The whole world needs to know about intelligent falling.
Your homework assignments are to bring it up in a conversation!
The whole world needs to know about intelligent falling.
Your homework assignments are to bring it up in a conversation!
"They call it 'The American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it" - George Carlin
Some clarifications:
- Intelligent Design is not about god.
- Whether Intelligent Design should be taught has no relation to Evolution or Big Bang
- The debate is about whether Intelligent Design should be taught in <u>science</u> classes
- It has nothing to do with whether Intelligent Design is probable or not
Intelligent Design in a nutshell:
- Sometimes, nature exhibits patterns known as Irreducible Complexity (IC) or Complex Specified Information (CSI)
- It is observed that these patterns are common results of designs.
- It is not observed that these patterns are results of natural mechanisms
- Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that articles (e.g. cells, etc...) exhibiting IC or CSI are of Design*
* In the formal presentation, "Design" does not imply god. Similar to Big Bang, formal advocates of Intelligent Design DO NOT suggest that the articles are created by any specific entity. They simply state that those articles are not likely to be results of natural mechanisms. Who the designer is, is irrelevant. It can be aliens. It can be the Matrix. Whatever that is, doesn't matter, because those aren't science.
The bottom line:
- Intelligent Design is NOT science. It looks like science, but it is not. Talkorigins (Note that I am not showing a ref because I need authority to convince you that ID is not science, it is <u>common sense</u> that ID is not science, as long as you read the actual arguments of ID (such as the one by Behe) objectively)
- Including Intelligent Design in <u>science</u> class is nonsense.
- The inclusion of Intelligent Design is not a "what harm can it do anyway?" problem. It corrupts the meaning of science. It is like asking a music class to teach drawing also.
- The debate itself has no scientific merits. It is purely a political topic.
- The political pressure that evangelical groups is making is unethical.
No NO no NONO. What i was trying to get at is that kids will use this a as anopther thing to seperaste them selves form people that are diffrent from the whole. It will jsut create another requierment to be in or excluded from a group. Telling another person there belifes is wrong but forcing it upon people when they just don't want to hear it was what I have a problem with. Believe what you want, it's your right as an americain and a human being. Just keep it to your self unless some asks, or seems to have an intrest in what you believe.Originally posted by: XanBcoo
I agree Honoko. That's what I was getting at when I said: "I've never heard of Intelligent Design before this topic, but it is very probable that it includes some rational theories." If anyone here has any knowledge of this theory beyond thinking that it's just a crackpot "excuse" that "Evangelical nuts" use, please share. I also know that there are quite a few logical arguments attempting to prove the existence of at least some higher power - many of them being pretty reasonable.
If you are saying that the school boards should have the power to tell one group of people that their beleifs are wrong, then I completely disagree.why give them another thing to seperate the "diffrent kids" from the "accepted" kids
What could you possibly talk about concerning ID anyway, if you don't specify a creator? And specifying a creator would in fact alienate people who don't believe in that one particular creator..
Hell, if they could say anything it would probably only be what KM said on top of this page. "Some people think this world wasn't formed by natural mechanisms, but created...by someone else. Hey, we have no proof, but I'm just gonna throw that out there for you guys!"
"They call it 'The American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it" - George Carlin
"everybody is stupid except for me" - Homer Simpson
the main problem with intelligent design being taught is that its not a science. end of story. there is no scientific proof supporting it as there is with evolution. the groups that are pushing for ID keep trying to muddle the debate by saying that evolution doesnt really have any proof and its just a theory so other "theroies" should be taught along side it. thats just wrong, thre have been hundreds of scientific studies that support evolution by scientists all over the world. to me its just insane that this debate has gone so far when its obvious which is actually science and should be taught in a science class.
I think this article explains the science supporting intelligent design better than I can summarize.... also a couple of books to look at if anyone is interested:
The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen <-- the book that consolidates all of intelligent design theories and explores the weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Raised eyebrows in science community when biologist Dean Kenyon wrote the foreward of the book (since he was at the time known as one of the biggest proponents of the idea that chemical reactions had the inherent ability to evolve into living cells)
Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe <-- talks alot about how random chance could not possibly evolve to life.
Oh, and I lied about the astrophysist. Sorry. Walter L. Bradley got a Ph.D in materials science from UT Austin and was a mech.e prof at Texas A&M who also specialized in polymers and thermodynamics. I'm sure the other authors have similar eminence.
"The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?" Allan Sandage, cosmologist
So, to me, it seems like intelligent design is something that could be taught in a science classroom with no need to mention the Bible. And that's the thing most people are getting confused with here, I think. If someone teaches the intelligent design theory, they shouldn't grandly conclude, "so hey! All this implies that GOD exists!" but rather should just say something like, "look at all this evidence. what conclusion can you derive from it?" And if you look at those two questions very carefully, one can be applicable to a science classroom, and the other would be more in place in a Sunday School classroom. So maybe, everyone in the media to the school boardrooms are just handling this whole thing wrong.
the article is on the Christian Broadcast Network. hardly the place i look for impartial judgement on a case like this
that shouldn't prevent you from reading the article objectively. I didn't see the word "genesis" mentioned in there once. and anyone with brains should be able to ignore all the Christian bias in it and pick out the scientific stuff on his/her own.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051107a.asp
What? I guess that's why everyone that landed on the moon (which has 1/6th the gravity of Earth) just flew off once they landed right? Total BS.In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.
Nobody that knows what they're talking about has ever said it's easy to produce anywhere. Total BS.Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.
Who wrote this junk? I would hate to be on the same side as these people. The title of this article is called "Intelligent Design Grounded in Strong Science," yet they make nothing but weak claims. All they are doing is saying evolution can't possibly be true, therefore they're right. Not like anything more could be expected from CBN, though.
The only scientific "evidence" to support the claims in that article is that all the pieces of a flagella must (he should avoid using the word 'must' since he may be wrong) be in place before it can work (no proof is given), and that the odds of a planetary scenario that can sustain life forming are too low. He also (stupidly) adds that a little more or a little less gravity would destroy anything on the planet or the planet itself (he says the planet would come unglued and fly apart if there were not enough gravity). How is it possible for anyone to take this article seriously?Originally posted by: Honoko
that shouldn't prevent you from reading the article objectively. I didn't see the word "genesis" mentioned in there once. and anyone with brains should be able to ignore all the Christian bias in it and pick out the scientific stuff on his/her own.
I beleive the whole gravity argument was referring to the fact that the amount of gravity that earth applies to everything on it is the right amount to sustain everything on it (the pea example), and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example). It's eternally set to the "right" amount. That's what I see it's trying to say.Originally posted by: mage
He also (stupidly) adds that a little more or a little less gravity would destroy anything on the planet or the planet itself (he says the planet would come unglued and fly apart if there were not enough gravity).
Keep in mind mage that this is a news article, and many of the proponents of ID they interview or refer to are (to quote) "people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions. And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."
Beleive what you will about ID, I think the real issue is stuff like this (most of which has already been discussed in this thread):
Also...West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."
In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.
Hook 'em.Walter L. Bradley got a Ph.D in materials science from UT Austin
<@Terra> he told me this, "man actually meeting terra is so fucking big", and he started crying. Then he bought me hot dogs
I know what he was trying to say, however, if the Earth had a different gravity, I don't believe it would be much different. Life would have adapted to that gravity just as well as it has to Earth's.Originally posted by: XanBcoo
I beleive the whole gravity argument was referring to the fact that the amount of gravity that earth applies to everything on it is the right amount to sustain everything on it (the pea example), and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example). It's eternally set to the "right" amount. That's what I see it's trying to say.
this should have a poll
1) if you think it should be taught
2) if you think it shouldnt
3) you could care less and everyone is making a big deal out of it
Originally posted by: mage
I know what he was trying to say, however, if the Earth had a different gravity, I don't believe it would be much different. Life would have adapted to that gravity just as well as it has to Earth's.Originally posted by: XanBcoo
I beleive the whole gravity argument was referring to the fact that the amount of gravity that earth applies to everything on it is the right amount to sustain everything on it (the pea example), and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example). It's eternally set to the "right" amount. That's what I see it's trying to say.
but then again he doesnt believe that organisms evolve so that never fit into his argument
It definitely wouldn't happen that way. The sun cannot change it's mass so drastically in the middle of its lifespan to put the Earth into a different orbit. Earth would not fly off into space if it or the sun had less mass. Mars and Pluto both have less mass than Earth, are on both sides of Earth, yet they still orbit the sun. The only way for the Earth to have a different orbit is for it or the sun to have been a different mass in the first place, or if something large collided with Earth, but life would have adapted (denying that life is unable to adapt to certain situations is the same as denying that Earth orbits the sun) to those conditions if it were even able to form in them in the first place.Originally posted by: XanBcoo
and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example).
Many people also believe life was once present on Mars (there is some very good evidence). If Earth is so special, how could there have (possibly) been life on Mars at one point?
sorry, double post
Xan never said that. Stop being so hostile.Originally posted by: mr3vi1m0nk3y
but then again he doesnt believe that organisms evolve so that never fit into his argument
That's a good idea, except after 3 pages worth of discussion, I think it's a bit too late. Everyone's said what they wanted to say, I'm pretty sure.Originally posted by: darkmetal505
this should have a poll
Anyways, I didn't post that ID article so you could speculate on stuff Ph.D people have been studying and probably know a lot more than we do. Someone wanted to know some scientific theory that can point to an intelligent designer and I provided the sources.
And if you really seriously want to argue the whole ID theory, go read those two books I mentioned and then find ones that're equally as acclaimed that supports evolutionary theory and then create a new thread and duke it out.
The last two quotes in Xan's most recent post in here is most relevant to the topic of this thread. A discussion about the amount of gravity needed for us to live is useless because who here actually studies gravity for a living? =P
I think this thread's about to run out of steam anyway, unless someone out there has something new to contribute. Otherwise, we're on the verge of recycling old arguments.
I hope to study it for a living one day.Originally posted by: Honoko
The last two quotes in Xan's most recent post in here is most relevant to the topic of this thread. A discussion about the amount of gravity needed for us to live is useless because who here actually studies gravity for a living? =P
No one said anything about organisms evolving. We were talking about gravity, buddy - which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. I have no idea who or what you're referring to. If you're referring to me then you're a dumbass for putting words in my mouth (because I DO beleive organisms evolve), and if you're referring to propenents of ID in general, then you're an even bigger dumbass for reasons I've already stated. Stay relevant, please.Originally posted by: mr3vi1m0nk3y
but then again he doesnt believe that organisms evolve so that never fit into his argumentOriginally posted by: mage
I know what he was trying to say, however, if the Earth had a different gravity, I don't believe it would be much different. Life would have adapted to that gravity just as well as it has to Earth's.
I had thought of a lot of that myself, which is why ID doesn't make complete sense to me. But even then, I'm still getting from the article that ID asserts that there is something keeping all the physical factors about the universe not only adequate, but also constant, instead of relying on random chance and unexplainable forces. I don't know what to think about the theory itself, but I do think that no one should stop it from being taught on the basis that they beleive it isn't "scientific." Again, all that's been discussed and I've already given my thoughts on it.Originally posted by: mage
~~Stuff about gravity~~
<@Terra> he told me this, "man actually meeting terra is so fucking big", and he started crying. Then he bought me hot dogs
By the way, regarding the "intelligent falling theory" link posted earlier, if you want to know why it is completely untrue, then read this (a stupid article but informative):
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae198.cfm
The mass of an object bends space, which is why light can be "pulled" into a black hole even though it has no mass. The light follows the curvature of space into the black hole. Unlike what the intelligent falling article says, we do have a pretty good idea of how gravity works.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
