I believe in GOD: Good Old Darwinism. I also believe in the Laws of Nature. Does that make me religious? Or intelligent?
I'm not sure what to believe from the Bible. Too much multiple choice:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
30 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 5:31 am
If I were a believer, I'd pray ta God that we could be done with this Intelligent Design bullshit.
It doesn't even deserve to be debated.
Gotta run! (I'm working on my next record-setting Blogcritics essay, "The Top 100 Guitarists Ponder Intelligent Design at Work in the Propaganda of Cindy Sheehan -- Who Once Considered an Abortion Beformed by a Gay Married Couple")
31 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:16 am
Victor Plenty comment 18"turning to the self-appointed authority of a religious leader to learn the answers to every perplexing question."
turning to the self-appointed authority of a scientist to learn the answers to every perplexing question.
Do you want to discuss the philosophy of Authority versus Empericism? In order for an individual to "scientifically" know something, that individual must personally both obtain the primary data and process it into a reasonable conclusion for themselves. IF you just read science in a book, or take it from a teacher, you are doing the same thing intellectually as someone who reads religion in a Bible or takes it from a preacher. You are relying on Authority, not empirical science.
If you choose to make those who are empircial scientists your Authority, that is a valid decision. So is the decision to make traditions and texts which outdate your science by thousands of years an Authority equally valid. You can discuss the merits of the science and the merits of the religious traditions, but PLEASE don't act like one is superior to the other without discussing the details of why.
32 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:25 am
Bunny: "You can discuss the merits of the science and the merits of the religious traditions, but PLEASE don't act like one is superior to the other without discussing the details of why."
Next time a religious tradition comes up with some new technology or a testable hypothesis, give us a call.
PS Siwwy wabbit. Sematic tricks are for kids.
33 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:26 am
By the way Victor Plenty, I am not going to deny that many many people on the side of Intelligent Design ARE Creationists who are trying to bend the rules by changing the words. However, TRUE Intellegent Design theorists postulate that "intelligence" is present in the universe, to some degree or another, and shaped both the laws of physics, to some degree or another, and the process of life - be it evolution or otherwise - to some degree or another.
That is it. The concept of a "who" surrounding the "intelligence" would be a matter for religious debate. But that is not the concern of the science of Intelligent Design. The conern for Intelligent Design is the "evidence" of the "intelligence". Hell, it could be 482,234,323,232 Intelligences as far as anyone knows. Or none.
Intelligence in the universe could be as simple and impersonal as gravity. Or it could be as personal as "God". Or something in between. Or not there at all. But from a scientific approach, there is NO reason to not have the debate, and not seek for evidence. Galileo once had a hypothesis that was disregarded as lunacy, too.
34 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:27 am
Bunny: "...Do you want to discuss the philosophy of Authority versus Empericism [sic]?"
Um, not with you.
Now go back to your cage and do what evolution intended: breed more silly wabbits.
35 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:28 am
Hey Shark, we didn't need scientists for Thou shall not kill.
36 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:28 am
I'm surprised that someone with your view of species would want me to breed...
37 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:29 am
Bunny: "Intelligence in the universe could be as simple and impersonal as gravity."
Kinda bending the definition of "Intelligence", ain't cha?
Bunny, the big challenge appears to be finding some evidence of intelligence in your comments!
38 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:31 am
Bunny: "Hey Shark, we didn't need scientists for Thou shall not kill."
...Which -- as we all know -- is an immutable scientific law.
...except in the hands of Pat Roberson!
39 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:33 am
by impersonal, Shark, I was referring to the religious impulse to attach emotional motives, such as love and hate, to some personal "god" entity. The presence of design reflects the presence of intelligence (possibly). But the presence of intelligence does not in anyway suggest the presence of personality. Or in your case, the presence of a comment does not suggest the presence either intelligence or personality.
40 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:35 am
Thou shall not kill is not an immutable scientific law. If it were, then science would be in a lot of trouble.
41 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:35 am
Like Pat Roberson
42 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:40 am
Bunny, I'm guessing that the I.D. movement is cringing at the fact that you're on "their side".
You're really not a worthy opponent -- and the fact that you exist brings into question BOTH intelligent design AND evolution.
43 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:52 am
Shark, I think you've really gotten off the argument here. What I saw in this thread was an attempt to deny access to Intelligent Design. All I am arguing is that such an attempt is legally without grounds since the actual theory of Intelligent Design is not a religious theory at all. Various religions could adopt the theory, but even some Christians have adopted Evolution since Darwin proposed it. So the idea that Intelligent Design is a violation of the First Ammendment is an insult to both our Constitution and to science.
I'm not sure that my individual usefulness to the continuation of the species has anything to do with the discussion.
44 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:55 am
By the way Shark, I don't know where you were educated in the area of debate, but calling your opponent unworthy is not a valid debate point...
45 -
Bunny
Aug 28, 2005 at 8:59 am
Well, have a good and blessed day. I am off to CHURCH to WORSHIP my GOD, in whom I place my hopefully everlasting faith and trust. May God bless you, and give you an ounce more of that impersonal intelligence...
My post showed that Intelligent Design has not been able to be tested; the only people who seemed to able to postulate in any way were the people from the Discovery Institute.
If you can only test something on faith, it's not testable.
Abe if people were suggesting that ID be taught as theology I would be fine with that. But they're not; they're suggesting that it is an alternative to Evolution.
While there may be "holes" in evolution, ID can't be inserted to fix those holes. The world's not a neat place. Things don't happen just because we need answers to fix things.
Galileo lived in a very different time. To bring him up is to grasp at straws.
If people want to test ID fine--but no public money should be used--because the tests are based on faith.
I participated in a research study that attempted to quantify emotions and feelings such as happiness. It could only be done by using concrete methods. Such as how a person felt on different days, weeks, and months and how others perceived their moods on those same days.
How can you possibly quantifiy faith? I'm open to suggestions. You can test a person's openness to faith; you can even test how "faith" has helped a person or many people. But you can't test "faith" itself; again let me know if you can figure that one out
The truth is no "true" ID theorist has used the rules of gravity in their hyothesis, questions or scales. I always thought the existance of God was the great mystery of life. If anybody can postultate a theory that finds empirical evidence that God exists--you'll win every award from the McCarthur to the Nobel Prize
It's nice to tell me that I'm not looking for holes, when anybody who reads my writing on a regular basis or who knows me knows that I look for holes in everything
Actually I do believe in the theory of Evolution. We're just beginning to be at a place where we can understand more through new scientific methods; but this will get lost because our president supports Intelligent Design.
You know I can almost take everything else, but when the government supports a theory that can only be postulated on faith, then I have a very good reason to question our government
Keep on going back to William Safire because we disagree on so many things. But we agree on this issue.
Why? To repeat myself: ID is a First Amendment issue, therefore it could possibly affect every school kid.
I can easily see a new clause to the No Kid Left Behind Act: in order to get to the good stuff; ID must be taught as an alternative to Evolution or even as "fixing the holes."
This belongs in the same category as Frist (I believe, sometimes get him confused with Dobson) talking about Santa Clause teaching kids the difference between right and wrong, and without Santa Clause they wouldn't know.
Abe this is the state of affairs in the USA today. It's implying and inferring that kids who never believed in Santa Clause can't know the difference between right or wrong.
Of course we know that kids who were taught the Torah, or who never had any religious training know right and wrong, perhaps better.
Since Santa Clause isn't a religious symbol but symbol of abundance, Frist's argument has really big holes.
Why did I bring that up in an argument about ID? Because it's all tied together
The Christian Religious Right and our government wants everything tied in one easily to digest package.
And anybody who suggests that ID should be taught is falling into that trap.
Keep on coming back to Abe as he said that "intelligent Jews want to understand everything," or something to that affect.
Yes I do, but for the last time--when something is postulated as a theory, and then can't be tested because it's based on faith; it's not an acceptable theory to be taught in public schools or to be tested with using public dollars. But as my post showed it can't be tested so it should be a non issue
And a president is not supposed to influence a country with his religious beliefs. Jimmy Carter didn't; nor did Kennedy.
Religion and government don't mix. Simple
47 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 12:24 pm
The ancestry of sharks dates back more than 200 million years before the earliest known dinosaur. The dinosaurs are long gone now.
Because the rate of evolutionary change in sharks is very slow and gradual, it can be very difficult to determine where one species stops and another begins. There is no evidence of sudden jumps in form in the shark fossil record. Without sharp discontinuities, boundaries between named species are often made rather arbitrarily along a continuum of variation. Thus distinctions among some fossil sharks may best be considered forms within an evolving lineage rather than biologically discrete species.
Someone forgot to tell sharks how to evolve.
48 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 1:28 pm
ABE: "Someone forgot to tell sharks how to evolve."
We reached perfection early on -- and there's no place left to go.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Not one person has explained how Intelligent Design--a theory based on faith falls within The First Amendment.
Bunny I see you insulting me and every person who doesn't fit your belief system but I don't see you giving a good answer. How am I insulting both the Constitution and science when ID has been shown not to be a scientific theory?
Yes some Christian denominations believe in Evolution--which has been tested many many times. ID can't be tested, and science can't be based on faith. Feel like a broken record, but...
However Shark, I'm not big on insulting people's intelligence. People are entitled to opinions even when they flaunt scientific knowledge
Abe, you implied in your first comment that you're open to people's ideas and theories. By resorting to this last comment you're clearly not open to anything that you don't believe in.
If somebody could show me how ID is a true scientific theory and should be taught with tax dollars, or researched with tax dollars I'm all ears.
Let me add one question. Why should government dollars go to ID but not to stem cell research?
50 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Evolution within species is obvious; small horses changed into large horses, I am taller than my father, who was taller than his father. However, the link between species is not obvious and is certainly not “proven”. Yet, there are some who want to make this connection with very little evidence. They rely solely on their “faith” in their theory.
Natural selection only works when the genetic information is available and tends only to keep a species stable.
There is no explanation for the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true.
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
How can mutations -- recombining of the genetic code -- create any new and improved varieties?
Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.
Intelligent Design explores the “when, where, why, and how of science, attempting to address such questions, and many others.
Why are “thinking people” opposed to addressing unanswered questions?
"PRESIDENT BUSH, announcing this month that he was in favor of teaching about "intelligent design" in the schools, said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." A couple of weeks later, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, made the same point. Teaching both intelligent design and evolution "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone," Mr. Frist said. "I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."
"With evolution, however, it is different. The fundamental scientific idea of evolution by natural selection is not just mind-boggling; natural selection, by executing God's traditional task of designing and creating all creatures great and small, also seems to deny one of the best reasons we have for believing in God. So there is plenty of motivation for resisting the assurances of the biologists. Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protTake the development of the eye, which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists. How on earth, they ask, could that engineering marvel be produced by a series of small, unplanned steps? Only an intelligent designer could have created such a brilliant arrangement of a shape-shifting lens, an aperture-adjusting iris, a light-sensitive image surface of exquisite sensitivity, all housed in a sphere that can shift its aim in a hundredth of a second and send megabytes of information to the visual cortex every second for years on end.
ect ourselves from our own credulity, but we've also found ingenious ways to fool ourselves and others. Some of the methods used to exploit these urges are easy to analyze; others take a little more unpacking."
But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while."
Please read it. Anybody can join the New York Times; articles remain free for a week. This is one of the more fascinating articles that I have read recently and one that I wish I had the ablilty to write.
My training is as a social science researcher not in the hard sciences. But all research adheres to several strict standards--with the biggest one being: Is it testable?
I'm sorry if this goes against your religious beliefs, or your thinking that every idea should be examined. Examining an idea and testing an idea are not the same. Examining belongs in philosphy or in a scattered debate (ie: any family dinner); testing belongs in the sciences
Therefore, while I personally might be entranced by the idea of ID, I can't support its examination being paid for by tax dollars, no matter how much Bush and Frist believe in it
52 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Did the universe appear out of nowhere?
Was matter created out of nothing?
How did matter evolve from the initial electron?
Was gravity a gratuitous gift (because without it nothing would exist)?
Why did gravity not evolve?
Are there laws governing the universe?
How did laws governing the universe come about?
What is the source of energy in the universe?
How and why did life appear out of inert chemicals?
How and why did life begin to reproduce itself?
And on, and on, and on,...
If nothing exists, does creation have to occur?
Pia says, “Therefore, while I personally might be entranced by the idea of ID, I can't support its examination being paid for by tax dollars, no matter how much Bush and Frist believe in it”
Using animosity toward Bush and Frist to avoid these questions is shallow.
53 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 4:38 pm
ABE & BUNNY DEMONSTRATE "SCIENCE"
ABE: "Intelligent Design explores the "when, where, why, and how..."
WHEN: Day One, ["day: one complete revolution of the earth in relation to the sun"] [Day One: the day before the sun and the earth were created by our Creator.]
Abe: "...I hope that's clear... Okay, I hope you "thinking people" aren't opposed to my "answers" to this question..."
WHERE: Nowhere. Before Time and Space were created by our Creator. Think 'kinda outer space' plus 'kinda beyond time' and you'll kinda get the idea.
Abe: "...I hope that's clear... Okay, I hope you "thinking people" aren't opposed to my "answers" to this question..."
WHY: We don't know, probably never will, but we think it was because our Creator was bored, lonely, and wanted some "intelligent" warm bodies to become His/Her/Its Cosmic Audience. Creator felt that it wasn't much use being a creator without Creations.
Abe: "...I hope that's clear... Okay, I hope you "thinking people" aren't opposed to my "answers" to this question..."
HOW: "I'm glad you asked! Here's where we I.D. folks with our testable theories and hypotheses, etc. come in! -- Whereas you Evolutionists posit some random, mindless gobbledy-goop that constantly modified tiny variations according to what worked and what didn't, ie what was able to survive, thrive, adapt, and create progeny using DNA, genes, molecular structures and such -- we I.D. folks have a much more tidy and believable scenario: Creator took nothing, turned it into something, and "poof!" -- like magic, it became Everything, including you ignorant, bipedal, domesticated primates who refuse to believe ID's empirical, testable Scientific... um... stuff.
Abe: "See, Evolution has to resort to some complicated magical slight-of-hand -- whereas we offer a very real and concrete method for the appearance of Universe and Life. I hope that's clear... were you paying attention when I got to the "Poof!" part -- it's very important? Okay, I hope you "thinking people"aren't opposed to my "answers" to these questions..."
54 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Pia: Shark, I'm not big on insulting people's intelligence."
Um, would you consider these insults?
ABE: Intelligent Jews don't attack intelligent design. Only crazed Jews do that.
ABE: Why are “thinking people” opposed to addressing unanswered questions?
ABE: You are connecting points that have not been made here.. I can see why you are content with the current “theory.”
=======
You don't have to answer. Unlike abe, I only pose questions to which I already know the answers.
xxoo
Shark [magnificently evolved]
55 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Pia says: “Examining belongs in philosphy or in a scattered debate (ie: any family dinner); testing belongs in the sciences”.
But to EXAMINE is to carefully and critically inspect all the evidence -- not selecting which evidence just to support a position.
Evolutionists have taken a stand where they will not inspect all the evidence -- just that which supports their position
And to TEST is to develop comprehensive procedures to determine the truth of something.
Evolutionists do not have comprehensive tests proving their “theory”. And they are unable to repeat something which happened long before recorded history.
All they can do is ASSUME what they want to believe.
Now that is true FAITH.
56 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 4:48 pm
BTW, Pia, in Bunny, you're "debating" someone who got all huffy and stomped off saying, "Well, have a good and blessed day. [editor's note: a christianized "Fuck You] ...I am off to CHURCH to WORSHIP my GOD, in whom I place my hopefully everlasting faith and trust."
So mi pia ~ Good luck!
~ Have fun!
... and more patience that me.
57 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 4:52 pm
abe: "Evolutionists have taken a stand where they will not inspect all the evidence..."
Abe, babe, seriously: you're insane -- and I mean that as a compliment!
58 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Evidence comprises anything helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
Ignoring ALL the evidence results in forming poor conclusions or judgments.
59 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 5:01 pm
As the great BC critic Gonzo Marx has pointed out about a million times in the million other Blogcritics entries on "Intelligent Design" -- the Science Team gets to spin their wheels trying to teach a basic junior high school level of understanding of the word, function, goal, and processes of SCIENCE to the I.D. [Creationism] Team.
Whereas the I.D. [Creationism] Team is actually pushing a form of METAPHYSICS and EPISTIMOLOGY (I'm really bein' nice here) -- which are NOT considered "science" under any definition in any dictionary or any sane person's mind.
Dig?
Thanks for playing.
Now let's shut this futile fucker down.
60 -
Shark
Aug 28, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Epistimology: the study of the nature of knowledge for folks who can't spell.
61 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 5:38 pm
'How do you know so much about everything?' was asked of a wise and intelligent man; and the answer was -- “by never being afraid or ashamed to ask questions as to anything of which I was ignorant”
There is still hope for those who are ashamed to admit they do not know all there is to know about our existence and its source.
62 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 5:48 pm
"We don't know one-millionth of one percent about anything."
Abe I agree with you. I don't want tax money or any money that might come from the government spent on it.
It is a religious answer or addendum to Evolution, and as such should not be financed by the government.
64 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Pia:
I don't want tax money or any money that might come from the government spent on teaching kids a “theory“ full of holes and gaps -- without presenting the gaps and holes.
My concern is not religious. Evolution as it is currently defined and taught is incomplete.
Based on many comments here, it seems that religion is the primary concern, not the completeness and veracity of a school subject.
Intelligent Design can be taught without mentioning religion.
Shark I answered Abe's insults in prior comments. I got it the first time thank you. Yes I understood Bunny's fuck you's.
Don't assume--you know that old chestnut--when you do...
As I have stated and stated, I am not against examining ID; as it is purely faith based, despite your arguments (Shark and Abe especially) it can't be studied as a science. The only studies on record are by The Discovery Center.
If it were a real possiblity wouldn't scientists be running to test it? Of course they would.
And I don't only ask questions that I know the answer to. Life would be very boring without learning new concepts.
So yes I want it studied. But I don't want it taught in public schools and I don't want government money used on studying it for the reason I have made clearer than clear.
Abe, let me quote from the New York Times article I linked to in a prior comment
"George Gilder,a long time affiliate of The Discovery Center has it is: 'Intelligent Design itself does not have any content.' Since there is not content, there is no controvesy" to teach about in biolgy class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politicsL Is Intelligent Design a hoax? And if so how was it perpetratuted?"
Intelligent Designers haven't produced one experiment that add to or challenge Evolution. It really should be a non-subject and I am suprised by the reaction.
Many people seem to have a very emotional, almost visceral reaction to ID. That's an observation.
67 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 7:00 pm
Pia:
Amending what is currently taught to focus on the holes and gaps in “the theory of evolution”, rather than dogmatically avoiding these issues, is what is needed.
Intelligent Design can be accommodated by presenting what we don’t know -- and which we would have to know -- to accurately cover the subject.
68 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 7:09 pm
For those who say that the “theory of evolution” is science…
Is a “theory“ science?
No.
69 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 7:19 pm
A rock suddenly appears on an asteroid.
(How -- we do not know).
There are no other rocks on the asteroid.
At a later time, another rock appears elsewhere on the asteroid.
The “theory of evolution” concludes that the first rock must have evolved into the second rock.
Abe a good teacher will always try to teach kids to think critically. That includes learning about what we don't know in every subject, but especially science
One of the big things that science is about, is the thrill of discovery. Teachers try to impart that. But what is ID? How do you teach something without substance?
You teach kids that there are unknowns; you teach them that there are many variables.
Hopefully a good teacher will help kids understand that there are things beyond our knowledge now. That doesn't mean it won't be explainable sometime in the future. And it might not be explainable in the person's lifetime or his great great grandchildren's life time. But someday it will be able to be explained.
Abe did you read any of the links that I supplied?
Evolution has been tested over and over again. And has been proven as we learn new things. DNA for one very big example.
Let me again quote from the article in The Times because it's so well written and supports my ideas.
"Evolutionary biology certainly hsn't explained everything that perplexes biologiss. But Intelligent Design hasn't yet tried to explain anything."
I feel as if today has been a marathon Seinfeld episode. Much discussion about nothing
72 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Pia:
You have more faith in what is being taught than I have.
Some teachers are not going to do what you expect, unless directed to do so.
Relying on good teachers is not going to impart the questions that are required.
How many teachers tell students that a ‘theory” is not science.
Teaching that the “theory of evolution” has more deficiencies than fact, has substance.
Unless teachers have a curriculum including teaching that there are unknowns in the “theory of evolution“ and unless teachers have a curriculum including teaching that there are many unanswered variables, it will not be done.
Pia -- you say: “Hopefully a good teacher will help kids understand that there are things beyond our knowledge now.”
That requires more faith than I have in the school system
73 -
ABE
Aug 28, 2005 at 7:43 pm
The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an island in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land.
Intelligent Design is not a theory.
Is the Easter Bunny a theory?
Is Santa Clause a theory?
No , and neither is intelligent design.
To put a curriculum in public schools to which there is no way to do a empirical study or even begin to gather evidence it ridiculous.
Students can not have classes that question every other class or scientific theory. If brought up in a nurturing way and hopefully having learned critical thinking skills these students will question things on their own and in their own way.
We do not teach religion in public schools and we should not teach intelligent design in public schools. It would be a travesty to our system of public education to do so.
If you want to teach your children that there is some big intelligent designer in the sky you should be free to do so, at home, or at your church, or in your basement but leave the schools for real education or send your child to a privately funded school.
75 -
Stephen Still
Aug 28, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Intelligent Design is not in any peer-reviewed journals, because the evolutionists control those journals and know that if an intelligent design article does get published in a peer-reviewed jounal that it would be a watershed event. I thought it was liberals who hate blacklisting and censorship.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Victor Plenty
Prove it. Answer the questions.
27 - ABE
I raised questions which should be addressed.
If I had the answers I would not raise the questions.
Get it?
28 - Victor Plenty
So, you've got nothing. Got it. Way to educate.
29 - Villavelius
I believe in GOD: Good Old Darwinism. I also believe in the Laws of Nature. Does that make me religious? Or intelligent?
I'm not sure what to believe from the Bible. Too much multiple choice:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
30 - Shark
If I were a believer, I'd pray ta God that we could be done with this Intelligent Design bullshit.
It doesn't even deserve to be debated.
Gotta run! (I'm working on my next record-setting Blogcritics essay, "The Top 100 Guitarists Ponder Intelligent Design at Work in the Propaganda of Cindy Sheehan -- Who Once Considered an Abortion Beformed by a Gay Married Couple")
31 - Bunny
Victor Plenty comment 18"turning to the self-appointed authority of a religious leader to learn the answers to every perplexing question."
turning to the self-appointed authority of a scientist to learn the answers to every perplexing question.
Do you want to discuss the philosophy of Authority versus Empericism? In order for an individual to "scientifically" know something, that individual must personally both obtain the primary data and process it into a reasonable conclusion for themselves. IF you just read science in a book, or take it from a teacher, you are doing the same thing intellectually as someone who reads religion in a Bible or takes it from a preacher. You are relying on Authority, not empirical science.
If you choose to make those who are empircial scientists your Authority, that is a valid decision. So is the decision to make traditions and texts which outdate your science by thousands of years an Authority equally valid. You can discuss the merits of the science and the merits of the religious traditions, but PLEASE don't act like one is superior to the other without discussing the details of why.
32 - Shark
Bunny: "You can discuss the merits of the science and the merits of the religious traditions, but PLEASE don't act like one is superior to the other without discussing the details of why."
Next time a religious tradition comes up with some new technology or a testable hypothesis, give us a call.
PS Siwwy wabbit. Sematic tricks are for kids.
33 - Bunny
By the way Victor Plenty, I am not going to deny that many many people on the side of Intelligent Design ARE Creationists who are trying to bend the rules by changing the words. However, TRUE Intellegent Design theorists postulate that "intelligence" is present in the universe, to some degree or another, and shaped both the laws of physics, to some degree or another, and the process of life - be it evolution or otherwise - to some degree or another.
That is it. The concept of a "who" surrounding the "intelligence" would be a matter for religious debate. But that is not the concern of the science of Intelligent Design. The conern for Intelligent Design is the "evidence" of the "intelligence". Hell, it could be 482,234,323,232 Intelligences as far as anyone knows. Or none.
Intelligence in the universe could be as simple and impersonal as gravity. Or it could be as personal as "God". Or something in between. Or not there at all. But from a scientific approach, there is NO reason to not have the debate, and not seek for evidence. Galileo once had a hypothesis that was disregarded as lunacy, too.
34 - Shark
Bunny: "...Do you want to discuss the philosophy of Authority versus Empericism [sic]?"
Um, not with you.
Now go back to your cage and do what evolution intended: breed more silly wabbits.
35 - Bunny
Hey Shark, we didn't need scientists for Thou shall not kill.
36 - Bunny
I'm surprised that someone with your view of species would want me to breed...
37 - Shark
Bunny: "Intelligence in the universe could be as simple and impersonal as gravity."
Kinda bending the definition of "Intelligence", ain't cha?
Bunny, the big challenge appears to be finding some evidence of intelligence in your comments!
38 - Shark
Bunny: "Hey Shark, we didn't need scientists for Thou shall not kill."
...Which -- as we all know -- is an immutable scientific law.
...except in the hands of Pat Roberson!
39 - Bunny
by impersonal, Shark, I was referring to the religious impulse to attach emotional motives, such as love and hate, to some personal "god" entity. The presence of design reflects the presence of intelligence (possibly). But the presence of intelligence does not in anyway suggest the presence of personality. Or in your case, the presence of a comment does not suggest the presence either intelligence or personality.
40 - Bunny
Thou shall not kill is not an immutable scientific law. If it were, then science would be in a lot of trouble.
41 - Bunny
Like Pat Roberson
42 - Shark
Bunny, I'm guessing that the I.D. movement is cringing at the fact that you're on "their side".
You're really not a worthy opponent -- and the fact that you exist brings into question BOTH intelligent design AND evolution.
43 - Bunny
Shark, I think you've really gotten off the argument here. What I saw in this thread was an attempt to deny access to Intelligent Design. All I am arguing is that such an attempt is legally without grounds since the actual theory of Intelligent Design is not a religious theory at all. Various religions could adopt the theory, but even some Christians have adopted Evolution since Darwin proposed it. So the idea that Intelligent Design is a violation of the First Ammendment is an insult to both our Constitution and to science.
I'm not sure that my individual usefulness to the continuation of the species has anything to do with the discussion.
44 - Bunny
By the way Shark, I don't know where you were educated in the area of debate, but calling your opponent unworthy is not a valid debate point...
45 - Bunny
Well, have a good and blessed day. I am off to CHURCH to WORSHIP my GOD, in whom I place my hopefully everlasting faith and trust. May God bless you, and give you an ounce more of that impersonal intelligence...
46 - pia savage
My post showed that Intelligent Design has not been able to be tested; the only people who seemed to able to postulate in any way were the people from the Discovery Institute.
If you can only test something on faith, it's not testable.
Abe if people were suggesting that ID be taught as theology I would be fine with that. But they're not; they're suggesting that it is an alternative to Evolution.
While there may be "holes" in evolution, ID can't be inserted to fix those holes. The world's not a neat place. Things don't happen just because we need answers to fix things.
Galileo lived in a very different time. To bring him up is to grasp at straws.
If people want to test ID fine--but no public money should be used--because the tests are based on faith.
I participated in a research study that attempted to quantify emotions and feelings such as happiness. It could only be done by using concrete methods. Such as how a person felt on different days, weeks, and months and how others perceived their moods on those same days.
How can you possibly quantifiy faith? I'm open to suggestions. You can test a person's openness to faith; you can even test how "faith" has helped a person or many people. But you can't test "faith" itself; again let me know if you can figure that one out
The truth is no "true" ID theorist has used the rules of gravity in their hyothesis, questions or scales. I always thought the existance of God was the great mystery of life. If anybody can postultate a theory that finds empirical evidence that God exists--you'll win every award from the McCarthur to the Nobel Prize
It's nice to tell me that I'm not looking for holes, when anybody who reads my writing on a regular basis or who knows me knows that I look for holes in everything
Actually I do believe in the theory of Evolution. We're just beginning to be at a place where we can understand more through new scientific methods; but this will get lost because our president supports Intelligent Design.
You know I can almost take everything else, but when the government supports a theory that can only be postulated on faith, then I have a very good reason to question our government
Keep on going back to William Safire because we disagree on so many things. But we agree on this issue.
Why? To repeat myself: ID is a First Amendment issue, therefore it could possibly affect every school kid.
I can easily see a new clause to the No Kid Left Behind Act: in order to get to the good stuff; ID must be taught as an alternative to Evolution or even as "fixing the holes."
This belongs in the same category as Frist (I believe, sometimes get him confused with Dobson) talking about Santa Clause teaching kids the difference between right and wrong, and without Santa Clause they wouldn't know.
Abe this is the state of affairs in the USA today. It's implying and inferring that kids who never believed in Santa Clause can't know the difference between right or wrong.
Of course we know that kids who were taught the Torah, or who never had any religious training know right and wrong, perhaps better.
Since Santa Clause isn't a religious symbol but symbol of abundance, Frist's argument has really big holes.
Why did I bring that up in an argument about ID? Because it's all tied together
The Christian Religious Right and our government wants everything tied in one easily to digest package.
And anybody who suggests that ID should be taught is falling into that trap.
Keep on coming back to Abe as he said that "intelligent Jews want to understand everything," or something to that affect.
Yes I do, but for the last time--when something is postulated as a theory, and then can't be tested because it's based on faith; it's not an acceptable theory to be taught in public schools or to be tested with using public dollars. But as my post showed it can't be tested so it should be a non issue
And a president is not supposed to influence a country with his religious beliefs. Jimmy Carter didn't; nor did Kennedy.
Religion and government don't mix. Simple
47 - ABE
The ancestry of sharks dates back more than 200 million years before the earliest known dinosaur. The dinosaurs are long gone now.
Because the rate of evolutionary change in sharks is very slow and gradual, it can be very difficult to determine where one species stops and another begins. There is no evidence of sudden jumps in form in the shark fossil record. Without sharp discontinuities, boundaries between named species are often made rather arbitrarily along a continuum of variation. Thus distinctions among some fossil sharks may best be considered forms within an evolving lineage rather than biologically discrete species.
Someone forgot to tell sharks how to evolve.
48 - Shark
ABE: "Someone forgot to tell sharks how to evolve."
We reached perfection early on -- and there's no place left to go.
49 - pia savage
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Not one person has explained how Intelligent Design--a theory based on faith falls within The First Amendment.
Bunny I see you insulting me and every person who doesn't fit your belief system but I don't see you giving a good answer. How am I insulting both the Constitution and science when ID has been shown not to be a scientific theory?
Yes some Christian denominations believe in Evolution--which has been tested many many times. ID can't be tested, and science can't be based on faith. Feel like a broken record, but...
However Shark, I'm not big on insulting people's intelligence. People are entitled to opinions even when they flaunt scientific knowledge
Abe, you implied in your first comment that you're open to people's ideas and theories. By resorting to this last comment you're clearly not open to anything that you don't believe in.
If somebody could show me how ID is a true scientific theory and should be taught with tax dollars, or researched with tax dollars I'm all ears.
Let me add one question. Why should government dollars go to ID but not to stem cell research?
50 - ABE
Evolution within species is obvious; small horses changed into large horses, I am taller than my father, who was taller than his father. However, the link between species is not obvious and is certainly not “proven”. Yet, there are some who want to make this connection with very little evidence. They rely solely on their “faith” in their theory.
Natural selection only works when the genetic information is available and tends only to keep a species stable.
There is no explanation for the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true.
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
How can mutations -- recombining of the genetic code -- create any new and improved varieties?
Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.
Intelligent Design explores the “when, where, why, and how of science, attempting to address such questions, and many others.
Why are “thinking people” opposed to addressing unanswered questions?
Distrust of “religion” is not an adequate answer.
51 - pia savage
I am including a link to an article in today's New York Times.
"PRESIDENT BUSH, announcing this month that he was in favor of teaching about "intelligent design" in the schools, said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." A couple of weeks later, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, made the same point. Teaching both intelligent design and evolution "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone," Mr. Frist said. "I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."
"With evolution, however, it is different. The fundamental scientific idea of evolution by natural selection is not just mind-boggling; natural selection, by executing God's traditional task of designing and creating all creatures great and small, also seems to deny one of the best reasons we have for believing in God. So there is plenty of motivation for resisting the assurances of the biologists. Nobody is immune to wishful thinking. It takes scientific discipline to protTake the development of the eye, which has been one of the favorite challenges of creationists. How on earth, they ask, could that engineering marvel be produced by a series of small, unplanned steps? Only an intelligent designer could have created such a brilliant arrangement of a shape-shifting lens, an aperture-adjusting iris, a light-sensitive image surface of exquisite sensitivity, all housed in a sphere that can shift its aim in a hundredth of a second and send megabytes of information to the visual cortex every second for years on end.
ect ourselves from our own credulity, but we've also found ingenious ways to fool ourselves and others. Some of the methods used to exploit these urges are easy to analyze; others take a little more unpacking."
But as we learn more and more about the history of the genes involved, and how they work - all the way back to their predecessor genes in the sightless bacteria from which multicelled animals evolved more than a half-billion years ago - we can begin to tell the story of how photosensitive spots gradually turned into light-sensitive craters that could detect the rough direction from which light came, and then gradually acquired their lenses, improving their information-gathering capacities all the while."
Please read it. Anybody can join the New York Times; articles remain free for a week. This is one of the more fascinating articles that I have read recently and one that I wish I had the ablilty to write.
My training is as a social science researcher not in the hard sciences. But all research adheres to several strict standards--with the biggest one being: Is it testable?
I'm sorry if this goes against your religious beliefs, or your thinking that every idea should be examined. Examining an idea and testing an idea are not the same. Examining belongs in philosphy or in a scattered debate (ie: any family dinner); testing belongs in the sciences
Therefore, while I personally might be entranced by the idea of ID, I can't support its examination being paid for by tax dollars, no matter how much Bush and Frist believe in it
52 - ABE
Did the universe appear out of nowhere?
Was matter created out of nothing?
How did matter evolve from the initial electron?
Was gravity a gratuitous gift (because without it nothing would exist)?
Why did gravity not evolve?
Are there laws governing the universe?
How did laws governing the universe come about?
What is the source of energy in the universe?
How and why did life appear out of inert chemicals?
How and why did life begin to reproduce itself?
And on, and on, and on,...
If nothing exists, does creation have to occur?
Pia says, “Therefore, while I personally might be entranced by the idea of ID, I can't support its examination being paid for by tax dollars, no matter how much Bush and Frist believe in it”
Using animosity toward Bush and Frist to avoid these questions is shallow.
53 - Shark
ABE: "Intelligent Design explores the "when, where, why, and how..."
WHEN: Day One, ["day: one complete revolution of the earth in relation to the sun"] [Day One: the day before the sun and the earth were created by our Creator.]
Abe: "...I hope that's clear... Okay, I hope you "thinking people" aren't opposed to my "answers" to this question..."
WHERE: Nowhere. Before Time and Space were created by our Creator. Think 'kinda outer space' plus 'kinda beyond time' and you'll kinda get the idea.
Abe: "...I hope that's clear... Okay, I hope you "thinking people" aren't opposed to my "answers" to this question..."
WHY: We don't know, probably never will, but we think it was because our Creator was bored, lonely, and wanted some "intelligent" warm bodies to become His/Her/Its Cosmic Audience. Creator felt that it wasn't much use being a creator without Creations.
Abe: "...I hope that's clear... Okay, I hope you "thinking people" aren't opposed to my "answers" to this question..."
HOW: "I'm glad you asked! Here's where we I.D. folks with our testable theories and hypotheses, etc. come in! -- Whereas you Evolutionists posit some random, mindless gobbledy-goop that constantly modified tiny variations according to what worked and what didn't, ie what was able to survive, thrive, adapt, and create progeny using DNA, genes, molecular structures and such -- we I.D. folks have a much more tidy and believable scenario: Creator took nothing, turned it into something, and "poof!" -- like magic, it became Everything, including you ignorant, bipedal, domesticated primates who refuse to believe ID's empirical, testable Scientific... um... stuff.
Abe: "See, Evolution has to resort to some complicated magical slight-of-hand -- whereas we offer a very real and concrete method for the appearance of Universe and Life. I hope that's clear... were you paying attention when I got to the "Poof!" part -- it's very important? Okay, I hope you "thinking people"aren't opposed to my "answers" to these questions..."
54 - Shark
Pia: Shark, I'm not big on insulting people's intelligence."
Um, would you consider these insults?
ABE: Intelligent Jews don't attack intelligent design. Only crazed Jews do that.
ABE: Why are “thinking people” opposed to addressing unanswered questions?
ABE: You are connecting points that have not been made here.. I can see why you are content with the current “theory.”
=======
You don't have to answer. Unlike abe, I only pose questions to which I already know the answers.
xxoo
Shark [magnificently evolved]
55 - ABE
Pia says: “Examining belongs in philosphy or in a scattered debate (ie: any family dinner); testing belongs in the sciences”.
But to EXAMINE is to carefully and critically inspect all the evidence -- not selecting which evidence just to support a position.
Evolutionists have taken a stand where they will not inspect all the evidence -- just that which supports their position
And to TEST is to develop comprehensive procedures to determine the truth of something.
Evolutionists do not have comprehensive tests proving their “theory”. And they are unable to repeat something which happened long before recorded history.
All they can do is ASSUME what they want to believe.
Now that is true FAITH.
56 - Shark
BTW, Pia, in Bunny, you're "debating" someone who got all huffy and stomped off saying, "Well, have a good and blessed day. [editor's note: a christianized "Fuck You] ...I am off to CHURCH to WORSHIP my GOD, in whom I place my hopefully everlasting faith and trust."
So mi pia ~ Good luck!
~ Have fun!
... and more patience that me.
57 - Shark
abe: "Evolutionists have taken a stand where they will not inspect all the evidence..."
Abe, babe, seriously: you're insane -- and I mean that as a compliment!
58 - ABE
Evidence comprises anything helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
Ignoring ALL the evidence results in forming poor conclusions or judgments.
59 - Shark
As the great BC critic Gonzo Marx has pointed out about a million times in the million other Blogcritics entries on "Intelligent Design" -- the Science Team gets to spin their wheels trying to teach a basic junior high school level of understanding of the word, function, goal, and processes of SCIENCE to the I.D. [Creationism] Team.
Whereas the I.D. [Creationism] Team is actually pushing a form of METAPHYSICS and EPISTIMOLOGY (I'm really bein' nice here) -- which are NOT considered "science" under any definition in any dictionary or any sane person's mind.
Dig?
Thanks for playing.
Now let's shut this futile fucker down.
60 - Shark
Epistimology: the study of the nature of knowledge for folks who can't spell.
61 - ABE
'How do you know so much about everything?' was asked of a wise and intelligent man; and the answer was -- “by never being afraid or ashamed to ask questions as to anything of which I was ignorant”
There is still hope for those who are ashamed to admit they do not know all there is to know about our existence and its source.
62 - ABE
"We don't know one-millionth of one percent about anything."
-- Thomas Edison
63 - pia savage
Abe I agree with you. I don't want tax money or any money that might come from the government spent on it.
It is a religious answer or addendum to Evolution, and as such should not be financed by the government.
64 - ABE
Pia:
I don't want tax money or any money that might come from the government spent on teaching kids a “theory“ full of holes and gaps -- without presenting the gaps and holes.
My concern is not religious. Evolution as it is currently defined and taught is incomplete.
Based on many comments here, it seems that religion is the primary concern, not the completeness and veracity of a school subject.
Intelligent Design can be taught without mentioning religion.
65 - pia savage
Shark I answered Abe's insults in prior comments. I got it the first time thank you. Yes I understood Bunny's fuck you's.
Don't assume--you know that old chestnut--when you do...
As I have stated and stated, I am not against examining ID; as it is purely faith based, despite your arguments (Shark and Abe especially) it can't be studied as a science. The only studies on record are by The Discovery Center.
If it were a real possiblity wouldn't scientists be running to test it? Of course they would.
And I don't only ask questions that I know the answer to. Life would be very boring without learning new concepts.
So yes I want it studied. But I don't want it taught in public schools and I don't want government money used on studying it for the reason I have made clearer than clear.
66 - pia savage
Abe, let me quote from the New York Times article I linked to in a prior comment
"George Gilder,a long time affiliate of The Discovery Center has it is: 'Intelligent Design itself does not have any content.' Since there is not content, there is no controvesy" to teach about in biolgy class. But here is a good topic for a high school course on current events and politicsL Is Intelligent Design a hoax? And if so how was it perpetratuted?"
Intelligent Designers haven't produced one experiment that add to or challenge Evolution. It really should be a non-subject and I am suprised by the reaction.
Many people seem to have a very emotional, almost visceral reaction to ID. That's an observation.
67 - ABE
Pia:
Amending what is currently taught to focus on the holes and gaps in “the theory of evolution”, rather than dogmatically avoiding these issues, is what is needed.
Intelligent Design can be accommodated by presenting what we don’t know -- and which we would have to know -- to accurately cover the subject.
68 - ABE
For those who say that the “theory of evolution” is science…
Is a “theory“ science?
No.
69 - ABE
A rock suddenly appears on an asteroid.
(How -- we do not know).
There are no other rocks on the asteroid.
At a later time, another rock appears elsewhere on the asteroid.
The “theory of evolution” concludes that the first rock must have evolved into the second rock.
Is that science?
Is that theory suitable to be taught in schools?
70 - pia savage
Abe a good teacher will always try to teach kids to think critically. That includes learning about what we don't know in every subject, but especially science
One of the big things that science is about, is the thrill of discovery. Teachers try to impart that. But what is ID? How do you teach something without substance?
You teach kids that there are unknowns; you teach them that there are many variables.
Hopefully a good teacher will help kids understand that there are things beyond our knowledge now. That doesn't mean it won't be explainable sometime in the future. And it might not be explainable in the person's lifetime or his great great grandchildren's life time. But someday it will be able to be explained.
That's what I believe faith to be.
71 - pia savage
Abe did you read any of the links that I supplied?
Evolution has been tested over and over again. And has been proven as we learn new things. DNA for one very big example.
Let me again quote from the article in The Times because it's so well written and supports my ideas.
"Evolutionary biology certainly hsn't explained everything that perplexes biologiss. But Intelligent Design hasn't yet tried to explain anything."
I feel as if today has been a marathon Seinfeld episode. Much discussion about nothing
72 - ABE
Pia:
You have more faith in what is being taught than I have.
Some teachers are not going to do what you expect, unless directed to do so.
Relying on good teachers is not going to impart the questions that are required.
How many teachers tell students that a ‘theory” is not science.
Teaching that the “theory of evolution” has more deficiencies than fact, has substance.
Unless teachers have a curriculum including teaching that there are unknowns in the “theory of evolution“ and unless teachers have a curriculum including teaching that there are many unanswered variables, it will not be done.
Pia -- you say: “Hopefully a good teacher will help kids understand that there are things beyond our knowledge now.”
That requires more faith than I have in the school system
73 - ABE
The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an island in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land.
-- T.H. Huxley
74 - cooper
Intelligent Design is not a theory.
Is the Easter Bunny a theory?
Is Santa Clause a theory?
No , and neither is intelligent design.
To put a curriculum in public schools to which there is no way to do a empirical study or even begin to gather evidence it ridiculous.
Students can not have classes that question every other class or scientific theory. If brought up in a nurturing way and hopefully having learned critical thinking skills these students will question things on their own and in their own way.
We do not teach religion in public schools and we should not teach intelligent design in public schools. It would be a travesty to our system of public education to do so.
If you want to teach your children that there is some big intelligent designer in the sky you should be free to do so, at home, or at your church, or in your basement but leave the schools for real education or send your child to a privately funded school.
75 - Stephen Still
Intelligent Design is not in any peer-reviewed journals, because the evolutionists control those journals and know that if an intelligent design article does get published in a peer-reviewed jounal that it would be a watershed event. I thought it was liberals who hate blacklisting and censorship.