Read the letter.. Oh, Okay -- he was protesting Kansas School Board, "Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution". I watched some Rachel Maddow video and she said it was Oregon College or something. <--- Regardless, I'm agnostic and don't buy into any of it. I have no problem with pastafarian or any ism being offered. As I said before, it's not science.
Hi, Shouldn't it be the swimming spaghetti monster? And I have to wonder - is it el dente? Cheers, Greg.
You're all overlooking the most important question. This newly discovered creature: What does it taste like?
I didn't miss what you said. But you didn't seem to understand the Intelligent Design controversy. No one objected to what they teach in church, or even in religious studies classes. Moving on... I'd say it's floating more than swimming.
Well now her you mention it.. What does it Taste like? To answer this question I say we all chip in and buy some submarine thing and go hunting! Who's with me!?
Just gonna jump in here and say one can be both religious and a scientist. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and most of the early scientists held deep spiritual beliefs. And I went to public school, where the science classes taught both evolution and intelligent design. Basically : "Here's what we know about evolution.... And the concept of intelligent design is....". Which I think was an excellent way to handle the issue. Present unbiased information on both sides and *gasp!* allow people to make their own decisions. A school's purpose is to educate, not indoctrinate. That being said, this creature is clearly the spawn of Cthulhu.
(bold is mine) And herein lies the problem. If they really presented an unbiased view of Intelligent Design did they include Michael Behe's failed hypothesis of irreducible complexity and discuss how his paper on the irreducible bacterial flagellum was disproved when genetics showed clearly the step by step path by which the flagella evolved? Did they include the fact that if there was evidence supporting the irreducible complexity hypothesis there would be no controversy because science is all about evidence supported hypotheses no matter what they show? And did they discuss the fact that failing to find any supporting evidence for the irreducible complexity hypothesis, (the key concept that is needed by the Intelligent Design theory), evolution deniers set about on a political campaign to force their unscientific version of Creationism into science classrooms in the US? I'm going to guess, no. Because presenting Intelligent Design is about religious beliefs and if one dares to point out it is a political not a scientific matter that would not be PC. What you call an unbiased presentation is by its nature is viewed as biased if one actually presents the unbiased evidence. That's part of the political campaign, claiming the evidence against Intelligent Design is biased. It's a bit of a Catch 22. If you present unbiased evidence, it is attacked as biased evidence because it doesn't support the ID supporter POV.
Sure, you can be a scientist and be religious. Most Ph.D. scientists I worked for in research were Christian, including the head of an evolutionary biology lab I worked in. When it comes to classrooms, however, a given class is restricted by subject matter. You don't teach cooking in math classes, not because cooking isn't a legitimate subject for any class, but because it doesn't belong in a math class. If you want to teach creationism or intelligent design in a philosophy class, or religion class, or maybe even look at those subjects in the context of sociology, that's not a problem. They don't belong in science class because they do not fall within the scope of 'science.'
Hi, I agree with Steerpike. ID is not science. It says at its core "God did it". Science cannot in any way assess that proposition. Science can only deal with what is observable and measuable. ID should be taught in church or religious class, where evolution should not be taught. Evolution should be taught in science class where ID should not be. Cheers, Greg.
Wow. That thing is freaking weird-beautiful. If God exists, I gotta say, he clearly wasn't giving a fuck when creating that thingemathingy!
Count me in, so long as the submarine's yellow. Could we could stop off at Pepperland on the way, if we're in the right state of mind (illegal)? Does anyone know how big these creatures are? How many would you need to make a decent meal? If ID isn't exactly creationism, it may 'fall between two stones' and not be religious enough to make the religious class even (if it isn't derived directly from interpreting religious texts).
As currently conceived, Intelligent Design requires one deny the basic tenets of evolution theory. It's either or, not both. They are incompatible. It doesn't matter who the designer is or if there is or is not a designer. In order for ID to be a viable hypothesis or theory there are two options. Deism, which has been around for centuries, is the belief God put everything in motion then sat back without intervening. That's fine, but then there is no theory or science to teach. Science takes over after the Big Bang. The other option is the one put forth initially (I think he was first) by Dr Michael Behe, a respected microbiologist. He hypothesized we could find evidence of living organisms that did not evolve. He thought he'd found it with the bacterial flagellum. Its a fascinating rotating axel mechanism in living organisms. Behe proposed there were no precursor organisms with structures which the flagellum could have evolved from. Then the precursor was found, it matched genetically, it just didn't look like a similar structure. The ID proponents haven't given up. Their latest project is trying to prove the mitochondria are irreducible. But it's silly. Cells in general evolved initially as tiny incomplete organisms joining together within a single cell membrane. No matter, ID proponents will continue to promote irreducible complexity as a scientific theory until (and probably long after) the mechanisms of abiogenesis are well established. By the way, just to be clear, I'm only trying to point out the facts here that people are getting wrong. You can argue ID all you want, that's fine. But just do so with accurate information. "Teach the Controversy" is a dishonest campaign that implies science is ignoring evidence the ID proponents believe they have. The scientific community is doing no such thing. Behe was taken seriously at least up until he declined to admit his hypothesis failed.
Like @Mckk suggested earlier already, let's try to keep this thread on topic, yeah? And not swim/float too far to other waters.
It wasn't my intention to argue for ID in any way or claim that it is both science and religion. Rather, my intention was to propose that it is neither. If ID belongs in a religious class, who's religion does it represent? I can see how the idea of creationism can the derived from interpreting religious texts but if ID is a watered down version of creationism, would watered down religion be taught in religious classes. Would religious teachers instruct their pupils how to do their religion badly? If ID is a religious view invented relatively recently, and not an official view held by a major religion, they might as well teach Pastafarianism in religious class. So the Flying Spaghetti Monster turns out to be a valid god after all.
Perhaps I should have said that they taught us *about* both evolution and ID. I can remember my Biology teacher, when we got to the bit about evolution, telling us what it was, and how it was different from evolutionary theory, and, indeed, how it was different from creationism, and what that was. She also said that because it wasn't testable, it couldn't be called science. If it turns out to be true, awesome, but it wasn't really science. She was actually a pretty awesome teacher. When we studied diseases, we discussed the sociological impact. She brought in a friend who was a recovering addict to talk to the class when we got to that subject, sharing the personal, psychological effects as we learned about the physiological.
Is this a typo? There's a common argument put forth by the science community that since one cannot test for the designer, ergo it's not science. I fear this only perpetuates the belief that science is biased against evidence supporting religious conclusions. But science is not biased against such evidence. In fact, it would be fantastic to find some scientific evidence supporting a previously discounted religious belief. My approach is not to ignore Intelligent Design but to address the evidence for and against it. The premise is based on finding some evidence of lifeforms popping into existence whole. So far there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis.
"The premise is based on finding some evidence of lifeforms popping into existence whole." Babies pop into existence whole..