'Intelligent design' theory threatens science classrooms

Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | 11/22/2002 | ALAN I. LESHNER

[ALS]

Like I said. Getta grip


You assigned your personal fears to the toon.

Nothing in the toon states or implies hell.

conscience buggin' ya?

[rwfromkansas]

The grand canyon has no relevancy to this matter.

But, if you insist, while I believe in intelligent design, the evolutionist would be right. The grand canyon was created over a long, not short, period of time.

[jlogajan]

If I drop my pencil it will fall to the floor. That is a fact.

It would seem so -- but alas. Are you only dreaming? Are you under the influence of mind altering drugs? Are you insane? Have you misremembered a suggestion as an actual occurance you witnessed. All these are possible explanations for your "observation" that change it from "fact" to imagination.

You can say there is a line between "fact" and "theory" but it is going to be arbitrary. In reality, everything we believe is a theory. We self-assign more confidence to some theories than others.

[Jorge]

Not necessarily. Why isn't it possible that other things evolved later, but we had clotting from the beginning? I am not an evolutionist, but that is something that could be a logical explanation from their side.

Saying that we had clotting blood from the beginning, that it did not evolve is NOT an argument for evolution.

[VadeRetro]

Could you provide the context to the quotes by Stanley in post #41, and by the Field Museum in #31.

Well, George Gaylord Simpson really was a big name in 1953. (But who knows if he meant what he's portrayed as meaning, given the lack of integrity in Creationist Quote Science? OK, we do know specifically about that one!

(Follow the preceding link and look how honest your quote wasn't, Jorge!)

And the Nebraska Man misinterpretation really was a big story of 1922...

And the Leakey's started finding Rift Valley hominids in the 1960s, the walking/amphibious whales started turning up in the 1980s, the Chinese feathered dinosaur finds were in the 1990s, the legged sirenian was just a few years ago ...

[goodseedhomeschool]

Yes we do brother/sister. All we can do is try to be a light shining in darkness and pray.

[Derrald]

I was pointing out that he's taking any argument and turning it into whatever he wants. You want to turn this into an actual supporting hypothesis for evolution...

anywho, as it goes, the ones with longer tongues were more able to catch the faster butterflies. those faster butterflies were healthier for those lizards. therefore, the ones with longer tongues were more fit to survive than the shorter-tongued ones whenever food later became scarce. so, lizards, over time, developed long tongues. But, logic isn't needed... right? We are supposed to believe that evolution means "Things sprout stuff at random because they want to!"

If you wish to argue against logic, please understand the logic with which you are arguing, instead of making an erroneous assumption

[goodseedhomeschool]

I see, so you have you outlook as well. Don't we all? :)

[AntiGuv]

Unless you are prepared to prove that all the quotes presented from evolutionists who admit no transitional forms have been observed in the fossil record...are fraudulant..then you are in no position to deny them.

Yes, I am prepared to assert that such quotes are false. I have provided the evidence; feel free to review it at your leisure. Cheers!

[Quix]

The ID argument that random mutations in nature and natural selection, for example, are too complex for scientific explanation is an interesting -- and for some, highly compelling -- philosophical or theological concept. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution, and it isn't based on science. In sum, there's no data to back it up, and no way of scientifically testing the validity of the ideas proposed by ID advocates.

HOGWASH. What a bunch of self-serving doublespeak. It's AT LEAST *AS* based on science as evolution is. Just because it doesn't pass the 'scientific' media INQUISITION'S REVIEW BOARD is not the most impressive 'scientific' support for your position.

And no way of scientifically testing the validity of the ideas????

HOGWASH. The results embarrassingly-to-your-position don't pass your DOCTRINE OF FAITH IN EVOLUTION test so you define them off the discussion table. Slick trick.

They have been tested mathematically. And ID won. So you stretch definitions and truth all way out of whack bending over so far backwards you do a sequence of backward summersaults--to avoid admitting a shred of truth that ID won.

As best as I can recall, there have been other successful 'tests' against 'scientific' measures at least AS SCIENTIFIC AS THE HOGWASH YOU CALL EVOLUTION--and ID WON. But, hey--it's your religion--have at it. Just let go your death grip on the classrooms of the nation with respect to refusing all sides to be represented.

The quality of U.S. science education is at stake here.

HOGWASH. As one of the Huxley's was honest enough to note 'We killed God off so we could screw like bunnies.' Evolution is merely a brick in the wall--walling you off from anyone or anything that would hinder your doing exactly what you want, wherever with whomever.

You trashed the quality of U.S. science education long ago by your political winnings in the public arena blocking any competing theories as unscientific--i.e. THEY DIDN'T PASS YOUR DOCTRINES OF FAITH.

And you expect the masses and students to be too stupid to sort such things out.

Many ARE TOO LAZY to bother. But too stupid they are not.

Not everyone is as thick-headed as the people in some mirrors.

[VadeRetro]

Unfortunately, your tactic of distorting what someone says and trying to make a trap for them has failed.

"Twist and Shout" isn't just good creationist argument; it's part of the "Real Science."

[Jorge]

Hey, this penny has copper-like qualities. I bet you think that's an excellent argument for ID.

Your wrong. I don't.

re-iteration: no one listens to a drone.

Well then...I suggest you don't waste your time repeating the same old worn-out arguments.

[ApesForEvolution]

So, tell us all about God A2000, please.

Patiently waiting...

[Rudder]

Get real. Your romantic view of the integrity and objectivity of scientists is a real thigh-slapper.

Here's what I said about that:
Science, as a trade, uses a method designed (as best we mortals can)

I paid appropriate homage to the human condition as it limits the pursuit of science. You're mis-characterising my statements, not unlike a Maureen Dowd effort. Think carefully before you pop off.

[goodseedhomeschool]

I asked him that once and he told me it was none of my business. I wondered why he would say that. Most people like to share their faith.

[Derrald]

"Some seem to "get it" a little too late"

This quote, combined with an image of an atheist being pointed at and surprised by God, is intended to invoke images of wrath and hell. If it isn't, then the English language has no meaning. If your argument is based on the English language having no meaning then dog fire train assimilate callipygous, my friend.

[DannyTN]

"Actually we have defined an exact (fixed) value for the speed of light in a vacuum: 299,792,458 meters per second. By definition, the speed of light "c" is a constant. "

But does light still go the "defined" speed of light?

And I'd like your perspective on the redshift discussion on the "Is the speed of light slowing down?" thread.

[rwfromkansas]

Well, in my public school classroom, while I can't indoctrinate students and quite frankly I would feel that to be wrong, I will bring up evolution and the weaknesses of the theory because I will be teaching history and possibly journalism. The evo/creationist debate has a lot of interesting things that could be discussed in the context of history and since one main goal of history is critical thinking, I would also bring a bit of science into the debate and discuss how both sides argue their points via science and then ask the students to evaluate both arguments. It would be a great critical thinking exercise, but since it is a history class, I should keep thet science largely out of it and only use that for a critical thinking exercise.

My history teacher in HS brought the crevo/evo debate into class to discuss different ways of looking at the world (though he was an evo and basically mocked my views; he was not objective). I think it would be a good excercise for the first day of class to get students geared up to have to think critically. But unlike my HS teacher, I won't mock evolution, I will be fair and give their side and then the creationist side. I have no right to try to indoctrinate students; they must use their critical thinking skills themselves.

[Jorge]

Follow the preceding link and look how honest your quote wasn't, Jorge!

If you think you can prove anything I posted is dishonest then give it your best shot. I bet you can't.

But don't hand out reading assignments and expect me to do your homework for you in order prove your point.

[Aric2000]

Of course you don't. you believe that if a person understands science and understands evolution, then they must be an atheist. you basic assumption is wrong, therefore you will NOT understand.

We can and are, religous, and at the same time understand science, thing is, we don't MIX the 2.

Good grief, gotta spell it out for you...

The difference in the 2 are this.

Two men are standing and looking out at the grand canyon. The evolutionist says, "wow look at that, and to think it was formed over millions of years, look at what God did." THen the creationists says, "wow, look at what God did in 40 days."

That's the difference, we don't take the bible literally, but we believe in god.

But since we don't believe EXACTLY as you do, we are atheists.

Isn't that just tolerant?