Intelligent Design Invading Liberal Classrooms (was: South Park taunting Scientology)

"Robert Grumbine" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Suzanne wrote:

"Robert Grumbine" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Suzanne wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
m...
On 18 Nov 2005 21:09:05 -0800, "JD" wrote:

[snip]

One last thought. As a scientist I hear crap theories relatively
often. I must sort through them on the basis of whether or not the
scientific work has actually been done. What is wrong about giving
students a chance to filter out one crap theory?

I've been bringing up ID lately in some science classes I mentor,
because it is a great example of pseudoscience (I wouldn't call it
crap
theory, however, since it isn't a theory at all. You got the crap part
right, though g).

It certainly does not hurt to understand that some
things are irreducibly complex systems that would
not have been able to evolve gradually, and that's a
noteworthy point.
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm

The assertion that flagella could not have evolved is untrue:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

It is also untrue that evolution cannot construct an irreducibly
complex
system: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

According to this, a bacterium would be smarter
than Einstein, which I don't think is believable.
It would have to not just adapt, but produce all
the parts of this motor like structure simultaeously
and conveniently in order to create a new function.

You have a strange idea of evolution. Normal among those who
say it can't work.

Microevolution is not strange at all. It's a real
and accepted form of adaptation within a
species.

Evolution is not a matter of the organisms involved deciding that
they need a new capability and then going into the workshop to
develop it. Brilliance is quite optional.

And the point is that the organisms don't
have the intelligence to do such a thing.
It would take a higher intelligence to
bring about all of the "parts" of the
"motor-like" action of the flagellum.

For evolution, species just reproduce. Sometimes in the process,
the next generation isn't identical to the previous. Some changes
are bad, and kill the organism, some don't do anything much and
get passed on, and some do something useful (meaning: the organism
can live in conditions where otherwise it would have died, or
reproduce to leave more copies of itself). 'useful' itself
is merely a statement of 'at that place and time'.

In the case of the flagellum, you obviously didn't read the
link provided. Only Behe sees no use for any of the aspects
that later became the flagellum. Turns out, there is an obvious
set of precursors that are useful for other things, which also
turn out to be useful for making a flagellum. Read the
link this time and you'll see the story that Behe is hiding from
you.

The group for which this sort of discussion is on-topic is talk.origins
(hence my cites to the group's faq archive).

I'm reading from sci.astro.amateur, so I'll note that Behe's testimony
in Dover was that astrology is just as much science as his 'Intelligent
Design'. This came up when he was found to not be using the notions
of what science is that the National Academy of Sciences and suchlike
use.

At first glance, of course bacteria do not
seem to relate to sci.astro.amateur of course,
and I didn't chose these newsgroups for this
thread to be going to, I only just entered this
thread. But I think who ever it might've been
who added the newsgroups must've had it in
mind that intelligent design also has to do with
the stars and astronomy since it has been
given at times for examples of intelligent
design.

And Behe is on record, under oath, that Astrology is just as much
science as Intelligent Design.

OK...that's interesting. You know we were
talking about someone adding astronomy
newsgroups and why you know.

I'm not aware of any of the Discovery Institute crowd (Behe is one
such) advancing stars as ID, but expect that their Young Earth Creationist
wing has done so. Certainly the Young Earth Creationists have made
use of ID, and definitely argue that stars are created -- 6 ky ago.

OK...I can explain the connection and how most of
us view the inclusion of astronomy into ID if you will.
Not just "young earth creationists," but many people
who read the Bible. In the book of Job, God speaks
to Job "out of a whirlwind," and one of the things he
speaks of having created is the Mazzaroth, which is
known today as the Zodiac. Not the Zodiac of
soothsayers, but the star clusters that circle the
earth that he utilizes to send messges to mankind of
events that he is concerned with that are of importance
to mankind, such as when the Magi were able to discern
the coming of the Christ Child.

Ancient astronomers, called astrologers by some,
but not in the sense of today's form of astrology,
divided the Zodiac in such a way that produced four
points that are always present. Have you heard of this?
They touch the points of Leo, Taurus, Scorpio, and
Aquarius. These correspond to the same symbols
that were on the banners of the Children of Israel in
the Wilderness in the Exodus. They also correspond
with the faces of the cherubim in Ezekiel's vision, and
John's vision of the Four Living Creatures that surround
the throne of God. They also correspond to the way in
which the four gospels present Christ as a King a Servant,
a Man, and God Incarnate. Some pagan cultures also
acknowledge these four symbols without apparent
understanding of them, but create a worship of them.
Cherubim are mentioned in the Bible from Genesis
when one guarded the entrance to the Garden of Eden
after Adam and Eve's expulsion from it, all the way to
the last book of the Bible, the Revelation.

The attack on science is merely fronted by attacks on biology.
In Kansas, 1999 curriculum rewrite by creationists, the facade was
lifted and they went explicitly after geology and astronomy as well.
Astronomy does need to be concered no less than biology.

You know, I thought it was strange that we fought
for Viet Nam, and the people of the North took
over the people of Viet Nam eventually. But when
I looked back in the history of Viet Nam, I discovered
something that I did not know. Formerly and back in
time, Viet Nam was called "Champa." The modern
war involved people from the North conquering the
people who were the descendants of the former
conquerors who took it over previously. It depends
upon where someone is located in history as to
how to view these two parallels.

In this same manner, if you view what you call an
attack on biology and science, you can back up and
see something else going on. The people of faith
are not trying to do a "takeover," they are wanting
to create a "restoration." They are not attacking,
they are wanting restoration, and they are rather
defending. It's a matter of perspective.

Suzanne

"Suzanne" wrote in message
t...

And the point is that the organisms don't
have the intelligence to do such a thing.
It would take a higher intelligence to
bring about all of the "parts" of the
"motor-like" action of the flagellum.

Really? Are you saying nothing can exist without some form of action by a
"higher" intelligence?


And Behe is on record, under oath, that Astrology is just as much
science as Intelligent Design.

OK...that's interesting. You know we were
talking about someone adding astronomy
newsgroups and why you know.

Is there a difference between what Behe meant as Astrology and Astronomy?

OK...I can explain the connection and how most of
us view the inclusion of astronomy into ID if you will.

Astronomy is not Astrology.

snip

In this same manner, if you view what you call an
attack on biology and science, you can back up and
see something else going on. The people of faith
are not trying to do a "takeover," they are wanting
to create a "restoration." They are not attacking,
they are wanting restoration, and they are rather
defending. It's a matter of perspective.

The important question is "Is ID a science?" Not "which is more accurate, ID
or Evolution?"

Evolution has gaps, like all of science there are areas where more can be
learned and things will, one day, be discovered incorrect. However, to count
as a science it needs to make testable predictions.

Does ID make any?

In message , Suzanne
writes

"Robert Grumbine" wrote in message
...

Evolution is not a matter of the organisms involved deciding that
they need a new capability and then going into the workshop to
develop it. Brilliance is quite optional.

And the point is that the organisms don't
have the intelligence to do such a thing.
It would take a higher intelligence to
bring about all of the "parts" of the
"motor-like" action of the flagellum.

You are missing the point - deliberately, I feel. As the various
references you ignore point out, it's quite possible for the flagellum
to have evolved from earlier structures with different functions. Any
slight advantage is rapidly "selected for", and similarly any slight
disadvantage from the new structure means organisms carrying it are less
likely to survive, so only the advantageous forms survive.

In the book of Job, God speaks
to Job "out of a whirlwind," and one of the things he
speaks of having created is the Mazzaroth,

Irrelevant nonsense snipped.

And if this is "the word of god" you can keep it.

In article ,
"Suzanne" wrote:
snip

In this same manner, if you view what you call an
attack on biology and science, you can back up and
see something else going on. The people of faith
are not trying to do a "takeover," they are wanting
to create a "restoration."

Exactly. Now I'll tell you how it "used to be".

My grandmother, who worked outside the home and took
home a paycheck, was socially ostracized because she cut her
hair short; it was called bobbing one's hair in those
days.

My mother and her sisters were not allowed to go to school.
The only reason she went thru 8th grade was because it
was the law. She went to an extension summer school at
MSU but was not allowed to take the practical classes; only
males were allowed to take those. Instead she had to learn
how to set a table that was attractive, work in a kitchen 1/8
of the size of "normal" farm kitchens. Learn how to greet
the male at the door and comfort him because he "worked" very
hard at the office for only 8-10 hours/day. This was just
after WWII.

I was not allowed to read nor study beyond the level of my
chronological aged peers. In high school, I was told by
the counselor that the universities that I needed to attend
to get my science PhD, did not want me and sent to a
school whose folklore was training teachers. Teaching was
an honorable job for women; science was not.

When I did start doing serious work (not in science), I was
told that, since I was a female and did not have a family
to support, that the raise money in the budget was going
to be given the Male who had kids and a wife. Later,
when I applied for a loan, I had to put up as colateral
stock that was 10 times the worth of the loan because I
was a female and single and had no means of male support.
Just before that I was denied a loan for that reason. (This
was a loan for $500 in 1977.)

Now, in those olden days, that these religious types want
to go back to, the only way a female could ensure continued
existence was to exchange support for ****ing favors.
The approved sale of one's body was via marriage vows.

Do you really want to back to all of that? There was
never any guarantee that your male would not dump you
other than a rigid social convention. But this convention
only worked at the high social class level. Think
about the lower classes with no money and no assets.

/BAH

In article ,
Suzanne wrote:

"Robert Grumbine" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Suzanne wrote:

"Robert Grumbine" wrote in message
...

[snip]

The assertion that flagella could not have evolved is untrue:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

It is also untrue that evolution cannot construct an irreducibly
complex
system: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

According to this, a bacterium would be smarter
than Einstein, which I don't think is believable.
It would have to not just adapt, but produce all
the parts of this motor like structure simultaeously
and conveniently in order to create a new function.

You have a strange idea of evolution. Normal among those who
say it can't work.

Microevolution is not strange at all. It's a real
and accepted form of adaptation within a
species.

Evolution is not a matter of the organisms involved deciding that
they need a new capability and then going into the workshop to
develop it. Brilliance is quite optional.

And the point is that the organisms don't
have the intelligence to do such a thing.
It would take a higher intelligence to
bring about all of the "parts" of the
"motor-like" action of the flagellum.

So you assert -- while remaining carefully ignorant of what the
science says, even given links by me and other(s) to the science.

No surprise. ID is merely an argument from ignorance. That's
one of the reasons it is not science. Science sees a hole of
ignorance and tries to fill it with knowledge. ID sees a hole
of ignorance and declares that it must be God ^H^H^H The Intelligent
Designer. God of the gaps is a poor bet as science, though if your religion
requires you to take it for your theology, you're welcome to it.
Just don't try to call it science.

[snip]

And Behe is on record, under oath, that Astrology is just as much
science as Intelligent Design.

OK...that's interesting. You know we were
talking about someone adding astronomy
newsgroups and why you know.

I'm not aware of any of the Discovery Institute crowd (Behe is one
such) advancing stars as ID, but expect that their Young Earth Creationist
wing has done so. Certainly the Young Earth Creationists have made
use of ID, and definitely argue that stars are created -- 6 ky ago.

OK...I can explain the connection and how most of
us view the inclusion of astronomy into ID if you will.

Nothing you wrote subsequently addressed stars being intelligently
designed. To the extent it said anything about stars, it was merely
that there are stars. This isn't a surprise.

[snip]


In this same manner, if you view what you call an
attack on biology and science, you can back up and
see something else going on. The people of faith
are not trying to do a "takeover," they are wanting
to create a "restoration." They are not attacking,
they are wanting restoration, and they are rather
defending. It's a matter of perspective.

It is not 'people of faith' who are attacking science and science
education. Most scientists and science educators are, themselves,
people of faith. There are a particular few people, who claim to
be 'of faith' -- but whose faith is so terribly weak that they need
to claim support from science -- who are attacking science for not
saying what they want it to. I see no reason for them to be priviledged
over all other people of faith by having their religion taught as
science. It's not science, and it's bad religion according to most
other people of faith. How about we teach science in science classes,
and let religion be taught by its own believers in the home and in
places of worship?

It's interesting to ponder just what it is you want to 'restore'.
As far as the watchmaker argument of Paley's, from the early 1800's
being resurrected by Behe et al., it has the distinction of having
been refuted (by Hume, 1700's) before it was even advanced. It
hasn't improved with age. Speaking, though, of his time, the people
who nailed down that evolution does occur (distinct from the theory
to explain how) were early 19th century churchmen.

Just what is it you feel that you are trying to 'restore'?
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Robert Grumbine wrote:

So you assert -- while remaining carefully ignorant of what the
science says, even given links by me and other(s) to the science.

No surprise. ID is merely an argument from ignorance. That's
one of the reasons it is not science. Science sees a hole of
ignorance and tries to fill it with knowledge. ID sees a hole
of ignorance and declares that it must be God ^H^H^H The Intelligent
Designer. God of the gaps is a poor bet as science, though if your religion
requires you to take it for your theology, you're welcome to it.
Just don't try to call it science.

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. In the
meantime, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. And, Merry
Christmas.

Harvey

On 28 Nov 2005 07:29:22 -0800, wrote:

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

A seemingly clever witticism, but utterly wrong. We know much, even
though we have much yet to know.

I'd say that a wise man has a clear understanding of what he knows and
what he doesn't know; the less wise has problems distinguishing between
the two (and is often willing to invent "knowledge" to fill in the
gaps).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...

On 28 Nov 2005 07:29:22 -0800, wrote:

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

A seemingly clever witticism, but utterly wrong. We know much, even
though we have much yet to know.

I think you'd need a qualification for the above: To the extent that the
witticism applies to the collective human knowledge, yes, it is inaccurate.
But insofar as individuals go, it is roughly correct, because very few
people, as you state below, have a clear understanding between what they
know and what they don't.

And even if an individual has a clear understanding of what one knows, the
amount of global knowledge is so vast compared to whatever knowledge one can
or may possess during a single lifetime, that makes the ratio of their
knowledge over that of the human collective very close to zero.

I'd say that a wise man has a clear understanding of what he knows and
what he doesn't know; the less wise has problems distinguishing between
the two (and is often willing to invent "knowledge" to fill in the
gaps).
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
--
Ioannis --- "Eventually, _everything_ is understandable"

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 07:29:22 -0800, wrote:

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

A seemingly clever witticism, but utterly wrong. We know much, even
though we have much yet to know.

I'd say that a wise man has a clear understanding of what he knows and
what he doesn't know; the less wise has problems distinguishing between
the two (and is often willing to invent "knowledge" to fill in the
gaps).

Well, don't use your line of thinking in this area on a I.Q. test
or you will knocked down a notch or two. The correct answer is as
originally stated.

Harvey

On 28 Nov 2005 09:02:15 -0800, wrote:

Well, don't use your line of thinking in this area on a I.Q. test
or you will knocked down a notch or two. The correct answer is as
originally stated.

One of the things that I _do_ know is that IQ tests are not a very good
measure of intelligence g.

At best, the original statement is a point of philosophy; as such the
adjective "correct" in not applicable.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com