ID Revisited
-
All you need to know about ID is contained in the wedge strategy. It blows away any pretence that it is a scientific idea. Some highlights: Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. Five Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. If they achieve even one of those goals then your nation will become a laughing stock. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-- modified at 5:40 Wednesday 28th September, 2005
-
Why they keep doing this, I'll never know. While they're at it, why don't they teach North American Indian creationism? It's a viable alternative!! In fact, I think that the non-teaching of North American Indian creationism is a racial slight towards North America's indigenous population. Why should we favour ID? "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. The part about Darwin's theory being a theory is fine, but don't offer an alternative that is not considered credible, nor a testable theory at all. THAT is ridiculous. If they want ID, then I want the Spaghetti Monster[^] taught and offered too. Article[^].
I would certainly not allow my children to be taught ID as any thing other than a fanciful distraction from the scientifically valid theory of darwinian evolution. (I am perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that the evolution was consciously directed, but unless that hypothesis is framed in a scientifically testable way, it has no place in a science class) However, I think the world at large is simple going to have to get used to these sorts of culturally oddities arising out of American culture. In fact, in an odd way it makes me feel more comfortable about being an AMerican. I would be very disturbed if I woke up tomorrow and discovered that all the boys down at the trailer park were discussing whether or not hominid bipedalism predated the formation of the great rift valley. I see no harm in challanges being presented to the secularist who are so determined to drive religion out of every last corner of society. I fear them more than I do these religoius nuts. As an AMerican, I am familiar with the religious nuts. The secularists nuts scare the hell out of me. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
During the industrialisation in the north of england, a particular moth, with light grey-tan wings changed, over time, to having dark grey wings. The reason being soot on the trees from industry. And the moth adapted over time with darker colours being favoured. The selection came from birds who eat the moths. The moths with darker wings did not get eaten as they were better camouflaged. Nunc est bibendum
But it was still a moth. I think the big argument the creationist and ID people have is that there are no such examples of a moth becoming something else regardless of how much environmental stimulation occurs. They do have a point in that speciation is a much more difficult event to prove scientifically. Fossil evidence is not quite as conclusive in that it always leaves gaps. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
But it was still a moth. I think the big argument the creationist and ID people have is that there are no such examples of a moth becoming something else regardless of how much environmental stimulation occurs. They do have a point in that speciation is a much more difficult event to prove scientifically. Fossil evidence is not quite as conclusive in that it always leaves gaps. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: I think the big argument the creationist and ID people have is that there are no such examples of a moth becoming something else regardless of how much environmental stimulation occurs. There are tons of such examples. One such example to consider is how a normal and intelligent male of say age 40 can become a dithering idiot around a drop-dead good looking 21 year old female. Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore
-
But it was still a moth. I think the big argument the creationist and ID people have is that there are no such examples of a moth becoming something else regardless of how much environmental stimulation occurs. They do have a point in that speciation is a much more difficult event to prove scientifically. Fossil evidence is not quite as conclusive in that it always leaves gaps. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Microevolution --> supported by evidence Macroevolution --> supported by speculation "Light is a corpuscular group of particles." - Sir Isaac Newton (1600s) "No, you're wrong, light is a wave." - James Clerk Maxwell (1800s) "No, its a beam of negative particles, not a wave." - Philip Lenard (1890s) "Nope, its a stream of photons." - Albert Einstein (1921) "No, it really is a wave and a particle simulaneously." - Prince Louis deBroglie (1929) You need a lot of faith to believe in science too.
-
During the industrialisation in the north of england, a particular moth, with light grey-tan wings changed, over time, to having dark grey wings. The reason being soot on the trees from industry. And the moth adapted over time with darker colours being favoured. The selection came from birds who eat the moths. The moths with darker wings did not get eaten as they were better camouflaged. Nunc est bibendum
Could you explain where that intelligence to adapt came from? In this case it is the idea or sensation of color. How does a moth know about its own color or the chemicals to use to change the color? Is that knowledge floating around in the nature or did one moth tell the other, "you stupid moth, change your color fast or get eaten"?
-
During the industrialisation in the north of england, a particular moth, with light grey-tan wings changed, over time, to having dark grey wings. The reason being soot on the trees from industry. And the moth adapted over time with darker colours being favoured. The selection came from birds who eat the moths. The moths with darker wings did not get eaten as they were better camouflaged. Nunc est bibendum
Could you explain where that intelligence to adapt came from? In this case it is the idea or sensation of color. How does a moth know about its own color or the chemicals to use to change the color? Is that knowledge floating around in the nature or did one moth told the other, "you stupid moth, change your color fast or get eaten"?
-
Could you explain where that intelligence to adapt came from? In this case it is the idea or sensation of color. How does a moth know about its own color or the chemicals to use to change the color? Is that knowledge floating around in the nature or did one moth tell the other, "you stupid moth, change your color fast or get eaten"?
Selection isn't a conscious action. It is a happenstance between the unique properties of some instance and the environment in which it exists. Some moths were lucky enough to be born darker than others. The dark ones lived to reproduce and the light ones didn't. However, there is still a difference between the natural selection of a set of traits within a given species and the creation and reproduction of a completely new species.
-
Microevolution --> supported by evidence Macroevolution --> supported by speculation "Light is a corpuscular group of particles." - Sir Isaac Newton (1600s) "No, you're wrong, light is a wave." - James Clerk Maxwell (1800s) "No, its a beam of negative particles, not a wave." - Philip Lenard (1890s) "Nope, its a stream of photons." - Albert Einstein (1921) "No, it really is a wave and a particle simulaneously." - Prince Louis deBroglie (1929) You need a lot of faith to believe in science too.
DolphLundgren wrote: You need a lot of faith to believe in science too. The last statement is provable. All you need is a basic understanding of physics, and you'll agree with it. I'm sure it could be augmented in the future, but for all practical purposes, that statement is true. -- Keep talking! I'm the preacher, you're the fool!
-
I would certainly not allow my children to be taught ID as any thing other than a fanciful distraction from the scientifically valid theory of darwinian evolution. (I am perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that the evolution was consciously directed, but unless that hypothesis is framed in a scientifically testable way, it has no place in a science class) However, I think the world at large is simple going to have to get used to these sorts of culturally oddities arising out of American culture. In fact, in an odd way it makes me feel more comfortable about being an AMerican. I would be very disturbed if I woke up tomorrow and discovered that all the boys down at the trailer park were discussing whether or not hominid bipedalism predated the formation of the great rift valley. I see no harm in challanges being presented to the secularist who are so determined to drive religion out of every last corner of society. I fear them more than I do these religoius nuts. As an AMerican, I am familiar with the religious nuts. The secularists nuts scare the hell out of me. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: AMerican You typed it out twice with an M as opposed to an m. Is it a simple typo, or is your post carrying hidden messages? :) -- Keep talking! I'm the preacher, you're the fool!
-
But it was still a moth. I think the big argument the creationist and ID people have is that there are no such examples of a moth becoming something else regardless of how much environmental stimulation occurs. They do have a point in that speciation is a much more difficult event to prove scientifically. Fossil evidence is not quite as conclusive in that it always leaves gaps. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Of course the big problem with darwinism is the gaps in evoloution of a type/species. The 'lurch' theory attempts to answer this by suggesting that a species reaches a stable 'plateau' of relationship with its environment. Until something big forces a developement of that type to some, possibly new, type. But, a moth can only become a new moth. The further a type is down the branch, the harder it is to evolve to a different branch. And I guess we are a long way from the 'original' type, possibly an amoeba or some such. Consider Australia, seperated from the other continents for a long time. Its species have evolved down a very different branch from the closer branches of eurasia. So their big predator was the tasmanian tiger, eurasia has the big cats. Nunc est bibendum
-
Could you explain where that intelligence to adapt came from? In this case it is the idea or sensation of color. How does a moth know about its own color or the chemicals to use to change the color? Is that knowledge floating around in the nature or did one moth tell the other, "you stupid moth, change your color fast or get eaten"?
The inteligence to adapt is in the relation ship between moths and birds who eat them. A moth with slightly darker wings blended better with the bark and so a lighter moth nearby got eaten instead. The moth with darker wings can therefore mate, and, its progeny, will also have that darker wing gene, and so on. The inteligence is environmental stress, either being eaten, or having to compete for food, and, the way DNA combines from two organisms, and its ability to randomly mutate. 90% of those random mutations might not give the animal any advantage over its peers, but 10% might, and that advantage allows it to pass its genes to the next generation in greater numbers. Nunc est bibendum
-
Selection isn't a conscious action. It is a happenstance between the unique properties of some instance and the environment in which it exists. Some moths were lucky enough to be born darker than others. The dark ones lived to reproduce and the light ones didn't. However, there is still a difference between the natural selection of a set of traits within a given species and the creation and reproduction of a completely new species.
Evolution doesn't produce new species in a few seconds, it takes time and the situation where two groups of the same species cannot breed together. E.g. the northern and southern hemisphere Right Whales cannot interbreed (or only do so very, very rarely) because their thick blubber makes it very difficult for them to cross the warm waters around the equator. This lack of genetic mixing will allow genetic drift in the two populations to produce a slow divergence into two distinct species that cannot interbreed even if they met. Ta-daaa! Two new species, produced by evolution, no external presence or influence or God required. -- Asynes yw brassa ages kwilkynyow.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote: If they achieve even one of those goals then your nation will become a laughing stock. You know, this is what I'm on about with all these posts. It's the fact that there are some well-organized individuals with a mandate to push illogical thinking into mainstream education. They are making a mockery of science, the scientific method and themselves. In fact, I am speechless and aghast that they have even managed to bring this bunk to the level of the courts. What is amazing is that a technologically advanced society like America is even having this debate. For me, it goes beyond even the separation of church and state and reduces to a rather more fundamental problem - that of basic understanding and honesty. To manipulate the facts of something to tailor to some ridiculous agenda lacks honesty, credibility and basic integrity. ID CANNOT be tested scientifically. Anyone can argue this point to exhaustion, but it simply cannot. There is no possibility of finding testable supporting evidence in favour of an "intelligent creator". That is why, after 2000+ years, religion (not just Christian-based ones) still exists. It is a fundamental need for man to have faith. That, in itself, is alright. However, to fly in the face of literally a hundred years of scientific investigation is not only ridiculous, but disturbing. While evolution may not be a perfect theory, it is strongly supported by quantifiable data, good evidence and logical foundations. ID cannot and will not ever be a viable theory because it lacks these basic characteristics. The brilliant parallel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster illustrates this point beautifully.
Ramen.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Microevolution --> supported by evidence Macroevolution --> supported by speculation "Light is a corpuscular group of particles." - Sir Isaac Newton (1600s) "No, you're wrong, light is a wave." - James Clerk Maxwell (1800s) "No, its a beam of negative particles, not a wave." - Philip Lenard (1890s) "Nope, its a stream of photons." - Albert Einstein (1921) "No, it really is a wave and a particle simulaneously." - Prince Louis deBroglie (1929) You need a lot of faith to believe in science too.
"God did it" (1600's) "God did it" (1800's) "God did it" (1890's) "God did it" (1921) "God did it" (1929) It's a different matter to belive something that can be demonstrably wrong or incomplete, and has vast ammounts of supporting evidence. Ryan
O fools, awake! The rites you sacred hold Are but a cheat contrived by men of old, Who lusted after wealth and gained their lust And died in baseness—and their law is dust. al-Ma'arri (973-1057)
-
Microevolution --> supported by evidence Macroevolution --> supported by speculation "Light is a corpuscular group of particles." - Sir Isaac Newton (1600s) "No, you're wrong, light is a wave." - James Clerk Maxwell (1800s) "No, its a beam of negative particles, not a wave." - Philip Lenard (1890s) "Nope, its a stream of photons." - Albert Einstein (1921) "No, it really is a wave and a particle simulaneously." - Prince Louis deBroglie (1929) You need a lot of faith to believe in science too.
DolphLundgren wrote: "No, it really is a wave and a particle simulaneously." Wave particle duality is in the eyes of the beholder. The photon could care less. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
Microevolution --> supported by evidence Macroevolution --> supported by speculation "Light is a corpuscular group of particles." - Sir Isaac Newton (1600s) "No, you're wrong, light is a wave." - James Clerk Maxwell (1800s) "No, its a beam of negative particles, not a wave." - Philip Lenard (1890s) "Nope, its a stream of photons." - Albert Einstein (1921) "No, it really is a wave and a particle simulaneously." - Prince Louis deBroglie (1929) You need a lot of faith to believe in science too.
Until you actually repeat the experiments and get the same results as everyone else. It's called testability, you should look into it. If you just read about it all you have is faith.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Of course the big problem with darwinism is the gaps in evoloution of a type/species. The 'lurch' theory attempts to answer this by suggesting that a species reaches a stable 'plateau' of relationship with its environment. Until something big forces a developement of that type to some, possibly new, type. But, a moth can only become a new moth. The further a type is down the branch, the harder it is to evolve to a different branch. And I guess we are a long way from the 'original' type, possibly an amoeba or some such. Consider Australia, seperated from the other continents for a long time. Its species have evolved down a very different branch from the closer branches of eurasia. So their big predator was the tasmanian tiger, eurasia has the big cats. Nunc est bibendum
You're preaching to the choir with me. I already accept the science on speciation. However, those who ask 'where is the proof' have a decent argument because it is something that simply cannot be proven in an absolute scientific fashion - you can never directly view or measure the process simply because it can only occur over great periods of time in the natural world and leaves behind incomplete evidence (a bone here, a bone there, this species is similar to that species, their DNA is more similar than with other species, etc). "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."