<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>It seems my opinions on the subject have offended you. I’m sorry that happened. And I have to admit, I could be wrong.</p>
<p>I’m only offended by the fact that you’re ASSuming things about me that aren’t true. </p>
<p>I could get more blunt, but what’s the fun in that?</p>
<p>UCLAri - it makes it easier for some people to argue if they can label their opponent as being someone they know they disagree with at a biblical level. I have been an alter boy, Sunday school teacher and a dependable bass in the choir but still am labeled anti God because people are un-willing or un-able to un-derstand why someone who believes in God might not want his or anyone elses religious beliefs taught in a public school science class! They want to believe that we are simply against God and they are for her or him or it.</p>
<p>
[quote/]
THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE FIRST FORMATION OF LIFE ARE NOT EVEN REMOTELY IMPORTANT TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
[quote]
</p>
<p>yes, I can’t begin to conceptualize why these adherents of ID consistently bring up Einstein in their arguments when it’s clear that physics has no place in the proving/disproving of evolutionism.</p>
<p>UCLAri,</p>
<p>looking back through my posts in occurred to me that I never assumed anything in particular about you. Perhaps you could correct me on this. I can’t find anything that I said that would assume you were not Jewish, or, religious or in fact anything about you at all, other than to apologize for misspelling your name. My posts directed to you were in reference to ID in general. </p>
<p>However, I can see how feelings would be easily bruised when so many here are throwing around accusations of ignorance, Nazi-like thinking, KKK-like thinking, Cave-man-like thinking. Myself, I have said no such things, nor have I implied them about anyone.</p>
<p>Certainly, those like MrB (to the degree that he himself wasn’t involved) must have found such remarks to be “biblical” in their proportions and is merely keeping his powder dry in these instances.</p>
<p>As to Physics v biology–isn’t nature, nature? Maybe I’m wrong, but if any part was designed, then part of nature was designed: Which is exactly what those who subscribe to design say. They say, repeatedly [Behe, Meyers, et al] that whereas design is involved in nature there is nothing that would exclude mutation or evolution from acting within or upon any biological system, moreover evolution is specifically involved in most of the processes that occur in biological life, most can be simply explained using evolution and mutation. </p>
<p>The cell is the main sticking point; though I am sure you have all done this investigation yourself and are well aware of the intricacies of the debate, than again maybe you dont need to, for reasons that would escape most of us.</p>
<p>Curiously,
- have any of you design opponents read any of the scientific literature on design?
- From either, or hopefully both, points of view?<br>
- Do you just know you are right without having done so, as a matter of principal?</p>
<p>Like I say, theories of design could be completely wrong, but there would be no way for an innocent to gather that from any of these posts.</p>
<p>UCLAri: You’re seeing the “straw man” technique in full force - they ascribe exagerated and inaccurate positions to “those people” they assert oppose them (liberals, secularists, rationalists, atheists, whatever) and then attack anyone who disagrees with their opinion, insisting that anyone opposed to them is actually one of “those poeple” and is advancing those cartoon versions of the opposing viewpoint. If corrected, they change the subject and repeat the process. </p>
<p>I think the “anti-ID” posters on this site are actually saying the following:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The political push to have ID taught in school is actually just a disguised effort to have a (Christian) religious belief taught in school as science. (This is in fact not reasonably disputable. Whatever you personally think about ID, the political push for including it in science class comes from the religious right.)</p></li>
<li><p>ID as an “alternative explanation” to evolution has no scientific basis, and the push to have it taught in school is fundamentally anti-science and anti-intellectual.</p></li>
<li><p>The possibility that life evolved from non-living chemicals due to fortuitous events rather than an act of will of a Designer should be treated as a question to investigate by traditional scientific methods - and is also not involved in the current political push for ID.</p></li>
<li><p>The ultimate design of the universe, including its creation, and whether it necessarily implies an Intelligent Designer, is an interesting but different question from the biology issues, and is also not actually involved in the current political battle to have ID taught in schools. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>None of those things imply an attack on religion, a rejection of God, or any of the other things we have been accused of. It just means we recognize the difference between science and philosophy, and think science should be taught in science class, and things which aren’t science shouldn’t be.</p>
<p>I’ve read design works. They’re usually written by really smart people who ignore really obvious things or just outright lie. </p>
<p>It’s kinda sad. Behe is a smart guy, but he needs to refresh himself on how scientific analysis works. Even if there is design, because it cannot be falsified, it does not fit into the purview of science.</p>
<p>The fact is, ID is a minority that simply cannot win in the long-term because it’s not science the way science is meant to be. This isn’t my atheistic attack on theism. It’s my scientific digust with non-science creeping into the classroom. </p>
<p>Theories have to be PREDICTIVE. You can’t predict if you base a theory on an omnipotent being.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>Though I found your post to be very well written, none of it seemed to address science as science. Rather it addressed culture as politics. To be sure a fascinating part of the debate, but even there, Im not so sure I agree with your thoughts on the subject. </p>
<p>I myself am not part of the religious right. I am at odds with them on almost every point (that refers to their religious beliefs) I do not think that anyone posting here is part of this vast religious-rightwing conspiracy. Rather they are thinking people, some practicing science, who disagree with your point of view.</p>
<p>Please point out those religious right wingers to us all if I am wrong on this point.</p>
<p>Perhaps you are addressing people who are not actually posting here, but rather, people you have read about. I cant argue with you about their views.</p>
<p>I think design deserves a fair hearing in both physics (where it gets one) and biology (where it does not). Even if to be proven wrong. That is science.</p>
<p>Sethblue: bneg, I don’t think you understand. Preachers of darwinism have nothing against those who preach ID. However, when proponents of ID want their dogma to be taught in school, it’s unacceptable. This has everything to do with evolution, because evolutionism is VALID, mainstream science whereas ID is merely creationism in a cheap disguise, in other words, stealth creationism.</p>
<p>I dont think you understand. Im not even going to bother. Read through at least the most recent ten pages to see how repetitive and unsupported your argument is, and also find some answers, you if care to read post by ID proponents on this thread. </p>
<p>What I find really funny, is when you say we need to merge hard core science with ID, because evolutionism is NOT atheism, it’s irrefutable science. ID on the otehr hand serves as a christian agenda to do nothing more than to drive a wedge into scientific materialism.</p>
<p>Same old same old!! Read please!</p>
<p>“If I got rid of God in ID, and instead installed Zeus and the pantheon, would you take it as seriously?”</p>
<p>definately a valid point and an effective one at that. good observation UCLAri.</p>
<p>That just shows you have totally ignored post 953 or dont understand what ID is about. </p>
<p>MrB, I don’t think politics needs to be dragged into this, but you’re right, this ID dogma is supportly mainly by evangelical, radical right wingers. This just goes to show that ID is nothing more than creationism in a disguise, which is but theological tripe.</p>
<p>And just because right-wing politicians support ID its supposed to change the nature and essence of ID now??? You got to find better arguments than that sethie!! And the whole funding idea .you know very well how scientific that is. </p>
<p>UCLAri, I am grateful that your biology class did not imply atheism! The problem is that there are some classes that do, for the simple fact that teachers DO have personal religious and political views .so its something we should try to correct, right?? </p>
<p>And seth blue…i’ve never brought out einstein, but you know, if some of these ID people would give up on proving evolution right (therefore ID wrong), then we probably would give up on Einstein as well. so please read more carefully next time!!!</p>
<p>Woodwork, you are correct that there are two separate themes to this thread. The first is real world or political discussion of the significance of Bush’s support of teaching ID as an alternative to evolution in school, and the second is theoretical discussion of ID as it relates to science. As to the latter, if nothing else, the last sentence of your last post demonstrates that you don’t understand the difference between science and nonscience. It is impossible to “prove design wrong”. I’ve posted the explanation for this in simple and clear terms twice in this thread, and a couple of other posters have pointed this out as well. And that’s why ID is not science. </p>
<p>As to the former issue, I recognize the tension between the right wing fundamentalists and their political allies/strange bedfellows - the intellectual right wing. Driver obviously feels the strain - she can’t bring herself to acknowledge that Bush meant what he said, plainly and simply, and not some massaged and spindoctored version of it. I feel her pain. It’s hard to be a friend of a friend of the likes of Pat Robertson, and yet - there you are.</p>
<p>The problem with your position is that you’re obfuscating the issue in a way which supports the anti-science agenda of the religious right. By shifting into cosmological metaphysics - as Driver and you have done - you obscure the fact that ID is undeniably not science as it applies to biology. And then there’s the whole smoke-blowing apparatus. An example is what we posted about earlier:</p>
<p>TheDad said:
</p>
<p>As BlackPenguin onserved, in TheDad’s post
</p>
<p>But Driver wasted no time twisting TheDad’s comment into:
Driver later explained that:
You, Woodwork, then took exception to TheDad’s comment:
</p>
<p>Ironically, in that same post, you did the exact thing you accused TheDad of doing - linking your opponents’ viewpoint with the justly despised Nazis:
</p>
<p>ID, as applied to biology, is pseudoscience, just as Nazi racial theories are considered pseudoscience by all but the likes of those you describe as “dimwits.” You’ve got people with degrees, using scientific sounding language to support an explanation of natural phenomenon which cannot be subjected to scientific test because it cannot be disproven. It also happens to serve an ideological/political purpose of one faction of society, just as the goofy pseudoscience of the Nazi ideologues (served up with scientific jargon by guys in lab coats) served that political faction in that era. </p>
<p>SO, to answer your question - no, I don’t think we have any right wing religious fundamentalists posting here (well, maybe one or two - I can’t be sure) but I do think we have the equivalent of the German intelligentsia who weren’t willing to expose the goofy Nazi ideology for what it was, and gave it the cover of intellectual respectability instead of treating it with the contempt it deserved. I know you don’t like Nazi parallels (and I’m not accusing you all of being Nazis, or Nazi-like, or ID being the equivalent of Nazi racial theories, to pre-empt Driver’s impending mischaracterization of my position.) What I’m saying is that by giving pseudo-science the veneer of respectability you contribute to the politicization of science. And that’s a bad thing.</p>
<p>The real straw man permeating this thread is the false notion that any of its participants disbelieve in biological evolution as accepted science. I can’t think of a single person who’s professed such a thing. The disagreement comes when the concept of evolution is confused–deliberately or not–with the concept of the creation of life. They are not the same thing. Evolution means that something came from a preceding form, some of which can be discerned, some of which may never be. But by definition, evolution cannot equate with creation–a thing can only evolve from something else.</p>
<p>To limit the ID debate to “biological evolution” is illogical and counterproductive. For example, fossils aren’t life forms, or even true remnants—they’re rocks, and we rely on geology to tell us much of what to make of them. Carbon dating relies on physics, our knowledege of the universe relies on astro-physics. The cellular processes of organism rely on chemistry. Modern science is multi-disciplinary, where one thing leads to another, the fundamental scientific questions of “how?” and “why?” being the driving forces, and we use all the tools at hand to investigate.</p>
<p>For this thread’s original straw man, we need to go back to its “Prime Mover,” Mr. B, with his inapt title for this thread. What the president actually said was that if schools were teaching about the creation of life, then they ought to discuss multiple theories–after all, they are all just conjecture, and may remain so forever. Since we can’t yet explain the creation of life, perhaps we shouldn’t be teaching it at all yet. Perhaps it should be restricted to philosophy class–that would be fine, too. But there’s no reason that the “random accident” theory deserves any more credence in a science class than intelligent design at this point. It may well be proven some day that life emerged from the primordial soup, but then we have to ask where the soup came from. And how will we prove falsify the idea that the fateful hypothetical lightening strike into the hypothetical soup was random? Or that it was intelligently delivered? It ultimately comes down to this, as I’ve said before: Can something come from absolute nothing; or, can something (anything) have existed forever? Random accident coming from absolute void, or something put in motion by a higher being.</p>
<p>Kluge, you seem intent on turning this into a version of Monty Python’s argument clinic, with you playing the role of John Cleese. That’s not an insult, I love John Cleese.</p>
<p>And kluge…you have totally ignored post 950 eh??? funny how you are not arguing ID anymore, but indirectly supporting your position by attack the logic on the other side. You say we have used a bunch of names…would you care to read through some of TheDad’s posts and see what *we’ve been compared to?? You say we are repeating the same arguments - i would object. i would say same responses…if it weren’t for people coming up posting without reading or deliberately ignoring the posts of others (or simply coming up here to show off their knowledge), i don’t think this side would have all these repetitive posts.</p>
<p>Here’s my response to the rest of your post.</p>
<p>first to 1. prove your statement. you are very aware the ‘people’ do not influence the nature of a theory. what’s up with your talk with fountainsiren??? you know, at least she was referring to bad SCIENTISTS, and you are referring to bad POLITICIANS to invalidate ID. har har. </p>
<p>to 2.“ID as an “alternative explanation” to evolution has no scientific basis” ummm…DUH~~~~ ID is about origin of life, evolution is about life forms changing, so i’ll say that ID has NO basis at all since it does NOT explain life forms changing!!!</p>
<p>to 3. so we should just assume it is fortuitous for now??? why can’t we also teach the assumption of that there is a desginer??? a bit unfair wouldn’t you think?</p>
<p>to4. i like that, but again, from many previous posts: there needs to be better job done in taking God out of science classrooms while not implying atheism. If not, science will touch religion, and ‘science shouldn’t touch religion’ - note that this is more like your argument than ours. </p>
<p>you have been the one to point out fallacies, and now you spit out a bunch…this is making me wonder if all those previous posts were just there to loosen the awareness that you are full of fallacies, and ultimately to prepare for this invalid yet forceful attack. Let’s hope that you’ve intended it as a final one.</p>
<p>Okay, bneg, I will respond to your post 950:
</p>
<p>TheDad was saying that ID is pseudoscience, and as such deserving none of the respect which science has earned - and gave astrology and Nazi racial theories as examples of pseudosciences which try to attain unearned respect by cloaking themselves in the mantle of “science-like” terminology and other trappings. I wish he’d left out Nazi pseudoscience, because that gave you, Woodwork, and Driver an opportunity to obscure the issue by accusing TheDad of rhetorical excess, thereby obfuscating his point. But despite the obfuscation, TheDad was making a point, and a valid one - ID is not “science” - it just pretends to be.</p>
<p>Driver, by referring to TheDad’s post as “naked, drooling rage”, was just engaging in name calling. Do you get any meaning beyond that from “naked, drooling rage?”</p>
<p>As to the balance of your post, I’m not going to try to walk you through every point of the discussion again. You’re not interested in trying to understand anything which doesn’t support your point of view, and I’m tired of hearing you repeat the points you feel explain everything. I will just leave you with this one thought: trying to make science “fair” by teaching that everyone’s personal opinions are equally scientifically valid is a bad idea, and bad science.</p>
<p>‘naked drooling rage’ is making the point that those specific posts are pointless. Reapeating that “ID is pseudoscience!” “ID is pseudoscience!” “ID is pseudoscience!” does not make ID pseudoscience. you really think repetition is valid? or are you just being subjective?</p>
<p>“I’m not going to try to walk you through every point of the discussion again.”</p>
<p>please show me where in the discussion has my concerns been adequately addressed. I agreed to some of your arguments kluge, and i like how you realize that science is not absolute truth nor omnipotent. but you are not every science teacher, and you saying that does not convince anyone that all science teachers will be impartial. could it be that you are just jumping to this conclusion because you have nothing to say to the ‘fountainsiren disagreement’… </p>
<p>“trying to make science “fair” by teaching that everyone’s personal opinions are equally scientifically valid is a bad idea, and bad science.”</p>
<p>so, we teach the personal beliefs of just one group as scientifically valid, and it’s good science…i’m pretty sure you can come up with more insightful thoughts to leave me with.</p>
<p>i guess it’s time for a second break!</p>
<p>Woodwork,</p>
<p>I am also not an atheist, but thank you for the baseless characterization (I am seeing a trend here for you). I was raised Roman Catholic, and though I disagree with several of the Vatican’s stances, I still very much identify with the Church and its teachings as a whole.</p>
<p>As for your unfortunate attempt to spin into the whole ID debate into a example of godless scientists railing against all people of faith, I suggest you try for a more believable copout in the future. The polls have consisently shown that the majority of scientists believe in a God (see a recent survey by Rice University - this includes biologists). And yet ID has been soundly rejected by the scienctific community again and again as religiously-motivated pseudoscience. Considering that the majority of scientists are not atheists, I think your characterization of ID’s lack of acceptance due to a cabal of atheists is both absurd and desperate. ID is not accepted because it is patently not science but philosophical wankery, not because scientists have a vendatta against God.</p>
<p>As for the Einstein matter, I am pointing out that Einstein is dramatically being misrepresented by many as someone who would support ID. I have little doubt he would critize ID just as harshly as posters here have. He did not suscribe to any formal religion, and I believe had more of a spirituality than a sense of religion. When I said he was a Deist, I mean he viewed the universe as a beautifully crafted machine, one that did not operate through the active interruption of a supernatural deity (this is what he meant by a “personal God.”) Einstein was fond of using God as an overarching metaphor for the workings of the universe, but his concept of God lay solely in the natural, rather than theological, world. Questions to the evolutionary theory would suggest fine-tuning, rather than support of a vague and obviously unscientific belief.</p>
<p>BP,</p>
<p>Apparently youve confused me with someone else who lacks a sufficient knowledge to characterize your metaphysical views.</p>
<p>I have no idea what your theological views are, not having spent the necessary time and patience to divine them; which would, in part, account for the reason Ive never mentioned them in my posts.</p>
<p>I was just trying to help you through your muddled view of deism for your own future reference, should another occasion such as this arise.</p>
<p>Moreover, being an atheist isnt all bad; unbeknownst to people like us, there must be a wonderful upside (it can’t be all existential dread and meaninglessness) that simply eludes people such as yourself who take any characterization of it as any more than a bald comment.</p>
<p>I once had a drinking buddy named Lou. Upon imbibing a few cocktails (actually, beer) he was given to making loud barroom proclamations to the effect that there was no God, hed throw one down, smile and say, another Pabst–I dont need no stinking god .followed shortly upon by I have the power!</p>
<p>Of course, that was years ago.</p>
<p>Ahh… I see. It appears both UCLAri and I were confused by perhaps this:
or this
as being, oh, just slightly pointed towards lumping all ID opponents here as godless heathens. I am glad to know that the ways and thinkings of Woodwork are subtle and mysterious, and thus I am in error.</p>
<p>
LOL! Lou was truly a wise man :).
I think the rest of the debate should continue with more bar stories.</p>
<p>My buddies’ barstool battlecry was: “Let’s get stupid and be somebody!”</p>
<p>Implying that I, for one, am a secularist would amuse the congregation of our parish and the priests who have served us for the past 25 years. But keep on coming. I kinda feel like that Civil War general who said, “Here come those damn fools with sabers again. Let 'em have it, boys!”</p>
<p>You will find nothing of ID in physics because it is clearly rooted in metaphysics, a philosophical speculation that has nothing to do with science by definition.</p>
<p>Kluge, you been doin’ good. Yeah, some will have a hissy fit about the Nazi comparison…it provokes them into making charges against an impregnable position. Shrug. Load double cannister and fire over open sights.</p>
<p>Mr. B, quite correct that people of faith are not troglodytes. It depends on how they apply it. Some to this day feel the need for some kind of Platonist dualism between body and spirit, faith and science, etc. The roots go back a long way and are tenacious in their hold, particularly the further one gets away from a seminary.</p>
<p>same old trick that worked a long time ago we’re seeing here again on this very thread!! first is dogmatic denial and then joining forces. then it’s stepping back from the conversation as if everything’s been addressed and the other side just won’t listen, pretending that it has nothing to do with the inability to answer any of the questions from the otherside nor ask a valid one. we’ve actually advanced to stage three already…gettin’ all loose and jocular with one another…only one step away from ignorant derision!!! i used to think that the irrational ones have left this thread along time ago, and this conversation would turn into a meaningful discussion. who would’ve guessed that the rational ones would use the exact same tactic employed by the trio…and even find new friends??? </p>
<p>surprise surprise, the new group and the old group are on the same sides too!!!</p>