[patiodweller]

There was an intense debate on Larry King tonight about teaching something called "Intelligent Design Theory" in schools. Check out the blog at

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2005/08/intelligent_des_1.html#more">http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2005 ... .html#more</a><!-- m -->

Has anyone seen the documentery "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

[scottitude]

Great link; thanks for sharing. The new Christ and his new Apostles...I mean dubya and his hyper-religious supporters...have been pushing this heavily for quite some time.

The best argument I've heard is that if the theory of Intelligent Design is to be taught in public schools..."so everyone understands the debate", then the science of Evolution must be taught in Sunday school and other religious "learning environments" for the same reason.

On top of this, we have politico-religious leader Pat Robertson calling for the government sanctioned execution of Venezuela's Head of State without, as of yet, a denouncement from our own dictator...er, uh...President. So far, the USA's only official response has been to call Robertson's comments "inappropriate".

Inappropriate, by the way, is the best term I can think of to describe our current government.

[skippy the wonder dog]

The better argument is that if you are going to teach Intelligent Design in school science classes, then you must also teach other pseudoscientific bullshit such as the notion that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster:

http://www.venganza.org/

[Douglas]

Finally, a made up object in the sky worth worshipping. I now place my life in the hands of Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do with me as you see fit.

[patiodweller]

...notion that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster

hahahaha

Here's what's more! A new community in Florida owned by a billionaire that is growing to a population oif 30,000 and the only schools are Christian, all business people, teachers, hospital staff are Christian only. The phramacy can't sell birth control, the video store can't sell porn, no music store can sell CDs that have explicit language etc... Now sure the crime rate will be zero... but here's an entire community that will raise a generation oblivious to evoloution and quantum physics. I digress. Check out their website:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.avemaria.com/">http://www.avemaria.com/</a><!-- m -->

[fingernailsonhull]

I know Hawking Radiation has shown that matter and its accompanying anti-matter can appear spontaneously for very short periods of time. However, quantum physics has yet to show how the universe actually began. It comes down to a simple question - either matter must be eternal (which defies physics), or there must be a Creator that predates material existence. You can scoff at that and call it religious zealotry (it seems anything beyond superficial discussion of "spiritual things" these days is considered zealotry) but then you are left with the very real problem of discussing the beginning of matter. People shout "The Big Bang" but this theory presupposes that matter already existed. How did it get there? Was it always there? Did it have no cause? That doesn't sound very scientific. I don't claim to have all the answers. I do know that calling the intelligent design theory pseudo-scientific is ridiculous overreaction. I thought we were supposed to question everything. I guess that means we only question the things we don't like.

[LoftyPines]

I agree that the main difficulty of the big bang theory is explaining how the matter was created int he first place. But, I find it hard to believe there was a 'creator'. If this exists/existed, who/what made the creator. Obviously this debate can go and has gone on and on, thats what has made people so passionate about their stance. I normally try to avoid the debate because it seems you just can't win. But to me evolution is just common sense.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Those of us who understand scientific method, and who understand that the word "theory" is not synonymous in scientific usage with "hypothesis" or "wild-assed notion," recognize that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. It's not an overreaction; it's a fact.

Here's a newsflash for ya, fingernails: the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life or of the origin of the universe. Those questions are unrelated to the theory of evolution.

To suggest that ID should be taught because science can't resolve the questions of the origin of life or the origin of the universe is horseshit. What should be taught is, well, what actually was taught in the school I went to: that those questions remain unanswered.

ID is not a scientific theory, because it rests on no evidence. It is not even a good philosophical argument, because it is circular. (It's not even good fiction, fer gawd's sake, relying as it does on a deus ex machina, literally, to resolve the plot.)

ID has no more intellectual integrity than the notion that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster. ID should not, therefore, be taught in schools, least of all in science classes as if it is "science."

[fingernailsonhull]

Skippy, I would agree with you about the fact that evolution does not include the origin of the universe if that were the case in high schools. I am only two years out of high school. Big Bang and Evolution were considered bedfellows in the broad scheme of things. The Big Bang created the universe which, through mathematically impossible odds, brought about this inhabitable planet and then natural selection, adaptation, and evolution took over to evolve the few single cells that first existed here into all living things. I realize that neither of these necessitates the other, but it is often considered to be that way...even in an academic setting. There are still problems with the evolution theory. For instance, I agree that evolution happens on micro-scale. That is that adaptations take place within a species to better cope with their surroundings. This is obvious. However, this is vaulted onto a macro-scale without any adequate proof for doing so - other than the recovery of some skulls and bones and what-not with a slightly different shape that would appear to possibly fit the framework of what evolution philosophers would like to believe. I understand that I somewhat trivialized a very important issue there, but that analysis is not way off.

[Kevala]

Are you sure you want to get Kevala involved in this. OK? If you insist.

There is a form, method or approach, if you will, of education that appears to be oppository to our education system installed in todays society. Of course it will be received with............well.... actually it wont be recieved by many at all. It will be opposed. After all...How do we expect this world to keep laws upheld and each of us to remain controlled morally and decently without the old system that has worked for so long....It is working right...we are all cool with everything , happy with ourselves and our childrens future's too, eh? I think it is pretty natural in todays time to be afraid of change. Its OK to admit.

Thats the key though...You have to want a new approach for anything to really ever change...and its an individual change. An individual choice. Everyday somthing to be practiced. And this practice in itself could be a part of the "Intelligent Design Theory".
...but this approach is a completely different appoach than learning all fifty states...if you know what I mean?

Education is changing...You are changing....Are you gonna go with it, as this new approach suggests...? Or hang on to the past and be torn by grabbing the shore along the flowing river. Its always your choice in each moment.

To trust change is evolution in its essence. To teach children stability in each moment is a fair and appropriate Education. Their birthright.

I know a few states...the one's I have lived in....

[Stephen Dame]

There's a great new book called "The Devil In Babylon" by Allan Levine which deals with the march of progress and modernity in the 20th century and those who went to all lengths to oppose it.

It's eerie how similar the fundamentalists of the 1920's (think "Scopes Monkey Trial") are to the Creationist fundamentalists of today.

The strengths and benefits of faith are many, but blindly adhereing to that faith while ignoring all rational thought and science is just as backwards now as it was then.

I think if you must teach both (and I think one should be taught in pubic schools, the other in churches) then at least be open about the fact that theory A has been unchanged and purely faith based for 2000 years, while theory B has 150 years of science and evidence behind it. Choose whichever you like, they're both theories, but one is a little more credible than the other.

What has always puzzled me is why Darwinsim has to go against the church? Couldn't it be perceived that what Darwin described had been planned from above? Why couldn't God have "intelligently designed" the process Darwin theorized? I think, unfortunately, the answer lies in the inherit intolerance and superiority found in the church. "We all can't have common roots, we all can't be God's equal children, since some of us are obviously better than others."

The folks fighting for Creationism would be better off adoptng a more inclusive and modern approach which says: "yes, dinosaurs existed, the bible, which was written by humans, is an allegory for life which can be taken literally or not, and evolution is the glorious process by which God gave us all history, heredity and life."

If he created the universe in six days, surely he could turn monkey's into men on the weekends.

Here, in a nutshell was how it was taught to our grade 9 civilisations class in 1994:

"Darwin developed a theory of evolution. It aint perfect, he could never explain the human eye, and on his death bed he converted to Christianity and recanted. Yet, most scientists believe it is the closest we have ever come to explaining our origins.

Now, people whose religion started here (pointing to the Middle East on the map) believe that one God created all of the universe and its creatures. People whose religion started here (pointing to India) believe a series of God's with animal and human characteristics created us, and people whose beliefs started here (pointing to Canada) believe that a giant turtle or some other noble creature provided the earth and allowed us to grow literally or figuratively on her back.

In our lifetime, we will never, ever know which is true. Nor, in all likelyhood, will your kids. So, whichever fits for you, wear it. We will now study Darwin's theory, and if you are interested in any of the other theories ask your parents, or check out one of the local temples, synagogues or churches... they all serve booze at some point."

[skippy the wonder dog]

Choose whichever you like, they're both theories.....

No, they're not. Not unless you use two different definitions of "theory."

For evolution, the definition of "theory" is this: "A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena."

For creation, the definition is this: "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

Those are clearly not the same thing. And that's an important distinction, as it underlies the central misunderstanding that drives the whole argument that evolution is "just a theory."

[Josh]

just remember my friends....base all knowledge on direct experience!....and to have this....You must have a point of surrender...a poit where yu

ahh i ma to drunk ow to talk abou thtis....


good night

[LastStop]

ahh i ma to drunk ow to talk abou thtis....

Terrific! Hopefully you'll stay that way... :thumb:

[schaggs]

Religion's origins date back to well before we began documenting events.
Initially, when the knowledge base was low, people began worshipping many gods. Every object, living or dead, had a spirit inside.

As organized science began, it became known that similar objects behaved the same, and there was a paradigm shift in the way people think. Now, while there were still many Gods, there was one for every tree, and one for every Rock, etc.

When science progressed, specifically into physics and chemistry, groups of objects behaved in the same way, or in closely related ways, and organized religion again shortened it's list of Gods.

As the knowledge base expands, the number of Gods worshipped by the people decreases.

What science can not explain is always credited by the church to intelligent design.... But, while science has proved billions of things about the physical world that are no longer attributed to intelligent design, science cannot yet prove the existance or non-existance of a divine being.

While this will sound harsh, and I don't mean it as a jab to those who are religious... I can argue for the merits of religion as well......
Religion is a cop-out. Things attributed to a divine being are attributed that way because people are afraid to say "I don't know".