http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:23:45 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-244896 very interesting 244896@blogcritics.org Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:23:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-243393 Is it really possible that so few people have ever been taught the basic principles of scientific inquiry? Whether or not the universe was "created" or "just happened" has NOTHING to do with science. Period. Interesting questions, like the one asled by Realist, belong in a sociology or philosophy class, NOT a science class. There are lots of interesting questions for philosophy or religion classes--the appearance of universal myths and legends; creation stories; etc. There isn't time to go into all the details here, but PLEASE go look up (or at least google), "scientific method" and try to understand what governs science. Or if you can't be bothered, then try to understand that one of the fundamentals of a theory (do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?), is that it is refutable. MUST BE REFUTABLE. ID is not refutable = not science. get it? 243393@blogcritics.org Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:45:27 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-242424 Intelligent Design allows students to be aware of the lack of scientific proof of evolution between species. The controversy is good pedagogy because it develops critical thinking. Intelligent design looks at the same kind of empirical data that any scientist looks at, and concludes that complex mechanisms in nature appear designed because they have all the characteristics of being designed. Intelligent design is not creationism because it does not mention God or the Bible and never identifies the designer. 242424@blogcritics.org Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:47:56 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-242351 I can't belive that in this day and age we are actually debating this. Why is evolution/natural selection such a difficult concept for people to get? But most importantly this is a concept that has to be taught in school since it is the bases of the understand of all of biology. Plus there are so many examples of natural selection. As for intellegent design, it is just creationism masked as science, but there is no science in it! 242351@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:59:27 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-242255 Excellent point Alec... And that is the issue. It isn't that God could not have easily put it "all into play". But the ISSUE IS that there is no way to prove it and there never will be. What is so laughable about the Christian Right's attempts is that it smacks of the Catholic medieval Fathers who went to agonizing and of course as would be expected pointless ends to "prove" God. God's very existence is OUTSIDE the bounds of all we can know - that's why He IS God. Can one look around on a beautiful afternoon in the mountains and not "feel" that none of this could be simply an accident? Of course. Could the "prove" it? No. That's is why the Prophets of God called for FAITH... They already knew this. Alethinos 242255@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:26:03 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-242227 Evolution= Descent with modification. Species develop and proliferate in response to changes in the environment. Adaptations occur as natural selection kills off the individuals who lack particular traits that are beneficial or essential for survival. The variations for traits within a species are determined by genes, and of course mutations constantly contribute new variations to the mix. Cheers 242227@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:38:20 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-242207 Time Out! Needed -- Definition of Evolution... 242207@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:00:27 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-242154 Realist, you might want to take basic biology before making such a statement... Actually ANY science might help you if you actually think that evolution is an "unproved" theory. Alethinos 242154@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:31:27 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-242066 Realist - funny name - evolution is as much fact as the earth is round. Does anyone think that text books should contain the earth is flat theory as well? This debate is so annoying because there is no debate. This is nothing more than the religious community continuing its long tradition of censorship and/or outright war on reason and truth which are almost universally in conflict with religious text. It would be a fun experiment to let the religious take over, create a theocracy, rule with an iron fist and see the country crumble. Science would retard, and censorship would become the norm, stifling free thought and invention. GDP would plummet and misery would sweep the country. Things would turn so bad so quickly that the dreariness of life would prompt people to label the period The Dark Ages. And the only thing that would make life worth living would be the promise of a better life after we die. Oh yeah, we already tried that. 242066@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:50:51 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-242060 Which of these hypotheses regarding evolution sould we consider "unproven?" 1. If different organisms share a common ancestor then they should share similar DNA 2. If different species share a common ancestor then they should have analogous structures. 3. If different species share a common ancestor then they should look similar in early developmental stages. 4. If different species share a common ancestor then fossil remains of such species will look more similar the further back in time we look. 242060@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:42:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-242013 Single-mindedness is teaching one unproven hypothesis. 242013@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:45:57 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-241983 If I thought for one minute that the motivation behind those who support teaching intelligent design theory was all-encompassing - that different theories of different faiths were taught side by side with equal stature and veracity - I'd be more inclined to support the notion. Unfortunately, it's very obvious that this is an attempt by 'one' faith (Christianity) to sneak their 'correct' philosophies past the Constitution and that other philosophies would be treated more like hoaxes in comparison. In light of this, I'd no more support this form of education than I would the mandatory Islamic teachings in Pakistani schools ... a means to foster single-mindedness, not open-mindedness. 241983@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:02:36 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/225751.php#comment-241857 Michael Behe argues that the common cell is "irriducibly complex," and therefore it must have been designed. But then, after the initial design, life could evolve and proliferate. William Dembski, on the other hand, argues that, based on algorythmic programs, life is far too complex to have ever evolved at all. In other words, the two leading proponents of ID do not even have ONE organized framwork on which to begin to build a THEORY to rival Evolution. Who knows how many other ID quasiTheories exist. Certainly one for every Religion, every sect. How much time do science teachers have to cover all of these possibilities? Clearly we can fool 65% of the people most of the time! 241857@blogcritics.org Sun, 25 Sep 2005 08:51:27 EDT