Intelligent Designs Public Claim

So from what I've read/watched/heard those who support intelligent design and creationism in schools argue that they merely want their children to hear alternative explanations. That's pretty reasonable in my opinion. But there's something quite amiss with their actions. When they argue against evolution, they don't cite alternative sources of how things happened. They don't cite the stories of Native Americans, Mayans, Nordic or other explanations of how things came to be. Many don't even support the teachings of these explanations in religion class.So how can they truly be supporting giving their children alternative perspectives when they only support the addition of ID/Genesis creationism to the classroom?

hello, obvious_child. We have two seperate issues that you are attempting to fuse into one, here.Intelligent Design supporters are attempting to show scientifically how the universe was designed(created) whereas the other legends and stories that you bring up are more examples of faith and belief.Do you want to discuss the alternative stories in a Faith context or do you want to discuss Intelligent Design and attempt to have it fit a scientific paradigm?Rewrite your O.P. and have it focus on either alternative creation stories or on the science behind Intelligent Design---a story unto itself!

C'mon. It doesn't take a idiot figure out that ID has no scientific backing. It can't even be tested. It even states that a higher power is the reason for life. Furthemore, why is it only creationists christians support ID? Is that not a sign it is nothing more then genesis?If they actually cared about giving their kids alternatives, they wouldn't be aganist teaching other religions in science or philsophy classes.

I quite agree, OC. Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

One of the main problems I have with a debate like this is the way the terms are used.First off I'm a creationist. I believe that we are created beings living in a created universe.Do I believe that Genesis should be read as a science text? No.
Do I believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? No.I believe that there is intelligent design in the creation of the universe and that there is an intelligent designer.Do I think that I can PROVE this scientifically? No.
Do I accept evolutionary theory as correct? Probably. I frankly don't have the biological background to argue evolution one way or the other.)For the sake of your discussion I would suggest the term Young Earth Creationist and Scientific Intelligent Design. (YEC and SID)

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Fortunately for their case, they might want YE creationism taught but the best they can do is ID. ID is not a positive subject but is basically a negative one. It's a way to present YEC objections to evolution without posing a positive alternative. It's basically saying 'not blind but directed' without giving specifics on the directed part (as opposed to evolution which gives a lot of specifics on the blind process).

GDR, sorry. I have no problems with metaphorical creation which for many is theistic evolution. It's just literal I'm discussing.There is a thing as scientific ID? How can that be as the central part relies upon something untestable?

Some people really don't understand what ID is all about. Alot of people are under the impression that IDists sit around reciting verses from Genesis, desperately trying to supplant the ToE for theological reasons. But this is obviously lacking, especially in light of so many anti-Darwinists come from completely secular camps. Maybe a couple of video clips will help you to understand what their objections to the current paradigm are. clip one
clip twoEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

first clip
"we have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolution of the simplest of cells"what does abiogenesis have to do with evolution?
why call proteins machines?
proteins aren't precise in carrying out their jobs--especially enzymes.
if proteins were so fine-tuned, then how the hell do they screw up so monumentally in replicating DNA?second clip
what do the probabilities of life emerging have to do with evolution?
as to those twenty factors--that's based off of life as we know it.
you oughta watch some shows where the examine the possibility of life on planets orbiting red dwarf stars.as to each factor:
1)right location in the galaxy?
how many galaxies are there?
millions. so even if there's only one habitable zone in a galaxy, there are still one million places it can happen.
2)habitable zone of the star?
the good old goldilocks. what if we find life on titan, or europa?
what about the possibility of life on the giant planets circling red dwarf stars?
3)shielded by gas giants?
last time I checked, there are only four gas giants. how often do they protect the earth from bombardment? they don't offer much coverage--they aren't bullet proof vests. point in case--early in the formation of the earth, it suffered approximately ten impacts, the last of which gave us the iron core, and possibly our moon as well.
4)right star?
red dwarfs are possible. so are yellow, mid sized stars.
5)necessity of the moon?
stabilizes revolutions? is that really necessary for life? how de we know?
6)terrestial planet?
what the hell? who knew that land was necessary for complex life?
apparently no one's looked at what kind of shit IS in the ocean right now. ton's more diversity than on the surface, I'd say.
7)plate tectonics?
again, the necessity of plate tectonics? I don't see what moving plates has to do with life.
8)magnetosphere?
for us, highly nessecary. but it doesn't block all radiation--particularly ultraviolet light which can kill bacterium. If life can form around deep oceanic vents, radiation aint' a problem. but you're not going to get any life on the surface, that much I'll agree with.
9)oxygen rich atmosphere?
are they unaware that it's our (the collective life we) fault for the amount of oxygen present. we changed the world into being oxygen rich. it didn't come this way.
10)water?
titan has no water. and yet, there might be life there. life on earth might need water. elsewhere, who knows?
11)continents?
bull. the ocean is a very complex biome. you don't need landmasses for complex life.here's the kicker. they give twelve requirements, and the equation has twenty. oops.here's my revised equation.
f(1) * f(2) * f(5). I'm giving you the fifth one. all the rest aren't necessary.
so, at f(1/10), we have
1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10
the probability of life = 1/1000.but, I will once again point out--not relevant to evolution. after life got started is what evolution is concerned with.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I watched the first one. It's not a good critique of why evolution is a bad concept. Most of it was simply on transcription and translation. The person argues that there is no basis of chemical origin of life, but that's abiogenesis, not evolution. His final phrases are fallacious in that they assume that RNA and DNA in their modern forms and functions existed at the dawn of life. That's directly contridictory to the modern idea that only RNA existed utilizing much simplier functions and many primitive single cell bacteria function solely on RNA.The second one plays directly into creationism. It assumes that life can only arise with specific conditions. It ignores that the building blocks of life and microbes have been found in space and on Mars, two very different conditions then those on Earth. Not to mention that Earth itself has radically changed over time. Different conditions produce different forms of life. If the gravity was higher, we'd be stockier. If the atmosphere reflected different wavelengths, we'd see differently. If any other condition was different, life would be different as well. That argument if specific conditions = ID is fallacious. And the movie doesn't support ID or Creationism, merely that life is rare.Not to mention that one of the scientist specifically notes complex life, not life in general. I looked kevin Grazier and there's nothing on him that would suggest he's a proponent of either camp. Nemati, the other scientist in the video has no articles or quotes from him on the web that support ID or creationism. he's cited as a supporter yet there's no posting of his actual comments.The only direct quote from him is "it is tremendous, I really enjoyed it."Please tell me where that's ardent support for creation or ID. He's quoted with his discussions on Terrestrial Planet-Finder.I smell more creationist fraud.Try again. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

The credibility for its rise. Because that's how they act. They behave very much like machinery with microcomponents as each contrivance works towards the central function or overall function, which is to make it operable. What do you mean they aren't precise? The direction and control of all molecular behavior is achieved by protein molecules. If they aren't precise, life doesn't happen, nor can it continue. And as far as enzymes go, they function to precisely separate or bond molecules in a peptide chain. You make transcription error seem like a likely occurance. Mutations are rare when you consider just how many building blocks there are in life. Explain how they screw up monumentally. There are theoretically millions. There are a couple thousand known galaxies, none of which are known to support life. You are making light of the fact that life without the intervention or support of anything is exceedingly unlikely. What if? You are making light of the difficulty for any life to exist and you are hanging it up on, "what-if?" What if there are giant frogs in outer-space that eat space plankton? I happened not to care for that argument either. But from what anyone can tell they do take the brunt of the punishment from asteroids. What about them? Moons are important to terrestrial tides and they are important to the orbit of a planet. I don't know where he was going with that argument. I don't either. Extremophiles will find a way to survive, which is why they are so attractive to origin-of-life scenarios. However, the fact that life couldn't survive terrestrally without uv protection is pretty critical to why such barriers would form on their own for no apparent reason? The fact that you can't get oxygen molecules to come from either hydrogen or helium at all from stellar nucleofusion puts a damper on that argument. The fact that we have oxygen at all is miraculous. Why do you keep suggesting that their might be life on Titan? There might be life on the moon. There might be life in anywhere. But what credible reason to have to make the assumption? I guess I'm not familiar with this particular argument. Is it a common argument or something? I don't think that was his argument. Of course the ocean is a complex biome. Do we know what they were factoring or what computation they were using? That list you presented was him speaking about difficulties to overcome. And yes, evo's routinely assert that evolution has nothing to do with the overall theory, but I disagree. Without a cosmological evolution, there could be no chemical evolueion, without a chemical evolution there could be no biological evolution-- hence without the origin of life present, the theory is without its merits.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

It wasn't designed to be. It was designed to show how ID is a good conept. RNA-first proliferation is just as unlikely an event as DNA-first. See, you have to first have two things in order to have something else. 0 + 0 = 0 ---- 0 + 1 = 1 ----- 1 + 1 = 2
If you had formula 1 or formula 2, neither theorem works. It assumes that life can only arise in specific conditions? That's creationist dogma? Didn't you just go into a discourse on how life could have orgiginated at random? You don't get it do you? For there ro be anything, life either had to be eternal (self-existing) or it was created. So the microbes on Mars or whatever had to either always exist or it was created. Pick one and we'll go from there. And how is an unbiased view point not welcomed here? You don't think that Mr. Grazier was aware of who was conducting the interview? Once again, an unbiased view isn't welcome? Don't you think that Mr. Nemati was aware of who was conducting the interview? I'll tell you what, the first clip is scheduled to air on PBS in the following weeks. I think if both those individuals were unaware of the nature of the inquiry was you'll some outrage in the coming weeks. That's just your upper lip Oblivous Child.

---

“"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive." ”G. K. Chesterton

the second clip gave the damn equation they were using--with all "twenty" factors. The movie presented eleven, a lot of which aren't necessary.those arguments are for developing the possibility of life arising exactly as it did on earth. how many exact copies of earth are there?
few to none.titan--it's got everything needed for extromophile life--except for water.
europe has the water, i think. I'm not sure if the ice there is pure water, or more likely, is a combination of a lot of frozen molecules, like you can have dry ice(frozen CO2).
the point with these arguments is that life is possible in other places, especially since we found the extromophiles.I know you all like to say that without abiogenesis evolution isn't possible, but . . .
life came from somewhere, right? didn't god make man from the dust of the earth? sounds like abiogenesis to me.
point is, it doesn't fucking matter where life came from--just like physics works just fine without knowing how the singularity behaved, but just like physics, we're still interested in how it did happen (or behave, or whatever).asto the enzymes--we used to think that they had to be very precise--we now know that they aren't precise--just close enough. enzymes work on molecules they weren't built for, and that's actually one of the control processes for preventing the buildup off too much of any one substance.while the moon might be important for our planet--there's no necessity for a moon for life. It might make things easier, but as the extromophiles show, life can pretty much be anywhere.as to the what if's about the star--they implied that there is exactly one, narrow, margin that life can exist in a solar system. this isn't true. Europe and titan are well out of the range of what they call the habitable zone--where the earth is.venus is outside the zone, but on the inside of it (towards the sun). There is still the possibility of life--extremophile life in the clouds, where the pressure is much lower, and life can potentially survive.mars is also outside the zone, and on the outside of it. mars also once had water--still does, somewhere, I think in the polar caps.
it's the most like earth in this solar system, the one most likely to have also supported life. this would increase the habitable zone.the raditation--i think you misunderstand me. down that deep in the ocean, more than a mile deep, radiation isn't a problem. same thing if you go down into the crust--and life can still make it into the crust of the planet from the ocean.the need for continents--he was arguing that we need them for the diversity of life we have today, in order to support the complex life of today. and they aren't neccesary, as you also noted--the ocean is itself an incredibly complex biome.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

How is that? Because? Some primitive bacteria use RNA exclusively. Doesn't that go in the face of your argument? You haven't actually replied to a single critque I've made. I thought we were discussing ID and Evolution, not abiogenesis.
And you are again not discussing my critque of their claims. I see you specifically didn't quote my post where I discussed where life would have been different under different circumstances and how the enviroment of the Earth has radically changed over time. That again pokes giant holes in your claims. Ignoring something doesn't make it go away. Because? The Ulrey-Miller experiment showed that the foundations of life can arise from non-living chemicals. Your using the fallacy of begging the question as well as a false dichtomy. That's not what I was discussing. Grazier was in the second one, not the first, and the first a christian publication. The second not so much. Furthermore, the fact that there's nothing out there to support that Grazier supports either concept says much about how we should take his comments. And you're ignoring again a large part of what I said to suit your argument. Complex life, not life in general is what he stated. Are you going to provide anything of substance or just assume something is true without any evidence as well as using the fallacy of argument to the future?If they support ID, where are their quotes or work that shows it? You didn't respond to a single one of my critques. And you ignored the majority of my post. Actions speak louder then words, especially inactions.