Intelligent Design gets smacked down in PA

[Lyion]

<img src="http://namelesstavern.org/phpBB2/album_pic.php?pic_id=1055">

[The Kizzy]

Heaven forbid that schools actually teach different THEORIES, no matter how ridiculous they are.

[Zanchief]

Heaven forbid that schools actually teach different THEORIES, no matter how ridiculous they are.

Of course they shouldn't.

They should teach SCIENCE!

[The Kizzy]

SCIENCE which is based on THEORIES

[Tae-Bo]

hurr

[Zanchief]

ID isn't based on theories, Kizzy, it's based on faith.

You can teach the purple monkey dishwasher theory if you want. I’ve done tons of research and it’s like totally awesome.

[alezrik]

[The Kizzy]

So then we agree? Or are you just arguing with me for arguments sake?

Its an idea, a THEORY.

They teach about the gods, again another THEORY based on no scientific FACT, other than what people believe.

[Zanchief]

They want to teach it in science class, Kizz, not kooky theory class.

[Lyion]

I believe you are the missing link for the purple dishwasher theory, Zan.

Hey, time for another link!

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10966

Tom Bethell Puts Darwinism on Defense

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Dec 18, 2005
Among the most influential men of the 20th century were a pair of 19th century scholars: Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.

Recent years have not been kind to either. Marxism-Leninism, the ideology that welded together and drove the Soviet empire, has been discredited by the horrors it produced and the colossal failure of Marxist theory when put into practice.

Comes now Darwin's turn. In his 1859 "The Origin of Species" and other works, Darwin posited his thesis that man is not the work of any Creator, but a being that evolved from lower forms of life out of the primordial ooze.

In his "Politically Correct Guide to Science," Tom Bethell, who Tom Wolfe calls "one of our most brilliant essayists," has, in 36 pages, gathered and briefly described a few of the difficulties that Darwinists are facing in defending their dogmas against skeptics.

For generations, scientists have searched for the "missing link" between ape and man. But not only is that link still missing, no links between species have been found. As Bethell writes, bats are the only mammals to have mastered powered flight. But even the earliest bats found in the fossil record have complex wings and built-in sonar. Where are the "half-bats" with no sonar or unworkable wings?

Their absence does not prove -- but does suggest -- that they do not exist. Is it not time, after 150 years, that the Darwinists started to deliver and ceased to be taken on faith?

In the Galapagos Islands, which Darwin visited in HMS Beagle in 1835, his later disciples discovered, after a drought, that the beaks of finches expanded 5 percent to help them crack the dried and hardened seeds -- i.e., Darwinian adaptation. But when the rains returned, researchers found the beaks returned to normal size.

No one denies "micro-evolution" -- i.e., species adapting to their environment. It is macro-evolution that is in trouble.

The Darwinian thesis of "survival of the fittest" turns out to be nothing but a tautology. How do we know existing species were the fittest? Because they survived. Why did they survive? Because they were the fittest.

While clever, this tells us zip about why we have tigers. It is less a scientific theory than a notion masquerading as a fact.

For those seeking the source of Darwin's "discovery," there is an interesting coincidence. Darwin and his collaborator Alfred Russel Wallace both read Thomas Malthus' famous "An Essay on the Principle of Population." Malthus theorized that since the production of food grew by small annual increments, while population was almost doubling with each generation, the struggle for food would lead to conflicts and wars in which only the strongest would survive.

Bethell is not alone in suggesting Darwin smuggled Malthus' mid-Victorian political economy into biology. As Bertrand Russell observed, Darwin's theory is "essentially an extension to the animal and vegetable world of laissez-faire economics."

Marx's ideas also seem to have a Malthusian root. Marx predicted that the great wealth spawned by capitalism would be accumulated by fewer and fewer capitalists. And as it was, the constant expansion and immiseration of the proletariat would lead to a workers' revolution in which the expropriators would be expropriated. This was catnip for anti-capitalists.

But American capitalism proved Marx dead wrong. While U.S. capitalism did indeed create plutocrats, the years 1865 to 1914 saw historic gains in the incomes and well-being of workers. By World War I, to the rage of Lenin, even Marxists theoreticians were saying the old boy's theories needed some serious revision.

There are other questions Darwinists need to answer. If believing that Christ raised people from the dead is a matter of faith -- and it is -- is not the Darwinist claim that nature created life out of non-life a matter of faith? If it is science, why can't scientists replicate it in microcosm in a laboratory?

If scientists know life came from matter and matter from non-matter, why don't they show us how this was done, instead of asserting it was done, and calling us names for not taking their claims on faith?

Clearly, a continued belief in the absolute truth of Darwinist evolution is but an act of faith that fulfills a psychological need of folks who have rejected God. That picture on the wall of the science class of apes on four legs, then apes on two legs, then homo erectus walking upright is as much an expression of faith as the picture of Adam and Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

Hence, if religion cannot prove its claim and Darwinists can't prove their claims, we must fall back upon reason, which some of us believe is God's gift to mankind.

And when you consider the clocklike precision of the planets in their orbits about the sun and the extraordinary complexity of the human eye, does that seem to you like the result of random selection or the product of intelligent design?

Prediction: Like the Marxists, the Darwinists are going to wind up as a cult in which few believe this side of Berkeley and Harvard Square.

Pray for them this Christmas season, and enjoy yourself with a reading of Bethell's fine and funny little book.

[The Kizzy]

Some people believe aliens are real based on eveidence that they have found, so it isn't to hard of a reach to ID. Correct?

[Zanchief]

Some people believe aliens are real based on eveidence that they have found, so it isn't to hard of a reach to ID. Correct?

So why not teach about alien abductions in the cornfields of kansas in history class.

[Tacks]

Are you seriously debating what "theory" is? You were wrong last time, you're still wrong this time. Learn what you're talking about.

[Zanchief]

I believe you are the missing link for the purple dishwasher theory, Zan.

I know, right?

[Arlos]

Why not teach Flying Spaghetti Monster theory then? How about the THEORY that the World is Flat? Hey, it's a theory and there are people who believe it, we should teach it too, right Kizzy?

In SCIENCE class they will teach SCIENTIFIC theories that are backed up by EVIDENCE and FACT. Scientific theories are derived using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. There is ZERO fact to support ID, Pastafarianism, Creationism, etc, and NONE are derived using the base methods of SCIENCE.

Therefore, they are NOT science, and have no place whatsoever in SCIENCE class. You want to teach a comparative religion class on origin myths, that's one thing, but that's not going to be in the Biology department.

-Arlos

[Jimmy Durante]

I believe man was created by the Loc Nar

[Zanchief]

That's one evil orb.

[Arlos]

Now, to go over the article Lyion posted. Amusing that he frequently slams on Buchanan as being a psycho nutcase, yet trots him out when he happens to agree with Lyion's predispositions. Of course, Buchanan *IS* a psycho nutcase, right up there with Lyndon LaRouche, but that's a matter for a different debate.

For generations, scientists have searched for the "missing link" between ape and man. But not only is that link still missing, no links between species have been found. As Bethell writes, bats are the only mammals to have mastered powered flight. But even the earliest bats found in the fossil record have complex wings and built-in sonar. Where are the "half-bats" with no sonar or unworkable wings?

You are aware that bats tend to live in places that are incredibly non-conducive to the formation of fossils, yes? That bat fossils that we DO have are quite rare, last I checked? So, you're looking for a small animal, with delicate bones, that lived 50+ million years ago, in places not conducive to the formation of fossils, and you're surprised we haven't found tons of them? Get real.

is not the Darwinist claim that nature created life out of non-life a matter of faith? If it is science, why can't scientists replicate it in microcosm in a laboratory?

Well, gee, could it be because we don't have a laboratory the size of the earth and don't happen to have a spare 700 million years for the reactions to run? We HAVE done experiments where closed systems that mimiced early earth got precursors to life in relatively short periods. (the earliest experiments resulted in amino acids forming spontaneously, more recent ones have seen the amino acids recombining into prion/protein-like structures.) I'd say experimental evidence STRONGLY supports this notion.

If scientists know life came from matter and matter from non-matter, why don't they show us how this was done, instead of asserting it was done, and calling us names for not taking their claims on faith?

Ever heard of E= mc^2? You know, the master formula that shows clearly how matter and energy are related? Hydrogen bombs convert a tiny amount of matter into energy, that's why they're so destructive. Going the reverse route in a lab is highly difficult, as it's kinda tricky to set off an H-bomb in the lab and direct all the energy. It HAS been done on very very small scales in the largest supercolliders, if I am remembering right.

Ultimately, contrary to that article, there are LOTS of transition fossils. Archaeopteryx is an excellent example. Skeletally, it is very close to raptor-type dinosaurs. It's arm is very similar, just with some extra fused bone, it has a mouth with teeth and a long bony tail, yet it quite clearly had feathers, and as best we can tell with modeling recreations, it could probably fly, albeit not terribly well. If you look back further, you can find some of the transition fossils between reptiles and mammals, there's one in specific I'm thinking of that has both the reptilian and the mammalian jaw hinge types in the one animal. There's a myriad of others. ID people just tend to conveniently ignore them. Their rallying cry is "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Double Bonus points for the Heavy Metal reference.

Buchanan is a nutcase. But he's always a lightning rod, and you probably needed something to do today, Arlos.

[The Kizzy]

Why not teach Flying Spaghetti Monster theory then? How about the THEORY that the World is Flat? Hey, it's a theory and there are people who believe it, we should teach it too, right Kizzy?

In SCIENCE class they will teach SCIENTIFIC theories that are backed up by EVIDENCE and FACT. Scientific theories are derived using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. There is ZERO fact to support ID, Pastafarianism, Creationism, etc, and NONE are derived using the base methods of SCIENCE.

Therefore, they are NOT science, and have no place whatsoever in SCIENCE class. You want to teach a comparative religion class on origin myths, that's one thing, but that's not going to be in the Biology department.
-Arlos

I can agree with that Arlos.

[alezrik]

The book is published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), a non-profit organization founded by Jon Buell in Richardson, Texas in 1980. The foundation was established for the purpose of "promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective," according to its Internal Revenue Service tax exemption submission.

Has anyone looked at the book 'Of Pandas and People'? that seems to be the new and improved bible for ID.

[Yamori]

So then we agree? Or are you just arguing with me for arguments sake?

Its an idea, a THEORY.

They teach about the gods, again another THEORY based on no scientific FACT, other than what people believe.

What a lot of people don't get is that science uses the term "Theory" differently than we use it in common language.

Most people use the word Theory interchangably with "Idea" (ie: "I have a theory that my neighbor is a psycho). But in scientific terms, a theory is a fully developed idea with considerable data to back it up. The scientific term for a mere idea or notion is Hypothesis.

Evolution is a theory not because it's "just an idea," but because there is no possible way it can be made into a law since it is not a constant and measurable occurence that can be tested and repeated (like gravity or the speed of light).

Simply put, ID has no place in a science classroom until it actually puts forth a specific claim and offers reasonable evidence that supports that claim. As of now, all it does is try to debunk its competition and its methods, which cannot be considered a "theory" in and of itself.

[Phlegm]

Ok. Seriously speaking, what is the basic difference between ID and Creationism, aside from reference to specifics like Adam and Eve?

Intelligent Design is concept in which Aliens came from outer space and created the human race. Creation from a higher intelligent species.

Creationism is when some big shot with super power created the human race. Under this theory, the human race basically resulted from incestuous relationships through the ages.

You forgot the Predators, who use the humans to breed the Aliens.

That, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

How dare you mocked me Lyion. Just wait until our Alien creator comes back and put a beating on your butt.

[Minrott]

Doesn't something have to have determining factors, actual causes and effects to become a law? I'm somewhat certain that gravity, while able to be repeated and observed, is technically a "theory."

Or I'm insane.


Bottom line is all creationism has is faith, all I.D. has is logic, and evolution has supporting evidence. One is theology, one is speculation, and one is scientific.

[Arlos]

Honestly, everything in science is a Theory, even such well-known axioms as the "Laws of Thermodynamics". They're just theories too. We THINK they're pretty much inviolate, but there's nothing that says tomorrow someone won't find some special case that violates one of them. (That person will be guaranteed a nobel prize, too.)

So yeah, there's no "law" of gravity, it's just a theory. It's even a theory that breaks down at certain extreme cases, and we have no idea how it works in those spots. (inside the event horizon of a black hole, for example) Hell, if you listen to some of the really bleeding-edge String Theorists, Gravity isn't even a native force to our universe. According to them, all of the gravity we see/experience is leaking into this universe from a different one, and if it weren't for that leakage, there'd be no such thing as gravity in this universe.

-Arlos