Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 45

Thread: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

  1. #16
    Elite Member moomies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    pretending to be a lurker but I'm not quiet enough
    Posts
    15,515

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    Shinto creation myth was changed from the original to fit and promote patriarchy. There is a part that describe Izanami as imcompetent (she screwd up a ritual and had to re-do it) and this female goddes is also demonized as being jealous, evil, ugly, rotten what have you at the end of the story (she becomes the goddes of the underworld/hell). Ancient Japanese society was egalitarian but when the society was changing and becoming to lean towards patriarchy, this creation myth was conviniently changed and re-written.

    I studied creation myths of all kinds in my anth class. It's interesting though they all come from different cultures, there are certain distinct similarities among them like earth forming from some kind of water mass, as a result of flood etc, female usually doing something wrong/immoral (e.g. Adam and Eve!!).

    If ID is going to be taught in schools, they better teach all the other creation myths from every religion and culture!!!

    If you think it's crazy, you ain't seen a thing. Just wait until we're goin down in flames.

  2. #17
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    But, PB, it isn't church. I'm talking about a theory that is probably the most widely-believed theory on the planet, which is that some sort of god or power created life on earth. Like I said, the evidence is nothing that many of you would consider evidence, but a huge number of people believe otherwise. Just because a lot of people think evolution is bunk doesn't mean it should be stricken from the textbooks.

    Like many people, I don't believe that "intelligent design" (borrowing a term here) and evolution are not mutually exclusive, and I fully recognize that evolution has a strong empirical foundation. I believe it myself.

    I'm not even saying that it should be given equal attention, or credence, or validation or anything. We're talking science class here, right? And, proving "intelligent design" is undeniably difficult, using the standard scientific method. I'm just saying that it should be acknowledged. Theories are theories, whether they're proven, or whether they're respected by others.

    However, pretending that "intelligent design" doesn't exist transforms it into a massive white elephant standing in the room, or classroom, if you will. Forgive me, but it ain't going anywhere. Just acknowledge it, and move on. For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would find that detrimental or threatening.

    IMO, the people who are trying to ignore, squash, & suppress information on either side are no better than the other. Put the information out there in an objective manner. Give more time & attention to theories which have empirical evidence. Science class isn't about trying to convert people into believing one thing or another.

    ETA: about what moomies said, I don't even advocate going into any particular detail. Just acknowledge that a huge percentage of the humans on planet earth believe that life originated from a higher power.
    Last edited by Lobelia; February 28th, 2006 at 11:04 PM.

  3. #18
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    Speaking for myself but based on a lot of years of observation, I think most people in western cultures anyway, believe in some kind of mixture of evolution and god. At least those of us over 30.

    Like you, I believe that there is a higher power, but I also firmly believe in evolution. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive either. But I guess MY higher power comes down on the side of science as I believe in a more free-form spirituality, not a literal interpretation of the Bible or some white-haired, vengeful old man up in heaven.

    There is a strong political agenda attached to the current concept of intelligent design floating aroung the U.S. and it doesn't belong in elementary or high schools. My opinion.

    Lo, I don't usually get drawn into these arguments but as a journalist for a long time, I know that all information is not equally valid. I think I want to leave it there, as I don't want this to get heated.

  4. #19
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    When intelligent design is based on some kind of scientific theorem or subject to experiments, then it can be included in a SCIENCE class and compared to valid SCIENTIFIC theories.

    Till then, it has no place in anything but a church or theology class. It is NOT valid science, so it has no place in a science class or being posited as a credible scientific theory.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #20
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    PB, I'm not heated, I totally respect your views. I'm glad we can discuss things like this. And I am really (pleasantly) surprised that we seem to agree on one point so much. We believe in a higher power AND evolution. Like you, I also don't care for the image of the vengeful old man up there in the clouds.

    There is so much we don't know about spirituality and the transfer of human energy. I'm convinced that our descendants will chuckle at our ignorance. The thing is, I'm ok with my ignorance. I don't feel an overwhelming need to know all the answers. To me, the Bible is an abstract painting. Strange, difficult to interpret, often beautiful & inspiring, but not a clearly defined manifestation of the truth.

    It's ok if we don't agree on everything, as long as we respect each other.

    ETA: The post above mine made me laugh, because I suppose my whole life and many of my opinions are based on non-scientific rationality. Psychology would have never been introduced to students, had it waited on consistent empirical evidence. But I am what I am, I believe what I believe, and I stand by it. There is much more to life and being human than science, which is often mankind's smug little way of feeling like we have everything figured out. Fundie or Strict Scientist, everybody's just trying to make sense of the world.

  6. #21
    Hit By Ban Bus! pacific breeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    in the wild blue yonder
    Posts
    15,479

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    ^^Well said. We agree more than we disagree. I don't think you're heated -- I tend to get a bit worked up on this topic for some reason and I usually put the brakes on myself.

    I don't know if we're actually meant to know all these things. It's part of what makes the human condition human. I think the essence of life is the mystery of things, the unknowable. Since my brother died recently, I strongly feel the presence of "him" -- his soul, energy, whatever -- even though of course I know he is dead. His ashes are in my fireplace! (My brother had a weird sense of humour and I know he'd appreciate that).

    Newton wrote that matter cannot be destroyed and I believe that soul -- spiritual energy -- is what he is referring to, as I know that my brother is still with me on some level. Now maybe it's a psychological need to believe that, and not related to Newton's laws at all, but nonetheless, it comforts me. I guess that's my form of religion, if any.

    This probably belongs in that other thread you started, but since I didn't post there, I'll take the liberty of posting it here!

  7. #22
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    uh, Psychology is provable, can be observed, and is based on long-studied understanding of the human psyche.

    Intelligent design is not based on anything provable, was not and is not observable (while evolution is available for view in plain sight) and is not based on any understanding whatsoever. That's why it exists, because it attempts to explain (through RELIGIOUS WRITINGS) an origin.

    It's like trying to say Santa Claus exists because someone long ago wrote some christmas songs. That assertion is not based on anything. Would that have a place in science class?

    Why would creationism?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #23
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    Stop cracking me up, seriously. Psychology is not just rats in Skinner boxes. A HUGE part of it is NOT provable. And what IS provable was NOT proven back in the day, when it was touted as fact. But the ideas were still presented to students, even unproven. They are to this day. They are presented as THEORIES.

    And AGAIN, "provable" (doesn't show up in dictionary.com) is relative. What is proof to one person is not proof to another.

    proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
    n.
    The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

    The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
    A statement or argument used in such a validation.


    Proof can be many things to many people. Even scientists don't always agree on what is absolute proof.

  9. #24
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia
    Stop cracking me up, seriously. Psychology is not just rats in Skinner boxes. A HUGE part of it is NOT provable. And what IS provable was NOT proven back in the day, when it was touted as fact. But the ideas were still presented to students, even unproven. They are to this day. They are presented as THEORIES.

    And AGAIN, "provable" (doesn't show up in dictionary.com) is relative. What is proof to one person is not proof to another.

    proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
    n.
    The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

    The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
    A statement or argument used in such a validation.


    Proof can be many things to many people. Even scientists don't always agree on what is absolute proof.
    There's no proof of "intelligent design" other than creation exists. It's just the tiniest bit specious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mushy
    Grimmlok, do you believe it's ethical for humans to do experimental studies on monkeys to further the progress of medicine for humans?

    Also, why is it murder to kill a human, but nothing punishable by jail to kill a monkey, cat, dog, or other animal?
    How is this relevant to the discussion at hand, which does not involve ethics?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  10. #25
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    Nope, ethics are subjective as an extention of morality. Depends on the person.

    What's that have to do with the subject at hand?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  11. #26
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    There's no proof of "intelligent design" other than creation exists. It's just the tiniest bit specious.
    *sigh*

    For the 3rd time, proof is not black & white, absolute, or universal. It is relative.

    For a bajillion people, the proof of intelligent design is obvious. That proof just doesn't wash with YOU, or others like you.

    It doesn't mean that it is not proof to some, however. Because proof is relative, truth is relative.

    Just because Group A thinks the truth/proof of Group B is bullshit, does Group A get to squash & suppress Group B? What if Group B feels quite confident that they are right & justified? What if Group A feels strongly that Group B is ridiculous? Is one more important than the other?

    You can insert lots of different agendas & groups into Group A & Group B.

    A group who negates and dismisses the truth of another group is narrow-minded and disrespectful. Liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists, atheists, straights, gays, you name it, can ALL fit into either end of the spectrum.

  12. #27
    Elite Member moomies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    pretending to be a lurker but I'm not quiet enough
    Posts
    15,515

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    I'm a bit of PoMo and an existentialist so I kinda agree with what Lobes said. I don't think there is a single reality that everyone shares or that there is a universal truth.
    Even science can't explain everything and doesn't work for everyone. At times science fails, too. I accept and respect traditional and religious knowledges (as long as it is not sexist, racist, discriminatory or bigoted) as well as scientifically verifiable knowledge. I pick and choose what works for me personally.

    If you think it's crazy, you ain't seen a thing. Just wait until we're goin down in flames.

  13. #28
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    For the third time, SCIENCE is based on the tangible, the provable, backed up with evidence that is observable. Theory is proven by application of controlled experiments to base the conclusion against the reaction.

    Intelligent design purports to be based on the same tenets, when it is not at all.

    It doesn't FIT into the model of science as it stands, is not supported by the structure of it, and relies on FAITH and some mouldy 2000 year old book that contains not scientific data, but fanciful notions based on... what?

    Truth is relative, scientific truth is not. It's based on a rigid structure that can be added to, or taken away from and altered. If it wasn't we wouldn't HAVE science at all. Scientific truth can change upon new evidence of available data. The model changes to accomodate new discoveries.

    RELIGION and its bastard retard child 'intelligent design' do not. They are fixed. They do NOT allow new data, in fact they are incredibly hostile to it.

    It's not science. Whatever truth 'intelligent design' holds is not applicable in a scientific environment. It's a sad twisting of spiritual dogma.

    Intelligent design is religion, which is not a science by any stretch of the word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mushy
    Ethics aside, answer the question.
    How can I answer that ethics aside, the entire question is about ethics. You even used the word! lol

    I gave you my answer, accept it or don't. Either way, you haven't made the relevance to the discussion any clearer, so it's moot.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  14. #29
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    The point that I am failing to make to you is that not everything taught in science class is proven by the scientific method. If you demand that intelligent design be thrown out, then throw out the rest, too.

    Unproven theories are presented & taught in science classes all over the globe every single day. They inspire thought & additional scientific experimentation. Not everything taught in science class is FACT.

    Scientific truth IS relative. It changes all the time. A study proves something, and then we all change our lifestyles to accomodate this scientific "truth" and then, wait! Another "scientific" study comes out and blows the first out of the water.

    Scientists talk a good game about the scientific method, but having had some experience with it, please forgive me if I'm a little dubious. People (and scientists are PEOPLE first & foremost) often prove what they want to prove. Rigid blind faith in science is no better than rigid blind faith in religion. Both ways, you're just putting way too much stock into somebody else's explanations, and believing what they tell you to believe.

    Many people do not subscribe to religion at all, yet believe that God created life. So no, sorry, it's not about religion.

    RELIGION and its bastard retard child 'intelligent design' do not. They are fixed. They do NOT allow new data, in fact they are incredibly hostile to it.
    What about people like me who believe in evolution and God? Granted, I haven't read up on the specifics of this intelligent design business, so it may go way overboard in my book regarding pushing itself as the indisputable truth, but how can it be unreasonable to recognize that many people believe that God created life, earth, the universe, whatever? It's just another theory presented in class.

  15. #30
    Super Moderator Tati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Your Pocket
    Posts
    18,051

    Default Re: 'Intelligent design' supporters dealt another blow

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia
    ...how can it be unreasonable to recognize that many people believe that God created life, earth, the universe, whatever? It's just another theory presented in class.
    I think that it is simply unnecessary to do so in most cases. We're all being somewhat broad here in our discussion, so I'll narrow down what I mean a bit:

    If we are talking about a basic, grade 9 or 10 "Science" class, then I feel the introduction of creationist theories is irrelevant and extraneous to the course material. Ditto for a biology class. If we are talking about a "History of Science" or any type of anthropology course, then I would expect the teacher/textbook to present something like a timeline of scientific thinking through the ages. (I don't mean a literal graphic timeline, though that can be a useful tool as well.) In every in-depth science or anthro course I've taken, we started at "the beginning", and were taught about key figures/movements, what scientists believed in their time, the theories under which they were operating, the prevailing cultural beliefs at the time, how those beliefs and theories evolved, etc. Through those types of courses, you quite literally do hear of the theories of creationism, which key scientists believed in them, their influence, etc. They are not presented as operating theories in modern times, because these are science courses, and creationism is not an operating theory in modern times in the scientific realm. But they are certainly presented.

    As far as making a brief acknowledgment that "many people believe this"... I don't see why that would be necessary. Students are aware that many people believe in creationism. Why make it a footnote in an unrelated science class? Where would you stick that into the curriculum? Why would it be needed?

    That being said, I strongly believe that high schools should feature a mandatory "Philosophy and World Religion" survey course, as I posted earlier. And for that matter, I think they should feature a course similar to one I just took in university entitled "Scientific Revolutions". It was a simple course, and could of course be simplified further, and it basically detailed the history of science, from Aristotle to Newton and everyone in between in terms of cosmology and physics. It then went on to Leeuwenhoek, Harvey, Boyle, etc. in terms of biology, microscopy and medicine. The majority of these natural philosophers believed in a higher power, and were forever seeking to fit God into their theories, or to make their theories fit God, which led to remarkably in-depth study and a search for the best, truest possible explanations, and of course, formed the well of knowledge from which we draw today. It was a fascinating course, and when you think about it, such subjects are basically the most fundamentally important ones we could possibly study - the foundations of the universe and all life therein. It's a shame that this was a half-credit course in Uni, and not a basic element of high school curriculum.

    To sum up, I believe that all these courses - Philosophy, Religions of the World, your basic junior "Science" and a "History of Science" course should be a mandatory part of the high school curriculum. I object to trying to mesh religion with science where it doesn't fit, but in some cases, it does fit, and that can make for a fascinating course. And even if the fields are kept separate (ie. my history of science course is left out), if the curriculum offers studies of religion and science concurrently, I think that is more than fair. I do not believe intelligent design should be approached as an alternate working theory, but its tenets, presence and influence on people should be explored. I don't want to see creationism of any type brought into a strictly "science" course, because it does not fit there - it is not subject to comparable standards, and a science course should be for theories that can be held up to the scientific method. But creationism - in all its forms - should still be acknowledged in a high school curriculum, in the spirit of cultural and anthropological awareness.
    If you reveal your secrets to the wind you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees.

    - Kahlil Gibran

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vatican's schizo views on, ahem, 'Intelligent Design'.
    By buttmunch in forum Faith and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 20th, 2006, 07:39 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 21st, 2005, 12:10 PM
  3. Intelligent Design bill failed
    By Mr. Authority in forum Faith and Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 11th, 2005, 06:30 AM
  4. Kansas votes for intelligent design...Penn seems to still be intelligent.
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 10th, 2005, 03:30 AM
  5. PENGUINS know intelligent design, YOU don't.
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 14th, 2005, 01:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •