Quake3World

actually you're both fighting over the same point here. none of scientific knowledge is certain knowledge. scientific theories are either successful or unsuccessful, depending on their explanatory reach (or lack thereof) and the degree to which the evidence agrees with them. as a consequence there's never certainty.

however this isn't an opening for ID for one simple reason: the explanatory reach of natural selection far exceeds that of ID, which simply fills in its explanatory gaps with god and is really no more than a rehashed version of the paley's watch argument

ps. regards the paley's watch argument: it cuts both ways. i could just as well assume that the watch i found on the ground evolved into its complex state if i didn't know better. paley uses the fact that we already know the watch was designed and handmade as a kind of 'intuition pump'. i'm pretty sure dawkins ripped this argument to shreds in the selfish gene

DooMer wrote:Why dont they start a new class that goes over different religions and shut the fuck up about it?

I'll bet they'd hate that idea even more. More competition with jesus.

I don't know the details of the American Education system but here in England we've had that class for decades. It's called R.E (Religious Education) and it teaches the many different aspects of spirituality.

Tsakali wrote:On one side , if there is a god, the idea of one thing creating all is mindblowing and humbling to us.

Not really. Build a lego castle and put some ants in it. Is it a miracle? No.

riddla wrote:

Massive Quasars wrote:

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.

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.

thats bullshit and you know it. good job of leaping from 'we dont know where we came from' to 'all science is rubbish'

try again.

About as much bullshit as you still trying to stand by the "we don't know for sure, so both have equal merit" argument.

And evolution has a lot of smoking guns, being that we've observed much of what the theory predicts. Has been awhile since an intelligently designed organelle or protein just poofed into existence.

out of curiosity what is steven hawking view on this whole matter?

when explaining alternate theories about the universe he seems to drop the divine intervention in there sometimes.

though he seems to use "god" as a generic term not a specific religion. i think he believes in evolution, he just does'nt discount divine intervention as having a hand in the intitial startup of the universe.

i don't agree ID should be taught in school but maybe a small mention of some possible
higher power could be included in the way hawking does?

riddla wrote:

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.

thats bullshit and you know it. good job of leaping from 'we dont know where we came from' to 'all science is rubbish'

try again.

No. You said if we don't have smoking gun proof that evolution occurred, then it is on equal footing with ID.

So you're essentially saying that scientific theory is on an equal footing with random, faith-based explanations of natural phenomena.

There are tons and tons of scientific theories which are widely accepted, that we have no 'smoking gun' proof for. Does that mean that anyone who comes up with an alternative for any scientific theory should be given equal footing with world-renowned scientists and researchers?

We can't prove that the force of gravity is what we say it is -- we can only prove what happens when massive objects come near each other. Does that mean we should put a disclaimer in our textbooks saying "Take this theory with a grain of salt -- it is equally possible that an Intelligent Creator is exerting constant force on all the objects we have been observing in our universe?"

Pointing out unknowns in scientific theories is not proof of counter-theories.

We don't use scientific theories to be right or wrong. We accept them because they have been put under enormous scrutiny, and not only been widely accepted afterwards, but also reliable enough to help us predict the outcomes of other natural phenomena, and learn about the universe that surrounds us.

Putting intelligent design in textbooks is a way of teaching kids that "In science, you also have the option of using a divine superhuman being to explain any phenomena that you find hard to accept."


Allowing ID to be a scientific explanation for our existence is only a small step away from allowing faith-based explanations for the tides. After all, we can't prove it has anything to do with the moon -- we can only see repeatable, reproducible results that correspond with the theory.

I see astronomy as anethema to our religious teachings - therefore, I believe my son, and everyone else by default, should not have to be taught that celestial bodies have any impact on our environment -- because it could just as easily be the work of God.

You see where I am going?

riddla wrote: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.

What does this statement mean, if not equal footing?

I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth, that is exactly what it sounded like to me.

Saying "it doesn't matter what you teach kids," sounds exactly like they have equal footing in your mind to me. Explain what you meant by it (if not that), because I don't really see how it can have any other meaning.

I've only got the statements you post to go by, and if I'm misunderstanding you then it's not intentional.

edit: And you're doing a lot of assuming by thinking that my being unable to prove the theory of evolution somehow hurts my pride. That's right out of left-field.

riddla wrote:I challenge any of you to find where I said both were on equal footing.

Fucking A, this board is great for having words put into one's mouth.

Regardless though, prove either as fact. I know it just eats away at your pride to know you cant with either, but is that saying each has equal footing? Not by a mile. You fuckers assume way too much.

Again, try again.

The bottom line is this riddla - you betray your lack of understanding and knowledge regarding evolutionary theory frequently by making thinly veiled statements that try and put it on par with ID theory (...neither has a smoking gun...etc.). Evolutionary theory has a lot of 'smoking guns' - shit, we've seen it happen. And based on the preponderance of evidence, we can safely say that we KNOW ID has NEVER been observed.

You've consistently tried to turn this debate into something about what we really can and cannot know here, but that is not, and never has been, what this debate is about. It is about teaching science in a science classroom.

Perhaps we're only as skilled at putting words in your mouth as you are skilled at missing the issue here.

And, BTW -

You've become that which you've despised and obsessed about for so long.

And it rhymes with Krapus.

Hi. I'm just pretending Riddla has said nothing further on this topic.

riddla wrote:cop out.

Yea I know, I'm still waiting for you to enlighten me on the true meaning behind your statement that you called me out for making assumptions about.

riddla wrote:

tnf wrote:The bottom line is this riddla - you betray your lack of understanding and knowledge regarding evolutionary theory frequently by making thinly veiled statements that try and put it on par with ID theory (...neither has a smoking gun...etc.). Evolutionary theory has a lot of 'smoking guns' - shit, we've seen it happen. And based on the preponderance of evidence, we can safely say that we KNOW ID has NEVER been observed.

You've consistently tried to turn this debate into something about what we really can and cannot know here, but that is not, and never has been, what this debate is about. It is about teaching science in a science classroom.

Perhaps we're only as skilled at putting words in your mouth as you are skilled at missing the issue here.

I'm not missing any issue. You cant slam dunk prove evolution anymore than you can prove ID. By no means does that put either on equal footing. Evolution is leaps and bounds more valid than ID, but neither can be proven. Why is that so hard to grasp without going apeshit and making cheap assumptions about what I'm stating? Can you answer in such a way as to show you're not completely desperate to be right about something you cannot prove?

Oh, and we've seen evolution happen? Did they get a video?

You said earlier that "it doesnt matter what [theory] you teach kids." Yet you also admit that evolutionary theory is "leaps and bounds more valid than ID." How many leaps and bounds better does evolutionary theory have to be over ID before it "matters" that school children are taught it?

I'm fine with them teaching theories but ID is as much of a theory as the Bible.

riddla wrote:The crux of what I'm saying backs up what Doomer said. Teach them all theories and let them make up their own minds.

Teach them all theories in science? What are the guidelines for which theories get included?

Christ almighty. ID is not a scientific theory by any definition of science.

then we best not teach ID.

Jesus Riddla, are you schizophrenic or something? :icon27:

Umm.... nobody here has claimed to know that. The debate is about the merits of intelligent design as a science topic. Because it doesn't have any science in it.

You're the one being arrogant, and you're the one making assumptions and putting words into people's mouths. So apparently you're just projecting.

Hello topic, the topic here is about teaching ID in science classes. Perhaps you've missed that.

And are you saying that we can't KNOW that the genetic composition of a population can change over time due to selective pressures?

Because we can.

Can we know that it is gravity making an apple fall to the earth? Can we know that it is actually sliding down a warped area of the fabric of spacetime? It seems really silly that people are teaching that stuff as if it is even remotely valid.

Well said!

riddla wrote:hello, topic? Bill Frist and countless others seem to be claiming to know (as wrong as they may be). Its just silly to see people become so rabid as to know something they cannot prove, albeit evolution or ID.

Bill Frist hasn't claimed to know anything about it either.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

Do you really believe if the Christian right is able to have ID (or christianity) taught in schools, that they would be willing to concede other religions should be taught as well?

riddla wrote:
Regardless, if it weren't a fact that we cannot prove either evolution or ID conclusively, at least one side wouldn't have any reason to be in this debate and the world wouldn't be having this argument would we?

Yes, because conclusive evidence will ALWAYS make Christians abandon their religiously motivated beliefs.

all this talk of 'proving' a theory correct is wrong. it doesn't work like that.

someone proposes a theory to explain a given phenomenon (in this case, how life came to be in its present form). that theory is generally developed according to existing data, but to be successful (not proven, but successful), it must be tested.

if you have Theory A and Theory B (both theories about the same phenomenon) and you test them both, and Theory A fails its first test, then likelihood of Theory A being correct is zero. if Theory B passes its first test, its likelihood of being correct goes up a little, and keeps on going up, then its chance of being correct goes up a little (but never reaching 100% likelihood, i.e. certainty, i.e. it's been 'proven' like a mathematical theorem)

furthermore, any theory must be testable (or falsifiable as popper would put it) - that is, it must be at least possible for it to fail a test. ID is not really a theory in the true sense since it posits God as a major causal factor and hence cannot properly be tested (or potentially falsified). evolution on the other hand CAN be tested (and potentially falsified)

so it's nonsensical to talk of ID and evolution as two competing theories since only evolution is a theory, while ID is untestable supposition (unsurprisingly, since it has a religious origin)

I've always favored Terry Prachett's theory on creationism from his Discworld novels:

It was a tiny piece of matter, popping into existence.
It was a paperclip.

[...]

Many people think it should have been a hydrogen molecule, but this is against the observed facts. Everyone who has found a hitherto unknown egg-whisk jamming an innocent kitchen drawer knows that raw matter is continually flowing into the universe in fairly developed forms, popping into existence normally in ashtrays, vases and glove compartments. It chooses its shape to allay suspicion, and common manifestations are paperclips, the pins out of shirt packaging, the little keys for central heating radiators, marbles, bits of crayon, mysterious sections of herb-chopping devices and old Kate Bush albums. Why matter does this is unclear, but it is evident that matter has Plans.
It is also apparent that creators sometimes favour the Big Bang method of universe construction, and at other times use the more gentle methods of Continual Creation. This follows studies by cosmotherapists which have revealed that the violence of the Big Bang can give a universe serious psychological problems when it gets older.