News Kansas votes to endorse ignorance

[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.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

The reason is Saint Paul. He contradicted the opinion of some rabbis of his day that death came into the world through disobedience to the Law by showing that the patriarchs who lived before the Law was given to Moses died just the same, and "where there is no Law there can be no disobedience".

In searching for another cause of death he hit on the disobedience of Adam to God's commandment not to eat of the tree. Thus the origin of original sin. The church has always parroted this and now they're stuck with it. They are obviously in total wagon-circling mode now, unable to give up even one minor practice for fear of some imagined slippery slope.

 

[mathwonk]

Tact is also useful in discussing real science. For instance when someone says something goofy on a thread here about manifold calculus, it is usually not helpful to retort that he/she would not recognize a tensor field if it bit them on the fanny, even if that seems likely.
My favorite website on the Kansas evolution situation is the following, devoted to the claims of the church of the flying spaghetti monster. They are suing Kansas for inclusion in the curriculum.
http://www.venganza.org/
A sample of their scientific reasoninjg follows:
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
The graph includes the interesting fact that in one recent year there were exactly 17 living pirates. they also offer t - shirts.

 

[Blahness]

This is actually being debated in courts?


...Sad. ;_;

 

[mathwonk]

hey I'm from tennessee, you have no isdea how sad I feel. recall the scopes mess?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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).

I don't see how "no hidden variables" rules out divine intervention. By definition a hidden variable must be a physical attribute. To me this would imply a clockwork universe; not reality as the manifest will of a supreme being.

Btw, I'm not saying that I believe this; only that the argument can be made.

 

[Evo]

Tact is also useful in discussing real science. For instance when someone says something goofy on a thread here about manifold calculus, it is usually not helpful to retort that he/she would not recognize a tensor field if it bit them on the fanny, even if that seems likely.
My favorite website on the Kansas evolution situation is the following, devoted to the claims of the church of the flying spaghetti monster. They are suing Kansas for inclusion in the curriculum.
http://www.venganza.org/
A sample of their scientific reasoninjg follows:
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
The graph includes the interesting fact that in one recent year there were exactly 17 living pirates. they also offer t - shirts.

Yes, he has reached out and touched them with his noodly appendage.

I would rather my children be taught about the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think ID is a great evolution in our understanding of religion. However it definitely is not science.

Intelligence seems to be the direction evolution is taking, this IMO is because the software of DNA is flexible enough that no matter the environment, and forces of natural selection, the end result will be living creatures, conscious of consciousness. Throughout the universe of universes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...so this would imply that the will of God cannot be predicted; only the average will God over many samples.

 

[dlgoff]

Well if you consider Decoherence, there may be preferred states. Where do these come from?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well if you consider Decoherence, there may be preferred states. Where do these come from?

Decoherence! Why that's merely speculation.

And there are still issues such as decay.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.venganza.org/
A sample of their scientific reasoning follows:
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."
The graph includes the interesting fact that in one recent year there were exactly 17 living pirates. they also offer t - shirts.

The data in the graph cited by Veganza are incorrect - there are thousands of pirates still around - and if one considers the international black market to include drug and arms smuggling (and other illicit activities), the numbers of 'pirates' are in 10's of thousands.

If some group seeks to impose ID in the local school system, I will vehemently oppose it. ID is religion, not science, and it is a unique religious perspective, not one that is universally shared.

I could accept a course on comparative religion, and such courses are offered at universities through the study of humanities.

 

[EngineeredVision]

Personally, I think that there is nothing wrong with offering a class in public schools that teaches about the most common world religions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Additionally, I believe that a general philosophy class would be advantageous to students that would benefit from expanding their general knowledge. However, I don't believe that these topics are an appropriate subject for a science class since science should remain a study of natural phenomena. This is the point that I think the Kansas School Board screwed up on.

Myself, I believe in a higher intelligent being and creator, but that doesn't restrict me from also believing in the Big Bang, evolution, or many other scientifically credible facts and theories. I'm not going to get into my own philosophical and theological beliefs right now since that would open a discussion that couldn't easily be contained here. I also don't think that teaching kids about common world religions, traditions, and beliefs is going to offend anyone or pursuade them into changing their own ideas and beliefs.

If anything, society should promote an openess to a broad range of subjects in school and forget about the politically correct bs that is keeping many citizens ignorant of the world around them. Anyone, who is afraid that teaching kids about other belief systems will corrupt their minds is just as ignorant and asinine as parents who think that teaching kids about sex is dangerous mentally and psychologically. Just like the topic of sex, I think there is a time and a place developmentally where children would be prepared for a class on world beliefs without being influenced, dissuaded, or persuaded one way or another.

As far as the Spagetti Noodle Monster is concerned I have read the article, and find it amusing but by no means a credible argument intended to show that teaching intelligent design will open a can of worms for other ridiculous theories and beliefs. Not only does the Spagetti Noodle Monster theory defy any common rationale, but it is not a commonly accepted belief system around the world. In history we teach about main world events, individuals, and civilizations. We can't possilbly afford to teach every single aspect of history for the sake of fair coverage, because not everyone needs (or wants) to learn in detail the origins of silverware, the history of a single insignificant carpenter in Norway, or the history of a mostly unknown town in Australia during the time of WWII. Institutions and educators use common sense and relevance of subject matter when choosing what specific topics to teach in a class. The Spagetti Noodle Monster theory is a weak satirical tactic employed to divert attention from the real issue.

Anyway, I want to say in conclusion that unnatural phenomena should be excluded in science classes and if it is to be discussed in context of scientific theory that it should be done in a philosophy class. Anyone who disagrees with this would have to be a hypocrite to consider themselves a scientist since scientists are supposed to continually further their knowledge, increase their understanding of the world, and revise their own preconceptions when evidence suggest they should. I'm not saying that there is currently any evidence to suggest that scientists should change their current ideas. I'm simply saying that scientists and any rationale minded person should remain open to opportunities that may expand their knowledge of the world around them rather than close potential learning experiences.

Anyone else agree or disagree?

 

[Art]

Personally I think religious doctrines and other 'belief' systems should be taught at Sunday schools for those who want it and kept completely separate from mainstream education.

 

[EngineeredVision]

So what you're saying Art is that it's ok to be close minded and to limit the variety of knowledge that one acquires.

I'm not suggesting that schools should try to influence students to embrace any religious doctrine, but that students should at least be made aware of the most common belief systems and traditions found around the world. As long as the subject is approached objectively there should be nothing wrong with it. In fact, it seems that understanding world religions would be a prerequisite for many history classes as many world events have been related to some significant religous movement or beliefs.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Dear Harvard,

My kid is from NJ.

Yours,

Jimmy

 

[Evo]

Anyway, I want to say in conclusion that unnatural phenomena should be excluded in science classes and if it is to be discussed in context of scientific theory that it should be done in a philosophy class. Anyone who disagrees with this would have to be a hypocrite to consider themselves a scientist since scientists are supposed to continually further their knowledge, increase their understanding of the world, and revise their own preconceptions when evidence suggest they should.

That's exactly what the opponents of ID are saying, that's why ID should not be taught as science because it requires accepting supernatural phenomena. ID taught as religion is fine, ID taught as science is wrong. Sounds like you agree.

Teaching about the fact that there are varied religious beliefs in history or social science classes is done, teaching religion in a non-parochial school should be prohibited, that's what churches are for.

 

[jcsd]

I can trace my family back to the eighteenth century and no known member of my family has at any time in their life been a monkey. That is why evolution is wrong.

 

[Art]

I can trace my family back to the eighteenth century and no known member of my family has at any time in their life been a monkey. That is why evolution is wrong.

Obviously you are not related to G W Bush then.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Obviously you are not related to G W Bush then.

Ahem! Please do not mock my ancestry.
G W Bush is obviously reptilian brained and I'll bet you money that David Ike will back me up on that one too.

 

[Danger]

G W Bush is obviously reptilian brained

Really, now... what a horrible thing to say! You get up here and apologize to those reptiles right now!
I'd like to correct your statement, but then I would have to apologize... to the plant kingdom.