Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[Powerman]

you never answered my question ."why are you so afraid of ID being brought up in science classes?"

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said I was "afraid" of it. I'm against it on the basis that it is not science. ID being taught in a science class is the equivalent of shakespear being taught in calculus class. It just doesn't belong. I'll get back to you when you accept that reality. You simply must understand this truth. ID is not science. Kathy probably googled every definition of science under the sun and I easily showed how ID doesn't fit into any of the definitions. I don't know what it will take to crush this fact into your head but I'll keep working on it. You can not say that ID is science and expect to be taken seriously. It isn't science. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that fact but eventually one of you will get it.

 

[Powerman]

One thing is for certain....

Scientists have not yet been able to find a way to create DNA in the laboratory.

DNA is necessary to life, and the scientists are intelligent. Yet these intelligent beings have not been able to create the building blocks for DNA. So, are we to assume that Nature, which has no intelligence, did create DNA?

That seems like a stretch.

Put some thought into this. Put a lot of thought into it actually. I think you'll realize that this is illogical after further inspection. On the surface this seems to make sense. But in reality it really doesn't.

 

[Hobbit]

One thing is for certain....

Scientists have not yet been able to find a way to create DNA in the laboratory.

DNA is necessary to life, and the scientists are intelligent. Yet these intelligent beings have not been able to create the building blocks for DNA. So, are we to assume that Nature, which has no intelligence, did create DNA?

That seems like a stretch.

Gotta agree with you there. This is probably my biggest problem with the spontaneous creation theory. DNA is simply too complex to be a random accident.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Evolution's just a word, too. So is 'asinine,' 'annoying,' and 'badgering.'

I am still trying to figure out why you started this whole line of questioning. I came in here to point out that it's not a proven fact that the appendix is useless, then leave, but instead, you came right out of left field and instead of asking me something relevant to what I said, you asked me the definition of a term that has been defined on this site several times and which I'm positive you're familiar with, not to mention that it had nothing to do with my post. That's not debate, it's a baiting tactic, and I'm insulted that you think I'm dumb enough to go along.

Once again, do you demand a full outline of classical economic theory from anyone who suggests a tax cut?

The definition of a single word - now I don't think that's to much to ask.

The truth is you obviously don't know what it means.

Who cares if its not a proven fact that the appendix is useless?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

you never answered my question ."why are you so afraid of ID being brought up in science classes?"

It's not a science. Some of the kids might get the idea that it is a science (since it would be in a science class). That would be scary.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Actually, that is a very real possibility. But, that means there is a creator. It could not have happened on its own, as it was designed, implanted. So, you would simply be making an arguement for creationism, or ID.

Ok, now what? Oh, its simple, now its time for you to provide some proof of your statements, either by direct proof, or by logical deduction.

You can't prove my 5 minute Universe theory wrong. Therefore it must be right.








While you're pondering that thought come up with some real evidence for ID "theory" other than "wow, life is so complex, neato!"

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What he is talking about is, take all of the components of the item that is absolutely necessary for it to function, and you have arrived at its irreducible complexity.

You have a tv set. It has color controls, it can function without them. It has a power cord, it cannot function without it.

The power cord is part of its irreducable complexity.

If a person tells me they invented the tv, but cannot explain what a power cord is, then I know they are lying.

If a person tells me they invented the tv, but cannot tell me what a color control is, they may still be telling the truth.

A single cell has a point of irreducable complexity. At that point, it is so highly complex, it could not have come into being by random accident.

Some damns are so complex they were obviously built by beavers, some are natural damns created by leafs and twigs falling into an obstruction. It is easy to see the differnce between many of them.

A star cannot function without Hydrogen in the core. Remove the H and is ceases to function. Therefore, a star must have been manufactured somewhere in Taiwan.


A Uranium molecule is not a Unranium molecule if you remove one of its protons. Therefore, Uranium all molecules were manufactured in China.





Merely pointing out that something is complex does not imply ID theory is correct. Pulsar magnetospheres are incredible complicated things but that doesn't mean they were designed that way by some intelligent creature.

In fact the universe is filled with complex non-living things, from the hydrogen atom all the way up the to the structure of the Universe itself. When you look at ANY system closely enough it becomes complicated.



"A single cell has a point of irreducable complexity. At that point, it is so highly complex, it could not have come into being by random accident."


This is a statement that is simply asserted, without evidence, by the IDers.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Gotta agree with you there. This is probably my biggest problem with the spontaneous creation theory. DNA is simply too complex to be a random accident.

DNA is too complex to have been created as a result of one random accident, but how about 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 random accidents where the random accidents that made self propagation difficult were wiped out and the random accidents that improved the chances of self propagation were reinforced. Why are there so many breeds of dogs with incredibly different characteristics? It isn't like 2 wolves got together one night, there was a weird mutation, and out popped a french poodle! Poodles were designed, using unatural selection, to look the way they do. The only difference is that natural selection breeds in survival related traits while unatural selection breeds in whatever traits the breeder wants accentuated and breeds out whatever traits the breeder wants diminished.

Personally, I think that evolution IS intelligent design because any system that did anything but reward positive traits and discourage negative traits would be extremely stupid. We were designed over millions of years, over millions of beneficial and harmful mutations where mostly the millions of beneficial mutations were passed down and reinforced over millions of generations.

 

[Powerman]

Personally, I think that evolution IS intelligent design because any system that did anything but reward positive traits and discourage negative traits would be extremely stupid. We were designed over millions of years, over millions of beneficial and harmful mutations where mostly the millions of beneficial mutations were passed down and reinforced over millions of generations.

That's it in a nutshell. If you believe in an intelligent designer you would have to believe in evolution. Such a design would make more sense than one without evolution built in. If anything evolution might be a good argument for the existence of God. I don't see how people don't think like that though.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Wouldn't you have to say that ID without irreduceable complexity would be plain-old-ordinary creationism?

personally, I dont see the difference between creationism and ID. It might exist, but I dont know what it is if it does. It doesnt matter to me if there is a difference or not.

Maybe ID was developed as a way of teaching creationism without forcing any particular religion, and/or bringing God into the classroom, and/or to satisfy political opponents of creationism.

I dont know, and really dont care. I dont see anything wrong with God, religion in the classroom. Our schools were performing and producing much better behaved children when it was in.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You don't consider the lack of proof of a creator to be a gaping hole? ID starts with a hole the size of the Grand Canyon and ID'ers attempt to fill it with two small words, "irreducable complexity". You can fill it with those words a trillion times over and you know what you've got? An empty hole the size of the Grand Canyon.

gaping hole or not dont matter.

Evolution, as taught, believed by the general public, and as Powerman presents it, is FACT. FACTS need solid proof without gaping holes. In the scientific community I suppose a hypothesis and a theory are different, with the gen public thinking a theory is something just pondered about, but in reality the "theory" of evolution is considered more factual than the gen public considers the term to mean.

Now, on the other hand, ID, is pure hypothesis, and it is an alternative to Evolution, a possibility. I dont propose it be taught as a theory, but a hypothesis, and hence, no proof is needed.

THeory requires proof
Hypothosis doesnt require proof.
Evolution is taught at theory
ID is proposed as a hypothosis.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

One thing is for certain....

Scientists have not yet been able to find a way to create DNA in the laboratory.

DNA is necessary to life, and the scientists are intelligent. Yet these intelligent beings have not been able to create the building blocks for DNA. So, are we to assume that Nature, which has no intelligence, did create DNA?

That seems like a stretch.

Precisely.

It goes along with irreducable complexity, and the watch concept.

Common sense can tell us things science cant.

Before science was able to let us know things about the biological makeup of humans and life on earth, it was assumed life could be broken down to such simplistic things that they could have evolved. Ironically, it is SCIENCE (did you hear that POWERMAN?) that has proven the impossibility of evolution at the micro/macro ? level, whichever one represents the first establishment of life, but not the speciation of life, by showing how utterly complex even the simplest form of life is.

This also answers the Spiders dilema. God is an entity that is NOT biological life. How God came into existence is beyond our current, and maybe ever, ability to understand. There are alot of theories of what God is, physically, or if God is even of physical components, but is spiritual, and can create physical components without being one, and can control the actions and physical laws directing those physical components.

One concept leads us to a point of non ability to understand. God.

The only other possible concept leads us to something we know is impossible, that BIOLOGICAL life on earth as we know it could NOT have possibly formed on its own.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

I dont know, and really dont care. I dont see anything wrong with God, religion in the classroom. Our schools were performing and producing much better behaved children when it was in.

I can't speak for the US but in Canada there is absolutely no opposition to teaching religion in school. Pretty much everywhere in Alberta, there are 2 school boards: one secular, one Catholic, both receive tax funding based on which checkbox the homeowners select on their property tax returns. What I'm opposed to, like others in this thread, is teaching ID in science class. Teach ID in religion, fine by me. ID is not science by any definition of the word.

I do find it interesting that we Canadians are labelled as just right of communism and of being non-religious yet it seems that religion is more infused into our school systems and government bodies than it is in the US. I could be wrong though, I'm only drawing that conclusion based on what I see posted on this board.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said I was "afraid" of it. I'm against it on the basis that it is not science. ID being taught in a science class is the equivalent of shakespear being taught in calculus class. It just doesn't belong. I'll get back to you when you accept that reality. You simply must understand this truth. ID is not science. Kathy probably googled every definition of science under the sun and I easily showed how ID doesn't fit into any of the definitions. I don't know what it will take to crush this fact into your head but I'll keep working on it. You can not say that ID is science and expect to be taken seriously. It isn't science. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that fact but eventually one of you will get it.

I didnt put words in your mouth. I didnt say you admitted to being afraid. I simply stated my observation. You are afraid of it being presented alongside evolution. You want to claim you oppose it being along side due to its "non science" nature, but you dont show such strong opposistion to other things that arent taught within their proper curriculum. Gay pride month in LA public schools for example, at the elementary level, grades 2-5 approximately. I have a much bigger problem with that. But I dont see you screaming about it.

crush this fact into my head? No need. I already stated it may not be science, but it doesnt matter. Based on logical conclusion, it is an alternative. Science class does not involve PURE science at all times 100% of the time. No subject stays on course 100% of the time.

In my math class, the teacher often told us political intrigue involving mathmeticians, including one I remember vividlly, a guy named Galwah, or something like that. I know how to pronounce it, I think he was French. Anyways, he was a genius at math, and at an early age was breaking ground no one had ever treaded. But politics made him a black sheep, and prevented him from going to the universities of the day. He was tricked into a duel, in which he knew he was more than likely going to die the next day, so he started writing alot of his theories down, that were previously only in his head.

Since he had limited time, he often had to shortcut things, like arriving to a point in a problem, and then making statements such as "refer to postulate 5A", or such things. Because of this, much of his papers, many of his theories were not understood, or did they even understand what he was trying to say. Over the years, hundreds of years, many of his theories were discovered by others, and proven by others. Some, they found out, they finally figured out what he was trying to say.

Mathmeticians to this very day still cant understand some of what he was trying to say, to the point that some of todays mathmeticians still think some of his theories are even ahead of todays top mathmeticians.

Now, this story fascinated me and others, it stimulated our desire to be in the class and learn. Was it math? NO, did it help us learn math? YES.

Putting ID along side evolution can make kids get interested and think more. If evolution is true, putting ID beside it will only bring us to the proof of evolution faster.

Now, talk about crushing something into someones brain, please go back and see where I stated ID is science, show me where I said that. For someone who is touting science so much, and PROVING things so much, you certainly are quick to jump to false conclusions, which further leads me to believe you are AFRAID to see ID taught along side evolution. At least I propose a basis for my opinion, please let me hear your proposal why you think I believe ID is science.

Science is not to be

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Put some thought into this. Put a lot of thought into it actually. I think you'll realize that this is illogical after further inspection. On the surface this seems to make sense. But in reality it really doesn't.

Oh OK,


ahhh shucks, there goes my entire philosophy of life. Out the window. I think I will divorce my wife, sell my house, leave my kids and start a life of.....
hey wait,,but you dont say WHY it makes no sense. HMP

 

[LuvRPgrl]

It's not a science. Some of the kids might get the idea that it is a science (since it would be in a science class). That would be scary.

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww, so scary. The idea that there might be a God. Yea, go tell George Washing and Isacc Newton that.

I already responded to this, but it was Powerman I was addressing. And I dont believe what you say above. The real reason most dont want it in is because they want seperation of church and state which is not a Constitutional precept. Kids would not get the idea it is science if it was told, there is no evidence (assuming there isnt) to support ID, but it is a concept that exists, many believe in, and has not been disproven. It is the only alternative to evolution, and this is what it suggests is the origins of life....

Oh my, letting kids think and choose, SCARY! INDEED!

Well, at least you admitted yours is a fear driven agenda. although I dont believe the fear that you proposed, but rather a fear of religion.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I do find it interesting that we Canadians are labelled as just right of communism and of being non-religious yet it seems that religion is more infused into our school systems and government bodies than it is in the US. I could be wrong though, I'm only drawing that conclusion based on what I see posted on this board.

My observation, based on what you say about Canadian schools is the same.
However, it is the socialist, communist idealouges that are driving (although they are currently on the run, and rightly so) religion out of schools.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You can't prove my 5 minute Universe theory wrong. Therefore it must be right.!"

nonsense. Who ever claimed ID is right because you cant prove it false. We only claim ID as a possibility.

While you're pondering that thought come up with some real evidence for ID "theory" other than "wow, life is so complex, neato!"

I actually consider your possibility as a very real possibility. However, if it is true, its quite irrelevant. And particularly to this discussion, as your possibility, if true, takes us back to a creator. Any possibility you can conjecture will always take us back to either a creator, or evolution. There is no other possibility. Thats where science, as it often does, comes up short. Science cannot prove my statement, but logic and reason does. Hence sometimes logic and reason leads us to information and facts. I thought science was interested in logic and facts?

 

[MissileMan]

gaping hole or not dont matter.

Evolution, as taught, believed by the general public, and as Powerman presents it, is FACT. FACTS need solid proof without gaping holes. In the scientific community I suppose a hypothesis and a theory are different, with the gen public thinking a theory is something just pondered about, but in reality the "theory" of evolution is considered more factual than the gen public considers the term to mean.

Now, on the other hand, ID, is pure hypothesis, and it is an alternative to Evolution, a possibility. I dont propose it be taught as a theory, but a hypothesis, and hence, no proof is needed.

THeory requires proof
Hypothosis doesnt require proof.
Evolution is taught at theory
ID is proposed as a hypothosis.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been deemed, based on available evidence, to be more than likely true. In order for a hypothesis to gain theory status, it requires proof. If ID ever accrues the evidence necessary to be considered a theory, then, and only then, will it be appropriate to include it in science classes as an alternate to the theory of evolution. Of course, if ID ever achieves theory status, it will be at the expense of evolution and would more than likely replace it, not coexist with it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

A star cannot function without Hydrogen in the core. Remove the H and is ceases to function. Therefore, a star must have been manufactured somewhere in Taiwan..

A Uranium molecule is not a Unranium molecule if you remove one of its protons. Therefore, Uranium all molecules were manufactured in China..

If you could prove that Hydrogen ONLY exists in taiwan, and that all Hydrogen that leaves Taiwain has to leave in the form of a star, then, yes, your conclusion would be true by logical deduction. However, if Tawain were not capable of manufacturing stars, then we must accept that one of our precepts is inaccurate. There must be Hydrogen somewhere else, OR Hydrogen is capable of leaving Tawian in forms other than stars.

It is similiar to the "immovable object vs. the irresistable force" question.
I really find it humorous when atheists bring it up in a smug and smirthy way. Problem is, the solution is extremely simplistic, and easy to answer.

Merely pointing out that something is complex does not imply ID theory is correct. Pulsar magnetospheres are incredible complicated things but that doesn't mean they were designed that way by some intelligent creature..

Complexity does imply or outright state that it could not have accidentally formed on its own. Without that possibility, the only other option is creator. Again, simple logical deduction.

In fact the universe is filled with complex non-living things, from the hydrogen atom all the way up the to the structure of the Universe itself. When you look at ANY system closely enough it becomes complicated..

Sounds good to me.

"A single cell has a point of irreducable complexity. At that point, it is so highly complex, it could not have come into being by random accident."


This is a statement that is simply asserted, without evidence, by the IDers.

And yet you use that exact line of reasoning every day.
WHen you pass by a house, although you didnt see it built, you assume it was built by intelligent designers. If scientists dig up a stone with writing on it, they KNOW it was written by an intelligent creature. But by your reasoning that complexity and design do NOT infer intelligent creator, we would have to assume that stone tablet, smooth, rounded edges with Cuniform writings, could have just evolved. Yea, it was found in a digging stratosphere of only 5 thousand years old? Thats ok, 5,000 years ago, some humans found the stone while digging a well, and it actually came from a stratosphere dating it back to 17 drillion trillion billiion BC, (just a possibility which has to be considered if you dont think complexity explicitly states intelligent creator).