Intelligent design taught in our schools. Good or Bad

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Nice pic Phreak. Mind if I steal it? Why am I asking when I already have? Well, thanks anyway

I'm going to go plaigarize it on some other board whilst giving you the credit for it, because CES knows I do that kinda thing.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Hey! Something to respond to. Cool Beans.

Unfortunately, I just returned home from getting my 3 sons at the airport 4 hours away. They came back from visiting their mother for the summer, and I am beat into the ground.

I will carefully review your writings tomorrow and get back to you.

Liner Note: You seem obsessed with the word "plagiarized" and immediately assumed it was directed at you. It never was. Go check! Here, I'll save you the trouble...

"Your other notable, Dr. Michael B - E - H - E is also nothing more than a laughing joke.

I've read some of his stuff too, specifically Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution and quite frankly, it is a cheap plagiarized copy of the works and writings of William Paley in his Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature , specifically the "Watchmaker" argument."

and

"Please, tell me you have something more than this. I hope that you have at least one noteworthy reference to someone who has original, fact based, and scientific work in support of your position instead of philosophical ramblings and plagiarism. " (NOTE: "plagiarism" here referes back to the word "someone", specifically your cited reference author(s), not you). Reading comprehension a little off there; it's okay. I understand.

So, please try to get over your self-importance and overly defensive posture and perhaps we can have a little fun with this topic.

I would of course like you to consider your answer to the previously stated crux of my position. Here's a refresher for you.

"Might I make a suggestion. Stick to the topic. Show me your rational argument as to why the teaching of intelligent design in our public school system is a good thing. That should be very easy for a brainiac like you!

For me the argument is quite simple. The sole purpose of intelligent design teaching is not to provide any fact based scientific explanation whatsoever, but rather to underhandedly and covertly subject the pupil to religious teachings in disguise. Afterall, the real intent of intelligent design is to offer "proof" that God must exist BECAUSE of intelligent design. Hogwash!

However, evolution and its related studies do not seek to disprove any celestial or supernatural being but rather seek to track backwards, the origin of life, matter, and civilization. Hmm..."


I'll address your diatribe tomorrow when I am fresh. Please stand by.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Looking back at my previous posts, I realized my method of baiting CEG into this argument (calling him a coward) went way too far. I apologize for that.

I also realize that he has a good reason for throwing insults because of the way I baited him, whereas I don't (and even if I did, I really shouldn't be). So I apologize for that as well, and I'm going to try to lay off for the rest of this debate.

Anyway, back to the argument.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Well, actually, I said before that I don't believe Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. But I also believe that Evolution shouldn't be, either, because it can be shown that it's not backed up by the evidence.

This is really the whole point of ID, as a scientific argument against Evolution and not as a science of its own, whether its founders accept that or not. ID is an eclectic discipline drawing from many well defined sciences, its findings should be surrendered to those fields to which they apply. Evolution, well, never really left the ground as a plausible scientific theory.

These are not matters of science, they are matters of philosophy. Scientific philosophy maybe, but neither adds any value to a standardized curriculum. Such things should NOT be mandated by a public school; grade school, high school, or college. Private schools can do their own thing, and parents could be given the option for extracurricular classes that cover these subjects.

There are already people who try to add theology to standardized curriculums, and this I find to be at best erroneous, and at worst evil. Someone has to decide what religion we're going to preach, and what sect of that religion takes precedence. I couldn't stomach the Baptists openly preaching Calvinism in a public school. But I can't stomach teaching Evolution as sound science when it is so obviously in error, either.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Oh yeah, and the really funny part is that I didn't read your reconciliatory post before I made my apology, because I was expecting more vitriol and didn't want to have that on my mind while I wrote it out...

Jinx!

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Looking back at my previous posts, I realized my method of baiting CEG into this argument (calling him a coward) went way too far. I apologize for that.

I also realize that he has a good reason for throwing insults because of the way I baited him, whereas I don't (and even if I did, I really shouldn't be). So I apologize for that as well, and I'm going to try to lay off for the rest of this debate.

Anyway, back to the argument.

CES...CES...Not C E G...

Apology accepted AND I even gave you reputation points...See....I'm a classy kind of guy I know.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Well, actually, I said before that I don't believe Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. But I also believe that Evolution shouldn't be, either, because it can be shown that it's not backed up by the evidence.

First point I agree, second one I vehemently disagree. I believe the evidence is clearly there and so does the majority of the scientific community. Suffice it to say that we'll just agree to disagree on this one.

This is really the whole point of ID, as a scientific argument against Evolution and not as a science of its own, whether its founders accept that or not...Evolution, well, never really left the ground as a plausible scientific theory.

Hmm...There you go again. I've never seen anything other than philosophy used to support the idea of ID and I certainly wouldn't agree that ID is a "science". I don't believe that any reputable institution of higher learning in the world offers it as a degree program or would recognize it as a science.

Claiming evolution "never really left the ground as a plausible scientific theory" is like claiming that chemistry, biology, zoology, anthropology, or paleontology "never left the ground". Once again I will defer to the academic establishment as a guiding light in this matter.

These are not matters of science, they are matters of philosophy....Such things should NOT be mandated by a public school; grade school, high school, or college...

I for one support the teaching of any and all subjects in all public schools to which there is a direct degree program available in the university environment.

There are already people who try to add theology to standardized curriculums, and this I find to be at best erroneous, and at worst evil.

On this we are wholeheartedly agreed!

But I can't stomach teaching Evolution as sound science when it is so obviously in error, either.

I really wish I could clearly understand your resistance to this but I just cannot. Again, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Evolution never left the ground because basic Darwinism calls for Lamarckism, which basicly states that developed or trained abilities in a creature will be passed on to their offspring. This brand of Lamarckism does not account for genetic inheritance, so it's invalid.

Genetic inheritance was discovered by Gregory Mendel, a monk, within the same generation as Darwin. He was looking to show stasis within the variation of creatures, to further the case for divine creation. So there's disproof of Darwin's original theory right off the bat.

Darwin also did not approach the issue of abiogenesis. He didn't think he needed to, as he assumed the cell was nothing more than a simple blob of organic matter. We know better nowadays. Cells easily take on jet fighters in matters of complexity.

Abiogenesis is necessary for non-theistic evolution, but noone has any idea how abiogenesis is even possible in a natural setting. Biologists and Exobiologists regularly cut each others throats over whether or not life could have originated on this planet or off, so even evolutionists can be found trashing origin of life theories on a regular basis. I'm sure you can find papers that state otherwise. Please do, and reference them here, I'll show you what I mean.

Lastly, Darwin simply avoided the issue of the complexity of organs. He gave a simple "maybe if" that dodges all of the more rigorous issues to get by. This does not qualify as theory, this qualifies as hypothesis at best. Darwin never touched Paley's argument, though Paley came a century before him and he knew well of Paley's works.

Darwin also had no evidence for evolution that couldn't be explained by other factors. Genetic variation describes all the varieties of creatures he saw. Finches may take on many different sizes of beak and habits, but in the end they are still finches, and when their environment returns to normal, so do their varieties. This just shows an incredibly adaptable design, not a natural law of biological evolution.

The fossil record, as I have shown, still doesn't work as any evidence of evolution. But even Darwin knew the gaps were incredible. He thought that things would vastly improve as time went on. They haven't.

So Evolution never came off the ground as scientific theory. It is unfit to compare it with chemistry or proper biology, as these are based completely off of observation, rather than force fitting some naturalistic philosophy to incongruent "evidence".

When Lamarckism was dropped in accordance with knowledge of genetic inheritance, they added mutation, thus creating Neo Darwinism. Mutation, unlike Lamarckism, is random. Darwinism is plausible with Lamarckism working as an external driving force for biological change, but with mutation it is not. Neo Lamarckism does not work for evolution because it presupposes a complex self contained system of genetic controls that would have to exist before the process of evolution could begin, putting even more requirements on the impossibility of natural abiogenesis.

Take the best paper you can find in support of Evolution, and I can falsify it. That is why I resist, because I know its wrong, despite your appeals to both authority and the majority opinion. You do know these things are defined as logical errors when applied against an actual methodical argument, right?

I can elaborate on any of these points, if you think this is all I've got, but it's not worth the trouble until you actually directly take them on because the extra effort will go ignored.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Evolution never left the ground because basic Darwinism calls for Lamarckism, which basicly [sic] states that developed or trained abilities in a creature will be passed on to their offspring. This brand of Lamarckism does not account for genetic inheritance, so it's invalid.

First off, let

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Finally, you decide to bring your own argument to the table! I am overjoyed!

First off, let

 

[phreakwars]

Your both making me dizzy, but it is sinking in... maybe we should offer GF college credits for this topic... good reading, and excellent debating !!

.
.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Finally, you decide to bring your own argument to the table! I am overjoyed!

Unfortunately, you have nothing to resort to except the very definition of your statement of

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Unfortunately, you have nothing to resort to except the very definition of your statement of

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Your both making me dizzy, but it is sinking in... maybe we should offer GF college credits for this topic... good reading, and excellent debating !!

Thanks phreak. I try.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Well Troll...

Not bad. Well done.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on certain items (which I know, that you know, that you are dead wrong on! ) and you know what, that's perfectly okay. Afterall, real issues with real items of debate, are rarely settled on one side but rather a culmination of give and take from two or more sides. You have a few good ones in there but far be it from me to tell you which ones!

At the very least it was fun right?

I tried to avoid getting into a debate for which there would be no clearly evident right and wrong, but you insisted so I obliged you.

Never confuse deferment on your opponents part to be a sign of weakness or unintelligence. Sometimes a "pass" is the best offense or defense!

I hope you've come away with some new found respect for your debating partner. That is the reason I awarded you rep points; for your writings and tenacity.

So... Now we need a new topic to bust on.

P.S. Thanks for the compliment Phreak! It was a good one on both sides.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

You *******! You really had me going there

I was going back and forth between thinking that maybe you were serious, then maybe you weren't (on the ad hominem).

Yeah, good fight. And it turns out that while you can fight pretty dirty, you are an honorable opponent. I'm going to take away a lot from this, I thank you for the experience.

Whew, that was some work keeping my argument as tight as I had to.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

You Bet!

Anytime Killer...

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

I can't help myself, I'm sorry, but I have to leave a note on the suboptimal design thing (the mention of peacock's tails and the recurrent laryngeal nerve).

Some of the original examples for this argument are the panda's thumb and the "backwards" wiring of the human eye.

The panda's "thumb" is merely a portrusion of a bone in its wrist, not a true thumb. The panda uses it to hold bamboo in place while it's eating. In the case of the panda's thumb, the evolutionist argument for suboptimal design would be that's it's not useful at all, that it can only be used for holding bamboo. Or, why make a bone portrusion just to hold a piece of bamboo in place.

The answer to this is somewhere in-between these two issues. The bone portrusion is perfect, because a complete thumb would find no other use by the panda, but with bamboo being the primary diet of the panda this simple bone portrusion is just as useful to it as a real thumb is to something that has use for one.

The backwards wiring of the human eye involves the vessels carrying the blood supply travelling in front of the retina. You can observe this by unfocusing your eyes and watching for those little spots that appear in your vision. Evolutionists argued that this was suboptimal design because the squid's eyes were wired correctly, so why wasn't the human eye, the eye of a more "advanced" creature, wired correctly?

The answer is this: The squid's eye is much simpler, and operates in much lower levels of light. The human retina requires a much more direct application of blood flow for nutrition and cooling of a much more active and hot-running retina. Additionally, the spots are not an issue. They really do not cause any problems with sight as a function, and aren't even usually noticed unless looked for.

The lesson here is that though things may appear sub-optimal, optimality in the real world must take in to account every factor. Thus, just looking at one aspect of how something is put together is not enough to determine optimality, and living creatures are submitted to more conditions than any human design, so we really have to be wary of such judgments. In this sort of argument, if you fail to observe or understand one factor, you leave yourself open to the possibility of being completely wrong.

In other words, don't let it become an argument from ignorance.

In the case of male nipples, I would look into the mechanics of developmental pathology. It may be more efficient geneticly or developmentally to make nipples a part of the basic human pathology and coding rather than making separate pathologies and coding for each gender in this case, especially when you consider that nipples really don't make the male pathology or completed structure (body) any less efficient or capable. Think like a programmer here

The peacock's tail? Well, I would think that such aesthetics would point to a creator more than evolution. If evolution were true, well, obviously the peacock is fit enough even with that thing. If design were true, it's a nice display.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve? That appears to be the latest. I really can only make vague guesses at this point.

First, I would wonder if this nerve doesn't also connect to other parts on its way to the larynx.

Second, I would wonder if this provides some sort of redundancy, to guard against neck injuries that may incapacitate the superior laryngeal nerve.

Third, it makes sense to go to the spine rather than straight to the brain. This allows for more efficient developmental pathologies, and having everything go to the spine rather than having some things travel straight to the brain and others to the spine makes for a much cleaner design. Such mixed paths might also make other things more complex, such as decentralizing the brain's nerve reception center and making it so that nerves can be pinched in their way through the spinal cord's entry of the skull. Human engineers I would think and programmers I know would definately do this as it's been done.

Third, I would state that the conduction speed of nerves versus the contraction rate of muscles (or even the conduction speed of nerves alone) makes the latency from even 20 extra foot of nerves negligable. This is also not a very reaction taxed system; you can send your signals in a nice sequence and not worry about having to interrupt them midstream due to stimulus in any timeframe that is affected by transmission latency, unlike something like a limb.

But, since these are all guesses and I cannot provide definitive answers, the issues stand for now.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Oh yeah, and there's a really easy and simple way to deal with the issue of pain long past the point of being able to do anything about it.

Such pain shut off designs would add extra un-needed components and functions in creatures that could deal with it, and the creatures that can't are dead anyway. So we can gain efficiency if we ignore the issues of pain, suffering, etc., things that have no value to efficient design anyway.

So this situation would not even be a triviality if we assumed God was German.

Just kidding. But, seriously, the design of a system that would detect when you were too far gone, especially with the rise of modern medicine, would be waaaayyy too complex. Some people won't go to the hospital to save their lives even if they felt like they were on fire from head to toe anyway. And some problems are simply undetectable by a macro-cellular system. If we had pain nerves running to each cell and a part of the brain to interpret every last thing that could go wrong in each of them, all we would be is a pain processor walking upon a jumble of pain receptors.

 

[Kryptonite Man]

CES, TWT, I think you two are EXCELLENT debators! My personal take on this is that Evolution and Creationism are NOT incompatable, but rather the way that Yahweh God, (or whatever name you call Him) created Life on this planet we call "Earth".(Terra if you're into Latin.)