[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Anna Paulina Luna Exposes the Guy Behind the Anti-ICE Riots

Mike Huckabee Working To Keep Netanyahu in Power

Israeli Military and Israeli-Backed Gang Shoot Aid Seekers in Gaza, Killing 14

Only 68 Building Permits Issued for Pacific Palisades After Wildfires Destroyed 6800 Structures

Violent Rioters Fire Off Exploding Projectiles at Police Horses Use Fireworks and Explosives to Attack Police

ICE Just Shattered Records With One Massive Operation That Has Democrats Fuming

Nolte: Insurrectionist Democrats Plan Another Summer of Blue City-Riots

Violent riots have now been reported in over 30 American cities. Heres a full list:

Mass shooter opened fire at graduation party was an migrant who was busted in LA ICE raids:

Cash Jordan: ICE Raids Home Depot... as California Collapses

Silver Is Finally Soaring: Here's Why

New 4um Interface Coming Soon

Attack of the Dead-2025.

Canada strips Jewish National Fund of charitable status

Minnesota State Rep. Vang just admitted that she is an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

1100% increase in neurological events since the roll-out of Covid mRNA

16 Things That Everyone Needs To Know About Violent Far-Left Revolution In Los Angeles

Undercover video in Arizona alleges ongoing consumer fraud by Fairlife

Dozens arrested after San Francisco protest turns violent Sunday

Looking for the toughest badasses in the city (Los Angeles)

Democrat Civil War Explodes: DNC Chair Threatens to Quit Over David Hogg

Invaders waving Mexican flags, pour onto the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles

Australian Fake News Journo Hit By Rubber Bullet In L.A. Riot

22-year-old dies after being unable to afford asthma inhaler

North Korean Bulsae-4 Long-Range ATGM Spotted Again In Russian Operation Zone

Alexander Dugin: A real Maidan has begun in Los Angeles

State Department Weighing $500 Million Grant to Controversial Gaza Aid Group: Report

LA Mayor Karen Bass ordered LAPD to stand down, blocked aid to federal officers during riots.

Russia Has a Titanium Submarine That Can ‘Deep Dive’ 19,700 Feet

Shocking scene as DC preps for Tr*mp's military birthday parade.


Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Intelligent Design Part 3 - a little thought experiment
Source: The Dilbert Blog
URL Source: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
Published: Nov 27, 2005
Author: Scott Adams
Post Date: 2005-11-27 20:51:19 by Starwind
Ping List: *Bereans*     Subscribe to *Bereans*
Keywords: Intelligent, experiment, thought
Views: 70
Comments: 2

Second, allow me to restate that I DON'T believe in Intelligent Design. I'm just fascinated with what the topic does to otherwise rational people on both sides of the question.

[...snip...]

I understand the argument for excluding Intelligent Design from science classes. Most scientists believe it doesn't meet the definition of science. You can't argue with the people who MAKE the definitions. If the vast majority say it doesn't have enough substance to qualify as science, that's okay with me. But I have to wonder if that's the real reason most scientists oppose including it in schools. I would expect scientists to welcome such a clear model of something that is NOT science, as an example of exactly that.

"Kids, astronomy is science and astrology isn't. Here are some more examples of things that aren't science..."

Sure, it might confuse the dumb kids, but they aren't the ones building the spaceships of tomorrow anyway. I learned about not using "ain't" in English class and that didn't hurt me too much. So it just seems fishy to me that scientists are so worked up about Intelligent Design. Could their true fear be the slippery slope argument? If you let ID in the door, before long we'll all be wearing scraggly beards and beating ourselves with prayer paddles.

I propose a little thought experiment.

Imagine that lightning suddenly carves into the side of the Washington Monument the words "I am God. I created you. Darwin was a nut." And let's say there are hundreds of witnesses who all have video cameras and capture it from multiple angles.

Now imagine that the same phenomenon repeats every day for a month, each time on a different monument. Scientists study the phenomena and conclude that humans probably didn't cause it, but beyond that, there are no further scientific clues about how lighting could seem so directed.

If I crafted my thought experiment right, no one would have any idea how to devise a test that would confirm or exclude the possibility that God really did it. Hypothetically, being omnipotent and all, he would be capable of leaving no clues, other than signing his name. Therefore, any speculation as to the cause is not science.

Here's the question: Should teachers be allowed to tell science students about the lightning messages?

You may commence misinterpreting what I just wrote and attacking that misinterpretation now.

Go.


Poster Comment:

I'll reiterate Scott's point: regardless of the truth or falsity of Intelligent Design, the debate around it and the reasons given for excluding it's discussion in schools are not credible.

Further, given that "Intelligent Design" largely encompasses negative arguments disproving aspects of "Darwinian Evolutionary Theory" (for lack of a better term) which theory has never been proven and itself lacks proof of its essential affirmative arguments, then arguably neither paradigm constitutes "science" as scientists normally define the term.

And therein lies the silliness of some of the debate. ID to-date remains an exericise in proving a negative, while DET has been essentially disproven for lack of evidence. Yet the debate over whether either constitutes "science" rages on in absurdity.

For the record, lest anyone be confused, I do not believe the universe and life evolved by chance. There is an intelligent Designer - a Creator God. But while I believe that, classical "science" has yet to prove or disprove God's causitive intervention in creation, and hence ID is not "science". But then not being "science" doesn't disprove it either.

You are now returned to the thought experiment:

Should teachers be allowed to tell science students about the lightning messages? Subscribe to *Bereans*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

Scott's earlier point:

Intelligent Design, Part 1

To me, the most fascinating aspect of the debate over Darwinism versus Intelligent Design is that neither side understands the other side's argument. Better yet, no one seems to understand their own side's argument. But that doesn't stop anyone from having a passionate opinion.

I've been doing lots of reading on the subject, trying to gather comic fodder. I fully expected to validate my preconceived notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of credible evidence and the Intelligent Design folks were creationist kooks disguising themselves as scientists. That's the way the media paints it. I had no reason to believe otherwise. The truth is a lot more interesting. Allow me to set you straight. (Note: I'm not a believer in Intelligent Design, Creationism, Darwinism, free will, non-monetary compensation, or anything else I can't eat if I try hard enough.)

First of all, you'd be hard pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design, of the sort that you could use to form your own opinion. I can't find one, and I've looked. What you have instead is each side misrepresenting the other's position and then making a good argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong. (If you don't believe me, just watch the comments I get to this post.)

To make things more complicated, both sides have good and bad arguments lumped into them. If you make a good argument on your side, I respond by attacking your bad argument instead. If it were a debate contest, both sides would lose.

For example, Darwinists often argue that Intelligent Design can't be true because we know the earth is over 10,000 years old. That would be a great argument, supported by every relevant branch of science, except that it has nothing to do with Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design accepts an old earth and even accepts the fact that species probably evolved. They only question the "how." Creationists have jumped on that bandwagon as a way to poke holes in Darwinism. The Creationists and the Intelligent Design folks have the same target (Darwin), but they don't have the same argument. The average person who has a strong opinion on this topic doesn't understand that distinction because the political agenda of the creationists makes things murky.

On the other side, Intelligent Design advocates point out a number of flaws in the textbooks that teach Darwinism. Apparently both sides of the debate acknowledge that the evidence for evolution is sometimes overstated or distorted in the service of making it simpler to teach. If you add to that the outright errors (acknowledged by both sides), the history of fossil frauds, the subjectivity of classifying fossils, and the fact that all of the human-like fossils ever found can fit inside a small box, you have lots of easy targets for the opponents. (Relax. I'm not saying Darwinism is wrong. I'm saying both sides have lots of easy targets.)

The other problem for people like me is that the "good" arguments on both sides are too complicated for me to understand. My fallback position in situations like this has always been to trust the experts - the scientists - of which more than 90%+ are sure that Darwin got it right.

The Intelligent Design people have a not-so-kooky argument against the idea of trusting 90%+ of scientists. They point out that evolution is supported by different branches of science (paleontologists, microbiologists, etc.) and those folks are specialists who only understand their own field. That's no problem, you think, because each scientist validates Darwinism from his or her own specialty, then they all compare notes, and everything fits. Right?

Here's where it gets interesting. The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the "good stuff."

Is that possible? I have no way of knowing.

But let me give you a little analogy. One time in my corporate career I was assigned to lead a project to build a 10 million dollar technology laboratory. The project was based on the fact that "hundreds of our customers" wanted a place to test our technology before buying our products. I interviewed several managers who told me the same thing. Months into the project, I discovered that there was in fact only one customer who had once asked for that service, and he had been satisfied with another solution. The story of that one customer had been told and retold until everyone believed that someone else had direct knowledge of the hundreds of customers in need. If you guessed that we immediately stopped the project, you've never worked in a big company. We just changed our "reasons" and continued until funding got cut for unrelated budget reasons.

I'd be surprised if 90%+ of scientists are wrong about the evidence for Darwinism. But if you think it's impossible, you've lived a sheltered life.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2005-11-27   21:08:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Starwind (#0)

Should teachers be allowed to tell science students about the lightning messages?

Yes, all information should be *allowed*.

Pink Houses

christine  posted on  2005-11-27   21:19:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]