Missouri puts prayers back in skool...

[Seth]

The secular argument for ID is bullshit, "creationism in a cheap suit".

I'd almost allow it just to get them to shut up, because it takes about 3 minutes, maybe 5 if you speak slowly, to "teach" the "secular argument for ID."

O.k., class, we've learned a lot about evolution over the last few weeks of class. Now let's look at one of the popular "theories" that is offered to "oppose" the theory of evolution. It's called the Theory of Intelligent Design, or ID for short. ID is the idea that the universe came into existence through the intentional actions of an outside intelligent being or entity. There is no cohesive theory about any of the attributes of this entity and there is no direct or indirect evidence that it exists (and no theory exists as to whether it is a he, she, it or they). The theory starts with the premise that the universe had a "beginning" (of which there is no evidence), adds to that another premise that everything that does exist has a cause. Therefore, the theory goes, the universe must have a cause, and that cause is arbitrarily named "God" or the Designer (or deity, or universal force or any number of other arbitrary words).

Also, the ID theorists say that the universe appears too complex and/or too perfect to have come about "by chance" and that therefore some intelligent actor must have been involved in making it happen. We call that intelligent actor a deity or god or designer.

Now, none of this in any way impacts the theory of evolution, since the theory of evolution doesn't presuppose the existence or nonexistence of gods or designers. For all anyone, including the ID theorists, know or even theorize, this designer designed the process of evolution. So, ID is not an opposing theory to evolution.

Also, ID theory offers no proofs or evidence that the universe ever had a "beginning." It rests on the assumption that the Big Bang represents a "beginning" of the universe, which, as we have previously studied, is a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Big Bang theory.

Also, ID theory offers no proofs or evidence for the other basic premise that all things that exist have a cause. This is assumed to be the case, but actually, in reality, nobody has ever seen anything come into existence. The most current scientific evidence is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. So, when the ID theorists say that a car or an airplane or watch was "created" what they mean is that different already existing parts have combined to form what appears to us as a watch or an airplane or a car. Nothing has been created there, and therefore no "creator" is needed. We see things combining to form other things all the time in the natural world, without any apparent involvement of an intelligence - like hydrogen and oxygen naturally form water, and various other things naturally form organic molecules, and various organic molecules combine to form nucleotides and all sorts of things form naturally without intelligent interference. So, the fact that some things are shaped by intelligent actors doesn't at all show that things need creators to come into existence -- it only shows that some things need intelligent designers to come into being through the use of other already existing things. Most things in the universe have come to be in their present form without any evidence intelligence behind it.

Whether the basic, constituent elements of the universe came to be by virtue of an intelligence is unknown. We don't even have a solid theory as to what the basic constituent elements of the universe ARE, let alone that they ever "came to be" as distinct from always being in existence.

So, there you have it, kiddies. Intelligent Design is a theory that a designer designed the universe. We don't know anything about the designer, or even that there actually was a designer, and the basic premises of ID theory are arbitrary and baseless assumptions offered arbitrarily as axiomatic.

Now, back to science....

A bit too biased against the theory of intelligent design at the very end to be truly objective, but pretty good, and you've just demonstrated WHY both sides of the controversy should be taught, and then the student should be allowed to decide which to believe. This is the primary fault of the anti-ID forces, they attempt to censor the information given to students in order to favor evolution and disfavor both "secular" ID and religious creationism, which is prohibited by the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The proper course is to neutrally and accurately provide both arguments and let the facts speak for themselves.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... trial.html

[Seth]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... trial.html

As I said, the problem with the Kitzmiller v Dover defendants was that they came to court with dirty hands and a proven intent to insert creationism in the curriculum, which is clearly unlawful.

But that does not mean that the theory of intelligent design is axiomatically a religious concept. As I've said, remove the Creationist purpose and intent and the question of whether, for example, the bacterial lancet ACTUALLY DID evolve into the bacterial flagellum, or whether both the lancet and the flagellum use the same basic protein building blocks that were used by an intelligence to design two different biological "devices" just as 7/16ths bolts are used in both automobiles and aircraft engines, is a valid scientific controversy.

The judge in the case was correct in ruling that the attempt by the school board was an unlawful attempt to insert creationism into the curriculum because the plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants had written and spoken in secret that this was in fact their specific intent.

But the judge went far beyond his authority in ruling that intelligent design is inherently a religious concept. It's not. The particular formulation used by the defendants in this particular case WAS inherently religious in intent and purpose, but not because the scientific arguments are inherently religious, but because valid scientific arguments were used as a stalking horse for what was in fact "creationism in a cheap suit."

But the scientific controversy over whether an intelligent designer exists, used to exist, and either did or did not interfere in natural evolution sometime in the deep past is a perfectly valid scientific question that has no religious overtones other than those imposed upon it by either Atheists or religionists as a part of a larger political and legal agenda.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fairy tales, that's all ID is.

[Seth]

Fairy tales, that's all ID is.

Prove it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Prove ID is anything but creationism in a cheap suit.

[Coito ergo sum]

The secular argument for ID is bullshit, "creationism in a cheap suit".

I'd almost allow it just to get them to shut up, because it takes about 3 minutes, maybe 5 if you speak slowly, to "teach" the "secular argument for ID."

O.k., class, we've learned a lot about evolution over the last few weeks of class. Now let's look at one of the popular "theories" that is offered to "oppose" the theory of evolution. It's called the Theory of Intelligent Design, or ID for short. ID is the idea that the universe came into existence through the intentional actions of an outside intelligent being or entity. There is no cohesive theory about any of the attributes of this entity and there is no direct or indirect evidence that it exists (and no theory exists as to whether it is a he, she, it or they). The theory starts with the premise that the universe had a "beginning" (of which there is no evidence), adds to that another premise that everything that does exist has a cause. Therefore, the theory goes, the universe must have a cause, and that cause is arbitrarily named "God" or the Designer (or deity, or universal force or any number of other arbitrary words).

Also, the ID theorists say that the universe appears too complex and/or too perfect to have come about "by chance" and that therefore some intelligent actor must have been involved in making it happen. We call that intelligent actor a deity or god or designer.

Now, none of this in any way impacts the theory of evolution, since the theory of evolution doesn't presuppose the existence or nonexistence of gods or designers. For all anyone, including the ID theorists, know or even theorize, this designer designed the process of evolution. So, ID is not an opposing theory to evolution.

Also, ID theory offers no proofs or evidence that the universe ever had a "beginning." It rests on the assumption that the Big Bang represents a "beginning" of the universe, which, as we have previously studied, is a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Big Bang theory.

Also, ID theory offers no proofs or evidence for the other basic premise that all things that exist have a cause. This is assumed to be the case, but actually, in reality, nobody has ever seen anything come into existence. The most current scientific evidence is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. So, when the ID theorists say that a car or an airplane or watch was "created" what they mean is that different already existing parts have combined to form what appears to us as a watch or an airplane or a car. Nothing has been created there, and therefore no "creator" is needed. We see things combining to form other things all the time in the natural world, without any apparent involvement of an intelligence - like hydrogen and oxygen naturally form water, and various other things naturally form organic molecules, and various organic molecules combine to form nucleotides and all sorts of things form naturally without intelligent interference. So, the fact that some things are shaped by intelligent actors doesn't at all show that things need creators to come into existence -- it only shows that some things need intelligent designers to come into being through the use of other already existing things. Most things in the universe have come to be in their present form without any evidence intelligence behind it.

Whether the basic, constituent elements of the universe came to be by virtue of an intelligence is unknown. We don't even have a solid theory as to what the basic constituent elements of the universe ARE, let alone that they ever "came to be" as distinct from always being in existence.

So, there you have it, kiddies. Intelligent Design is a theory that a designer designed the universe. We don't know anything about the designer, or even that there actually was a designer, and the basic premises of ID theory are arbitrary and baseless assumptions offered arbitrarily as axiomatic.

Now, back to science....

A bit too biased against the theory of intelligent design at the very end to be truly objective, but pretty good, and you've just demonstrated WHY both sides of the controversy should be taught, and then the student should be allowed to decide which to believe. This is the primary fault of the anti-ID forces, they attempt to censor the information given to students in order to favor evolution and disfavor both "secular" ID and religious creationism, which is prohibited by the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The proper course is to neutrally and accurately provide both arguments and let the facts speak for themselves.

First of all, the choice you're suggesting the students should have is a false choice. They are not opposing theories, since the ID could be like the Catholic concept of a deity, which is a metaphorical Genesis and evolution is perfectly fine.

Second of all, that summation indicates why it shouldn't be taught -- because it isn't a scientific theory and has no evidence for its claims and its proofs rest on premises which are wholly unsubstantiated.

Third of all, the reason I gave the summation is to show how stupid the idea is, and how it takes 3 minutes to tell it. It's essentially a giant gap-filler. It says "we don't know - therefore, it must be an intelligent designer of some kind."

Fourth of all, school has nothing to do with kids "deciding what to believe." They're free to believe or not believe whatever they want. They could disbelieve Algebra all they want. They just need to learn the subject, whether they "believe" it or not. Same with science. They don't need to believe that two objects dropped from the same height will fall at the same rate, even if they weigh different amounts. They just have to understand the proofs.

Fifth of all, the Lemon test does not "require" the teaching of "all sides." If it did, then we'd have to have classes about every Creation Myth, like the Norse, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or Navajo myths. Just because religious folks have an idea that counters some aspect of math, science or whatever, doesn't mean that that the religious ideas are now required to be taught in school.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fairy tales, that's all ID is.

Prove it.

Didn't we just go over this?

It's the arbitrary idea that the universe had a beginning (no evidence) and that all things that begin must have an intelligent begin-ner (also unsubstantiated, since we have no examples of things actually beginning, we only have examples of forms changing or being changed into other forms). From two completely baseless claims (asserted as axiomatic) it is asserted that the necessary conclusion is that the Begin-ner must be a deity or intelligent designer or sorts. However, since the two basic premises fail of their own weight, the conclusion must also fail. It is only "if" the two premises are true that the conclusion would follow.

Now, give me an example of any other unsubstantiated "if-then" logic exercise, where the basic premises are not backed up by a shred of evidence, that we include in school curricula?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's basically saying that the children of fundamentalists should not be taught......science.

Which is within the religious rights of the parents involved.

Oh, I don't know about that.

The local school board sets the curriculum, and if they say that you need to take English Composition or Algebra to graduate, I do not believe that a religious person has a right to remove their child from those classes. Now, if they, start teaching religion (or atheism) in class, then I think there is a better point on your side.

However, the teaching of secular, nonreligious topics does not become unconstitutional because, say, and Amish person wants to send their kid to high school and only learn home economics. You can't just choose to send your kid to one or two classes, just because you're an Amish person who thinks that almost all education past the 8th grade is ungodly.

Well, that's the point, the Amish can indeed not send their kids to high school based on religious objections.

You missed my point. They can, of course, not send their kids to public school. What I said was, they can't arbitrarily say "I'll send my kids to home economics, but not other classes. You can't just have every parent or every religious group saying they can send their kids to 1st, 3rd, and 6th period, but opting them out of all the other classes.

[Seth]

It's basically saying that the children of fundamentalists should not be taught......science.

Which is within the religious rights of the parents involved.

Oh, I don't know about that.

The local school board sets the curriculum, and if they say that you need to take English Composition or Algebra to graduate, I do not believe that a religious person has a right to remove their child from those classes. Now, if they, start teaching religion (or atheism) in class, then I think there is a better point on your side.

However, the teaching of secular, nonreligious topics does not become unconstitutional because, say, and Amish person wants to send their kid to high school and only learn home economics. You can't just choose to send your kid to one or two classes, just because you're an Amish person who thinks that almost all education past the 8th grade is ungodly.

Well, that's the point, the Amish can indeed not send their kids to high school based on religious objections.

You missed my point. They can, of course, not send their kids to public school. What I said was, they can't arbitrarily say "I'll send my kids to home economics, but not other classes. You can't just have every parent or every religious group saying they can send their kids to 1st, 3rd, and 6th period, but opting them out of all the other classes.

Actually, they very probably could do exactly that if they had a valid religious objection to what was being taught in those other classes. That's the import of the SCOTUS decision.

[Seth]

Fairy tales, that's all ID is.

Prove it.

Didn't we just go over this?

You proved nothing.

It's the arbitrary idea that the universe had a beginning (no evidence) and that all things that begin must have an intelligent begin-ner (also unsubstantiated, since we have no examples of things actually beginning, we only have examples of forms changing or being changed into other forms). From two completely baseless claims (asserted as axiomatic) it is asserted that the necessary conclusion is that the Begin-ner must be a deity or intelligent designer or sorts. However, since the two basic premises fail of their own weight, the conclusion must also fail. It is only "if" the two premises are true that the conclusion would follow.

Now, give me an example of any other unsubstantiated "if-then" logic exercise, where the basic premises are not backed up by a shred of evidence, that we include in school curricula?

That's a strawman concoction of one specific argument in the much larger intelligent design debate. You have proven nothing by way of supporting your claim that the theory of intelligent design is "fairy tales."

Prove that there is or was no intelligent designer of anything, anywhere, anytime.

[Robert_S]

But the scientific controversy over whether an intelligent designer exists, used to exist, and either did or did not interfere in natural evolution sometime in the deep past is a perfectly valid scientific question that has no religious overtones other than those imposed upon it by either Atheists or religionists as a part of a larger political and legal agenda.

When an intelligent design theory that is actually a theory and not a hypothesis, vague notion or wild speculation is put forward by a person or group without a larger political and/or legal agenda, then there will be a scientific controversy.

Until then, there is no real scientific controversy.

[mistermack]

Seth's completely clueless when it comes to science, like most fundies.

Something isn't "valid science" just because some loony suggests it.
It becomes "valid science" when it has been subject to enormous rigorous dissection by experts, when it makes predictions which come true, when nothing can be found to disprove it, and when the vast majority of the scientific world accepts it.

Even then, it's only got "best explanation so far" status, and is open to debunking at any time.

In that context, intelligent design isn't "valid science", it isn't any kind of science, it's loony bollocks.

[SteveB]

Is Seth theist? Or just pretending to be on?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is Seth theist? Or just pretending to be on?

Never believe that he's honestly debating an issue and you'll be fine.