http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9008040/
"Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.
"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith," Frist said."
Hmmm....range of fact....including faith....
Now Bill Frist is on the teach ID bandwagon
-
GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
It has nothing to do with providing evidence for ID. It has everything to do with religious fanatics that are "fighting back" because they're under the assumption (meaning conclusion) that they are being oppressed in some way. They call it the "War On Religion". I guess it really went over the boiling point when televangelists weren't as prevailant anymore and prayer was removed from public classrooms.
It's fucking retarded but rational, objective thought has never been at the forefront of a religious fanatic's daily life. FFS....Pat Robertson has been PRAYING TO GOD for an opening on the Supreme Court so rightwing nutsacksuckers can get another one of their good ol' boys in control.
It doesn't even have to do with right/wrong anymore.
It's fucking retarded but rational, objective thought has never been at the forefront of a religious fanatic's daily life. FFS....Pat Robertson has been PRAYING TO GOD for an opening on the Supreme Court so rightwing nutsacksuckers can get another one of their good ol' boys in control.
It doesn't even have to do with right/wrong anymore.
Last edited by GONNAFISTYA on Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is no science. There is nothing but saying "Component X appears to be irreducibly complex, thus it must have been designed."
The notion of irreducible complexity is shaky enough on its own. Trying to back it up scientifically is just ridiculous. Intellectual surrender.
Creationism in a cheap suit.
And good old Steve Meyer, Mr. "The Archangels brought disorder down upon the creation", is to blame for so much of it.
The notion of irreducible complexity is shaky enough on its own. Trying to back it up scientifically is just ridiculous. Intellectual surrender.
Creationism in a cheap suit.
And good old Steve Meyer, Mr. "The Archangels brought disorder down upon the creation", is to blame for so much of it.
-
Freakaloin
- Posts: 10620
- Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 7:00 am
-
Kills On Site
- Posts: 1741
- Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 7:00 am
Re: Now Bill Frist is on the teach ID bandwagon
it's interesting that frist resorts to secular jargon like "pluralistic society" to get across his point. it's like he knows people will reject what he's saying if he uses evangelistic language. speaks volumes, reallytnf wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9008040/
"Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.
"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith," Frist said."
Hmmm....range of fact....including faith....
-
Massive Quasars
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
There are a few seemingly honest ID advocates out there, utterly misguided but honest. They claim that ID isn't ready for the classroom, it has to demonstrate itself as a well supported theory in scientific circles first. Granted I don't consider ID scientific, but they (erroneously) do, and operating on that assumption they're justifiably relunctant to send this unsupported supposed hypothesis to the classroom.
A great take on ID that might throw a few wrenches into the theory, as well as expose the Christian roots behind it - This is taken from the current edition of "Skeptic" pg. 29, by G. Miller. and yes, it is a bit long...)
"...I applaud those that hold ID and statistical approaches to theology up to scientific standards and campaign to keep them out of science classrooms. However, I suggest a parallel strategy of co-option. These are relatively undeveloped acadmeic disciplines that invite contributions from the scientific community. Why give the ilkes of William Dembski carte blanche to define ID? Why not take his pioneering work and expand and redefine it? For example, Dembski apparetnly posits that Intelligent Design must be at the root fo Complex Specified Information (CSI). I suggest the following corollaries:
The more complex the structure, the more likely that the intelligence beyhind it derives from more than one source.
the more complex the structure, the more iterations or prototypes predate the structure.
If you are walking on the beach and see a primitive sand castle, you can reasonably concluse that it was the work of one child. If you see a gold pocket watch, you would reasonably conclude that it is the product of collective intelligence - mechanical, metallurgical, and artistic intelligence would all have contributed. Further, it is unreasonable to conclude that such a sophisticated mechanism came to be without some prior, simpler, predecessor watches.
The theological implications of these corollaries is that the complexity of the worl suggest that polytheism is a more likely explanation of the intelligence behind ID than monotheism and that the Earth and humans are more likely discarded prototypes than completed works. If ideas like these become part of the suggested ID curriculum, then I suspect the proponents of ID will quickly abandon it.
The book, Probability of God, also provides a springboard for education. I suggest a basic exercise using the simple 50/50 proposition whereby one phrases yes/no questions and assigns a 50% probability to each answer. Was there at least one god? If yes, is that god still functioning? If yes, is there at least one more god? And so on. What one quickly finds is that the more specific one is in defining god, the lower probability of being right in describing that god. It takes a lenghty set of yes/no questions to get to the proposition that there is but one god that is all knowing, all powerful, created earth, had a son, etc., and the probability that this concept of god is correct becomes infinitesimally small. Statistics can help us understand that as soon as anyone starts ascribing specific attributes and actions to god, the probability that they are right gets small quickly."
***********
"...I applaud those that hold ID and statistical approaches to theology up to scientific standards and campaign to keep them out of science classrooms. However, I suggest a parallel strategy of co-option. These are relatively undeveloped acadmeic disciplines that invite contributions from the scientific community. Why give the ilkes of William Dembski carte blanche to define ID? Why not take his pioneering work and expand and redefine it? For example, Dembski apparetnly posits that Intelligent Design must be at the root fo Complex Specified Information (CSI). I suggest the following corollaries:
The more complex the structure, the more likely that the intelligence beyhind it derives from more than one source.
the more complex the structure, the more iterations or prototypes predate the structure.
If you are walking on the beach and see a primitive sand castle, you can reasonably concluse that it was the work of one child. If you see a gold pocket watch, you would reasonably conclude that it is the product of collective intelligence - mechanical, metallurgical, and artistic intelligence would all have contributed. Further, it is unreasonable to conclude that such a sophisticated mechanism came to be without some prior, simpler, predecessor watches.
The theological implications of these corollaries is that the complexity of the worl suggest that polytheism is a more likely explanation of the intelligence behind ID than monotheism and that the Earth and humans are more likely discarded prototypes than completed works. If ideas like these become part of the suggested ID curriculum, then I suspect the proponents of ID will quickly abandon it.
The book, Probability of God, also provides a springboard for education. I suggest a basic exercise using the simple 50/50 proposition whereby one phrases yes/no questions and assigns a 50% probability to each answer. Was there at least one god? If yes, is that god still functioning? If yes, is there at least one more god? And so on. What one quickly finds is that the more specific one is in defining god, the lower probability of being right in describing that god. It takes a lenghty set of yes/no questions to get to the proposition that there is but one god that is all knowing, all powerful, created earth, had a son, etc., and the probability that this concept of god is correct becomes infinitesimally small. Statistics can help us understand that as soon as anyone starts ascribing specific attributes and actions to god, the probability that they are right gets small quickly."
***********
nice argument :icon14:tnf wrote: The more complex the structure, the more likely that the intelligence beyhind it derives from more than one source.
the more complex the structure, the more iterations or prototypes predate the structure.
If you are walking on the beach and see a primitive sand castle, you can reasonably concluse that it was the work of one child. If you see a gold pocket watch, you would reasonably conclude that it is the product of collective intelligence - mechanical, metallurgical, and artistic intelligence would all have contributed. Further, it is unreasonable to conclude that such a sophisticated mechanism came to be without some prior, simpler, predecessor watches.
The theological implications of these corollaries is that the complexity of the worl suggest that polytheism is a more likely explanation of the intelligence behind ID than monotheism and that the Earth and humans are more likely discarded prototypes than completed works. If ideas like these become part of the suggested ID curriculum, then I suspect the proponents of ID will quickly abandon it.
zeeko wrote:well if evolution is so true why doesn't everybody believe it
All of the scientific community supports the theory of evolution, in fact you have to be a quite a dumbass to dispute it. There is a overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution, it’s the finer details of evolution that scientists still don’t know about or don’t agree on.Intelligent Design or Creationism is not even a theory, there is no physical evidence to support it. It’s not scientific to say, “Gee..the world looks very complex there is no way this could of just happened, must have been god.”
Science is not bible studies, if you are going to let schools teach ID in science class you might as well bring in reincarnation & karma.
-
Zerofactor
- Posts: 890
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2001 7:00 am
On one side , if there is a god, the idea of one thing creating all is mindblowing and humbling to us.
Yet the idea that everything came by through billions of years of trial and error is no less mindblowing. How did these steps come about, what line of events allowed a big ball of energy to transform into this endlesly complex universe we have yet to fully understand.
If you ask me the later sounds more ludicrous than the earlier at first glance.
Unfortunately one side applies scientific knowledge to explain it's standpoint where the other simply feeds on people's lack of knowledge.
I think gonnafistya got it right in saying it's just bitterness that even allowes this shit to enter our educational system.
Yet the idea that everything came by through billions of years of trial and error is no less mindblowing. How did these steps come about, what line of events allowed a big ball of energy to transform into this endlesly complex universe we have yet to fully understand.
If you ask me the later sounds more ludicrous than the earlier at first glance.
Unfortunately one side applies scientific knowledge to explain it's standpoint where the other simply feeds on people's lack of knowledge.
I think gonnafistya got it right in saying it's just bitterness that even allowes this shit to enter our educational system.
Look, the only reason there's a push for ID theory "AS A POSSIBILITY" in the schools is to get God back in the public school system. That's it. The End. Which is why the fuck I am beyond cranky about all this.
It has nothing to do with explanatory power, or troublesome nettles about this or that scientific theory..or anything else.
It has nothing to do with explanatory power, or troublesome nettles about this or that scientific theory..or anything else.
It's not just about getting God into the classroom, it's about getting a version of Christianity into the classroom that makes assumptions about the nature of the world that can never be verified. It would actually be a wonderful thing if a course on the history of God could be a requirement in public school; one that follows an unbiased history of monotheistic religion in the mideast, the radical differentiating of the idea of God in Indo-China from the West, the devestating effects of unwavering fanaticism and faith in the Middle Ages, etc.Hannibal wrote:Look, the only reason there's a push for ID theory "AS A POSSIBILITY" in the schools is to get God back in the public school system. That's it. The End. Which is why the fuck I am beyond cranky about all this.
It has nothing to do with explanatory power, or troublesome nettles about this or that scientific theory..or anything else.
-
Massive Quasars
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
That which you consider knowledge must be proven with certainty, or without a doubt as you put it. If that is your standard for accepted knowledge, then all of science is rubbish to you.riddla wrote:neither evolution nor ID have a smoking gun, hence all the grubbing claiming precedence.
Until you can prove either without a doubt it doesnt matter what you teach kids because the simple fact remains that we dont really know either way. Doomer's idea is most prudent actually.
Like it or not, the fact that 'we dont know' is the only fact that cannot be refuted.
True but irrelevant. It is not the about 'competing theories' or the 'free exchange of ideas' or any other smoke-filled coffeehouse crap. It is a blatant political/cultural move to reshape public discourse re: a set of strategic (conservative) issues.riddla wrote:neither evolution nor ID have a smoking gun, hence all the grubbing claiming precedence.
Last edited by Hannibal on Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Exactly.Massive Quasars wrote:That which you consider knowledge must be proven with certainty, or without a doubt as you put it. If that is your standard for accepted knowledge, then all of science is rubbish to you.riddla wrote:neither evolution nor ID have a smoking gun, hence all the grubbing claiming precedence.
Until you can prove either without a doubt it doesnt matter what you teach kids because the simple fact remains that we dont really know either way. Doomer's idea is most prudent actually.
Like it or not, the fact that 'we dont know' is the only fact that cannot be refuted.
Well said.