Mine’s the left knee… but it might have something to do with the abuse it received during the ‘rugby’ days, rather than a design fault. I’m also clear on the prostate issue, but I guess something’s goin’ ta get me eventually.
**
Yeah, I know… I’ve been there… but as a famous trumpet player once sang, ‘…and I think to myself, what a wonderful world.’
Maybe some of the evidence for elegance is in the eyes of the beholder?
pax
If the knee was better designed, it wouldn’t be so prone to injury. 
And what’s wonderful about the prostate gland? (I’m sure there’s a complicated pun in there somewhere but for the life of me I can’t find it.)
What a good question… there must be something… I’m off now, but will give it some thought (not too much I hasten to add).
JFTR, while “Intelligent Design” has as its purpose the bolstering of the idea that there is a deity who created the universe, it is not, at least in theory, founded on enforcing fundamentalist Biblical doctrine as through it were science, but in an effort to demonstrate from the factual evidence about the Universe that there was in fact an intelligent designer behind its specifications. Don’t equate it with “Creation Science,” which is “founded on enforcing fundamentalist Biblical doctrine as through it were science.”
I’m less than overwhelmed by the concept, but I can see a moral honesty in (most of) its practitioners that is absent from the others. If Ben puts in an appearance, he may be able to discuss this at greater length, since it’s an interest of his.
The teaching of the Big Bang and Darwinian theory, in the view of most advocates of Creationism, conflicts with their religious beliefs, which are protected by the Constitution, and therefore is infringing on their rights. As a Creationist who believes that God operated under a Big Bang cosmology and a biogenesis and phylogenesis that corresponds with the studies of Darwin, DeVries, Eldridge and Gould, etc., I find the whole thing absurd.
First off, Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis. Its most vocal proponent is Dr. Michael Behe, who supports the general concept of the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. However, Behe has found what he considers a problem in the particulars of Evolutionary theory because he found, in the building of an amino acid (I think) a three-compound reaction that would fail if any of the three were different (as far as he knows). He concluded from this that the three compounds could not have had predecessor compounds that mutated into the current set, because (in his view) any previous reaction would have failed.
His conclusions have been criticized by the overwhelming majority of his associates, but, since we have not (yet) found the “smoking gun” of the three predecessor compounds, he has refused to acknowledge the criticism.
So far, that is simply science as usual as practiced by humans.
What has now happened, however, is that the Creationists have seized on the “scientist disproves Evolution” bit and have gone to the Ohio School board and have insisted that Behe’s (untested, unproven, thoroughly criticized) hypothesis be taught alongside Evolution. The committee to set teaching standards has fought this from the beginning, but the school board includes a couple of “true believers” and several people who are not sufficiently well-informed to understand the debate. They sent the standards committee back to “reconsider” twice and appear to be ready to impose a requirement to teach ID.
The State School Board has an obligation to ensure that children are being taught valid information. It is not right for the Creationists to be able to impose error on the teaching of science in public schools.
No, it is not at all true, unless she went to some sort of bizarro private university I’ve never heard of. Considering I’ve been on the campuses of several of Iowa’s major universities, I can state from personal knowledge that your friend is wrong.
When I was in public schools, religion was certainly mentioned in literature and history classes. For example, when we read Inherit the Wind, or when we were discussing the Reformation. You can’t totally avoid it.
But that’s different from preaching.
It’s probably not the truth, and evolution probably is the truth. The probability determines the scientific validity.
And if ID is not science, should it be taught in science class?
Irreducible Complexity is a scientific hypothesis; Intelligent Design is not. The core of Behe’s version of ID (there are others, as well, as proposed by Dembski and Johnson) is that natural selection cannot account for complex structures, therefore we must look to “design”. The “irreducibility” of complexity can potentially be falsified (and can, thereby, be rendered “scientific”); the appeal to a supernatural causation (i.e., a designer) of such irreducibility, however, cannot.
With increasing knowledge, the available realm in which ID can act is pushed further and further back, until, ultimately, it can only be cited as a “first cause”. At which point, it merges with “evolutionary creationism”, in which it is believed that God first got the ball rolling, and nature took over thereafter. And that is a statement of faith, which cannot be falsified.
I never understood well why there was so much opposition to evolution and not other scientific theories. Were there still people trying to get equal time in schools for the theory that angels were pushing planets around the solar system 150 years after Newton set down his theory of gravitation? Teaching ID/creationism in schools today is just as ridiculous.
DF, would you agree that it’s accurate to say that Behe is making the classic logical mistake of “I don’t understand how it was done, so it must have a supernatural cause”?
I’d like to see in ten years’ time the SAT scores of these kids who are being force-fed ID. It’s going to get to the point where a college admissions office is going to look at an application and go “Where did this kid go to school – Kansas. Let’s not even waste our time.” Application goes into the Round File.
Indoctrination at the creche level doesn’t guarentee getting ahead in life.
Yes, I would. Especially since natural selection does not operate at the gene level, much less the molecular level, in the first place.
Looking to natural selection as a mechanism for complexity in biological molecules is not likely to yield any insight, and Behe’s subsequent immediacy in attributing alleged irreducibility to supernatural causes, without investigating other possible natural mechanisms which do (or might) operate at the appropriate level, has every appearance of an invocation of a “God of the gaps.”
FTR, the Kansas school board that went stupid was swept out of office in the next election and their replacements restored science to the state standards.
It is Ohio that is currently in jeopardy.
It would(well, should) violate the seperation of church and state. Unless you’re willing to teach every single major religion, as well as the scientific theories, and give them all equal time, there’s no freakin way that it could possibly pass muster. And if you do give them all equal time and so on, you’ll have to dedicate most of the school year just to that topic.
I heard a debate on ID some time ago, and I was pretty mad when I heard that there was an effort to push it onto the school curriculum. What really eats me up inside is that the creationism/ID attempts to make us not wonder. That seems to be the basis: Some things are so complex that we should just leave as some deity’s doing. I really hate the “don’t think about it” mentality the lobbiests want to push on us.
nahtanoj
—Besides the PC lobby would jump up and down in hysteria if a purely Christian message was being promoted.—
In most places, the purely Christian messsage IS a PC lobby.
—First off, Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis.—
As noted, no it is not. There is simply no ID hypothesis about how even supposedly IrrC structures came to be. As has been noted by critics, ID is creationism with the engine removed: at least creationism actually has an alternative theory, however empty of explanation it also is.
—Its most vocal proponent is Dr. Michael Behe, who supports the general concept of the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection.—
Supports does not mean he understands it. Several telling critics have pointed out that his retelling of the modern synthesis mistates it at several key points.
—However, Behe has found what he considers a problem in the particulars of Evolutionary theory because he found, in the building of an amino acid (I think) a three-compound reaction that would fail if any of the three were different (as far as he knows). He concluded from this that the three compounds could not have had predecessor compounds that mutated into the current set, because (in his view) any previous reaction would have failed.—
This is the basis for his classic irreducible mousetrap analougy. But as has been demonstrated, the mousetrap analougy itself doesn’t even work: it IS possible to build a working mousetrap from less and less of its parts. Certainly, the less parts, the worse the mousetrap, but that’s exactly what we would expect from succesively better and better adapations.
As for the actual examples Behe cites, every one has been given more attention and potential avenues of adaption and exaption have been described, as well as some that are almost certainly the actual ones.
Indeed, Behe fails to consider a whole range of possibilities that we must rule out before we conclude that an evolutionary process could not have been responsible, much less any other explanation that does not require a forseeing mind.
tomndebb
The Scientific American site already cited has a good refutation of Behe’s ID theory:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-
Should really know better than to try and control the focus of this thread, but I’ll try again now its been bumped…
As previously posted…
So. the question remains….how does the average school refute / ignore their pressure? Can they? Should they? If they manage to convince a school board somewhere, what’s to stop other even more radical groups from following the same paths?
It’s too bad that they are learning “the system” instead of learning science.