Admitedly, I was the one who stressed the BBT angle, since the Word of Mod said we needed to keep this discussion more astronomy based.

__________________
Carl Matherly

Offical Battlestar Galactica Apologist

Named Time Magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year"

What is your definition of Creationism? As mentioned by Philip Johnson, 'fundamental' Creationist rely on Christianity.
Nope, I don''t have a problem with freedom of religion, if you don't have a problem with freedom of speech.... (that's a whole other argument)

Check post #75, I think your trying to set me up on the 1=0 thing, i'm sure it some religious radical proof against evolution....

again, court ruling to define and debunk ID... Science should not have to hide behind democracy as reasoning to not accept ID, ID is not Science. NOr is ID fundamental Christian Creationism. Technically, a designer (ID) is not a creator (Creationism).
Correct.
FTI, I have never heard of Discovery Institute before coming here. Also, I try my best to use my own thoughts and examples, so please point me toward anything that may be right out of creationist literature.


I think we are arguing two different points.

Science does not need court rulings to debunk ID, it's the people who have used the courts to protect themselves from ID.

Democracy really is a good idea for everyone. You should learn to live with it.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

There are a variety of forms of creationism. Most religions have some form of creation myth. As I've stated many times, and you've never refuted, Intelligent Design is just a search and replace for creationism, in a book originally written in support of biblical Creationism. Thus it cannot be taught in a public school science classroom, due to the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

Do you dispute any of these points? If so, please provide some evidence to support your claim. If not, then what exactly are you arguing for?

This is not, nor ever has it been, a freedom of speech issue. The question the court considered was whether ID was science or religion. It is, and has always been, the latter, and thus cannot be taught in public school science classes.

Do you dispute this? If so, please provide some evidence to support your claim. While you're at it, please also refute the points that Judge Jones raised in his ruling (particularly the excerpt I quoted above). If not, then what exactly are you arguing for?

Do you want non-science taught in a science class? Do you want religion taught in a science class?

You have not provided any evidence to refute my point that the term "Intelligent Design" was introduced as a search and replace for creationism, and remains a synonym for it. Nor have you provided any evidence that there is anything of scientific value in the claims of the cdesign proponentsists. If you want to continue this conversation, please do so.

Otherwise, I bid you good day!

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Quick response, gotta go....

in the case Dover and DI, YES. I refute the Dover adequetly represents ID as proposed by Philip Johnson...
it's theology, again more slurs....
I have a problem with, as defined by government, and the decision was made by a single judge for that matter.... For example, what if a single judge ruled against some part of science, and my whole argument was that single case....
again, well stated.....

Nothing related to Dover.... Like I said, I came here to understand why ID, though not scientific, is outright refused as an explanation, even though it maybe considered 'philisophical/idealogical', given the complexity of nature..........

NObody has addressed the quote from Kenneth Miller who also appear in the NOVA program in defense of Evolution.....

Would you care to explain that? I suspect you don't know much about Johnson. From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

So, Johnson is tied with the DI, and pushing ID using obviously religious arguments.

And it has been repeatedly explained that ID is rejected as a scientific explanation because it is, even by your own admission, not science. Therefore it doesn't belong in the science classroom. Outside of the parameters of the science discussion, some reject various forms of ID, others accept it as a matter of personal belief, but that is not relevant to the scientific discussion.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I'm at something of a loss to understand what you think needs to be addressed. He seems to be quite clear about not teaching ID in the science classroom. Could you explain your concern?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

How, exactly? The book that was introduced in the schools came from the Discovery Institute, which Philip Johnson founded, and supports, as Van Rijn said just above. How is the brand of Intelligent Design that is promoted by the Discovery Institute different from that of Philip Johnson?

As Van Rijn said just now, and as we've all posted above, ID has nothing useful to add to science, philosophy or even theology. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? You haven't yet provided any, while we've provided plenty of evidence in support.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Well, to be specific, I've said that ID isn't science, which is all that should need to be said when considering whether it should be in a science class. I haven't stated an opinion here on ID's usefulness to personal beliefs.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Huh? In post 75 you do NOT address all the questions I raised in post 71. You only blew off your apparently cynical comment about being able to prove anything by manipulation of numbers as if it were just facetious. Well, maybe it was, and if you admit that it was, fine. I didn't see any smilies. Should we then take all your comments in the same vein? I'd suggest you don't make claims in this forum that you are not prepared to defend. It puts you and your ideas (not all bad) in a bad light.

I'll also add that instead of directing your replies to the people who made them, you seem to be mixing them up in one message, without attribution. That makes it very difficult to maintain any continuity of ideas. Check out how my replies to you read. You can tell (1) they're from you, and (2) from which post I got your words. Go thou and do likewise.

BTW, I was not trying to "set you up" on anything. Just pointing out the absurdity of your comment. Now go back to 71, quote the whole thing, cut out the comments, and reply to the questions. I'll take the one about proving anything to have been answered.

Your good intentions noted, and Lonest@r absolved from going off topic. Mea culpa.

Perhaps we should ask the Moderators if a thread basically on ID is unacceptable. I had thought it was ok, but can learn from my mistakes.

I *thought* that discussion of ID misconceptions as related to science, not just astronomy, was ok per rule 11B, and I was asking about that here:

Intellectual Design

I suspect part of the issue is when the discussion edges more into politics or religious aspects.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Point taken. But Lonest@r seems to be claiming that ID can add something to science, without specifying what.

Also, for the record: I've been repeatedly quoting from and referencing the Dover decision and the NOVA program about it because it is an excellent summary of the arguments used by the ID camp, and their refutations. It also provides a succinct lesson in the powers of evolutionary theory. Of course practicing scientists don't use a court case to define science! But the case ended up being a perfect example of how cdesign proponentsists operate, and how to counter their claims.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Perhaps a useful lesson that can be gleaned from this conversation is that we on the side of science should be careful not to allow IDers to frame this issue as "a battle between science and religion". That would provide a "wedge" that IDers could exploit against our side, and in any event it's untrue. It wasn't a battle between science and religion, it was a legal dispute between the people, as represented by Judge Jones, and a minority group trying to impose a crypto-religious agenda on publicly funded schools. Each one is free to practice the faith of their choosing, but not to promote it using everybody's taxes.

The issue also isn't truth versus falsehood. Schools are not perfect, and sometimes teachers will make a mistake, and teach a falsehood. In fact, science itself sometimes turns out to have been wrong. And the issue isn't even whether ID should be discussed or taught in schools. But if IDers wish to teach ID they should do it in the proper venues: social studies classes or compared religion classes, or private schools funded by them (the latter of which they already do). It's undemocratic to sweep their ideas surrepticiously into school curricula as they did; apart from which, as was established in the Dover School Board trial, that's a breach of the American constitution. Not science versus religion, but legality versus illegality, is the broader issue at stake.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Yes and No, there already is evidence for evolution, but to what extent is the theory of evolution valid, meaning, does it hold true to the origins of life, that is still to be determined and evidence is constantly being discovered and theories modified.

1. Yes, I know what a theory is, but sometimes theories prove wrong regardless of the amount of evidence you have to support it
2. Nothing, only to demonstrate some theories reamain untested due to lack of technology to fully test, there remains a element of unknown.

1.Depends on definition of 'believe' and 'highly probable'. In layman's terms, a theory (supported by tangible data) states that based on the data what 'likely' will/did happen.
2.OK, atleast not 'scientific' theory as defined by science....

1.Probability and the complexity of life in general
2.Mostly because it is the #1 opposition, even if it is outside of science. People try to compartmentalize everything, everyone likes to apply labels to everyone and everything. The world is not so black & white, evertyhing is interconnected, it's never either or. Your background, experience and beleifs all influence your actions and reasoning, even within the scientific communty...

So, maybe it looks as if I put m foot in my mouth. Like I say, I have never heard of DI, Dover or much about Johnson for that matter before coming here. It's been several years since I've been in a 'intelligent' ID conversation and was researching the subjects.

What I do believe however is that the original concept/idea of ID was to eleminate any reference to religion or god, such as Creationism (Christianity). The article from The Revealer (linked previusly by parejkoj) is arguing that ID does not support science OR Christianity.
ID was never intended to support Creationism, but as an "argument from design.", eliminating Christianity from creationism, thus allowing the "argument from design", to be taught without breaking the 1st Amendment, it could now be taught as any World Religion or philosophical class is taught. However, Christians seemingly try to teach ID as Creationism, and the case of Dover and DI botches things up.

NOW, back to the classroom, regardless the field of study, I beleive every 'major' competing theory/concept/idea should atleast be addressed, even if only in passing. If not, than you have no argument or opposing views, it borders indoctrination.

I see it with the roles reveresed, simplistically it is an issue of 'intelligence'. The source of intelligence is an religious battlle.


It seems our train it getting furthur off track,

In my quest for learning.... Where did the 'explosion' come from? What happened between when the BB occured and when Evolution began? What initiated Evolution, or how did living organisms start. And how does it all compare to ID.

Mmm. I think this is one of your fundamental misunderstandings. Those who designed ID admit, unto a few even admitting in that Dover court, that they did intend ID to be creationism. Taking out the God bit doesn't change that; the fact is, it's still religious in nature, and religion doesn't belong in a science classroom. Would you encourage teaching of the Dreamtime? Of Maui fishing the land up from under the sea? Of Gaia and her marriage to Ouranous? No. And neither would the DI. It isn't science.

There are no major competing theories. Not a one. ID isn't a theory; it makes predictions that have falsified it utterly--I disagree that it makes none. Creationsim makes none; ID makes a prediction that complicated things will not be able to be broken down into simpler forms that are still useful to the organism. This has been shown, repeatedly, to be untrue. Whereas every fossil discovered, every species that originates before our eyes (and some have, contrary to popular opinion), backs evolution, and not a one has falsified it yet.


Will you please stop conflating BBT with evolution? Evolution doesn't require BBT. It doesn't matter to evolution how the world came to be; the defining point between creationism and evolution, aside from, you know, evidence, is what happened after the world was created.

You're also conflating abiogenesis, where life comes from, with evolution--what happens to it after it has come into existence. While there is scientific study of abiogenesis, it's different than scientific study of evolution.

So okay. Evolution. It began when there was life. What "initiated" it? The existence of life in the form it takes. Life started; how is not relevant to evolution. And once there is life, with its genetic material to be altered, the genetic material started to be altered. How? Several ways, actually. Genes can cross over one another and transfer material. Genes can double. Chromosomes can split in half. And, yes, there is mutation. Most mutations in organisms that survive gestation are benign; those that are harmful tend to kill the organism before birth, in organisms that are born and not just split in two. Some may fail to be benign later and become either beneficial or harmful. Some are beneficial to begin with. What with one thing and another, these mutations spread through the population. Some increase possible reproductive success, and the species bearing that mutation edge out the species without it. Or one population--

You know what? I'm done explaining this to you. Here's my question. If you don't know any of this, how do you know there isn't enough evidence for evolution? This is really basic stuff. I mean, I was an English major in college, for pity's sake, but I knew this before getting out of high school. I knew some of it before getting out of junior high. And you don't, and you're the one claiming thousands of people who work with evolution as part