Arthur Cote ([info]chormin) wrote,
@ 2008-04-24 10:58:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Ben Stein makes me sad.
Intelligent Design is the death of science. Its view that some things are too complex for natural processes to create means that at some point we can't learn anymore. That there is a horizon on science's border after which we can only say "It was designed". It limits and restricts its proponents and frankly, its out of the spirit of science up to this point. I am not saying that it is wrong, which I believe. I am saying that it is bad for science to study and bad for students to learn.

Intelligent Design is a religion. It requires some supernatural event at its origin and cannot stand without it. Its designer may not be deific, but it is apparently above the rules and laws that their designed creation works by. It is outside of the nature it designed and therefor it is SUPERnatural. Depending on the supernatural leaves it outside of natural ad material science.

(13 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Blasphemy!!!
[info]rwdederick
2008-04-24 04:29 pm UTC (link)
How dare you doubt the great works of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Repent! And do not follow these evil links:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/04/18/whatever-you-do-this-weekend-dont-see-expelled/




Edited at 2008-04-24 04:36 pm UTC

(Reply to this)


[info]redfreadom
2008-04-24 06:58 pm UTC (link)
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! Science will never be able to prove god doesnt exist. Maybe the theory will retreat a little.

God could always be in the chaos or in the laws of science and contruction of space/time.

Maybe some people are a little foolish in sticking to thier "evolution is a lie" guns but intelligent design will probably exist forever. Couldnt God have ensured evolution folowed the path it did to create man? Sure why not.

I guess what I am getting at is I disagree with the idea that believing God had a hand in creation limits or restricts science. Afterall people could want to know more about the tools he used to create us.

Unless of course you read genesis. Then you know that getting to close to understanding God gets you spanked.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rwdederick
2008-04-24 07:21 pm UTC (link)
Science doesn't need/want to prove God does or does not exist. Science just wants to be science. It's Intelligent Design that is essentially is trying to mascaraed as science (and be put in science text books) with no scientific support. It's like if I dressed up as a doctor and tried to perform brain surgery and the real doctors telling me to get lost...and then I went out and made a movie about the big bad mean doctors.

Edited at 2008-04-24 07:46 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]redfreadom
2008-04-24 08:41 pm UTC (link)
Like I said, anti evolution is a tad silly. But there are other forms of intelligent design that arent so silly. Do they need to be in text books? No. Do I feel like it impedes learning to suggest it might be true? No as long as very little time is expended.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]chormin
2008-04-25 12:11 am UTC (link)
The problem with suggesting that ID might be true is that people won't bother to learn the theory in full, and learn the part that apeals to them generally 'this is too specific and complex for me to imagine a natural process, therefor it is designed.'

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]redfreadom
2008-04-25 12:38 am UTC (link)
I think the only reason someone wouldnt bother learning 1 theory or the other is that they were already biased towards one going in. And you wernt going to reach those people anyway.

If you are suggesting they would latch only to ID out of lazyness? Well, thats too bad for them as evolution will still be on the test

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]chormin
2008-04-25 12:47 am UTC (link)
The problem is not the test taking, its the end of scientific curiosity. Its that ID supposedly can be applied to physics, psychiatry, sociology, politics and math. The possibility that people can both give up on finding the next most complex part of science AND being called a scientist for it is what truly upsets me. I'm okay with calling them a philosopher, since everyone who thinks is a philosopher, but scientist no.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]redfreadom
2008-04-25 03:00 am UTC (link)
I guess I jsut inherently disagree with the notion a driving curiosity to understand how things work and a belief in the idea god detemined how things work is mutually exclusive.

Im sure plenty of the folk who made the greatest scientific discoveries in history believed in god and he had a hand in the creation of the universe. Didnt stop them

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rwdederick
2008-04-25 02:37 am UTC (link)
No as long as very little time is expended.
Well then they can teach my Intelligent Design theory, too -- That man is intelligently shaping the evolution of God (Universe). To me that makes much more sense and is far more likely. And, it wouldn't take much time to explain, or space in a text book.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]redfreadom
2008-04-25 02:58 am UTC (link)
But THAT is for a philosophy or religion class as it has nothing to do with science. Unless you say we are shaping the evolution of the universe which I guess would be science. Get enough americans to buy into that and I am sure you can get it in a textbook

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rwdederick
2008-04-25 03:21 am UTC (link)
Well we can certainly test it scientifically. Humans shaping the universe is a an observable and measurable phenomena -- just look around and take a look. We may not be at the level we can shape the whole universe right now, but in the future we will be shaping our own evolution with genetic engineering. Our study of particle physics and astronomy will unlock the keys to far more advanced technology. We'll expand out into the universe and create vast galactic and intergalactic empires of interconnected technorganic transhumans. Eventually we will tame the entire 'final frontier'. It will be great, and scientifically testable the damn whole way.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]redfreadom
2008-04-25 12:53 pm UTC (link)
you threw me off what you were trying to say by equating God to the universe if thats what you were doing. I understand the universe part but the god part of "That man is intelligently shaping the evolution of God (Universe)" throws me off otherwise

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rwdederick
2008-04-25 03:39 pm UTC (link)
I believe God = Sum & Substance of the entire Universe. We are to God what our internal organs are to us.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(13 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…