<p>
</p>
<p>Considering that ID is a supposed counter-explanation to the prevailing theory of evolution, it makes sense. I mean, what else is ID supposed to explain, Big Macs?</p>
<p>
Again the false premise.</p>
<p>Michael Palin: I’ve had enough of this.
John Cleese: No you haven’t.
Me: Yes I have.</p>
<p>Then what is ID? If it’s not a counter-theory to evolution, what is it? A counter-theory to the whole of science?</p>
<p>Driver’s rebuttal to “ID is a supposed counter-explanation to the prevailing theory of evolution…”:
What President Bush said was that he believes
[quote]
schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.<a href=“Article%20cited%20in%20the%20original%20post.”>/quote</a></p>
<p>Bush knows what he meant. His political “base” knows what he meant. Everyone on this board knows what he meant.</p>
<p>Except Driver, who really, really doesn’t want to admit that Bush meant what he said.</p>
<p>That was my understanding as well. That ID was to be presented as an alternate explanation to evolution. </p>
<p>I’d also like to understand what exactly it is that renegade teachers are supposedly saying in science classes that overstep the bounds of science and is objectionable to ID supporters. And if some teachers go beyond that which they shouldn’t, is that cause to change the curriculum for an entire public school system? Finally, don’t we have to rely on teachers to keep their personal religious beliefs out of the classroom just as we are to believe that Supreme Court justices and all other judges do not let their personal religious beliefs influence their interpretation of the law?</p>
<p>If ID really is NOT an alternative to evolution, then why does Pat Robertson get so excited about it?</p>
<p>So if Pat robertson gets exited about something, it automatically becomes credible? You do realize that Pat Robertson is Christian right?</p>
<p>I believe that supporters of ID would say that it is simply the concept that the creation of the universe all they way through to the evolution of life on earth has followed an intelligent design and not a function of some scientific rules and luck. Some people who believe in ID seem to feel that it was a being who continues to affect change in our destiny, while others think it is a force that started the universe with intent but which doesn’t readjust the game plan to accomodate prayers or sacrifice. So not all ID supporters are followers of the Judeo/Christian belief of Adam and Eve, while others argue that they are essential to their understanding of ID.</p>
<p>On the other side their are some people who don’t believe in God and so reject any reference to some superior intelligent influence, and there are those who deeply believe in God but do not want public school science teachers teaching religion in the classroom.</p>
<p>I know that all adults inclluding public school teachers, teach their religious views everyday through their behavior. Students observe and respond accordingly. So let us all be nice, whether it is to gain some afterlife reward or simply because it is the most efficient way for all of us to have happier lives.</p>
<p>
One final reititeration, just for the record, as I truly am done with this. The fundamental false premise of the anti-ID argument as presented here is that evolution can explain the origin of life. It doesn’t. It can’t. It’s a matter of definition, and you can look it up. So there is no way that ID can be taught or presented as a “substitute” for evolution, since they are in fact different concepts, which are not mutually exclusive. Pat Robertson’s knee-jerk misconstruction of ID on the one hand, has no more bearing on a reasonable discussion than Kluge’s view, at the other extreme. The idea that the evolutionary chain started as a result of spontaneous reaction in a void is no more scientifically verifiable or falsifiable than the idea that an infinite presence put that chain into motion. Those are the choices, and any possible further response I could have to any further arguments or queries have been covered many times in this thread, long ago and far away, and you can look them up if you feel nostalgic. I think TD may have been on to something with his brick wall comment, after all.
Edit: Nice post, Mr. B.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except if we can provide evidence for it. </p>
<p>How can you provide evidence for or against a god of some sorts? You can’t. It’s NOT falsifiable, therefore it’s NOT science.</p>
<p>Why is this not making it through? It has to be falsifiable to be science.</p>
<p>So how is the idea that the chain of evolution started as a result of spontaneous reaction in a void falsifiable?</p>
<ol>
<li> If evidence cannot be provided, it is falsified.</li>
<li> If an alternative, better hypothesis that fits the evidence is provided, it is falsified.</li>
</ol>
<p>It just so happens that the evidence so far fits the theory.</p>
<p>But it doesn’t matter. Abiogenesis IS NOT EVOLUTION.</p>
<p>I think a lot of the debate would subside if Intelligent Design was not so vague as to approach the point of ridiculiousness (I think this is partly the intention of DI). I think what many posters espouse in “intelligent design” is a world apart from Intelligent Design (note the capitalization) as defined through Discovery Institute and its most prominent members. If Discovery Institute wanted an iota of credibility for instance, it would at least firmly reject the absurd creationists ideas like the Young Earth, refusal of common ancestry, the idea that life organisms popped into Earth as-is, and basically every tenet of evolution. It’s silence on these issues is a reflection of its nature as fundamentalist movement trying to not appear as such. Google Phillip E. Johnson and Howard Ahmanson, who are major players in ID through Discovery Institute. Look at the ONLY ID textbook “Of Pandas and People,” which endorse nearly all the creationist “science” of fundies. Then tell me you support ID. Supporting ID is much much more than just believing that there is a God who guides evolution.</p>
<p>UCLAri,
You say there is evidence that the chain of evolution started as a result of spontaneous reaction in a void. What kind of evidence? </p>
<p>I understand what falsifiable means. I understand that abiogenesis is not evolution. However, you specifically said that there is evidence for abiogenesis, so that it is scientific, whereas ID is not. I would like to know what kind of evidence points to a random, spontaneous reaction being the beginning of life, and how that specifically could be falsifiable and thus scientific.</p>
<p>Driver, and so it will be until ID proponents understand the difference between physics and metaphysics and the meanings of “science” and “theory” in the reality-based world.</p>
<p>Cf., the college educated person who told me that astrology was valid because it had numbers and everything.</p>
<p>Susantm, start with the experiments with the Miller apparatus…1956 if memory serves, by the late 60’s it was ho-hum…and I think the chaps involved got a Nobel prize for it. The term “primordial soup” is not used lightly. Of course, you have to understand the conditions of the early Earth’s atmosphere, among other things. Cosmology, Earth science, chemistry, and biology all have pieces that fit together and are consistent with one another. The fact that there are still missing pieces yet undiscovered does not mean the picture is False. Indeed, there may have been many near-misses at “life” before it took hold. But the same inexorable push of statistics applying to life elsewhere in the cosmos leads to a conclusion that, given initial conditions, life arising was a good bet from the beginning. My own sense of bio research is 30 years out of date; initial formation of “genes” is intuitively clear to me. Get to the initial formation of a cell wall and all that’s needed is a victory lap.</p>
<p>Poetry may encapsulate truth but poetic truth is not the same as photographic or physical truth. I see no cause for conflict between any of them…poetry and physics each have their own domains.</p>
<p>sethblue–just to clarify–if Pat Robertson gets excited about something (i.e., is pushing an idea), that makes me very leery of it. I don’t think Pat Robertson is pushing ID because of his interest in better science in schools. I have parts of this thread, and it still isn’t clear to me exactly WHAT would be presented in schools if teaching ID were to be mandated–but this is a LOOONG thread, so very possible I missed it. Driver, I think, insists that ID and evolution do not exclude each other, so, that seems fairly moderate, not anything that I would disagree with, as one who believes in God myself, though I’m still against school boards mandating that scientists and teachers teach ID in schools if they (the teachers and scientists) don’t believe it is science. AND, I feel that the Christian Right has a big problem with evolution and is using ID as a way to try to discredit it, to stop young people from considering it even, because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Why do I think this? Because of conversations I’ve had with conservative Christians.</p>
<p>Susantm,</p>
<p>There’s been quite a bit of work done with formation of lipid membranes and organic molecules, as well as amino acids.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jaist.ac.jp/library/thesis/ks-master-2004/abstract/m-hatake/abstract.pdf[/url]”>http://www.jaist.ac.jp/library/thesis/ks-master-2004/abstract/m-hatake/abstract.pdf</a>
<a href=“http://www.cmbl.org.pl/7203_15.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cmbl.org.pl/7203_15.pdf</a></p>
<p>(No, I didn’t want to choose Japanese sources. It just happened that way.)</p>
<p>If I’m not mistaken some really neat 4+ billion year old proto-cell fossils have been worked on recently as well.</p>
<p>Oops, waited to long to edit. Above should read I have READ parts of this thread.</p>
<p>Good citations, UCLAri. Of course, for many people, “too complex” = “I can’t understand it.”</p>
<p>And I wonder if the tax code is viewed as a result of “intelligent design.”</p>