Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes?
/end vent

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

 Written by: coleman




i.d. is not a scientific theory imo - with no basis for and absolutely no sign of peer review, coupled with the fact that it meets very few of the criteria required of a sound scientific theory, it remains to be just a group of cleverly worded faith-based ideas touted by religious powermongers worried about the future of the church.

the discovery institute's 'teach the controversy' campaign and its core (the wedge strategy), were quite clearly 'intelligently designed' to present religious belief as an equally valid alternative to rational free thinking and was hoped to challenge the materialistic world view that has grown out of the scientific leaps of the past few centuries.

the nature of the i.d. 'theory' however requires a new definition of science to be accepted if it is ever to stand side-by-side with (or against) evolution and as such, comparing the two seems to ultimately lead back to an argument of what science is.

it is not an attempt to reconcile science with religion and never will be - in fact it directly challenges scientific thinking to the point of declaring that the axioms of scientific theory do not need to apply to it (i.e. it does not need to be consistent, parsimonious, economical, pertinent, falsifiable/testable, reproducible, correctable and so on).





Did you see the programme that was on channel 4 a couple of months back called "Gods next army"? Scary stuff. University kids being trained in politics, mainly all home educated from EXTREMELY religious families. One kid was talking about how homosexuality, blacks (in his words) and Muslims were all sinners, and how when his generation got into the whitehouse they would continue to stamp out these evils until the "free" world was clear of such dangers to humanity.

This particular university only taught creationism as a science. They believe the theory of evolution is an evil which threatens the (again this word) "free" world.

wow. And these are a lot of the kids doing internships in the whitehouse. Scary stuff.

"Lots of beeping. And shaking and tinfoil." Chelly

"Are you sure it's a genuine test and not a robot heroin addict?" Cantus

---set free by the rather lovely FireTom---
--(right arm owned by Fyre)--

thanks chellybean.



http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/godsarmy.html
br>
i hadn't seen that show but i did look up the college you mentioned...



patrick henry college, virginia: http://www.phc.edu/
br>


its a little scary how the education there orbits around such a fundamentalist christian theology and seems to be almost entirely focused on producing ready-made, power-hungry, fervently christian, conservative politicians.



put that next to the fact that they have their very own bible-sourced definition of government and how it should operate ("God himself has ordained government and commands that everyone must submit to government; moreover, there is no authority except that which God has established. (Romans 13: 1-5)") and it starts to look very questionable...



i also noticed that there are no photos of any black students.

in fact there are no pictures of any black people at all on the site.

none of the students, none of the teaching faculty, none of the board and none of the admin/support staff.





sorry if this is a touch off topic.



i'll leave you all with the wholly ridiculous phc directive on what their students are instructed to think in terms of human origin:



 Written by: phc website



PHC in particular expects its biology faculty to provide a full exposition of the claims of the theory of Darwinian evolution, intelligent design and other major theories while, in the end, teach creation as both biblically true and as the best fit to observed data.





i.e. you may (and are expected to) learn about and understand scientific theories, so long as you always return to the conclusion that any theory that contradicts the bible must be inherently wrong



i.d. 'rationality 'taken to the nth degree...





cole. x

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Why let your body be a temple? When it can be a theme park?

Wii Console Number: 3294 0297 7824 7498

My fave webpage when it comes to stuff like this is Parable of Hank

always gives me a little chuckle

My nunchucks vital statictics

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

I love that this thread keeps popping up

I was watching Univestity challenge this week and one of the questions was On Paley and his Watchmaker

A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

My nunchucks vital statictics

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

My nunchucks vital statictics

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Nice posts Rob, good job!

I'm not sure anything will ever change the minds of ID supporters. There have been enough posts in this thread that *should* have made it very clear that ID is just nonsence.

stout, I'm with you on the best thread ever

faithinfire, why does it make you mad? We're being matter of fact and addressing each others points well. Do you not think it's a good debate?

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...

i've always been amused by accuasations that atheism is a religion. firstly because its pritty hard for an atheist to be religious , in the same way its hard for a computer to also be a ham sandwidge. secondly theres something abit odd about trying to demonise another set of beleafes by clameing that there quite similar to your own. sounds abit like shooting your self in the foot to me



and stout i've not to date what i've seen seems to still suggest ID is still baised on litteral interpretation of the bible but i guess i might be out of the loop have they updated it to this recently? cos so far all the creationists i've seen basicly make out its gennissis just read with more scientific language

My nunchucks vital statictics

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

My nunchucks vital statictics

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

i've always thought agnostics are realy just people who dont care about it one way or another an so just ignore the subject entirely.



as for what you were saying about bluring of the lines i've always felt that the whole crux of the arguement rests on the concept of faith. it seems to be the one thing common to all religions that seperates them from science. when it comes to a rational argument between someone of faith and someone of reason it is doomed to fail because no matter how well aruged a point or how overwellming the evidence the religious person can only ever be argued back to the point of haveing to fall back on there faith as soon as that happens they become untouchable faith can't be aruged with rationaly because it is a beleafe not based on reason. religous people feel smug because they have this ultimate arguement to fall back no matter what the evidence or eligence of the arguments against them. and rational people feel annoyed and cheated because they them selfs would never resort to such an argument because it irational they feel cheated because no matter how well they make there points the people of faith have a 100% gaurenteed get out of jail free card. a safty net they themselfs refuse to work with on principle.



its two sides of an idelogical arguemnt that boil down to one side saying we are 100% correct there for anyone who disagrees with us must be wrong. one side saying while we can be 99.9% sure of something we can never to totaly sure we arn't wrong and so are belefs must alow space for us to be shown to be wrong to alow them to change.



my objection to faith would be that it isn't used concistently. if people baised all there choices in life on faith it wouldnt bother me so much. i dont think people should get to pick and chose between faith and reason depending which one sutes them and there beleafes at the time i find it hypocritical. e.g. people never rely on faith to cross a road (close there eyes an walk across with knowlage that whatever happens is gods plan). they use reason they look both ways decided if it is safe to cross and made a decision on the evidence at hand (can i see a car comeing can i hear a car etc)



that what i recon, of course as with any rant its only realy my opionon

My nunchucks vital statictics

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees