School unit mandates 'intelligent design

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EVOLUTION_DEBATE?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

And so, it begins.

DOVER, Pa. (AP) -- When talk at the high school here turns to the origins of life, biology teachers have to make time for both Charles Darwin as well as his detractors.

Last month, this rural south-central Pennsylvania community became first in the nation to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power.

Critics say it's a veiled attempt to require public school children to learn creationism, a biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God.

The state American Civil Liberties Union chapter is reviewing the matter. Its Georgia counterpart is fighting a suburban Atlanta district's decision to include a warning sticker in biology textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact."

With all the stuff that we have to do, is it really necessary to go back and re-try the Scopes Monkey Trial?

Say goodbye to the US. The people have spoken, well, at least 51% of the people have spoken, and the rest of us WILL BE ASSIMILATED!

Philosophy students are fed fundamentalist pap
While science departments excrete that creationist crap
And liberals can't find their testicles without a map ...
... and I ask, who am I?
... and I cry.

- Existo

http://www.existo.com/

This is central PA - Dixie with snow. Drive through it sometime.

Unbelievable. I thought it was the 21st century, not the 19th.

and other religions' stories. Make no mention of Genesis. Take intelligent design and stick up the right wing's ass.

From the oldest, dustiest Bible I could find. Original King James edition. I would begin by saying something like, "The school board would like for me to tell you a story...." I wouldn't even bother to put any of it on my exams, either.

Genesis is full of passages that would freak out the average fundamentalist mom. Adultery, murder, slavery, the list goes on and on....

Now I'm really confused.

... in Poland.

Of course, that's too bad if you're Polish, because it's a great country, with a history of genius: for example, Polish mathematicians did the essential work behind cracking the German enigma code in WWII, even though Brit Turing always gets most of the public credit.

But since it's not mentioned in the Bible, Poland really cannot expect continued diplomatic recognition under the new Republican theocracy. I know that's confusing, but I'm sure you'll get used to it.

In Genesis (3:22,24), it says, "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." ... After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."

I would love to hear a kid ask the teacher, "Why didn't God just put that guard at the Tree of Knowledge and prevent original sin in the first place?"

I asked a priest about why are you so upset about Adam and eve eating from the tree of knowledge because ya know if humans didn't have knowledge they would be kind of like dumb pets doing nothing in a zoo wouldn't think for them selves no creative though. basically like the family dog. So basically eating form this Tree of knowledge gave us our freedom from that life of ignorance. and we get punished for it
I think in some way fundies want to try to stuff the genie back into the bottle if we lose all our knowledge and revert to ignorant no nothing pets we might be let back into gods good graces with out original Sin,then we can head back to the zoo of the garden of Eden
I never got a response.

or other pets?

The question is would you like to be the family dog to a mythical creature That seems to have a very vindictive and evil streak in him.
personally I would rather have my own freedom my own though my own life,rather then be a blissfully ignorant pet in a cage. Then again if this god had it his way we wouldn't even be having a conversation on this because we would be with out thought or reason.

tree of knowledge. Damn, here I was thinking that he was born a plain ole dumbass and would die a plain ole dumbass. Does this mean if he eats an apple a day that he could learn to speak English better then Pickles.

about 40 years ago. I thought then that it was all bullshit, however
I did stay an altar boy for awhile so that I could get the
wine and rip off the collection boxes. I didn't think of it
as stealing, just getting back the money my parents had
stupidly lost.

i was actually an alter boy for like a year ( it was kind of mandated if you went to catholic school after a certain age they would just rotate you.)
funny you mention it because it brought back some memories of grade school and one thing i remember after this old kindly priest left our school to get promoted would be the best word a fresh out of seminary priest took his place he used to invite some of the alter boys back to his house ( that was connected to the church) to play sega and the nes ( both the cutting edge in video games at the time) I never was invited to go because I said I had bolth. the funny part was he was there only for like 2 years after witch he left the priesthood for reasons that weren't explained to us.
I never really though of it till you mentioned alter boys and the wine stealing weee man now I'm glad i had both systems at home.

From "In the beginning" to the flood and its aftermath (including the part where Noah got shitfaced. Questions? Complaints? No probalo!

I don't really know much about this stuff. They don't teach it much at the university I went to, so I'm doing what every other teacher in the district does - teach directly from the textbook. As for the lack of "intelligent design" questions on my exam, I really don't feel right giving out grades for something I really don't know that well myself.

can't forget the nekkid part. fundies love that.

laid an egg.

And how Athena jumped out of Zeus' ear.

Naturally , the intelligent designer is the Christian god. Never does anyone think it could be a toad, or an alien or anything else but the Christian god. They have their conclusion and fit the facts/arguments to prove it.

We homeschool to give our children a modern education and expose them to diversity. Not exactly what most people associate with homeschooling, is it?

accept students from districts that teach "intelligent design." That will nip it in the bud.

:shrug:

religious crusaders and other assorted revisionists are on a roll now. They feel they have a mandate, since Jesus w. bush was "re-elected," thus affirming and boosting the octane of their rampaging. That will probably only precipitate a full-on assault on colleges and universities, where many extremists already loudly condemn the looney liberals of academia as the source of much of the liberal illss that ail our world.

But it's still a nice thought.

I wish SOMETHING could stop 'em. This is horrible. Back in time we go. Soon, if they keep getting their way, humanity won't even stand fully erect anymore. There goes the brain drain and the scientific discoveries and developments and the innovations that come from inquiring, independent minds that are free to consider all things.

What the hell is happening to our country? Oops! I guess I just answered my own question there.

I am taking a class next semester called "Neodarwinism and its challengers". Its basically looking at all the theories surrounding our beginning as a world and how they compare with Evolution. Being a biology major, I totally support Evolution, but I think it is interesting to see what other people's reasoning behind their theories are. Hopefully the class will show how Evolution trumps all the others, but, it is a philosophy class, so maybe not. Should be interesting though.

this "theory not a fact" stuff.

Relativity and Newton's Laws are theories too.

I wonder if there were a popular religion that questioned the validity of F=ma, would school boards be caving to that one too?


:grr:

if you drop something, it hangs in the air until we figure it out. Evolution is a theory and a fact ... evolution, like gravity, works--we just don't know EXACTLY how.

:mad:

An idiot venting in the Atlanta Journal/Constitution this morning asked, "If Cynthia Tucker (the progressive editor of the paper) thinks gravity is a theory, why doesn't she jump off Stone Mountain and see what happens?" Arrgh! I've given up on the Neanderthals in this state. And I apologize for insulting the Neanderthals.

Evolution is wrong, gravity is right ... Copernicus was wrong, the Inquisition was right. Where is that kool-ade again?

</sarcasm>

And they assume it means "just an idea" instead of "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

than the "theory" of Materialsim which posits that the Universe, Life and Intelligence evolved out of Physical Matter.

Western Science has never proven that Physical Matter can create Life OR Intelligence.

On the other hand, the entire world around us displays how our Consciousness has shaped the Physical World.

Intelligent Design does NOT say that some Creator/Limited Personality
created the Universe.

Rather, it posits the notion that Reality proceeds from Consiousness. That originally "All That Is, Was And Shall Be" was Consciousness... and that Consciousness began to differentiate itself into various states and then into various forms.

What happens is Religious AND Scientific Fundies project their own sense of Limited Personality onto the Intelligence inherent in all states of existence and all Physical Matter.

In that a theory by definition requires a method for testing and making predictions based on observed phenomena.

How do you test the notion that evolution and design in nature is explained away by "natural selection acting on 'unguided' mutations"?

Do you have a time machine to go back and measure genetic changes that occurred millions of years ago? What are we going to do, reverse engineer DNA?

You raise a good point. Secondarily, there is the continued fallacy of referring to both micro- and macro-evolution as "Evolution". These are two very different propositions. The first is identifiable and has already been extensively documented and studied. The second is very theoretical. Both sides make the error of equating the two. The fact is that no fossil evidence of transitional cross-phylum specimens exists.

there is no micro and macro evolution. There is just evolution. The creationists use this ridiculous argument to the cloud the waters. ALL evolution takes place in small incremental steps.

Any theories on the Cambrian Explosion? I'm not arguing against small incremental steps, I'm just curious as to where all the fossil evidence is for the cross-phylum organisms. I can buy the argument for a solitary definition of evolution, but there are certain impediments that haven't been adequately explained YET. The Cambrian Explosion is one of those. With the plethora of documented cases of small incremental steps within species, why aren't there more conclusive cases tying two phylums together?

Seriously, ask and ye shall receive.

Ando.... macro-evolution is a lot of micro-evolution. What you're saying is akin to claiming that no matter how many millimeters you have, you'll never ever be able to build a kilometer. That's just silly. With unlimited time, large scale changes will take place (and have taken place).

Secondly, what's a phylum? Seriously, can you define it? Is it like porn? You know it when you see it? Or is there something more rigourous you know of.

And in any case, you're wrong. What sister-phyla do you wish to see bridged? Ask and ye shall receive.

How do you test evolution? Dig for fossils.

The Theory of Evolution says that, since whales are mammals, there must be some distant ancestor of whales that made the transition from the land to the sea. So to test that hypothesis, you go and dig in strata of an age between the time land mammals evolved and full blown whale evolved. And sure enough scientists found just such fossils, part whales, part land mammals. A true transitional fossil. Repeat many, many times, and you have the fact of evolution.

Reverse engineer DNA? No need. Evolution left plenty of markers in the genetic code. Almost like tree rings. Scientists can look at the DNA and tell, date that is, exactly when two species diverged.

I didn't ask how do you test for evolution in general. Simply showing evidence that genetic change took place doesn't show that "natural selection acting on 'unguided' mutations" explains away evolution and design in nature. You are presenting a false dichotomy.

The Earth is round now. Maybe it was flat then. We can't build a time machine to go back and check. We know natural selection is responsible for the origin of new species now, it's observed in the lab and in nature. But hey, maybe it was God who did it before humans were around.

:eyes:

yea, there's a hole at the north pole, that's where that dinosaurs and flying saucers come from, and the earth is fat because everyone eats at McDonalds. How did you figure me out so fast? I'm amazed by your deductive brilliance.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made the same mistake with Sherlock Holmes. Going from specifics to general theory is inductive (to infer from particulars). Going from generalities to specifics is deductive reasoning (trace the course).

deduction
n.
1. The act of deducting; subtraction.
2. An amount that is or may be deducted: tax deductions.
3. The drawing of a conclusion by reasoning; the act of deducing.
4. Logic.
1. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.
2. A conclusion reached by this process.

I was referring, rather sarcastically, to meaning # 3.

your post (specific facts) and then drew your conclusion, is induction. My graduate research students often use the same argument and, inductively, reach the same erroneous conclusion.

:evilgrin:

like astronomy, much of evolution can not be experimented on. in those cases you are limited to observation without experiment; you just look at what occurs, and do comparisons of those observations. of course the observations and its findngs need to be verifiable just as is the case with experiments.

Then again, experiments with fruit flies can tell you a lot about natural selection.

Oh, and it's not "Darwinims" that needs to be tested; just the theory of evolution. Much like finding scientific evidence for the existance of god is not a matter of testing religionism.

And it's not scientific: to accept the premise of "Intelligent Design," one would have to accept the fact that this "intelligence" is highly limited indeed:

1. The birth canal is too small for a human head, and that's why before modern medicine so many died in childbirth.

2. The eye has a blindspot, which if designed "correctly" it wouldn't have.

There's more, much more, but these 2 examples should suffice.

I'm not a partisan for or against ID THeory, but I am familiar with it. ID Theory is very specific in that Intelligent Design does not equal optimal design. We can solve that argument in the real world quite easily. A car is intelligently designed, but cars have numerous flaws. That does not make the cars unintelligently designed. Again, the theory is being mis-applied. People equate ID Theory with Creationism, they are not the same. ID Theory does not postulate that things were designed perfectly, only that they were designed.

Actually the argument for the eye is that it is created backwards, and therefore is not "intelligent design". If it were intelligent design, the eye should be a lot simpler then it really is.

is in a history class.

Nothing in your post even begins to approach the level of theory. Please provide us with your theoory as to how 'Consciousness has shaped the Physical World'.

Science never proves anything. Science can't prove anything.

The basic philosophy behind science as a method is sound, and science as a method can never prove anything.

Intelligent design on the other hand is simply not science in the methodical form, in other words, it proceeds from theory to data collection, rather from data collection to theory and testing.

You are also mistaken about what intelligent design says concerning the creation of the universe. ID proponents mask it with flowery language about irreducible complexity and the mind of a creator, but the implication is always very clearly the Christian god.

(scientific) theories are not abstract ideas as some people do seem to think.
Theories are formalized descriptions of verifiable observations; it's not "just some idea".

So they are based in reality, which is why they actually do work in reality.

Evolution is an observed fact that was acknowledged long before Darwin. The misconception comes from the phrase "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" the operative part being "Darwin's", Darwin's explanation (or "theory") of how evolution occurred is famous because it was the first serious attempt to explain th mechanism of how evolution worked. He was not the first to note that it DID occur.

This is the proper scientific term. In science, the term theory is used to mean an explanation of a law or laws. It explains the relationaship among observable facts. In this case the law is Natural Selection. I'm a science educator and this has been and continues to be a long, hard road to fight.

...but keep it out of our public schools. Want federal funding? Then teach science, not fundie dogma.

...all religious organizations are required to teach evolution and give it equal time when they discuss the origins of man. Yeah, baby!

ever be in a position to establish this theory by observation and facts? It is another cockamamie crap coming out of the mouths of the likes of Falwell and Robertson.No one can accuse them of being part of any Intelligent Design anyway.There goes their case.

Science addresses the "how" questions. How did the universe start? How did life evolve?

Religion and philosophy address the "why" questions. Why are we here? If the universe was "Intelligently designed" - why and to what purpose?

I personally believe that both queries are critical to our understanding of ourselves and the universe and our place (and obligations) there in.

I send my son to the public schools to learn about the first set. I send him to Sunday school and discuss at home the second. I have had long conversations with the religion leaders and teachers at Sunday school to make sure that we are basically "on the same page" when it comes to teaching about God and moral obligations, ethical concerns, etc. We all have a wide choice of religious institutions including the the choice to handle all such questions within the family home.

That's the proper way to handle these issue. It sure as shit isn't a public classroom where children are required to attend by law.

process itself.There is no need for it to have started as part of a Grand Design of the Universe.This means that Evolution begat Intelligence, again as a random development of the increasing complexity of life itself.To say there was a Great Poohbah orchestrating this Grand Design when it can be explained easily as a process of going from simple organisms to more complex organisms as evolution postulates is good enough.In fact I will go one step further and say there is no need to even question the "Why" of this process.Randomness in the Universe is pervasive. We are just one of those random events.This is why Existentialism has such a powerful impact.

I found this a good read.

------------
Intelligent Design?

a special report reprinted from Natural History magazine

report highlights

Three proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in the natural world.

Each view is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution (EVO). The report, printed in its entirety, opens with an introduction by Natural History magazine and concludes with an overview of the ID movement.

The authors who contributed to this Natural History report are:

Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro, ed. (introduction)
Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. (ID) and Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. (EVO)
William A. Dembski, Ph.D. (ID) and Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. (EVO)
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (ID) and Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. (EVO)
Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. (overview).

the rest of the report is on this page:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

My republican friends hate it when I point this out to them.

The future economy of the US does not need intelligent people capable of using reason. Having such intelligence will make the population more restless in their careers, and they will be more troublesome to manage and suppress.

These educators are tasked with producing a generation of workers that will be happy to spend 5 years mopping floors before they graduate to being able to stand at a counter and say "Would you like fries with that, sir".

Give the people what they want, as the Kinks say. Keep 'em dumb, then they are easier to control. Funny how the "fundies" all want government out of our lives with the exception of sex, guns, religion, medical treatment, library content, TV content, pay-per-view movies in hotels.

THIS IS THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL! They have demonized Public Education almost as much as they have demonized Liberals and the Democratic Party. They don't like that their children are being taught tolerance, science, history, etc. Their goal is to eventually tear down public education. After all, the NEA is just a terrorist organization.

Welcome to their world. It's Ozzie and Harriet and the Beav on crack. Why it's common knowledge that most woman would much rather stay at home and make turkey pot pie for their husbands.

I sometime want to cry when I see the imminent destruction of all the advancements to our quality of life that have been made in the past century.

Welcome to the Old Testament.

They begin ask tough questions, like

Why are we invading a country that never threatened us?

Why aren't we doing anything about global warming?

Why can't we audit these voting machines?

What WAS that lump under Chimpy's jacket?

"only one question please, after all the peoples have spoken". I wonder is Mussolini's Press Conferences were like this? Oh, never mind. That is too thoughtful and hard a question.

Whore Press: "Sir, when did you become so great?"
Pres: "well, that's a tough question. I guess it was when God came to me in a dream and said I would be a great man someday".

Whore Press: "Sir, it was very touching that you visited the injured veterans at Walter Reed. Tell us how much they loved you?"
Pres: "I respect all those who served and especially those that were injured in battle and wear the Purple Hear.......er, hey, that was a trick question wasn't it?" "Didn't you hear, the peoples spoke"

:eyes: Breed domesticated workers. Keep the Royal Jelly for the elite.

just watched it a few weeks ago, Fritz Lang silent film from the 1920s right?

Fritz Lang was, in the opinion of most, trying to portray a warning - but the fascists viewed it, not with aversion but with attraction.

it such a evil thing to teach it all. Why one thing and not another. Evolution is nothing but a theory and it is NOT a fact, it can't be proven as fact. Why is this one theory only allowed to be taught. Isn't this a bit closed minded for folks that are progressive!?

That sums it up for me. Not you? Wow...far out.

They taught your kids that everything came from the "Sun God" as some old American Indian believe, or that in order to please the mighty Krull, your virginal daughter needed to be thrown into the volcano? How about they feed your kids some Peyote Buttons so they can achieve enlightenment?

Or how about they teach your Children what Jews believe, that Jesus was just a prophet and not the Messiah? Or that Muhammad was the one true savior? Hell, let's go all the way back and teach kids about how god is really on Mt Olympus and that lightening and thunder is just the gods bowling?

method--and thus can't be considered science--and thus can't be taught in a SCIENCE class.

Would you teach Japanese in Spanish and say "well it is a foreign language?"

Another idea: Can intelligent design be questioned by believers? ALL science must allow itself to be questioned. Would fundies at church open themselves to the possibilty that ID may NOT be the truth? ALL TRUE SCIENTISTS must allow for ALL science to be questioned and all theories to be modified or disproven. ID backers will not allow this. Also, the job would be easy as there are no scientific observations supporting clear ID.

If epistemology were taught in grade school, these arguments would be moot.

that can be reduced to a singular fact. There are millions of facts that make up and support the theory of evolution.

There are a billion words written about the science of evolution. If you wanted to understand the difference between this and the belief in creationism, it is abundantly available.

Creationism has been debunked repeatedly. It is not closed minded to reject it any more than it is closed minded to reject the notion that the earth is flat, or that Aristotle's "ethers" are a primal force in the universe, or that bleedings cure illness by ridding the body of evil spirits.

There is too much more to learn to continually rehash the proposition of creationism. If someone wants to study it and champion it as a valid body of knowledge, it will have to pass the same scrutiny of every other body of knowledge that is accepted by serious thinkers. But until this is done in such a manner that makes the ideas of creationism plausible to those that use the scientific method of repeatable, independently derivable analysis, creationism is irrelevant to the rational educational process.

and I don't want your superstitious fairy-tale concept of "creation" taught to my children.

Do you know what a THEORY is?
I don't hear you yelling for an alternative to the theory of relativity (do you even have an inkling of what that is?) or the theory of gravity. With each passing year the basic tenets of evolution are more and more confirmed by new SCIENTIFIC discoveries and analysis, NOT faith, NOT unfounded prayer-based mumbo-jumbo but FACTS supported by rigorous testing and research.

Keep "god" in religion and OUT OF SCIENCE.

A theory is different from a hypothesis. A theory has been proven to the point that it is accepted fact or paradigm by the sciences because no evidence has emerged to prove that it is untrue.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is.

There is no scientific evidence to prove "intelligent design." Therefore, it isn't a theory, because theories have to be testible, provable, and replicable. To believe in intelligent design is to have faith. That should be taught in church, not in school.

Evolution is theoretical fact.
Intelligent design is religious mythology.

Evolution is a fact in that we see it happen. It is a fact in that the definition is change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.
This is an observable phenomena.
Evolution is a theory in that it is not yet know what the mechanism is that causes the changes.

I'm a great fan of myth, legend & comparative religion. But not in science class.

...observable, just like gravity and the roundness of the Earth. Read a freshman biology text, or an introductory evolution text if you doubt it. You have been lied to if you've been told otherwise. Your's is one of the most basic and pervasive misperceptions about evolution. If you're genuinely interested in learning more, PM me and I'll send you some more information (I don't see much point in spending half an hour giving a full reply here if you're not going to read it).

That this is an actual request for clarity, rather than merely a way of baiting a further argument. If so, then there is reason to continue; if not then we are just engaging in a battle to push for the acceptance of an explanation that fits with presumption.

1. Science is not an explanation of anything. It is, however a method of describing processes based on observable evidence and attempting to arrive at a solution that fits with the facts and leaves no area open to unfounded assumption or guessing, if possible. The more closely that description fits the available data, the better we can account for all its characteristics and the more useful it is in resolving the difficulties and usefulness of life's complications.
2. In order for this process to work, one must not only be open to all the information available but willing to discard the data that don't fit, or must be altered to fit. No pre-conditions should be included, since allowing such presumption would limit the ability of the observer to see where the "facts" match or don't match the other, provable parts of the picture.
(We human beings are woefully able to see only the "facts" that fit in with what we think we already know. We, progressive or otherwise, are, in point of fact very closed minded and this is the basis of the continual struggle to be as objective as possible.)
3. The simplest picture that matches is usually, but not always, the most probably correct-the foundation of Occam's razor. If one has to contort the available evidence to fit the "way it oughta be," instead of the way it is, then correctness, or reality is not served.
4. If one has to assume some force or influence outside of the actual description of the evidence, the description will be valid only when that outside influence is included. For example-is a belief in intelligent design necessary for a process to work? If not, then exclude it. If so, then it must always be included.
5.Could there be some sort of explanation behind every occurrence in the universe that we are simply unable to see? Answer-of course there could, but such an explanation is not necessary. The basic functions of physics always work, whether or not one believes in any particular outcome.
6. The descriptions of biological processes always work. If they don't work the same way, experience has shown, some part of the evidence has been overlooked.
7. The teaching of "science," by definition must include only those things that are a part of that science. If one wishes to expand said teachings to include other situations, then such wishes need to be stated up front, rather than slipped in as some sort of assumed alternative. For instance, if one plans to teach some sort of faith-based evolution, tell the truth and state that "this teaching that we are going to do is about faith-based evolution," not cloaked as science, but simply what it is. This brings us to the subject at hand.
8. "Science," a description of what is actually known, without any attachment to any previously held assumption, needs to be taught as strictly that. If one wishes to hold to religious teachings-say so. Don't muddy it up with any thing that isn't the truth about the objective.
Teach all the faith-based, religion-based or intelligent design-based courses you wish, but avoid labeling them as anything other than what they actually are. Part of my own religion is that I can be depended on to tell the truth every time, as nearly as I can discern the truth and clearly divide my personal assumptions from the facts of evidence. And never hide my agenda-period!

There is NO evidence supporting either of those. There is OVERWHELMING evidence supporting evolution. Why would you want to teach children something that has no more validity then Grimm's Fairy tales?

There is nothing closed minded about wanting to teach truth and not teach nonsense.

some people use the word "evil" in a discussion of science versus non-science? "The world is flat" was a theory until unassailable scientific evidence "suggested" otherwise. Should public schools also espouse the theory of a flat world so as to "teach both sides?" And what about that little "separation of Church and State" thing that our founding fathers so vigorously proposed? Just asking.

Professor 2

If it is to be taught that life on Earth is of intelligent design, and it's being taught in science class, the most likely intelligence was born of life forms visiting us 4.5 billion years ago (the earth was "seeded"). Of course supernaturalist religionists would throw a fit, "how dare the school teach my children that aliens created life on earth", thus exposing their true motive.

course.

irretriveably, are treating "theory" as they would use it in their ordinary everyday language. Like: I have a "theory"(hunch) it is going to rain tommorrow. They know nothing of scientific method at all and how the word theory applies to that. NOTHING and that is the purpose of the dumbing down.

They ignore 150 years of scientific study and peer review. Got that all you dumbed down neanderthals? Peer review consisting of tens of thousands of papers examining the theory since it was first presented to the world by Darwin. No scientist today refutes that evolution did occur, at least not one with respected credentials. They continue to examine the evidence of the dynamics of evolution and more evidence appears almost daily.

Dumbed down, ersatz scientists with no credentials, open up little storefront schools they call labs and universities, and these ersatz scientists then write papers and produce them so that other dumbed down children can offer an alternative in order to prevent the obvious errancy in their book of magic and miracles, the bible, from becoming obsolete in it's literal interpretation. They will lose eventually, but are doing everything they can to slow down the pain by dumbing down children. They do nothing to examine the other side,or the evidence that appears time after time, over and over, but exist only to knock Darwin down.

Here is a good link re the phenomena of the dumbing down of American children in the schools over Evolution vs Creationism

http://www.bidstrup.com/creation.htm

My son was in a rural public school with a good ol' boy board of trustees. No fighting it out at that level.

At this public school, they don't teach evolution; they teach "adaptations guided by god's hand."

They have mandatory prayer in class. They force the students to say "the blessing" before lunch.

My son is home with me now, where I can educate him and teach him ethics and morals. Enough is enough.

I hope he's okay after that emergency room thing. Man, I feel wiped out this past week, but you must be really exhausted!

Good luck with that. I always hear that the top winners in the National Spelling Bee championship are kids who were homeschooled. However it disgusts me that smart people are now feeling forced into doing this.

We need to try to keep public education alive and secular.

The day he went back to school, he called with a stomach ache. I went to pick him up. I could tell it was nerves more than stomach problems.

He told me that a week earlier, he had been taken out of the class and tested, without my prior consent. A little research, and I find that he was tested for neuro-psychological problems, without any notification to me or permission from me. I called the principal, who told me that she had the legal right to test my son any time she wants(bullshit!). He didn't go to school Tuesday, and I am developing a Home School curriculum rignt now...his home classes start on Monday. You'll hear from him. He's going to have a user name at DU and post one thread a week to discuss a social-sciences/American government/history question. :-)

I've always been open to homeschooling anyway if there was ever a point where I felt my children weren't getting a proper education - either because of the curriculum or social issues.

So far, they've had a wonderful public schooling experience (4th grade and Kindergarten), but I will not hesitate for one moment to pull my children out of public school and homeschool if their district decides to teach creationism. It's a worry too, since we live in a small rural fundie town.

that control how they teach, what they teach, and how they treat the children.

Anyway, he's home with me now, and he will stay here until something changes.

Along with the teaching of "intelligent design"...

In science:

1) The world is flat. (Have you actually seen it be round? No? didn't think so!)
2) The Earth is the center of the Universe. (Once again, prove that all of that stuff isn't going around us)
3) The world is only 6,000 years old, and all geological times scales will be changed to reflect this.

In medical studies:

1) Future doctors will be instructed to offer the following treatment for all ailments, "Have you tried Prayer?"
2) Drilling a hole in the head will be the accepted treatment for most psychological disorders.
3) Exocisiologist will be the newest medical practice

In English/Literature:

1) Only the works of "good" christian authors will be taught. (no more of the Liberal, leftist, socially conscious, blatently/latently homosexual, thought provoking, or generally interesting will be tolerated)
2) Only three acctepted books will be allowed in schools: The Bible, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter, and Mein Kampf.

Perhaps more later. :freak:

Thats what I believe.

On edit: I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone else though.

But tell the truth before you do it. Doesn't anyone in the group of people who wish for "alternative" teaching have respect for truth and clarity of thought?

Tell the truth. If you teach science (comes from "to know") then teach science, which, by definition, does not include baseless belief. If you teach something else, tell the truth. Don't call it science when it's not.

It is quite noticeable that truth is such a rare commodity these days, so, I suppose it must be used sparingly-mustn't be too generous with it. We might run out of it. Save it for those situations, like mustard or anchovies, when it is really needed.

I was only attempting to show how I reconcile my belief in God and the realities of Science. There is a disdain of science by the hard core religious fundamentalists. They need a rationalization that they can accept and not contradict their beliefs. Intelligent design may be a way for them to accept science with contradicting their beliefs. But, this should be taught in Sunday schools, not public schools.

actually IS and is NOT, pontificate.

It is a sure bet not ONE person slamming Intelligent Design has a clue what it really says and where it actually comes from.

Just because the Fundies have hijacked Intelligent Design and try to make it rationalize certain of their own beliefs doesn't make Intelligent Design any less valid or valuable as Scientific Theory.

It cannot be disproved. There is no amount of evidence that can be gathered that will prove it one way or another. It is Creation Science (there's an oxymoron) reworked to make it more palatable to people who lack critical thinking skills.

from Physical Matter is a Scientific Theory.

Again, you don't know what you are talkig about when it comes to Intelligent Design.

What the Fundies say is NOT THE SAME THING. They distorted what ID says to bulster their own Belief System.

The Science Fundies who believe in their Materialism have no more basis in fact that Religious Fundies.

Materialistic Science posits that Intelligence and Life evolved from Inert Physical Matter. There is NOTHING that has ever proven this.

Intelligent Design simply posits that Physical Matter evolved from Consciousness. EVerything around us illustrates this.

Everything from the house you live in, the streets, the lanscapes, the computer you type on began as Cosncious Thought.

Everything was built according to pre-existing principles which are Universal.

You can get amino acids from various chemicals and a few strikes of lightning (same as existed in Earth's primordial past). They've done the experiment. Therefore, it HAS been proven that at least the prime building block of life could have been created from "inert physical matter."

with the input of energy...

However, Miller and Urey never made Enzymes.

Also, you have NOT:

1.approached the threshhold of creation. Tranformation is not creation

2.explained the Organizational principle inherent in that process

3.addressed how Consciousness can be created out of Physical Matter- Consciousness and Physical Matter are of different qualities. Remember, stable Physical Matter is dependant on Organization which is NOT a physical thing. Organizational Principles are NOT dependant on Physical Matter. Gravity existed before Newton figured it out.

4.Begun to explain how it is that blind, Unconsious acts consistsently happened over and over and over again so that MANY amino acids could form... and then form more complex forms. Each step of evolution requiring even MORE blind, Unconsious transformations all without any Inherent capacity for Coordination & Response.

5. Acknowledged that for the almost infinite number of blind accidents to happen again and again to the point that our world exists as it does now you have put forth a theory that INDICATES AN UNDERLYING PATTERN.

All of the above problems disappear when one posits the Theory that CConsciousness is the a priori state of existence.

You're being phony.

But can you make peptides via abiotic synthesis? Certainly.

Can you make complicated, functioning things from random changes? Certainly.

besides the fact it makes me end a sentance with a preposition, of course?

it's the easy way out. it simply says "since we can't come up with a better idea, we'll just say some higher conciousness did it" that is no different, on a grand scale, from the Ancient Greeks thinking the sun was pulled around the sky by Apollo's Chariot, or the Norse blaming thunder on Thor. at the end of the day, we are always faced with something we don't know, and think we can never know. So when faced with this problem, you have two options:

1: try to come up with a method that explains the situation you cannot understand or observe.

2: give up and decide that it was 'just made that way'

one is the path of science, guess which one?

look, ID may have some interesting aspects to it, but if it;s proponents want to gain anything remotely resembiling credibility, they need to denounce the relationship to the Christian faith.

fact v. truth, you decide.

Your argument is total bullshit. Where are all the peer-reviewed published articles on ID in publications such as Science and Nature? There haven't been any because there is no evidence- no studies that are of stastically valid experimental design, while there are many articles published that validate the theory of evolution. It comes from the fields of embryology, morphology and now, genetics. A poster at the top of this thread provided the definition of a theory. ID simply does not meet that definition, like any creation science. It is simply not scientific but wishful thinking.

Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't most of the published, peer-reviewed studies you mentioned examples of micro-evolution, or evolution within phylum. I believe the crux of the argument against evolution is cross-phylum evolution. Also, SETI used ID Theory before ID Theory was all the rage for fundamentalists. It may be useless, but SETI is not really seen as being wrong-headed in its theoretical approach. (see my post below, #94 I believe)

In any case, no, the articles mentioned are not only on micro-evolution.

On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.

It does not even begin to meet the criteria needed to be a scientific theory.

The ID community has come up with numerous approaches to promoting the theory, but are never successful at presenting it to a body of scientists knowledgeable in the subject matter of the theory such that it gets any credence.

There is no single place it "actually comes from" other than a belief in a cosmic creator. The derivations of the belief to try to justify the theory have included scientific approaches such as irreducable complexity and purely religious approaches such as biblical literalism. Both of these proposals have been discredited by the scientific community.

ID is valid as a theory, but its evidence chain so highly refutable that it is deemed a useless theory by those that are interested in pursuing productive science. If people want to spend time trying to find scientific evidence to validate ID, that is their perogative, and more power to them.

But it is illogical to teach as ID as scientific fact to students when there is no basis of science in ID. The proponents of this are using ID as a ruse to get around the separation of church and state in the schools so that they can teach Christianity in public institutions.

Nor have they ever effectively proven that Life evolved from inert matter.

Again, just because Religious Fundies use ID to promote their own concept of "God" as a personality inhabiting a seperate, human like form doesn't mean that's what THE THEORY ACTUALLY SAYS.

Why don't DU'ers actually LEARN what ID posits and then hold Fundies feet to the fire for their twisting of the ACTUAL THEORY?

Because DU'ers are stuck in their own hopelessly limited, Materialistic mindset.

I thought I knew, but you seem to have a different definition.

Does the actual theory say something like the Creator created the first matter in the Universe and then it evolved? I really want to know.

also posit the notion that Consciousness is the Prima Materia which devolved into Matter, then Form, then "Life".

Kabbalism also posits this theory and fids that as the Original Consciuosness evolved and descended into the Physical World of Form it reached its Evolutionary Apex in Humanity.

The "Purpose" of Humanity is to work towards casting aside the Limits of our Seperate Personalities and attempting to channel that Original Consciousness.

To be the Mediator between "Heaven" (the original undifferentiated Consciousness) and "Earth" (the plane where Limitless Consiousness differentiates itself).

Any scientist that has fundamentalist beliefs in some piece of science is not a scientist, since by definition the scientific process is open to inquiry.

At any rate, it is not relevant whether a scientist as ever proven anything about whether intelligence evolved from inert matter, because that is not a fundamental issue on Darwin's theory. Darwin was not postulating an origin for the universe in his work.

You keep alluding to the need for DU'ers to LEARN what ID really posits, but of course don't provide any reference to something that does that. Put it up for review. That is the scientific method.

investigate any other theories... even if others go further in explaining everyday occurances.

I did explain, briefly what ID is in several posts below and wish to state that many cutting edge scientists posit the notion that Consciousness is the Prima Materia or a priori state of existence rather than Physical Matter.

ID does NOT suggest that the Original Consciousness was limited to a seperate Person or Personality the way Fundies think of God.

This is why I wish people would look further into ID and argue with the Religious Fundies about it.

It could push Religious Fundies into recognising their own limitations.

and they are just as pig-headed as the fundamentalists.

The truth is that the ultra-Darwinist 'explanation' of evolution has not been shown to be true, there are many quotes from evolutionists that express doubt about it. The fossil records does not support it (just-so stories presented by Gould et al. to 'explain' the missing gaps are just that - stories - not evidence). Many fundie materialists present a false dichotomy between their view (evolution is ultra-gradual and apparent design is explained away by 'natural selection acting on 'unguided mutations') and the young-earth Creationist view (God just poofed the universe into existance in a single step, there was the Flood, Adam and Eve, etc.)

The evolution debate is actually quite complicated.

But can you provide the data?

Fundie scientist? For shame....

In any case, you simply don't understand what science is, and what the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method mean.

Long story short: Look at data, formulate hypotheses, test said hypotheses, propose theories. Nothing can ever be proven, but everything has the chance to be falsified.

Intelligent Design "theory" is an opisthoscientific aproach, proposing a theory and then looking for data to support it. No testing, no chance of falsification, no science involved.

Can you wrap it up if a few paragraphs? I, for one, don't know of anyone, especially DUers, who won't at least consider a well reasoned, factually coherent explication on practically any subject. This is not about fundie-baiting.
The very essence of liberalness or progressiveness includes the willingness to look at any approach to a subject that doesn't demand the suspension of disbelief. You will get an audience, but take care to play it straight with that audience.

Consciousness is the Original Universal Stuff.

The Original Consciousnes is Unlimited and has no Body or Personality seperate from anything else. In Kabbalah we call this "Limitless Light".

From the Original Consciousness proceeded/evolved ever more differentiated States of Being and eventually Physical Matter and them Forms.

Eventually, the Forms became complex enough to Reflect the Original Consciousness.

Materialistic Science believes that Consiousness evolved from or can be created by Physical Matter. There is NO evidence to suggest this.

There IS ample evidence that Consiousness shapes Physical Matter:

Scientists who uncover pre-existing Eternal, Universal Principles and then figure out ways to use them practically.

Everything around us is the product of Conscious Thought and Intent.

Order is evidence of Intelligence. Without Order you have nothing but Chaos. Physical Reality could not happen without Order to keep things held together.

Again, NONE of what I've posited above depends on a sky god who has a personality.

:shrug: The name you give to the monad is "Consciousness" but the structure of your argument is virtually identical.

again, Materialistic Science has never proven that the a priori state is Physical Matter.

So why just assume that is the case?

With Consciousness as the starting point, more things fit together.

For instance, the inherent capacity for Physical Matter to Organize and achieve Stability.

While I personally subscribe to an "Is Before It" supernaturalism (akin to what you're describing), I don't at all regard a spontaneous generation of 'life' from matter to be inherent in the 'Scientific' viewpoint. That there's a prevalent assumption of such a viewpoint is probably not arguable, but I see that as mere postponement or avoidance of the question of biogenesis. I don't see it as inherent.

The formalization, however, of a particular "Is Before It" supernaturalism falls broadly into the category called "Gnosticism", imho.

Oh please, you're talking about god. With or without personality. You can intellectualize it all you want, you're describing a godhead.

1. Will this hang together, even tenuously, without this assumption? By "consciousness," do you mean "awareness of self?" Or even, just "self?"
Is there any direct, real (as in hard, "I can point to it," measurable, beginning-middle-end, starts here-ends there) substance here or is this, as it appears to be, a series of assumptions; laying the groundwork for a set of conclusions?
I know of no supportive evidence that "Materialistic science believes..." anything of the sort. Science arises out of the desire to create a description of what appears to be a pattern that may have a meaning.

Scientists may well uncover underlying principles and figure out ways to use them, but where is the evidence that consciousness shapes physical matter or that everything is the product of thought? Intention, maybe, but not thought.
Where please is some evidence of order resulting only from intelligence? Or of the reverse?

If you will posit: "Here are some notions that may be fun to work from," then we have a case, but so far I can see nothing but those unsupported assumptions and notions. Please continue to enlighten me... We can always come back to the SkyGod thing.

To paraphrase that great, ancient fount of wisdom, the prophet Richard Bach: What is, is. What ain't, ain't" That's reality.
'Pears to me we have two mutually interdependent universes-the real and the not real.

and Nietzsche had worked this out a long time ago.
You either look at the universe and see an inherent
order ( which apparently you do ) or you see chaos.

I see chaos and no underlying order and I believe
that were Nietzsche were alive today he would simply
point to the re-selection of bush as proof positive
that there is no god.

It has to be verifiable, testable, repeatable, it has to make predictions and it has to be falsifiable

Where are the data?

Evolution is a good theory, but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and is probably not perfect the way Darwin stated it. There are plenty of good, logical theories that make sense for their time but only show a part of the picture. Scientific theorys are constantly evolving, and ID is basically just a little faith in something to compensate for that which we cant understand right now, and may never be able to. But its philosophy or metaphysics, not science, and should not be taught in a science class or to students who are not mature enough to understand the difference.

1. In the sense that perfect actually, rigorously, means-conplete, not the common idiom-ideal.
2. Faith may not be used to compensate for lack of knowledge when the objective is the discovery of or the teaching of that body of knowledge. Faith in the judgement of unknown traffic engineers may be deemed appropriate when navigating a stretch of umfamiliar highway(after all, some responsible human has done this before,) but faith in some sort of arbitrary, perhaps capricious, outside of human experience intelligence or deity has no place in science class, as you so rightly state.
Does there exist a solution, or is the only answer the outright capitulation by one side or the other?

"Just because the Fundies have hijacked Intelligent Design and try to make it rationalize certain of their own beliefs" DOES "make it less valid or valuable as Scientific Theory".

Do you really believe that what they want is an intelligent, thoughtful review and discussion of ID as a theory? Of course not. What they want is to muddy the waters, and ultimately remove anything from Public Education that does not support THEIR notion of what "Consciousness", or "creationism" is.

If you can't see that, then all your pontificating is useless and adds nothing to the discussion. Unless you are assuming that these people in rural PA have really investigated and studied ID. I don't have that much faith in these people.

to leaving their absurd, childish idea of God as a nice (or vengeful) man who lives in the clouds behind.

It is a hook we could use to expand their concious understanding.

Believe it or not... it is PROGRESS!

Based on a foundation of mathematical and other scientific laws that are too consistent to be random. Therefore an Intelligent Design (God) must be involved. Certainly more complicated than that, but I'm on my first cup of coffee.

The problem with creationism is that creationists can't even agree on the convoluted ways they put together science. Some creationism, possibly Intelligent Design, I don't remember, includes evolution. Which would seem to go smack against what fundies think is being taught to appease them.

A person with faith, can study science and come up with Intelligent Design on their own. If they're taught to think critically which is what we're losing by injecting a magical God to answer anything science doesn't answer. It stifles advancement in the end.

You might not understand that until you've seen it. I've known people who couldn't handle college because they can't wrap their heads around as simple a concept as the reptile brain cuz they ain't no snake. I'm not kidding.

that's the misunderstanding Fundies and most Scientists make.

Cosncious Intelligence in the ID Theory does NOT mean a person, personality or seperate Being.

Consiousness is an Unlimited State which DOES generally become limited when channeled though Humans.

What you are talking about appears to fall closer to metaphysics, or maybe philosophy, than science. There are some physicists that I recall who debate this sort of question at the quantum level. You mentioned a few messages back that "many" scientist are looking at this area (my paraphrasing here from memory). How many is many? And how does it compare to the number of working biologists who, while accepting that we don't fully understand evolution, accept its basic validity? This calls to mind the article referenced in a couple of other threads from the Columbia Journalism Review. I'll try to find the link and post it back in here.

There is some danger here also of obfuscating the argument by making it too broad. You've mentioned the generation of life from inanimate matter in a couple of posts, however, evolution is mostly concerned with the process of differentiation, rather than the initiation. (By the way, so you understand where I'm coming from, I'm a physicist by education who has worked in computational molecular biology for the last 9 years. The evidence for evolution as a means of differentiation at the molecular level is overwhelming.)

All that said, the controversy in this instance certainly isn't being pushed by people who view ID the way you do. It is coming from people who view ID as a back-door method of getting fundamentalist christian ideas presented in school science classes, and these are the people who need to be fought every step of the way.

Intelligent design is NOT a theory. It's at best an hypothesis. It's obvious from your post that you don't understand what a 'theory' actually is.

If you've been brainwashed, so be it, but the simple fact is that ID is not science, and it is a thinly veiled rehashing of old earth creationism.

They're not going to stop until they get a Christian Theocracy in place.

this rock is 5000 years old. This rock is 5000 years old. And this rock is ...5000 years old.

No, that's God testing your faith.

well-regarded and properly accredited Christian or Catholic universities in this country.

Please speak up if you did.

In my experience, they teach science, including evolution, in the science departments, and religion in the religion departments. I can't recall anyone ever getting up in arms about this when I was in school.

Let these people home school if they want to teach this stuff.

The ignorant are always threatened by knowledge and facts. It shows them who they really are.

I don't think evolution is in conflict with faith. Their faith can't be very strong if it is threatened by this.

I was taught religion in religion class and science in science glass. ZERO infusion of religion in science class.

In fact, in one religion class we were talking about the theory of evolution and how could it be squared with what the bible says is the origins of the world. A very wise Sr. Benigna told us it was okay for a Catholic to believe in evolution so long as you believed that God created the Big Bang.

As a result of such an education, I have grown up to be capable of dealing with and resolving contradictory viewpoints/theories/beliefs.

Both Catholic.

I taught the Big Bang. The Theology department taught that the Big Bang occurred because God intended it so. Neither of us had any problem with the other.

is based on religious ideas. It is not based on the scientific model, discovery, method, or analysis. It is projecting a belief of a higher being or "power". It has NO PLACE in a SCIENCE classroom where nothing is approached from any type of belief system but theories (some proven and some not) based on analysis UNPREJUDICED by a preconceived idea. If this is allowed to be taught in science class, then theology class should be required to include science and its theories, methods, and discoveries.

These creationists will not stop trying however...

When will they quit teaching that?

Oh, yeah, might as well quit teaching logic and the scientific method altogether.

It absolutely dismantles the so-called theory of Intelligent Design. He lays intellectual waste to such ID luminaries as William Dembski, Michael Behe, Phillip E. Johnson, Nathan Aviezer, Gerald L. Schroeder, Hugh Ross, Grant Jeffrey, Fred Heeren and Lee Spetner. The book is NOT a primer, but a technical treatise containing a fair amount of math.

Mark Perakh is professor emeritus of physics at California State University, Fullerton. He has published four books and nearly three hundred scientific articles.

There seems to be some confusion as to the definition of Intelligent Design Theory. ID Theory is essentially a mathematical concept. It is a form of advanced applied probability theory. For those who think it junk science, it is also the driving force behind SETI. Some may think SETI is a waste of time (myself included), but it is based on an accepted mathematical model. SETI scans space looking for signals from other sentient life. They judge these signals using ID Theory, assigning probabilities based on complexity, specificity, and meaning.

Example:

cvnjf - not complex, not specific, not meaningful

alsjdeieuthjdncksiejrnfmdsowkdm - complex (relatively), not specific, not meaningful

atdognine - not complex, specific (at dog nine), not meaningful

catinthehat - not complex, specific, meaningful

You get the point. SETI looks for all three to determine "Intelligent" origin. There are other applications as well, archaeologists use the theory to analyze fragments and determine if an object is natural or man-made. The application of the theory to Biology is what has sparked controversy. The fundamentalists have seized on a piece of real science that supports their case, and hence given the science a black eye. This is a bit of a hobby of mine, so feel free to ask any questions.

Suggested reading:

"Intelligent Design" by William Dembski
"The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder

EDIT: I guess the point is that ID Theory has no direct relationship to Creationism, the two should not be linked. One is science and one is faith.

other posts on this thread (see 62 for an example) stress the importance of consciousness as a core aspect of ID... any truth to this?

also, is ID concerned with how the transition to a meaningful, complex, specific "thing" occurs?

I'm also wondering what specific things are disagreed on between proponents of ID vs. evolution.

Hopefully you can help, thanks

There seems to be some confusion as to the definition of Intelligent Design Theory.

Yes, and sadly you are only adding to it.

ID Theory is essentially a mathematical concept.

Actually ID "Theory" is bogus, but it does attempt to use mathematical principals to support certain concepts. As I mentioned in a previous post, author Mark Perakh shreds Dembski's arguments and, thus, his whole "theory".

Here is part of what Perakh says about Dembski (pp 103,104):

• Formulating his concept of design, Dembski suggests that design is not a causal but a logical category, and that design does not necessarily entail a designer. However, contrary to that notion, he often refers to design as a synonym for agency, having defined the latter as a conscious activity of an intelligent agent.


• Having defined design as simply the exclusion of regularity and chance, he often forgets about his own definition and refers to design as an independently defined category.


• The law of small probability, suggested by Dembski as one of the main pillars of his theory of design, is intrinsically contradictory in that it fails to recognize the probabilistic character of design inference and artificially separates probability from specification.


• Dembski's theory does not recognize the differences between human, alien, and supernatural types of design, which is arguably the most interesting problem (not to mention the problem of design by artificial intelligence).


• The design inference argument, utilized by Dembski to conclude that life is due to design, includes a number of arbitrary assumptions and logically deficient assertions, and therefore lacks evidentiary value.

{SETI} judge{s} these signals using ID Theory...

No, it does not. SETI uses math and probability theory, not ID "theory". SETI has absolutely nothing to do with ID.

Please read "Unintelligent Design" by Mark Perakh and then come back to talk.

is that creationism should only be taught in the paleosciences, as stories, belief and myth, not fact.

pre-babylonian myth, it would not bother me. children need to know the origin of all the bullshit they hear at home. personally, i figured the whole santa claus-jesus-easter bunny type bullshit out long before any adults thought i did.

March directly to the rear of the educated world. We don't
need an educated populace in the future, we are all going to
be working for the Chinese.

Professor 2

It is easy to leave no child behind when the train is incapable of leaving the station.

Professor 2 :-)

in a Comparative Religion class.

But it is not science.

""I think it's a downright fraud to perpetrate on the students of this district, to portray one theory over and over," said Buckingham. "What we wanted was a balanced presentation.""

Why do I think Mr Buckingham only wants a "balanced" presentation that gives his side, and not any of the others?

Here's how I'd teach "both sides":

Spend one full unit on evolution. Then, to teach creationism, one simply says, "And some people say God did it."

What more needs to be said?

That the world was created when all of the birds, and fish, and beavers, and squirrels, and elk, and mice, and bears all put mud on the back of a turtle so that a beautiful woman would have a place to stand.

I told her the turtle creation story.

And how the wise man relating the story was asked what the turtle rests on.

He replies, "Another turtle."

He's asked what that turle rests on.

He replies, "Another turtle."

He's asked what that turle rests on.

He replies, "Another turtle."

He's asked what that turle rests on.

He replies, "Another turtle."

Finally, he's asked when it ends. The wise man says, "It's turtles all the way down."

Science is about developing experimentally verifiable models for natural law. It is simply blasphemous to suggest that the Almighty can be the subject of scientific theorizing.

Intelligent design?

What is so intelligent about a whale having vestiges of a pelvis and leg bone? Even snakes have these. What about birds that don't fly? Well that was fucking brilliant to give birds wings and then incorporate them with the amazing ability not to use them. The vestigial tailbone in humans?

We have what is essentially millions of words of fact showing evolution, descent with modification if you will and now we are going to allow some insane literal inerpretation of someone's view of the Bible to destroy hundres of years of science.

I guess we know where these freaks went when we proved the Earth wasn't flat.

Religious zealots have always been the idiots of their day.

In my quest to be closer to a higher being, I learned that it's not about being a "Christian", it's all about your spirituality.