Intelligent Design

[Quantas]

Old article but really sums up the tedious and redundant arguments of intelligent design.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300-new-legal-threat-to-school-science-in-the-us.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref

"We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue," says Gene Mills.

Wonderful..... Lets just all make up fictitous stories and present them as the "other side" of scientific theory. A venomous spider named Vramouk controls everything and does what he wants with the universe so I really wish that you scientists would stop trying to figure stuff out using "evidence" and "experimentation" just listen to me because I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.............sigh

In any case I just wanted to see if anyone had info on any more recent legal or political battles on this issue. I thought this was over in the 40's with the Scopes trial , but ID'ers seem to be gaining momentum as this issue is being included in the conservative agenda.

[HenrikOlsen]

We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue," says Gene Mills.
The egregious fallacy in that statement is the unstated assumption that there are only two sides.

[closetgeek]

Old article but really sums up the tedious and redundant arguments of intelligent design.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300-new-legal-threat-to-school-science-in-the-us.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref

"We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue," says Gene Mills.

Wonderful..... Lets just all make up fictitous stories and present them as the "other side" of scientific theory. A venomous spider named Vramouk controls everything and does what he wants with the universe so I really wish that you scientists would stop trying to figure stuff out using "evidence" and "experimentation" just listen to me because I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about.............sigh

In any case I just wanted to see if anyone had info on any more recent legal or political battles on this issue. I thought this was over in the 40's with the Scopes trial , but ID'ers seem to be gaining momentum as this issue is being included in the conservative agenda.

Well it was over back when it was creationism, now it's intelligent design. In fear of breaking the board rules, I will just keep it at; produce some supportive evidence and we can call it science, until then, keep it in philosophy.

[Fazor]

I don't follow the ID/Creationism/Evo threads here much, but I can tell you that there's a handfull of long threads with good discussion on the topic in the General Science section. You can try a search to find them...might have some good information for you, or just browse the Gen Sci area...I think a few are fairly recent and should be on the first couple pages.

[Trebuchet]

The egregious fallacy in that statement is the unstated assumption that there are only two sides.

Actually the egregious fallacy is the assumption that, scientifically, there is more than ONE side. There are only two sides or more sides to this discussion when it is based on faith or politics.

[Fazor]

Actually the egregious fallacy is the assumption that, scientifically, there is more than ONE side. There are only two sides or more sides to this discussion when it is based on faith or politics.

Ah, touché.

[sarongsong]

Old article...sigh...Oh (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=mmf&q=%22intelligent+design%22+site%3Abautforum.com&btnG=Search). :rolleyes:

[mugaliens]

Old article but really sums up the tedious and redundant arguments of intelligent design.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300-new-legal-threat-to-school-science-in-the-us.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref

"We believe that to teach young people critical thinking skills you have to give them both sides of an issue," says Gene Mills.

Wonderful..... Lets just all make up fictitous stories and present them as the "other side" of scientific theory.

Actually, this approach is similar to what's being talked about on another thread, dealing with a form of teaching which helps math students to develop and use proofs to really understand the fundamentals as to why formula so-and-so holds true.


A venomous spider named Vramouk controls everything...

You see, there's where you lost me, as, although it's pronounced as an "ow," Dr. V (as we called him) didn't rate the fancy European "ou" spelling. Thus, his real name is simply "Vramowk." With his reduction in rank, and spelling, comes a commensurate reduction in distinction, which is why we can't even call him "venomous." In fact, he barely rates the term "spider."

And technically, although he has eight legs, he's not really a spider, either. Here's his high-school class photo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Waterbear.jpg

[HenrikOlsen]

Tardigrades are cute.

[thorkil2]

The egregious fallacy in that statement is the unstated assumption that there are only two sides.

I have long maintained that is typical creationist/intelligent design slight-of-hand reasoning: Establish your argument with the premise that there are only two sides, then riducule the one you don't like. Given the reasoning abilities of the common man, it's been a remarkably successful ploy.

[TrAI]

The egregious fallacy in that statement is the unstated assumption that there are only two sides.

Well, it is a binary issue, either the universe is created by an intelligent creator or it is not. The problem is that the ID people are trying to push a spesific view on the attributes of the possible creator by trying to veil it as a real alternative.


Actually the egregious fallacy is the assumption that, scientifically, there is more than ONE side. There are only two sides or more sides to this discussion when it is based on faith or politics.

Basicaly you are correct, there is only one non-faith based view, and that is that we do not have sufficient data to come to a conclusion. We might never have, since the cause for space-time comming into existance is likely to be outside it, and so, quite possibly not accessable for study.

[slang]

In any case I just wanted to see if anyone had info on any more recent legal or political battles on this issue.

If you want to keep track of things bookmark http://pandasthumb.org and visit it regularly. It's a nice resource, and they have plenty links to other useful sites.