Support NeoGAF

[Triumph]

Great article on the Guardian UK's website(no American publication is willing to go this route with the issue, sadly).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

I DUNNO LET'S ASK MEL GIBSON!

 

[enjoy bell woods]

The Institute of Historical Review, Ernst Zundel, and Mark Weber would.

 

[Triumph]

The Institute of Historical Review, Ernst Zundel, and Mark Weber would.

Well, they'd be about as right as the idiots that want to teach ID as science.

 

[WedgeX]

A possible relative of mine is cited in that article...weird.

The argument the ID advocates put, such as it is, is always of the same character. Never do they offer positive evidence in favour of intelligent design. All we ever get is a list of alleged deficiencies in evolution. We are told of "gaps" in the fossil record. Or organs are stated, by fiat and without supporting evidence, to be "irreducibly complex": too complex to have evolved by natural selection.

This is always what I hear from people.

And one cartoon (American, yay!) puts the argument perfectly.

 

[gblues]

Evolution is fine as a working theory of how organisms change over time. The problem is that evolution is being taught as the origin of life itself. The problem is that for the vast majority of people, the beginning of life was not a biological one but a metaphysical one. Intelligent Design would die if evolution was not being touted as "how we got here."

I don't see evolution and creation as exclusive. I personally see the former resulting from the latter.

Nathan

 

[xabre]

The problem is that evolution is being taught as the origin of life itself.

Wrong.

Abiogenesis describes the emergence of living organisms from non-living matter, evolution is merely the biological development of living organisms through a process of natural selection.

 

[Y2Kev]

Wrong.

Abiogenesis describes the emergence of living organisms from non-living matter, evolution is merely the biological development of living organisms through a process of natural selection.

That's how I was taught.

 

[CajoleJuice]

But most people don't know these things. Even if they were at some time taught, apparently, they forgot.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Wrong.

Abiogenesis describes the emergence of living organisms from non-living matter, evolution is merely the biological development of living organisms through a process of natural selection.

I suspect a part of the problem for certain religious people is that evolution doesn't *have* to claim to describe the origin of life or not. What most religious people with a beef, who I have heard, do is see even the insinuation that "man = monkey" and stop dead.

A big, big issue here, is quite simply the Specialness of Man. I've gotten into some deep conversations with the religious before. The sticking point it comes down to for many, is that Man has to be Special. Some religious persons can go that God (or Whoever) used evolution as a *tool* to design and develop animals - essentially Will Wright's Spore, Divine Collector's Edition. But for other religious folk, there *must* be a special division between Man and all other creatures in order to maintain the human connection with divinity. Thus they simply do not like the picture science paints, it's that simple. It's... distasteful.

Of course the ID folk basically fall into the trap of claiming a win by default. As long as they can disprove (so they think) other theories, it means "hey, if nothing else works, it must be God/The Designer, right? What else could it possibly be?!"

Which, really, sounds great to religious people who reason based largely on image and emotion rather than practicalities and logic. It's like a political pitch. It plays good in Jersey. It doesn't have to make a lot of sense. Or any sense.

 

[Raven.]

Wrong.

Abiogenesis describes the emergence of living organisms from non-living matter, evolution is merely the biological development of living organisms through a process of natural selection.

Indeed, and if you look deep down into that which is called life, you find only machinery, which makes one question why some'd find it magical or special. "Vitalism"(that which could justify it and it's beginning as 'magical' or 'special') is a fallacy, it's all governed by the same laws, that such laws would allow these things to develop is nothing necessitating deus ex machina explanations. Such are just denials of further developments of logical inquiry.

 

[tenchir]

Both theories are wrong!! I believed that we were created by flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Triumph]

Evolution is fine as a working theory of how organisms change over time. The problem is that evolution is being taught as the origin of life itself. The problem is that for the vast majority of people, the beginning of life was not a biological one but a metaphysical one. Intelligent Design would die if evolution was not being touted as "how we got here."

I don't see evolution and creation as exclusive. I personally see the former resulting from the latter.

Nathan

That's nice. Where is your scientific evidence supporting creation?

 

[Date of Lies]

religion is wrong, as usual

I don't know how anyone can argue with this. If there's a chance that we didn't come from evolution, we sure as hell weren't created by a greater being. I mean please wake up now, it's the 21st century.

 

[CajoleJuice]

That's nice. Where is your scientific evidence supporting creation?

I think he just doesn't like the idea that the universe was created out of nothing. I don't either, but of course, there's no evidence to support it, so I don't see the reason in teaching it in science classes.

 

[Hitokage]

Evolution is fine as a working theory of how organisms change over time. The problem is that evolution is being taught as the origin of life itself. The problem is that for the vast majority of people, the beginning of life was not a biological one but a metaphysical one. Intelligent Design would die if evolution was not being touted as "how we got here."

I don't see evolution and creation as exclusive. I personally see the former resulting from the latter.

Nathan

Intelligent Design as well as "Creation Science" were specifically invented to get around the establishment clause of the first amendment. Fundamentalists who had a hand in doing so don't even make any effort to deny it. It's nothing more than a thinly veiled politically correct book of Genesis... and nothing short of Man's direct descendency to dust via divine intervention will be satisfactory expect in the minds of bystanders like yourself. Of course, it's often said (correctly) that evolution is unconcerned with the actual origin of life and really couldn't care less, but I suppose there's no real reason to not talk about abiogenesis as well as long as we're all clear what we're talking about.

 

[Triumph]

Man, did we get rid of all the really ass crazy fundies? I was hoping for more entertainment. Where is Word of God?

 

[tenchir]

Slightly off-topic, but my sister's reading material for her 10th grade english class are like 80% religious(all dealing with Christianity) and 20% other(Romeo and Juliet). She has to read the Genesis and the Story of Job from the Bible(AFAIR, I can't remember what else she is suppose to read from the bible). She has to write a report on what she read. It has been 7 years since I was in high school, but I have never read any religious material in any of my english class. If the teacher assigned reading from other religion, then I wouldn't have mind, but I think this is just wrong. We lived in Los Angeles btw, should I do something about it? If I should, then how?

 

[drohne]

i object to the way this article thoughtlessly lumps the very real substance of phlogiston in with spurious beliefs like intelligent design and holocaust denial. i'm going to print it out and then burn it atop some phlogiston-rich coal. i think the resultant flame will be a satisfactory refutation!

 

[teh_pwn]

A big, big issue here, is quite simply the Specialness of Man. I've gotten into some deep conversations with the religious before. The sticking point it comes down to for many, is that Man has to be Special.

Those people are full of themselves. There's likely life on distant planets that are millions of years more advanced than us. You know low-level crap you see in a microscope? That's us compared to them. We're nothing special.

 

[MC Safety]

Those people are full of themselves. There's likely life on distant planets that are millions of years more advanced than us. You know low-level crap you see in a microscope? That's us compared to them. We're nothing special.

But we have Macintosh home computing units with which to defeat their space technology.

Also, I hope they collect us for their gladiator games and bet on the outcomes with Quatloos.

 

[Triumph]

But we have Macintosh home computing units with which to defeat their space technology.

Also, I hope they collect us for their gladiator games and bet on the outcomes with Quatloos.

I'm hoping to get put into a nature refuge where I can scratch myself for their amusement.

"Look at the human, using his hands! Quaint, isn't it?"

 

[Hitokage]

Slightly off-topic, but my sister's reading material for her 10th grade english class are like 80% religious(all dealing with Christianity) and 20% other(Romeo and Juliet). She has to read the Genesis and the Story of Job from the Bible(AFAIR, I can't remember what else she is suppose to read from the bible). She has to write a report on what she read. It has been 7 years since I was in high school, but I have never read any religious material in any of my english class. If the teacher assigned reading from other religion, then I wouldn't have mind, but I think this is just wrong. We lived in Los Angeles btw, should I do something about it? If I should, then how?

Public or private.

 

[demon]

Slightly off-topic, but my sister's reading material for her 10th grade english class are like 80% religious(all dealing with Christianity) and 20% other(Romeo and Juliet). She has to read the Genesis and the Story of Job from the Bible(AFAIR, I can't remember what else she is suppose to read from the bible). She has to write a report on what she read. It has been 7 years since I was in high school, but I have never read any religious material in any of my english class. If the teacher assigned reading from other religion, then I wouldn't have mind, but I think this is just wrong. We lived in Los Angeles btw, should I do something about it? If I should, then how?

I'll bet my car it's a private religious school, no? That's entirely different.

 

[tenchir]

Public or private.

I'll bet my car it's a private religious school, no? That's entirely different.

It's public....

That's total bullshit. Someone needs to report it.

My sister told me that someone already did report him last year, she didn't know what happened afterward though.

 

[teh_pwn]

That's total bullshit. Someone needs to report it.

 

[alex chilton]

I'm hoping to get put into a nature refuge where I can scratch myself for their amusement.

"Look at the human, using his hands! Quaint, isn't it?"

Hmmm, for some reason this reminds me of Demolition Man. How do you use those seashells to wipe your ass?!?!

 

[tenchir]

Hmmm, for some reason this reminds me of Demolition Man. How do you use those seashells to wipe your ass?!?!

http://www.stupidquestionsanswered.com/answered/shells.htm

When I first saw the movie, I didn't know how do you used them.... at least until I saw those high-tech japanese toilets.

 

[tedhbrown]

Slightly off-topic, but my sister's reading material for her 10th grade english class are like 80% religious(all dealing with Christianity) and 20% other(Romeo and Juliet). She has to read the Genesis and the Story of Job from the Bible(AFAIR, I can't remember what else she is suppose to read from the bible). She has to write a report on what she read. It has been 7 years since I was in high school, but I have never read any religious material in any of my english class. If the teacher assigned reading from other religion, then I wouldn't have mind, but I think this is just wrong. We lived in Los Angeles btw, should I do something about it? If I should, then how?

Not that I disagree with you in that we shouldn't be reading religious material in public school, but as I recall from my high school education, we learned about every religion EXCEPT christianity. Shoud I report my old high school, because they were making us read excerpts from the Quran?

 

[Carton]

Using the short comings of current scientific knowledge as the basis for religious faith is setting yourself up for a pretty big owning.

 

[tenchir]

Not that I disagree with you in that we shouldn't be reading religious material in public school, but as I recall from my high school education, we learned about every religion EXCEPT christianity. Shoud I report my old high school, because they were making us read excerpts from the Quran?

I am not saying we shouldn't be reading religious material in school. I said I wouldn't mind if he had also gave reading materials for other religions. The religious material that was assigned was only Christianity, that's what I have problem with. I don't really care if you miss out on other religions because you can't cover them all, but at least give some variety like Greek religion(Greek mythology), Asian religion(Bhuddism), European(Nordic mythology), etc..... At least your high school gave you variety.

 

[tedhbrown]

I am not saying we shouldn't be reading religious material in school. I said I wouldn't mind if he had also gave reading materials for other religions. The religious material that was assigned was only Christianity, that's what I have problem with. I don't really care if you miss out on other religions because you can't cover them all, but at least give some variety like Greek religion(Greek mythology), Asian religion(Bhuddism), European(Nordic mythology), etc..... At least your high school gave you variety.

Yeah, they gave us variety except for christianity. I know why they did it, because they would get complaints from parents if they started assigning reading material from the bible. However, the Quran is perfectly acceptable and is completly different. I say all or nothing. Teach us about ALL the religions, or just keep it out.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The only ideology that supports both sides is Deism.

Spoiler

Believe

Seriously, why couldn't a "god" design this universe and let it run its course? Why can't we just be some big simulation of someones design?

 

[Triumph]

The only ideology that supports both sides is Deism.

Spoiler

Believe

Seriously, why couldn't a "god" design this universe and let it run its course? Why can't we just be some big simulation of someones design?

I'm not even contending that isn't a possibility. Just that it has no place in science.

 

[Trident]

The only ideology that supports both sides is Deism.

Spoiler

Believe

Seriously, why couldn't a "god" design this universe and let it run its course? Why can't we just be some big simulation of someones design?

Lots of things could be. So?

 

[Hitokage]

Yeah, they gave us variety except for christianity. I know why they did it, because they would get complaints from parents if they started assigning reading material from the bible. However, the Quran is perfectly acceptable and is completly different. I say all or nothing. Teach us about ALL the religions, or just keep it out.

You're missing the point somewhat. He's talking about English class, and by extension Literature... which at times is inherently religious and at times not, but mostly something inbetween. Anyway, from a perspective of literature, it's distressing that the teacher continues to use only one work when the class should be covering at least multiple periods and styles even if you restrict yourself to the hebrew culture(unless it's ancient hebrew.. then whatever). I'm guessing there isn't any sort of standardized test for that class or a head would be on a pole.

 

[Lardbutt]

I don't see what's so bad to at least introduce the idea that life was created by intelligent design.

Part of science is being open to different theories. As far as I know the mystery of how life is created is still unsolved. I haven't yet heard of scientists who have "created" life from vats of chemicals in laboratories. There are theories being thrown around, but none of them have been absolutely conclusive. So why can't intelligent design be one of the theories?

 

[Hitokage]

I don't see what's so bad to at least introduce the idea that life was created by intelligent design.

Part of science is the proposing different theories and try to prove them. As far as I know there is the mystery of how life is created is still unsolved. I don't think that any scientists have yet "created" life from vats of chemicals in laboratories. There are theories being thrown around, but none of them have been proven. So why can't intelligent design be one of the theories?

Because it's not a scientific theory. It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't predict anything, and neither does it forbid anything.

...and thanks for reading the thread.

 

[Piecake]

I don't see what's so bad to at least introduce the idea that life was created by intelligent design.

Part of science is being open to different theories. As far as I know the mystery of how life is created is still unsolved. I haven't yet heard of scientists who have "created" life from vats of chemicals in laboratories. There are theories being thrown around, but none of them have been absolutely conclusive. So why can't intelligent design be one of the theories?

Why would a science class teach a theory that has no evidence to back it up?

 

[LegendofJoe]

That's nice. Where is your scientific evidence supporting creation?

Where is the scientific evidence explaining why the material that set off the big bang was there in the first place, or why the universe is rapidly expanding outward which will eventually cause everything to die out? Life's purpose is to self perpetuate, so why does the universe contradict this basic truth?

When you get down to the core of the beginning of all things you always get to a point where the only explanation you can come up with is "it just is." That is exactly why many, myself included, will always believe that there is more to life than just scientific logic and theories.

 

[Lardbutt]

I guess I can agree with that. It can't be considered a real "theory" since there's no way to actually "prove" it. So it probably belongs more in Philosophy class than in a science class.

 

[Trident]

Life was made to self perpetuate, so why does the universe contradict this basic truth?

You're looking at it the wrong way. The claim isn't that life was made to self perpetuate, but that some organisms happened to gain mechanisms that allowed them to perpetuate. Obviously those are the ones that managed to continue their species. But that doesn't imply that life has a PURPOSE of perpetuation.

 

[LegendofJoe]

But that doesn't imply that life has a PURPOSE of perpetuation.

Then why does life exist at all? Why isn't everything still inorganic? In order to evolve an organism must be able to self perpetuate, life's purpose is to perpetuate.

 

[Trident]

Then why does life exist at all? Why isn't everything still inorganic? In order to evolve an organism must be able to self perpetuate, life's purpose is to perpetuate.

What is your claim?

A. In order to evolve, an organism must be able to self perpetuate.
B. ??
Therefore
C. Life's purpose is to perpetuate.

I suppose you could make B. Life's purpose is to make evolution possible, but I don't know why you would.

Attributing purpose to nature is a tricky bit. It's not clear that anything was made with a purpose. Rather that it was made, and then happened to serve a function. One could say that at that point, it has that purpose, but that doesn't mean the rest of the universe has to comply to it.

You claimed that there's a contradiction between an expanding universe and life that attempts to perpetuate, but you haven't shown it at all.

 

[Triumph]

Where is the scientific evidence explaining why the material that set off the big bang was there in the first place, or why the universe is rapidly expanding outward which will eventually cause everything to die out? Life's purpose is to self perpetuate, so why does the universe contradict this basic truth?

When you get down to the core of the beginning of all things you always get to a point where the only explanation you can come up with is "it just is." That is exactly why many, myself included, will always believe that there is more to life than just scientific logic and theories.

That's great. You're entitled to that opinion. It still doesn't belong in a science class.

 

[demon]

Then why does life exist at all? Why isn't everything still inorganic? In order to evolve an organism must be able to self perpetuate, life's purpose is to perpetuate.

"How does life exist" is a better question than "why". To say "why does life exist?" is asking for an explanation for something that is not necessarily true in the first place. You're just making the assumption that life was made for a purpose..... why? Can you prove that?

 

[LegendofJoe]

That's great. You're entitled to that opinion. It still doesn't belong in a science class.

Never said it did.

 

[Triumph]

Never said it did.

Awesome! I promise not to teach the Laws of Thermodynamics to my Buddhist Meditation gathering in return.

 

[LegendofJoe]

"How does life exist" is a better question than "why". To say "why does life exist?" is asking for an explanation for something that is not necessarily true in the first place. You're just making the assumption that life was made for a purpose..... why? Can you prove that?

Last post before I hit the sack. That was a poor choice of words on my part, it wasn't my intention to say that life was made for a purpose. What I meant to imply was that it is my belief that life came about because it had the ability to self perpetuate.

 

[Hitokage]

As important as purpose and meaning are to us humans, Science doesn't provide any and neither does it claim to. You have to find those elsewhere, be it philosophy, religion, or whatever.

 

[milanbaros]

I hate the arguement that the organisms today are far too complex and that the odds of abiogenesis occuring are so slim to be called impossible by backers of ID.

Why do people have trouble grasping that small chance doesn't mean impossible? I don't think any people arguing for evolution have any trouble saying that what has happened here on Earth is truely special and magnificent. If the oddsof it occuring were 1/1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, I think the universe is big enough to accomodate such 'impossible oddds' with ease.