|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1423 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
quote: Where? I think that they do exist, lots of them. There are systems that "break" if you remove any part. That isn't the issue. The claim that there is no way for them to evolve if they are IC is the one which is unsupported.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
There are no transitionals from one species to another. Please go to Message 1 to supply what you mean by a transitional. I'm sure, by the way, that you didn't mean to include "species" in there. Since species is only a little fuzzy there are, of course, not many or any "transitionals" betweent them. I think you meant something else? Genera? Family? "kind"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Please summarize the argument contained in your links. You know WT, there isn't much use talking if you're not going to click a link now and then. There is NO argument in the link! There is a request for some literalists who use the word "transitional" to define it. It appears from what they post that they don't have a definition so I wanted to get that cleared up. As for your quote: I'm not aware of that the researchers in origin of life are suggesting that it arose by pure random chance. Not any of it that I've seen anyway. What they are attempting to understand is the chemistry involved and just what the limits on it are. To use the rather stupid math arguments used by a number of creationists only demonstrates that the user doesn't understand statistics. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-22-2004 10:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
A chance to be a pro-science activist!
This thread started to head a bit off course to a more purely ID topic. I've copied the last view posts into here.
Commike37 writes: That's a very loaded analogy you're running there. The existence of an intelligent being is much more debatable than whether or not the Holocaust happened. A much more appropiate analogy is whether or not slavery was the cause of the Civil War. There are many theories as to what caused the Civil War. And there are many theories over the origins of life: evolution, intelligent design, and some others like the Gaian theory. Discussing whether ID should be taught or not. Then NosyNed at:
Message 7 suggests that there isn't enough evidence to warrent time on ID. Commmike37 at
Message 8 argues for some time for ID and lists scientists supporting it as a reason. Ned at Message 9again suggests there is not enough evidence and is not convinced by list of scientists without seeing reasons behind their views. Commmike at
Message 10 suggests that there is an alternative that supplies purpose. I'll start the flow at this point in my next posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It seems one argument is that there should be some balance with time apportioned between different scientific ideas.
One question might be how you would calculate the porportions of time? If we took Commikes list of scientists supporting ID we could arrive at a porportion based on votes of biological scientists perhaps. This would give maybe 1/100 of one percent of the time to ID and the rest to the current biological consensus. (rough calculations only). Another way would be based on hard evidence and amount of testing done. This would, I think, make the disparity larger. What measure would you suggest Commike?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I don't know how exactly you're planning to run this, but it does seem to be viewing evolution as a "sacred dogma." This is a comment of Commikes from:
Message 10 Commike, could you comment on why you think that is? It was in answer to:
NosyNed writes: As another bit of context setting I presume we are agreeing that it is necessary to teach that evolution has occured and some details of that. This is, as I understand it, agreed to by the ID proponents. Do you agree that ID proponents have agreed that evolution of life on earth has occured? But that they disagree on the mechanism for it in some cases? Remember there is, for this discussion, the need to separate what has occured from how. I know that some if not many ID proponents are agreeing that life has evolved in the sense that it has changed over a few billion years. What they disagree with to varying degrees is how this happened to occur. What are your views on the "what" part? This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-22-2005 10:30 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
In msg 10 of the followed thread:
NosyNed writes: That leaves the individual cases that ID proponents are speculating about. I am not aware of the more recent cases they wish to use now that the earlier set of them have been refuted. Commike37 writes: Not quite. Intelligent design directly contrasts the most prevalent form of evolution, neo-Darwinism. I'll quote the Center for Science and Culture again on this one. "However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, a purposeless process that 'has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.' (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges." Therefore, your process of eliminiation doesn't work here. And even if you want to bring up the other forms of evolution that could be compatible with intelligent design, these forms would not have nearly as much evidence behind them, thus diminishing your "evidence overload" argument. Which means that resources for school have to be allocated to one theory or the other.
Ah, I need to sort this out a bit. I think there may be a number of different schools of thought in ID. Perhaps you can clarify which one you are talking about. It seems to me that what is being put forward here is one which says that none (or not very much , or only part) of evolutionary change (which we have agreed has occured right?) is caused by mutations acted upon my selection. That is all has a purpose supplied by some unnamed 'designer'. If that is the case there are two issues to deal with: There is a heap of evidence that mutation and selection can produce a wide range (maybe not all but we can leave that aside for the moment) of the kind of changes we see in living things over time. How is that taken into account here? The second is "purpose". What makes anyone think there is any purpose? How would I recognize it's existance? How is this defined exactly? How is it tested? In other words where is the evidence and science supporting "purpose"? This is what would support including it in science classes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
After this evening I will only be able to get on a very little bit until very late saturday. (And I should be packing up now).
And was it a good days skiing today at Whistler.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I won't be around much for a few hours.
I did ask a number of what I thought were specific questions in the series of posts. Could you answer each post individually and be clear as to which question you are answering. It would help to quote the question. It doesn't appear to me that you have explictly answered any (or at least only a few) of the individual questions. If you think you have could you clarify a bit? Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
On the proportion of evidence available for both theories" covers the idea of proportional time. You have not given what method you would use to arrive at a division of time. The number of supporters amoung biological scientists may not be able to be tracked to the last individual but since we would not divide the classroom time down to the last 5 minutes anyway wouldn't a count within 5% be reasonable? We can, you know, come to such an estimate. How about evidence volume? I've asked more than once for some of the evidence for the ID side.
In general Intelligent Design, in whatever form it is, should clash with Evolution (or neo-Darwinism, as it is prevalent today). Nitpicking about similarities between the two is like nitpicking about the similarities between economic growth and environmental growth. The major clash is purpose vs. no purpose. The 'nitpicking' is simply part of understanding what theory is being put forward and what basic facts are being agreed with or not. I would still like to get that clear. As noted I think that the consensus ID view is that:1) Earth is old 2) Life has changed over time (evolved in a general and not a Darwinian sense). 3) The underlying mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are there. 4) There are many, some? cases where these mechanisms can produce the changes seen. 5) There are things for which neoDarwinian theory can not account for. Do I have the consensus view? Do you agree or disagree with any part of it. If it is not the consensus view what is? Which famous ID'ers agree and disagree with which bits? I would like to know just what is being discussed in the science class before carrying on with setting up this "balanced" curriculum. Now aside from all that:Is all you are asking for the inclusion of a line saying: "There is a purpose behind all this." As noted in Message 125 I asked why we should claim there is a purpose. Wouldn't a reasonably bright student ask for this right off the bat? S/he might also ask "What is the purpose?" and "How do I know that is the purpose?" Since you now say the major difference is purpose or not does that mean you agree with all the rest of the description of evolution of life on earth including the mechanisms behind it but add a purpose to it? If you disagree with what happend then we don't have to worry about ID yet. We can just discuss the input data that tells us about the changes in life on earth. If you agree with the what but disagree on the mechanisms we couldn't give equal time in the class room untill those mechanisms are elucidated. Has any of that been done yet? If we agree on the what and the how but you want to add "purpose" would you please offer a few paragraphs that would describe the purpose and offer the reasons why that particular purpose is the one arrived at? ABEThere is, as far as I am concerned, no rush in answering these (that's true any time actually). Others might be interested. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-24-2005 01:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Of course, some of the questions might take a bit of time but it seems to me that there is one which you should be able to rattle off a few paragraphs on without any trouble.
You have agitated for some time to be given to ID in the classroom. Several questions here are asking, in so many words, just what it is that you would have taught. Your last suggestion seems to be that "purpose" should be introduced. You were asked some questions on that. Could you describe what the students would be taught and what reasoning and evidence would be laid before them? Then you can get back to the other hanging questions. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Since commike seems to be away for awhile are there any others who could answer the questions about what would be taught?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2005 08:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Post 133 left you with what I thought was the simplest thing for you to answer.
You requested time in the classroom for ID. You suggested it was all (or is that 'only') about purpose. Post 133 asks that, since you wanted time for something in the classroom, you tell us what that is. I would think that would be something that you would have all ready to post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I will lose my connection next week for a bit (another move!).
Meanwhile, there was this issue of what should be taught in the science classroom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You wanted something taught in the "equal time"?
Have you forgotten this thread?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024