Intelligent design is not creationism (Stephen Meyer)

London Telegraph ^ | 01/28/2006 | Stephen Meyer

[mlc9852]

Israeli scientists have devised a computer that can perform 330 trillion operations per second, more than 100,000 times the speed of the fastest PC. The secret: It runs on DNA.

A year ago, researchers from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, unveiled a programmable molecular computing machine composed of enzymes and DNA molecules instead of silicon microchips. Now the team has gone one step further. In the new device, the single DNA molecule that provides the computer with the input data also provides all the necessary fuel.

The design is considered a giant step in DNA computing. The Guinness World Records last week recognized the computer as "the smallest biological computing device" ever constructed. DNA computing is in its infancy, and its implications are only beginning to be explored. But it could transform the future of computers, especially in pharmaceutical and biomedical applications.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0224_030224_DNAcomputer.html


Some could argue otherwise.

[mlc9852]

So all scientists agree with Darwin's TOE? I'm quite sure you don't believe that. Why not allow teaching of the "problems" of TOE? Would you be ok with that?

[Drammach]

Don't get me wrong..

I sincerely believe what I said..
Intelligent Design is not Intelligent..
It lacks faith in God..

Let me further explain..
I believe in God, and God's creation of the Universe..
I also believe in God's use of evolution to create all life...

What I reject is the denial of scientific endeavor, meant to help mankind explain the workings of our universe and the life that exists within it..
No science has ever proven, nor to my knowledge, attempted to prove that God does not exist, or to deny the existence of God..
( Philosophical argument and opinion is not science, don't count that as an example. )

[orionblamblam]

Here's a simpler solution: how about reserving science class for the teaching of *science?*

I know, it's a revolutionary thought.

[PatrickHenry]

Archive?

[Drammach]

At least they should be teaching the controversies related to TOE. That would be a good start.

Controversies? Why?
Controversies are disagreements not necessarilly based on fact..

If you were to say " At least it should be mentioned (taught) what science doesn't know about evolution" I would agree..
But there is a preponderence of evidence that points to a logical conclusion, and many theories have been proven to be correct..
Denial of fact, empirical evidence, is not Intelligent..

[SuziQ]

Here's an interesting article from one of the 'founders' of the ID theory.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

You might teach it in a "Philosophy of Science" class though.

No. You wouldn't.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

( Philosophical argument and opinion is not science, don't count that as an example. )

Philosophical argument IS science, however, many folks use faulty logic and/or invalid arguments.
Don't bash philosophy due to uninformed speculation.

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[Drammach]

The Wilcox-McCandlish law of online discourse evolution, developed by Bryce Wilcox and Stanton McCandlish on USENET, is:

The chance of success of any attempt to change the topic or direction of a thread of discussion in a networked forum is directly proportional to the quality of the current content.

There are numerous corollaries:

1. McCandlish's first corollary to the Wilcox-McCandlish law
* The chance of any change to the topic or direction of a thread being a change for the better is inversely proportional to the quality of the content before the change.

2. The exception to McCandlish's first corollary
* When a thread reaches the flame war stage, all changes in thread topic or direction will be changes for the worse.

3. McCandlish's second corollary to the Wilcox-McCandlish law
* Thread bandwidth consumption increases in inverse proportion to thread content quality.

4. Wilcox's corollary to the Wilcox-McCandlish law
* The more involved one is in a flame war, the less likely one is to recognize it as such.

5. McCandlish's third corollary to the Wilcox-McCandlish law
* Any attempt at recourse to formal logic or identification of classic fallacies will simply increase the irrationality of the discussion.

(It is likely that this is so because the use of formal logic immediately raises the quality of the discussion to unity, thus guaranteeing the next followup will be a non sequitur.)

* The Wilcox-McCandlish paradox Thread degeneration can (theoretically) be forestalled or even reversed by citation to the Wilcox-McCandlish Law.

Wikipedia

[mlc9852]

What "facts" do you assume others are denying?

[mlc9852]

"Today 95% of the biologists in the National Academy of Science are either atheist or agnostic (Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313)."

http://www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

[Coyoteman]

So all scientists agree with Darwin's TOE? I'm quite sure you don't believe that. Why not allow teaching of the "problems" of TOE? Would you be ok with that?

I had a couple of seminars in grad school titled "Problems in Evolution."

We discussed different interpretations of various fossils and possible lines of descent based on the extant fossil record.

Is this the kind of course you would like?

[mlc9852]

Yep.

[Drammach]

Philosophical argument IS science, however, many folks use faulty logic and/or invalid arguments.

I would consider Logic as science..
But not Philosophy as a whole.. It covers other topics of a non-scientific nature.. logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology..

And that's just one definition..

[Drammach]

What "facts" do you assume others are denying?

I ask the same to you..
How about it?

I don't feel I have a "need" to defend Evolution...

What "facts" do you assume others are denying about ID ???

[Filo]

So all scientists agree with Darwin's TOE? I'm quite sure you don't believe that. Why not allow teaching of the "problems" of TOE? Would you be ok with that?

I would say that the vast majority of scientists support Darwin's theory. There may be minor problems with details but the theory has yet to be disproven and, in fact, it has huge volumes of support.

Would I support teaching some of these problems? Of course! They are, however, taught all of the time. The problems don't damage the theory - they just prove that we have more to discover in support of it.

Almost all of the nonsense about an "evolutionary controversy" is fabricated by ID proponents and has no real basis in fact.

No offense, but IDers are a lot like democrats. They don't have anything of their own so they tear down what others have built in an attempt to elevate themselves; and they aren't particularly honest in doing so.

[Virginia-American]

As I posted when the Dover case was decided, I think it would be better to sue the school board in state court on fraud charges, and impeach and convict in the state legislature.

Consider Afrocentrism. This is another form of affirmative action, but unlike ID/creationism, there is no First Amend. problem.

But it's still fraudulent, and has no place in school.

IMO, not teaching history (or biology) at all is preferable to lying about it.

Impeachment and conviction are also appropriate, because school board members who engage in such conduct are also guilty of the high crime of mal (or is it mis-) feasance.

Conviction of impeachment carries the penalty of never being allowed on the gov't payroll again.

[mlc9852]

I think they should discuss whether or not habilis, rudolfensis, etc. are erectus or not and why hominid fossils of different species overlap. That would do for starters.