^^^ how in the fuck did you get into college?

Quote :

"This is absolutely wrong. There IS no scientific proof behind "intelligent design", primarily because it is fundamentally unscientific. There is no data to support it because it has nothing to do with any actual data. It cannot be measured. It cannot be tested. It can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a nonscientific theory.""

that is EXACTLY why it shouldn't be mentioned in any science class. you want that shit, you get it at sunday fucking school. but you're all too lazy to get your asses out of bed by 9 on sunday morning so you want it in science class at 1:15 on thursdays.

[Edited on December 22, 2005 at 12:09 PM. Reason : *]

12/22/2005 12:09:19 PM

everybody knows darwin was right. what's the argument here.

12/22/2005 12:11:08 PM

I can't believe people are STILL arguing this. Seriously, there is no fucking way you can logically or reasonable argue the judge's decision.

If you want it in schools, change the fucking laws.

12/22/2005 12:46:19 PM

or bring a gun to school, yell all crazy-like that they're about to meet their maker, and if they don't believe in intelligent design, well, then they're just gonna DIE

12/22/2005 1:12:10 PM

and

12/22/2005 2:10:17 PM

i love it

you can always tell the absolute dumbest people

they find cartoons that they think are clever to highlight their opinion

the soapbox is full of them

12/22/2005 2:47:06 PM

i love it

you can always tell the absolute dumbest people

they post stupid retorts that they think are clever to highlight their opinion

TWW is full of them

12/22/2005 3:23:08 PM

i love it

you can always tell the absolute dumbest people

they post stupid reproductions of the previous post with what they think are poignant changes that undermine the original

TWW is full of them


... oh, wait.

12/22/2005 6:28:01 PM

im gonna repost joshnumbers post on this page:

Quote :

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

-Exerpt from the judges ruling. Couldnt have said it better myself.

/thread.

12/22/2005 6:31:38 PM

Quote :

" You are not any more superior than anyone else - peopl ehave disagreeing views. Schools are not the place to be indoctrinating students into your ridiculous anti-Christian mindsets."

But not all views are equally valid and I believe sufficiently dumb views fully deserve to be mocked. Seriously, have you ever read Dembski's work on complexity and compared it to work done by, say, some of the guys at Santa Fe Institute?

12/22/2005 10:37:10 PM

If we can teach ID then we should certainly be able to teach that the universe was created by an FSM.

http://www.venganza.org/

12/22/2005 11:33:55 PM

well...this thread certainly degraded more slowly than i thought it would

12/23/2005 5:27:06 PM

FSM would be an example of ID

12/23/2005 6:05:07 PM

not teaching students anything seems to be the current compromise.

12/23/2005 8:30:25 PM

12/24/2005 4:54:00 PM

^gamesetmatch

12/24/2005 5:29:34 PM

it's hilarious how many of you equate intellegent design with stupidity. arguments for intellegent design have been growing stronger than ever over the past several years among scientists. that's why there was a debate in the first place over whether to teach it alongside the other "theory" of evolution. antony flew, perhaps the most well-respected atheist philosopher of the past 50 years, has recently abandoned his atheism due to irreconcilable evidence for intellegent design. not necessarily the christian god, but "a" god nonetheless. so before you call out intellegent design proponents for being "retards," you might want to see the evidence for yourself. there are people that have devoted their lives to studying this subject, i would tend to think they know more on this subject than we do. i would suggest reading michael behe's "darwin's black box" or phillip johnson's "darwin on trial."

Quote :

" For years, Antony Flew has been a figurehead for atheists. Now, though, he has abandoned his atheism and accepted the existence of God. In a recent interview for Philosophia Christi with Gary Habermas, Flew explained his new beliefs. Though Flew has not embraced Christianity, he now accepts the existence of God, saying that he “had to go where the evidence leads”. For Flew, it is the argument from design that shows that the existence of God is probable. He has been impressed by recent scientific developments that suggest that the universe is the product of intelligent design. “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design,” explains Flew. Some atheists have tried to explain Flew’s shift in thinking by his age; Flew is now 81, and so, it has been suggested, is professing belief in God just in case he soon has to give account of his life to his Maker. That is clearly not the case; Flew remains adamant that there is no afterlife—disembodied existence, he maintains (as he has always maintained) is impossible. In any case, Flew is not professing the kind of belief that any religion says will get you into heaven; he still rejects all purported divine revelation, including the Bible, the Koran, and any other example you’d care to mention. There’s no way that Flew, suddenly facing his own mortality, is trying to cover his bases just in case God exists. What has happened, is seems, is what he says has happened: he has gone where the evidence leads. http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html"

12/24/2005 6:10:24 PM

bttt

12/26/2005 11:46:18 PM

Quote :

"it's hilarious how many of you equate intellegent design with stupidity"

its not if you look at how many of the proponents are misrepresenting it
i mean i beleive in intelligent design, i also beleive in evolution, i also believe that intelligent design has no place in schools

12/26/2005 11:58:09 PM

how are they misrepresenting it?

i too believe in evolution, microevolution that is. evolution within a species. there just isn't enough evidence for macroevolution to win me over. too many holes.

i think intellegent design DOES belong in schools. i don't think they should teach a specific religion or a specific 'god' from it, but the evidence is definitely there for it to be a highly plausible theory to be taught alongside darwinian evolution.

12/27/2005 12:06:23 AM

^ What evidence?

12/27/2005 12:12:57 AM

start with 'irreducible complexity'

do a search on google.

12/27/2005 12:18:15 AM

Quote :

"how are they misrepresenting it?"

by equating intelligent design with the creation story
i believe that evolution is how intelligent design was carried out and that intelligent design explains the "why", something that is outside the scope of a biology class

12/27/2005 12:24:01 AM

prep-e: start with "reading the fucking verdict"

Then come back here and tell us how it should be taught in schools.

It DOESNT MATTER IF IT'S TRUE OR FALSE, PLAUSIBLE OR NOT. Its NOT falsifiable, its NOT science, its not allowed to be taught in our schools.

As was elegantly pointed out in his verdict, the inclusion of ANYTHING supernatural in ANY theory removes it from the scientific realm.

So before you come in hear, spouting the same IGNORANT, MISINFORMED Christian propaganda that we have all been trying to avoid, why don't you inform yourself first.

If you want it taught in schools, you need to change the damn laws. Which is outside this discussion.

12/27/2005 12:32:43 AM

Quote :

"by equating intelligent design with the creation story"

i agree with you that this WOULD be wrong, but it's not what's happening on the greater part. sure there are some people that are going to say that the intellegent "designer" was God, specifically the Christian God. but it's beside the point. religion doesn't necessarily need to enter the equation (nor should it) in the classroom along with intellegent design.

12/27/2005 12:33:13 AM

biology is about explaining how things happen, specifically sciences
if you want to know why, take some philosophy and theology courses

12/27/2005 12:35:24 AM

when in introduction to biology 2 years ago, we covered survival of the fittest and natural selection, which were what darwin actually studied (don't know why everyone credits him with evolution, I don't think he ever really mentioned that word or idea as a theory)

Anyways, some slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing yokel raises his hand, and with his distinct drawl that would make dale earnhardt jr. sound like an intellectual, he asked this (and I quote):

"If we descended from monkies, how are there still monkies?"

I couldn't understand how anyone could believe that idea so much they speak out in a class of 250+... much less ask the question in a demeaning way to the instructor who was trying her hardest not to completely decimate that kid (all she had to do was tell the kid that had he been listening within the last 20 minutes of class, he would have heard of the idea that a species evolves in two ways--one from a small isolated group that came from the larger group and had become geographically isolated, and adapted, and the other I can't recall) but she just did the mature thing and decided to move on.

this thread reminds me of this, mainly in the first parts ("Your great great uncle was a monkey." ) -- well minues the mature part, and the moving on part...

Regardless it is beyond me how anyone can completely close their mind to cold hard scientific observations and empirical arguments...

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 12:37 AM. Reason : mmma]

12/27/2005 12:36:05 AM

the question wasnt really that dumb

12/27/2005 12:38:29 AM

Quote :

"It DOESNT MATTER IF IT'S TRUE OR FALSE, PLAUSIBLE OR NOT. Its NOT falsifiable, its NOT science, its not allowed to be taught in our schools."

so by that same definition of science, you should be outraged that they are teaching evolution since it is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

Quote :

"So before you come in hear, spouting the same IGNORANT, MISINFORMED Christian propaganda that we have all been trying to avoid, why don't you inform yourself first."

in order for you to fairly call me "misinformed" you would have to know for certain what the correct answer is to be able to judge my inaccuracy. you do NOT know for certain, and neither do i, they are THEORIES. so you might want to stop making ad hominem attacks while everyone loses their intellectual respect for you.

12/27/2005 12:41:19 AM

Quote :

"i agree with you that this WOULD be wrong, but it's not what's happening on the greater part. sure there are some people that are going to say that the intellegent "designer" was God, specifically the Christian God. but it's beside the point. religion doesn't necessarily need to enter the equation (nor should it) in the classroom along with intellegent design."

Yes it is. One of the things that sealed the case AGAINST intelligent design, was the existance of the textbooks during the editing process.

They simply REPLACED "creationism" with "intelligent design" in over 150 instances. Then renamed the book.

You as a Christian are being completely brainwashed by your own damn community on this. Intelligent Design is not some new theory. It's not based on any new evidence, either scientifically or theologically. None of the respected theologians are touching it and outside the US, it's laughed at by religious and non-religious alike.

READ THE FUCKING VERDICT.

12/27/2005 12:42:21 AM

Quote :

"so by that same definition of science, you should be outraged that they are teaching evolution since it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. "

How can you honestly say that? Do you even KNOW what falsifiable MEANS?

Quote :

"Falsifiable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation"

With evolution, as a theory, we CAN WATCH species over time and actually SEE if they change. So far, every single study on evolution (microevolution) has confirmed the theory that genetic mutations occur over time and affect the survivability of species.

With intelligent design there is no way to TEST the validity of the claims through experiment or observation.

Quote :

"in order for you to fairly call me "misinformed" you would have to know for certain what the correct answer is to be able to judge my inaccuracy. you do NOT know for certain, and neither do i, they are THEORIES. so you might want to stop making ad hominem attacks while everyone loses their intellectual respect for you."

No I don't. You are misinformed because based on your statements you haven't read the actual court decision, so you have NO IDEA what was said or the reasons for the decision.

YOU ARE SPEAKING ON FUCKING ASSUMPTION. I am NOT talking about the validity of intelligent design. I am talking about whether it should be taught in our schools. And it shouldn't.

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 12:49 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2005 12:47:08 AM

Quote :

"so by that same definition of science, you should be outraged that they are teaching evolution since it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. "

Bullshit. Current theories of evolution are falsifiable.

Just to give an example, if a new species that has no relation to any known lifeform were to magically appear out of nowhere, that would do it.

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 12:52 AM. Reason : forgot to include the quote]

12/27/2005 12:52:32 AM

Noen, get over yourself. seriously.

there is a huge difference between creationism and intellegent design.

intellegent design says:

there is reasonable evidence to show that there was an intellegent designer.
here is the evidence and why.

creationism says:

an intellegent designer is responsible for how we came to be.
that designer is the Christian God.
and specifically, the Genesis account is how it took place.

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 12:56 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2005 12:56:02 AM

what evidence? name one fucking shred of evidence offered by ID.

12/27/2005 12:59:33 AM

but nothing about intelligent design makes it so it should be taught in schools
the judge does a good job explaining why

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 1:01 AM. Reason : ^the shear complexity of life is evidence to me]

12/27/2005 1:00:18 AM

^^moonman, read my earlier post. start w/ "irreducible complexity" and i'll be glad to give you more after that. send me a pm if you want.

Quote :

"falsify One entry found for falsify. Main Entry: fal·si·fy Pronunciation: 'fol-s&-"fI Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing Etymology: Middle English falsifien, from Middle French falsifier, from Medieval Latin falsificare, from Latin falsus transitive senses 1 : to prove or declare false "

good old Webster's dictionary.
a "theory" can not be proven, or else it would no longer be a theory.
but evolution is a theory.

on that note, i rest my case. if you come up with any good arguments, send me a pm. goodnight.

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 1:03 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2005 1:01:16 AM

hha all that post did was show why you are wrong again

12/27/2005 1:02:00 AM

^^^^Dude

You are missing my point. I never said EITHER THEORY IS WRONG or UNTRUE. I personally believe there IS something out there. But it has no place being taught as SCIENCE in public schools.

And I challenge you to find a SINGLE piece of evidence for intelligent design that is NOT covered in creationism.

^^

You gave thedefiniton for falsiFY. There is no entry in websters for falsifiable. If you knew the basics of the english language you would understand that

TO falsify something is to prove it false (verb)

To be falsifiable is TO BE ABLE TO prove it false (adjective)

And I will be glad to PM this to you.

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 1:05 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2005 1:02:45 AM

Quote :

"when in introduction to biology 2 years ago, we covered survival of the fittest and natural selection, which were what darwin actually studied (don't know why everyone credits him with evolution, I don't think he ever really mentioned that word or idea as a theory)"

Whether he used the word or not is irrelevant. The guy wrote books titled On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. Just the titles alone are pretty clearly about evolution (and the text definitely is).

12/27/2005 1:02:57 AM

noen if you are trying to say intelligent design is creationism you are wrong

12/27/2005 1:04:00 AM

^ Im not saying they are the same thing. I'm saying they use the same evidence. And the validity of either is not the discussion.

^^ Darwin did NOT believe in evolution as we do. He was a devout Christian and was deeply troubled with his own work.

12/27/2005 1:06:36 AM

ok, i wasnt sure

12/27/2005 1:07:06 AM

Quote :

"hha all that post did was show why you are wrong again"

are you really that thick-headed that you can't admit you're wrong? in order for something to be falsifiable, it must be able to be proved either false or not. evolution, as a whole, is a theory that has not and cannot be proved. is it that hard to understand?

12/27/2005 1:08:52 AM

thats not what even your definition says


[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 1:10 AM. Reason : didnt finish reading your post]

12/27/2005 1:09:32 AM

^^And yes it can be.

If we watch animals over time, and see no identifiable changes, and see no genetic changes, then it's false. How complicated is that?

But we have and do and continue to. Which is why, like ALL science, it is an accepted theory.

To the best of our knowledge and through all experimentation and observation we have done and can do, the theory holds. It does not make it fact, or the ultimate truth. But until we can find a case to show the theory to not be true, it will remain an accepted theory.


In the same was we accept 2+2 to equal 4. Mathematics is another theory. Until someone can show a case where addition doesn't work, 2+2 will be accepted to be 4.

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 1:14 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2005 1:12:25 AM

Quote :

"^^ Darwin did NOT believe in evolution as we do. He was a devout Christian and was deeply troubled with his own work."

Uhh, where the fuck did I say that he did? It wouldn't even be possible for him to have the same view we do, considering that the basis of genetics wasn't even established until decades later.

But if you want to argue that his books aren't about evolution, have fun with that one.


And incidentally, he did use the term. Just noticed this closing sentence in Origin of Species:

Quote :

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. "

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 1:20 AM. Reason : quote]

12/27/2005 1:13:43 AM

They formed a basis for what we call evolution. Darwin believed in and wrote about MICRO evolution. He did not believe in or write about MACRO evolution.

Which is still a big shitfest today. Science is mainly studying microevolution, because it's the better of the two to study in the shortterm. To get any base validity to macroevolution will require the analysis of evidence over thousands of years from here into the future.

12/27/2005 1:20:47 AM

Darwin didnt distinguish between micro and macro evolution

12/27/2005 1:23:09 AM

From The Descent of Man:

Quote :

"The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new."

Tell me that isn't about macroevolution.

12/27/2005 1:25:22 AM

[thread]soapbox[/thread]

12/27/2005 1:28:13 AM