Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

I have been pwned.

I live in a world of filled with irrational mysticism, lack of distinction between untestable fantasy and true science, and pseudoscientific half truths concocted to hide the incongruity between real and fantasy.

And yet I also live in a world filled with the internal combustion engine, the microprocessor, the volcano, the black hole, and the nebula. All function (as does everything in this universe) on the testable repeatable foundations of science (physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc.).

It is not a question of compatibility. In reality we exist in a universe of pure physics and mathematics, that happens to have a small group of primates who entertain themselves with thoughts of witches, ghosts, aliens, and gods. It is they who inject irrationality and fantasy into this perfectly mathematical world and it is they who seek to find "compatibility" between their fantasies and the real physics and mathematics of the universe -- and I have to live with them.

I have been pwned.

~Ulrika~

No, it doesn't at all. Microevolution is the rearranging of current info.

Let me illustrate...

Suppose I, as a human have the following information in my dna... A L M T

My mate has E G R Y

With my information I can spell a few words, but with her we combine them to make many new words. The information for the words were always there, no new information was created to produce the change. This is called breeding, but some suggest it's a form of evolution.

Breeding dogs can create different appearances, but the dog is always a dog.

I am going to have to disagree with you there. ID is causing quite the stir, it's got the Pope commenting on it (there he is again). The church doesn't announce things very often, they just late last year released a paper confirming that there *might* be gay preists operating under them. Heh.

Geneticly, there is no fundamental difference between adding data, removing data, and altering data. It's all a mutation.

Altering occours more commonly simply because the data is there to begin wtih - it takes a much smaller mutation to occour.

I might have been owned with you dude.

And you still don't realize it, is the hillarious part.

Now you're just trolling, Ulrika... And not listening to a word I've said. So... *shrug* Good day to you I liked you better before, when you would actually debate things.

Disagree with what?

I'll agree that ID is causing quite a stir.

I just say the arguement is not exactly as you say it is.

You said that the media wishes me to believe that a minority is causing national problems (no, I don't watch FOX news.)



There are alot of these people out there, that think it should be taught in classrooms. All I am saying that ID and religion as a whole has no place in a science classroom or science anything because the two don't mix.

I am not saying religion doesn't belong in schools, that is fine, just so long as they don't force you to pray in the morning or something like that. Before I graduated High School there was a prayer group that met around the flag before first bell, and nobody tried to stop them or even made fun of them. There is nothing wrong there.

It's when they try to tell me what I believe in (evolution as a theory) is not right and that life is just "too complex" and there is a "designer" up there and I got it all wrong. These are the people that scare me.

I disagree, never have we seen data added to create a new function.

Mutation cause harm to a creature.

Altering data is simply rearranging data, and is a natural function of living beings, much like the natural healing of a creature after being wounded.

Adaptation actually supports the theory of ID more than it supports macroevolution.

No, actually what I said is the media has inflated the wishes of a minority of the ID-in-classrooms proponents to cover ALL ID-in-the-classroom proponents.





A lot? I don't know about that. I think it's a much smaller number than apparently you do.

Well obviously you have never heard of FSM my friend. This is a big issue and grows larger everyday. I want to ride on the pirate ship when it's finished

I've heard of the Flying Spagetti Monster. I hang out on Fark.com daily. It's cute. Your point?

Well if you just think it's just cute in your snazzy little way then our "debate" kinda stops here. FSM was created for a reason you know, not just to be cute.

Hang in there Maxwolf. If I weren't traveling today I'd give it a better effort. Perhaps Chip Midnight will show up later and chase away the irrationals.

~Ulrika~

Oh I "get" the point.

The point isn't, however, particularly relevant, IMO

Like I said, the *sane* IDers don't want ID *taught*. They basicly just want it mentioned that ID is out there, and that evolution, as taught in school, is only a theory.

So, cool. Maybe its the FSM. Guess what? It doesn't matter. Because it's not going to be *taught* either way.

I'd miss you thought

Oh, I am. I just think it's so cute

If ID can get mentioned then so can FSM, that is what that is all about.

ID includes the FSM, actually, at it's most basic level.

The FSM would count as "inteligent design".

Like I said. It's cute, and serves no point.

No, you are missing the entire point. If you knew more about this subject then you wouldn't be so lost. The people pushing ID in classrooms put down FSM and call it cute, pointless, no meaning, stupid, and just plain mean.

The issue at hand with FSM and ID as a whole is that for everyone who honestly stands beside it (like yourself, trying to tell me the difference between *sane* ID'ers and others like it matters).

If you want the theory of a deisgner to be taught then you should use FSM for a designer, because what else could it be? Right? Or do you think that they mean God, or at least infer it?

LOOK! Here is a pic of him right now!!
http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/110b1024x768.jpg

ID doesn't care if you call the creator a flying spaghetti monster or dog in reverse. ID has nothing to do with any particular religion.

The first amendment to the constitution was intended to prevent the congress from creating a national religion. ID doesn't seek to make a national religion. So it wouldn't be unconstitutional according to the founders.

In fact, the founders learned of God in school, and never dreamed the 1st amendment would be used to force any mention of God from the school system. I'm sure they are rolling in their graves.

I'm not lost. I've been following the debates very closely, because I'm quite interested in them, and I've done extensive reading on the subject from both perspectives.

Actually, thus far, the inteligent debate regarding the FSM has been pretty limited. Outside of the interweb, it's mostly a joke.

I refer to FSM as cute because it's a parody. That's not being dismissive - It was intended as such.



This... uh... I think this is a sentance fragment? Your sentance doesn't seem to have an ending... "for everyone" trails off, if you follow. I'd love to respond if I knew how the sentance ended though!



My point, which you have ignored something like six times now, is that ID does not *inherently* mean a Christian God.

Do a lot of ID's proponents believe in such? Sure. Would a few radicals love if they *could* sanction teaching the christian god theory in class? Absolutely. But ID does not *inherently* mean the Christian God. It simply means an inteligent creator. It could be any divine being, or, strictly speaking even aliens (though, then the question is raised, what created the aliens... Which is why I tend to dismiss scientology is ill-thought-out claptrap). This is why I argue the position I am. Not because I have a vested interest in it, simply to try to correct the widespread misinformation about what ID actually means.

I am not, by the way, since there seems to be some confusion, either a proponent of ID (as such), nor that it should be taught in schools.

If you want to know where I'm comming from...

I believe in God, as a (sort of)Christian, but I'm not an orthodox christian by a long shot (I'm gay, among other examples). For me god is the ultimate catalyst. I pretty much accept science at face value. I consider myself a logical person, in that regard. My faith is real, but transparent - God exists as an answer only to the ultimate truths behind reality. Reality is not an illusion created by god, as many fundamentalists have been forced to start claiming in roundabout ways. Nor do I claim my belief in God is rational. I don't try to justify it to anyone. My faith is my own, and is beyond the ken of any other mortal mind, as is everyone elses faith. I accept there is no logic behind my faith, and that is my own cross to bare, but I can't help what I believe. I have never tried to tell anyone my view is the only correct view, nor do I believeI have any right to do so in any matter of faith. Hence, I am not a "proponent" of ID, even though my own view loosely runs in that direction.

I was not, for the record, raised Christian.

I don't believe any matter of faith should be taught in schools, but neither do I believe that schools have any right to attempt to *destroy* faith, as some people would like. I think it's a reasonable compromise to include a disclaimer before teaching evolution, since it is, for the moment, still a theory, and it would take a whopping couple of minutes out of a single class period. But, I have no particular emotional investment in that compromise.

Dude, I don't care what you are, who you do, what you believe in, or even if you think this is important or what you say is gold. All I know is ID doesn't belong in classrooms, not even a mention of it. You didn't need to write a novel to proove anything to me.

You can send/check out some of the hatemail sent to FSM which is along the same lines as yourself, along with all the *insane* ones too.

http://www.venganza.org/email_neg.htm

ID will never make it in the real world, there are to many people like me who want to be a pirate. And no, not the software kind! Real pirates have swords! Arrrrgh!

PS: When nothing is left they always attack your grammer...err, grammar

Max, unfortunately this is a common tactic used by supporters of evolutionism. If only the opposition was better informed, they would agree with you.

This tactic is the weakest way to support an opinion. I doubt is sways anyones opinion.

Regarding the rant, sorry. I'm getting a little fed up with people attacking me personally over stuff, and assuming I believe X when in fact I don't, or whatever.

As for ID being mentioned in class... Truthfully, I think it's inevitable if you teach evolution as a theory. You're going to get questions from kids - I know, it happened when I was in school. Maybe not in every class, but you will. Which is why I think a tiny disclaimer is a good compromise.



What hatemail? I've wrote nothing here today that would constitute "hate" anything. I've not even attacked anyone. If anything, I think I've been the *most* accepting of anyone here. Which is why, frankly, I'm getting a little pissed off at being attacked from about three different directions. Everyone shoots the damned diplomat. I'm just trying to correct some misperceptions that are occouring on both sides of the issue.



Where did I attack your grammar?