Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Martinus]

I think Tyr is arguing that Intelligent Design can be as weak as saying that God initiated the Big Bang and then sat back and watched it all unfold. It is the viewpoint to which most of my Christian friends would subscribe, though I don't think that they would call it Intelligent Design.

I understand that. But he is arguing that it could be "taught in a class". When called on it (it has no place in a biology or geography or geology class, because it has no scientific background whatsoever, any more than the polyana belief should have in, say, history of diplomacy class), he backpedals into saying it should be taught about in a religious education class - which is a clearly banal and obvious statement (which means he is either weak in the head or it is a poor attempt to muddle the waters), because any religious belief, no matter how ridiculous, could be taught about (as opposed to just taught, in the same way the theory of evolution is taught) in a religious education class.

[Razgovory]

Forever.  China can never pose an existential threat to the US the way that the Emperors and the King of Prussia did Poland.

Enough with the gifs.

[Martinus]

Anyway, there is nothing "plausible" about the Intelligent Design theory - it's just a classic example of "God of gaps" in action. Creationism was equally plausible until science found evidence that it is patently untrue, and there is no reason to believe the same fate does not await ID.

The only intelligent thing about the ID theory is that some of the people who run the massive scam of religion are more intelligent than others, so they realized that holding to a patently untrue idea of creationism damages the credibility of their scam.

[Razgovory]

 

[Ideologue]

I don't really have a problem with the weak form of intelligent design.

What do you mean by "not having a problem" in this context? Could a religious person believe in it without being totally ridiculous? Perhaps. Should it be referred to or otherwise mentioned in a biology class? No, because it does not fulfill the criteria of a scientific theory.

The weak form of intelligent design isn't even a pseudoscientific concept.  It's simply acknowledging/inventing a divine plan for life, which is untestable.  It shouldn't be referred to in biology class obviously, in the same vein that the Thirty Years War or the remedy of replevin are not routinely taught in biology class.

I suppose I do still have "a problem" with it, really, but only the very broad sense of having a problem with religion in general.

[Razgovory]

If Marty has such a problem with Religion he should protest the government for declaring Christmas a holiday and the like.

[Josquius]

I understand that. But he is arguing that it could be "taught in a class". When called on it (it has no place in a biology or geography or geology class, because it has no scientific background whatsoever, any more than the polyana belief should have in, say, history of diplomacy class), he backpedals into saying it should be taught about in a religious education class - which is a clearly banal and obvious statement (which means he is either weak in the head or it is a poor attempt to muddle the waters), because any religious belief, no matter how ridiculous, could be taught about (as opposed to just taught, in the same way the theory of evolution is taught) in a religious education class.

Msc here Mr Lawyer man.

I'm not backpedalling at all. I'm just saying what I believe.
Does ID belong in science class? Of course not, its philosophy.
But why then do many people go on about keeping it out of schools all together. RE is a valid subject for an hour a week at least.
Creationism, even as taught in RE, deserves to be laughed at along with the world being on the back of a giant turtle, its a stupid outdated theory. ID though is valid philosophy.

[Viking]

I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.

eh? I'm sorry, but getting into high school biology textbooks is going to require a higher standard than being "a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions", even in countries that don't have a separation of church and state. You should look up Kitzmiller vs. Dover, ID is Creationism.

This is simply not true.  It's like arguing that Lamarckian evolution is the same as Darwinian Evolution.  I agree that it's not appropriate in a public school, but it's not the same as arguing that God created the Earth over the course of a week.

Creation, ID and Lamarckian Evolution are all just as untrue. They are all contradicted by the evidence. Quibbling about the degrees of wrongness is pointless outside of nerd-debates.

[Viking]

I think Tyr is arguing that Intelligent Design can be as weak as saying that God initiated the Big Bang and then sat back and watched it all unfold. It is the viewpoint to which most of my Christian friends would subscribe, though I don't think that they would call it Intelligent Design.

I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.

[Viking]

I understand that. But he is arguing that it could be "taught in a class". When called on it (it has no place in a biology or geography or geology class, because it has no scientific background whatsoever, any more than the polyana belief should have in, say, history of diplomacy class), he backpedals into saying it should be taught about in a religious education class - which is a clearly banal and obvious statement (which means he is either weak in the head or it is a poor attempt to muddle the waters), because any religious belief, no matter how ridiculous, could be taught about (as opposed to just taught, in the same way the theory of evolution is taught) in a religious education class.

Msc here Mr Lawyer man.

I'm not backpedalling at all. I'm just saying what I believe.
Does ID belong in science class? Of course not, its philosophy.
But why then do many people go on about keeping it out of schools all together. RE is a valid subject for an hour a week at least.
Creationism, even as taught in RE, deserves to be laughed at along with the world being on the back of a giant turtle, its a stupid outdated theory. ID though is valid philosophy.

There problem with ID is that it is unfalsifiable and and they require one positive proof. No such proof exists. ID is philosophically unsound and scientifically unsupported.

[Valmy]

Creation, ID and Lamarckian Evolution are all just as untrue. They are all contradicted by the evidence. Quibbling about the degrees of wrongness is pointless outside of nerd-debates.

ID makes no predictions right?  So how can something that makes no predictions be contradicted by evidence?  It can neither be proved nor contradicted to the best of my knowledge.

[Valmy]

I think Tyr is arguing that Intelligent Design can be as weak as saying that God initiated the Big Bang and then sat back and watched it all unfold. It is the viewpoint to which most of my Christian friends would subscribe, though I don't think that they would call it Intelligent Design.

I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.

Are religious people some sort of borg hive mind?  Pretty sure some of them have beliefs that are in some ways consistent with Deism.

[Valmy]

There problem with ID is that it is unfalsifiable and and they require one positive proof. No such proof exists. ID is philosophically unsound and scientifically unsupported.

Well right it is pretty worthless as anything other than a political compromise sorta thing.  It makes no appreciable difference and even if the proof existed...I mean if God poofed before you and said 'Yo I did this'...how would that even effect how we do science?  Except maybe we might rename it 'finding out the stuff God did'.

[Viking]

I think Tyr is arguing that Intelligent Design can be as weak as saying that God initiated the Big Bang and then sat back and watched it all unfold. It is the viewpoint to which most of my Christian friends would subscribe, though I don't think that they would call it Intelligent Design.

I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.

Are religious people some sort of borg hive mind?  Pretty sure some of them have beliefs that are in some ways consistent with Deism.

No, religious people are not one some sort of borg hive mind. The only philosophically sound arguments permitting a god are Deist. A Christian or a Jew or a Muslim arguing for the existence of god by arguing for Deist cosmology is just as silly as any of the three using each other in their own support. None of the Abrahamic Religions claim God started the world and then just watched from afar as the Deists claim, they claim that God interferes.

[Viking]

There problem with ID is that it is unfalsifiable and and they require one positive proof. No such proof exists. ID is philosophically unsound and scientifically unsupported.

Well right it is pretty worthless as anything other than a political compromise sorta thing.  It makes no appreciable difference and even if the proof existed...I mean if God poofed before you and said 'Yo I did this'...how would that even effect how we do science?  Except maybe we might rename it 'finding out the stuff God did'.

I've used precisely that argument against ID when "in my cups". Even if ID was true it would be better to pretend that it wasn't since if ID is true cause and effect in biology is gone and any science cannot produce results.

Ultimately ID is an attempt to disprove philosophical naturalism by falsifying methodological naturalism.