Judge Says No to ID

No; ID belongs in the realm of philosophy. However, philosophers are not prohibited from contemplating scientific premises.

And, although ID is technically "agnostic," Judeo-Christianity has, if nothing else, several thousand years of history on its side.

Finally, preposterous is in the eye of the beholder. Most of our modern widgetry would be considered "of the devil" if it were to be suddenly teleported back into the middle ages.

Elspeth, good point. when taking mine literally, yes.. that conclusion could be made. but surely you're aware that certain suppositions could be discounted fairly easily.

can i prove that your time-travelling omniscient "you" theory is wrong? nope. then again, we can use some common sense in any of these theories to let some of the more extravagant ones slide to the bottom of the "possibilty pool".

as far as proof goes, take a look at the links i provided earlier. mankind itself is now starting to create life.. organic from inorganic. there are other sources that talk about scientists approaching a point where they'll be creating more complex life forms.

this PROOVES that intelligent design is possible.. scientifically possible, not philosophically, not religiously, but scientifically. it doesn't prove that it's responsible or that it had anything to do with our existance, it simply shows that it is possible for one life form to create another life form.

i don't care what any other proponents of ID are saying or if they're trying to wedge religion back into schools. i'm concerned with illustrating my points and the fact that i believe ID has enough merit to warrant the study thereof as a possible component to our existance.

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered.

The theory is not a fact.

Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.

A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered, like everything else in science. The theory may or may not coincide with fact, but most scientists widely accept it as doing so.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

Because the bible is a religious manuscript, it contains words organized into sentences, written by people, which continue to be believed regardless of potentially centuries of accumulated evidence to the contrary. The contents of the book may or may not bear any resemblence to fact, but we'll say it is anyway. If we are wrong, we will apologize for the relentless persecution of your heretical beliefs. Eventually.

With respect to any religious manuscript, the flock are encouraged to keep an open mind, as long as it is in accordance with Holy Scripture (i.e., the literal Word of God, just ignore all the inconsistencies and bits we have been forced to pronounce are only metaphorical lest we seem outmoded and irrelevant). The church leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual faithful and their families, and certainly wouldn't presume to dictate what is truth and what is not. As a standards-driven organization, church instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve Holy Salvation and a working knowledge of logical fallacies.

i don't care what any other proponents of ID are saying or if they're trying to wedge religion back into schools. i'm concerned with illustrating my points and the fact that i believe ID has enough merit to warrant the study thereof as a possible component to our existance.

No; ID belongs in the realm of philosophy. However, philosophers are not prohibited from contemplating scientific premises.

And, although ID is technically "agnostic," Judeo-Christianity has, if nothing else, several thousand years of history on its side.

Finally, preposterous is in the eye of the beholder. Most of our modern widgetry would be considered "of the devil" if it were to be suddenly teleported back into the middle ages.

Another thing to ask- Does it benefit the students in any way? Will it help with a future career? Does it give them "an edge" in today's highly-competitive job market?

The USA's educational system is screwed up enough already. Lets not add more messes to it.

I'm in no hurry.

By the way, heard of MAPS?

Here's a single link on MAPS that is more relevant to spiritual studies than those.

ROFL, you rock! Interestingly, I came across that very site when trying to find the MAPS site I referenced. I'm actually not so sure that they don't have more in common than we realize.

...
Design theorists observe that intelligent action produces large amounts of “complex and specified” information. Language and the finely-tuned, purposeful arrangement of parts in machines are prime examples of this encoded information. If the cell was designed, then we would expect to find language-like encoded information commonly throughout biology.

The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes. This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

The protein-machines produced by our DNA are often “irreducibly complex.” Irreducible complexity is a purposeful arrangement of parts, where if any part is removed or mutated, the structure ceases to assemble or function properly. For example, the “bacterial flagellum,” is a rotary-engine on bacteria which fails to assemble or function properly if we mutate any one of its 50 genes. Natural selection cannot account for this irreducible complexity because it only preserves structures which provide a functional advantage. In this “all-or-nothing” game, mutations cannot produce the complexity needed to provide a functional flagellar rotary engine one incremental step at a time, and the odds are too daunting for it to do it in a great leap.

Darwinists counter that parts can be “co-opted” from one job to another in the cell to build complexity. But there’s a problem with the Darwinist explanation: biological parts are not necessarily easily interchangeable. Complex assembly instructions dictate how these precise parts will combine to interact with one-another. The specific ordering of interacting parts in the cell can’t be produced by chance any more than keeping my old Jeep in an autoshop full of HEMI engines will increase its horsepower.

Yet design is not a negative argument against evolution. Design is fundamentally based upon our positive knowledge and experience that a code is produced by a coder, that an algorithm-based information processing system implies a software programmer, and that complex and specified information in the cell, which conforms to a “language” and produces sophisticated machines, points to the mind of some engineer. Critics like Krauthammer and Will don’t have to agree with my argument. But there’s no denying that its basis is in scientific observations and empirical data -- not faith, revelation, or religious texts. Intelligent design is a bona fide scientific approach to studying biological origins.

But there’s no denying that its basis is in scientific observations and empirical data -- not faith, revelation, or religious texts. Intelligent design is a bona fide scientific approach to studying biological origins.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3093&program=CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage


Emphasis mine. Discuss (or flambé) as desired.

Paolo, do yourself a big favor and read some real science. I strongly suggest The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

They could just as easily say "Yet magic hippos are not a negative argument against evolution. Hippo Theory is fundamentally based upon our positive knowledge and experience that hippos exist, that an algorithm-based information processing system implies a software programmer who could easily be a very smart hippo, and that complex and specified information in the cell, which conforms to a “language” and produces sophisticated machines, points to the mind of a hippo, because hippos also have cells. Critics like Krauthammer and Will don’t have to agree with my argument. But there’s no denying that its basis is in scientific observations and empirical data -- not faith, revelation, or religious texts. Hippo Theory is a bona fide scientific approach to studying biological origins."

My changes don't make it any more bunk than it already was. The logic they're using amounts to "Banannas are yellow. School buses are yellow. From this we can deduce that all banannas are school buses."

"Asking where matter came from might be like asking where the waves in a pond came from, before it rained and there was a pond to begin with. A nonsensical question when put in proper context."

nowhere near non-sensical. taking your example (and leaving out the waves, which in this context is like asking why is my hair flitting about (when the wind is blowing) and then explaining it with the origins of humans) let's follow it with my questions.

there was no pond, then there was a pond, so we ask "where did that come from"?
our answer is it was formed from falling rain. what of the rain? it came from the clouds. what of the clouds? evaporation of water and the like. where did that water come from? hydrogen and oxygen molecules. where did those molecules come from?

and so on.. back and back again. quite relevant. to answer where an end product comes from, we need to know where it started. when referring to biological life, it breaks down to the same sub-atomic origins eventually. yes, that means we have the dilemma of where did the designer come from, if we're talking about ID or Creation. or, if we're talking about evolution, then we're asking where did the original building blocks come from.

You first assume that I agree with everything stated in the discovery.org article, and then based on that assumption, you make a thinly veiled value judgment against me. From there, you take it upon yourself to "correct" the author's "wrong" thinking. To quote Robert on Everybody Loves Raymond, "Why do the converts take it upon themselves to drag everyone else along?" In fact, I was merely offering another perspective for consideration within the context of this debate.

Would you have had such a negative reaction if the "designer" were more akin to the Architect in the Matrix? That is, a product of biology that had a hand in the design process? What if the hypothetical designer has nothing to do with religion, at all?

That said, I read the (admittedly brief) PDF excerpts of The Blind Watchmaker on Amazon. Looks very interesting, and I'll most likely pick up a copy. How is it "real" science, though? What I read sounds a lot more like philosophy.

Moreover, would you be willing to evaluate the work of the various fellowsassociated with the Discovery Institute (or other bona fide institutions that support ID)? Do you (and/or Ulrika) presume to be more qualified than these esteemed researchers?

Paolo, as far as I can see, all Chip asked you to do was to read some real science. The rest of his post is a parody of the article you quoted. I don't see how this constitutes a value judgement against you.

When you quote some text without any statement to the contrary, it is a reasonable assumption to make that the poster agrees with what is quoted. If not, then quote something you do agree with, or edit it to only the points you do wish to talk about. Otherwise we get people attacking points of view that nobody is supporting at all, which is just going to waste everyone's time.

Arguments from authority are generally fallacious, as you rightly point out. However, there is something to it when talking about extremely complicated matters. As far as I'm aware, none of us here are researchers in the relevant fields. Instead, we know some of the information and some of the arguments, and have read works of people who are experts in the field. In any case, comparison of the credentials your experts with your fellow debaters is the wrong comparison to make. Either compare your credentials with your opponents, or compare the credentials of the experts on your side with the experts on the other side.

I don't know about the former comparison, but the latter one is not one that the ID side wins.

<snip>

There's nothing at all esteemed about the "researchers" at the Discovery Institute. They're a laughingstock among legitimate scientists. You'll find nothing there but apologetics and psuedoscience.

On NPR, this evening, an important distinction was made regarding the Dover case. In no way was intelligent design discredited