Dr. Geek wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

Dr. Geek wrote:Who in the scientific community claims to have scientific evidence that rules out intelligent design?

By labeling ID 'unscientific', they imply that current science has the ability to test ID and reject it.

Again, who specifically, within the scientific community, has said there is evidence that rules our ID? (and don't quote newberry; he's not a scientist)

ID cannot be tested in a lab or other controlled setting, its results cannot be replicated or reproduced, and its results cannot be analyzed. In that it is not scientific.

I don't believe I ever said that there is "evidence which rules out ID." If someone disagrees with something I've said, please post a direct quote from me. IIRC, someone was saying that the scientific community wouldn't even consider ID; I responded with links showing that they had in fact considered it, and responded with well thought out, intelligent arguments for why ID was not scientifically sound.

One thing I know I've said here, is that it's difficult if not impossible to prove a negative. If someone has a theory or claim, they should support it with evidence. Evolution proponents have done this, and there's tons of evidence to support it (although it's only a theory). ID falls apart when held up to scientific scrutiny.

newberry: I was not addressing you. I only mentioned you because Rick has a tendency to quote you for whatever reason.

Carry on.

Dr. Geek wrote:newberry: I was not addressing you. I only mentioned you because Rick has a tendency to quote you for whatever reason. See below for why I brought this up.

Carry on.

No problem, I just don't want my views to be mischaracterized (for one thing, I would call myself agnostic, not atheist). See below: it's true that ID has been rejected by atheists and most people in the scientific community. Why? Because ID proponents claim it's science, and it does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. (Which Dr. Geek pointed out as well)

Dr. Geek wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:

Dr. Geek wrote:ID cannot be tested in a lab or other controlled setting, its results cannot be replicated or reproduced, and its results cannot be analyzed. In that it is not scientific.

I know. I said that atheists were fond of claiming that science had rejected ID.

Newberry? That's only one atheist. Can't paint them all with one brush based off what one person said. But that is besides the point.

And ID does not pass scrutiny under the the tests posted above (which you agree with). In that regard, yes, ID has been rejected.

NerblyBear wrote:(a) "Intelligent Design," which is an unproveable and ultimately pointless uber-hypothesis to the effect that science can prove that a Creator created our universe, and

(b) "Intelligent Design," which is the name of a pseudo-scientific movement of charlatans and hucksters who falsify, mislead and misinterpret scientific data

By labeling (b) "unscientific," scientists are in no way "implying" that current science has the ability to test and reject (a). That's just flatly ridiculous.

While I think you're correct that these terms (especially in this thread) are conflated, I don't think (a) is useless. In your definition maybe, but I think a rational approach to intelligent design, with regards to existence, is important. However, it is not appropriate in a science curriculum, just as any untested theory is not appropriate in a classroom. Science, especially in high school, should be about evidence and the basic things we know. Philosophically, I think it is important. Philosophy is related to science (and they used to be one in the same), but scientific training and learning is not the exact same as philosophy. As such, I think it has no place in a high school classroom as curriculum, especially any current ID "theories". In my science classrooms in high school we had plenty of philosophical discussions, about god, time travel, lightsabers, whatever. They were usually interesting and thought provoking, but none of them were ever part of the science curriculum, which is the big important difference.

juice wrote:While I think you're correct that these terms (especially in this thread) are conflated, I don't think (a) is useless. In your definition maybe, but I think a rational approach to intelligent design, with regards to existence, is important. However, it is not appropriate in a science curriculum, just as any untested theory is not appropriate in a classroom. Science, especially in high school, should be about evidence and the basic things we know. Philosophically, I think it is important. Philosophy is related to science (and they used to be one in the same), but scientific training and learning is not the exact same as philosophy. As such, I think it has no place in a high school classroom as curriculum, especially any current ID "theories". In my science classrooms in high school we had plenty of philosophical discussions, about god, time travel, lightsabers, whatever. They were usually interesting and thought provoking, but none of them were ever part of the science curriculum, which is the big important difference.

Well, note that (a) was only the notion that God could ever be *scientifically* proven or disproven.

I agree that the question of God's existence can be discussed in a Philosophy classroom, but it's still not a very fruitful discussion. God cannot be proven via logical argumentation any more than he can be proven by means of evidence gathered from the natural world.

Stop it, all of you. Can't you see you're feeding his illness and fortifying his rationale for manufacturing Ricin? Hasn't anyone listened to a damn thing I've said? You're all as bad as he is, every last one of you. Be bigger than him and stop trying to prove your points.

Ricky, everything you've said is correct. You're good enough, you're smart enough and everybody loves you.

camilo wrote:Let us put on our prettiest profiler hats and try to describe Ricardo, physically, occupationally, emotionally, mentally. Take into account what he's written so far and give it your best shot.

I am curious about what Rick is like in real life. I'm not someone who is hostile to him. In fact, although we've had arguments, we have also had some good conversations. But I feel like he is mysterious. I cannot form any mental picture in my mind of what Rick is like in real life.

Has anyone ever met Rick? Rick, can you tell us what you are like? Do you play in a band? Do you have any family? What's your job? How old are you?

I would really like to know.

NerblyBear wrote:

camilo wrote:Let us put on our prettiest profiler hats and try to describe Ricardo, physically, occupationally, emotionally, mentally. Take into account what he's written so far and give it your best shot.

I am curious about what Rick is like in real life. I'm not someone who is hostile to him. In fact, although we've had arguments, we have also had some good conversations. But I feel like he is mysterious. I cannot form any mental picture in my mind of what Rick is like in real life.

Has anyone ever met Rick? Rick, can you tell us what you are like? Do you play in a band? Do you have any family? What's your job? How old are you?

I would really like to know.

If Rick is who I think he is then I've had lots of friendly conversations with him about recording techniques and electronics. I think he also used to carry around a sock full of change to beat the crap out of trouble makers. Then again I might be mistaken.

I'm not sure what my contribution is in the context of this discussion, but I would like to say a word about science education. Ya know, we don't really know why the earth orbits the sun. We do have models that make predictions that are verifiable through experiment. Two such models include a Newtonian model based on the force/interaction concept. Another model is general relativity which relies on curved space time in lieu of a gravitational field or force. But, again, these are models that have made predictions that do not hold up under the microscope of repeatable experimentation. Both models are very useful within their appropriate applications but to think that they are fact or truth is silly.

The problem is that we teach science as if the facts or topics are science. In reality science is a process of making models. We need to teach the process of scientific modeling in the classroom.

String theory is a popular topic. It is a model that makes predictions that are unverifiable by experiment. So is string theory science? I think that the question is just one of semantics and ultimately not important. The topic is not science it's the process of putting together the model and testing it and verifying the predictions that should be called science.

An intelligent design/creation model could be talked about in science class but it doesn't help much in engaging students in the process of modeling. An evolutionary model has made predictions that have been validated through experiment, but that doesn't make it true. It does make it a much better candidate for inclusion in a curriculum that fosters scientific thought. Evolution is a better model. There is every possibility that down the road we could find an even better model that takes into account what evolution can and can't explain.

camilo wrote:Current science can't explain the origin of life. It's got a pretty good idea but has failed to concoct any thus far. I'm not sure that's such a good rationale for embracing ID

Ok - I have read parts of this thread so far, and this really should have ended here. camilo is right. This is an ok place to be.

I'm a Christian, and I don't think God is going to vanish into thin air if I can't empirically prove His existence*. In the same way, the earth isn't going to stop working the way it has for the past hundreds of thousands/millions/billions/whatever years just because the exact origins of life can't be empirically proven.

I don't think there's going to be a pop quiz at the gates of heaven, and I doubt any of you all think there will be one wherever think you will wind up at the ends of your respective existences.

There are many, many worse things happening in the world today than an unsettled debate about what may have happened a really, really, really freaking unfathomably long time ago.

Just stop.



*In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy He disappears only when you DO prove His existence!

juice wrote:

NerblyBear wrote:(a) "Intelligent Design," which is an unproveable and ultimately pointless uber-hypothesis to the effect that science can prove that a Creator created our universe, and

(b) "Intelligent Design," which is the name of a pseudo-scientific movement of charlatans and hucksters who falsify, mislead and misinterpret scientific data

By labeling (b) "unscientific," scientists are in no way "implying" that current science has the ability to test and reject (a). That's just flatly ridiculous.

While I think you're correct that these terms (especially in this thread) are conflated, I don't think (a) is useless. In your definition maybe, but I think a rational approach to intelligent design, with regards to existence, is important. However, it is not appropriate in a science curriculum, just as any untested theory is not appropriate in a classroom. Science, especially in high school, should be about evidence and the basic things we know. Philosophically, I think it is important. Philosophy is related to science (and they used to be one in the same), but scientific training and learning is not the exact same as philosophy. As such, I think it has no place in a high school classroom as curriculum, especially any current ID "theories". In my science classrooms in high school we had plenty of philosophical discussions, about god, time travel, lightsabers, whatever. They were usually interesting and thought provoking, but none of them were ever part of the science curriculum, which is the big important difference.

I agree, to an extent.

ID is no more science than science fiction is. It is nothing but religion cloaked in enough "science-terms" to fool some into thinking it's an alternate explanation of origins occurring on scientific turf, when in fact it occurs on the humanities' turf just as any other philosophical, metaphysical or religious explanation has.

ID does belong in the classroom, only as part of an elective curriculum in world lit or comparative religion. As long as it stays in the humanities department and far, far away from the science classroom, it's fine.