Video: Jindal supports teaching of intelligent design
posted at 1:37 pm on June 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Qualified by the usual caveat, of course. He won’t say which theory he favors (beyond acknowledging some unknown role of the creator), but clearly he’s sufficiently sold on ID that he thinks it merits being laid in front of kids as an alternative to evolution. Which is a dodge, really, in the same way that the Truthers’ irritating “just asking questions” defense is a dodge: It uses the spirit of free inquiry as a way to avoid the threshold question of how credible any theory has to be to end up in the curriculum. Doubtless there are far left parents (and far right, per the Paulnuts) who wouldn’t mind seeing competing theories of 9/11 taught in history class so that kids can “make up their own minds,” but that ain’t likely to happen. Or actually, given the orientation of teachers’ unions, maybe it is. Stay tuned!
The politics of this issue are convoluted — majorities want both evolution and creationism taught, but roughly twice as many voters are less likely to vote for creationist politicians than more likely — so Jindal’s non-answer is the safe way to play it. But can we please, at least, lay off the federalist rhetoric he uses here until it’s settled whether ID violates the Establishment Clause or not? It’s a fine conservative idea that local school boards should have more power than state boards or the DOE, but constitutional violations are constitutional violations all the way down the chain, federalism or no. Jindal surely knows that too, which I guess makes that his second dodge.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 Next »
I think that Saint Olaf did, but I’m not entirely sure that he is human.
MB4 on June 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Thereby proving you haven’t even read the first paper by an ID theorist. On what basis do you consider that it’s appropriate to reject a theory that you’ve not even bothered to examine?
ID does not assume a designer exists. It observes a system and assigns to that system, based on rational criteria, a likelihood that that system was designed intentionally, rather than evolved without intervention.
This inference, by the way, is a common one in some recognized branches of science. Neither forensic pathology nor archeology would be possible without the ability to distinguish between an intentional formation and an unintentional one.
philwynk on June 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Sounds very grand. I suspect it’s more likely to be common garden-variety stupidity ;-)
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM
truth is not ad hominem
right4life on June 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Devastating! And you think you make OTHERS look foolish? Priceless.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I believe this thread demonstrates my point pretty dramaticly…
Both sides are calling the other idiots, and disregarding any point the other makes… neither will admit that middle ground can, and does exist. Both sides are disparaging the intelligence of the other… which I’m sure drives a LOT of people right out of any debate on the subject….
Sad really.
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5176866&page=1
More examples of junk science pushed as science…reminds me back in the day when they measured intelligence by the size of one’s brains….Of course this begs the question: So are gay men lesbians or gay men? Both have a woman’s brain attracted to other “men” with women’s brains.
Conservative Voice on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Not only is the missing link missing, but all stages of missing links are missing in the monkey to man fossil record.
Yes, there’s no transitional fossils from dinosaurs to birds. I say this with equal parts scorn and sarcasm.
And all of the missing links from one species of animal to another are missing and all the missing links from one species of plant to another are missing. Billions of missing links are missing.
Every time a transitional fossil comes to light, you creationists say, “WHERE’S THE NEXT ONE!?” It’s a game of goalpost moving that puts the BDS Anti Iraq hippies to shame.
How many missing links have been found so far? …… ZERO is the answer.
A whole bunch is actually the answer. Careful, the link takes you to a website full of ATHEIST BIG SCIENCE LIES!
Maxx
Krydor on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
No. It asymptotes to zero. Yay Math!!!
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I believe in the Big Bang, I just believe God did it. I have yet to find any scientist who can credibly tell me what was before the Big Bang. I mean we are to accept it as fact with no proof and explination of how it happened but yet if you believe a higher being created it then some think you a fool. If anybody can enlighten me as to what was before, what started and how all things in the universe came from a sub atomic particle, I would appreciate it.
mo_gunslinger on June 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Allah, what other opinions would you forbid the expression of lacking approval from federal judges?
snaggletoothie on June 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
The point is that he’s using component parts as the basis of the intelligent design of the novel enzyme.
Genetic algorithms are routinely used as proof that unguided descent with modification (Darwinism) is sufficient to explain the structure of biological phenomenon. The paper linked demonstrates that intelligent design, i.e. the use of irreducibly complex (designed) component parts within a framework of either unguided (or guided) DWM, is an equally plausible historical cause for biological enzymes.
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM
You say it doesn’t assume the existence of a designer, but then studies whether something was designed. You just disproved your own statement. If something was designed, it has to have a designer, correct?
albo on June 16, 2008 at 3:05 PM
I don’t have a problem with anyone learning both.
People don’t understand the fact that it may be a combination of both.
As I believe in God, and I think is my favorite book in the bible is Genesis, I just do not believe God created “Earth” in 7 days. Unless you want to use the 7 days as an analogy of time.
Geological time issues come up concerning fossils due to blanks or formations that are unknown as to dates and time frames as well as carbon dating on fossils. There are no Dinosaurs spoken of (that I can tell or call it) in the bible.
To many possibilities, not enough information or evidence to go forward. Theories are a great way for people to debate items and bring new ideas up.
upinak on June 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
…
Dude. What part of this is gentle or respectful?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Getting school children to think and ponder life itself! Wow, what monster came up with that concept? Better they simply sit there and absorb all they are told without critical thinking or understanding. Otherwise, teachers might actually have to work.
The sheer hysteria aside that children might be introduced to the concept of a higher being, what really seems to be at the heart of the evolutionists (for lack of a better name for a group of atheists who don’t want to be called atheists) opposition is that teaching competing theories leads to actual dialogue and discussion in the classroom. For some reason you all aren’t in support of dialogue.
highhopes on June 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Ahh, but it was disproven because both sides were argued against each other. And that’s the point.
Too many are dismissing ID as “not science”, when in fact everything is science. And I’m saying that ID and evolution probably co-exist anyway.
ID hasn’t been proven. But neither has the “Big bang” or that life on Earth was by chance. I think it’s ridiculous to believe that intelligent life, and all life, here on Earth was somehow a cosmic chance happening.
But I think that kids in school should be able to hear all sides of what might possibly be the truth. Again, religion has no part in this.
JetBoy on June 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Oh come on. You can’t use big words. Ever since I learned that .9 repeating = 1, I’ve always been comfortable rounding. Yay Lazyness!!
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM
ID is a contemporary repackaging of a classic ad ignorantum argument for the existence of a supreme being.
This is the third separate comment I’ve seen here that proves that the author of the comment has never read even the first paper by an ID theorist.
The visceral, emotional reaction of so many people proves beyond any possible doubt that the field of biology was sorely overdue for a contrary theory, because it was stuck in mindless groupthink. How else can we explain this deluge of rejections based on nothing more substantial than the individual’s bigoted expectation of what ID would turn out to be if he ever bothered to actually read what its proponents were saying?
I’m done here. There’s no point in attempting to talk sense to people who are so bigoted and arrogant that they actually believe they can rebut a point of view without even knowing what it is. There’s no cure for stupidity.
philwynk on June 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM
And, like all scientists, it will get to the point where so much new evidence is found that the ID proponents will look at it, see that it refutes the ID theory, and will abandon that theory and move on to one that makes more sense, such as evolution.
Because that’s what science is about, and the ID folks are scientists, as they’ll tell you. Right? Right?
albo on June 16, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I don’t think that is at all what is being suggested by the paper. I think you are hijacking it.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM
The existence of some arbitrary level of complexity in a particular phenomenon does not stand for the proposition that an invisible man in the sky put it there.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I have no problem with ID and creationism and all religious theories of biogenesis being offered in school, in religious class.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
You say it doesn’t assume the existence of a designer, but then studies whether something was designed. You just disproved your own statement. If something was designed, it has to have a designer, correct?
You FUCKING IGNORAMUS!!!!!!
You don’t understand the difference between a PRESUPPOSITION and an INFERENCE???????
Jesus. I’m done with you. You must have an IQ smaller than my damned SHOE SIZE.
philwynk on June 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
And I can’t stop myself from correcting pointless minutiae. Yay Anal Retentiveness!
I’m so anal I even spellchecked “minutiae”, but I got it right first time and awarded myself a gold star! And I’m all alone with nobody to share my glory!
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM
As someone who has actually designed a protein in the past, I can assure you that ID theory has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Big S on June 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM
philwynk on June 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Dude. Its a message baord in the internets. Take a walk outside. Nothing here is worth getting upset over (save that for the Obama threads [or McCain, heh]).
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
ID is so trivially reduced.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Thanks for the warning Krydor, but I’ve been to that site before and read it over a bit, so I think I’m immune.
Actually there are no missing links from one species to another for purposes macro evolution. There are lots of claims for so call micro-evolution, which of course is just adaptation within a species. I do not dispute adaptation, nor does anyone in the creation camp as far as I know.
If you go and look up the pictures that go with all those very esoteric names you will see that all you have is a little adaptation within species. No dinosaurs with wings, sorry.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
And it’s we godless atheists who are nasty and evil?
albo on June 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM
You chose…. wisely (sorry, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has been on USA all weekend). Now this thread is complete.
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Gah, not another one.
ID is philosophy, get over it. The moment you have to stop scientific inquiry with “God did it”, you’ve gone beyond science.
And most people who are arguing both sides of this issue still don’t understand evolutionary theory.
right4life: The tuatara is not a “living dinosaur”… that’s the ignorant description handed out by media types and scientists trying to explain complex taxonomy with dim media types. The tuatara is no more a “living dinosaur” than coelecanth… they are both long-order descendents of ancient orders of animals, but they are *not* the same as the creatures of their order that existed 200 million years ago. A modern tuatara or coelecanth has about as much in common with an ancient ancestor as a modern vole does with the small furry mammals that filled a virtually identical niche in the Mesozoic.
And its *order* displays rapid *molecular* evolution… *it* does not display super-fast DNA evolution. There is a significant difference in these statements… for starters, yours is incorrect.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac: There are a number of theories on the origin of DNA (the difference between theory and belief, being that a theory does not involve divine intervention, and is open to change with new evidence).
Fundamentally, as I’ve said here many times, the first problem is that people mentally draw a significant line between “alive” and “not alive” where such distinction is not a true reflection of reality. It’s a concept that seems simple, but is anything but.
What is required for life to evolve naturally is organic molecules and some form of order. Well, organic molecules are, by all evidence, pretty common and easy to generate. Carbon is extremely common, and readily bonds into complex molecules (particularly in the high heat, highly mineral, and water-rich early Earth). Self-creating carbon chains were demonstrated decades ago. But those molecules by themselves simply aggragate into organic sludge, which is where the early experiments in recreating the origin of life failed. There must be organization. Well, organization is also readily found in nature – minerals crystalize, even clay takes on complex organization at the micro level.
But ultimately the distinction is that religion says, “We know how this happened – a higher power did it,” while science asks, “We have no idea how this happened… but we believe we can figure it out.” This is very basic Age of Reason stuff, going back to Hebrew separation of events from the divine, and Greek rationalism.
E1701 on June 16, 2008 at 3:15 PM
highhopes on June 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM
This is the sort of irrational thought we are dealing with here…
Dismissiveness of the fact we are talking about a science class, combined with a reflexive accusation that anyone who recognizes ID as an inherently religious and non-scientific topic is an “athiest”, equals crazy delicious.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Verdict first, evidence later! Tut, tut right4life, I see you have not lost that uncanny ability of yours to believe at least 6 impossible things before breakfast.
Sigy on June 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I heard that the actual word from Hebrew does not translate as “day”, so much as “a period of time”.
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM
philwynk on June 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
It doesn’t matter… the presupposition is built into the “inference”. You absolutely can’t logically infer that there is a creator, under any circumstance, in a way that is scientific and doesn’t presuppose its own conclusion. If science can’t explain something, then you can have your own faith that a creator did it, but quit pretending that you are “inferring” something where you aren’t.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
You should actually read it, Maxx. Evolution means, literally, change over time. Bears and Wolves are closely genetically related. We know which animal was their common ancestor, thanks to the fossil record.
And yes, there are dinosaurs with wings. Yes, there are birds with dinosaur like traits. Yes, we have a pretty good idea how they got from one to the next.
Krydor on June 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I don’t know how many times it needs to be said. Once more, I guess…
Teaching ID is not teaching about any god or any religioius beliefs. That’s why it’s called “intelligent design” and not “divine creationism”.
Cripes…can’t you people get that through your skulls?
JetBoy on June 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I watched them all in hi-def and was stunned. Temple sucked the ass that Raiders and Crusade kicked.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
What would be so bad about saying somthing like:
Evolution is threory, that is still “evolving” (pun intended), and has these specific questions about it…
Talk about intitial life, and Macroevolutions lack of evidence…
and because of this there is a competing theory called intellient design which basicly states that evolution was directed…
if you wish more information on that theory you can go to…..
What would be wrong with that?
Romeo13 on June 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
My thoughts exactly (minus the hi-def. No I’m jealous. I guess I’ll just give myself a gold star)
VolMagic on June 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Not nice to talk to the designer like that.
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM
How about in science class in a private school? Sound fair? I should note for the record, I’m Catholic and agree with evolution theory, so I have nothing emotionally invested in this debate beyond wanting to address a larger problem.
People who want to see their students taught ID and Creation are trying to tackle this issue in the dumbest ways conceivable. They aren’t going to bulldoze ID and Creation in public schools through the courts, no matter how much they think it’s gonna happen, no matter how much they try, it’s wasted energy and effort. It. ain’t. happenin’.
They’re much better off pushing for vouchers, because that benefits them immensely, it benefits secular people every bit as much, and unlike this futile exercise they’ve been trying for ages, it’ll produce fruitful results.
doubleplusundead on June 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Do you want enough successively evolved fossils (which wouldn’t be missing if we had them, would they?) that we can image them together, back-to-back, and make a little animated short out of them?
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Must be intelligent design derangement syndrome (IDDS).
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
You do occasionally find some crows among the eagles.
Holmes on June 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
ID is refreshing because it asks questions and seeks the answers. If an ID scientist discovered how to create a DNA strand out of goo and electricity, she would share it with the world. ID doesn’t seek to prove the existence of God, it seeks to find out how these amazing structures of life came about. Right now a designer seems to be the only hypothesis that fits.
Darwinists are like the high priests of a once powerful religion. They do not seek to find the truth — no Darwinist is even trying to make DNA out of lightning and goo any more. They seek to crush any competing theory, and they have been known to fabricate evidence to support their beliefs.
I prefer no religion in my science classroom, and that includes Darwinism. If you don’t know how DNA came about, just say so. That’s what scientists are supposed to do.
bonnie_ on June 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Sure. I have no problem with private schools teaching their students that it’s turtles all the way down and God makes the sun shine and the plants grow.
We’ll just get our future engineers and mathmaticians and biologists and doctors from India and China.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Fair enough. I can turn to the private school and demand that they quit wasting my child’s time or we’re going elsewhere.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:27 PM
JetBoy on June 16, 2008 at 3:21 PM
The fact that you keep trying to make this “argument” reflects very poorly on you. You are trying to teach that it was designed by an intelligent entity, and are–with a straight face–telling people that it doesn’t teach existence of a god?
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Excellent little article here: Intelligent Design as Science
:-P
JetBoy on June 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Are you sure? If so he just has to make an appointment with me before it is too late. I will put him on anti-psychotic drugs and give him electroshock treatment STAT!
Sigy on June 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Not with people trying to shoehorn their religious views into my kids’ science curriculum.
If ID proponents were even slightly honest, they’d admit that the entire project is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to leverage gaps in current scientific knowledge into an inference of the existence of God. When we run into some sort of “irreducible complexity” or “specified complexity” that we can’t readily explain, we default to the invisible man in the sky.
That, aside from the bald-faced way in which it violates Occam’s Razor, is the fundamental problem with ID: it’s not scientifically useful. It makes no predictions, and does not describe and explain observed phenomena in a naturalistic fashion.
Centerfire on June 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM
That vaguely resembles a political party that has nominated a Messiah to lead the nation. :)
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Yes, of course you’re right. I don’t mind this stuff being talked about in school.
What I do mind is having to take my 5th grader out of school tomorrow because they are teaching state mandated AIDS education and prevention lessons– to my little 11 year old girl who likes to blow bubbles, ride her bike, and play with stuffed animals with her sister.
They want this kid to learn how to use a condom! Makes me puke!
JiangxiDad on June 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Most people are being a little weasel-y when they say they support ID. In my conversations with people saying they reject evolution, they actually mean something to the effect that God did something unknown at some vague point in the past way long ago. That is, they mean something too vague to waste time on it in a biology class. On the other hand, when ID design is specified to mean that God specially created Asclepias incarnata the swamp milkweed and also seperately specially created Asclepias tuberosa the butterfly weed. That is, when ID says these two species didn’t evolve from a common ancestor (or one from the other), most of these self-professed opponents of evolution are going to hedge their bets and admit to seeing evolution working here. And it’s really this more direct, immediate biology that needs to be taught in our biology classes.
thuja on June 16, 2008 at 3:30 PM
bonnie_ on June 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM
What are you even talking about here?
That’s what they do.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM
To say that we know everything and should rule out something (in this case ID) is really the stupidity of all this argument. Macro-Evolution is far from proven science. To say it is, makes you a flat earther. (Yes, Micro-Evolution (evolution within species) does occur and has been proven, but there you have something to begin with and take away what’s not needed).
Why not let students study BOTH? Are you afraid we might find, gulp, God? (Or as Richard Dawkins says, the designer is probably an alien on another planet).
kirkill on June 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Exactly my point. Give people the choice. If I’m a parent, I’d rather have the freedom to make a actual choice where the kids go to school. Yes, that means people are going to be free to say and do things I think are dumb as hell or even dangerous, but liberty almost always beats the alternative.
doubleplusundead on June 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM
They absolutely excel at believing six impossible things before breakfast however.
Sigy on June 16, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Science, evolution, and Big Bang point to a starting point in space and time where nothing existed, then in a matter of seconds something did exist and it has been expanding ever since into what we know as the cosmic universe (galaxies and solar systems). Scientists can point to when and where this happened (and even with what: Hydrogen and Helium). The next questions are how and why did this happen at that time and place. Scientists have no answer. The only answers are: God, Aliens, and accident/chance. None of these have any conclusive proof one way or the other, but the one with the most evidence is God. (The book of Genesis describes this process and it was written 2500 years ago – when other theories were talking about a flat Earth and turtles holding up the world.) In addition it is the only theory that involves love, hope, and forgiveness, in that God the creator has the character and attributes of a loving Father, making this world a better place if we can learn and internalize these attributes within ourselves.
jerseyman on June 16, 2008 at 3:33 PM
(1) Natural selection is basically an artificial intelligence algorithm that searches the genome for stable, living structures. The result of billions of years of evolution is itself design. So I would expect that if Dembski ever devises a real design filter (not the probability toy he’s currently offering), he should find design.
(2)Life is self-replicating and dynamic. The offspring of most organisms are never exactly the same as their parent(s), which allows the possibility of complex structures that exhibit design features. This situation can’t be compared with pottery, which is formed from basically inert matter. Let me know if you ever see pottery having little babies pots and carafes, though.
(Generally speaking, there’s only one known process which makes pottery out of clay; we’ve seen it happen and can do it ourselves. And the archaeologist would still need evidence that humans existed at the time the artifacts were made to infer who the made the pottery. Even still, it isn’t always so clear cut whether some structures are man-made or natural formations.)
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Well if you can find a link to a site that has pictures of ACTUAL fossils that are claimed to be transitional forms, I would be interested to see it.
People and tomatos are made of the same base elements too, that does not mean one came from the other.
Maxx on June 16, 2008 at 3:34 PM
As a scientist in biology who teaches evolution, I will say the following:
We know all current living things descended from a single cell with DNA, a plasma membrane, ribosomes and other features. We do not know how that cell came to be. There are some plausible theories, but they are hard to test with the mountains of robust, consistent data that supports models for evolution.
I ask one thing though: Could the ID’ers please present an experiment that would disprove their model? If they can, then I’d be happy to consider the approach scientific.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 3:34 PM
If someone started a movement that theorizes that life was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and several books and papers were published on it, should children also be given a chance to be taught and debate that as well as ID and evolution?
albo on June 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Darwinism posits that unguided descent with modification is the only viable explanation for what exists. This paper proves that is not so. It proves that intelligent design is an equally viable explanation for novel structure. In fact, it is something of a synthesis between DWM (unguided in this case) and ID.
Regarding the bone you’re enjoying: this paper is not an advocacy paper. For all I know, the authors of this paper are militant evo-devo Darwinists. However, its results are iron-clad proof that novel enzymes can be intelligently designed. No other experimentally verified method of producing novel enzymes is known, other than intelligent design. The current dogma is that they arose through non-directed processes. That is an assumption, a conjecture, not an experimentally proven fact. Assumption is an exceedingly poor substitute for experimentation.
ID has results. Experimental results. Perhaps you’re thinking, “Well, of course humans can design novel enzymes! What does that prove?” Well, that proves that there exists an obvious and experimentally proven method of enzyme design. Intelligent design. But that can’t be the way real enzymes developed, right? That would imply a designer, which we can’t have. So therefore even though we have no experimental proof that unguided processes can produce complex enzymes, they must have regardless.
Thus demonstrating the root principle of Darwinism and the hatred against ID readily apparent here: there is no designer, therefore there is no design.
spmat on June 16, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I’m sure they could fit it in if they shave some time away from math and english.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM
kirkill on June 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I think the fear is that you will (and fully intend to) claim to find God, when all you really have found–scientifically speaking–is a gap in human knowledge.
And, of course, there is the little fact that its a science class, and ID is not science. At all. It is commentary on top of science.
DaveS on June 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM
*sigh*…It’s only you, and those who believe the same, that equate intelligent design with the existence of a god.
Most seem to have come to the conclusion that god is the Christian God.
And nowhere in intelligent design does it mention any god.
I posted this above, but HERE it is again. Good article at that link explaining my position….scientifically.
JetBoy on June 16, 2008 at 3:37 PM
And that would differ from our current course how? The vast majority will make the decision to send their children to solid schools, ones that will perform far beyond what our current public schools do, and better then any hypothetical hippie commune or glorified Bible Camp that would thrive on vouchers could. You have way too little faith in the American people.
doubleplusundead on June 16, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Anybody bring up the “super intelligent space alien” idea yet?
corona on June 16, 2008 at 3:39 PM
You are correct, people and tomatoes did not come from one another. They both came from a common ancestor. That ancestor was a single-cell eukaryotic organism that had a nucleus, mitochondria, an endomembrane system, and thousands of genes. One of the descendants of that cell developed chloroplasts as a result of endosymbiosis, and gave rise to all plants.
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Did you know that the creationists even have their own arithmetic having rejected that of science?
Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.
Sigy on June 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Now you’ve done it. IDers: “You’re saying people came not from monkeys, but from tomatoes? Hah!”
albo on June 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM
SHOULD THEY TEACH EVOLUTION IN SCHOOLS?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
EVOLUTION HAS BEEN DISPROVEN…IT IS A FAILED THEORY!
Why would you indoctrinate people and have them believe that a theory is fact, when it has been completely disproven?
Macro evolution, an old earth and the big bang have all been disproven 100%.
To teach them as fact is to teach an atheist religion in the United States.
Do you leftists and atheists not see that this is breaking your precious separation of church and state, that you THINK is in the constitution?
SaintOlaf on June 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM
It won’t matter. When Islam comes to rule the US, the debate will be over.
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm
I’m surprised that ID would not be taught since so many schools are having “Be A Muslim” Day.
/sarc
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Oh, this ought to get good.
doubleplusundead on June 16, 2008 at 3:43 PM
The right wants federalism, except for when it doesn’t.
Entelechy on June 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM
That is incorrect. It is quite easy to observe random mutation drive the development of new enzymes in bacterial species (can’t do this experiment in humans, the generation time is too long).
Question for you: what experimental result would lead you to conclude ID is wrong?
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Capital letters and bold make it truthier!
albo on June 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Explain prokaryotes. Coevolution?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM
lol!
JetBoy on June 16, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Oh Bobby,
I am afraid you lost me.
Despite your lovely tase in shoes.
Squid Shark on June 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Wrong! There are others, based on diversification and selection.
Big S on June 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
So, your reasoning is that “because man can intelligently design things, the inexplicable could be also intelligently designed”?
How exactly have you refined your argument? You are still stuck in ad ignorantum.
Why the obsession with “purpose”? Where has it been established that there is a “purpose” for anything at all? Perhaps there’s nothing to discover. Maybe “I don’t know” is acceptable. I’m comfortable with that, and I don’t feel a need to invent imaginary creatures to provide my knowledge with some esoteric form of closure.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
No, but it’s a notion with the distinct benefit that one can at least readily understand what it means.
Meanwhile, watching all this bluster and verbiage, I can’t help but note the extraordinary extent people will go, in various directions, to avoid simply having to say “I don’t know.”
Blacklake on June 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Could you please discuss the experiments and results that did this disproving? What was the experiment, and what was the result?
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
It’s a well known fact that man bled V8 in his earliest days.
I got nothing.
doubleplusundead on June 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Yeah. I half-assed it on one of the first pages of the thread. I’d like to think we’re a mix of Vulcan, Klingon and Cardassian DNA. Ferengi? Not so much.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 16, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Thanks! I enjoyed that.
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM
On the other hand, dinosaurs all tasted like bacon, so it all evened out.
Yeah, I got nothin’ either.
Hollowpoint on June 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
ronsfi on June 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
The “We know” part is where you lose me. It would be correct for you to say, “We believe“. Because that’s all it is. We don’t even know what state the earth might have been in as far as atmosphere, etc. back when. It’s all Theory.
kirkill on June 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
.
Me too. It got micro-evolved out of us over the past 30 minutes.
albo on June 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
I say teach both sides of the issue. It is up to the parents to teach their children. However, in school, intelligent design should not be ignored either. Most Americans are Christians and do believe that God created everything. I thought liberals want our children to know so much.
jencab on June 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Eukaryotes and prokaryotes shared a common ancestor that looked a lot like today’s prokaryotes (Archea and Eubacteria) – it had DNA, glycolysis, an electron transport system at the plasma membrane, but no nucleus, no endomembrane system, little DNA or chromatin modification, simple ribosomes, no introns. One of the descendants of that cell eventually developed a nucleus and associated endomembrane system, and later developed mitochondria through endosymbiosis, and became eukaryotic.
Question: Where did this prokaryotic-like ancestor come from?
Answer: We don’t know. There are some plausible ideas, but they are very hard to test (unlike evolution, which is easy to test and found in the DNA sequence of every living organism).
Clark1 on June 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM
We shouldn’t condemn Jindal if he believes in Intelligent Design. Believing in Intelligent Design is NOT stupid, it’s the recognition that the theory of evolution has many unresolved problems, and new variants of it are invented every day to try to explain them away, and Intelligent Design basically recognizes that the complexity of life we observe today could not come about by chance, and another cause is necessary, without attributing morality or emotions to the First Cause.
The fact is, neither evolution nor creation can be proved by science. Science requires the demonstration of a theory by repeated experiments observed by human beings. Evolution theory claims that humans evolved from apes, and that apes evolved from other animals. Therefore no human being observed the prior evolution, or could do an experiment, so “science” cannot prove evolution.
The Book of Genesis says that God created plants and animals a few days before He created human beings, so no human being observed the creation of the plants and animals. Science can’t prove creation either.
Evolution theory may have seemed plausible in Darwin’s time, when knowledge of cellular biology and chemistry was rudimentary, and Darwin noticed characteristics of finch beaks well adapted to their environment. But with the development of the electron microscope, and today’s knowledge of the structure and function of DNA, proteins, and other cellular processes, and a better understanding of statistical thermodynamics and the tendency of non-living matter to become randomized and disorganized (the law of entropy), it seems extremely improbable, or impossible, that a living cell could have arisen from non-living matter under physical laws that operate today.
Proteins are long chains of hundreds of amino acids that have to be linked in the correct order to be functional, and there are 20 different amino acids that can be in any one position. Even if all the amino acids needed were mixed in one place, the chances of a single protein molecule forming by random reactions, even over billions of years, are astronomically small, like the chances of winning a state lottery 100 times in a row. In addition, reactions between amino acids generate water, and water tends to break apart (hydrolyze) protein molecules if it is not removed. Living cells have RNA (ribonucleic acid) to line amino acids up in the correct order, and other chemicals that absorb and carry away water, but in a non-living world, how could a protein or DNA molecule form?
Darwinism or evolution theory can’t explain this–it is contrary to well-established laws of chemistry. But living cells do exist, which can replicate themselves, but where did the first cells come from? Intelligent Design merely proposes that, since a living cell cannot arise from random chemical reactions of inanimate matter, some extremely intelligent force or guiding principle was necessary to organize the tremendous complexity of the first cells (of which Darwin was ignorant), so that they could be self-sustaining and self-replicating. Intelligent Design, as a theory, does not imply that the “intelligent designer” have the attributes of God according to any religion, but only that it be an extremely intelligent organizing force acting toward the creation and sustenance of life.
Evolution theory has hit a contradiction–life is much too complex to have “evolved” at random according to presently observed laws of chemistry. Intelligent Design theory offers a way out of this contradiction, although much needs to be studied about the mechanisms of “design”.
ID is a relatively new theory, with a lot of “bugs to be worked out”, but evolution theory has been studied for nearly 150 years, and has run into many contradictions from modern biology and chemistry, which the mainstream media and science editors struggle to hide from the public.
Science does not have “all the answers” concerning the origin of life–since we cannot go back to the time the first cell formed, we can’t do an experiment or look in a microscope to find out how it happened. Belief in Intelligent Design is not stupid or ignorant–it is awareness of the scientific shortcomings of evolution theory, and daring to ask the right questions, even if we don’t have all the answers.
Steve Z on June 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Bacon, huh? Okay scientists, you know what to do!
doubleplusundead on June 16, 2008 at 3:55 PM
A 10 minute explanation of one theory of abiogenesis (not evolution), in case anyone is interested. It’s very interesting once you get past the obligatory shots at creationism in the first minute.
Ken Miller – a catholic, biologist and an ardent supporter of evolution (not to mention the author of a widely used high school biology textbook) – will be on Colbert tonight. Hopefully some creationists will hear what he has to say.
(got both items from P.Z. Meyers’ blog, if that matters)
RightOFLeft on June 16, 2008 at 3:56 PM
If we could only invent faster-than-light travel, we could blast a probe away from earth until it reached a point where it could ‘look back’ at light emitted from the very beginning.
LimeyGeek on June 16, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 Next »