Creationist Mumbo Jumbo Is Back
Mitchell Holman
Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
December 15, 2007
Indianapolis Star
In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
interesting as well as important subjects being taught.
Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged,
the biggest lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not
that the theory shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because
it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest
research with modern tools such as the electron microscope,
have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring
by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the
unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example,
demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far
higher than anything we can imagine.
Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
That is the only way they can keep the pseudo-science of evolution
going and being unchallenged in the classroom. Critical examination
of the theory itself is not found in high school textbooks, and
therefore not discussed as part of the course study. Why not?
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20071215/LOCAL/712150321/1015/LOCAL01
---------------------------------------------
David Hartung
This link might be easier to follow: http://tinyurl.com/2fr6ed
Phlip
>> advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as
>> well as important subjects being taught. Strangely enough, it is
>> here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education
>> -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn't be taught --
>> it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many
>> scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the
>> electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our
>> planet occurring by accident.
Uh, wasn't the electron microscope invented in the 1960s? Hardly "modern" for
what's essentially a cathode ray tube that focuses on a pinpoint instead of a
wide fluorescent screen...
The more science learns about Nature, the more glory religionists can ascribe to
their God. They should be rooting for the most subtle, complex process possible,
including all of the wonderful findings of science. They should not be backing a
God with skills hardly greater than a watchmakers'!
Simpson
> Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
>
> December 15, 2007
> Indianapolis Star
>
> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
> continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
> interesting as well as important subjects being taught.
>
> Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged,
> the biggest lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not
> that the theory shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because
> it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest
> research with modern tools such as the electron microscope,
> have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring
> by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the
> unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example,
> demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far
> higher than anything we can imagine.
>
> Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
> curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
> the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
> explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
> this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
> us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth rather than the result of
*observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
*observable* phenomena.
TomS
<wASaj.18399$3J5....@newsfe20.lga>, Phlip stated..."
>
>>> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual
>>> advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as
>>> well as important subjects being taught. Strangely enough, it is
>>> here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education
>>> -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn't be taught --
>>> it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many
>>> scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the
>>> electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our
>>> planet occurring by accident.
>
>Uh, wasn't the electron microscope invented in the 1960s? Hardly "modern" for
>what's essentially a cathode ray tube that focuses on a pinpoint instead of a
>wide fluorescent screen...
Wikipedia says that it dates from the 1930s.
>
>The more science learns about Nature, the more glory religionists can ascribe to
>their God. They should be rooting for the most subtle, complex process possible,
>including all of the wonderful findings of science. They should not be backing a
>God with skills hardly greater than a watchmakers'!
>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
David Hartung
When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex life form?
Salad
I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
obese in my lifetime.
Mitchell Holman
news:XaidnTJJBpCUgvHa...@comcast.com:
When have we observed your Intelligent Designer
design something?
David Hartung
Which is not the same as a simple life form "evolving" into a complex life form.
David Hartung
Why is that an issue? You can't provide a single observed example of a simple
life form evolving into a complex life form. It seems to me that you don't have
much business demanding any sort of observation from others.
Ernest Major
<dhar...@quixnetnone.net> writes
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in
>> news:XaidnTJJBpCUgvHa...@comcast.com:
>>> Simpson wrote:
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
>>>>>
>>>>> December 15, 2007
>>>>> Indianapolis Star
>>>>> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
>>>>>continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
>>>>>interesting as well as important subjects being taught. Strangely
>>>>>enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest
>>>>>lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory
>>>>>
>>>>>scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the
>>>>>electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our
>>>>>planet occurring by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show
>>>>>that the unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for
>>>>>example, demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence
>>>>> far higher than anything we can imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
>>>>>curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only the
>>>>>theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the explanation for
>>>>> all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do this by demanding a
>>>>>"natural" explanation for the evidence before us, rather than the
>>>>>
>>>> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
>>>>
>>>> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support
>>>>the contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us
>>>>was created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth rather than the result of
>>>> *observable* chemical and biological processes in which more
>>>>complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to
>>>>say that
>>>> life does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the
>>>> realm of science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as
>>>> such, should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the
>>>> study of *observable* phenomena.
>>> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
>>> life form?
>> When have we observed your Intelligent Designer
>> design something?
>
>Why is that an issue? You can't provide a single observed example of a
>simple life form evolving into a complex life form. It seems to me that
>you don't have much business demanding any sort of observation from
>others.
>
"more complex life form" to "complex life form".
Anyway, without an objective and measurable definition of complexity the
challenge lacks substance.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mitchell Holman
You believe it, so post some proof of it.
> You can't provide a single observed example of a
> simple life form evolving into a complex life form.
And you can't provide a single observed example
of your Creator creating anything.
But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
Why?
Genaro
-------
Well stated.
-------
Jeffrey Turner
You can't even define complexity. But we have seen evolution in action.
--Jeff
--
Ignorance, allied with power, is the
most ferocious enemy justice can have.
-James Baldwin
Mitchell Holman
@corp.supernews.com:
Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution but
runs away when the same demand is made about his Creationism.
At least he is consistent................
Simpson
Thank you
Simpson
The fossils of living beings gets less and less complex the farther back
in time the beings lived from which said fossils were created.
That is an observable phenomenon.
Now I realize that the first sentence is somewhat complex and may need
more than one perusal to grasp its intended meaning, but I assure you it
is correct.
Phlip
Okay. Darwin found evidence for evolution in finches, on the Galapagos
Islands. (Finches are normally harmless passerines, but Galapagos's
isolation allowed Darwin to encounter birds in a half-evolved state. The
finches were halfway evolved into other common bird morphs, such as crows,
parrots, and hawks.)
But that's not the direct observation. This comes from the researchers who
have tracked those finch populations for the past hundred years. They have
observed fluctuations in the birds' sizes, and in the proportions of their
body parts. The finches are continuing to evolve towards their specialized
niches.
This means evolution has been observed in real-time - in the very
populations where Darwin first recognized it. The birds' accelerated
evolution exactly confirms Darwin's theory that Galapagos's isolation, with
no other birds competing for those niches, put evolutionary pressure on
these finches.
But feel free to move the goalpost back to abiogenis. Darwin wasn't there!
Simpson
Thank you
Some of us take a long term view
David Hartung
As I understand it, one of the basic premises of evolution is that life began as
a single cell and evolved into what we have today. To my knowledge we have no
evidence showing this process. What this means is that there is no more proof
supporting evolution than there is supporting creation.
David Hartung
My position has always been that creation must be taken on faith. What I have
attempted to show these last few days is that when you get right down to the
basics, any theory of the origin of the universe, or of life, advanced by the
scientific community must also be taken on faith.
Robert Grumbine
David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote:
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in news:13mp218q6qnmdd2
>> @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>>> David Hartung wrote:
[trim]
>>>> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
>>>> life form?
>
>>> You can't even define complexity. But we have seen evolution in action.
>>
>> Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution but
>> runs away when the same demand is made about his Creationism.
>
>My position has always been that creation must be taken on faith. What I have
>attempted to show these last few days is that when you get right down to the
>basics, any theory of the origin of the universe, or of life, advanced by the
>scientific community must also be taken on faith.
What temperature does creationism predict for the universe?
What temperature does big bang predict for the universe?
What temperature is observed?
Still waiting for your definition of 'complexity'.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
TomS
<Or-dnVX-Dog-ePHa...@comcast.com>, David Hartung stated..."
[...snip...]
>As I understand it, one of the basic premises of evolution is that life began as
>a single cell and evolved into what we have today. To my knowledge we have no
>evidence showing this process. What this means is that there is no more proof
>supporting evolution than there is supporting creation.
>
Evolution is something that happens in the world of life. This process
happens whenever there is life which reproduces with change. There
is no need for any assumption about first life - in the extreme, we
need not even assume that there was a first life - life, and the
universe, could be infinitely old, and still evolution in the world of
life would happen.
Our present knowledge that evolution happens is based on many
observations, not the least of which being direct observations, often
with measurements, of life evolving in nature, as well as under
controlled conditions in the laboratory. Other bases for accepting
this reality are from biogeography (the distribution of various forms
of life over the earth) and from taxonomy (the "tree of life"). Also,
we know from paleontology that there were forms of life in the past
which were different from those of the present. There also is a rather
well-developed theoretical framework tying much of this evidence
together.
So, I don't understand what you're getting at when you say that
one of the basic premises of evolution is that life began as a single
cell and evolved. It does seem to be a rather plausible conclusion,
that there was a beginning to life, and that the beginning was with
a relatively few forms (maybe even one), and that the earliest
forms were single-celled (or even with no cells at all).
I wouldn't say that one of the premises of chemical reactions is that
the first atoms were simple atoms of hydrogen and helium formed
in the Big Bang. I wouldn't say that one of the premises for
etymology of words was something-or-other about the first
languages.
Mr Tompkinson
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more
>>> complex life form?
>>
>> You can't even define complexity. But we have seen evolution in action.
>
> As I understand it, one of the basic premises of evolution is that life
Ah - I see the source of your confusion - this isn't a premise. The
premises (as I understand them) are:
1. Because populations grow and resources are limited, there is an
inevitable competition between members of the population for the
resources needed to survive.
2. There is variation amongst the offspring of each generation and
that variation is passed on down the generations, if the offspring
survive.
3. Inevitably, the variation in (2) means that some of each generation
are better equipped to compete for the limited resources of (1) and
consequently will be more likely to survive to breed and pass on
their successful variation.
While it's true that the fossil evidence indicates all known species
alive today are leaves on the same family tree, this isn't necessary
for the theory of evolution by natural selection to be a good
explanation of the fact of evolution. Even if there were multiple
trees of life, the theory would still explain what we see around us.
Of course, I'm not a biologist and so I welcome correction and
education from those who are.
Mr Tompkinson
Ernest Major
<dhar...@quixnetnone.net> writes
process. (It's better to avoid the word "proof" in this context due to
the opportunities for misunderstanding and equivocation.)
It is also possible to dispute that life begin as a single cell is a
basic premise of evolution.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mitchell Holman
That is where you are wrong. By its very definition
scientific progress is based on trial and error and testing
the known against the unknown. Evolution IS observable,
from microbes that mutate to species that change to the
fossil record replete with transitional forms to artificial
selection. We don't a "Intelligent Designer" to explain
where drug-resistant germs come from or why Dachshunds look
the way they do.
Primitive people have always invoked the supernatural
to explain the unknown. We - at least most of us - have
moved beyond that.
Steven L.
No. The gold standard of any theory is its ability to make accurate
predictions--predictions which can be tested and verified.
Scientists who accept the theory of the Big Bang can make numerous
predictions about what the Big Bang implies for the expansion and size
of the Universe, the matter and energy contained within in it, the
cosmic background radiation, etc. Those predictions can be tested, and
many have been.
It is creationism that refuses to make a single prediction as a logical
consequence of the theory, a prediction that could be put to the test to
verify or refute creationism. Instead, creationists seem to spend 99%
of their time trying to pick flaws in natural selection, as if their own
theory is the null hypothesis for natural selection. It never was.
If creationists want to be taken seriously, they should just stop
talking about natural selection, and go out and try to find evidence to
support their own theory without regard to competing theories.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
Not quite true. What the original precursor of life was--a strand of
RNA or some even simpler molecule--is hotly debated. But you're right,
whatever it was multiplied and its progeny evolved.
> To my
> knowledge we have no evidence showing this process.
Which process? The abiogenic process, billions of years ago, which led
to the very first life form from nonlife, or the process of evolution
since then?
We have a huge amount of evidence for the process of evolution. Heck,
I'm fighting one right now: I'm fighting a chronic sinusitis infection
in my head, that has become resistant to most common antibiotics. In
the 1940s, most staph infections could be cured with a penicillin shot.
Today, most strains of staph are resistant to penicillin. How would
the creationists explain this phenomenon?
The deadly HIV virus did not exist before the 20th century. How would
the creationists explain its emergence to epidemic levels only in the
last 100 years?
There is far less evidence to explain abiogenesis of the first life
form(s) billions of years ago. There are theories that can be tested
with chemical analysis, computer simulation, etc. But so far, there are
a number of competing hypotheses and none has become anywhere as widely
accepted as natural selection has for evolution.
Dwayne Hoobler
> >
> > As I understand it, one of the basic premises of evolution is that life
> > began as a single cell and evolved into what we have today.
>
> Not quite true. What the original precursor of life was--a strand of
> RNA or some even simpler molecule--is hotly debated. But you're right,
> whatever it was multiplied and its progeny evolved.
>
Here come old flattop, he come grooving up slowly
He got joo-joo eyeball, he one holy roller
He got hair down to his knee
Got to be a joker he just do what he please
He wear no shoeshine, he got toe-jam football
He got monkey finger, he shoot coca-cola
He say "I know you, you know me"
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me
He bag production, he got walrus gumboot
He got Ono sideboard, he one spinal cracker
He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease
Come together right now over me
Steven L.
Whether Mr. Hartung wants to talk about abiogenesis or not, for the
creationists that just won't do.
Personally, I think a creationist theory of abiogenesis of the first
life form(s) would make a bit more sense than the stuff they usually
peddle. But a theory that claimed that God made the very first life
form, and then sat back and waited 4 billion years for humans to evolve,
wouldn't save the Genesis myth.
The creationists are trying to save the Genesis myth of humans falling
from a near-angelic state of grace in the Garden of Eden, rather than
evolving from primates. So abiogenesis is a moot point; it's not what
they care about and notice they don't focus on it. Keeping the myth of
humans as fallen from grace is what they care about.
B1ackwater
<Noe...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>
>Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
>
>December 15, 2007
>Indianapolis Star
>
>In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
>continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
>interesting as well as important subjects being taught.
>
>Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged,
Yea, and they teach 2+2=4 "unchallenged" too ... how DARE they !!!
David Johnston
<Noe...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>
>Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
>
>December 15, 2007
>Indianapolis Star
>
>In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
>continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
>interesting as well as important subjects being taught.
>
>Strangely enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged,
>the biggest lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not
>that the theory shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because
>it is believed to be true by so many scientists. But the latest
>research with modern tools such as the electron microscope,
>have ruled out any possibility of life on our planet occurring
>by accident. Modern, competent scientists can show that the
>unbelievable complexity of design of the human cell, for example,
>demands the acknowledgement of a designer, or an intelligence far
>higher than anything we can imagine.
>
>Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
>curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
>the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
>explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
>this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
>us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
Logic is worthless without valid premises.
B1ackwater
"ID" is doomed from the start by its core assertion - that
complex organisms simply cannot evolve on their own and
require an intelligent 'designer'. This should immediately
beg the question of "Well, how did this 'designer' get
itself designed, being a complex intelligent thing and
all that ?".
The issue then plunges into a bottomless pit where you
can never find an undesigned designer.
"ID" framed in different, less universal, language MAY
have some merit. COULD have been that the early earth
really wasn't a good environment for the initial
evolution of life. One of the little grey alien dudes
could have seeded it with something engineered TO
survive the conditions and evolve on its own from
there ... or maybe he just parked his saucer for
a minute while he took a dump behind a rock.
From this more panspermic perspective, absolute origins
of ANY life become irrelevant, only the origins of life
HERE. Indeed it COULD have been intelligently engineered,
maybe even tweaked from time to time since the initial
seeding. Hard to tell, but maybe not *impossible*.
COULD be that intelligently designed bits of DNA are
statistically different from the more random 'naturally
evolved' bits. Now that we're sequencing whole genomes ...
well ... the raw data IS out there. It just requires
a good look.
After all, we ourselves have now become "intelligent
designers", creating novel genetic sequences for bacteria,
plants and animals to achieve certain ends. There's gonna
be BIG money in this stuff. How would YOU determine whether
someone had stolen your patented idea for a gene ? The
thieves might claim they searched around and found a
naturally-occuring gene that produced coveted substance 'X'
or whatever.
How could you PROVE their gene wasn't "natural" and was
instead designed ... with just a few tweaks to disguise
its origins ? A billion-dollar (er, better make that a
billion-euro) bill might ride on being able to prove a
genetic sequence was 'designed' rather than the result
of natural mutation and selection.
The techniques invented to solve THIS problem will also
be applicable to the question of whether all or some
earthly life was designed or at least tweaked by outside
entities at some point.
Oh yea ... if you want a good example of suspiciously
weird DNA, compare anythings genome with mitochondrial
DNA.
Gary Bohn
> Simpson wrote:
>> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
>>
>> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support
>> the contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us
>> was created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth rather than the
>> result of *observable* chemical and biological processes in which
>> more complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not
>> to say that life does not contain an unobservable component. But that
>> is not the realm of science, it is more the realm of religious
>> philosophy and, as such, should not be taught as science, which
>> confines itself to the study of *observable* phenomena.
>
> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more
> complex life form?
>
Why is a change from simple to complex necessary? Do you believe that
evolution is necessarily directional?
While you are answering my question, could you please define
'complexity'? Thanks.
--
Gary Bohn
NOW COMPLETELY SIG FREE AND WRY!
Gary Bohn
Except that the logical consequences of the theories, taking into
account the known physical properties and processes, deny the
possibility for creationism but do not deny the possibility for
abiogenesis and evolution. There is a difference between the acceptance
of processes which run counter to our hard won knowledge base and those
which are well within the bounds that knowledge provides.
Your faith is based on a vast supply of ... nothing, while evolution and
the rest of the materialistic 'Methodological Naturalistic" systems of
inquiry, are based on a vast amount of accumulating positive evidence.
Your faith and our own 'trust' in consistant and repeatable results are
two very different things.
Salad
>> I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
>> obese in my lifetime.
>
>
> Which is not the same as a simple life form "evolving" into a complex
> life form.
>
OK. Here's one. I've evolved from the Hartung knuckledraggers to a
modern day human.
Many of us have seen you in museums that show the ascent of man.
http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionPictures.htm
Most of us would admit you are simple but I am complex with modern day
thought patterns. Does that suit you?
Genaro
-------
But not necessarily mutually exclusive. The people of faith that I know
are very interested in science, astronomy, the origins of life. They seek
out the answers scientifically while maintaining a belief in a power
greater than themselves.
-------
-------
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
TomS wrote:
>
> "On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:19:24 -0800, in article
> <wASaj.18399$3J5....@newsfe20.lga>, Phlip stated..."
> >
> >>> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and continual
> >>> advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most interesting as
> >>> well as important subjects being taught. Strangely enough, it is
> >>> here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest lie in education
> >>> -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn't be taught --
> >>> it should, simply because it is believed to be true by so many
> >>> scientists. But the latest research with modern tools such as the
> >>> electron microscope, have ruled out any possibility of life on our
> >>> planet occurring by accident.
> >
> >Uh, wasn't the electron microscope invented in the 1960s? Hardly "modern" for
> >what's essentially a cathode ray tube that focuses on a pinpoint instead of a
> >wide fluorescent screen...
>
> Wikipedia says that it dates from the 1930s.
>
Phlip is a good source of accurate scientific information.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Simpson wrote:
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
> > curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
> > the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
> > explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
> > this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
> > us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
>
> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
>
That's why they spent decades looking for neutrinos even though the
numbers of so-called neutrinos didn't add up to what was predicted.
> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
> contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
> created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>
How do you know?
> rather than the result of
> *observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
> life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
> does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
> science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
> should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
> *observable* phenomena.
>
So let's dump string theory right now.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in
> news:eb2dnYH_S_DwqvHa...@comcast.com:
>
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >> David Hartung <dhar...@quixnetnone.net> wrote in
> >> news:XaidnTJJBpCUgvHa...@comcast.com:
> >>
> >>> Simpson wrote:
> >>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>> Let's open minds, textbooks to intelligent design theories
> >>>>>
> >>>>> December 15, 2007
> >>>>> Indianapolis Star
> >>>>> In our school systems today, science, with its dramatic and
> >>>>> continual advancement in knowledge, has to be one of the most
> >>>>> interesting as well as important subjects being taught. Strangely
> >>>>> enough, it is here that we are teaching unchallenged, the biggest
> >>>>> lie in education -- the theory of evolution. Not that the theory
> >>>>> shouldn't be taught -- it should, simply because it is believed to
> >>>>> be true by so many scientists. But the latest research with modern
> >>>>> tools such as the electron microscope, have ruled out any
> >>>>> possibility of life on our planet occurring by accident. Modern,
> >>>>> competent scientists can show that the unbelievable complexity of
> >>>>> design of the human cell, for example, demands the acknowledgement
> >>>>> of a designer, or an intelligence far higher than anything we can
> >>>>> imagine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
> >>>>> curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only the
> >>>>> theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the explanation
> >>>>> for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do this by demanding
> >>>>> a "natural" explanation for the evidence before us, rather than the
> >>>>> most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
> >>>> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
> >>>>
> >>>> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support
> >>>> the contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us
> >>>> was created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth rather than the
> >>>> result of *observable* chemical and biological processes in which
> >>>> more complex life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not
> >>>> to say that life does not contain an unobservable component. But that
> >>>> is not the realm of science, it is more the realm of religious
> >>>> philosophy and, as such, should not be taught as science, which
> >>>> confines itself to the study of *observable* phenomena.
> >>> When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more
> >>> complex life form?
> >>
> >>
> >> When have we observed your Intelligent Designer
> >> design something?
> >
> > Why is that an issue?
>
> You believe it, so post some proof of it.
>
> > You can't provide a single observed example of a
> > simple life form evolving into a complex life form.
>
> And you can't provide a single observed example
> of your Creator creating anything.
>
> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>
> Why?
>
Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Salad wrote:
>
> David Hartung wrote:
>
> >
> > When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
> > life form?
> >
> I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
> obese in my lifetime.
>
That's evidence against evolution.
Jeffrey Turner
> Salad wrote:
>>David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
>>>life form?
>>>
>>
>>I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
>>obese in my lifetime.
>
> That's evidence against evolution.
It really has nothing to do with evolution.
--Jeff
--
Ignorance, allied with power, is the
most ferocious enemy justice can have.
-James Baldwin
Jeffrey Turner
>
>>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>
> How do you know?
Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
because there is no physical evidence.
>>rather than the result of
>>*observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
>>life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
>>does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
>>science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
>>should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
>>*observable* phenomena.
>
> So let's dump string theory right now.
No loss. But it's not taught in high school.
Jeffrey Turner
>>
>>
>> And you can't provide a single observed example
>>of your Creator creating anything.
>>
>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
> know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
> science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
shouldn't be done in public school.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> And you can't provide a single observed example
> >>of your Creator creating anything.
> >>
> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
> > know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
> > science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
>
> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
> shouldn't be done in public school.
>
Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Simpson wrote:
> >
> >>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
> >>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
> >>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
> because there is no physical evidence.
>
There's no physical evidence for string theory.
> >>rather than the result of
> >>*observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
> >>life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
> >>does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
> >>science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
> >>should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
> >>*observable* phenomena.
> >
> > So let's dump string theory right now.
>
> No loss. But it's not taught in high school.
>
How do you know?
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Salad wrote:
> >>David Hartung wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>When have we observed a simple life form "evolving" into a more complex
> >>>life form?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've watched America evolve from short to tall people and from thin to
> >>obese in my lifetime.
> >
> > That's evidence against evolution.
>
> It really has nothing to do with evolution.
>
Obviously.
eerok
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >> And you can't provide a single observed example
>> >> of your Creator creating anything.
>> >>
>> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> > Because it's their religion and their parents want them
>> > taught that. I know you want to dismiss this "Creator"
>> > idea, but you can't do it using science, you can't even
>> > prove evolution using science.
>> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them
>> that. But it shouldn't be done in public school.
> Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
Ridiculous. Kids should be prepared for a higher education.
It may be that some of them will end up getting mail-order
degrees from bible colleges and make a career barking about
creationism, but we can't assume the worse for everyone.
Maybe you don't care if the US becomes a third world country
with respect to science, but others do.
--
"It is not enough to conquer; one must learn to seduce."
-- Voltaire
Rupert Morrish
>> Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution
>
> Okay. Darwin found evidence for evolution in finches, on the Galapagos
> Islands. (Finches are normally harmless passerines, but Galapagos's
> isolation allowed Darwin to encounter birds in a half-evolved state. The
> finches were halfway evolved into other common bird morphs, such as crows,
> parrots, and hawks.)
This is really misleading. The finches are not evolving into crows,
parrots and hawks. Nor are they half-evolved. They are probably
intermediate in form between what their ancestors looked like and what
their descendants will look like, but so are we all.
>
> But that's not the direct observation. This comes from the researchers who
> have tracked those finch populations for the past hundred years. They have
> observed fluctuations in the birds' sizes, and in the proportions of their
> body parts. The finches are continuing to evolve towards their specialized
> niches.
>
> This means evolution has been observed in real-time - in the very
> populations where Darwin first recognized it. The birds' accelerated
> evolution exactly confirms Darwin's theory that Galapagos's isolation, with
> no other birds competing for those niches, put evolutionary pressure on
> these finches.
>
> But feel free to move the goalpost back to abiogenis. Darwin wasn't there!
>
>
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Adam West
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:476DF069...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> > Simpson wrote:
>> >
>> >>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>> >>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>> >>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>> >
>> > How do you know?
>>
>> Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
>> because there is no physical evidence.
>>
> There's no physical evidence for string theory.
>
So the fuck what, dumbass? String theory isn't being taught as a valid
alternative to evolution! God, you're a fucking idiot.
TomS
<13mrldr...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner stated..."
>
>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> Simpson wrote:
>>
>>>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>>>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>>>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>>
>> How do you know?
>
>Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
>because there is no physical evidence.
Not merely is there no physical evidence, there is no description
of what a design process is like. And there is no interest in ever
giving a description. For example, what sort of thing is the
product of a design event? Is it, just to suggest how unknown
the range of possibilities:
* An adult giving birth to an infant of a new kind
* An adult growing a new bodily organ
* A population of animals appearing out of nothing
* A whole, functioning, mature ecological system of new plants, animals,
predators, prey, and physical environment
When something is so indeterminate as this, how is it possible even to
think of what might be evidence?
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you can't provide a single observed example
>>>>of your Creator creating anything.
>>>>
>>>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>>Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
>>>know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
>>>science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
>>
>>Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
>>shouldn't be done in public school.
>
> Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
Only if the parents are the ones attending class. Otherwise the
students have a right to be given knowledge that will help them in life.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
TomS wrote:
>
> "On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:28:04 -0500, in article
> <13mrldr...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner stated..."
> >
> >Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> Simpson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
> >>>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
> >>>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
> >>
> >> How do you know?
> >
> >Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
> >because there is no physical evidence.
> [...snip...]
>
> Not merely is there no physical evidence, there is no description
> of what a design process is like. And there is no interest in ever
> giving a description. For example, what sort of thing is the
> product of a design event?
>
Don't you think that human efforts *today* to create life from non-life
are design events?
> Is it, just to suggest how unknown
> the range of possibilities:
>
> * An adult giving birth to an infant of a new kind
> * An adult growing a new bodily organ
> * A population of animals appearing out of nothing
> * A whole, functioning, mature ecological system of new plants, animals,
> predators, prey, and physical environment
>
> When something is so indeterminate as this, how is it possible even to
> think of what might be evidence?
>
So perhaps we aren't at that point in our search for answers. We can
seek what might be evidence though.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Adam West wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:476DF069...@yahoo.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> > Simpson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
> >> >>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
> >> >>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
> >> >
> >> > How do you know?
> >>
> >> Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
> >> because there is no physical evidence.
> >>
> > There's no physical evidence for string theory.
> >
>
> So the fuck what, dumbass? String theory isn't being taught as a valid
> alternative to evolution! God, you're a fucking idiot.
>
I'm not sure you have me saying that it was a valid alternative to
evolution.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
eerok wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> >> >> And you can't provide a single observed example
> >> >> of your Creator creating anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why?
>
> >> > Because it's their religion and their parents want them
> >> > taught that. I know you want to dismiss this "Creator"
> >> > idea, but you can't do it using science, you can't even
> >> > prove evolution using science.
>
> >> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them
> >> that. But it shouldn't be done in public school.
>
> > Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
>
> Ridiculous.
>
Anything divergent from teaching what the parents want taught can lead
to indoctrination by the society against the wishes of parents. I think
that's a danger.
> Kids should be prepared for a higher education.
>
I'm confused why that should be in conflict with what parents want for
their child. Think about it, parents generally wish the best for their
offspring. A little trust here is in order.
> It may be that some of them will end up getting mail-order
> degrees from bible colleges and make a career barking about
> creationism, but we can't assume the worse for everyone.
>
> Maybe you don't care if the US becomes a third world country
> with respect to science, but others do.
>
So if schools teach children what the parents of those children want
taught, that will happen? What proof or even what evidence of that do
you have?
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >
> >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And you can't provide a single observed example
> >>>>of your Creator creating anything.
> >>>>
> >>>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
> >>>>
> >>>> Why?
> >>>
> >>>Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
> >>>know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
> >>>science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
> >>
> >>Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
> >>shouldn't be done in public school.
> >
> > Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
>
> Only if the parents are the ones attending class. Otherwise the
> students have a right to be given knowledge that will help them in life.
>
Who decides what that is? YOU want to decide, don't you?
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Phlip wrote:
>
> > Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution
>
> Okay. Darwin found evidence for evolution in finches, on the Galapagos
> Islands. (Finches are normally harmless passerines, but Galapagos's
> isolation allowed Darwin to encounter birds in a half-evolved state. The
> finches were halfway evolved into other common bird morphs, such as crows,
> parrots, and hawks.)
>
Darwin found birds that were halfway evolved? What is "half way
evolved"? Halfway evolved into crows, parrots and hawks? Really? That's
amazing. Have you been watching Land of the Lost again?
> But that's not the direct observation. This comes from the researchers who
> have tracked those finch populations for the past hundred years.
>
So the finches are now crows is what you are saying?
> They have
> observed fluctuations in the birds' sizes, and in the proportions of their
> body parts. The finches are continuing to evolve towards their specialized
> niches.
>
Crows?
> This means evolution has been observed in real-time - in the very
> populations where Darwin first recognized it. The birds' accelerated
> evolution exactly confirms Darwin's theory that Galapagos's isolation, with
> no other birds competing for those niches, put evolutionary pressure on
> these finches.
>
So Americans are taller than they were 50 years ago, that proves
evolution!
> But feel free to move the goalpost back to abiogenis. Darwin wasn't there!
>
I don't think his Beagle trip considered that issue.
TomS
'Hi ho' stated..."
>
>
>
>TomS wrote:
>>
>> "On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:28:04 -0500, in article
>> <13mrldr...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeffrey Turner stated..."
>> >
>> >Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> >> Simpson wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>> >>>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>> >>>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>> >>
>> >> How do you know?
>> >
>> >Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
>> >because there is no physical evidence.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> Not merely is there no physical evidence, there is no description
>> of what a design process is like. And there is no interest in ever
>> giving a description. For example, what sort of thing is the
>> product of a design event?
>>
>Don't you think that human efforts *today* to create life from non-life
>are design events?
Oh, I know something about designs. The problem is, everything that
we know about designs is excluded from being relevant to ID.
Example: Complicated designs are an indication that the designer
was faced with a complicated problem. Not 100% certain, to be sure,
for maybe the designer was just in the mood for doing things in a
complicated way, like Rube Goldberg.
Example: Conflicts between designs are an indication of a conflict,
perhaps between different designers. Eyes in predators that make
the predators better at predation, and eyes in prey that make the
prey better at avoiding predation - if they are both designed, they
are an indication of conflict in designs.
Example: Is the complex, specified pattern of the relationship of
the human body with the bodies of chimps and other apes due
to chance, natural law, or purposeful design?
Maybe there are answers (such as the "Rube Goldberg" one), but
are we ever going to see a discussion of such things from the ID
advocates?
>
>
>> Is it, just to suggest how unknown
>> the range of possibilities:
>>
>> * An adult giving birth to an infant of a new kind
>> * An adult growing a new bodily organ
>> * A population of animals appearing out of nothing
>> * A whole, functioning, mature ecological system of new plants, animals,
>> predators, prey, and physical environment
>>
>> When something is so indeterminate as this, how is it possible even to
>> think of what might be evidence?
>>
>So perhaps we aren't at that point in our search for answers. We can
>seek what might be evidence though.
>
>
Evidence for *what*? How will we know that what we find is evidence?
How we will know that it isn't *contrary* evidence?
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Why can't they be designed for their purpose?
> Example: Is the complex, specified pattern of the relationship of
> the human body with the bodies of chimps and other apes due
> to chance, natural law, or purposeful design?
>
Most designers like to reuse elements. Go look at a modern subdivision
in the suburbs.
> Maybe there are answers (such as the "Rube Goldberg" one), but
> are we ever going to see a discussion of such things from the ID
> advocates?
>
Where are you posting from? I would think that talk.origins, I'm in
talk.politics.misc, would have plenty of advocacy of various
alternatives to accepted science.
> >> Is it, just to suggest how unknown
> >> the range of possibilities:
> >>
> >> * An adult giving birth to an infant of a new kind
> >> * An adult growing a new bodily organ
> >> * A population of animals appearing out of nothing
> >> * A whole, functioning, mature ecological system of new plants, animals,
> >> predators, prey, and physical environment
> >>
> >> When something is so indeterminate as this, how is it possible even to
> >> think of what might be evidence?
> >>
> >So perhaps we aren't at that point in our search for answers. We can
> >seek what might be evidence though.
> >
> Evidence for *what*? How will we know that what we find is evidence?
> How we will know that it isn't *contrary* evidence?
>
I used the example of string theory. That's supposedly "science" even
before it has any solid basis to test anything. I don't think we should
just dismiss what I've called "External Directed Impulse", that is the
wide variety of possible in principle exo-biotic aware forces materially
changing the configuration of the current biote of the Earth. That's far
more general than what is usually termed "Creationism".
TomS
Let us assume that the eyes of chickens and the eyes of chickenhawks
are both designed. Let us assume that the eyes of chickens have a
purpose of helping the chickens avoid being taken by chickenhawks.
Let us assume that the eyes of chickenhawks have a purpose of
helping the chickenhawks take chickens.
>
>
>> Example: Is the complex, specified pattern of the relationship of
>> the human body with the bodies of chimps and other apes due
>> to chance, natural law, or purposeful design?
>>
>Most designers like to reuse elements. Go look at a modern subdivision
>in the suburbs.
So, the designers of the human body decided that the human body
ought to be rather like the body of a chimp. You won't find many
advocates for ID pointing that out.
>
>
>
>> Maybe there are answers (such as the "Rube Goldberg" one), but
>> are we ever going to see a discussion of such things from the ID
>> advocates?
>>
>Where are you posting from? I would think that talk.origins, I'm in
>talk.politics.misc, would have plenty of advocacy of various
>alternatives to accepted science.
One would think that. But the surprising thing is, the advocates of
ID do *not* present alternatives. What they present is solely
*negatives*, that something is wrong with evolutionary biology.
Never - *never* - do they offer a positive alternative. ID advocates
make a point of not answering some obvious questions - such as
*when* whatever happened, happened - such as *what* it is that
happened -
There is a site which lists lots of "non-Darwinian" points of view,
Gert Korthoff's:
<http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/>
>
>
>
>> >> Is it, just to suggest how unknown
>> >> the range of possibilities:
>> >>
>> >> * An adult giving birth to an infant of a new kind
>> >> * An adult growing a new bodily organ
>> >> * A population of animals appearing out of nothing
>> >> * A whole, functioning, mature ecological system of new plants, animals,
>> >> predators, prey, and physical environment
>> >>
>> >> When something is so indeterminate as this, how is it possible even to
>> >> think of what might be evidence?
>> >>
>> >So perhaps we aren't at that point in our search for answers. We can
>> >seek what might be evidence though.
>> >
>> Evidence for *what*? How will we know that what we find is evidence?
>> How we will know that it isn't *contrary* evidence?
>>
>I used the example of string theory. That's supposedly "science" even
>before it has any solid basis to test anything. I don't think we should
>just dismiss what I've called "External Directed Impulse", that is the
>wide variety of possible in principle exo-biotic aware forces materially
>changing the configuration of the current biote of the Earth. That's far
>more general than what is usually termed "Creationism".
One major difference between ID and String Theory is that people are
actually trying to do some research into String Theory, and it remains
open to change. ID has fixed its position - and all of the work being
done is in public relations, K-12 education, lobbying legislators and
school boards, that sort of thing - to the exclusion of refining,
developing, changing, expanding, testing, ... the position staked out
at the beginning.
David Johnston
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Simpson wrote:
>>
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>
>> > Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
>> > curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
>> > the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
>> > explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
>> > this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
>> > us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
>>
>> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
>>
>That's why they spent decades looking for neutrinos even though the
>numbers of so-called neutrinos didn't add up to what was predicted.
Yes it is.
>
>
>> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>> contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>> created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>>
>How do you know?
It's inherent in the nature of the Designer. Since it has magically
unlimited powers and no physical nature, it's impossible to look for
evidence of it.
>
>
>
>> rather than the result of
>> *observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
>> life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
>> does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
>> science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
>> should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
>> *observable* phenomena.
>>
>So let's dump string theory right now.
Observable and observed are not the same thing.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
TomS wrote:
>
> "On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:58:09 +0000, in article <476EBDD1...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> 'Hi ho' stated..."
>
> >> Example: Complicated designs are an indication that the designer
> >> was faced with a complicated problem. Not 100% certain, to be sure,
> >> for maybe the designer was just in the mood for doing things in a
> >> complicated way, like Rube Goldberg.
> >>
> >> Example: Conflicts between designs are an indication of a conflict,
> >> perhaps between different designers. Eyes in predators that make
> >> the predators better at predation, and eyes in prey that make the
> >> prey better at avoiding predation - if they are both designed, they
> >> are an indication of conflict in designs.
> >>
> >Why can't they be designed for their purpose?
>
> Let us assume that the eyes of chickens and the eyes of chickenhawks
> are both designed. Let us assume that the eyes of chickens have a
> purpose of helping the chickens avoid being taken by chickenhawks.
> Let us assume that the eyes of chickenhawks have a purpose of
> helping the chickenhawks take chickens.
>
OK, so?
> >> Example: Is the complex, specified pattern of the relationship of
> >> the human body with the bodies of chimps and other apes due
> >> to chance, natural law, or purposeful design?
> >>
> >Most designers like to reuse elements. Go look at a modern subdivision
> >in the suburbs.
>
> So, the designers of the human body decided that the human body
> ought to be rather like the body of a chimp. You won't find many
> advocates for ID pointing that out.
>
What if the "designer" was a space being visiting from another galaxy
and he decided to impart something into some species of creature on the
Earth? That would be External Directed Impulse by defintion. And that
would show up today as humans having simlar body plans to chimps, if
that was the proto-creature used.
> >> Maybe there are answers (such as the "Rube Goldberg" one), but
> >> are we ever going to see a discussion of such things from the ID
> >> advocates?
> >>
> >Where are you posting from? I would think that talk.origins, I'm in
> >talk.politics.misc, would have plenty of advocacy of various
> >alternatives to accepted science.
>
> One would think that. But the surprising thing is, the advocates of
> ID do *not* present alternatives.
>
I don't know that I'm an advocate of ID. I regularly, however, present
alternatives.
> >> Evidence for *what*? How will we know that what we find is evidence?
> >> How we will know that it isn't *contrary* evidence?
> >>
> >I used the example of string theory. That's supposedly "science" even
> >before it has any solid basis to test anything. I don't think we should
> >just dismiss what I've called "External Directed Impulse", that is the
> >wide variety of possible in principle exo-biotic aware forces materially
> >changing the configuration of the current biote of the Earth. That's far
> >more general than what is usually termed "Creationism".
>
> One major difference between ID and String Theory is that people are
> actually trying to do some research into String Theory, and it remains
> open to change. ID has fixed its position
>
Is that because the people you talk with who support ID are that way or
is that because ID *must* be that way?
>- and all of the work being
> done is in public relations, K-12 education, lobbying legislators and
> school boards, that sort of thing - to the exclusion of refining,
> developing, changing, expanding, testing, ... the position staked out
> at the beginning.
>
I'm not really sure what it is.
Adam West
>
>
> Adam West wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:476DF069...@yahoo.co.uk...
>> >
>> >
>> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> >> > Simpson wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support
>> >> >>the
>> >> >>contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>> >> >>created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>> >> >
>> >> > How do you know?
>> >>
>> >> Supposedly they've had people working on it for a while. In reality,
>> >> because there is no physical evidence.
>> >>
>> > There's no physical evidence for string theory.
>> >
>>
>> So the fuck what, dumbass? String theory isn't being taught as a valid
>> alternative to evolution! God, you're a fucking idiot.
>>
> I'm not sure you have me saying that it was a valid alternative to
> evolution.
Don't be coy, dumbass. *You* were comparing the two in the context of ID
being taught as an alternative to evolution. My reply was entirely within
that context and you know it.
<snip>
TomS
'Hi ho' stated..."
>
>
>
>TomS wrote:
>>
>>"On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:58:09 +0000, in article <476EBDD1...@yahoo.co.uk>,
>> 'Hi ho' stated..."
>>
>
>> >> Example: Complicated designs are an indication that the designer
>> >> was faced with a complicated problem. Not 100% certain, to be sure,
>> >> for maybe the designer was just in the mood for doing things in a
>> >> complicated way, like Rube Goldberg.
>> >>
>> >> Example: Conflicts between designs are an indication of a conflict,
>> >> perhaps between different designers. Eyes in predators that make
>> >> the predators better at predation, and eyes in prey that make the
>> >> prey better at avoiding predation - if they are both designed, they
>> >> are an indication of conflict in designs.
>> >>
>> >Why can't they be designed for their purpose?
>>
>> Let us assume that the eyes of chickens and the eyes of chickenhawks
>> are both designed. Let us assume that the eyes of chickens have a
>> purpose of helping the chickens avoid being taken by chickenhawks.
>> Let us assume that the eyes of chickenhawks have a purpose of
>> helping the chickenhawks take chickens.
>>
>OK, so?
My point being that the advocates of ID will avoid discussing
possibilities. This is just one that immediately comes to mind, but
you'll never hear a rebuttal - or discussion - or even dismissal or
acceptance - of this sort of thing.
>
>
>
>> >> Example: Is the complex, specified pattern of the relationship of
>> >> the human body with the bodies of chimps and other apes due
>> >> to chance, natural law, or purposeful design?
>> >>
>> >Most designers like to reuse elements. Go look at a modern subdivision
>> >in the suburbs.
>>
>> So, the designers of the human body decided that the human body
>> ought to be rather like the body of a chimp. You won't find many
>> advocates for ID pointing that out.
>>
>What if the "designer" was a space being visiting from another galaxy
>and he decided to impart something into some species of creature on the
>Earth? That would be External Directed Impulse by defintion. And that
>would show up today as humans having simlar body plans to chimps, if
>that was the proto-creature used.
You're taking the possibility seriously. You won't find an ID advocate
doing that.
>
>
>
>> >> Maybe there are answers (such as the "Rube Goldberg" one), but
>> >> are we ever going to see a discussion of such things from the ID
>> >> advocates?
>> >>
>> >Where are you posting from? I would think that talk.origins, I'm in
>> >talk.politics.misc, would have plenty of advocacy of various
>> >alternatives to accepted science.
>>
>> One would think that. But the surprising thing is, the advocates of
>> ID do *not* present alternatives.
>>
>I don't know that I'm an advocate of ID. I regularly, however, present
>alternatives.
If you want to discuss alternatives, then I don't object. I may disagree,
but we can talk about alternatives. ID doesn't allow that.
>
>
>> >> Evidence for *what*? How will we know that what we find is evidence?
>> >> How we will know that it isn't *contrary* evidence?
>> >>
>> >I used the example of string theory. That's supposedly "science" even
>> >before it has any solid basis to test anything. I don't think we should
>> >just dismiss what I've called "External Directed Impulse", that is the
>> >wide variety of possible in principle exo-biotic aware forces materially
>> >changing the configuration of the current biote of the Earth. That's far
>> >more general than what is usually termed "Creationism".
>>
>> One major difference between ID and String Theory is that people are
>> actually trying to do some research into String Theory, and it remains
>> open to change. ID has fixed its position
>>
>Is that because the people you talk with who support ID are that way or
>is that because ID *must* be that way?
It is the thing that we are presented with, and what we are given to deal
with.
Unlike, "classic creationism", for example, "young-earth creationism", or
"old-earth creationism", you have something to deal with - the age of
the earth. ID has all the marks of purposely having removed anything of
substance from "classic creationism" - whether that's because of great
problems with a 10,000-year-old-earth, or because of legal problems,
or whatever. Whatever the reason, what ended up was called "ID".
>
>
>>- and all of the work being
>> done is in public relations, K-12 education, lobbying legislators and
>> school boards, that sort of thing - to the exclusion of refining,
>> developing, changing, expanding, testing, ... the position staked out
>> at the beginning.
>>
>I'm not really sure what it is.
--
Tom McDonald
>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And you can't provide a single observed example
>>>> of your Creator creating anything.
>>>>
>>>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>> Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
>>> know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
>>> science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
>> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
>> shouldn't be done in public school.
>>
> Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
Which parents? Each and every parent? The majority of parents?
Jeffrey Turner
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you can't provide a single observed example
>>>>>>of your Creator creating anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
>>>>>know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
>>>>>science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
>>>>
>>>>Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
>>>>shouldn't be done in public school.
>>>
>>>Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
>>
>>Only if the parents are the ones attending class. Otherwise the
>>students have a right to be given knowledge that will help them in life.
>
> Who decides what that is? YOU want to decide, don't you?
Religious beliefs should not be taught in public schools. Science, and
only science, should be taught in science class. Parents may teach
about religion at home, and that includes "Intelligent Design."
Dick C
>
>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And you can't provide a single observed example
>> >>of your Creator creating anything.
>> >>
>> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that.
>> > I know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it
>> > using science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
>>
>> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
>> shouldn't be done in public school.
>>
> Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
No. Public schools need to be held to a high standard of scholarship,
and the parents job is to help the students acheive that. Teaching
religious claptrap does not help them in that respect.
If you want to teach your child crap, do it at home or in your church.
Public schools are for teaching things like math and science and history.
The reason that parents should not be able to lower the standards is that
too many of them are ignorant of what a real education is, and what it
takes to get it.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
I've always addressed those sorts of things.
> >> >> Example: Is the complex, specified pattern of the relationship of
> >> >> the human body with the bodies of chimps and other apes due
> >> >> to chance, natural law, or purposeful design?
> >> >>
> >> >Most designers like to reuse elements. Go look at a modern subdivision
> >> >in the suburbs.
> >>
> >> So, the designers of the human body decided that the human body
> >> ought to be rather like the body of a chimp. You won't find many
> >> advocates for ID pointing that out.
> >>
> >What if the "designer" was a space being visiting from another galaxy
> >and he decided to impart something into some species of creature on the
> >Earth? That would be External Directed Impulse by defintion. And that
> >would show up today as humans having simlar body plans to chimps, if
> >that was the proto-creature used.
>
> You're taking the possibility seriously. You won't find an ID advocate
> doing that.
>
I get told I'm an ID advocate. I'm not really an advocate of any
specific view but rather I believe that we shouldn't dismiss the idea
that EDI (External Directed Impulse) is possible. This isn't that far
afield from SETI's efforts, which have scientific merit because looking
for evidence is important even if you never find any.
> >> >> Maybe there are answers (such as the "Rube Goldberg" one), but
> >> >> are we ever going to see a discussion of such things from the ID
> >> >> advocates?
> >> >>
> >> >Where are you posting from? I would think that talk.origins, I'm in
> >> >talk.politics.misc, would have plenty of advocacy of various
> >> >alternatives to accepted science.
> >>
> >> One would think that. But the surprising thing is, the advocates of
> >> ID do *not* present alternatives.
> >>
> >I don't know that I'm an advocate of ID. I regularly, however, present
> >alternatives.
>
> If you want to discuss alternatives, then I don't object. I may disagree,
> but we can talk about alternatives. ID doesn't allow that.
>
I'm not aware of the limits on ID. I use EDI as a term because since I
made it up, I can define it.
> >> >> Evidence for *what*? How will we know that what we find is evidence?
> >> >> How we will know that it isn't *contrary* evidence?
> >> >>
> >> >I used the example of string theory. That's supposedly "science" even
> >> >before it has any solid basis to test anything. I don't think we should
> >> >just dismiss what I've called "External Directed Impulse", that is the
> >> >wide variety of possible in principle exo-biotic aware forces materially
> >> >changing the configuration of the current biote of the Earth. That's far
> >> >more general than what is usually termed "Creationism".
> >>
> >> One major difference between ID and String Theory is that people are
> >> actually trying to do some research into String Theory, and it remains
> >> open to change. ID has fixed its position
> >>
> >Is that because the people you talk with who support ID are that way or
> >is that because ID *must* be that way?
>
> It is the thing that we are presented with, and what we are given to deal
> with.
>
> Unlike, "classic creationism", for example, "young-earth creationism", or
> "old-earth creationism", you have something to deal with - the age of
> the earth. ID has all the marks of purposely having removed anything of
> substance from "classic creationism" - whether that's because of great
> problems with a 10,000-year-old-earth, or because of legal problems,
> or whatever. Whatever the reason, what ended up was called "ID".
>
I think the idea is to remove anything that is obviously disprovable.
You can't claim the Earth is 10,000 years old without going against the
science of geology (among others).
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
I wasn't claiming that string theory had anything to do with evolution.
I was saying that there is no empirical evidence for string theory and
that that lack of testable evidence is a similarity with ID or
Creationism or what I call External Directed Impulse. Now address that.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And you can't provide a single observed example
> >>>>>>of your Creator creating anything.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
> >>>>>know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
> >>>>>science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
> >>>>shouldn't be done in public school.
> >>>
> >>>Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
> >>
> >>Only if the parents are the ones attending class. Otherwise the
> >>students have a right to be given knowledge that will help them in life.
> >
> > Who decides what that is? YOU want to decide, don't you?
>
> Religious beliefs should not be taught in public schools.
>
So if a religion believes that the Earth goes round the Sun, that
shouldn't be taught in public schools?
> Science, and
> only science, should be taught in science class.
>
Science includes more than just accepted theory, it also includes
alternatives. Without allowing that, you diminish the experience.
> Parents may teach
> about religion at home, and that includes "Intelligent Design."
>
Of course parents can teach whatever they want.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
1) Any parent that objects to the teaching in classes should be able to
exclude his children from those classes.
2) Parents should be involved in what is taught in schools.
3) There is no reason not to have classes that focus on subjects that
the parents of those children believe need focusing on.
4) Have some faith in parents. They want the best things for their
children.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Dick C wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote in talk.origins
>
> >
> >
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And you can't provide a single observed example
> >> >>of your Creator creating anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why?
> >> >
> >> > Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that.
> >> > I know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it
> >> > using science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
> >>
> >> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
> >> shouldn't be done in public school.
> >>
> > Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
>
> No. Public schools need to be held to a high standard of scholarship,
> and the parents job is to help the students acheive that. Teaching
> religious claptrap does not help them in that respect.
>
How do you know that parents want their children taught "religious
claptrap"? You don't know that. And the idea that religion is claptrap
is another profound error in your analysis.
> If you want to teach your child crap,
>
As opposed to just claptrap?
> do it at home or in your church.
>
It turns out that children are socialized in school for at least 6 hours
a day. Given sleeping and watching TV, parents don't have the level of
input, often, that a school has. So what they want taught in the school
should matter to them and it should matter to society. I don't want just
anyone deciding what children learn.
> Public schools are for teaching things like math and science and history.
>
Who decides what those things are? There's a lot to learn. Should they
learn this or should they learn that?
> The reason that parents should not be able to lower the standards is that
> too many of them are ignorant of what a real education is, and what it
> takes to get it.
>
So parents are stupid therefore let some "educators" decide what to
teach? I don't know, perhaps parents are stupid. But I don't believe
that there is anyone who wants better for the child than the parent
does. So why would the parent exclude something vital, assuming that
this argument is even about something vital. How many children end up
doing evolutionary biological research? Does it really matter if they
know about evolution?
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>
>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you can't provide a single observed example
>>>>>>>>of your Creator creating anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that. I
>>>>>>>know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using
>>>>>>>science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
>>>>>>shouldn't be done in public school.
>>>>>
>>>>>Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
>>>>
>>>>Only if the parents are the ones attending class. Otherwise the
>>>>students have a right to be given knowledge that will help them in life.
>>>
>>>Who decides what that is? YOU want to decide, don't you?
>>
>>Religious beliefs should not be taught in public schools.
>
> So if a religion believes that the Earth goes round the Sun, that
> shouldn't be taught in public schools?
Not as religion, no.
>>Science, and
>>only science, should be taught in science class.
>
> Science includes more than just accepted theory, it also includes
> alternatives. Without allowing that, you diminish the experience.
You mean like the phlogiston theory of fire?
>>Parents may teach
>>about religion at home, and that includes "Intelligent Design."
>
> Of course parents can teach whatever they want.
Not well, but they are allowed to.
Jeffrey Turner
Sorry, but children have to have the required subjects. Parents aren't
allowed to object to their child learning reading, writing or
'rithmetic. Nor science either.
Genaro
-------
I can agree with that. I mean how arrogant are we to think we're the only
intelligent beings in the universe? And if it is true, what a waste of
space. I borrowed that from Jody Foster in "Contact".
-------
eerok
> eerok wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >> >> And you can't provide a single observed example of
>> >> >> your Creator creating anything.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it
>> >> >> exists?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why?
>> >> > Because it's their religion and their parents want
>> >> > them taught that. I know you want to dismiss this
>> >> > "Creator" idea, but you can't do it using science, you
>> >> > can't even prove evolution using science.
>> >> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them
>> >> that. But it shouldn't be done in public school.
>> > Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
>> Ridiculous.
> Anything divergent from teaching what the parents want
> taught can lead to indoctrination by the society against the
> wishes of parents. I think that's a danger.
Of course this applies equally to parents who are Muslim,
Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Sufi, Rastafarian, Pastafarian,
Atheist, Wiccan, Satanist, etc. Pretty generous of you to be
willing to shoulder the tax burden to humor all these parents
in the public school system.
On the other hand, why not just leave religion out of it?
>> Kids should be prepared for a higher education.
> I'm confused why that should be in conflict with what
> parents want for their child. Think about it, parents
> generally wish the best for their offspring. A little trust
> here is in order.
I've worked in a hospital for 22 years, and I've seen more
examples of what harm parents can do to their kids than you
even want to hear about. And this is just the obvious,
physical stuff.
You advocate teaching young kids things they'll have to reject
later if they want a career in science? How bizarre. Why not
get it right the first time?
>> It may be that some of them will end up getting mail-order
>> degrees from bible colleges and make a career barking about
>> creationism, but we can't assume the worse for everyone.
>>
>> Maybe you don't care if the US becomes a third world
>> country with respect to science, but others do.
> So if schools teach children what the parents of those
> children want taught, that will happen? What proof or even
> what evidence of that do you have?
The evidence that some parents would prefer to replace actual
science with political FUD like ID in the science classroom is
cause enough to consider them lacking in judgment.
--
"It is not enough to conquer; one must learn to seduce."
-- Voltaire
Cory Albrecht
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> Science, and
>> only science, should be taught in science class.
>>
> Science includes more than just accepted theory, it also includes
> alternatives. Without allowing that, you diminish the experience.
So you're saying we should teach about a geocentric universe with a
non-moving Earth and the star fixed on the some of the sky as an
alternative to a heliocentric solar system which is not even at the
centre of our galaxy, just because it is the belief of some Christian
parents out there? Check out <http://www.fixedearth.com/> if you don't
believe me.
Should we be teaching the Flat Earth Society's alternative to a
spherical planet in geography class?
What about the Hindu version of turtles all the way down?
The Norse version of Earth being formed from Ymir's body?
'Cause if you want ID to be taught in science class, you need to teach
all those in science class, too.
Steven L.
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:25:13 -0500, "Steven L."
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Phlip wrote:
>>>> Hartung demands "observable proof" for evolution
>>> Okay. Darwin found evidence for evolution in finches, on the Galapagos
>>> Islands. (Finches are normally harmless passerines, but Galapagos's
>>> isolation allowed Darwin to encounter birds in a half-evolved state. The
>>> finches were halfway evolved into other common bird morphs, such as crows,
>>> parrots, and hawks.)
>>>
>>> body parts. The finches are continuing to evolve towards their specialized
>>> niches.
>>>
>>> populations where Darwin first recognized it. The birds' accelerated
>>> evolution exactly confirms Darwin's theory that Galapagos's isolation, with
>>> no other birds competing for those niches, put evolutionary pressure on
>>> these finches.
>>>
>> creationists that just won't do.
>>
>> Personally, I think a creationist theory of abiogenesis of the first
>> life form(s) would make a bit more sense than the stuff they usually
>> peddle. But a theory that claimed that God made the very first life
>> form, and then sat back and waited 4 billion years for humans to evolve,
>> wouldn't save the Genesis myth.
>>
>> The creationists are trying to save the Genesis myth of humans falling
>>from a near-angelic state of grace in the Garden of Eden, rather than
>> evolving from primates. So abiogenesis is a moot point; it's not what
>> they care about and notice they don't focus on it. Keeping the myth of
>> humans as fallen from grace is what they care about.
>
>
> "ID" is doomed from the start by its core assertion - that
> complex organisms simply cannot evolve on their own and
> require an intelligent 'designer'. This should immediately
> beg the question of "Well, how did this 'designer' get
> itself designed, being a complex intelligent thing and
> all that ?".
>
> The issue then plunges into a bottomless pit where you
> can never find an undesigned designer.
>
> "ID" framed in different, less universal, language MAY
> have some merit. COULD have been that the early earth
> really wasn't a good environment for the initial
> evolution of life. One of the little grey alien dudes
> could have seeded it with something engineered TO
> survive the conditions and evolve on its own from
> there ... or maybe he just parked his saucer for
> a minute while he took a dump behind a rock.
As I said, a creationist explanation of abiogenesis, or of the Big Bang,
wouldn't be as controversial. Heck, if all the creationists were
claiming was that God exists outside of space-time and was responsible
for the Big Bang, we probably wouldn't even need this talk.origins NG.
But that's not the creationists' goal. Their goal is to establish the
Genesis story as the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth.
And the key points of the Genesis story deal with the origin of (modern)
Man. But science already knows too much about the origin of Man that
it's conflicting with the Genesis account.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Dick C
>
>
> Dick C wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote in talk.origins
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And you can't provide a single observed example
>> >> >>of your Creator creating anything.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But children should be taught that she/he/it exists?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why?
>> >> >
>> >> > Because it's their religion and their parents want them taught that.
>> >> > I know you want to dismiss this "Creator" idea, but you can't do it
>> >> > using science, you can't even prove evolution using science.
>> >>
>> >> Then their parents or their preacher should "teach" them that. But it
>> >> shouldn't be done in public school.
>> >>
>> > Public schools should teach what the parents want taught.
>>
>> No. Public schools need to be held to a high standard of scholarship,
>> and the parents job is to help the students acheive that. Teaching
>> religious claptrap does not help them in that respect.
>>
> How do you know that parents want their children taught "religious
> claptrap"? You don't know that. And the idea that religion is claptrap
> is another profound error in your analysis.\
Read the thread, you brought up the parents wanting to teach religion.
Besides, the only people who make the statements about having schools teach
what the parents want are the fundamentalists who seem to think that they
should push their religious ideas on everybody else.
>
>
>> If you want to teach your child crap,
>>
> As opposed to just claptrap?
Either one, creationism is crap, or if you prefer, claptrap.
>
>
>> do it at home or in your church.
>>
> It turns out that children are socialized in school for at least 6 hours
> a day. Given sleeping and watching TV, parents don't have the level of
> input, often, that a school has. So what they want taught in the school
> should matter to them and it should matter to society. I don't want just
> anyone deciding what children learn.
Well, most americans actually want their kids to receive a useful education,
not something that will relegate them to working in a drive through for the
rest of their lives.
>
>
>> Public schools are for teaching things like math and science and history.
>>
> Who decides what those things are? There's a lot to learn. Should they
> learn this or should they learn that?
>
>
>> The reason that parents should not be able to lower the standards is that
>> too many of them are ignorant of what a real education is, and what it
>> takes to get it.
>>
> So parents are stupid therefore let some "educators" decide what to
> teach? I don't know, perhaps parents are stupid. But I don't believe
> that there is anyone who wants better for the child than the parent
> does. So why would the parent exclude something vital, assuming that
> this argument is even about something vital. How many children end up
> doing evolutionary biological research? Does it really matter if they
> know about evolution?
Many parents are ignorant of science, and they act stupidly if they try
to push religion, and exclude science. And one does not need to be a
researcher to learn science, or to find it useful.
It is far better to understand how things work than it is to blindly
accept what someone tells you. By remaining ignorant you are far more
likely to fall for some bs idea and fail to take appropriate measures.
And I mean in many different areas including medicine.
Steven L.
But a child may or may not learn that lesson in his science class,
depending how it's taught.
I don't know how they're teaching science in schools these days. But
when I was a kid, there was too much teaching of facts and dogma and not
enough teaching of the scientific method and how to think critically,
logically and creatively.
Just teaching a kid "The Sun is 92.8 million miles from the Earth" and
"The speed of light is 300,000 kph" and similar trivia, isn't going to
help that kid avoid "some bs idea and fail to take appropriate
measures", whether in future scientific questions, or medicine, or
politics, or fads.
This is why I disagree with those who say that ID and creationism
shouldn't be discussed in science class. They should be, along with
UFOs, ESP, "alternative medicine," etc., in a special unit called
"Fringe Science." Students should be shown how we know these things are
flawed science, and probably not even science at all.
Science class shouldn't just be about teaching what we know to be true.
A kid can always google for the latest scientific knowledge on the
Internet. Science class should also be about teaching how we know what
isn't true. And perhaps also touch on some open problems in science
today (such as SETI vs. Rare Earth), to teach students how we know what
we don't know--and yet keep that scientific question from drifting into
pseudo-science.
Ferrous Patella
news:476EA6C3...@yahoo.co.uk:
> Anything divergent from teaching what the parents want taught can lead
> to indoctrination by the society against the wishes of parents. I think
> that's a danger.
>
>
>> Kids should be prepared for a higher education.
>>
> I'm confused why that should be in conflict with what parents want for
> their child. Think about it, parents generally wish the best for their
> offspring. A little trust here is in order.
>
>
>> It may be that some of them will end up getting mail-order
>> degrees from bible colleges and make a career barking about
>> creationism, but we can't assume the worse for everyone.
>>
>> Maybe you don't care if the US becomes a third world country
>> with respect to science, but others do.
>>
> So if schools teach children what the parents of those children want
> taught, that will happen? What proof or even what evidence of that do
> you have?
Most parents (myself included) are not qualified to decide what to teach
of any subject at a high school level. That number approaches zero for
parents who are qualified on *all* subjects. (Heck, most high school
teachers are not qualified to teach all subjects. I would not want most
biology teachers teaching the parts of speech. I sure as heck would not
want my old French teach teaching drivers' ed.)
The public is paying for public education, not individuals. We do so not
because individual parent want their children educated but because
educating everyone is good for society in general. So the public gets to
decide what is a good education. They usually get very qualified people
to help with this decision. If you are unsatisfied with public education
(for example, you feel it is indoctrinating you child) you can educate
you child elsewhere.
Ferrous Patella
news:476F0307...@yahoo.co.uk:
> Given sleeping and watching TV, parents don't have the level of
> input, often, that a school has.
Good gods! Watching TV is a higher priority than parental input. No wonder
you are having trouble teaching your kids your values.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
So you get taught what you want taught because you define your views as
"not religion".
> >>Science, and
> >>only science, should be taught in science class.
> >
> > Science includes more than just accepted theory, it also includes
> > alternatives. Without allowing that, you diminish the experience.
>
> You mean like the phlogiston theory of fire?
>
Can you make a scientific argument for that?
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Cory Albrecht wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote, On 2007/12/23 19:46:
> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
> >> Science, and
> >> only science, should be taught in science class.
> >>
> > Science includes more than just accepted theory, it also includes
> > alternatives. Without allowing that, you diminish the experience.
>
> So you're saying we should teach about a geocentric universe with a
> non-moving Earth and the star fixed on the some of the sky as an
> alternative to a heliocentric solar system which is not even at the
> centre of our galaxy, just because it is the belief of some Christian
> parents out there? Check out <http://www.fixedearth.com/> if you don't
> believe me.
>
The Earth actually *is* the centre of the visible universe which might
ultimate mean something. So we've come full circle, so to speak.
> Should we be teaching the Flat Earth Society's alternative to a
> spherical planet in geography class?
>
Do any parents want that? This is where your argument against giving
parents control breaks down. Most parents might not be geniuses but they
aren't so stupid that they want their children not to learn important
things.
> What about the Hindu version of turtles all the way down?
>
> The Norse version of Earth being formed from Ymir's body?
>
> 'Cause if you want ID to be taught in science class, you need to teach
> all those in science class, too.
>
*Only* if the parents want it.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
What if the parents want their children taught evolution? That's not
religion, is it?
> >
> >
> >> If you want to teach your child crap,
> >>
> > As opposed to just claptrap?
>
> Either one, creationism is crap, or if you prefer, claptrap.
>
Don't get angry.
> >> do it at home or in your church.
> >>
> > It turns out that children are socialized in school for at least 6 hours
> > a day. Given sleeping and watching TV, parents don't have the level of
> > input, often, that a school has. So what they want taught in the school
> > should matter to them and it should matter to society. I don't want just
> > anyone deciding what children learn.
>
> Well, most americans actually want their kids to receive a useful education,
> not something that will relegate them to working in a drive through for the
> rest of their lives.
>
Does training in evolution prevent working the drive-thru?
> >> Public schools are for teaching things like math and science and history.
> >>
> > Who decides what those things are? There's a lot to learn. Should they
> > learn this or should they learn that?
> >
> >
> >> The reason that parents should not be able to lower the standards is that
> >> too many of them are ignorant of what a real education is, and what it
> >> takes to get it.
> >>
> > So parents are stupid therefore let some "educators" decide what to
> > teach? I don't know, perhaps parents are stupid. But I don't believe
> > that there is anyone who wants better for the child than the parent
> > does. So why would the parent exclude something vital, assuming that
> > this argument is even about something vital. How many children end up
> > doing evolutionary biological research? Does it really matter if they
> > know about evolution?
>
> Many parents are ignorant of science, and they act stupidly if they try
> to push religion, and exclude science. And one does not need to be a
> researcher to learn science, or to find it useful.
>
One could even learn science and work the drive-thru.
> It is far better to understand how things work than it is to blindly
> accept what someone tells you. By remaining ignorant you are far more
> likely to fall for some bs idea and fail to take appropriate measures.
> And I mean in many different areas including medicine.
>
You are making an argument for learning a lot of different things and
considering them all. What does augmenting evolution with other
possibilities do to reduce that?
Jim Lovejoy
news:47708DF5...@yahoo.co.uk:
If you're only going to teach things in science class that you can make a
scientific argument for, ID is out.
Jeffrey Turner
Right. Public schools are a secular institution. No belief, no
faith, is necessary for understanding evolution or gravity.
>>>>>Science, and
>>>>>only science, should be taught in science class.
>>>>
>>>>Science includes more than just accepted theory, it also includes
>>>>alternatives. Without allowing that, you diminish the experience.
>>>
>>>You mean like the phlogiston theory of fire?
>>
>>Can you make a scientific argument for that?
>
> If you're only going to teach things in science class that you can make a
> scientific argument for, ID is out.
Ironic, ain't it? But there's an "intelligent arsonist" behind every
fire.
Dick C
>
>
> Dick C wrote:
>> Well, most americans actually want their kids to receive a useful
>> education, not something that will relegate them to working in a drive
>> through for the rest of their lives.
>>
> Does training in evolution prevent working the drive-thru?
No, but learning science helps prepare the children for a better job.
Learning religion instead prevents preparation. You may want to check out
what happens to kids who go to many of the Christian colleges after
graduation. They oftentimes end up going to a real university in order
to get a useful degree, and their time in the Christian school does not
help.
>> Many parents are ignorant of science, and they act stupidly if they try
>> to push religion, and exclude science. And one does not need to be a
>> researcher to learn science, or to find it useful.
>>
> One could even learn science and work the drive-thru.
like you want to work at one?
>
>
>
>> It is far better to understand how things work than it is to blindly
>> accept what someone tells you. By remaining ignorant you are far more
>> likely to fall for some bs idea and fail to take appropriate measures.
>> And I mean in many different areas including medicine.
>>
> You are making an argument for learning a lot of different things and
> considering them all. What does augmenting evolution with other
> possibilities do to reduce that?
How is forcing religion down our students throats augmenting evolution?
It doesn't. As a matter of fact, it takes time away from teaching valid
science, and confuses the issues.
Creationism and its' crossdressing child, ID, are pure religion. They have
no place in public schools, and most especially, no place in science class.
There is no Intelligent Design theory, there is no Creation science.
Steven L.
What is the purpose of science class?
If the purpose is to give students Science 101--a collection of basic
facts like the speed of light--and that's all, then you would be right.
If the purpose is to both acquaint students with the scientific method,
and with the ability to distinguish science from pseudo-science in
future controversies after they've grown to adulthood, then you would be
wrong.
How can students learn the difference between science and pseudo-science
if they're not exposed to examples of both? And if the teacher doesn't
explain how to analyze and deconstruct both?
If I were teaching science, I would have absolutely no qualms about
explaining to kids what the controversy about UFOs is, why Von Daniken's
ancient-astronaut theories were so popular, and so on. Teaching kids
*about* UFOs doesn't mean that I believe that UFOs exist or that they
should believe it. Quite the contrary. These are not science, but
pseudo-science. THAT'S THE POINT. If you don't show how science can be
used to analyze and refute these, the students won't understand what's
really wrong with ID and creationism either. Just dismissing them out
of hand will *NOT* discourage students from being interested in those,
not when their own parents are telling them differently.
The surest way to get kids interested in ID and creationism is to act
like you're refusing to discuss them. That will trigger their natural
instinct for rebelliousness and independence from the older generation
and from the "Government."
I don't know why I have to keep repeating this. We are all on the same
page as lamenting the popularity of pseudoscience, such as creationism,
in America. The difference between me and so many other folks here, is
that they think that suppressing a discussion of pseudoscientific topics
in school will somehow protect students from those ideas. It won't. It
will pique their curiosity, and most likely backfire.
To argue that creationism should be taught in a class on religion isn't
going to wash. I don't know where you guys went to school. But when I
went to elementary school, we didn't have classes on comparative
religion. We had science class, that's all. The failure of science
teachers to face topics like UFOs and creationism honestly is hurting
the students that they are supposed to be teaching.
Steven L.
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote, On 2007/12/23 19:46:
>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>> Science, and
>>> only science, should be taught in science class.
>> Science includes more than just accepted theory, it also includes
>> alternatives. Without allowing that, you diminish the experience.
>
> So you're saying we should teach about a geocentric universe with a
> non-moving Earth and the star fixed on the some of the sky as an
> alternative to a heliocentric solar system which is not even at the
> centre of our galaxy, just because it is the belief of some Christian
> parents out there?
In Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" miniseries on TV in 1979, which was supposedly
about *science*, Sagan did teach about a geocentric universe theory, and
even demonstrated the geocentric model on camera. He also had a nice
discussion of astrology, and of Percival Lowell's speculations about
canals and cities on Mars. He wasn't afraid to discuss those topics
with the public like you seem to be. He used the scientific method to
deconstruct and critique those ideas.
Unlike Sagan, you seem to have this idea that to teach about an idea in
school is to somehow legitimize it, and the best way to discourage an
idea is to ban it. Judging by the public opinion polls, your way has
failed, utterly; it always does.
When I went to junior high school during the Cold War, my social studies
teacher assigned a large part of Das Kapital to us kids to read. Not
because he was a Marxist. Quite the contrary, he was a staunch
anti-Communist. The purpose of the unit on Das Kapital was so he could
lead us kids in a discussion to deconstruct it and identify the flaws
and fallacies in Marxism. He would have laughed if you told him that
because Marxism is not a valid political theory, it shouldn't be taught
at all. Or that if you expose kids to Das Kapital, they might become
Communists.
> Should we be teaching the Flat Earth Society's alternative to a
> spherical planet in geography class?
>
> What about the Hindu version of turtles all the way down?
>
> The Norse version of Earth being formed from Ymir's body?
>
> 'Cause if you want ID to be taught in science class, you need to teach
> all those in science class, too.
Strawman.
You don't have to teach them all, any more than you have to teach all of
science in a basic science class either. A class on basic science isn't
going to have time to teach a lot of different science topics. All it
can teach are the fundamentals.
What you do have to teach, is enough of established science,
pseudo-science, and borderline science (such as the SETI vs. Rare Earth
controversy) so that students get to understand the difference.
Bugman
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13n2lko...@corp.supernews.com...
> Cory Albrecht wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote, On 2007/12/23 19:46:
>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>>> Science, and
>>>> only science, should be taught in science class.
>>> Science includes more than just accepted theory, it also includes
>>> alternatives. Without allowing that, you diminish the experience.
>>
>> So you're saying we should teach about a geocentric universe with a
>> non-moving Earth and the star fixed on the some of the sky as an
>> alternative to a heliocentric solar system which is not even at the
>> centre of our galaxy, just because it is the belief of some Christian
>> parents out there?
>
> In Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" miniseries on TV in 1979, which was supposedly
> about *science*, Sagan did teach about a geocentric universe theory, and
> even demonstrated the geocentric model on camera. He also had a nice
> discussion of astrology, and of Percival Lowell's speculations about
> canals and cities on Mars. He wasn't afraid to discuss those topics with
> the public like you seem to be. He used the scientific method to
> deconstruct and critique those ideas.
He also knew and explained the difference between reality and fantasy. The
planets revolve around the sun and there aren't canals and cities on Mars so
why should they be discussed in science classes. Fantasy Lit. maybe but not
science.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Dick C wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote in talk.origins
>
> >
> >
> > Dick C wrote:
> >> Well, most americans actually want their kids to receive a useful
> >> education, not something that will relegate them to working in a drive
> >> through for the rest of their lives.
> >>
> > Does training in evolution prevent working the drive-thru?
>
> No, but learning science helps prepare the children for a better job.
>
I think we've gone from providing children with something to argue
about, Creationism (etc.) vs Evolutionism (etc.) to not teaching science
at all. I would never say that we shouldn't teach science.
> Learning religion instead prevents preparation. You may want to check out
> what happens to kids who go to many of the Christian colleges after
> graduation. They oftentimes end up going to a real university in order
> to get a useful degree, and their time in the Christian school does not
> help.
>
What did they get a degree in in the Christian college?
> >> Many parents are ignorant of science, and they act stupidly if they try
> >> to push religion, and exclude science. And one does not need to be a
> >> researcher to learn science, or to find it useful.
> >>
> > One could even learn science and work the drive-thru.
>
> like you want to work at one?
>
I'm trying to say that whatever the person's lot in life is immaterial
to whether or not they can and should learn science. There are people
who work the drive thru that probably know something about science. What
about that guy who just surfs all the time (except when he skis) and now
thinks he has some Theory Of Everything?
> >> It is far better to understand how things work than it is to blindly
> >> accept what someone tells you. By remaining ignorant you are far more
> >> likely to fall for some bs idea and fail to take appropriate measures.
> >> And I mean in many different areas including medicine.
> >>
> > You are making an argument for learning a lot of different things and
> > considering them all. What does augmenting evolution with other
> > possibilities do to reduce that?
>
> How is forcing religion down our students throats augmenting evolution?
>
1) I'm not talking about forcing anything.
2) I'm talking about thinking beyond just what is termed "evolution".
3) I realize this is a tough sell around here.
> It doesn't. As a matter of fact, it takes time away from teaching valid
> science, and confuses the issues.
>
I think that limiting things to one idea when there are really possible
both internal and external factors is itself limiting.
> Creationism and its' crossdressing child,
>
"Its crossdressing child". There is no "its'" in English. "It's" is a
contraction of "It is". "Its" is a possessive.
> ID, are pure religion. They have
> no place in public schools, and most especially, no place in science class.
> There is no Intelligent Design theory, there is no Creation science.
>
I know you want to disbelieve but that's not what this is about.
Children should be able to see more than just one view of origins. And
since evolution doesn't even really speak to that, discussing it will
require more than just Darwinism.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
David Johnston wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:54:09 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Simpson wrote:
> >>
> >> Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
> >> > curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
> >> > the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
> >> > explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
> >> > this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
> >> > us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
> >>
> >> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
> >>
> >That's why they spent decades looking for neutrinos even though the
> >numbers of so-called neutrinos didn't add up to what was predicted.
>
> Yes it is.
>
They should've just dumped the theory and come up with something that
was the "most *observable* explanation".
> >
> >> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
> >> contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
> >> created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
> >>
> >How do you know?
>
> It's inherent in the nature of the Designer. Since it has magically
> unlimited powers and no physical nature, it's impossible to look for
> evidence of it.
>
Why is a Designer that way necessarily? If we went to a different solar
system and planted man made bugs there, would we be a "Designer"?
> >> rather than the result of
> >> *observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
> >> life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
> >> does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
> >> science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
> >> should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
> >> *observable* phenomena.
> >>
> >So let's dump string theory right now.
>
> Observable and observed are not the same thing.
>
So you think there's some fundamental reason why science can't engage
even in the broadest aspects of External Directed Impulse? Is SETI
science?
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
So is string theory. Now you might make a mathematical argument for
string theory, but that's different.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
I thought that the latest version of science had concluded that those
were water gullies seen from spacecraft orbiting the red planet. But
science class is *a* place to discuss how someone looking up at the sky
got the idea that there "canals", if that's even a true version of what
the individual claimed, on Mars, or that the Earth is the centre of the
universe, etc.
Jim Lovejoy
I must have misunderstood your argument for allowing teaching alternatives
to science.
From the context, it seemed that you were talking about public schools, in
popular parlence that means K-12.
If you want to teach something in graduate school, go for it!
David Johnston
Nobody's teaching string theory in school. But I'm skeptical of your
equation of string theory with ID anyway. When I looked this up:
http://www.superstringtheory.com/experm/exper4.html
It claimed that there are in principle experiments that can be
performed based on predictions of string theory. That is not true of
ID. ID can never be tested.
David Johnston
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>David Johnston wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:54:09 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Simpson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Unfortunately for our students, those in control of the science
>> >> > curriculum have defined science in such a narrow way that only
>> >> > the theory of evolution is allowed to be considered as the
>> >> > explanation for all of the varied life forms on Earth. They do
>> >> > this by demanding a "natural" explanation for the evidence before
>> >> > us, rather than the most "logical" explanation of the evidence.
>> >>
>> >> No... they demand the most *observable* explanation of the evidence.
>> >>
>> >That's why they spent decades looking for neutrinos even though the
>> >numbers of so-called neutrinos didn't add up to what was predicted.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>They should've just dumped the theory and come up with something that
>was the "most *observable* explanation".
If they could have they would have. However, looking for more
observations is always good.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >> Intelligent Design can produce no *observable* evidence to support the
>> >> contention that the astounding variety of life we see around us was
>> >> created by an unseen Designer out whole cloth
>> >>
>> >How do you know?
>>
>> It's inherent in the nature of the Designer. Since it has magically
>> unlimited powers and no physical nature, it's impossible to look for
>> evidence of it.
>>
>Why is a Designer that way necessarily?
I am not talking about "a" Designer. I'm talking about "the"
Designer.
If we went to a different solar
>system and planted man made bugs there, would we be a "Designer"?
No. We're alive. Hence we are ineligible to be an explanation for
the origin of life because the origin of life must predate us and all
other life.
>
>
>
>
>> >> rather than the result of
>> >> *observable* chemical and biological processes in which more complex
>> >> life forms evolved from simpler life forms. This is not to say that life
>> >> does not contain an unobservable component. But that is not the realm of
>> >> science, it is more the realm of religious philosophy and, as such,
>> >> should not be taught as science, which confines itself to the study of
>> >> *observable* phenomena.
>> >>
>> >So let's dump string theory right now.
>>
>> Observable and observed are not the same thing.
>>
>So you think there's some fundamental reason why science can't engage
>even in the broadest aspects of External Directed Impulse?
Absolutely.
Is SETI
>science?
SETI is looking for living things, or things created by living things.
No living thing can be the origin of life. SETI has nothing to do
with ID.