Judgement Day - Intelligent Design on Trial

hmmm... [digging through stuff] ... now where did that flame suit go?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ 2007 11 15 18:33) [snapback]540331[/snapback]</div>

What, your computer doesn't have a firewall?

Intelligent design isn't. As in, not intelligent, and not design.

Flame away.

 

Huh. I'm disappointed. I was promised a flame war (ok, not promised but it was very strongly implied!) and ....nothing.

Maybe this will get the ball rolling:

John Scalzi visits the Creation Museum so you don't have to:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/sets/7...ith/1970000574/

 

Science is so darn controversial.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moxiequz @ Nov 16 2007, 03:30 PM) [snapback]540713[/snapback]</div>

ohhh... my head! :wacko:

 

The Wikipedia entry goes into additional detail:

Creation Museum

Personally, I can think of a multitude of better ways to throw away the $20 admission fee for entertainment (and I am within 30 minutes of the place). I mean, c'mon, a Triceratops wearing a saddle?

Distressingly, this joke has supposedly managed to achieve its stated goal of 250k visitors in the first year within six months of opening. If it cost $27 million to build, that's nearly 20% of the cost recovered right there. It would seem that the designers certainly got the correct location to maximize attendance (and profit).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 16 2007, 03:28 PM) [snapback]540327[/snapback]</div>

It aired over here last night as it happens. I sat and watched it with our youngest (11).
Neither of us could understand why people would prefer supernatural myth to the truly magical achievements that we've produced through perspiration and inspiration. Its kind of like the people prefering to believe the moon landing was faked. Perhaps it makes them feel safer, or maybe they think it absolves them from responsibility or guilt. Who knows. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

the issue in schools comes down to the fact vs belief thing. for those who insist in preserving belief above all, facts that contradict belief are scary. nevermind encouraging your children to become independent thinkers or anything like that

from the science point of view, at least i am pissed off by the issue because they want to teach belief in a fact-driven course. way to throw kids off there. the whole issue here was religiously motivated, and it was glaringly obvious from the very start.

ID at its best is a feeble attempt at mimicry of legitimate science. flawed logic can appear logical to those who don't know enough to know better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 19 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]541274[/snapback]</div>

Not to mention its complex simplicity...

I've never thought science and faith were incompatible. They are different levels of explanation, with vastly different rules.

Physics, biochemistry, cognitive psychology, and linguistics are also different levels of explanation (and each could be invoked to "explain" what I have written here). It happens however, that they, being sciences, share the same rules, albeit different perspectives, methodologies, and metrics.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 19 2007, 10:46 AM) [snapback]541281[/snapback]</div>

I have this picture of a kind of cargo cult engaging in a sort of strange ritual trying to attract the "cargo gift" of scientific legitimacy by donning the some of trappings of science and chanting some of the words. :lol: Everything has its humourous side...

 

Is there any other religion that attempts to foist its beliefs upon children as fact-based rather than faith-based? I've only lived in a country where Christianity seems to be the default religion, so I'm not aware if this might be the case in other places.

Seriously, if the Hawaiian islanders tried to tell us that their creation story was fact and could be scientifically proven as such - would they not be laughed at? Every single culture seems to have its own creation story, but we don't teach those as "alternatives to evolution." If there were some sort of scientific validity to any of these theories, I would like to see them taught in school. But there isn't any more evidence that the Christians have it correct than there is that the Hindus do.

If I were a science teacher (and while I am a teacher, although not a science teacher) and I were told that I MUST teach intelligent design, I would certainly do so. Only instead of referring to the Christian God, I would be sure to use the name of Thor or Zeus. After all, it really shouldn't matter what we call the designer so long as we accept that there was a designer, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Nov 18 2007, 01:46 PM) [snapback]541281[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Nov 18 2007, 02:26 PM) [snapback]541293[/snapback]</div>

Yesterday, National Public Radio had a report on Patrick Henry College which was founded for the express purpose of grooming smart, ambitious young evangelicals for influential careers in Congress, in the media, in the sciences and on the Supreme Court. Many of the incoming Freshmen have perfect SAT scores and had been also admitted to Ivy League schools. Students must retain and spread their fundamentalist faith in creationism as well as opposition to gay rights and abortion. The school has had more White House interns than Georgetown University. Many of graduates work for conservative Congressmen.

Scary.

Harvard for the Home-Schooled, Christian Crowd

 

Iht we had this once...the Scopes Monkey Trail.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 18 2007, 05:55 PM) [snapback]541303[/snapback]</div>

I guess you can't get everyone from Regent University. You know, Pat Robertson's evangelical college from which the Bush adm began the practice of hiring graduates, such as Monica Goodling who was one of Alberto Gonzalez' whiz kids until she resigned over the federal attorney firing scandal.

 

I looked at the Creation Museum slide show. There is no mention of Michael Behe's testimony (Kitzmiller v. Dover) that astrology is considered science by creationists.

 

For people of intelligence who may like to examine a 'new' theory like 'intelligent design' it would be much more inviting if the basic premise weren't just warmed over:

'intelligent design' = creationism

'pro life' = anti-abortion

Just taking a worn tire and retreading it doesn't make it a new, improved tire.

a rose by any other name still smells like a rose
a fart by any other name still smells like a fart

 

I understand the new governor of Louisiana is in favor of teaching Intelligent Design along side currently accepted science.

I think he's also a Republican.

 

So if they do start teaching ID - what are they going to say about the designer? Supposedly life is too complex to have evolved. Therefore, there must be a designer.

So who designed the designer? Obviously, the designer is more complex than what he/she/it designed. And since life on earth is "too complex" to have evolved, thus necessitating a designer - well, obviously the designer must be "too complex" to have evolved, thus necessitating yet another designer of even higher complexity. And who designed that designer?

I would love to see a teacher teach ID using a non-Christian religion as a basis. The ID folks like to deny that ID=Creationism. So it shouldn't bother them one little bit if a person teaches that the world was created by Zeus. After all, isn't it possible that Zeus was the designer? How do they konw that THEIR God is the one in charge of the whole shebang?