|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575060 - 01/09/09 12:46 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If evidence comes along pointing towards the existence of a designer, then of course we should accept ID as the current model of reality.
What is considered to be truth is only what best matches the current evidence.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575061 - 01/09/09 12:47 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said: Are you suggesting one should value simplicity over truth?
What is the truth?
"We don't know" will not be accepted as a valid answer to this question. I already knew that. I want to know THE. TRUTH.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
Edited by Tchan909 (01/09/09 12:48 AM)
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: Silversoul]
#9575080 - 01/09/09 12:53 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Uh, no. If all you argued was that the universe is characterized by order, there would be no scientific controversy over it. Even if you believe that order has divine origin, academia would not fault you for it as long as you taught the facts about evolution in the class. ID posits that there are instances of intervention in evolution at certain points to create irreducible complexity. I don't think you'd even get in big trouble for discussing irreducible complexity(nevermind that every instance of supposed irreducible complexity has, in fact, been shown to be reducible to lower levels of complexity). It's when you introduce "design" into it, which is totally unfalsifiable, that you start to venture into scientifically dangerous territory. It's fine for philosophy or religion classes, but leave it out of the science classroom.
Yeah, now that I've read that, you're right, I wasn't thinking clearly.
What scientists do is take the basic assumption that there cannot be supernatural events, which is out of their bounds as scientists in the first place, and then attempt to explain things even further out of their scope, such as the beginning of life, with their own naturalistic assumptions. This too should be left out of the classroom, but it's not. So either both world views should be optional, or taken out altogether.
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9575087 - 01/09/09 12:55 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly my point. Simplicity bears no weight in the matter.
tchan: Whatever you think it is bro.
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575097 - 01/09/09 12:58 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with you that science doesn't know anything. It only represents the best understanding of nature and the universe as we fragile little human beings can comprehend.
You can generalize all you like about scientists, but the fact is that they are all human beings with their own motivations and their own spiritual values. You might want to look into Einstein's spiritual values, in particular, as they are quite moving.
This is why ID is so absurd. It's not science. You yourself have said that. So why should it be taught alongside Darwinian evolution, which IS science? They just don't belong in the same class. No science teacher should be expected to teach metaphysical and philosophical concepts; he's a SCIENCE TEACHER.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575108 - 01/09/09 01:00 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said: tchan: Whatever you think it is bro.
Agreed.
However, science classes would invariably be useless if the only principle taught was to "figure it out for yourself, man."
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Tchan909 said: I may sound like a hypocrite here. Among my earliest posts in P&S were ones urging my peers not to worship science, as it was a false idol.
Believe it or not, science is not an idol. If you perceive science is an idol to anyone, it's probably because you're in denial of reality. Science is a collection of facts about our universe. A scientific theory is a calculation, or a model, under which real-life events can be reliably predicted.
ID supposes that there is such a thing as "divine intervention," that sometimes the mind of the universe acts beyond scientific phenomena as they can be observed. Okay. I'm not going to tell you that's wrong, or incorrect. But at the same time, you couldn't possibly say anything that has less relevance to science, its study, or its development, being that none of us can know, predict, or understand the mind of the divine interventionist. So why would you want to talk about this idea in science class? It does not belong.
Is life originating from primordial soup a fact?
After answering this basic question, you can see why your entire argument is flawed.
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575119 - 01/09/09 01:02 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said: Is life originating from primordial soup a fact?
No, but it's testable. Intelligent design is not, and therefore is disqualified from being a scientific theory.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9575125 - 01/09/09 01:04 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Just because it is testable doesn't mean it deserves a place in a scientific textbook. If it is added simply as a possibility of life's origin, why not ID also?
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575127 - 01/09/09 01:05 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
A scientific theory by definition has to be testable. If it's not testable, it's not science, and certainly does not deserve a mention in a scientific textbook.
Let it remain in a philosophy or spirituality class; why insist it be taught alongside scientific theory?
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9575153 - 01/09/09 01:13 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
This is what baffles me the most about ID. It assumes that an intelligent entity created and controls the entire universe as we know it. Evolution is not opposed to this idea!
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9575157 - 01/09/09 01:14 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I don't want either taught in science class. But one already is! People regard the unsubstantiated theory that life began from a lifeless soup of matter as a proven theory only because it is so widely used in textbooks. This also should be taught in philosophy class! People are being forced to accept these basic assumptions in science classes if they want to make an A. I only insist ID be taught if these, what I consider wild claims, also are to be taught
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575162 - 01/09/09 01:15 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said: Is life originating from primordial soup a fact?
It is testable, at least more so than ID. Experiments have been done which simulate the earth's early atmosphere, resulting in the formation of organic compounds.
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575165 - 01/09/09 01:16 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It's the best theory we have that still remains testable. As such, it should be taught as the current scientific theory in science class.
You are vastly incorrect if you believe that people assume anything in science. A theory is what it is; a paradigm that best fits the evidence and that will readily be changed if new evidence comes up that disproves the theory. Nothing is taken on faith, unlike in intelligent design.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Sophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575172 - 01/09/09 01:17 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
myriadeyes said: I don't want either taught in science class. But one already is! People regard the unsubstantiated theory that life began from a lifeless soup of matter as a proven theory only because it is so widely used in textbooks. People are being forced to accept these basic assumptions in science classes if they want to make an A. I only insist ID be taught if these, what I consider wild claims, also are to be taught.
The primordial soup as the birthplace of life is unproven and uncertain, this is true.
However, it also makes a LOT more sense given what we understand, can prove, and perceive, than the idea that magic did it.
This is the central principle of ID: that magic did it.
You are asserting here that magic is a viable alternative to science.
-------------------- Enlil said: You really are the worst kind of person.
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: Silversoul]
#9575207 - 01/09/09 01:28 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Because something is testable is not merit enough to be used in a scientific textbook. I say much of evolution that has yet to have been verified, such as life's origin, should remain in a philosophy class, where it belongs. Instead, it is being touted as fact, or at least perceived that way.
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
Edited by myriadeyes (01/09/09 01:34 AM)
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9575214 - 01/09/09 01:33 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What evidence is there to support that life came from non-life? Simply that life exists?? That, along with the belief that supernatural events are impossible, it seems are all scientists have to work with. Non-life coming from non-life doesn't bear much weight IMO.
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: myriadeyes]
#9575215 - 01/09/09 01:34 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If your science textbook treats the origin of life as coming from self-replicating molecules as fact, then your science textbook does not teach science.
Nothing in science is fact.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer
Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9575218 - 01/09/09 01:35 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Isn't the evolution theory, more complicated than the God theory. Intelligent design is not religion, it doesn't mean there has to be a divine power. If evolution were the only answer, why is there no other example of a single cell evolving into space travel... ------------- I'm not suggesting an answer, just a few thoughts
|
myriadeyes
man with a movie camera
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 358
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
Re: Ben Stein's "Expelled" Intelligent Design [Re: deCypher]
#9575220 - 01/09/09 01:35 AM (15 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It seems you and tchan have vastly different ideas of what science is
-------------------- If you spare a little of your imagination . . .
|
|