http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

8/3/2005 8:16:40 AM

"Why dont you tell them the story about the rabbit and the cereal. Oh yeah, thats trix.
I get the two mixed up because they are both fake." [/american dad]

8/3/2005 8:40:00 AM

You should try reading the article. Or knowing the difference between creationism and intelligent design. Intelligent design is not Adam and Eve and the snake. It's saying that the start of the universe wasn't random.

Next time try having a clue before you post

8/3/2005 9:42:33 AM

I wasn't taught anything about the beginning of the universe. They dont teach stuff that can be described as "pure speculation".

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 9:46 AM. Reason : spekewlayshun]

8/3/2005 9:45:55 AM

^^ next time try to have a shred of evidence to support that bullshit

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 9:46 AM. Reason : *]

8/3/2005 9:46:03 AM

Yes, because ID is based in and proven by so much more science than creationism...

"The world is only 6000 years old, but god is playing a trick to make us believe that it is actually millions of years old."

8/3/2005 9:46:39 AM

Quote :

"Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.""

sounds fair to me, dont you fuckwads bitch and moan about keeping an open mind?

Quote :

"Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories."

heaven forbid the man have his own opinion

you mother fuckers will find anything to bitch and moan about

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 10:01 AM. Reason : *]

8/3/2005 10:00:14 AM

Quote :

" you mother fuckers will find anything to bitch and moan about"

well, this is the Soap Box.

also,

Quote :

"You should try reading the article. Or knowing the difference between creationism and intelligent design. Intelligent design is not Adam and Eve and the snake. It's saying that the start of the universe wasn't random."

8/3/2005 10:12:14 AM

I'm glad that the president is finally showing some intellectual integrity by speaking out about intelligent design. Its about time that competing theories about our origins get the consideration they deserve. Hopefully the intelligent design debate will rekindle other long standing and unresolved debates in science such as the debate between chemistry and alchemy and the debate between astrology and astronomy. Its would be great to finally see these subjects finally get the academic respect they deserve.

8/3/2005 10:16:58 AM

intelligent design can't stand up to any scientific standard. it is at best metaphysical speculation. if there is no supporting evidence or scientific reasoning as to why a theory should be presented, it should not be presented in a science class. intelligent design could be taught in a religion or philosophy class. i would be fine with that, because that's where it belongs.

i'm not saying ID has no place in public schools. it just doesn't belong in science classes.

8/3/2005 10:22:25 AM

Intelligent Design has no ties with science. Until they find any shred of evidence to support ID it should stay where it belongs (in philosophy classes).

I mean with the Big Bang you have background radiation, universe is expanding, and other observable phenomena that suggest this could have happened.

Intelligent Design is more like look at how complicated the world is, that is evidence for a "guiding hand." I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught, just that it really doesn't belong in a biology class.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 10:24 AM. Reason : ^haha we both posted almost the exact same thing]

8/3/2005 10:23:43 AM

That I can agree with. ID isnt at this point a science, so it should stay out of science classes.

8/3/2005 10:26:05 AM

I suppose I have no qualms with people learning about ID or studying it in further detail. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and I'm the last person in the world who has any authority to tell other people what to believe. I just think that ID is bullshit from a scientific point of view, and as such has no place in a science classroom. I could live with it being taught in a religious or philosophy classroom, though.

So pretty much what ^ and ^^ said.

8/3/2005 10:30:52 AM

i think they should teach scientology.

8/3/2005 10:39:37 AM

My problem is the idea that the intelligent design theory, as it stands now (a front for backwards ideals from 2 millenia ago), is a pseudo scientific theory. It is not a scientific theory, it does not use the scientific method, it does not work within the confines of modern science, and it therefore has no place in science classes. Every single instance of an argument for intelligent design contains contradictions and logical fallacies, and therefore, again, has no place in science classrooms. The article I just linked to has a good, concise introduction to the theory of evolution.

To understand the problems with Intelligent Design, first it is important to understand the theory it is attempting to oppose, evolution by natural selection. The theory is this: If organisms reproduce, offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), a variability of traits exists, and the environment cannot sustain all the members of an increasingly large population, then those members of the population that have poorly-adapted traits (to their environment) will die out, and those with well-adapted traits (to their environment) will prosper (Darwin 459). Over a long period of time, this process leads to extreme complexity, and adaptedness.

The article mentions several arguments put forth by intelligent design proponents, such as irreducible complexity, originated by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box. The term "irreducible complexity" is defined by Behe as: "a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." One example of this is the vertebrate eye, which Behe and others argue is nonfunctional if incomplete, and therefore could not have evolved. This is, of course, ridiculous. They completely ignore the fact that evolution doesn't work like this; you don't start out with a pupil, then the nerve endings, irises, lenses, etc evolving later. The eye likely started out as a photo sensor - a way to detect light - then evolved from there. This argument is apparently never mentioned by Behe, and his theory is therefore scientifically invalid.

A related but even less defensible theory is specified complexity, whose existence isn't even assured by the author who proposes it, so I don't see any reason to really talk about it except to tell you that the idea is this: Dembsky argues that for something to be complex, it must have "multiple possible outcomes." He says that if something can be predicted to happen with certainty, it is not Specified Complexity. In this way he precludes any deterministic explanation of Specified Complexity, thus making it require some external designer by definition.

One of the more convincing theories, though easily shrugged off, is that of the "fine-tuned universe." Basically, there are several constants in our universe that allow life to exist, for physics to work in such a way that the universe can actually continue, and so on. If the strong nuclear force were to have been as little as 2% stronger (relative to the other forces), all hydrogen would have been converted into helium. If it were 5% weaker, no helium at all would have formed and there would be nothing but hydrogen. If the weak nuclear force were a little stronger, supernovas could not occur, and heavy elements could not have formed. If it were slightly weaker, only helium might have formed.

If the electromagnetic forces were stronger, all stars would be red dwarfs, and there would be no planets. If it were a little weaker, all stars would be very hot and short-lived. If the electron charge were ever so slightly different, there would be no chemistry as we know it. Carbon (12C) only just managed to form in the primal nucleosynthesis. And so on." The argument against this theory is closely related to the saying "I think, therefore I am." Namely, since the universe does exist as it does, and we are alive, and physics does work the way it does, that predetermines the universe being "fine tuned." The fact that it's fine tuned doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone tuned it beforehand or whether this happened out of complete chance.

There is a concept of falsifiability in science, which says that scientific theories must be able to be proven true or false. By the very definition of a scientific theory, there has to be evidence for or against a theory, and if it cannot be proven true or false, it is not a valid theory. A theory that cannot ever be proven false or true is 100% a pseudo scientific theory. These theories are often created this way on purpose, in order to allow the arguments for them to continue indefinitely. We can never prove that there is a creator unless when we die we do indeed go to heaven and meet god and sit on fluffly clouds with wings and harps, but there is no way *on Earth* to prove the idea of intelligent design true or false. It is therefore not scientific, should not be taught in schools, and certainly is not a valid argument against evolution. Evolution, on the other hand, can someday be proven true or false. All a valid scientific theory needs is one piece of evidence that contradicts the theory, and it is proven false. This has yet to happen with evolution.

8/3/2005 11:18:49 AM

until any one has been proven 100% right or wrong, it is best to keep an open mind and discuss all theories.

because that is all any of them are, theories

8/3/2005 11:24:44 AM

Yes, but there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

8/3/2005 11:25:38 AM

no, there is a difference between a theory proper and theory vernacular.

8/3/2005 11:41:14 AM

Quote :

"^^ next time try to have a shred of evidence to support that bullshit"

I'm not sure if that was in reply to my post. I did not support any of the theories; I just described what was written in the article and what the article said about Intelligent design.

8/3/2005 11:54:01 AM

yes. but. intelligent. design. is. inherently. unscientific. because. it. has. no. evidence. to. support. it. and. therefore. does. not. belong. in. the. science. classromm.

8/3/2005 11:56:53 AM

There is no difference between religon and science.

trying to exclude Intelligent Design based on some criteria of being "un-scientific" is absurd (unless you can explain to me what that criteria).

ID should be excluded because it is wrong, not because it's "psuedo-scientific".

Quote :

"My problem is the idea that the intelligent design theory, as it stands now (a front for backwards ideals from 2 millenia ago), is a pseudo scientific theory. It is not a scientific theory, it does not use the scientific method"

-DirtyGreek

What is the scientific method? I have never seen one that stood up to scrutiny.

Don't you engineers have to take PHI 351?

8/3/2005 11:59:03 AM

Are you fucking kidding?

8/3/2005 12:05:09 PM

^ excellent argument.

8/3/2005 12:08:39 PM

Quote :

"ID should be excluded because it is wrong, not because it's "psuedo-scientific"."

just calling something "wrong" without any explanation is, by definition, pseudoscientific. You can't just say that creationism or id is "wrong," because you have no proof of that. In fact, it's not provable that creationism is wrong, because you'd have to prove there's no God, which is also not possible. Therefore, creationism could be right (though I don't believe it is) or it could be wrong. Since there's no falsifiability involved - no way to prove it's wrong - it's pseudoscience. And, most likely, it was created that way on purpose.

as for the scientific method:

Quote :

"Introduction to the Scientific Method The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory. I. The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. "

for more, ask mr. google

8/3/2005 12:09:35 PM

Quote :

"Are you fucking kidding?"

My thoughts exactly.

There is no spoon. Our reality has a probability of being false, so everything we see is prorobly incorrect blah blah blah blah.

Argument from uncertainty has its place, but this is just zzzzzzz.

8/3/2005 12:10:09 PM

Quote :

"Intelligent Design has no ties with science. Until they find any shred of evidence to support ID it should stay where it belongs (in philosophytheology classes)."

ID is a fucking joke that has no basis in science.

I'm sorry, but if you don't "believe" in evolution, you have no understanding of biology. Please stay the fuck out of any scientific field.

8/3/2005 12:12:11 PM

Quote :

"intelligent design can't stand up to any scientific standard."

8/3/2005 12:15:25 PM

I wouldn't bring Philosophic beliefs into any scientific discussion.

Any skeptic can undermine the scientific theory by arguing the actual reality of precieved input.
Then debate would degenerate into seperate speculation and thought experiments and at the end of the day absolutely no knowledge would be gained, just insight into the views of another human being.

The true beauty of science and the scientific method is that its moved beyond circular arguments and assumes our reality is whatever it is and tries to explain it. Not define it. This is why philosophy ceased to be a science quite some time ago.

"ID" would fall under the realm of philosophy.

8/3/2005 12:27:19 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't bring Philosophic beliefs into any scientific discussion. Any skeptic can undermine the scientific theory by arguing the actual reality of precieved input. Then debate would degenerate into seperate speculation and thought experiments and at the end of the day absolutely no knowledge would be gained, just insight into the views of another human being. The true beauty of science and the scientific method is that its moved beyond circular arguments and assumes our reality is whatever it is and tries to explain it. Not define it. This is why philosophy ceased to be a science quite some time ago. "ID" would fall under the realm of philosophy."

I'm Johnne Smith and I approved this entire post.

8/3/2005 12:34:57 PM

DirtyGreek,

If you are going to bring up falsifiability as a criteria for being "scientific" (first proposed by philosopher Karl Popper), you should really be willing to take it to its logical limit. Using the falsifiability criteria the theory of evolution is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable, in the same way so the theory of gravity. Let me explain...

Let's say I hypothesize that there is a force called "gravity" that will attract an apple to ground when I drop it. To test this hypothesis I drop an apple. When I do, the apple just hangs in the air. What should we conclude? That gravity is false? Not neccessarily. It could be that another force is acting on the apple that is stronger than gravity. You see, any time we test a hyothesis we test a bundle of hypothesis. In this case, we test the hypothesis that there is a force called gravity and that there is no other force stronger than gravity acting on the apple. So anytime we have an experiment with a result we don't like, we could just reject one of the other hypothesis we are testing to preserve the hypothesis we want (in this case the hypothesis of a force called gravity).

So from here we could try to test for another force than gravity acting on the apple, but this requires another test with a whole new bundle of assumptions, which we could reject any one of to preserve the hypothesis that we like, just as before. So really almost nothing we propose can be falsified, and everything we consider to be science isn't. Karl Popper was well aware of this problem, and did his best to get around it, but not successfully.

---

As far as your copy and pasted scientific method it's obviously inaccurate, as we just discussed. We cannot test a single hypothesis at a time. Instead, we test bundles of hypothesis. And when our results reject one bundle, we can re-arrange the bundle to preserve the hypothesis we like. Just like we did earlier. So if we can't reject or accept a hypothesis, how can it ever grow up to be a theory? You know, there's a reason you will see this method in middle school textbooks, but not in college courses in the philosophy of science.

Dr. Austin actually teaches a course on the Scientific Method, I believe. It's graduate level, but it's worth while taking.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ``]

8/3/2005 12:42:28 PM

um, the scientific method is the scientific method. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's only found in middle school textbooks, but the "obviously wrong" version I pasted was from rochester university

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading3

and, if your (obviously at least partially correct) description of testing a hypothesis is true, then we can't ever be sure that any scientific theory is correct, no matter what. This is a very real philosophical conundrum, but it doesn't mean that falsifiability isn't a viable way to decide whether something is a valid hypothesis.

8/3/2005 12:56:24 PM

yes its automatically wrong because we cant proove/disproove it

goddamn you people are fucking narrow

8/3/2005 12:57:04 PM

nobody is saying it's wrong. it is UNSCIENTIFIC, and therefore should NOT be in the science classroom.

8/3/2005 1:00:36 PM

exactly. In fact, I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT IT COULDN'T BE CALLED WRONG.

Quote :

"just calling something "wrong" without any explanation is, by definition, pseudoscientific. You can't just say that creationism or id is "wrong," because you have no proof of that. In fact, it's not provable that creationism is wrong, because you'd have to prove there's no God, which is also not possible. Therefore, creationism could be right (though I don't believe it is) or it could be wrong. Since there's no falsifiability involved - no way to prove it's wrong - it's pseudoscience."

reading comprehension skills? priceless

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2005 1:08:40 PM

DirtyGreek

like i said, you wont see it in a philosphy of science class.

and you didn't say anything to contradict my argument. Remember falsification is YOUR criteria for science. I realize that it makes everything in science unscientific, THAT'S THE POINT.

And i'll still be damned if I can find a way to discern "science" from psuedoscience.

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ``]

8/3/2005 1:14:54 PM

how about this argument instead:

IT'S GODDAMNED STUPID FUCKING BULLSHIT AND SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING TAUGHT IN A SCIENCE CLASS.

8/3/2005 1:17:04 PM

Quote :

"and you didn't say anything to contradict my argument. Remember falsification is YOUR criteria for science. I realize that it makes everything in science unscientific, THAT'S THE POINT."

I just really don't see how this adds anything to the conversation. I mean, so we can teach that strawberries are the creators of all life and nobody could disprove it.

All it is is mental masturbation. I'm not saying its bad, just the value it adds is lacking.

8/3/2005 1:22:20 PM

Quote :

"I'm glad that the president is finally showing some intellectual integrity by speaking out about intelligent design. Its about time that competing theories about our origins get the consideration they deserve. Hopefully the intelligent design debate will rekindle other long standing and unresolved debates in science such as the debate between chemistry and alchemy and the debate between astrology and astronomy. Its would be great to finally see these subjects finally get the academic respect they deserve."

that's my dog

but seriously folks

the more you know... doo doo doo

8/3/2005 1:24:34 PM

Quote :

"I just really don't see how this adds anything to the conversation. I mean, so we can teach that strawberries are the creators of all life and nobody could disprove it. All it is is mental masturbation. I'm not saying its bad, just the value it adds is lacking."

-Armabond1

The entire POINT of this conversation is whether we should teach ID in schools. Some people, like DirtyGreek and almost everyone else in the thread, say that we should not because it is unscientific. If we cannot even discern what is or is not scientific, then how IN THE HELL are we suppose to reject IS because it is unscientific?

This IS the fucking conversation.

8/3/2005 1:33:56 PM

Quote :

"nobody is saying it's wrong. it is UNSCIENTIFIC, and therefore should NOT be in the science classroom."

Socks``

Quote :

"ID should be excluded because it is wrong, not because it's "psuedo-scientific"."

Quote :

"reading comprehension skills? priceless"

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 1:37 PM. Reason : *]

8/3/2005 1:33:59 PM

you people are funny

trying to take us back into the stone age

how fucking quaint

OH FIRE, SO SCARY

WHO BRING THE THUNDER AND THE LIGHTNING

fucking grow up

8/3/2005 1:36:25 PM

Quote :

"The entire POINT of this conversation is whether we should teach ID in schools. Some people, like DirtyGreek and almost everyone else in the thread, say that we should not because it is unscientific. If we cannot even discern what is or is not scientific, then how IN THE HELL are we suppose to reject IS because it is unscientific? This IS the fucking conversation. "

Your entire point was that everything is unscientific, which means everything and anything can be presented as science. That adds nothing.

8/3/2005 1:37:11 PM

way to [not] get it

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ^^]

8/3/2005 1:37:11 PM

Armabond1, If we don't know what is scientific, how can we reject something for unscientific??? Rub those two brain cells together and you will understand.

Lokken, seems like I read the post just right. Thanks.

8/3/2005 1:40:46 PM

I understand that your whole point is finding another reason besides it being "unscientific." I'm saying thats impossible, and hence, adds no value.

Regardless, we have had a working definition for centuries now and it seems to have worked fine. So whining and crying over philosophical nuances in defintion ADD NO VALUE.

Yes I realize what this conversation was about, and I stick to what I said earlier. ID has no place in scientific theory or classes.

I mean I usually enjoy your method of arguing and using uncertainty, but its just getting tired.


[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ed]

8/3/2005 1:41:52 PM

^^ no no, i wasnt talking to you.

SMath said noone said it was wrong, i just used your quote to prove that incorrect. then mocked Dirty Greek

[Edited on August 3, 2005 at 1:42 PM. Reason : *]

8/3/2005 1:42:12 PM

^ Oh my bad. it's hard to pick up on sarcasm on the intarweb.

Armabond1, consider it defeats the entire argument that ID is unscientific it sounds very fucking relevant. Just because you don't like the conclusion, or think it's too hard, doesn't mena it isn't relevant.

Greek's argument is wrong like I explained. If you want to keep ID out of skools you will have to come up with a new one. VERY FUCKING relevant.

8/3/2005 1:52:54 PM

Quote :

"Armabond1, consider it defeats the entire argument that ID is unscientific it sounds very fucking relevant. Just because you don't like the conclusion, or think it's too hard, doesn't mena it isn't relevant. "

Yeah it defeats the argument at the cost of saying EVERYTHING is unscientific, which leads to even more problems.

Do you even work in a scientific field?

8/3/2005 2:00:18 PM

I fully support having ID thought in public schools when the parents and their representatives in a district or state are for it, even though I think its horribly wrong.

All so that when little Johny comes home talking about how some mystical figure created everything in the universe, more people will realize and how bad of an idea it is to have government be the only entity to administer public education. (still fund it and require it, just dont run the schools, k)

8/3/2005 2:17:14 PM

Quote :

"I fully support having ID thought in public schools"

I most certainly DO NOT, in any situation.

American schools, pre-college, are AWFUL at teaching science already. I didn't get a glimpse at serious biology until my senior year of high school when I took AP Bio--and I was at very good schools.

Teaching this crap puts kids at a serious disadvantage when they attempt to go into a scientific field, and thus gives other countries the research edge.

I mean, if you want to personally believe that evolution is false, that's fine. You're welcome to that. BUT STAY THE FUCK OUT OF SCIENCE OR MEDICINE.

8/3/2005 2:25:46 PM