Intelligent Design - Teach The Controversy

[H3LL]

As Intelligent Design thrusts ahead with startling evidence we put together the current requirements to Teach The Controversy in science class.

This is in no way meant to be a definitive guide but will positively expand science education in our schools and leave sufficient time for, say, a short daily prayer session in the average school's week.

One whole half-hour period per term should be set aside to discuss the merits of bananas, the amazing fact that there are still monkeys and that watches don't breed quite like they should do.

Critics have argued that this will leave little time for mundane subjects such a the 3 R's or history, but fail to appreciate the massive increase in religious revenue (the industry for the new millennium).



TEACH THE CONTROVERSY CURRICULUM SUGGESTIONS

INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS IN BRIEF:


Vahiguru planned for a really, really long time in darkness and then came up with busting an egg to make everything.

Mbombo vomits all creation into existence following a bad stomach ache.

The Maasai have all people descended from the first three fathers made from sticks.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva give us no beginning whatsoever. Probably best to skip quickly past this one along with Jainism and Ptah.

Inktomi, a spider, cause a rift between the sun and the moon, making the Earth in between. He scuttled off to the underworld to fetch mankind and let them know how great it was up above.

The four divisions of Mangala who started creation with a seed, didn't like it so Etch-a-Sketched it and tried again. His dual-sexed twins were not gay.

The 7,000 coils of Damballah who married a rainbow. We can get some good opportunities for geography lessons with this one.

Obatala's umbilical-chord, rooster, iron and palm kernel give us an interesting start to everything.

People and cattle (do we need more) were created in the beginning by Unkulunkulu.

Buddha is rather vague but opens up endless possibilities.

Kamui behind a giant metal wall created the world as huge, round ocean resting on the back of a giant trout. As we know, people were made from earth, hair of chickweed, and spines made from sticks of willow.

Whatever was thought of by Tepeu and Gucamatz came into being. Short, simple and to the point.

A water beetle, Dayuni'si, was disappointed that there was no land so explored below the water (all there was), found some mud and made the land.

An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga did all the creating stuff and threw some kings down to make cities. They rather cleverly threw in a world flood to add some excitement.

Ra rose from an egg to create everything. The old egg tale gets a bit stale so you might want to go with the alternative blue lotus beginning.

Con Tiqui Viracocha rose out of Lake Titicaca bringing people with him and the went about doing the sun, the moon and the stars. He made some more people, including pre-pregnant women, from some rocks.

The Hmong know that the Earth was once all dead apart from a brother and sister hiding in a drum. We owe our existence to disregard for incest conventions.

Marduk, a clever negotiator, gets the top job by destroying Tiamat and making the world from the bits left over. Her husband, Kingu, supplied the blood to make people to work for the gods as they're all tired out and resting from the scrap.

JoMulJu created everything in the universe. People are from a bear that had remarkable control of hunger pains; unlike tigers.

Ahura Mazda (nothing to do with cars) made 16 lands to start everything off. Angra Mainyu tried to spoil everything and created all the horrible stuff like hair left in shower plug-holes etc.

One of the more accurate accounts is from the Mansi where two loons grew the Earth from some crap they found at the bottom of the ocean. sadly, people are the rather dull clay figurines chestnut.

The persuasive techniques of Udan got everything started. Unfortunately the 99 golden column holding up the sky are rather hard to find. Scientific expeditions to look have been proposed.

Coatlique had sex with obsidian knives and balls of feathers to create all sorts of trouble and fighting between her children. We got creation in the end so it ended happily.

The three suns that baked and hardened the, then liquid, Earth led Hadau to shoot two down just at the right time. Lucky us.

A raven found men in a clam and women in a chiton. Amused by what they got up to, he looks after us all thereafter.

The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami stirred the ocean with a spear and made the land from salt. It all gets a bit fuzzy from there as everything "just is".

The mother of Ten Thousand Things, the void Tao, gives us the, rather wonderful, Cosmic Egg.

Gaea, Tartarus, Eros, Nyx and Erebus boing out of Chaos to give is everything.

In the gap between fire and ice we got Eiter, which formed the bodies of the hermaphrodite giant Ymir and the cow Auðumbla, which, despite there being no bull gave milk to Ymir. Well sustained Ynir started construction.

The breaking of a giant egg gave us the heavens and the Earth and a place for Väinämöinen, the offspring of air and sea and the first person.

Creating the world and the first people from a lonely masturbation by Atum might make for some uncomfortable explanations for younger children. Remember thought that this is science and facts are facts.

We have good old Genesis for any of the Abrahamic gods. A large subject that we suggest has several weeks of intensive study.

Not very original but Esaugetuh Emissee created people from mud on the only hill.

The Earth always existed but was a desolate plain populated by dormant supernatural beings until the Dream Time.

We at the Creation Indoctrination Institute and the Campaign for Understanding Natural Truth in Science invite further additions and comments to Teach The Controversy.

Thank you.

[vitamin]

My nose just started bleeding.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Can we teach that Dead Cthulhu really does wait dreaming in R'lyeh? Or that the birth of Slaanesh from the lusts and desires of Eldar pleasure cults really did massacre the dominant empire in the Milky-Way Galaxy and tore a hole causing the material and immaterial universe of that portion to overlap? They sound equally plausible. :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why. Why. Those are all so eminently reasonable. Where should we start? And don't forget that in these Politically Correct Times they all must be considered equally because we must not offend anyone's beliefs.

A pox on them all. :mad:

What better Idea could there be? Except to assign Darwin's Origin of Species as reading material and let the kiddies make up their own minds?

[FireGarden]

My nose just started bleeding.

You and your nose!
Before that, no-one bled.

[bwinwright]

As Intelligent Design thrusts ahead with startling evidence we put together the current requirements to Teach The Controversy in science class.

This is in no way meant to be a definitive guide but will positively expand science education in our schools and leave sufficient time for, say, a short daily prayer session in the average school's week.

One whole half-hour period per term should be set aside to discuss the merits of bananas, the amazing fact that there are still monkeys and that watches don't breed quite like they should do.

Critics have argued that this will leave little time for mundane subjects such a the 3 R's or history, but fail to appreciate the massive increase in religious revenue (the industry for the new millennium).



TEACH THE CONTROVERSY CURRICULUM SUGGESTIONS

INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS IN BRIEF:


Vahiguru planned for a really, really long time in darkness and then came up with busting an egg to make everything.

Mbombo vomits all creation into existence following a bad stomach ache.

The Maasai have all people descended from the first three fathers made from sticks.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva give us no beginning whatsoever. Probably best to skip quickly past this one along with Jainism and Ptah.

Inktomi, a spider, cause a rift between the sun and the moon, making the Earth in between. He scuttled off to the underworld to fetch mankind and let them know how great it was up above.

The four divisions of Mangala who started creation with a seed, didn't like it so Etch-a-Sketched it and tried again. His dual-sexed twins were not gay.

The 7,000 coils of Damballah who married a rainbow. We can get some good opportunities for geography lessons with this one.

Obatala's umbilical-chord, rooster, iron and palm kernel give us an interesting start to everything.

People and cattle (do we need more) were created in the beginning by Unkulunkulu.

Buddha is rather vague but opens up endless possibilities.

Kamui behind a giant metal wall created the world as huge, round ocean resting on the back of a giant trout. As we know, people were made from earth, hair of chickweed, and spines made from sticks of willow.

Whatever was thought of by Tepeu and Gucamatz came into being. Short, simple and to the point.

A water beetle, Dayuni'si, was disappointed that there was no land so explored below the water (all there was), found some mud and made the land.

An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga did all the creating stuff and threw some kings down to make cities. They rather cleverly threw in a world flood to add some excitement.

Ra rose from an egg to create everything. The old egg tale gets a bit stale so you might want to go with the alternative blue lotus beginning.

Con Tiqui Viracocha rose out of Lake Titicaca bringing people with him and the went about doing the sun, the moon and the stars. He made some more people, including pre-pregnant women, from some rocks.

The Hmong know that the Earth was once all dead apart from a brother and sister hiding in a drum. We owe our existence to disregard for incest conventions.

Marduk, a clever negotiator, gets the top job by destroying Tiamat and making the world from the bits left over. Her husband, Kingu, supplied the blood to make people to work for the gods as they're all tired out and resting from the scrap.

JoMulJu created everything in the universe. People are from a bear that had remarkable control of hunger pains; unlike tigers.

Ahura Mazda (nothing to do with cars) made 16 lands to start everything off. Angra Mainyu tried to spoil everything and created all the horrible stuff like hair left in shower plug-holes etc.

One of the more accurate accounts is from the Mansi where two loons grew the Earth from some crap they found at the bottom of the ocean. sadly, people are the rather dull clay figurines chestnut.

The persuasive techniques of Udan got everything started. Unfortunately the 99 golden column holding up the sky are rather hard to find. Scientific expeditions to look have been proposed.

Coatlique had sex with obsidian knives and balls of feathers to create all sorts of trouble and fighting between her children. We got creation in the end so it ended happily.

The three suns that baked and hardened the, then liquid, Earth led Hadau to shoot two down just at the right time. Lucky us.

A raven found men in a clam and women in a chiton. Amused by what they got up to, he looks after us all thereafter.

The god Izanagi and goddess Izanami stirred the ocean with a spear and made the land from salt. It all gets a bit fuzzy from there as everything "just is".

The mother of Ten Thousand Things, the void Tao, gives us the, rather wonderful, Cosmic Egg.

Gaea, Tartarus, Eros, Nyx and Erebus boing out of Chaos to give is everything.

In the gap between fire and ice we got Eiter, which formed the bodies of the hermaphrodite giant Ymir and the cow Auðumbla, which, despite there being no bull gave milk to Ymir. Well sustained Ynir started construction.

The breaking of a giant egg gave us the heavens and the Earth and a place for Väinämöinen, the offspring of air and sea and the first person.

Creating the world and the first people from a lonely masturbation by Atum might make for some uncomfortable explanations for younger children. Remember thought that this is science and facts are facts.

We have good old Genesis for any of the Abrahamic gods. A large subject that we suggest has several weeks of intensive study.

Not very original but Esaugetuh Emissee created people from mud on the only hill.

The Earth always existed but was a desolate plain populated by dormant supernatural beings until the Dream Time.

We at the Creation Indoctrination Institute and the Campaign for Understanding Natural Truth in Science invite further additions and comments to Teach The Controversy.

Thank you.

:DH3LL, I love this. In my opinion, you are a Superstar! All of these various cultures, religions, belief systems, wow, you did a great job. How did it all get started? The Big Bang? Even the brightest minds can only guess about all this, right?

I still can't get anyone from the "non-intelligence", mechanistic/materialistic evolution side of the argument to give me a reasonable explanation for their belief that such things as DNA didn't require any intelligent direction?

I don't care about all the organized religions, government education policies, etc. I'm not even asking anyone to classify this directing form of intelligence as God. Just tell me why ORDER doesn't require intelligent direction.

The reason people use the example of a dis-assembled wrist watch reassembling itself, without intelligent direction is because it points out the insanity of the evolution without intelligent direction argument.

I bless you with love and joy.

[paximperium]

:DH3LL, I love this. In my opinion, you are a Superstar! All of these various cultures, religions, belief systems, wow, you did a great job. How did it all get started? The Big Bang? Even the brightest minds can only guess about all this, right?
No. It is based on evidence.


I still can't get anyone from the "non-intelligence", mechanistic/materialistic evolution side of the argument to give me a reasonable explanation for their belief that such things as DNA didn't require any intelligent direction?
Due to energy, mutations and natural selection.


I don't care about all the organized religions, government education policies, etc. I'm not even asking anyone to classify this directing form of intelligence as God. Just tell me why ORDER doesn't require intelligent direction.
No. You first.
Why don't you tell us, as has been asked multiple times, WHY DOES ORDER REQUIRE INTELLIGENCE?


The reason people use the example of a dis-assembled wrist watch reassembling itself, without intelligent direction is because it points out the insanity of the evolution without intelligent direction argument.

...and it continues to prove how inane and pathetic your arguments are. Please tell us how a wrist watch is analogous to anything in nature?


I bless you with love and joy.
You are a liar and your statement is therefore useless.

[Robin]

Just tell me why ORDER doesn't require intelligent direction.
Just tell me why intelligent direction doesn't require order.

Not that I am holding my breath.

[paximperium]

The Resurrection of the infamous:
The BWINWRIGHT UNANSWERED QUESTION (DODGE) LIST:
1) Justify and explain why order requires intelligence? Provide a mathematical proof or evidence to support his assertion.
2) Describe and explain the mechanism for how "god" directs ID or evidence for ID.
3) How exactly is natural selection intelligently guided? If it's THE controversial point, it's something we should know.
4) Name at least one observed instance of the design process in action.
5) Propose a way in which intelligent design can be experimentally tested and is falsifiable.
6)Show us how I.D. can be applied to real scientific problems, to help us understand or resolve them, in more precise detail; such as treating diseases, saving wild animals, or increasing farming yeilds.
7)When two advocates of Intelligent Design disagree on a point, e.g. who the designer is, how do they settle that disagreement?

To everyone else, please feel free to add to this list.

[FireGarden]

I still can't get anyone from the "non-intelligence", mechanistic/materialistic evolution side of the argument to give me a reasonable explanation for their belief that such things as DNA didn't require any intelligent direction?

[...] Just tell me why ORDER doesn't require intelligent direction.

What you describe as order is what Douglas Adams recognised as something which, having happened, caused itself to happen again. Imagine a lot of these somethings -- all of which, having happened, cause themselves (or something similar) to happen again. Some will be better at causing themselves to happen again and so will happen again more often. Then, having happened again, they will (again) cause themselves to happen again.

With all this repetition going on, a pattern seems to emerge. A thing is seen, then it is seen again.

etc.

[Ladewig]

The reason people use the example of a dis-assembled wrist watch reassembling itself, without intelligent direction is because it points out the insanity of the evolution without intelligent direction argument.

I bless you with love and joy.

I couldn't help notice that your post was a bit off topic. Please describe what you would want to be taught in public school science classes to modify (or replace) the current curriculum?

[Cavemonster]

I'm wondering if everyone here has seen these wonderful "Teach the Controversy" shirts.
http://controversy.wearscience.com/

[Sunstealer]

<Snip> Campaign for Understanding Natural Truth in Science invite further additions and comments to Teach The Controversy.

Thank you.Priceless!

[Twiler]

Once there was a place, and time passed, and stuff happened. A race of creatures called humans were part of this stuff. They observed patterns in space-time, and used them to improve their existence. They tried to fit everything into a universal pattern, and had a dream of 'order'.

They were idiots.

If a divine being knocks over a tree in a forest, who cares? Reality is what we perceive.

[Wowbagger]

Just tell me why ORDER doesn't require intelligent direction. Because the appearence of order could also be the emergent property of completely natural processes and algorithms.

Do you believe snow flakes require intelligent intervention to lock into the patterns that they do?

[Wowbagger]

Why isn't the Great Green Arkleseizure on the list? The people of Viltvodle VI believe this was the entity responsible for sneezing out the entire Universe. That is why they still live in fear of the time they call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief".

[Brian-M]

Whenever I hear "teach the controversy" about evolution, I always think of Lamarkism.

After all, unlike "Intelligent" design it was an actual scientific theory of evolution which produced testable predictions and was falsifiable. Consequently, teaching Lamarkian theory in science class would make more sense than teaching the "Intelligent" design hypothesis.

[TMiguel]

I personally prefer the "Discworld" point of view, more consistent whit earth being flat, and that "Things just happen What the Hell".

[Myriad]

Don't forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster who originated the universe by creating a mountain, trees, and a midgit (sic).

I have met Pastafarians who take it seriously. So, this definitely has to be part of teaching the controversy.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[H3LL]

I wonder if someone in this thread hasn't seen many of my posts before.

:D

My fingers were itching to get both the Great Green Arkleseizure and Discworld on the list but we all know that they are fictional - Unlike the rest.

Mbombo and Kamui are more than adequate real life replacements.

:p

.

[plumjam]

Amusing. The problem is that you could use the same rationale to ensure that only one side of the argument - naturally, your side - was allowed to be presented in any particular context.
Furthermore, none of the above examples AFAIK are objects of substantial controversy in our culture at this time; whereas evolution/ID certainly are. The fact that you started a thread about it is a pointer.

[TMiguel]

I wonder if someone in this thread hasn't seen many of my posts before.

:D

My fingers were itching to get both the Great Green Arkleseizure and Discworld on the list but we all know that they are fictional - Unlike the rest.

Mbombo and Kamui are more than adequate real life replacements.

:p

.
:D

I'm also a great fan of Terry Pratchett Discworld novels and the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, you didn't taught you where actually the only one?

(ok going of topic here, never mind me carry on)

[Silentknight]

We at the Creation Indoctrination Institute and the Campaign for Understanding Natural Truth in Science invite further additions and comments to Teach The Controversy.

Thank you.

I've heard they've been in frequent contact with the Psychic Research Institute of Clairvoyance and Kinetics. But is it just me, or do they also bear a striking resemblance to that doomsday group known as the Testament of World Apocalyptic Truths?

[KingMerv00]

Furthermore, none of the above examples AFAIK are objects of substantial controversy in our culture at this time; whereas evolution/ID certainly are. The fact that you started a thread about it is a pointer.

A small number of ignorant people are shouting their irrelevant talking points but there is no real controversy.

[UnrepentantSinner]

One problem with the list and suggestions is that most of these examples are not ID per se, but are examples of fiat/instant Creationism. ID can incorporate evolution as part of a progressive Creationism... as well as supposedly be evidence a fiat Creation.

[plumjam]

A small number of ignorant people are shouting their irrelevant talking points but there is no real controversy.

Your self-deprecation is admirable.

[Foster Zygote]

Your self-deprecation is admirable.

Did anyone not see that joke coming from a mile off?

[KingMerv00]

Did anyone not see that joke coming from a mile off?

More like a parsec.

Can't say I blame him. If he doesn't laugh, he'll cry. His side of the "controversy":


http://www.jxflagg.com/images/banana.jpg

http://steinbring.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/athiestpeanutbutter0327.JPG
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/Primate_bucket/crocoduck.jpg

[paximperium]

Did anyone not see that joke coming from a mile off?

That was a joke? Oh wait, its plumjam, nevermind.

[paximperium]

More like a parsec.

Can't say I blame him. If he doesn't laugh, he'll cry. His side of the "controversy":


http://www.jxflagg.com/images/banana.jpg

http://steinbring.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/athiestpeanutbutter0327.JPG
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/Primate_bucket/crocoduck.jpg

Arrrgh...the holy trinity weapons that destroys evolution and atheists:
The Banana, a jar of peanut butter and the almighty crocoduck!!!

[Tumblehome]

Furthermore, none of the above examples AFAIK are objects of substantial controversy in our culture at this time; whereas evolution/ID certainly are. The fact that you started a thread about it is a pointer.


"Intelligent Design -- Create A Controversy To Make It Seem Real For The Gullible"

[Achán hiNidráne]

Your self-deprecation is admirable.

Ummmm... Between yourself and KingMerv, he's not the one who thinks that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who magically "poofed" all life into existance.

[devnull]

I agree with plumjam.










we really should ignore these IDiots completely.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Arrrgh...the holy trinity weapons that destroys evolution and atheists

Actually, it's three reasons why the mentally incompetent need to be institutionalized.

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

For there are other gods than Thang...

[H3LL]

I'm also a great fan of Terry Pratchett Discworld novels ..... you didn't taught you where actually the only one?


I might have touched on the subject before.

The Terry Pratchett Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90303)

Sig is a clue, too.

:p


.

[H3LL]

Amusing. The problem is that you could use the same rationale to ensure that only one side of the argument - naturally, your side - was allowed to be presented in any particular context.

How so? Explain please.


Furthermore, none of the above examples AFAIK are objects of substantial controversy in our culture at this time; whereas evolution/ID certainly are. The fact that you started a thread about it is a pointer.

Surely, if there is an Intelligent Designer I have listed some great candidates?

Are you saying that the we should just accept ID without any question as to who/what the designer actually is?

Are you just annoyed that it allows discussion about deities other than your personal favourite god/zombie?

What is it about the possible designers I have listed that you dislike?

Which ones are unacceptable to you and why?

I'd love answers to those questions ... Will I get any from you?

Thanks.

.

[plumjam]

How so? Explain please.
It's pretty simple. If I want to make sure that only one side of a particular argument gets a fair hearing I could choose to do what you did, which is:
associate the counter argument with position/s which are widely currently perceived as, variously: defunct, highly unpopular, recondite, cutesy/amusing, superstitious, exotic, immoral, quaintly primitive etc..

To create an example in politics: say I believe in liberal democracy as the best political system, to such an extent that I want to quash any consideration of alternative systems. Using your fallacious rationale I could then associate any newly proposed political system with the likes of National Socialism, Stalinism, Pol Pot's return to year dot, Italian fascism, Iranian-style theocracy, absolute monarchy, various tribal political systems etc etc..
"WHAT!? A new political system? You mean like those? You must be kidding! *snigger snigger*."



Are you saying that the we should just accept ID without any question as to who/what the designer actually is?
no

Are you just annoyed that it allows discussion about deities other than your personal favourite god/zombie?
no

What is it about the possible designers I have listed that you dislike?

Which ones are unacceptable to you and why?
Huh? So you want a Michelin guidebook style rating system or something?
What I mildly dislike is your rather dishonest and pretty laughable tactic in the OP, for reasons I've already explained.
As to the relative merits/demerits of each of those particular belief systems compared to mine or your own.. well I don't have a spare couple of days to answer that one; sorry. Of course, a couple of days is pretty optimistic; such a task would probably take years of study in the humanities.

[Mashuna]

It's pretty simple. If I want to make sure that only one side of a particular argument gets a fair hearing I could choose to do what you did, which is:
associate the counter argument with position/s which are widely currently perceived as, variously: defunct, highly unpopular, recondite, cutesy/amusing, superstitious, exotic, immoral, quaintly primitive etc..



Although as Intelligent Design is both superstitious and quaitly primitive, it would seem a reasonable analogy.

[devnull]

defunct, highly unpopular, recondite, cutesy/amusing, superstitious, exotic, immoral, quaintly primitive etc..


You're right, that pretty much sums up all the design theories listed.

thanks

[H3LL]

Thanks PlumJam.


Are you just annoyed that it allows discussion about deities other than your personal favourite god/zombie?.

I take it that among the weasel dancing and the straw men it was a yes.

.

[Scazon]

I agree with Plum Crazy. Wherever nettles grow, dock leaves, the only known antidote, are sure to be somewhere nearby. Surely this could not have happened purely by chance?

My intention is to research Intelligent Design, ascertain the identity of the designer, and to sue the bastard for incompetence.

[Dave Rogers]

It's pretty simple. If I want to make sure that only one side of a particular argument gets a fair hearing I could choose to do what you did, which is:
associate the counter argument with position/s which are widely currently perceived as, variously: defunct, highly unpopular, recondite, cutesy/amusing, superstitious, exotic, immoral, quaintly primitive etc..

To create an example in politics: say I believe in liberal democracy as the best political system, to such an extent that I want to quash any consideration of alternative systems. Using your fallacious rationale I could then associate any newly proposed political system with the likes of National Socialism, Stalinism, Pol Pot's return to year dot, Italian fascism, Iranian-style theocracy, absolute monarchy, various tribal political systems etc etc..

A reasonable counter to this, then, would be to point out that there are other political systems than liberal democracy that are equally capable of creating good quality of life for those living under them, and list these alternative systems. Would you care, therefore, to list creation myths that are current, highly popular, accessible, serious, evidence-based, familiar, moral and impressively progressive?

Dave

[plumjam]

Thanks PlumJam.



I take it that among the weasel dancing and the straw men it was a yes.

.

What weasel dancing and straw men would those be?
And no, it was a no.
Pretty rude of you, H3LL.. you're usually quite a bit better behaved.
And I notice you ignored the bulk of my post. Did I getcha? ;)

[plumjam]

A reasonable counter to this, then, would be to point out that there are other political systems than liberal democracy that are equally capable of creating good quality of life for those living under them, and list these alternative systems. Would you care, therefore, to list creation myths that are current, highly popular, accessible, serious, evidence-based, familiar, moral and impressively progressive?

Dave

see the OP title

[Pardalis]

And I notice you ignored the bulk of my post.

You're confusing "bulk" with "bunk".

[plumjam]

You're confusing "bulk" with "bunk".
I'm guessing Great Grandpa was Oscar Wilde.

[Brian-M]

Are you saying that the we should just accept ID without any question as to who/what the designer actually is?

no

Ok then, let's consider the question. We have no evidence that gods exist or can exist. We do have ample evidence that biological beings can and do exist. Therefore, the rational conclusion is that we should assume that the Intelligent Designer(s) were biological entities, until we find evidence to the contrary.

In other words, ID implies we were created by aliens from outer space. :)

Regardless of who you think the designer is, ID cannot be regarded a scientific theory until it begins making testable predictions. The only prediction ID makes is that some organisms (or parts of organisms) could not have been produced by evolution.

Unfortunately, this cannot be tested because ID researchers have not come up with any way to distinguish between organic structures which were designed, and organic structures produced by unknown evolutionary stages.

When ID starts making testable predictions, and starts producing clear unambiguous results, we'll start taking it seriously. Until then, we'll treat it with the disrespect that any thinly veiled "God Did It" argument deserves. :p

[Pardalis]

I'm guessing Great Grandpa was Oscar Wilde.

It would still be more plausible than a "virgin" birth.

[plumjam]

It would still be more plausible than a "virgin" birth.

:confused:

[Silentknight]

More like a parsec.

Can't say I blame him. If he doesn't laugh, he'll cry. His side of the "controversy":


http://www.jxflagg.com/images/banana.jpg
http://steinbring.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/athiestpeanutbutter0327.JPG
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa144/Primate_bucket/crocoduck.jpg

Arrrgh...the holy trinity weapons that destroys evolution and atheists:
The Banana, a jar of peanut butter and the almighty crocoduck!!!
That just so happens to be a list of ingredients for one of my favorite Thanksgiving recipes, I'll have you know.

[slingblade]

Crockoduckanabutt?


Doesn't have quite the same ring as turducken. And the flavor...

[Mashuna]

A reasonable counter to this, then, would be to point out that there are other political systems than liberal democracy that are equally capable of creating good quality of life for those living under them, and list these alternative systems. Would you care, therefore, to list creation myths that are current, highly popular, accessible, serious, evidence-based, familiar, moral and impressively progressive?

Dave

see the OP title

The OP title being Intelligent Design? Well, you're partly right. I mean, obviously it's not moral, evidence based or impressively progressive. It's certainly current, highly popular (in certain areas), familiar and accessible, traits it shares with American Idol. It claims to be serious, but I still think it's all some kind of elaborate prank. I can't believe anyone really thinks it's true.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

:confused:

:confused:? Of course you are. But we all knew that.

[schlitt]

It's pretty simple. If I want to make sure that only one side of a particular argument gets a fair hearing I could choose to do what you did, which is:
associate the counter argument with position/s which are widely currently perceived as, variously: defunct, highly unpopular, recondite, cutesy/amusing, superstitious, exotic, immoral, quaintly primitive etc..



PJ, I agree to a certain extent with what you are attempting to point out, however I think you are skipping past the point that there is a certain amount of validity in the sentiment that H3ll was trying to portray.

The majority of proponents of ID we are familiar with, are essentially among that list, just with varying detail.

Most would be along the lines of:
"Yahweh created the earth and heavens 6000 years ago in 7 days. He fashioned man out of clay and women out of a man's rib."

Also, you neglect to recognize that the beliefs in the list are or were sincerely believed by many people. Your view of them being "defunct, highly unpopular, recondite, cutesy/amusing, superstitious, exotic, immoral, quaintly primitive etc..", just goes to show that you apply the rigours of reason and scepticism to every other, but your own god.

[H3LL]

PJ, I agree to a certain extent with what you are attempting to point out, however I think you are skipping past the point that there is a certain amount of validity in the sentiment that H3ll was trying to portray.

The majority of proponents of ID we are familiar with, are essentially among that list, just with varying detail.

Most would be along the lines of:
"Yahweh created the earth and heavens 6000 years ago in 7 days. He fashioned man out of clay and women out of a man's rib."

Also, you neglect to recognize that the beliefs in the list are or were sincerely believed by many people. Your view of them being "defunct, highly unpopular, recondite, cutesy/amusing, superstitious, exotic, immoral, quaintly primitive etc..", just goes to show that you apply the rigours of reason and scepticism to every other, but your own god.

Nicely put, schlitt.

I think you've nailed the important assumption that is seems the ID/Creationist proponents are so narrow minded/focuses on their own, obviously true and real, sky fairy, that they fail to realise that, should they succeed - They all get a chance with "Teach the Controversy".

PlumJar seems unaware that he is reinforcing this assumption.

To "Teach the Controversy" fairly would leave no time for anything else.



I'm suspicious that if the list was dealt with in order their would be a howling, a wailing and a gnashing of teeth from vociferous Christians.


PS - schlitt, you forgot the talking snake and the flat Earth. ;)

.

[Ladewig]

To "Teach the Controversy" fairly would leave no time for anything else.


I don't follow your logic. A teacher could cover everything you listed in less than five minutes. Why would that not allow time for anything else?

[Dave Rogers]

A teacher could cover everything you listed in less than five minutes. Why would that not allow time for anything else?

Much less. I recall a Handelsman (I think) cartoon showing a maths teacher before a blackboard, saying,

"Many of you have urged that I teach that capitalist society is corrupt. Okay, here goes. Capitalist society is corrupt. Returning now to the question of congruent triangles..."

Dave

[H3LL]

I don't follow your logic. A teacher could cover everything you listed in less than five minutes. Why would that not allow time for anything else?

Fantastic idea.

That's about 10 seconds for each theology.

I would be the first to agree that 10 seconds in school (or an entire life) devoted to all the drivel in the bible is more than enough.

Well done.

.

[H3LL]

"God made everything, likes killing millions of people and pretending to be human. Currently incognito. Ignores prayers".

That about covers it in the time allowed.

Ladewig is definitely on to something ...

.

[Beerina]

My nose just started bleeding.


Here's the real controversy that should be taught:


Intelligent Design was a knowingly fraudulent facade for Creationism, as their own internal documents showed. Furthermore, insofar as it is a scientific theory that makes predictions (that irreducibly complex structures exist) these predictions are being shot down, one after the other, by science. ID, properly, should have very low confidence of the remaining "irreducibly complex" structures it lists as examples.

So:

1. Purpose of this "theory": fraud

2. Likely truth of the theory: low and dropping


Yet they still persist. Teach that controversy.

[Brian-M]

Furthermore, insofar as it is a scientific theory that makes predictions (that irreducibly complex structures exist) these predictions are being shot down, one after the other, by science.

Seeing how they have no method of distinguishing genuinely irreducibly complex structures from complex structures produced by unknown evolutionary stages, these predictions aren't even testable. None of their examples count as 'proof' of anything unless they can demonstrate that they could never have evolved.

So not only do they have no valid proof, they have no means of acquiring any. :)

[H3LL]

I wonder if Hitchens read my OP?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191400

Probably not.


:D


.

[sphenisc]

Seeing how they have no method of distinguishing genuinely irreducibly complex structures from complex structures produced by unknown evolutionary stages, these predictions aren't even testable. None of their examples count as 'proof' of anything unless they can demonstrate that they could never have evolved.

So not only do they have no valid proof, they have no means of acquiring any. :)

I take it the converse applies?

[Roboramma]

Seeing how they have no method of distinguishing genuinely irreducibly complex structures from complex structures produced by unknown evolutionary stages, these predictions aren't even testable. None of their examples count as 'proof' of anything unless they can demonstrate that they could never have evolved.

So not only do they have no valid proof, they have no means of acquiring any. :)

Moreover, showing that something couldn't have evolved by natural selection would not show that it came about through intelligent design. There may be other processes at work.
There are, in fact, some that we know about (ie. genetic drift), but could there be others we aren't aware of? Is it possible that some form of Lamarkian evolution takes place?

Those sorts of explanations would be much better than any supernatural, "I don't know how that happened, so it must have been god" answer.

The whole idea of ID is "if we don't know how it happened, we know how it happened."

[qayak]

I think every science teacher should teach the controversy. They should teach students exactly why intelligent design is so much ********* as they teach them the concepts of Evolution and they shouldn't pull any punches.

Teaching the controversy does not mean giving respect to such a hair brained idea as intelligent design.

[Bikewer]

I got a big "Encyclopedia of Mythology" for Xmas 2 years ago, and nearly all these myths were covered.
Of course, the Christians (et al) think THEIR myth is the right one.

[thaiboxerken]

I never agreed with the suggestion of "teach the children all theories and let them make up their own minds." This notion assumes that children have critical thinking skills, which is usually never taught in K-12. Perhaps we should teach children critical thinking first, and then talk about teaching "controversies." Until then, let's stick with teaching children facts.