Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?

[Norsefire]

where does all this mean in regards to the topic. ok ive been off topic and on. but, really all this bickering.....
so...back to more bickering
im sure ID should not be taught in a usa public school as science.
now evolution? is it necessary to know about evolution, and to what extent, to be able to make competent decissions in life? as a citizen. after all isnt that what public school is about. we dont want a bunch of numb nuts out there unable to count change at the 711. do they really need to be taught evolution? lets concentrate on counting change first.
btw public school failed me when it comes to spelling. no not really its my add

Again, it does not need to be taught as fact, when it so obviously is not, or even a theory, but rather a concept, because that is what it is.

Failure to teach all points of view simply because of a personal bias is not justified, especially by atheists, who either cannot understand the concept of ID, and dismiss it as "religious rubbish" when indeed it is far different, by nature and by concept, or simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that it is a very real possibility the universe was created.

 

[buckybeam]

Failure to teach all points of view simply because of a personal bias is not justified, especially by atheists, who either cannot understand the concept of ID, and dismiss it as "religious rubbish" when indeed it is far different, by nature and by concept, or simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that it is a very real possibility the universe was created.

yes but should it be taught as science.

i can see teaching the natural selection part of evolution. its proven science fact. barring esoteric philosophies which i do love and hold true too.

the whole creation part.....well at that point id say then you shouldnt teach the ID part. actually not cause and effect but, i dont think either should be taught period. should we teach the hindu belief that a man was sacraficed and part became the heavens and part became the earth. its not ID. no creationism either... i think :shrug:. should we teach that as science... no. why? cause its religon. great for a humanities class. terrible for science. look at jainism and buddha. its because vishnu breathes

 

[Norsefire]

yes but should it be taught as science.

i can see teaching the natural selection part of evolution. its proven science fact. barring esoteric philosophies which i do love and hold true too.

the whole creation part.....well at that point id say then you shouldnt teach the ID part. actually not cause and effect but, i dont think either should be taught period. should we teach the hindu belief that a man was sacraficed and part became the heavens and part became the earth. no ID. no creationism either... i think. should we teach that as science... no. why? cause its religon. great for a humanities class. terrible for science

Please show me how the Hindu belief that part of man became the heavens and the other, the earth, is even remotely similar to the concept that our universe was created. Again, you focus on content, rather than concept. Intelligent design is not religious, because it does not hold religious belief, any more than the idea of dark matter, the big bang, or string theory is religion.

 

[buckybeam]

Please show me how the Hindu belief that part of man became the heavens and the other, the earth, is even remotely similar to the concept that our universe was created. Again, you focus on content, rather than concept. Intelligent design is not religious, because it does not hold religious belief, any more than the idea of dark matter, the big bang, or string theory is religion.

dude your not getting it.

to teach ID as science to a hindu would be wrong. jaust as to teach "sacraficed split body creation" as science to a christian would be wrong... well unless you dont care but then you wouldnt comment with anything other than i dont care because who would care

 

[buckybeam]

im not sure what you are protecting?

 

[Norsefire]

dude your not getting it.

to teach ID as science to a hindu would be wrong. jaust as to teach "sacraficed split body creation" as science to a christian would be wrong... well unless you dont care but then you wouldnt comment with anything other than i dont care because who would care

Not only do you demonstrate an inability to understand logical concepts, but you also cannot differentiate concept from content.

"Sacrificed split body creation" is an entire concept very independent of ID, in that there is no logical basis behind it.

Is teaching string theory to a Hindu wrong? Or the big bang? Or the concept of dark matter? No.

Intelligent design is the concept that the universe was created by an intelligent entity. It suggests nothing further than this. The logical basis is, as we can observe, the only forces of causation in the universe are intelligence and nature. That is where ID is derived from. Absolutely nothing that is observed could ever make you come to the conclusion of "sacrificied split body creation"

 

[SnakeLord]

This detracts absolutely nothing from the notion of ID; since we Humans have obviously evolved far, far more advanced than any other creature has even come close to, perhaps we were guided by a higher intelligence?

Advanced? Cockroaches can survive in nuclear reactors and can eat pretty much anything. Perhaps they were made by a super cockroach? Your problem is you're making the same fallacy I mentioned earlier.

nothing in my logic would ever make me come to the conclusion that a giant sausage and mashed potato slammed together to make the universe.

Come on, "apply the possibility". No, it has absolutely no evidence but we can't rule it out because it is "possible" - and, because it is possible, it gives us reason to teach it in science class. :bugeye:

There are two main problems with this. Firstly, it depends on your use of "supernatural"

Hey, this is your show. You've already redefined the word god to mean alien being:

"Secondly, by "god" I mean a higher force. This, of course, does not have to be supernatural, but simply higher. It could be an intelligent civilization that is very natural like we Humans."

I would at this stage ask that you drop such terminology - to help yourself if nobody else. Look, by "tennis" I mean a cup of tea <-- see how silly that is? When you use a defined word to mean something entirely different you run into problems.

I do not mean god in the traditional spiritual supernatural sense, but rather, simply an intelligence that is beyond human intelligence, that played some role in the development/creation of mankind.

Then your first 4 words are the pertinent ones.. As such, stop using the word. Could an advanced race of aliens have created our universe? Perhaps, indeed I saw something like that on Star Trek once.. Maybe we should teach the concept in science class.. Hmmm

No, let's not.

 

[Norsefire]

Advanced? Cockroaches can survive in nuclear reactors and can eat pretty much anything. Perhaps they were made by a super cockroach? Your problem is you're making the same fallacy I mentioned earlier.

Cockroaches aren't intelligent, however. Intelligence is the key component of complexity. We, in being so vastly more intelligent, and self aware and conscious beings, are far, far more complex than any cockroach.

Come on, "apply the possibility". No, it has absolutely no evidence but we can't rule it out because it is "possible" - and, because it is possible, it gives us reason to teach it in science class.

You are missing the key, which is categorization. Most certainly, sausages and mashed potatoes are possible, but there is no logic behind this.

And again, they would fall under "natural beginning"

Remember, the categories, based on our observation of the "forces" behind causation, are intelligence and nature. By saying intelligence, you do not imply anything further than intelligence. You do not imply the identity or intent or ability of the intelligent entity. By saying nature, you imply only that the beginning was not intended by any form of intelligence, and therefore your sausage explanation would fall under such category.

Think broadly; you are thinking specifically down to detail of content, which is irrelevant, because content has no logical basis. If you truly cannot understand what I am saying, then further discussion is pointless.

Therefore, in them being the two possible concepts, we should teach them both.

Hey, this is your show. You've already redefined the word god to mean alien being:

"Secondly, by "god" I mean a higher force. This, of course, does not have to be supernatural, but simply higher. It could be an intelligent civilization that is very natural like we Humans."

"god" means only more advanced. Would we not be gods to any sort of AI we create?

I would at this stage ask that you drop such terminology - to help yourself if nobody else. Look, by "tennis" I mean a cup of tea <-- see how silly that is? When you use a defined word to mean something entirely different you run into problems.

What exactly is the defined meaning of god? If you wish for me to say "advanced intelligence", then so be it, I shall.

Then your first 4 words are the pertinent ones.. As such, stop using the word. Could an advanced race of aliens have created our universe? Perhaps, indeed I saw something like that on Star Trek once.. Maybe we should teach the concept in science class.. Hmmm

Again, with specifying. This "advanced race of aliens" falls under intelligence, which is the important aspect. It does not matter if the big bang was caused by giant mashed potatoes (naturally, in the lack of any intent) or by alien beings with four eyes and four heads; what matters is their categorization, which we know to be true, in our observation of the forces of causation. What is impossible to know is the actual details, but we KNOW that our universe either came to be naturally or was created.

No, let's not.

Then what shall we teach? An alien civilization having created our universe, to me, is entirely a rational and logical idea; it's impossible to know, however.

 

[Oli]

If it's impossible to know then what possible point would there be in "teaching" it?
At least with science the results can be used.

 

[Norsefire]

If it's impossible to know then what possible point would there be in "teaching" it?
At least with science the results can be used.

Teaching concept. It's impossible to know many things, yet we teach them, as concepts, or theories. Science is about knowledge, not the application of knowledge; that's technology.

 

[Oli]

Nope, slight distinction: technology is the application of science.
The application of knowledge can be used everday: mathematics for your grocery bill for example, or literature for a discussion.
As for "Aliens did but we'll never know and can't ever know": hmmm, killed that conversation stone dead.
Nothing more to be said or profited from it.
At least with religion (eeeargh I'm defending religion) you can get discission on talks going on morality etc.

 

[Norsefire]

Nope, slight distinction: technology is the application of science.
The application of knowledge can be used everday: mathematics for your grocery bill for example, or literature for a discussion.

Ok, but my point was, science is about knowledge.

As for "Aliens did but we'll never know and can't ever know": hmmm, killed that conversation stone dead.

I didn't say aliens did it. Firstly, I made no mention of aliens until SnakeLord forced me to, and so originally I said intelligence; and secondly, because of reasons I've already explained, that causation can be derived from both nature and intelligence, it leaves both on the table. You are correct in that we can never know, but it's purely that we can never know. No logic can make us sway one way or the other. It's entirely, in every respect, unknowable, although it has a logical basis.

At least with religion (eeeargh I'm defending religion) you can get discission on talks going on morality etc.

That's a different thing, though; those are the psychological and social aspects and benefits and roles that religion plays, as opposed to our current discussion which has nothing to do with religion, but rather the existence or nonexistence of a higher intelligence.

 

[Oli]

Ok, but my point was, science is about knowledge.

Crap: knowledge of literature isn't scientific.
Science is about a specific type of knowledge.

I didn't say aliens did it. Firstly, I made no mention of aliens until SnakeLord forced me to, and so originally I said intelligence;

You're quibbling: if it wasn't us then it was aliens... (you've denied it's a supernatural god so there's nothing else left).

and secondly, because of reasons I've already explained, that causation can be derived from both nature and intelligence, it leaves both on the table.

Or something you haven't thought of.

You are correct in that we can never know, but it's purely that we can never know. No logic can make us sway one way or the other. It's entirely, in every respect, unknowable, although it has a logical basis.

No it has a speculative basis.
And if we can never know then it's fruitless, pointless and time-wasting since nothing whatsoever can be gained by it.

That's a different thing, though; those are the psychological and social aspects and benefits and roles that religion plays, as opposed to our current discussion which has nothing to do with religion, but rather the existence or nonexistence of a higher intelligence.

And if we can never know and it can't ever affect us then we're back to waste of time....

 

[Norsefire]

Crap: knowledge of literature isn't scientific.
Science is about a specific type of knowledge.

However, science is not only about knowledge that can help us in making technology.

You're quibbling: if it wasn't us then it was aliens... (you've denied it's a supernatural god so there's nothing else left).

I haven't denied anything, but I am also not suggesting anything of the sort. All I am suggesting is a higher intelligence, whatever that may be. And "alien"? Alien could mean anything; a rock from Mars is alien.

Or something you haven't thought of.

Perhaps, but again, the basis to my conclusion that the universe either came to be through natural means, or was created, is the observation that I can make about forces of causation. Everything that is caused, is done so either with intent or without intent. Do you understand what I am saying? Hopefully, you do.

No it has a speculative basis.
And if we can never know then it's fruitless, pointless and time-wasting since nothing whatsoever can be gained by it.

"Speculative"? Well then, it's speculation that has a logical basis, with observation. Therefore, it becoms a very real possibility.

Pointless? The pursuit of knowledge.

 

[kmguru]

Evolution or Intelligent Design?

A tangle of spidery filaments stretches outward from the giant elliptical galaxy NGC 1275 as if they were dendrites of an intergalactic nerve cell.

NGC 1275, located 235 million light-years from Earth near the center of a clump of galaxies known as the Perseus cluster, has posed a puzzle: How have these filaments, which are made of gas much cooler than the surrounding intergalactic cloud, persisted for perhaps 100 million years? Why haven’t they warmed, dissipated or collapsed to form stars?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/space/26galaxy.html

Interesting...

 

[Oli]

. I haven't denied anything, but I am also not suggesting anything of the sort. All I am suggesting is a higher intelligence, whatever that may be. And "alien"? Alien could mean anything; a rock from Mars is alien.

Alein is, by definition: not us. There are no other options.

Perhaps, but again, the basis to my conclusion that the universe either came to be through natural means, or was created

Or something you haven't thought of.

is the observation that I can make about forces of causation. Everything that is caused, is done so either with intent or without intent.

Agreed, so what?

"Speculative"? Well then, it's speculation that has a logical basis, with observation. Therefore, it becoms a very real possibility.

No, you can invent a "logical basis", (not based on observation but inference). That doesn't make it a "real possibility".

Pointless? The pursuit of knowledge.

Since you have stated that we can NEVER KNOW whether it's real or not then it isn't, and cannot ever be, by definition, knowledge: it's speculation with no possible hope of confirmation or refutation.
I.e. pointless, fruitless, bootless wool-gathering.

 

[Norsefire]

Alien is, by definition: not us. There are no other options.

I know. What is your point?

Or something you haven't thought of.

Below, you have said "agreed"; therefore, you too understand that there can be no other things. Everything is with or without intent, therefore there is nothing I "haven't thought of"

Agreed, so what?

Therefore, the universe was either caused with or without intent to be caused, and if it was caused with intent, that is creation, and if without it, I call it "natural", but more specifically and more accurately, without intent.

No, you can invent a "logical basis", (not based on observation but inference). That doesn't make it a "real possibility".

I can infer. I can infer that the universe was either created or came to be naturally, based on my observation. It doesn't mean I'm correct in that inference, but it is a logical inference.

Since you have stated that we can NEVER KNOW whether it's real or not then it isn't, and cannot ever be, by definition, knowledge: it's speculation with no possible hope of confirmation or refutation.
I.e. pointless, fruitless, bootless wool-gathering.

I do not think we can ever know for sure, 100%, because in order to know anything, it requires empirical evidence. However, through the use of logic and observation, we can at least narrow it down.

 

[Oli]

I know. What is your point?

The point is that it's a waste of time denying you meant aliens...

Below, you have said "agreed"; therefore, you too understand that there can be no other things. Everything is with or without intent, therefore there is nothing I "haven't thought of"

Unless the creation of the universe (which breaks all the known laws of physics) is something which, as you have already stated, we can never know about...

Therefore, the universe was either caused with or without intent to be caused, and if it was caused with intent, that is creation, and if without it, I call it "natural", but more specifically and more accurately, without intent.

No, since the creation of the universe was a singular (in all senses of the word, event and the rules don't apply.

I can infer. I can infer that the universe was either created or came to be naturally, based on my observation. It doesn't mean I'm correct in that inference, but it is a logical inference.

Only as far as the inference goes: based on no evidence.

I do not think we can ever know for sure, 100%, because in order to know anything, it requires empirical evidence. However, through the use of logic and observation, we can at least narrow it down.

No, you yourself stated:

it's impossible to know, however.

therefore we're back to fruitless.
Since we can never know then the whether it happened that way or not can have no possible bearing or effect on our actions. And therefore may as well not exist.

 

[Norsefire]

The point is that it's a waste of time denying you meant aliens...

Apparantly SnakeLord does not think so, and therefore it is not; if he believes gods and aliens have different meanings, then I shall be happy to conform to whatever he finds comprehensable in the hopes that he finally understands what I am saying.

Unless the creation of the universe (which breaks all the known laws of physics) is something which, as you have already stated, we can never know about...

We can, however, know that it was either caused with or without intent. Please present me with anything other than "with" or "without"; there is no middle ground. And the laws of physics exist....in our universe, as we know them. As for anything, if anything, outside, obviously there would exist different laws of physics.

No, since the creation of the universe was a singular (in all senses of the word, event and the rules don't apply.

What do you mean?

Only as far as the inference goes: based on no evidence.

Based on observation, however, it is an informed speculation. I never claimed anything to be fact. But by " a very real possibility", I mean, informed speculation, which cannot be discarded at the moment, either with or without intent.

No, you yourself stated:
therefore we're back to fruitless.
Since we can never know then the whether it happened that way or not can have no possible bearing or effect on our actions. And therefore may as well not exist.

The pursuit of knowledge! Perhaps, in the future, it will be possible to know. But we should always question everything.

 

[Vkothii]

Intelligent design is the concept that the universe was created by an intelligent entity. It suggests nothing further than this. The logical basis is, as we can observe, the only forces of causation in the universe are intelligence and nature.

Define "intelligence", however. Then define "higher intelligence". I'd say the whole thing is stuck right there, if I was asked.

Cockroaches aren't intelligent, however. Intelligence is the key component of complexity. We, in being so vastly more intelligent, and self aware and conscious beings, are far, far more complex than any cockroach.

An entirely artificial, anthropocentric definition. Now define "complex"; then define "more complex". I bet that's stuck like the first one is.

By saying intelligence, you do not imply anything further than intelligence. You do not imply the identity or intent or ability of the intelligent entity. By saying nature, you imply only that the beginning was not intended by any form of intelligence...

Self-defining terminology sure can be a handy little device for making stuff up...

I can infer that the universe was either created or came to be naturally, based on my observation. It doesn't mean I'm correct in that inference, but it is a logical inference.

Inference is a function of intelligence - does a more intelligent logic have the capacity to make more logical inferences, though?

And I bet that last question, show-stopper that I infer it is, won't stop a certain self-defining logic from trying to justify its inferences, however illogical or unintelligible they might be.