Intelligent Design
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 17:04
VIEWED: 14833
PAGE 9 of 14
Quote:You guys never take anything seriously
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The moon landing was faked, but due to budgeting issues, instead of building a set they decided to use the moon, which was already there.
Seen Capricorn One too many times Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can I dig this one out of the back of the garage?
186,000 mi/sec - it's not just a good idea, it's THE LAW
(Some day I'd like to get this made into a bumper-sticker.)
Quote:If you call a new species a form of diversity, there is scientific observation of species formation right at this very moment. One involves recently isolated groups, the other involves species that cover large territories, with the versions at either extreme being distinctly different from each other.
But this adaptation leading to the present diversity of life forms is an assumption.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So far, I've sat out on this thread (and it's recent parallel), for two reasons. The first is that I'm a practicing biologist whose research program explores the evolution and maintenance of behavior. I teach evolutionary biology and therefore I'm biased. The second reason is that I'm not interested in, and don't have the time for, extended debate with those for whom no amount of rational and logical argument and no amount of evidence will serve to cause a reassessment of their preconceived notions. It's just not worth it.
So, I'm not going to address the merits of either ID or evolution and I'm going to cut to the chase: The only reason that folks are debating this issue at all is that there are repeated calls (rather assertive ones at that) that ID should be taught as science in science classes. Should such a thing be allowed (or fostered, or promoted?). There's a very simple answer - NO - and for a very simple reason - ID is NOT science, and it never will be. There are several reasons for this, but the most important is that ID relies on supernatural causation. Science by definition excludes supernatural causation,so ID will never fit the bill. That political leaders and educational policy makers don't understand what science is and isn't is appalling, and their attempts to enforce the expression of their own gnorance is a disgrace. No wonder science comprehension by US students lags so far behind not only the rest of the developed world, but big chunks of the third world as well.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I happen to aggree with what your saying perfessergee but the way your saying it is far to confrontational to work with anyone who is a proponent of ID...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think we're talking different things here finn. Something can have a probabillity and still be random, flipping a coin is random, nuclear decay, based on all knowledge we have of it is random...
One atom has a probabillity of decaying, but we don't know which or when, so when and where an atom decays is a random event.
Something is random if all possibillities have an equal probabillity...
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
Unless we measure a particle’s position we can’t precisely know it, but when we do measure it, its position will not necessarily be random.
Unless you measure a particle's postion, you don't know where it is, and when you measure it your changing it. Thus you can't predict where a particle is, has been, or where it will be, until it is observed. Since this observation changes the particles state/position you can't be certain that where you observed it to be is where it would have been.
Thus I believe you could say that the particles postion/state can be said to be random.
The random nature of QM was at the heart of Einstiens rejection of it, hence the quote:
"God does not play dice with the Universe!"
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I happen to aggree with what your saying perfessergee but the way your saying it is far to confrontational to work with anyone who is a proponent of ID...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
The problem is, ProffessorGee is exactly right. Teaching ID as science is nothing but a big
to science. That folk don't understand the most basic thing about science is appalling. I think part of the problem is that the pro-evolution folks engage with the pro-ID folks on the level of Truth, rather than approaching the question from the point of view of scientific limitation and discipline. That's how they getcha! The point isn't that ID is idiotic nonesence; the point is that it's abysmally bad science. It simply is. Faith in God and commitment to the scientific method, are in no way mutually exclusive, never have been. Polarization in any arena doesn't help anything except the propogation of prejudice and ignorance.HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah sure, but people need educating, you can't educate if your being confrontational...
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The people who want ID taught in science class aren't open to discussion or education. They have an agenda for which ID is only a fig leaf.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, as a Brit I can't really comment on that.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is unlikely that you’ll be able to illicit much reason from either side. The arguments on both sides of the Evolution/Intelligent Design debate are ideologically driven. They will both use confrontational language and ad hominem, because both Evolution and Intelligent Design are based on assumptions that probably cannot be tested, and neither side will admit that.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME