News Kansas votes to endorse ignorance

[Evo]

It's impossible that God created evolution. Who created God then? God is an easy solution to answer a question we cannot answer (yet).

You can't say it's impossible, it is highly improbable IMO. God is a matter of faith. I'm agnostic and it makes no sense to me, but if it makes sense to someone that believes in God, it's no skin off my nose, as long as they don't try to pretend it's something that it's not (such as science).

The majority of religious people have no problem with science.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Very little about the universe is understood. Practically nothing. You might as well give up now people, turn your backs on the whole thing and blame it all on spirits. Mysterious spirits. But very efficient ones. What's that, no one knows why the cosmic expansion is accelerating? Must be spirits. Or maybe goblins. Anyway, it's got to be in the active control of some agency, because no one, not even God, could create a Finch that can fly on its own wings, without it being lifted by some sort of angels. Nor a galaxy that spins on its own, like clockwork, without breaking down every few hours and needing to be wound up by... angels. Hey, if we don't get it, then God sure doesn't either. He sure as heck ain't creating anything We can't fit in a high school textbook, that would offend Us.

So we live in a broken, impotent world. Thank God for ghosts and santa's elves, gluing together all the cracks and picking up the pieces where God messes up. Yup that's how it works. And don't forget Helios, who stokes the great Coal Fire for our own enjoyment. Him and Neptune, and Diana... yup that about covers it. That explains all the known universe, yawn... back to the TV screen (thank God for cathode-tube sprites!).edit:
After all...

b. ...The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, the formation of proto-cells...

Yeah, why haven't we figured out the mechanisms of all proteins in existence yet? Must be something fishy going on. Hurry up you lazy biochemists!

 

[mattmns]

It's impossible that God created evolution. Who created God then? God is an easy solution to answer a question we cannot answer (yet).

I think the typcial answer is that the question cannot be answered because, by definition, god has always existed.

 

[Smurf]

A slightly interesting article:

Last week, the National Academy of Sciences, or NAS, joined with the National Science Teachers Association, or NSTA, to tell the Kansas State Board of Education that it would not grant the state copyright permission to incorporate its science education standards manuals into the state's public school science curriculum because Kansas plans to teach students that "intelligent design" is a viable alternative theory to evolution. Kansas is scrambling to rewrite its proposal to win over the NAS and NSTA

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,69512,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

 

[franznietzsche]

Believing in God and Evolution theory are mutually exclusive. The part of the catholic church that does not believe in ID still thinks that evolution was put in motion by a God. It's like explaining the mind with an homunculus.

By that you mean the entire catholic church not guilty of heresy does not believe in ID.

False. The Catholic view is that God created everything (the big bang); however, evolution is not controlled by God. ID says something is guiding evolution.

False. As of 1996, the catholic view is that Genesis is purely metaphor, and that Evolution has no conflict with it. Further, ID does not say something is guiding evolution. ID refutes the idea of evolution from one species into another altogether.

 

[Smurf]

what happened in 96?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

ID refutes the idea of evolution from one species into another altogether.

No that would be creationism. ID is supposed to be an alternative concept of how evolution happened. ID is not the opponent of evolution it is the opponent of "natural selection".

 

[russ_watters]

what happened in 96?

Popes set policy for the Catholic Church. They essentially tell Catholics what to believe in. In 1996, Pope John Paul made this speech:
http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm

 

[franznietzsche]

No that would be creationism. ID is supposed to be an alternative concept of how evolution happened. ID is not the opponent of evolution it is the opponent of "natural selection".

Splitting ID and creationism is like splitting General Relativity and gravity.

 

[franznietzsche]

Popes set policy for the Catholic Church. They essentially tell Catholics what to believe in. In 1996, Pope John Paul made this speech:
http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm

The catholic church has become very wise about just staying out of the way of science in the past century or so. The general doctrine is "we have our sphere of relevance and they have theirs".

 

[Polly]

The problem is a peculiar sort of religious fundamentalism, but the solution needs to be that the scientific community stops ignoring the issue and starts fighting for it.
Most scientists are loathe to get political about science, but that is a mistake. The result is that all the ignorant masses hear is a constant bombardment of pseudoscience and crackpottery from the mainstream newsertainment and religion from their preachers. It's worse than just not knowing science when they see it - they don't ever see it!

I'd love to believe that this would solve all problems, but to think, over 1/2 of the population of the technologically most advanced hyperpower believe in creationism, it is just unthinkable (yes I see Mercator's point of comparison with Russia and China now, sorry Merc ). It's not like they have been living on an island excluded from modern popular scientific understanding. It does say something about the mental capacity IMO.

 

[Smurf]

Where'd you get 1/2 from?

 

[Norman]

Yes. A lot of people believe in creationism. As discussed before, this is not incompatable with modern scientific notions. But it truly is surprising that some people do not believe in evolution- or rather choose to ignore- better way of saying it. I dated a women seriously for about a year in college and a major source of conflict between us was she didn't believe in evolution. This from a women who had a double major in one of the best state schools in the country. Her belief in god didn't allow her to believe in evolution- they were completely incompatable to her. I had a fellow graduate student- he was a Ph.D. in physics, who was a hardcore fundamental literal bible guy. He believed that the Earth was 6000 years old. He knew about evolution and understood it scientifically, but again his faith didn't allow him to believe in the theory. Did he go around telling us all that we were stupid for not believing what he believed? Nope. The problem is when people start pusing their BELIEFS on other people. Both of the people I mentioned understood that their faith was a belief and that beliefs were personal and many times un-scientific. By the way, neither of them wanted intellegent design taught as science.

 

[russ_watters]

As much as I try to keep politics out of relationships, on that issue, Norman, I'd have trouble beliving the girl was not an ignorant fool, and I tend not to date ignorant fools. Unless they are really hot, of course, then I date them for as long as I can tolerate them...

I really don't think it is enough to let them be if they aren't hurting anyone - eventually they are going to have kids and they are going to teach those kids that science is an illusion of a devious god.

 

[Mercator]

I think the typcial answer is that the question cannot be answered because, by definition, god has always existed.

How long is always? What was before always? You know, even in classic mathematics 2 parrallels intersect somewhere.

 

[Mercator]

You can't say it's impossible, it is highly improbable IMO. God is a matter of faith. I'm agnostic and it makes no sense to me, but if it makes sense to someone that believes in God, it's no skin off my nose, as long as they don't try to pretend it's something that it's not (such as science).
The majority of religious people have no problem with science.

EVO, I think I know what you mean. We have hypotheses about the beginning and these are not proven yet. So, why not describe this initial state, or what was before it, which we cannot scientifically describe at this moment, with the notion of God? At first sight it does no harm. But my problem with this, is that religion, the believe in God and creation, provides a dogmatic answer that frees people from looking any further for a scientific answer. I am not an agnostic, I'm an atheist. Just think about all these bright minds spending their braincells on studying a myth, be it the Christian, Jewish , Islamic or Taoist myth. What a waste...

 

[Norman]

As much as I try to keep politics out of relationships, on that issue, Norman, I'd have trouble beliving the girl was not an ignorant fool, and I tend not to date ignorant fools. Unless they are really hot, of course, then I date them for as long as I can tolerate them...
I really don't think it is enough to let them be if they aren't hurting anyone - eventually they are going to have kids and they are going to teach those kids that science is an illusion of a devious god.

The problem is you cannot force people to take your view. Kicking the snot out of a racist doesn't make him stop hating- it only makes him hate you too (which is fine in my view ). Changing someones beliefs is far too difficult to be done in a lifetime- let alone changing their religion. This is why, I believe, that the IDers are trying to change schooling. They hold a belief, their children challenge that belief or maybe even hold the opposite belief. Why- school must have done it. What to do? Well change the school- try to make everyone believe what I believe.

If these courts would start upholding the separation of church and state (and people would stop demeaning it with frivolous lawsuits about using the pledge of allegiance in public schools) along with having people who actually care about the development of the children through school- not some local politician who got elected to the school board cause s/he could afford to run. Even though s/he never got a college degree and was a C student in High School her/himself. We may eventually start having kids who come out of High School with an education- not just a diploma.

What do think a (not neccesarily "the") solution is Russ?

 

[Mercator]

As much as I try to keep politics out of relationships, on that issue, Norman, I'd have trouble beliving the girl was not an ignorant fool, and I tend not to date ignorant fools. Unless they are really hot, of course, then I date them for as long as I can tolerate them...
I really don't think it is enough to let them be if they aren't hurting anyone - eventually they are going to have kids and they are going to teach those kids that science is an illusion of a devious god.

Hey, you're actually human!

 

[russ_watters]

The problem is you cannot force people to take your view.

No, but I can force their kids to learn my view, and that's what this is about.

This is why, I believe, that the IDers are trying to change schooling. They hold a belief, their children challenge that belief or maybe even hold the opposite belief. Why- school must have done it. What to do? Well change the school- try to make everyone believe what I believe.

Agreed.

What do think a (not neccesarily "the") solution is Russ?

Well, aside from what I said about the scientific community needing to get more involved, I think things are going reasonably well, as far as keeping ID/creationism out of schools is concerned. Isolated, random school board lunacy never stands up to a court challenge.

National standards may help, but there is only so much that can be done, and I think students and teachers both already spend too much of their time jumping through hoops for the sake of meeting standards.

The press is another big culprit in the general subject of scientific illiteracy. Though the press is protected from regulation, it is not protected from humiliation, and the scientific community needs to start sticking it to the press when they fail in their ethical responsibilities when it comes to science. Bloggers took down a news media superstar and most of his higher level staff over bad reporting during the campaign. When the media abuses science for the sake of ratings, someone needs to beat them down (hmm...maybe I'll start that blog...).

That's somewhat of a general rant, but there is one specific way in which the media is failing on this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102701999.html"

Anyone see a problem with this headline? There is no debate in the scientific community between evolution and ID/creationism. The news media often (perhaps inadvertently) gives ID/creationism advocates credibility by implying they are on the same level as the science of evolution.

 

[loseyourname]

I'd love to believe that this would solve all problems, but to think, over 1/2 of the population of the technologically most advanced hyperpower believe in creationism, it is just unthinkable (yes I see Mercator's point of comparison with Russia and China now, sorry Merc ). It's not like they have been living on an island excluded from modern popular scientific understanding. It does say something about the mental capacity IMO.

Have you ever been to some of these places? They aren't isolated from technology, but they are most certainly isolated from any reasonable semblance of a scientifically thinking culture. The way people are raised - indoctrinated from birth - certainly makes a difference. Why do you think you're so intent on finding evidence for Buddhism in quantum theory? It's the same reason that people look for evidence of the Great Flood in the geological record and come up with nonsense like hydroplate theory. And it isn't because of low IQ. I'd imagine you're a smart girl, and many of the people pushing creationism and ID are also incredibly intelligent.

With the actual high-profile advocates, I'd posit that the problem is stepping outside of one's sphere of expertise. All of the well-credentialed, intelligent people advocating ID and hydroplate theory seem to be engineers, chemists, and physicists, who really are not qualified to make an evaluation of evolutionary biology any more than a biologist is qualified to critique the Copenhagen interpretation. The problem is that evolution is like politics. For whatever reason, everybody thinks they're experts. People that have probably never seen the Hardy-Weinberg equation, who probably cannot even pronounce 'endosymbiosis,' think they're as qualified to critique evolutionary theory. We would never see someone with no knowledge of the geometry of nth-dimensional space of variable curvature come in and try to critique general relativity (of course, because special relativity started with simple thought experiments, everyone will try to critique that).

With the common people, it seems to be more a problem of indoctrination. All they're ever told about from the beginning are all of the 'holes' in evolutionary theory. It's not a matter of them being stupid; it's a matter of inadequate education. And let's face it: we're not going to solve this problem by forcing everyone to take a course in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary theory is a complex and difficult subject to grasp; it's no more fit to be a GE requirement than is a course in advanced physics. People simply accept the theories of advanced physics that they don't understand because those theories don't offend their culturally created sensibilities. 95% of the people in the world that do accept evolutionary theory do so simply based on the fact that they trust scientific authority; it's not that they actually understand the nuances of the theory and are qualified to make an informed judgement about it. These people are no smarter and no less ignorant than those who reject evolution but aren't in a proper position of expertise to evaluate it critically. It's simply a difference of culture, in which some people believe that materialist science is at odds with a faith that they must hold to be saved, and others do not.

This reminds me of a program I recently watched called The Journey of Man. A geneticist is going around the world tracing the journey of the original humans to leave Africa and figuring out where they branched off to and when. When he comes to Australia, he's speaking to a man of aboriginal descent, asking him if they have any narratives about coming into Australia from southeast Asia and how they might have done so. The man insists that they came from Australia and that the rest of the world was descended from Australians. The genetictist shows him the evidence that that is not the case. Archaeological findings of human activity in Africa are way older than those in Australia, and Australians carry genetic markers from Africa, but not the other way around, proving that transmission of genetic material could only have been one way - Australians are descended from Africans, but not vice versa. No matter what he said, the man would not accept it and continued to insist that all human are descended from Australians. He didn't do this because he was a low-IQ, ignorant fool, but because it conflicted with his long-established and deeply felt identity, something that no man is going to easily give up.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Splitting ID and creationism is like splitting General Relativity and gravity.

You do realize that creationists believe that the world is only six or seven thousand years old? They believe that mankind is literally decended from the literal Adam and Eve. They believe mankind were placed on this Earth as they are now. They believe that dinosaur bones are evidence of the giants that existed before the flood. The point being that they believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.
Now if ID is creationism please find me an ID site that claims any of this.
Claiming the ignorance of others with ignorant statements only makes you look like a fool.

 

[SOS2008]

He's at it again -

Check this out:

(CBS/AP) The Reverend Pat Robertson says Pennsylvanians who voted members of the Dover Area school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" rejected God as well.

Eight school board members who wanted high school biology students to be told that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution lost their re-election bids Tuesday.

On Thursday's broadcast of "The 700 Club," Robertson told Dover residents, "If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God." The founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network explained, "You just voted God out of your city."

For more - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/10/politics/main1036232.shtml

 

[faust9]

You do realize that creationists believe that the world is only six or seven thousand years old? They believe that mankind is literally decended from the literal Adam and Eve. They believe mankind were placed on this Earth as they are now. They believe that dinosaur bones are evidence of the giants that existed before the flood. The point being that they believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.
Now if ID is creationism please find me an ID site that claims any of this.
Claiming the ignorance of others with ignorant statements only makes you look like a fool.

Well, there are two forms of ID, young Earth (8000 y/o AND the guiding hand) as well as old Earth (just the guiding hand).

 

[Evo]

Check this out:
For more - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/10/politics/main1036232.shtml

"You just voted God out of your city."



That's so ridiculous that it's...it's...Evo<------bites her tongue.

 

[Manchot]

I won't bite my tongue. Once again, Pat Robertson proves that he's a senile, sadistic man with no grasp on reality.

 

[SOS2008]

"You just voted God out of your city."

That's so ridiculous that it's...it's...Evo<------bites her tongue.

I don't know how much credibility Pat has anymore, but this is just more of the same "sinners and wrath of God" garbage that was said about New Orleans. You don't want to know how many people believe such things.

 

[Evo]

I don't know how much credibility Pat has anymore, but this is just more of the same "sinners and wrath of God" garbage that was said about New Orleans. You don't want to know how many people believe such things.

Way too many. I saw a recent poll that said 53% of Americans believed the bible over evolution.

That is just plain scary.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, there are two forms of ID, young Earth (800 y/o AND the guiding hand) as well as old Earth (just the guiding hand).

http://www.slate.com/id/2118388/

There are Creationists and Young Earthers that promote intelligent design but that does not mean ID has anything to do with Creationist or Young Earth theories. New Agers promote QM because they use it to try to make their metaphysics sound scientific and often misrepresent QM in the process. QM has nothing to do with the New Age movement. Time travel proponents use Relativity to suit their purposes while GR and SR haven't anything to do with Time Travel.
Many of the people who cite ID clearly don't understand ID or Evolution since ID does not dispute that life evolved from simpler forms into more complex ones which is the basis of evolution. ID only disputes the manner in which this occured, the mainstream belief on this issue being "natural selection". ID promotes the idea of a "driving force" (generally "intelligent")of some sort behind the evolution of species, that is all.
If you want to call ID unscientific that's fine. However it is not religion just because religious people believe it. ID is just a flawed and unscientific argument. Just calling it what it is without invoking epithets does just fine in discrediting it and it doesn't leave IDers room to state that they have been unfairly dismissed by ignorant labels.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe God doesn't play dice with the universe.

 

[mattmns]

How long is always? What was before always? You know, even in classic mathematics 2 parrallels intersect somewhere.

Another definition issue. I agree with you though, it logically does not make sense, but what can you do. Props to whoever created the definition of god.

 

[Cosmo16]

I believe that god created the universe, but i also believe that evolution was followed.
However, the way that the proponets of ID talk , I can not agree with their methods or their the way they twist science to their needs. I know what I believe isn't proveable.
I believe that religous views of the creation (or beginning) of the universe should be mentioned but not taught.

 

[Polly]

Have you ever been to some of these places? They aren't isolated from technology, but they are most certainly isolated from any reasonable semblance of a scientifically thinking culture. The way people are raised - indoctrinated from birth - certainly makes a difference. Why do you think you're so intent on finding evidence for Buddhism in quantum theory? It's the same reason that people look for evidence of the Great Flood in the geological record and come up with nonsense like hydroplate theory. And it isn't because of low IQ. I'd imagine you're a smart girl, and many of the people pushing creationism and ID are also incredibly intelligent.
...
This reminds me of a program I recently watched called The Journey of Man. A geneticist is going around the world tracing the journey of the original humans to leave Africa and figuring out where they branched off to and when. When he comes to Australia, he's speaking to a man of aboriginal descent, asking him if they have any narratives about coming into Australia from southeast Asia and how they might have done so. The man insists that they came from Australia and that the rest of the world was descended from Australians. The genetictist shows him the evidence that that is not the case. Archaeological findings of human activity in Africa are way older than those in Australia, and Australians carry genetic markers from Africa, but not the other way around, proving that transmission of genetic material could only have been one way - Australians are descended from Africans, but not vice versa. No matter what he said, the man would not accept it and continued to insist that all human are descended from Australians. He didn't do this because he was a low-IQ, ignorant fool, but because it conflicted with his long-established and deeply felt identity, something that no man is going to easily give up.

I have not had the pleasure to visit the places in question but I will accept what you say about these people being indoctrinated and therefore believe in creationism. My position is essentially this - The fact that indoctrinated Americans choose to, in Norman's words, ignore evolution, when confronted with cogent and persuasive evidence and conflicting claims of evolution, goes to the very heart of IQ. For what is IQ if not the

ability to reason... solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas...(and the) broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

.

 

[Anttech]

I believe that religous views of the creation (or beginning) of the universe should be mentioned but not taught.

whats the difference?

Relgion should be taught, so should science. More specifically the Facts of both, not opinions

 

[Polly]

Where'd you get 1/2 from?

Sorry, that would be what Ivan quoted in Post #11. Here

(CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.[continued]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in965223.shtml

 

[Phobos]

Many of the people who cite ID clearly don't understand ID or Evolution since ID does not dispute that life evolved from simpler forms into more complex ones which is the basis of evolution. ID only disputes the manner in which this occured, the mainstream belief on this issue being "natural selection". ID promotes the idea of a "driving force" (generally "intelligent")of some sort behind the evolution of species, that is all.

For what it's worth, ID tends to reject the idea of "macroevolution", although "microevolution" may be accepted. Of course, ID has a broad spectrum of supporters...some which accept small designed steps and some that require leaps of special creation.

Is there anyone who seriously thinks that "some sort of intelligence" is meant to be anything other than God? (Even if someone claims it's aliens, that just begs the question about alien evolution/creation...never mind the existence of aliens.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

For what it's worth, ID tends to reject the idea of "macroevolution", although "microevolution" may be accepted. Of course, ID has a broad spectrum of supporters...some which accept small designed steps and some that require leaps of special creation.

Is there anyone who seriously thinks that "some sort of intelligence" is meant to be anything other than God? (Even if someone claims it's aliens, that just begs the question about alien evolution/creation...never mind the existence of aliens.)

As far as I understand that should be "ID tends to reject the idea of 'macroevolution' via 'natural selection'". I've never seen an ID argument that states life did not evolve and just came into being more or less the way it is now. Though I have seen creationists claim this and use "irreducible complexity" as part of their argument.

This is getting a bit off the topic of the politics involved but if we intend to argue against ID being considered science we ought to have an understanding of it first shouldn't we?

 

[Evo]

Though I have seen creationists claim this and use "irreducible complexity" as part of their argument.

Actually, that's ID's claim.

"Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that they look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence — physical properties of an object that necessitate "design". The most common cited signs being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design proponents believe that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream explanations of systems, which attempt to explain the natural world exclusively through impersonal physical processes such as random mutations and natural selection."

This is getting a bit off the topic of the politics involved but if we intend to argue against ID being considered science we ought to have an understanding of it first shouldn't we?

I have a pretty good understanding of ID, and it's not quite the same as yours.

Here is some good background information:

"The Intelligent design movement is an organized neo-creationist campaign to promote Intelligent Design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States.

Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the Intelligent Design movement and its unofficial spokesman stated that the goal of Intelligent Design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[21]

"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."[22]

At the 1999 "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" Johnson described the movement thus: "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?" ..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." [24]

The Intelligent Design movement is largely the result of efforts by the conservative Christian think tank the Discovery Institute, and its Center for Science and Culture.

The Discovery Institute operates on a $4,000,000 budget [25] and receives financial support from 22 foundations, at least two-thirds of which state explicitly religious missions. The institute's CSC was founded largely with funds provided by Howard Ahmanson Jr., who has stated a goal of "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."[26] A CSC mission statement proclaimed its goal is to "unseat not just Darwinism, but also Darwinism's cultural legacy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

 

[Astronuc]

I am waiting for ID to disprove itself and prove evolution, or ID disproves the Bible.

Once again, Pat Robertson proves that he's a senile, sadistic man with no grasp on reality.

Not senile - deranged and demented.

So sue me Pat.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually, that's ID's claim.
"Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that they look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence — physical properties of an object that necessitate "design". The most common cited signs being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design proponents believe that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream explanations of systems, which attempt to explain the natural world exclusively through impersonal physical processes such as random mutations and natural selection."

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but the intent of my statement was to show that Creationists may use ID arguments but ID does not necessarily support Creationism proper. I have never seen IDers(that weren't also creationists) claim that life has always existed more or less as it is now. In fact from what I have seen of ID arguments they focus quite a bit on the Pre-Cambrian explosion, something which a true creationist wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole except perhaps to make a lame attempt at debunking the fossil records.

I have a pretty good understanding of ID, and it's not quite the same as yours.
Here is some good background information:
"The Intelligent design movement is an organized neo-creationist campaign to promote Intelligent Design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States.
Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the Intelligent Design movement and its unofficial spokesman stated that the goal of Intelligent Design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[21]
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."[22]
At the 1999 "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" Johnson described the movement thus: "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?" ..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." [24]
The Intelligent Design movement is largely the result of efforts by the conservative Christian think tank the Discovery Institute, and its Center for Science and Culture.
The Discovery Institute operates on a $4,000,000 budget [25] and receives financial support from 22 foundations, at least two-thirds of which state explicitly religious missions. The institute's CSC was founded largely with funds provided by Howard Ahmanson Jr., who has stated a goal of "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."[26] A CSC mission statement proclaimed its goal is to "unseat not just Darwinism, but also Darwinism's cultural legacy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

This is about a modern political movement. You know as well as I do that the "intelligent design" argument is at least centuries old, or gained it's original popularity with the "watch maker" argument. Just because a political movement has taken on ID as a cause to champion in order to promote their own agenda does not mean that ID really supports their cause.
As I've already stated new agers and the like have used QM to advance their own agenda.
Helena Blavatsky used misinterpreted theoretical physics to promote her shams. Alistair Crowley promoted theoretical physics and even perscribed a degree in science among other things as necessary for anyone to be properly intiated into and understand his brand of mysticism.
Recently the Ether has been ressurected by free energy advocates. We all know that the ether was only a failed theory on the propagation of "light waves".

 

[Evo]

This is about a modern political movement.

Yes, that's what we're discussing, the ID from the Discovery Institute, that's what is causing all the trouble and they are the ones in the news. No wonder you've been on a different page from the rest of us.

You know as well as I do that the "intelligent design" argument is at least centuries old, or gained it's original popularity with the "watch maker" argument.

Not the current "Intelligent Design" movement that we are discussing, it started in 1988. You're discussing something completely different.

I'm not aware of any other group currently touting "Intelligent Design". They're not in the news. Do they have a website? Seriously, I'm wondering what you're referring to, I know you too well to not believe you.

 

[Danger]

Not senile - deranged and demented.
So sue me Pat.

He can't. In order to sue, you have to prove the statement false.

 

[BobG]

Yes, that's what we're discussing, the ID from the Discovery Institute, that's what is causing all the trouble and they are the ones in the news. No wonder you've been on a different page from the rest of us.
Not the current "Intelligent Design" movement that we are discussing, it started in 1988. You're discussing something completely different.
I'm not aware of any other group currently touting "Intelligent Design". They're not in the news. Do they have a website? Seriously, I'm wondering what you're referring to, I know you too well to not believe you.

Yes, there is a definite difference between the current Intelligent Design movement and the general idea that there might have been an intelligent designer that created and determined the future of the universe.

The Intelligent Design movement has little to do with traditional, centuries old debate about whether there was an intelligent designer 'behind the curtain'. For the older intelligent design philosophy, quite a few notable scientists have believed that not only was there an intelligent designer, but if humans could accumulate enough data, they could look into the future and see where the design ultimately led ("determinists" like Einstein and LaPlace).

If the Intelligent Design movement had any understanding of what it was talking about, it wouldn't be attacking Darwin - it would be attacking Heisenberg, Schroedinger, and Dirac. Quantum mechanics causes a lot more problems for the intelligent design idea (both the current political movement and the older general philosophy) than evolution does.

Stephen Hawking's explanation of the determinism/random chance debate: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Stephen Hawking's explanation of the determinism/random chance debate: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html

This completely misses the legitimate loophole for ID.

Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

This is silly. The obvious problem is that a god - omnipotent by definition - would control the outcome of every roll of the dice. So the argument can be made that the outcome of any and every quantum event, something that according to QM we cannot predict, is the manifest will of God.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This completely misses the legitimate loophole for ID.
This is silly. The obvious problem is that a god - omnipotent by definition - would control the outcome of every roll of the dice. So the argument can be made that the outcome of any and every quantum event, something that according to QM we cannot predict, is the manifest will of God.

That, I think, is very close to what the Pope thinks. Of course the quantum physicists would respond to that that such an idea just means you haven't truly grokked the quantum principle but are still wandering in the hidden variable wilderness, And that wilderness was shown to be non productive (i.e. physically void) by the Bell theorem and the Aspect experiment (see quantum forum for many discussions).

 

[BobG]

Of course the quantum physicists would respond to that that such an idea just means you haven't truly grokked the quantum principle but are still wandering in the hidden variable wilderness, And that wilderness was shown to be non productive (i.e. physically void) by the Bell theorem and the Aspect experiment (see quantum forum for many discussions).

That sounds almost biblical. You're not a missionary, are you?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes, that's what we're discussing, the ID from the Discovery Institute, that's what is causing all the trouble and they are the ones in the news. No wonder you've been on a different page from the rest of us.
Not the current "Intelligent Design" movement that we are discussing, it started in 1988. You're discussing something completely different.
I'm not aware of any other group currently touting "Intelligent Design". They're not in the news. Do they have a website? Seriously, I'm wondering what you're referring to, I know you too well to not believe you.

Well this is the political forum and I know that we're discussing the political ramifications. But the actual argument is the core of the political movements strength because so many people, regardless of faith or lack there of, think the argument has merit. That was the reason why Dawkins wrote The Blind Watch Maker, because he realized that so many people did not realize the strength of the argument for natural selection and the logic problems inherant in ID.
From what I remember of Dawkins' book he did not bash ID what so ever or make claims of conspiracy on the part of Christian Conservatives, though by his attitude I could see that he likely does have an issue with these things. He made his argument realizing that if he intended to persuade people he could not afford to turn them off with political and religeous bashing. As Ivan stated before we need to appeal to people and try to help them understand rather then being argumentative and distainful. If we say that it's all just a big conspiracy by the religeous right and no person in their right mind would believe in ID then we risk instilling indifference or even distain in those we seek to persuade simply because they don't like our manner.
So I'm just saying that if we forget the political movement and it's intentions and focus on the argument we will likely get further. If you notice one of the first things you read on http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?
We believe objectivity in the institutions of science, government and the media will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.

If they talk like this and we mudsling then we look bad.

 

[Evo]

So I'm just saying that if we forget the political movement and it's intentions and focus on the argument we will likely get further. If you notice one of the first things you read on http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?
We believe objectivity in the institutions of science, government and the media will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.

If they talk like this and we mudsling then we look bad.

OMG, you believe in ID?

TSA, there is NO science behind ID, they use no scientific methods, they do not meet scientific criteria, that's what everyone is pointing out, IT'S BS!

I hope you're not too far gone to be saved. Read this, it explains why it's not science.

Portraying Intelligent Design as science

Intelligent design proponents often claim that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science, is about how and where to draw the lines around science.

For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:

Consistent (internally and externally)

Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)

Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

Based upon controlled, repeated experiments

Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)

Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.

Typical objections to defining Intelligent Design as science are:

Intelligent design lacks consistency.[16]

Intelligent design is not falsifiable.[17]

Intelligent design violates the principle of parsimony.[18]

Intelligent design is not empirically testable.[19]

Intelligent design is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[20]

In light of its failure to adhere to these standards, critics contend that Intelligent Design can not be said to follow the scientific method[21].

There is no way to test its conjectures, and the underlying assumptions of Intelligent Design are not open to change.

Intelligent design critics further point out that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts. In Its 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals opinion, the United States Supreme Court articulated a set of criteria for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, in effect developing their own demarcation criteria. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. The four Daubert criteria are:

-The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.

-The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

-There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.

-The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

Intelligent design also fails to meet the legal definition of science on each of the four criteria."[/color]

 

[Astronuc]

Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?

We believe objectivity in the institutions of science, government and the media will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.

If they talk like this and we mudsling then we look bad.

The point is the ID ultimately is subjective, not objective, and the proponents do have a religious agenda.

The ID 'propaganda' is disingenuous.

We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design

This is a false statement, IMO.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

OMG, you believe in ID?

LOL! Why do you think that?
I've read about both natural selection and ID. I can not allow myself to consider an idea to be flawed or wrong or what have you unless I have read what the people themselves say about their case. I'm also very picky about my debunking sources since so many skeptics are too often over zealous about tearing apart their targets to be objective about the idea they are debunking. I think Richard Dawkins did a pretty good job with "The Blind Watch Maker".
Just because I have read some of their material doesn't mean I believe them. I know about New Agers, Theosophy, Crowley, Free Energy, and so forth because I read what they have to say. Aside from enlightening myself about their ideas and figuring out for myself what I don't agree with or believe I actually find it entertaining. So far I would have to say that Carlos Castenada was the most entertaining author I have read when researching these sorts of things.

The point is the ID ultimately is subjective, not objective, and the proponents do have a religious agenda.

The ID 'propaganda' is disingenuous.

But the concern should not be in regards to the proponents but the people who believe them. The people who believe do not necessarily have a "religious agenda" or a desire to spread propaganda.
Why do we want to attack the ID proponents? It doesn't accomplish anything as can already be seen by the number of people who subscribe to the ID argument and the fact that they are winning cases in trying to get it taught in schools.
So don't you think that instead of attacking the proponents we should be persuading the adherants? The followers will feel attacked when you attack their leaders.
Do you think that an Enlightened masses will follow and ignorant movement? You can not enlighten people who see you as an enemy. Don't give the ID proponents any help in making you out to be the enemy or you just assist in your own defeat.

 

[BobG]

That, I think, is very close to what the Pope thinks. Of course the quantum physicists would respond to that that such an idea just means you haven't truly grokked the quantum principle but are still wandering in the hidden variable wilderness, And that wilderness was shown to be non productive (i.e. physically void) by the Bell theorem and the Aspect experiment (see quantum forum for many discussions).

Yes, the Catholic Church is pretty much neutral on the method of creating the universe, the Earth, and the human body. Whatever is discovered through scientific research is fine by them. Their stand is on the creation of the human soul. In other words, by whatever means the human body came about or however long it took, once it had developed, God took the next step and created a soul to occupy it.

About the only Genesis story the Catholic Church takes literally is the story of Adam and Eve. I'm not sure why they're so stuck on the details when the real issue is the idea of Original Sin. It's almost as if they're stuck between a rock and a hard place in that their choices are a) find a better story in the Bible that gets across the same message, b) update the Bible with a better story (somewhat scary to do, considering the Bible's status), or c) hang on to the story because it's the only one that gets across their message.

And Ivan's right about the 'quandary' quantum mechanics creates for the Catholic religion. Taken the right way (with Ivan's loophole), quantum mechanics just reinforce the idea that man can't become God, nor even completely understand how God works.