Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

[Rascal]

Know it all wrote:

<quoted text>
The Constitution says what it says. Therefore, what is not in the Constitution is left out of the hands of the Federal Government. Privacy is no more or less important than it was 220 years ago. The times have nothing to do with it.

What a naive response. Even though familiar words are used, the controversey is what exactly did the Framers mean?

We have a good idea, but we don't know for certain. Strict Constructionists say it means what it says and our Constitution is a static document; others say it was deliberately drafted to apply and support changing standards and our Constitution is dynamic, living document.

It figures that a reactionary such as yourself would downplay the importance of privacy (sometimes referred to as the right to be left alone), considering modern technology, privacy is MORE important today than 250 years ago.

[Steve]

FLOWER wrote:

Obviously, no one here has ever read the bible. The evidence is there, HELLO!

What evidence is that you speak of, that is should be taken as literally as "Red Fish, Blue Fish".

[atitagain]

Geoff III wrote:

Just a question. Has anyone ever witnessed the evolution of a new species? Oh, I know many new species have been discovered. Lets assume that the scientist are correct & the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the first couple of billions years were lifeless. How many species exist or ever existed? Do the math & how many should we see yearly or even daily?

are you aware of bacteria that have become immune to antibiotics?

[Reading is Fundamental]

Zeke wrote:

<quoted text>
Where in the name of tarnation did you find such a bogus (i.e. laughably wrong) description of the big bang theory?
Nevermind, there's only one possible (and rather obvious) answer to that.
For future reference: It wasn't big, there was no bang, nothing exploded and it didn't come "from nothingness".
Incidentally the name "big bang" was originally created by an opponent of the theory (Fred Hoyle--the same dude who came up with the "tornado in a junkyard won't make a 747" analogy). The theory's proponents (including Edwin Hubble--of the eponymous space telescope) were justifiably appalled by its inappropriateness. Unfortunately they were unable to come up with a catchy alternative fast enough and the name stuck.
Finally, if the big bang was intrinsic to the subject of evolution, I'd suggest that you do some research, so we could start again. But since it isn't, you fail on that score too.

The irony here is that a lot of scientific principles are named after denigrations by respected scientists.

Schroedinger used the analogy of a cat in a box with a lethal amount of radioactive substance to mock the Uncertainty Principle. It was then widely embraced as a great example of it.

Einstein was opposed to quantum theory and claimed that "God doesn't roll dice with the Universe", but it is his equations that inspired advances in quantum mechanics.

I have heard of this one with Hubble before and there is another example by Lord Kelvin, but I forget the particulars.

The point is: knowledge changes. The more we research and develop research techniques, the more we learn and the more we find that what we thought we knew needs revision. To apply that here, the Bible was (arguably) a decent text 2000 years ago, but it is WAY outdated and obsolete.

[TedHOhio]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
So... what was the first cause that triggered an effect?
You are confusing cause and effect.

I don't think he is. I think you are making a huge assumption, that for there to be a cause, it must have intelligence behind it. That is the issue.

No one knows how Life actually started, there are several idea, hypotheses, and theories -- both scientific and religious -- but the fact is that Life is here and at one time it was not here.

Evolution is not about how life started, but how life has changed. There is a great deal of cause and effect in the theory, but there is no proof of an intelligence driving any of it. I think that was his point. As desire for an intelligence to be behind it is not the same thing as proving there is an intelligence behind it.

[Primewonk]

Former Marine wrote:

If some supernatural being did in fact "specifically design" the universe and man, then he/she is one dumb MF.
Here's a couple of questions for you proponents of ID.
1.Why did your designer have the fetus pass through the narrow confines of the pelvic bones. Birth through ancient & modern history is a dangerous affair for both baby and mother. It often led to death by hemorraging in the past.
However, if man evolved from 4 legged creatures, the pelvic girdle had to be rotated, thereby narrowed, making a tight fit for what other mammels is an easy passage.
what about a lower back that prone to pain?
Knee joints that wear out?
An inverted exit of the joptic nerve via the retina, resulting in a blind spot?
Men having a prostate gland so close to the urinary tract, that the common occurence of an enlarged prostate impinges on urination?
when a man's testicles descend, the vas deferens becomes looped around the ureter, kind of illogical to me, as it could impede the flow of sperm or urine to the penis. Not good for procreation if you ask me.
I'd like to see an ID explain that and a bunch of other flaws in the design of the human body.

All excellent points. A couple more if you don't mind -

Why do men have nipples?

What kind of an intelligent designer would take the hair I had on the top of my head, and once I turned 40, suck it back inside, and shoot it out my nose and ears?

[Coolmind]

god is pretend, just like angels, demons, boogie-men, leprechans, trolls, sprites, fairies, etc.

Gods were originaly invented to explain things to little minds.. here we go again... little minds that can't conceive of creation with out a daddy figure.

[Rascal]

Marc wrote:

So WHY did God create us anyway? For entertainment value? Or was he just lonely? The more you think about it, the more absurd it becomes. Does it ever occur to anyone that the Allmighty could have created us all PERFECT and SIN-FREE in the first place and avoided all of the fretting he apparently does over our flaws? How ridiculous these beliefs are upon close inspection. Critical thinking, folks. THIS is what we need to teach in school.

Marc, you Moron. God coulda woulda shoula, such nonsense.

And please, don't use "critical thinking" in the same sentence as religious dogma.

The Taliban agrees with you and supports your idea 100% that religion should be taught in schools. It's called religious fundamentalism. How's is your fundamentalism different and any better than theirs?

[Robert]

Cash wrote:

I confess the confusion is lost on me and the controversy is pointless but teaching all alternatives because biology cannot explain everything today is just plain bad science.

So you're for teaching something that isn't science in a biology class just because it's an alternative view? Isn't obvious that they're just pushing religion into the classroom.

[TedHOhio]

Jon Klement wrote:

<quoted text>
ID is science, but it's opponents keep screaming "Religion!" to cause a panic and close people's minds to it much like yelling "Fire!" in a theater will create a mob mentality even if there is no fire.
When the ID debate is miscast as "science vs. religion", many people will nto even learn about ID for themselves.
One of the experiments that tests ID has been performed by Dr. Ralph Seelke. He uses bacterial colonies to determine the amount of change in organisms that can be accomplished by random mutation. Since bacteria reproduce every 20 minutes, a 20-year-old bacterial colony (yes they exist) would represent the equivalent of 250,000 years of human evolution.
Many scientists are doing compelling experiments with Design Theory (that DON'T involve their Bibles, LOL).
It's a competing scientific theory based on informatics, thermodynamics, and other things that are part and parcel of evolutionary classrooms. NONE of the facts of ID are any different from teh facts of evolution, but those facts are brought to different logical ramifications.
If the competing view can sink it by miscasting it as "science vs. religion" they will.

Forget the religion aspect to ID. Let's talk science. Name one peer-reviewed scientific paper that supports Intelligent Design? Just one? No, self-publications by the Discovery Institute don't count. And no popular press articles and books do not count either. neither one of them have any standard of proof. Just name one!

Behe's work doesn't count, his have not been peer reviewed by the scientific community. Neither has Wells, Dembski, or Johnson.

You might not be aware of this, but when the Discovery Institute was pushing for a change to science standards in Ohio, they offered a list of over 40 articles and publications that they claimed supported Intelligent Design. When examined it was discovered that more than 90% of the references mention Intelligent Design only to call it in question and the other 10% don't discuss the subject at all. Read about it here:
http://www.ncseweb.org/media/Analysis-of-the-...

[e-mail]
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/

[Thought Monster]

Dog wrote:

For those who don't know, the basis of the intelligent design argument is that there are biological features/characteristics whose development seemingly cannot be explained through small, incremental evolutionary steps.
It goes like this: Your house can 'evolve' by being added onto or being redecorated. But if it were to evolve into a hospital, it would take such drastic rework that it would cease to be livable during that time. For a biological creature, that evolutionary step is problematic, since it means that it should not happen naturally. This viewpoint and realm of study is perfectly valid as it addresses a system complexity/entropy issue. It is likely that studying these problematic spots will lead to a better understanding of the mechanics and driving forces behind biological adaptation & diversity.
The fact that the driving force is attributed to God is just an easy excuse to ignore the idea.

That is a horrible example by the way. All you have to do to turn a house into a hospital is have a sign on the front door saying "HOSPITAL" and maybe to spice things up a red cross on the roof. I believe you are trying to reference the theological argument where the classic example of this would be a clock/watch. A clock is a good analogy for the reason for there to be a designed because if you look at the whole, the clock is a clock, but when you open it up and see all the mechanical parts all in sync and moving in harmony, aka the universe, this would imply a designer of such harmonic synchronization. If any one of the those mechanical parts fails then the clock fails. This is the argument and not my beliefs.

[Roberta]

You religious wackos are all fucked up.

[ddm]

Look into EXPELLED a movie presented by Ben Stein. You ALL may just learn something.

[Realist]

How come ID supporters want it included in science class without doing the science? The discussion would be silly in the extreem, such as:

<Teacher> Now students, I will present an alternative to ToE, it is called ID. I know they have done no testing and have no evidence, but they believe it so here we go...God did it, test on Monday, make sure you study...

[Reading is Fundamental]

Robert wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're for teaching something that isn't science in a biology class just because it's an alternative view? Isn't obvious that they're just pushing religion into the classroom.

You're misinterpreting his post. He said that to do so is "bad science." He, you and I are in agreement here.

[Primewonk]

Barney Five wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, Cookie, take a look at the Big Bang theory. Read up on it; it says some kind of stuff coelesced "out of nothingness." Then it exploded (Big Bang) and all these bits of whatever, that came from "nothingness," somehow overcame the normal physical tendency to go in a straight line, bent their trails to get together, condense and become matter (and ultimately stars and planets and us). Talk about sheer poppycock! What takes more faith, believing that or believing "God spoke and it was done."???
Just for fun, Google "polonium rings" sometime and see what you learn.
Oh, I do agree the US is on the path to mediocre schools and dumber people, but that's because the NEA needs dumber people (and is turning them out as hard and fast as they can). Who else will believe anything can coelesce out of "nothingness," or explode in curved paths in outer space? Who else would believe the minutely intricate workings of even one single cell could just happen? Give me a break!

I googled "big bang theory" AND "stuff coalescing out of nothing" AND "exploded" and this is what appeared on my screen:

Your search - "big bang theory" AND "stuff coalescing out of nothing" AND "exploded" - did not match any documents.

Could this be because you don't understand what it is that you argue against?

Who said there was nothing? And there was no "explosion".

As for polonium rings - Dude! Austin has been refuted over and over and over.

Really, you fundiots need to start getting your science from science sources, and not "Pastor Dave".

[Robert]

Reading is Fundamental wrote:

<quoted text>
You're misinterpreting his post. He said that to do so is "bad science." He, you and I are in agreement here.

Your post was ambiguous. Sorry.

[Roku Roku Roku]

JEANNIE wrote:

<quoted text>
Intelligent Design simply means the universe didn't start from nothing all by itself. Evolution could be responsible for some of what is now extant.
No one has ever seen even the remains a creature half and half of different species.
Prove that God does not exist.

It is your claim that he exists. It is your responsibility to support that claim.

[TedHOhio]

Geoff III wrote:

Just a question. Has anyone ever witnessed the evolution of a new species? Oh, I know many new species have been discovered. Lets assume that the scientist are correct & the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the first couple of billions years were lifeless. How many species exist or ever existed? Do the math & how many should we see yearly or even daily?

In Madeira there exists several new specials of mice. They evolved from a single species in about the last 400 - 500 years. They were traced to a species of mouse found on ships a few hundred years ago. They were dropped off when a ship would visit part of the island. The islands rugged terrain prevented different groups from intermingling and each group evolved into a separate species.

There have been experiments with new species of flies, bacteria, moths, and butterfly's. Hundreds of experiments over the years.

Did you know the cow we have in this country and a very different animal than those in Europe and Australia. Not a different species, at least not yet. We have been selectively breeding for certain characteristics for so long, someday they might be seen as a separate species. Our grains are new strains for the same reason. The corn and wheat have been subjected to similar changes over the years.

If you saw the Kentucky Derby you also saw the sad results of such breeding programs. The horse that finished second had to be put down immediately after the race because she shattered both front ankles as she was cooling off from the race. One of the reasons is that we have been breeding for speed for so long, we've propagated other weaknesses in our quest for speed. The number of races a thoroughbred horse has in a lifetime is significantly less than it used to be, partially because their bodies cannot take the workload. Are they a new species, not yet! But if we keep doing it, they might become one.

[Jane]

It's appalling that this even comes up for discussion in 2008, except that people who fundamentally believe religious doctrine without question share certain personality markers that are loosely predictive that they will "believe" without scientific evidence. It probably had strong survival value as humans evolved in their ability to use language and abstract thought.

What amazes me is that some people honestly don't recognize the complete lack of evidence for ID and parade their ignorance with pride! Even Ben Stein admitted he joined the Expelled project because of his emotional response to the Holocaust, which he attributed in part to Nazi reliance on Darwin's theories.

Notice it's all still the biblical creationists' "wedge" of teaching a false "controversy" they dreamed up as a way to slither under the door.