lit class where the instructor were required to go over every author who someone theorizes might have actually BEEN responsible for the Shakespeakean plays...would the kids ever get any Shakespeare read in such an environment?

So, each to its own place...If you want to learn about articles of faith, learn it in Sunday school. If you want to learn about science, go to science class. If you want to learn about the Revolutionary War from the US perspective, take a US History class. If you want to learn about the Revolutionary War from the British perspective, take a British history class. And so forth.

Evolution as an idea can be proven/defended by any geneticist, biologist etc.

Natural Selection can be observed in the wild and historically.

Anthropologists are taking these two theories that they feel are solid and applying it to explain a pile of archaelogical evidence. In the end it works better than creationism, catastrophism, or anything Lamark ever put forward.

They are not trying to prove evolution through the material but rather trying to employ evolution to explain the material.



Edited, Mon Oct 17 13:30:17 2005 by bodhisattva

Edited, Mon Oct 17 13:31:09 2005 by bodhisattva

That's patently false.

But not proven to a degree of certainty required to take if from theory to law.

Again, using an unproven theory to justify guesses. Not proving anything. And that is "works better" simply means it fits their pre-conceived notions, or yours.

This is just it. They use unproven ideas to justify their points of view and vehemently oppose diverging opinions being expressed. If neither can be proved and both are arrived at by taking a hard look at available data, why is one acceptable to put forth as doctrine and the other not?

a) Its being contrary, which I am not at this point.
b) As I have stated I am not trolling, I am making a point, quite effectively, that is different from yours, that you and others seem wholly unwilling to acknowledge as possibility simply because it differs with your world view.


What gives you the idea that the people who are espousing ID did not look at the evidence in the same manner and simply find a different explanation? That's pretty arrogant of you. Assuming yours is the only valid opinion because its the only one who's answer you're comfortable with is pretty pathetic.

We are not discussing creationism.

EDIT: Damn, got the quote wrong.

Edited, Mon Oct 17 13:42:25 2005 by MoebiusLord

Hellooo, slippery slope. Does this mean that our little chat here will lead to WWIII? We could include a mention about Hitler and wrap up the traditional Assylum "logical fallacy and Godwin's" argument thread.

I bet you don't like peas in your mashed taters, either.

Let me put it like this:

Evolution is a theory that has withstood over a 120 years of rather rigorous nit picking and attacks. The evidence appears both physical, genetic, historical tends to back it up and work with it. Not just for humans but for cats, horses, beavers, elephants and any other animals.

It's a theory sound enough that even those supporting Intelligent Design aren't willing to argue. That is what we are talking about in this thread ID.

My problem with ID is this: It doesn't promote a scientific look of the evidence and trying to explain it within the model of evolution. It attribute evolution to the divine and leaves it at that.

Evolution and the anthropoligical view on it demands a explaination. Why did humanity become bipedal? Was it because God willed it? Or was it for a number of factors that played a key choice in that be selected naturally such as increased visibility and field of vision allowing them to spot predators and prey, the fact that being upright and on two feet while slowing us down allowed us to cover more distance in a day. etc.

With the current anthropological frame work someone can propose an idea such as "Man the Hunter" and either prove it or disprove it (disproved as the case may be when it was shown that women in the populations were doing different jobs thanks to looking at bone wear and growth). With ID its they would have them say "we have a number of competeing theories but since no one is the clear cut leader we will attribute it to God.

That is the flaw, that is the problem with teaching it in the class room. Its an ignorant and unquestioning mind set that will lead to no answers. Its like saying "we arent sure of the exact mechanics behind gravity so we will just say 'it falls because God wants it to fall'"

Edited, Mon Oct 17 13:51:45 2005 by bodhisattva

Contrarian:
con·trar·i·an Pronunciation Key (kn-trâr-n)
n.

One who takes a contrary view or action, especially an investor who makes decisions that contradict prevailing wisdom, as in buying securities that are unpopular at the time.




a: you have absolutely no idea what my beliefs are, so don't presume that you do.

b: the fact that ID proponents are NOT following the scientific method is quite clear if you have the first clue what the scientific method is. To begin with, they are STARTING with a conclusion: God created the world. They are not asking a question. They are not testing a hypothesis by taking the available evidence and challenging it, they are scrambling for factoids that they can pigeon-hole into a conclusion which they have already decided is the "only answer."

If you go about making "scientific inquiries" that way, you lose at teh science. Play again.



Funny, the thread reads "The case for Intelligent Design" and since "Intelligent Design" IS Creationism, that is exactly what we are discussing.

Ok MoebiusLord, disprove it.

Let's take human evolution. Here's what we do know:

Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE
Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE
Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE
Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE
**** habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE
**** erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE
**** sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE
**** sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE
**** sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present


See the gaps? The little ones? That's what's know as "the missing link". It stands to reason that we do, in fact, know more than we don't.

Species Time Line, WSU

It's got link to all the species, pictures, and time discriptions. Enjoy