Religions > Atheism > In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
04 Dec 2005 03:04:43 AM |
| Object: |
In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 4, 2005
TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution
seems to be building momentum.
In Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students
should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design.
At a trial of the Dover, Pa., school board that ended last month, two
of the movement's leading academics presented their ideas to a
courtroom filled with spectators and reporters from around the world.
President Bush endorsed teaching "both sides" of the debate - a
position that polls show is popular. And Pope Benedict XVI weighed in
recently, declaring the universe an "intelligent project."
Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is
itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the
idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was
intended to be a "big tent" that would attract everyone from biblical
creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to
academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith.
The slogan, "Teach the controversy," has simple appeal in a democracy.
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of
inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for.
It has gained little support among the academics who should have been
its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the
case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's
credibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html
(get a login & password at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com)
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
04 Dec 2005 12:58:46 PM |
|
|
"On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:04:43 -0500, in article
<b4c5p1djbe5ajtl4kskfbn8e92tlfg0lq1@4ax.com>, Jason Spaceman stated..."
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 4, 2005
[...snip...]
The article is also on the web pages of The Huffington Post:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/12/04/intelligent-design-is-fai_n_11665.html>
Should someone think that ID is not a social/political/religious
movement, read some of the responses from readers posted at that
site. The first one, from "Blueto" is interesting (although I wouldn't
be surprised to find it deleted soon), which in part reads:
"In the New York Times. By a reporter named Goodstein.
"Just like the war on Christmas article by a reporter named Cohen.
"It's anti-Christianism, and should be condemned as roundly as
anti-semtism is.
"Christians have had it with this attack on them by the news media."
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
04 Dec 2005 08:22:33 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 4, 2005
TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution
seems to be building momentum.
In Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students
should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design.
At a trial of the Dover, Pa., school board that ended last month, two
of the movement's leading academics presented their ideas to a
courtroom filled with spectators and reporters from around the world.
President Bush endorsed teaching "both sides" of the debate - a
position that polls show is popular. And Pope Benedict XVI weighed in
recently, declaring the universe an "intelligent project."
Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is
itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the
idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was
intended to be a "big tent" that would attract everyone from biblical
creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to
academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith.
The slogan, "Teach the controversy," has simple appeal in a democracy.
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of
inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for.
It has gained little support among the academics who should have been
its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the
case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's
credibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html
(get a login & password at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com)
J. Spaceman
More in the article:
QUOTE:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to
reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants
for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked
proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president
at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from
the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and
later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the
intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of
scientific review," he said.
END QUOTE:
More evidence that ID is just a scam. Here is a foundation coming out
and admitting that they asked for research proposals and got none.
Compare this to West's contribution to the article below:
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
The article ends with:
QUOTE:
Now, with a decision due in four or five weeks, design proponents like
Mr. West of Discovery said the Dover trial was a "sideshow" - one that
will have little bearing on the controversy.
"The future of intelligent design, as far as I'm concerned, has very
little to do with the outcome of the Dover case," Mr. West said. "The
future of intelligent design is tied up with academic endeavors. It
rises or falls on the science."
END QUOTE:
Remember the first quote by the Templeton foundation representative?
They funded some of the ID scam ploys, but found out that it was all
talk. They requested research proposals and got none. What is the
future of ID science if they won't even try to do science? Scam
artists like West have a future perpetuating the scam using their
political savey, but the science won't go anywhere until they actually
try to do some science.
Where is creationism going if they have to depend on dishonest scam
artists like West?
My bet is that most of the creationists believe that it is pretty hot
where guys like that should go.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Dworetsky" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
04 Dec 2005 09:19:28 AM |
|
|
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1133706153.783769.306670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 4, 2005
TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution
seems to be building momentum.
In Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students
should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design.
At a trial of the Dover, Pa., school board that ended last month, two
of the movement's leading academics presented their ideas to a
courtroom filled with spectators and reporters from around the world.
President Bush endorsed teaching "both sides" of the debate - a
position that polls show is popular. And Pope Benedict XVI weighed in
recently, declaring the universe an "intelligent project."
Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is
itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the
idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was
intended to be a "big tent" that would attract everyone from biblical
creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to
academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith.
The slogan, "Teach the controversy," has simple appeal in a democracy.
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of
inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for.
It has gained little support among the academics who should have been
its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the
case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's
credibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Read it at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html
(get a login & password at
http://www.bugmenot.com/view.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com)
J. Spaceman
More in the article:
QUOTE:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to
reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants
for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked
proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president
at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from
the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and
later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the
intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of
scientific review," he said.
END QUOTE:
It's too late for Dover, but come the next trial, any chance the ACLU might
ask a representative of the Templeton Foundation to testify to this? Maybe
with specific details? It would slice through all the claims that ID is
science if they won't even apply for funding to an organisation likely to be
sympathetic.
Has Michael Behe ever applied to them to fund any experimental work on ID?
Like the "thought" experiment about breeding IC bacteria with flagella?
From the qoute, apparently not.
More evidence that ID is just a scam. Here is a foundation coming out
and admitting that they asked for research proposals and got none.
Compare this to West's contribution to the article below:
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
The article ends with:
QUOTE:
Now, with a decision due in four or five weeks, design proponents like
Mr. West of Discovery said the Dover trial was a "sideshow" - one that
will have little bearing on the controversy.
"The future of intelligent design, as far as I'm concerned, has very
little to do with the outcome of the Dover case," Mr. West said. "The
future of intelligent design is tied up with academic endeavors. It
rises or falls on the science."
END QUOTE:
Remember the first quote by the Templeton foundation representative?
They funded some of the ID scam ploys, but found out that it was all
talk. They requested research proposals and got none. What is the
future of ID science if they won't even try to do science? Scam
artists like West have a future perpetuating the scam using their
political savey, but the science won't go anywhere until they actually
try to do some science.
Where is creationism going if they have to depend on dishonest scam
artists like West?
My bet is that most of the creationists believe that it is pretty hot
where guys like that should go.
Ron Okimoto
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
04 Dec 2005 12:42:19 PM |
|
|
"On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:19:28 +0000 (UTC), in article
<dmv1dv$2p4$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
"Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1133706153.783769.306670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 4, 2005
[...snip...]
More in the article:
QUOTE:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to
reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants
for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked
proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president
at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from
the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and
later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the
intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of
scientific review," he said.
END QUOTE:
It's too late for Dover, but come the next trial, any chance the ACLU might
ask a representative of the Templeton Foundation to testify to this? Maybe
with specific details? It would slice through all the claims that ID is
science if they won't even apply for funding to an organisation likely to be
sympathetic.
[...snip...]
The Templeton Foundation web site has a statement about the
possibility of their funding ID projects:
<http://www.templeton.org/topics_in_the_news/Statement_Anti_Evolutionism.pdf>
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
05 Dec 2005 09:03:31 AM |
|
|
I think there are quite a number of reasons. The reason that I think
most of the skeptics here will give is that ID is simply disguised
creationalism and that 4004BC will never be vindicated by any program
of research, and they know it deep down.
The second point is more interesting. If we substitute "Providential
Design" for "Intelligent Design" and do research on the basis that
events were decided in a non statistical way. One example of this being
the substrate in the Gulf of Mexico. If the meterorite had hit Central
Africa the dinosaurs would have survived and we would not be here etc.
The point about this is that evolutionary scientists are keen
themselves to put numbers on probabilities and the Templeton Foundation
does not actually have to persuade anyone to do any extra work. It can
simply save its money and let the drug companies spend it.
I said drug companies. It is important to find strategies to prevent
bacteria from evolving resistance. If anyone could put numbers on SKB,
Glaxo etc. would be listening.
I think that the flagellum is rather a bad example. There were upwards
of 10^20 bacteria on Earth for a billion years or so, each bacterium
havving a fission time of some 2 hr. If one is going to apply tests one
should look at recent evolution. Human evolution since the
Australopithines involves about 10^12 individuals. This is where PD (I
refrain from using ID) would be proved if anywhere. One place to start
would be H.erectus which had Broca's area but could not speak. He could
not speak because his spinal column did not allow for breath control.
If it was the other way round it would make sense. When threatened
H.erectus plunged into a river and swam crawl.
Another area is the whole question of AI. There again people are doing
research completely independently. Google needs more efficient search
engines, The EU needs to cope with its large number of languages and
the CIA needs information collated.
The principle of using GAs to simulate aspects of evolution and the
evolution of intelligence is sound, although in the case of AI Goedel's
theorem tells us that for strong AI GAs are needed anyway, so
approaching AI in an evolutionary way does not help us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glod" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
04 Dec 2005 05:36:22 PM |
|
|
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be better informed about
their field than are a majority of the electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
[snip]
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev Dr Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: CHEZ WATT: First Mummert, now this guy |
06 Dec 2005 09:47:39 PM |
|
|
Dudes, I cannot let this one pass by . . . .
Glod wrote:
The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
Let me, uh, repeat that one more time:
The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
Hey, how about we try THIS:
"The medical value of the idea is irrelevant so long as most of the
people want those ideas given as medicine to their children".
In terms of "stupidest things I've ever heard from a creationist", this
little gem ranks right up there with Ray Mummert, of Dover fame, and
his classic whine:
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
culture."
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus H Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: CHEZ WATT: First Mummert, now this guy |
07 Dec 2005 09:25:12 AM |
|
|
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in
news:1133927259.235801.51440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dudes, I cannot let this one pass by . . . .
It's too depressing to repost it so I've snipped it, but I have a related
question to pose.
What I'm curious about is; how long is the alliance between the US
neoconservative political faction and the religious right going to be
maintained?
None of this creationist horseshit would be of any concern except for the
power given to the loony religious right through their alliance with (and
manipulation by) the neoconservatives.
Is the neocon/loony-religious-right binding going to last?
What will it take for it to break?
The domestic hammering from the US's misadventure in Iraq doesn't seem to
have had much effect in breaking the bond; while the current
administration might not survive the next election has there been ANY
breaking from the ranks as a result?
Or are they going to be around together for another five, ten or twenty
years? [arrrrrgh!]
cheers,
jesus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: CHEZ WATT: First Mummert, now this guy |
07 Dec 2005 08:35:31 AM |
|
|
On 8 Dec 2005 01:25:12 +1000, Jesus H Christ
<jhc@catholic.religion.com> wrote:
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@ij.net> wrote in
news:1133927259.235801.51440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Dudes, I cannot let this one pass by . . . .
It's too depressing to repost it so I've snipped it, but I have a related
question to pose.
What I'm curious about is; how long is the alliance between the US
neoconservative political faction and the religious right going to be
maintained?
It's been there for a while - with lawsuits about school prayer,
creationism etc at all levels.
Reagen promised but didn't deliver. So they took over the Republicans
from the grass roots up. Remember how Dole had to back down over
compassion in the party platform?
None of this creationist horseshit would be of any concern except for the
power given to the loony religious right through their alliance with (and
manipulation by) the neoconservatives.
Not just an alliance. The party has been taken over.
Is the neocon/loony-religious-right binding going to last?
A long time.
One can only hope that the backlash to what they have done while in
power will make them unelectable for a long time.
Then they party will purge itself. It will need the moderate minority
to do it, and it will be bloody. I don't know if this will happen
because the religious extremists who control it will imagine they lost
because they weren't extreme enough and will purge the moderates and
possibly even the neocons who used them.
What will it take for it to break?
The domestic hammering from the US's misadventure in Iraq doesn't seem to
have had much effect in breaking the bond; while the current
administration might not survive the next election has there been ANY
breaking from the ranks as a result?
Or are they going to be around together for another five, ten or twenty
years? [arrrrrgh!]
cheers,
jesus
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tink" |
|
| Title: Re: CHEZ WATT: First Mummert, now this guy |
07 Dec 2005 07:33:54 AM |
|
|
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
Dudes, I cannot let this one pass by . . . .
Glod wrote:
The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
Let me, uh, repeat that one more time:
The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
Hey, how about we try THIS:
"The medical value of the idea is irrelevant so long as most of the
people want those ideas given as medicine to their children".
In terms of "stupidest things I've ever heard from a creationist", this
little gem ranks right up there with Ray Mummert, of Dover fame, and
his classic whine:
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the
culture."
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
Why don't you make it a TQOTM? It's a gem.
--
Skydivers don't knock on death's door; they ring the bell and run
away... It really pisses him off.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Besenbruch" |
|
| Title: Re: CHEZ WATT: First Mummert, now this guy |
06 Dec 2005 10:10:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:47:39 -0800, 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
Dudes, I cannot let this one pass by . . . .
Glod wrote:
The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
Hey, how about we try THIS:
"The medical value of the idea is irrelevant so long as most of the
people want those ideas given as medicine to their children".
Welcome to alternative medicine.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
05 Dec 2005 07:18:16 AM |
|
|
Glod wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be better informed about
their field than are a majority of the electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
You are just claiming that perpetuation of ignorance is what schools
are for, as long as the people want to remain ignorant.
That isn't the goal of education.
It is true that people can determine what they teach to school
children, but since public schools cater to a wide audience, you have
to justify what you teach. You can home school and teach whatever you
want, but you can't do that in the public schools because there is
accountability. You can't teach junk as science, if there are any
thinking humans around to object. Even if the ignorant are the
majority, the system that we have in place can allow corrections. The
Raelians or Moonies can take over some small town and vote themselves
into the majority of a school board and try to teach whatever lame
science that they want to, but sooner or later they will have to defend
it.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steamboat" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
05 Dec 2005 07:32:27 AM |
|
|
On 5 Dec 2005 05:18:16 -0800, "Ron O"
<rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
Glod wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O"
<rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior
fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting
intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are
evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its
arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new
controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you.
Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea
that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria
phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it
hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You
might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science
(Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery
Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about
the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and
conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple
hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to
contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of
science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The
IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to
citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was
the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never
amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive
example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just
that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have
to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that
isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in
nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a
fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would
be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID
hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most
Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology
courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or
lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its
insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring
under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is
the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public
school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in
the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the
teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social
or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that
to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be
better informed about
their field than are a majority of the
electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be
taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most
of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
You are just claiming that perpetuation of
ignorance is what schools
are for, as long as the people want to remain
ignorant.
That isn't the goal of education.
It is true that people can determine what they
teach to school
children, but since public schools cater to a wide
audience, you have
to justify what you teach. You can home school
and teach whatever you
want, but you can't do that in the public schools
because there is
accountability. You can't teach junk as science,
if there are any
thinking humans around to object. Even if the
ignorant are the
majority, the system that we have in place can
allow corrections. The
Raelians or Moonies can take over some small town
and vote themselves
into the majority of a school board and try to
teach whatever lame
science that they want to, but sooner or later
they will have to defend
it.
Ron Okimoto
I agree in principle but, if you're ever in
Arkansas and look at what the schools put out, I
think you may change your mind! Education is most
assuredly less important than dogma and, even
though religion isn't explicit in the curriculum,
it certainly pervades it.
"Millions long for immortality who don't
know what to do with themselves on a
rainy Sunday afternoon."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Glod" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
05 Dec 2005 02:38:57 PM |
|
|
On 5 Dec 2005 05:18:16 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
Glod wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be better informed about
their field than are a majority of the electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
You are just claiming that perpetuation of ignorance is what schools
are for, as long as the people want to remain ignorant.
That isn't the goal of education.
It is true that people can determine what they teach to school
children, but since public schools cater to a wide audience, you have
to justify what you teach. You can home school and teach whatever you
want, but you can't do that in the public schools because there is
accountability. You can't teach junk as science, if there are any
thinking humans around to object. Even if the ignorant are the
majority, the system that we have in place can allow corrections. The
Raelians or Moonies can take over some small town and vote themselves
into the majority of a school board and try to teach whatever lame
science that they want to, but sooner or later they will have to defend
it.
Certainly they will have to defend it if the local community objects
to what is being taught, and they will face constitutional issues if
they attempt to insert religion into public school science classrooms.
There is, however, no law of the land mandating that "good" science,
as defined by the majority of the scientists, be taught. Scientists
may believe that they have some special standing with respect to what
should be taught, and their ideas will certainly be given due
consideration. In most cases their expertise will be acknowledged, but
in truth they are nothing more than consultants whose recommendations
may, or may not, be accepted by particular communities.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
06 Dec 2005 06:58:36 AM |
|
|
Glod schrieb:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:18:16 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
Glod wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be better informed about
their field than are a majority of the electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
You are just claiming that perpetuation of ignorance is what schools
are for, as long as the people want to remain ignorant.
That isn't the goal of education.
It is true that people can determine what they teach to school
children, but since public schools cater to a wide audience, you have
to justify what you teach. You can home school and teach whatever you
want, but you can't do that in the public schools because there is
accountability. You can't teach junk as science, if there are any
thinking humans around to object. Even if the ignorant are the
majority, the system that we have in place can allow corrections. The
Raelians or Moonies can take over some small town and vote themselves
into the majority of a school board and try to teach whatever lame
science that they want to, but sooner or later they will have to defend
it.
Certainly they will have to defend it if the local community objects
to what is being taught, and they will face constitutional issues if
they attempt to insert religion into public school science classrooms.
There is, however, no law of the land mandating that "good" science,
as defined by the majority of the scientists, be taught.
However, what could be the reason to mandate the teaching of "bad"
science ? As soon as the motivation to do so is religious, if falls
afoul of the Lemon test.
And the unlimited and inscrutable designer of the ID hypothesis is
indistinguishable from a god.
Regards, HRG.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glod" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
06 Dec 2005 11:27:15 AM |
|
|
On 6 Dec 2005 04:58:36 -0800, wrote:
Glod schrieb:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:18:16 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
Glod wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be better informed about
their field than are a majority of the electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
You are just claiming that perpetuation of ignorance is what schools
are for, as long as the people want to remain ignorant.
That isn't the goal of education.
It is true that people can determine what they teach to school
children, but since public schools cater to a wide audience, you have
to justify what you teach. You can home school and teach whatever you
want, but you can't do that in the public schools because there is
accountability. You can't teach junk as science, if there are any
thinking humans around to object. Even if the ignorant are the
majority, the system that we have in place can allow corrections. The
Raelians or Moonies can take over some small town and vote themselves
into the majority of a school board and try to teach whatever lame
science that they want to, but sooner or later they will have to defend
it.
Certainly they will have to defend it if the local community objects
to what is being taught, and they will face constitutional issues if
they attempt to insert religion into public school science classrooms.
There is, however, no law of the land mandating that "good" science,
as defined by the majority of the scientists, be taught.
However, what could be the reason to mandate the teaching of "bad"
science ? As soon as the motivation to do so is religious, if falls
afoul of the Lemon test.
The Lemon test will not be a permanent feature of American
constitutional law. Until that particular error is rectified, states
and individual communities have recourse to their right to question
controversial scientific theories. ID is "bad" according to criteria
that a majority of American voters may not accept.
And the unlimited and inscrutable designer of the ID hypothesis is
indistinguishable from a god.
So it may eventually prove, but ID makes no such claim.
Regards, HRG.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Weldon" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
06 Dec 2005 01:35:35 PM |
|
|
"Glod" <Ibo@infinity.net> wrote in message
news:tdibp11vi5tt7teqmokf3m6tk4i859s400@4ax.com...
On 6 Dec 2005 04:58:36 -0800, wrote:
Glod schrieb:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:18:16 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
Glod wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the
Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the
scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr.
West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten
to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a
professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view
that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if
his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm
in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to
anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't
make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all
your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the
IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be better informed about
their field than are a majority of the electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
You are just claiming that perpetuation of ignorance is what schools
are for, as long as the people want to remain ignorant.
That isn't the goal of education.
It is true that people can determine what they teach to school
children, but since public schools cater to a wide audience, you have
to justify what you teach. You can home school and teach whatever you
want, but you can't do that in the public schools because there is
accountability. You can't teach junk as science, if there are any
thinking humans around to object. Even if the ignorant are the
majority, the system that we have in place can allow corrections. The
Raelians or Moonies can take over some small town and vote themselves
into the majority of a school board and try to teach whatever lame
science that they want to, but sooner or later they will have to defend
it.
Certainly they will have to defend it if the local community objects
to what is being taught, and they will face constitutional issues if
they attempt to insert religion into public school science classrooms.
There is, however, no law of the land mandating that "good" science,
as defined by the majority of the scientists, be taught.
However, what could be the reason to mandate the teaching of "bad"
science ? As soon as the motivation to do so is religious, if falls
afoul of the Lemon test.
The Lemon test will not be a permanent feature of American
constitutional law. Until that particular error is rectified, states
and individual communities have recourse to their right to question
controversial scientific theories. ID is "bad" according to criteria
that a majority of American voters may not accept.
And the unlimited and inscrutable designer of the ID hypothesis is
indistinguishable from a god.
So it may eventually prove, but ID makes no such claim.
Regards, HRG.
ID is a not very well hidden attempt by the fundies to get religion into the
classroom, and they have been caught red handed at it. Your continual
denial of this fact makes you either an idiot or a liar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
07 Dec 2005 01:07:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:27:15 -0800,
Glod <Ibo@infinity.net> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2005 04:58:36 -0800, wrote:
Glod schrieb:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:18:16 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
Glod wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be better informed about
their field than are a majority of the electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
You are just claiming that perpetuation of ignorance is what schools
are for, as long as the people want to remain ignorant.
That isn't the goal of education.
It is true that people can determine what they teach to school
children, but since public schools cater to a wide audience, you have
to justify what you teach. You can home school and teach whatever you
want, but you can't do that in the public schools because there is
accountability. You can't teach junk as science, if there are any
thinking humans around to object. Even if the ignorant are the
majority, the system that we have in place can allow corrections. The
Raelians or Moonies can take over some small town and vote themselves
into the majority of a school board and try to teach whatever lame
science that they want to, but sooner or later they will have to defend
it.
Certainly they will have to defend it if the local community objects
to what is being taught, and they will face constitutional issues if
they attempt to insert religion into public school science classrooms.
There is, however, no law of the land mandating that "good" science,
as defined by the majority of the scientists, be taught.
However, what could be the reason to mandate the teaching of "bad"
science ? As soon as the motivation to do so is religious, if falls
afoul of the Lemon test.
The Lemon test will not be a permanent feature of American
constitutional law. Until that particular error is rectified, states
and individual communities have recourse to their right to question
controversial scientific theories. ID is "bad" according to criteria
that a majority of American voters may not accept.
It isn't that ID is bad science, it's that it isn't science at all.
And the unlimited and inscrutable designer of the ID hypothesis is
indistinguishable from a god.
So it may eventually prove, but ID makes no such claim.
ID makes very few claims at all.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glod" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
07 Dec 2005 04:05:30 PM |
|
|
On 7 Dec 2005 19:07:13 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:27:15 -0800,
Glod <Ibo@infinity.net> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2005 04:58:36 -0800, wrote:
It isn't that ID is bad science, it's that it isn't science at all.
And the unlimited and inscrutable designer of the ID hypothesis is
indistinguishable from a god.
So it may eventually prove, but ID makes no such claim.
ID makes very few claims at all.
Indeed, its claims and goals are quite modest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
08 Dec 2005 01:19:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:05:30 -0800,
Glod <Ibo@infinity.net> wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 19:07:13 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:27:15 -0800,
Glod <Ibo@infinity.net> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2005 04:58:36 -0800, wrote:
It isn't that ID is bad science, it's that it isn't science at all.
And the unlimited and inscrutable designer of the ID hypothesis is
indistinguishable from a god.
So it may eventually prove, but ID makes no such claim.
ID makes very few claims at all.
Indeed, its claims and goals are quite modest.
It's goals are hardly modest, but it's claims are all but non-existent.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
10 Dec 2005 09:00:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:05:30 -0800, Glod <Ibo@infinity.net> wrote:
On 7 Dec 2005 19:07:13 GMT, AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
ID makes very few claims at all.
Indeed, its claims and goals are quite modest.
The problem is that ID makes few actual claims, but has plenty of
unsupported assumptions. It's basic position is that since science
supposedly cannot prove that there is no creator, ID can *ASSUME*,
completely and totally without a shred of evidence, that there is one.
The failure is that ID isn't even masquerading as science, it's simply
making bald-faced assertions and demanding that they must be true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
09 Dec 2005 06:49:34 AM |
|
|
Glod wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:18:16 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
Glod wrote:
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be better informed about
their field than are a majority of the electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
You are just claiming that perpetuation of ignorance is what schools
are for, as long as the people want to remain ignorant.
That isn't the goal of education.
It is true that people can determine what they teach to school
children, but since public schools cater to a wide audience, you have
to justify what you teach. You can home school and teach whatever you
want, but you can't do that in the public schools because there is
accountability. You can't teach junk as science, if there are any
thinking humans around to object. Even if the ignorant are the
majority, the system that we have in place can allow corrections. The
Raelians or Moonies can take over some small town and vote themselves
into the majority of a school board and try to teach whatever lame
science that they want to, but sooner or later they will have to defend
it.
Certainly they will have to defend it if the local community objects
to what is being taught, and they will face constitutional issues if
they attempt to insert religion into public school science classrooms.
There is, however, no law of the land mandating that "good" science,
as defined by the majority of the scientists, be taught. Scientists
may believe that they have some special standing with respect to what
should be taught, and their ideas will certainly be given due
consideration. In most cases their expertise will be acknowledged, but
in truth they are nothing more than consultants whose recommendations
may, or may not, be accepted by particular communities.
Glod probably isn't worth the time, but this point like the rest of his
junk is just whacked. Good science isn't forced to be taught. It is
taught because it is good science. Why would the willfully ignorant
members of the Kansas board be more likely to come up with a better
definition of science than working scientists? If they want to change
the definition of science to include ID they run into Behe's problem in
that he has to admit that if ID is science things like astrology and
voodoo are science. You can't teach that kind of junk as good science.
If you want to claim that your nonsense is science you have to
demonstrate it. The ID scam artists haven't even been able to present
a scientific theory of ID for evaluation. They haven't even put
forward testable hypotheses that would allow their junk to be evaluated
by science. Until they bring their junk up to the level that science
can evaluate it, why would changing the definition of science make it
any better?
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Tang" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker |
04 Dec 2005 06:39:10 PM |
|
|
On 2005-12-04 15:36:22 -0800, Glod <Ibo@infinity.net> said:
On 4 Dec 2005 06:22:33 -0800, "Ron O" <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
[snip]
QUOTE:
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said
the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific
"fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.
"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West
said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't
ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical
becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
END QUOTE:
The problem with the current ID scam is that it hasn't even gotten to
the phase where science can evaluate it. You might forgive West
because he is probably ignorant about science (Why is the second in
command of the science wing of the Discovery Institute a professional
political propagandist if the issue is about the science and not
politics or religion?), but the hysteria and conversion of Western
science to the current views happened a couple hundred years ago and
the ID hysterics lost in science. West has to contend that a view that
has amounted to nothing in the history of science and was abandoned
long ago will suddenly make a comeback. The IDiots aren't talking
about anything new, when they have to resort to citing Paley as if his
arguments ever amounted to anything. ID was the dominant paradigm in
Western science, but it failed because it never amounted to anything.
Just as West or any IDiot for a positive example of their designer
doing anything in nature. 100% failure is just that. You can't make
it go away by ignoring the failures. You have to try and get all your
ducks in a row and come up with something that isn't a failure. If
there were a single verifiable example of ID in nature it would have
never been dropped from science. That is a fact that even the IDiots
shouldn't be able to ignore.
You completely misread the situation. It would be preferable, of
course, if we could come up with testible ID hypotheses that could be
verified, but it isn't really necessary. Most Americans agree that ID
should be presented in public school biology courses simply as a
critque of Darwinism. ID's scientific value, or lack thereof, is
irrelevent so long as most voters approve of its insertion into
science curicula. You apparently are laboring under the
misapprehension that scientific worthiness is the determining
criterian for what should to be taught in public school science
classrooms. Actually, where voters have a say in the matter, it is
their opinion that counts. It may be that the teaching of ID or of
creationism as science will have adverse social or economic
consequences, but no one has demonstrated that to be the case.
Although biologists may in most instances be better informed about
their field than are a majority of the electorate, it is those voters
who should have final say in what is to be taught. The scientific
value of the ideas is irrelevent so long as most of the people want
those ideas taught as science to their children.
[snip]
Ah.
We've been at war with Oceania. We've always been.
Ron Okimoto
--
oink@porkfilled.com
Producer, Porkfilled Players (www.porkfilled.com)
.
|
|
|
| | |
