The very fact that this is even a debate in our country right now really annoys the crap out of me. As I ask around about it, many people who I formerly assumed were educated and thoughtful about the subject have professed support for teaching intelligent design as science. The first thing I realize about these folks is that A) they don't seem to understand the definition of the word "science" and B) they don't care. I want people to care.
This is serious shit people.
13 comments:
I will say this, the term Intelligent Design sets my teeth on edge. It's Creation. The Earth and everything and everyone in it were created by God. Even allof the principles of science that you seem to love so dearly, were created and instituted by God. There is nothing unintelligent, uneducated, or even unscientific about believing in Creation.
"There is nothing unintelligent, uneducated, or even unscientific about believing in Creation."
I would agree with you on all but the last point. It is unscientific to believe anything for which no evidence exists, such as creation, thus the definition of science. I have no problem with people believing in creationism or ID, as long as the believers of it do not claim it is science.
Its a lot easier to believe that mantis aliens come down and tinker with our DNA layout than it is to believe the rate of evolution that would need to take place for humans to make the jump from Neanderthal to Homo Sapien Sapien in such short order.
So in such time, are the "scientists" absolutely right? I guess they are 100% correct until new information surfaces. Such as interdimensional travel, mass species alien abduction, organized mass mutation from powers above. I mean, how unrealistic to think that God's worker bees (the Mantis aliens) abducted a group of biochemists working on some genetically modified food staple. God decided that Americans would be the hardest working and most loyal slaves to the powers above and convinced the biochemists that a certain GM process would be sound. Then politically, the mantis aliens kidnapped the press and hypnotized them, and reprogrammed them play down any sort of risk or capabilities of massively mutating food in the manner they recently programmed into the scientists. THEN the public eats the bread, we turn into zombies for the mantis overlords. In the meantime we become quantitatively more capable, ask fewer questions, become more obedient, and grow a 6th finger. Intelligent design.
Prove it doesn't exist.
Casey, did you stop believing in aliens? :(
If you still believe in aliens, what incentive is there for aliens NOT to tinker with us.
Garrett,
See the thing that everyone seems to forget is that the best evidence for natural selection and the theroy of evolution comes from bacteria and viruses (which are made of the same kind of stuff we are). Bacteria can create thier first offspring in less than 20 minutes after being born. At this rate, you can actually watch evolution and natural selection happening. There is no need to worry about fossils and the like. Once you've compared the DNA between bacteria and humans, and see how similar it is, its becomes fairly diffcult not to believe in evolution.
As far as alines goes, it depends on wether the physicists are correct in assuming we live in an infinite universe. If we do, then one can only also conclude that there are an infinite number of Garretts on an infinite number of Earths writing about a an infinite number of infinite aliens. With as high degree of varition allowed by an infinite universe, how could intelligent aliens not exist?
I don't understand physics as well as I understand biology, but I from what I've heard, their is still a debate about the size of the universe. Some of those dark matter boys have made calculations of all the mass of the universe (implying a finite amount). Even still though, its pretty friggin' huge. The odds still seem in favor of aliens.
Now did they screw with us genetically? Well, there is no evidence of that scientifically, but there is evidence that it has happened all on its own for plenty of other things, and the fossils would imply that the same thing happened to us. The evidence points towards us evolving, not being designed, be it by God or mantis aliens. Of course that doesn't disprove that God or the aliens don't exist.
Saying "prove that this doesn't exist" is a destructive way of discussing, Garrett, as it leads to intellectually barren and irrational exchanges (religion).
Here is an example statement: "The moon is made of green cheese". Now Garrett, prove that isn't so...
No, that isn't how it should work, is it? The proof of burden should be on the person making the statement. Now, there is still a bit left of the weekend. Why don't you go find positive proof of the existence of an intelligent designer, and we'll talk more tomorrow.
To Jim Chitty, I say that there is absolutely something unscientific about believing in Creation as it is described in religious texts.
You see, key to scientific method is the ability to carry out experiments and to be able to falsify a hypothesis. When you believe in a relious explanation you essentially say, "it's a miracle! There is no proof, no one observed creation, but I choose to believe that it is so". Well, that is not science.
Claus.... funny you should say '"it's a miracle................ Well, that is not science."' Because As I see it, believing a Theory that has as many holes in it as Evolution has, is exactly the same, no one 'observed' Evolution to report back to us the findings. The supposed 'findings' that started and support Evolution are one thigh bone in a pit of other bones some 20 metres from a skull, wow thats not science either! I think that its totally unfair to proclaim Evolution as fact, when its still a Theory and seeing as Theory is being taught, why not other Theories also, such as Intelligent design??
Kiwi would be an example of someone who doesn't know the definition of science, and who also probably doesn't care to know. Kiwi, please learn the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis. When you do, please tell me which applies to evolution, and which to intelligent design.
scientific theory
n : a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
So the way I read it, and you'd probably say I'm wrong, is that there are holes in the Evolutionary theory where there cannot, and was not, any observations. Such as any records to show 'missing links'. And likewise Creationist Theory can be backed by observations of creatures themselves and their complexity. Now take the Bombardier beetle, and I'm sure you know all about that too - so when it was 'evolving' how did it get it right? For if it had got it wrong (even once), it wouldn't be around due to Natural Selection anyway. (if it couldn't defend itself it would have become useless and therefore extinct, let alone the arguments for incorrect mixture of chemicals).
So just one example of an observation of Creation that gives some proof to Things happening right the first time, thus a Design and Designer is involved.
In saying this, it is my opinion to which I am entitled and don't expect you to agree, just wish to share my thoughts, Thanks for allowing me to do so :)
Falsifiable
Adjective * S: (adj) confirmable, verifiable (capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation).
Listen Kiwi,
I've never met a devout Christian I didn't like. Christian values are among some of the best the world has to offer and even though I'm an athiest, I draw most of my own morality from the teachings of Jesus. One doesn't have to believe in God to be a good person after all. You can feel secure on this blog.
Moving on...
We scientists are fond of saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" I could re-state it to say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of anything at all" What that means is, just because there is no evidence for an intelligent designer, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It also means that if evidence for evolution is missing in some minor instance, it doesn't mean that evolution is invalid either.
Its a fact that Intelligent design is not a theory. Its a hypothesis at best. You can't just point to a beetle and say, we don't know exactly how it it evolved, so it must have been designed. In order for intelligent design to be a theory the hypothesis has to be tested. Please elucidate for me, a single experiment that has been done, or can be done, that will support the existence of a designer. An actual experiment. Something that you can test.
In return I will show you thousands of experiments demonstrating how a change in the DNA sequence of a bacteria or a virus (or any other living thing for which DNA sequence is known) leads directly to a change in that organism's fitness. Just because no one has taken the time to work out the genetics of a beetle's face (or its eyes or ass or whatever) doesn't mean that there are holes in theory of evolution. In fact, that's part of what makes it a theory. If we actually had finished the impossible task of analyzing the genetics and inheritance of every living thing, we'd be calling it the Law of Evolution. Likewise, the Theory of Gravity is still a theory only because we haven't had the opportunity to study it under some extreme conditions. That does not automatically mean that there must be a designer that causes things to fall. Also, there is no evidence that supports a contrary hypothesis (like intelligent design), if there were, then that would be a real hole in the theory of evolution. Simply noticing that nobody has tacked the beetle evolution is an example of absent evidence, and does not constitute evidence of anything at all (a designer or otherwise).
So let me re-iterate. In order for something to be science, it has to be testable. Forget about fossils for a moment and just remember that every studied living thing uses DNA to encode itself. Also remember that in the time it took you to finish your workday about 70 generations of bacteria have been born and died in your gut. In 1/3 of a year, 7000 generations of that bacteria will have passed. There are people like me in labs looking at every one of those generations, tracking all the changes in its DNA and understanding why some changes keep another generation going, and some do not. There is no need to watch beetles grow to understand the process of evolution. So what if we don't specifically know how the process may have played out in beetles? It doesn't matter (which is why no one is studying it). The fact remains that there is still a mountain of solid evidence that supports evolution, and not a shred of it in support of ID.
One last thing for you to consider...
I don't have anything against the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in private schools or even in public schools, as long the class they are taught in is titled something like "world religions" or "current events". I do have a big problem when the subject of intelligent design might be taught in a class called "biology". Again, because the existence of a designer is not testable, and is therefore not science, not biology. Evolution is testable, and has been tested, thousands of times. That's what makes it science, and that's what makes it critical to teach in biology class, uncorrupted by illogical notions that intelligent design has positive evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory.
Thanks for that, its interesting to see what drives you and what you find interest in, I challange you to read - perhaps you already have - 'The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson' Its not a Creationist book, but you might find it interesting. Though I can see that you come from a seemingly Biological view.
Cheers again for the info, though I would myself credit certain 'chance' happenings to God and Intelligent Design rather than a random chance in billion of things working, like your bacteria or viruses.
The hard thing for me to understand is that your looking at something that is already set in motion, so yeah its changing because that is how it was set up, or designed, there wasn't one day no bacteria or viruses and then the next some (maybe you've seen this happen?), so it really comes down to wheather or not you believe that randomness is our creator or God is.
But again my view not necessarily others, In my world there has to be faith involved in some part, just as you hold onto evolution with those holes in it.
Cheers, will hang around, your site is interesting :)
Well as I said, its not what people believe so much that irks me it all just boils down to the fact that I find the separation between church and state to be a really important thing, and I find it unamerican to merge them in any way. Everyone in this country agrees that they don't want government interfering with thier religion, they often can't grasp that in order for that to happen, it has to go both ways, religion can't interfere with government. These ideas go back to the magna carta.
Its fine to believe that mutations, which statistically appear to occur randomly, are actually guided by a designer. Its quite another to want to teach that belief in a government-funded school.
Post a Comment