Seattle Bubble

That's just crazy talk. CRAZY.

Are you a communist?

The is one of the calmest, most logical, and most insightful discussions I've ever read on the Internets. Thumbs up.

And we didn't even mention "you know know".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

In all seriousness, I think there is significant disagreement but within a civil and occasionally sarcastic/humorous framework. That's how I like my debates.

BTW, I thought we said "Interwebs" now, no?

Pipes. It's all pipes.

Yes, it was a very pleasurable discussion for me as well. Thanks all.

Ya wants we should fix that for ya? No? OK.

And dumptrucks.

I say we teach intelligent design and creationism in the schools and eliminate any discussion of evolution at all.

Then sit back and watch China, Russian and India wipe the floor with us in biotechnology...

Genetics and Evolution work to explain the world around us and economically those societies which embrace those theories will do better in the future. ID/Creationism is just intellectual masturbation which is an economic dead end after you get done with the book sales.

I don't remember who said this but I like it: Science is about how. Religion is about why.

'Course, both are just words, symbols that have slightly different meanings to different people. I find both Christianity AND science fascinating. Of course, only one of the two has the real answers I am looking for. The other is just a lot of fun.

If they answer completely different questions (non-overlapping questions in fact), does that mean you do not support the teaching of religion in school science courses? Even if the religion is thinly veiled as Intelligent Design?

No. It means I like that phrase. Don't troll me.

I really wasn't trolling. If you followed this particular thread, perhaps the main crux of the argument is what is valid to teach in schools. The majority of the people who oppose teaching ID only oppose it in the setting of a science class, because it is not science. In comparative religion, or 20th/21st century history classes they would find teaching about that topic to be reasonable.

Sorry if you thought this was trolling, but I really was serious.

I apologise. I had just gotten back from a terrible rehearsal, was sick of the same old tripe on the global warming thread, which I decided to abandon, and lashed out at you. Yea, for me that is what you would call lashing out.

I know you were not intentionally trolling me. However, I did not want to get sucked into the discussion other than to make a statement that I sincerely doubt any reasonable person would really disagree with, regardless of the side on which they fall with this issue.

Fact is, I have a very strong opinion on this whole thing but am very reticent about posting here. I have argued this stuff for approximately ten years on the internet and have found that most people have pretty much made up their minds on these sites. And once I realized I was not the equivalent of an op-ed writer being read by thousand or hundreds of thousands, but just part of a group of five or six guys talking around a water cooler, I stopped getting into it. It just did not warrant the time and effort.

A lot of guys really spewed a lot of vitriol at me as well, but that is like water off a ducks back for me. Nobody can insult me, except my wife, my pastor, my best friend, and God. Those are the only ones whose opinions I respect on the subject.

I will say this just to encapsulate my opinion: I am a firm believer in Creation. But most of what it is based on is not science. I also believe that the more we know, the more we know we don’t know. This again supports Creation. There really are valid irreducible complexity arguments as well. Those are also not science, however. But then, science is not God. Heck it isn't even music. It's just one of many of mans endeavors which has been given a label. And there are all sorts of "semi-scientific" things that can creep into the edges of the discipline. For science to do it's best, it must focus on events and observations. Period.

That is why some of the "observations" of ID are clearly not taboo. In fact, they are some of the most important points one can make in a science classroom to hold evolutionists feet to the fire. IOW, the way I see it, in the vein of “innocent until proven guilty”, I believe that the creation of life was in fact a creation event until proven otherwise. And the more we know, the less proof of “otherwise” there is, and the more subtle and complex life appears to truly be. Evolutionists are like a kid that thinks he has figured out how a rocket works when he flies his “water pressure rocket” over his house, while totally oblivious to the devil in the details of actually getting a real rocket to work. And yet even that grossly insults the complexity of life.

I am embarrassed by the statements of most “creationists” and “ID proponents”. But if I were an evolutionist, I’d be embarrassed by the statements of most of their more outspoken proponents as well. Most of the ones that are really doing the legwork are conspicuously silent in these sorts of debates. And those that do chime in end up looking like fools. It is because it is so specialized, many of these guys don’t know squat about things outside their particular area of study. A good example would be Richard Dawkins. He does not even know what he doesn’t know, but he is good at his day job…

The problem is the debate is centered around “which one” should be taught in science class. The answer is “neither”. What should be taught in science class is science. When one tries to analyze DNA from two similar creatures, it is completely reasonable to say, I think this shows a genetic link. It doesn’t mean you think one evolved from the other, nor does it mean you think they were merely created similar. It is a scientifically neutral statement. I could look at the door handle of a Dodge Neon and a Chrysler 300M and say they are identical - because they are, in fact, identical. It doesn’t mean I believe one evolved from the other, or that they came from the same sub-assembly plant. It is merely a “scientific observation”. It would then be reasonable to say it is possible they were designed that way. That is not a scientific statement, but that does not make it untrue. Nor is it irrelevant.

I have no problem with schools mentioning the full ID agenda. There is no proof against it. I have no problem with schools mentioning the full “evolution” agenda. As proof against it comes in, it merely changes to match the proof, as we know it at the time. But neither is science, so I would like both to be left out of discussions labeled as science. I would then like science classrooms to focus on actual science.

It is by no means ‘anti-science” to look at a strand of DNA and its function and say, “gee, this looks very suspiciously like a very well designed computer program.” Nor should saying such in ANY classroom be censored, unless one can prove it is untrue. Notice also that this is different from saying “DNA is obviously a very well designed computer program”, which is stating opinion as fact. And in those last six words lies the rub. Neither side should do that. Period. And if evolutionists think they are so smart, don’t worry; eventually they will prove it is true. Assuming it is provable/disprovable of course.

When the truth is on your side, there is really nothing to fear, in the long run.

This is a common error. Facts and observations are cheap. To say these are the primary, let alone the only valid aspect of science is to cheapen the entire field and a detriment to our future (if others agreed). Science is always about theories. Theories are the pinnacle of science. Make a trillion observations about falling objects, but the theory of gravity encompasses them all in one concise formula.



It's not my place to persuade you on this, but you cannot apply civil justice principals to scientific inquiry. In all science, the null hypothesis is the only valid starting hypothesis.



It depends on your timeline I guess. Societies expand and decline. It is entirely possible that a reversion towards fundamentalism in the USA could harm our children's children's children, but after a hundred years everything could turn out alright. I'd rather see us get it right now though.