I found this video funny, informative, and eye opening and Ill post the link here so that Hatrack may watch it and discuss, hopefully without fist fighting. *glares*
IP: Logged |
posted
I've watched this video more than once, and it's great. Ken Miller is a very smart man, and he has a way of explaining very confusing concepts so that anyone can understand.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen him give that talk in person twice, and was just as blown away the second time as the first. He's amazing.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
That the ID movement is intellectually bankrupt is not the same as it having collapsed. Does he argue for the latter, or the former?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He systematically goes through each of ID's arguments against evolution and for ID, and dismantles it politely but firmly.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. Then the thread title is misleading. Of course ID is bunk, that's been known for years. But to say that the "ID Movement has collapsed" is unfortunately just not true, although certainly they're a bit in abeyance after Dover.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: He systematically goes through each of ID's arguments against evolution and for ID, and dismantles it politely but firmly.
And in terms that manage to be both clear to the layperson yet not oversimplified. I'm about halfway through, and so far it is excellent.
Thanks for the link, Blayne.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great information. I hope we can keep the US education system based on education, rather than faith.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've considered the ID movement collapsed after they had three strikes against them.
1. The Dover ruling concluded that the 'wedge' strategy documentation proved that the movement was a geurilla marketing of religion in schools. In a court of law.
2. Even school boards in heavily conservative Kansas found themselves voted out on a rail on account of their support of ID, meaning that ID had few sympathetic demographics the states over.
3. Bush came out in support of it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if Bush were told the idea that the theocratic Islamic world has stagnated in science, and that we could sink to their level, it might convince him. If we don't teach evolution, the Terrorists Win.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
What exactly makes one a believer in Intelligent Design?
I believe that God, an individualistic, sapient, active being, formed reality. Is that all that's necessary to be labeled a believer in ID?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that the ID movement had a mission statement, that is, I'm not sure even the inventors of the term "Intelligent Design" laid out exactly what that meant. You would be a believer in an intelligent design, Scott, just probably not the one that's been so prominent in the news lately.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope we can keep the US education system based on education, rather than faith.
Education entails faith, at least as it is done in schools today. It is just a question of what students are expected to have faith in. Most things I learned in school, including most things I learned in science class, I was asked to take on faith after reading it in a textbook or hearing about it from a teacher.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that "faith" in this context doesn't mean "believing something that's reported to be backed up by facts," but rather "religion," Xap.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope we can keep the US education system based on education, rather than faith.
Education entails faith, at least as it is done in schools today. It is just a question of what students are expected to have faith in. Most things I learned in school, including most things I learned in science class, I was asked to take on faith after reading it in a textbook or hearing about it from a teacher.
As Scott notes, this is not the same thing as religious faith.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: what you describe can also be the beliefs of someone who is religious, but thinks the evidence is that evolution is the mechanism in question.
Vocal ID proponents, the ones lobbying school boards and such, are arguing that it is possible to scientifically prove a super powerful external force (that is not being labeled God, of course not) was and is controlling changes in genetics on the planet earth. That is what is meant by Intelligent Design, and it is a much stronger statement than the belief that God created things.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that "faith" in this context doesn't mean "believing something that's reported to be backed up by facts," but rather "religion," Xap.
You are right. But it is still worth noting that religion is "something that's reported to be backed up by facts" just as the other things we typically learn in school are.
Thus to contrast education and religion as if one is the opposite of the other is inaccurate. Religious education is an important part of education as a whole. In the U.S., of course, the Constitution requires it to occur outside of public schools to avoid the government endorsing a certain religion - but that doesn't make it any less an important part of the broader education system as a whole.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, that's not strictly true. The most vocal ID proponents are saying that hyper-complexity of phenotypes (usually meaning structures) is evidence that an Intelligent Designer must have been at work. They don't necessarily say that the changes were wrought at the genetic level (although that is the obvious conclusion to be drawn). They do say, however, that gradualism and descent from intermediate forms could not possibly account for the complexity of the end products they observe.
For example -- if every step in evolution MUST be viable (and really, even beneficial), then how do you get to something so incredibly complex as the Krebs Cycle or eyeballs?
Sadly for ID, every time they come up with a supposedly telling counter example, some grad student looking for a thesis topic goes off and does the necessary studies to show just exactly how the intermediate forms worked just fine and could have easily led to the final product we observe in modern critters.
Also, ID is nothing new -- Darwin addressed it and gave cogent reasons for its failure back when he first published Origin of Species. It was a failed theory then, and 150+/- years haven't improved it any.
Posts: 61 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: [QUOTE]Religious education is an important part of education as a whole. In the U.S., of course, the Constitution requires it to occur outside of public schools to avoid the government endorsing a certain religion - but that doesn't make it any less an important part of the broader education system as a whole.
Now, when you say "religious education", do you mean being taught a religion that you intend to follow, or being taught "about" a religion?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I think you're trying to balance on two points of discussion that are wider than your legs can spread.
In the context of this thread, we're not talking about education outside of publicly funded schools. We're not discussing socialization/acculturation. If you want to discuss religion as part of those things, that's fine-- thread drift is a wonderful thing-- but remember that the context so far has been geared towards discussing the public school system.
*****
quote:Vocal ID proponents, the ones lobbying school boards and such, are arguing that it is possible to scientifically prove a super powerful external force (that is not being labeled God, of course not) was and is controlling changes in genetics on the planet earth. That is what is meant by Intelligent Design, and it is a much stronger statement than the belief that God created things.
:nods:
I think, because of recent discussions here and other places, it's important to note that there are lots of believers who do not sign on with the BIG ID push because their agenda strikes us as dishonest at worst, and mistaken at best. Thus, my post.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, when you say "religious education", do you mean being taught a religion that you intend to follow, or being taught "about" a religion?
I mean when kids go to church school and are taught things like "God exists" and "Praying is good", etc. Or, conversly, when parents teach their kids "God doesn't exist". Or when a child is taught whatever religious beliefs he or she will come to believe, and is told those beliefs are based on fact. Whether theist, atheist, or something else, children have questions of a religious nature about the world and need answers.
I think that is an important element of a child's education - but clearly an element that legally must be done outside public schools, whether in families, in churches, or in private schools.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in ID. But I don't think it is science, and I don't think it should be taught in schools as such. I believe in it's starting point, but as an "education movement" I strongly disagree with it, and really dislike the tactics it's proponents used to get it included in schools.
Science tells us what the rules of our physical universe are, but doesn't tell us why, or how they came about.
IMO(one I know KoM doesn't agree with), science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you want to discuss religion as part of those things, that's fine-- thread drift is a wonderful thing-- but remember that the context so far has been geared towards discussing the public school system.
I was just responding specifically to MightyCow's contrasting of "education, rather than faith". They aren't opposites. Plus, talking about broader issues of religion in education is much more interesting than talking about ID, in my opinion. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People whose belief is that God created everything, and that evolution is so far the best explanation found for the modern organismal subset of that creation, are more typically described as theistic evolutionists or similar, a term older than Intelligent Design, and more accurate.
ID is a belief about science and about a large part of mainstream science being wrong. Theistic evolution is a belief about reality that is willing to accept mainstream science, but feels the story science tells is incomplete, not wrong (which is unsurprising, as science is incomplete by construction; there are certain sorts of questions outside its domain).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: People whose belief is that God created everything, and that evolution is so far the best explanation found for the modern organismal subset of that creation, are more typically described as theistic evolutionists or similar, a term older than Intelligent Design, and more accurate.
ID is a belief about science and about a large part of mainstream science being wrong. Theistic evolution is a belief about reality that is willing to accept mainstream science, but feels the story science tells is incomplete, not wrong (which is unsurprising, as science is incomplete by construction; there are certain sorts of questions outside its domain).
Yeah, that explains my feelings pretty much...although I wouldn't say I was only willing to accept science. I am impressed by it on a daily basis.
I think our realization of the nature of God is at least as incomplete as our knowledge of science, BTW. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: People whose belief is that God created everything, and that evolution is so far the best explanation found for the modern organismal subset of that creation, are more typically described as theistic evolutionists or similar, a term older than Intelligent Design, and more accurate.
ID is a belief about science and about a large part of mainstream science being wrong. Theistic evolution is a belief about reality that is willing to accept mainstream science, but feels the story science tells is incomplete, not wrong (which is unsurprising, as science is incomplete by construction; there are certain sorts of questions outside its domain).
Right. It's important to note that "Intelligent Design" is a buzzword chosen by activists like the folks at the Discovery Institute to represent their particular set of beliefs- specifically, that life's "irreducible complexity" must be the product of an active Creator. That the term itself is vague enough that a layman might think, "huh, I believe that an intelligent God created life, therefore I support intelligent design," is a political bonus for them.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I was just responding specifically to MightyCow's contrasting of "education, rather than faith". They aren't opposites. Plus, talking about broader issues of religion in education is much more interesting than talking about ID, in my opinion.
Perhaps I would have been more specific to say that religious teachings should be kept out of public school. Even if those religious teachings are described by their supporters as scientific fact.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I meant 'accept' as a minimal state. Many people consider the things science discovers further supportive of their faith, evidence of the glory of creation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God is an excellent read. He's better on the biology than the theology, but still, he's got a great handle on both the religion and the science as they relate to life on Earth.
Posts: 61 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean when kids go to church school and are taught things like "God exists" and "Praying is good", etc. Or, conversly, when parents teach their kids "God doesn't exist". Or when a child is taught whatever religious beliefs he or she will come to believe, and is told those beliefs are based on fact.
Interesting. I never received any such education from my parents. I still don't know if my mom believes in God, though my dad told me a few years ago that he doesn't.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: People whose belief is that God created everything, and that evolution is so far the best explanation found for the modern organismal subset of that creation, are more typically described as theistic evolutionists or similar, a term older than Intelligent Design, and more accurate.
ID is a belief about science and about a large part of mainstream science being wrong. Theistic evolution is a belief about reality that is willing to accept mainstream science, but feels the story science tells is incomplete, not wrong (which is unsurprising, as science is incomplete by construction; there are certain sorts of questions outside its domain).
Very well put.
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: It's important to note that "Intelligent Design" is a buzzword chosen by activists like the folks at the Discovery Institute to represent their particular set of beliefs- specifically, that life's "irreducible complexity" must be the product of an active Creator. That the term itself is vague enough that a layman might think, "huh, I believe that an intelligent God created life, therefore I support intelligent design," is a political bonus for them.
Just wait. As Miller pointed out (near the end of the two hours, during the Q&A), the up-and-coming replacement for ID is "critical thinking" -- and who could be against that? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
What exactly makes one a believer in Intelligent Design?
From what I've seen, the answer varies widely. However, it seems the troublesome ID supporters aren't so much supporting any theory or belief system, so much as they are opposing the theory of evolution (and, by extension, the entire scientific method). At the core of things, the problematic ones are fighting against a scientific theory from a religious stance. That betrays a complete failure to understand what science is, but unfortunately, those people have been able to corrupt science curriculums with non-science.
There are other critics of evolution who do not fit the above description. They are, for the most part, not a big problem, and are far more worth listening to. It is too bad that their voices are drowned out by the people who equate the construction of a logical counter-argument with admitting defeat.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that God, an individualistic, sapient, active being, formed reality. Is that all that's necessary to be labeled a believer in ID?
Nossir. That's just theological creation.
To be a believer in ID, you have to believe a number of supposedly scientific proofs that state that it is testably impossible for macroevolution to have created diverse speciation and increasing biological complexity as a natural or otherwise unguided process. Ergo, they had to have been guided by an intelligent process. Ergo, designer. "Ergo, God" is tactically left out though heavily implied.
Emphasis on testably. ID claims that it is scientific and empirical, not a matter of faith.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Just wait. As Miller pointed out (near the end of the two hours, during the Q&A), the up-and-coming replacement for ID is "critical thinking" -- and who could be against that?
Yeah... the other new one is "teach the controversy." Never mind that the "controversy" exists only in the minds of the IDers. You might as well "teach the controversy" about Intelligent Falling.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
the biggest problem is see is the utter impatience of IDers to get straight to the class room with their "alternative". If they can do proper research, submit it for peer review, and reach/establish a scientific consensus then they'll automatically be taught no matter how silly it sounds. As it stands now they're cheating in the grand game of mini putt.
IP: Logged |
posted
I watched the video and thought it was great. Thanks for posting it! I'm so glad that ignorance isn't winning at the moment. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
SUPER (Simplified Universal Player Encoder & Renderer). You can convert almost anything to almost anything else with this thing. It's a godsend. I usually use it to convert flv files from YouTube into VCD compliant MPEGs, but you can convert it to MP3 just as easily.
This is a mirror download link, in case you can't find the cleverly hidden (maddening, really) download link on the main site.
posted
Okay, I have a question about this. Given the thing about 24 chromosome pairs merging into 23... what are the odds of that happening? And if it happened, as the evidence seems to show, how would the 23 chromosome pair critter reproduce? Wouldn't there have had to have been a whole bunch of 23 chromosome mutants all at once in a single generation?
I'm asking hoping for an answer, and not for a fight.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Actually in the case of merged chromosonal oddities -- or nearly every event that triggers a rare speciation, of sorts -- the 'deviant' model can still interbreed with the 'standard' model, creating a significant continued genetic change in later generations.
In instances of observed (or lab created) speciation, tinkering with a single mutated plant or animal can create new dominant varieties that can interbreed with themselves, but not with the original variety. I imagine the case is the same for merged chromosonal pairs.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
