Creationism education bills

[penultimatestraw 473]

Well since the whole scientific aspect of this debate seems to have been quashed, it's turned into a philosophical one. I think the point from the beginning was that philosophy or religious beliefs should not be guised as science. MensaMind went way out of his way to try to prove that ID was in fact science. Since we can pretty much put that concept to bed now how about a different idea.

 

How about we promote having a religion class in jr. high schools or high schools? And the purpose of this class would be to objectively explore all the different world's religions, learn about their origins, and compare and contrast them. Talk about teaching kids to think! That could open the floor for some lively and interesting debate and some out of the box thinking. It would probably help promote tolerance as well. I would stand behind this 100%. And science stays in the science lab where it belongs where kids are performing experiments and proving hypotheses through research and experimentation.

 

Why do I have a feeling, however, that the same promoters of ID would have a big problem with this? Just a hunch I have. That perhaps they don't want their kids learning about and exploring other religions, the same way they don't want science to contradict their own personal beliefs. So is the issue at hand here really that you want kids to learn how to think? Or you want them to think the way you want them to think? Just a thought.

This is a good idea, but I think it also is better reserved for college. Easier to open the mind when out from under one's parents' control. I suspect the ID'ers might not like this, as suggested by my earlier post about teaching non-Christian descriptions of creation.

[nikki2200 4]

This is a good idea, but I think it is better reserved for college. Easier to open the mind when out from under one's parents' control. I suspect the ID'ers might not like this, as suggested by my earlier post about teaching non-Christian descriptions of creation.

 

 

I think it's an idealistic concept and probably not very practical for public schools. Kinda like teaching ID.

[Voltaire 5,491]

I think you are too tightly defining 'creationism'. The mid-west bible belting 'creationism' is a narrow subsection of people similar to say extreme beliefs in other religions...

 

Creationism in my mind acknowledges the role of religion in the creation of the world... having an agenda to teach kids that religion doesn't exist is dangerous...

Nobody is talking teaching that religion doesn't exist. As a matter of fact it's hard to look around the world and not see that it does. In a sociology class, talking about religion would be a big help.

[KSB2424 3,174]

My argument is that we are 11 pages and counting into a thread on the topic precisely because creationism was defended, and I would guess that everyone learned at least a little something useful in the discussion.

Exactly. Thats's been my point the whole time.

 

Yet for some reason FrankM and others are still caught up in the notion that creationism doesn't fit into "science class". Dude, I understand the point. However that point is too simple minded. Just because creationism may not fit the scienctific mold that we commonly define doesn't mean it cannot be included in the discussion to get people to think. Holy Mackeral.

 

If I'm in Philosphy class and we're talking about somthing it's okay to juxtapose that against something "scientific". If it brings home a point, makes the students ask questions, or highlights the faults of each premise. All those are GOOD things. I don't give a flying fock that we are talking science in philosophy class or vice versa.

 

Why is that so hard to understand I'll never know. Take a step back from your narrow minded stance of trying to prove some point. It will you help in this thread and life in general. Others are able to do that.

 

If these bills are talking about teaching creationism in schools and they mean by doing so you are teaching the Bible word for word or it turns into Sunday School then that IS crazy talk. And that serves absolutely no purpose in a public school setting. However it they are simply trying to at least acknowledge the premise, in realation to the scientific theories that speak to the beginning of life, then I think it could be a good thing. No matter which "class" it's brought up in. Really simple concept. As jerrykids noted; Just look at this thread.

[FeelingMN 273]

Exactly. Thats's been my point the whole time.

 

Yet for some reason FrankM and others are still caught up in the notion that creationism doesn't fit into "science class". Dude, I understand the point. However that point is too simple minded. Just because creationism may not fit the scienctific mold that we commonly define doesn't mean it cannot be included in the discussion to get people to think. Holy Mackeral.

 

If I'm in Philosphy class and we're talking about somthing it's okay to juxtapose that against something "scientific". If it brings home a point, makes the students ask questions, or highlights the faults of each premise. All those are GOOD things. I don't give a flying fock that we are talking science in philosophy class or vice versa.

 

Why is that so hard to understand I'll never know. Take a step back from your narrow minded stance of trying to prove some point. It will you help in this thread and life in general. Others are able to do that.

 

If these bills are talking about teaching creationism in schools and they mean by doing so you are teaching the Bible word for word or it turns into Sunday School then that IS crazy talk. And that serves absolutely no purpose in a public school setting. However it they are simply trying to at least acknowledge the premise, in realation to the scientific theories that speak to the beginning of life, then I think it could be a good thing. No matter which "class" it's brought up in. Really simple concept. As jerrykids noted; Just look at this thread.

 

 

The only reason this thread turned out the way it did is because you have folks on both sides who have thought about their positions. I'm guessing most of us are college educated. None of this is available in Jr/Sr High.

 

Also, as 'skids has pointed out, this course could be mangled by an inept teacher. One of the possible outcomes (unintended) is to turn a whole swath of youth off to either science or religion. Maybe some dumbfock teacher doesn't address the issue carefully and what you get is a bunch of kids turning off Religion altogether....or ignoring science for the remainder of their lives.

 

Why is it that this issue is the only one to get kids to think?

[KSB2424 3,174]

The only reason this thread turned out the way it did is because you have folks on both sides who have thought about their positions. I'm guessing most of us are college educated. None of this is available in Jr/Sr High.

 

Also, as 'skids has pointed out, this course could be mangled by an inept teacher. One of the possible outcomes (unintended) is to turn a whole swath of youth off to either science or religion. Maybe some dumbfock teacher doesn't address the issue carefully and what you get is a bunch of kids turning off Religion altogether....or ignoring science for the remainder of their lives.

 

Why is it that this issue is the only one to get kids to think?

You see, this is why I read your posts. You read a post, try to understand the "angle", give it a little thought, and respond accordingly. It's a good quality. Even if I butt heads with you quite often.

 

Others? Not so much.

 

In response to your last question. I don't think it is or should be the only issue. Our public school system is made up way to much in regurgitating facts, taking a test, passing the test, then moving on to the next subject. One doesn't even have to understand the subject; you simply had to memorize it for a day or two.

 

The teachers that I remember. The one's that stand out to me were the ones that we actually did stuff. That I went home that night and actually thought about because they either made it thought provoking or fun. I guess I would like more of that, than making sure each subject fits in its own little bucket and students simply memorize the Presidents or the Periodic Table and then forget it 10 minutes later. Thats all

[Frank M 181]

Exactly. Thats's been my point the whole time.

 

Yet for some reason FrankM and others are still caught up in the notion that creationism doesn't fit into "science class". Dude, I understand the point. However that point is too simple minded. Just because creationism may not fit the scienctific mold that we commonly define doesn't mean it cannot be included in the discussion to get people to think. Holy Mackeral.

 

If I'm in Philosphy class and we're talking about somthing it's okay to juxtapose that against something "scientific". If it brings home a point, makes the students ask questions, or highlights the faults of each premise. All those are GOOD things. I don't give a flying fock that we are talking science in philosophy class or vice versa.

 

Why is that so hard to understand I'll never know. Take a step back from your narrow minded stance of trying to prove some point. It will you help in this thread and life in general. Others are able to do that.

 

If these bills are talking about teaching creationism in schools and they mean by doing so you are teaching the Bible word for word or it turns into Sunday School then that IS crazy talk. And that serves absolutely no purpose in a public school setting. However it they are simply trying to at least acknowledge the premise, in realation to the scientific theories that speak to the beginning of life, then I think it could be a good thing. No matter which "class" it's brought up in. Really simple concept. As jerrykids noted; Just look at this thread.

 

Just as the idea of Intelligent Design is a ruse to get creationism taught in public schools, the idea that we should discuss something completely inappropriate to the subject being taught on the notion that it will "get kids to think" is ridiculous. At that point, you're not talking about science and you're not getting kids to think about science. Why you can't understand that that point is the only one that matters, no matter how simple minded you think it is is incredible.

 

With the state of science education in this country as compared to the world, with the fact that nearly every industrialized country's students score better in the scientific disciplines than we do, with the fact that China and INdia are cranking out PhDs in science at a dizzying pace, you really want to inject religious concepts into science class on the vague notion that it gets them to think about possibilities other than the scientific? And how will that help them or us get ahead or even keep pace with these other nations who obviously see the value of science education? Where they are pouring resources into educating their kids, we are pouring resources into a fight to teach them religious concepts in a science class.

 

No wonder we are losing the race. We want to keep our kids in the stone age.

[MedStudent 56]

You see, this is why I read your posts. You read a post, try to understand the "angle", give it a little thought, and respond accordingly. It's a good quality. Even if I butt heads with you quite often.

 

Others? Not so much.

 

In response to your last question. I don't think it is or should be the only issue. Our public school system is made up way to much in regurgitating facts, taking a test, passing the test, then moving on to the next subject. One doesn't even have to understand the subject; you simply had to memorize it for a day or two.

 

The teachers that I remember. The one's that stand out to me were the ones that we actually did stuff. That I went home that night and actually thought about because they either made it thought provoking or fun. I guess I would like more of that, than making sure each subject fits in its own little bucket and students simply memorize the Presidents or the Periodic Table and then forget it 10 minutes later. That’s all

 

Do you think we should teach kids that there is a different idea about the solar system in which everything revolves around the earth (also from the bible)? It will cause kids to think more. Should we also teach astrology in science class? Again, it will get kids thinking. Lets mix history, literature and science in a big pot and let the kids think for themselves about which one is real, fiction or science. A lot of the world's mysteries can be solved by just taking the Greek and Roman gods as fact.

 

I have no problem with stimulating kids with opposing theories or pointing out gaps in a theory. But when you bring in unsupported supernatural explanations into the science class you are destroying the foundation with which science is based. My favorite science classes in high school and in college were the ones where the teachers were passionate about the subject and demonstrated concepts with experiments and real world examples. You learned how and why something happens. If you come to something very complex, you don't stop and say that this is the work of a supernatural being. No, you want to figure out the how and why things work in nature. There IS an answer to everything, you just need to find the answer.

 

To say teaching creationism stimulates kids to think therefore we should teach it is just bull. Should we also teach all of the other religious stories on creationism as well? They are all equally lacking any science.

[The Next Generation 11]

What is non-Darwinian to you? Something which was previously opposed by Darwinists. This is in micro-cosm why I've always said that I accept large chunks of Evolutionary Theory, but not the whole enchilada: not the part that attempts to explain the Origin of Species without an "underlying Intelligence at work which guides the Origin of Species".

 

Shapiro is trying to bridge the gap between Secularists and those who believe that ID research is legitimate. It's the same thing. One cannot bridge gaps between those two starkly opposed ideologies without holding views sympathetic to both. Think about that statement, for its fundamental truth - and it is where I as well lay. I am not an antagonist to the whole of Evolutionary Theory. I am merely suspicious when those involved in the research attempt to explain things - not without the need for a God, but the intentional omission of the possibility.

 

I think you are confusing issues here. I didn't see one person in this thread argue the possibility that a "God" could not have had a hand in the Origin of Species. Rather, they have argued that there is no scientific evidence to support that contention thus it does not belong in science classes in public schools.

 

Here's the facts: before this debate, I had very strong beliefs that our environment is designed by an Intelligence - an Entity (many call it God). Before this debate, many strongly reviled that notion.

 

Here is where I think you lose a lot of credibility with the folks in this thread. I have not seen one person who has even remotely reviled the notion that our environment was designed by an Intelligence. That appears to be your hang-up. In my experience, it has been quite the opposite.

 

This information doesn't weaken my position at all. I do not believe that anyone looking at this information can intellectually honestly declare: "see! It has nothing to do with a God!", particularly when those people who voraciously supported the notion of a Secular Evolutionary Process held the belief that Evolutionary advancement was Random, and this information - this Scientific Data - stands directly in the path of such a claim!

 

If anything, it is their position which this information weakens.

 

I tend to agree with you here, but no one was debating that issue in this thread. Again, you have issues with others (staunch Darwinists) and debate a point that is outside of this discussion. Something you said of one of my posts as well. Sure, it could have something to do with a God, but as others have pointed out already, it could be a whole host of other things as well.

 

It describes...

 

Cellular Intelligence. We're talking about a massively complex program which is necessary to continue to ensure propagation of a species by being able to shatter DNA into 100,000 components - via what Barbara McClintock called "genome shock" - and reorder it in a manner which proves the organism's ability to overcome the new harsher environment in which it finds itself! Perry Marshall's analogy of a self-healing MS-DOS program was absolutely spot-on.

 

Could humanity rise to the point in the future where we could synthesize the same response in something as small as a cell? We would have become incredibly intelligent to have risen to such a level of capability.

 

And what would you have concluded about such an accomplishment? That no such Intelligence was necessary? For crissakes! You would have just proven the opposite.

 

Sure, why couldn't mankind rise to that level of intelligence? I believe that with full use of our brains, the potential for what we could accomplish is unlimited.

 

And what I'm saying is just how indicative it is - that cells have always been able to do that (they had to, because it is now got to be the theory that replaces Random Mututation as the vehicle for advance and simply makes Random Mutation an aberration, just like any corruption of data would be an aberration) - that there is an Intelligence behind it all.

 

Beyond here, we're going in circles. You're going to disagree, so do so by not responding if you cannot add something new here.

 

I understand your point totally and agree that there is a place for this to be discussed and even taught. However, as Shapiro himself states, "we are just on the threshold of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations." Color me stupid, but shouldn't we be further than "on the threshold" to be leaping to conclusions about certainty on the subject? Shouldn't greater/better educated minds than public school-age children be grappling with these issues?

 

"For example, a parallel has been drawn by Allen Orr and others between criticisms of Darwinian orthodoxy and assaults on the Law of Gravity, presenting them as equally deplorable examples of anti-science obscurantism. Yet, if truth be told, gravity is far from a settled matter. The relativistic Law of Gravity at the end of the 20th century is not the same as the classical Law of Gravity at the end of the 19th century, and discovering how the continuous descriptions of general relativity can be integrated into a single theory with the discrete accounts of quantum physics is still an active field of research. From a scientific point of view, then, the Law of Gravity has quite properly been under continuous challenge. Dogmas and taboos may be suitable for religion, but they have no place in science."

 

Couldn't agree more. However, are we teaching the relativistic Law of Gravity to public-school-aged children or are we bombarding them with all the new challenges to it? I'm pretty damn sure that quantum physics isn't taught to public-school-aged children, either.

 

I think THAT is the crux of the issue here. There is a proper place for these things to be meted-out and it's NOT the public school system. If/when an intelligent designer is generally accepted as scientific fact, THEN we can start teaching that in science classes in public schools. If/when it ever does get to that point, don't for a minute doubt that there would be challenges to THAT as well, though.

 

It is the continuing challenges to scientific theories that makes me (as well as others, I suspect) wonder how you can say for a certainty that there is a Designer:

 

If one can make predictions based on the hypothesis of a Designer (as Perry Marshall did), and be found to be correct, and - likewise - establish evidence of repeated patterns and mechanisms in disparate life forms (which ID endeavors to do on one level), then it is exactly as testable as large portions of Evolutionary Science is now.

 

ID doesn't seek to supplant Evolutionary Science. It seeks to enhance it; to redirect it.

 

I posted evidence of why those who are proponents of Shapiro's work are correct, and why those who are proponents of 'Random Mutation as the vehicle for Genetic Advancement' are incorrect: the latter had predicted that it would take 1000's of years for bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. They claimed that since the alterations to the environment that bacteria are exposed cause bacteria to only very slowly evolve, no resistant-strain bacteria should be forthcoming for a very very long time.

 

Those who are proponents of a top-down designed evolutionary mechanism argued that the bacteria would adjust far more quickly than that, because the mechanism to adapt is intentional; ordered and intelligent.

 

That was the core of the MS-DOS analogy.

 

So who was right?

 

You know who was right: we are now dealing with very serious strains of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, precisely because the bottom-up random Evolutionists were absolutely and totally wrong.

 

All that has been proven thus far is that there is an intelligence at work at the cellular level, not that it has been designed by a being and placed here on Earth/in the Universe. Again, as Shapiro states, "we are just on the threshold of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations." That threshold is intelligence to the mutations NOT specifically that they were designed by an entity. To me (and I'm making an assumption here), THAT is what Shapiro is trying to accomplish. Trying to convince the staunch proponents on both sides of the debate to give a little and consider evolution in this new paradigm. NOT to make the gigantic leap that Marshall makes and conclude that there is a grand Designer behind it all. Let science dictate where that takes us, and, when we get there, rest assured THAT will be taught in public schools. We're not there yet. "we are just on the threshold"

[nikki2200 4]

Exactly. Thats's been my point the whole time.

 

Yet for some reason FrankM and others are still caught up in the notion that creationism doesn't fit into "science class". Dude, I understand the point. However that point is too simple minded. Just because creationism may not fit the scienctific mold that we commonly define doesn't mean it cannot be included in the discussion to get people to think. Holy Mackeral.

 

If I'm in Philosphy class and we're talking about somthing it's okay to juxtapose that against something "scientific". If it brings home a point, makes the students ask questions, or highlights the faults of each premise. All those are GOOD things. I don't give a flying fock that we are talking science in philosophy class or vice versa.

 

Why is that so hard to understand I'll never know. Take a step back from your narrow minded stance of trying to prove some point. It will you help in this thread and life in general. Others are able to do that.

 

If these bills are talking about teaching creationism in schools and they mean by doing so you are teaching the Bible word for word or it turns into Sunday School then that IS crazy talk. And that serves absolutely no purpose in a public school setting. However it they are simply trying to at least acknowledge the premise, in realation to the scientific theories that speak to the beginning of life, then I think it could be a good thing. No matter which "class" it's brought up in. Really simple concept. As jerrykids noted; Just look at this thread.

 

 

BECAUSE TEACHING THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC THEORY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DARWINISM IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. It is not science. Presenting Intelligent Design to students as a scientific theory is teaching them something that is not true. What you don't understand, is IDers want this presented as a scientific theory, not a philosophical discussion. Talk about religion all you want in a sociology or religion class. Go nuts. HOWEVER, do not present it as a SCIENTIFIC alternative to Darwinism BECAUSE IT IS NOT. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

 

 

Did anyone watche the documentary Strike posted where a conservative judge in Dover, PA ruled ID was not science and could not be taught as such? He said it best "In an era where we are trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep science and math on the cutting edge in the US, to introduce and teach bad science to 9th grade students makes very little sense to me. You know garbage in, garbage out. And it doesn't benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries."

[Mike Honcho 5,439]

 

 

Did anyone watche the documentary Strike posted where a conservative judge in Dover, PA ruled ID was not science and could not be taught as such? He said it best "In an era where we are trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep science and math on the cutting edge in the US, to introduce and teach bad science to 9th grade students makes very little sense to me. You know garbage in, garbage out. And it doesn't benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries."

 

I watched it...I didn't know we were going to be tested on it though.

[Frank M 181]

BECAUSE TEACHING THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC THEORY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DARWINISM IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. It is not science. Presenting Intelligent Design to students as a scientific theory is teaching them something that is not true. What you don't understand, is IDers want this presented as a scientific theory, not a philosophical discussion. Talk about religion all you want in a sociology or religion class. Go nuts. HOWEVER, do not present it as a SCIENTIFIC alternative to Darwinism BECAUSE IT IS NOT. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

 

 

Did anyone watche the documentary Strike posted where a conservative judge in Dover, PA ruled ID was not science and could not be taught as such? He said it best "In an era where we are trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep science and math on the cutting edge in the US, to introduce and teach bad science to 9th grade students makes very little sense to me. You know garbage in, garbage out. And it doesn't benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries."

 

KSB should probably just stay on the canvas now,as well.

 

Knocked out by a chick, too!

 

[KSB2424 3,174]

BECAUSE TEACHING THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC THEORY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DARWINISM IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. It is not science. Presenting Intelligent Design to students as a scientific theory is teaching them something that is not true. What you don't understand, is IDers want this presented as a scientific theory, not a philosophical discussion. Talk about religion all you want in a sociology or religion class. Go nuts. HOWEVER, do not present it as a SCIENTIFIC alternative to Darwinism BECAUSE IT IS NOT. CAN YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

 

 

Did anyone watche the documentary Strike posted where a conservative judge in Dover, PA ruled ID was not science and could not be taught as such? He said it best "In an era where we are trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep science and math on the cutting edge in the US, to introduce and teach bad science to 9th grade students makes very little sense to me. You know garbage in, garbage out. And it doesn't benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries."

I think everyone understands what you are and have been implying.

 

However the discconnet is that you can't get out of that "its not science dammit!@#! so you can't teach it as such!@#!" box. It's like culture shock to you. It doesn't fit the teaching mold you think is right so you discount it. It's okay, I understand. People are creatures of habit and rarely can totally rewire their own thinking processes. Even if it's for the better. Talk about being closed minded? Sheesh.

[Mike Honcho 5,439]

I think everyone understands what you are and have been implying.

 

However the discconnet is that you can't get out of that "its not science dammit!@#! so you can't teach it as such!@#!" box. It's like culture shock to you. It doesn't fit the teaching mold you think is right so you discount it. It's okay, I understand. People are creatures of habit and rarely can totally rewire their own thinking processes. Even if it's for the better. Talk about being closed minded? Sheesh.

 

 

Irony....

[KSB2424 3,174]

Irony....

Exactly.

 

The irony and asswhole pendulum has swung to the athiest side. It used to be in the bible beater corner. Not anymore.

[MedStudent 56]

Did anyone watche the documentary Strike posted where a conservative judge in Dover, PA ruled ID was not science and could not be taught as such? He said it best "In an era where we are trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where we're trying to keep science and math on the cutting edge in the US, to introduce and teach bad science to 9th grade students makes very little sense to me. You know garbage in, garbage out. And it doesn't benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries."

 

And this was from a Dubya appointed conservative christian Judge. I agree with him 100%. Teaching this garbage would make kids dumber.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Perry Marshall is a computer programmer who writes blogs on the interwebs. Can we please stop bringing him up? It's embarrassing.

 

 

If anything is embarrassing, it's your inability to digest information on a link that quotes Shapiro explaining that he's not a proponent of ID.

 

You'd reject a copy of the Constitution if it appeared on a focking blog link. That's a special kind of dense.

 

Once anyone in the entire world tests through scientific experimentation the concept of ID and proves there is any scientific validity to it, I am sure no one on this thread would have an issue intelligently discussing the concept as a scientific theory. Maybe you can get busy at it. Until then, let's leave this "debate" where it belongs and that is outside the friggin science lab.

 

You have to use a microscope - and have advanced degrees in biology - to understand the mechanisms and patterns in cellular biology. This is clearly a hybrid scientific endeavor. Science is not merely for the atheist: if someone wanted to prove the existence of God - and do so scientifically - you'd disqualify the effort.

 

I suggest you really examine what you think Science is for: it's for discovering things, and allowing the data to take us where it leads. By your standard, we could only discover evidence of a Designer by accident.

 

For instance (and this is purely hypothetical) if it is discovered that there is code hidden within DNA which is actually a language, and this language proves to be translatable, and contains a message that cannot be explained any other way: would you have thought that such a thing was likelier to be found for someone who was looking for it?

 

If so, you may be a proponent of ID. Great discoveries are often made by those who suspected they were possible to discover.

 

STAY DOWN Mensa. For the love of Entity. STAY DOWN!

 

This is only an attempt to mute speech. Let me suggest to you something: don't read this thread any more: like you claimed you shouldn't. YOU stay OUT. How about that?

[IMMensaMind 462]

Wish the NCAA tourney was as predictable.

 

Learn to use the HTML quotations. You cannot merit a response without this basic ability.

[IMMensaMind 462]

S&MensaMind, everyone sees it but you. Even those who agree with you have taken to arguing a different point. You're wrong. It happens to everyone. Your self-image as a genius will be much better off by admitting it and moving on than to continue attempting to preserve some shred of your initial argument using semantics. For the love of God (who created us all), just stop.

 

You just can't thump your chest about a link to research from this brilliant guy (who was cool enough to email Nikki back about it, WTF is up with that?!) and refer back to it and go on and on about it and then have the guy who did the research personally say it doesn't say or prove what you're attempting to say it says and proves. That's game over man. If you're at a book club meeting and a debate breaks out about a passage, and the author himself shows up and tells you what it means, that's the end of the debate.

 

You can't interpret his work better than he can. You aren't the only intelligent person here, and acting like everyone but you is just misunderstanding is making everyone embarrassed for you. It's not that you're the only one wise enough to see it that way, or that people don't like you and are twisting your words or insulting you or whatever. You're just wrong on this one, dude. It happens to all of us a half dozen times a day (more if you're a man in a relationship). There's nothing lesser about it. The pathetic part is refusing to admit it.

 

More than half of my time in this thread has been spent replying to posters who get wrong what I've said in this thread. You're another one. I haven't said a single thing you've claimed.

 

What exactly do you think I believe that Shapiro's work proves? Your sloppy interpretation of what I've written (and you're not the only one: in fact, you're typical) is the problem here.

 

At its most basic, I've claimed two things:

 

1) I've said that Shapiro's work establishes that Random Mutation cannot be the vehicle which advances Evolution. This is Shapiro's position as well, which is why he's saying that neo-Darwinism is incorrect. I've said that Random Mutation happens, but they are the anomoly, not the main mechanism of advancement. The main mechanism is cellular genetic programming. I've said this because it fits far better the explanations needed for rapid bacteriological resistance advancement, and punctuated equilibrium. This is what Shapiro believes as well.

 

2) I've also said that the discovery of this genetic cellular intelligence (McClintock called it cellular wisdom) strengthens, and doesn't weaken the case for a Designer. Others howled loudly that this has nothing to do with a Designer, and I disagreed. If a patterned Intelligence discovered at the cellular level could not have a thing to do with a Designer, just what the fock COULD?

 

I also fortified my point in this regard by putting FeelingMN to a test - a test he passed, because he has at least a surviving sense of fairness: I asked him if I had put to him - before he knew of this scientifically tested and established cellular genetic intelligence - the idea that cells actually had intelligence: that they could shatter their DNA structure into 100,000 separately recognizable parts and reorder them to better cope with the environment into which they were placed...that they were established as containing a master programming function....

 

...would that be the ravings of a lunatic Intelligent Design advocate?

 

He answered 'yes' - he admitted yes. Yes, is the right answer. How could it be otherwise? The cornerstone of Darwinian Evolution is Random Mutation. The word 'random' - by its very nature - disqualifies a Creator. It's random, after all. That's why secularists are comfortable with the Darwinian paradigm. This - as Shapiro mentions, causes Darwinians to brusquely defend their ideology, as clear as the challenge now present to it is. This lends credence, as Shapiro claims, to the Creationist claim that Darwinists are merely adhering to a faith.

 

How could something which would have been heckled as a ridiculous ID contrivance last year now - when verified as fact - have nothing to do with Intelligent Design?

[IMMensaMind 462]

My argument is that creationsim stifles thinking as opposed to promotes it. Its an easy way to explain away something that you are too lazy to think about. (Post 61)

 

We know your argument: it's why you're afraid of anything or anyone who is a believer that this reality was Created.

 

It's also an unsubstantiated claim. You need look no further than Sir Isaac Newton to prove you wrong.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I argued for this seven pages ago.

 

Still waiting.

 

DankNuggs answered this recently; I answered it quite a while ago. I asked you why you would demand such a standard of ID that you do not demand of aspects of Evolutionary Science - such as Macro-Evolution, which is nearly completely dependent upon a fossil record, and has no such repeatable experiments upon which to base anything.

 

I'll go further now: if I were to illustrate the absurd merely by being absurd, I could say that a theory of Intelligent Designers is that there is a code/copyright/watermark within all that is created, and we merely have to look for it in the patterns of nature and all cellular life.

 

That we haven't found it yet is moot. It's the looking which is the Science: just as we continue to attempt to support the idea of Multiple Universes, even though we haven't found them either.

[Frank M 181]

Mensa has reached that point.

 

He just threw the gun.

[IMMensaMind 462]

What is a Designer? If it isn't God, then it's an extension of God...something made by God. Shapiro said he accepts natural causes, not Supernatural causes advanced by many ID proponents. Why shouldn't we lump you in with many of the ID proponents? You've been arguing for an outside agent throughout this thread. How is that not Supernatural?

 

Determining that matter is the work of a Designer, and then determining the nature of said Designer are two different exercises. There is no point in discussing the second until the former is determined. Shapiro is a Scientist, so he automatically must reject any possible consideration of a Supernatural influence.

 

To me, that is a flaw of Science, but it those rules under which the discipline operates. Apparently, the phrase "anything is possible" doesn't apply here. While he can personally muse about such things, he cannot and will not with his white smock on.

 

How do you know? That's purely speculative.

 

No it isn't: he said so himself: as a Scientist, he cannot entertain notions of a Supernatural source.

 

You make it sound like you and he actually share the same thoughts on this research, but circumstances dictate he keep his opinions to himself until his research yields more results. Again, you're projecting. The truth is, you really don't know why he does or doesn't say things. Quit making attributions for his intentions. Doing so only lends credence to the notion that you're incapable of engaging in a honest, intellectual debate.

 

How can you legitimately say that, when I've repeatedly explained that I'm merely speculating on his thoughts or intentions when discussing why he walks that middle line? I've only gone so far as to explain that it is my belief that the information we now have due to his research strengthens the case for ID; not weakens. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what he believes.

 

To what idea? He sounded pretty antagonistic to the Supernatural causes proposed by many ID proponents.

 

An antagonistic response would be to say that ID is FOS. He said that he cannot consider the Supernatural. That is a neutral position.

 

You say that you are different than many ID folks....but you haven't explained how....or at least, you haven't explained this distinction well enough. But when you say stuff like this:

 

I really don't see a distinction. What you've said here is loaded with supernatural causes, which would mean Shapiro would automatically exclude you from the discussion.

 

Shapiro doesn't have to exclude or include me. Shapiro's work is clinical. He's merely discovered that cells intelligently manipulate their DNA, and he may now be researching how the cells intelligently manage their environments. But for him to ask the metaphysical questions beyond that (like how or why the cells acquired this capability; via what mechanism) are questions beyond his scope: Abiogenesis and Philosophy/Religion questions.

 

He's limited; I'm not. It means that regardless what he does with his research, others with a broader disciplines will ask these questions.

 

Come up with some ID experiments....describe your "Designer" in natural terms....or concede that you really don't know what the fock you're talking about. Quit crying about insults. Quit playing word games. And use that MensaMind of yours to argue your point.

 

I really wonder why no one (that I saw) answered my question about SETI. Do you have any problem with SETI; do you consider it scientific/etc? Do you support what SETI does?

 

And do you know why I'm asking?

[Frank M 181]

DankNuggs answered this recently; I answered it quite a while ago. I asked you why you would demand such a standard of ID that you do not demand of aspects of Evolutionary Science - such as Macro-Evolution, which is nearly completely dependent upon a fossil record, and has no such repeatable experiments upon which to base anything.

 

I'll go further now: if I were to illustrate the absurd merely by being absurd, I could say that a theory of Intelligent Designers is that there is a code/copyright/watermark within all that is created, and we merely have to look for it in the patterns of nature and all cellular life.

 

That we haven't found it yet is moot. It's the looking which is the Science: just as we continue to attempt to support the idea of Multiple Universes, even though we haven't found them either.

 

Which isn't being done where ID is concerned. Because misinterpreting other people's work doesn't fit the bill.

 

HTH

[IMMensaMind 462]

Mensa has reached that point.

 

He just threw the gun.

 

Ok, that made me

[penultimatestraw 473]

Exactly. Thats's been my point the whole time.

 

Yet for some reason FrankM and others are still caught up in the notion that creationism doesn't fit into "science class". Dude, I understand the point. However that point is too simple minded. Just because creationism may not fit the scienctific mold that we commonly define doesn't mean it cannot be included in the discussion to get people to think. Holy Mackeral.

 

If I'm in Philosphy class and we're talking about somthing it's okay to juxtapose that against something "scientific". If it brings home a point, makes the students ask questions, or highlights the faults of each premise. All those are GOOD things. I don't give a flying fock that we are talking science in philosophy class or vice versa.

 

Why is that so hard to understand I'll never know. Take a step back from your narrow minded stance of trying to prove some point. It will you help in this thread and life in general. Others are able to do that.

 

If these bills are talking about teaching creationism in schools and they mean by doing so you are teaching the Bible word for word or it turns into Sunday School then that IS crazy talk. And that serves absolutely no purpose in a public school setting. However it they are simply trying to at least acknowledge the premise, in realation to the scientific theories that speak to the beginning of life, then I think it could be a good thing. No matter which "class" it's brought up in. Really simple concept. As jerrykids noted; Just look at this thread.

There is plenty of room for critical thought in a purely scientific curriculum, be it biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Just like there can be intelligent discussion in a religion class. But the two are diametrically opposed in the tools they use to approach a topic, as reason and faith are antithetical. Its like teaching Farsi in a French class. The interaction of the two is best reserved for a philosophy class. As abstract thought is something people develop a little later in life (if at all), classes like philosophy and comparative religion are typically electives in post-secondary education. Forcing these topics earlier in public school is ignoring intellectual development in addition to the separation of church and state.

 

The irony and asswhole pendulum has swung to the athiest side. It used to be in the bible beater corner. Not anymore.

 

There are plenty of religious scientists. And non-a-hole atheists.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Learn to use the HTML quotations. You cannot merit a response without this basic ability.

Maybe you can teach me something in this thread after all!

 

And I responded to your SETI ?, but it may not be in the appropriate format for you to digest. Maybe if I wrote it on parchment paper or screamed it from a pulpit? Maybe I'll create a pseudoscience blog!

[Strike 6,023]

 

 

I really wonder why no one (that I saw) answered my question about SETI. Do you have any problem with SETI; do you consider it scientific/etc? Do you support what SETI does?

 

And do you know why I'm asking?

 

 

1) At least one person answered. I remember seeing a post in response to it.

 

2) I didn't answer because you directed the question at "left wingers" or something like that. I don't get into political affiliation bullsh*t. If you want to ask a question to the general populace don't direct it at people who self label themselves as affiliated with one particular ideology.

[nikki2200 4]

 

If anything is embarrassing, it's your inability to digest information on a link that quotes Shapiro explaining that he's not a proponent of ID.

 

You'd reject a copy of the Constitution if it appeared on a focking blog link. That's a special kind of dense.

 

See what I think is dense is taking a blog written by a computer programmer who tries to interpret the research results of a molecular biologist by likening it to MS-DOS and seeing any value in it whatsoever. If I ever did something like that, I would feel embarrassed for myself.

 

You also may want to check this. It's another blog. It's main point of discussion is proving in great detail what a pile of shiit Perry Marshall's analyses are (even when it comes to computer programming). I doubt you'll read it though.

http://www.cosmicfingerpuppets.com/drafts/writers/Marc_Draco/Information_Hypothesis_Disproved

 

You have to use a microscope - and have advanced degrees in biology - to understand the mechanisms and patterns in cellular biology. This is clearly a hybrid scientific endeavor. Science is not merely for the atheist: if someone wanted to prove the existence of God - and do so scientifically - you'd disqualify the effort.

 

I suggest you really examine what you think Science is for: it's for discovering things, and allowing the data to take us where it leads. By your standard, we could only discover evidence of a Designer by accident.

 

For instance (and this is purely hypothetical) if it is discovered that there is code hidden within DNA which is actually a language, and this language proves to be translatable, and contains a message that cannot be explained any other way: would you have thought that such a thing was likelier to be found for someone who was looking for it?

 

If so, you may be a proponent of ID. Great discoveries are often made by those who suspected they were possible to discover.

 

Well get on it Mensa!!!! No one is stopping you. Go out into the world toting your microscope and your beliefs and set out on this hybrid endeavor. But until you or anyone else on the planet accomplishes anything remotely resembling scientific research on this topic, the conversation is over. It cannot be taught as a scientific theory in a classroom because it is not a legitimate scientific theory and presenting it as such would be a lie. I think you've already admitted this at this point.

 

This is only an attempt to mute speech. Let me suggest to you something: don't read this thread any more: like you claimed you shouldn't. YOU stay OUT. How about that?

 

It wasn't an attempt to mute you. Most people have already mentally muted you by now. Perhaps someone of your intellectual status would not stoop to watching Rocky. Being of a feeble mind myself, and being from Philly, I've seen it a few times.

 

This was an attempt, while seeing you laying on the mat in a pool of your own sweat, blood, and drool, trying to convince you to keep your dignity and stay there. Like a bad boxing match where the stubborn loser refuses to admit they lost and they keep getting up and getting pummeled and pummeled. I, for one, was tired of seeing blood spray all over the place.

[OldMaid 2,135]

I think someone's vag is hanging out and for once it's not Nikki's!

[IMMensaMind 462]

I think I've been lumped with the antagonist lefties (in a non-insulting fashion, of course) so here goes:

 

Don't know too much about the specifics of SETI, but I think there is a greater chance of alien life (possibly sentient) than there is of a divine creator. This is based on probability of a suitable environment with the building blocks of life in non-Earth locales. I think it is a fascinating search, but probably too costly, particularly in our current economy. So I like the concept, but we don't have the $ (government funds) - private researchers can do as they please.

 

You clearly support the concept. That's funny - because of just how they determine if they've discovered an unknown Intelligence.

 

You support the notion that intelligent life can make itself known to us through verifiable patterns via radio signals, but not verified patterns right there at the cellular level? Isn't that the testable model for ID about which you hand-wring doesn't supposedly exist?

 

Consider:

 

What about the positive evidence for intelligent design? It seems that here we may be getting to the heart of Eugenie Scott's concerns. I submit that there is indeed positive evidence for intelligent design. To see this, let's consider an example that I recycle endlessly in my writings (if only because its force seems continually lost on Darwinists). Consider the movie _Contact_ that appeared summer of 1997, based on the novel by Carl Sagan. In the movie radio astronomers determine that they have established contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence after they receive a long sequence of prime numbers, represented as a sequence of bits.

 

Although in the actual SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio astronomers look not for something as flamboyant as prime numbers but something much more plebeian, namely, a narrow bandwidth of transmissions (as occur with human radio transmissions), the point nonetheless remains that SETI researchers would legitimately count a sequence of prime numbers (and less flamboyantly though just as assuredly a narrow bandwidth transmission) as positive evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. No such conclusive signal has yet been observed, but I can assure you that if it were to be observed, Eugenie Scott would not be complaining about SETI not having proposed any "testable models." Instead she would rejoice that the model had been tested and decisively confirmed.

 

Now what's significant about a sequence of prime numbers from outer space is that they exhibit specified complexity -- there has to be a long sequence (hence complexity) and it needs to display an independently given pattern (hence specificity). But what if specified complexity is also exhibited in actual biological systems? In fact it is -- notably in the bacterial flagellum. Internet mavens have been pestering me for actual calculations of complexity involved in such systems. I address this in my forthcoming book (_No Free Lunch_), but such calculations are out there in the literature (cf. the work of Hubert Yockey, Robert Sauer, Peter Rüst, Paul Erbrich, Siegfried Scherer, and most recently Douglas Axe -- I'm not enlisting these individuals as design advocates but merely pointing out that methods for determining specified complexity are already part of biology).

 

Even so, it appears that Eugenie Scott would not be entirely happy admitting that intelligent design is positively confirmed once some clear-cut instances of specified complexity are discovered in biological systems. Why not? As she put it in her U.C. Berkeley lecture, design theorists "never tell you what happened." Well, neither do SETI researchers. If a SETI researcher discovers a radio transmission of prime numbers from outer space, the inference to an extraterrestrial intelligence is clear, but the researcher doesn't know "what happened" in the sense of knowing any details about the radio transmitter or for that matter the extraterrestrial that transmitted the radio transmission.

 

Ah, but we have experience with radio transmitters. At least with extraterrestrial intelligences we can guess what might have happened. But we don't have any experience with unembodied designers, and that's clearly what we're dealing with when it comes to design in biology. Actually, if an unembodied designer is responsible for biological complexity, then we do have quite a bit of experience with such a designer through the designed objects (not least ourselves) that confront us all the time. On the other hand, it is true that we possess very little insight at this time into how such a designer acted to bring about the complex biological systems that have emerged over the course of natural history.

 

William Dembski

 

 

Probably a righteous twirp, too:

 

To add more kindling to the flame war, I think it is OK to teach climate change in schools. The bulk of reputable scientists still support it, and global temperatures are rising on average over the long term. The anthropogenic aspect of it is a little more controversial, and might be better left to college level courses.

 

Double Standard. Blatant. It is unbelievable that you'd stoop to such a ridiculously indefensible level to say that you'd support one form of propagandizing, but not another (in your view).

[IMMensaMind 462]

His follow-up paragraph is also very well written:

 

Darwinists take this present lack of insight into the workings of an unembodied designer not as remediable ignorance on our part and not as evidence that the designer's capacities far outstrip ours, but as proof that there is no unembodied designer (at least none relevant to biology). By the same token, if an extraterrestrial intelligence communicated via radio signals with earth and solved computational problems that exceeded anything an ordinary or quantum computer could ever solve, we would have to conclude that we weren't really dealing with an intelligence because we have no experience of super-mathematicians that can solve such problems. My own view is that with respect to biological design humans are in the same position as William James's dog studying James while James was reading a book in his library. Our incomprehension over biological design is the incomprehension of a dog trying to understand its master's actions. Interestingly, the biological community regularly sings the praises of natural selection and the wonders it has wrought while admitting that it has no comprehension of how those wonders were wrought. Natural selection, we are assured, is cleverer than we are or can ever hope to be. Darwinists have merely swapped one form of awe for another. They've not eliminated it.

[IMMensaMind 462]

See what I think is dense is taking a blog written by a computer programmer who tries to interpret the research results of a molecular biologist by likening it to MS-DOS and seeing any value in it whatsoever. If I ever did something like that, I would feel embarrassed for myself.

 

You also may want to check this. It's another blog. It's main point of discussion is proving in great detail what a pile of shiit Perry Marshall's analyses are (even when it comes to computer programming). I doubt you'll read it though.

http://www.cosmicfingerpuppets.com/drafts/writers/Marc_Draco/Information_Hypothesis_Disproved

 

 

 

Well get on it Mensa!!!! No one is stopping you. Go out into the world toting your microscope and your beliefs and set out on this hybrid endeavor. But until you or anyone else on the planet accomplishes anything remotely resembling scientific research on this topic, the conversation is over. It cannot be taught as a scientific theory in a classroom because it is not a legitimate scientific theory and presenting it as such would be a lie. I think you've already admitted this at this point.

 

 

 

It wasn't an attempt to mute you. Most people have already mentally muted you by now. Perhaps someone of your intellectual status would not stoop to watching Rocky. Being of a feeble mind myself, and being from Philly, I've seen it a few times.

 

This was an attempt, while seeing you laying on the mat in a pool of your own sweat, blood, and drool, trying to convince you to keep your dignity and stay there. Like a bad boxing match where the stubborn loser refuses to admit they lost and they keep getting up and getting pummeled and pummeled. I, for one, was tired of seeing blood spray all over the place.

 

I'm really wondering why I'm supposed to consider your blog when you will not consider mine.

 

What's additionally odd is that the people who wrote that blog are about as snarky as anyone in this forearm, and - additionally - appear to be completely ignorant of Shapiro's work, which totally refutes what they're trying to say. This blog also attempts to claim that Marshall is throwing out the whole of Evolutionary Theory when he is not. That blog also has no where I see to invite conversation. It exists strictly as a hit piece.

 

In short, their understanding of this issue is about as good as yours. No wonder you found it.

[IMMensaMind 462]

1) At least one person answered. I remember seeing a post in response to it.

 

2) I didn't answer because you directed the question at "left wingers" or something like that. I don't get into political affiliation bullsh*t. If you want to ask a question to the general populace don't direct it at people who self label themselves as affiliated with one particular ideology.

 

Such rules appear when one rationalizes an answer! Do you support SETI?

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'm sorry! I'm sorry that you are such a stupid piece of human waste. I have caught finally up in this thread andall that comes to me is

Hope you die before I get to you I make no apologise

 

What? Your post was about as useless as that which comes from your post.

[JackARoot 2]

Yowza, mine eyes

:lock:

[OldMaid 2,135]

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I think you should go back and re-read that blog again. Just saying...

[nikki2200 4]

I am hyper-ventilating...................

 

Can't..............breath...................

 

 

 

 

[JackARoot 2]

I wuz just gonna say that I'm surprised this thread had so much legs. Science is the pursuit of truth that we can measure. Faith isn't. I personally believe that there is a higher power, but I don't think any of us will find out until the day we die.

 

 

I didn't watch the vid, but that still of someone's rectum hangin open has changed my opinion. Proof positive of ID. We should teach all of our kids ID ... and show them the video

[OldMaid 2,135]

Died!

 

I've literally

 

D

I

E

D