Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

I'm not sure what you're referring to, here. Could you elaborate?

Why?As a student of the human condition, it seems obvious to me that the majority of the behavior of human beings is a situation of doing something and then coming to terms with it, justifying it; as opposed to rationally considering the alternatives and choosing one. We're very good, most of us, at choosing the most reasonable alternative and then doing the exact opposite one. Everybody understands that being an adult human being is not so much a process of actively pursuing the proper course of action, but preventing yourself from following the seductive, detrimental ones.It's an open debate, of course, the extent to which environment or genes determine those behaviors that we don't seem to be in all that much control of; it's an open debate whether or not "genes" and "environment" are even two different things. What are you talking about? The world we live in is no different than the world of animals: limited resources are competed for, people make choices to maximise the opportunity and safety of their offspring, present and future, persons do not mate at random but according to criteria that they don't seem to consider voluntary or arbitrary (i.e. I like caucasian blondes, but I don't remember choosing that preference. In fact I was in denial about being a blonde-lover until I looked back at all my ex-girlfriends, and over at my wife, and noticed they're all blonde.)Humans are as much the product of evolution as anything else is. Why should we be so special that we're the only species on Earth for whom evolutionary concerns don't inform the bulk of our behavior?

This is not in line with the topic of this thread. Please take it to somewhere more appropriate

All evolution is changes in a population's DNA over time. Even adaptation reflects changes in a population's DNA over time. Organisms are adapted because they have certain physical characteristics; DNA determines those characteristics. Thus if a population of organisms are changing their physical characteristics to adapt, we know that their DNA is changing as well.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 01-27-2006 11:30 PM

Because science is a process where we generate testable explanations that help us understand how something works.Saying "God did it by magic" doesn't explain how anything works. An explanation for how your TV works, for instance, has to include radio waves and electron beams if it's going to be any help to you in fixing your TV when it breaks, or in making new TV's, or in designing better ones. An explanation that "they're made in the TV factory by magic" or "they grow on TV trees" is a useless explanation, because it doesn't give you any way to find out more about what happens.Scientific theories should promote more inquiry, not stop it in its tracks. But that's what creationism does. It answers the question "where did all these different living things come from?" with "God did it by magic", which doesn't give you anything else to go on. You try to ask "what kind of magic?" and all you get is "the magic kind." My wife does this every day in the lab. I do it every day in the greenhouse and the field. (Well, not ever day. On the weekends we play World of Warcraft.)

I guess that's true, sure. Of course, the one problem is that this bears absolutely no relation to the scientific theory of evolution as taught in classrooms.(Seriously, "organ life"? WTF?)

But those are the same thing. That is how theories are tested; they're used to generate predictions for a given situation and then that situation is made to occur; if the results match the prediction then the theory has passed the test.There's no "changing of definitions", there's just you not understanding what "test" means in the first place. Theories have always been tested by testing their predictions, ever since the development of the scientific method.

If the best intelligence can do is change a few aspects of a few species, how does one extrapolate that into a belief that intelligence has created and guided all aspects of all species?

I'm asking you to tell me how. Human intelligence has never created anything close to the interoperating complexity found in nature. On the other hand, the processes of natural selection and random mutation are being adapted by our engineers to design circuits so radically different from anything we've ever made ourselves that we can't even understand how they work.Evolutionary processes are far more creative than any human mind, or combination of minds. Evolutionary processes are far more capable of creating complexity than any human action. So how does it make any sense at all to conclude that all the complexity we see in the natural world is the product of intelligence?I'm asking you to explain how ID is the "most logical choice" when everything we see in the natural world is far too complex to have been designed. I don't understand what you mean by "design themselves." Is it your understanding that the theory of evolution posits that creatures consiously redesign themselves, and then genetically engineer themselves into new species? You assume design where no design occurs; circular reasoning.

Those are the remarks of someone else, Ned I think, not me. You haven't even tried to make a case. You've simply repeated my remarks in a condesending tone of voice. Are you under the misapprehension that that constitutes an argument?Nothing that intelligent design has been able to do even remotely approaches the creativity of evolutionary processes. So, again, why does it make sense to you to implicate intelligence, and not evolutionary processes, as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? took out useless subtopic - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-07-2006 08:35 AM

I was a creationist when I came to be convinced of the accuracy of evolution, so you're clearly wrong about that. The evidence of evolution was so compelling that even viewing the world through creation-tinted glasses, blind to all but conclusions of design, I was convinced. Not everybody is like you, Iano. Most of us here not only possess the intelligence and training - and it honestly doesn't take much - to appropriately assess the evidence for evolution, but we have the will and courage to do so freely, and allow the evidence - and not our fear of a universe so vast that our significance is swallowed up in it - to dictate our conclusions about what did and did not happen. This would be a somewhat more devastating insult if there was any indication you yourself had ever aquainted yourself with even the least bit of legitimate scientific information. You mock what you are ignorant about. Truly the sign of a second-rate intellect.

What makes you think that we haven't seriously considered it? Not everyone is like you, John. Most of us here aren't afraid to let the evidence take us where it leads, not where we're comfortable going.

Oh. So, we're only hypothetically dogmatic simpletons with no ability to actually understand the things we post about every day.My wife is only hypothetically wasting her time and her life pursuing advanced degrees in biology and doing research that would be completely fruitless, a fact that somehow she hasn't noticed yet.Hey, it's all better now, isn't it? How could I have been so sensitive as to take offense at your hypothetical condescension? If it makes you feel better, you're only hypothetically an insulting idiot.

Are you kidding? You barely allowed the existence of these rare gems. Rather, you described your opponents as simpletons blindly following dictate from their scientific overlords.Sorry, but I'm not inclined to be charitable about that level of condesension. I'm not prepared to accept the implication that I'm an intellectual coward from someone who's been retreating from his own unwinnable debate for almost a year now. Except that I was blind, and I did see. Sure. This all goes away at your apology.

Take it easy.

I'd just like to say that I find this entire exchange hilarious:IANO: No matter how many accidents occur, you'll never get anything useful.OTHERS: Not so, here's an example...IANO: Well of course if you have enough accidents, you'll be able to pick and choose something useful! As if that proved anything.Really priceless.