<p>But that is not the same as: No design in nature; that is not something we get to choose. If there is design in nature, there is.</p>
<p>I mean, go ahead and believe that God was the spark of the Big Bang, or that this is all God’s plan. Fine. I couldn’t care less what you want to believe in the privacy of your own mind. </p>
<p>But the second you involve God in biology, you might as well give up on the scientific method altogether. Intelligent falling, anyone? How about, E=MC^2 + Vishnu-5? </p>
<p>What if Hindus tried to get Shiva Design taught in the classroom? Would the Kansas School Board stand for that? How about Intelligent Allah Design?</p>
<p>First of all, not to disappoint you, but I myself am not a Christian, I am a Sufi, which has Islamic origins so this kind of “Christian-bating” is unlikely to move me. Moreover, all religions–that I am aware of–believe the universe is designed so I fail to see the problem you speak of.</p>
<p>Still, if as a natural fact there is design in nature, then there is. Whether or not there is, is a question of science, not religion. Thus it is a scientific discussion not a religious one. Though, most of the “I’ll die before design is allowed to be discussed in a classroom” attitudes seem to me to be religious in nature, rather than scientific.</p>
<p>FountainSiren,</p>
<p>But I guarantee you that if you wanted to include any Sufi thought into Intelligent Design, you’d be told to f’ off. This isn’t about design, it’s about religion. At least as Bush and his types see it.</p>
<p>There is design in nature. It’s just not necessarily quantifiable in the way that some want it. It can’t be attributed to a particular being (if we follow the scientific method.) That’s fine. Leave the rest up to the metaphysicists, and all is well. </p>
<p>I have no issue with discussing the issue philosophically. I have an issue with good scientific theories being replaced by non-theories. That’s all.</p>
<p>UCLA,</p>
<p>If you, or anyone else, has determined, after having looked through the scientific literature on the subject (there is quite a lot, so set aside the appropriate time) that the scientific work being done on design by scientists is unscientific, and then explain why, I would agree with you.</p>
<p>If on the other hand this has more to do with a man-the-ramparts anti-religious attitude (as I suspect it does) or a Seperation of Church and State fetishism, than I have no real sympathy for these proclamations of doom because it has nothing to do with science.</p>
<p>Design in nature requires no theology. Moreover, I fail to see how one could even derive a theology from an observation of design in nature: it would be very bad, worse, dishonest theology because it would be science and not theology.</p>
<p>No no, I think that scientific work done by scientists is fine. But when we start quantifying God’s role, I get upset. That’s all.</p>
<p>I just read that Dover school district has replaced it’s board with members opposed to intelligent design. I don’t think truth can be subjected to an up or down vote but I am pleased for those school kids.</p>
<p>“If you, or anyone else, has determined, after having looked through the scientific literature on the subject (there is quite a lot, so set aside the appropriate time) that the scientific work being done on design by scientists is unscientific, and then explain why, I would agree with you.”</p>
<p>Agree completely with fountainsiren!!! </p>
<p>If that is takes too much time, at least we should verify that we have a correct definition.</p>
<p>Mr. B:
I saw that posted on here too. </p>
<p>The level headed citizens of Dover PA voted out all 8 of the board members who were trying to bring their particular religious views into the science classroom. </p>
<p>Apparently, the community is downright embarrassed to have been made a world-wide public spectacle of.</p>
<p>bneg, here is a short description of “the scientific method”: </p>
<ol>
<li>Observe some aspect of the universe. </li>
<li>Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. </li>
<li>Use the hypothesis to make predictions. </li>
<li>Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. Results which conflict with the predictions which are based on the hypothesis require a modification or abandonment of the hypothesis.</li>
<li>Repeat steps 3 and 4. The more tests which have results that do not conflict with the hypothesis the more confident you can be with the hypothesis. With enough successful tests the hypothesis graduates to become a “theory”, or even a “law”. Even a “theory” or a “law”, however, is subject to continued testing (see my post on Newton’s “laws”, above) If a theory or law is tested and the test produces a result which is inconsistent with the theory or law, then the theory or law must be modified. There’s never an end to the process.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>If a person does that, he’s using science. If a hypothesis cannot be tested in a way which could possibly disprove it, it’s not science. It’s as simple as that. And that’s not to say that it’s not “true”, just that it’s not “science.” Can you explain to me how ID can be tested and possibly disproved by testing? The theory of evolution is the product of a hypothesis which has been undergoing step 5 for a long time, and has graduated to a theory. That means that it has passed a lot of tests. But it could still be disproved; some people think they have evidence that disproved it (they may be right, they may be wrong) - that’s what makes it a scientific theory. I can’t disprove ID; no one can. If you can’t disprove it, it’s not science.</p>
<p>“If you can’t disprove it, it’s not science.”</p>
<p>That is a very very odd definition of science. You are saying that “if you can prove it, then it’s not science”. If that’s you definition of science, then I will agree with you that ID should not be part of your “science” class. but i don’t think all science classes fit your definition.</p>
<p>“If that is takes too much time” sorry for editing like a ■■■■■■: “if that takes too much time”</p>
<p>Alas, pedantry never goes out of fashion!</p>
<p>FS: if there isn’t natural selection, what DOES determine which few of the millions of eggs laid by salmon survives to adulthood? It’s certainly not random. And I cannot fathom a designer who has that much time on her hands!</p>
<p>Oh come on. Now we’re talking about the metaphysical origin of hors d’oeuvres? Salmon roe? Which came first…the Triscuit or the Wheat Thin?</p>
<p>Disprove this: Something can come from absolute nothing. Alternatively, disprove this: Something can always have existed. That’s what this is about. It is philosophy, metaphysics, but it’s at the root of all scientific inquiry unless one chooses to ignore the oldest conundrum of existence. Which is the easy way out.</p>
<p>Darwin and evolutionary theory do not address the origin of life directly; evolutionary theory addresses the evolution of species from the original form of life. (The book is called <em>The Origin of Species</em>.)How that original cell or cells arose is currently the subject of much research in chemistry and biochemistry.</p>
<p>
Right, whence the more serious ID discussion has arisen.</p>
<p>bneg,</p>
<p>There is never absolute proof in science. That’s just one of those fun little things about the methodology.</p>
<p>Umm…
</p>
<p>Okay, so now simple logic as well as science is under attack from ID? What you wrote isn’t the logical equivalent of kluge’s statement; it’s the inverse. And as wikipedia can tell you, that means you’re pulling the statement out of your butt (<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(logic)[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_(logic)</a>)</p>
<p>It’s unfortunate that at a point where the American education is in most need of reform, there are so many activists who want to actually dumb down science in our schools. ID is a political movement; it has no substance behind it to be a scientific theory instead of a vague philosophy. Kluge has already shown what science actually is, though it seems to be falling on mostly deaf ears.</p>
<p>boy do i hate wikipedia. for once can people stop linking to obscure sources and just explain stuff to people? I have no idea where your accusation comes from. No one here wants to “dumb down” science, but it’s just that people like Kluge and UCLAri have a more uncommon definition of science (which by the way I think is the MOST accurate definition of science, but too bad some schools don’t feel that way and they teach science with authority of a cult leader) and which part of that is supposed to be relevant to this thread???</p>
<p>“ID is a political movement; it has no substance behind it to be a scientific theory instead of a vague philosophy.”</p>
<p>i guess fountainsiren’s post and my post *repeating fountainsiren’s post fell on deaf ears too. To think that ID is a political thing is at best…unique. </p>
<p>“Kluge has already shown what science actually is, though it seems to be falling on mostly deaf ears.”</p>
<p>yeah, like did you notice that i didn’t disagree with it??? i would like it if all schools agreed with kluge and teach as if anything else uexplained in science class may still be true. that is a very comprehensive, humble, and appropriate view that i think is better the the presumptuous attitudes that can be found in quite a few science classes right now. and yeah, did you notice that I replied to it??? so how is it falling on deaf ears. or is it just some other “metaphysical” thing you’re talking about again? explain, because i don’t understand. </p>
<p>and i don’t see how this argument is even related to ID. but then again, it is still a lot more relevant than the discussion with the lovely trio we had on page 39! hehehehe… “fairy tail”. is that something metaphysical as well, cos i don’t understand that either. and please be kind - no wikipedia please~</p>