The creationists are BACK

[Jack Fate]

I think I'll stick with "Intelligent Design". If it's good enough for Einstein then it's good enough for me.

 

[Agit8r]

Intelligence, impulse control and any other number of traits aren't mutually excluded by the presence of the afore mentioned traits. On the contrary, those would be more likely to develop as lesser traits as mating was not based on the impulse control or altruism of the male

really. not based on impulse control at all? Have you ever courted a woman?

Not a female Ape or other primate than human, no. As these traits had to be lost by our predecessors, they would be whom I was describing, not modern man, though aggression, physical strength and agility are still desirable traits amung human females when chosing to mate.

I am not saying that strength and agility are a detriment, but rather that they are less important than intelligence and impulse control. Those latter two attributes determining ones ability to be successful in life (at least where deception or cronyism cannot be substituted)

 

[Agit8r]

I think I'll stick with "Intelligent Design". If it's good enough for Einstein then it's good enough for me.

do you favor his economics as well?

 

[JBeukema]

I think I'll stick with "Intelligent Design". If it's good enough for Einstein then it's good enough for me.

Einstein didn't even accept his own theories

rendering your appeal to authority even more idiotic

 

[JBeukema]

Why Socialism? Albert Einstein - Monthly Review

 

[Toro]

I think I'll stick with "Intelligent Design". If it's good enough for Einstein then it's good enough for me.

Einstein didn't even accept his own theories

rendering your appeal to authority even more idiotic

And Einstein wasn't talking about "Intelligent Design" in the way evangelicals do.

 

[Jack Fate]

I think I'll stick with "Intelligent Design". If it's good enough for Einstein then it's good enough for me.

do you favor his economics as well?

I would have to do some research before I commented. I only comment on what I know. I know Einstein believed in intelligent design and that he was really really smart.

 

[Gadawg73]

I think I'll stick with "Intelligent Design". If it's good enough for Einstein then it's good enough for me.

do you favor his economics as well?

I would have to do some research before I commented. I only comment on what I know. I know Einstein believed in intelligent design and that he was really really smart.

Not smart enough to offer ANY PROOF of intelligent design.
In fairness to him though, NO ONE has ever offered any proof.
You included.

 

[editec]

A little background. We have had many school boards in Georgia cave in to the religous whackos in the last decade over putting labels on all Biology books concerning evolution.
"Evolution is a theory only and there are other theories that are in the scientific community concerning the origins of life" type BS was on all Biology in many school districts.
I know, this stuff is so crazy but remember we are in Georgia where folks would believe the Spaghetti Monster is to be worshipped first and foremost if their preacher or Republican representative told them so. Science be damned.
Well sports fans, the creationists are backagain under the disguise of "intelligent design" claiming that there beliefs are science.
Now anyone with just a high school education knows full well, yet many will not publicly admit it because of worrying about getting the business in Sunday school, that creationism and intelligent design is not science but they keep plowing forward even if it is with a one legged mule after the Dover Pa. case.
Yesterday our Governor Sonny "Doesn't" Perdue announced that he, and his power house Republican buddies in the Legislature, want to make the State School Superintendent an appointed position. The religous right is behind it. Evolution is and has been their main target.
More to come folks.

KNOW-NOTHINGism is as American as Apple pie and denying that slavery was the root cause of the American Civil war.

And every couple of generations this anti-intellectualist, populist sentiment achieves some degree of influence on our society.

We're facing the same kind of problem here in Maine right now.

Now, according to my information, the ME DEPT of ED is telling teachers that they have to treat "creationism" with respect.

Which is fine with me, as long as that respect ends at the door to science class.

Creationism no more deserves respect in a science class environment than Holocaust denial deserves respect in a history class.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

do you favor his economics as well?

I would have to do some research before I commented. I only comment on what I know. I know Einstein believed in intelligent design and that he was really really smart.

Not smart enough to offer ANY PROOF of intelligent design.
In fairness to him though, NO ONE has ever offered any proof.
You included.

O.K. give some basic parameters of what would constitute "proof" and I will accept this as a legitimate challenge. I will counter by asking for similar proof of a similar theory based on that pre-set paramters.

Only one requiremnet, no A-religious premise can be implimented or the posibility of arguing "intelligent design" is by definition imposible.

For the record, I am open to any proofs or theories with as little bias as I can muster.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

So you deny that your parents spawned you?

That is a pretty remarkable tangent to jump to. What even begins to facilitate that question in reply to my comments? I had almost slipped into believing you were at a minimum rational.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

A little background. We have had many school boards in Georgia cave in to the religous whackos in the last decade over putting labels on all Biology books concerning evolution.
"Evolution is a theory only and there are other theories that are in the scientific community concerning the origins of life" type BS was on all Biology in many school districts.
I know, this stuff is so crazy but remember we are in Georgia where folks would believe the Spaghetti Monster is to be worshipped first and foremost if their preacher or Republican representative told them so. Science be damned.
Well sports fans, the creationists are backagain under the disguise of "intelligent design" claiming that there beliefs are science.
Now anyone with just a high school education knows full well, yet many will not publicly admit it because of worrying about getting the business in Sunday school, that creationism and intelligent design is not science but they keep plowing forward even if it is with a one legged mule after the Dover Pa. case.
Yesterday our Governor Sonny "Doesn't" Perdue announced that he, and his power house Republican buddies in the Legislature, want to make the State School Superintendent an appointed position. The religous right is behind it. Evolution is and has been their main target.
More to come folks.

KNOW-NOTHINGism is as American as Apple pie and denying that slavery was the root cause of the American Civil war.

And every couple of generations this anti-intellectualist, populist sentiment achieves some degree of influence on our society.

We're facing the same kind of problem here in Maine right now.

Now, according to my information, the ME DEPT of ED is telling teachers that they have to treat "creationism" with respect.

Which is fine with me, as long as that respect ends at the door to science class.

Creationism no more deserves respect in a science class environment than Holocaust denial deserves respect in a history class.

Arrogance is appearantly timeless. Base your assertion on something other than personal beliefs and appearant biases, especially if that is the rational you wish to assert against the other side of the debate. If the criteria is established. all theory would have to be screened with it, so think hard on what that criteria should be.

Also remember the Constitution prohibits the state from deliberately prohibiting ideas or speech simply because they are deemed to be based on any religion. Besides, why would anyone care if the posibility of an inteligent design theory were addressed? Even scientists give credance to that posibility, though not in their mandated "a-religious" work.

Given statistical probabilities, the existence of a designer or engineer is the more likely origin of many facets of our existance than other theories when prohibition of that potential is removed and they are compared.

 

[Gadawg73]

I would have to do some research before I commented. I only comment on what I know. I know Einstein believed in intelligent design and that he was really really smart.

Not smart enough to offer ANY PROOF of intelligent design.
In fairness to him though, NO ONE has ever offered any proof.
You included.

O.K. give some basic parameters of what would constitute "proof" and I will accept this as a legitimate challenge. I will counter by asking for similar proof of a similar theory based on that pre-set paramters.

Only one requiremnet, no A-religious premise can be implimented or the posibility of arguing "intelligent design" is by definition imposible.

For the record, I am open to any proofs or theories with as little bias as I can muster.

The scientific method.
Ever heard of it?
Read Kitzmiller v. Dover to see the ID "proof". Lying in depositions and open court for starters. Read the testimony from all the witnesses.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

Not smart enough to offer ANY PROOF of intelligent design.
In fairness to him though, NO ONE has ever offered any proof.
You included.

O.K. give some basic parameters of what would constitute "proof" and I will accept this as a legitimate challenge. I will counter by asking for similar proof of a similar theory based on that pre-set paramters.

Only one requiremnet, no A-religious premise can be implimented or the posibility of arguing "intelligent design" is by definition imposible.

For the record, I am open to any proofs or theories with as little bias as I can muster.

The scientific method.
Ever heard of it?
Read Kitzmiller v. Dover to see the ID "proof". Lying in depositions and open court for starters. Read the testimony from all the witnesses.

Heard of it, it is an a-religious process isn't it? Doesn't that eliminate any prospect of "proof" without suspension of that little prohibition as stated earlier?

Really, by that standard, prove evolution or the big bang or gravity even. Do we need to stop teaching any of those?

 

[geauxtohell]

O.K. give some basic parameters of what would constitute "proof" and I will accept this as a legitimate challenge. I will counter by asking for similar proof of a similar theory based on that pre-set paramters.

Only one requiremnet, no A-religious premise can be implimented or the posibility of arguing "intelligent design" is by definition imposible.

For the record, I am open to any proofs or theories with as little bias as I can muster.

The scientific method.
Ever heard of it?
Read Kitzmiller v. Dover to see the ID "proof". Lying in depositions and open court for starters. Read the testimony from all the witnesses.

Heard of it, it is an a-religious process isn't it? Doesn't that eliminate any prospect of "proof" without suspension of that little prohibition as stated earlier?

Really, by that standard, prove evolution or the big bang or gravity even. Do we need to stop teaching any of those?

This is the aggravating part. We are debating science with you and you've "heard" of the scientific method?

It's not "anti-religious". The Scientific method makes no provisions for the supernatural as the existence of supernatural forces can not be falsified.

For ID to be a valid scientific theory, you would first have to identify (which IDers refuse to do) the Intelligent Force and then be able to prove that they don't exist (null hypothesis) before you could create your hypothesis.

The scientific method is basic science.

Other than that, watch the NOVA series on Dover. It's readily apparent who the bad actors were, and it wasn't the evolution side. The ID side almost got slapped with contempt by a W. Bush appointee.

As for your last bit, science is working daily to further support the theories of gravity and evolution. It is unlikely they will ever be 100% "proven". That's the general idea behind scientific theory. You change the concepts as you learn more.

 

[nraforlife]

...........I know, this stuff is so crazy ...............

Not near as around the bend as the supposed 'scientists' who drink the Evolution Cult Koolaid.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

The scientific method.
Ever heard of it?
Read Kitzmiller v. Dover to see the ID "proof". Lying in depositions and open court for starters. Read the testimony from all the witnesses.

Heard of it, it is an a-religious process isn't it? Doesn't that eliminate any prospect of "proof" without suspension of that little prohibition as stated earlier?

Really, by that standard, prove evolution or the big bang or gravity even. Do we need to stop teaching any of those?

This is the aggravating part. We are debating science with you and you've "heard" of the scientific method?

It's not "anti-religious". The Scientific method makes no provisions for the supernatural as the existence of supernatural forces can not be falsified.

For ID to be a valid scientific theory, you would first have to identify (which IDers refuse to do) the Intelligent Force and then be able to prove that they don't exist (null hypothesis) before you could create your hypothesis.

The scientific method is basic science.

Other than that, watch the NOVA series on Dover. It's readily apparent who the bad actors were, and it wasn't the evolution side. The ID side almost got slapped with contempt by a W. Bush appointee.

As for your last bit, science is working daily to further support the theories of gravity and evolution. It is unlikely they will ever be 100% "proven". That's the general idea behind scientific theory. You change the concepts as you learn more.

A-religiopus isn't necessarily "anti-religious", please quote me accurately in future when ranting. As my wife is a scientist (Microbiologist) and I am an engineer, I do differ to her on scientific method, but as I haven't said anything contrary to accepted method I don't see the frustration in my request. No one has to identify the source of the Big Bang to forward the theory, but for design the principal is different in some way? What way? The catalyst is the greatest variable in play isn't it? What would cause stationary matter to violently expode with such force? Unless someone has defined the nature of that force specificly, what is the difference?

Again I am not in either camp particularly, I am certainly not arguing the merits of either against the other. I am simply pointing out what I see as inequitible in the very arrogant positions. As ID isn't being argued currently I am pointing to failings in popular science and the argument that one theory is valid where another is not based more on faith deviation than objective criteria.

Of course I am also pointing out some of the more "faith based" reasoning that passes for actual science and gets defended with religious zealous by those who expouse it. See the human evolution questioning in previous discussion.

 

[Gadawg73]

Heard of it, it is an a-religious process isn't it? Doesn't that eliminate any prospect of "proof" without suspension of that little prohibition as stated earlier?

Really, by that standard, prove evolution or the big bang or gravity even. Do we need to stop teaching any of those?

This is the aggravating part. We are debating science with you and you've "heard" of the scientific method?

It's not "anti-religious". The Scientific method makes no provisions for the supernatural as the existence of supernatural forces can not be falsified.

For ID to be a valid scientific theory, you would first have to identify (which IDers refuse to do) the Intelligent Force and then be able to prove that they don't exist (null hypothesis) before you could create your hypothesis.

The scientific method is basic science.

Other than that, watch the NOVA series on Dover. It's readily apparent who the bad actors were, and it wasn't the evolution side. The ID side almost got slapped with contempt by a W. Bush appointee.

As for your last bit, science is working daily to further support the theories of gravity and evolution. It is unlikely they will ever be 100% "proven". That's the general idea behind scientific theory. You change the concepts as you learn more.

A-religiopus isn't necessarily "anti-religious", please quote me accurately in future when ranting. As my wife is a scientist (Microbiologist) and I am an engineer, I do differ to her on scientific method, but as I haven't said anything contrary to accepted method I don't see the frustration in my request. No one has to identify the source of the Big Bang to forward the theory, but for design the principal is different in some way? What way? The catalyst is the greatest variable in play isn't it? What would cause stationary matter to violently expode with such force? Unless someone has defined the nature of that force specificly, what is the difference?

Again I am not in either camp particularly, I am certainly not arguing the merits of either against the other. I am simply pointing out what I see as inequitible in the very arrogant positions. As ID isn't being argued currently I am pointing to failings in popular science and the argument that one theory is valid where another is not based more on faith deviation than objective criteria.

Of course I am also pointing out some of the more "faith based" reasoning that passes for actual science and gets defended with religious zealous by those who expouse it. See the human evolution questioning in previous discussion.

ID is not a theory. Beliefs are not science.
An engineer should know that unless it is a Lionel they are engineering.

 

[Political Junky]

...........I know, this stuff is so crazy ...............

Not near as around the bend as the supposed 'scientists' who drink the Evolution Cult Koolaid.

So, you buy the talking snake theory of creation?

 

[Uncle Kenny]

This is the aggravating part. We are debating science with you and you've "heard" of the scientific method?

It's not "anti-religious". The Scientific method makes no provisions for the supernatural as the existence of supernatural forces can not be falsified.

For ID to be a valid scientific theory, you would first have to identify (which IDers refuse to do) the Intelligent Force and then be able to prove that they don't exist (null hypothesis) before you could create your hypothesis.

The scientific method is basic science.

Other than that, watch the NOVA series on Dover. It's readily apparent who the bad actors were, and it wasn't the evolution side. The ID side almost got slapped with contempt by a W. Bush appointee.

As for your last bit, science is working daily to further support the theories of gravity and evolution. It is unlikely they will ever be 100% "proven". That's the general idea behind scientific theory. You change the concepts as you learn more.

A-religiopus isn't necessarily "anti-religious", please quote me accurately in future when ranting. As my wife is a scientist (Microbiologist) and I am an engineer, I do differ to her on scientific method, but as I haven't said anything contrary to accepted method I don't see the frustration in my request. No one has to identify the source of the Big Bang to forward the theory, but for design the principal is different in some way? What way? The catalyst is the greatest variable in play isn't it? What would cause stationary matter to violently expode with such force? Unless someone has defined the nature of that force specificly, what is the difference?

Again I am not in either camp particularly, I am certainly not arguing the merits of either against the other. I am simply pointing out what I see as inequitible in the very arrogant positions. As ID isn't being argued currently I am pointing to failings in popular science and the argument that one theory is valid where another is not based more on faith deviation than objective criteria.

Of course I am also pointing out some of the more "faith based" reasoning that passes for actual science and gets defended with religious zealous by those who expouse it. See the human evolution questioning in previous discussion.

ID is not a theory. Beliefs are not science.
An engineer should know that unless it is a Lionel they are engineering.

What is the difference between a "belief" and a "hypothesis"? Appearantly it is the difference between what you seem to personally believe and what you don't, eh? Falling back on this type of rhetoric simply proves you don't have any reasoned response, doesn't it?

Although I could say that as an engineer, I know design when I see it and that random occurances have a greater likelihood of undoing themselves than progressing in a readable pattern. Either way, science and scientific method are predicated on hypothetical conclusions based on observable facts and research, so if it is easily observed that random occurances are not as likely as a design, how is that not science as a hypothesis to work from? Oh, because you say so? So far that really is the only answer you seem capable of providing, right?