My girlfriend just finished her EN101 report / pro-intelligent design in school

[mdmc]

My girlfriend had to do an oral report for her EN101 class. She chose to do it on how intelligent design should be taught in science class. Needless to say her community college class ripped her apart! She was the only one willing to go first. After she was done all the pro-evolutionist were psyched to present their reports! They had a much easier time with the question and answer aspect of the speech.

So, before the big bang, what created the stuff that allowed the big bang to occur? Is there something to be gleamed from the creationist point of view?

Is the world really built on the backs of an infinite amount of turtles? What is the meaning of it all?

[Squatch]

1. There is a point to which the human mind can comprehend reality

beyond that point is God.

Isn't that one of the proofs for the existence of God?

[mdmc]

3. nice touch my friend

Recently some surfer figured out the "grand unifying theory" that Einstein has sought for so long. By thinking outside of the box he was able to unify time and space in a way that makes sense (to some, not to me cause I ain't all that bright) to people.

My take on teaching myth / creationism is that it helps the imagination. It helps folks to think outside the box.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. It doesn't belong in SCIENCE class, Jack. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. That's like saying holocaust denial helps folks think outside the box.

[AZ Criminal JD]

17. No, the Holocaust happened

Evolution is a theory. That is why they call it The Theory of Evolution. Look it up.

[Pab Sungenis]

21. It's only a "theory" because it hasn't been proven yet.

However, the evidence for it, as opposed to against it, is overwhelming.

Pythagoras' theorem is still a theorem, but no one has ever found a right triangle that didn't conform to it.

[The Traveler]

26. Uh, a theory is never proved

in the scientific method. Theories are systems of hypotheses that facilitate the formation of new hypotheses. Theories can never be proven as such, they can only be rejected when they produce predictions that do not conform to observations or experiment.

A theorem is a mathematical proposition ... a result produced through manipulation of the fundamental axioms of the formal mathematical system being considered. Pythagoras works well with the axioms of plane geometry ... less well with the axioms of non-linear geometries.

Intelligent design can never be treated scientifically since its conclusions cannot be rejected through observation or experiment. It might be true. It is certainly a valid philosophical approach. But it ain't science, and until God chooses to perform under lab conditions or leaves evidence in the dirt "God was here", then it never will be.

[Mike03]

34. Is this true? A Theory can never be proved?

Then, in a sense, can anything be proved?

QED hasn't been proved, even though it, like the Standard Model, has been subjected to thousands of tests, to a reliability of fourteen decimal places?

You may be right. But then what distinguishes science from anectdotal stories of people who say they see UFOs, shadow people and demons? Or alopathic versus homeopathic medicine?

Is it proven that cigarettes can cause cancer?

[magellan]

70. I think it's misleading to say a scientific theory can't be proved

It's more precise to say that a scientific theory is an observable truth that is constantly being proved. See this page, it explains it better than I can: Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories.

An excerpt:

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

There's a good analogy about a slingshot and an automobile towards the end.

edit: spelling

[The Traveler]

75. My general relativity prof

Would have been amused by the above, methinks.

A theory is not a scientific law. It is a relational collection of axioms that facilitates the generation of hypothesis. For example, Newton's three laws of motion are axiomatic expressions ... definitions or assumptions. These axioms allow one to make a hypothesis ... projectile fired out of a cannon in a vacuum will describe a parabolic trajectory, for example. We can test that and to a high degree of accuracy the results match predictions. The more good predictions that can be generated from the theoretical base, and the fewer the axioms, the better the theory.

The equation for gravitational force is the mathematical expression of a similar fundamental axiom ... Newton DEFINES a force proportional to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance seperating them. From this one can generate a whole range of testable hypotheses. The results of these tests give one confidence that the "law" is a pretty good one.

Then someone screws things up with a couple of off the wall observations and the whole elegant structure no longer satisfies. Light bends, it turns out. Its speed appears constant regardless of motion relative to the source of light. Now to proceed further we need new axioms ...

My advisor used to hammer this into me ... there is no way to PROVE a theory correct. One can boost confidence in the value and accuracy of its predictions. But all it takes is one observation or experiment to disprove it as being "true".

As application of Newtonian mechanics gave us the means to observe and consider phenomena explained later by relativistic mechanics, so also we may expect newer theories to eventually lead us the phenomena which they cannot satisfactorily describe, and the cycle starts over again. All of which is what makes science fun.

[magellan]

76. Yes, it's nuanced

"Generally accepted truth" and "fact" are substantially more akin than different, though, no?

Also, the page didn't say a theory is a law. It took pains to explain that scientific theory is complex and encompasses a group of phenomena, while a law "is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions".

I think we can agree, as given in the example, that the theory of an automobile is true, although its various parts may be changed and improved upon.

[The Traveler]

80. What is the theory of an automobile?

It seems to me there are quite a few required to describe the operation of a car. Newtonian mechanics (not "true" but still really damn useful), thermodynamics, and the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell just to describe a car without a "brain box". Once we add on board control systems, we even have to get into quantum mechanics to describe the operation of the semiconductor logic elements.

Let's go to the "Theory the earth is round" question raised in an adjacent thread. The tack I took on that initially was that roundness as conventionally used is a 3-D construct and we know theories of mechanics constrained to three dimensional descriptions are "untrue" in a fundamental sense. It occurs to me that a more fundamental issue is that "The Earth is Round Theory" is not a theory at all.

Rather, the roundness of the earth is a prediction of a very early theory (so early it predates Bacon's summary of the method of science) of the behavior of light. The axiom of this theory held that light was a stream of particles that would travel in a straight line until interfered with. The axiom was then applied geometrically to explain the projection of shadows as a source of light moved (e.g. movement of the sun in the sky). This axiom was then further applied to the observation that one could see farther at elevated positions than at low positions. Further geometrical arguments were then applied to deduce a curved earth and produce a really good estimate of its curvature. Clever, those Greeks.

Now, the light as linear stream of particles model is still useful when addressing certain problems, but we know it to be untrue in a fundamental sense. Still, the roundness of the earth holds up as a prediction of other models of light propagation. We can accept the roundness of the earth as an observational fact.

And for all our practical purposes, we are done with the issue. The earth is round. But if we start examining the earth in other contexts, e.g. a context requiring a relativistic approach, we have to talk about its shape in space time, and that is different.

The only point I am trying to make here, really, is that a lot of things we are used to thinking of as theories really aren't in the strict definition of the term, and that the history of science is a progression of ever more refined theories of widening scope, each of which seems to bear the seeds of its own refutation. Further, there are propositions which may be "true" but which are not strictly speaking approachable through the method of science.

[mdmc]

104. thank you for your reply

Peace and low stress

[The Traveler]

71. Define "proof"

What does it mean to prove something? The mechanics of Newton were well proved in the conventional sense of the term, until that physics had given us the means to observe phenomena which it could not well explain. "Prove" is one of those slippery terms that is well understood in colloquial application but when considered in the context of "theory of knowledge" gets a whole lot more slippery.

As for the difference between anecdotal knowledge (which may or may not be true) and the results of science ... anecdotal knowledge does not necessarily allow one to make predictions that can be tested by means of an experiment. I have an experience which I attribute to little green teenagers drag racing through the galaxy. There is nothing in that experience that tells me how to produce a similar experience for you. It may be true ... but I can't approach it through the method of science.

100 years from now, my great grandson may have his own interstellar speeder, and other possibilities emerge. It is conceptually possible to pursue this scientifically some day. But I defy anyone to even conceptually design an experiment that can reject the hypotheses of I.D. ... and so I claim it cannot be evaluated by the methods of science. It might be true, but we cannot approach it through scientific means. It is not a scientific assertion. The difference between the "anecdotal knowledge" of those who claim to have experienced UFOs and those who claim mystical experience is that we can reasonably conceive of possibilities for one day putting the former to a meaningful test. The difference between Darwinism and I.D. is that it is conceivable we may find evidence in the rocks (don't ask me what at this point ... it would have to be mighty evidence indeed) that would cause us to reject Darwinism's fundamental premises. The premises of I.D. on the other hand are not rejectable based on evidence.

Descending from the sublime now to the mundane ... Doubtless, deeper scientific investigation of the impacts of cigarette smoking on health may yield different results. Right now, for example, it looks like tobacco "causes lung cancer" (more properly expressed as "dramatically increases the odds of contracting lung cancer"), but confers a level of immunity to Parkinson's. Who knows what will be discovered down the road? Perhaps the scene from "Sleeper" will turn out ... a Doctor advising "It's tobacco ... it's the best thing in the world for ya." However, just as a bridge builder relies on the physics of Newton, I can rely on the current model of tobacco use ... it is bad for ya! Not all problems are worthy of the full weight of epistemological analysis.

It is foolish to deploy the philosophical logic of epistemology to such issues ... but when considering the topics of existence of God, Intelligent Design, and such one simply must. In that terrain, the formalism must be respected and its application rigorous. The subject matter of modern physics certainly falls into this realm ... so also consideration of the apparent conflict between mysticism and that body of knowledge we call science.

QED and the Standard Model have not held up nearly so well as you imply in recent years. Like earlier formalisms, their success has produced examinations that probe the limits of their applicability. Newton's physics is not "true", but it is good enough for the average mechanical engineer. QED and the Standard Model remain triumphs (OK ... maybe not the Standard Model but certainly QED) of human intellectual achievement ... but it is pretty clear they are not "true" and that even better formalisms and models await down the road. Will those models be true? Will we at last arrive at the truth? Or is it more likely that the truth is beyond the ability of the human brain to perceive it, and that we are condemned or blessed to create ever more refined models of the realities we contemplate.

In this context, I ask if you are familiar with Goedel's theorem and its implications for any formal system, such as algebras and geometries. This theorem states (in broad strokes) that a formal system may be complete (i.e. able to produce all the rules correct in the grammar) or consistent(i.e. producing no rules that conflict with other valid rules produced) but not both. Some believe this to be a fundamental statement on the limitations of mathematical logic as formed by the human brain. Perhaps it is more a statement of the fundamental limitations of how we have trained it.

[PVnRT]

98. You can never prove something 100%

You can only fail to reject the null hypothesis (i.e., the theory). You can be 99.99999999% confident that the theory is correct. "Proof" is a mathematical concept, a rigorous, non-numerical way of demonstrating something to be true, like the proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number.

The examples you put forward apples and oranges. QED and the standard model have been put through repeated, controlled tests, papers about them have been peer-reviewed, and so on. UFOs and the like rely on anecdotal evidence that can be independently tested or repeated.

[Mike03]

38. How about the shape of our planet

The supposition was that our planet was flat and was the center of the Universe.

Along came two theories:

Earth is round.

Earth orbits the Sun.

There are two theories that are proved--not only proved, but proved beyond any semblance of doubt.

[The Traveler]

51. Good counter example

A trivial one, but a good one nonetheless.

Yer still not quite off the hook yet. "Roundness" in the conventional sense presumes a 3-D geometry. Things like "roundness" start getting slippery when considering other geometries necessary to describe in more detail the properties of space and time. (I haven't worked theoretical physics in 25 years so I am way out of date on this stuff.) In those geometries, the shape of the object is more complex and a "round earth" is actually merely our 3-D perception of a higher dimensional construct. And that leads you back into the thicket ...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Reductio ad absurdum.

Round is flat?

C'mon.

[The Traveler]

72. Not at all

The point is the roundness of the earth in the context provided refers to 3-D geometries and Newtonian style models of mechanics. Things get a lot more complex than that when you start asking "What is the shape of the earth in space-time?" And that is just a starting point.

[Swamp Rat]

81. The Earth is not round!!

Well, not a perfect sphere, but it's a lovely geoid (reference ellipsoid), though.

Let's post a bunch of Mercator, Lambert conformal conic, Gall-Peters projections

[The Traveler]

83. You left out gnomic projections, buddy!

It really is absurd, eh? But, uh, tell me ... what is the "shape of the earth in space time"????

It ain't a ball, friend. It is more like a wrapped tube like thingy ...

Still, one need not go there to address the issue. As I discuss in an adjacent post, a more fundamental point is that the "Earth is Round Theory" is not properly speaking a theory at all ... but an observational result predicted early on by Greeks attempting to develop a theory of light. They did this centuries before Bacon described "the scientific method". Amazing when you think about it.

For all our practical purposes, the planet is a ball ... well, with distortions. But our practical purposes are well covered by classical mechanics ... which we know is not "true". Still damn useful. No one uses relativity to calculate the structural requirements of a bridge ...

[Swamp Rat]

85. "It is more like a wrapped tube like thingy."

... especially if we all stood on each other's shoulders during the peak of high tide on exact opposite sides of the Earth.

Yeah, take that, you helio-eccentrics out there!

Ted Steven's is right! The Earth and the Moon = a series of tubes.




I left it out gnomic projections, but I didn't forget about them. ... ok, here's a gnomic projection:






Naughty GNOME PROJECTOR!!

What a classic, mechanically distorted little fellow!

[The Traveler]

87. Curse you!

Now my coffee is all over my monitor! You shameless fiend!

[Swamp Rat]

89. I see you are a Carlin fan.

So you will forgive me.

George Carlin - Natural Disasters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pe4XVVUbiA&feature=rela...

[The Traveler]

91. You are correct, sir

Carlin. Genius. Sheer genius.

[Swamp Rat]

93. I'm watching "Seven Words" right now:

I can't help myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTyzTJTNhNk&feature=rela...

[The Traveler]

94. I gotta get some rack

Been great jousting with ya! I am book marking this thread so I can find the links to the Carlin clips ...

See ya round the block, buddy.

[Swamp Rat]

95. Later alligator

after a while crocodile

[Vickers]

65. '"Roundness" in the conventional sense presumes a 3-D geometry'

Great googly moogly!



Hey, you should try out for The View.

[The Traveler]

73. Insults rarely illuminate

Maybe you should take a course in basic science. Recite the scientific method. In it, you will never find the word "prove".

[Blecht]

84. Thanks, Traveler

As a Ph.D. chemist, I want to thank you. You did such a nice job of describing what a scientific theory is.

Too bad some did not read what you wrote, or if they did, they didn't take the time to think about things when they got confused. It's much easier to reply to something that they don't understand with animosity or eye-rolling than it is to reflect on the fact that maybe they don't know as much as they thought they did.

This is the short version of how I describe the scientific method to my students in an intro science class. It all starts with observations. If you can summarize all the known observations about a phenomenon, you have a law. If you want to try to explain a particular set of observations, what you come up with is a hypothesis. Your hypothesis must be testable, otherwise it is useless. Then you design experiments which test your hypothesis. The results of your experiments function to expand your observations. If some of the new observations no longer fit your hypothesis, you tweak your hypothesis until it provides an explanation for all the observations. Then you design new experiments to further test the hypothesis. This whole process is repeated many, many times, until the hypothesis remains the same through several cycles. This is where your hypothesis becomes a theory.

A theory is a well-tested hypothesis.

A theory is never proved.
A theory is not a fact.
A theory never becomes a law. (A theory is an explanation. A law is a summary.)
A theory is always being tested.

[The Traveler]

88. Not sure I explained it very well

Haven't really pondered this kind of stuff in a long time. I was a PhD candidate in physics for a time ... but then got lured into ME (nice toys ... plasma research) and then financial difficulties forced me into the feckless life of a programmer.

[Vickers]

96. Oh, I apologize...where in my post did I mention "scientific method"

or "prove" ???

One of the hallmarks of any good scientist is an eye for detail.

[Duer 157099]

86. I thought it had more to do with testing and reproducibility

Obviously we can neither test nor reproduce "creation" so it will forever more reside in the realm of theory, no matter what the actual truth is.

[The Traveler]

92. We almost agree

I claim that formally speaking, in the context of the scientific method, the proposition that a Divine Being created the Universe, etc. cannot be properly termed a theory since no testable hypotheses can be derived from that proposition.

It may be true. Who can say for certain? But at a conceptual level, any statements derived from this proposition cannot be definitively rejected by experiment. It goes something like this.

"But chimp DNA is so close to human DNA that seems to support the notion of a common heredity."

"Not necessarily. Why would God re-invent the DNA code needed to express a chimp when he could just edit Man's?"

(That was a paraphrase of a recent exchange with a proponent of I.D.)

Science cannot be used to reject the Divine Being proposition ... neither can it be used to endorse it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Sorry, evolution happened.

Learn basic science.

[RC]

56. Wrong! Evolution is a proven, verifiable fact.

How evolution works is the theory.

[Blue_In_AK]

74. There hasn't been any new science

since Darwin proposed his theory that has disproved it. As we become more and more knowledgeable in the area of genetics and molecular biology, our acceptance of Darwin's theory will be as natural to us as our acceptance of the solar system.

[EstimatedProphet]

101. That has to be one of the dumbest statements I have seen in a long time.

Evolution is a theory, in contrast to The Holocaust?

Do you even know what a theory is?

[RainDog]

102. bamalib

you are embarrassing yourself but you don't realize it, apparently. you are parroting the crap you heard in your church, and your church does not know shit about what constitutes a SCIENTIFIC theory.

Please follow the link I posted at #100 and watch the pbs program that explains what a theory means to a scientific community.

I know from experience, growing up in the south among fundies, that you are brainwashed in order to accept an impossible idea that the bible is literally true. To continue this fiction, fundies have to lie to themselves constantly. That's not a good way to be in the world.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. I hope she's at least really attractive.

[mdmc]

6. yes she is

Or at least she is much better looking then I am. She has come a long way. When we met she was an Oral Roberts U. type fundie. While she is still registered GOP, she now has a Kucinich bumper sticker on her car. Of course she wants to move to Ireland if HRC wins the white house.

Pretty good, all in all.

[Quantess]

44. Wow. That's quite the dynamic progress.

From "Oral Roberts U type fundie" to supporting Kucinich. Were you the one who put the Kucinich sticker on her car? Just kidding, LOL.

Do you two spend much time discussing political issues?
I don't think I could have a boyfriend who was far to the right of me, or someone who voted for Bush in 2004. My boyfriend is a little to the right of me, but we mostly agree.

[greiner3]

4. Why does there HAVE to be anything before?

Before what? While omni potency and eternal existence were not at the top of my list when I determined there are no gods, I did give these subjects some thought when I was in catholic school in the 60's. I've taken philosophy classes, from believers, but even their brand of sorcery was not enough to kick me off my path. Back to the question; why does there not seem to be an absolute beginning? Who says there isn't? If the universe is all there is, why can't it have a beginning AND an end? All that we are made of is energy which has a form under certain conditions. When the energy melts away, call it entropy, there will be nothing left. Goodbye!

[porphyrian]

5. Speculation is the realm of religion and philosophy, not science.

Science is a method of establishing fact through recorded data and experimental evidence. Creationism is speculation, not testable fact, and thus does not belong in a science class. Whether or not ID speculation is correct is moot with regards to where it should be taught, if at all.

[mdmc]

11. Agreed, my friend

I told her that it should be taught in whatever class covers mythology. I told her that the only folks pushing this tripe were trying to muddle the science, and push their religion (they never say that Jesus' dad = God created the world . They say that there must be some 'intelligent designer' and that could be anyone / thing - thats how it gets past separation of church and state.)

[porphyrian]

16. I don't think a lot of the ID people get it, though.

They also don't get why pro-science people are so frustrated with and hostile towards them, which is largely due to them not understanding what science is in the first place. I have no problem with it in a religion class or philosophy debate, but it doesn't belong in a science class until they can properly use and understand the scientific method at the very least (and even then it would only be an unsupported hypothesis).

[mdmc]

18. I try to get it across to them via Buddhist creation myth

Prior to the physical world existing, and infinite number of sentient beings existed. They created the physical world as a place for themselves to exist in a physical sense.

Now do you fundies want your kids being taught that in science class?

[porphyrian]

20. I bet that makes some ears smoke. -n/t

[mdmc]

23. Thanksgiving dinner was interesting

The fundies don't like to make baby Jesus cry
Any mention of Buddha seems to make baby Jesus cry.

[porphyrian]

28. Aw, fat happy Buddha and baby Jesus would love each other... -n/t

[Mike03]

52. Strange. I'm a Buddhist, and that is not what I learned. NT

[mdmc]

103. I am sure that there are many different myths

I picked this up either from HH Dali Lama or www.rigpa.org (Soygal Rinpoche is one of my favorites)

Peace and low stress to you and yours.

[Warpy]

7. Before the big bang, there was no stuff, as such

there was only a point which exploded into energy and mass. If the recent attempt at understanding a unified field theory geometrically turns out to be correct, this particular geometry expands and contracts, giving us an eternity of bang and crunch and rebang and recrunch.

I feel for your daughter, but having that thesis ripped apart by science oriented students was completely appropriate. Creation myths belong within the institutions that promote them. Eventually, we may discard the big bang for steady state theory or we may not, but for now it and evolution belong in the science sphere. Likewise, biblical creation myths might succumb to the next big religious revelation that comes along, one outside the Judeo/Christian/Islamic monotheism of the Near East. Until then, the biblical myths need to be taught by church and family, not in science classes. However, her grade should be predicated on how well she organized her thoughts, how grammatically she expressed them, and how everything was spelled correctly, not on whether or not her thesis is correct.

Unless you're a smartass who's willing to accept "42" as the meaning of life, the universe and all that, living in a free country means you are allowed to choose the path and the creation theory that makes the most sense to you. If you choose a scientific path, then science classes are for you. If you prefer allegory and a mythic history, then find an appropriate religion.

[Ian David]

10. If she actually believes that stuff, I'd find a new girlfriend before you reproduce. n/t

[mdmc]

12. Who can afford to reproduce?

for that advice.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. The so-called "debate" about evolution doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang.

Nor does it have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "God".

What it has to do with is how life developed on this planet. There is evidence- Mountains of evidence- for the evolutionary history of life over a 4.7 Billion year history of the Planet Earth.

There is no evidence- ZERO- for "intelligent design", and when you get deep into serious creationist bullshit, like the idea that life doesn't evolve (tell that to antibiotic resistant bacteria) or the argument that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and people were running around with the Dinosaurs, you're getting into the terrain of flat-out batshit crazy falsehoods.

Plenty of people can reconcile their belief in "God" with the FACTUAL TRUTH of evolution. As for "what came before the big bang", who knows- but I'm personally willing to bet it wasn't a giant invisible bearded man who has an excessive preoccupation with whether or not the hairless apes of planet Earth are married before they screw.

Oh, and if everything "needs" a creator, who created "God"?

[mdmc]

14. agreed.

My girl accepts evolution, on its face.

[AZ Criminal JD]

19. Why do they call evolution a theory?

[porphyrian]

27. Because that's what it is.

A hypothesis is a proposition someone makes based on established facts, basically an educated guess.

A theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. While a theory may not yet be proven, it is based on established fact and can be tested and eventually proven or disproven. Evolution remains a theory because not all of the data is in yet, but it agrees with established fact.

ID/creationism is a faith, accepting many things without any established proof and actually contradicting scientific fact in some instances (such as with the age of the universe).

[tandot]

29. Hell, why do they call it the "theory of gravity" ??? I want scientific proof that it really exists!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Same reason they call gravity, germs, color, etc. "theory"

"Theory" in this context means "school of thought."

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Oh, Jeez, Not this shit again.

Do you understand how science works? Calling something a "theory" in science doesn't mean it is somehow in doubt.

In science, a "theory" is an explanatory framework for the available evidence and data.

[Bjorn Against]

63. Same reason they call gravity a theory

A theory in the scientific sense of the word means more than someone coming up with something off the top of their heads. If there is not evidence to back it up it is not a theory. Neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design are theories. They are nothing in the scientific world. The fact that there is such a thing as evolution has been proven many times over, the theory looks at more than just whether or not evolution is happening it is looking at how it is happening. The data will never be complete so evolution will always be a theory, as are virtually all scientific concepts that are taken seriously.

[fascisthunter]

68. You Misunderstand the Term

theory of gravity is a great example. Try proving it false. You can't.... same with evolution. Why? Because there is so much evidence supporting it. All a theory needs is to be dis proven, once. Yes, the theory of evolution is that solid for that many years. And trust me, if a scientist can disprove something, they will. Intelligent Design shouldn't even be considered for schools. Intelligent Design is fantasy.

[Mike03]

25. Yes, The Big Bang has everything to do with the ID debate

We are talking about vacuum selection during the very early seconds of the universe, and whether those moduli were somehow "chosen" because of the fine tuning involved in the cosmological constant, inflation, etc...

People are always trying to use these facts to support the existence of God, and now that The Multiverse has been introduced to M Theory, it's become more irrational and more complex.

This is an old debate.

It may not seem related at first glance, but it is very related, especially when you get string theorists beginning to speak of it.

ON EDIT: Just to be clearer, by implication of the argument for ID, the guiding hand that set inflation into motion is also responsible for the course of creationism. Never mind that it makes no sense.

For the best argument I've ever, ever read against creationism, see Sir Roger Penrose's masterful book "THE ROAD TO REALITY."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. It's got nothing to do with Evolution.

[Mike03]

42. Your posts are rather flatulent

You are not arguing anything. No facts, no nothing.

So there's hardly any point in responding to them.

Nor is there any point in you posting them, for that matter.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. fact: Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang.

ID is a silly response to Evolution, ergo the Big Bang has nothing really to do with ID.

[Mike03]

64. Nevermind. You just don't get the obvious implications. NT

[Warren DeMontague]

59. There is no "ID Debate". There are people who are trying to shoehorn shit for which there is no

evidence- namely, "intelligent design" (formerly known as "creationism", then "Creation Science") into public school science curriculums.

There is no real "Intelligent Design Debate" any more than if I wanted public school science classes to teach that unicorns, leprechauns and magic gnomes are real there would be a "magic gnome debate".

[Mike03]

66. Yes, among educated people, there is no debate.

But there is a political debate between the fanatical Christians and the educated people of the United States.

There's no scientific debate, but there is a political debate.

But, the anthropic principle has been forwarded by scientists who should know better. That worries more than a bunch of uneducated superstitious Bible thumpers.

[Jim__]

15. Why is there something rather than nothing?

That's a tough question to answer. Physics has some ideas on this - I think something like quantuum fluctuations in a vacuum.

But, suppose physics has no answer to this. How is god an answer? You have to speculate to get to the existence of god, and then you have to explain that existence. With matter and energy, we don't have to speculate about whether or not they exist - they do. So, it seems like if we start with the known existence of matter an energy, we're ahead of where we are if we try to start with god.

BTW what is EN101?

[Mike03]

22. I empathize with your question about what came before the Big Bang

I have been asking physicists this for years, and the answer is always the same: "It makes no sense to ask that question."

But this is a mathematically based question to an earnest curious answer.

The Anthropic Principle, which is a more elegant version of Intelligent Design, has even contaminated theoretical physics and high mathemathics now. It will destroy science, IMHO. But I don't think a person in school should be ripped apart for attempting to make this argument, since some of the "greatest" String and M theorists alive are making a similar argument now.

[mdmc]

24. Thank you for your post my friend

peace and low stress

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. The Anthropic Principle's going to destroy science?

[Mike03]

41. Your post is not all that helpful in ascertaining your

argument against my point.

It has already divided the community of theoretical physicists, badly.

How will String Theory recover from the infinite vacua problem? You think it's enough to say, Well, there's no chosen vaccum state for our universe because there are billions of universes?

Is that a good answer to a scientific question?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. "It has already divided the community of theoretical physicists, badly."

I suppose in the same way that Creationism has split the community of biologists.



"How will String Theory recover from the infinite vacua problem?"

I don't know, but "God did it" is not going to be a viable answer. And that's what the Anthropic principle boils down to.

[Mike03]

61. You're making no sense.

Are you sure that we don't agree? The God explanation makes no sense at all. I know that. That is what I was arguing, for fuck's sake.

It seems like we are in agreement. But your posts are so incoherent, that I have no idea. It's hard to make a determination.

To make it crystal clear: I detest Intelligent Design as well as the Anthropic Principle. They are UNscientific, useless, and faithbased.

Is that clear enough?

Jesus God.

[Mike03]

67. Dear Bornaginhooligan,

I am very sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are intelligent enough to understand what I was saying in my posts.

As long as I've been on DU, I don't think I've ever crossed paths with someone who was less intelligible. I think we agree, but your posts are impossible to decipher. Maybe at some point in the future, we will be able to reconcile our thoughts, because I think deep down there is some intelligence in your thought pattern.

Be well.

[Katherine Brengle]

35. From what I understand, there are theories

such as the multiple universes theory, in which time is read as non-linear rather than as we've constructed it, which is quite interesting.

Also not many people seem to think about cosmic seeding, which may sound a tad tinfoil-hat but is extremely interesting any imo certainly possible.

I've also considered the possibility that perhaps physics, on a universal/infinite level, does not function as we believe it does, and that seems highly likely to me as our understanding is very young in the grand scheme of things.

[Mike03]

43. I sure agree with your third point

We need to find a deeper principle for the Standard Model and the GTR than we presently have. One sign of reassurance is that the physics community realizes you are right.

We will get some answers, hopefully, in late 2008 when the Large Hadron Collider begins to produce decipherable data.

Good post!

[Toots]

97. Maybe you could expound upon the hypothesis used to develop the multiple universe theory

Or do you consider a person's idea to be a scientific theory?

[mmonk]

36. Science is the study of the natural world.

It uses methodology and discovery and is self correcting when it makes a mistake found to be in error. It doesn't start out with a premise. Intelligent design starts out with a premise and tries to make study of the natural world fit it's predetermined premise. Religion and science are two different things. Why can't religion be confident in it's own discipline? Why does it feel such pressure to attack disciplines unrelated? Math doesn't try to disprove or influence English.

[opihimoimoi]

37. Nature tells us we are able to REASON but collectively...WE DON'T

That is all.

Come, we go see the KAHUNA...he can tell us more....

[Mike03]

39. Anyone who believes in creationism, please answer this question:

Why did a superior being select such a lengthy, inconvenient, improbable route to create life?

Why did he create so many species that are unsuccessful?

Why did he create such a large universe to support one lone planet, supposedly ours, since so many Bible believers do not believe in life beyond our own planet?

[Mike03]

40. You ask what is to be gleaned from the questions of a Creationist?

It's natural to yearn for some ultimate meaning/answers to our plight.

Everyone who is introspective will gravitate towards these questions. There is in most people an inner void that requires, or pleads for, answers.

Some people hope they will find them in science; others in spiritual pursuits; others can fulfill these desires in other ways, through art or athletics or whatever.

People on all sides of this quest probably need to be respectful towards the beliefs of others.

My view is that people should believe what they believe, so long as those beliefs do not obstruct the rights or freedom of others who do not share those beliefs.

[mmonk]

46. Yes everyone looks for answers to things

While people can believe anything they want that hasn't been determined factual by our abilities yet, no belief system should impose itself on a discipline to either influence or take it away.

[Mike03]

50. Yes, thank you.

Was I out of line with that other poster by saying that some theories have been proven?

Unless we are all dreaming or in some fictional state of collective self-delusion we know certain things are true, don't we?

The earth is round.

We orbit the sun.

Etc...

How could anyone argue that no theories have been proven?

[Mike03]

45. Rec by the way--fascinating discussion.

I'm a bit surprised by some of the comments, but that's cool. This is very enlightening.

[mmonk]

53. It also lends itself to thought processes

that can drive the mind crazy. I don't pretend to know what I can't figure out and I stunk at physics but liked the study of natural phenomena. What is random and what is intelligent in the universe anyway? And is intelligence itself a defining concept? My head is beginning to hurt so I'll quit.

[Mike03]

55. You are a great thinker: I always read your posts

Your prior posts over the past month or so, particularly about strife within our own party, have been really helpful in helping me to figure out what I think about our situation and how I will vote in the primaries.

[mmonk]

60. Wow. Thanks, I wasn't expecting that.

Your posts are intelligent and I've enjoyed them.

[Mike03]

62. Sorry for blurting that out like that, but it's true.

Your posts are very perceptive and persuasive.

Glad I got the chance to at least tell you that.

[NMMNG]

48. "Intelligent Design" is not science or scientific

As such it doesn't belong in science classes.

[The Straight Story]

58. We can create, no one else can....

or could have

[kineneb]

69. matter: neither created nor destroyed

it just becomes energy...

and then back again. The cycle of the universe.

A place where physics and Buddhism agree.

[Stop Cornyn]

77. Before the big bang there was a vengeful, jealous, wise old God in flowing white robes. Whenever you

can't explain anything, the answer is always an invisible old God who is all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere all at once.

[MetaTrope]

78. Intelligent Design is positive proof

that we were created by spindly aliens armed with gigantic anal probes!

[SallyMander]

79. ID IS NOT SCIENCE!

As i just posted in another thread, Monkey Girl by Edward Humes is a riveting account of the ID trial in Dover, PA. Lots of good and understandable discussion on what is science, why ID is NOT science, and how the school board in that town royally effed up. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in this topic!

The central point is that evolution and religion are NOT mutually exclusive -- it is a false dichotomy. Evolution needs material to work with -- nothing can evolve if there are no organisms there to begin with. Darwin does not address the origin of LIFE, but rather the origin of SPECIES. If people want to believe that God created the world and life, but then life evolved, well then the inherent conflict in this contrived debate just disappears.

[Dorian Gray]

99. That's pretty much what I think, as well

ID should not be taught in Science Class. Well, if the teacher wants to give a passing: "Some people think that all this was guided by God..." type statement, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But actually teaching ID? Or Creationism? How does one teach them other than saying: "God created the Earth!" Lesson over.

The rest, I agree. Darwimism and Evolution are established theories. And religion is not scientific, but not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Skittles]

82. here's a question

WHY GIVE A F*** WHAT THE MEANING OF IT ALL IS. HOW ABOUT JUST DEALING WITH THE HERE AND NOW.

[hunter]

90. Intelligent Design? Where?

[RainDog]

100. No. there is NOTHING to be gained from the creationist pov in science

why don't you watch this program with your girlfriend. (It's about the Dover ID case. Listen to the scientists describe the idea behind real science and ask your girlfriend how ID/Creationism DARES to pretend it is science.

If your girlfriend's thesis was that it's good to have other povs, then I demand that biology classes also put forth the theory that we are all created under cabbage leaves which a stork uses to wrap us up in who then flies us to our parents. There is as much science in that idea as there is in ID.

I AM SO SICK OF STUPID RELIGIOUS FUNDIES!!!

Get the fuck out of public schools if you want to preach "god" instead of learn science. why would it matter to ask what came before the big bang? do you then ask what came before god? No? Why not? Is there only infinity if there is a mythological male figured attached to it? Would any teacher be able to tell a science classroom that Zeus was the sky god whose mom set the earth in motion? It's the same sort of creation myth.

It amazes me that there are people on this forum who can continue to try to make any claims for creationism (which is the true name for ID, even tho they try to pretend it's not.)

I am totally sick of religious people who think they are doing everyone else a favor to intrude upon their lives with their medieval thought processes. So, again, no. there is nothing to be gained from creationist povs in science. there is nothing to be gained from the fundie pov. period. it is oppressive and anti-intellectual/rational and everywhere it is given free rein, disaster follows. (i.e. the middle east - jews, christians and fundies, hindu fundies... any religion that has the tenet that its texts must be considered historically true in spite of and in the face of far more compelling evidence that this "truth" is wrong.

I grew up with fundies all my life, attended their churches 3x a week as a kid, heard their bullshit over and over, and the best thing I ever did was to move away from all of that crap and think for myself. Tell your g.f. to try it sometime. Why would she even have the idea to teach ID if it were not indoctrinated via her religion? -- what good reason would there be to teach ID if fossil evidence, carbon dating, geologic strata and proven "theories" of the ways in which these things are made show, overwhelmingly, that the earth is far older than any creationist wants to admit and that the evidence points to a scientific rather than religious explanation for the variety of species that inhabit this planet.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I am soooo totally sick of ID even coming up as a real issue. It's a nothing.

edited/spelling

[La Lioness Priyanka]

105. god shouldnt be a default reason because one is not smart enought to find the real reason

[pink-o]

106. This debate is like Pi....

We can go around and around ad infinitum re the existence of a "Creator", but let's be honest: no one can prove or disprove that no matter how they argue.

So my question to you is this: why should we even care?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exploring our universe and adding to my knowledge as the years go on. But to me, this just seems like an exercise in futility, since no matter what we think the world just continues on whatever path it's already on--and regardless of our perceptions, the way to a good life works for everyone.

This is the simple rule: find what makes you happy, ascertain that it doesn't hurt anyone else, and live by it. If you believe in God, then you gotta figure He put you here to find your purpose and learn to love and grow. If you believe we got here through as yet unexplained scientific methods, then you're gonna live each moment to its fullest cuz this is the only chance you have. Even if you believe in reincarnation, the philosophy holds because you want to learn as much as you can during this life so you don't have to repeat the lessons in the next.

So there you have it. Live full, be happy don't waste a moment because right now this is all we have. God wants it for us, evolution has brought us to this place with our Big Brains, so leave the debates behind and go out and LIVE!