good points Ben, well done, thanks and welcome!

Bill Bryson said:
"I think I would be more inclinded to agree with the ideas behind ID if they could scientifically prove who the designer was."

You mean that you want them to formally exclude god from their theory, because it's a commonly known fact that supernatural intervention can't be proven by science.

They want to leave that open so that they can claim that goddidit in the privacy of their own domains.

Your commonly made stipulation is actually a method of counter-attack in guise, just like ID theory is religously motivated, under the guise of some very distantly plausible scientific speculation about possible alien manipulation.

Who is going to take responsibility if the "pattern" comes from some higher force in nature that requires intelligent life as the most practical means to some end... ?

Which side takes responsibility for natural design if the pattern derives higher-function in nature that gives humans a guided higher purpose?

Sorry, I meant, Ben

"You mean that you want them to formally exclude god from their theory, because it's a commonly known fact that supernatural intervention can't be proven by science."

There's a lot in there that goes toward my whole point. It's a commonly known fact that supernatural intervention can't be proven by science, yet ID proponents are trying to do just that, use scientific methods to prove that supernatural intervention is what created life. That supernature is the intelligence.

I don't for one minute believe, and I'm sure they don't either, that the intelligence behind the design of nature is man or a man derivative. But without a deity of some kind, what's left to do?

Admittedly this is still opinion, I've been doing some reading on it to be more informed, but so far the only thing I've been able to gather is that the premise of ID is to show that there is a pattern to life that is too complex for nature to have stumbled upon it on it's own. They say they are using scientific methods to show these patterns, so is it too much to ask that they adhere to those same principles to show who the designer is? It doesn't have to be God, it could be anything.

This is from intelligentdesignnetwork.org.

"Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research."

It's not even a widely accepted theory, it's a movement. Based in seemingly objective research, but very lacking in any evidence of anything.

It's almost like faith in a science.

Hey Ben, good post.

I.D. has got to be one of the biggest loads of crap I've ever seen. It's bad enough that these folks are willing to lie about, or misrepresent, what the meaning of "theory" is (many folks here on BC will be quick to point out the serious science that goes into the development of a theory), but to suggest that their "intellectual movement" is worthy of being taught in our public schools is ludicrous.

I see it as a nice mental bridge for believers between the worlds of science and belief, but that has nothing to do with school

"I think I would be more inclinded to agree with the ideas behind ID if they could scientifically prove who the designer was."

Or if religion in general didn't have such a laughable track record regarding reality. These are the same folks that were absolutely certain that the world was created 10,000 years ago, that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and that the Earth was the center of the universe.

So this is the National Intelligent Design card they're talking about today? Scary.



/evil grin]

"There's a lot in there that goes toward my whole point. It's a commonly known fact that supernatural intervention can't be proven by science, yet ID proponents are trying to do just that, use scientific methods to prove that supernatural intervention is what created life."

mmmm that's not entirely correct, although it most certainly is the underlying motive. By leaving the designer open, they are able to say that design might have come in the form of alien manipulation, which, as I said is very distantly plausible science, IF you have some proof.

That's one angle that the Discovery Institute is pushing anyway, but the only valid point that they have is that life as we know it is highly improbable in our universe without some good reason for it. This is a true statement, unless you introduce unproven theoretical speculation that includes infinities and other similar such chaotically driven mechanisms that are designed to make things purely random in nature.

There's actually a LOT of faith in science... ;)

... which is what I was eluding to with my latter statements, because the same group that defends the science of evolutionary theory, also "typically" rejects the idea of higher-function in nature, because that goes strictly against their firm ideological "belief" system.

The "movement" is being forced into high school curriculums around the country, where politics is the only real determining factor. Science has very little to do with the actions of either side, other than as an instrument for abuse.

I think that it's an insult to science, Charles Darwin, and Evolutionary theory, that it has come down to agenda motivated activists using politics to push the so-called, "Intelligent Design Theory" into the public education curriculum, in order to expose the equally ludicrous idea that events which are governed by purely random chance occurrence and chaotic uncertainty could actually produce intelligent human life in our universe.

This is where the hard-right typically meets the extreme-left, so to speak, and somehow or another the system works in spite of it's more radical facets to the benefit of all... in the long run.

That's where the real importance to science comes into play in all of this, because burried within the fanaticim and unscientific motivations lies the reality of " higher-function " in nature, which ID proponents identify with "purpose". This is important to science, so it is also important that somebody carry the torch until the physics for the actual mechanism that constrains the forces of the universe is understood, even if they're wrong about everything else.

oh my stars and garters...

we are talking about what is taught in SCIENCE class, yes?

when the ID crowd can show some repeatable, empirical evidence to help prove their Theory, then i am all ears

until then, it can stay in the comparative Mythology , or Religion class where it belongs...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

The last poster completely missed the point, and you can say that it can stay wherever you want to...

... isn't keeping it out of the science classrooms

The thing is that the one remaining place where there's a major unanswered question in evolution is at the very beginning. As I understand it, there's no scientific certainty about exactly what the impetus for the first generation of life was, so that opens the possibility for those who cling to god to say that he was the first cause.

It's either grasp at that straw or go the fundamentalist route and just reject the science alltogether and essentially live in an alternate reality as far as the origins and development of life go.

Dave

or island, our understanding of "life" is just way overrated. The speck on the grease ball flicked off a giant's hand, type scenario.

That's the portion of this story that I think many will have the most problem with. Not that the idea exists, but that it's being lauded as a comperable ciriculum next to Evolution.

If you want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design in a Biology class, I feel that's over the line. I don't understand why it's so hard to teach science in public schools and religion in church?

I guess, then, where does ID fall?

"or island, our understanding of "life" is just way overrated. The speck on the grease ball flicked off a giant's hand, type scenario."

Okay, well, I have good reason for what I say, but aside from that, and as I also said, this doesn't change the fact that the odds are against life as a stictly random occurrence if you go strictly based on the observed universe.

I was just throwing it out there Island - wasn't necessarly agreeing or disagreeing with your statement (though I have said before, don't get the layman's use of "theory" confused with the scentists')

I was responding specfically to this:

the only valid point that they have is that life as we know it is highly improbable in our universe without some good reason for it.

"That's the portion of this story that I think many will have the most problem with. Not that the idea exists, but that it's being lauded as a comperable ciriculum next to Evolution.

If you want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design in a Biology class, I feel that's over the line. I don't understand why it's so hard to teach science in public schools and religion in church?"

I don't actually disagree with anything that you're saying...

... but who then carries the mentioned scientific torch?... is my only concern... ;)

"I was responding specfically to this:"

the only valid point that they have is that life as we know it is highly improbable in our universe without some good reason for it.

I know that.

this doesn't change the fact that the odds are against... "the speck on the grease ball flicked off a giant's hand, type scenario."

The thing is that the one remaining place where there's a major unanswered question in evolution is at the very beginning. As I understand it, there's no scientific certainty about exactly what the impetus for the first generation of life was, so that opens the possibility for those who cling to god to say that he was the first cause.

This is an excellent point as it pertains to the debate, because the Dover School Board had to reword their original statement to include Darwin's "alleged" feelings on the subject of origins in order to make it comparable it to Evolutionary theory, because they should really be comparing it to abiogenesis or panospermia... or whatever origins theory, and not evolutionary theory.

such is science-life in the political arena... ;)

island sez..
*this doesn't change the fact that the odds are against life as a stictly random occurrence if you go strictly based on the observed universe.*

ummm..observed where?..can ya show the empirical data on how many biosphere's you have examined to make this deduction?

as for above..i don't think i missed any point...i was making one..

where is the actual science in Intelligent Design? just because some believe "the odds are against life as a stictly random occurrence" does NOT make it a scientific Fact...

remember, to make a scientific Theory you must be able to prove your Postulates and repeat the findings...so, please show me the Proofs of ID...science and the folks that back Evolution do NOT have to prove ID wrong..ID must prove itself correct...

as for giving evidence as to why ID might be an incorrect Theory..let me just toss one out there...if the Design of Life was done by some "creator" then why are so many species extinct due to other species taking their place in the food chain?...what purpose did the whole dinosaur thing have?

yer telling me the duckbill platypus was doen on purpose?

i'm being silly there..i know..but it does illustrate my point that ID has yet to have enough empirical evidnce to establish itself as a viable Theory in a SCIENCE class..

hope that clears things up

Excelsior!

No, you're still Gonzo...

Start here and then come back when you've learned something and I'll fill you in on the rest:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990/wiki

"the odds are against life as a stictly random occurrence" does NOT make it a scientific Fact..."

Hmmmm... it means that the scientific method requires that you have to conclude that it is a fact, unless you can affect the probabilities, because all available indications are that it is a fact, if you can give none that say it isn't a fact.

I don't make the rules... although I should... ;)

oh my..so now yer trying to repeal the second law of thermodynamics??

sorry..their baseline Theory rests upon the Postulate that matter and energy are seperate phenomenae...remember good olde e=mc squared?

utilizing analogies is NOT empirical data gathered with scientific rigor, sorry to be picky here

but that IS the nut of the matter..i would gladly take in the rest of their work, once it is done..but idle speculation from metaphors doen't pass the smell test when it comes to science

now..the article you are pointing to , if taken as it was meant..does putr forward the Idea that Life may have some "purpose" other than making more Life

that still does NOT show ANY evidence for any kind of "intelligent design"

so, island...please Enlighten me as to what i have missed here..fill me in..

you run along and learn a bit about establishing Scientific Theory...why we can't just go and repeal the second law of thermodynamics just because someone plays a nice trick with a bottle of water...

and we can talk anytime..be nice to me and i will always be nice to you..

fair enough?

Excelsior!

oh my..so now yer trying to repeal the second law of thermodynamics??

No. In fact, one of the scientists mentioned in the article, Eric Schneider, is referenced on the EvoWiki website as a source for rebuttal of creationists abuses of the second law of thermodynamics.

He also co-authored this peer-reviewed paper.

Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay, 1994. "Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics." Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6-8): 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf


You're a real case, huh?... I couln' ask for a better set-up... lol

"that still does NOT show ANY evidence for any kind of "intelligent design"

so, island...please Enlighten me as to what i have missed here..fill me in.."

You "missed" that I never claimed that there was any evidence for "intelligent" design, and you missed my whole point as well, apparently, so... you tell me?... *L*

This is their newest book:

http://www.intothecool.com/

OHHHHHHH... you want HARD proof... like, Einstein's theory hard... proof.

ukay...

www.anthropic-principle.ORG

I'll be happy to explain anything that you just don't get... ;)

heh..

nice Links..

and good food for scientific debate..some of the physics math is beyond my pitiful acumen...but i like to expand my horizons..

yes, i am a "hard case" and thanx for giving me some stuff to read

as near as i can tell, most of this delves into physics but not biology..however i have not read over all the sub links, so i may have missed something here

and if i did miss a point you were making earlier, my most abject apologies

my entire point has been that there are some things that belong in a science class..and some things that do not

now..i am off to spend some brain numbing time reading thru all this stuff...

{8^P~~~~~~

Excelsior!

No worries, I was just having fun too... but there are many politically motivated people running around that will hang-on to the bitter end... ;)

I'm very glad to seee that this is not the case.

I have the physics but the biology ties-in via this common mechanism that links the constraints on the physical constants to evolutionary theory, via self organization theory:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMTRANS.html

They've even made the connection to vacuum energy at the bottom of the page, although they don't have the first real clue just how important that is:

Here's an illustration for how it works in nature:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASYMILL.html

This is a very strong statement from anthropic-principle.ORG but it is open to a lot of debate if you don't know the whole story:

- The unmatched human-potential for directly affecting the symmetry of our expanding universe defines good physical reason for why intelligent life would necessarily be required to arise as a practical means for satisfying the increasing entropic impetus of a universe where negative pressure increases as the vacuum grows -

ok..two down..and some digestion later i can see a trend here..

some has to do with the differences between Einstein and Dirac...both are mathematicians way out of my league...both are speaking of things that have nothing to do with the Arguments postulated in the Evoloution debate..

i'll leave the physics to those capable of working out the quantum mechanics..you know, that smart guy in the chair that talks..(insert evil grin here)

the crux of the matter still stems around what is taught in a science class, in physics/astrophysics there is plenty of room for debate on many issues

that is good for college level classes, but irrelevent for public high school curriculum

on the biology front...i still don't see anything that places ID in the same league as evoloution for the purposes of working hypothesis and teaching kids

just my one six billionths of the worlds opinion

your mileage may vary

Excelsior!

"i still don't see anything that places ID in the same league as evoloution for the purposes of working hypothesis and teaching kids"

And I will emphatically repeat that there is nothing anywhere that puts "ID" theory anywhere, but dead in the water.

The physics defines the Entropic Anthropic Principle, which completes the previously flawed anthropic principle, while defining a biocentric principle. The physics removes the tautologous nature of the anthropic principle, which is quite often abused in the creation/evolution debate as "evidence for the godidit that's behind ID:

This causes otherwise sane people to try to downplay and "explain-away" the significance of something that they would otherwise be curious about for the sore thumb that it stands out as.

That's a HUGE mistake if the mechanism constrains the forces of the universe is anthropic, rather, "biocentric" in nature.

Island, You have lots between your ears! This reflects well on gonzo and I, as we both agree with you on the main point of discussion.

Nah, I'm just cursed with some relevant information about this particular can-o-worms.

From what I've read on this site there are a lot of smart people here.

Eric Schneider is the biologist, so I'd look on his site for that kind of stuff.

http://www.intothecool.com/index.php

He and James Kay also wrote a bunch of other papers about it that might be worth looking into.

Thanks