23 Dec 05
Originally posted by flyUnityI wished I had learned about ID only after my schooling was complete. I place a lot of responsibility for my disinterest in science at that time to ID and special creationism as well as to the half-bakes that sold this BS to me with a straight face. I certainly had talent for science. I was 3-4 years ahead of all my peers (I actually completed 4 more years worth of classes. Do not read as saying that I only took an assessment test that put me 4 years ahead.). But deep down I lost interest. Who cares about science if there's no real discovery? We know why the universe is here. We know where if came from; we know where it is going. All of this we learn from the bible. Who cares how many moles are in a gram of whatever?
So you wished you would've never learned ID in school?
To me ID is the best possible solution of the existence of life with God as a factor, and verifying some of its evidence with history, (like the Flood) and uses "odds" as a factor.
To me The Theory of Macro Evolution is the best passable explanation if you take out God as a factor, and IMO thro ...[text shortened]... the evidence of it, and the evidence of the inpossablilty of say: DNA, and macro evolution etc.
Now I cherish learning something new about science, but my carreer path is set. Natural science will only ever be a hobby.
You say that ID is the best possible solution for the existence of life with God as a factor. Isn't this a tautology? If God is the Creator of everything and is omniscient then ID is just a restatement of that supposition. Now if you mean by "God" any supernatural force, then the connection is not so obvious, especially given the dearth of empirical support for ID. ID says that some unknown intelligent force designed at the very least the most basic life. It then winks at the theist and says, "This force is really your god." There's nothing scientific about it.
In any case, as I've discussed here many times and challenge you to substantiate here, the introduction of "odds" by IDists or special creationists is ALWAYS flawed. I, and others, have repeatedly shown them to be mathematically incorrect or at least that the critical assumptions used in calculating their "odds" are nothing more then red herrings. Again if you think you can do better than your predecessors, then by all means . . .
There is no such thing as the "Theory of Macro Evolution." Evolution comes as a package, random mutation and natural selection, maybe some genetic drift and such. Macroevolution is just microevolution over time, but it's all evolution. Furthermore, the ones with the best calculations for "odds" are those who are not deliberately trying to get inflated numbers. It's the scientists working in abiogenesis, who want to get the best measures with the most reasonable assumptions.
I would like to point out that your Repub/Demo analogy is grossly flawed. Repubs and the Demos are competing parties for the opinions and votes of the American polity. In elections, things are decided by opinion and democracy. It doesn't matter if one party or the other has nothing true to offer. All that matters is who gets votes. In science however, ideas are constantly submitted to empirical testing. ID and Evolution are not equals in this regard. One is a bona fide theory that has stood over 100 years of intense and continued scrutiny. It has been instrumental in uncovering discoveries in a vast number of scientific fields. ID has contributed nothing. It was first advanced by Paley over 100 years ago and was quickly shown to be flawed. Now it is a PR campaign designed by xian fundamentalists to sneak creationism past the American public by clouding it in ambiguity. ID does not keep evolution "straight"; biologists keep evolution straight.
As far as an optional science class for ID, I'm fine with it in a social studies class (as Dover is planning to do) but, as was stated by the Judge Jones III, ID is not science and does not deserve to be in a high school science class. If a student really wants to learn it, let them go to their church. There are plenty of churches out there that would be more than happy to accomodate.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou'll have to forgive me as I tend to be a slow learner. My "original language" text put chaos before creation. But what the hell do I know.
Don't worry: it's all right there in the original languages. Just find yourself a prepared pastor who can teach it to you.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by kirksey957There was a slight pause in the action, thus the recreation.
You'll have to forgive me as I tend to be a slow learner. My "original language" text put chaos before creation. But what the hell do I know.
Thank God for the pause, otherwise, there wouldn't have been this enlightening debate, among other things.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionYea, it isn't like they have to look at something and say it didn't
As I wrote before, the ID gang lacks even a formal standard by which to determine whether something is designed or not. If ID is going to claim some things are designed, they need to, among other things, establish exactly how we can recognize design from non-design. As Behe and the whole ID crew have it now, ID in practice means looking at something and d ...[text shortened]... educibly complex." They lack any ex ante standard by which to make their determination.
need a designer and stand on that statement. ID will not be accepted
even if it were true, for the very reasons you give. The same standard
will not be applied to those saying there no designer required.
Kelly
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYes it is, as far as a science class is concerned.
Yea, it isn't like they have to look at something and say it didn't
need a designer and stand on that statement. ID will not be accepted
even if it were true, for the very reasons you give. The same standard
will not be applied to those saying there no designer required.
Kelly
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe only thing I think ID does that is bad when it comes to science
I don't see anything wrong with teaching ID--as a model of bad science. Future scientists must be prepared to deal with such shenanigans!
is it reaches a conclusion. Most people I know who push science do
not allow for that, it is always, this is what we know, but it is subject
to change when or if we get more data. ID makes a statement, this
is simply to functionally complex to come without someone or some
thing guiding or protecting either process or whatever else ID says
could have or did happen.
Kelly
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ: The same standard
I'm sorry your points is? I'm not trying to be insulting no1, I just
do not know what is it your saying. Could you say it another way?
Thanks in advance.
Kelly
will not be applied to those saying there no designer required.
That is the comment I was replying to. It is not part of a science class to discuss whether a designer is required or not, so it would not be a proper topic for those who believe either pro or con.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI see thanks, I think we agree.
KJ: The same standard
will not be applied to those saying there no designer required.
That is the comment I was replying to. It is not part of a science class to discuss whether a designer is required or not, so it would not be a proper topic for those who believe either pro or con.
Kelly
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by flyUnityID is not equivalent to creationism. Many people around the world believe God created the world according to the Bible but would still claim ID is flawed science.
I dont see why you wouldnt want to learn about somthing that a big percent of the world believes in. Are you afraid that children will learn somthing that may affect their evolution beliefs?
Many Christians around the world believe that God created the world by using evolution.
Your statement of a big percentage needs substantiation. I had not even heard about ID until about a year ago and most of the world does not believe in it.
In other posts you have talked about how you think ID has better "odds" than evolution. This is wrong. ID intentionaly tries to persuade people based on false examples that the odds do not favour evolution. However evolutionary theory is largely a statement and explanation about how the odds leads to evolution. A slight mathematical grounding is required to understand this properly and the fact that the majority of the worlds population has dificulty grasping statistics of this nature does not make it wrong.
A central claim by ID proponents is that many events that are requred for evolution to work are "unlikely". However this claim is never backed up except by calling on intuition and vague examples of totally dissimilar systems.
23 Dec 05
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree I'm a creationist not an ID'er. I believe God did it, period.
ID is not equivalent to creationism. Many people around the world believe God created the world according to the Bible but would still claim ID is flawed science.
Many Christians around the world believe that God created the world by using evolution.
Your statement of a big percentage needs substantiation. I had not even heard about ID until about a yea ...[text shortened]... never backed up except by calling on intuition and vague examples of totally dissimilar systems.
I don't have an issue with some parts of ID, and I don't even have
an issue with some parts of evolution. I also have issues with both
too. So I guess I'm just one filled with issues. 🙂
Kelly
24 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayCreationism and ID are dead.
I agree I'm a creationist not an ID'er. I believe God did it, period.
I don't have an issue with some parts of ID, and I don't even have
an issue with some parts of evolution. I also have issues with both
too. So I guess I'm just one filled with issues. 🙂
Kelly
Read the article, speciation explained....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878
Happy reading!