Creationism education bills

[IMMensaMind 462]

 

Holy cow - really? Did you think you're making a good point when you don't also point out how and why I explained you were wrong?

 

You've deluded yourselves into thinking you're winning a debate by ignoring or avoiding entire chunks of it.

[nikki2200 4]

Holy cow - really? Did you think you're making a good point when you don't also point out how and why I explained you were wrong?

 

You've deluded yourselves into thinking you're winning a debate by ignoring or avoiding entire chunks of it.

 

 

itsatip: Talking a lot < > Winning. hth

[IMMensaMind 462]

itsatip: Talking a lot < > Winning. hth

 

itsatip: doing bumper stickers <>winning. hth too.

[Strike 6,023]

itsatip: Talking a lot < > Winning. hth

 

Charlie Sheen begs to differ.

 

:banana:

[nikki2200 4]

itsatip: doing bumper stickers <>winning. hth too.

 

 

I did a bumper sticker?

 

Also.. I didn't come in here with any preconceived notions about this debate. Everything I have said is based directly off of what I read here. kthxbai

[nikki2200 4]

Charlie Sheen begs to differ.

 

:banana:

 

 

I was thinking the same thing when I posted it. It's relevant to this convo. The more Charlie talks, the deeper he buries himself.

[Frank M 181]

That doesn't give me pause whatsoever. If you have trouble with this, you could simply replace that word. "From our understanding of man-made things, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design".

 

 

 

You perhaps are thinking that because this concept is so utterly basic, that it should be our presumption; not the other way around.

 

 

 

Considering that the patterns found in 'natural' things mimic the form and function of those things which were man-made, I believe they already have.

 

I believe that this is why some of the most brilliant scientists in history - like Sir Isaac Newton - were so completely comfortable being both scientist and deist.

 

Only in contemporary times have people attempted to contest the legitimacy of being both.

 

And those who hold the belief of a Designer - a hypothesis (now a theory, IMO) - test it through the methodology described. If they adhere to the SM, they are scientists. And they do.

 

Now, if another scientist wants to contest this theory, they must conduct experiments to disprove the theory. Good luck with that, considering the constant - those things which we know are intelligently designed - share all the same characteristics.

 

I look forward to the publication of this groundbreaking work in a scientific journal. Which one is it going to be in?

[FeelingMN 273]

Simply disagreeing without formulating a good reason for disagreeing is tantamount to a temper tantrum. If it's all you have, you've lost the debate here.

 

No, I don't have to answer questions about it.

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

ID is evolutionary science....with god. ID doesn't have any research of its own. They can't even define a designer....or at least you can't. So they rely on others' research and tack on their interpretations. ID is the intellectual equivalent of a virus....though at least a virus has something of its own (RNA). ID doesn't even have that.

 

ID cannot be disproved, because God cannot be disproved. We call that Faith, not Science.

 

Fail to the failth power.

Funny you compare ID to a virus, as some suggest transposons (McClintock's discovery) are vestigial viruses which lost their ability to live independently of cellular genetic machinery. Instead they co-evolved with their hosts. I'd hate to think we're programmed by a parasite...

[FeelingMN 273]

So it is with ID - and it's exactly why this isn't tied to Christianity. There is nothing in ID research that declares that the nature of the Designer if discovered would have the traits attributed to Him in Christian books.

 

I do not believe that anyone looking at this information can intellectually honestly declare: "see! It has nothing to do with a God!"

 

[FeelingMN 273]

I'd hate to think we're programmed by a parasite...

 

The Designer works in mysterious ways.

[nikki2200 4]

FeelingMN rocks.

 

Can we also add to this discussion how the concept of irreducible complexity, which was referenced in MensaMind's "scientific experiment" he keeps linking, was completely b!tch-slapped in court in that case in Dover?

[penultimatestraw 473]

FeelingMN rocks.

 

Can we also add to this discussion how the concept of irreducible complexity, which was referenced in MensaMind's "scientific experiment" he keeps linking, was completely b!tch-slapped in court in that case in Dover?

 

That part of the video, and the ID textbook editing address many of IMM's arguments brilliantly. But he won't watch it all, because he:

Knows what it says

Labels it an ignorant version of ID, not McClintock and Shapiro's scientific ringing endorsement of this novel "science"

Doesn't have the time

[nikki2200 4]

That part of the video, and the ID textbook editing address many of IMM's arguments brilliantly. But he won't watch it all, because he:

Knows what it says

Labels it an ignorant version of ID, not McClintock and Shapiro's scientific ringing endorsement of this novel "science"

Doesn't have the time

 

 

What's kind of interesting... is most of what the ID "scientists" in that case were trying to say sounds ridiculously familiar to what MensaMind is saying. And the whole thing was shot to bits by real scientists with a conservative Christian judge making the final call.

[IMMensaMind 462]

That part of the video, and the ID textbook editing address many of IMM's arguments brilliantly. But he won't watch it all, because he:

Knows what it says

Labels it an ignorant version of ID, not McClintock and Shapiro's scientific ringing endorsement of this novel "science"

Doesn't have the time

 

Where you believe it addresses it "brilliantly", I believe it addressed it fallaciously. What is brilliant about it?

[nikki2200 4]

Where you believe it addresses it "brilliantly", I believe it addressed it fallaciously. What is brilliant about it?

 

DID YOU WATCH IT?????

[IMMensaMind 462]

DID YOU WATCH IT?????

 

I've already explained that I did. I did skip forward about 4-5 times though. I've also explained that I'm not sympathetic to the attempt at defense, nor some of the views portrayed. They did a horrible job on defense.

[nikki2200 4]

1) I didn't watch the whole thing, because it's 2 freaking hours long. Complaining that I didn't watch the whole thing, while whining when I provide a long post to read is the pinnacle of asinine hypocrisy. Don't you agree?

 

2) The reason I didn't watch the whole thing is because I was already familiar with it; knew what would happen, and understood that what many of those IDers were saying was not something with which I agreed. ID is a broad area. I am only particularly interested in ID as a larger point of view to approaching Evolution - just as McClintock and Shapiro and Marshall have been saying.

 

That's why I posted their links!

 

3) What I am posting isn't based on "beliefs" or "faith" whatsoever. It's based upon specific scientific research.

 

 

This was a good post. thought it should be bumped.

[nikki2200 4]

I've already explained that I did. I did skip forward about 4-5 times though. I've also explained that I'm not sympathetic to the attempt at defense, nor some of the views portrayed. They did a horrible job on defense.

 

 

OK assuming that you actually are familiar with the court case, as you say watching it from beginning to end is a waste of your time, I have two questions for you:

 

1. Why are you linking a "scientific experiment" that you yourself admitted looks like the work of a 10 year old to substantiate your viewpoint when one of the main points in that "scientific theory" was irreducible complexity, which is the concept that got completely ass raped in court?

 

2. Why was the defense so bad? This was your chance Mensa. This was the opportunity for all the Creationists *cough* sorry Intelligent Design proponents to come out and prove their case and fight the evil athiests *cough* sorry Secular Darwinists wrong. Did they not put their best resources behind it? Did they not pull out every weapon they had? I have a hard time believing they didn't. And with their best resources and weapons fighting this case, they still got destroyed. By a Christian conservative judge no less.

 

I know I know. There is new research now that you can use for your cause. Research that the scientist who actually performed the research does not agree with using it to support ANY THEORY that cannot be tested experimentally.

 

I don't know how many times I have to say this. But GO. No one is stopping you. Experiment.... research.... find some factual and scientific validity that there is a designer and be able to run it through the same rigors that every other scientific theory has undergone. You or anyone else could go down in history books as the person that proved there was an Entity/God/Intelligent Designer. Please GO. But until that happens, STFU because this is all utter nonsense.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I've already explained that I did. I did skip forward about 4-5 times though. I've also explained that I'm not sympathetic to the attempt at defense, nor some of the views portrayed. They did a horrible job on defense.

Did these cases have horrible defenses as well? ID=Creation Science

 

Also, I found a place you might find like-minded enlightened souls: My link

Densa is an international society with one qualification for membership:

fill out the damn application!

Why me? Why Densa?

 

It's a fact, in the world there are smart people and, let's just say, people who've maintained a closer relationship with lead paint than is considered healthy.

 

And then there's the rest of us.

 

People who may not be smart enough to join any of those smart people groups but want to celebrate what little brain matter conjures up those guttural bon mots just before dinner.

 

Or maybe you are one of 'those people' who could join 'those people' in their group but wouldn't want to be in a room when 'those people' begin to talk about such pressing matters in such pretentious tones that only 'those people' can. And by 'pretentious tones' I mean 'boring as all get out.'

 

So come on! Join Densa! Join for someone else! Fill out the application and show the world you're proud of your nescience!

[The Next Generation 11]

Tell the others, who say it has nothing to do with Creationism.

 

 

 

You're misunderstanding the intent of the statement I made, and it's probably because I used the statement "Creationists" far too generally (which I'll explain in a bit):

 

 

 

However, how do all Creationists not support the changes that Shapiro is condoning are made to Darwinian modelling? Shapiro is suggesting that Random Mutation is not the primary motivator of Evolutionary advance; he's suggesting that directed intelligence is the primary cause.

 

Such a change to Darwinian modelling would be something that all Creationists support. Such a change would be something that Darwinists would squeal about.

 

If fact, there's an awful lot of squealing going on right in this thread.

 

Regardless of that segment of Creationism who flat reject Evolutionary Science completely (a sect which I find loony), the majority of those people who believe in some form of Creationism are those same people who look at Darwin's claims as suspect: the claim(s) of Evolution being a completely random process that arrives upon improvements strictly through naturally selected mutational accidents.

 

So changing that - and it is a big change - is something about which these Creationists would be in direct favor.

 

Including me.

 

 

 

Maybe you're misunderstanding my position here. I've tried to explain that I wasn't in either camp he's described (by way of a somewhat misleading false dichotomy: there aren't simply two camps). I alone am evidence of that: I believe in Creationism in the sense of "God" (without addressing the nature of said God) being responsible for creating our existence - but I also am a fan of scientific advance and discovery of the nature of how things work. So I fit neither mold Shapiro describes.

 

I believe I would be properly described as being in the majority. I believe most people are 'religious' (they believe in some form of 'God') in that sense, but they also do not reject the general concept of Evolution either.

 

So: I agree with you that Shapiro is trying to get those who fit the description of the two groups he's described to make concessions to a third way of thinking; but I'm trying to further explain that the concessions he's requesting are emblematic of a position that I - and the majority - already hold.

 

He's just filling in the Scientific support legitimizing the view.

 

I think that's all well and good and I REALLY apopreciate you taking the time to try to adress everyone's posts.

 

However, I think you leap to a very ig and fallicious conclusion based on Shapiro's findings that others (what I would think is the majority) don't agree with: that the cellular intelligence is the result of a Designer. That's it, that is the crux of the issue at hand. And, teaching THAT has no place in public schools because it is not a conclusion based on fact.

 

Even though I don't agree with you, I appreciate your thoughtfulness IMM. You are passionate and seemingly very bright. Peace.

[OldMaid 2,135]

I've been told if you look up the definition of insanity it now links you to this thread!

 

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

I think that's all well and good and I REALLY apopreciate you taking the time to try to adress everyone's posts.

 

Thanks. You're the kind of poster who makes that worthwhile. Others could learn a whole lot from you.

 

However, I think you leap to a very ig and fallicious conclusion based on Shapiro's findings that others (what I would think is the majority) don't agree with: that the cellular intelligence is the result of a Designer.

 

That's not a conclusion to which I leap; it's a personal belief I held previously that I believe is buttressed by this research. Putting it that way is a bit different than saying that this is proof. It's just additional evidence.

 

That to claim that this evidence doesn't harm secularism is not something that I believe can be well argued. Secularists have leaned on the random ideology since it was posited, because random supports their core beliefs.

 

That's it, that is the crux of the issue at hand. And, teaching THAT has no place in public schools because it is not a conclusion based on fact.

 

It is one thing to teach in school that cellular intelligence is the work of a Designer, and another to teach that cellular intelligence contradicts Chaos Theory (and pretty definitively), and that some people take from that the belief that it supports the notion of an Intelligent Designer.

 

I also believe that it should be perfectly acceptable to teach how ID wants to approach the science of it: observe known Intelligently Designed objects (the control group), and look for parallel characteristics (high CSI) in those things which are not man-made.

 

Even though I don't agree with you, I appreciate your thoughtfulness IMM. You are passionate and seemingly very bright. Peace.

 

[Mango_wiggee 0]

So...what about the aliens? And not the Mexican kind..

[IMMensaMind 462]

So...what about the aliens? And not the Mexican kind..

 

They could be Intelligent Designers, for all we know.

[The Next Generation 11]

Thanks. You're the kind of poster who makes that worthwhile. Others could learn a whole lot from you.

 

 

 

That's not a conclusion to which I leap; it's a personal belief I held previously that I believe is buttressed by this research. Putting it that way is a bit different than saying that this is proof. It's just additional evidence.

 

That to claim that this evidence doesn't harm secularism is not something that I believe can be well argued. Secularists have leaned on the random ideology since it was posited, because random supports their core beliefs.

 

 

 

It is one thing to teach in school that cellular intelligence is the work of a Designer, and another to teach that cellular intelligence [may] contradict Chaos Theory (and pretty definitively), and that some people take from that the belief that it supports the notion of an Intelligent Designer.

 

I also believe that it should be perfectly acceptable to teach how ID wants to approach the science of it: observe known Intelligently Designed objects (the control group), and look for parallel characteristics (high CSI) in those things which are not man-made.

 

 

 

 

The bolded I would agree is OK to teach in pulic schools. The rest, not so much. That, to me, should be done in the private sector and IF the research yields any verifible facts, then that could be tought in public schools.

 

Again, much obliged (to you and everyone else in the thread). I learned a lot from this thread.

[Mookz 1,375]

The bolded I would agree is OK to teach in pulic schools. The rest, not so much. That, to me, should be done in the private sector and IF the research yields any verifible facts, then that could be tought in public schools.

 

Again, much obliged (to you and everyone else in the thread). I learned a lot from this thread.

Secondored.

 

As a dim-witted agnostic I'm always interested in theories or experiences which may point to there being something more than just this.

 

So much vitriol in this thread. I think a lot of people are now rooting for there not to be a god, just so that IMMenseMindfock will be wrong.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Secondored.

 

As a dim-witted agnostic I'm always interested in theories or experiences which may point to there being something more than just this.

 

So much vitriol in this thread. I think a lot of people are now rooting for there not to be a god, just so that IMMenseMindfock will be wrong.

 

Oh, this is true - and there's no way anyone can argue that it doesn't affect the tone and tenor of this debate. The Next Generation holds many of the same positions as the antagonistic posters, but we had a great conversation. That's as much evidence that the problem isn't with me as anyone fair could need.

 

ETA: I approached this thread wrong. I should have started with the ID belief that cells evolve using programming, and went on and on about it - but without posting Shapiro's and McClintock's research. Once the usual suspects would have let out sufficient rope to hang themselves (via heckling a "Creationist" on his "unfounded unscientific ideas"), pulling the verified research would have been a hoot.

[nikki2200 4]

Oh, this is true - and there's no way anyone can argue that it doesn't affect the tone and tenor of this debate. The Next Generation holds many of the same positions as the antagonistic posters, but we had a great conversation. That's as much evidence that the problem isn't with me as anyone fair could need.

 

ETA: I approached this thread wrong. I should have started with the ID belief that cells evolve using programming, and went on and on about it - but without posting Shapiro's and McClintock's research. Once the usual suspects would have let out sufficient rope to hang themselves (via heckling a "Creationist" on his "unfounded unscientific ideas"), pulling the verified research would have been a hoot.

 

 

Yea. I'm sure that's what would have happened.

 

Mensa, why haven't you responded to my post. I asked you two questions. Waiting...

[Mango_wiggee 0]

They could be Intelligent Designers, for all we know.

 

But then...who created them?

[Mike Honcho 5,439]

Yea. I'm sure that's what would have happened.

 

Mensa, why haven't you responded to my post. I asked you two questions. Waiting...

 

 

He's smarter than everyone else, nobody else could have possibly known about this super secret research.....................of a Nobel Prize winning scientist.

[Frank M 181]

Oh, this is true - and there's no way anyone can argue that it doesn't affect the tone and tenor of this debate. The Next Generation holds many of the same positions as the antagonistic posters, but we had a great conversation. That's as much evidence that the problem isn't with me as anyone fair could need.

 

ETA: I approached this thread wrong. I should have started with the ID belief that cells evolve using programming, and went on and on about it - but without posting Shapiro's and McClintock's research. Once the usual suspects would have let out sufficient rope to hang themselves (via heckling a "Creationist" on his "unfounded unscientific ideas"), pulling the verified research would have been a hoot.

 

 

At least you're going out on a comedic note.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Oh, this is true - and there's no way anyone can argue that it doesn't affect the tone and tenor of this debate. The Next Generation holds many of the same positions as the antagonistic posters, but we had a great conversation. That's as much evidence that the problem isn't with me as anyone fair could need.

 

ETA: I approached this thread wrong. I should have started with the ID belief that cells evolve using programming, and went on and on about it - but without posting Shapiro's and McClintock's research. Once the usual suspects would have let out sufficient rope to hang themselves (via heckling a "Creationist" on his "unfounded unscientific ideas"), pulling the verified research would have been a hoot.

IMM, I am sorry to have strayed from the civil debate into the arena of insult, but I maintain (as do others) that you invited it by maligning groups and individuals during the course of the discussion. Just because you don't spell out a person's name but vilify a group to which they belong doesn't make it any less offensive.

 

Truth be told, I am glad a relatively coherent discussion can last as long as the "I'm drunk thread" Up next: "I am going to go ahead and throw a name out there"

[Voltaire 5,491]

I'd hate to think we're programmed by a parasite...

I can't speak to the biological aspect, but I will point out that we are programmed by religion.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I can't speak to the biological aspect, but I will point out that we are programmed by religion.

Some people are, but fear not: atheism is on the rise!

[IMMensaMind 462]

Some people are, but fear not: atheism is on the rise!

 

Atheism is just another religion, as is based in as much logic as the rest of them.

[IMMensaMind 462]

OK assuming that you actually are familiar with the court case, as you say watching it from beginning to end is a waste of your time, I have two questions for you:

 

1. Why are you linking a "scientific experiment" that you yourself admitted looks like the work of a 10 year old to substantiate your viewpoint when one of the main points in that "scientific theory" was irreducible complexity, which is the concept that got completely ass raped in court?

 

You're not being honest about what I said. I said that even a 5th grader could understand it.

 

You saw what you wanted to see in that case. Irreducable Complexity is called - by Darwinists - a "cop-out replacement for Science's real answer: I do not know". Science does not know. That does not mean that we cannot build a theory around it; it just means that it makes Secularists mad, because they claim that no opinion should revolve around something about which "we do not know". It is non sequitur: the Kitzmiller case merely claims that scientists have refuted by "peer-reviewed papers" the scientific validity of ID, but - if you read those papers - there is nothing sufficiently scientifically compelling in there to actually refute the claim of irreducable complexity, or specified complexity, other than literally the cop out of "we do not know" ourselves.

 

And these same scientists have to admit that macro-evolution suffers the same testability problem. That's why the term "punctuated equilibrium" was created: the fossil record did not show evidence of gradual changes in species as was expected and predicted.

 

It is illegitimate of Science to claim "we do not know", when what we do know is that when comparing IC organisms (flagella) to known intelligently designed items, the high CSI indicates a priori evidence of a design, and a purpose, and the flaggelum itself cannot be reduced to more basic forms that indicate some form of evolutionary advance; mistake or otherwise. It exists as a very basic machine, logically incapable of being explained as having evolved from anything else.

 

2. Why was the defense so bad? This was your chance Mensa. This was the opportunity for all the Creationists *cough* sorry Intelligent Design proponents to come out and prove their case and fight the evil athiests *cough* sorry Secular Darwinists wrong. Did they not put their best resources behind it? Did they not pull out every weapon they had? I have a hard time believing they didn't. And with their best resources and weapons fighting this case, they still got destroyed. By a Christian conservative judge no less.

 

First of all, it had nothing to do with me. I didn't know a thing about ID when that case was tried. I also didn't particularly like the approach/ideologies of some of the participants. I told you what my variety of ID means.

 

Nonetheless, it was part bad defense, and bad reasoning on the part of the court. This is the argument that should have been presented. Additionally, the court holding that teaching of ID in class violates the Establishment Clause is a canard; the words within the Clause have been warped and meanings and intent altered to forward an activist agenda: that is, to alter the public's original understanding of the Clause as a law written to prevent the State from forcing a specific religion on the public into the incorrect (and now popularly understood) perception that it prohibits the discussion or celebration of religions in general in any form. There are plenty of people who would be otherwise described as Conservatives - or even Christians - who fundamentally misunderstand this. Even judges.

 

In Jones' ruling, he claims (incorrectly) that ID is creationism - when it fails the test of the criteria - and makes the additional critical error of claiming that because ID is creationism, it violates the First Amendment because it establishes religion. I have asked this before, and it is appropriate to ask it again here: how could this be a correct interpretation of intent, when the Founding Fathers themselves opened sessions of Congress with prayer?

 

I know I know. There is new research now that you can use for your cause. Research that the scientist who actually performed the research does not agree with using it to support ANY THEORY that cannot be tested experimentally.

 

It doesn't have to be. He has already accomplished what any IDer would want accomplished: he has established innate intelligent programming within cellular genetics.

 

In addition, how his research is now used is completely beyond his control since it's been published.

 

I don't know how many times I have to say this. But GO. No one is stopping you. Experiment.... research.... find some factual and scientific validity that there is a designer and be able to run it through the same rigors that every other scientific theory has undergone. You or anyone else could go down in history books as the person that proved there was an Entity/God/Intelligent Designer. Please GO. But until that happens, STFU because this is all utter nonsense.

 

To those with the capacity to understand it, it is nothing of the sort.

[Voltaire 5,491]

Atheism is just another religion, as is based in as much logic as the rest of them.

Atheism doesn't cost me any money, doesn't force me to wrestle with contradictions, never disappoints me, and doesn't care if I leave or stay.

 

In the event there is an afterlife, I would much prefer to spend it with Carl Sagan and Thomas Jefferson rather than Jerry Falwell and Cotton Mather or Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Atheism doesn't cost me any money, doesn't force me to wrestle with contradictions, never disappoints me, and doesn't care if I leave or stay.

 

In the event there is an afterlife, I would much prefer to spend it with Carl Sagan and Thomas Jefferson rather than Jerry Falwell and Cotton Mather or Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

 

Still a religion.

[IMMensaMind 462]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk