Intelligent Design Ruled "Not Science" 1497
blane.bramble writes "The Register is reporting that the UK government has stated there is no place in the science curriculum for Intelligent Design and that it can not be taught as science. 'The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programs of study and should not be taught as science.'"
Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith. If you see something that you think is proof of God's existence, you're wrong. He's ineffable. That means you can't effing figure him out.
The arrogance of the goddamn literal read types is just astounding....Anyone else would look at evolution and go, "Damn! That God guy is hella fricking smart! Look at this crap! It's a system for self-improvement built into self-replicating creatures! It's awesome!" but a literal-read weenie will look at it and say, "Don't say nuthin about that in da bible. You must be wrong."
The worst thing that can be said about the literal read types, is that they have nothing to look up to. They know all there is to know about god and everything. So very very sad.
How about in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Excelent (Score:2, Insightful)
May as well teach crystal healing in heart surgery if your going to allow RE into Science classes.
Re:How about in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
People are perfectly free to talk about ID, publish letters in the newspaper, buy spots on TV, stand on the proverbial soapbox and preach it. There is no infringement of freedom, save that all those Evangelicals and the like would like special dispensation so that they could teach their own religious beliefs openly or in a pathetically thinly-veiled form like ID.
That's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't see any conflict between the world being created by some God, even in 7 days, and its being formed over billions of years by natural processes. One is a faith based way of experiencing the world, the other is a sensory based, practical, and logical way. They are both useful.
What isn't useful is to deny children understanding of what, very practically and falsifiably, is the way our reality works.
Re:When they can explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When they can explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. the red-shift of distant galaxies.
2. nucleosynthesis
3. the black body radiation that can be found every in the universe
ID, on the other hand, explains nothing. It's an empty statement that is designed to
a. fool judges
b. make such vague statements on the origins of the universe and life that everyone from a Young Earth Creationist to a Theistic Evolutionist are supposed to be friendly and consequently overthrow the evil secular forces of public education in America.
My recommendation to you is to
a. go read something on the Big Bang by actual cosmologists
b. go look up the Wedge Document to find out what ID *really* is.
Re:When they can explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
Account 2: "Nothing existed. Then through sheer logical necessity, everything else existed. Everything. Those parts of everything which were capable of contemplating existence posted on message boards. The rest were not aware that they should be doing so."
Why do you feel there should be an explanation for what caused causality?
As a Christian... (Score:1, Insightful)
Then again, I don't see any place for public schools when it comes to my (eventual) kids or the kids of the families I financially support. Personally, I'm a fan of Intelligent Design combined with evolutionary and old Earth science, but I would in no way force my opinion on others -- as the public school system does. Evolution? Creationism? Who cares -- if you as a parent don't work to teach your children, don't expect the public school to do a better job, regardless of what they're teaching.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Might be interesting to try this argument with a creationist.
Re:When they can explain... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's good. (Score:3, Insightful)
True, just like there is no conflict between a child believing a magical fairy has given them a coin to replace the tooth they placed under their pillow and their parent believing that tricking that child by trading a coin for a bunch of tears is an easy way to pacify their child over a lost tooth.
It's just two alternate ways to experience the same reality. For some people it's nice to get the "coin" and for others, it's more important to try to know what is really happening.
Religion != Abrahamic religion (Score:2, Insightful)
This is typical Abrahamic religion thought, and not common to all religions. And to make it worse, the fact that it's a typical argument in Abrahamic religious traditions, doesn't make it an essential feature of them.
Which means that you're carrying out a strawman argument, since you're not engaging the actual claims and beliefs of any actual adversary, only those you project onto an imagined one, and which just happen to be very conveniently weak.
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. Don't water down science as something that people must have "faith" to believe in. That's is 100% false, and that is purely rhetoric to make science sound like something that is debatable. By and large, it is not. It's not always right, but it is right a hell of a lot more often than not. Religion and science do NOT intersect. In fact, they're polar opposites.
All views require faith (Score:2, Insightful)
The first article of faith has shown repeatedly that there is no need to call in anything supernatural. Time and time again, when confronted with things (i.e. miracles, magic, etc), science has shown through testing that non-supernatural answers (or no answer) has been found. There has never been a proven case that science was left with "boy, no matter what, it seems God is working that."
The second article of faith has shown that many things that were labeled as unknowable or only in the realm of the supernatural were eventually solved with non-supernatural, testable, verifiable understanding; thus, one can conclude that while we do not have an explanation of the Whole Thing (tm) now, it seems some day we will.
Remember, there was a time when most people only accepted that the world was flat. A few people did tests and realized that their tests and the laws of math for a flat earth did not jive. Many people through away the differences because "how can you explain a round Earth when I clearly see flat land and the sun and moon revolving around us?" It took a long time of gathering evidence to recognize that it was *our perspective* that was flawed.
The Big Bang is merely our current understanding given the view of all our evidence. It is not the first proposal. An early proposal was Steady-State universe. Like any good theory, it gave predictions of other things we should observe, but they didn't hold up to testing. The Big Bang has. Does this mean that Big Band is The Answer (tm)? Of course not, because it doesn't (yet!) explain what came before it; however, that may be a meaningless question.
Paul Davies has been trying to marry Quantum Dynamics with Cosmology has the interesting suggestion that the idea that there is such a thing as time may be very misguided. I can't do justice to his work here, but the short version is that time is just another direction in QD. The QD works irrespective of time and the suggestion that perception a past and future comes from how we view things in a macroscopic view; in other words, our perspective is likely wrong.
What makes Science scientific is that scientific theories present something that is testable and is rooted that everything we need to observe exists within the universe. Intelligent Design coached in statements that sound plausible to the layman, but it is flawed because it makes claims that cannot be tested. It's faith is based on lack of proof. Science is faith based on proof.
Re:How about in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
You do of course realize that one can both believe that the theory of evolution is 100% correct and also believe that God created this process? I am not saying that we should teach that God/god/goddess/gods/goddesses directed evolution, just that the numbers you present are framed. After all, only atheists believe that humans evolved with no divine involvement at any juncture. I would really like to know which opinion polls the article refers to and how they were conducted, because I don't believe that these statistics reflect what Americans actually think.
science (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As a Christian... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter if you don't like the idea or not, you can't get away from the fact they exist.
Re:As a Christian... (Score:4, Insightful)
People talking to invisible men who live in the sky is an opinion... a wrong one.
Re:government defined science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about in the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
But there is a slight difference, for example here in The Netherlands 1 in 6 people alive have witnessed WWII.
Although the people of Little Faith that follow ID and creationism claim a Young Earth and generations of ancestors with the age of Methuselah, no-one is around that witnessed that 'recent' creation...
Re:Hah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately for everyone, there is no evidence remaining to tell us anything about how life got started here on earth. We could come up with a theory of how it might have started, but the evidence for what actually happened has been washed away (or eaten for food by early organisms). Assuming that God created evolution is certainly not a naturalistic or scientific position, but unless that assumption creeps into your research there is really nothing wrong with it.
Re:How about in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
the irony is... (Score:1, Insightful)
The reason IMO, even as a staunch defender of intelligent design theories, that this is the correct move, is because the only real science (currently) for intelligent design, is the exact same science as that of darwin's evolution.
I.e. the only way to prove evolution is to design a repeatable experiment, whereby the experimenter designs the environment of the experiment (e.g. with fruitflys), and then evolution occurs before the naked eye, as organisms adapt, or are selected by fitness, and ultimately evolve in the controlled confines of this scientifically reproducable experiment.
Of course, the irony is that this simultaneously proves both evolution, and intelligent design. Because without an intelligent designer of the experiment intervening and subverting nature, there would be no results and no new life forms to witness.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The cardinal sin of "I don't know." (Score:5, Insightful)
Without detracting from the rest of your argument, this part needs work. We're limited beings, complex machines made of crude matter. The Yahoweh mythology is about an infinite being.
Do you have absolutely no interest in what the ants are doing inside their ant hill? I think it might be neat to watch them. But I certainly don't have the resources to do so frequently, widely, or intently, so I elect not to care about them.
Those constraints don't apply to the supreme being worshiped by the tribes of Abraham, ergo it would be surprising if he didn't pay attention to everything. And play Ski-ball at the same time.
Re:Hah. (Score:2, Insightful)
When you call up your best friend because you need someone to bail you out of jail you have faith in them and hopefully they don't cease to exist.
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you very certain that you can tell the difference between a "decision" and a "reaction"? Remember, human beings have developed a keen ability to fool themselves in this regard.
Why ID isn't science (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of the advancements to science can be considered outside of what is considered "science" at the time.
You're confusing prevailing beliefs held by scientists with the scientific method itself. You're right, at any given time some portion of the best-believed scientific knowledge will be wrong, and other scientists will eventually find evidence for other theories. This will, however, be done using scientific principles. It will not be done by examining scripture.
ID is unique (I'm not talking about young earth crap) because it really is not straight philosophy as it has too many ties to empirical data, it shouldn't be religion because (at least the reasonable arguments) don't actually argue for a "God," and yet it doesn't fit very nicely into the current definitions of "science."
ID simply does not use the scientific method. To do so, it would have to generate a testable hypothesis which is disproveable. It is inherently not proveable to show that the earth was made, in some way, by a deity. As Wolfgang Pauli once put it, "That's not right. That's not even wrong!" His point was that, for a theory to come under the purview of science, it has to be disprovable. ID is not. ID takes a specific belief and carefully skirts around existing evidence in a way that it avoids making a testable hypothesis. As such, ID does not belong in science curriculum. There's also the notion of "why the Christian religion?" If they get equal billing with science, surely Mayan, Greek, Norse, Phoenician, Aztec, Zulu, Persian, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and other creation myths should be taught in science class, right?
An attempt to limit scholarly inquiry by excluding it from scientific discussion will only discourage diversity in the scientific community.
We're talking about what should be taught in high school science. Textbooks contain the best available knowledge at any given time, and that's what should be taught in PUBLIC schools. The vast majority of scientists have examined the available evidence and mechanisms and concluded that evolution is almost certainly responsible for the existing biodiversity on earth. No one, however, is preventing a group of people from conducting research into ID or anything else, or of teaching it in parochial schools not funded by taxpayers. So no one is attempting to limit scholarly inquiry.
intelligent design (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
The kind of fundamentalists that are currently running our government are to Faith what a ten-dollar hooker is to romantic love.
Re:Yeah, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Evolution is a "theory" as the term is used in science, that is, it is a proper scientific hypothesis (an explanation which makes predictions which are empirically falsifiable) which has withstood attempts at falsification.
Intelligent Design is a "theory" only by one of the looser definitions in common conversation, a a conjecture that does not make predictions which are falsifiable even in principle. Its nothing more than "that looks really hard, so God musta did it."
Attempts to equate the two are equivocation.
Re:Sorry, there is no god. (Score:3, Insightful)
Im assuming that such an objective, clear-headed individual such as yourself as some empirical evidence of that?
The reason I ask is because (and I speak as one of those unwashed masses I think your post was aimed at), all of the scientific theories Ive heard for the origins of the universe sound just about as implausible as the idea that a god of some sort created everything. My uneducated understanding here is that those scientific theories tend to work (sort of) mathematically, but there's not a whole lot of concrete evidence in support of any in particular.
Likewise, in my limited experience here (less than 3 decades), it has seemed to me that people will pretty much use anything to keep them in line - material or imaginary - but that a combination of guns and an economic stake in your way of existing seem to work far better for keeping people in line than religion does.
I havent seen any evidence of god that I cant explain with math or science, but I certainly havent seen any math or science that preclude the idea....but...since you're so sure of yourself...maybe you have some? It would certainly help me settle of couple of bets with my other uneducated friends.
Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
-----
Jon Stewart for President T-Shirt [prostoner.com]
Funny Shirts @ ProStoner.com
Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dry reality? You obviously don't live in the same world as me because there are more incredible and amazing things in this universe than I could ever fully explore in a single lifetime. I don't need to add imaginary fairies and hobgoblins to the mix. Just read a book about cosmology, or quantum physics or the human mind or zoology or... you don't need to start inventing fairies and easter bunnies to live in a magical world -we're already in one!
Rubbish (Score:2, Insightful)
This is NOT science, and is the very OPPOSITE of science for at least four reasons:
1) Appeal to the supernatural to explain natural phenomenon. (Yes, ID *does* quite clearly argue for the existence of a God. It's just a rehashed version of the teleological argument, and if you argue that all things in nature must have had some "designer", then in the end, you need a god to break the infinite regression.)
2) Unlike science which crafts theories from evidence, ID tries to find evidence to match a theory that already exists. (Unsuccessfully. Every example of "irreducibly complexity" has been explained by evolution.
3) It is completely unfalsifiable. The theory goes that "if there is any ONE thing that is irreducibly complex, then that is proof that EVERYTHING is the work of a designer." In order to *disprove* ID, you have to *prove* the evolution of every feature of every creature that has ever lived.
4) The whole purpose of science is to tear down barriers and to *learn* things. ID encourages ignorance and says, as a famous comedy bit once said, that a "magic man done it".
As scientists know, ID has absolutely no place in the science classroom or in science itself. It's unfalsifiable pseudoscientific garbage that produces no useful predictions whatsoever. Leaving it open as a possibility within the realm of science makes no more sense and is no more useful than allowing for the possibility of Zeus's invisible hand being responsible for lightning bolts.
If philosophers are convinced by such a bankrupt "theory", they're welcome to it. Despite what you claim, there is not a SHRED of evidence to support it.
Re:Meh... alert me when... (Score:4, Insightful)
All the evidence that underlies evolution is repeatable - without having to reproduce 3 billion years in a laboratory the size of the entire Earth.
When you understand how this can be true, you'll be a lot less stupid - and you'll understand what "repeatability" means in the scientific method.
Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Frost couldn't see in science a thing greater than himself. It was all about lesser and lesser things, smaller in every way than the ideals he loved.
But it's not about that at all; for many of us, science is about truth, and the glory of humanity, and we view those ideals to be a higher end. A great striving, a noble (nobel?) quest. Something greater.
True believers, and believe is the right word, those who have faith, they look up to an ideal greater than they could ever hope to know, and try in a small way to take some of that into themselves.
Neither of these groups bother me. Hell, there is often overlap. The striving for something greater is what humanity is about.
And then there is the third group. Those who know all there is about the world, and all there is about god, and all there is about science. It's not even only the intelligent design guys, though they annoy me most. They've got the world figured; they know everything about it, and they've pinned it's dessicated body to a piece of felt, and stuck it under glass, where they can point to it every day and declaim how much they "know".
Re:How about in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
But you don't have proof. Proof is something you can hold in your hand, and show to someone else, something that can have only one meaning, only one possible cause.
Re:Yeah, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Theory - "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
Conjecture - "The formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."
Note that a theory explains facts and is repeatable and/or can be used to make predictions. A conjecture is just a guess...
Re:That's good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, how could God have created the world in seven "days" when day & night didn't even exist until the second "day" then? So who's to say that (his) seven days were not billions of our years?
The problem isn't that people read the bible in a literal sense, but that they read one sentence literally, and the next as symbolic.
Re:Hah. (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought... (Score:1, Insightful)
The chance of getting a bike from doing this would be astronomically small, but of course we do live in an astronomically large universe.
I think intelligent design should be taught - but taught as an exercise for debate. Missing out religion from the curriculum also leaves a huge gap in history.
When I was young not only did I have to walk to school, they taught Religious Education in it, but you could go play with computers instead if you so wished - now where are the virgin memory chips I need to sacrifice to the great god of logic.
Re:Meh... alert me when... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no absolutes in science. What we have is the best model so far, based on observable evidence. The model will continue to change, and parts of it will be modified, thrown out, and refined. That is how the scientific method works.
"Creationism" or any religion-based "theory," and I use that word very loosely, are not built upon observable evidence over time. Creationism is not based in fact, and it is not continuously refined and retested. There is a reason why people refer to religion as "faith."
Please try not to view those of us who accept evolution as doing so upon faith. It is simply the best model that we have at the moment. If the model changes, based on new, factual evidence, and it can be retested with the same results, then our understanding of evolution will change right along with it.
I don't know about you, but I like my explanations of the things around me to be based on fact, not largely fictitious prose written two-thousand years ago.
Re:Hah. (Score:1, Insightful)
AMEN!
I mean, in my life I've always seen a place for both the concept of intelligent design and evolution. God started it, and has since guided it along. I've pointed out recently that the literal interpretation of God's image is not right. That image is character, and what happens... the memories it entails. And God being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent... he can do things that we can't even begin to grasp with our minds. So, God making us in his image is more God making us in his character - dynamic creatures full of, and capable of complex emotions and thoughts.
I just hate it when the creation (in whatever sense it came to be) comes up... because people are like "blah, blah, blah the world is THIS old..." How do you know? You don't... the bible is very vague on the details of the creation. So... saying it happened in a *pop, pop, pop* action just seems unrealistic to me, and also demeans the true capabilities of his power.
But, that's just me.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your accusations are standard "pox on all houses" boilerplate. But the rub is that they are creationist boilerplate: the idea of the tactic is that one attacks the very idea that we have good evidence or can know much of anything at all... i.e. simply tries to discredit most of modern biology without actually doing any work... with the hopes that once this is done, religious assertions become more compelling in the aftermath.
Re:Meh... alert me when... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Absolute truth" isn't what science is about, and "extrapolation" isn't as important as you would make it; inasmuch as it is relevant at all, it is just in coming up with hypotheses. Once you have a proper scientific hypothesis you then, by definition, have empirically falsifiable predictions you can test to validate the hypothesis. If those predictions fail, your hypothesis is wrong. If they do not, your hypothesis is a viable theory. That doesn't mean it is right: a more parsimonious or powerful theory may displace it because of the greater utility it provides, or additional predictions may be later derived from your hypothesis enabling new tests that may fail. No proper scientific theory (though some things popularly labelled theories are untested hypotheses) rests on extrapolation alone: if it is properly called a theory (as evolution is) it has testable predictions with have withstood testing.
Science isn't about giving answers that are some kind of Ultimate Absolute Truth. It is about refining models that have explanatory and, more importantly, predictive power.
Re:As a Christian... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gravity is a theory. Newton described it pretty well, but then Einstein came along with the general theory of relativity and blew it away. Even so, we know that Einstein is also wrong and scientists are searching for a better description still.
None of this changes the FACT that if I drop something, it will fall to the ground.
Evolution is similar. Darwin described it pretty well in the end, but the theory has changed quite a bit since his time. The mechanisms are still being discovered and theorized.
None of this changes the FACT that organisms have changed over time, and in response to changes in their environment.
I can make you feel the presence of God (Score:3, Insightful)
One argument I love to refute from personal experience is the "If you ask with an open heart He will show you the way," argument. Well, I have and I got nothing. I'm still an agnostic, but I can only believe based on my experience that any God that might exist must not give a damn whether I believe in Him or not.
Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you say. The vast vast majority of the people that actually study the data disagree, and most of the people that agree with you, when asked to explain why, demonstrably get things wrong and misrepresent what the evidence is and how it is used.
Re:What's wrong with... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a near infinite supply of "alternative" theories from crackpots. You can't teach them all, or even a small fraction. What makes creationism worth mentioning?
Unless someone has presented a testable hypothesis there's simply no reason or excuse for presenting it in science classes other than as part of a discussion on how to spot why the theories are not scientific.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming one of the following to be true, pick the most ludicrous:
1. Man created God
2. Unicorns created God
3. Santa Clause created God
4. Nobody created God
Since we have already determined it's ludicrous to believe that something really complex can't just exist, I am going to go out on a limb and say that number 4 is the most ludicrous answer. What I don't get is how can a person who believes the universe is too complex to just exist will postulate a being so complex that he can hold the entire knowledge to create the universe in his head and cause it's creation.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that there is a big difference between saying non-false things and saying true things. If what you say implies nothing at all, then you've not really said anything descriptive of the world, and that non-statement is no more false, but also no more true, than silence. So feel-good emotional language (blessed are so-and-so...), lists of commands (thou shalt not...), and so forth, are not even candidates for being true or false. Also bear in mind that "The Bible" is not one big theory, hypothesis, or proposition: it's a whole bunch of them, and as such, some of them could be right and others wrong, and so finding some true statements in there doesn't imply that all statements therein are true.
In my experience, those claims that the Bible makes which are meaningful (actually say something with observable implications), and not evidently false (such as a literal reading of Genesis), are fairly trivial and not disputed even by atheists. (Christians and non-Christians, for all their differences, still agree on a whole lot of things, like for example that 2+2=4, so there are plenty of trivial things in the Bible than even an atheist will agree are true). So if you've read something in there which is meaningful, controversial (i.e. something Christians believe and non-Christians don't), and which you've observed evidence for, I'd be rather interested in hearing what is was, and what sort of evidence you've observed.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
We are no better than animals because we are animals. If that conflicts with your ideals, you should get some more realistic ideals.
Re:Cheap Smear (Score:4, Insightful)
There is zero evidence for ID. None. The only arguments I've ever heard in favor of it were arguments against "DE" as you call it, or Evolution as the rest of the world refers to it. Darwin wouldn't recognize much more than the shell of it, these days. He laid the groundwork, but there has been a lot of building since then.
Basically all ID arguments come down to the following: "Evolution doesn't explain X. X is either irreducible or too complex to have come about 'by accident'. Therefore ID is correct, and God exists."
This is not proof. This is not science...It's actually a fallacy: the argument from ignorance. In many cases, the ID objection isn't even rational. ID has no falsifiable hypothesis, it has no positive evidence supporting it. It's not science, by any definition of science I have ever heard.
I always ask, "Do you have any rational, positive evidence to support ID?" And the answer is always no. I have never heard a single thing that wasn't either negative, or trivial. Maybe this will be the first time.
Re:government defined science (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that's accurate. Those advancements were outside of what science people wanted to hear (like the earth going around the sun) but they were still perfectly within the realm of science. Science has nothing to do with majority rule, personal preferences, or what sounds reasonable. Science is about testable theories; theories that help us predict the future. Even if every scientist in the world hates a new discovery, it's still science if it is a testable theory with the ability to make predictions. This is why science is fundamentally different than religion. It's a subtle but critical difference that nearly all ID proponents fail to grasp.
Cheers.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
I had religion (required) in public school. It was great. But they didn't preach any one religion. They showed how all the religions of the world came about, their origins and similarities and differences in their belief systems. Then we had guest speakers, one each from the major local religions that came in to talk about and answer questions of their beliefs and customs.
I firmly believe that type of religion in schools should be mandatory. It would certainly remove a lot of the predjudices and stereotyping that goes on simply due to fear and lack of understanding.
Re:Pascal's Wager (Score:4, Insightful)
Athiesm IS the safe bet.
OK, lets suppose you believe in a god. Which pisses your god off more, not believing in any gods, or believing in one of his competitors?
Now place your bet. Which god are you going to believe in? Now, if you're like most people you'll choose the one you were indoctrinated to believe in. In the history of the world, far more people have not believed in your god than have. Even right now more people don't believe in your god than do.
Better do your research. You'd better read up on all the gods that have ever been worshipped to make sure you pick the right one. Assuming you only choose a single one and that there is only one god, rather than a pantheon, your chances are probably about 1 in 10,000 you'll get it right. You'll waste a good fraction of your life on this fruitless search. That's pretty high stakes in this bet.
You would think that an all powerful god would make the choice obvious. If you think the choice is obvious, feel free to stand on a box in St. Peters Basilica, at the great mosque in Mecca, at the temple of Tirupati, at the Wailing Wall, any of the thousands of temples to the god you didn't pick, and explain to them why they picked the wrong god. If you picked the right one, I'm sure he will protect you. After all, there are no true believers in a foxhole, because what would a true believer need a foxhole for?
Since the choice isn't obvious, more logical assumption is that either there isn't a god, or he doesn't give a damn who you worship or even if you worship.
Read Kissing Hank's Ass [jhuger.com] for an alternative look at Pascal's wager.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at the chicken/human comparison a little more:
We both require and search for nourishment, often in a group.
We take in that nourishment, where a complex series of systems provide energy to all the necessary cells of the body.
We both have an innate desire after a certain period of time to combine our genetic material with another in hopes of keeping some portion of ourselves "alive".
After a set amount of time, natural causes will end our lives, leaving room for the next generation to take our places.
Where exactly do we differ enough that we are so different? Because we use tools? Sorry, but so do other animals. Plenty of simians, and even some birds. Because we create communities where we work together and raise each other? Again, so do plenty of animals. Because we have "free will" and can act in good or evil ways, such as murdering our own? It's been shown that chimps can, in fact, commit murder.
Human beings are intelligent (...well, some of us, anyway...) because that's how we survived long enough to fuck. A frog is not as intelligent because... he doesn't need to be that smart and reasoning to survive. His mechanism is having 10,000 little eggs and, with any luck, a handful will survive to reproduce. Those whose mechanisms didn't work... well, they not here anymore. Ours? It worked. A vulture's design lets him eat rotting meat with little risk of getting sick. If a human ate that meat, he'd vomit. So, using intelligence, we created cooking. Lower risk of getting sick from food. A rhino has thick hide and a powerful horn to fend off predators. We can creates weaponry. Different means to the same end.
So, where's the difference?
Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists say the induction step has meaning because evidence supports it for many N in (long ago to now), and when new X(N)/X(N+a) value pairs are discovered, they appear to follow the induction step.
Religious fundamentalists say that because you have no idea what X(0) is, then the induction step must be wrong. Thus they claim either a God created all X(0) and X(N) is a mere subset, or else they claim that X(N+1) = God(X(N)) for some, but not all, N.
While the scientific approach is far from a complete proof, it does have a lot of evidence that supports it. In contrast, a lot of counterexamples exist for the first religious fundamentalist approach, and the second religious fundamentalist approach has no elegance.
And well, if the rest of the Universe is anything to judge by, I think that's it's pretty unlikely that a Creator would create life through an inelegant process.
Re:Hah. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:ID (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I can think of a difference between us and the rest of the animals: knowledge passed along generations.
I have never seen another species use (or create) some tool and improve it over time. Or keep historical records. Of course, for them there is no need to do it, but we managed to survive without writing and with very primitive weapons too. Maybe it can be summed up as 'civilization', but that term can be ambiguous sometimes.
Perhaps I got your comment the wrong way (and sorry for my english).
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
But a man wants to be more than a man. For the whole existence of our species we have striven to be more than just what we are. In everything where we have ever fallen short, we have built tools to extend our reach. Every comparison is upward. We have no final goals; when we achieve, we immediately try to take the next step.
We have ideals. People live in pursuit of dreams...We give up sex for them sometimes! We die for them when we must.
We have it in us to be truly animals. Hardly any doubt of that; we see it everywhere. Dogs, chickens, and pigs, as far as the eye can see.
But I'll set my sights a little higher, so that one day, perhaps, we can be something more.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll throw this out here, and all the linguists will nod, and all the non-linguists are going to try and debate me about this.
We have a method that relies upon complex syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in order to generate reasonably effective communication between our species. In one word: Language.
Now, to deal with the issues that people will likely raise:
"What about parrots, they can talk", Parrots are indeed capable of a surprising amount of phonology, that allows them to mimic human speech patterns. It has also been shown that they are able to associate words and phrases with ideas, concepts and behaviors. However, they only satisfy "semantics" in the above, and a relatively small subset of semantics.
"What about those apes that I heard learned to use sign language!" Well, first off, I'm happy to see that you recogize that sign language is actually language, and not just some form of gestural gumbo. However, the sign language learned by these Apes is equivalent to that gestural gumbo. They have associated one sign to an idea, and then they throw those signs out until someone actually does what they're hoping to get. "YOU ME TICKLE TICKLE ME ME TICKLE YOU ME TICKLE ME YOU" is a pretty good example of their communicative skill.
"I heard Dolphins can talk!" Dolphins do have a complex communication system that allows them to transmit fairly detailed notions back and forth to each other. However, they still lack the "complex syntax" given above.
"What about white mice, huh?" ok, you got me there.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
While we're at it, why do I drink, breath, talk and eat out of the same hole? Dolphins have more options than we do. Great move God. Are you TRYING to make me choke and die on my Hot Pocket?.
And what the hell is up with our genitals? That's like putting a theme park in the middle of sewage treatment plant.
Darwinism = scientific method applied by nature (Score:5, Insightful)
the Authoritarian Model of Information Value [asecular.com]
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Our whole history is one of envy. We envy the tiger its claws, so we learn to make our own out of stone. We envy the deer its speed, so we domesticate the horse. We envy the fish their abilities with the sea, so we invent boats, and then submarines. We envy the birds the sky, so we invent the airplane.
Was all that enough? No. We launch our crazy asses into outer fucking space.
We are not a complacent species. There is never going to be a point where we say, "Enough." Do you know where that's going to lead...I mean, clearly you think you do, but do you know?
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Animals engage in physical competition, with the "alpha male" often resulting from the strongest and fastest. They determine the "superior specimen" this way. To them, physical fitness determines superiority. Then again, think of the social experiment known as High School. How many bullies found themselves "superior" to the nerds because they were bigger and stronger?
Humans are rather vain creatures, and we often define what's "good" and "better" as "what is similar to me or what I strive to be." As such, I find the argument that we are capable of defining things in our own languages to be somewhat egotistical. At the end of the day, we're still living creatures trying to pass on our DNA. How we accomplish that, or what we do when we're NOT trying to pass on genetic material, is mostly irrelevant on a cosmic scale.
That said, I do believe we've done remarkable things. Utterly mind-blowing at times. But I do take offense to the idea of superiority. We're all the same, really. We are, we do, we die. Such is life.
Re:'Cause I gotta have faith, faith, faith... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I have trouble with this part of your statement. You see, if you learned the lessons of your high school chemistry class properly, then you should be able to construct the periodic table on your own. At least a good portion of the table. I don't recall at this moment if high school chemistry covers enough material for you to understand how to arrange the lanthanides and actinides... but I digress.
I don't care if you remember the periodic table. I care that you understand electron configuration and the concept of the valence shell. If you get that, which is a large chunk of the course material of an introduction to chemistry, then you can reconstruct the bulk of the periodic table, including entries for elements you can't remember or have no exposure to. In fact, you can construct your own alternative periodic table if you so wish to emphasize different aspects of the elemental properties.
My main point is that even such a simple pronouncement as "here is the periodic table," should be understandable and re-creatable by the student of science. That's why so many proofs in math are left as an exercise for the reader/student. It is important that you be able to carry through the reasoning yourself, important that you draw your own conclusions.
This is how science differs from faith.
Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm saying that culture and improvements are irrelevant. The universe does not care that we do things. The only ones who do care is... us.
In your book, that makes us better. But that's the thing, isn't it? It's YOUR book. Not OUR book. Not THEIR book. Just yours. I'm certain that many, if not most, or nearly all people share that idea with you (myself, too, in a way) but again, we defined what is "better." Life has no inherit value for attributes. It's like arguing over who's a better artist. Ultimately, it comes down to opinion.
Re:Both are theories (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to quote Douglas Adams now.
"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."
As a species, we value the things that we have. We value self-improvement, because we can do it. We value culture, because we have it.
However, monkeys probably think out inability to properly groom each other is somewhat silly.
It's a problem of bias to an incredible degree. You must admit that it's a bit suspicious that every single way in which some animal is clearly superior to humans is viewed by humanity as utterly unimportant.
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
No. A man thinks he is more than just a man. That arrogance is what causes man to be so much worse and better than other animals.
A man should just want to be a man. To think. To learn. To explore. To spread. That is what is man. As soon as man thinks that it is more than that, bad and/or good things happen. But since we are still just on one little planet, the bad seem to loom over man's very existence more and more.
Man, be just a man.
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans are a type of animal, full stop. There are features that seem to be unique to humans, yes. But those are still animal things: there are other animal-things that are unique to other species, or limited to subsets of animals, as well.
I'm reminded of something Kurt Vonnegut wrote: "Question: What is the white stuff in bird poop? Answer: That is bird poop, too."
And contempt in equal measure. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'll disprove ID (Score:1, Insightful)
You are insane. And you have magic teeth. Mine do not replace themselves. The do, however, have nerves where none are necessary and rot on contact with that which they are intended to act against.
Spoken as one who has never had a slipped disk. But really. Don't you realize that the worst spinal cord injuries are caused by the vertabrae acting as a shear to sever the cord? How is that kind of "protection" better than passing the spinal cord through the middle of the torso where it would be padded instead of sliced? The spine provides negative protection and crap structure.
I have known several competitive runners, and they all have podiatrists practically on call. Feet suck for running and suck even more for standing.
Being that is doesn't touch the lymphatic system, I'd call bullsxxx on that one. There is no known health problem caused by removing it. If it is doing anything it is "designed" to do, it must be doing a piss poor job of it.
I know what they are "for" (or at least the tiny benefit they provide). But they do it badly. What they do well, is get their linings inflamed at the drop of a hat, within a tightly confined space, closing themselves off to form moist, warm incubators for all conceivable disease. Why bore holes in the skull when the humidifying function would be much better served by a separate chamber ahead of the lungs, and not encased in bone. The water bong is better than sinuses, and that was designed by potheads.
Have you seen the Fantastic Four movies? The stretchy guy? 'Cause that's what you look like here. That's the kind of stretching you have to do to maintain any internal consistantcy for this ID crap. How many men have you met who breast feed children. How many have you ever seen do so in a picture? NONE. Really.
And if you had any idea what evolutionary biology is about, you wouldn't use the term 'optimization' like you do. Or 'fierce'. There is no intention in the process. There is no ideal situation to 'optimize' for. Its just a matter of some, mostly small, random changes making it into the genepool because they increase fitness under the prevailing conditions. Wash, rinse, Repeat. For a billion years, rather than five thousand. As a product of randomness and natural forces, I think the human body came out pretty darn good. But if it was designed by an individual, that guy better look out for a six billion strong class action lawsuit. Bad design can sometimes be against the law.Re:ID (Score:4, Insightful)
Awesome. So guess my theory that there are unicorns somewhere in this galaxy is probably true because it isn't very disprovable.
So ID is true until proven false but any other theory is false until proven true? Is that how this works? ID proponents can just sit back and claim ID is true with every one else has to do the actual scientific legwork?
I wish I had you for a science teacher. I could make up any theory and it would be true by default... as long as it wasn't disprovable! And I wouldn't have to do any actual research. I'd just tell the rest of the students to prove THEIR theories to be true. And if they couldn't do so to my satisfaction, I'd get an A!
-matthew
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Libertarianism (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though, this sort of thing should be important to libertarians. People keep trying to get ID into classrooms, and because it's basically dressed up religious apologetics, they are (rightly) taken to court (or at least challenged in the policy making body) over it. They defend their idea by saying, "It's not (just) religion! It's also science! Lookie here at this book that used to be a creationism tract but now has the words 'Intelligent Design' in it!" An argument ensues over whether it's really being introduced based on scientific merit or whether it's just a lame trick. Typically, ID is (rightly) tossed on its ass. Libertarians should not be afraid of this process because the alternative is the slow decay of science education brought about by people who would rather have their preferred deity pushed by the government than confined to churches and private life.
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now compare this with works of Picasso, or even worse, Andy Warhol? Or that woman who took an unmade bed and sold it for millions as "art"? (No, it's not her who's stupid here...) If you take most "art" of the last century, the critters are actually winning. I really wonder why taxpayers (ie, mine too) money is used to pay the scammers of "art schools" these days.
For compassion, what would you say about that female dog who raised three tiger cubs?
A scientifically complete model isn't enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Such a model would not be enough to disprove the existence of God. For the universe inside Super Mario Brothers, there exists a scientifically-complete model; it happens to be 40960 octets long. However, when I hex edit a saved state, I am the god of that universe. I can modify the state of the game at will, without modifying the rules. Despite a self-consistent and fully-accurate model of the universe, God exists and can perform miracles.
Similarly, a god of our universe would be able to create objects without regard to the standard rules, and discovering those rules would not disprove her existence.
Note that I'm an atheist. I just want to make sure the logic on all sides is valid.
Re:Hah. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Art" ain't just what gets painted.
Re:Hah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it so horrible to be grouped with animals? Are they really such an abomination? Why must we invent a god to create us above them, and to deny the similarity? Being animals doesn't make our humanity any less great.
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if a cheetah can run must faster than I can. I shoot the cheetah.
So what if a bird's cardiopulmonary system is better than mine. I can shoot the bird.
So what if a dolphin can swim faster than I can. I shoot the dolphin.
So what if most animals can fly and I can't. I shoot them.
So what if I am restricted to land covering a tiny 25% of the Earth's surface. I shoot those water things.
So what if bees can see ultraviolet colors. I crush them.
So what if pit vipers can see infrared light. I will back away slowly.
So what if owls can see 100 times better in the dark. I will shoot them.
So what if dragonflies can see completely around themselves. I will crush them.
So what if plants convert light into energy. I will eat them.
I rule over them all. I have tools. Better than otter tools. Better than chimp tools. Better than all other tool-users around... so only tool use matters. Suck it world of organisms with powers I obviously lack. I can't spit venom at you, or spin a web... but I can hit you with a shovel, and that's what really matters.
Re:Hah. (Score:2, Insightful)
First, the GP is not making a purely taxonomic distinction, as far as I can tell. Words "animal" and "human" certainly have different meanings in everyday speech, and in some contexts they are describing mutually exclusive categories -- when the spiritual considerations are involved.
Second, a taxonomic distinction is not hard to draw, and some biologists are already doing it. Granted, we are grafted on the primate branch, which makes us as animal as we could be by descent, but this is not the only factor in taxonomy, and in case with humans it can be argued that other factors are more important. The population growth laws, for example, are all broken for us. All animal populations have a ceiling which is possible to estimate. If bunnies keep multiplying in Australia, sooner or later they will run out of grass or catch a disease. When humans run into this wall, they just develop farms and build indoor plumbing. Our perceived strength is the infinite adaptability, infinite in a sense that it is virtually impossible to predict with certainty what environment we can or cannot eventually inhabit. With animals, even primates, adaptations happen primarily by the way of the genetic shuffle, but humans adapt on the fly because something funny is going on in our brains. It would probably take hundreds of thousands of years for chimps to get comfortable at 32F. You can accomplish this feat in 5 minutes by throwing on some furs. So why insist on us being "animals" if our populations are so vastly different in how they fit into the ecology? It kind of makes sense already to make us into a separate kingdom and focus on studying the distinctions.
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Without abstraction you wouldn't have the innovation that alows you to have this conversation.
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Squids got it right _for_a_typical_small_prey_animal. Being able to see your predators is top priority, and that is best achieved by a huge field of vision. To animals with few natural enemies, other issues my take precedence, such as the ability to find food. For predators with few natural enemies, it makes sense to in stead have a highly focused field of vision with excellent resolution and depth perception (requiring significant overlap of the two regions), since catching fleeing food is hard, and starvation bacomes a more looming threat than being eaten by someone bigger.
Witness how birds of prey have forward-pointing eyes, smaller birds who may be their victims have them more on the sides, and large non-hunting birds with few enemies often somewhere in-between.
Then look at yourself in the mirror and tell me we're not built to hunt...
Re:Hah. (Score:2, Insightful)
oh yeah, apes are just faking it. and that koko [wikipedia.org] has been reading picture books to herself at bedtime just like a school kid would do, it's only imitation. that she has the wish to express herself via paintings [koko.org] and drawings, that's no sign for intelligence. and that she invents new words is a sign for... what?
you, as many others, suffer from delusions of grandeur regarding human capabilities...
Re:'Cause I gotta have faith, faith, faith... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're defining "better" in a way that's not particularly relevant to biological evolution.
I can't figure out why people want to use evolution as a theory that describes how we should behave rather than how we got here. Nobody claims that we should drop bags of hammers on people because gravity causes them to fall and they "should" be allowed to fall.
Re:Hah. (Score:3, Insightful)