Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action

American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

[trashcanbred]

That is precisely why I said your arguments against ID are not scientific but philosophical.

Fester... there is no scientific proof nor philosophical proof that I am being philosophical. Nor is there proof to the contrary. Therefore, the only conclusion we can make is that I am being philosophical.

Does that bit of logic spin your head. If so now you know how I FEEL because that how you have been arguing for ID all along.

But ID is based upon evidence, namely the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions.

Ok... let's suppose this is a valid for a second. I asked is the Intelligent Designer made out of organized matter. If so, what would be the next logical question?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yet, when you mentioned Jezebel, my mind went to the movie "Jezebel', made around 1938, starring Bette Davis, and Henry Fonda.."

That's what I was thinking too. TCM has been playing a lot of her movies, I think she is the star of the month.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Here's when Jezebel will be on TCM:

Wednesday, May 10,2006 11:00 PM

[andysandmikesmom]

Ah, thanks for the info...I love that movie Jezebel...a young Bette Davis was quite beautiful, and the young Henry Fonda was some handsome hunk...

I always found it amusing, that tho this movie was intended strictly as a vehicle for Bette Davis to snatch the role of Scarlett Ohara, the movie Jezebel, turned out to be quite a classic, and stands fine, all on its own...

[Fester Chugabrew]

But the Big Bang can and has been tested . . .

Nope. Like intelligent design, it has been reasonably inferred from the evidence at hand. If it had been "tested" as you say, it would have been repeated, and repeated numerous times. Don't see that happening any time soon.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Is science made out of organized matter?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Nope."

No, it really has been.

"If it had been "tested" as you say, it would have been repeated, and repeated numerous times."

You really ARE clueless about what testing means. If what you claim is true, there is no way to investigate a crime; no hypothesis could be tested because the crime could not be repeated over and over. How silly.

Luckily, scientists don't use the same wacky definitions you have invented.

[Junior]

Idiot. He compares them to each other. He and others like him reviewed hundreds and thousands of manuscripts from the very beginnings of Christianity through the early Middle Ages. That you so blythely dismiss the work without reading it speaks poorly of you.

[Fester Chugabrew]

If what you claim is true, there is no way to investigate a crime . . .

We're not talking about a crime. We're talking about the big bang and all of history. It cannot be empirically tested, i.e. repeated and directly observed. Neither can a crime for that matter. That is why courts are needed to sort out the true from the false and often end up arriving at wrong conclusions despite the evidence.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"We're not talking about a crime. We're talking about the big bang and all of history."

They all require the same kind of forensic methodology.

"It cannot be empirically tested, i.e. repeated and directly observed."

The theories can and have been tested, repeatedly. Just as you don't have to directly observe a crime and repeat it to be able to gather objective evidence and test different hypotheses about what happened, one doesn;t have to repeat the Big Bang or the specific evolution of life to be able to test theories about them.

"That is why courts are needed to sort out the true from the false and often end up arriving at wrong conclusions despite the evidence."

Nobody says it's a perfect means of acquiring knowledge; it's just the only one available. The methodology that is used in a court to establish guilt is the same as that used to investigate all unique historical events. If what you say is true, that there is no way to test claims about the past, then there is no way to know ANYTHING that has happened in the past. We can't repeat past events nor can we observe them directly.

Luckily, only you have this odd view of what testability means.

[PatrickHenry]

Nobody says it's a perfect means of acquiring knowledge; it's just the only one available.

There is no evidence for [it's just the only one available] and you have a double standard.
</ELIZA creationism version>

[trashcanbred]

Is science made out of organized matter?

Wow... you really are an Eliza program. But just in case you are not... I would like to know what is the nature of the designer in ID. I mean... if you want to teach it in school what would you teach? And how would you answer who designed the designer...

[ThinkDifferent]

Neither can a crime for that matter. That is why courts are needed to sort out the true from the false and often end up arriving at wrong conclusions despite the evidence.

And despite their imperfections we actually do use courts and evidence, rather than seeing whether suspects float or sink, or asking God to smite the guilty. Why do you suppose this is?

[PatrickHenry]

And how would you answer who designed the designer..

One might find a book in the forest, but it does not follow by necessity that [who designed the designer] because you do indeed hold intelligent design to a higher standard than evolutionism.
</ELIZA creationism version>

[andysandmikesmom]

I am unfamiliar with this 'Eliza' thingey...someone, please explain it to me...

[PatrickHenry]

ELIZA.

[trashcanbred]

Its an old program that was used to "simulate" a human conversation. If you type in "I am tired" it would respond back "why are you tired?". Normally though the responses would degrade into illogical questions like "Why does you dog feel for Fred do?"

PatrickHenry suggested Fester Chugabrew is actually an Eliza program. Just now Fester asked "Is science made out of organized matter?"

[andysandmikesmom]

Many thanks...after reading the article, I am convinced, that I know several folks in both real life, and in FR life, that have employed 'Eliza'...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

There ya go, Eliza!

[andysandmikesmom]

I have learned two things from the article, and your explanations...first that people can reply to a question in such a way, which would indicate that they have very little specific knowledge about the subject that is being discussed...scarey...

Secondly, the anecdotal stories, which reveal that many people actually thought they were talking with a real person, rather than a computer program...also scarey...

I hardly know which I think is the most scarey...that one actually acts like an 'Eliza' program, or that one cannot recognize an 'Eliza' program in progress...