think tank forum

well not entirely, but pretty close. in my speech class I am going to be giving a speech on why intelligent design/creationism should not be taught in science classrooms. I was stoaked about giving this speech before i even signed up to do it but now it will be even better. Why? because the person who goes right before me is giving her speech on the exact opposite, she wants them to be taught in science classes.

man, i can't wait to completely destroy her!

hahaha that rules! is there any way you could post both speeches?

ill be able to post mine, i doubt ill be able to get a hold of a copy of hers. ill ask though.

How is it even a debate? Religion != Science.

ask the religious people. i keep reading their arguments for why we should be teaching intelligent design/creationism in science class along side evolution and none have any scientific evidence as to why it should. All they ever do is poke holes in evolution and use those holes to give merit to their idea.

The lack of support for one idea is not support for another idea. I hate religious people, with a passion. Seriously.

http://imagebot.org/debate.jpg

hahahahaha

it's possible to make an argument that ID is science, but it kind of requires also arguing for a redefinition of science. haha.

not all religious people suck! and plenty of non-religious people suck too.

that comic rules

seriously.... is this shit even worth addressing?

> seriously.... is this shit even worth addressing?

I would say no, but unfortunately a lot of people (Including the current U.S. President) feel very, very different on this subject.
Yes, they're morons, but they're also fucking up education for kids ... So something needs to be done.

Anyway, in reply to the original question:

I would first focus on the scientific method, explain how science works, and what the basic ground rules are, and why they are there.

Then look at ID, treat it as a valid scientific hypothesis (Which it is btw.), and see how well it does.
Then look at evolution, and see how well that does.

Also, many people (Even non-ID people) seem to think that's evolution is based on chance, which it is absolutely not, evolution is a 100% random-free process, this is a very common misunderstanding repeated endlessly by ID advocates.

If you're really serious about it, you might want to read something like ``The God delusion'' by Richard Dawkins, it's a nice book on the subject ... And ofcourse Darwin's Origin of the species is also a classic.

> it's possible to make an argument that ID is science

It is a valid scientific hypothesis, just like a geocentric model of the solar system is, or the steady state universe, it's just not a very good one and probably wrong.

thanks for the tips carpet. I hadn't actually thought of explaining the scientific method and talking about how each holds up against it, but it seems like a pretty good idea and I'll work it into the speech.

so i've been thinking about the scientific method being applied to intelligent design and from what i can gather, intelligent design only passes when applied to the holes in evolution.

for example, the cambrian explosion. a hole in evolution as it was a period in time when loads of new species show up out of the blue. intelligent design explains this phenomenon better than evolution but still, evolution has a case as that time was a time of great climate and atmospheric change which could have caused the rapid evolution of the species.

1. CS, how is ID a valid scientific hypothesis?
2. CS, how is "evolution is a 100% random-free process"?

Dawkins is a good choice here -- evolutionary biologist!

also, watch this video Chiken:
Ken Miller on ID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Eugenie Scott
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3Qvfm8jU0

I will post some in defense of ID if I ever come across anything decent. Researching on the ID side of things is difficult to find anything good in terms of debate, besides source texts. I studied this in Anthropology and independently for Anthropology club. Learn the history! You might want to check out Creation Science as a precedent to ID.

ya, it's wikipedia time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Actually in my marketing class last Tuesday this guy spoke up regarding economics, especially health care in relation to 'survival of the fittest' in Darwinian terms. He says something to this effect:

'If Darwin is right and survival of the fittest is true, why should I have to pay for other people's health care.'

It was a statement rather than a question. He was making a point that we're in a capitalist society that's dog eat dog and so why should we have these certain systems of welfare and health care that are too socialist that we have to pay for.

It was pretty angrily responded to by a majority of people, but for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. I think the main reason people hate this kind of thinking is because social people can't stand antisocial ideas. I'd like to think that I can stand ideas how ever unpopular. Anyway I couldn't get a word in before the professor stopped the digression, otherwise I would have said what I was thinking. That was this:

Fitness in Darwinian terms is the ability to survive to a reproductive age and pass on genes.

It was just surprising that in class no one mentioned that they caught the whole erroneous concept of 'survival of the fittest' and how non-communicated Darwin's ideas really are to a non-science crowd (business people).

right on, dp.

I watched a couple video's of richard dawkins and he truly is amazing. I really love his speech he did at Liberty University on his book the god delusion. I actually ordered the god delusion tonight.

It seems to me that most people oppose intelligent design from ideological grounds. They make the same mistake that ID is somehow an equal if untrue alternative to EV (evolution). Those people who advocate EV on these grounds really have no more right to advocate it than fundamentalist IDers. They are basically saying that this is what they believe and it sounds right, so that is what should be taught.

On the other hand there are a number of prominent scientists who historically advocated some form of ID at the same time as EV. Suggesting that god works in mysterious ways, and how are we to judge his methods. It is all pretty obvious stuff really. The only real problems arise when people start saying that the bible indicates that the age of the Earth is no more than 6-10 thousand years, a bit hard to stomach if you believe in any of the results of paleontology.

Anyways, I would gladly argue for the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms as a way of demonstrating the fundamental difference between a scientific theory and an ideology. I think far too few people really understand the difference.

i would actually like to hear what you have to say Fsmart.

We need a country for smart people. Just smart people... who are willing to work. And no one else.

heres my rough draft

feedback is appreciated, im not a very good writer at all

http://sob.urdw.com/persuasive%20speech .docx

why is it putting the space between speech and the period?

speech not found on this server error message

but when I corrected for the space when copying and pasting the url it gave me the document. try using the <<edit>> command. yes!!

chiken, when is your speech?

> 1. CS, how is ID a valid scientific hypothesis?

Why wouldn't it be? It's a false hypothesis, but a hypothesis nonetheless, completly dismissing it out of hand as unscientific is rather unscientific IMO.

> 2. CS, how is "evolution is a 100% random-free process"?

Survival of the fittest, in short, those who are adapted best survive (And have more chance of getting kids), others die and have less chance of getting kids.
This is not random.

Chiken: why is it putting the space between speech and the period?

It's because there are multiple 'special characters' and it fucks with the way the script naturally interprets the end of a link. Basically you can just copy the link and remove the space before the period. The problem with the way the URL's link is going to be looked at soon!

Fsmart: It seems to me that most people oppose intelligent design from ideological grounds. They make the same mistake that ID is somehow an equal if untrue alternative to EV (evolution). Those people who advocate EV on these grounds really have no more right to advocate it than fundamentalist IDers. They are basically saying that this is what they believe and it sounds right, so that is what should be taught.

Actually I find that most people who fit that description are the ones who oppose Evolution, not ID. In many cases people with a teleological leaning are indoctrinated into ID vis-a-vis religion. Take a look at the Creation Museum for example. Not only that but they make arguments that appeal to pathos. I have seen the Watchmaker Analogy delivered extremely eloquently, if only to denounce the EV perspective without providing evidence, where evidence is in abundance for the opposing (EV) view.

On the other hand there are a number of prominent scientists who historically advocated some form of ID at the same time as EV. Suggesting that god works in mysterious ways, and how are we to judge his methods. It is all pretty obvious stuff really. The only real problems arise when people start saying that the bible indicates that the age of the Earth is no more than 6-10 thousand years, a bit hard to stomach if you believe in any of the results of paleontology.

Like who? I'd like to see a borderline ID/EV advocate scientist. What's all pretty obvious stuff? Other real problems that arise: the disbelief in speciation, macroevolution, mutation, and adaptation. Also -- yeah paleontology, not to mention geology, biology, genetics, biological anthropology, &c.

Anyways, I would gladly argue for the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms as a way of demonstrating the fundamental difference between a scientific theory and an ideology. I think far too few people really understand the difference.

Do it. Yes you're right not enough people know the difference between the scientific method and having a belief. I feel like trying to make a maxim (this is to be taken lightly :P):
One takes uncertainty and assumes a beautiful truth and the other forges truth from uncertainty.

Why wouldn't it be? It's a false hypothesis, but a hypothesis nonetheless, completly dismissing it out of hand as unscientific is rather unscientific IMO.

I'm saying it's not a scientific hypothesis because the tenants cannot be tested in an empirical way. Basically what you're saying is, lets treat an unfeasible hypothesis as if it were feasible, and speak out in indignation that it is not being seriously considered by the scientific community where feasible experiments are the underlying testament to the scientific method.

Survival of the fittest, in short, those who are adapted best survive (And have more chance of getting kids), others die and have less chance of getting kids.
This is not random.

Survival of the fittest doesn't have to do with chance of getting kids, it's the actual ability to survive to a reproductive age and pass on the genes. To put forward an example, you are alive as a result of fitness of the generations before you, and at no point was one of your direct relatives unable to survive to a reproductive age and pass on their genes that you now have. I agree that survival of the fittest is not random, but your representation of the concept is flawed. But what is random is the fluctuation of genes via random mutation. There is randomness!

Darwin online!
http://darwin-online.org.uk/

my speech is to be presented next Wednesday, October 22. I have already made a couple edits to the speech as i've been watching some of the lectures dp has sent me and ideas were popping into my head last night as i was going to sleep, so i added them before i would forget.

I'm hoping to do some more work on it tonight and maybe throw up the next version tomorrow.

anyone who believes in intelligent design should be forcibly neutered.

it's for the greater good.

I second nny's movement for forced castration of the ID people. THEY DISAGREE WITH ME AND THUS MUST BE ELIMINATED.


... :)

offensive anti-ID campaign results in new eugenics movement.

It's darwinian. If we can kill the idiots faster we're better and thus deserve to rule the evolution of our species.

hey dp, once you've gotten to read through the paper i would love some feedback man.

Ok I will admit something: I was up last night making corrections at a terrible hour. I think it was not productive though, because I compared the Flesch-Kincaid rankings for each and mine scored lower -- sadface. I do think that some of the changes are significant though. I think where I got out of control was in capitalization, as you'll see. But earth should be Earth and sun, Sun and universe, Universe.

I didn't change what I thought was your style, but I tried to fix grammar issues if possible. I think you should keep 'curriculum' too. It's not bad, but it doesn't have the punch to the face feeling I may kinda expect.

Also I would suggest taking more writing classes if you care to improve. I actually took some pretty awesome lit classes where I dumped out gobs of paper all the time. I feel like it helped me improve quite a bit. Though in my critical thinking about lit class, it kinda made me feel like this: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/impostor.png

Check it:
http://www.projectdp.com/persuasive-speech.docx

I think it's kind of funny how you make it seem like an epic battle storyline :D You should probably ask asemi to look at this ;D he is pretty good at writing in the humanities, even Flesch-Kincaid is loving his sentences and paragraphs: http://thinktankforums.com/thread.php?thread_ … #post-6794

I dunno, I want to add a lot more, but I have to keep it in the time frame of 10 to 12 minutes, so it kind of cut down on what I could actually say. And also, I was trying to stay away from whether one is right or wrong and stick with more why it doesn't belong in the classroom. Im finding it actually pretty hard to explain why they shouldn't be in the classroom without proving one wrong.

I'm actually going to do some demonstrations with it. I dont know if you guys have seen the mouse trap example but here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM
I was thinking of doing this as an example after my cambriatic explosion example for the lack of scientific evidence.

me It seems to me that most people oppose intelligent design from ideological grounds.

dannyp Actually I find that most people who fit that description are the ones who oppose Evolution ...

Is not a refutation of what I was saying. You do not strengthen the flawed logic of one side by saying the other side uses those flaws more.

me On the other hand there are a number of prominent scientists who historically advocated some form of ID at the same time as EV...

dannyp Like who? I'd like to see a borderline ID/EV advocate scientist. What's all pretty obvious stuff?

so i read through the origin of the species and I definitely remember Darwin mentioning several times that, wouldn’t it make more sense for god to have constructed species based on laws of evolution. but I am not going to go through the whole book again to find the perfect passage. here is the closest thing I can find. Paragraph 101

orgin
as for a slightly more modern ' borderline ID/EV advocate scientist', how about Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

"I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God...I would say that the stance that some believers take, which is simply to reject evolution, is also to reject the information that God has given us, the ability to understand. I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation. He is not threatened by our scientific adventures."

As for the 'obvious stuff part', I just meant to say that I wasn't trying to suggest anything that hundreds of people before me hadn't thought of and talked about. 'God works in mysterious ways' is a common idiom. Should anybody be surprised that some people ask the question, 'is it possible that god is behind this evolution thing?'

so the key point is that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god through evidence of evolution, as far as I am concerned. so some being of infinite power and knowledge creates the universe and starts things spinning. we look at things and say damn that is pretty organized or random and accordingly there is or is not a god. but ultimately how could anyone really estimate the ability of god to see or not see the consequences of his or her or its actions?

I'm not sure what your position is about all this.

You seem to be debating from the position of defense of God, rather than whether ID or EV is more tenable according to science.

I think Charles, Thomas, or David was talking about what you seem to be getting at, but I don't think it has much to do with ID. I'm not sure how accurately I'm interpreting this so please explain it to us in your words if you can!

Here's what I gain from the quote briefly, that the assumptions astronomers made about telos (that there is order to the stars) were irrelevant in the face of the laws that were discovered. In the same way whether or not God exists, in biology and genetics in this example, doesn't detract from the simple laws discovered.

As for your question in your fourth paragraph:
No it shouldn't be a surprise if people ask and consider such a thing, but it is a different story to apply an assumption about divinity to a discipline that is founded on empirical research (among other things). As you say in the paragraph that follows, there hasn't been a concrete demonstrative way to prove or disprove a deity through empirical evidence.

The very last question you pose is a little baffling to me. I always am baffled at this sort of question. It's an intellectual question that considers particular perceptions of God. There is no way to conclude something correct without supposing truths about God. For example if you consider God omniscient, God will probably 'see the consequences'. Also the 'his or her' thing is embarassing in my opinion, why do you constrain God to having a sex? All of these suppositions are based on empirical realities for us, even the logic is a reality for us that God may supercede.

This is about to get controversial for some with strong opinions or favor and guard their perceptions.

To get outside of this argument, I'll give a little perspective on my own idea about 'God', it's the ultimate intangible that I am not able to make a coherent sentence about because calling it 'it' is bounded to our way of describing a subject in language. I think it is anti-subject, and ineffable. I am only saying 'it' so that you may understand vaguely in an abstract way how I consider things to be. I think characteristics of God are also ridiculous on a human scale, humans will argue about it and not come close to touching 'it' or the concept in that sense - yet impose perceived truths on others that affects us in reality. In my thoughts I feel that the most honest way to speak about the concept is through art, or a conveyance of feelings about aspects of divinity through different mediums -- poetry, language, music.

I also feel that posing anthropomorphism in the case of the idea of God is not humbling to humans (for example supposing a sex for God). It seems to me that putting a nearness between ideas of us and 'it' is arrogant. Kinda heading back to our discussion, I like the approach of science because it attempts to realize (by founding laws) only what is observable, and ideally strips away presuppositions and bias when possible. I don't think science has all the right answers of course, but it's beauty is that it is a method of progression.

Lastly I made a point couple times about God having a sex. I realize many people in the world subscribe to the Bible's interpretation of God. I'd just like to address this, because I do see the Bible as a triumph of human achievement in language and story telling, and it does fit into an exceptionally great artistic medium in my mind. In the way God is described and developed it creates a working world view for people, but there are also other similarly great epic renditions of the divine! This is why I am convinced that the beauty, truth, and honesty is the expression of the way humans are touched by the ineffable wonders of the 'Divine'.

So I've some heavy revising. I've added some stuff, delted some other stuff and re-arranged some other things. so here's the updated version. I guess I really would like some feed back on whether or not you think I've explained myself thoroughly enough with examples, testimony, etc.

I really wish i coulda gone into more detail but again, the time restriction has kept this limited.

http://sob.urdw.com/persuasivespeech2.docx

dp>> Also the 'his or her' thing is embarassing in my opinion, why do you constrain God to having a sex?

Strange... that was my point. That is why I wrote, 'his or her or it'.

dp>>You seem to be debating from the position of defense of God, rather than whether ID or EV is more tenable according to science.

My point is that not all definitions of ID are inherently constradictory to EV. But perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps any formal definition of ID includes a point that says that it is inherently contradictory with evolution. However, I was working under the notion that intelligent design means that there could be an intelligent force behind the design of the universe, that idea, does not seem to be inherently contradictory with evolution.

On the other hand if you say that there is empirical evidence of the existence or nonexistence of god, I start raising my eyebrow. But I don’t think anybody on this forum is saying that.

I don’t think I am going to say anything more about that. By the way I really like the “gaps in the fossil” record argument. Would a IDer critiquing EV be basically saying that most of the time EV is right but in those cases of gaps, God had to step in?

I will try to have some direct comments relating to the speech soon if I have time to get to them chiken, but overall it looks pretty good.

Ah man, i wish i had a video camera to get the expression on her face as I was doing my speech. Seeing the fire in her eyes as I did my speech just made the speech so much easier to do. Honestly I have never been so relaxed during a speech and having her go before me and seeing how angry she got as I spoke made the speech so easy to do.

maybe I need to start picking topics like this more often.

awesome!!

hell yes!

haha, awesome Chiken!

People who believe in Intelligent Design should not be allowed to graduate highschool. It's an obvious failure of our educational system...

wooooo 98% on the speech.

the only place I lost points where on my transitions and conclusion. he didn't feel i recapped the main points very well, and i have to admit I coulda done better.

nice