Obama's speech....

[customizerwannabe]

Voting for a president based on religious views alone exhibits a pathetically simplistic world view.

 

[darkknight]

About the speech thing. All I got to say is talk is cheap.

 

[barbelith]

I don't see any harm in presenting this and letting the chips falls as they may; actually to not give both sides is less than genuine.

ID does not meet a single benchmark for scientific consideration and thus has no place in a science class. In fact there exists not a single shred of evidence whatsoever for ID and as such it merits the same scholastic attention as the argument in favor of unicorns.

If there's a role for ID in schools it's either as a tool to demonstrate an abject failure to apply the scientific method or one of several dozen human origin myths in a comparative literature class.

 

[barbelith]

You believe school history books?

Not unquestioningly. But the primary sources from the late 18th century prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the United States was not founded as a Christian nation and that most of the influential founding fathers were deists and atheists opposed to intersecting religion and government.

"Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s incidentally.

 

[LOTRFan]

ID does not meet a single benchmark for scientific consideration and thus has no place in a science class. In fact there exists not a single shred of evidence whatsoever for ID and as such it merits the same scholastic attention as the argument in favor of unicorns.

If there's a role for ID in schools it's either as a tool to demonstrate an abject failure to apply the scientific method or one of several dozen human origin myths in a comparative literature class.

I will simply state it this way (due to Dave's earlier comments), I would highly recommend the book Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe (who is NOT an evangelical nor a Christian fundamentalist in any shape or form), which very clearly expresses the concept of irreducible complexity; that is, that there are certain components that an organism MUST have in order to function/exist. One of the fundamental flaws with Darwinian evolution is that total failure to explain just how early life could continue without having such pieces. One of the more impressive examples being even a simple bacterium, which under closer examination has more moving parts than even the most complex engines - in it's evolution it would have had to have ALL of them for it's own survival.




Oh, and there was a very good piece done on Palin tonight on CNBC; did anyone catch it?

 

[barbelith]

the concept of irreducible complexity

No irreducibly complex biological component has ever been discovered. The concept has quite a history for those who care to delve deeper; every characteristic claimed as irreducibly complex has subsequently been shown to be an evolved characteristic. As such it has the same scientific credibility as leprechauns (the scientific method requires direct or indirect observation and a testable hypothesis).

In any event the question of irreducible complexity is a red herring. An irreducibly complex characteristic does not necessarily require an intelligent creator and even if it did, who is to say that creator is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? To say nothing of the logical stumbling blocks that arise: if irreducibly complex characteristics require a creator, who created the creator? It's turtles all the way down, as the old saying goes.

The biggest problem of course is that irreducible complexity still fails to disprove the theory* of evolution. In fact nearly every strand of science has repeatedly confirmed the basic theory of evolution over the past 150 or so years and nothing has ever arisen in that time to challenge its veracity.

This is why ID has no place in schools. Where do you put it? It fails at every step as science, so it doesn't belong in a science class. I wouldn't object to putting it in a comparative religion class or as one of a series of origin myths in a comparative literature class. But it's clearly religiously motivated as a proposition and it's telling that many of its proponents believe a host of things contrary to science, such as the Earth being 6,000 years old and so forth. So I guess that's what I'd like to know from the ID crowd. Seeing as it's not science, where does it go in school? Which class?

* It's important to remember that "theory" in science does not mean the same thing as "theory" in colloquial speech. A scientific theory is essentially indistinguishable from colloquial fact. Gravity for example is still technically classed a theory in science, yet not even a fool would argue that gravity does not exist. ID is a curiously American concept; most religious people simply believe evolution was the tool their divinity chose to carry out his/her/its/their plan because the evidence is - quite frankly - incontrovertible. Almost all challenges to evolution from from the US and virtually every single one betrays an ignorance about what evolution actually entails and what the evidence is in support. One way to immediately spot someone who doesn't actually understand evolution is if they use the terms "missing link" or "transitional form."

The reasons giving credence to this ludicrous proposition in schools is dangerous should be obvious, not least because the theory of evolution is a vital component of the medical field. We risk losing so much industry to other countries by mis-educating our children.

 

[LOTRFan]

No irreducibly complex biological component has ever been discovered. The concept has quite a history for those who care to delve deeper; every characteristic claimed as irreducibly complex has subsequently been shown to be an evolved characteristic.

This is why ID has no place in schools. Where do you put it? It fails at every step as science, so it doesn't belong in a science class. I wouldn't object to putting it in a comparative religion class or as one of a series of origin myths in a comparative literature class. But it's clearly religiously motivated as a proposition and it's telling that many of its proponents believe a host of things contrary to science, such as the Earth being 6,000 years old and so forth. So I guess that's what I'd like to know from the ID crowd. Seeing as it's not science, where does it go in school? Which class?

Of course your first statement is question begging.

Most ID proponents that I have read are certainly not advocating a "young" earth; and only few are overtly Christian.




.... soooo no one saw the piece on CNBC?

 

[automaton]

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

[barbelith]

Of course your first statement is question begging.

In what way?

I have literally never come across an ID proponent who is not Christian and I honestly doubt you have either. The history and origins of the movement are well documented. Indeed it's a concept that cannot have arisen out of science because science does not concern itself with those sort of questions. And again this is why the theory of evolution has held up over time to every single attack; quite simply it doesn't concern itself with the question of first cause. Evolution by natural selection describes a process. Whether a divinity pressed the button or whether the first organic molecules arose at random in a primordial soup is irrelevant to that process. Hence most religious people believe God created life and used evolution as a tool to advance it.

 

[RJMacReady16]

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Proof?

 

[The Josh]

No of course not, no one saw this one coming; but since the announcement, yes I have done my homework - I view it as the only option, right?

She is certainly weak in the experience category, but so is Obama - and HE is the one running for commander-in-chief. We'll see, but there is much more to her as a candidate than just to take the "Hillary supporters."

Of course its the only option. Well, thats if you care about the voting process.

She is weaker in experience IMO than Obama. The population of Alaska is smaller than the size of Obama's Senate District.

There is more to her than that. She's to help keep the right wing of the Republican party with him. After that not quite so much.

Personally I know enough about her - she wants Creationism taught in schools - to me that makes her far too dangerous to hold high office in this country.

I would agree with that or add it to the reasons to not vote for them.

 

[barbelith]

Proof?

Do you have time to read several million words and a truly open mind?

If your critique of evolution is religiously motivated it's a waste of time to direct you to the several semesters of natural biology you would need to move from pop summary to "proof."

 

[RJMacReady16]

Do you have time to read several million words and a truly open mind?

If your critique of evolution is religiously motivated it's a waste of time to direct you to the several semesters of natural biology you would need to move from pop summary to "proof."

A Jehova's Witness asked me that one time.

Regardless, my comment was a joke because there is no proof, he said so himself, but he also knows without a doubt that we came from apes.

If you can devote that much faith to anything it probably should be classified as a religion.

I'm honestly not against evolution. I'm against teaching it as fact.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Oh good, I managed to take a political thread and turn it into a religious one.

ANYWAY - let's table that...

Anything interesting about Palin in that CNBC special?

 

[customizerwannabe]

Oh good, I managed to take a political thread and turn it into a religious one.

ANYWAY - let's table that...

Excellent. That's a waste of bandwidth.

I think Palin will be his undoing. Taking a few Hillary votes won't be enough. Other than that she brings little to the table...and I'm NOT an Obama supporter. Can't bring myself to say I'm a McCain supporter, but I can definitely say I'm NOT an Obama man. If he'd have picked Jeremiah Wright as his running mate I would've voted for him on the "balls factor" alone.

 

[LOTRFan]

Anything interesting about Palin in that CNBC special?

Yes actually, they not only spent a fair amount of time detailing her background - in her own words - but then listed her rapid acheivements in Alaska; but most importantly the special focused on her plans for alternative and conventional energies. They also went to ANWR and she was able to explain the advantages for oil production, and most importantly how it will impact the native Alaskans. Hopefully they will have it archived somewhere on their site.

 

[DarkArtist81]

Proof?

umm.... we have tailbones?

And I think that Palin is a poor choice, looks like a blatant attempt to gain the votes of the dejected Hillary supporters. And it really won't work either, many of the HC supporters are far too liberal to side with McCain. I don't like her stance on things, but then again... I'm very liberal myself.

 

[barbelith]

If you can devote that much faith to anything it probably should be classified as a religion.

Belief in gravity is a religion?

 

[RJMacReady16]

Belief in gravity is a religion?

wow....

Alas, I'll refrain from derailing this thread any further.

 

[barbelith]

wow....

You do understand gravity is "only" a scientific theory with the same standing as evolution by natural selection, right? Kind of shows how silly the ID crowd is.