Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

If you assume that a creationist says, "wow, look at species diversity, it is more diverse even than can be imagined by computer scientists" therefore I am going to simply stick with own environment (let's say this was my Gradfather's farm in South Dak. on a farm of Seventh Day Adventists) then YES INDEED, yes, indeed and truth it would appear that you might think it appropriate to apply Maclean and have said that the claim is simply religious.But wait, even granting that, the question would be, has the "environment" in its current more globalizations formations CROSSED all these developments in religion such that it matters NOT what I assert from a religious perspective as the secular control controls even the feedthrough as well as any feedback IN MY STATMENTS whether motiviated by religiousity or denominializtion. That is an issue for a legal theory to legally resolve. In any fact pattern it seems doubtful that this is going to end the LEGAL DIFFERENCE OF (opinions). As long as I think in this environment, I can always have an assbackward opinion etc and this has happened somewhat more recently in my environment than what I represented in the best or worst case, depending on which illegal side you come down on.Now, you were not saying THIS. You were tyring to use something like the above to say why YOU DONT BELIEVE ID is SCIENCE.I dont think the history of ID is out of order. ICR was touting a "two-model" APPROACH OUT of these environs BEFORE one even had much of a chance to "believe" in ID or not. In THOSE "models" (a model is not science - got it?- my models of dinosaurs were not reptiles and amphibians I had next to them in cages and the strange change machine that turned plastic squares into dinosaurs by plugging them into the wall that seperated me and my brother's room was not religious) DATA was directed, sent, or inputted INTO EITHER MODEL. ID blurrs this clear discrimination that was simply deployable by the difference in the placements of words (scientific creationism and creation science). There is no necessary conflict between the "science" outputted from either of these disciplinary labels , if I may say, and the claim that there is no legitamate controversy IN SCIENCE whether in the ONE Model or THE other stands no matter what the globalization did to the invelopment of the environs that even Finnegan's wake can not Shemicize. That may also be a legal "sorry I made a mistake" but it would need a good lawyer, perhaps Johnson to so bring it.But look what had happened, and if the courts of appeal decide to use the history to decide a purely contingent reality then it seems scientific that it be recognized that these two clear models can not be differentiated in the designs of ID ON SCIENCE (and if phrased interms of physical teleology these CAN be sustatained in a "research program" just as evo bios have tried to maintain that Croizat represents a "research program" contra Neo-Darwinism (at least when this planet is the place the environment exists in)as it can be cognized that the seperation of the data from the model no longer exists in the events that make up what one might call "Intelligent Design".This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-18-2005 07:38 AM

This may well be true. But I have a hard enough time recreating in my own mind my own "voices" that distinguish scientific creationism, creation science and intelligent design. For someone sitting on the Federal Bench in Harrisburgh trying to compare a fellow Pennsylvanian and some random agnostic of atheist try to present the "relevant" designs on the history ID is beyond the pale. If a nonreligious person attempts to point to changes and uses simply the names "creation science" and "intelligent design" and then makes some general historical remark (say about Paley) it will not be possible for the adjudicator to differentiate IN THE CASE the religious perspectives of the 'other' side from the contigency that special and general revelation had not been transgressed. Now if the judge has some knowledge of the actual history regardless then perhaps the relation of design between theology and teleology will not be confused in the case the case is really only a fusion of the past and not a seperation of ID from other formations of science in creationism.As far as getting to Ruse, well he thinks it ok to accept the philosophers of biology who think that telelogy can be "purged" or "eliminated" from BIOLOGY. So by kicking someone like me out of school even though I knew more biology than Carl Zimmer they simply say THEN what biology is. Mayr tried to write this. The failure is at the most detailed level. I think the fault lies with the evolutionists who HAVE NOT attempted to remand the indeterminate relation of the measuring rod physically to biological streches between genes no matter the structure of the chromosome. While this is physically acceptable given a certain reading of Reimann where one groups any geometric transformation to whatever it would be physically I think the rise of organcism is rather the symptom of biologist's faliure to theorize Wright's isolation by distance INTO Croizat's paragonal framework of distribtions on Earth. Attempting to accomplish a defintion of the macrothermodynamic thermostat in terms of electronic equations faciliates this quantification no matter what the final invariance becomes but it is clear to me that evolutionists can not present creation science as ID by another name IF THEY DO NOT attend to what I just wrote. So far they do not. Part of the blame is mine. This is so hard to explain.While there can be some "elimination" of telelogical ends from biology this should only be thought if it is known how any means can be afforded in some other part of general pedagogy but as the attempts appear reacationary there appears to be no guarentee that mispresentation simply substitutes an index for a number no matter the geometry.I think evolutionary needs to coordinate its notion of the relation of gene distributions to a definite coordinate system before evolutionists have any right to condem the teachings and tutoring of creationists. It just is not logical to do otherwise.

It uses mechanisms as well.There needs to be a place in academia where these mechanims might be be "farmed" out to engineers, physicists, and biotechnologists but because evolution is used as the frame for writing AND working in biology rather than some abstract cooridnation system of ordinal numbers the only purposeful action oftens seems to be the removal of any work on means to the ends of the design OUT of academia.It is true I say that I was "kicked" out of school. Part of it was just that my ideas on how the kinematics preceed these dynamics were designed with physical teleology of Kant as explained distributionally by Aggassiz but unawares to me looking at Croizat's view. This is not religious even if Croizat would not tend to support the religious perspective.I did not understand the term "physical teleology" as used by Kant to be a philosophical term but instead was related via design to adaptation in the great chain of being. It would be an accident for the human designer to create a physical teleology but the move from a reflective position on it to determinations within chance variations seems to need be part of science or at least be accessible to the jobs scientists do.As for IDer's needing to say "we cannot explain "this" scientifically" at the present time, I would agree as to the different religiousity they brought into the creationists repretoire. The problem I have is with people who do not have a religious perspective thinking that humanity needs a seperation IN THE SCHOOLS where we need to train the people to make the seperation ON THE JOB. Yes keep it seperate in the mind. Thinking that creation science and intelligent design are simply the same thought with a few words changed IS NOT REFLECTIVE despite its determinability. This could be accomodated from a top down perspective rather as well but that will surely raise legal suits that would really be frivolous.I tend to agree with seperation of the data from the model so in that we probably agree but perhaps for different ends even if our means are on average fairly close. I dont know

I would like to see how the idea of capacitance got around it's own design (as Feynman would have thought about it for instance) such that parity differences in the computers was not to be the lame blame for the appearence being fully formed.I'll read the details but I would guess this surmise will suppositionally stand and continue to support what I digrammed intelligently here::
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-03-2006 08:54 AM