Posted on 08/24/2005 6:51:49 AM PDT by Quick1
Topeka — From Darwin to intelligent design to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The debate over teaching evolution in Kansas public schools has caught the attention of a cross-country Internet community of satirists.
In the past few weeks, hundreds of followers of the supreme Flying Spaghetti Monster have swamped state education officials with urgent e-mails.
They argue that since the conservative majority of the State Board of Education has blessed classroom science standards at the behest of intelligent design supporters, which criticize evolution, they want the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught.
“I’m sure you realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory,” writes Bobby Henderson, a Corvallis, Ore., resident whose Web site, www.venganza.org, is part FSM tribute and part job search. Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration
Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration
“It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” he wrote to the education board.
Henderson did not return a telephone call for comment. He says in his letter that it is disrespectful to teach about the FSM without wearing “full pirate regalia.”
Board member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat, whose district includes Lawrence, said he has received more than 500 e-mails from supporters of FSM.
“Clearly, these are just supreme satirists. What they are doing is pointing out that there is no more sense to intelligent design than there is to a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Wagnon said.
Intelligent design posits that some aspects of biology are so complex, they point toward an intelligent creator.
ID proponents helped shepherd a report and hearings that have resulted in science standards that criticize evolution and have put Kansas in the middle of international attention on the subject.
John Calvert, of Lake Quivira, the lawyer who was instrumental in writing the science standards that criticize evolution, said he had seen the FSM e-mails, and was not impressed.
“You can only use that misinformation so long,” Calvert said. Calvert said the science standards do not promote intelligent design, but show that evolution has its critics.
Wagnon and the three other board members who support evolution have written Henderson back, saying they appreciated the comic relief but that they were saddened that the science standards were being changed to criticize evolution.
Please name them. I am genuinely interested. Is NS the driver of the technologies or is it only allowed and consistant?
We're doing ID now. The existance of ID is not in question. The only question is how does it relate to evolution.
DK
ID makes no such claim, even if it were agreed among physicists what exactly the laws governing their discipline are.
The only question is how does it relate to evolution, if at all.
Sorry.
DK
Can you empirically prove that proposition?
Cordially,
Genetics is tracing the descent of modern organisms using the fossil retrovirus insertions found in their genomes. Mutation and natural selection play major roles in HIV and influenza research.
See #175. The scientific arguments are aimed at Behe's model, which is rubbish. In fact Behe's model shows only that his model is insufficient to explain the observations, nothing more. A third grader could do the same. The only difference is in the skill expended in the art of the con.
After Behe does a considerable amount of handwaiving, he then makes 2 concluitons:
1. That some unknown, nonphysical abitrary force exists.
2. That this arbitrary force is intelligent.
Darwinian Evolution is being used in computing. There is an active field called evolutionary computation.
"ID makes no such claim"
I proved in post #175 that it does. If you think the proof contains errors, you know what you must do. The proof stands otherwise.
It's true by definition. If you want a proof:
P1. Science excludes nonmaterial causes.
P2. Divine intervention is a nonmaterial cause.
C1. Therefore, science excludes divine intervention.
Cheers! ;)
And those are major pieces of the puzzle. It has allowed us to not only cure HIV but also Influenza.
Sorry, that kind of response will get me flushed in the great collander.
It does not seem that useful still. Genetics is pretty cool but aren't we making more advances with our intelligent designer stuff? I certainly read about it more.
DK
No you didn't.
You made a series of unsubstantiated statements.
If you are going to make the claim that ID postulates a "hole" in physics, then you're going to have to cite at least one primary source.
When you learn something about science get back to us. Hint: at the moment you are demonstrating nothing but your own ignorance of the scientific method.
So what has it done? I've asked for result based stuff.
DK
Nice sidestep.
Darwin had no idea how genetics worked and you know this.
I'm the primary source. I noticed you failed to find a problem with the proof.
That's correct. Darwin had less evidence, than we do today, well after the mechanism became known and understood.
No you're not.
I noticed you failed to find a problem with the proof.
The problem with the so-called "proof" is that you asserted an alleged fact which is not in evidence - namely that ID advocates postulate a "hole" in physics.
No ID advocate does this.
I'll also point out again that your "proof" consists of several unsubstantiated assertions.
Or, in other words, Darwin had no plausible mechanism and died without finding one, yet his work was still considered science.
Double standard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.