Bush endorses teaching `intelligent design' theory in schools

[quote name='Kayden']Wasn't oxygen a lot more abundant? Also, inorganic could be the key word there. What life would benefit from inorganic matter? (Sure, birds eat rocks to help digest, but thats not really my point.) Plants use a lot of organic nitrogen.

There was a lot of carbondioxide so plants grew to process it and as a side effect made oxygen which animals started to use. Thats more or less right, right?[/QUOTE]

No, the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen gas and a few life forms can use it, yet while it is nitrogen gas is quite abundant those life forms are not. The same thing with silicon, the earth has tons of it, but it's natural use is limited.

Abundance does not necessitate usefulness.


Oh and Kayden you can call oxygen gas inorganic also.;)
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']No, the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen gas and a few life forms can use it, yet while it is nitrogen gas is quite abundant those life forms are not. The same thing with silicon, the earth has tons of it, but it's natural use is limited.

Abundance does not necessitate usefulness.


Oh and Kayden you can call oxygen gas inorganic also.;)[/QUOTE]

....:whistle2:s.... did... not... Damn your science and such... Some of us didnt take AP chemistry!

Seriously thought, how did I call oxygen inorganic?

And I know that nitrogen is more abundant NOW, but I was talking about a long ass time ago. However... I don't suppose any of us could really know for sure.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']The same thing with silicon, the earth has tons of it, but it's natural use is limited.

Abundance does not necessitate usefulness.[/QUOTE]

Waitaminute - there is plenty of silicon just lying around?

Damn - we need to start graduating more breast doctors immediately!
 
[quote name='coffman']Intelligent design does not work if aliens are considered the designers. The next logical question would be "Who designed the aliens?". Now matter how this is approached, in order to avoid a circular argument the creator must be a god. Intelligent design is therefore a religious argument which is why it is inappropriate to include it in a science class.[/QUOTE]
It an still be circular. Who created that god? How can we assume the aliens are not a race of gods themselves? All we really need to worry about is our direct creators.
 
[quote name='chaostic_2k1']It an still be circular. Who created that god? How can we assume the aliens are not a race of gods themselves? All we really need to worry about is our direct creators.[/QUOTE]

Interesting, and when one talks about intelligent design, one is assuming that time really exists as we perceive it, is linear, and always moves in one direction.

Obviously I think that a philisophical/advanced physics/mathematics discussion along these lines would fall outside the bounds of a HS biology course, and this is why I do not believe that intelligent design theory should be taught to HS students in a biology course.
 
Further proof that the Spaghetti Monster created the world:

World's oldest noodles found in China - 4,000-year-old pasta
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9671263/

051012_noodles_hmed11a.hmedium.jpg
 
[quote name='daroga']Just out of curiosity, if I put all the parts for a Boeing 747 in a junk yard and scatter them all around, what are the chances that, should a tornado rip through that junk yard, that I'd have a fully-working, ready-to-fly jet?

The complete close-mindedness of the scientific community to the anomalies to the evolution theory is really mind-blowing. Oh well, we're due for a paradigm shift sometime soon.

daroga[/QUOTE]

This analogy does not logically connect to evolution. Eyes, lungs, and feet were not just scattered about. What an uninformed analogy...

A more accurate anology would involve a system with small gradual changes that would have a reward system for successful combinations. Dinosaurs did not lay eggs that hatched into birds. If there is in fact a link it happened in a series of mutations--some incredibly minor, some very drastic.

And what respected evolutionary scientist is closed-minded toward anomalies? Any scientist worth anything would research the anomalies to gain further knowledge. After all, it was researching the anomalies in what he was taught that led Darwin to his theory of evolution and it was in researching anomalies in Darwin's theories led to neo-Darwinism.

I think that biology is not the place for intelligent design. It's not a science. I'm fine with someone teaching it in a world religion, mythology, philosophy, or possibly even a history course. But it's not science. Science does not rely on faith... even if there is substantial evidence for a divine Spaghetti Monster. :)
 
[quote name='sheepboy_1923']I think that biology is not the place for intelligent design. It's not a science. I'm fine with someone teaching it in a world religion, mythology, philosophy, or possibly even a history course. But it's not science. Science does not rely on faith... even if there is substantial evidence for a divine Spaghetti Monster. :)[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of what you said, however intelligent design does not rely on faith, and philosophy doesn't necessarily rely on faith (and most modern philosophy disputes the credibility of faith, however I admit that I can still get caught up when reading Kierkegaard)

Intelligent design an arguement based on logic, however the premises may be flawed (IE it presupposes that our biological ecosystem is too advanced to simply be a result of chance or the natural physical/scientific laws of the universe - although as Doug Adams would say, what's so advanced about a planet whose most advanced inhabitants still think digital watches are pretty cool)

Most (but not all) of organized religions rely on faith, which is why religions often have their own branch of philosophy (generally known as theology). Theology tends to mix emotion and rational thought, which is why belief states such as faith are considered copacetic with the constitution of "reality".

Got a bit OT, and I agree that ID should be taught in a world religion, mythology, or philosophy course instead of biology. I just cringe when I hear that "faith" word - ID proponents are wise to stay away from using it, because if they do then it's game over.
 
I'd say at best, 'intelligent design' relies on a half assed IMPRESSION of logic, but not real logic, and there is a touch of faith sewn in. Some smart being guided developement. Whos that being? I'm betting anyone that would advicate the 'theory' would say God. Anyone that says any different just begs to be questioned about who 'guided' the developement of the people that made us? Carry that back until they finally give up and say God. Intelligent design was slapped together to "scientifically" oppose evolution, however, its about as scientific as scientology. Either life formed itself autonomously or someone created everything either as it is or close to how it is and guided it to this point. The first thought would be evolution while the second would be creationism and intelligent design- which would require faith in one supreme being capable of creating EVERYTHING in one form or another.

[quote name='camoor']I agree with most of what you said, however intelligent design does not rely on faith, and philosophy doesn't necessarily rely on faith (and most modern philosophy disputes the credibility of faith, however I admit that I can still get caught up when reading Kierkegaard)

Intelligent design an arguement based on logic, however the premises may be flawed (IE it presupposes that our biological ecosystem is too advanced to simply be a result of chance or the natural physical/scientific laws of the universe - although as Doug Adams would say, what's so advanced about a planet whose most advanced inhabitants still think digital watches are pretty cool)

Most (but not all) of organized religions rely on faith, which is why religions often have their own branch of philosophy (generally known as theology). Theology tends to mix emotion and rational thought, which is why belief states such as faith are considered copacetic with the constitution of "reality".

Got a bit OT, and I agree that ID should be taught in a world religion, mythology, or philosophy course instead of biology. I just cringe when I hear that "faith" word - ID proponents are wise to stay away from using it, because if they do then it's game over.[/QUOTE]
 
I think intelligent design should be discussed, not taught if it implies any more than you would teach another belief held by people. In a normal philosophy class (not one exclusively devoted to it) it shouldn't be held up as anything more than just another philosophical concept. I don't think it should be taught in the pseudo scientific way it's creators want it to be taught as, at least in non specific philosophy courses. World religion (even a whole course on intelligent design in a religion department) and mythology are fine, though mythology usually implies older religious beliefs (though obviously not by definition) , which wouldn't fit ID.
 
Intelligent design simply shouldn't be taught in science classes. It's not science - I would post the definition of science here, but I think we're all aware that science requires testing and evidence.

There is zero evidence of intelligent design, it's just the creation story retooled a bit to sound more scientific.

If it has a home anywhere in school, it would be in philosophy class. But teaching it in science is absolutely absurd.
 
I agree with SilverPaw750

If there really is a God and I'm going to hell for not believing that he created the universe, at least I'll have my family as company; my 3rd grade teacher told me my family was going to hell because they were Buddhist, haha.
 
[quote name='vietgurl']I agree with SilverPaw750

If there really is a God and I'm going to hell for not believing that he created the universe, at least I'll have my family as company; my 3rd grade teacher told me my family was going to hell because they were Buddhist, haha.[/QUOTE]

I always find it amusing when people tell me I'm going to hell after I tell them I don't believe in hell.
 
It's insane that a public school board would even listen to this testimony. God cannot be proven by science:

'Intelligent Design' Advocate Testifies'

biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and he believes God is behind them.

Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class. Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether it can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called "Darwin's Black Box," said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/oct/17/101708796.html
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']It's insane that a public school board would even listen to this testimony. God cannot be proven by science:

'Intelligent Design' Advocate Testifies'

biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and he believes God is behind them.

Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class. Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether it can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called "Darwin's Black Box," said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/oct/17/101708796.html[/QUOTE]

That's run of the mill intelligent design arguments, actually probably a little more reasonable than most, I was expecting a wacko from the intro.
 
Intelligent Design has no purpose being taught in any science class in this nation. Why? Because Intelligent Design is not science... It's a theology based on faith. Not scientific reasoning and such like from say a theory like Evolution. I'd like to slap all of these bitches with a sheet metal version of the constitution.

Seperation of Church and State motherfuckers
 
Okay, folks. A "top scientist" has told us to just "accept" intelligent design as fact. :dunce:

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - A leading U.S. critic of evolution accused two scientific organizations on Tuesday of politics and misleading the public in their rejection of "intelligent design."

He also compared intelligent design -- which holds that nature is so complex it must have been the work of a creator -- to the "Big Bang" theory, saying it just may take time for scientists to accept it.

"The National Academy of Sciences treats intelligent design in a way what I consider utterly misleading. Talk about scholarly malfeasance!" said Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.

Behe also criticized the American Association for the Advancement of Science in testimony in a federal lawsuit brought by 11 parents who are challenging their school district for introducing intelligent design to science classes.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...TRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-EVOLUTION.xml&archived=False
 
All intelligent design is is another "we can't explain everything, so anything we can't explain is gods work". This had been done for hundreds of thousands of years.
 
Dunno if this has been posted before:

Moderator: We’re here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des—
Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate’s kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn’t mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the “naturalistic” explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible — it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can’t rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn’t prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let’s not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That’s a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we’ll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it’s so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']It's insane that a public school board would even listen to this testimony. God cannot be proven by science:

'Intelligent Design' Advocate Testifies'

biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and he believes God is behind them.

Lehigh University Professor Michael Behe was the first witness called by a school board that is requiring students to hear a statement about the intelligent design concept in biology class. Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board began presenting their case Monday in the landmark federal trial, which could decide whether it can be mentioned in public school science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called "Darwin's Black Box," said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/oct/17/101708796.html[/QUOTE]

One of Behe's arguments was that there is no proof of the evolution of the human immune system. The prosecution stacked in front of Behe books and peer reviewed articles of numerous studies of the evolution of the human immune system. The stack was so high it was difficult to see Behe. When asked if he had read any of these, Behe stated he had not but that he doubted they would refute his arguments. Lehigh University must be so proud to have such a distinquished professor teaching at their college. Personally, I can't see how the intelligent design advocates have a chance at wining this lawsuit.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Those are all just tricks of the Devil. :lol:

I actually overheard two people in Burger King discussing creation one time and that was their theory for dinosaur fossils - the Devil put them there to confuse us. So sad. :cry:[/QUOTE]


Bill Hicks has a really good comedy routine on this one.... go buy yourself a copy of philosophy...

I believe Carl Everett also believe this... if he didn't break up that Mussina no hitter bid when he was with the Red Sox (September 2, 2001, if you know what I'm talking about, well, you know...), well, let's say I'm just happy he served that purpose... well, that, and family day:


July 15, 2000: The player's families (including Carl Everett's wife and baby boy) were in the stands for "Family Day" at Fenway. Everett was ejected from the game for a profanity-laced tirade that resulted in his bumping home plate umpire Ron Kulpa twice. Everett (who blamed the media) was suspended for ten games.
 
[quote name='Ilovephysics']Bill Hicks has a really good comedy routine on this one.... go buy yourself a copy of philosophy...

I believe Carl Everett also believe this... if he didn't break up that Mussina no hitter bid when he was with the Red Sox (September 2, 2001, if you know what I'm talking about, well, you know...), well, let's say I'm just happy he served that purpose... well, that, and family day:


July 15, 2000: The player's families (including Carl Everett's wife and baby boy) were in the stands for "Family Day" at Fenway. Everett was ejected from the game for a profanity-laced tirade that resulted in his bumping home plate umpire Ron Kulpa twice. Everett (who blamed the media) was suspended for ten games.[/QUOTE]

:whistle2:k
 
I don't mind intelligent design/evolution being taught in school, as long as it's clearly stated that it's not fact, and the creation stories of all other major religions are taught.
If not, then it should stay out of schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top