• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123456...30
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003

ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide

Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored 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? confused
/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?

Delete Topic

dream
SILVER Member since Jul 2003

dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol

Total posts: 493
Posted:'evo hasnt been proven, it is the best answer we got (by a very long way), but it isnt the only one... i think i have been trying to get people to admit that its possible that evo isnt the right answer, not to accept any other theory, but just admit the possiblity, however unlikely, that evo is wrong'

hug

absolutely right.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:yep smile

ture na sig

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:time and again i said this in this thread and was told 'nope, your wrong.'
what changed? or have we been misreading reading eachothers posts? i didnt think there was a way to misread 'nope, you wrong.'


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:hmm, i can't see anyone saying "nope, your wrong"

but this is a big thread

back a few pages you mentioned that the scientific method cannot "prove" anything, and i said:Written by: me

absolutely

but why does that then mean we have to teach patently ridiculous theories devoid of evidence alongside our current best explanation?


i still say that smile


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:this on pg2.
icer-"people just assume it has been proven, but it simply hasnt. "

quiet-"um, nope, you're wrong again"

was a couple times on pg3 too i think. unless ofcourse the arguement was that science can prove stuff, but evo hasnt been proven. i geuss i was more talking about the natural sciences (like biology, zoology, ecology, botony etc) more than the other sciences. however im not aware of any experiment that has tested every possible hypothesis, because as quiet pointed out, thats not how science works. it tests probably hypos, not all possible, which is why it finds the most probable answers not the only possible.
because "scientific arguments or theories aren't supposed to deal with logical necessities, but rather with showing what the evidence points towards."


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: dream

'evo hasnt been proven



I wish people would stop saying this. It's not that it isn't true, but the fact is that you can't prove anything other than in pure math.

Electrons haven't been proven. Even the existence of my left index finger hasn't been proven (it could just be a very convincing optical illusion).

So it's about as helpful to point out that the theory of evolution hasn't been proven as it is to point out that the germ theory of disease hasn't been proven. We know that it's not proven because, like anything having to do with reality, it's impossible to prove anything 100%.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:The treads moved on since my last visit so apologies if your not intereste in the following things.

Macro-evolution is simply lots and lots of micro evolution. The Earth is demonstatably several billion years old (with geology, cosmology, radioactive decay). If the entire variety of canines can be created from wolves (correct me if dog history has been reviewed recently) in a few thousand year just imagine what would be possible in almost a million times more time.

When I said that evolution was a logical neccessity I meant that it is a logical neccessity from certain premises which are well established. Namely:variation, inheritance, mutation and natural selection. Given these and enough time then evolution more or less must happen. That's why creationists are obsessed with the age of the Earth.

Written by: dream
Sorry my mistake... but your list is still wrong. The first plants appeared about 1.3 billion years ago while the first creatures to come out of the sea are placed around 300 - 400 million years ago. So your list is a similar accuracy to that in the old testament (one glaring error). Which has made me laugh for about half an hour now (sorry, quite drunk)


footinmouth You're right about that one, the perils of speed typing and all that. ubblol Glad to provide amusement though.

Written by: Icer
i think i have been trying to get people to admit that its possible that evo isnt the right answer, not to accept any other theory, but just admit the possiblity, however unlikely, that evo is wrong.


Technicly true. But the chance so vanishingly remote that it really isn't worth giving serious consideration to. It's on a par with wondering whether the sun will rise tomorrow. It's certainly not something that need to be taught in schools.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:Icer: yes, you have been misreading my posts. I'll quote myself again from p2:

'um, nope, you're wrong again: people have observed drosophila evolving. and how do you think MRSA came about? these changes are by no means miniscule.

speciation is a slightly harder one . . .'

The point here was that observation of evolution in drosophila / strep. A counts as proof that it can happen. I then ceded that this was a special case, and that the phenomenon that the ID'ers tend to contest - 'macro-evolution', you might call it - was a harder issue.

There's a difference between proof as in 'logical necessitation', and proof as in 'showing beyond all reasonable doubt'. The problem here is that we've slid between these two notions.


ture na sig

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:different people (all of whom support evo) view it with differing degrees of probability.
i always accepted that evo happens, i even explained briefly the three principles which show how it should, in theory, always happen.
i think your right about the two different notions of proof that we were using. i think that has been the root of most of the 'problems' on this thread.
i do however think 'reasonable' is a subjective term, but dont want to start another big discussion, so pretend i didnt say it.


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

TinklePants
GOLD Member since Jul 2005

TinklePants

Clique Infiltrator, Cunning Linguist and Master Debator
Location: Edinburgh burgh burrrrrr

Total posts: 4217
Posted:oh my god - you're not still going on about this are you? ubblol

Always use "so's your face" and "only on Tuesdays" in as many conversations possible

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:quoting simon blackburn, who is the current knightsbridge [?] professor of philosophy at Cambridge [england] University & head of the department:

'What is reasonable to believe is whatever a white, well-educated, reasonably well-off, middle-aged, male academic of roughly your interests and inclinations would believe.'


ture na sig

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:on a side-note: if you reckon that science can't prove anything, then you must side with the tobacco companies who say:

'Ah, but nobody has managed to PROVE that smoking causes cancer'


. think about it.


ture na sig

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Ok, so the next thing to tackle is this "macro-evolution" vs "micro-evolution" thing.

So a few brand-new species of plants have been observed that are genetically related to, but unable to reproduce with their apparent parent species. So speciation has been observed.

So the next thing is people say "well we haven't observed a bacterium evolving into an animal!" Well...that's because bacteria never evolved into animals. Bacteria are a highly evolved life-form, even more evolved than humans because evolution occurs across generations and bacteria evolve every 20 minutes. Humans evolve every 25 years.

The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as "macro-" or "micro-" evolution. Evolution consists of genetic change. It happens slowly, even during so-called periods of "rapid" change.

I want to disabuse people of this notion right here and now because it's a false argument and it's NOT VALID.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Icer
SILVER Member since Apr 2005

Icer

just a shadow of my former self...
Location: Christchurch

Total posts: 205
Posted:dont know if we need to tackle micro vs macro. using evo theory they are just the same process, just at different scales. which is pretty much what the doc just said.

quiet-your definition supports my arguement that 'what is reasonable' is a subjective judgement. im not sure if your agreeing with me or not. confused

i thought we got over the whole proof issue?
smoking can cause cancer, but there must be other factors involved as not everyone who smokes gets cancer. im sure doc could tell us more, but at the moment isnt it true that we not entirely sure why some people get cancer and some dont? smoking absolutly is involved, but it isnt the sole cause is it?

smoking causes cancer. i smoked, therefore i have cancer?

the smoking and cancer correlation, and the known effects of smoke on the lungs and all the rest we have observed about smoking, suggest beyond a reasonable doubt, that smoking vastly increases the likley hood of developing cancer.

your 'logical' absolute proof, doesnt happen in science, atleast IMO. i think you can get 'conditional' proofs, in that as long the original assumptions (premise) are true, then the conc or proof is true, until the original asumptions no longer hold true, which every godd scientist shoudl admit is a posibility. take your mutually exclusive hypo example. it is true and is proof, only so long as A and B are the only two options, but suppose a third option C is found.
for me absolute proof, can NEVER be wrong, but that supposes we know everything. science is always changing and finding new things, we are finding out more and more about what is possible or what isnt.
incidentally, can you referecne for me any science experiment (real life, physical or natural science) which arrives at an absolute proof? you cant because in your own words, science doesnt deal with logical neccesities. this is the proof i was talking about when i said science cant 'prove'.
i thought we had realised we were dealing with two different notions of proof? if you want to get into the whole 'proof' thing, lets keep it in one thread, it seems the religion:mental illness thread has ended up in this quagmire too.


It took a while, but once their numbers dropped from 50 down to 8, the other dwarves started to suspect Hungry.

Delete

Drudwyn


Drudwyn

Forget puppy power, Scrappy's just gay
Location: Southampton Uni

Total posts: 632
Posted:I've turned up late to the discussion, but I'd just like to say that one of the best put downs (I won't give ID the pleasure of being called an argument) of ID is this from Guardian Unlimited. Science may not be able to offer absolute proof, but it offers proof, that's incontrovertible evidence that supports its theories. A word that everyone misunderstands. An idea that someone comes up with to explain something is a hypothesis. It is only after much corroborating evidence has been found to support the idea, that it becomes a theory. Read the article, then read the Science of Discworld III, particularly the chapters on proof, theory and scientific procedure. It's cutting edge stuff, with a Pratchett short story tied up in it too, and it's awesome.

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

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:icer: yeah, i was agreeing with you, at least to some extent. the blackburn quote is tongue-in-cheek.

for the rest, drudwyn got there first. the 'proof' which science deals with isn't a matter of logical necessitation, but it's proof, nonetheless.


ture na sig

Delete

robnunchucks
BRONZE Member since Jul 2004

robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk

Total posts: 363
Posted:lol whoever thought up that was a clever person smile

My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

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

Delete

simian


simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London

Total posts: 3149
Posted:Written by: Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class.



nice quote from that Guardian article. Dawkins is a dude. Just don't stand inbetween him and Stephen Jay Gould when they've been drinking...


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Especially since decomposition will have started to set into Gould...

The antipathy between the two men was largly a myth. The agree on virtually everything. It was only a few specifics which they argued on.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Anouther thought: the bible actually contains two different versions on the creation story. The one right at the begining and a slightly different but still distinct and mutually exclusive story derived from the more ancient mythologies the Old Testament is based on. Kinda balls up the creatinist argument a little. Good old God.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:Well I for one think that Inteligent Design should be taught in school... just not in a biology course. Say a nice philosophy course or two. Well, I guess rather I have no OBJECTION to it being taught... but you're moving into the realm of metaphysics and philosophy more than science at this point. Which I DO think there needs to be more of in schools, simply because it would help to promote the more fluid apporach to truth and understanding that I so cherish, and get these kids now-a-days to ask some bigger questions and examine things more than I think typical school cericulums facilitate.

For instance, there is an optional class being offered at my g/f's school labeled "Cultures" which teaches a little bit about others' religions, etc. I feel this is an area that most curriculum are very deficient in. Everyone's so afraid of teaching religion, that people get out of school with no understanding what-so-ever of what other religions believe, and as that is such a vastly important element to a good majority of people everywhere, it's a big puzzle piece that is often missing from basic educational understanding of most people until they reach secondary educational levels.

As for the proof thing... wouldnt a better term for that be "evidence" then? I would say "proof" is something that would apply to logic and math, but not to science which is based on models and theory, which are corroborated by supporting EVIDENCE, but which do not serve to prove the theory true. But then I take the constructivist approach (we construct models to describe) and not the possitivist approach (we discover the truth) to science.

Dawkins... Dawkins has some things right, but I feel he takes that possitivist approach to science which I don't agree with... based entirely on his views that science disproves religious claims... which I agree, it does disprove some. But others that might fall more into the realm of metaphysics (IE his view on whether or not God exists, being that he is a strict atheist, feeling science has disproven his existence), he makes just as big of a leap of faith as the religious believer. At best, I feel his arguments support an agnostic, rather than athesitic view.

So in essence: more philosophy in schools! More cultural studies in schools! Dang it, give me something to do with this degree! smile ID deserves to be taught, but in the right context. Science is not that context. Philosophy or Cultural Studies is, and might give people a better understanding of the views of those who differ from them.


Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:WOW america wtf well done

just heard that Americans have just passed a law saying it is Illegal to teach that God created the Universe...( in pennsylvania (sp.))

Intelligent design now Illegal to be taught after complaints from parents. news just in (in UK anyway)


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.

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk

Total posts: 1858
Posted:Do you have some sources? I've love to read more about it!

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

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:BBC news story

Kick ass biggrin. Seems like segregation of church and state come to the rescue again. Go founding fathers, go!


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004

Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk

Total posts: 1858
Posted:Written by: BBC News


It provoked US TV evangelist Pat Robertson to warn the town was invoking the wrath of God.





hehehe! ubblol



Anyway, thats great news! I hope it will be able to stop more of this silliness in other parts of the states.

EDITED_BY: Sym_ (1135100411)


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

Delete

ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003

ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide

Total posts: 2474
Posted:i can not explain how glad i am to hear this biggrin

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?

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:What, that God's against Dover?

Or that Robertson is pissed off?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Mynci
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...

Total posts: 8737
Posted:Sorry I forgot to post sources...I heard it on the radio and was too excited to think biggrin

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.

Delete

Prometheus


Prometheus

Diamond In The Rough
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Total posts: 459
Posted:Pat Robertson is a pious vangaurd like Snoopy is a WWI flying ace.

When Katrina hit, he blamed New Orleans itself because it was 'a sinful town.' When earthquakes ravaged Iran, it was because they were heathens. 9/11? That was the whole country's punishment for our homosexual tolerance. It wasn't long ago where he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The man is a fruitcake.


Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.

Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.

Delete

artindoril


member


Total posts: 117
Posted:I can't quite believe that a state in America is actually having arguments over this and sacked school governers cos they disagreed with him. How pathetic! Religion belongs in R.E lessons not science lessons.

Delete

Page: 123456...30

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..