babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 04 December 2005 09:38 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 4, 2005

TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

In Kansas last month, the board of education voted that students should be exposed to critiques of evolution like intelligent design. At a trial of the Dover, Pa., school board that ended last month, two of the movement's leading academics presented their ideas to a courtroom filled with spectators and reporters from around the world. President Bush endorsed teaching "both sides" of the debate - a position that polls show is popular. And Pope Benedict XVI weighed in recently, declaring the universe an "intelligent project."

Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was intended to be a "big tent" that would attract everyone from biblical creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith. The slogan, "Teach the controversy," has simple appeal in a democracy.

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.


Read it here.

(login & password here.)


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nanuq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8229

posted 04 December 2005 10:59 AM      Profile for Nanuq   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've always argued for a package deal: allow the teaching of Intelligent Design in science claases only if they allow for the teaching of evolution in Sunday school. Surely the "presenting both sides" argument is just as valid in both settings.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 05 December 2005 12:21 AM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One arguement against intelligent design is the lack of intelligence in the design. One would better argue for dumb design or incompetant design.

Why, as creatures who walk upright, were humans given the respiratory system of an animal that walks on four legs? Our noses drain the wrong way and we are constantly bothered by upper resiratory tract infections because of this. Humans have an appendix and two tonsils. Why? And why is the eye which is often held up as an example of intelligent design so badly designed? Why is it susceptible to glaucoma, retinitis pigmentosa, diabetic retinapathy, macular degeneration, etc?

For that matter, why do blue whales have foot bones?

[ 05 December 2005: Message edited by: Bobolink ]

[ 05 December 2005: Message edited by: Bobolink ]


From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ginger Jar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10992

posted 05 December 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for Ginger Jar        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For that matter, why do blue whales have foot bones?

Oh, I dunno. Their ancestors walked into the ocean?

And do tell, how would you have designed the eye?
We pupils want to know.
Is it a tale with no tears?


From: green glen | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 05 December 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why, as creatures who walk upright, were humans given the respiratory system of an animal that walks on four legs? Our noses drain the wrong way and we are constantly bothered by upper resiratory tract infections because of this. Humans have an appendix and two tonsils. Why? And why is the eye which is often held up as an example of intelligent design so badly designed? Why is it susceptible to glaucoma, retinitis pigmentosa, diabetic retinapathy, macular degeneration, etc?

Original sin? The devil made Him do it?

[ 05 December 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 05 December 2005 01:39 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think that all silliness, absurdity, contradiction or downright stupidity in the Bible has historically been swept under the existential rug with "But God works in mysterious ways".

If God wants whales to have exactly the same bone structure in their fins as humans have in their hands and bats in their wings, even though one is for swimming, one for holding and one for flying, well, who are we to question that? Surely He has a reason that is far to Goddish for any of us mortals to even comprehend. And if we try too hard to comprehend That Which We Are Not Supposed To, we might find our Eternal Soul in the crapper.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
MartinArendt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9723

posted 05 December 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for MartinArendt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think anybody should be surprised that, as the article mentions, academics aren't all rushing to embrace teaching intelligent design. It's not really all that rational a system. Faith is fine, but it's not the sort of thing you can teach in an academic setting.

quote:

Originally posted by Nanuq:
I've always argued for a package deal: allow the teaching of Intelligent Design in science claases only if they allow for the teaching of evolution in Sunday school. Surely the "presenting both sides" argument is just as valid in both settings.

Exactly.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 05 December 2005 02:43 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the same article.
quote:
...While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges. Even at conservative schools, scholars and theologians who were initially excited about intelligent design say they have come to find its arguments unconvincing. They, too, have been greatly swayed by the scientists at their own institutions and elsewhere who have examined intelligent design and found it insufficiently substantiated in comparison to evolution...
In other words, most of the academics, including the Christian ones, are displaying intellectual integrity; atheists take note! Hawn's reference to "the academics who should have been its natural allies" displays her own ignorance of what the whole issue is about.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 05 December 2005 07:44 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But it has met its maker. It's on intimate terms with its maker, as are we all. It was a foundation myth, then a scripture, then a doctrine, then a theory, then a movement called Creationism (some genetic drift, in the island of America), and now behold! the new species, as 'new' as any species can be, of ID. (A bit of happy convergent evolution with the Freudian term.)
From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 05 December 2005 10:01 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
22 minutes had a cute skit about it: one of those house makeover shows with God as the intelligent designer.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kassandra
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11267

posted 05 December 2005 11:47 PM      Profile for Kassandra     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am a strong believer in free debate. In this instance, though, free debate would violate the definition of science, and we are talking about science class here, not phliosophy class.
Much is made of the conflict between science and religion but I think that the true conflict is between science and sentimentalism the last being the belief that, as the song says " It can't be wrong when it feels so right." I want to hear what the songwriter had to say after she was betrayed by that lover.
The first scientist was the guy who humbly accepted that his feelings were only feelings and were not instruments for determining the truth. The problem then becomes; how do you get a handle on the truth when the human imagination can produce a limitless swamp of pseudo-information?
The answer is--You have to bring evidence to the debate. The IDers are not doing that. They are saying that lack of evidence of one thing is evidence of another thing, which is a logical error.
A scientist reaches a point where she says "I don't know, let's find out" An IDer says "I don't know, ergo, I do know; God did it" This isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class.

From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 06 December 2005 05:44 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kassandra:

This isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class.

The only place it belongs is in the dust bin of history.

And certain counties in Kansas.

Just so we have a precautionary tale that we can point to.

[ 06 December 2005: Message edited by: Transplant ]


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 06 December 2005 06:18 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or a quaint little theme park. I'm thinking of something along the lines of Upper Canada Village.

Be sure and stop by the gift shop for a charming figurine of Moses atop a dinosaur.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 06 December 2005 07:43 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Magoo, if I were a crafts maker, you would have just seen dollar signs lighting up in my eyes. You could come up with all sorts of Biblical figurines; Elijah in a chariot of fire drawn by pterodactyls, Daniel in the tyranosaurus' den; the possibilities are endless!
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ron Webb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2256

posted 06 December 2005 09:06 PM      Profile for Ron Webb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bobolink:
One arguement against intelligent design is the lack of intelligence in the design. One would better argue for dumb design or incompetant design.

Exactly. I read Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", which is often cited as the foundation of Intelligent Design Theory. Behe takes several biological processes, mostly at the cellular level as I recall, and analyses them in great detail to show how "designed" they are.

What struck me from beginning to end was not how brilliant and logical the processes were, but how convoluted and counterintuitive they are. Images of Rube Goldberg's inventions kept popping up in my mind...

Take the process of blood clotting, for example. Behe starts with the presence of an enzyme to cause the blood to clot -- an essential process if the animal is to avoid bleeding to death from every little injury.

But of course, you don't want the blood to clot in the veins, so there's another enzyme (or something) that inhibits the action of the first one.

Then there's another enzyme released by damaged cells (at the injury site) that blocks the action of the second enzyme, allowing the first to do its job. And another one that inhibits the action of that enzyme, I forget why.

And on and on, with enzymes counteracting each other one after another. All the while I'm thinking, why couldn't God have just squirted some radiator "Stop-Leak" into our veins??


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 06 December 2005 10:05 PM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, bad design is all around us. As I looked over at my rabbit a moment ago, I was reminded of one. Rabbits feed as if they were ruminants. But they aren't ruminants. Ideally, they would house a ruminant digestive system, but they lack one. They are consequently unable to synthesise all the nutrients they need from eating and digesting their food as we do, nor are they able to adequately process grain in a single pass. They must depend on bacteria in their own feces to acquire certain vitamins and must depend on this practice of coprophagia in order for their isufficent digestive equipment to properly metabolise the grasses on which they feed.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.


From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nanuq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8229

posted 06 December 2005 11:03 PM      Profile for Nanuq   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Everybody's a critic.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 15 December 2005 02:42 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Meanwhile, in the War on Evolution...

Attacks on evolution officially go over the edge

The Carpetbagger Report - I've followed the creationist movement for years, and I thought I'd seen just about every attack on modern biology imaginable. Alas, I was wrong. As one very astute reader brought to my attention, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum published its latest attack on evolution this week with one argument that left me shaking my head — and reaching for the Tylenol.

quote:
Evolutionists claim that their battle against creation-science is primarily a "scientific" issue, not a constitutional question. But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons. If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution. The Aguillard Humanists leave us with no Constitution and no constitutional rights of any kind if they allow us to teach only that man is an animal.

These subtle and dangerous attacks on God Himself and the Constitution must be repelled.



From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 15 December 2005 03:04 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yst:
They must depend on bacteria in their own feces to acquire certain vitamins and must depend on this practice of coprophagia in order for their isufficent digestive equipment to properly metabolise the grasses on which they feed.
Pets or meat? Anyway, you said 'feces'. Tee hee.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 15 December 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dung eating isn't restricted to rabbits; a foal has to eat it's mother's manure in order to acquire the enzymes, etc., required for it to begin to digest grass and grain. Similarly, baby elephants, and, I think, baby giraffes.

So you see it isn't just the Harperites who are busy munching down each others shit...

By their breath shall ye know them.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 15 December 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a relief about the coprophagia. Just the other day arborboy had a diaper malfunction that led to him getting some of those crucial enzymes before either of us realized what was going on.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca