ID expert admits 'It's not science'

[Bluemofia]

Finally Behe admits the obvious.

I highly doubt IDs will drop the case, as they would just make another random claim, and draft another self proclaimed expert.

If you actually look at ID, it is obvious that it is religion.

Intelligent designer. It is (mis)interpreded purposly as any being with intelligence. Thus, they are allowed to claim that non-god intelligence can be the creator. But, that's exactly what they are suggesting, because we could just go "Who created them?", but the people who are defending it doesn't want to think that way.

Since God is indirectly imposed on the theory, it is considered religion. And since the BoE of Kansas wants to push congress to pass a law to teach ID in schools, and it is clearly against the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

ID is unconstitutional.

 

[nonconformist]

Did anyone see the Daily Show interview where Jon Stewart interviewed an evolutionist (who admitted that God may play a certain role in evolution, but definitely not as part of "Intelligen Design), an IDer who was arguing God did, and some lady who believes we're all energy concentrasted around a central grid of 12 squares, or something as crazy.

If Carlos gives me the go-ahead, I'll post a link to the interview video

(Hi, and welcome back by the way, Carlos )

 

[Perfection]

At least Behe is honest. I wish all IDers were.

Pah! I went to one of his lectures, and he called it a scientific theory.

He just doesn't lie under penality of perjury

 

[MobBoss]

Since God is indirectly imposed on the theory, it is considered religion.

This I dont agree with. The first amendment says this ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" it means that it will make no law making any relligion a state religion or no law will be made to promote a single religion over any other. The word "god" is interchangable with many different religions and thus interchangeable and not respective of any one religion. It is the same reason our money can have "in god we trust" and it is not a violation of the first amendment.

 

[Bluemofia]

This I dont agree with. The first amendment says this ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" it means that it will make no law making any relligion a state religion or no law will be made to promote a single religion over any other. The word "god" is interchangable with many different religions and thus interchangeable and not respective of any one religion. It is the same reason our money can have "in god we trust" and it is not a violation of the first amendment.

ID promotes the Christian vew of the universe, or at least the supporters of ID will only accept it as the Christian view (no last Thursdayism, Norse creation, Greek/Roman creation, Hindu creation, Native American Creation, or [my personal favorite] Vbraun's toilet flush creation).

 

[The Last Conformist]

ID isn't against the US constitution. Teaching it in science class is.

 

[Bluemofia]

ID isn't against the US constitution. Teaching it in science class is.

That's what I ment. Anyone can impose whatever religion to themselves, but not on a federal scale.

 

[blackheart]

This I dont agree with. The first amendment says this ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" it means that it will make no law making any relligion a state religion or no law will be made to promote a single religion over any other. The word "god" is interchangable with many different religions and thus interchangeable and not respective of any one religion. It is the same reason our money can have "in god we trust" and it is not a violation of the first amendment.

My religious views don't agree with ID. So therefore teaching it where I go to school at is a violation of my constitutional first amendment rights.

 

[MobBoss]

My religious views don't agree with ID. So therefore teaching it where I go to school at is a violation of my constitutional first amendment rights.

Wrong. Remember it says congress shall make no law....there is nothing in the law that says ID should or should not be taught in schools. Curriculum is set by the school boards right? so if some school decides to offer it as a science and some other doesnt then big deal.

 

[Perfection]

Wrong. Remember it says congress shall make no law....there is nothing in the law that says ID should or should not be taught in schools. Curriculum is set by the school boards right? so if some school decides to offer it as a science and some other doesnt then big deal.

Ah, but it is a big deal! Curriculum has to meet state and federal standards (as well as those of sanity), intelligent Design is clearly not science. It is a big deal when the FUTURE OF THE NATION are taught psuedoscientific ideas instead of actual science.

 

[MobBoss]

Ah, but it is a big deal! Curriculum has to meet state and federal standards (as well as those of sanity), intelligent Design is clearly not science. It is a big deal when the FUTURE OF THE NATION are taught psuedoscientific ideas instead of actual science.

Shrug. Teaching something like ID is not going to bring the nation to its knees. If the entire aspect of evolution were never taught another day in class, life would still go on, so its not that big of a deal really.

If a school board, consisting of elected officials wants to put it in then let them put it in. You want it out, elect school board members who will take it out. Simple.

I think the level to which this arguement has reached is just really, really, stupid. Neither ID or Evolution theory will get my white shirts any whiter so big deal.

 

[Perfection]

Shrug. Teaching something like ID is not going to bring the nation to its knees. If the entire aspect of evolution were never taught another day in class, life would still go on, so its not that big of a deal really.

If a school board, consisting of elected officials wants to put it in then let them put it in. You want it out, elect school board members who will take it out. Simple.

I think the level to which this arguement has reached is just really, really, stupid. Neither ID or Evolution theory will get my white shirts any whiter so big deal.

You do realize that we're living in the era of biotechnology don't you? A biotech economy requires proper education in biology. A proper education in biology requires evolutionary theory. Intelligent design theory undermines this.

 

[MobBoss]

You do realize that we're living in the era of biotechnology don't you? A biotech economy requires proper education in biology. A proper education in biology requires evolutionary theory. Intelligent design theory undermines this.

Come on. I was pre-med in college so I know a tiny bit about this. Although a class in evolutionary theory may be required, its not like the field of biotechnology hinges upon that single class. You difinitely get more out of your advanced cellular biology classes, chemistry and other more pertinent classes. You have to take a gym class and a foreign language too usually, it doesnt mean that it makes you a better biotechnologist.

 

[Babbler]

Shrug. Teaching something like ID is not going to bring the nation to its knees. If the entire aspect of evolution were never taught another day in class, life would still go on, so its not that big of a deal really.

Yes, in the short term, but it would some big consequences for our future. Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, without it, biology is just a bunch of random facts (try taking an introductory biology course). Scientists and engineers have using to discover new drugs, study ecosystems for better forestry management, etc. Removing evolution would choke off biology education, which would in turn reduce people trained in the biological sciences; just as the US needs them with manging the enivoirment and proving new medical therapy. Depriving biology of evolution is removing its heart, its soul -- imagine if the atomic theory was removed from physics and chemistry.

If a school board, consisting of elected officials wants to put it in then let them put it in. You want it out, elect school board members who will take it out. Simple.

Even if they want to put something so obviously untrue in, like belief in fairies or witches?

I think the level to which this arguement has reached is just really, really, stupid. Neither ID or Evolution theory will get my white shirts any whiter so big deal.

I know...

...why does anybody pick ID over evolution?

 

[Perfection]

Come on. I was pre-med in college so I know a tiny bit about this. Although a class in evolutionary theory may be required, its not like the field of biotechnology hinges upon that single class. You difinitely get more out of your advanced cellular biology classes, chemistry and other more pertinent classes. You have to take a gym class and a foreign language too usually, it doesnt mean that it makes you a better biotechnologist.

It's not about college level courses. It's about middle and high school level courses. That's where a lot of students discover science. If middle and high school biology classes are a joke, do you think that as many students will go into the biological sciences? In addition you neglect all the people who don't go into the biological sciences. A basic education in biology is helpful in daily life and in understanding scientific ideas. Lastly allowing ID gives students a misconception about scientific ideas and critical thinking. In a world filled with psuedoscience being able to differentiate between what is science and what is hogwash is important.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes, in the short term, but it would some big consequences for our future. Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, without it, biology is just a bunch of random facts (try taking an introductory biology course). Scientists and engineers have using to discover new drugs, study ecosystems for better forestry management, etc. Removing evolution would choke off biology education, which would in turn reduce people trained in the biological sciences; just as the US needs them with manging the enivoirment and proving new medical therapy. Depriving biology of evolution is removing its heart, its soul -- imagine if the atomic theory was removed from physics and chemistry.

I would humbly submit that the science of atomic theory is more known than the science around evolution theory. Evolutionary theory didnt impact the introduction of new drugs, or make for better forestry management...you would make it out to be some sort of "magic bullet" as a field of study and thats simply not true. Biology is much more than just a bunch of "random facts"......Darwin didnt publish his work until 1859...you mean there was no advancement of genetics or biology before that?

Even if they want to put something so obviously untrue in, like belief in fairies or witches?

People deserve the government that they elect. If people are so dumb to elect idiots to positions of power then they deserve what they get.

 

[MobBoss]

It's not about college level courses. It's about middle and high school level courses. That's where a lot of students discover science. If middle and high school biology classes are a joke, do you think that as many students will go into the biological sciences? In addition you neglect all the people who don't go into the biological sciences. A basic education in biology is helpful in daily life and in understanding scientific ideas. Lastly allowing ID gives students a misconception about scientific ideas and critical thinking. In a world filled with psuedoscience being able to differentiate between what is science and what is hogwash is important.

As I recall my middle and high school classes in biology, it was more about dissection of various animals and an understanding of the basics of various biological systems (how cells work etc.) as opposed to any in depth study of the theory of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with a kid cutting up a frog in biology class. Once again, Darwin added to science, but he is not the baseblock for all of scientific advancement. Teaching ID beside ET wont be the end of anything...teaching neither of them wont be the end of anything. Really, really, silly arguement to begin with.

 

[Perfection]

As I recall my middle and high school classes in biology, it was more about dissection of various animals and an understanding of the basics of various biological systems (how cells work etc.) as opposed to any in depth study of the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a biological system that one should understand the basics of.

Evolution has nothing to do with a kid cutting up a frog in biology class.

Comparitive anatomy perhaps...

Once again, Darwin added to science, but he is not the baseblock for all of scientific advancement.

So?

Teaching ID beside ET wont be the end of anything...teaching neither of them wont be the end of anything. Really, really, silly arguement to begin with.

I never said it would be the "End of" anything. If we don't teach them biology in high school at all it won't be the end of anything. Hell, if we don't teach anything passed 4th grade it won't be the end of anything! That doesn't mean there won't be negative consequences!

Teaching evolution is important to get a complete picture of biology. Teaching ID undermines teaching science by blurring the line of what is science and what is not and thus is bad.

Simple enough?

 

[BasketCase]

Though I personally am strongly anti-ID.....

Why is it that when this Behe guy says "ID isn't science", he is taken immediately as the guy who's correct??

Some of the claims made by ID'ers actually do have a scientific basis. Example: initial premise = certain biological structures (the human eye seems to be a popular one) are too complex to have evolved naturally. Conclusion: the eye must have evolved by some other means. Currently the only explanation we have for that is the G word. Hypothesis --> conclusion.

The problem with the above line of thought is that the counter-claim that the eye must have been created by a God is unprovable. It isn't fact until you can verify it experimentally.

In the end, it's the same old problem: we agree with Mr. Behe for one reason, and one reason only--because he's saying what we already believe.

 

[MobBoss]

Teaching evolution is important to get a complete picture of biology. Teaching ID undermines teaching science by blurring the line of what is science and what is not and thus is bad.

We are just going to have to disagree on this one. I personally think you are greatly exaggerating the importance of evolution theory in high school. Remember, I was in high school once and have two kids in high school today. Evolution is maybe a chapter in biology class......MAYBE. Its overall impact on kids continuing to study biology is fairly nil, they are really interested in biology or not, but generally its not evolution theory that draws them in.

Simple enough?

Sure its simple enough. Too many people argueing over something that doesnt really matter. If you ask me, toss em both out of high school and teach em both in college.