POLITICS: Kansas Debate Challenges Science Itself

Originally posted by subz
Rren you'll just have to take my theory on faith as I have quite as much proof to back up my theory as those pushing Intelligent Design have

The only difference being I use a logical thought process instead of having the "answer" and working backwards to try and give it justication.

[edit on 20/5/05 by subz]

Scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

But by your same "excellent example" GOD made alcoholics therefore GOD loves alcoholism it goes on and on and on Your missing the point!

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Rren]

Fine, then if thats the case then God made these biological reasons for alcoholism or homosexuality. If ID theory is to be believed then EVERYTHING biological was designed the way it is on purpose.

Gays and alcoholics were designed to be the way they are. Right or wrong, either God created their biology to make them that way or he's sadistic and created people for bigots to harrass and denegrate. You can have your sadistic God, I wouldnt want anything to do with a deity of that kind.

Maybe...just maybe, God gives you obstacles to overcome in your life. Is that to hard to grasp?

Perhaps, he would love to see you raise yourself. Use his and Jesus's teachings and parables to become a better person. After all, life would be awfully boring without the struggles...whatever...

DOUBLE POST....

Please remove if you can...!

[edit on 5/20/2005 by OXmanK]

Kansas can stick it where the sun don't shine! I don't like that. That's going over the diving board, flying through the air and landing in a Kansas school. "Okay kids, remember what Darwin said about evolution?" the teacher says.
"Yes." the kids say in unison.
"Well, I want you to forget about that and let's learn about how God created the Earth, and man." the teacher says. Johnny raises his hand and the teacher asks what he wants to ask.
"What if we don't believe in God?" Johnny asks.
"You don't believe in God?"
The teacher blew flame all over the student.

"Little Johnny is dead now, and burning in hell!" the teacher says.
"Okay class, what have you learned?" the teacher asks.
The class says all at onece, "God created the Earth and man, I learned to believe in God, otherwise I'll go to hell, or be flamed by the teacher!"
"Very good class." the teacher says. The bell rang, and school was over. So was the theory of evolution in the schools of Kansas.
The End.

[edit on 5/20/2005 by DucKid]

[edit on 5/20/2005 by DucKid]

[edit on 5/20/2005 by DucKid]

[edit on 5/20/2005 by DucKid]

Can't wait for these kids to enter the real world! "Mommy, I answered god did it to all my questions in highschool and got A's, but in college they failed me cause they said it was wrong! They told me they wanted reality, not magical fairyland where the grass in orange and monkeys have wings!"

Ok, I have the perfect way to end this! Tell all christians the truth, that Gravity is only a theory. Then, tell them that hey, evolution is wrong because it is a theory, so gravity must be wrong to. To prove your god correct just jump off a tall building and you won't fall, unless you aren't a true christian. Then apply for sidewalk scraper and get ready for the money to roll in as it rains christians.

James the Lesser,
Is your hatred of religion directed towards christianity or towards all religions? I feel sorry for you for whatever in your past has caused this hatred.
I do again question why the mods still like Nygdan have not issued you a warning for your predjudicial rantings against christianity.


[edit on 20-5-2005 by kenshiro2012]

OK, so a group of Kansas college alumni is going to change the definition of science for the rest of the world?

How conceited could they be? As if they could make a difference in what science does and is simply by changing its definition.

Ineffectual intellectuals.

Alright, there seems to be a Huge misconception over what Intelligent Design really is. Intelligent Design is not Creationism, it does not say the God described in the Bible, the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, or Mumbo for that matter created everthing.

On the Contrary Intelligent Design is a set of arguments which assert that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents. ID supporters argue that the standard scientific model of evolution by natural selection is insufficient to explain the origin, complexity, and diversity of life. Much of this argument comes from the idea of Irreducible complexity which is:

The term "irreducible complexity" is defined by Behe as:

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)
Supporters of the intelligent design theory use this term to refer to biological systems and organs that could not have come about by an incremental series of small changes. They argue that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection. Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or guided its evolution. Accordingly, the debate on irreducible complexity concerns two questions: whether irreducible complexity can be found in nature, and what significance it would have if it did exist in nature.

For more reading en.wikipedia.org...

But back to the subject at hand. This development in Kansas only opens all the doors of possibilities. The proposal is to identify science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation,". All that it would do is label something as unknown at this time rather than explaining phenomena with piece meal theories. Of Course, some people are sure to use this definition to make unsubstantiated claims but we already have that today. Evolution is a theory that is full of holes and there needs to be open mindedness in the scientific community to discover the true origins of the species and this is a step in the right direction.

BlackJackal you must of missed the part of your quote that said

Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or guided its evolution.

Thats a God buddy. And all the religions will claim it to be their God who is behind the Intelligent Design theory.

The fundamental reason why ID is not a scientific theory is that it has no experiments that can be recreated or proven. Atleast evolution has scientifically repeatable experiments that prove its theory to be correct. Thats more than can be said about ID which relies solely on saying "there is so much variety on Earth that we feel its unexplainable by evolution". Couple their belief with mathematical theories and it doesnt equate to evolutions scientific robustness.

The mouse trap analogy has merit though but the Intelligent Design theory is nothing more than an idea at the moment. Its not scientific and as such should not be taught in our school's science classes.

[edit on 20/5/05 by subz]

Let me qualify what I have stated above with Someone elses words that I feel ring very true. Currently, we as a scientific society treat Evolution as a sacred cow opposing anything that may interfere with it even though it is the poorest scientific theory on the books. I am not a direct supporter of either ID, Panspermia, Creationism or Evolution but I don't think evolution in its current form is any where near the correct theory. Here is how we currently teach evolution in our schools

1. Life has been on the planet about 4 billion years. “Evolution” is the observed fact that species have come into existence over that time, and that most species that have existed have become extinct.

2. As such, evolution is not a theory. It is an observed fact that needs a theory to explain it.

3. Vitalism, Lamarckism and many other hypotheses were given during and well before the 19th century in an effort to explain the observed fact of evolution. They were all eventually discounted.

4. The process of natural selection is an observed fact. Mutation and variation in species are observed facts in nature.

5. Charles Darwin proposed that natural selection acting on mutation and variation completely explains the observed fact of evolution. He used the fossil record and slightly differing traits among existing species as evidence. In the later 19th century and early 20th century this was generally accepted as the valid theory to explain evolution.

6. During that period, biology, information theory, automata theory, and biochemistry were either very primitive or unknown. Organisms were primarily understood at their gross anatomical level.

7. In the later half of the 20th century and the early part of the current century, the understanding of these new sciences has unveiled much of the basic unit components of life, and how those components are coded for, constructed, and reproduced.

8. In light of this newer science, some scientists, mathematicians, and information theorists have posed challenges to the Darwinian Theory as a valid and complete explanation of the fact of evolution. The concepts of probability, irreducible complexity, specified complexity, fossil evidence and others are used in their arguments.

9. As an extension of their negative arguments against the Darwinian Theory, some have proposed that these concepts show that intelligence and telic goals may be at work in evolution. The character or identity of any proposed intelligence is outside the scope of a natural science class, but may be addressed in social science classes or student groups.

www.arn.org...

See anything wrong with how we teach evolution? We as a species really should be a little more open minded and even subcumb to the notion that we are not the supreme beings in the universe and that someone or something else may have had a hand in our creation and/or development. I will leave you with a quote from renowned Evolutionist Peter Douglas Ward.

“The seemingly sudden appearance of skeletonized life has been one of the most perplexing puzzles of the fossil record. How is it that animals as complex as trilobites and brachiopods could spring forth so suddenly, completely formed, without a trace of their ancestors in the underlying strata? If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.”

— Peter Douglas Ward, On Methuselah’s Trail: Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1992), 29.

Originally posted by subz
BlackJackal you must of missed the part of your quote that said

Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or guided its evolution.

Thats a God buddy. And all the religions will claim it to be their God who is behind the Intelligent Design theory.

Could Be a God, Could be something else such as Aliens or some other Intelligent Agent as to yet unknown. The point is that ID does not support the creationist views of a 6000 year old earth, Creation in 7 days and the like. However what ID has been able to accomplish is to open peoples eyes to the fact that evolution is a troubled theory.

In the end this mandates science will not decide before-hand what it may discover, which has always been an unscientific manner, which hindered the urge for man to discover how the universe works in the first place. Such as saying I think the moon is made of cheese so now I will set out to prove the moon is made of cheese, rather than saying I want to know what the moon is made of and setting out to discover what the moon is made of.



[edit on 20-5-2005 by BlackJackal]

So...what you are trying to say is some grey came down to Earth, scraped off a couple of skin cells into primordial ooze and we all sprung from that. Or was that spit they used...?

Like I stated earlier, the only reason ID exists is for an attempt to disprove evolution. Which makes me question their intention.'

But what can I say, I believe in a Creationism/Evolutionism working hand in hand.

BlackJackal I have no problems with ID as an idea, I really dont. I just dont think its evolutions equivalent and as such it should not replace it in high school science classes.

Oxmank, theres more to ID than that and I do conceed it has some merit as an idea (not as a theory)

Take a circulatory system for example. How does minute variance or mutation create such a complex system? Does a creatue without a circulatory system give birth to offspring that mutates a heart in conjunction with viens to go with it?

Evolution works nicely with simple variants such as scales turning to feathers or thumbs becoming opposeable. It trips up with complex systems such as the inner ear and eye sight. Does natural selection favour a small nodule that will turn into an eye ball in a few million years?

[edit on 20/5/05 by subz]

Originally posted by OXmanK
So...what you are trying to say is some grey came down to Earth, scraped off a couple of skin cells into primordial ooze and we all sprung from that. Or was that spit they used...?

Like I stated earlier, the only reason ID exists is for an attempt to disprove evolution. Which makes me question their intention.'

But what can I say, I believe in a Creationism/Evolutionism working hand in hand.

No I am not trying to say that at all but it cannot be discounted in any way. It is just as likely that Aliens from another world came here and seeded the planet as it is likely that there was a divine creator or that we emerged from molecules bouncing off one another. However science in it's current state only seeks out to prove that we emerged from bouncing molecules and does not consider other explanations, this is the problem. We may be capable of finding the true answer but not until we drop our dogmas.

I think what you said here sums it up pretty nicely

But what can I say, I believe in a Creationism/Evolutionism working hand in hand.

I believe in things myself, you believe in things, scientists believe in things and this is all fine and dandy but it tends to get in the way of seaching for the truth. In Psychology there is a term called the Confirmation Bias which basically means people will seek out information that confirms there beliefs and disregard any information that goes against their beliefs. That is what we have here, so many people hold either Evolution or Creationism so closely they refuse to believe anything else could possibly be true.

Originally posted by subz
BlackJackal I have no problems with ID as an idea, I really dont. I just dont think its evolutions equivalent and as such it should not replace it in high school science classes.

Teacing only ID or only Creationism or only Evolution is a step in the wrong direction. Children should be taught each competing theory and each theories criticisms so that we can facilitate critical thinking and not closed minded children. Present them with all the data so that they can explore each more deeply and possibly discover the truth.

No, I don't have a problem with all religons. I mean, I don't see buddists blowing up hospitals, or shooting people cause the person won't blow them. I don't Witches going into schools and killing anyone who doesn't agree with them. Basically, except for christianity and Islam, I have no problem. But the ones that I do have problems with are the ones that kill because they say so, and if anyone disagrees, they kill you, and if you have a problem with it, they kill you, like christianity and Islam.

I don't see Jews going to D.C. and telling them they are wrong, earth is flat, and they will kill anyone who has proof we are round.

I don't see Hindus going to a store and calling them satan cause they are open on sundays and then burning it to the ground.

I do see the White Knights of Christianity(Catholic KKK) burning buildings, killing people. I do see KKK(protestants) killing people for being the "wrong" color or religon. I do see the ICR going into schools and telling kids if they believe in reality/the truth then they are evil and going to hell.(ICR=Institute for Creation Research, but they don't research, they just yell science is evil, kill anyone who won't give Dwayne Gish a BJ((He is the leader))

Hell my Pebble People may eat socks, but they don't kill people. They don't demand I go out and kill people for thinking they had the right to eat meat on a friday or the right to whistle while walking backwards in front of a church. WHy my All Mighty Powerful Invisable People are better then yours.

[sarcasm] Science is just a sham! It's an evil ploy of the devil to make people think that God didn't create everything! We could do without all those scientific theories! We all know the world is really flat, and that Earth is the center of the universe! Do not look to the stars, or you shall burn in hell![/sarcasm]

BlackJackal,
I tried this argument in the past on a couple of threads that have been created on this subject.
No matter what you say, no matter how rational your response, there are members and mods here who will immediately oppose it. Not on the basis of merit of the debate but due to the connection of religion / christianity.
Even those who always argue for the right to question issues will oppose this even to the point of ridiculing anyone who tries to uphold it.
Just on the basis of religion

This thread isn't about ID vs Evolution, it's about redifining science to make room for supernatural explenations thus making it easier for the fanatics to push thier adgenda into the classroom, if you think that is teaching critical thinking then I don't know what 2+2 equals.

Someone said above that ID was basically starting off with an answer and working backwards, that rings true more then anything else i've heard in this thread so far.

Anyone who believes that a "Designer" should belong in a Scientific Theory should go and start schools dedicated to this sort of thing. WAIT they already have it, its called Sunday School

The point being, ID is doomed to failure. WHY? Because Theories need to be testable, and ID theories ARE NOT TESTABLE. WHY AGAIN? Because a crucial variable(or constant) is missing because it is unknowable, like how can your quantify an "intelligent designer"? That question will have the Philosophers debating for eons.

Ask a Mathmetician how to quantify a Creator(or Intelligent Designer, they are the same thing you know....) and you will get laughed at. You see Creationism didn't work, so these people went back to the drawing board to try and come up with something that would be able to fool more people. And it worked, they actually got a school board to consider redifining science.

Way to embrase Ignorance.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]