Frist backs "intelligent design" and I have to say

[nashvillebrook]

I'm behind him on this. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=149095&mesg_id=149095">www.democraticunderground..._id=149095</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>new DU post. inspired by recent events. fueled on ginger/pear green tea and google images. my dogs helped too. <br><br>it's kinda a cop-out to put it in editorials, but it's best taken lightly. lord knows i wouldn't post it in science. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<br><br> I was at my local 9/11 skeptics movement centre only yesterday, and got an incredible in depth 'lecture' on intelligent design ( in a roundabout sort of way ).<br><br> For a while now Ive always considered Darwin to be little more than poppycock.<br><br> But the pics on this thread regarding the double tetrahedron ( star of David ) etc just kinda marry PRECISELY with those considerations I was offered yesterday.<br><br> I was told meanwhile, that many of the ancient monuments, besides containing all the mathematical formulas that govern the universe ( pi, 19.4 degrees, 66.6 etc) also contain within their columns DNA sequencing.<br><br> Not bad for a bunch of primitives with spears huh ? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

i had a poly sci prof who would infuriate me with with the way he would use a subject to displace a subject. he was more of an artist than the moderns i was studying in art history. i also held a personal dogma that art was better suited to speak big messages than words. i've abandoned that for the most part, but it's still fun working with pictures and words together. plus, i wouldn't want to come right out and say that i'm a hoaghead to anyone but my close association of fellow hoagheads. darwin's contribution is his empiracism. wouldn't it be nice for kids to be introduced to philosophy and critical thinking thru this mess that has become the rw on local school boards. <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4418893">www.democraticunderground...04x4418893</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>couldn't resist. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Intelligent design may be true, but it is not science.<br><br>That is to say, anything that we can not ask questions about, or that cannot be "disproven" cannot be discussed as science.<br><br>Consider:<br><br>How does the "designer" (non-material?) interact with the material world?<br><br>Exactly how does the designer function? What's it made of?<br><br>Where did the designer come from?<br><br>Where is he/she now?<br><br><br><br>These questions cannot reasonably be expected to have answers we can comprehend. It doesn't mean I.D. is not "true" in some sense, just that it is not science. There is no scientific process one could go about to even begin to look for such answers.<br><br>If you want to look at shortcomings of Darwin, by all means do so, but to use the "god of the gaps" technique: " There're some missing steps here and here we can't account for, therefore God did it" is not scientific either. It reminds me of the far side cartoon where a scientist has filled a blackboard with equations, except for one section that simply says, "And then a miracle happens."<br><br>In fact, one thing that amuses me greatly is that all of the reasoning behind I.D. is equally valid for...in fact, in my view MORE valid for... suggesting an alien intelligence is the designer. See, evolution happened on THEIR planet and there were no "missing links" or whatever. Then they came here to fiddle with our DNA to speed up the process for some reason. This would explain so-called "punctuated equilibrium", the phenomenon where there are periods of rapid evolutionary changes. It's just Marvin the Martian and his "DNA Rep-li-ca-tor". Further, if we leave the "designer" unnamed as the stealth fundies want to do for now, I'd suggest that all science teachers teach evolution in the way I just outlined. Hey, you didn't say we had to teach it was God, who did it....<br><br>Anyway, it is possible, in fact, likely, in my view, that "ultimate reality" may not even be comprehensible by the human brain even within the context of some future "perfected" science. But that still doesn't mean you get to call intelligent design "science."<br><br>And, nashvillebrook, PLEASE! You know EXACTLY why Frist is saying this: to win over the fundamentalist vote. I can guarantee you that when it comes time to name who that designer is, it won't be Shiva. It is pandering and pathetic, and Frist should keep his mind on helping the "least of these", that is, helping creatures of the "designer" losing their medical care.<br><br>Now, I, too am really interested in some of these ideas, even recognizing that science, as we are likely to understand it for some time, will not be able to even begin to ask the kinds of questions I.D. demands. However, we should also understand that the I.D. discussion as it relates to the schools is simply a way to get evolution out of the classrooms altogether and to make way for a specifically Christian fundamentalist idea of creation. And if you want to make the case that the earth is 10,000 years old and that fossils are God's little practical joke...well, we already know you well enough to know you do NOT intend to argue that. But that, indeed, is the impetus behind the I.D. in the schools movement. <br><br>So, yay for exploring the limits of science, materialism and rationality and boo for supporting Frist and his fundamentalist pandering. <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

i was working with "design" instead of designer. and also playing with the idea of empiracism as it could be taught to kids. everything you mention is stuff that would get an airing in a science class that examined the history if ideas. <br><br>who gets to name? frist doesn't get to control the debate once it's out there. <br><br>it's not support. i can't even go to the frist museum -- it's not support. it's ridicule. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Oh, well, yeah...I mean I didn't ACTUALLY think you supported Frist. It's frustrating, because I really enjoy poking around at the edges and seeing if there's some wiggle room for things like I.D. <br><br>I just know what Frist's backers really want....and high schools are probably not the best place to settle these issues.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

but my thing was to turn ID on it's head. i kept running across that headline (the one i used) and it wouldn't stay out of my head. had to do something with it. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

I still think that teaching the "aliens did it" hypothesis using the ID logic is a good one. <p></p><i></i>

[Sokolova]

I talked about this on the 'holographic universe' thread. The neo-Darwinists are at the very epicentre of 'science' at its very worst. The likes of Richard Dawkins are the Inquisitors for the new religion.<br><br>Let's remind ourselves. Creationism fails because it can't actually explain anything and cannot be falsified on its own terms. Yet it is upheld by a rigid dogma of belief that simply refuses to yield to rationalism and doubt.<br><br>Unfortunately the same is almost entirely true of neo-Darwinism - at least in its most extreme form. It too cannot be falsified on its own terms and it too is upheld by an increasingly rigid, if not hysterical, dogma, that refuses to yield to any form of progressive rational analysis. It is based on antiquated Victorian thought-systems about hierarchies in nature and the ultimate dominance of mankind; its central tenet 'the survival of the fittest' is simply a tautology. It makes little effort to break out of its Newtonian paradigm and address either the failings and gaps in its own system or to adapt to the new discoveries and shifting awareness in other related disciplines.<br><br>I agree Creationism has no place being taught in a classroom, but neither has neo-Darwinism, and to regard one as a symbol of progress and the other as a symbol of regress is a mistake. They are both dogmas based of religious or quasi-religious precepts. Both should be presented as interesting ideas, and their various adherents considered as a warning of what happens to the human mind when it abandons doubt for belief.<br><br>I think maybe the whole subject of science versus 'science' (or pseudo-science, or science-as-religion) could use its own thread?<br><br>Ellie <p></p><i></i>

[thrulookingglass]

Here at RI, I don't worry whether people are willing to accept or be open-minded as to the belief/belief systems of others. I do have a problem with children in public school systems being taught that there "God" designed everything; this being the most commonly interpreted form of "intelligent design". I highly doubt biology/science teachers are going to sell i.d. as aliens or other outside forces influencing earthly developments. Further, let’s study the conspiracy of Darwinism. Darwin didn't discover anything, he was merely first to widely publish the hypothesis of "natural selection" which has little to do with the "survival of the fittest" ethos that too many have applied to Darwin's work. "Natural Selection" supports such concepts as bio-diversity and yes evolutionary effects there of. "Natural Selection" states that biological life, in order to survive, must adapt to its local biosphere (climate, food sources, etc.) in order to be viable and propagate. This is a strong differentiation than the co-opted definition that capitalist tout. Lets not program children with fairy tale stories of how the great and powerful Oz overseas there every action. Evolution may be an imperfect theory, but it still represents our most imperial and self evident theory as to the origins of life here on Earth. If you believe that "intelligent" forces designed or intentionally built this world, that's fine, just don't enforce those values/beliefs on the populace. Besides, whoever/whatever designed humans clearly lacked at least a modicum of intelligence! <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Sokolova said:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It too cannot be falsified on its own terms and it too is upheld by an increasingly rigid, if not hysterical, dogma, that refuses to yield to any form of progressive rational analysis<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well, maybe you can't falsify it, but you can sure test the theory, through computer models, for example. In addition, I think geologists tend to find the sorts of things they expect to find in the fossil record. Bottom strata with least complex critters and wider variety of complexity at the top. The discovery of DNA gave us a material way to explain how species change through mutations, the adaptive ones of which tend to get passed on to progeny.<br><br>The question is, are the "holes" that ID folks point to really unfillable or simply a result of gaps in our present knowledge or in our fossil findings? So, maybe another thread is a good idea. What, exactly, are the problems with evolutionary theory that suggest not that we simply don't have enough information, but that evolutionary theory seems unlikely to be able to explain? <p></p><i></i>

[slimmouse]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I still think that teaching the "aliens did it" hypothesis using the ID logic is a good one.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br> Amen to that. IMO,Beats the pants off both Darwin, and the big man. Well actually, I suppose it kinda marries them. <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

settled this for me after many years of hot debate. sometimes theories like holographic universe (morphogenic resonance, or whatever) are useful as metaphors. they have their place as a means to turn the soil regardless of their "truth value." <br><br>there is a deus ex machina at the heart of every devotional theory. That Just Happened. a leap of faith. <br><br>since posting this i've been accused of everything from propelling funedamentalism in public schools to not understanding darwin. i can prove that i'm not in any way fiddling with public schools by the fact that i haven't set foot in one for more than 20 years. as to understanding darwin, here's what i know: darwin was an empiracist and as such he is an icon of modernity. i've never found the passage in darwin's work that says specifically that evolution explains everything about life on earth and i'm pretty sure an empiracist of darwin's stature would back away from such a generalization. until proof were found. empiracism. not a bad thing to teach youngsters. it keeps them off the drugs that will rot their minds. like fundamentalism. i blame the coffee on the that last comment. <br><br>i have to say i'm pleased at the response to this. it had the effect that all good satire should have. making the hip happy and the others angry. <br><br>i'm just all about alinsky lately. the root of effective radicalism is ridicule. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> sometimes theories like holographic universe (morphogenic resonance, or whatever) are useful as metaphors.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Actually, it's quite interesting how this works. Obviously a "holographic" concept of the universe couldn't happen until someone had invented holograms. Ditto on computer models of the brain vs. computers. The first rough atomic theories posited a kind of "solar system" around the nucleus. <br><br>This shows how we humans, with a few rare exceptions, are limited in our theories of the ultimate reality by our experience of the mundane reality. A few truly brilliant scientists seem to be able to transcend that but it can't be easy. And the further into this we go, the further physics seems to contradict our commonsense, everyday experience. At least on the level of the very small, and perhaps on the level of the very big. <br><br>So who knows what sorts of things might be invented or discovered in the coming years to expand our paradigm once again. I've got a book that suggests that time is an "illusion" and that each moment exists independently. This is a book by a physicist, and he suggests that the appearance of cause and effect is simply the most mathematically probably result. (I don't claim to understand his theory, but I bring it up to suggest that it may be that one such unusual theory will come along and throw more of our "common sense" out the window.)<br><br>Or take the "many worlds hypothesis". I don't think it is a widely held idea, but at least a few physicists found that quantum events could be explained by a "split" of the universe anytime a quantum "choice" is made. That is, if some particle is in a superposition of states (imagine a coin that is not yet found to be either heads or tails, though this isn't really meant for macroscopic events) and then we measure the particle to find a particular state (heads or tails), at that very instant the universe has split off and if it's heads in our universe, it's tails in the other. As I said, this view isn't widely held but serious physicists have had a look at it and I offer it as another example of how such bizarre contradictions of our commonsense view of the world may one day make our "common sense" look as quaint as the idea of spontaneous generation. <br><br>Now before wolf pauli comes on here and decries my inferior understanding of quantum physics, I'd better go hide.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>