Even the Vatican say Intelligent Design is a load of crap!

[Tomkat]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10932031/

"VATICAN CITY - The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying “intelligent design” is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion."

Doesn't someone on these forums support the idea of ID?

[roadrunner_0]

i thought i linked to this somewhere a while back when someone was going on about ID? perhaps i only thought about it :/ its very funny though, i think i read it first on theregister

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Doesn't someone on these forums support the idea of ID?

I do, but then again I like to support four silly ideas before breakfast. After breakfast it's even more fun!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Nietzsche doesn't care if something is true or false. It only gets in the way.

[meglamaniac]

The point is that the Vatican has (correctly) conceded that it is not a scientific hypothesis - never mind a theory. Evolution has many many years of research and a fair amount of fossil and genetic evidence to support it, which allows it to qualify as a scientific theory. ID lacks any of this. Therefore by all means teach ID in school, just teach it in Religion Studies or whatever they're calling it these days, as that's what it is - a religious viewpoint. There is nothing remotely scientific about it.

To be honest, as far as I'm aware the Vatican has never really supported ID anyway. It was thought up by a bunch of rednecks in the american south, and they are pretty much the only people still mouthing off about it.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

It was thought up by a bunch of rednecks in the american south, and they are pretty much the only people still mouthing off about it.

Heraclitus lived in the southern US states? Holy shit but you learn something new every day.

[meglamaniac]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Heraclitus lived in the southern US states? Holy shit but you learn something new every day.

I apologise, I should really have said "reinvented". Various people have argued for it throughout the years albiet under different names. For example, it was one of the opinions that was around and put forward against Darwin when he first published The Origin, cheifly by William Paley with the watchmaker analogy.

However, for it to reoccur in this age under the guise of science, it really does take American Chritian fundamentalists to be desperate (and scared) enough to try.
There, happy now?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

There, happy now?

I was happy beforehand. Comrade Stalin is always amused and enthralled by the spectacle that human existence provides.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I was happy beforehand. Comrade Stalin is always amused and enthralled by the spectacle that human existence provides.

Depending on the tone of your posts, it seems likely that Comrade Stalin is either writing a collection of death warrants in your avatar, or a short story called "What I did on my holidays".

[queball]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

watchmaker analogy

Some good image captions there.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by queball

Some good image captions there.

William Paley. It is reasonable to assume he was the product of natural selection.

Heh.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Some good image captions there.

Those are really fantastic. Wikipedia really outdid itself there.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

It was thought up by a bunch of rednecks in the american south, and they are pretty much the only people still mouthing off about it.

Not... really. It's got a pretty high acceptance rating in all of the US.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Not... really. It's got a pretty high acceptance rating in all of the US.

Dover Pennsylvania :lol:

Also Tucson, AZ.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

Dover Pennsylvania :lol:

Also Tucson, AZ.

Dawkins quoted some recent polls in his The Root of All Evil? program a week or two back, showing, if memory serves, about 2/3 with favourable opinions towards ID.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Dawkins quoted some recent polls in his The Root of All Evil? program a week or two back, showing, if memory serves, about 2/3 with favourable opinions towards ID.

I don't know what "favorable" means here, but I can guess. Many of the US polls* I've seen ask--for example--if creationism and ID should be taught in schools alongside evolution. The positive responses to such questions tend to be fairly high (50-70%, depending on the demographics and wording) and are often cited as proof of widespread "support" for creationsim/ID and/or opposition to evolution, but I think these types of questions can be very misleading because they tend to lump all the creationists, IDers and the let's-hedge-our-bets types together. When you ask if ID should be taught to the exclusion of creationism/evolution, then support for ID pretty much evaporates (down to the 5-10% range).

Rather than saying that people are favorable to ID on the basis of the answers to such questions (assuming that's what Dawkins did) it would be more accurate (imho) to say that people aren't strongly opposed to ID.




*This Harris poll is typical.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Dawkins quoted some recent polls in his The Root of All Evil? program a week or two back, showing, if memory serves, about 2/3 with favourable opinions towards ID.

Dawkins is an unadulterated arsehole.

[meglamaniac]

I know where the bodies are.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

I know where the bodies are.

All over Russia?

[Ste]

I prefer ID to Creation theory...

[Chunderbunny]

I think intelligent design is good, it keeps the evolutionists on their toes... Was the recent discoveries on the bombardier beetle and the possibility of dormant mutations not, in part, discovered due to countering an argument that the ID folk made?

I think it could potentially lead to a lot more balanced teaching if ID was taught alongside evolution, and the ability to discuss and debate between the two topics as a skill in exploring a topic was introduced. Could certainly lead to more interesting classes too.

Don't get me wrong, I think it could also be used by crazed fundie rednecks to push their own personal agenda of extemesism too... But I prefer to believe 'Once a dickhead, always a dickhead' rather than redirect my anger at a theory.

[meglamaniac]

Originally Posted by Chunderbunny

I think it could potentially lead to a lot more balanced teaching if ID was taught alongside evolution, and the ability to discuss and debate between the two topics as a skill in exploring a topic was introduced. Could certainly lead to more interesting classes too.

No no no no no no no!
ID is not comparable to evolution theory. You cannot teach them side by side. As I said, fine, teach evolution in science class and ID in religious studies, but in no way shape or form is ID remotely scientific.

To quote wiki: "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own."
This is bang on. If it can't be tested it's not scientific, that's what science is - building of "best fit" theories based on experiment and observation.

Thankfully for us all, the US Federal Courts at least appear to be sensible and have ruled the teaching of ID as a scientific theory to be unconstitutional (religion should not be taught in schools, as the US is a secular state).

[Chunderbunny]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

No no no no no no no!
ID is not comparable to evolution theory. You cannot teach them side by side. As I said, fine, teach evolution in science class and ID in religious studies, but in no way shape or form is ID remotely scientific.

To quote wiki: "The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own."

The argument your putting forward seems to be that of one of 'which schoolclass should be classified as what', which I never touched upon, and is an entirely seperate argument (and can of worms) as far as I'm concerned. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm sorry.

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

This is bang on. If it can't be tested it's not scientific, that's what science is - building of "best fit" theories based on experiment and observation.

This is a part of what science is. I also think questioning current scientific thought to be a highly important part of science, and one that allows us to change, refine, rebuke and discover. No point measuring something if you've not got something to measure.

Besides, a dedicated evolutionist should hear the statement "This system is irreducibly complex" as the question "Why do we not have the current understanding to reduce this system into simpler components?". Of course, this is only my opinion.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Chunderbunny

I think intelligent design is good, it keeps the evolutionists on their toes... Was the recent discoveries on the bombardier beetle and the possibility of dormant mutations not, in part, discovered due to countering an argument that the ID folk made?

I think it could potentially lead to a lot more balanced teaching if ID was taught alongside evolution, and the ability to discuss and debate between the two topics as a skill in exploring a topic was introduced. Could certainly lead to more interesting classes too.

Don't get me wrong, I think it could also be used by crazed fundie rednecks to push their own personal agenda of extemesism too... But I prefer to believe 'Once a dickhead, always a dickhead' rather than redirect my anger at a theory.

When I took a hominid evolution class they explained intelligent design and creationism, and they explained creation science in my intro to archaeology course as well.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally Posted by s|k

When I took a hominid evolution class they explained intelligent design and creationism, and they explained creation science in my intro to archaeology course as well.

Did you burst out in laughter?

If not, how?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

Did you burst out in laughter?

If not, how?

No it was actually pretty depressing. The professor even played a video that explained how there is no way to reconcile the existence of a god in the face of evidence supporting evolution and what kind ways you may find relief from your utter disappointment in the meaningless of life and the inevitable end of your pointless existence.

[Chunderbunny]

Originally Posted by s|k

When I took a hominid evolution class they explained intelligent design and creationism, and they explained creation science in my intro to archaeology course as well.

When they start teaching you it at the beginning of 'Introductory Computer Logic 101' class, I'd start to question motives....

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Chunderbunny

I think it could potentially lead to a lot more balanced teaching if ID was taught alongside evolution, and the ability to discuss and debate between the two topics as a skill in exploring a topic was introduced. Could certainly lead to more interesting classes too.

Children tend to accept things much more readily when they're learning than adults do. It appears to be some kind of evolutionary trait to help get all the vital information across with less argument - don't eat these berries, fire is hot, jumping off cliffs is a bad idea. Children also don't have particularly well developed logical faculties, and almost certainly in the majority lack the time and the impetus to understand something as complicated and subtle as the theory of evolution in such a way to make it preferrable to ID.

Of course, even if that wasn't the case then I still would oppose ID being taught in schools. The scientific community does enough arguing over evolution on its own, it doesn't need help from something that is essentially just made up which decries it. Should we spend equal time in History lessons pursuing the idea that, say, the Holocaust didn't happen? That King Henry VIII didn't exist? That the Romans were actually space aliens?

[Chunderbunny]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Children tend to accept things much more readily when they're learning than adults do. It appears to be some kind of evolutionary trait to help get all the vital information across with less argument - don't eat these berries, fire is hot, jumping off cliffs is a bad idea. Children also don't have particularly well developed logical faculties, and almost certainly in the majority lack the time and the impetus to understand something as complicated and subtle as the theory of evolution in such a way to make it preferrable to ID.

Of course, even if that wasn't the case then I still would oppose ID being taught in schools. The scientific community does enough arguing over evolution on its own, it doesn't need help from something that is essentially just made up which decries it. Should we spend equal time in History lessons pursuing the idea that, say, the Holocaust didn't happen? That King Henry VIII didn't exist? That the Romans were actually space aliens?

Yet again, I didn't put an age to my argument. I don't know about you but I didn't start learning about evolution until I was about 15, by which point I was able, to a reasonable degree, to see an argument from different points of view. Also your point about the evolutionary trait... Is it really an evolutionary trait, or is it a trait of the environment and the way we are taught? Genuine question, I'm not being smarmy or anything.

Should we spend equal time blah blah blah.... I don't know. But what I do know is that when I was taught evolution for the second time (at maybe 16 or 17), a similar approach to what I said was taken, where arguments against evolution were put forward, and I appreciated someone taking the time to explain it in this fashion, as it made me think deeper about various aspects of evolution, rather than 'just writing my notes down and passing my exam', which is what I would have done otherwise. I think its important to look at a situation from different angles, even ones you don't neccesarily agree with, because it can give you the ability to ask questions about a subject or look at it in a different light, than if you hadn't. Not only that, but it leaves you better equipped to actually debate against someones point of view, if you've actually put yourself in the shoes of that point of view before. I think the quote 'keeping your enemies closer' probably touches on this a bit.

For the person who gave me 'insanity' bad rep, FYI I considered studying Genetics at university, and ended up researching evolutionary computing and genetic algorithms for my honours project at university. I put this partly down to the very interesting way I was taught my evolution module at A-level in biology. I'm not some crazy redneck god loving bible freak, I just appreciate someone who takes the time to attempt to broaden someones mind (which is what educations all about in the end), and make you think a little more out the box than the ability to pass the next exam. Are you calling me insane because you think I believe ID? Or are you calling me insane because ID's currently a hot topic of debate, and I'm not following the ID bashing trend?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Children tend to accept things much more readily when they're learning than adults do. It appears to be some kind of evolutionary trait to help get all the vital information across with less argument - don't eat these berries, fire is hot, jumping off cliffs is a bad idea. Children also don't have particularly well developed logical faculties, and almost certainly in the majority lack the time and the impetus to understand something as complicated and subtle as the theory of evolution in such a way to make it preferrable to ID.

I agree, but at least we should be honest about what we are doing here - substituting childhood indoctrination for argument. Perhaps this is justified in order to rid society of religion, but it shows that what we really have is ultimately a power struggle between two incompataible ideologies (materialism vs religion).

Of course, even if that wasn't the case then I still would oppose ID being taught in schools. The scientific community does enough arguing over evolution on its own, it doesn't need help from something that is essentially just made up which decries it. Should we spend equal time in History lessons pursuing the idea that, say, the Holocaust didn't happen? That King Henry VIII didn't exist? That the Romans were actually space aliens?

I dont think this is a valid analogy because these things are actually in conflict with known evidence, whereas iIntelligent design is just a different interpretation of the experimental data - its more comparable to teaching Bohmian mechanics in a quantum physics class alongside Copenhagenism (sort of).

From a pedagogical perspective, It all comes down to which interpretation we want people to believe - I dont particularly like religion so I'm going to favour initiatives that will reduce its influence, such as not teaching ID in schools. But what we're doing here is ultimately a form of social engineering - its not a case of ID 'not being real science' or anything like that, because claims like this lack a solid foundation.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Perhaps, but it's still a gross mischaracterization to equate those who aren't strongly against something as being favorable towards it.

"Regardless of what you may personally believe, which of these do you believe should be taught in public schools?"
Evolution only: 12%
Creationism only: 23%
ID only: 4%
All three: 55%.

Read your own damn polls.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I agree, but at least we should be honest about what we are doing here - substituting childhood indoctrination for argument. Perhaps this is justified in order to rid society of religion, but it shows that what we really have is ultimately a power struggle between two incompataible ideologies (materialism vs religion).

False dichotomy. Why must you teach evolution/ID at all at that age?

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont think this is a valid analogy because these things are actually in conflict with known evidence, whereas iIntelligent design is just a different interpretation of the experimental data - its more comparable to teaching Bohmian mechanics in a quantum physics class alongside Copenhagenism (sort of).

From a pedagogical perspective, It all comes down to which interpretation we want people to believe - I dont particularly like religion so I'm going to favour initiatives that will reduce its influence, such as not teaching ID in schools. But what we're doing here is ultimately a form of social engineering - its not a case of ID 'not being real science' or anything like that, because claims like this lack a solid foundation.

This is just bonkers. ID has no predictions, it has no falsifiable claims, it isn't based on observation of the evidence and indeed ignores the evidence. Your comparison would make sense if the random element of the Copenhagen model didn't provide problems and was in fact its greatest strength, as I'll elaberate upon below.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

ID is not in conflict with evolution. But that doesn't mean it is science. The theory of evolution makes the same predictions regardless of whether or not you tack 'btw, God exists' onto the bottom of it.

ID isn't just the Theory of Evolution with that tacked on the end, it substantially changes things. The random element in Evolutionary theory has proved to be an immensely powerful tool in all areas, and with its removal we just don't have any tools to examine how often speciation takes place, or how related species are, or all manner of things, like an extremely good description of why the sex ratio is generally 1:1, and why it diverges from this when it diverges, or why all there is substantial evidence for an RNA world. ID takes the life out of Evolution, it removes the reason why it is so interesting, why it is so fascinating.
ID also poses an incredible number of question that we can't answer, above and beyond dealing with the evidence and replacing the arguments of the above, and can never answer - such as "Why were we designed?", "How were we designed?", and the like. By far the most stupid thing is that ID just moves the playing field from a question we have evidence and science to answer to one we can't. "How did the thing that created us come into being?"
Was this being designed by something else? An a priori existance independent of the universe? Did they evolve?

ID does nothing that a scientific theory does. ID doesn't expand our knowledge, it only decreases it, and our potential knowledge in the future. It is against the evidence, it removes a powerful tool and is politically undesireable, irrespective of whether you care for it or not.

Saying that it's harmless, or letting its proponents hold their views with little argument, is the curse of its main opponents. Dawkins is characterised as arrogant for claiming to be true what he knows scientifically, with sources, to be true, whilst people who work against him and a rational model of reality do much worse and are ignored or praised.

[Dace]

i can't remember in what thread i said it but i'll re-itterate "I.D. is ****ing stupid" *














*maybe not my exact words but the sentiment is the same

[meglamaniac]

Numerous irreducable complexity arguments have been countered. Most of the time the reason science didn't have an answer for them was that no-one had got around to researching that particular thing yet.
The whole "science can't explain it so it must be God*" is bunk. If science can't explain it that simply means either:
- science hasn't got around to explaining it yet
- it's not currently scientifically explainable
Absence of an explanation does NOT imply God (See the "God of the Gaps" argument).

As you correctly point out, a key part of science is to question itself, and evolution theory has undergone numerous changes, clarifications and updates in the light of new evidence or arguments since its inception (obvious example: discovery of DNA).

Anyway, this argument could go on for ages. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design - especially the "Intelligent design controversy" section. It does a much better job than I can ever do of explaining quite how unscientific ID is - including that ID supporters are trying to get the scientific method redefined to suit them.



*insert other pseudoscientific deity reference here

[Chunderbunny]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Anyway, this argument could go on for ages. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design - especially the "Intelligent design controversy" section. It does a much better job than I can ever do of explaining quite how unscientific ID is - including that ID supporters are trying to get the scientific method redefined to suit them.



*insert other pseudoscientific deity reference here

maybe you should read it too, since your so fond of using the word god *

As I said, my problems not with ID as a concept, which I think is generally decent, as it gives an alternative point of view that can give some food for thought. But I do think there is a problem with the motives of people using it.

E.g. You mention that there is attempts to get scientific methods redefined. This I don't think is a problem in itself, lets face it, we had different paradigms to observing the world 100's of years ago, I would put money on the fact that we will have different paradigms in years to come. And I certainly think that ID gives food for thought as to the limitations of empiricism (that measuring stuff you mentioned before), as it provides a voice (not a singular voice I might add) and point of view to help question empirical methods. The problem is that people are using it to get scientific methods redefinded to suit *them*.... As I'll reiterate, I think this problem is due to there being arseholes in the world, and not due to the existence of ID.

*whoops spot who didn't read the footnote

[JonnyBGood]

The number of subjects I'd rather see taught in schools ahead of "intelligent design" could best be described as staggering.

[Jennifer]

ID is not in conflict with evolution. But that doesn't mean it is science. The theory of evolution makes the same predictions regardless of whether or not you tack 'btw, God exists' onto the bottom of it. There's no reason to teach ID in science classes, because it's not a science. But it can be taught in religious education classes.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

ID is not in conflict with evolution. But that doesn't mean it is science. The theory of evolution makes the same predictions regardless of whether or not you tack 'btw, God exists' onto the bottom of it. There's no reason to teach ID in science classes, because it's not a science. But it can be taught in religious education classes.

Bohmian mechanics makes the same predictions as orthodox quantum theory even though youve essentially just tacked 'btw particles have definite trajectories' onto it, yet it is still science. Its possible to interpret the same experimental data in different (equally predictive) ways, and saying that one particular interpretation 'isnt really science' is ultimately an ideological decision. You could certainly argue that ID is based on flawed philosophical assumptions, but thats a different story entirely.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Bohmian mechanics makes the same predictions as orthodox quantum theory even though youve essentially just tacked 'btw particles have definite trajectories' onto it, yet it is still science.

Isn't that going against ockham's razor? More so, isn't it actually just wrong?




PS When you're a positivist ****wit every assumption is wrong

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Isn't that going against ockham's razor? More so, isn't it actually just wrong?

No to both questions.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

No to both questions.

How is tacking on something extra irrelevant to the point not positing the existence of unnecessary pluralities?

Surely the entire point of the wave-particle duality nature of everything is that things don't come with precise velocities or positions?

[MasterAir]

ID is not real science. For it to be science it needs to be argued scientificaly, which it is not. I am not saying that ID is not true, just that if its supporters want it to be learned in a science lesson they should go about gathering scientific evidence in favour of it.

I believe that science and religion should be taught to children separately. I think that we now live in a society that collectively accepts that religion is questionable, thanks to the work of some not insignificant philosophers. Science is also questionable, but for different reasons.

I think that it is important that evolution is taught as a scientific theory and not as absolute truth, but I think that if you want to add ID or Creationism into the same part of peoples education then some empirical evidence for them is required.

[Please ignore the lack of structure in my argument, I think what I am trying to say is clearish]

[meglamaniac]

Surely ID fails all, or nearly all, of the qualifications to be a scientific theory?
The major falldown that I can think of is that it's not falsifiable, and nor can you test it for that matter.

As a philosophical viewpoint I have no issues with it, and indeed the concept is an interesting one. However, this still doesn't qualify it as science.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Intelligent Design is a crass attempt at proving the existence of god. Not to the world at large, bur rather to the proponents of Intelligent Design themselves. More and more, these religous people are faced with increasing amounts of hard scientific data and fact that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that god does not exist. It must be a terrible thing to require a pyschological crutch to get you through the day. These people feel that if they can shout loud enough and long enough, ID will get accepted in schools. Yay! God does exist. We will go do heaven.

It's all bullshit. For their next trick, they'll start saying that Galileo really was wrong and Earth is the center of the Universe.

[Dace]

not everybody in this thread is not trolling

[s|k]

I don't have anything against Intelligent Design or Creationism being taught as long as it's done in the right context. It's not science however and it shouldn't be passed off as science by people who really don't have a clue what science is and it doesn't belong in a science classroom unless it's used as a means to show what science is not.

If teachers are teaching kids about empirical evidence, research methods, and theory one day, and the next they tell them it's plausible that intelligence had a hand in evolution, something not testable, you can't expect these kids to make sense out of it. I doubt many kids will raise their hands and ask: "Yesterday you said that theories become accepted and are used as explanations once it is felt that research and observations support them, so what's the research or documented observations that support ID?" Well there was this piece of toast with the visage of the virgin Mary on it in Brazil a few years ago...

[JonnyBGood]

Prior to the 20th century it was all much better. The clergy were batshit insane mostly and much the better for it. This recent fiasco of attempting to find meaning in things is really just a dreadful distraction from the pursuit of the utterly daft.