Judge Says No to ID

That's why it's false.

~Ulrika~

The inherent conundrum; barring divine intervention (say, God appearing in the skies and announcing to us, 'I AM THAT I AM'), the best proof of Biblical veracity is... the Bible. The MAPS site proves nothing, regarding any preternatural occurences, including the creation of life by an almighty entity. At best, the MAPS site offers some evidence (which I have not sourced, and am far too sleepy to do so now, so I'll just give it a 'sure, why not') that the Bible was, in fact, written a long time ago. Using the Bible to prove that any preternatural/supernatural/unnatural/other-than-natural event ever occurred is circular logic.

Ooh. Look at the biblical inconsistencies I found on that web page:

That bible is wacky!

~Ulrika~

... .... .........

Okay. Look. Enough of this. Really. Hasn't this debate gone on long enough in these forums?


Schools are a place where definable facts should be taught. This includes religious schools, provided there is proper separation.

The fact is this. Intelligent Design relies on a series of manuscripts with very little definable evidence. In the realm of Science, it is a laughing stock. In the realm of religion, feel free to preach whatever you damned well please.


Science, as defined, is a process. It looks not to the parish, but instead to the scientific method to prove what does and does not exist. If you, or anyone, can supply uneqivocal evidence of "intelligent design" and actually follow through with it, experimentally, I would be convinced it belongs in a science book.


We can debate the existance of any given deity or impetus of existance until the cows come home. The fact remains: religion is rooted more in opinion than concrete fact. Given this, should it be taught? Sure. But not in Science class.


My point? It's a damned waste of time (and my money as a taxpayer) to try to impose your beliefs on another, no matter how "right" they may seem to you. Agree to disagree, and maybe we can move on to more interesting subjects, yes?

That's why you can no longer play Ulrika Nye the Science Gal WRT this topic. Judge Jones moved this debate out of the realm of science and into the murky waters of philosophy. That's why it's not false.

respond to my last comment, please. Ignore Ulrika - she's just trying to rile you up

This is an interesting subject to me; I'm interested in not living in a country that is moving backwards in time.

... then you're agreeing that ID is not science?

(edited because I'm sleepy enough I'm forgetting who said what) Sorry, forgot you'd already said that ID should not be taught in Science classes, and our most recent round of debate was on brought on by your (apparent) belief that empirical evidence would/might become available to support ID.

I suggest you stay in countries that operate in the earth-relative time-space continuum, then.

*chuckles*

Hate to break it to ya, but that's not going to change any time soon. I suspect the founding fathers are rolling in their graves right now.

The whole point was to be a system where any given religion could exist freely. Not this brainwash drivel of the weaker min^H^H^H^H^H mobocracy dictating our beliefs in the classroom.

If we go back in time far enough, maybe Tom Jefferson and G. Washington can come kick some ignorant tuckus!

How can you say that, Jeffrey. Everyone knows they were all good pious Christians!

Yup. I only speak up to offer an opposing view to her royal highness who is just as bent on imposing a worldview as any self-respecting religious fanatic I've ever met.

So, agreed. I can't beat the Berkeley out of Ulrika any more than she can beat the Baptist out of me. (OK, I'm not a Baptist, but it made a nice alliteration.)

I already had, back around post #49.

I think it's strange how you see a parallelism between our points of view. I consider competing scientific theories as being opposing views. For instance, the bet between Hawking and Preskill on whether or not information is destroyed as it falls into a black hole. There was quite a rivalry between those two camps until it was settled in 1997.

To me religion (all flavors) is just mysticism that shouts, "hey, what about me?" from the sidelines.

~Ulrika~

Which is perfectly fine, Ulrika. Paolo does have a point, though - while I'm sure it's fun to crack skulls, it is still imposing a worldview on others.


As for definable mysticism, I humbly disagree. "Religion" comes in two flavors that I feel need be delineated, as both are quite useful in their own ways.

The first, institutional religion, has its uses as an impetus of control, as I've mentioned in other threads. It is more the "let me teach you what to believe camp," with a bent on keeping people good to society. Quite useful for forming countries (ie. this one), with a nasty backlash where facts speak against the church (ie. now).


The second definition, personal "religion" (or belief) is also useful. I'm a proponent of "just figuring these things out for yourself," as opposed to a collective school of thought. This can be quite beneficial for developing hypotheses that straddle the line between mysticism and current fact, especially if the scientific method is involved.


At any rate, this is a Christian nation, but all sides of the argument should have the right to say their piece, as defined by our founding fathers (point taken, Chip). Where facts coincide with what the church teaches, folks should have the common sense to analyze the situation with an open mind.


This lack of an "open mind," if you will, is what frightens me about these debates. I will admit, however, that I side more with Ulrika's logic than theology.

I admit that I am a skull-cracking gorilla who gives no sway to mystical arguments, despite the fact that they do serve a purpose to those who believe in them.

Why am I cracking skulls then? It's because religion in its simplest state gives people solace and answers questions they otherwise could not for themselves, however in its organized state it is responsible for thousands of years of oppression, torture, and exploitation. In regards to ID I feel it's where religion goes from being something that provides solace to something that exists to oppress the populace.

~Ulrika~

You know I've been thinking that a perfect solution to this perpetual clash between creationism and evolution in public schools would be to teach neither. Instead, do at least one full semester on teaching critical thinking skills. Problem solved.

Critical thinking skills are anti-Murrican!

*reports Chip to Homeland Security*

hehe, I'm sure they already have my name on a list somewhere

ID isn't even a theory. Just saying, "Isn't it possible?" isn't a hypothesis. Show some proof for ID. Show us the mechanism the Designer uses to cause life forms to evolve. I'm not talking theology here, I'm talking science. I'm not even asking the defenders of ID to offer evidence of the existence of the Designer, just the mechanism the Designer uses. Offer us a hypothesis. Or maybe tell us how ID explains cancer, or sickle cell anemia, or hemophilia?

Currently, ID is, at best, a guess. I'm sure the defenders of ID will say, "isn't evolution just a guess?" and "what's wrong with teaching about guesses?" Defenders of ID (and Creationism) use false dichotomies like "evolution is a theory, and ID is a theory, so they're equal." As if there is "equality" in theory. When we show that ID is not a theory, but a guess, the same defenders will use another false dichotomy, "isn't evolution a guess too?" Because aren't all guesses equal too? There's mail in the mailbox, it's my guess that the mailman put it there, it's yours that space aliens did. Are all guesses equal?

This court case wasn't about "not teaching guesses", it was about a School Board that passed a resolution requiring science classes to have a statement read to them that stated that ID is a equal theory to evolution. Since the creationists can't produce valid scientific work supporting their ideas, they resort to politics to force them on the public.

So, to try to clear up some of the false dichotomies put out by the ID'ers and the Creationists:

1) Acceptance of evidence in science is not "belief" in that evidence. And is not, therefore equal to "belief" in religious ideas.

2) All theories are not equally valid. Just because evolution is "only a theory" doesn't mean that it is equal to other ideas that are only theories.

3) Fairness dictates that if x is taught in school, y should be too. No, sorry. We don't teach two theories about the shape of the earth, flat or sphere. We go with the better science.

4) Since Christianity is a religion, and can't be endorsed by the government, then (insert buzzword here) is a religion and it shouldn't be either. Buzzwords used range from atheism, to secular humanism, to darwinism.

Thanks. Best laugh I've had all evening.

(Because it's true)

This might sound funny, but my prediction is a decade from now there won't be a need for institutions of learning past gradeschool. The width and depth of sites like Google and Wikipedia have become extremely comprehensive in teaching folks like me everything I dare point my mouse toward.


College, counterpoint, has been more of a pursuit for that slip of paper that says I know what I'm doing. Given the sharp disconnect between knowledge bases and education centers nowadays, it's only a matter of time....

I don't disagree with you, but "false dichotomy" is not the phrase you are looking for here. It means "portraying a premise (incorrectly) as having only two possible conclusions". See here.

(A False Dichotomy is a particular case of a False Dilemma. The only difference is the number of conclusions presented as the only options.)

Perhaps in some kinds of computer science. But not in any experimental subject - you've got to get your hands dirty, and you can't do that from behind a computer screen. There's also a lot of one on one interaction that you can't get from a website. You can't ask it a particular question you just thought up. It won't comment on the idea you just came up with. And when you get deep enough into any subject, you get to stuff that is only sketchily written up on the web, and much of the knowledge resides in the brains of the people researching it.