Help a DU'er win a Debate: Intelligent Design

I have this blog and I wrote about recent stories in which science has been under attack from religon. I wrote about Pope Benedict's recent hinting of adapting the intelligent design position, a Blogger for Bush saying that "science is dead", and the new poll that says in some southern states overwhelming majorities believe the Bibles stories to be literally true. When I talked about Intelligent Design being unconstititional in public schools this is one response I got:



Can you guys help me in the best words refute this? I just want to make sure I come across as best as I can without being mean. Thank you in advance!!!

in any dictionary.

IMHO....Those that choose Creation(ID) cannot understand the complexity of BIOLOGY/GEOLOGY/ARCHEOLOGY/etc etc so they choose Fantasy..

Its so much simpler I suppose.

There, one can include intelligent design, Adam and Eve, the Hindu idea of cycles, and the notion that it is turtles all the way down.

Science class is reserved for teaching about a specific way of learning about the world, and the theories that come from it. Intelligent Design cannot be taught as science, for the simple reason that there is no science to it. It can be taught as mythology. Or as religion. Or as political reaction to science. A science course can teach why Intelligent Design is devoid of scientific content, like other pseudoscience from astrology to numerology. But to pretend it is science would be to foist a lie on students, and commit a pedagogical fraud.

poster if he actually understands the difference between these two definitions of THEORY:

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·o·ries
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. (evolution)

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (intelligent design)

I just tell the fools who try this one on me that ID is only the newest dress-up name given to creationist bs. but then, I do not suffer fools gladly or politely.


just as an aside, I would not dignify the interchange as a "debate", which tends to assume that people of fairly equal mental acumen are involved. "it is impossible to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed peson"

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (intelligent design)

because a legitimate argument could be made along these lines as well:

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. (origin of species)

It is not repeatedly testable, it is not observable (none of us were there) and it cannot be used to make predictions about natural phenomina. Evolution on the other hand (the act of evolving) fits all those bills.

I think where the argument becomes fuzzy is when you compare Intelligent Design with Origin of Species.

could be also taught as "intelligent falling", where all things seem to be pulled toward objects with greater mass, but this could not have come about without being guided by some sort of designer.


The Pythagorean Theorum suggests that the square of the hypotenuse will be equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides in a right triange. This, of course, could not have happened without the guidance of a designer.


And, what about intertia? Well, the fact that objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by another force, for example, is most likely an illusion. Objects tend to stay in their state unless acted upon because they are guided and influenced by an intelligent designer.


Kepler, planetary motion, that's the designer.

Determining mathematical limits in calculus? The only reason limits seem to exist is because of the divine intervention of some sort of designer.



Is this starting to sound rediculous yet?

:think:

teaching kids that things are "too complex to have happened without some kind of designer" only encourages them to be stupid.

I just needed help because there is a lot to say, just don't know how to put it in the best of words. Are there any resources where I can show evolution to be proven scientific fact? Just to have come citations. Thanks again! :)

Here's the definition of theory as it applies to scientific theories:

This covers atomic theory, gravity theory, relativity, cells, evolution, etc. A totally different meaning of theory includes the word "conjecture." That's what your adversary is using. Ask him if he thinks that it's a theory that thing are made of atoms. (BTW, no one has ever seen an atom. All evidence of their existence is indirect, including using electron microscopes.)

Scientists do not use the word "proof" except informally, a theory is always open to modification as new phenomena are observed. A theory that is consistent with all observed phenomena is "accepted" until something contradicts it.

An intelligent designer is just not science. It seeks to explain something but cannot be tested as true or false. It does not predict anything. It's premises do not allow for testability.

They may say that complex things cannot spring spontaneously from simple things. Bring up the example of the snowflake. Each is unique, yet it each possesses structure, geometry, symmetry. It's certainly more complex than the water molecules which form it. It would seem to require a designer, but it doesn't.

Don't allow them to say things are random. Structure (say of atoms) biases nature toward certain other structures. This, over time, favors certain other structures and is very powerful, like compound interest. You might want to look up "auto-catalysis" a substance favoring replication of itself, a positive feedback loop.

Hope that gets you going. Questions?

--IMM

Do these people really need a secular public school to teach the basic tenets of their beliefs to their children? What enormous failures they must be as parents! They profess to believe in this higher being and yet they don't take their children to a "higher being" place of worship? Or they do, and their minister of said "higher being" place of worship FAILS to teach them such an important, basic tenent of their beliefs? PATHETIC.

Let me add that I was raised by Fundies, and they made certain I was indoctrinated into their Christer cult. They didn't need any secular institution to ram that into my skull. They may have been deluded asshats, but they weren't utter buffoons like these ID people seem to be in their complete inability to instill any of their own values in their own children without the help of the State.

So there. :rant:

:D

<snip>
"Do these people really need a secular public school to teach the basic tenets of their beliefs to their children? What enormous failures they must be as parents!"
<snip>

It is not so much that fundies feel the need for the schools to teach the basic tenets of their beliefs. Most people who have a beef with Evolution is that they feel people try to describe the origin of life with that theory...and THAT is where MOST of the conflict comes. Most people are intelligent enough to see that changes over time occur and don't argue that. But, when people's children are told that their beliefs (or those of their parents) are meerly superstition at best and 'buffoonery' at worst...well, it just sort of puts a damper on the whole discussion...

sP

First, I said they were buffoons because they can't communicate their own beliefs to their own children. I said nothing about their beliefs being buffoonery.

And secondly, it IS that fundies want schools to teach Christian beliefs, and not just the intrustion of religion into secular education but their own perverse twist on Christian beliefs. I have been there, and I know.

The issue that is astounding to me is that their insistence on introducing religion and philosophy into the teaching of science points to a clear lack of faith in their God, their church, and their own children. I find that sad and pathetic, and am amazed that this isn't crystal clear to more people.

I think they're hoping that by taking this as a "first step in the right direction", they will create a wedge using which they will use to validate their theological ideolodies using the hallow'ed conversation of science. However, since in order to do that, they have to completely and utterly disavow any connection at all with religon and a faith-based deity projection of any kind, they undermine their own religious beliefs in the process (which are truly un-scientific by definition).

I'm sure that, if they succeed in this initial endeavor, the designer they propose will surely soon be expected to be supernatural - a kind of theoretical being that exists outside of life itself that created life as we know it. Not much different from the "God particle", the Higg's Boson, that appears to be something deeply involved in the creation and support of the entire universe, and is a purely theoritcal entity, a constant in some mathematical formulae, yet is peprfeclty real at the same time. And let's compare the theoretical 11 dimensions of space-time that some quantum theorists propose might be a valid picture of the universe with the idea of a living, natural "creator/designer" mixing the universe up in a giant alchemy expirement just for the fun of it and to be appreciated.

The fun part is that, if the creator is a living, natural phenomenon, He/She/It is not the one written about in the religious texts. Faith is not needed for a scientifically measurable or even recognizable God/Creator/Designer. That designer appears to be what we in the secular world call "nature" and it's the source of all life in the universe, consisting of all life in the universe. The good thing about this is that the religionists have created a position that undermines the fantastical foundation of their own religions in favor of a natural, and therefore completely scientific creator/designer.

When a natural phenomenon is the source of all life, where does that leave God? You guessed it. He's not a man in the sky, or a wise individual, or a myth, or a faith-based father/mother figure. She's real. And if so, there's no need for religious faith, or religion for that matter. The designer will simply be real and true.

Peace.

:)



Educate Your Local Freepers!
Flaunt Your Opinions With Buttons, Stickers and Magnets from BrainButtons.com
>

The ID debate has been discussed there recently
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x20759

Just be forewarned, the forum is not for the overly sensitive. It's where atheists and agnostics go to be who they are without fearing to tread on believers' toes.

Tell your adversary just that.

You can certainly acknowledge (and, speaking just for myself, I would!) that a Higher Power just might have had a guiding hand in the creation of the Universe. Hey... who knows?

This reasonable version of Intelligent Design can be described during the first 30 seconds of the first class in any science course. "There MAY be a God, and He MAY have designed the universe this way." And then.... it's off to the real thing. Hard science.

But if your adversary demands that public school pupils be taught the straight-from-the-Bible timeline that God created the universe, including humans in 6 calendar days some 6000 years ago, tell him kindly but firmly that there's no evidence... NONE... that such a chain of events is true, and you can't countenance the teaching of mythology as science.

Try to convince him (it may not be easy) that the Bible isn't the Word Of God. Humans thought it. Humans wrote it. And humans aren't perfect. Remind him that good Christians once thought the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and Rome was the center of the universe. Tell him that God led humans to the truth then, and he is leading us to the truth (evolution) now.

What I'm saying here probably won't satisfy ardent athiests, or terminally devout Christians, but for the agnostics among us, this is a comfortable and logical way of answering your question.

Good luck!

Any more that you would start off a Chemistry class saying, "There MAY BE a five thousand foot tall invisible, weightless, odorless orangutan sitting on top of this building right now that doesn't want you to have sex before marriage, and he MAY be responsible for the reaction which produces table salt".

If someone wants to make peace with evolution and scientific fact in the manner you describe, that's their own business. But barring evidence to back it up, it has no place in a science class.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Unintelligent design is backed by NO research.

There are no observable ways to test a theory that says a higher being created everything. However, I'd rather give God credit and make the assumption that God would have the intelligence to create beings which could evolve based on their surroundings. If not, we have ultimate extinction to look forward to.

"However, in public schools, not all the creation stories can be taught due to the seperation of church and state."

The only people pushing for creationism/intelligent design to be taught in schools are fundies and or religious people.
It's obvious the reasons behind wanting it to be taught in schools,this person is being disengenious at best.

The quote above tells you why that will never happen and rightly so.Science is taught in school.Period.

"I'm willing to listen to your evidence for 'creation' or 'intelligent design' with an open mind and
if you can give me some, I will come over to your position...are you prepared to make the same commitment to me?...I mean, is there ANY evidence you would consider valid to convince you that evolution is a fact?"

This usually results in quite a bit of dissembling, but by pursuing the question it's generally possible to get them to admit that they would NOT change their minds regardless of ANY evidence (let
alone 'proof' - in the scientific sense)

That's the point where I say "Well, since your mind is made up and you aren't interested in facts,
there's really not much use in discussing it further." It doesn't win the argument but in a few cases
they at least have to admit if only to themselves that their position is based on deliberate ignorance.

1) The government does not believe that ID should be taught, refer your friend to Kitzmiller vs Dover.
2) ID has been shown to be religious in nature, see again, Kitzmiller vs Dover.
3) ID is intelectual laziness. It's giving up. There is no way anyone can quantify "irreducibly complex," and even if there were, there is no way to test if something is "irreducibly complex."
4) Every single "irreducibly complex" system has a real, known, very clear evolutionary pathway that is in fact, NOT "irreducibly complex."
5) A higher being or non-deity designer leads to the fairly obvious question, "Who designed the designer?" The non-theistic approach to ID is actually fairly hilariously flawed.
6) ID does not have any data, nor does it not have predictive power, nor has it survived attempts at falsification, therefore it is not a theory. Evolutionary theory has data, predictive power, and has survived attempts at falsification, therefore is a theory and is science. Also, theory in the jargon of science is much different from theory, in the jargon of everyday speach.

Other great online resources include:

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
http://www.natcenscied.org/

And maybe man never will. Don't get me wrong. I'm a Catholic but I have no problem with believing in evolution as science and believing in God's hand in the creation of the heavens and the earth as a matter of faith. The Church has said that the two ideas are not incompatible.

As for the Holy Father reportedly considering ID, I actually doubt it. The Church never liked for us to be reading the Bible much less interpreting it literally.

Viruses should not be able to become immune to vaccines according to ID. And cockroaches should have been extinct years ago if they weren't able to adapt to all the poisons we've created to kill them.

Simply put: You can't really learn anything from intelligent design. It doesn't allow you to see how organisms will react and adapt. With evolution on the other hand, you can map out possible reactions and defenses that viruses can come up with and ultimately defeat them.

bibles stories to be literally true is not worth wasting your breath on.

Science will have the last laugh on this and these retarded fair tale freaks!

"science is dead" only an imbecile of massive proportions would utter such an asinine statement.

Science is just getting started!

A wonderful pastor I once had said that in a sermon, or something like that from what I remember.

Because Chapter 1 says that God created the animals before Adam, and chapter 2 says that God created Adam before the animals.

Of course, the real reason for the discrepency is that Genesis was written by 3 different people, writers, who scholars call J, P, and R. Chapter 1 was written by "P", while most of Chapter 2 was written by "J".

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm
Chapter 1 (P):
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Chapter 2 (J):
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

So, which Chapter does he believe?

solely by facts. Evolution is not up for a vote, it simply is. It has been tested and found to be true for over 150 years, the same cannot be said for Inteligunt Dezine. If they want to teach creationism as a discredited idea I'm all for that.

His asinine line about how "evolution, like Intelligent Design, is only a theory, not a fact." is a classic example of people with no understanding of how science works tossing around words and thinking they're proving a point. How the sun shines is a "theory". That doesn't mean that there's some sort of equal validity between saying it's driven by thermonuclear fusion, and saying it's a big ball of yellow fucking angels singing hosannas. The physical evidence verifies the theory, and calling it a "theory" just means that we're dealing with science, not religious dogma. It doesn't change the fact that it's a FACT.

Fuck it. Why bother. Send him to the Spaghetti Monster people, and be done with the pindick.

http://venganza.org