Kracus wrote:Well honestly I'm an atheist anyway so the idea any intelligent being created us is completely rediculous so I defninitely agree with you.
Then you would do well to read John F. Haught's work - things like deeper than darwin. There are two ends to this spectrum, and according to Haught hardcore creationists and hardcore atheists can inhabit the same 'intellectual flatland'.
But I don't want to derail this topic into that discussion. This thread is about ID in general...
Well it's tough not to fall into that flatland area cause you want to beleive something you know? Being unsure isn't a pleasant feeling, it makes me upset because it doesn't resolve any pholosophical issues I might have. Atheism provides that while making a lot of sense.
I suspect ID is trying to apeal in the same fashion yet manage to retain somesort of religious aspect. It's the new religion basicly. something that'll fit with modern views on science. As those views exapnd any theory like ID or any other religion will change accordingly. That's the difference with atheism, it never changes.
Kracus wrote:
What makes you think there's a limit to what science can discover?
Can a common tabby cat understand Shakespeare? No? Ask yourself <i>exactly</i> why that might be? Think hard. Our limitations are not different in kind from the tabby cat's...they are ones of degree. Personally speaking, I think it is probable that, coming up against certain mysteries in the universe, we'll be motherfuckin' tabby cats all the way down (without knowing it of course)...gnawing and shitting all over a dog eared copy of Hamlet, wondering WTF I CAN'T EAT THIS AND IT'S A MEDIOCRE SHIT-BURYING DEVICE.
Kracus wrote:
What makes you think there's a limit to what science can discover?
Can a common tabby cat understand Shakespeare? No? Ask yourself <i>exactly</i> why that might be? Think hard. Our limitations are not different in kind from the tabby cat's...they are ones of degree. Personally speaking, I think it is probable that, coming up against certain mysteries in the universe, we'll be motherfuckin' tabby cats all the way down (without knowing it of course)...gnawing and shitting all over a dog eared copy of Hamlet, wondering WTF I CAN'T EAT THIS AND IT'S A MEDIOCRE SHIT-BURYING DEVICE.
Yeah that's a good point, I wasn't saying anything to the contrary though.
tnf wrote:...
...Let me know if that 'lottery number' example makes sense...I didn't describe it very well here...it is kind of tough to put into print because I am a pretty animated speaker and usually am throwing all sorts of diagrams and shit on a whiteboard while doing this (sort of like goodwill hunting). But at the least it helps them realize that there is a MAJOR flaw in the logic. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins does a pretty good job discussing this topic as well...using the example of a monkey at a keyboard....but you could substitute Kracus for the monkey in your example.
Yeah, that makes sense, thanks. It's similar to my own explanation, but this is a good way of incorporating real examples in.
Oddly, when I taught some college labs, I never had students question evolution, even when discussing Mendellian genetics. In fact, I don't remember much dissent in my genetics class, either. I'd expect it to be a hot topic in college, but I wonder why it's more prevalent in high schoolers... Is it because they're being coached by mommy and daddy? Or maybe because ID is now becoming more available in the news? If the latter is the case then I have a lot to look forward to this year. :icon13:
Kracus wrote:Well honestly I'm an atheist anyway so the idea any intelligent being created us is completely rediculous so I defninitely agree with you.
Then you would do well to read John F. Haught's work - things like deeper than darwin. There are two ends to this spectrum, and according to Haught hardcore creationists and hardcore atheists can inhabit the same 'intellectual flatland'.
But I don't want to derail this topic into that discussion. This thread is about ID in general...
nice full length video interview with Haught over here:
tnf wrote:...
...Let me know if that 'lottery number' example makes sense...I didn't describe it very well here...it is kind of tough to put into print because I am a pretty animated speaker and usually am throwing all sorts of diagrams and shit on a whiteboard while doing this (sort of like goodwill hunting). But at the least it helps them realize that there is a MAJOR flaw in the logic. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins does a pretty good job discussing this topic as well...using the example of a monkey at a keyboard....but you could substitute Kracus for the monkey in your example.
Yeah, that makes sense, thanks. It's similar to my own explanation, but this is a good way of incorporating real examples in.
Oddly, when I taught some college labs, I never had students question evolution, even when discussing Mendellian genetics. In fact, I don't remember much dissent in my genetics class, either. I'd expect it to be a hot topic in college, but I wonder why it's more prevalent in high schoolers... Is it because they're being coached by mommy and daddy? Or maybe because ID is now becoming more available in the news? If the latter is the case then I have a lot to look forward to this year. :icon13:
Coaching is a big part of it...by their parents, pastors, and youth group leaders. There is a big push to get young people into ID theory, I know of a number of churches popular with young people that are trying to get ID people to come and talk with them. Furthermore, when we look at the fact that many of these young churches are encouraging the kids to be 'warriors for Jesus' they are more apt to take this ID bullshit and start trying to battle their teachers in order to spread the real word (even though they don't really understand what ID is about - nobody really does because it is not about anything...)
it would be hard to outline their whole philosophy, because it really is vague on specifics other than the idea that if we look closely at some really intricate structures and pathways in biology, we can only assume that they were not evolved but created because they are 'irreducibly complex' - a horribly flawed bit of logic.
I'd give you more info, but don't have time right now.
I can't tell you how many times I've done teh debate you are about to try...heh. Even against one of ID's main figureheads a long time ago.
Good luck. i'll try and give you some pointers sometime.
A couple of days ago a minister (of education, culture and science) here in the Netherlands said she thought it would be a good thing to educate the ideas of intelligent design on schools. She didn't want it to replace the evolution theory though.
She thought it would be good because some people (with certain religious backgrounds) wouldn't accept the evolution theory.
She's been called back on it though, as most of the dutch government (with the exception of the christian parties perhaps) feels that school shouldn't be forced to educate (religious) beliefs that aren't backed up by scientific evidence.
The delicate balance that needs to be struck here is also the biggest danger, as cited in that article. To be truly scientific about the problem as a whole, alternative theories need to be examined in an objective fashion. The catch-22 with this is that it legitimizes ID as a theory, which IMO it should not be as it's based on a HUGE, unprovable assumption: The existence of god.
I debate things like this regularly with an engineer here at work, and this is similar to his position against gays being allowed to adopt. He feels that all gays are fundamentally depraved, and other than some vague references to STD transmission rates, he has no sound basis for his argument. His entire line of thinking is founded upon his religious beliefs, which is no logical foundation at all, as far as I'm concerned.
tnf wrote:it would be hard to outline their whole philosophy, because it really is vague on specifics other than the idea that if we look closely at some really intricate structures and pathways in biology, we can only assume that they were not evolved but created because they are 'irreducibly complex' - a horribly flawed bit of logic.
I'd give you more info, but don't have time right now.
I can't tell you how many times I've done teh debate you are about to try...heh. Even against one of ID's main figureheads a long time ago.
Good luck. i'll try and give you some pointers sometime.
