Why does every state have to try their own creationism law?

[Rum]

There is no such thing as value free information, except perhaps for the coldest scientific and mathematical information. The battle for school curricula content, the books that present it and the lessons that deliver it have been a battlefield here in the UK for decades - it has been at heart a political battle - certainly one concerning core values. I know this because my job used to involve curriculum content inspection and related stuff when I was an education officer.

Children are not blank disk drives which absorb information and then use some innate inborn skill to sort out the bull from the best. They have to be taught those skills and that is what the best education is - the teaching of those skills. They have in other words, to learn to discriminate.

When it comes to the so called 'teach the controversy' issue it only makes sense if you do so with the clear understanding that one position has a great deal of verifiable evidence supporting it and the other one is founded on mythology and faith and makes no sense without a particular belief system - and one of many possible belief systems too- in place to support it.

[Seth]

There is no such thing as value free information, except perhaps for the coldest scientific and mathematical information. The battle for school curricula content, the books that present it and the lessons that deliver it have been a battlefield here in the UK for decades - it has been at heart a political battle - certainly one concerning core values. I know this because my job used to involve curriculum content inspection and related stuff when I was an education officer.

Children are not blank disk drives which absorb information and then use some innate inborn skill to sort out the bull from the best. They have to be taught those skills and that is what the best education is - the teaching of those skills. They have in other words, to learn to discriminate.

When it comes to the so called 'teach the controversy' issue it only makes sense if you do so with the clear understanding that one position has a great deal of verifiable evidence supporting it and the other one is founded on mythology and faith and makes no sense without a particular belief system - and one of many possible belief systems too- in place to support it.

Then that is what should be taught. But it should be taught. Perhaps not to fifth graders, but certainly to high school students.

Unfortunately, most educators are loathe to even acknowledge that there is a competing theory for the existence and nature of life on earth, much less give it any attention in the classroom.

And ID does not depend on a "particular belief system" at all. It is often used and proclaimed by a particular belief system, but the core theory of ID does not depend on supernatural intervention, as is proven by our human ability to meddle with evolution. ID is not an unsubstantiated theory, it's actual scientific fact. It's been done, to a limited extent, by humans. This takes it out of the realm of theism and religion and places it squarely into the realm of science.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The fundies don't want a Great Sky Fairy involved in ID, but it's the only way it would work. The dodge is just to try and get around the Lemon Test.

[Rum]

Then that is what should be taught. But it should be taught. Perhaps not to fifth graders, but certainly to high school students.

Unfortunately, most educators are loathe to even acknowledge that there is a competing theory for the existence and nature of life on earth, much less give it any attention in the classroom.

And ID does not depend on a "particular belief system" at all. It is often used and proclaimed by a particular belief system, but the core theory of ID does not depend on supernatural intervention, as is proven by our human ability to meddle with evolution. ID is not an unsubstantiated theory, it's actual scientific fact. It's been done, to a limited extent, by humans. This takes it out of the realm of theism and religion and places it squarely into the realm of science.

It probably should not be taught as it is an irrelevance and the curriculum has far more important content to get over to kids. Perhaps what should however be taught is that there is something of a conflict between the rational, evidence take on the world and the faith and superstition based, multi faceted and often contradictory view of it.

[Tero]

There is no controversy. It is a made up thing, see my Discovery Institute links. There is no scientific controversy of evolutuion vs. intelligent design, since nothing was proven to be designed or "irreducibly complex."

[Thumpalumpacus]

ID is not an unsubstantiated theory, it's actual scientific fact. It's been done, to a limited extent, by humans.

Wherein you confuse abiogenesis and evolution.

[Tero]

God science, 2 minutes on
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OOYLEDK ... re=related[/youtube]

[Seth]

ID is not an unsubstantiated theory, it's actual scientific fact. It's been done, to a limited extent, by humans.

Wherein you confuse abiogenesis and evolution.

Not really. The ability to control evolution implies an ability to create life, at least in theory. One of the ways that the ID theory can be falsified is if it turns out to be impossible to create living organisms from non-living matter.

You are mistaking the origin of life on earth (OLE)for abiogenesis, which is the occurrence of life for the first time.

The panspermia theory of OLE holds that life may not have evolved on earth at all, but may have been seeded here from outer space. Current theory suggests that the complex chemistry of comets might have been the birthplace of life, but once again ID comes bursting in the door as a perfectly plausible explanation for OLE.

Even Dawkins admits this as well, but then invokes the infinite regression argument and claims that even an extraterrestrial being intelligent enough to seed earth with life must have itself evolved from something more primitive, and thus, he claims, the theory of evolution is vindicated.

But what if that intelligence is not a biologically evolved organism? What if it's a spontaneously occurring intelligence that came into being as a function of quantum functions, dimensions unknown to us, and the Big Bang? What if the complexity of an enormous amount of matter infinitely compressed somehow injected into this empty universe is so nearly infinite that the entire structure of the universe, from its most basic components on up, are all part of an incredibly enormous non-corporeal intelligence that permeates time and space on a level we cannot begin to understand.

As the universe expanded, in the first few microseconds, the complex interactions of forces we have no inkling of created a self-aware intelligence that proclaimed "I Am." Not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient, but enormously advanced from us and able to think, but not do more than weakly interact with the universe, perhaps by directly interacting with the human brain to produce visions or subtly influence the orbit of an asteroid 165 million years ago so it would impact near the Yucatan, or use subtle and not understood forces to manipulate chemicals and protein chains in the primordial soup.

And perhaps as the universe expanded, the distance between memory nodes is becoming too great for interaction and this intelligence is no longer able to do what it once did and is suffering from the universal equivalent of Alzheimer's.

None of this requires anything other than an open and secular scientific mindset, and none of it requires theism or supernatural powers, all of it is hypothetically possible within the realm of physics.

So no, I do not confuse abiogenesis and evolution, I merely posit alternative scientific hypotheses and theories that do not evidently lie within your comprehension, which is a pity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The ability to control evolution implies an ability to create life, at least in theory.

No, it doesn't. Farmers bred livestock for millennia with no ability to create life outside of the standard vaginal intercourse method with the missus.

You are mistaking the origin of life on earth (OLE)for abiogenesis, which is the occurrence of life for the first time.

The panspermia theory of OLE holds that life may not have evolved on earth at all, but may have been seeded here from outer space. Current theory suggests that the complex chemistry of comets might have been the birthplace of life, but once again ID comes bursting in the door as a perfectly plausible explanation for OLE.

No, I'm not mistaking those two things, because all panspermia does is push the question off the planet. In so doing, it puts the question beyond falsification, rendering it moot.

But what if that intelligence is not a biologically evolved organism? What if it's a spontaneously occurring intelligence that came into being as a function of quantum functions, dimensions unknown to us, and the Big Bang? What if the complexity of an enormous amount of matter infinitely compressed somehow injected into this empty universe is so nearly infinite that the entire structure of the universe, from its most basic components on up, are all part of an incredibly enormous non-corporeal intelligence that permeates time and space on a level we cannot begin to understand.

As the universe expanded, in the first few microseconds, the complex interactions of forces we have no inkling of created a self-aware intelligence that proclaimed "I Am." Not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient, but enormously advanced from us and able to think, but not do more than weakly interact with the universe, perhaps by directly interacting with the human brain to produce visions or subtly influence the orbit of an asteroid 165 million years ago [sic] so it would impact near the Yucatan, or use subtle and not understood forces to manipulate chemicals and protein chains in the primordial soup.

And perhaps as the universe expanded, the distance between memory nodes is becoming too great for interaction and this intelligence is no longer able to do what it once did and is suffering from the universal equivalent of Alzheimer's.

None of this requires anything other than an open and secular scientific mindset, and none of it requires theism or supernatural powers, all of it is hypothetically possible within the realm of physics.

So no, I do not confuse abiogenesis and evolution, I merely posit alternative scientific hypotheses and theories that do not evidently lie within your comprehension, which is a pity.

I comprehend what you're saying, and acknowledge that it's possible, but quite frankly, it seems so unlikely I don't waste my time on it. Let me know if you find any evidence for your hypothesis.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Where does he come up with this shit?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I like his imagination, 'Zilla. I mean that honestly; I respect a man who can imagine stuff like that. I simply don't believe it because aside from lacking evidence it presupposes much.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that he's exercising imagination in trying to answer that question for himself, and that's something that's all too rare when you think about it. Most people lap up their spoonfed bullshit with nary a question.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like his imagination, 'Zilla. I mean that honestly; I respect a man who can imagine stuff like that. I simply don't believe it because aside from lacking evidence it presupposes much.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that he's exercising imagination in trying to answer that question for himself, and that's something that's all too rare when you think about it. Most people lap up their spoonfed bullshit with nary a question.

I have too much trouble lying with a straight face for that to work for me. :sight;

[klr]

When Last Thursdayism can be refuted, then not having a refutation for ID might be relevant.

But the thing is... It ain't science. It makes no testable claims and has the power to explain nothing.

Here's the claim: Long ago, an intelligent being intervened in the development of the earth by seeding the planet with living organic matter. From time to time thereafter, this being stopped by to check on the progress of its science experiment, and it occasionally dabbled with particular species, or with the ecosystem, to guide evolution down particular pathways, which is how human beings came to be.

There's a claim, it's testable, and it explains a lot.
...

The more we come to know, the less it explains. In fact, we don't need it at all, and haven't done so for some time. It therefore no more deserves our consideration than - say - the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory:

In the beginning the Universe was created.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded
as a bad move.

Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God,
though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the
entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being
called the Great Green Arkleseizure.

The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they
call The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue
creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore
unique in being the only race in history to have invented the
aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely
accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the
puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being
sought.

And of course, not only does it not explain anything, it (amongst many other problems) defeats itself: If it takes a greater thing to make a lesser thing, then ...

[Thumpalumpacus]

I like his imagination, 'Zilla. I mean that honestly; I respect a man who can imagine stuff like that. I simply don't believe it because aside from lacking evidence it presupposes much.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that he's exercising imagination in trying to answer that question for himself, and that's something that's all too rare when you think about it. Most people lap up their spoonfed bullshit with nary a question.

I have too much trouble lying with a straight face for that to work for me. :sight;

You don't value a creative imagination?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like his imagination, 'Zilla. I mean that honestly; I respect a man who can imagine stuff like that. I simply don't believe it because aside from lacking evidence it presupposes much.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that he's exercising imagination in trying to answer that question for himself, and that's something that's all too rare when you think about it. Most people lap up their spoonfed bullshit with nary a question.

I have too much trouble lying with a straight face for that to work for me. :sight;

You don't value a creative imagination?

Seeth isn't interested in debate, he just wants to feed his ego by scoring imaginary points. There is no honest interaction there, just him giving himself blow jobs.