I'm tired of all of this tolerance. When the Flying Spaghetti Monster slaps you all down with his noodly appendage remember to kiss my ass.
Printable View
I'm tired of all of this tolerance. When the Flying Spaghetti Monster slaps you all down with his noodly appendage remember to kiss my ass.
Intelligent Design is largely pushed by a group called the Discovery Institute. Most of the famous names you hear associated with the ID movement, such as Behe and Dembski, are part of the Discovery Institute.Quote:
Tolerance cuts both ways, I guess is my point. All I see here is a bunch of what comes across to me, from my perspective, as sniping at people who, as it turns out, outnumber you guys who are doing the complaining and suffer every bit as much personal chagrin at the things you do and say all the time, only they tolerate it and allow for it because fundamentally they care more about getting along than making a Federal emergency out of the subject. This whole supposed controversy is the product of intolerant minorities, not the other way around.
The Discovery Institute has the goal of replacing naturalistic science with something that isn’t science and includes supernatural and theistic explanations of the world (see the wedge document).
The ID movement uses dishonest methods to introduce its philosophy into science classes (see here the disgraceful behavior of the DI and the school board in Dover) (see also the rewriting of the definition of science in Kansas).
The ID movement has, to this point, followed its goals of introducing ID into society by attempting to teach school children its ideas instead of proposing its ideas to the scientific community.
There are no peer reviewed scientific studies carried out by proponents of ID. There is no scientific debate with respect to ID. Even if ID’s criticisms of the Theory of Evolution become accepted as accurate (this has not happened to date), ID is in no way proved.
The scientific community has a vested interest in being able to defend its theories by maintaining the standards used by scientific method. For example, if a scientist published results for a given experiment then those results would be peer reviewed, and eventually people would attempt to reproduce them. If results prove to be fraudulent, then that scientist will be ruthlessly exposed - so much so that they almost never recover their credibility, no matter how good their other works might have been. Woo Suk Hwang is just the most recent example of an exposed fraud.
Just as the scientific community will defend itself by exposing those who commit scientific fraud, it will defend itself against those who try to incorporate non-science into the science umbrella. When those people attempting to introduce non-science use underhanded methods such as manipulating religious school board members into exposing young teens to non-science in the guise of science against the will of their own science teachers, then yes, they will fight back.
The ID movement is not about “getting along”. The ID movement is about redefining science. Its methods are to manipulate the scientifically illiterate into making Intelligent Design such a common phrase that people assume it is a serious theory. If its proponents were truthful about concepts such as “critical thinking” and “scientific debate” then they would actually propose some ideas that could be tested using scientific method. If they were truthful, they would be attempting to introduce a theistic disclaimer (such as the one Lokrian suggested) into science classes instead of the misleading pseudo scientific one they did in Dover. But introducing such disclaimers into science class is a whole different debate.
Lokrian, I hope that you mischaracterized the controversy because you were not aware of the wedge document and of the Discovery Institute’s stated goals and methods. Talk.Origins has an archive of arguments that have occurred between ID proponents and other scientists, Dembski and Behe included. They make for very interesting reading.
Heya Mal,
Just out of curiosity I would like to know what the "wedge document" is.
As for the rest of it, I wrote in response to something like 4 posts in a row touting the extremism of religious people, and of Christianity specifically, not about I.D. directly. The entire response is therefore a mischaracterization of what I posted, and looking back I feel my post made that clear enough, but it could be I missed something.
My understanding of I.D. itself is limited to one book I read, and I for my part still think there is a valid point in it, but I was not aware, for instance, that they had done no research. The book refers to statistics and such that I would have thought had to come from somewhere.
But the main thrust of your argument seems to be to single out I.D. and say that the problem with it is not one of tolerance, whereas I am speaking more generally of the refusal to acknowledge and discuss the relevant philosophical and religious angles regarding origins simply because it is a 'science' class. Discussing them does not make them science. Discussing them IN A SCIENCE CLASS does not make them science. Use them as examples of what science is not, for all I care, but by all means discuss the issue in school and don't use the excuse, "it's not science," to censor discussion of one of the largest issues of our time. How can you claim to be educating if you refuse to talk about this issue? Talk about them in social studies when they come up in social studies, sure, but when we speak of the origins of life, the universe, and everything that is in science class, is it some sort of mystery why we should also discuss them in a science class at the time the issue comes up?
You're obviously a very intelligent person, but even you apparently have some sort of blind spot about epistemology. It is not a 'theistic disclaimer' that I created. Epistemology is not religious at all. It s the study of how we come to know things. The disclaimer I made up is in no way religious. It is epistemological, as is the scientific method itself. You do not study psychology in exactly the same way you study gravity, and yet atoms affect both. There is more to life than just mechanics, or at least, if there is not, it is a remarkable illusion of life that there appears to be more than mechanics. The epistemological underpinnings of the scientific method are its heart and soul, not some sort of theistic disclaimer.
The fact that this huge apparent misunderstanding on your part is all but invisible to most students who graduate high school is the real problem as far as I am concerned.
As many of you will know, Ann Coulter has recently released the best selling book “Godless: The Church of Liberalism”. This book dedicates a fair amount of space to dismissing the Theory of Evolution. I haven’t actually read the book so I can’t give an informed opinion on what she says, but several of the pro-evolution blogs I visit have offered comment and they’re pretty bloody angry.
I include a quote from the introduction of the Pharyngula article I’d like you to read because I want to avoid the accusation that I’m deceptively linking to a left wing site; I know I am, it’s written by a self proclaimed liberal and doesn’t use weasel words to avoid that bias. It is, however, an award winning and well respected scientific blog.
Continue reading at PharyngulaQuote:
I've now read all of the science-related (that's applying the term "related" very generously) stuff in Ann Coulter's awful, ghastly, ignorant book, Godless, and it's a bit overwhelming. This far right-wing political pundit with no knowledge of science at all has written a lengthy tract that is wall-to-wall error: To cover it all would require a sentence-by-sentence dissection that would generate another book, ten times longer than Coulter's, all merely to point out that her book is pure garbage. So I'm stumped. I'm not interested in writing such a lengthy rebuttal, and I'm sure this is exactly what Coulter is counting on—tell enough lazy lies, and no one in the world will have time enough to correct them conscientiously. She's a shameless fraud.
The good thing about this article is that it has several links to other web pages and resources that I find extremely useful in both informing myself about the latest evolutionary discoveries, and answering creationist and ID claims.
The other reason I have provided this particular link is that it demonstrates the extremely difficult position that IDer’s and Creationists place scientists in. For example:
-Should the scientific community accept that the anti-TOE (theory of evolution) activists have created a well-heard platform for unscientific ideas to be debated as though they were science?
-Should scientists ignore this noise because answering the claims gives credibility to the anti-TOE crowd?
-Or should the claims be met head on in as many forums (MSM, university debates, the courts, etc) as possible?
-Should the anti-TOE movement be treated with the same ridicule and contempt as flat earthers are treated?
-Or should anti-TOE claims be met with dignity and seriousness regardless of how baseless, misleading and dishonest those claims are?
When a best selling author like Ann Coulter regurgitates the lies of these charlatans the questions become more pertinent because the message of the anti-TOE movement has reached a large new audience, some of whom may not be scientifically literate enough to question her claims.
Finally, I have two more questions; How do those of you who support the anti-TOE movement justify the tactics they use, such as knowingly repeating lies that have been disproved again and again? And how do those who are worried by the anti-TOE movement react to its apparent spreading popularity (especially with the above questions in mind)?
"To cover it all would require a sentence-by-sentence dissection that would generate another book"
Heh heh!
"tell enough lazy lies, and no one in the world will have time enough to correct them conscientiously"
I love that. I'm gonna write it down. It seems like science has been stuck somehow with the job of debunking religion. People can't stand the idea of people evolving from apes or whatever. This comes from an "anthropocentric" view- that humans are at the center of everything. We see ourselves as special and somehow better than all the other creatures, which narrows our thinking. The idea of humans having their roots in lesser life forms does not sit well with many people. And I think this is where psychology starts to bleed into religion.
It is my opinion that both I.D. and evolution -both- need to be optional electives in public school system. But in all honesty, people need to just grow bigger nads. People will be offended by anything these days. If you mention God, you offend the aetheist. If you mention Christ, you offend the Jews. If you mention evolution, you offend the Christians. People will always whine and cry and yell and threaten each other with violence as long as they are forcefed knowledge that contradict their beliefs on how humanity began, and in spite of all the proofs out there, evolution is -still- merely a theory (Hence the name Theory of Evolution rather than Law of Evolution). If people would allow one class for evolution study and one class for religious study, then it would solve a great deal of people taking offense and making court cases. As for the seperation of church and state..people need to stop idolizing the constitution at times and realize it is over 200 years old. It was written by people who owned slaves and banged whores for crying out loud, it should not be thought of as absolute law.
Sier, this betrays a misunderstanding of the use of the word “Theory of” in science. However, it is such a standard anti-science canard that Talk.Origins has their very own answer to it: Claim CA201Quote:
evolution is -still- merely a theory (Hence the name Theory of Evolution rather than Law of Evolution).
Since I provided a link to such claims in my previous post via the Pharyngula editorial and you obviously didn’t follow the link, I’ll paste the talk.origins response here.
Quote:
Claim CA201:
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.
Source:
State of Oklahoma. 2003. House Bill HB1504: Schools; requiring all textbooks to have an evolution disclaimer; codification; effective date; emergency. http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/2003-04hb/hb1504_int.rtf
Response:
1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
o Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
o Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
o Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
o Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
Links:
Moran, Laurence. 1993. Evolution is a fact and a theory, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Isaak, Mark. 1995. Five major misconceptions about evolution, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
References:
1. Barnhart, Clarence L., ed. 1948. The American College Dictionary, New York: Random House.
2. Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217.
3. Eisen, J. A. and M. Wu. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action. Theoretical Population Biology 61: 481-487.
4. Milgrom, Mordehai. 2002. Does dark matter really exist? Scientific American 287(2) (Aug.): 42-52.
5. Searls, D. 2003. Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2: 613-623. http://www.nature.com/nature/view/030731.html
Further Reading:
AIG. n.d. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp
Gould, Stephen J. 1983. Evolution as fact and theory. In Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 253-262. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libra...nd-theory.html
Theory involves hypothesizing, law involves fact. There is no way to prove 100% that all life appeared on the Earth 1 billion years ago, or even 100 thousand years ago. Now theres evidence, lots of evidence! You can probably convince loads of people if you provide them with your opinions and thoughts. Whether you provide skeletons, rocks, soil samples, chemical evidence, it really doesn't mean much unless you were directly there to witness it.
Now, I Won't go into my rant about specific details about why evolution doesn't work and whatnot, but there is absolutely nothing you can provide that is -undenyable truth- short of time travel. Truth can be backed up and tested and the same result and conclusions can be drawn each time. Lets say for example the law of gravity. You can drop a rock as many times as you wish and you still know it will fall when you release your hand. Creationism or Evolutionism is not something you can prove, it is something you can hypothesize or have faith in.
I would suggest that you investigate why it is not considered a law. The statements you provided are great and all, but they do not answer my statement. The evidences that back those statements are also not full proof by any means which is why it is -still- considered theory.
There are absolutely no examples of modern day evolution. There are adaptations, but there has been no case where a species has been seen -evolving- into another. No mutations have been observed, or fossil evidence found which would show that mutations have ever accumulated to build a complex new organ, or to change a simple animal into a more evolved one: A fish into a reptile, for example, or some earlier creature into a moth.
Sier, every single one of the arguments you raise here has already been addressed countless times by countless scientists.
You can read the answer to every single claim you make on some of the web pages I have provided you with.
If your standard of proof is going to be that science is only science if it can be directly observed by you (as opposed to scientists who have observed things in a lab and have published papers about them that you haven't read, for example) then so be it.
I wonder how far you take that position in your daily life since it means almost anything to do with biological science (ie medicines etc) is largely based on faith and opinion - not fact.
This is a completely inaccurate statement when it comes to studying science. Theories are built on facts and are considered valid (once they've met the criteria for a true theory) until they are DISPROVEN. You can't just say, "Oh, I hypothesize that the moon is made of green cheese." and call it a scientific theory. Theories, from Einstein's Theory of Relativity to the Theory of Evolution, are built according the specific rules and follow the scientific method. That's why it falls under "science". Theories are rarely "proven" at all. In fact, many of us accept the statement that "Time Moves Forward". This was, in fact, theory until it was proven by a mathematical progression within the last 10 years by Stephen Hawkins. There are TONS of theories taught in school, but only one that comes under constant attack by religious groups.Quote:
Originally posted by Sier
Theory involves hypothesizing, law involves fact.
I honestly have no problems with ID being taught in schools, but it should NOT be taught as a science. It is a philosophy. Philosophy classes often touch upon Darwin's The Descent of Man and Origin of Species. That seems like an appropriate place to discuss ID, which really doesn't have much of a scientific process to it, and thus, doesn't belong in the science classes.