PDA

View Full Version : Kansas Returns to the Dark Ages (Again)



Pages : [1] 2 3

Maksutov
2005-Nov-09, 02:21 AM
The state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate)


John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said changes probably will come to classrooms gradually, with some teachers feeling freer to discuss criticisms of evolution. "These changes are not targeted at changing the hearts and minds of the Darwin fundamentalists," Calvert said.What a wonderful example of projecting your prejudices and shortcomings onto other people and groups.

I can just see the new roadsigns at the borders:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/149/kansas9qe.th.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kansas9qe.jpg)

Jim Colyer
2005-Nov-09, 03:13 AM
9/11 created a bad atmosphere for science. Things will turn around. Evolution is true and factual, backed by a fossil record with amazingly few gaps.

JIM COLYER http://www.jimcolyer.com

Titana
2005-Nov-09, 04:23 AM
There is a question that pops up out of all of this.

Intelligent design is presented as a ligitimate scientific theory and an alternative to Darwinism, but a close look at the arguments show they dont pass scientific muster. So why are scientist worried? Some answers here:


www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html

DemonWerx
2005-Nov-09, 04:38 AM
I hope things will turn around... I have the fear that since there has been one win they are going to steamroller the rest.

hewhocaves
2005-Nov-09, 04:44 AM
Scientists are worried because funding, legislation and the education of the next generation are in the hands of non-scientists. The results: an ignorant society, a return to hard core religion and the US as a second rate power will affect you whether you learned about evolution or had a 45 minute study period.

It is, IMHO a legitamite concern. The US is (fundamentally - pun intended) a religious country. Five hundred years from now it might be the 1960s that were the abberation and not the rule.

John

Hugh Jass
2005-Nov-09, 05:39 AM
There is a question that pops up out of all of this.

Intelligent design is presented as a ligitimate scientific theory and an alternative to Darwinism, but a close look at the arguments show they dont pass scientific muster. So why are scientist worried? Some answers here:


www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html

If we had nothing to worry about this wouldn't have come this far. The fact is the general populace can be quite ignorant. The reason we need to teach and re-teach the same basic priniples of science to start class in every year from ~grade 7 up through first year college chemistry and biology, is because scientific theory and arguments can be hard for non-scientifically minded to understand. Putting the onus on the IDers to prove they are scientific hasn't worked yet, pointing out that there's no science in the idea hasn't worked either. In some ways it will be up to the scientific community to get scared, stay scared and speak out to keep this from going further.

hewhocaves
2005-Nov-09, 05:56 AM
hey Hugh...

I'd like to take the liberty of qualifying the word "ignorant". i presume you mean "uninformed" rather than "unintelligent". I only bring this up because colloquially, I've seen it used in both places.

But I agree - it's amazing that we have to go through the basics of science time after time after time and yet by the time they have a BA in whatever most people still don't get it. however, i feel that part of the problem (at least) falls on the educational system and the advantage that coorporate america derives from a clueless public. After all, these are the same people who can keep up with the minutiae of hollywood, the statistics of 700+ MLB players, every conspiracy theorey and the correct pronunciation and syntax of Imperial Klingoneese. We're not talking idiots here, just misguided people.

And part of the blame needs to fall squarely in science's lap for its presentation of the sciences as something impossibly hard instead of something we can all understand. It's not rocket science (except when it is).

John

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Nov-09, 06:01 AM
I just blogged about this (http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2005/11/08/kansas-school-board-once-again-opts-to-crush-childrens-futures/).

DemonWerx
2005-Nov-09, 06:02 AM
Great word - minutiae

Minutiae refers to any small or otherwise incidental detail. (Wikipedia)

For those of us not so learned.

Enzp
2005-Nov-09, 07:34 AM
This is nothing less than an attack upon us all by the American Taliban.

It is a Newton thing: Once an ignorance is in place, it remains in place unless acted upon by an external education.

Ken G
2005-Nov-09, 07:53 AM
Intelligent design is presented as a ligitimate scientific theory and an alternative to Darwinism, but a close look at the arguments show they dont pass scientific muster. So why are scientist worried? Some answers here:
www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html
Anyone who hasn't heard about the nylonase enzyme should really take a look at this link, the last bit is quite illuminating.

MrClean
2005-Nov-09, 10:30 AM
Ignorance is bliss, and there is no more blissfull place than Kansas.


Ahhh ahhh Kansas, Kansas! (past state promotional add, if you lived here, you'd know.)

Dave Mitsky
2005-Nov-09, 01:03 PM
The Dover school board ID crowd is gone at least. All of them were defeated in yesterday's elections.

Dave Mitsky

Argos
2005-Nov-09, 01:10 PM
Ironically, a major Vatican representative says (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html) "the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible".

Doodler
2005-Nov-09, 01:53 PM
You'll all have to forgive me that I lay the blame for this travesty squarely at the feet of religion itself. The ongoing, persistant belief in supreme, transcendental or otherworldly influences on the world around us, Christian, Muslim, or whatever, is the very cancer that allows this kind of symptom to continue coming back. Intelligent Design and Creationism are the sores on the body of a humanity inflicted with religious herpes. You keep healing the wounds, but the disease persists, and cannot truly be cured.

I'm sorry, but I willingly say this knowing I'm going to offend, but you won't be rid of this kind of backwards and barbaric thinking until you purge humanity of its neolithic spiritual baggage.

pumpkinpie
2005-Nov-09, 02:05 PM
This is an issue and now a decision that disturbs a great number of us here at BAUT. Since we are taking the time to express our feelings here on the board, we should also *each* take some time soon to compose and send a letter to the Kansas board of education. I'm sure they are already getting many letters, but they need to get more. Please think about sending a letter, and asking your friends to do so too. I'll be taking some time to do so myself today.

Swift
2005-Nov-09, 02:08 PM
9/11 created a bad atmosphere for science. Things will turn around. Evolution is true and factual, backed by a fossil record with amazingly few gaps.

JIM COLYER http://www.jimcolyer.com
Jim, just out of curiosity, why do you think there is a connection with 9/11? In my opinion, this started way before then and I have not noticed any change in the public attitude to science, either for better or worse.

Moose
2005-Nov-09, 02:21 PM
Swift, I'd actually tend to agree with Jim Colyer's assessment. I agree that the anti-science crowd have always been there, but until 9/11, they were relatively powerless.

Since 9/11, they've opportunistically wrapped themselves in the US flag. "Not a patriot" was a very hard accusation to politically counter. Thankfully, folks are starting to see this accusation for the bovine waste matter it is.

But make no mistake, science has lost ground since 9/11.

gethen
2005-Nov-09, 02:26 PM
This Kansas school board "redefined science?" This seems like a pretty incredible step to take, given their lack of any connection to the scientific community. Defining scientific terms seems to me to be a pretty exacting science in itself. However, I'd guess that if they think evolution is iffy since it's "only a theory," they might not understand what the term "science" means either.

Swift
2005-Nov-09, 02:29 PM
This Kansas school board "redefined science?" This seems like a pretty incredible step to take, given their lack of any connection to the scientific community. Defining scientific terms seems to me to be a pretty exacting science in itself. However, I'd guess that if they think evolution is iffy since it's "only a theory," they might not understand what the term "science" means either.
My bold...
Might? MIGHT? I don't think there is any question about it. ;)

Swift
2005-Nov-09, 02:32 PM
I posted this (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=597261&postcount=178) over in the ATM discussion about creation versus evolution.

The CNN.com QuickVote poll this morning is

Do you think intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in schools?
As of 8:51 EST, the vote was Yes: 29% (23391 votes), No: 71% (56347 votes).

gethen
2005-Nov-09, 02:33 PM
My bold...
Might? MIGHT? I don't think there is any question about it. ;)
I thought the sarcasm was appropriate here.;)

Captain Kidd
2005-Nov-09, 02:35 PM
Call it a blasé attitude, but in the long term I’m not too worried (somewhat yes, don't get me wrong). I see it as circular, kind of like fashion; or more like a pendulum. Right now it’s swinging over to the conservative side of the line. The big question for me is: is it a sine wave that’ll continue to swing equally to each side, or is there a dampening force acting upon it so that each swing from conservative to liberal and back is less pronounced and we eventually end up in the middle?

Of course the question then is, is that middle acceptable to both sides? If so, maybe we’ll end up with a fairly even society. If not, then the pendulum will likely continue to swing forever or until something breaks.

As one reporter said this morning, in 1999 Kansas tried this, the voters booted them out the following election, installed a more moderate board, and the decisions were reversed. Let’s see what happens next year. That’ll give a good feel for how the Kansasans… (Kansasians?) really feel about it.

gethen
2005-Nov-09, 02:36 PM
I posted this (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=597261&postcount=178) over in the ATM discussion about creation versus evolution.

The CNN.com QuickVote poll this morning is

As of 8:51 EST, the vote was Yes: 29% (23391 votes), No: 71% (56347 votes).
A few weeks ago I saw a poll with the opposite results. If I weren't such a pessimist I'd start to wonder if all the recent publicity about Kansas and Dover has started to worry the average American a bit about the corruption of the scientific method by local school boards.
But I am a pessimist, so it's probably not happening.

gwiz
2005-Nov-09, 02:37 PM
I fail to see how ID explains anything. The designer must obviously be very complex if he/she/it is to design all the complexity of life, so where did the complexity of the designer come from? Did the designer evolve? Was the designer designed by a super-designer? Is it designers all the way up? Any suggestions?

Swift
2005-Nov-09, 02:41 PM
A few weeks ago I saw a poll with the opposite results. If I weren't such a pessimist I'd start to wonder if all the recent publicity about Kansas and Dover has started to worry the average American a bit about the corruption of the scientific method by local school boards.
But I am a pessimist, so it's probably not happening.
Do you remember who did that poll? My impression from other polls is that the readers of CNN.com tend to be more liberal, and so may not reflect a meaningful average for all of the US. Doesn't stop me from being happy with the result, I just know to take it with a grain of salt.

gethen
2005-Nov-09, 02:44 PM
Not offhand, but I'll try to find it.
O.K. I think the poll I remember is the one discussed here (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21891). Although now that I look at it, that poll apparently didn't address the teaching of ID in schools, only the beliefs of the respondents. I should note that the website I've linked appears to be associated with some religious group.

Doodler
2005-Nov-09, 02:54 PM
I posted this (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=597261&postcount=178) over in the ATM discussion about creation versus evolution.

The CNN.com QuickVote poll this morning is

As of 8:51 EST, the vote was Yes: 29% (23391 votes), No: 71% (56347 votes).

Ah yes, the infamous CNN QuickVote poll. Vote early, vote often.

Moose
2005-Nov-09, 02:55 PM
I fail to see how ID explains anything. The designer must obviously be very complex if he/she/it is to design all the complexity of life, so where did the complexity of the designer come from? Did the designer evolve? Was the designer designed by a super-designer? Is it designers all the way up? Any suggestions?

You're not wrong. "It's turtles all the way down".

No suggestions to offer, though. The house of cards that is ID collapes if you look at it funny. Or if you look at it at all.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-09, 03:12 PM
A recent thread discussed a poll of attitudes towards evolution and creationism in school curricula. Here it is. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=30992&highlight=poll+evolution)

hewhocaves
2005-Nov-09, 03:16 PM
I dragged out the ole comic strip and added to it today. Link's at the bottom...

Doodler, I don't believe that religion and science have to be mutually exclusive. I agree that fundamentalism and science come into direct conflct, but religion by its nature does not have to conflict with science.

Cap Kid...
I'd make a joke about the people of Kansas, but I'm afraid it'd violate the board rules. However, the joke would reference a slang name for a donkey and its similarity to the back half of the word "Kansas".

One last thing..
In public schools, 65% is considered 'passing' (a D--, but still passing). Imagine if your doctor only knew 65% of your anatomy or your mechanic knew 65% of your car.
We have rigorous standards for those things which we think vital to our existance. It remains a failing on education and science's part to not convince the general public of the necessity of basic science and the scientific method.

To quote from the idiots at the top. We need to "win hearts and minds" before we can do anything else.

John

Damburger
2005-Nov-09, 03:18 PM
9/11 created a bad atmosphere for science. Things will turn around. Evolution is true and factual, backed by a fossil record with amazingly few gaps.

JIM COLYER http://www.jimcolyer.com

Yes, 9/11 vastly increased the number of non sequiturs in America.

Doodler
2005-Nov-09, 03:38 PM
Doodler, I don't believe that religion and science have to be mutually exclusive. I agree that fundamentalism and science come into direct conflct, but religion by its nature does not have to conflict with science.

Horsefeathers...

The whole concept is fundamentally incompatable with scientific reality. Religion is not subject to fact, unsubjectable of disproof through testing, and relies on repetitive and indoctrinated dogma over analysis and understanding.

Its the proverbial wool one pulls over their own eyes to convince themselves that they are anything other than utterly insignificant in the universe. A lie that because we're capable of thought and imagination, that we're something special in a universe utterly beyond our capacity to fully grasp.

I'm sorry, I'll take modern knowledge and understanding over blind faith in the wild eyed ramblings of superstitious barbarians utterly terrified of the unknown and fearful of their own irrelevence any day of the week, twice on Sundays during the halftime report.

Damburger
2005-Nov-09, 03:40 PM
Horsefeathers...

The whole concept is fundamentally incompatable with scientific reality. Religion is not subject to fact, unsubjectable of disproof through testing, and relies on repetitive and indoctrinated dogma over analysis and understanding.

Its the proverbial wool one pulls over their own eyes to convince themselves that they are anything other than utterly insignificant in the universe. A lie that because we're capable of thought and imagination, that we're something special in a universe utterly beyond our capacity to fully grasp.

I'm sorry, I'll take modern knowledge and understanding over blind faith in the wild eyed ramblings of superstitious barbarians utterly terrified of the unknown and fearful of their own irrelevence any day of the week, twice on Sundays during the halftime report.

Is all religious belief incompatible with science? What about Deism?

Swift
2005-Nov-09, 03:55 PM
9/11 created a bad atmosphere for science. Things will turn around.
Damburger uses the following quote for his signature

"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995
I wonder if the Millennium has as much to do with this as 9/11/2001?

hewhocaves
2005-Nov-09, 04:01 PM
Horsefeathers...

The whole concept is fundamentally incompatable with scientific reality. Religion is not subject to fact, unsubjectable of disproof through testing, and relies on repetitive and indoctrinated dogma over analysis and understanding.

Its the proverbial wool one pulls over their own eyes to convince themselves that they are anything other than utterly insignificant in the universe. A lie that because we're capable of thought and imagination, that we're something special in a universe utterly beyond our capacity to fully grasp.

I'm sorry, I'll take modern knowledge and understanding over blind faith in the wild eyed ramblings of superstitious barbarians utterly terrified of the unknown and fearful of their own irrelevence any day of the week, twice on Sundays during the halftime report.

Doodler... religion has to do with morality, right and wrong and the social contract. it's what tells us whether or not we should do something rather than if we can do something.
science is concerned with explaning the visible (and invisible) universe around us. It's concerned with existing phenomenon.

If you removed us from the universe, science would still continue without skipping a moment. And if you removed us to a place with different universal laws or to a void outside the universe we would still need a set of social and moral guidelines for our society.

The two should not interfere with each other at all, but operate in parallel. which is why when they do it creates such a mess. Like putting a glove over your feet and shoes on your hands.

Hutch
2005-Nov-09, 04:21 PM
Doodler;

You make a strong point, but one that in its' own dogmatic assertions indicates (IMHO) why we all are bemoaning the actions of the Kansas BOE (may the Board be used on their Backsides one day soon)

Note the quote below from one of my favorite authors:


History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
--From the Notesbooks of Larzarus Long, by RA Heinlein


You defend most vigorusly the first sentence--and for the record I concur. But the vast majority of people tend to fall (IMHO) into the category the second and third sentences and to summarily dismiss them or call them "superstitious barbarians" is one sure way to see to it that science stays on the margins.

We need to teach science...good science...and oppose attempts to impose bad science for any reason. But we do not need to make religion an enemy.

Rendering moral teachings, love of one's neighbor, charity and giving to
Religion does not impact to rendering the facts, the observations, the experiments, and the therories to Science. I think (and I've not been in a church for 20 years) that they can co-exist.

But calling them names only irritates and sets us an us vs. them dicotomy--and right now, there may be more thems that uses's.

Interesting discussion. Press on.

captain swoop
2005-Nov-09, 04:24 PM
we would still need a set of social and moral guidelines for our society
So why wouldn't an Atheist be moral?

OK, I know that's not the area we are supposed to cover here but it had to be said.

Doodler
2005-Nov-09, 04:29 PM
Doodler... religion has to do with morality, right and wrong and the social contract. it's what tells us whether or not we should do something rather than if we can do something.

Feh, who writes the rules, and who the heck made them the authority? Since when do concepts of right and wrong and social contract come down only through religion? I'm an atheist, are you telling me that my lack of religious belief makes me inherently amoral/immoral and unethical?

The other problem with your line of thought is the inability of the most devout members of religions to observe the lines. The crap in Kansas is a clear cut pie in the face of your arguement about the separation of religion and science, because the damned religious side won't stay the heck out of the way of science.

And Religion is a heckuva lot more than just a morality play, or crap like we're seeing in Kansas wouldn't be happening. Religion is a preconceived notion of the nature of the universe around us seen through eyes blinded by dogma and doctrine.

Science documents observable phenomena and derives its conclusions based only on the facts in evidence without preconception, acknowledging that new data may render previous conclusions inaccurate. Religions take observable phenomena and do their darnedest to wrap what they see around the preconception of dogma and most cannot accept the possibility that new data may challenge their preconvceived notions. Dogma must be right, or the whole concept of the infallible word of God is wrong, and there goes the whole foundation of the religion. Suddenly you face the reality that this supreme being isn't so supreme and may not have the answers you're looking for, or just may well be plain wrong. That's poison to religion. God must always be right, therefore what is written as the "word of God" cannot be challenged, no matter what new information and understanding is introduced into human consciousness. Its willful ignorance.

Where Science is superior to Religion in the most important way is this. Science can admit it might be wrong. Religions must always be right, or the deity can no longer be seen as infallible. Science is constantly in the process of re-writing itself in the face of new understanding.

Religion is, and always will be, the shelter of the weak too lazy to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. If you can look at a situation, and understand for yourself what that situation is and how to deal with it, why then do you need a supreme being looking over your shoulder? The whole concept is unneeded by the critically thinking mind.

Damburger
2005-Nov-09, 04:39 PM
Damburger uses the following quote for his signature

I wonder if the Millennium has as much to do with this as 9/11/2001?

And I wonder what you are implying about Carl Sagan...

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-09, 04:39 PM
Religion is, and always will be, the shelter of the weak too lazy to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

That's rather Ad Hominem and presumptuous. I agree with most of your points, including


Feh, who writes the rules, and who the heck made them the authority? Since when do concepts of right and wrong and social contract come down only through religion? I'm an atheist, are you telling me that my lack of religious belief makes me inherently amoral/immoral and unethical?

I agree with that. While I'm not straight-out Atheist, I'm close enough that this would apply to me.

However, I have many intelligent friends that are religious. Also:


I'm sorry, I'll take modern knowledge and understanding over blind faith in the wild eyed ramblings of superstitious barbarians utterly terrified of the unknown and fearful of their own irrelevence any day of the week, twice on Sundays during the halftime report.

So everyone that's religious is automatically a "superstitious barbarian" that has "blind faith" and are "wild-eyed", without being able to "take modern knowledge and understanding"?

I'm sorry, but even though I'm not religious, I'm going to play Devil's Avocado here and say: You cannot judge a majority based on a minority. In this case, you are taking rather extremist views and attitudes, and assuming that all fit within the category of religion are like that.

It's simply not true.

Also, for the record, I think that religion isn't as beneficial to society as people claim. It seems to me that morality and ethics are learned at the home more from any religion, and are also learned from society. In fact, today, it's much more "acceptable" to concentrate on the "good" and "nice" aspects of the bible (for Christianity, at least - I know there are other religions, I just focus on that which I have the most knowledge of), instead of the "hellfire" and "damnation" parts of it. However, the "Hellfire" and "Damnation" parts of the Bible never disappeared -- just the focus of society shifted, not based on religion, but SOCIETAL morality.

Damburger
2005-Nov-09, 04:41 PM
So why wouldn't an Atheist be moral?

OK, I know that's not the area we are supposed to cover here but it had to be said.

I would argue that, all things being equal, an Atheist has a better moral compass than what Nietzche refered to as the 'afterworldsmen' (at least in my copy of Thus Spake Zarathrustra. It probably sounds catchier in german). Somebody who believes in an idylic afterlife has far less regard for this life.

Argos
2005-Nov-09, 04:44 PM
A question: should scientists get into the arena to discuss ID versus Evolution? Isn´t there the peril that people may understand any scientific opinion on ID as a sign that the issue is at least debatable, hence respectable? Should scientists let themselves be dragged into that discussion or reject it altogether for the sake of rationality?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-09, 04:47 PM
I say that scientists should do whatever it takes to show people the truth. If that means debates, then so be it - but go in prepared for ANYTHING.

Argos
2005-Nov-09, 04:50 PM
I say that scientists should do whatever it takes to show people the truth.

They do it all the time, to no avail...

Doodler
2005-Nov-09, 04:53 PM
That's rather Ad Hominem and presumptuous. I agree with most of your points, including



I agree with that. While I'm not straight-out Atheist, I'm close enough that this would apply to me.

However, I have many intelligent friends that are religious. Also:



So everyone that's religious is automatically a "superstitious barbarian" that has "blind faith" and are "wild-eyed", without being able to "take modern knowledge and understanding"?

I'm sorry, but even though I'm not religious, I'm going to play Devil's Avocado here and say: You cannot judge a majority based on a minority. In this case, you are taking rather extremist views and attitudes, and assuming that all fit within the category of religion are like that.

It's simply not true.

Also, for the record, I think that religion isn't as beneficial to society as people claim. It seems to me that morality and ethics are learned at the home more from any religion, and are also learned from society. In fact, today, it's much more "acceptable" to concentrate on the "good" and "nice" aspects of the bible (for Christianity, at least - I know there are other religions, I just focus on that which I have the most knowledge of), instead of the "hellfire" and "damnation" parts of it. However, the "Hellfire" and "Damnation" parts of the Bible never disappeared -- just the focus of society shifted, not based on religion, but SOCIETAL morality.

That's why I apologized in advance, I knew full well going into this I was going to step on toes, but if this debate is going to be complete, I wasn't going to back down from taking the unpopular view, even if it cost me a bit.

As for anyone following a religion being a "wild eyed barbarian", no, I don't think that. I think they are foolishly beholden to the words of "wild eyed barbarians". As with all things, there are no absolutes, but I stand by my belief that faith is willing blindness to understanding. Of course, that blindness is directly proportional to the degree of faith. The problem with faith, no matter how lax or devout it is, is that its always going to be a line which a believer in that faith cannot cross. The point at which, no matter what you tell them, they just won't bend.

I was wrong to have put parts of my previous post in terms of absolutes, always a bad practice (and habit of mine), but I stand by the fundamental idea I presented.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-09, 04:57 PM
The problem with faith, no matter how lax or devout it is, is that its always going to be a line which a believer in that faith cannot cross. The point at which, no matter what you tell them, they just won't bend.

More often than not, this does seem to be true, I agree.

Doodler
2005-Nov-09, 05:15 PM
More often than not, this does seem to be true, I agree.

And in particular reference to Kansas, its a line which some of those, who's faith is strong and ethics/morality is sadly lacking (despite Hewhocaves assertion that faith promotes these things), will do anything to move in the direction of dogma. Packaging Intelligent Design as something "separate" from Creationism is just plain old, bald faced lying to get what they want.

Its a control thing. Religions tend to get antsy around people who openly disagree with what they see and the "infallible word". Undermines devotion when their authority on a subject is questioned.

As for me judging all religions by the voices of a "minority". Well, that's regrettable, but if the institution intends to pursue these policies through the voice of their "minority" of utterly devout followers, then those who are a part of that are due some accountability for their association. Their participation in their belief is tantamount to giving them franchise to speak for the whole when they present themselves as the "voice" of the organization.

If you're going to be a part of an organization, you'd better be darned sure what that organization promotes is what you want to support, because it WILL reflect on you.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-09, 05:17 PM
Doodler, what about the case of Lysenkoism? Doesn't it show that non-religious forces can skew science as much as religious ones?

pumpkinpie
2005-Nov-09, 05:26 PM
In the article (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813/) linked in the BA's log, board memeber John Bacon, who voted in favor of the standards, said
...the move “gets rid of a lot of dogma that’s being taught in the classroom today.”

What dogma is he talking about? According to the dictionary (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/d/d0323500.html),
dog·ma

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).


I'd guess from this definition, he means the "authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion" of evolution. Not the theory of evolution, but the dogma of evolution.
But I'd like to know exactly what he meant.

Halcyon Dayz
2005-Nov-09, 05:33 PM
Lysenkoism jived pretty well with official ideology.
An ideology that many consider to be a secular 'religion'.

Titana
2005-Nov-09, 05:34 PM
I fail to see how ID explains anything. The designer must obviously be very complex if he/she/it is to design all the complexity of life, so where did the complexity of the designer come from? Did the designer evolve? Was the designer designed by a super-designer? Is it designers all the way up? Any suggestions?

Its just as an article i read mentioned:
ID is not a theory. it is a hypothesis, but it is not even a scientific hypothesis because there is no way to experimentally verify its central claim that a supreme being intervened in the creation of earth.

Like religion ID is a beleif. And while many people take there religion as facts, science would go no where if it operated that way. Many of the great discoveries from desease-cures to advanced tecnologies and trips to the Moon would never had been possible without the rigorous scientific process that carefully distinguishes between (belief and testable facts).


Another interesting article i read is here:

(Nobel prize winners speak up to support Evolution)

www.livescience.com/othernews/_ap_050916_id_opponents.html


Titana..........

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-09, 05:40 PM
Thanks, Titana! I had to use an editorial for class tomorrow (to practice Rhetorical Analysis), and this link led to a link to an editorial on ID destroying Evolution! Exactly what I needed!

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-09, 05:41 PM
Lysenkoism jived pretty well with official ideology.
An ideology that many consider to be a secular 'religion'.'Secular religion' is, of course, an oxymoron. :)

Doodler
2005-Nov-09, 05:42 PM
Doodler, what about the case of Lysenkoism? Doesn't it show that non-religious forces can skew science as much as religious ones?

I'm not familiar with the term, but I understand the follow up question, and you're absolutely correct. Heck, look at how politics is wreaking havoc on any discussion of cimate change. Its not that religion is the only offender, its just the one being dealt with in this particular discussion.

crosscountry
2005-Nov-09, 05:44 PM
I'm happy for Kansas. Once the employment market realizes that people from Kansas aren't as good as all the other states, there will be less competition for me!!!!

Titana
2005-Nov-09, 05:49 PM
Lonewulf Thanks, Titana! I had to use an editorial for class tomorrow (to practice Rhetorical Analysis), and this link led to a link to an editorial on ID destroying Evolution! Exactly what I needed!

;) Your welcome.........




Titana..........

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-09, 05:53 PM
Lysenkoism. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=594436#post594436)

I raised this example because I wanted to question whether religion should be blamed at all. I see this kind of interference of ideology in science more as a general pattern that cuts across religions, political ideologies, ethnicities, etc., but is not a necessary consequence of any particular religion, political ideology, or ethnicity.

On another note, I'd like to say that, if some people are so poorly informed that they let themselves be persuaded by ID advocates, then something went wrong in their education, as well. Who's responsible for that?

hewhocaves
2005-Nov-09, 05:55 PM
Doodler,

We're not as far apart in thinking as this discussion is making us seem. I've been an agnostic for the better part of two decades and with the exception of weddings and funerals haven't sepped foot inside a church in about as long.

Please try to draw a distinction between the inent of something and it's execution. Both religion and science have made mistakes in their execution (cough-cold fusion-cough). I'll grant you religion's had quite a head start, but that doesn't mean athiesm and science are scott free. In both cases the system is susceptible to abuses. We should concentrate on the abuse and seperate it from the whole.

And I did not mean to inadvertently suggest that athiests are amoral. for that I apologize.

and yes, I agree that the right wing of the american politic is using religion as a tool for power politics. And that's an abuse of religion, not a use of it, again referring back to that distinction.

Here in Morgantown WV, where the local newspaper has had ID articles (and 'debates') over the past few weeks, I was pretty shocked to see nothing in the paper about Pennsylvania or Kansas. Maybe tomorow, or maybe it's becoming 'old news'.

I've had the same discussion with Marxists who are about as agnostic as you can get who want to do the same thing to science that the right would like to do. They want science to fit in with the dialectic. (where two sides of an argument are 'fused' together to form a combined opinion.)
Science is a powerful thing because of its immutability and ability to change. Immutability because of its resistance to popular pressures. (you can't repeal the law of gravity). Ability to change as we refine our imperfect picture of the world.
I would submit, then, that the people who fear this independence would use whatever was at hand to destroy science. In other words, if religion didn't exist then they would use another tool against science.

john

crosscountry
2005-Nov-09, 06:02 PM
does anyone here actually put creationism on equal ground as a true theory?


that's the root of this entire issue. creationists say ID is a theory because they want ID to be a theory

Doodler
2005-Nov-09, 06:13 PM
Yeah, which is what Disinfo Agent dropped into the discussion about Lysenkoism. Everyone wants to be right, so they'll do just about anything to make themselves look right when the results are published, or they'll just get their hands into the process and try to direct the outcome.

Foolish in any event.

And not to worry, I didn't really think you though anyone immoral, just that your argument was a bit incomplete as stated.

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Nov-09, 06:49 PM
Looks like we're not in Oz anymore. Here, Toto! We've got a tornado to catch!
:)

Swift
2005-Nov-09, 06:56 PM
And I wonder what you are implying about Carl Sagan...
I wasn't impying anything about Sagan. I like the quote in your signature and used it as a counter argument to the idea that this swing away from science was somehow related to 9/11. I'm saying that it might have as much to do with the nonsense around the millenium, which was only two years earlier. Before I saw your signature I had never heard the quote nor knew it was from Sagan.

N C More
2005-Nov-09, 07:05 PM
No suggestions to offer, though. The house of cards that is ID collapes if you look at it funny. Or if you look at it at all.

Apparently not, if you look at it through the eyes of "the faithful".

This is sad...really, really sad. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/traurig/g040.gif

Joff
2005-Nov-09, 07:14 PM
In countering ID I think a possible line to focus on is mechanism.

OK, so let's assume the bacterium flagellum is designed. Now: how was it implemented? what process happened to get the flagellum "code" into the bacterial DNA? what traces might this process leave? etc.

I have seen absolutely no discussion of these matters and they seem to me to be critical to good science.

aurora
2005-Nov-09, 07:22 PM
In countering ID I think a possible line to focus on is mechanism.

OK, so let's assume the bacterium flagellum is designed. Now: how was it implemented? what process happened to get the flagellum "code" into the bacterial DNA? what traces might this process leave? etc.

I have seen absolutely no discussion of these matters and they seem to me to be critical to good science.

But ID is not science. So the topic never comes up.

Unless you redefine science to = religion.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-09, 07:47 PM
In countering ID I think a possible line to focus on is mechanism.

OK, so let's assume the bacterium flagellum is designed. Now: how was it implemented? what process happened to get the flagellum "code" into the bacterial DNA? what traces might this process leave? etc.

I have seen absolutely no discussion of these matters and they seem to me to be critical to good science.
I Think, My FAVOURITE Counter-Point, Has to Do, With Examples, of Idiotic Design:

Like, The Human Reproductive System, Whose Bright Idea, Was It, To Run The Urethra, Riight Through, The Reproductive Vent; The Proverbial, Sewage Line, Through The Playground, Type of Design?

Joff
2005-Nov-09, 08:03 PM
In countering ID I think a possible line to focus on is mechanism.

OK, so let's assume the bacterium flagellum is designed. Now: how was it implemented? what process happened to get the flagellum "code" into the bacterial DNA? what traces might this process leave? etc.

I have seen absolutely no discussion of these matters and they seem to me to be critical to good science.But ID is not science. So the topic never comes up.

Unless you redefine science to = religion.Which redefinition I understand is happening in Kansas.

However my desire here is to add another line of argument. The more different ways that are common knowledge to counter the ID ambush of science, the better.


I Think My FAVOURITE Counter-Point Has to Do With Examples of Idiotic Design:

Like, The Human Reproductive System: Whose Bright Idea Was It To Run The Urethra Right Through The Reproductive Vent; The Proverbial, Sewage Line Through The Playground, Type of Design?Another good counter; I'm trying to develop the mechanism challenge to add to this sort of thing.

farmerjumperdon
2005-Nov-09, 08:05 PM
Can I call these people nuts? I think it is Kansans. (No apostrophe).

peter eldergill
2005-Nov-09, 08:05 PM
Like, The Human Reproductive System: Whose Bright Idea Was It To Run The Urethra Right Through The Reproductive Vent; The Proverbial, Sewage Line Through The Playground, Type of Design?
Can't ID proponents just counter with "we don't know why God did it that way, we can't know the mind of God..."?

Pete

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-09, 08:19 PM
Can't ID proponents just counter with "we don't know why God did it that way, we can't know the mind of God..."?

Pete
True ...

But, Just Getting them, To Admit That, Is Part of The Battle!!!

UNFALLSIFIABLE, and All!

:wall:

Joff
2005-Nov-09, 08:26 PM
Can't ID proponents just counter with "we don't know why God did it that way, we can't know the mind of God..."?Mmm.. they probably can and do, but they shouldn't if they wish to maintain a scientific veneer. They might more circumspectly talk about the mind of the Designer of course. Even so, the ostensible grounding of ID is that the design is Intelligent, so examples of poor design are indeed a valid counter.

How does the mechanism argument sound to you?

Swift
2005-Nov-09, 08:35 PM
I like ZaphodBeeblebrox's ideas about "bad designs". There are a lot of bad, or at least meaningless ones, just on humans: nipples on men, the appendix, the design of the knees and the spine (look at all the problems with those). IIRC, there was a Scientific American article many years ago on design improvements for humans (it wasn't about ID, more like about genetic engineering).

The other counter argument against ID is to get ID to explain current examples of evolution in action, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or the development of the flu pandemics. I suppose the IDers would say that the designer had a design review with his/her team and decided to make some changes before the new model year came out. :p

pumpkinpie
2005-Nov-09, 09:06 PM
I just read another thing that made me say WHOA!!:eek: (forgive me if it's been discussed already, but I have never seen this angle.)
It's a page from the website christian-oneness.org ("http://www.christian-oneness.org), describing a letter sent to the board in support of ID in June, 2005. The author tries to state that ID is ok to teach alongside evolution because they are both "scientific theories built on religious foundation."

First, the letters show that, while "intelligent design" describes a group of scientific theories built on a religious assumption, the strictly naturalistic view of evolution espoused in the science standards drafting subcommittee's majority report also consists of a group of scientific theories built on a religious foundation. The religion of strict naturalism is pantheism—the belief that the only god that exists is Nature and its Laws. Pantheism is an ancient religious concept, well recognized as a religion in other contexts.

A note added based on yesterday's decision:

The Board is to be commended for standing up to worldwide ridicule in the media to declare that the public schools should not be used to indoctrinate students in an essentially religious philosophy, even if it is a philosophy that most scientists wrongly insist is absolutely essential to science.

bolding mine
So because evolution is naturalistic, which has pantheism as a religion, then evolution is linked to a religion! Gee, why didn't I ever make that connection? :doh:

No--the author is trying to assign a religion to evolution, so the argument "you teach that religious philosophy, why can't you teach ID?" is valid.

The author also states that evolution is an assumption, because "the occurrence of evolution millions of years before observable time began is also scientifically unverifiable," just as we say ID is scientifically unverifiable. Just because humans weren't around to observe it doesn't mean we don't have evidence we can observe today! That is true ignorance .

Peptron
2005-Nov-09, 09:18 PM
Another BAD design, that also is a proof that evolutions doesn't always involve "improvement", is the mutation of a gene on humans that now makes it unable to generate vitamin C. The gene to generate vitamin C is still there on humans, but just got mutated in a way that it cannot do its job anymore. Even worse is that humans cannot live without vitamin C, so this mutation would have been a fatal one. But, lucky that we are, almost every other organisms can generate their own vitamin C, so we can get it from them from eating. Some other organisms too got a mutation making their body unable to generate vitamin C. And there are a lot of other "deadly negative" mutations that occured on humans and other organism, but that the environment made it so that it wasn't really deadly after all.

But really, those that voted in favor of ID, what education did they get? I mean, I really can't get how people can't grasp the concepts of evolution... I mean I learned most of the concepts in secondary school, and most of the people that drop from school drop later than that! There is so much in evolution, and it's working are so obvious. I really don't get it. To me somebody that disbelieves evolution but understand the concept of the flu and of vaccines is like somebody that disbelieves electricity and uses a computer.
I also think that ID is much harder to understand than evolution. ID just take too many things for granted. I wouldn't be satisfied without the answer of where is the designer coming from, or more precisely not satisfied with not being ALLOWED to wonder where the designer is coming from... And I think that ID just ignores too many things... The avian flu is expected to mutate to be infexious from human to human... I wouldn't like the idea of being left with no answer like ID is actually doing.

But then again I know that their goal really isn't to explain anything, but to get political power by presenting the idea of ignoring reality as good and understanding the world as bad. My view is those that voted for presenting ID really do know evolution, but just don't care to ignore reality if it can give them power.


To summarize (and partly quote somebody that I forgot...):
Anything that I don't understand cannot possibly be understood by any person living or yet to be born on this planet. Yeah, I'm that pretentious.
I don't understand differential calculus: so Go... err... The Designer is behind it.

Doodler
2005-Nov-09, 09:31 PM
I like ZaphodBeeblebrox's ideas about "bad designs". There are a lot of bad, or at least meaningless ones, just on humans: nipples on men, the appendix, the design of the knees and the spine (look at all the problems with those). IIRC, there was a Scientific American article many years ago on design improvements for humans (it wasn't about ID, more like about genetic engineering).

The other counter argument against ID is to get ID to explain current examples of evolution in action, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or the development of the flu pandemics. I suppose the IDers would say that the designer had a design review with his/her team and decided to make some changes before the new model year came out. :p

Oh heck, now ya opened the OTHER can of worms, whether ID'ers allow for "micro"evolution versus "macro"evolution.

You wanna see some wild verbal gymnastics, get an IDer started on that line of cocaine.

Gillianren
2005-Nov-09, 09:36 PM
Here's what I think. I think those of us who are both religious and know science should be the ones fighting the fight, not those who says all religious people are ignorant savages. Now, granted, your average IDer's not going to accept my arguments in favor of evolution, on account of I'm a heathen, and I've yet to find a Pagan IDer. However, my Catholic mother could talk to other Catholics about it, because her faith is the same as theirs, and yet it doesn't blind her to science. (Or even with science, a la Tom Dolby.)

I think the courts need to make very clear that ID isn't science, it's religion, and therefore it cannot be taught in science class any more than we can teach that Pele creates volcanoes or Thor thunder. (And boy, wouldn't that go over well with the ID crowd!)

I have faith that, if children are properly taught science and those churches that accept evolution teach them that the two are not incompatible, ID will fade into the background. However, in this country at least, not all children belong to faiths that accept evolution. There are all those fundamentalist Biblical literalists, and so people are indoctrinated instead of educated. However, that should not excuse taking science out of science classes.

And, yes, if I were an intelligent designer, the first design modification I'd make on humans would be to make babies come out of the front, not between the legs where the size of the opening is so limited. The second thing I'd do would be fix backs, including and especially my own.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-09, 09:40 PM
Oh heck, now ya opened the OTHER can of worms, whether ID'ers allow for "micro"evolution versus "macro"evolution.

You wanna see some wild verbal gymnastics, get an IDer started on that line of cocaine.
Yeah ...

They'll Start with Some, Weak Arguement, About Mystical Kinds, Sometimes, Mentioning The Ark ...

Then, Sidestep your Objections, By Saying, "Noah, had The Clap!"

Titana
2005-Nov-09, 10:03 PM
I have read that one way to determine whether ID should be taken seriously as a theory, is to examen the central arguments ID proponents use to support their claim. The problem is that jornalist often neglect to do this and instead make the mistake of giving equal coverage to both sides (without even exploring science).




Titana...........

Damburger
2005-Nov-09, 10:11 PM
I wasn't impying anything about Sagan. I like the quote in your signature and used it as a counter argument to the idea that this swing away from science was somehow related to 9/11. I'm saying that it might have as much to do with the nonsense around the millenium, which was only two years earlier. Before I saw your signature I had never heard the quote nor knew it was from Sagan.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood

N C More
2005-Nov-10, 12:33 AM
And, yes, if I were an intelligent designer, the first design modification I'd make on humans would be to make babies come out of the front, not between the legs where the size of the opening is so limited. The second thing I'd do would be fix backs, including and especially my own.

I wish you were the intelligent designer...my son weighed over 10 pounds at birth. I'd have campaigned for that marsupial pouch idea (the birth weight being in ounces) being incorporated into the human design! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/a115.gif

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-10, 02:59 AM
A favorite example of the ID crowd for something that is so perfect that it is irreducibly complex is the human eye. I will ignore for now the fact that basically every proposed stage in the evolution of the so-called "irreducibly complex" eye still exists in nature.

However, the fact is that the human eye is very poorly designed. Sure it has a very effective liens and cornea for focusing light, but beyond that it is just a mess. For one thing, the photoreceptors in the human eye are in the back of the eye. Light has to pass through a layer of neuron axons, a layer of neuron cell bodies, then another 2 layers of axons and another 2 layers of cell bodies, then it has to pass through the cell bodies of the receptors themselves, and only then does it reach the photoreceptors.

The human fovea is an area where the axons and cell bodies have all been pushed to the side to reduce distortion, and in fact this is the only area of the eye that we can actually see clearly out of. However, it only has about a 1mm diameter, and because of this it only covers a very small area of the visual field. This is easy to test. Hold piece of paper with regular-sized text on it at arms length directly in front of your face, and focus on the text so you can read the top line. Now move the piece of paper about 3 inches down without altering your gaze. You can't read it at all. Other animals have horizontal foveas. Considering we are at our core a planes animal, and all our predators and prey would be about around the horizon, a horizontal fovea like many other planes animals have would be ideal. Better yet, having both a circular fovea and a horizontal fovea like a cheetah, which gives it very accurate forward vision and a very accurate vision of the horizon. Or perhaps like bats, who have a bunch of foveas scattered all over the visual field. We have one fovea, which I guess makes the most sense for an arboreal species. But that brings us back to evolving from apes once again.

While we are at it, why do we need a fovea at all? The way the photoreceptors are set up, they need to have their ends embedded in the layer of epithelial tissue that is directly behind the retina. Absolutely every vertebrate has this pattern. However, it is not necessary. Squids and octopi have eyes that are basically the same as our. The main difference is that their photoreceptors are on the top surface of their retina, with all the other tissue below them. They have sharp vision over their entire eye. Of course, the ID crowd could claim that setup is better for the environment squids and octopi came from, while the vertebrate eye is better for the environment vertebrate came from. But what about fish? There are fish, which naturally have vertebrate eyes, that live in effectively the same environment as any squid or octopus species you can find. Debating which structure is better is pointless. One of these approaches must be inferior to the other. Since two creatures in the same environment have different versions of the same structure with one version being inferior to the other is proof that design in nature is not optimal.

Another problem is that the retina is not directly attached to the epithelium that lies behind it. The tips of the photoreceptors are lodged in it, but the retina comes loose pretty easily. The retina is only really connected at the optic disk (aka blind spot) and the edges near the front of the eye. If a loose retina is not corrected quickly, the receptors die without the support of the epithelium and the person goes blind. This is what you hear about when they use laser to weld the retina back in place. Why couldn't there be connective tissue holding the retina in place? Outside the fovea there could be very small connective tissue pieces holding the retina in place without significantly effecting vision. After all, we are absolutely blind right near the center of vision where the optic nerve comes in (the optic disc or blind spot), but you have to play tricks on your eyes to even make it noticeable, and even then you would miss it if you weren't looking for it. And lets not forget that if we had eyes like a squid or octopus, we would not even have a blind spot or a need to anchor the retina.

While we are at it, what about the photoreceptors themselves? Humans have 3 types of color photoreceptors. Each one detects a different color. The more photoreceptors we have, the more colors we can differentiate. That is the problem with most color-blind people, they only have 2 photoreceptors so they can not tell apart many colors people with 3 photoreceptors can. But what about birds that have 5 different receptors? They can tell apart far more colors than humans can. And, as an aside, the evolution of the pigments used to detect light is well-established, by comparing the amino acid structure and gene loci it is clear that the pigments are very closely related evolutionarily, although to varying degrees.

Additionally, some vertebrates have small oil droplets in their retina that act as color filters, allowing them to differentiate even more colors than just their photoreceptors would allow.

Another problem is the fluid flow in the eye. The aqueous humor, which is the liquid around the lens and the liquid between the iris and the cornea is created near the Len's, flows around it, flows through the hole in the iris, enters the region between the cornea and the iris, flows through a dense mesh of cells around the edge of the cornea, and flows through a duct to be broken down elsewhere. If the mesh become a little too dense, the fluid flow is restricted and pressure builds. If the duct gets blocked somehow, the fluid flow is restricted and pressure builds up. If the edge of the iris gets too close to the edge of the cornea, the fluid flow is restricted and pressure builds up. The the lens moves a little too far forward or the iris a little too far back and they get too close, the fluid flow is restricted and the pressure builds up. If not corrected, the pressure will quickly grow. Since the eye is coated with a solid shell of connective tissue, the only place that can expand is around the optic nerve. This puts pressure on the neurons leading into the optic nerve, cutting off their ability to send messages. If a neuron can't send messages, it dies. What the victim ends up with is a gradual area of blindness around the edge of vision. Because we are so dependent on our fovea, most people do not start to notice the blind area until roughly 40% of their vision is irrevocably lost. This is called glaucoma, and is a very common disorder due to the poor design of the human eye.

crosscountry
2005-Nov-10, 02:59 AM
I like ZaphodBeeblebrox's ideas about "bad designs". There are a lot of bad, or at least meaningless ones, just on humans: nipples on men, the appendix, the design of the knees and the spine (look at all the problems with those). IIRC, there was a Scientific American article many years ago on design improvements for humans (it wasn't about ID, more like about genetic engineering).

The other counter argument against ID is to get ID to explain current examples of evolution in action, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or the development of the flu pandemics. I suppose the IDers would say that the designer had a design review with his/her team and decided to make some changes before the new model year came out. :p


These are both great ideas. They should be taught in school!!

Enzp
2005-Nov-10, 03:47 AM
I am not sure a letter from an outstater is the effective thing to do. Leave Kansas to the Kansans.

if you want to do something, write a letter to the school board in your own state, beacuse even if it isn't in the news now, believe me, these nuts are active in every state, working hard to wrest control of our kids minds away from the forces of reason. A letter of prevention is worth a book of cure.

ToSeek
2005-Nov-10, 04:12 AM
This is great:

A guide to the varieties of creationism (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/intelligent_des_11.html#more), by our friends at Panda's Thumb.

crosscountry
2005-Nov-10, 04:18 AM
thanks for the link. had to share that with my non-educated friends.

Gillianren
2005-Nov-10, 04:41 AM
I wish you were the intelligent designer...my son weighed over 10 pounds at birth. I'd have campaigned for that marsupial pouch idea (the birth weight being in ounces) being incorporated into the human design! http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/froehlich/a115.gif

While my daughter was only 7 lbs, 7 oz, her head didn't change shape. Believe me, I wish children came out somewhere else.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-10, 05:09 AM
This is great:

A guide to the varieties of creationism (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/intelligent_des_11.html#more), by our friends at Panda's Thumb.
Well, Now ....

That SURE, Clears Things Up!!!

:wall:

George
2005-Nov-10, 05:15 AM
NC Moore and Gillian....:clap:. I think you are asking for some Highly Inteligent Design which seems to be HID, in some cases. ;) My wife's 5'-2" mother gave birth to a 12 lb-1oz son.

To make your case more serious, IIRC, 3rd world countries loose almost 2% of mothers at childbirth.

This doesn't change my faith in God, but it does beg the question, IMO, that if ID's God is supernaturally tweaking everything, why does He make Himself look so un-super at so many discernable places? Also, why does it look more favorable that He made super evolutionary laws instead?

So, what happens next in Kansas? Will the civil liberties union find another Scopes for the schools which ban evolution teaching (assuming this happens, I suppose)?

Matthew
2005-Nov-10, 05:32 AM
What we're all forgetting is that the designer is much smarter than ourselves. So measly humans can't actually understand why the designer put what seems to us to be a useless or inefficient part.

Maybe I shouldn't say that, I haven't heard an ID comment along the lines of that yet.

crosscountry
2005-Nov-10, 05:46 AM
Maybe the creator is 'hands off'


bang, bang... hands off.



?

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-10, 06:10 AM
What we're all forgetting is that the designer is much smarter than ourselves. So measly humans can't actually understand why the designer put what seems to us to be a useless or inefficient part.

Maybe I shouldn't say that, I haven't heard an ID comment along the lines of that yet.
But then how would you tell the difference between an intelligently designed part and a non-intelligently desgined part? If we cannot discern His will, then how could we ever figure out what is the result of His will and what isn't? There can be no evidence for intelligent design, because we would have no way of telling what features would indicate design in the first place. So the whole ID argument breaks down. The only way we can really test it is to see whether it looks like something a human would design, since that is the only sort of intelligent design we are familiar with. And I can tell you, if any human designed something as poorly as the human body is designed, not only would he or she be fired he or she would never work in engineering again for for the rest of his or her life. The designer would also probably be facing massive lawsuits as well.

I have heard a number of ID folks make that claim. Our local newspaper ran an editorial by a scientist against ID soon after the Bush travesty. A lot of folks responded positively, but a lot responded negatively as well, and that claim was one of the more common ones (since his paper was showing the stupidity of the design of the human body).

Joff
2005-Nov-10, 06:22 AM
How many bits and pieces have been claimed as "Design" items so far? I know about the flagellum. What else?

snarkophilus
2005-Nov-10, 06:36 AM
And I can tell you, if any human designed something as poorly as the human body is designed, not only would he or she be fired he or she would never work in engineering again for for the rest of his or her life.


Your body, maybe! Mine runs pretty reliably, thanks. ;)

I've often wondered about completely re-designing the body... if you were going to build cyborgs, for instance, what would you leave out? What would you keep? How do you provide power? How do you regulate each of the zillion processes? It's not a simple problem at all.

That being said, it's not something that a couple billion years of experimentation couldn't solve pretty well. :)

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-10, 06:53 AM
How many bits and pieces have been claimed as "Design" items so far? I know about the flagellum. What else?
The human eye (I already covered that one pretty well I think)
The human clotting system (this one is pretty silly, you just duplicate a gene over and over again, there is nothing special about that)
The genome in general
Some random, modern eukaryote proteins having a low probability of forming by chance (as if scientists are claiming an entire modern eukaryote cell appeared out of thin air when random atoms came together for no reason)

Those are the main ones I hear about a lot. Incidentally, they also seem to be among the ones that are easiest to counter. I don't quite that, but I guess they do what works.

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-10, 06:54 AM
Your body, maybe! Mine runs pretty reliably, thanks.
Yeah, we'll see if you still think that in a few decades ;)

snarkophilus
2005-Nov-10, 07:13 AM
How many bits and pieces have been claimed as "Design" items so far? I know about the flagellum. What else?

*pulls out "Creation or Evolution" magazine that coincidentally happens to be handy*

- giraffe's neck (not enough transitional species, and apparently they're at a disadvantage)
- human baby (babies rely on adults for a long time)
- sexual reproduction (because it's apparently a disadvantage)
- horse's single toe (too many potential transitional forms)- eye (this section is just plain ridiculous)
- cell wall
- blood clotting molecules (platelets, etc)
- bombardier beetle spray weapon
- (supposedly) inherited memories pertaining to bird migrations
- a salmon's memory of spawning location
- orchid pollination mechanisms (how they get pollen onto bees)
- decoy-fish's fin
- anglerfish's bait (the coolest looking animals ever!)

ones not in that magazine, but that I've heard
- elephant's trunk
- bones, shells
- the entire fossil record (Earth was created around 4000 BC, remember)

Maksutov
2005-Nov-10, 07:18 AM
Yeah, we'll see if you still think that in a few decades ;)Then there's that whole group of intelligently designed organisms and their relatives, called diseases, most of which don't care about the age of their host.

Kids with cancer, now there's there's intelligent design at work!

:evil:

snarkophilus
2005-Nov-10, 07:18 AM
Yeah, we'll see if you still think that in a few decades ;)

My car was 25 years old when it died, and it's only a few thousand parts! Imagine if someone made a car that would last, on average, 80 years, despite being smashed into other cars several times a week in an attempt to get a ball or frozen rubber disk over a line. That would be quite an accomplishment!

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-10, 07:27 AM
My car was 25 years old when it died, and it's only a few thousand parts! Imagine if someone made a car that would last, on average, 80 years, despite being smashed into other cars several times a week in an attempt to get a ball or frozen rubber disk over a line. That would be quite an accomplishment!
They Do ...

It's Called a TANK!!!!

Just Try, Getting your Hands on One, though ...

:lol:

Maksutov
2005-Nov-10, 07:31 AM
My car was 25 years old when it died, and it's only a few thousand parts! Imagine if someone made a car that would last, on average, 80 years, despite being smashed into other cars several times a week in an attempt to get a ball or frozen rubber disk over a line. That would be quite an accomplishment!The catch there is your "car" would have to have almost all its parts replaced with brand new ones every few years, with the primary exception of the computer and its connective wiring. Plus sometimes one of those attempts "to get a ball or frozen rubber disk over a line" will result in a non-repairable condition and the "car" is scrapped.

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Nov-10, 08:30 AM
The redefinition of science is probably one of the more disturbing parts. I only have two thoughts about that (so far):

1) It's a not-so-subtle door opening for other ludicrous "theories" to be proposed for equal time in the classroom.

2) One of the big points the ID proponents pushed was that ID was science. Either this redefinition is a bullet to their own foot, or it's just icing on their cake.

This is truly sad, sad news...

Enzp
2005-Nov-10, 08:49 AM
It depends on which designer you refer to, and that assumes there was not more than one, which is not a given.

Whoever designed me left me with poor eyesight, arthritis, soft teeth, tonsils that swell up, an appendix just waiting to want out, wisdom teeth that had to be yanked, and a bad attitude.

Lay your palm flat on a table, fingers spread. You can lift any of the five fingers off the table while the rest remain flat. Now curl the middle finger under all the way. Now try lifting your ring finger. You can't. Who designed that?

pumpkinpie
2005-Nov-10, 02:39 PM
I am not sure a letter from an outstater is the effective thing to do. Leave Kansas to the Kansans.

if you want to do something, write a letter to the school board in your own state, beacuse even if it isn't in the news now, believe me, these nuts are active in every state, working hard to wrest control of our kids minds away from the forces of reason. A letter of prevention is worth a book of cure.

I disagree.
--I don't live in Kansas right now, but who knows, I could someday. I wouldn't want to raise my kids in a place that teaches ID.
--The kids who do grow up in Kansas with that education are going to take jobs and raise kids in all states of the union. They won't be confined to Kansas.
--The state I'm in now might not be my state this time next year. So maybe I shouldn't write a letter to the school board here, because I won't be raising any kids here, right? Wrong. I have friends who will raise kids here. My niece and future nieces/nephews will go to school here. So I'll write a letter to the school board here.
--I grew up in Michigan. I have a lot of family raising kids there. I should write a letter to their board too.

I'm not being sarcastic here. We should all consider this--start by writing Kansas since they have already made the decision. Then write your own state and any state you might have an interest in the educational system.

If hoards of out-of-staters write letters, maybe they will start to see the light. Not guaranteed, but like I said, all it costs you is some time and a stamp!

gethen
2005-Nov-10, 02:43 PM
What we're all forgetting is that the designer is much smarter than ourselves. So measly humans can't actually understand why the designer put what seems to us to be a useless or inefficient part.

Maybe I shouldn't say that, I haven't heard an ID comment along the lines of that yet.
And that is exactly why ID cannot be considered science. Science says "Why is that appendix there? What does it do? If it doesn't do anything, how did it get there in the first place? " ID would simply say, "Oh, well, we can't know that because the designer put it there and we have no way of knowing why." ID does not further the search for knowledge. It stops it dead in it's tracks whenever any question comes up that doesn't fit into the idea an all-powerful, all-knowing designer. If science were like ID, we'd still be casting out demons instead of removing diseased appendix.

crosscountry
2005-Nov-10, 03:47 PM
The redefinition of science is probably one of the more disturbing parts. I only have two thoughts about that (so far):

1) It's a not-so-subtle door opening for other ludicrous "theories" to be proposed for equal time in the classroom.

2) One of the big points the ID proponents pushed was that ID was science. Either this redefinition is a bullet to their own foot, or it's just icing on their cake.

This is truly sad, sad news...


I like the FSM idea. I hope it works.

Swift
2005-Nov-10, 03:49 PM
<snip>
I think the courts need to make very clear that ID isn't science, it's religion, and therefore it cannot be taught in science class any more than we can teach that Pele creates volcanoes or Thor thunder. (And boy, wouldn't that go over well with the ID crowd!)

:clap:
When I visited the Big Island of Hawaii, I noticed at various places in Volcano National Park, or along roadsides, little offerings to Pele - usually small pyramids of volcanic stones with flowers or shells on them. These were not historical features, the flowers were fresh. So apparently there are people in Hawaii who still believe this will have an effect on volcanic activity.

I suppose that the Hawaiian Board of Education should start requiring that Pele-ism should be taught along with the theory of plate tectonics in geology classes.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-10, 03:54 PM
In my opinion, making lists of 'badly designed' organs is not a good way to reply to ID. There's too much room for subjective evaluation of what is a useful and a useless or disadvantageous trait. Even from a biological point of view, having a certain trait can be an advantage in some environments and conditions, and a disadvantage in other environments and conditions. This is a can of worms.

Arguing that ID is not a theory, just a hypothesis, or that it's not a scientific theory, is also a poor strategy, because those semantic distincions fly over most people's heads. Insisting on them just makes ID critics seem like petty nitpickers who want to reject ID on technicalities.

My advice: focus on the evidence, or lack thereof.

Peptron
2005-Nov-10, 05:51 PM
Then again, they won't look at the evidence. But in my opinion, those that voted for ID to be taught really do know what evolution is and how factual it is; but probably they are just too incompetent to get political gain with facts, and decide to promote the idea of ignoring reality as good. Their job is made much easier when there is the idea around that being right is bad and being wrong is good.

To make things go faster, they should just outlaw teaching evolution as crimethink on the base that it is against The Party and so is doubleplusungood. We all know after all that 2+2=5. (This is not a joke, some people in the past thought that 2+2 was 4, really!)

Donnie B.
2005-Nov-10, 05:57 PM
The latest Skeptical Inquirer makes a point about ID claims that I haven't seen elsewhere. Forgive me if this has been mentioned earlier in this thread, as I haven't read every post. Also, I don't have my copy of SI here so I can't attribute the idea.

The central idea of "Intelligent Design" is that living things include mechanisms that could not have evolved, so must have been designed. These are described as "irreducibly complex" mechanisms -- that is, if you remove or alter any of their component parts, they would no longer function and therefore could not have evolved from anything simpler. The canonical example is the flagellum; remove any of its components and the bacterium is unable to move.

But this claim, it turns out, is its own counterargument. Any engineer will tell you that an irreducibly complex design (by that definition) is less than ideal. It reduces the design's robustness and reliability. If you have a critical function in your design, you want to make sure it's not compromised by the failure of a single component.

In other words, irreducible complexity is evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer! The ID argument fails by its own internal "logic".

Not that this is likely to sway anyone on the Kansas school board...

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-10, 06:29 PM
I like the FSM idea. I hope it works.
FSM?

:think:

Swift
2005-Nov-10, 06:33 PM
<snip>
But this claim, it turns out, is its own counterargument. Any engineer will tell you that an irreducibly complex design (by that definition) is less than ideal. It reduces the design's robustness and reliability. If you have a critical function in your design, you want to make sure it's not compromised by the failure of a single component.

In other words, irreducible complexity is evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer! The ID argument fails by its own internal "logic".

Not that this is likely to sway anyone on the Kansas school board...
:clap: That is brilliant. So, we've proven that the Apollo spacecraft were designed, not evolved. ;)

Swift
2005-Nov-10, 06:33 PM
FSM?

:think:
FSM (http://www.venganza.org/)

Doodler
2005-Nov-10, 07:06 PM
rAmen. :P

Donnie B.
2005-Nov-10, 07:10 PM
:clap: That is brilliant. So, we've proven that the Apollo spacecraft were designed, not evolved. ;)Right. An overoptimized design contains components that can be described as (in the words of a favorite Firefly episode):

"It's a nothing part until you ain't got one; then it appears to be everything."

Maybe Serenity's engine was designed by a computer running an evolutionary algorithm! :D

LurchGS
2005-Nov-10, 07:14 PM
And that is exactly why ID cannot be considered science. Science says "Why is that appendix there? What does it do? If it doesn't do anything, how did it get there in the first place? " ID would simply say, "Oh, well, we can't know that because the designer put it there and we have no way of knowing why." ID does not further the search for knowledge. It stops it dead in it's tracks whenever any question comes up that doesn't fit into the idea an all-powerful, all-knowing designer. If science were like ID, we'd still be casting out demons instead of removing diseased appendix.


Exactly - ID's basic premis is that ignorance is bliss. "We cannot know the answer, so why bother looking?"

Back to the subject of polls - most of the media polls are unscientific to begin with - you go to the pollster and answer. Ergo, the only people who vote are those with a significant bias. Scientific polls use a random statistical selection of the entire population. (Nielson does this, for example). They call YOU...
Further, without knowing A) the actual questions asked, B) the demographics of the voting body, and C) seeing the raw data, polls are meaningless. Samuel Clemmens was right:: there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

On another idea, I've not seen anybody compare ID-ologists (should that not be ID-iots??) to the Ohio legislature (I think it was Ohio) of about 100 years ago - decided that PI was legally exactly equal to 3.

I *am* writing letters, but not yet to the state school board - I'm starting with the legislature and the governor. I'm asking them to take the opposite stance - rather than 'not teach' ID-iotism, I'm asking that they make it illegal to teach it. I agree 100% with those that point out that it's a religious belief and as such has absolutely no place in our school curriculum.

Now, if I can just manage it without getting to angry I froth at the mouth

---------------

ID is in itself the biggist argument against ID. What kind of superbeing would design people so stupid?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-10, 07:16 PM
should that not be ID-iots??

I wouldn't recommend it, personally. It's a rather insulting and Ad Hominem term, no matter what you think about those that are for Intelligent Design. This is not an "us vs. them" scenario. The point is to attack the arguments put forth in Intelligent Design. I personally would not stand to be called an "Evil-utionist", and I would hope that someone would be called on that insult towards me.

However, according to the idea of Fair Play, the moderators should not be expected to accept one insult, and not another, purely on the basis of "sides". That's detrimental to argument, and does turn it into "Us vs. Them" - which is contrary to the ideas of this board

Edited for clarity.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-10, 07:19 PM
Exactly - ID's basic premis is that ignorance is bliss. "We cannot know the answer, so why bother looking?"I disagree. I think their point is more along the lines of:

1) "The theory of evolution is full of holes, therefore it's just as good as creationism."

2) "We have proof that something as complex as nature couldn't have occurred without a designer."

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Nov-10, 07:29 PM
[Snip!]On another idea, I've not seen anybody compare ID-ologists ([Snip!]) to the Ohio legislature (I think it was Ohio) of about 100 years ago -- decided that PI was legally exactly equal to 3.
It was the state of Indiana that almost legislated the value of pi to 3.2. The Bible gives the value of pi as 3, but I have yet to hear of anyone demanding that that be taught as an "alternative theory" of mathematics!

peter eldergill
2005-Nov-10, 07:47 PM
It was the state of Indiana that almost legislated the value of pi to 3.2

Are you serious? That's really odd. Why would they do that? Surely not to make calculations easier....to me, using 22/7 could accomplish that much easier...

L8R

Pete

Joff
2005-Nov-10, 07:54 PM
Exactly - ID's basic premise is that ignorance is bliss. "We cannot know the answer, so why bother looking?"I disagree. I think their point is more along the lines of:

1) "The theory of evolution is full of holes, therefore it's just as good as creationism."

2) "We have proof that something as complex as nature couldn't have occurred without a designer."

I agree with DA, but wish to highlight the grave danger of misunderstanding the opposition. The ID movement starts not from "we cannot know the answer" but from "we already know the answer". So they start by knowing that evolution is wrong, and see that it is damaging to their efforts to spread the truth and save all the people and children. Don't mistake their fervour for perversity - in their own eyes they are trying to do good, and many may well believe that the supporters of evolution have some evil intent.

N C More
2005-Nov-10, 08:07 PM
... So they start by knowing that evolution is wrong, and see that it is damaging to their efforts to spread the truth and save all the people and children. Don't mistake their fervour for perversity - in their own eyes they are trying to do good, and many may well believe that the supporters of evolution have some evil intent.

This doesn't make me feel much better. You know what they say about the road to ruin being paved with good intentions. Well, ID, taken as a scientific theory, just doesn't bode well for the future of science. Being chained to the ignorance of the past isn't a "truth" I desire. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/traurig/d045.gif

George
2005-Nov-10, 08:11 PM
...The Bible gives the value of pi as 3, but I have yet to hear of anyone demanding that that be taught as an "alternative theory" of mathematics!
:hand: Now you're in scripture interpretation. :) This is the core of the problem. ID advocates, apparently, have made up their minds the path of the scriptures; the pot holes are there for an unknown purpose. They don't mind playing the David vs. Goliath (Mainstream Science) role. It is a role of great honor. The problem I have is today's "Goliath" is the good guy, and is not going around trashing God's name or people. It is ID that is denegrating the search for truth, at least in non-supernatural forms.

A value of 3 is an accurate value of pi....for government work (of the 1st century), if only for estimating purposes. If they used a measuring wheel on the job, they would be fine, right? :)

There are much bigger literal interpretation issues on the plate (e.g. 4 corners of the earth; drink wine, not water; Cain's wife; etc.). However, these can be dodged in a broad ID plan.

IMO, ID has found the "overlap". The region where science and religion appear to have common ground. These areas do not actually touch each other, or so I like to imagine it. Even though the overlap exists, pure religion can not alter science, no more than a river can become salty because it flows in the ocean. [However, pure science can alter religion. This helps separate blind faith from general faith.]

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-10, 08:13 PM
Here's an earlier thread with more opinions: Intelligent Design: We're Arguing the Wrong Question. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=16894)

Joff
2005-Nov-10, 10:15 PM
This doesn't make me feel much better. You know what they say about the road to ruin being paved with good intentions. Well, ID, taken as a scientific theory, just doesn't bode well for the future of science. Being chained to the ignorance of the past isn't a "truth" I desire. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/traurig/d045.gifOh, it isn't intended to make you feel better - I'll tell you, it certainly makes me feel worse. Unfortunately it is a reality that you have to grasp in order to stand a chance of countering it. Feelng anxious for the future of science is the first step towards actually taking action to protect it.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-10, 11:35 PM
O, I get to disagree with both Joff and DA. Knowing that the answer is "some unknown intelligence" is.. oh, wait, see where that falls apart?

I suppose, if you keep the focus of the question very narrow "how did we come to be?" you can get away with it. But if you expand upon it and bring in glitches and rough spots, the answer on both sides is "I don't know...". But on the side of the good guys, there's always somebody saying "let's find out", and on the other side the answer is "because".

You can't explain the alphabet without explaining the individual letters. Saying "the alphabet was created by design", and ignoring the letters is tantamount to "we know where the alphabet came from, but there's no way to know where the lettes came from"

At least, that's the way I read it.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-10, 11:58 PM
O, I get to disagree with both Joff and DA.Feel free. Rereading the earlier thread I linked to above, I felt like disagreeing with myself, too... :D

LurchGS
2005-Nov-11, 12:07 AM
Feel free. Rereading the earlier thread I linked to above, I felt like disagreeing with myself, too... :D


LOL - just a disagreeable fellow, ain'tcha?

Joff
2005-Nov-11, 12:17 AM
Once you are into the debate, you are of course right Lurch. What I disagree with is the image of the ID faction NOT KNOWING what the answer is. I didn't rephrase DA's two ID talking points before but let me do it now:

1. Creationism ID is full of holes, but hey, look, evolution is full of holes too, so they're as good as each other!

2. Evolution can't explain this complicated biology - or this - or anything really. So it must be God Intelligent Design.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-11, 12:53 AM
Ok, I'll bow. ID knows the title of the book - they just don't care about the contents 8-{)}

Maksutov
2005-Nov-11, 01:54 AM
Then there's another aspect of not supporting ID. You might get wiped out by an event of literally biblical proportions.

Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-11-10T220904Z_01_SCH076551_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-ROBERTSON.xml&archived=False)


"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."Time for yet another email to ABC's "Family Channel" to explain why I don't watch any of their programming. I might drop in to see which sponsors are advertising during "700" in order to email those sponsors as to why I don't buy their products.

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic, as well as being taken seriously by enough people to be worrisome. BTW, old Pat is a close ally, adviser, and friend of Dubya.

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-11, 02:11 AM
I thought you all might find this little animation I found amusing (I am hosting it)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/toddrme/copying_misinformation.gif

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-11, 02:26 AM
That Is, The Way It Works, Though, Isn't It?

Reptile to Bird?

Or, Am I, Being Too General?

:think:

LurchGS
2005-Nov-11, 05:31 AM
I think the more accepted pathway these days is dinosaur to bird. If I recall my discovery channel shows correctly, Dinosaure != Reptile, though reptiles were around then - in fact, I think reptiles pre-dated Dinosaurs. Ok... Reptile --> Dinosaur --> Bird?

I'm babbling... make me stop!

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-11, 05:34 AM
It may be "reptile to bird" or "dinosaur to bird", but it isn't "modern-day lizard to modern-day pigeon" no matter how you cut it. However, creationists often try to imply (or directly claim) evolution says something along those lines.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-11, 05:45 AM
It may be "reptile to bird" or "dinosaur to bird", but it isn't "modern-day lizard to modern-day pigeon" no matter how you cut it. However, creationists often try to imply (or directly claim) evolution says something along those lines.

well, yeah... same-same as "man descended from apes"... so did chimps, gorilla, etc... we all share a common ancestor. Except for my sister. We found her under a rock.

I simplified the reptile--> bird thing.

Joff
2005-Nov-11, 06:15 AM
Maybe you could have a DNA spiral turning into the finger of God or something, or maybe just an ark sailing from one side to the other. Neat though.

Doodler
2005-Nov-11, 02:53 PM
I think the more accepted pathway these days is dinosaur to bird. If I recall my discovery channel shows correctly, Dinosaure != Reptile, though reptiles were around then - in fact, I think reptiles pre-dated Dinosaurs. Ok... Reptile --> Dinosaur --> Bird?

I'm babbling... make me stop!

I think it was amphibians, then reptiles, joined by proto-mammals like Dimetrodon (the finbacked ones that developed the ability to regulate internal temperature independent of environment), then the first dinosaurs.

The funny thing to me is, with some dinosaur species now known to have been feathered, and more than a few known to have beaks, when can we say the exact transition from dinosaur to modern avian actually occurred?

genebujold
2005-Nov-12, 01:18 AM
If evolution really exists, why hasn't ideology evolved?

Joff
2005-Nov-12, 01:23 AM
If you really exist, why is grass green?

Moose
2005-Nov-12, 02:01 AM
If evolution really exists, why hasn't ideology evolved?

It has. Check your history.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-12, 05:15 AM
The funny thing to me is, with some dinosaur species now known to have been feathered, and more than a few known to have beaks, when can we say the exact transition from dinosaur to modern avian actually occurred?

It's going to be arbitrary - if they ever find the full range of fossils... just exactly where does orange light become red? At some point, some white-coat will just put his calipers down on the strip and say "here marketh the spot"

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-12, 09:46 PM
If evolution really exists, why hasn't ideology evolved?I'm pretty sure you were being ironic, but I think it's actually an interesting question, because it shows how everyday experience doesn't equip our intuition well for understanding a phenomenon as slow as evolution.
I don't believe there's been enough time for the human brain to 'evolve' since we became modern humans. Evolution in multicellular organisms works on time scales of millions or billions of years. The few thousands of years since humans started building cities were just a drop in the ocean.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-12, 10:01 PM
Although there HAS been an evolution of Society and Ideals. Less of a physical evolution, though, so something quite different.

Stregone
2005-Nov-13, 01:21 AM
It's going to be arbitrary - if they ever find the full range of fossils... just exactly where does orange light become red? At some point, some white-coat will just put his calipers down on the strip and say "here marketh the spot"
Not really, color can be quantified pretty easily. Orange turns to red halfway between the two.

pghnative
2005-Nov-13, 03:17 AM
Chicago Public Radio has a weekly news quiz show (Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me (http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/)) which generally (and comedically) focuses on absurd stories in the news. Kansas was featured prominently this week. Among their jokes:

a) Science tests in Kansas just became easier, since students can answer all questions with "God did it"
b) After changing the definition of science, Kansas also changed its testing technique. From now on, all students will be tied up and thrown in a lake. The ones that deserve A's will float.
c) Next up for Kansas is a rewrite of the ending for "The Wizard of Oz"

Jim
2005-Nov-13, 03:30 AM
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/servlet/com.featureserv.util.Download?file=20051109edwrt-a-p.jpg&code=edwrt

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-13, 05:07 AM
Chicago Public Radio has a weekly news quiz show (Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me (http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/)) which generally (and comedically) focuses on absurd stories in the news. Kansas was featured prominently this week. Among their jokes:

a) Science tests in Kansas just became easier, since students can answer all questions with "God did it"
b) After changing the definition of science, Kansas also changed its testing technique. From now on, all students will be tied up and thrown in a lake. The ones that deserve A's will float.
c) Next up for Kansas is a rewrite of the ending for "The Wizard of Oz"
I Have, a MUCH, Better Idea:

The Students Who Deserve As, All Sink, And, The Ones Who Don't, All Float, And Are Then, Hanged!!!

Or, In the Words of, Dinosaurs' Own, Professor Science, "Looks Like we Need Another Timmy!"

:lol:

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Nov-13, 06:35 AM
Here's a link I found concerning the Indiana legislature's attempt to legislate the value of pi: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
It also has a couple of words about the "Biblical" value of pi.

George
2005-Nov-13, 11:46 PM
Here's a link I found concerning the Indiana legislature's attempt to legislate the value of pi: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html) Wow. Of all the dumb stuff introduced in legislature, that one almost takes the cake (or pie) ;).


It also has a couple of words about the "Biblical" value of pi.
I did not like the terse remark Cecil received from the would-be Bible scholar.

I do not see a pi problem with the Biblical account, and I found it quite interesting.

In 1Kings 7 it states there were knops, 10 per cubit compassing it. To maintain symmetry, the 30 cubit circumference for the bronze dish (10 cubits in diameter) needs to be rather accurate. However, the value of pi does not need corrected here.

For those interested, it involves two giant bronze dishes. The diameter is 10 cubits and the circumference 30 cubits. This, obviously, does not work out very nicely. It could have been just a general description, but something else was added to the description worth noting....the knops. Two rows of these things (what are they anyway?) went around the dish, 10 per cubit; therefore, 300 per row all the way around. Wouldn't the attachment of the last one be obviously unsymmetric?

Actually, no. Here's why...

A cubit is simply the length from your elbow to the tip of your forfinger. For me, it is about 47.5 cm.

In verse 26 it states "it was an hand breath thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup..."

The knops were likely below the brim. Therefore, the 30 cubit circumference would be for a diameter of 10 cubits less two hand widths.

My hand, if I am doing it correctly (no thumb), is 10.5 cm.

Outer diameter = 475 cm (10 George cubits)
Inner diameter = 475 cm - 2(10.5 cm) = 454 cm
Circumference (Inner) = (454)(pi) = 1426.28 cm

Circumference/Outer dia. = 14263.28/475 = 3.0027

Therefore, to get the knops symmetric [added: for a 10 cubit outer diameter dish], the brim would need to be two hand widths thick. This is what was stated. "Piece of cake" for a good pi. :)

Swift
2005-Nov-14, 04:15 PM
Chicago Public Radio has a weekly news quiz show (Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me (http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/)) which generally (and comedically) focuses on absurd stories in the news. Kansas was featured prominently this week. Among their jokes:

a) Science tests in Kansas just became easier, since students can answer all questions with "God did it"
b) After changing the definition of science, Kansas also changed its testing technique. From now on, all students will be tied up and thrown in a lake. The ones that deserve A's will float.
c) Next up for Kansas is a rewrite of the ending for "The Wizard of Oz"
:lol:

How do you know she's a witch?
Well she turned me into a newt.
A newt?
Got better.

crosscountry
2005-Nov-14, 04:52 PM
Wow. Of all the dumb stuff introduced in legislature, that one almost takes the cake (or pie) ;).


I did not like the terse remark Cecil received from the would-be Bible scholar.

I do not see a pi problem with the Biblical account, and I found it quite interesting.

In 1Kings 7 it states there were knops, 10 per cubit compassing it. To maintain symmetry, the 30 cubit circumference for the bronze dish (10 cubits in diameter) needs to be rather accurate. However, the value of pi does not need corrected here.

For those interested, it involves two giant bronze dishes. The diameter is 10 cubits and the circumference 30 cubits. This, obviously, does not work out very nicely. It could have been just a general description, but something else was added to the description worth noting....the knops. Two rows of these things (what are they anyway?) went around the dish, 10 per cubit; therefore, 300 per row all the way around. Wouldn't the attachment of the last one be obviously unsymmetric?

Actually, no. Here's why...

A cubit is simply the length from your elbow to the tip of your forfinger. For me, it is about 47.5 cm.

In verse 26 it states "it was an hand breath thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup..."

The knops were likely below the brim. Therefore, the 30 cubit circumference would be for a diameter of 10 cubits less two hand widths.

My hand, if I am doing it correctly (no thumb), is 10.5 cm.

Outer diameter = 475 cm (10 George cubits)
Inner diameter = 475 cm - 2(10.5 cm) = 454 cm
Circumference (Inner) = (454)(pi) = 1426.28 cm

Circumference/Outer dia. = 14263.28/475 = 3.0027

Therefore, to get the knops symmetric [added: for a 10 cubit outer diameter dish], the brim would need to be two hand widths thick. This is what was stated. "Piece of cake" for a good pi. :)


so??? what you are saying is that the bible is wrong? Because certainly that dish ain't round

George
2005-Nov-14, 07:41 PM
so??? what you are saying is that the bible is wrong? Because certainly that dish ain't round

No. I am suggesting how the Bible could be right as originally stated in the passages. Based on my calculations, the object would be round, 10 cubits in outer diameter and 30 cubits round. The confusion comes in the 30 cubits as a circumference measurement. Math says the circumference must be the diameter times the value of pi. If the value for pi = 3, then a simplistic scripture interpretation would seem to work. However, the value of pi is well known to be 3.14159265...... Therefore, the question arises as to why it was not 31-1/2 cubits in circumference.

My first thought is the lack of exact values throughtout the Bible. The largest numeric value, for instance, is "thousand". The terms millions and billions do not exist. Also, the term "cubit" is only used in approximate terms, too. Sometimes a "cubit and a half cubit" is stated, but I have not found anything more refined.

So, my first thought on the 30 cubit circumference discrepancy (vs. a more accurate 31 cubit value) was to chalk it up to a simple description of the giant dishes and not an accurate mathematical, or engineering, representation.

Then I noticed it had two rows of ornaments, 10 per cubit. This adds more detail to the story. 10 per cubit would not fit nicely; since the true circumference would need to be 31.4 cubits. Therefore, I became more curious. So, in looking closer, additional detail came from the stated width of the brim - one hand width. Reducing the diameter from 10 cubits to 10 cubits less two hand widths, apparently, produces a circumference of 30 cubits. This would be, IMO, the outer surface of the bowl which would be below the brim.

Therefore, if I am correct, there is no reason to state the Bible is claiming the value of pi (circumference/diameter) = 3. At least not in this case. In fact, it appears to support the value of pi when one looks at it closer, as I have attempted.

My guess is whoever had to build these things figured this out, and the author may have been aware of all this somehow. Had there been no brim and the circumference would have been 31.4 cubits, the placement of those two rows of knops (what are those things?) would have not come out even. They may have quickly realized this and came up with an appropriate brim width to allow the 10 knops per cubit.

Of course, the George cubit is likely not the same as their cubit. This probably does not matter as long as the ratio of our hand width to our cubits are the same.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-14, 07:46 PM
Please, let's not get into a debate over whether the Bible is right or not. Because I certainly don't see it as a source to go by in any way, shape, or form.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-14, 08:14 PM
tsk, Lonewulf - it's a GREAT source to go by

If the argument is "what does the bible say?"

8-{)}

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-14, 08:35 PM
Good point.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-14, 09:26 PM
Heh,

My partner and I just posted (mailed) a letter to the Kansas Legislature and School board. The gist of it being that we will never knowingly hire a product of the Kansas Public School system, since they are being taught that illogic is as valid a tool as logic.

--------

How do you know the sun is a marshmallow? Because Ice Cream has no bones!

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-14, 10:15 PM
...hire a product...

I cannot resist. I must make fun of you...

You'd actually consider hiring a product? Do you pay it minimum wage?

LurchGS
2005-Nov-14, 10:25 PM
I exist but to be made fun of - just ask my wife

and we use Product here as "the result of a process" - and no matter how poorly implemented, school *is* a process.

As for minimum wage - ok, I won't discuss the ethics of it, but we don't pay it. Indeed, we pay *well* for our staff positions. On the other hand, my partner and I get paid poorly for our positions, but we gain equity, so it balances out ok.

-------------

If you can see me, I'm not driving fast enough

crosscountry
2005-Nov-15, 12:42 AM
Then I noticed it had two rows of ornaments, 10 per cubit. This adds more detail to the story. 10 per cubit would not fit nicely; since the true circumference would need to be 31.4 cubits. Therefore, I became more curious. So, in looking closer, additional detail came from the stated width of the brim - one hand width. Reducing the diameter from 10 cubits to 10 cubits less two hand widths, apparently, produces a circumference of 30 cubits. This would be, IMO, the outer surface of the bowl which would be below the brim.


I see, 10 cubits minus 2 hand widths.


what is a cubit again?

George
2005-Nov-15, 01:59 AM
I see, 10 cubits minus 2 hand widths.
Yes. My math yields a 30 cubit circumference (using both hands). :)


what is a cubit again?
The length between a chosen person's (e.g. Pharaoh) elbow and the tip of their center finger.

Philip A
2005-Nov-15, 03:23 AM
tsk, Lonewulf - it's a GREAT source to go by

If the argument is "what does the bible say?"

8-{)}


Not 100% relevant, but amusing to use anyway!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 03:26 AM
Y'know, the reason I said why I don't want the Bible brought up is because of the little thing about POLITICS AND RELIGION on this forum.

That link... while amusing to me personally... was a grenade you just launched on this forum.

In short:

INCOMING!

(*Idly saves the link for later anyways)

Philip A
2005-Nov-15, 03:28 AM
Sorry everyone, nightshift and caffeined out. Wasn't thinking clearly.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 03:33 AM
This whole thread was pushing it, anyways. It's like a rubberband, and it was only a matter of time before someone made it snap.

Philip A
2005-Nov-15, 03:37 AM
Yep, difficult one to discuss without mentioning religion.

crosscountry
2005-Nov-15, 03:54 AM
Not 100% relevant, but amusing to use anyway!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp


that is hilarious

LurchGS
2005-Nov-15, 06:38 AM
ooo-yah! that's a hoot and a half, I should send that off to an employee or two

SpockJim
2005-Nov-15, 07:10 AM
9/11 created a bad atmosphere for science. Things will turn around. Evolution is true and factual, backed by a fossil record with amazingly few gaps.

JIM COLYER http://www.jimcolyer.com
kiss my behind!

You can't even prove that whatsoever! You give me proof that we came from the sea or whatever you beleive.

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-15, 07:15 AM
I can't tell whether this guy is kidding or not.

SpockJim
2005-Nov-15, 07:22 AM
Serious as a heart attack. Give me the facts.

Jim Coyler you are a disgrace to the american man. We will win ANWAR and i will continue to drive my 4x4 truck!

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-15, 08:05 AM
Serious as a heart attack. Give me the facts.

Jim Coyler you are a disgrace to the american man. We will win ANWAR and i will continue to drive my 4x4 truck!
It's Simple, really ....

Variations in Population, Give Rise to Mutations, Which May, Prove Either Helpful or Detrimental, Towards the Birthing, of The Next Generation, But Which, are Mostly Neutral.

These Mutations, Pile Up, In an Organism's Genome, Until they Are Either Unable, or Unwilling, To Breed, With The Other Part(s), of The Population, At Which Point, Speciation, Can Be Said, To Have Occurred.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 08:12 AM
SpockJim seems to be one of three things.

1) A troll. I'm going to be cautious on this road.

2) Just having fun, and making fun of certain people.

3) Serious.

By all accounts, 3 scares me the most.

Halcyon Dayz
2005-Nov-15, 09:53 AM
Dear JimSpock,

there was a time when you were an embryo,
that you had gills.

- sincerely, Halcyon

mid
2005-Nov-15, 11:28 AM
Variations in Population, Give Rise to Mutations, Which May, Prove Either Helpful or Detrimental, Towards the Birthing, of The Next Generation, But Which, are Mostly Neutral.

These Mutations, Pile Up, In an Organism's Genome, Until they Are Either Unable, or Unwilling, To Breed, With The Other Part(s), of The Population, At Which Point, Speciation, Can Be Said, To Have Occurred.

Curiously, over in the Avian Flu thread, the poster seems to have no problem at all accepting the idea of organisms mutating and changing their nature (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=602316#post602316). Go figure.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-15, 01:21 PM
Curiously, over in the Avian Flu thread, the poster seems to have no problem at all accepting the idea of organisms mutating and changing their nature (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=602316#post602316). Go figure.
Mutation, Is One Thing ...

But, Does he Think, It Applies to Vertebrates?

Ya' Know, Like us?

:think:

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 03:26 PM
Wow, looking back, I can't realize the idiotness of my post. I was making fun of the term "hire a product from...", until I realized that the product were students of that school!

Urgh, talk about mental flatulence.

crosscountry
2005-Nov-15, 03:27 PM
It's Simple, really ....

Variations in Population, Give Rise to Mutations, Which May, Prove Either Helpful or Detrimental, Towards the Birthing, of The Next Generation, But Which, are Mostly Neutral.

These Mutations, Pile Up, In an Organism's Genome, Until they Are Either Unable, or Unwilling, To Breed, With The Other Part(s), of The Population, At Which Point, Speciation, Can Be Said, To Have Occurred.

you probably gave your English teachers heart attacks:doh: :whistle:

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 03:29 PM
Says the man that does not practice capitalization or punctuation... except when it comes to the word "English".

Though that's nothing compared to Zaphod's writing. I still don't get why he writes like that... o.O

crosscountry
2005-Nov-15, 03:32 PM
he and I do it on purpose. sometimes I feel that my sentences are not important enough to be capitalized.




For the record, I do know how to type "correctly". My English teachers loved that about me. They could ignore the grammatical errors and focus on my content. (That rarely made my grade any better)

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 03:35 PM
at least u don't talk like this.

0r th1s.

Doodler
2005-Nov-15, 03:40 PM
at least u don't talk like this.

0r th1s.

y wud ne1 1nt 2 typ all thse ltrs neway?

You ain't seen nothing till you've spent an extended stretch on an MMORPG...

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 03:41 PM
You ain't seen nothing till you've spent an extended stretch on an MMORPG...

I hear that.

ToSeek
2005-Nov-15, 04:49 PM
kiss my behind!


This is inappropriate language for this forum. Please review the forum rules if you don't want to be banned.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-15, 07:39 PM
Wow, looking back, I can't realize the idiotness of my post. I was making fun of the term "hire a product from...", until I realized that the product were students of that school!

Urgh, talk about mental flatulence.


I can't resist the temptatation to make fun of you...

mental flatulence... how often do you have to wash your earmuffs?



8)

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 07:41 PM
I can't resist the temptatation to make fun of you...

mental flatulence... how often do you have to wash your earmuffs?

What earmuffs? I live in Corpus Christi, TEXAS.

Think about that.

Gillianren
2005-Nov-15, 08:09 PM
For the record, I do know how to type "correctly". My English teachers loved that about me. They could ignore the grammatical errors and focus on my content. (That rarely made my grade any better)

Maybe if they'd focused enough on your grammar, you'd be typing properly here?

No, but seriously . . . .

I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at the evidence and reject evolution. I can acknowledge that people don't look at the evidence, but I don't really understand that, either. It's deliberately blinding yourself--or, if it helps explain things to the fundies, it's not using the senses God gave you. (Which, now that I type it, strikes me as kind of contradictory. But whatever. I suppose if God created the universe, using the Big Bang or whatever alternate hypothesis you've invented, that started the path that gave you senses. Or something.) I just do not and cannot understand willful ignorance.

Simple ignorance? Oh, sure. I myself am simply ignorant about a lot of things. But I like to believe that I can tell a hawk from a handsaw.

GDwarf
2005-Nov-15, 10:09 PM
Curiously, over in the Avian Flu thread, the poster seems to have no problem at all accepting the idea of organisms mutating and changing their nature (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=602316#post602316). Go figure.
Most IDers accepted what they term 'micro evolution' but claim that it can't/hasn't/we have no evidence of it happening to 'macro' lifeforms. as the Macro ones are far more complex they couldn't have evolved, etc. etc. etc.

Joff
2005-Nov-15, 10:32 PM
... I like to believe that I can tell a hawk from a handsaw. ...but can you make a hamlet without breaking hogs?

LurchGS
2005-Nov-16, 12:19 AM
What earmuffs? I live in Corpus Christi, TEXAS.

Think about that.

LOL - good point. In that case, do you carry around a small packet of q-tips?

8-{)}

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-16, 02:03 AM
maaaybe...

crosscountry
2005-Nov-16, 05:54 AM
I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at the evidence and reject evolution. I can acknowledge that people don't look at the evidence, but I don't really understand that, either. It's deliberately blinding yourself--or, if it helps explain things to the fundies, it's not using the senses God gave you. (Which, now that I type it, strikes me as kind of contradictory. But whatever. I suppose if God created the universe, using the Big Bang or whatever alternate hypothesis you've invented, that started the path that gave you senses. Or something.) I just do not and cannot understand willful ignorance.

Simple ignorance? Oh, sure. I myself am simply ignorant about a lot of things. But I like to believe that I can tell a hawk from a handsaw.



Evolution seems completely obvious to me too. My best idea is this:


"creationism is true because you want it to be true"



that is the only sense I can make of their entire argument.

mid
2005-Nov-16, 01:26 PM
"creationism is true because you want it to be true"

I'd put it even more specific than that:

"I believe in creationism because I don't like the idea I'm related to a monkey".

crosscountry
2005-Nov-16, 03:10 PM
That may be true. I think more that they just want the bible to be right. If the bible is right, they can go to heaven.


It's silly really - like telling 5 year olds they can have some candy if they are quiet for 5 minutes.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-16, 03:53 PM
Hell, if you asked me, "The afterlife exists because you want it to exist". The thing is, you don't have to get rid of the concept of creationism altogether -- I mean, where did that bacteria come from? It had to have a source.

That's where the Ultimate Question comes from -- what's the Beginning? What's the Start? That's where people can still hold onto their faith. The only bad side is, that might also keep them from wanting to find out, since they already have an idea :P

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-16, 03:56 PM
'We need to take Kansas back!'
'Back?'
'Back... to the future!'

Couldn't resist. :D

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-16, 04:12 PM
'We need to take Kansas back!'
'Back?'
'Back... to the future!'

*facepalm*

That's bad.

Funny, but bad.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-16, 04:23 PM
'I'm a doctor, Jim, not a comedian.' :whistle:

Damburger
2005-Nov-16, 04:56 PM
Hell, if you asked me, "The afterlife exists because you want it to exist". The thing is, you don't have to get rid of the concept of creationism altogether -- I mean, where did that bacteria come from? It had to have a source.

That's where the Ultimate Question comes from -- what's the Beginning? What's the Start? That's where people can still hold onto their faith. The only bad side is, that might also keep them from wanting to find out, since they already have an idea :P

This kind of faith tends to be held by independently minded sorts, so its not the kind of faith circulated by those who prefer to gather a flock.

It would seem, according to current science, that the universe itself puts a limit on our knowledge as surely as it puts a limit on our velocity. This is where a rational faith can exist. You define God as the guy who knows where everything is and how fast its going.

Creationism seems to me to be based on incredible presumption - not that there is a supreme being, but that such a supreme being has such a great interest in us and our little corner of the cosmos. How arrogant can you get, to believe that the universe essentially belongs to you? Such people will likely cause is great problems if we ever contact extraterrestrials.

Jim
2005-Nov-16, 05:45 PM
"I believe in creationism because I don't like the idea I'm related to a monkey".

There is a great deal of truth in this. Many people have a need to feel "special" (as if being made of "star stuff" isn't special enough). Being descended from monkeys makes you much less special than being "handmade" by God.

I think more that they just want the bible to be right.

This is the single biggest difference between science and religion, or more specifically, between scientific theory and religious dogma. Prove any single part of a theory wrong, the theory gets changed and science goes on... no big whoop (actually, part of the package). Prove any single part of a religious dogma wrong, and the entire religion is in danger of collapsing.

Therefore, to many, if we did "descend from monkeys" (evolve), not only are we no longer "special" but their entire religious faith is jeopardized. Most of those folks will go immediately to denial (first of The 5 Stages of Receiving Catastrophic News (http://www.counselingforloss.com/article8.htm)) over that possibility.

(edit: deleted extra "than")

Swift
2005-Nov-16, 06:14 PM
<snip>
I think more that they just want the bible to be right.

This is the single biggest difference between science and religion, or more specifically, between scientific theory and religious dogma. Prove any single part of a theory wrong, the theory gets changed and science goes on... no big whoop (actually, part of the package). Prove any single part of a religious dogma wrong, and the entire religion is in danger of collapsing.

I think you've hit one of the bigger nails on the head Jim. I personally would love it if there was a heaven and some plan behind all of the craziness in the universe. But, at least for me, there is no evidence of this and wishing doesn't make it true. I can't fool myself into believing that something is true because I want it to be true.

I have no problem if others can do that for themselves. My problem is when you try to force such opinions and beliefs on others, as part of public education, in a science class.

Doodler
2005-Nov-16, 07:10 PM
You also have to consider that you're dealing with an institution utterly desperate to justify their own relevence. With every discovery that backs evolution and cosmology, the Earth and humanity steadily lose central importance in the grand scheme of life and the universe. In fact, those two disciplines are already stating that beyond what amounts to impressively advanced tool using skills, we ARE nothing special.

Given that Christianity dictates that we were made in "God's image", that's got to rail on them a lot.

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-16, 07:30 PM
They'll always be special to us.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-16, 09:00 PM
he and I do it on purpose. sometimes I feel that my sentences are not important enough to be capitalized.




For the record, I do know how to type "correctly". My English teachers loved that about me. They could ignore the grammatical errors and focus on my content. (That rarely made my grade any better)
Exactly ...

I Find, It Helps Draw The Eye, Towards my Posts ...

That, And I'm Pedantic, as ANYTHING!

Jim
2005-Nov-16, 11:42 PM
... With every discovery that backs evolution and cosmology, the Earth and humanity steadily lose central importance in the grand scheme of life and the universe. ... we ARE nothing special.

I disagree with you here. The more we learn about the universe and our (certainly non-central, non-necessary) place in it, the more special I find us. We are, after all, a part of a truly magnificent... something, whatever you choose to call it. (Hey, the White Sox ball boys may not get World Series rings, but they will always know that they were part of something special. Same same.)


Given that Christianity dictates that we were made in "God's image", that's got to rail on them a lot.

(fixed quote tag)

Actually, only some sects still hold to the idea of humans being made in God's physical image. Many - most? - lean to being made in His spiritual image.

Donnie B.
2005-Nov-17, 01:26 AM
Exactly ...

I Find, It Helps Draw The Eye, Towards my Posts ...

That, And I'm Pedantic, as ANYTHING!Well, judging from my personal reaction, it may also make readers skip over your posts much of the time.

Just sayin'... :whistle:

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-17, 01:49 AM
Well, judging from my personal reaction, it may also make readers skip over your posts much of the time.

Just sayin'... :whistle:

I. find. them. hard. to. read. because. I. end. up. reading. them. like. this. with. a. pause. at. each. word.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-17, 01:54 AM
Grammar. The final frontier.

To go. Where no man. Has gone before.

To discover. New sentence fragments...

Philip A
2005-Nov-17, 02:12 AM
...and in ways confusing arrange them?

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Nov-17, 07:01 AM
Grammar. The final frontier.[Snip!]
And let's not forget this in a similar vein:

Space. The final frontier. To boldly split infinitives where none have been split before... -- The radio version of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-17, 07:32 AM
I. find. them. hard. to. read. because. I. end. up. reading. them. like. this. with. a. pause. at. each. word.
Ah ...

But ...

You ARE, Talking About It, No?

:think:

Philip A
2005-Nov-17, 07:46 AM
SYNTAX ERROR: REBOOT FROM START

:razz:

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-17, 07:48 AM
SYNTAX ERROR: REBOOT FROM START

:razz:
WHAAAA!!!!

Er ...

Is that, What you Meant?

Philip A
2005-Nov-17, 07:49 AM
Y. Ep.....

crosscountry
2005-Nov-17, 07:58 AM
I think you've hit one of the bigger nails on the head Jim. I personally would love it if there was a heaven and some plan behind all of the craziness in the universe. But, at least for me, there is no evidence of this and wishing doesn't make it true. I can't fool myself into believing that something is true because I want it to be true.

I have no problem if others can do that for themselves. My problem is when you try to force such opinions and beliefs on others, as part of public education, in a science class.


Heaven sounds like a good place. But what can you actually do there that is as good as here on earth?

Philip A
2005-Nov-17, 07:59 AM
:think: Well, I've never been able to play the harp or sit on a cloud.....

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Nov-17, 08:49 AM
Heaven sounds like a good place. But what can you actually do there that is as good as here on earth?
You're forgetting about the stripper factory and beer volcano...

Maksutov
2005-Nov-17, 10:04 AM
You're forgetting about the stripper factory and beer volcano...And very few lawyers, politicians, or corporate executives.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-17, 03:45 PM
Lawyers always get the short end of the stick. *Sighhhs*

crosscountry
2005-Nov-17, 03:47 PM
maybe there is no Church in Heaven, nor preachers, pastors and the likes.


if that were the case, Heaven might sound like a nice place.

Maksutov
2005-Nov-17, 04:14 PM
maybe there is no Church in Heaven, nor preachers, pastors and the likes.


if that were the case, Heaven might sound like a nice place.Aw, come on. You can't tell me you'd not miss this guy (http://www.tbn.org/about/newsletter/0102/010205.jpg) screaming and spitting at you about how the devil is after your soul and how it should really be spelled "evil-ution"? Be honest now...

mid
2005-Nov-17, 05:11 PM
What would be the point? If you're in Heaven, surely it's a bit late to be arguing about whether or not ways need to be repented?

pghnative
2005-Nov-17, 05:25 PM
Apparently you haven't heard of the after-heaven...

Moose
2005-Nov-17, 05:33 PM
Apparently you haven't heard of the after-heaven...

It's heavens all the way down, is it?

Disinfo Agent
2005-Nov-17, 05:39 PM
Up, all the way up!
Down is the Other Side.

captain swoop
2005-Nov-17, 05:39 PM
all the way up surely?

Moose
2005-Nov-17, 05:43 PM
True enough, mustn't crowd the turtles.

mid
2005-Nov-17, 06:00 PM
Does this mean once you've got a Heaven or two under your belt, you've got free reign to be evil for a life or so without fear of coming all the way back down here?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-17, 06:33 PM
Who's on first?

(You all reminded me of that)

LurchGS
2005-Nov-17, 06:50 PM
I plan on spending the entirety of my afterlife with the Flying SPaghetti Monster - so long as there's plenty of garlic. No garlic? where's the fun in that?

Joff
2005-Nov-17, 07:39 PM
Time for this:
Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one

25th anniversary of his death coming up soon... :cry:

pghnative
2005-Nov-17, 09:27 PM
Up, all the way up!
Down is the Other Side.You obviously haven't read the mirror reversal (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34708) thread.

Maksutov
2005-Nov-18, 02:59 AM
Does this mean once you've got a Heaven or two under your belt, you've got free reign to be evil for a life or so without fear of coming all the way back down here?Heck, you've got that already if you belong to the right group. It's what weekly confessional is for. http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4879/iconbiggrin1kg.gif

Get absolved and wipe the slate clean, so you have an entire week to be rotten to people and in general work on more juicy stuff for the next confessional. http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

Heck, we had a sales rep set up a sweet deal like that with one of his best accounts (from which we learned later he was getting kickbacks). The motors this customer was sold came under a 3-year warranty. Now this was a little unusual (it was usually one year), but here's where the sweetness came in.

The customer would invariably send back each motor for repairs about 2 years and 9 months after purchase. The sales rep had instructed the repair department supervisor (who reported to the sales department) that each repaired motor was to be given a full 3-year warranty instead of the usual 90 days. Bottom line was the customer never needed to buy replacements for this kind of motor again, now having an endless free supply.

When I took over management responsibility for the repair department, I checked the records to see what our track record was, and which models were giving us the most returns. This "infinite warranty" deal stuck out like a sore stator, and of course I put an immediate end to it. Plus a short note to the company president resulted in the sales rep eventually looking for work elsewhere.

Ah, the root of evil (which involves, of course, love)...

LurchGS
2005-Nov-18, 06:30 AM
zounds, that's criminal

we have a reseller with sales reps.. they were given very explicit instructions: the customer gets free install ONLY if he signs a 3 year contract, else, there's a graduated scale of fees. Of course, the salesmen would wave the install fees for ANY contract. After several complaints to our reseller, all the offending salesmen ... sought other employment.

Each contract only cost us $1000 or so - I imagine each of your motors ended up costing you a bunch more (at a guess)

-------

They're my rules - obey or go home

crosscountry
2005-Nov-18, 03:18 PM
Apparently you haven't heard of the after-heaven...



what an idea. so... if you commit suicide in Heaven are you taken down a level? back to earth?


sounds like fun.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-18, 05:03 PM
Earth IS hell. Or at least purgatory.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-19, 12:53 AM
Must be hell, I have kids

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-19, 03:35 AM
Must be hell, I have kids
Aw ...

I SO, Wanna Have, a Couple!!!

Too Much, Work?

:think:

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-19, 03:52 AM
I will never have kids in my life. I don't want to be responsible for yet more life in this overcrowded world, and I do not want to risk raising kids to be like me. I was tortured in school and throughout my life. Plus, I'm lazy and selfish, so it gives me more time to live my life.

Yeap. No kids for me. Even if people say, "Oh, you'll have kids. You're just a dumb young guy". *Hates people that makes assumptions on what he'll do just because he's 20.*

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-19, 03:56 AM
I will never have kids in my life. I don't want to be responsible for yet more life in this overcrowded world, and I do not want to risk raising kids to be like me. I was tortured in school and throughout my life. Plus, I'm lazy and selfish, so it gives me more time to live my life.

Yeap. No kids for me. Even if people say, "Oh, you'll have kids. You're just a dumb young guy". *Hates people that makes assumptions on what he'll do just because he's 20.*
I Used to Say, The Same Thing, at 20 ...

Your Biological Clock, Will Start Ticking ...

Or, your Wife's, WILL!

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-19, 04:10 AM
I don't have a wife, and if I get a wife, I will tell her straight out that I won't have kids biologically related to me. besides, my blood is tainted; there's a chance my children would have hemophilia.

Also, I am serious about what I'm saying. I'm for not contributing in a world where there people out there that have overly large families in the first place.

Plus, I'm lazy and selfish. I want my time for myself and whoever I get in a relationship with. At worst, I'll just have four legged furry kids. (Not biological, of course :P )

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Nov-19, 04:17 AM
I don't have a wife, and if I get a wife, I will tell her straight out that I won't have kids biologically related to me. besides, my blood is tainted; there's a chance my children would have hemophilia.

Also, I am serious about what I'm saying. I'm for not contributing in a world where there people out there that have overly large families in the first place.

Plus, I'm lazy and selfish. I want my time for myself and whoever I get in a relationship with. At worst, I'll just have four legged furry kids. (Not biological, of course :P )
Do you, Actually Have Hemophilia?

Or, Is It, a Relative, Who Does?

Hemophilia, Is a Sex Chromosome, Related Illness; If you Have It, The Most you Can Have, Is a Female Carrier!!!!

Any Male Children, Will, Of Course, Be Clear!

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-19, 06:03 AM
Oh. Yeah, that's right. But the rest of what I said still stands.

by the way, why is it called hemaphilia? "Philia" promotes a desire or like, usually sexual. The majority of hemaphiliacs are not sexual vampires :P

Joff
2005-Nov-19, 07:01 AM
Do you, Actually Have Hemophilia?

Or, Is It a Relative Who Does?

Hemophilia Is a Sex Chromosome Related Illness; If you Have It The Most you Can Have Is a Female Carrier!!!!

Any Male Children Will Of Course Be Clear!Unless the prospective mother of these children is a carrier of course.

And "-philia" in this case means a tendency towards (bleeding in this case)

Swift
2005-Nov-19, 07:17 AM
Lonewulf, I think it is fine not to want kids. That is the decision my wife and I have made. Having time for ourselves and our relationship was part of the decision.

I can't say it is an easy decision either way, and I don't think it should be. I think there are too many people who decide to have kids without enough thought. But you will get a lot of "pressure" from others, related and not, about your decision.

I think you are making a joke about being selfish, but maybe not, but it is one of the comments I've gotten, that I'm being selfish for not having kids. I don't understand this at all - if anything I would be selfish for thinking that my contribution to the gene pool is so important that I had to breed.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-19, 07:19 AM
I'm not joking about being selfish. I would like to have a lot of time to myself. I freely admit I am selfish, just as I admit I am lazy, that I have a short attention span, and that I can be arrogant from time to time.

I'm not always selfish, however; I'm generally a good person. But I do think of myself enough times :P

crosscountry
2005-Nov-19, 07:36 AM
Kids would ruin all the fun. They are jokes that our parents want to play on us.



I would only have kids if I really trusted my mate. I know, I know marriage is supposed to be like that. Well, I was engaged to a woman I loved, but wouldn't have had kids with her.

Wolverine
2005-Nov-19, 02:10 PM
I just stumbled across this (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/18/ap/tech/mainD8DV0FEO0.shtml).

genebujold
2005-Nov-19, 04:40 PM
The term "The Dark Ages" is quite often misused. Most people think it refers to a time when religion kept the masses in the dark, but this is quite far from the truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

Insinuating that any religious faith is somehow "Dark" is diametrically opposed to the this board's rules.

Captain Kidd put it well: "As one reporter said this morning, in 1999 Kansas tried this, the voters booted them out the following election, installed a more moderate board, and the decisions were reversed. Let’s see what happens next year. That’ll give a good feel for how the Kansasans… (Kansasians?) really feel about it."

pghnative
2005-Nov-19, 05:31 PM
But the reference to "dark" in the thread title is explicitly to the change in the definition of science by the Kansas Board of Education; it is not directed directly to any specific religion.