Creationism/Intelligent Design

[Jadedcarguy]

First off, as much as I would like to include Einstein as a fellow non-believer, he most definitely not an atheist. One of his most well known quotes involves god not playing dice. That was why he never could understand quantum physics, despite it being a natural outgrowth of his own theories.

Of course what one astrophysicist thinks about theology matters... Wait, no it doesn't mean squat.
I wouldn't care what my mechanic says about cooking.

Einstein was certainly not a religious man. Most would call him an atheist or agnostic. Theists would certainly like to claim him as one of their own but they simply can't when the quotes they use are seen in context. But don't take my word for it. Link

[Slytovhand]

Ok... as I've said before, I don't see ID as being a form of science. I do see that there are reasonably compelling reasons to believe that there was something out there (and that's other than my own beliefs).

Now... Flyn - I certainly wouldnt' want to be listening to a religious person about theology - they've already decided what's true, and what's not. If I listen to an astrophysicist, I can at least get an idea of whether they're trying to pull my leg or not. I'd be asking a scientist to see if there is valid reason to think such things. Evolution isn't really all that hard to follow, or to believe. What is a bit of a mindspin for me is that a hunk of rock about 5 billion years ago somehow managed to create produce 'life'... not saying it didn't, just saying it's a mindspin.

I don't know about Einsteins beliefs. All I can do is post what appears to be a quote from him saying "Well - I'm not sure that there isn't something out there that didn't have something to do with this...".

And JC, I still think you're throwing ID into religion too much. Sure, it's big pushers have a specific agenda to uphold and defend - and there is an ulterior motive involved - but that in itself doesn't mean it doesn't have a place. Although I haven't really mentioned it (cos it's what's in my head, and I haven't gotten around to realising you're not telepathic ), is that I think it's fine to belief in some sort of ID. I don't see a real need to even try to 'prove' said existence though. (although, if people are going to poo-poo it, then I'll go and defend it )

Now - evolution is still only a 'theory', which, in scientific circles is a great place to be, but it still doesn't mean it's right - no matter how much people want to say it's the bee's knees. I sort of love (read: hate) how people jump onto ID and compare it to evolution as it's only protagonist - or that ID gets it's 'proofs' only from evolution. It doesn't (which is what some of those links are about). So it's not the past 3 or so billion years that has much place in this argument. It's actually about the first few trillionths of a second around the beginning of the Big Bang (see Stephen Hawking's quote at the beginning of my last post). It's that bit before the universe came into being where ID should be looked at. 5 billion years later is a complete waste of space (and time). After all, electrons spin in only 1 of 2 ways. You take a ball, put it into a wind tunnel, and no way is it going to spin in only 1 of 2 ways.. why do electrons? Valences... what's the deal there? These are fundamental questions of physics - not biology, and no, science doesn't have answers to this. But these fundamentals were in place from the instant of the Big Bang - dare I say even before it. Again - you've only got 1 chance at getting it right - and there are billions of things that need taking care of (all those pesky laws and that...). Like some of those I linked and quoted - there's something a bit 'fishy' going on.

So... any non-evolution comments at all??


Flyn - surely, your mechanic just might be a fantastic cook?? I know I can whip up a few good things (I can burn rice too.....don't play computer games while cooking!!!!!)

Oh - JC, yeah, I tend to agree with your comment on religion and walls and boundaries as well... 'spiritualism' and religion are 2 different little bunnies...

[Flyndaran]

...
Flyn - surely, your mechanic just might be a fantastic cook?? I know I can whip up a few good things (I can burn rice too.....don't play computer games while cooking!!!!!)...

Of course he could be. But what are the chances that he is if all you know about him is that he is a famous mechanic? Pretty darn low. It's the fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Even the single most skilled, knowledgeable, intelligent biochemist can be wrong about a particular biochemical statement. They may even be right, but for the wrong reasons.

A famous paleontologist, Baker, makes wild shakey statements about dinsosaurian physiology all the time. But he got one right about the carnivores almost certain endothermic metabolism, and he gets hailed as a maverick genius. He was right, but for the wrong reasons as the evidence at the time of his claim was not sufficient to make that claim publically.

...Oh - JC, yeah, I tend to agree with your comment on religion and walls and boundaries as well... 'spiritualism' and religion are 2 different little bunnies...

I don't get organized religion, so I certainly don't get unorganized individual religion aka spirituality.
I think I'll tackle that topic when mainstream religion makes sense to me... not something I really expect to happen in my life... But hey, hope abounds.

I simply don't have the genes/mental architecture to have or even understand the concept of faith which seems necessary to any form of religion or spirituality.
I really try to understand it, but it feels like a born blind person asking someone to describe colors. Or, from my perspective, it feels like a normal person, me, asking others to describe why they believe things that seem to be believed in, BECAUSE they have no evidence. That faith concept both terrifies me and seriously confuses me.

To me it seems like a delusion that should cause massive havoc and destruction of rational societies... But since it doesn't and some religious people claim to do good things becuase of their religious beliefs, I get really confused about the whole issue.
The most open minded, and yet rational person I know is a mildly retarded christian. Just knowing her has kept me from falling down the attractive rabbit hole of overly aggressive atheism.
The fact that she will radically adjust her paradigm when faced with sufficient evidence, is something I find amazingly admirable for any human, let alone a religious "slow" woman.
She had been told all her life about the evils, satanic, nonsense of atheists and pagans... But when she met me and my life partner, she threw out the beliefs that did not fit her observations of our niceness and general morality.

[Jadedcarguy]

Ok... as I've said before, I don't see ID as being a form of science. I do see that there are reasonably compelling reasons to believe that there was something out there (and that's other than my own beliefs).

From a scientific standpoint there are no compelling reasons to accept ID. From a philosophical one, sure. We'll just leave it at that, OK?

I don't know about Einsteins beliefs. All I can do is post what appears to be a quote from him saying "Well - I'm not sure that there isn't something out there that didn't have something to do with this...".

Einstein said a lot of things that can be seen as religious when taken out of context. I urge you to read some sites that effectively refute those claims. A quick google will turn up quite a few.

And JC, I still think you're throwing ID into religion too much.

I totally disagree. In your words................

Sure, it's big pushers have a specific agenda to uphold and defend - and there is an ulterior motive involved

Religion is the driving force behind the ID movement. They want it in science classes because they are losing young minds to reality, and that does not bode well for their continued existence. However, if they get their way it does not bode well for the future of American science. Foreign scientists are already stepping in to fill the roles once held by American minds simply because our scientist's hands are tied by dogma. Thousands of people suffer everyday, some dying, from ailments that could be eliminated through stem cell research, yet we as a society block it at every turn because of archaic beliefs. If today's children are taught ID as science, like the ID pushers want, the future looks bleak indeed. So no, I'm not throwing ID into religion too much.

- but that in itself doesn't mean it doesn't have a place.

It does have a place. Philosophy classes or religious schools can teach it all they want. Not in science class, though. It has no place there.

(although, if people are going to poo-poo it, then I'll go and defend it )

That depends on how it's being poo-pooed. Look at it this way. Alchemy was once considered the forefront of science. Today it is considered hopelessly quaint and of no use to science, so it is studied in philosophy and history classes if at all. As long as it stays there mainstream science will say nothing of it. See what happens, however, if someone tries to incorporate it into a modern chemistry book. The outcry would be deafening.

Now - evolution is still only a 'theory', which, in scientific circles is a great place to be,

Damn right it's a great place to be. The theory of gravity is "only a theory", yet we stay firmly planted in our chairs because of it. If a discovery is made that changes the theory of gravity significantly, we would stay in our chairs because gravity would continue on. It's the same with evolution. Every single new fossil find, every plant fiber, every bone, has the potential to falsify evolution, yet it doesn't. It strengthens it. Sometimes we have to reevaluate what was thought previously about a certain species, but nothing comes to light that says evolution is wrong. It is a fantastic theory.

Here are two definitions of theory, from MW.

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.

6 c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

This is the definition of the word that relates to its use in scientific circles. Pretty cut and dry, and notice the use of the word 'facts'. A fact is something that is true. Evolution is a set of facts, the theory is how they fit together.

Here's the definition that religious types like to use to "disprove" evolution.

6 b: an unproved assumption

If the scientific community were using that definition of the word, then the attack would be valid. They're not, and it's not.

It's actually about the first few trillionths of a second around the beginning of the Big Bang (see Stephen Hawking's quote at the beginning of my last post). It's that bit before the universe came into being where ID should be looked at.

Hawking is an agnostic, so you don't get to use his quotes to prove ID either.

As far as the moment before the Big Bang is concerned, there is no way we can know what happened, and no way we likely ever will. Like God, it resides outside of known space and time, and is therefore unmeasurable and untestable. So what exactly should be looked at?

After all, electrons spin in only 1 of 2 ways. You take a ball, put it into a wind tunnel, and no way is it going to spin in only 1 of 2 ways.. why do electrons?

Electrons aren't in a wind tunnel. Look at it another way, put a ball in a bathtub. It will likely float. Yet electrons go down to the bottom of the tub and further, to the center of the earth. Why not the ball? Why is the ball behaving differently than the electrons?

Valences... what's the deal there? These are fundamental questions of physics - not biology, and no, science doesn't have answers to this.

Valences are indeed a scientific conundrum, yet I would consider them more a fundamental question of chemistry, not physics. But again I say so what? At one point many of the scientific truths we take for granted were conundrums that could not be explained. Explanations were found, as I'm sure valences will be explained one day. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll have to say it again, a lack of understanding does not prove the supernatural.

there's something a bit 'fishy' going on.

No there isn't. If you dive into it with a preconceived assumption that there is a creator and all of this has a divine purpose, sure it seems fishy. If you go in with an open mind and simply look at evidence, it actually makes sense.

Think of it this way. If you get called for jury duty and the defendant in the case is a certain race and is accused of a crime that has been perpetrated against you in the past by an individual of the same race, you could reasonably be assumed to have a preconceived notion of guilt and would not be selected for that jury because it could skew the results. Your results have been skewed because of your assumptions with ID as well.

You have assumed there is a creator. In that, you will see a creator when you look at the evidence of life, cosmology, geology, chemistry, physics and so on. Try looking at it without that assumption.



Edit: And again here I am with the epic post length.

[Slytovhand]

Okies... back to the long posting again

Flyn - the fallacy is Appeal to Inappropriate Authority. I still say an astrophycisist is a good authority to be looking at all the 'coinicidences' that occur in the make up of the universe. And a logician to see what logically follows and what doesn't.

Sucks the way that crap people get credited for great things - and vice versa. Also.... just because either of those 2 things happens, is not good enough reason to ignore the stuf they come up with... (sort of like racism... it's not relevant). The Romans killed thousands of people in their expansionist policies, and enslaved even more. They also happened to have built a stack of things (like aqueducts). We don't ignore the inventions because of the bad things they did...

Besides - your mechanic may have spent the previous 15 years as a top chef in international hotels, before getting jack of it and wanting to work on cars.... (yeah - ok, so you need to ask). It sort of annoys me (not related to this thread, btw...) how pop singers and movie stars etc aren't allowed to voice their opinion about, say, politics, and get told to 'stick to what they do best'. Why... anyone can study and make intelligent informed decisions. Just because the rest of the population doesn't, doesn't mean some can...

/rant


Organised religion... yeah - dunno! Sheep... People needing someone else to tell them what they should believe... the spiritual side of things is a very personal connection with what you believe. It makes far more sense to me than just listening to someone else's interpretations and experiences. I too, don't get that 'God' is there for everyone, but you've got to go through someone else first... 'My lot' go direct - go to the source (of whatever that may be - each according to each individual's beliefs).


JC - so, Einstein never said anything along the lines of "you know, sometimes I'm not so sure that science can explain everything about this universe" - without it actually meaning "Hey - just kidding ". Hmmm - I don't think so. No - I'm not saying he was a believer of any particular deity type... just saying he wasn't a raving atheist. All I'm saying is that he at least expessed agnostic thoughts publicly... and perhaps even suggested why he had those thoughts.

In part I agree with what you said about ID and religion. But that's part of the problem - while the whole ID debate rages between science and fundy christians, that's all it will be. They hijacked the entire thing (even though ID will very nicely denounce a few christian basic concepts ). Bloody fundamentalists... grrrrr....... And because it's been hijacked, it is far less likely to either a) be taken seriously, or b) to concentrate on the real reasons for why some people - such as those mentioned - like the idea.

I also totally agree that people are getting brainwashed - but that's religion in general. People aren't taught to think and discuss things critically. They make irrelevant arguments that make no sense whatsoever. ID specifically makes NO assertions as to what the designer is actually like - other than being rational (for the reasons I said above).

Oh - I'm not 'proving' ID - I'm just showing supporting arguments or thoughts.

Pre-Big Bang... what??? Are you seriously suggesting science shouldn't be taking a shot at that? Or, say, what happens when you go into a Black Hole?? (one mathematical thought is that Black Holes create 'Baby Universes' - Lee Smolin I think is the guy to see...).

Electron spin - that's only an example I was using to indicate - there are a stack of random possibilities, but somehow, the universe only chooses a few specific ones. Also, that the universe is precise, and in that precision, complex. Such precision and complexity is, to me, not through mere chance. If not mere chance - then what's the other option.

Question - if you managed to win lotto once (and yes, you purchased a ticket), is that chance or otherwise? Sure - chance is a good back here. What about winning it the week after as well? And the week after that, and the week after that? At what point do you look at the number of winnings in a row and say "Hmmmm - maybe it's not chance, but something is going on. Someone has rigged this thing up...".


Oh, so true - lack of proof is not evidence against - or vice versa ... (hang on - that doesn't make sense ) Ok... no, supernatural isn't proven by lack of understanding. But lack of understanding, and previous ability to find explanation is just as unable to disprove supernatural agencies.


Your last comment (pre-edit)... it's not just accepting the facts and the evidence that makes the other questions. It's asking the big one...why? And how? And not just accepting the 'it just is' as a good enough answer. Strangely enough, it's just this very thinking that science has done really good at finding answers for....

[Jadedcarguy]

Slyt, here's a piece on a letter that Einstein wrote himself discussing his religious "views". Pretty cut and dry.

Link

In his own words, "childish superstition".

As for ID being "hijacked" by religion, here's an article from the Washington Post discussing it's origins. It is a pretty old idea that keeps getting trotted out to refute science. Nevertheless, it was originally posited by individuals with a religious bent.

Link

Anyone who would go to all of the trouble to mash together various grades of bullshit in order to get something resembling chocolate cake has a nefarious purpose, no? ID has a nefarious purpose. It's entire reason for being is to build a case for a creator. Whether that's God of some Wiccan idea of Mother Nature, it doesn't matter. It's masquerading as science and always has.



As for the rest,

Pre Big Bang not being looked at? Large Hadron Collider, anyone? The experiments being done there may give us a glimpse at the events of the moment. As far as what happened before, if it falls outside our ability to look, there isn't much to see. If our tech becomes advanced enough to decipher the moments before BB, I'm sure science will be all over it. I never suggested we shouldn't look, just that we currently can't.

Electron spin. Yes, they spin one of two ways. Why not three? Or four? Well, the atom would most likely destroy itself if that happened, so there's your answer. No need for the supernatural.

Lotto?? Come on, you're smarter than that. Creationists like to do that, take something that is well understood by science, not so much by the general population, and use psuedo-science and common experiences to make it make "sense". It still doesn't make it true.

You want to talk about chance? What if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out 65MYA? That was mammals' big break, you know. Would humanity even have arisen? Would cetateans have evolved to fill the niche we take? Would anything? All unanswerable of course, but amazing to ponder.

Yes, science does a bang-up job of answering why and how. I think you're talking about the greater 'Why?' though. The 'why' that inevitably comes with being self aware. Personally, my reason to be here is to make the most of it. The way I see it we only get one go round. If we spend time trying to appease the supernatural, that's less time left to enjoy life.

[Flyndaran]

Asking what created the universe is no more enlightening than asking what created the creator.

Asking what happened before the big bang, and time itself, is asking what were you thinking before you were a single celled fertalized egg.
They're nonsense questions assuming facts that are stated at the beginning to not be true.

What's the sound of one hand clapping?
Clapping is defined as two hands coming together to produce a sound.
One hand precludes the completion of such an act, therefore the question is meaningless.

[Flyndaran]

The scientific method and science in general will determine what is, what is and is not possible, and all sorts of facts and aspects of reality.
Rational analysis of statistics, likely outcomes, etc. might even tell us what we should do to attain our goals. But of course, it won't tell us what those goals are. We choose what we want.
Big whoop. I don't label that a critical flaw in science.
The sidewalk won't tell you which way to go.

[otakuneko]

Saying "God did it" is pretty much throwing up your hands and saying, "I can't explain it, so I'll pull something outta my ass."

May as well say a wizard did it.

IMHO.

[Slytovhand]

JC - like you're first post up there... too bad about the links not actually doing what you intended though. Especially the first one... Let me quote from the bottom of it:

His position on God has been widely misrepresented by people on both sides of the atheism/religion divide but he always resisted easy stereotyping on the subject.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him," said Brooke. "It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."

Sorry - not so 'cut and dried'... And still fits exactly what I was suggesting when I brought his quote into it. His view of organised religion would count as 'cut and dried'.

Secondly, that 'history' of ID... sorry, crap version of history. ID (but not by name, of course) was posited well before Plato and Socrates - that's 2500 years ago. And that's the stuff we actually know about! Hence why there are references scattered throughout ID works of Neo-Platonic Forms. Aquinas, Paley and the others, having been brought up on Plato as a matter of course (via Aristotle) just refined it for their particular times and ideologies.

I'm not saying that religion doesn't try to steal it for it's own uses (ie - hijack), but that doesn't mean that creationists are a bunch of tools! (and ineffective ones, at that). Has it a 'nefarious purpose'? Well, yes, that's what it's become. Roads were built to ease communications amongst troops, and make it faster for them to travel across the Roman Empire, and for supplies to said troops - thus a 'nefarious purpose'... do we disavow road usage now?? (yeah, I can see the obvious argument... let's try something a bit different then...)

I never suggested we shouldn't look, just that we currently can't.

Sorry - my bad!

Electron spin. Yes, they spin one of two ways. Why not three? Or four? Well, the atom would most likely destroy itself if that happened, so there's your answer. No need for the supernatural.

Ah - but therein lies my point... that's the way the universe has been 'designed'. As was pointed out, the big 'WHY' doesn't get an answer - only that it just happens to be that way.

Lotto.. actually, still a valid enough point for some non-religious ID believers. Again - 'it just is' isn't always a good enough answer. As I said (which no-one on here has yet even bothered to touch with a 10 foot pole...), as far as we know, the universe had 1 shot at getting it 'right'. The odds of 'getting it right' are, in a non-punny way, astronomical. From that point of view, and introducing Ockham's Razor, which actually does make more sense. Sure, it leaves open the door of who created the creator, but still....

I like your end comment


Flyn I - well, if you ask a religious person that question, it's enlightening... As for unfertilized eggs, I know people who can tell you (and, there are people, including myself who have past life memories).

Flyn II - ah... that'd be great - if it wasn't for the fact that scientists have gotten it wrong on so many occasions, that I don't seriously think it can, definitively tell us "what is and is not possible, and all sorts of facts and aspects of reality". Perhaps that's just the hubris of those scientific geniuses of the time, and hopefully we've learnt from those embarrassing moments to not make such hasty assumptions, but I felt it still needed to be said.

Otakuneko - I presume you're also atheist?

[Jadedcarguy]

JC - like you're first post up there... too bad about the links not actually doing what you intended though. Especially the first one... Let me quote from the bottom of it:

Sorry - not so 'cut and dried'... And still fits exactly what I was suggesting when I brought his quote into it. His view of organised religion would count as 'cut and dried'.

Fine. Here's another one. Link Call him agnostic, call him atheist. Just don't call him a believer. Better yet, google "Einstein Atheist" and read it for yourself. Plenty out there.

Secondly, that 'history' of ID... sorry, crap version of history.

Not crap, just condensed. If I had posted a detailed account of it's history you'd still be reading it.

I'm not saying that religion doesn't try to steal it for it's own uses (ie - hijack), but that doesn't mean that creationists are a bunch of tools! (and ineffective ones, at that). Has it a 'nefarious purpose'? Well, yes, that's what it's become. Roads were built to ease communications amongst troops, and make it faster for them to travel across the Roman Empire, and for supplies to said troops - thus a 'nefarious purpose'... do we disavow road usage now?? (yeah, I can see the obvious argument... let's try something a bit different then...)

I'm beginning to think we're having two different arguments. I've never said 'abolish ID', just keep it out of science curriculum.

Your road analogy is indeed flawed, as they were built to move people. That movement can have many different purposes, good or bad. ID was created for..............what, exactly? What's its purpose, other than to misinform?

Ah - but therein lies my point... that's the way the universe has been 'designed'. As was pointed out, the big 'WHY' doesn't get an answer - only that it just happens to be that way.

You're asking me to give you proof of 'no designer', I can't do that any more than you can prove there is one. My point is there are explanations for the way things work that don't require the supernatural. Science can't explain everything, but it can explain more every day. Think of what it will explain in 100 years. The "why" of electron spin could be taught to 2nd graders by then.

Lotto.. actually, still a valid enough point for some non-religious ID believers. Again - 'it just is' isn't always a good enough answer. As I said (which no-one on here has yet even bothered to touch with a 10 foot pole...), as far as we know, the universe had 1 shot at getting it 'right'. The odds of 'getting it right' are, in a non-punny way, astronomical. From that point of view, and introducing Ockham's Razor, which actually does make more sense. Sure, it leaves open the door of who created the creator, but still....

But still, what exactly? If the creator 'just is', I say the universe 'just is'. As far as one shot at getting it right, we wouldn't be here to discuss it otherwise. Again I say so what. Something we don't understand does not need supernatural guidance to be real, it needs more study to be understood.

If you want to ponder a creator of some sort do it in a theology or philosophy class, just don't treat it as fact and try to use it in science curriculum!

I like your end comment

Thanks.

[Slytovhand]

Ok... I'll call him agnostic but from what you've linked, I'd definitely say he wasn't an atheist (as he says in his own words!)

History of ID...ah, but you'd be presuming that I'd still be reading for that long

[quote]I'm beginning to think we're having two different arguments. [/quote

Possibly....

I've never said 'abolish ID', just keep it out of science curriculum. <snip>
If you want to ponder a creator of some sort do it in a theology or philosophy class, just don't treat it as fact and try to use it in science curriculum!

As I've said previously, I don't think it is 'fact', and I wouldn't go so far as to 'teach' it in the science class. Not in the same context as what I think you mean.

I'll reiterate what I've said previously in this thread (umm - maybe go back about 8 or 10 pages ). One lecture, senior year, end of semester, not assessed, discussion on the 'how did this universe come into existence?'. Chuck in a few ideas - Baby Universes, Multiple universes, ID (non-religious version). Discuss limitations and inadequacies of science. Similar sort of class as ethics - no proofs, just discussions and 'evidence'.

Why?

Let me quote a bit from one of your links, JC..."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (not that I see ID as 'religion' anyway, as I've said many times...)


Now - a bit OT... we consider time to be linear and 'moving' in a 'forward' direction. What if it's not? (Only thinking of this cos it came up on that other forum I got booted from, under a thread 'Future Sense of Self'. It also sort of mirrors ?Roger Penrose's? theory of an infinitely expanding and contracting universe - but not only is matter going through this cycle, but also time. You just made me think of it talking about electron spins to grade 2's)

And no, ID wasn't created to misinform - that's what the creationists did with it. You know, this wouldn't even be a discussion if the christians hadn't gotten a hold of the idea and ran with it. Well... ran through the street yelling "Eureka eureka, I've found it"... while banging cymbols and paying a band and herald to announce their presence throughout town.... After all, the idea had been around for ages (would've been quite a few scientists who believed in some sort of designer all throughout history) and it wasn't much of an issue...

[Seshat]

It's probably time to toss my opinion in again.

Intelligent Design is not science - not as I know it, not as I learned it in university. Science, as I understand it, follows a very specific pattern and purpose.

The pattern is this:
1. See something the scientist wants to understand. (Observation part 1)
2. Form a hypothesis. (Observation 2)
3. Determine repeatable ways to prove the hypothesis false in experiments viable with current technology.* (Experimentation part 1)
4. Test the hypothesis with those experiments. (Experimentation 2)
5. Publish your hypothesis, suggested experiments, and results. (Publish/Peer review)
6. Have other scientists attempt those experiments, come up with other experiments, and generally try to prove your hypothesis false. (Peer Review 2, possibly with a return to experimentation)
7. Revise the hypothesis in light of the disproofs that have been achieved (most likely outcome) OR
8. Accept the hypothesis as tentatively true: ie, as a Theory.

* Some astrophysicists, cosmologists, and quantum physicists work with hypotheses which we don't yet have the technology to test. Their work never makes it past 'hypothesis'. Some of those hypotheses are to be tested in the Large Hadron Collider.


Evolution is a theory. It passes all those tests.
1. It explains something which has been observed.
2. Its initial hypothesis was described in 'On the Origin Of Species'.
3. There are experiments which can clearly disprove evolution - evolution will be disproven entirely if someone finds a human bone in a layer of dinosaur fossils!.
4. The hypothesis has been repeatedly tested experimentally by thousands of scientists doing hundreds or thousands of different digs, observations, fruit-fly-breedings, and so forth. It's also tested experimentally (and informally) on a daily basis by every breeder of dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, wheat, and even goldfish.
5-8. There have been thousands of publications of the hypothesis, the experiments, the results of the experiments, the changes to the hypothesis in light of the experiments...


Intelligent Design fails this test.

1. It passes 'observation'. Yes, an awful lot of people look at the world and say 'isn't it amazing how it all fits together? I wonder how that happened.'
2. It's a hypothesis. It's a tentative method of explaining the observation.
3. Determining a repeatable test to prove intelligent design false with current technology... um. Ur. Um..... how?


I call the astrophysicists, cosmologists, and quantum physicists scientists because they try to come up with experiments. They admit that a hypothesis is untestable, or they say 'hmm... well maybe one day in the future we'll figure out a way to collide hadrons' or 'hey, can I get a copy of the data from the radio telescope, I think I know how to use that to calculate Dark Matter'.....


To me, Intelligent Design isn't a theory - it's not possible to make a repeatable experiment that will disprove it; and no such experiment has ever been done and thoroughly peer reviewed.
Therefore it's a hypothesis. It's in the same realm as string theory, Schrodinger's Cat, and the idea that I need my lucky trackball to play Oblivion with.



Science doesn't try to explain the inexplicable. Science doesn't care WHY evolution happened - that's beyond the scope science tries to reach.

I wish the devoutly religious really understood that. Science doesn't reach into religion's realms. God is beyond Science' scope.

[Slytovhand]

Uh-oh...Seshat's back... I'm in trouble now....

Ok, firstly, TBH - not interested in going over the "ID isn't science" argument. It's not. Never has been, never will... Looks like another thead should be started up if that's going to be the only argument that's going to be offered...

The only debate really comes down to... in a science class room, is the only thing that is ever permissible to discuss, science?

It is quite clear to me that the answer is a resounding "NO!"

I can see the eyes roll now.

Well - let me say that in a standard class, part of what is taught is:

English
Comprehension
Discipline
Respect
Crititcal and Thinking
Questioning techniques
Time Management
Mathematics
History (what science student hasn't heard of Gallileo, Kepler, Curie, etc... well, ok, probably most of them these days )
Sociology (as per above)
and a bit of Religion (ooh - Gallileo, Kepler et al again... given the whole 'context in which they were working')
and sometimes - Ethics

So... is a discussion of ID so taboo???

Next...

What do they 'teach' in Religion?

ok, half of the above, but not a lot of critical reasoning, nor logic, certainly not mathematics, possibly not even ethics.


Let me also ask another question about our schools. Do we want our students discussing things like the Big Bang? I would presume it to be a given. If so, surely surely surely, the question of 'What is the origin of our universe?' has to come up. do our science teachers just ignore it? Do they leave it to the religion teaches? .. yeah, like that'll be an unbiased class.

Besides, ID in religion class??? hahahahaha.... they wouldn't know where to start... other than the aforementioned misinformation. If they tried to teach it there, you may as well start adding in 'evolution' as well.

Kids aren't stupid, unless they are taught to be. And yes, these days, they are often taught to be. For me, this is a chance to stop our kids being ignorant and stupid.

And lastly, should 'miracles' be looked at in a science class, or should they remain firmly entrenched in religion. There are no doubt a lot of quite normal scientific reasons for the 'miracles' that occur throughout religious mythologies. Do they get ignored because the cross the boundaries? Do we not bother to look at the vapours and oils of the Fraxinella plant which can ignite given appropriate conditions, merely because it has had it's name thrown into the ring of possible "Burning Bushes" of Moses' journey?


Umm - running out of thought now - this reply has been open for about 5 hours now

[jackfaire]

I.e., as "Adam" and "Eve" were "created" fully adult, any observer of Adam and Eve ten minutes after their creation could examine their bodies, fingernails, hair growth, bone structure, etc, and determine scientifically that they had been in existance for a period of time greater than ten minutes.

Uhm yeah no because cellular decay is not needed if your just snapping your fingers and boom there they are. Cellular decay would not show them to be many years old at all.