"Intelligent Design"

Me too. Or a discussion about this book:

http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/03122213011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/7210000/7218097.jpg

That's the point!

Ever notice how I.D. arguments always follow this same pattern: "If x, why not y?" Why not guys? Why not?

"if gays marry -- why not turtles?"

Is this response due to the fact that you can't come up with a reasonable argument against "if x, why not y?" Intelligent design can be found in signals, but not genetic code, is that it? When the day comes we modify babies as casually as we modify fruit and vegetables, you'll eat those words, smart guy.

When the day comes we modify babies as casually as we modify fruit and vegetables, you'll eat those words, smart guy.

What does the ability to modify babies have to do with anything? We can split atoms and make big explosions too, but I don't see how that implies a desinger.

The same exact thing happened with global warming("But there's a controversey", no there's NOT), or cigarettes. A deliberate effort is being made to discredit science that some people don't like, so they throw plenty of bullshit into the mix which is duly covered by most media types operating in full-blown "he said/she said/we're clueless" mode. The anti-science side doesn't have to provide shit for scientific evidence, they only have to generate doubt.

"but but but this ad says that 9 out of 10 doctors prefer the cool taste of Lucky Strikes! Surely this means that the arguement isn't settled, and so nothing conclusive can ever be said!"

and start readin'...

As for Utah, followers of Mormanism are often not rational.

and that argument "if x, why not y? why not guys? why not?" is often used for Darwinian origin of species and natural selection. "If this animal is similar to this animal, Why didn't they evolve from each other? why not guys?" or "If life had to come about through some unintelligent means, why didn't it happen in a puddle under many highly unlikely situations? why not guys?"

discussing this argument that way is just a hasty generalization, irrelevant, and will only hinder your way of thinking about it.

xpost

and then you investigate it and it turns out to be... untrue. sometimes. point being that if an interesting "why not" suggests itself - take it further. find out if it actually is the case. you can't just leave a "why not" hanging there, especially if it's more than interesting, but, say, totally opposed to what anyone would imagine to be true.

Presumably because in the two cases you're talking about there's some obvious potential causal link to be investigated ie. They're similar because their DNA's similar, so they're probably related, which would imply that they have a common ancestor...Or, that the chemistry of life looks a lot like the chemistry of warm puddles in a reducing atmosphere, so maybe one led to the other.

ID adherents tend to try and make links between phenomena that have no connection to one another ie. SETI signals and genetic codes.

ps As either only one religion or none of them can actually be correct, I would argue that makes Mormons at least as rational as every other religious grouping.

Because, once we become expert at baby modification, as with produce, we will be able to look at genes and say, "Yes, that had to be designed that way" with some authority, just as we analyze a signal and say, "yes, that had to be designed" after we mastered language and radio frequencies. Get it?

Anyhow; as for the code of DNA having to be that way; when Crick and Watson first took their look at DNA, Crick suggested it might be coded in a way that is actually more efficient than the one that is used - obviously it turned out he was wrong (that is they eventually found out the actual code used by DNA) but it does show you that things don't have to be the way they are.

This makes absolutely, utterly no sense. I mean we already are experts at produce modification and scientists aren't admitting, "hey, well, guess tomatoes came directly from god's intelligent design! Babies, OTOH, obviously not!" They already are experts at modification in OTHER lifeforms and they AREN'T saying, "Oh yes, that HAD to be designed that way!" I mean you're talking in one enormous nonsensical circle.

Show us your tits.

I mean, I can say, "Hey! This sheep is a clone!" but that's not proof of either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Like your orange.

xpost maybe you shouldn't phrase your arguments like a complete fuckbag and you'd get people replying to you. One day, we might understand so well as to say, "There is no such thing as god!" That day isn't here, and claiming that ability to geneticaly modify produce is proof that it is coming is a "Hey, this, why not this!" argument. Hopefully you can comprehend now.

xpost

Actually, Aleister Crowley proved it perfectly well (better than any other philosophical tenet) in his 0=2 chapter of Magick Without Tears... and he's a total fuckbag, too! But, he still proved it: you don't need a God and there is no reason why there would be one. In fact, it proves to be more of a problem.

Now, show us your tits.

xpost It's more like an ignorant version of Christianity that came up with the concept of "God is good and happy and loves us all."

Also: Christianity, the world's only religion.

Ha ha, not even what I said, idiot. I'm just comparing looking for intelligence in genetics and in signals. There's no reason why we can't compare the two. Most likely SETI is a waste of time and most likely Intelligent Design is a waste of time. Also, please note that up a couple posts I stated clearly that Crowley's 0=2 DISPROVES God, not proves the idea. Combine the 0=2 theory with his Unicursal Hexagram and you have a perfectly formulated theory of how the universe works, coming from "nothing."

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt/mwt_05.html

Not likely, Jackson. If he didn't prove it well enough with one of the methods he uses to explain (algebra, for instance), he tends to seal the deal with another explanation in simpler terms.

Whether it is ACTUALLY the true reality of how the universe "works," it is more solid than any argument could possibly be for Intelligent Design *or* the big bang.

Actually the explanation of his "unicursal hexagram" explains his theory of the universe. This 0=2 thing just destroys the concept of "God" being a worthwhile one, even with bad maths, as most of the useful stuff is the pre(r)amble.

Pretty cool concept for an old nutter. And much shorter than the other thing.

 .-._.--._                                                  
/         /                                                 
-.       |                                                  
  \      |__     IF YOU LET ME STICK MY DICK IN YOUR MOUTH  
,-'______.-'      YOU'LL BECOME MORE POWERFUL THAN YOU COULD
 '( c-(_)(_)__     POSSIBLY IMAGINE                         
   \    .._ . )                                             
    \  /   `-'                                              
    /\-|\_                                                  
   /-. \ /                                                  
  (  , o)\                                                  
   | |  o)\                                                 
   c -  _/\\                                                
  / \ \=====|                                               
 |  //======|                                               
 | / =====_/                                                
 |/\===/=/                                                  
    )==)=)                                                  
   (==|=|                                                   
    | |=|______                                             
   (_.-.    )  )                                            
        '--''-'  [nabis]                   

Ultimate secret of the OTO. Not exactly how I put it to new initiates, but it does get one fellated, happily enough!

Well, them SETI boys keep tryin', BUT THEY AIN'T FOUND NOTHIN' YET. Y'all welcome to do the same. But please don't bother the children of decent, hardworking people until you come back with something better than "man, that shit could HAPPEN!"

then go to a distant planet and DESIGN IT! omg, and then observe what they think!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"As either only one religion or none of them can actually be correct"

but, according to the tao te ching:

"The way you can go
isn't the real way.
The name you can say
isn't the real name."

(from the ursula le guin translation)

and everything i say is a lie. can this simultaneously be true and untrue? i would argue that certain spiritual beliefs allow for incorporation of other "opposing" belief systems at the same time. by many definitions of religion, science could be considered one. as for fundamentalist christianity, anyone who believes that ultimate knowledge lies in a book is an ass.

...Henderson closes his letter to the Kansas board with this fond vision of the future: "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country and, eventually, the world; one-third time for intelligent design, one-third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence..."

Funny, because if there was ever a case AGAINST intelligent design...

Wait, you do? I never heard about this! How cool!

Prove it, FG, please prove that Intelligent Design exists. If you manage it, I'll come good on the blowjob offer.

(that bit about signals/genes - are you saying "because some things are designed [by humans], everything must be designed [by humans or otherwise]"? Hahahahaha you idiot)

But yes, I am not in a position to talk about Crowley. So let's get back to your proof that ID is a justifiable approach. I'm waiting.

Dumb-dee-dumb-dumb. Yooooou.

Um, I'm just comparing intelligent design of genes vs. intelligent design of signals. We can already compare what fruit "evolved" and what didn't, ie. what was "intelligently designed" and what wasn't. So, the more we get involved with genetics, the more we will comprehend. And, one day, we might understand so well that we say, "Some alien farmer obviously spliced a monkey with a snake to create humans. Look it's like what we did to that orange." Joking, but hopefully you can comprehend now.

They're your quotes, right? They're peppered with non-logic in the guise of rational discussion. If you don't support ID, then you might as well actually have an argument if you're going to play devil's advocate.

I believe you are one of these psychotic individuals who has no concept of debate. You also bang on about lunatics and their half-arsed theories like they, y'know, matter. And then you deny what's in plain irrevocable site. You're a creepy weirdo.

Mankind has miraculously survived.

We have amassed such huge knowledge that we now know exactly how *everything* works. We have also harnessed technology to a level that allows us to create life and replicate the very circumstances that led to it.

We can buy Microwave Primordial Soup (you're only 30 seconds from your first single celled organism!") and Big Bang In A Box ("give your children the Universe and everything in it for Christmas!").

I know it's a stretch of the imagination to think this could happen but when you think how far we've come in a couple of million years it may not be impossible.

If so, is it possible that this already happened?

If so, would that make us Intelligently Designed?

Someone said this:
Ever notice how I.D. arguments always follow this same pattern: "If x, why not y?" Why not guys? Why not?

So, I said this:
Is this response due to the fact that you can't come up with a reasonable argument against "if x, why not y?" Intelligent design can be found in signals, but not genetic code, is that it? When the day comes we modify babies as casually as we modify fruit and vegetables, you'll eat those words, smart guy.

You see, genius, I had taken the term "Intelligent Design" outside of the limitations of a mere header for God to apply it as a joke. My position is, "Sure why not let them look for it. IN SOME-ODD YEARS, people will be able to recognize "intelligent design" in genetics, for instance, just as they believe now that they could recognize "intelligent signals" (which is also "design"). In my opinion, however, both SETI and Intelligent Design are a waste of time. There is not a reasonable argument against looking for Intelligent Design on small-scale research like genetics (ie. "wild dogs wolves have clearly been bred into useless, yapping house muppets!") and so there is no reason why they can't attempt to apply it to large scale projects like outer space. Good luck to them in their attempt to furnish proof, I say. But, then I say that to every dickhole who comes along with a "theory of everything."

How many people have you met who have a theory of everything? Excepting religious types that is.

M-theorists to thread!

I don't know, I'm not real familiar with it all...

If I'm being perfectly serious, then I think a scholastic textbook or perhaps even a class called "Origins" or some such thing should be included in high school curriculum. Then and there, logic can fight out all attacks on itself openly on solid ground. No more quick jabs in Biology class. They want to call God "Intelligent Design?" Fine, we'll use the premise of Intelligent Design and we'll examine it from every angle. We'll explain what can be recognized as "design" and what can't and then we'll set about to seeing what are the most logical theories. It took Aleister Crowley only a couple of pages to exploit the weaknesses of every religion on earth. How easy would it be to spend a few chapters in a textbook about the weaknesses of each religion, to pinpoint exactly the flaw of logic just as Crowley did? We can simply present them all as theories of Intelligent Design and show their weaknesses, just as my Biology teacher explained to me in 9th grade about gaps in the fossil record.

It would have to be done tactfully and with some sort of organized political effort aimed at "openness, honesty and tolerance for each others' beliefs," of course. So, we examine these beliefs logically, with "openness and honesty." Of course, by doing so, we crush them all in short order, but that's just what happens by default, not OUR fault. We make it palattable like we did with sex education.

I think in a few short generations, the meddlesome aspect of religious views would be dramatically reduced in our country, at least, and we could then get on with things like stem cell research and other stuff that matters.

hahahahaha oh my god this again?

I can't think, think about this crazy day
I lose sleep just to daydream about you babyyyyyyyy
I'm going crazy, crazy, crazy, just to thinkin about you lately (crazy baby)
I'm going crazy, crazy, crazy, just to thinkin about you baby (I don't know
what to do)
I'm going crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, thinkin about you lately (crazy, crazy,
crazy)
I'm going crazy, crazy, (crazy, crazy) when I can't touch you
Crazy, crazy (I'm going crazy) when I can't hold you
Crazy, crazy, (I'm going crazy) when I can't see you again
(Said I'm going crazy)

(Said I'm going crazy)
I've finally realized, that you are my true love
And I had a lot of time to think, and you're all seem to keep thinking,
To keep thinkin of, yeahhh
And now I know I need you each and every day
I can't live without you, so don't run away
Baby you say that you love me, so why'd you leave me, why (why, why, why, why)

I can't think, think about this crazy day
I lose sleep just to daydream about you baby (I'm going crazy)
I'm going crazy, crazy, crazy, just thinkin about you lately (just to think)
I'm going crazy, crazy, crazy, just thinkin about you baby
(I'm goin crazy, I'm going crazy)
I'm going crazy, crazy, crazy, crazy, thinkin about you lately
I'm going crazy, crazy, (crazy, crazy)when i can't touch you (I'm going crazy)
Crazy, crazy (crazy, crazy), when I can't hold you
Crazy, crazy, when I can see again (if I can see you, if I can see you if I can
see you, if I can see you)
If I can see you, if I can see you again
Then I would go, if I could see you again
I'd go craeeae

"Of course, by doing so, we crush them all in short order, but that's just what happens by default, not OUR fault."

A line of thought:
Starting with the assumption that reason is something that is God-given. The only correct religion would be rational only to the people God chooses. So, if God chooses people who follow him by faith and not people who try to "figure out" or have proof of the correct religion, then people trying to "figure out" religion (on their own) will not have the reason to do it with.

Starting with the assumption that reason is something that is God-given, as you say (it is what separates us from the animals, afterall), I run into a problem immediately with your line of thought. Faith is not reason. Period. Using reason (not faith), what separates us from the animals, we can quickly and logically conclude that there need be no God and, indeed, adding the concept of "God" to the mix unecessarily complicates things and raises more unanswerable questions. Also, if reason is God-given, as you say, it is not something that should be cast aside, obviously, in order to believe in God. That just makes no sense.

Yes, what if... Hmmm....

Now, all this being said, I must listen to the little voice within me, as do we all. As much as I'll argue to discredit the notion of God from the notions put forth by all major world religions and really from every philosophical perspective, and as much as I am absolutely for eliminating it once and for all from public affairs, there is a little voice inside me that seems to believe (or want to) that there is something more. What that might be or if there is anything at all, I have no idea. And just having to admit this drives me up the wall because it is so cliche: "I feel there is something more, what it is I have no idea." Puke.

I think there are a lot of people like me, probably more than who'd want to admit at rough spots, they've thought, "God, if you really are there, just this once please help me!" Ha, pathetic! I actually don't do THAT, because I realize there are people living hellish lives in 3rd world countries, etc. but I'm sure plenty of other "atheists" have and do.

So, I do understand religion and the uncontrollable urge to believe or will to believe, but I do think it has to be extricated from our politics once and for all because listening to little voices inside ourselves is no way to function as a sane, cooperative collective. It is rather difficult for someone outside to verify those little voices and they do tend to disagree with one another.

For an example, The Golden Rule is reason, not faith. Logic shows us that, if you don't want trouble it is best to treat others how you would like to be treated. Now, on the other hand, you take faith. Faith tells people to go proselytizing. And those people get their asses kicked.

I have no problem with people who want to follow this particular article of faith:

Matthew 6:1, 5-8:
"(But) take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father."

"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward."

"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut the door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you."

It is too bad that same book tells people to go and preach the good word.

;)

Could be faith and God will give reason to the people He chooses.

but this is still asking about "I" and your knowledge.

Matthew 10:39
"Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Hopefully, God will not tell me to crash a plane into a tower or to blow myself up on a bus or something. By the way, you're really avoiding logic and it's not helping your case.

Allow me to share something with you. I expect you'll read however much you wish. I will not bore you with any more quotation after this, but I'd rather not find my own words to make all of these same salient points:

A. We are aware.

B. We cannot doubt the existence (whether "real" or "illusory" makes no difference) of something, because doubt itself is a form of awareness.

C. We lump together all that of which we are aware under the convenient name of "Existence," or "The Universe." Cosmos is not so good for this purpose; that word implies "order," which in the present stage of our argument, is a mere assumption.

D. We also tend to think of the Universe as containing things of which we are not aware; but this is altogether unjustifiable, although it is difficult to think at all without making some such assumption. For instance, one may come upon a new branch of knowledge--say, histology or Hammurabi or the language of the Iroquois or the poems of the Hermaphrodite of Panormita. It seems to be they are all ready waiting for us; we simply cannot believe that we are making it all up as we go along. For all that, it is sheer sophistry; we may merely be unfolding the contents of our own minds. Then again, does a thing cease to exist if we forget it? The answer is that one cannot be sure.

Personally, I feel convinced of the existence of an Universe outside my own immediate awareness; but it is true, even so, that it does not exist for me unless and until it takes its place as part of my consciousness.

E. All this paragraph D is in the nature of a digression, for what you may think of it does not at all touch the argument of this letter. But it had to be put in, just to prevent your mind from raising irrelevant objections. Let me continue, then, from C.

F. Something is. This something appears incalculably vast and complex. How did it come to be?

This, briefly, is the "Riddle of the Universe," which has been always the first preoccupation of all serious philosophers since men began to think at all.

G. The orthodox idiot answer, usually wrapped up in obscure terms in the hope of concealing from the enquirer the fact that it is not an answer at all, but an evasion, is: God created it.

Then, obviously, who created God? Sometimes we have a Demiurge, a creative God behind whom is an eternal formless Greatness--anything to confuse the issue!

Sometimes the Universe is supported by an elephant; he, in turn, stands on a tortoise...by that time it is hoped that the enquirer is too tired and muddled to ask what holds up the tortoise.

Sometimes, a great Father and Mother crystallize out of some huge cloudy confusion of "Elements"--and so on. But nobody answers the question; at least, none of these God-inventing mules, with their incurably commonplace minds.

H. Serious philosophy has always begun by discarding all these puerilities. It has of necessity been divided into these schools: the Nihilist, the Monist, and the Dualist.

I. The last of these is, on the surface, the most plausible; for almost the first thing that we notice on inspecting the Universe is what the Hindu schools call "the Pairs of Opposites."

This, too, is very convenient, because it lends itself so readily to orthodox theology; so we have Ormuzd and Ahriman, the Devas and the Asuras, Osiris and Set, et cetera and da capo, personifications of "Good" and "Evil." The foes may be fairly matched; but more often the tale tells of a revolt in heaven. In this case, "Evil" is temporary; soon, especially with the financial help of the devout, the "devil" will be "cast into the Bottomless Pit" and "the Saints will reign with Christ in glory for ever and ever, Amen!" Often a "redeemer," a "dying God," is needed to secure victory to Omnipotence; and this is usually what little vulgar boys might call a 'touching story'!

J. The Monist (or Advaitist) school, is at once subtler and more refined; it seems to approach the ultimate reality (as opposed to the superficial examination of the Dualists) more closely.

It seems to me that this doctrine is based upon a sorites of doubtful validity. To tell you the hideously shameful truth, I hate this doctrine so rabidly that I can hardly trust myself to present it fairly! But I will try. Meanwhile, you can study it in the Upanishads, in the Bhagavad-Gita, in Ernst Haeckel's The Riddle of the Universe, and dozens of other classics. The dogma appears to excite its dupes to dithyrambs. I have to admit the "poetry" of the idea; but there is something in me which vehemently rejects it with excruciating and vindictive violence. Possibly, this is because part of our own system runs parallel with the first equations of theirs.

K. The Monists perceive quite clearly and correctly that is is absurd to answer the question "How came these Many things (of which we are aware) to be?" by saying that they came from Many; and "Many" in this connection includes Two. The Universe must therefore be a single phenomenon: make it eternal and all the rest of it--i.e. remove all limit of any kind--and the Universe explains itself. How then can Opposites exist, as we observe them to do? Is it not the very essence of our original sorites that the Many must be reducible to the One? They see how awkward this is; so the "devil" of the Dualist is emulsified and evaporated into "illusion"; what they call "Maya" or some equivalent term.

"Reality" for them consists solely of Brahman, the supreme Being "without quantity or quality." They are compelled to deny him all attributes, even that of Existence; for to do so would instantly limit them, and so hurl them headlong back into Dualism. All that of which we are aware must obviously possess limits, or it could have no intelligible meaning for us; if we want "pork," we must specify its qualities and quantities; at the very least, we must be able to distinguish it from "that-which-is-not-pork."

But--one moment, please!

L. There is in Advaitism a most fascinating danger; that is that, up to a certain point, "Religious Experience" tends to support this theory.

A word on this. Vulgar minds such as are happy with a personal God, Vishnu, Jesus, Melcarth, Mithras, or another, often excite themselves--call it "Energized Enthusiasm" if you want to be sarcastic!--to the point of experiencing actual Visions of the objects of their devotion. But these people have not so much as asked themselves the original question of "How come?" which is our present subject. Sweep them into the discard!

M. Beyond Vishnarupadarshana, the vision of the Form of Vishnu, beyond that yet loftier vision which corresponds in Hindu classification to our "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel," is that called Atmadarshana, the vision (or apprehension, a much better word) of the Universe as a single phenomenon, outside all limitations, whether of time, space, causality, or what not.

Very good, then! Here we are with direct realization of the Advaitist theory of the Universe. Everything fits perfectly. Also, when I say "realization," I want you to understand that I mean what I say in a sense so intense and so absolute that it is impossible to convey my meaning to anyone who has not undergone that experience.

How do we judge the "reality" of an ordinary impression upon consciousness? Chiefly by its intensity, by its persistence, by the fact that nobody can argue us out of our belief in it. As people said of Berkeley's 'Idealism'--"his arguments are irrefutable but they fail to carry conviction." No sceptical, no idealist queries can persuade us that a kick in the pants is not 'real' in any reasonable sense of the word. Moreover memory reassures us. However vivid a dream may be at the time, however it may persist throughout the years (though it is rare for any dream, unless frequently repeated, or linked to waking impressions by some happy conjunction of circumstances, to remain long in the mind with any clear-cut vision) it is hardly ever mistaken for an event of actual life. Good: then, as waking life is to dream, so--yes, more so!--is Religious Experience as above described to that life common to all of us. It is not merely easy, it is natural, not merely natural, but inevitable, for anyone who has experienced "Samadhi" (this word conveniently groups the higher types of vision ["Vision" is a dreadfully bad word for it; "trance" is better, but idiots always mix it up with hypnotism.]) to regard normal life as "illusion" by comparison with this state in which all problems are resolved, all doubts driven out, all limitations abolished.

But even beyond Atmadarshana comes the experience called Shivadarshana [Possibly almost identical with the Buddhist Neroda-Samapatti.], in which this Atman (or Brahman), this limit-destroying Universe, is itself abolished and annihilated.

(And, with its occurrence, smash goes the whole of the Advaitist theory!)

It is a commonplace to say that no words can describe this final destruction. Such is the fact; and there is nothing one can do about it but put it down boldly as I have done above. It does not matter to our present purpose; all that we need to know is that the strongest prop of the Monist structure has broken off short.

Moreover, is it really adequate to postulate an origin of the Universe, as they inevitably do? Merely to deny that there ever was a beginning by saying that this "One" is eternal fails to satisfy me.

What is very much worse, I cannot see that to call Evil "illusion" helps us at all. When the Christian Scientist hears that his wife has been savagely mauled by her Peke, he has to smile, and say that "there is a claim of error." Not good enough.

Then, obviously, who created God? Sometimes we have a Demiurge, a creative God behind whom is an eternal formless Greatness--anything to confuse the issue!

He has the assumption that he will not be confused by the answer to the Riddle of the Universe. One attribute of God is that He is self-existant. Asking who created God is an incorrect question.

I like the Tao Teh Ching a lot but I'm not so sure about Taoism. I actually *really* like Crowley's translation of the Tao Teh Ching! He went out of his way to point out that "the Tao" means more than "The Way" and it seems very odd that his interpretation of it, along with the rest of his books, is completely ignored by all scholars, but I suppose this has to do with his tendency to cross-reference everything with obscurity and seeming irrelevance. Anyway, I have 4 or 5 translations of the Tao Teh Ching and I read 1 or 2 of them every year or so.

Taoism takes the "what the hell is going on here" question and seems to say "I am what I am" but does not ask for WORSHIP - and I think "worship" is the thing I have a MAJOR issue with. Faith. OK, have faith. We all have it in something. Belief, understanding, questions. But WORSHIP? GUILT? MORALS? Not interested. Irrelevant, as the Vorlons would say, and yes, I'm deliberately throwing scifi crap into the mix.

From Judge John Jones' ruling in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District:

"To briefly reiterate, we first note that since ID is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only real effect of the ID Policy is the advancement of religion...

The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

etc etc etc

PWNED.

Jones said of the defendants, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose" behind the intelligent design policy.

OMG PWNED!

The obvious way around this is to say that everything in the universe is evidence of intelligent design. The new problem here is that it implies that the Intelligent Designer is evidence of intelligent design, which leads to infinite logical regress. On the other hand, if we want to say that the Intelligent Designer is not in the universe, and therefore is exempted from this rule, that is tantamount to saying there is no Intelligent Designer, which is self-defeating of course.

The second problem with the tactic of saying that intelligent design is omnipresent is that, when we say something is everywhere, we're effectively saying it has no definition, location or discrete presence. In other words, if a concept applies everywhere, it might as not apply at all, as it has no discriminative function at all. This was the reason the pseudo-scientific concept of aether was abandoned.

I am baffled by what is meant by these phrases.

"IN YOUR FACE! IN YOUR FACE!"

Why should God receive glory? Why would he want to receive Glory?

http://www.thebricktestament.com/exodus/egyptians_drowned/ex14_01.jpg

Or alternatively, what TOMBOT said.

Can we then give a test which ID has to pass to be accepted as legitimate? Or a test that if ID failed it could be said to be disproved.

Maybe the key problem/bone of contention with ID is the statment:
"I believe that X requires an intelligence to happen".

We'd need to have some way of determining what exactly requires intelligence to exist, we could then measure things (human beings, the eye, etc.)

I think that would always be a very subjective opinion.

Anti-IDers would want to come up with a list of things that look like they're designed, but aren't.

Pro-IDers would want to come up with a list of things that absolutley _require_ a desiger.

LOOK IT UP

And evolution is okay because it is falsifiable.
In what way (in principle) might evolution be proved false?

As the great biologist J B S Haldane growled, when asked what might disprove evolution: "Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian."

The concept of evolution, taken as a whole, does truly boggle the mind -- in my opinion, one ought appreciate it as evidence of the subtle wonder of all life. "Intelligent design" proponents want to relegate their creator to the role of fabricator, a fussy tinkerer stitching falgella onto the asses of eubacteria.

Or maybe I could put it this way: Just because you can't comprehend the nature and complexity of the universe, doesn't mean you should impose your own ignorance on your idea of the creator.

This was part of the testimony in the trial. I don't remember all the examples they used, but I think they talked about the evolution of the eye and various other things that IDers hold up as "irreducibly complex."

Anyway, it's hard to imagine a much more forceful decision. I'm sure there will be other test cases -- Kansas, say -- but this is going to give IDers pause about investing more time and money unless they can come up with something more substantial.

Okay, I'm guessing that there is some pattern in the fossil record that would be prone to destruction by counterexamples, but how would I go about getting an overview of this fossil record?

One thing that strikes me is that (I'm pretty sure, but no refernce) there is either only one complete T-rex skeleton ever found (or maybe none, or maybe some other very small number).
The number of times I've read about them in science books, let alone seen them on TV, in fiction, in movies etc. made me think there were thousands of the things dug up. Obviously one is enough to prove their existence.

So where can I get ball park figures, an idea of scale, order etc? Is it possible or do we just have to trust the experts? I'm sure a lot of people on this thread are saying the fossil record backs up evolution, without actually having looked at the fossil record themselves.

I don't care how many T. Rexes specifically have been dug up, as it's not much of a part of the narrative, and there have been fucking loads of dinosaur bones, which is how and why so many museums have lots of them.

Scientists specialize; someone untrained shouldn't expect to approach something like archaeology and be able to understand it intuitively.

Obviously one is enough to prove their existence.

not thinking like a scientist, mei

I quite agree elmo. There are many, many things that a non-expert couldn't understand and that we should trust experts on. I just want to raise the possibilty that maybe this is one of those things. Maybe it's no good saying "fossil record proves evoulution", when the fossil record itdelf is too big and complex for most people to (have the time or inclination to) understand.

Going to look at that link now.

ARRRRGGHH YOU'RE NOT LEARNING

-- vahid (vfoz...), December 21st, 2005.

For the first you mean we should only ever treat ID as a theory waiting to be disproved by counter-example, in the same way that, say gravity is only a theory that will be 'disproved' when we have a theory that better matches observation?

On the second point, huh?

Surely finding one tyrannosaur (that's not a fake) would prove the existence of _a_ tyrannosaur and it's only a tiny leap from there to the existence of more than one tyrannosaur? Am I misundersatnding you?

(Sorry, I'm more of a mathematician than a scientist I guess, and you really can positively prove things there (based on certain assumptions that we don't really care if they're false anyway!))

I didn't mean this literally.

For instance, http://www.dinosaur-world.com/tyrannosaurs/tyrannosaurus_rex.htm
says that there are only three complete t-rex skulls, and zero complete skeletons.

Would the entire collections of fossils humans have ever collected fit in my spare room?

it doesn't "prove" a "t-rex" existed ... "t-rex" is a construct to explain the features of those bones, it's entirely possible humans have misinterpreted the way the bones fit together, maybe they'll find a new skeleton somewhere else which disproves how we've fit them together now.

we should see what and which data we have that ID more elegantly, cleanly and consistently contextualizes and explains than evolution.

if there is a lot - hell, if there is any - then maybe we should look at ID as serious competition for evolution.

it's easy to see that postulating a supernatural (outside the laws of our world) being makes it hard to have an internally consistent / elegant system for explaining the laws of the natural world. that's why most scientists reject ID out of hand.

most scientists spend 99% of their time time working on finding the data and 1% of their time working on the theories.

With what percentage certainty do we think this table (or individual bits of it) are correct?

(I don't mean that as a real question BTW and I'm getting way off the point with it anyway)

What I'm trying to get at is how can your average person look at something as big and complex as the fossil record and its links to what we understand about evolution (and all the other bits of dispersed evidence for evolution) and come to a reasonable conclusion?

--------------------------

Vahid, your sentence highlights this:
"we should see what and which data we have that ID more elegantly, cleanly and consistently contextualizes and explains than evolution"

You're perfectly right. However that suggestion is in practice almost useless to most people, who simply can't judge how elegantly, cleanly and consistently ID (or any competitor) fits with the facts.
How deply immersed in the facts and patterns would they have to be to judge 'elegance'?

ID is not a theory, it has no elegance.

Are you going to wear a cravat and speak in the accent of a French bouroise when you tell them that?

that's a pretty good argument for leaving it to the experts!

I find your rhetorical use of the "average person" pretty galling. You seem to be suggesting that if the public, by and large, cannot grasp the intricacies of a given system, then they can disregard it in their ignorance.

Like I said before, scientists specialize because scientific knowledge doesn't fall under "common sense."

Having a person with no specialized scientific knowledge to judge the validity of a hypothesis is like -- well, it's kinda like appointing Harriet Meiers to the Supreme Court.

I am definitely NOT suggesting that the public should ignore anything they find too complex, just that it should be recognised that there are some things that are too complex for more than a small percentage of the population to have a good understanding of.

Yes, agreed.

Is ID a 'common sense' solution (albeit an incorrect one) to a question that really needs in-depth, specialist study and which has no simple answer?

How can this be explained to ID advocates without it sounding like, "ID is wrong, but you're not clever enough to understand the real answer"?

In other words, vahid's "solution" to the controversy surrounding evolutionary theory -- "leaving it to the experts" -- may work in terms of advancing science, but ignores the embeddedness of science in politics.

At least, I think that's what mei is getting at...

I want a clear rebuttal of ID that can be understood by most people.

I've now read this entire thread and I can't find a single convincing argument in favour of or against ID.

And this might be because ID isn't even enough of a hypothesis to argue with -- it's a giant supposition, and it's a supposition that's been specifically arranged so that it's meaningless. It doesn't tell us anything about the world itself -- it doesn't give us any of the workable / falsifiable / testable / predictable "knowledge" about the world that science is supposed to be working in. And it does that on purpose, because its whole concept doesn't actually fit with most of that knowledge we have about the world -- and because, as a theory, it makes absolutely no attempt to reconcile itself with everything else we know. It's a random supposition, and -- more importantly -- it's totally meaningless. Say it was true, say there really were an intelligent designer at work: SO? What does that mean? What does it teach us about everything else we know? What does that actually change? And the answer is "nothing," or at least nothing having to do with science -- the sole impact of this "theory" isn't scientific but religious, metaphysical. It's totally bum thinking: it tells us nothing applicable about the world (in science terms), and therefore has nothing in itself that can be tested, and therefore has nothing in itself that can be falsified. A theory advanced in good faith seeks to answer a question about the world, and it seeks to answer it in the context of the rest of our knowledge about the world. ID seeks to establish a proposition about religion, and it pretends to answer it in such a way as to have no effect on the rest of our knowledge and therefore be scientifically meaningless -- and beyond arguing "for" or "against" in any actual scientific terms.

Ruling may create new interest in intelligent design movement

"may"

Well, I can't argue about the "different world" part at all.

I mean, science is supposed to produce knowledge. Most of the theories and hypothesis we celebrate in science have, at some point, allowed us to DO something. ID can never allow us to do anything, because it doesn't actually posit anything about the world. The biggest embarrassment of all would be to go ahead and accept ID, to celebrate it as a scientific breakthrough, and then ask its proponents: so, where are you taking this research? Is ID gonna show you how to cure cancer? Are you gonna make an ID-bomb, or invent ID space travel, or an super-ID-conductor? What does it have to do with science at all?

It's honestly not a theory advanced in good scientific faith -- instead of establishing any testability, it uses the whole unquestionable-designer thing in order to skirt the whole issue. It's deliberately stripped of anything that would mean enough to be investigated on a non-mystical level.

"Accept intelligent design as a valid scientific theory" == "Introduce theology as an essential component of science"

By the way, even though Behe's theory is the crux of the pseudoscientific justification for ID, it's been largely debunked. In fact, the Dover opinion discusses Behe's theory in great detail. Check it out--http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf--the discussion of Behe's theory starts on page 72.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

I mean, that sort of gap-filling has been religion's role forever. If we don't understand why water falls from the sky now and then, well, it must be the product of some intelligent design -- god makes it rain! If we don't understand why planets move around us, it must be the product of some intelligent design -- god arranged the solar system! And so on and so on; the precedents are not very good at all for assuming that the gap must be filled by some outside intelligence.

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project" Circulates Online

by James Still

A recently-circulated position paper of The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC) reveals an ambitious plan to replace the current naturalistic methodology of science with a theistic alternative called "intelligent design."

The CRSC, a program launched by the Discovery Institute in 1996, is the major force behind recent advances in the intelligent design movement. The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College. Its mission is "to replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific alternative." The Discovery Institute hopes that intelligent design will be the usurper that finally dethrones the theory of evolution.

On March 3, 1999, an anonymous person obtained an internal white paper from the CRSC entitled "The Wedge Project," which detailed the Center's ambitious long-term strategy to replace "materialistic science" with intelligent design. The paper describes the CRSC's mission with a sense of urgency:

"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

The white paper created quite a buzz among many skeptics after it was widely circulated on the Internet. However, CRSC Senior Fellow and Director of Program Development Jay Richards said that the mission statement and goals had been posted on the CRSC's web site since 1996. Richards also said, "the general concept of the 'Wedge' is described in Phillip Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds." Richards neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the document, but he believed that the paper was an "older, summary overview of the 'Wedge' program." Much of the boilerplate content of the paper is posted on the CRSC's web site.

The document in its present form looks to have been written very recently. It sets a target to "accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003)." If 2003 ends a five-year plan, the paper was probably written or revised in 1998 or 1999. Despite the date of its authorship, however, and even if nothing new is revealed in the paper, proponents of naturalism and science are right to be concerned about its contents.

The paper outlines a "wedge strategy" that has three phases. Phase I, "Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity" involves the Paleontology Research Program (led by Dr. Paul Chien), the Molecular Biology Research Program (led by Dr. Douglas Axe), and any individual researcher who is given a fellowship by the Institute. Phase I has already begun, the paper argues, with the watershed work of Phillip Johnson, whose Darwinism on Trial sparked the intelligent design movement. The Center hopes that more Christian scientists will step forward and engage in research that would support the intelligent design theory.

Phase II, "Publicity and Opinion-Making" involves communicating the research of Phase I. The Center plans to do this through book tours, opinion-making conferences, apologetics seminars, a teacher training program, use of opinion-editorials in newspapers, television program productions (either with Public Broadcasting or another broadcaster), and the printing of publications to distribute. Phases I and II are to be implemented over the next five years (1999-2003). Phase II is

"to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being 'merely academic.' Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."

Phase III, "Cultural Confrontation and Renewal" begins sometime in 2003 and may take as long as twenty years to complete. It involves three things: (1) "Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences"; (2) "Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training"; and (3) "Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities". The white paper describes Phase III as the renewal phase because it seeks to fill the void left behind by materialistic evolution (attacked in Phase II) with its own intelligent design model:

"Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences."

The Wedge Project white paper ends with a detailed summary of progress-to-date, including goals for the future.

When asked if he worried that Phase II will seem like a heavy-handed spin and that no one will take the work accomplished in Phase I seriously, Richards said that the publicity will not drive the scholarship but that the scholarship will come first and foremost. "There are already too many programs that opt for the former over the latter," he said, "we don't wish to be one of them."

While the goal of putting scholarship ahead of public relations is a noble one, the paper's overall tone and rugged timetable seems to belie that point. The reintroduction of theism into public discourse in Phase III is set to begin sometime in 2003. But before Phase III can begin, Phase II must have already dethroned naturalism through a vigorous public relations and opinion-shaping campaign. This puts the cart before the horse. When will there be time to conduct careful research? Science is supposed to be a vehicle that provides the reason to believe that intelligent design is a better explanation than naturalism. To think that a scientist must reach his or her conclusions within a five-year span of time, running concurrent with a public relations campaign, is hardly good scientific practice. Not only will it put unnecessary pressure on the scientist to reach conclusions before the data warrants it, but it ignores the very nature of the scientific enterprise. Often it takes years before the findings in science are fully understood and many more before the results are applied to real-world problems.

Another problem with the CRSC's plan is that it seeks to replace evolutionary theory at a time when the theory enjoys nearly unanimous support in the scientific community. Thomas Kuhn, in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes what has happened historically when one theory comes to replace another. He writes that the anomaly of an insufficient theory will have "lasted so long and penetrated so deep that one can appropriately describe the fields affected by it as in a state of growing crisis . . . the emergence of new theories is generally preceded by a period of pronounced professional insecurity." Kuhn's point is clear. Before a new theory in science is sought, there is usually a growing crisis coupled with mounting skepticism, doubt, and the elucidation of cogent reasons for thinking that the existing theory is inadequate. Where is the growing crisis that casts doubt on evolution and methodological naturalism, the tool that led to the theory of evolution? Aside from a few participants in well-publicized Templeton-funded conferences, scientists experience no insecurity with their current methods. Even if the theory of evolution were inadequate, why should we expect the scientific community to turn to theistic explanations?

Sometimes, scientific discovery is an accidental byproduct of other research. In 1895, Professor Wilhelm Conrad Ršntgen discovered the x-ray quite by accident, when he found that some kind of invisible ray was passing through his cardboard shield. Over the next several weeks he ate and slept in his lab to prepare his paper "On a New Kind of Rays” for the Proceedings of the Physical Medical Society, which was published that year. However, Professor Ršntgen was pursuing science to no particular dogmatic end. He didn't know where his discovery would lead, but rather he understood that the pure pursuit of knowledge was an end in itself. This anecdote is typical of all scientific research from Aristotle's initial forays into zoology, to Galileo's observational astronomy, and most dramatically in the twentieth-century, to the discovery and use of penicillin. The assumption of methodological naturalism and the use of the scientific method has led to an incredible advance in our understanding of the world around us.

The fruits of science can never be anticipated ahead of time nor can the scientific enterprise be placed on a regimented schedule. Science must be left to operate on its own, unencumbered by the perceived need for public relations, focus groups, talk-shows, and public opinion polls. This is not to say that science should not use modern media outlets to communicate its results. However, the CRSC seems to have placed the public relations work of Phase II ahead of the need for an actual scientific theory worth sharing with the world. When the medium becomes the message we are right to suspect that the message lacks substance. There is something strange going on, for instance, when the Templeton Foundation stages huge media events to present the illusion that science has found God. As University of Hawaii physicist Victor Stenger commented in the March issue of ii, only smoke and mirrors lay behind last summer's media circus over science and God. Scientists who do real science bracket God out of the enterprise altogether and for good reason: it works. Natural explanations are far more satisfying to us than supernatural conjectures.

The CRSC's plan to bring down the scientific enterprise in favor of "intelligent design" seems motivated by the fear that human meaning is somehow diminished if science continues to flourish. However, human dignity and meaning can be diminished only by ignorance. Goethe's Mephistopheles realized this truth as well when, as translated by Steven Schafersman, he proclaims in Faust:

Despise reason and science,
humanity's greatest strengths,
indulge in illusions and magical practices
that reinforce your self-deception,
and you will be unconditionally lost!

Science need not contradict religious faith, although its findings have sometimes exposed superstitions such as the geocentric theory, a world-wide catastrophic flood, and Tillich's God "up there." The real irony in all of this is that the Discovery Institute's well-laid plans are doomed to failure from the outset. Even if they succeeded brilliantly in manufacturing the consent needed to replace science with theism, it would only be a matter of time before we began to question the world around us and to turn once again to science as a constructive means for finding answers to our questions. If all of our knowledge were wiped away tomorrow and replaced with theistic dogma, another Thales or an Aristotle would come along to begin the process anew. Mephistopheles thinks he holds us tight with religious illusion, but human beings are greater than the gods and devils who would keep us in ignorance. Science is our most reliable tool for understanding the universe in which we live. "And I by the power of thought," Pascal wrote, "may comprehend the universe."

Well, insofar as sexual continence goes they may have a point. I mean, have you checked out what goes on in the Monkey House?

For some reason I've always thought that claim belonged to the banana slug aka Ariolimax dolichophallus, named for the "long penis" that can grow to well beyond its own body length.

At least this is what my friends from Santa Cruz tell me. But since the record-holding specimen had a body length of 6 inches, with a phallus length of 32.5 inches, I'm inclined to believe.

But what monkeys and apes lack in size, they more than make up for with creativity. Ask the female orangutan who had an unnatural affecttion for mangoes. I mean, we all like mangoes, but...

Sometimes clouds look like cats.

Sometimes you can see a face in a tree.

My mom got a sopapilla once that was the exact same shape as Ethiopia(/Eritrea) -- kinda fun to imagine it was an intelligently-designed treat from the frier guy.

"If you’re an inveterate tube-o-phile, you may remember the episode of "Cheers" in which Cliff, the postman who’s stayed by neither snow, nor rain, nor gloom of night from his appointed rounds of beer, exclaims to Norm that he’s found a potato that looks like Richard Nixon’s head.

This could be an astonishing attempt by taters to express their political views, but Norm is unimpressed. Finding evidence of complexity (the Nixon physiognomy) in a natural setting (the spud), and inferring some deliberate, magical mechanism behind it all, would be a leap from the doubtful to the divine, and in this case, Norm feels, unwarranted.

Cliff, however, would have some sympathizers among the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), whose efforts to influence school science curricula continue to swill large quantities of newspaper ink. As just about everyone is aware, these folks use similar logic to infer a "designer" behind such biological constructions as DNA or the human eye. The apparent complexity of the product is offered as proof of deliberate blueprinting by an unknown creator—conscious action, presumably from outside the universe itself."

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html

an article that critique weasels who offer up SETI research in support of "intelligent design"

they absolutely must find a way to explain what is wrong with ID

This has been done, including several times in this thread. ID is neither testable nor falsifiable, therefore it is a non-argument, a worthless, superficial notion that has no place in any logical way of thinking. Nothing needs to be proved as ID is, in a very real sense, nothing. It's a non-theory.

xpost yup!!@

this is making the blog rounds. fuckin hilarious

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

well done

Yeah, read that the other day. Major roffles.

lolololol

http://freegrin.com/golden-rule.jpg

I don't understand that linked article... Why wasn't the guy let into the theatre? And what harm could Richard Dawkins do by seeing a pro-creationist film? Write a scathing review of it? I doubt that would change anyone's mind who already believes in that shit.

i know, it's like the creationists aren't acting rationally. so weird.

No, I didn't mean the creationists, but the guy who wrote that article. He seemed to feel like Richard Dawkins getting in to see the film was a major victory or something.

you don't see the irony of creationists trying to keep a skeptic out and letting in mr. all-time super-atheist #1 guy?

http://controversy.wearscience.com

'Big Science' is always suppressing The Truth with their blatant pro-evolution anti-wacko agenda: from the fact that UFOs built the pyramids to the reality of creationism and fact the universe is "Turtles All The Way Down". It is time to fight back and urge schools to Teach The Controversy with these intelligently designed t-shirts. All designs available in a variety of colors and styles, or feel free to create your own with our custom designer

lol

http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/doonesbury_ID_060702.gif