<p>After reading through several pages of this thread, the only thing I’m sure of is how arrogant and pseudo-intellectual FountainSiren is.</p>
<p>what an ironic post…</p>
<p>“If after learning its cons they still believe there is no God, that is there decision. ID as a theory is based on divine intervention and as such has no place in any science classroom. WHile evolution lets a student make up their own mind, ID REQUIRES the existence of a God.”</p>
<p>so far i have not been taught a con. in school. if ID was taught, I’m sure I would be rather aware~ “ID is a theory BASED on divine intervention”? Is it not based on the complexity inf science, and CONCLUDES in divine intervention? I ask no more than for you to support your claims sir! And ID will mostly likely be taught with evolutionism, so students can choose and consider for themselves. the addition of ID does not FORCE students to believe there is a God. Please do not declare without support. </p>
<p>what is the Bible poof theory? it is not a random poofing. if a god has to sit at his desk and draft and stuff, i don’t think he or she qualifies as a god! from another thread, God spoke, and speaking produces sound waves, note, a form of energy, and enough energy to overcome c^2 becomes matter! scientific enough for me~</p>
<p>Umrunner, </p>
<p>Im sure, that like me, many of the posters who have posted on this thread are saddened to have so sorely disappointed you; to think you might have read so many interesting and passionate thingsand many points of viewand come away with nothing more than a certainty that I am a pseudo-intellectual. </p>
<p>If you seek an opposing view, which is unlikely, you could stop by Angel Hall on your way to class, right off the Diag, and speak with some of the people there, many will know me and perhaps offer an alternative view to your mopey oneask Joan Smith in particular, I worked out of her office; just ask anyone about Emily. </p>
<p>You see, it so happens that I spent my last two summers as an intern at the University of Michigan dept. for Students with Disabilitiesin your school. Wow, what a coincidence! (fate?) However, I must say, I came away with a more pleasant and amiable view of the student body at UofM than you seem to evince: they seemed fun, educated and classy (I suspect some were intellectualshadnt really considered if they were pseudo-intellectuals or simply of the standard variety). </p>
<p>For the record I would have been equally insulted by either version of intellectualso I guess I have no right to complain.</p>
<p>One more thing, from one true blue Wolverine to another let me offer you a heads-up, there are those posting, on this very thread, who dont take kindly to name callingId keep my head low for a while if I were you.</p>
<p>Then again, you may have nothing to worry about and it was all just sound and fury signifying nothing.</p>
<ol>
<li> “Wow, creation is so complex, with so many beautiful hidden patterns, </li>
<li> there must be some higher power responsible for all this. </li>
<li> By better understanding nature and science, I can better appreciate how brilliantly everything falls together. </li>
<li> Surely this must be the hand of God.” </li>
</ol>
<p>1 & 3 = science
2 & 4 = Thor’s lightning</p>
<p>There can be a design without a designer. Complexity does not require “intelligence”. “Must be” and “surely” signify “I’m giving up looking for a testable explanation.”</p>
<p>I understand the appeal. But it’s still not science.</p>
<p>“There can be a design without a designer.”
“But it’s still not science.”</p>
<p>prove it.</p>
<p>Disprove it. :)</p>
<p>The essence of science is the assumption that there is a “design”. Events aren’t randon; identical circumstances will lead to identical results. But the reason that is true is not important. That is, identical circumstances can lead to identical results whether there is “a designer” or not. So the conclusion that there “must be” a designer is not based on either observation or a necessary consequence of the existence of design - scientifically. Whether it is as a matter of religion or philosophy is a different question.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>If I could understand your post and take it seriously I might be able to seriously respond to what you wrote, but as it is, I havent a clue what you just said; it bears no resemblance to any apology I have ever read of design, including those of many Nobel Prize winning scientists. However:</p>
<ol>
<li> If there is no design, there is no designer.</li>
<li> If there is a design, there is a designer.</li>
<li> If one: there is a scientific method that could establish there is no design or designer.</li>
<li> If two: there is a scientific method that COULD establish design.</li>
<li> If four: there is no scientific method to establish the identity of the designer: The question is no part of science.</li>
</ol>
<p>Perhaps this seems more appropriate:</p>
<ol>
<li> Greater minds than any of those here believe design to exist (today).</li>
<li> Greater minds than any of us here believe design to be false (today).</li>
<li> It is therefore worth considering whether it is 1. true, or 2. false</li>
<li> It is not worth acting as if there is no question worth considering (and ruining the careers of those who think the question is worth addressing
I assume I will be seeing no comment from you on this related issue).</li>
</ol>
<p>The New York Times series is quite interesting. Google the Times and it will show up…on line subscriptions are free, I believe.</p>
<p>I missed the answer to my question does any ID supporter believe that the designer is still operating with us, or do they think the designer has left the building. If a human can create a rule (generation 1 of a fractal) and have it re-apply itself over and over again to form an intricate pattern or object…why couldn’t a rule of nature evolve into a complex human eye…</p>
<p>maybe because in the first case you have a human creating and making it reapply but in the second you don’t?
i think He is still operating with us.</p>
<p>Fountain: I’ve actually got a class in Angell Hall this upcoming semester, so I could easily introduce myself. But I decided against it when you suggested I “keep my head low”. Classy, real classy.</p>
<p>Nevermind…I surrender to the obvious superier minds that blend science and religion and say He created it all and say that, no ID is not religious in the same breaths</p>
<p>there could be.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, try this:</p>
<ol>
<li> There is a design, but there may or may not be a designer.</li>
<li> There’s no way to be sure whether there is or is not a designer through scientific means, because a designer can create a design which could exist just as well without a designer.</li>
<li> Therefore, there’s no point in treating the question of whether or not there is a designer as a matter of science.</li>
<li>All questions regarding the nature of the design remain subject to scientific study.</li>
</ol>
<p>what blending in ID? It is based on observations on the complexity of nature, and instead of believing it is all random, happening on its own for no apparent reason, reapplying itself to create such complex life forms, including one complex enough to be able to discuss it here - it concludes that there is a designer behind this. Quoting people who want to use this theory to promote faith or religion DOES NOT prove that the theory ITSELF is based on faith.</p>
<p>in fact i think ID is religious. nothing wrong if it is religious in a sense that it is related to what i believe is a true religion. truths should work with truths. </p>
<p>and do you give an egg about what this? No. because that is my OPINION, and whether it is religious or not is an opinion, and to use an opinion to invalidate a theory is… not scientific.</p>
<p>Its blending in the classroom…and its the hiding that its religious is what is so wrong…call it what it is, in the legislators, in the school meetings, etc</p>
<p>Why do they pretend its not teaching a religious belief when it is</p>
<p>pretty dishonest</p>
<p>maybe because it’s not, or not only a religious belief?</p>
<p>I really don’t care what anyones opinion here is, I care what the legislators are doing, I care what the Discovery Institute or whatever is doing, I care what is happening in the classrooms, and I care about calling something science when it is clearing not just science…and to present it as such is dishonest</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>If I understand it correctly, I have no problem with your post (#654). Where I may have a subtly different view is of no consequence or import and what you suggest sounds right about what I would hope to find tolerable in a science textbook; even as no more than a suggestion. </p>
<p>In my opinion design (no need to muddy the waters with ‘Intelligent’) has real implications that have nothing to do with a designerfrom a scientific point of view.</p>
<p>It seems silly to treat a potential design like pornography or a thought-crime. Political correctness should have no place in science (though it may have some value in the classroom itself).</p>
<p>Some treat this as a political issue (they see politics under every bed and behind every door) some treat the issue as logic and science (they are looking for answers to explain observed phenomenon, from quantum theory to day to day life), Im in the latter camp.</p>