American Way Of Birth, Costliest In The World...

[internationalguy]

There's nothing intelligent behind intelligent design. Its bullshit and isn't compatible with evolution at all.

Many scientists are Christian and believe that there is a "creator", but that that "creator" started everything by setting the laws of physics that have allowed evolution to occur. Intelligent design has nothing to do with science. It is a load of crap created to try and shoehorn the bible stories into schools.

But that is exactly my point. Maybe it's semantics, but when I say intelligent design I mean EXACTLY what you said. The CREATOR set everything in place, laws of physics, Evolution, big bang, that's exactly what I was trying to say. Funny how people ignore what you're really saying just because of one conflicting term coming in between argument and understanding. I agree entirely with what you said and I'm glad you cleared that up. At least to me that's actually what intelligent design is. As I said, having a fundamentalist saying that the world was ACTUALLY created in 6 days is just ridiculous. But so is the refusal atheists have to admit that it's unlikely that Big Bang and everything else happened randomly.

 

[robwerwe]

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4

 

[Jaredberryman]

"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I don't think you understand what the argument for intelligent design is. In reality, what has happened recently is that science and philosophy have become extremely intertwined. If in a science class you are going to delve into the origins of the universe, then you must teach students what options there are for the origins of the universe, and what different scientists and philosophers believe about these things. Among philosophers and scientists, you have atheists, deists, creational monotheists, and pantheists"[/background]

Classic Intelligent Design obfuscation. Let's simplify a few things here.

Science and philosophy have not become interwined, they have coexisted for thousands of years however there are important boundaries to both.

Science is evidence based and peer reviewed, the proposal of theory based on evidence. Intelligent design is a philosophical prediliction towards the need to find the hand of a creator, not based on evidence or peer review.

Among Scientists, you have scientists. You have people who examine theory based on evidence. There is no room for philosophical musing in biology class, only inspection of evidence. No need for obfuscation, misdirection or slight of hand.

Evolution is a theory, supported by evidence. That evidence is overwhelmingly accepted by the international scientific community. Intelligent Design is a religious philosophy. The Big Bang is currently one theory for the start of the Universe, in the realms of theoretical physics there are many. It is extremely important that we understand the Big Bang and Evolution are separate theories with different levels of acceptance and peer reviewed evidence which drives that acceptance in the scientific community

Tossing them in together is a cheap slight of hand trick, a transparent attempt to introduce doubt. "Well, if we aren't sure about the Big Bang them we aren´t sure about this Darwin chap...right,. right?"

Intelligent Design, keep it in philosophy and or religious studies classes. Please, don't insult my intelligence with "you must not understand it"..I do, and based on what I understand I confidently categorise ID as a religious philosophy. Until they submit themselves to the rigours of evidence based science and peer review that is clearly the correct categorisation.

I certainly don't mean to insult you, but you are behind the times if you think that Philosophy and science are at odds. Science is in fact intertwined with philosophy these days. How could they not be. You have philosophy of science, for example. Philosophers delve into science, and scientist vice versa. Most of the raging new atheist philosophers like Dawkins and other such figures are scientists.

You may be right that the idea of intelligent design in the text book is trying to smuggle in some Christian worldview. However, that does not mean that the academic idea (peer-reviewed, etc.) that a superior being formed the universe, and that science gives strong evidence for this, does not exist. For instance, the famous atheist philosopher, Anthony Flew, who recently died, gave up his atheism and became a deist (that's not Christian by the way) due to scientific arguments, the fine-tuning of the universe.

There are also different theories, which I'm not sure you would classify as intelligent design, that speak of the creation of the universe by God through the process of evolution and physical processes which God would have put into place, so some Christian philosophers and scientists alike also believe in this. In that case, there would be no problem or difficulty in reconciling those two views. Perhaps you mean theism and the idea of evolution are not compatible, or maybe you mean something else by intelligent design.

Notice I am not making an argument either way (don't think this site is the place for that), I am just pointing out that you are a little closed minded here. The fact that you believe that Science is just an observable birds eye view of data shows me this. Scientists pose hypotheses and then test whether they are true or not (and they use their intuition to propose these hypothesis). That does not make them empirical fact, but only shows that most of the time that information is true. Beyond that, science is basically useless about answering some of the more important questions of life. Also, science cannot measure metaphysics or have a conversation with anything non-physical that can be measured.

We cannot go back and test to see the beginning of the universe. We can look at data to help us reach conclusions, but if we are going to teach our children that the universe began because of random chance, then other academic peer reviewed ideas should be in the mix as well. It's unfair to only include one view just because it's the politically correct one.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

I don´t believe anything about Science, I understand what it is. Clearly I have not said science and philosophy are at odds. There are separate but complimentary disciplines. Please, no more obfuscation and misquoting.

I agree with you, there is no need for a further discussion here as if we cannot agree to establish that science is the emprical evaluation of theory based on evidence there is quite literallly no point.

My mind is completely open towards any empirical evidence in any field of research, want me to believe something is true, prove it? demonstrate it, explain it. When you start with "must be" and "should be" etc, my eyes glaze over. Numbers, data, statistics...you know, evidence.

Of course there is much we do not know and cannot explain. I however do not need the Discovery organisation to fill my head with evidence free fantasy to occupy that space. Nor do I need to subject myself to the semantic gymnastics of Intelligent Design.

I don't think you have referenced a single example of evidence for any of your claims. "How could they not be" does work with children, and there in lies the problem. Let's keep allusions and peer pressure out of science class. Let's not damage our children buy removing the process of empirical evaluation.

I don't know about you, but I don't want any of my family to believe anything because someone uses passive aggressive language to explain it to them. I´ll be glad that they understand thngs because they have examined the evidence and it has satisfied their curiousity.

I note you have failed to separate the Big Bang from evolution. Convenient.

 

[scotttswan]

But that is exactly my point. Maybe it's semantics, but when I say intelligent design I mean EXACTLY what you said. The CREATOR set everything in place, laws of physics, Evolution, big bang, that's exactly what I was trying to say. Funny how people ignore what you're really saying just because of one conflicting term coming in between argument and understanding. I agree entirely with what you said and I'm glad you cleared that up. At least to me that's actually what intelligent design is. As I said, having a fundamentalist saying that the world was ACTUALLY created in 6 days is just ridiculous. But so is the refusal atheists have to admit that it's unlikely that Big Bang and everything else happened randomly.

Then you should read up about what "intelligent design" is really about and not use it for this context as....

"The CREATOR set everything in place, laws of physics, Evolution, big bang, that's exactly what I was trying to say." is not what intelligent design is.

 

[Splitty]

Ejcot, Do you still have that wigged out 80's Mullet? Just wondering as i can't be bothered reading all this crap.

 

[Dublin2BuenosAires]

I dunno if he ever really played for Hearts (are they gone yet?) either...

 

[scotttswan]

I dunno if he ever really played for Hearts (are they gone yet?) either...

I'm not the former hearts player and now pro poker player Hans Eskilson and hearts are in administration but should be fine for next season. (albeit with a 15 point deduction)

 

[sleslie23]

I'm not the former hearts player and now pro poker player Hans Eskilson and hearts are in administration but should be fine for next season. (albeit with a 15 point deduction)

Ha ha, I thought that was Macgyver:

http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/macgyver/images/880400/title/macgyver-photo

 

[Jaredberryman]

I don´t believe anything about Science, I understand what it is. Clearly I have not said science and philosophy are at odds. There are separate but complimentary disciplines. Please, no more obfuscation and misquoting.

I agree with you, there is no need for a further discussion here as if we cannot agree to establish that science is the emprical evaluation of theory based on evidence there is quite literallly no point.

My mind is completely open towards any empirical evidence in any field of research, want me to believe something is true, prove it? demonstrate it, explain it. When you start with "must be" and "should be" etc, my eyes glaze over. Numbers, data, statistics...you know, evidence.

Of course there is much we do not know and cannot explain. I however do not need the Discovery organisation to fill my head with evidence free fantasy to occupy that space. Nor do I need to subject myself to the semantic gymnastics of Intelligent Design.

I don't think you have referenced a single example of evidence for any of your claims. "How could they not be" does work with children, and there in lies the problem. Let's keep allusions and peer pressure out of science class. Let's not damage our children buy removing the process of empirical evaluation.

I don't know about you, but I don't want any of my family to believe anything because someone uses passive aggressive language to explain it to them. I´ll be glad that they understand thngs because they have examined the evidence and it has satisfied their curiousity.

I note you have failed to separate the Big Bang from evolution. Convenient.

Did you not just read what I said? I clearly told you that science if a theory tested by data. I also just told you clearly that there Anthony Flew is a deist now because of the fine-tuning of the universe (look it up on Wikipedia if you like). That is called scientific evidence for a creator that set the big-bang into motion, whether or not you interpret that data as a theist would. The evidence was so impressive for a life-long ardent atheist, that he changed his mind. Another argument is called the cosmological argument. If all scientific evidence and data points to the fact that everything that exists has a cause, then where did the material of the big bang come from? How did material come into being form non-being? Those arguments are completely based of off scientific data, and are made by scientists and philosophers alike. Of course those are not the only arguments.

Actually, I realize now that you must be one of those people who think that the only thing we can really be sure of is based off of scientific data. This is called positivism. I call it like I see it.

But if you just look at that statement, anyone realizes it's absurd in and of itself. The statement the only thing we can know is fact and experiential data is in fact a form of epistemology itself. You are making a statement that is contradictory because we have no way of scientifically testing your statement. How can we know that is true? Positivism is contradictory. This is the typical mistake a lot scientists make along with thinking that philosophy appears nowhere in science and that they are always just looking at bare facts.

Furthermore, there is zero evidence that the material for the big bang (the dense material at the center of our universe at the time) popped into existence by itself from non-being. Also, there is zero evidence that it spontaneously exploded. Even if there were evidence for spontaneous explosion, you would still have to explain how it popped into existence from non-being, despite the fact that we know scientifically that does not happen. Yet for some reason, this is what many, but not all, scientists are assuming that these happened with no solid evidence to back up this claim.

Thus it is very true that there is a theory that the material popped into existence form non-being and self-exploded. With little to no evidence. There is also a theory that is called theism that has strong evidence in place. So if we teach in a text book that the universe happened randomly, then you must also teach in a text book that it wasn't random, and that these are two theories.

As far as evolution, which of course I believe is a separate issue from the big bang, there are a number of scientists who through data do not believe that it explains the origin of the homo sapiens species, and other species (although almost all scientists believe in evolution). Even national geographic recognizes this, though the broad consensus is that evolution does seem to be the most prominent theory for this happening. So if that is all we teach, then how can students logically look at the other side of the argument?

But I guess you just look at the hard data, right?