Utah: No to ID!

[BS Investigator]

Just an update. This subject WILL be discussed on SETI radio tonight.

http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178892

 

[Renfield]

Re: Re: Utah: No to ID!

Because the detection of ID in genetic codes would destroy the entire fabric of materialism and Scientism ....

Organization does not necessarily imply design. In one case you have radio signals, in the other you have something biological.

 

[El_Spectre]

Re: Re: Re: Utah: No to ID!

What's the unit of measure on your detector there, hammegk?

Credulons...they are a measure of bogosity

 

[El_Spectre]

Do you think the formation of the chemical elements was a process controlled by randomness and "natural selection"?

If you actually mean ELEMENTS elements, then they are formed via purely physical means... mostly fusion.

If you mean simple organic molecules, then get thee to the bookstore and read The Blind Watchmaker!

Seriously, that book make a very convincing case.

 

[Gr8wight]

Re: Re: Re: Utah: No to ID!

effort is being made by a very few "competent individuals"...with nothing convincing to most scientists so far.

That is the way science works. One person has an hypothesis that differs from conventionally accepted theories, and they pursue it until they can provide enough evidence to persuade others to their view. When the scientists investigating Intelligent Design have some evidence to present, any evidence to present, the process can begin.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Utah: No to ID!

When the scientists investigating Intelligent Design have some evidence to present, any evidence to present, the process can begin.

Actually, they need to come up with a testable hypothesis first, don't they?

 

[Jon.]

Here's to Utah, doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons!

How do you figure? The article linked in the OP didn't seem to mention the Board of Education's reasons for turning down ID, but it sounds like the presentations that were made to them made the usual, rational arguments one would expect from scientists: there is no "theory" in ID, nothing is testable, etc.

Here's to Utah, doing the right thing!

 

[BS Investigator]

Here's to Utah, doing the right thing!

Cheers to that!

 

[c4ts]

How do you figure?

Because the whole state is run by friggin' Mormons, and they excommunicate Creationists (most notably Kent Hovind).

 

[Jon.]

Because the whole state is run by friggin' Mormons, and they excommunicate Creationists (most notably Kent Hovind).

Are the Mormons not creationist? I would have expected that they were at least OEC, if not YEC.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Because the whole state is run by friggin' Mormons, and they excommunicate Creationists (most notably Kent Hovind).

"No, not Utah! Utah's nothing but missionaries!" -Eric Cartman

 

[BS Investigator]

Hovind got booted out of Utah?

Make that two things Utah has done right!

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Here's to Utah, doing the right thing for all the wrong reasons!

Maybe the "Mormons" did it for all the right reasons. Maybe they decieded they want to teach their children their beliefs in an environment they have more control over (at home and in church), not in public school.

LLH

 

[c4ts]

Maybe the "Mormons" did it for all the right reasons. Maybe they decieded they want to teach their children their beliefs in an environment they have more control over (at home and in church), not in public school.

LLH

They no longer hold the majority of Utah's population, and I haven't seen a Utah public school in a long time, so you might be right. But I'm still cynical about the whole thing.

 

[tsg]

I have to say that this is the first bit of news I've read that makes me think there's actually hope for the United States. Just a glimmer, but still some hope.

I would agree, but the fact that we even had to have the argument, and are surprised by the result, isn't very encouraging.

It's hard for me to find hope in the fact that the answer was correct through the despair that the question was even asked.

 

[Atlas]

I would agree, but the fact that we even had to have the argument, and are surprised by the result, isn't very encouraging.

It's hard for me to find hope in the fact that the answer was correct through the despair that the question was even asked.

Hey welcome to the forum tsg. And don't despair. The religionists asked tough questions of Galileo and kinda locked him away for his "wrong" answers.

I wonder just how weird the the answer people give is. I mean it's one thing to believe that God created the universe. It's a whole 'nother thing to believe the Adam and Eve myth is factual.

Believing both is a double whammy to evolutionists. That's the fanatical faction - they've got the truth and there's no sense talking.

If someone doesn't buy Adam and Eve then evolution is quite acceptable. But the idea of intelligent design gets confused with notions of creationism so that, if asked, they'll choose to have it taught more because there's no sense to denying God - he did create everything after all. That is, there is something pernicious Christians carry forward from the Peter denying Jesus story that affects their thinking. They don't really understand ID. It sounds scientific enough and it seems to support their bias. So yah, teach it. It'll save me from answering my kid's hard questions.

Anyway, I'd like to see a study of Christians who do not accept Adam and Eve as factual but still think it's a good thing to teach ID.

 

[BS Investigator]

I would agree, but the fact that we even had to have the argument, and are surprised by the result, isn't very encouraging.

It's hard for me to find hope in the fact that the answer was correct through the despair that the question was even asked.

So true. I shudder to think that pseudoscientists, who make a mockery of the scientific method, and who claim the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, have been able to inject their bogus, religiously drenched so-called "science" into American classrooms. It is not only a giant embarrassment to our nation, but an ominous sign.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Utah: No to ID!

Actually, they need to come up with a testable hypothesis first, don't they?

It can happen in any order -- if someone could come up with some hard data that doesn't fit into the theory of evolution, that would demand a serious re-thinking of evolutionary theory and it would put "God did it" back on the intellectual map, so to speak. For example, if someone discovered that orca (killer whales) didn't have DNA, or didn't have mitochondria, or something silly like that, but instead reproduced using a whole different biochemistry, that would put the cat among the pigeons.

Similarly, a cryptologically valid analysis of DNA sequences or something that uncovered the book of Genesis buried in the middle of the instructions for building a puma would raise eyebrows (and questions).

Of course, I don't expect either to happen (and I don't even expect the creationists reading this to understand what "cryptologically valid" means in this context, although I'm happy to refer them to the Friedman's The Shakespearean Ciphers Revisited for a detailed explanation). But it's safe to say that evolution, like any scientific theory, is falsifiable -- and if falsified, that alone would make "alternative theories" more acceptable.

 

[hammegk]

Yup, nothing like falsifiability.

Theory of Gravity would be falsified if the next item dropped falls up instead of down ....

Narratives like Theory of Evolution are difficult to falsify.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Yup, nothing like falsifiability.

Theory of Gravity would be falsified if the next item dropped falls up instead of down ....

Narratives like Theory of Evolution are difficult to falsify.

Yup. I blame the shortage (Supply = 0) of anachronistic fossils, as well as a possible lack of artificial life programs that don't live up to evolution's predictions. If we had more of those things, it'd be easy to falsify evolution.