merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
...well ok one of the important secrets anyway.
intelligent design vs. evolution
- Thread starter Termite Man
- Start date
Further to this whole argument the Catholic church recently declared that there is no contradiction between evolution and a proper interpretation of genesis.
Can't find a source yet ...
ok http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-1860310,00.html
(opinion piece from the times ... best I can do)
Can't find a source yet ...
ok http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-1860310,00.html
(opinion piece from the times ... best I can do)
Shippou-Sensei
4:1:2.5
if i remeber corectly the vatican claimed evolution to be correct back in the late 50's saying that the bible only teaches you how to get to heaven not how god created earth
anyhow if we are going to go for the who god exist outside the relm of science stuff then i'm declaring myself shinto because at least those god are a fucking laugh and the shrine priestess outfit is well cute
any being that it all kinowing and all powerfull is one that we can't possibly even try to interpret
anyhow if we are going to go for the who god exist outside the relm of science stuff then i'm declaring myself shinto because at least those god are a fucking laugh and the shrine priestess outfit is well cute
any being that it all kinowing and all powerfull is one that we can't possibly even try to interpret
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Purdie said:i was wondering, and i don't believe there someone sitting on a cloud as such, it's all good and well but how does this non-intelligent thing that caused mr.Goo to eventually become more complicated lifeforms like humans and other animals and plants get the intelligence from to have some sort of balance ... if it was really random then the ratio of male/female would be random too and over the millenia it seems to have this balance just right enough so the male/female balance is ideal for furthering. Makes me think evolution is intelligence in itself and what we define as intelligence is an illusionary design in itself
Random? It is random. Toss a coin and get some random. Toss a coin 2 billion times and you'll get 1 billion heads and 1 billion tails, no doubt. But that's what natural selection does - it's the total sum of all succesful random changes.
In other news, Kansas state education board just passed (by 6-4) a motion to teach ID alongside a weakened evolution in science class. Gah! It's. Not' Fucking. Science!
Crispy said:
Much as I don't buy 'intelligent design' as it is proposed by those who interpret Genesis literally ... why is it not science? What is your definition of science?
I'm all for telling kids about every theory out there and letting them make up their own minds.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I think they learned from that 'earth is flat' episode.angry bob said:
ID has no scienctific basis, that's the difference.
angry bob said:
So are you for teaching the 'theory' that the world was created by the flying spaghetti monster?
ID isn't science as it offers no provable/disprovable hypotheses. All it says is that a mysterious 'designer' made things happen. The designer is always outside the realm of discussion for ID proponents.
If people want to teach ID, teach it in a religious ed class not a science class.
Purdie
there are no stars, only suns
Still, over the course of millenia it might just show us that all that means is that randomness itself is a by-product of the intelligence of evolution.Crispy said:
Some science are just as bad as them religious zealots ... the scientific truth is the only truth to some ... . Gah! It's. Sooo. Fucking Subjective!
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
First a little vocab:angry bob said:
Hypothesis - An untested idea that might explain something we can observe.
Theory - A body of tested ideas that holds true for the data we can observe.
Science is the process of:
a)observing the world around you
b)proposing a model of why the world is the way it is (hypothesis)
c)testing that model to see if it works
d)using that model to make a prediction
e)testing that prediction to see if it works
f)Goto d)
When you've reached stage f) different ways by different methods many times, then your hypothesis is a theory.
Intelligent design kinda does a) and b), but not c) d) e) or f) - It's adherents find the gaps in current evolutionary theory and fill the gaps with a designer. When asked for evidence for such a designer, they only ever respond with evidence against evolution. That is not how science works. Intelligent design has no evidence and can make no predictions. Those are the two most basic requirements for a scientific theory. In fact, in order for the Kansas educators to get ID into science classes, they had to redefine the word 'science' in the curriculum.
Now, I have no problem with ID being taught in Philosophy or Religion classes, as that is where it belongs - along with all the other religions and philosophies. Children should be exposed to them all. But to give it equal weight with a genuine scientific theory is just WRONG.
EDIT: As for the origin of life, the jury is way way out on that one. There really is next to no evidence whatsoever, so attempting to form a hypothesis is pretty much a waste of time. However, an external creator of some sort would fit the facts as we know them and so must be considered. However, without any evidence it is still in the realms of guesswork - evolution is not.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
Hypothesis -An untested idea that might explain something we can observe.
Actually my dictionary says: 'hypothesis - a propsed explanation based on limited evidence, used as a starting point for further investigation.'
While you can ask whether intelligent design could ever be a starting point for any investigation given that you have no clear definition of what is really meant by intelligent design in the first place.
So ok. there may be a bit of a problem about haw life originated and then you could also say that there's also a problem of why should have organic blobs have started to reproduce themselves in the first place?
But ID is not going to be a starting point in an investuigation into solving these problems.
My view is that such a starting point needs to go right back to quantum theory where there are another load of problems that won't be solved by the notion of intelligent design.
Actually my dictionary says: 'hypothesis - a propsed explanation based on limited evidence, used as a starting point for further investigation.'
While you can ask whether intelligent design could ever be a starting point for any investigation given that you have no clear definition of what is really meant by intelligent design in the first place.
So ok. there may be a bit of a problem about haw life originated and then you could also say that there's also a problem of why should have organic blobs have started to reproduce themselves in the first place?
But ID is not going to be a starting point in an investuigation into solving these problems.
My view is that such a starting point needs to go right back to quantum theory where there are another load of problems that won't be solved by the notion of intelligent design.
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
..and come to think of it you could well call intelligent design an end point to any investation.merlin wood said:
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
merlin wood said:
Yeah, the dictionary definition is better than the one I pulled off the top of my head
Here's a short article about abiogenesis (eg. generation of life from non-living matter) that outlines one way it could have happened...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Similar threads
