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.

 

Florida to be next battleground for Intelligent Design?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


I think that statement would give you a lot of advantage, actually.

I'd have to prove that it's absurd, a mishmash, and willfully ignorant as opposed to just accidentally ignorant


But we can come up with something else when it's time.




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


The problem that you can't rap your . around is the fact that Darwin's Theory is a theory ehh. A theory doesn't need evidence to support it, it is guess work hence there is no evidence to support dark matter, we just guessed its there because hence subjective.

See they say dark matter exists because many other theories doesn't make sense without it, so basically they are covering one theory on top of another theory, which I don't believe is something incorrect because it gives the bases of a study. It will push us to find evidence, in process of finding evidence we will find thousands of other things which might support or contradict which in result ends up in creation of new theories and destruction of the old.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ownification
reply to post by tezzajw
 


The problem that you can't rap your . around is the fact that Darwin's Theory is a theory ehh. A theory doesn't need evidence to support it, it is guess work hence there is no evidence to support dark matter, we just guessed its there because hence subjective.


Sorry Ownification, you're confusing the traditional word "theory" with the scientifically known theory. en.wikipedia.org...

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. It's not something some crackpot scientist thought up in a dream. There is actual significant evidence with measurable results that evolution is true.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


falsifiable means the ability to prove it false.



External Source

semantics
Pronunciation: \si-ˈman-tiks\

1: the study of meanings.



for instance, the theory of gravity is a falsifiable theory.


The best quote on the topic of gravity I ever saw came from an Indian newspaper from a few years ago - "The law of gravity is like the law of karma."


... an invisible omnipotent omnipresent being did it.


I never mentioned anything of the sort. You did.


ID does not make me uncomfortable.


I don't think you're being entirely honest about that.


I don't think it's science


Yes, I've caught your drift on that one.


... creation has nothing to do with evolution.


Darwinism is posited on abiogenesis.

If you are saying that evolution is not necessarily posited on abiogenesis, which is the standard take on Darwinism, then it might have been better had you pointed that out before we wasted all this time playing word games.

Similarly, you seem to be saying that evolution caused variations in species due to mutations in an original genome which did not necessarily evolve from the already mentioned primoridal soup. This is not a standard interpretation, and this should have been mentioned up front as well.

So, and correct me if I am wrong, you are actually saying that you don't care how the original set of species arrived here on Earth, but once they did, then natural selection was the principal by which the original set of species evolved into the current set of species.


External Source

Word Games
So you like word games, do you?


If this is true, then our entire discussion is pointless.

But, for the record, let me just state that evolution, that is to say Darwinism is absolutely posited on abiogenesis - the so-called primordial soup conjecture, combined with other absurdities involving atmospheric pressures, lightining bolts, and who knows what else, all combining in a perfect storm of randomness to produce the first self-replicating molecule, which therafter over the course of billions and billions of years finally evolved into all the species which have ever existed on Earth. See Infinite Monkey Theorem.

Everybody who made it through high-school knows this. And since this thread is about ID in public classrooms it was my impression you would be using these terms in the same sense.

Since it appears you haven't been, and did not mention this up front, I'd say you're just having a little fun with me. Which is fine, although somewhat disingenuous. Whatever.


But, still, this is quite a serious issue, and one which should not be dismissed so lightly. It has important implications about who we are as a species, and about the way our sciences are quite possibly being deliberately obfuscated.

Anyway, have a good one. I kind of enjoyed it too.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


But we can come up with something else when it's time.


I'm sure we can !



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain

But, for the record, let me just state that evolution, that is to say Darwinism is absolutely posited on abiogenesis - the so-called primordial soup conjecture, combined with other absurdities involving atmospheric pressures, lightining bolts, and who knows what else, all combining in a perfect storm of randomness to produce the first self-replicating molecule, which therafter over the course of billions and billions of years finally evolved into all the species which have ever existed on Earth.


Why do you insist on calling the theory of evolution through natural selection Darwinism, when it has been refined considerably since Darwin wrote his famous treatise?

Where is your source that evolution is posited on abiogenesis?

Just want to make sure I'm ready when it comes to a debate



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
This is a very iffy subject, but in all honesty, if we evolutionists are gonna be hammering down, the "there is no god when it comes to how we became man" theories, then IMO we should atleast be discussing the alternative theory.

Not necessarilly teach and grade children but have open ended discussions on the possibilities and the implications. This would help stimulate constructive, intelligent scientific conversations about the pros and cons of such design.

It might help some students come to terms with science if they are highly religious, and if nothing, it will make christians happy for a little bit.

That's a price i'm willing to pay. Besides it's not like kids aren't going to hear it from anybody else.

~Keeper


You could do this for every topic in school. Why not institute a whole range of polemics so that we end up discussing absolutely nothing in the long run? By that reasoning, there should be an epistemology class, which discusses the validity of atheism. School shouldn't be a place to discuss semantics. Fact needs to be taught, so that students actually have some sort of foundation for which to advance their understanding of the world. At such an early age, these discussions are best left at the family dinner table. Perhaps when the students have actually mastered the scientific knowledge, they might attempt to disprove the theories taught to them, albeit much later in their academic careers (as Masters students in University perhaps).

[edit on 9-2-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Why do you insist on calling the theory of evolution through natural selection Darwinism, when it has been refined considerably since Darwin wrote his famous treatise?


It's been a long time since I've been through high-school, but I can't see what might've changed in the meantime to change the fact that natural selection is synonomous with Darwinism.

Am I confused on this ?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


We could start with the discovery of DNA


"Darwinism" is too imprecise, and has been reapplied in too many diverse ways ("social Darwinism" for example).

Plus, there's a perfectly good name for the process, which is "natural selection". Calling it Darwinism is like insisting on calling all non-Newtonian physics "Einsteinism". It's misleading and inaccurate.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


www.literature.org...

Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic.




1. Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce themselves population growth would result.
2. Yet populations remain roughly the same size, with small changes.
3. Resources such as food are limited, and are relatively stable over time.
4. A struggle for survival ensues.
5. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
6. Some of these variations directly affect the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.
7. Much of this variation is inheritable.
8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
9. The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.
10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, these variations accumulate to form new varieties, and ultimately, new species.


Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle For Life. Edinburgh: John Murray.

This is exactly how Darwin viewed natural selection. Nothing much has changed, not because the idea of natural selection is archaic, but because it is so flawless that nothing has to be changed. It is not subject to the ad hoc trivialities of many of the theories within the natural sciences. It is far superior to the endlessly contrived conjecture that is Intelligent Design. His theory has stood the test of time. It describes a very complex series of events in an exceedingly simple model. It is also pragmatically applicable. Evolution can be applied to so many things in life that even if it were not ultimately true that humans came about this way, students in elementary and high schools would be much better off learning that the world changes and only the most adapted survive, rather than living an excessively humble and ineffectual life subject of the moral crusade that is ID and its proponents.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


I'm not sure where you're confused, i stated quite plainly my opinions. Evolution by means of natural selection( evolutionary theory as we understand it today) is about how life diversifies. It is not about how life arose. the only thing they have in common is life, two different topics about the same thing.

While ID does try to explain away natural selection and the origin of life, and the universe via such things as irreducible complexity, there is no evidence to back it up. . But again it's all " an intelligent designer did it", there are no experiments capable of confirming this. Nothing in peer-reviewed journals, no experiments. If it doesn't use the scientific method it's not science.

Heck even the man who came up with irreducible complexity admitted it isn't correct.

here is a paragraph with a quote from Behe, followed by a basic definition of ID:


Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially.[71][72] They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.[73] Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof".[74] Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large".[75]



Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10] Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12]


ID


While ID is certainly an interesting proposition, it's clearly not science, and doesn't belong in schools in science classes. Which is what this whole thread is about correct? Untill you can link peer-reviewed articles in science journals, or direct me to experiments done that verify it is only possible for these things to occur via intelligent design (insert god of choice or alien of choice here), it will remain an interesting proposition that most appropriately in philosophy and religion classes.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
Stop trying to make it more complicated than it is. This is exactly how Darwin viewed natural selection. Nothing much has changed, not because the idea of natural selection is archaic, but because it is so flawless that nothing has to be changed.



First, I'm confused about why you're arguing with me.

If it's just that you support the theory of natural selection but would like for it to be called Darwinism, may I ask why you prefer the word Darwinism to the words "Natural Selection"?

If it's that you object to the introduction of DNA into the conversation, may I ask why that is objectionable? It in no way debases Darwin's insight, which was brilliant; but it does push the theory forward. To teach Darwin in a biology class would be a huge mistake in my opinion; better to teach the current understanding of evolution, which has grown out of Darwin's work.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Sorry I totally misunderstood what you said. I'm actually quite embarrassed.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


Don't be embarrassed - it's not the first time that's happened


And I can certainly see how, in the context of this thread, an objection to "Darwinism" would be understood as an objection to "natural selection", instead of a semantic point about the naming of the theory, which was my intent



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I just had a kind of brainstorm while reading this thread...bear with me.

In my opinion, the idea of a higher power in various forms arose from early man's recognition that death is a part of the life cycle and that death would indeed occur to everyone including him/herself.

This idea frightened early man - thus a desire to use this primitive form of reasoning and logic to find meaning beyond death to alleviate the fear resultant of such an awareness.

Since the early forms of tribal worship and the evolution of organized religion this has held true. While organized religion has a kind of focus on control/morality to extend towards its' followers, the theme of a life after death has been consistent.

Because death is frightening and many people...even those who try...just can't conceptualize it.

Along comes science and all of a sudden things we never thought we could understand start falling at our feet and we are not only explaining the basic building blocks of our existence but manipulating them to create new technologies and prolong life - essentially beginning the process of 'replacing' God. We are doing things that historically (big picture) only God was supposed to be capable of. We now think that there is nothing we can't do.

But the technical intricacies of science elude many an average citizen and the average citizen, though accepts the reality of science, cannot give up the security blanket of God. God and morality and the implicit promise is easy to understand. Science isn't.

So what if the idea of "Intelligent Design" is meant as a social tool; a kind of 'cultural patch' while the transition from God (I speak not of spirituality hear) to Science. It is indisputable in learned circles that science trumps religion as reproducable results prove it. But the majority of society doesn't yet understand...the security blanket of 'easy' is still required.

Hence those who want the comfort of knowing that science has a higher power as well can have it...those who don't need such a security blanket can ignore ID.

I am of the opinion now that the creation of ID as a viable concept is a social engineering tool to soften the beating that "God" has taken in the past century and a half. It's a patch.

Precisely because the values and mores of a society tend to adhere, big picture again, to the Fundamentalism structure in that change must necessarily take a long time to be implemented.

I no longer think that ID is a stupid theory (it is in my opinion)...rather it is a brilliant concession made by the powers that be to insure that the God illusion doesn't get obliterated...crushing the psychological foundation of a great many people.

I hope any of that makes sense...and I hope that noone is offended by my bluntness.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Evolution by means of natural selection( evolutionary theory as we understand it today) is about how life diversifies. It is not about how life arose.


I think you may be saying this just because you read it somewhere and can't think of anything better.

To me the quotation is ridiculous on its face.

How can anyone who is seriously looking into this arbitrarily claim that suddenly, say at point 'A' in history, natural selection was operative, but prior to 'A' it doesn't matter whether it was or not?

This is just silly. If natural selection was true at point 'A' then it was also true immediately prior to 'A', et cetera, et cetera, all the way back to the 'primordial soup.'

To say that life somehow was present immediately prior to 'A' independent of natural selection is equivalent to claiming it was 'created.'

You can't have it both ways.

The whole point of Darwin's conjecture is that the 'natural selection' we see evident in the fossil record implies that natural selection can be traced all the way back to the primordial soup. This isn't philosophy, it's mathematical logic.

Any other explanation implies that life was somehow 'created' prior to 'A,' at which point 'natural selection' then became operative.

Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is just that, the conjecture that all species had a common origin, which by mathematical induction brings us back to the soup ...

Any other view is totally inconsistent, regardless of how many 'experts' are out there doing whatever they can to obfuscate this one very simple point.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

So what if the idea of "Intelligent Design" is meant as a social tool; a kind of 'cultural patch' while the transition from God (I speak not of spirituality hear) to Science. It is indisputable in learned circles that science trumps religion as reproducable results prove it. But the majority of society doesn't yet understand...the security blanket of 'easy' is still required.

Hence those who want the comfort of knowing that science has a higher power as well can have it...those who don't need such a security blanket can ignore ID.

I am of the opinion now that the creation of ID as a viable concept is a social engineering tool to soften the beating that "God" has taken in the past century and a half. It's a patch.

Precisely because the values and mores of a society tend to adhere, big picture again, to the Fundamentalism structure in that change must necessarily take a long time to be implemented.

I no longer think that ID is a stupid theory (it is in my opinion)...rather it is a brilliant concession made by the powers that be to insure that the God illusion doesn't get obliterated...crushing the psychological foundation of a great many people.

I hope any of that makes sense...and I hope that noone is offended by my bluntness.


I guarantee you will have offended someone by whatever you say on this topic


But I'm interested in the idea. Are you saying that the "powers that be" are both shepherding us toward a more "scientific" understanding of life and its processes, and introducting concepts like ID as a form of shock absorber on that shepherding?

@visible_villain: evolution through natural selection becomes active when life exists - to talk about it being in play before life started just doesn't work. It requires reproduction.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
Are you saying that the "powers that be" are both shepherding us toward a more "scientific" understanding of life and its processes, and introducting concepts like ID as a form of shock absorber on that shepherding?


Pretty much exactly except that I think the 'powers that be' are reacting to the explosion of the application of science. I think that the Industrial Revolution occurred as a result of the realization and feasibility of technology derived from science to be used as an 'opiate for the masses'.

So I think while we may not have been 'shepherded' the ID concept and possibly others are a reaction to the loss of religion as the major influence in people's lives.

So exactly yeah...save I would change the term shepherding...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Doesn't anybody around here ever sleep ?


Good night !



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
This Senator is correct, and the is no proof of the big bang evolution theory.



Um... what?

Big Bang Evolution Theory?

I suppose you're correct... there is no proof of this "big bang evolution theory" because this "big bang evolution theory" doesn't exist.

The theories behind the procurement of matter from Zero and the theory of species evolving over time have nothing to do with each other.

There IS proof of evolution. Without it, we wouldn't be able to update inoculations against newly evolved virus strains. In today's heavily compact societies... if we weren't able to understand the evolutionary changes in virus strains, you'd be dead.

... but no, you're right that there's no hard evidence on the Big Bang theory, other than the fact that the universe is expanding away from the same central point, and that the center of the universe has far more energy than the outer reaches.
This is why all theories on matter procurement from zero will remain strictly theories... at least until someone can create an anti-matter / matter divide.

Evolution however is only part theory. We already know evolution is happening... we mess with it on a daily basis.
The theory part is that we don't know 'why' exactly... and we haven't figured out the exact rules which guide evolution, at least not down to a precise equation.



As for intelligent design.

What evidence have you got on that?



One thing I find quite amusing is how religion has always argued against science every step of the way. And every step of the way science is proven right.
Pitting blind faith against the scientific process is utterly futile... it baffles me as to why people even bother to try any more.
If you're correct, then the scientific process would determine you to be correct. It's not a contest, it's a system of discovery, testing, and evidence filing. The reason why Intelligent Design isn't taken seriously by the process is the same reason why all other incorrect theories were thrown out... there simply isn't any evidence nor mathematical reasoning to support it.


Not to mention that those who argue against science as it progresses have no quarrels with using the fruits of science's labor.
The vehicle you drive, the engine within it, the microwave you cook with, the electricity in your home, the PC you log into this forum with, the satellites which relay the data ... almost everything you use and own is a direct product of the scientific process.
The same scientific process you're arguing is wrong, and that your blind faith is right.

... and you pit your blind faith against the very system that has given you everything? When has religion ever been proven right over the scientific process?

Pitting blind beliefs against evidence and mathematical theorem is futile.
It was futile for the churches to stand against the scientific process throughout our history... and it will continue to be futile.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join