Kansas at it again

[Benguin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kansas at it again

It isnt definable, it isnt testable, it isnt observable, it isnt falsifyable, it isnt malleable, it has no meaningful explanatory power, it isnt distinguishable from purely evolutionary phenomena (nor can it be distinguished from all other any other equally intangible explanations)... so why call it a theory?

Intelligent Design is Creationism under a deceptive guise.

Whenever I read its pamphlets it always comes across as waves of "Will you please stop asking questions". I've no particular problem with people believing in gods if they want to, or that their god steers everything (including creation), or a god of the gaps or whatever.

ID seems to be very strongly geared towards stopping all this nasty research into things we should accept on faith.

 

[Bikewer]

Another interesting tidbit to point out to ID folks is the current thinking in cosmology to the effect that "our" universe isn't the only one.
If one thinks a bit bigger, either in terms of space or time, there's no reason to assume that there are not large numbers of other universes existing now, or that ours is but one in a possibly endless series.
Check out the "brane" ideas of string theorists.

Though equally untestable (at present!) the notion of other universes should put the supposely highly-unusual nature of our own to rest. With infinite possibilities, all possible configurations might have occurred. We just happen to live in the one where the constants of physics allowed the formation of stars, planets, solar systems, and life.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kansas at it again

It isnt definable, it isnt testable, it isnt observable, it isnt falsifyable, it isnt malleable, it has no meaningful explanatory power, it isnt distinguishable from purely evolutionary phenomena (nor can it be distinguished from all other any other equally intangible explanations)... so why call it a theory?

Intelligent Design is Creationism under a deceptive guise.

Just what is your point Yahweh? ( insert smilly face here 'sept I hate emoticons)

 

[bignickel]

I had a crappy science education those years in junior high!! You could even opt out of the entire class in grade 9 that included dissections, your choice. I didn't opt out. I chopped up that frog and enjoyed learning about all the insides. The worm too.

"LISA! I thought you LOVED me! LO-OO-OO-OO-VED me!"


"Why does it sound like a lamb?"

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The froggie was dead already. Not like in ET where kids had to kill theirs. The cats I dissected in College were already dead too. Incidentally, mine had worms all through its digestive tract, and it had to be taken to the autoclave. My new second had hemorrage (sp?). Sigh. everybody else got normal clean cats, and one cat was pregnant. The babies were the size of the tip of my pinky finger, and I have small fingers.

Did you know that the coyote diet in these parts is 70% cat?

Poor kitties. The strays really have a rather gruesome end.

Get your cat spayed or neutered!!

 

[fishbob]

John Calvert, Kansas manager of the Intelligent Design Network, said students should be taught that new discoveries bolster intelligent design and debunk theories that life began only through physical and chemical laws and by chance.

Calvert has yet to name a new discovery that bolsters ID or debunks evolution (notice how the word 'evolution' was avoided). Several years back, I traded emails with Calvert for a while in a sort of improptu debate. He is big on "thought experiments", irreducible complexity arguments, and trying to apply legal definitions of proof to matters of science. He is lacking any obvious understanding of experimentation, theory and hypothesis, or the scientific method.

 

[Benguin]

He can have them taught that in Religious Ed classes if he wants, but such stuff has no relevance in a science class, that I can see.