It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Judge Bans Teaching Intelligent Design in Dover PA

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The purposeful mishandling of the word "theory" in context within a discussion of science is clear evidence that the ID/creation crowd must rely on lies, confusion, and misinformation to further their agenda.


Or they're relying on ignorance, which, especially here on ATS is even worse. There's nothing wrong or shameful about ignorance in the sense of not knowing something. What's shameful is, given the choice of ignorance or education, one chooses ignorance.

Off my soapbox and out the door. I got stuff to do!




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
WOW,
I guess, due to the last 2 responses there is not a whole heck of alot to say. I mean the hate level is arising fast.
That being the case and there is not a want of a discussion debate on this. I will no longer post to this thread. I will concede to my superiors with one final reminder, the above logic was used in the past by others in order to derail and to deride what we now consider to be solid scientific theory / law / fact.
Do you know who was the ones that responded as such???? The religious leaders of the world.
Wait... we today deride religious leaders for doing this in the past. Will our future do the same for our scientific leaders of today?
Ta Ta and enjoy your debate


[edit on 22-12-2005 by kenshiro2012]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Social Philosophy ?

This whole "Intelligent" design Vs Evolution seems very similar to the erstwhile "science" of Eugenics. Same kind of vigor, same kind of professors of logic and the shocking thing was that with the social created by it the scientific community actually took it to be true !!
Well, that just shows how scientists are manipulated and in the process the truth. Science is in the basic sense a representation of "fact" and fact is apparently what people want to believe rather than what is known to be true.
It could very well be possible that some genetic material was introduced into the prehistoric Eco-system to kick start the whole process but the whole issue of design intelligent or not, is becoming a social phenomena with the "art and law" grads fielding it around more convincingly than most bio- majors.
Coming to Eugenics, again a popular American philosophy that was passed off as science thanks to a few good doctors from the "Fatherland" providing supposedly conclusive proof to make the case for Eugenics. It was not until a few decades ago that this philosophy was disassociated from Science due to the advances in understanding of the human genetic code. Thankfully that phase has passed and now we are faced with yet another round in the fight of Science Vs Dogma. Science will prevail yet again, I am confident, just as it has through out the ages.


From The Wikipedia
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through social intervention. The goals have variously been to create more intelligent people, save society resources, lessen human suffering and reduce health problems.
Critics argue eugenics has been applied as a pseudoscience, that it has a potential for objectifying human characteristics and note that historically it has been a means whereby social thinking culminated in coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, even genocide.

See anything similar ??
BTW, Eugenics is still around strongly in America with even an All-American Society for it. I wouldn’t be surprised though if ID or whatever the term they wish to use, would follow the same path. All I will say is, if you can prove it -> publish it. As it is said : " Substantiate or Suffocate "




[edit on 22-12-2005 by IAF101]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I mean the hate level is arising fast.

I'm sorry you took it that way. It's not "hate", it's fact. Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) authored the strategy of using the built-in confusion over the word "theory" as a tactic to push creationism.



Wait... we today deride religious leaders for doing this in the past. Will our future do the same for our scientific leaders of today?

In this case, the issue is intolerance of many in religion. On one hand, we receive a message similar to, "Man cannot suppose the mind of God." Yet, on the other hand, they're adamant that God and evolution are not connected. It's highly logical to assume (if you believe in creation), that if evolution is regularly observed, then God also created evolution. It ends up conflicting with no one, provides a useful segway from science class to Bible class, and opens the discussion to possibilities rather than keeping it closed to change.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Probably not. If God really did care about who got the credit for the Earth's creation he would have signed it !

Eugenics is simply the idea of human selective breeding similar to the way domesticated animals have been bred. The science is actually sound it's just the philisophical goal which is flawed.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
WOW,
I guess, due to the last 2 responses there is not a whole heck of alot to say. I mean the hate level is arising fast.


You have apparently totally misunderstood my response. I'm not feeling any hatred whatsoever.
I'm not upset, or even a little bit frustrated. In fact, I was feeling quite good until I saw your post.

I'm very sorry you think hate has anything to do with my posts in this thread. It does not.

I am only trying to illustrate the difference between the laymen's term 'theory' and the scientific term 'theory'. There's no need to take it personally. It's not personal.

Continue to debate or leave as you will, but if you choose to leave the debate, it's because you have misinterpreted me, not because of any actual hatred or anger from me, because I feel neither.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
Eugenics is simply the idea of human selective breeding similar to the way domesticated animals have been bred. The science is actually sound it's just the philisophical goal which is flawed.

Simply not true.
Eugenics claims that traits such as intelligence, depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism, sexual behavior (and orientation) and criminality etc through breeding, this has been shown to be untrue. Most charecters that can be passed on are merely physical and that too cannot be stated 100% of the time due to random mutations in the code. Even with genetic manipulations it would be uncertain of producing the same "standard" as the rest.
It is merely a philosophy that was based on facts like references to animals etc that has been well documented and presented by numerous people. Granted that some diseases are genetic but these are few in number and are merely physical ailments and their is no proof what so ever to claim mental advancement through Eugenics.
In the end Eugenics in simply not substaiated by any known facts to be able to acheive all parameters that it seeks to acheive.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Eugenics has been around almost as long as Darwin's Origin of the Species, 19th century. Initially eugenics was not concerned with things like depression or sexual orientation but physical perfection or racial purity.

You say that what I've written is "simply untrue" then you go and reply with something I do not disagree with.

But it's still true that the basic science is sound. You've just shown that the philisophical goal is flawed and the goal has changed since eugenics was first mooted because the idea of a "perfect" human being changes. Natural breeding in isolation has given way to the racial profiles we know today. It is just as easy to use selective breeding to create big strong blonde people as it is Springer Spaniels. That it is not desirable is not in question.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
It is just as easy to use selective breeding to create big strong blonde people as it is Springer Spaniels. That it is not desirable is not in question.

What you have said about Eugenics in the 30's is true. I have never presented its philosophical aspects at all and have infact said that Eugenics is crude at best scientifically unable to acheive anything except the basic charecteristics and that too without uniformly!
AS for the Breeding of strong blond people, that is again not entirely possible due to mutations that occur during embryonic development. Ex: You can have two children from a couple where one would be able to acheive a height of 6'5 but the other may acheive only 5'10 with same physical activity. Sometimes even children with blonde parents tend to be born as babies blonde but as they grow their hair color darkens.
As for the Springer Spaniels, if you notice the litter closely they are slightly different some are more Spaniel-ish and some are less. Thats what I am saying, if it was an exact science it would be reproducible everytime, same quality but it is not.
This is a deviation but Eugenics and Darwinism are related thus the development of this field of "artificial selection" and instituting darwin's concepts of evolution on it is errorous.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1

Truth is you don't need to warp science to have a good society


Truth is, we can have a functioning & good society without all the bells and the whistles (i.e. religion)



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

AS for the Breeding of strong blond people, that is again not entirely possible due to mutations that occur during embryonic development.


I will concede if you can now explain how racial differences in human beings have naturally occured due to time and isolation. Eugenics is just artificially enforced isolation.

I'm not a biologist but I'd suspect that the mutations would not be significant given enough time and a small enough gene pool to begin with.

Perhaps our disagreement is a question of scale. The early advocates of eugenics believed that a single good union would create perfect children, hence the emergence of the names Eugenie for girls and Eugene for boys as popular names. I don't think there is any question that if eugenics were possible it would take many generations and a brutal reproduction filter to achieve any results.

Oh, and I know springer spaniels are not identical. I don't think eugenics was ever about creating clones.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Why do the nations rage, And the peoples plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth take a stand, And the rulers take counsel together, Against Yahweh, and against his anointed, saying,
"Let's break their bonds apart, And cast away their cords from us."
He who sits in the heavens will laugh. The Lord will have them in derision.
Then he will speak to them in his anger, And terrify them in his wrath:
"Yet I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion."
I will tell of the decree. Yahweh said to me, "You are my son. Today I have become your father.
Ask of me, and I will give the nations for your inheritance, The uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron. You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
Now therefore be wise, you kings. Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve Yahweh with fear, And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, For his wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in him.
The Most high will have the last Laugh



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

marg6043

We all know that ID can not be teach as a scientific theory, but can then be taught as a philosophy?

I don't get it, I believe in science but I also believe in intelligent beings somewhere that perhaps manipulated us into becoming and intelligent species.

But I also do not believe in creationism and that we are so special because a higher intelligent being decided that we most be like him or it.

So can ID be teach as a philosophy?


I got to say that this issue has me confused the most. I can understand why alot of the topics that come up in an ID discussion can't be taught in science class. But the 'meat and potatoes' of the argument that ID theorists propose can't be taught by a philospher. Maybe i'm misunderstanding what an actual philosophy class is. I noticed that Nygdan said that as a pre-requesit to a class like this you'd be required to take a biology class first. I just didn't/don't think that you discussed issues like irreducible complexity(micro-biology), information theory(mathematics), building a protein structure from amino acids with no DNA or natural selection process(abiogenesis), 'fine-tuning' of the cosmos(physics and cosmology/astronomy). I get why this has no business in high school science outside of maybe a discussion on scientific methodology. But why not have a college level science course taught by scientists and not philosophers, where these issues can be explored properly?


HowardRoark
Rren- But a judge realizing (again if true) that the Dover school board had some sinister ulterior motives to introducing ID into their public schools has nothing to do with whether real ID is scientific or not.


Howard- Read the decision. The judge found that ID is not a form of science as science is currently defined.


My point here Howard was that a judge is not qualified to make that decision nor too make such broad statements as he did.

"Judge Jones' Hopeless Monster" ... [links and emphasis added- Rren]

It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn't and even though both pro-ID expert scientists testified it wasn't (, www2.ncseweb.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Day 20 PM pg. 45, 135). In short, it lets the critics define ID rather than the proponents.

[snip]

It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is compatible with religion (pg. 136).**

[snip]

It overreaches the judicial arm by ruling that evolution is a solid theory (pg. 41) and that irreducible complexity has been refuted (pg. 64).**

[snip]

It wrongly approves of the “it’s wrong to single out evolution” argument which was validated in Selman. (pg. 39-40) and wrongly claims “evolution is theory ... not fact” language is unconstitutional based upon Selman (which may be overruled on that point anyway).

[snip]

It asserts the factually false claim that ID proponents haven’t published peer reviewed papers (page64)

[snip]

It completely ignores ALL of the [url=http://www.discovery.org/_viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=565statements in Pandas making it clear that ID is NOT a supernatural explanation--the Judge doesn't even mention with these statements, much less explain why the Court disagrees with them.


In short and as it pertains to this topic, a judge has no business making these statements. These are not legal issues and this judge's opinion has no bearing on the debate over ID's scientific legitimacy... on way or the other. The debate continues - this decision has not made ID unscientific nor has it made in creationism in disguise... no more than the 'Scopes trial' settled the debate over evolution.

Just my opinion of course. But every time the discussion becomes about religous zealotry or that ID is some thinly veiled attempt to "indoctrinate children" with Christian creationism i go the other way... i don't know what i could say anyway. *shrug*

One final question as it pertains to the science of ID and the majority (ATS specifically) opposition to it. How many of these arguments or points of contention go away if we ID proponents concede that it's a hypothesis and not a theory? Also that ID, as of yet, is incomplete and has no business in a high school science textbook? So far as i'm aware both those statements represent to majority opinion of the ID community. Where the science is debated and not the philosophy, or the "radical right, creationist agenda conspiracy"... I don't deny the existance of said conspiracy, i have no clue. In the end however, it's irrelevant to whether or not ID as an origins hypothesis is valid and has the potential to become true scientific theory, imo. Relegating the discussion exclusively to a philosophy class is unfair and unfounded imho.


Anywho, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays ATS... be gone for awhile so if i don't see ya have a Happy New Year too.

-Rren



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join