Message 1 of 204 (444977) 12-31-2007 4:46 PM

Edited by Organicmachination, : No reason given.

Message 3 of 204 (445012) 12-31-2007 8:36 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination 12-31-2007 4:46 PM

Let me repeat this. The ID text book Of Pandas and People started out as a text book for creationism. The earlier versions of this book specifically refered to creationism and creationist. When they realized that they couldn't sell this book with the words creationism and creaitonist, they went back, highlighted all the words "creationism" and "creationist" and changed them to "intelligent design" and "design proponent". At one point, they only highlighted a portion of a word "creationist" and they ended up with the word "cdesign proponentist".

In other words, intelligent design is just creationism with a change of name. It's like me legally changing my name to George Bush and expect people to believe I'm now a republican.

Message 4 of 204 (445043) 01-01-2008 12:15 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination 12-31-2007 4:46 PM

The only useful place it has in the classroom is as an example of pseudo-science.

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Message 5 of 204 (445074) 01-01-2008 2:46 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination 12-31-2007 4:46 PM

"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." --- William Dembski

If they don't know, who does?

Message 6 of 204 (445116) 01-01-2008 9:13 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination 12-31-2007 4:46 PM

Hijacking a self-explanatory term is different from inventing a new concept. "Do creationists use Intelligent Design to disguise their beliefs?", is a separate question.

The investigation of whether nature has developed through design seems a scientific enough one to me.

Whether it should be proposed in 'our' classrooms is a political question which I wouldn't comment on, not being from your country. :)

Message 8 of 204 (445186) 01-01-2008 1:21 PM

Reply to: Message 6 by sinequanon 01-01-2008 9:13 AM

Again, I must point to the ID text book Of Pandas and People. The previous versions of the book were written for creationism. They simply highlighted the words "creationism" and "creationist" and changed them to "intelligent design" and "design proponent" after they realized they couldn't sell this book because of the law.

Message 9 of 204 (445194) 01-01-2008 1:38 PM

Reply to: Message 6 by sinequanon 01-01-2008 9:13 AM

What f'ing bullshit. All the term Intelligent Design does is hand wave away the problem of explanation for the universe. If the universe is intelligently designed we are then left with the question of where that intelligence arose from and now the answer is left wanting once again.

Intelligent Design is a non answer for people whose credulity allows for no questioning.

Message 10 of 204 (445203) 01-01-2008 1:55 PM

Reply to: Message 6 by sinequanon 01-01-2008 9:13 AM

Teleology is not religion in the guise of science. Intelligent Design however is a movement that advances a theological argument that relies on obfuscating science.

Occasionally, ID people will run back to simple teleology - but examining things closely (looking at Pandas and People, the Wedge document etc) reveals that the cdesign proponentists are not just championing teleology.

Intelligent Design is a specific movement which uses distortion and lying about science to advance their agenda.
Teleology is an interesting philosophical argument, with possible implications in the study of nature (science).

If there was enough time to study the philosophy of science, perhaps teleology should come up. High School curriculum is already jam packed, but I learned about teleology at university without issue.

Message 11 of 204 (445205) 01-01-2008 2:04 PM

Reply to: Message 7 by Organicmachination 01-01-2008 11:16 AM

Not knowing where the laws of nature came from has not caused science to throw them out. Why should the concept of intelligent design be any different?

Message 12 of 204 (445206) 01-01-2008 2:06 PM

Reply to: Message 11 by sinequanon 01-01-2008 2:04 PM

There is evidence that the laws of nature exist.

There is no evidence of a designer.

It really is that simple.

Message 13 of 204 (445208) 01-01-2008 2:09 PM

Reply to: Message 11 by sinequanon 01-01-2008 2:04 PM

If the intelligent designer is simply the laws of nature, then evolution exists, doesn't it, and your ID theory is blown out of the water. Playing semantics isn't going to work here. You should know that we all know that ID is simply a method to get religion into schools.

Message 14 of 204 (445210) 01-01-2008 2:16 PM

Reply to: Message 11 by sinequanon 01-01-2008 2:04 PM

There are no laws of nature. What there are are a set of behaviors by the universe that we can observe. We then invent/create a set of "laws" or mathematical constructs to attempt to explain these behaviors. It's like trying to throw in a best fit curve in your data.

Any freshman college student could have told you this. Even the laws that we have created/invented to describe the natural phenomena are subject to modification and change as new data and new behaviors are observed.

Please try to stop treating science like a religious dogma. It's not. There's no such thing as "truth" in science. All, and I do mean ALL, things in science are subject to modification, change, and even completely thrown out the window. It's not like the religion of intelligent design where no matter what the evidence shows cdesign proponentists continue to believe in fairies.

Message 15 of 204 (445219) 01-01-2008 2:30 PM

Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous 01-01-2008 1:55 PM

Throwing the whole thing out looks like a convenient way of avoiding challenging questions about evolution.