[Winstonm]

If you are not familiar with this decision, Nova has a good program describinng the trial: Judgement Day. The thrust of the trial was the Dover, Pennsyvannia board of education attempted to require a statement be read in a 9th grade classroom that evolution was a theory, while Intelligent Design was an alternative theory, and a book on the subject - Of Pandas and People - was available in the school library.

The judge ruled against the board under the "exception clause", stating that Intelligent Design was ceationism, thus religious based, while the city of Dover voted out the entire school board membership who had attempted to add Intelligent Design to the school system.

Pat Robertson told his TV show that the town had turned its back on God.

Quote

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Mr Robertson said on The 700 Club.

The founder of the conservative Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition has faced criticism for past provocative statements.

"If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

I have a question over these comments - how can an insistence on science retaining its purity to deal only in those areas that are testable and provable in any way be construed as a "rejection of god"? Once you allow a non-verifiable explanation into science, it is no longer science.

Why is this a problem and why is it so hard to understand? And why do people like Pat Robertson fight so hard to change it?

[jonottawa]

I've been meaning to watch this. Here's a link:

http://www.pbs.org/w...id/program.html

[mrdct]

There are a number of problems:

• Evolution is not a water-tight theory and like 'Intelligent Design' it can't be definitively proven.
  
• Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here.

It is completely understandable why people like Pat Robertson want 'Intelligent Design' to be presented as an alternative theory to evolution in schools. Such people want to maintain market-share for their religion and can't afford to have impressionable 9th-graders fed the evolutionary theory as fact (as some teachers are want to do) with the associated risk of those children turning away from Christianity.

[han]

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

Evolution is not a water-tight theory and like 'Intelligent Design' it can't be definitively proven.

There is not a single scientific theory that can be proven. That doesn't make it any less science. And it doesn't make creationism any more science.

[jonottawa]

For what it's worth, I'm a Pastafarian. Here's a letter one of our members sent to a Kansas school board in an intelligent design case:

http://www.venganza....ut/open-letter/

Here are a couple of excerpts:

"Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him."

"Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."

[mike777]

Popes love science. Really!
See Popes.

[matmat]

Science is worthless. The scientific method is a sham. Geological evidence is a joke. All that you see was made up by a creature that got bored and became disinterested with its creations.

[mrdct]

Hannie, on Nov 19 2007, 12:49 AM, said:

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

Evolution is not a water-tight theory and like 'Intelligent Design' it can't be definitively proven.

There is not a single scientific theory that can be proven. That doesn't make it any less science. And it doesn't make creationism any more science.

But it also doesn't make evolution any more plausible than 'Intelligent Design' so why shouldn't both theories be taught in school?

[karlson]

mrdct, on Nov 18 2007, 09:46 PM, said:

Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here.

Example?

I don't know anyone that I would consider a serious biologist that believes this.

From reading and talking to people, the impression I've gotten is that Christian biologists that have reconciled their faith and their science tend to think of God's (sorry, the Designer's) role as setting the entire universal process in motion, not as playing a part in any process between the beginning of life and where we are now.

[mike777]

you would think that theory or what a theory is or is not would be taught/discussed/debated but that would be basic science so why bother? You would think the goal of a theory, any theory, would be discussed but again it is not.

[cherdano]

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 12:11 AM, said:

Hannie, on Nov 19 2007, 12:49 AM, said:

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

Evolution is not a water-tight theory and like 'Intelligent Design' it can't be definitively proven.

There is not a single scientific theory that can be proven. That doesn't make it any less science. And it doesn't make creationism any more science.

But it also doesn't make evolution any more plausible than 'Intelligent Design' so why shouldn't both theories be taught in school?

There is a theory that the earth is rotating around the sun. There is also a theory that the sun is rotating around the earth. Neither theory can be proven, so I think both theories should be taught in physics.

[matmat]

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

[*]Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model,

Is there any?

[mrdct]

karlson, on Nov 19 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

mrdct, on Nov 18 2007, 09:46 PM, said:

Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here.

Example?

Even if one were to take it as a given that life in the form of some sort of primative microbe could've spontaneously materialised from the mystical organic soup that evolutionists presume to have existed billions of years ago, I think it's a bit of a stretch to believe that extremely complex biological structures such the kidney, or the eye or the brain could've have evolved from random mutations of these microbes.

Don't presume that I'm a believer in 'Intelligent Design'. I just don't think the evolutionary model is plausible for the whole enchilada. I've got all sorts of problems with the 'Intelligent Design' theory also, such as "Does God exist?" or "Do we all have the Flying Spaghetti Monster to thank?".

The evolutionary model is great to explain variations within a species and is very useful to teach kids about basic genetics, but it doesn't explain how human beings got here.

[karlson]

Quote

I think it's a bit of a stretch to believe that extremely complex biological structures such the kidney, or the eye or the brain could've have evolved from random mutations of these microbes

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the sun is 90 million miles away. It really doesn't look like more than a 1000 miles to me.

Seriously, how is this an example of scientific evidence? It's just your intuition.

[mike777]

karlson, on Nov 19 2007, 02:25 AM, said:

Quote

I think it's a bit of a stretch to believe that extremely complex biological structures such the kidney, or the eye or the brain could've have evolved from random mutations of these microbes

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the sun is 90 million miles away. It really doesn't look like more than a 1000 miles to me.

Seriously, how is this an example of scientific evidence? It's just your intuition.

Scientific evidence?

Whoever took a grammer school/highschool, college course that taught that?
Maybe some Phd geek gal/boy took it... but why teach what that phrase means in a non PHD class?

[zasanya]

Sigh....Not again.

[mike777]

the only evidence class america took said:

If the glove does not fit we must aquit. end of story

[P_Marlowe]

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

<snip>
[*]Whilst there isn't much scientific evidence around supporting the 'Intelligent Design' model, there is quite a bit around that would tend to indicate that a pure evolutionary model does not fully explain who we are and how we got here.
[/LIST]
<snip>

Let me reformulate your statement, if you dont mind:
The supporting scientific evidence makes 'Intelligent Design'
only 5% reliable at best (increase the number if you like),
the supporting scientific evidence makes 'evolutionary mode'
makes 95% reliable at worst (decrease the number if you like).

If you take the above numbers do you think both theories are
equivalent if it comes to the level of reliability?

Maybe God gets pissed off by Science, I doubt it, but do you
think that he likes it, that someone claims that he haa abandoned
a whole city?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mrdct]

If I were to stumble across one of the giant statues of Easter Island I could look at it and postulate as to how it got there. One theory might be that it was just a big rock that through processes of natural erosion formed itself into an image of a human head. Another theory might be that some intelligent being, probably a human, fashioned the statue with some intent and skill.

So what evidence do I have? I know from observation that erosion can produce rocks that look like other objects, indeed I once found a rock that looked very much like the Sydney Opera House. But I also know from observation and knowledge of the basic processes of erosion that eroded rocks that look like other objects are pretty rare so when I come across a rock that looks like a human head, chances are it was actually actually man-made. As the complexity of the rock's likeness to the human head increases, so too does the likelihood that it didn't arise from natural processes of erosion. Sure there is some intuition involved here, but on the basis of this "evidence" I will conclude that the giant statues of Easter Island were created by an intelligent designer, most probably a human being.

I can't actually prove that the giant statues of Easter Island are man-made but the complexity of the carvings present a fairly strong scientific case that they couldn't have formed from random erosion. On the other hand, perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster was at it again.

[mike777]

mrdct, on Nov 19 2007, 02:59 AM, said:

If I were to stumble across one of the giant statues of Easter Island I could look at it and postulate as to how it got there.  One theory might be that it was just a big rock that through processes of natural erosion formed itself into an image of a human head.  Another theory might be that some intelligent being, probably a human, fashioned the statue with some intent and skill. 

So what evidence do I have?  I know from observation that erosion can produce rocks that look like other objects, indeed I once found a rock that looked very much like the Sydney Opera House.  But I also know from observation and knowledge of the basic processes of erosion that eroded rocks that look like other objects are pretty rare so when I come across a rock that looks like a human head, chances are it was actually actually man-made.  As the complexity of the rock's likeness to the human head increases, so too does the likelihood that it didn't arise from natural processes of erosion.  Sure there is some intuition involved here, but on the basis of this "evidence" I will conclude that the giant statues of Easter Island were created by an intelligent designer, most probably a human being.

I can't actually prove that the giant statues of Easter Island are man-made but the complexity of the carvings present a fairly strong scientific case that they couldn't have formed from random erosion.  On the other hand, perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster was at it again.

hmm not sure I got any of this but you argue:
1) complexity=manmade
2) other-=other?
3) did mandlebrot or whoever argue other?
4) I thought the popes offer even another theory? anyway.....