Superbelt

I live in York, Pa (as you can see next to my name) Infamous Dover, Pa IS York.

My hometown is host to the stupidest educational decision I have heard in a very long time.

As most have heard, Dover recently decided that they will be teaching 'alternatives' to Evolution in their schools. This alternative is intelligent design, which will be taught through a book called "of Panda's and people"

Here is a very beautiful letter that was printed in my local paper on monday
I especially love how this man assumes that if you have a view different from him, you have to leave the country.

Anyways, gotta love it, don't ya? especially how ignorant people don't understand the meaning of the word 'theory'
Dumbasses like this equate theory with it's popular meaning of hypothesis, educated guess, or hunch.
The 'theory' is Darwinism, but the concept of of one species descending from another, is considered to be scientific fact.
The 'Theory" is a well substantiated naturalistic explanation for a related set of facts.
Other famous theories include, relativity, plate tectonics, and gravity.
The things that all modern science is based upon The tenets of all we know are, really, theories.

The ID nuts like to focus on having an alternate viewpoint. But I bet they would balk if I tried to also install the creation mythology of Greeks or the Hundu myth where the divine presence created the elements and dispelled the darkness. All Creation myths have as much validity as Intelligent design. All are based on just as much observable fact. (none)

If I had more time on my hands, I'd print up some pamphlets where I postulate that the present theory of gravity is wrong and that we are held on earth by the hand of a higher power who keeps us from floating off the planet. Then lobby to get it installed in the Physics program. I think it would be fun to see who would come out to bitch about that one.

Anyway, to answer my title, there is none. Not until the ID'ers can come back to us with some observable fact, keep it in the religion class.

archer2371

I don't mind giving equal time to both theories, because they both have merit, but presenting it in this fashion is just the wrong way to go about it. Just give the kids the facts about each and let them decide for themselves, I see no problem with that. However, he could have sprung for a more scientific book than "Of Pandas and People."

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

Superbelt

See, I don't see a good reason to give this equal time. First, because only one is a theory, and that's Evolution. The other one is a quick and dirty story made up to satisfy creationists. ID has not gone through the scientific process whatsoever, it is not a theory, in the scientific sense. If you give it to the ID'ers, then you have to give it to the equally fruitcakey folks who think aliens deposited us on this planet and used the pyramids as intergallactic space hubs. (My Archaeology prof called them Pyramidiots)

There is no basis behind ID in science, only religion. The entire thing behind ID is that evolution couldn't do what it did, so let's chalk it up to a higher power doing it for nature.
That's just a cop out and in no way belongs in science.

it's no better than those who think Noah's flood happened.
Smart people: But where did enough water come from to cover all the earth?
Floodie: God made it happen.
Smart people: But how did all the plants come back after every square inch of land was covered by salt water for a prolonged period of time?
Floodie: God made it happen, he protected them all.
Smart people: what did all the large animals eat while they were on the ark?
Floodie: God provided.
This doesn't belong in my history book or geology book, neither does ID

ID is no less retarded.

archer2371

No argument there, I believe in a combination of the two theories after doing just a little bit of background research for myself. There are scientists who give the ID theory some credence but don't automatically throw out evolution because ID just slam dunks on evolution and blows it out of the water. RRRiiighhhttttt..... Those scientists do leave the possibility of evolution open, as good scientists should, because there is a lot of evidence in support of it, but they also leave the possibility of ID open, as good scientists should. Like I said before, this guy is going about it in the wrong way. Back to the scientists though, there are a number of them out there that do find that the ID theory deserves some credence, not in the overwhelming amount that the Christian Fundies give it, but in combination with a micro-evolution and a little bit of macro-evolution thrown in there. The gentleman probably wouldn't like these guys to support his theory because they do differ with him, but I would prefer it, and I certainly think a lot of other people do, if these scientists would come out and lend the facts that they've uncovered and help the ID flourish as a scientific theory rather than the wild ideas of crazies.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

Superbelt

My personal views, as I am Christian I believe are quite similar. I do believe God had a plan for all this to happen. But he let nature go through it's motions and left everything to create itself in the right way.
As teaching it goes, it doesn't belong in the discussion of the origin of species and I see ID where they say, well this eyeball couldn't have just developed, or cell division is naturally impossible and has to be helped along by the hand of God to be just appallingly stupid and an attempt to have humanity take giant steps backwards in education.

roachboy

so by this logic, any proposition can become a scientific theory if it attracts a certain level of research?
how much?
and what do you do with this argument in a context already full of conservative thinktanks and industry lobbyists with vast amounts of unearmarked cash available that have already shown themselves more than willing to buy whatever level of "research" they require for publicity purposes?

you can build almost any crackpot theory into the premises of your "research" and find that research either confirms it or is dismissable as plagued by accident.

this is america. everything is for sale.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Seaver

In Texas they teach both "equally". I like it that way.

By "equally" I mean they cover each in the same way. Because there isn't much to Creationalism, other than everything is due to God, we dont spend more than one class period on it. Because Evolution is much more complex we spend about a week to a week and a half. I agree with this, keeps the bible-thumpers happy while it taught me a good depth of High School evolution.

irateplatypus

superbelt,

i don't think you have a firm grasp of what intelligent design actually is. when you talk of people who are proponents of intelligent design balking at giving equal time to hindu or ancient greek religions you're comparing apples to oranges. ID is based on the possibility that the observable universe has so much order/structure/complexity that it is likely that an overarching intelligent force has guided its direction. the theory itself is unrelated to christianity except in that they both allow for the existence of a higher intelligence.

whether or not the universe has been directed in its development is unknowable either way at this point in history. there are compelling arguments to be made on both sides. while the answer remains unknowable, i think the practical way to educate our ourselves is to not make one side of the debate the only voice to be heard.

here's a FAQ on intelligent design

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Superbelt

Do Texas schools go through other 'theories' of creation?
If not, why?

stevo

I don't understand why we can teach creationsim in schools, but we can't decorate for christmas or even call it christmas break. what gives?

Mojo_PeiPei

We wouldn't want to offend anyone...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Manx

I have a theory that the universe is an atom on the peel of a very large orange.

I demand that my theory get equal time with Evolution and ID.

Any real scientist would leave the possibility of Manx's Theory of the Orange Peel Universe open and would welcome it in our schools.

Mojo_PeiPei

Your theory doesn't explain anything as a means of creation though. You'll have to get working.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Superbelt

Having spent my K-12 years in Catholic school, I know plenty about Creation and ID.
From the faq: Darwin's Theory: A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

Neo-Darwinism: A theory of evolution that is a synthesis of Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics.

So, ID is opposed to modern population genetics.

Genetics: The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.

ID is against the idea that the transmission of inherited characteristics among organisms cannot be governed by nature in and of itself but it is guided by God.

That, I'm sorry to say, is stupid. But only because we have actual concrete facts to back it up and ID has to resort to lying about hereditary genetics and saying, "God just did it (No further questions please)" to try and appear to be less than fallacious.

ARTelevision

IMO, the current discourse regarding various "theories" of "intelligent design" contains some important concepts. I'm not opposed to offering info on the overall conception to students in an educational context when the theory of evolution is being discussed. It has some merit and can be the source of useful educational experiences.

__________________
create evolution

Kadath

The only thing I have to say on this subject is that some extremist Muslim governments teach nothing but the Koran in schools. We all know the result of that. You should not teach "faith"; faith is not learned. There is a reason it takes one period to teach Creationism: you are not learning anything. Someone is telling you something happened, with no dissection of why or how, as there can be none. There is no education in religion. I agree that ID does appear to be nothing more than an attempt to force science into Creationism. I myself take the view of a God inspired Big Bang and then more of a hands-off approach for the rest of time, but in school I learned science, and I experienced religion in church. I am happy with that distinction, and I think we should continue to pursue the ideal of separation of church and state, even if certain things (e.g.,Christmas as a national holiday) make that sort of futile.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Manx

The universe and everything in it was created when the cell on the orange was created.

My theory is a nice little perfect ball of explanation. It explains everything just as accurately as ID.

ID nevers asks the question: who created the Intelligent Designer? I see no reason that my theory needs to ask who created the orange. The orange just is.

Superbelt

It does not have merit as it cannot be measured and proven. We can trot out all the examples in the world like the divergent history of the Red fox and the Kit fox and the path they took from a common ancestor. We can provide proof throughout the centures of their gradual evolution and the answer we will always get back is that the Intelligent Design guided them towards that.

This kind of stuff will only succeed in confusing kids. Teachers jobs are to teach the truth, not give equal time to everything. We don't give equal time to the flat earthers, But we are practically giving equal time to Noah's flood carving the Grand Canyon in 40 days (Ain't that a kick in the scientific nuts?) link What's next?
If it is not supported by any rational evidence and has not gone through the process of a real theory, it shouldn't be allowed to stand next to something that has actually withstood the test of time and scrutiny.

Like I said, if we have rot our kids brains with ID in public schools, then rot them throughly by teaching Alien forcing the cultivation of earth and using pyramids as space beacons. Less than doing that is an obvious ruse to force religion in our schools.

flstf

Since something like 98% of the species that have ever existed on Earth have become extinct, what makes anyone think that if there is a designer that he/she/it is intelligent? I can understand if evolution is selecting species for extinction through natural selection but why would a designer want to discard or screw up so much of their work. Could just be an unintelligent alien kid mucking around. Of course maybe they will cover this in the new curriculum.

hannukah harry

how do they both have merit?

to teach ID it would probably go like this: god (or 'the intelligent designer') created the universe and set everything in motion making things the way they are today. (total lesson time - 2 minutes, give or take question answering)

to teach evolution: natural selection, genetic drift, etc etc... here's the observable evidence backing this up. (total lesson time - could go really long depending on how indepth you want to make it)


the thing i find funny about ID is that doesn't ID negate free will? the major backers of ID seem to be fundamentalists, and they'll tell you that god gave us free will (and to use it to worship him or burn in hell ), but the ID theory seems to oppose that.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Superbelt

I would like to take this time to issue a formal challenge to anyone here who thinks that teaching ID is valid.
Please provide me with some evidence to support ID. Anything.
Do not come at me with faith. Faith is not science, faith cannot be measured with physical tools. If you want to challenge Evolutionary Genetics, than you need hard science, for that is what Evolutionary Genetics is.

You may come with fossil records, you may come with tested, observable proof that various evolutionary traits and biological systems are not possible without a Creator.
I will repeat do not come at me with feelings, obscure ideas or faith. Do not give me a page of links. Give me links but cut and past all relevant data in your post as well.

I will wait patiently for all physical, scientific proof to be provided to me that will make ID a valid scientific theory to be taught alongside Darwinistic Evolution.

If you can't do that, what you are pushing is purely bunk and has no more place in the science programs of our schools than Greek Mythology.

irateplatypus

it's nauseating how many people can't disentangle creationism and intelligent design.

the problem isn't a "how" problem... it's a "why" problem. neo-darwinists believes that the genetics developments of species are the results of random mutations or a purely competitive natural selection. intelligent design proposes that the developments have a consistency and complexity that makes an over-arching design the most plausible explanation.

in order to teach both, you don't have to run over facts or erase history. you don't have to ignore science, because they're both compatible with science. this spills over into the arrogance that pervades neo-darwinists... they think they understand the "how" and automatically assume that they know the "why". they know the mechanism... but simultaneously teach that the mechanism is an end in itself. they have themselves gone from teaching strictly science to injecting their own belief system on the data, the very thing they object to anyone else doing that doesn't subscribe to their "why".

my solutions:

solution A: don't even address the issue except from the standpoint of raw data and testable fact. this means that no implication is given either way when discussing whether life's progression is random or ordered.

solution B: teach the kids all the same factual data, but have a philosophy of science discussion about the idea that we have sprung up through physical chemical combinations alone or whether the universe's progression has intelligent structure.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

hannukah harry

the reason we don't disentangle creationism and intelligent design is because ID was essentially created and is being pushed in response to the fundamentalists inability to get creationism taught in school. i'm not sure, but i don't think ID was around before the 70's. it's just an attempt at getting the door for creationism into the classroom.

we have a good idea on the 'how.' it so far works very well with the evidence.

and we have a really good idea on the 'why' too. why do things evolve? competition. it happens at all levels (genetic, social, etc). we see bacteria become immune to antibiotics allowing them to better compete and survive. we see ancient countries imporving technology to better compete and outlast their neighbors. if you don't compete and adapt to the world around you, you become extinct.

look at professional sports. originally all they would do is practice, then practice and weightlift, then adding in good nutriotion, then supplements, and then steroids. athletes are doing what they must to compete in their contemporary environment.

it's a lot easier to see how competition is present in pretty much every aspect of life and use that as an explanation for evolution than 'some intelligent designer did it.' one we can see and verify, the other is just as plausible (has the same amount of evidence) as the boogie man being in closet.

now, if you mean 'why' as in 'why are we here?', well, i ask you, why does there have to be a reason? again, the simplest answer (and most likely one) is that we're here because we evolved through natural selection rather than 'the big guy in the sky put me here (directly or indirectly).'

edit: forgot about your solutions...

solution A is bad because that woudl be like teaching kids the alphabet but not teaching them how it all ties together.

solution B is bad because that discussion should be in a comparitive religions class where it isn't wasting valuable class room time. there's a lot of information to be learned in a biology class, other than talking about the ethics of science (like what to consider when designing an experiment), philosophy should be left out.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Lebell

"Intelligent Design" is creationism repackaged and has no place in public schools.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Willravel

Religion is as important as science, history, math, and language in school. I feel a comprehensive (all religions) religious course or courses would hurt no one and benifit most. HOWEVER, if we are teaching science, we should stick to scientific method - which disqualifies intelligent design and almost dismisses evolution as well (evolution is pretty frail as an explaination of the source of life). Science is things like biology, physics, astronomy, and psychology. Theoretical explaination of natural phenomena that has at least some basis in relative fact is what I consider to be science. As we are now, God (or any godlike or supreme supernatural being) is not explained in any way by science. Whether evolution is explained by science is debatable, but I think we can agree that we are a long way from having a general theory of supernatural benevolant phenomena.

ARTelevision

To posit intelligent design, you simply have to posit that the universe contains intelligence. You could use humans as the example, but something like dolphins would be more obvious - since the intelligence of humans is somewhat dubious.

After that, you state with supporting evidence that intelligence is an integral aspect of the universe and not an evolutionary end-product.

I'm not about to quote long and detailed articles here. You want "evidence" that ID has some intellectual and even scientific merit - go research it. It's clear that many have not done that. You put "Intelligent Design" into a search engine and read up on it. I'm not responsible for your self-education.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

(if you don't like the source - it is reprinted from
Natural History magazine)

This link has some merit and certainly also has some educational value. I would have no problem at all in presenting materials such as this - or many of the other things you will find in your research of this topic - in the same lessons in which I would teach the theory of evolution.

What is becoming increasingly clear to me is the intolerance of those with views that differ from pure secularists by the secularists themselves. And I am tiring of the invective, derision, and bald disrespect that seems to be acceptable whan discussing any topic that may be related to those who have religious views.

As you know, I have no interest in religion myself, but the sort of derision and intolerance shown by its opponents is moving me toward a position in which I am ready to begin actively defending those with religious beliefs against those who seem to think it necessary to carry on a campaign of insult against them.

__________________
create evolution

Charlatan

That's about all I have to say on this subject matter...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ARTelevision

No, it's not creationism repackaged. There is a long history of scientists who've been convinced that intelligence is a root aspect of the universe:

.....

The Intelligent Universe
By William F. Hamilton III

Introduction: The present day concept we hold of the Universe is far beyond anything the early Greek Philosophers such as Aristotle had in mind. In ancient geocentric views of the Universe, the earth held a primary position and the stars and planets (wanderers) of the heavens were just lights in a celestial sphere. There was no concept of a galaxy, supergalaxy, or cluster or supercluster in those ancient days. So the first thing we know about our Universe today is that we have a greatly enhanced concept of its size and its complexity. There are many more objects in our Universe than dreamt of by our ancient ancestors.

As concepts in Cosmology improve, our understanding of the origin of our Universe and life in the Universe at large increase. When we consider our stature as humans, we may feel overwhelmed by the immensity of not just the visible universe, but the prospect of multiple universes. We then proceed from big U to little u. The prevailing scenario for the creation of the universe in Cosmology is called Inflation. This model developed by Alan Guth of M.I.T. goes beyond the Big Bang. Essentially, Guth says that in the initial stages of creation the universe underwent a period of rapid inflation as if a balloon were expanded by a helium pump. There are up to 50 variations of this theory with little prospect of proving any one of them except by extremely delicate measurements made by instrumented satellites.

Not only are theories of the creation of our universe being contemplated by cosmologists, but also theories on the creation of many universes. These new theories seem to reflect an older idea that perhaps there was no beginning and no end to the creation of universes. That several universes may exist is a conclusion reached both in the world of macrophysics and microphysics, the world descrtibed by quantum theory.

In the philosophy of science books have been written about the Anthropic Principle. This principle states that if any of the physical constants were to vary from the fine-tuned values we have determined for them that life in the universe would be impossible. It is reasoned that the properties of our universe are special and conducive to life. Speculation has ensued on why this may be so.

Finally we come to the gist of our thesis. The late Fred Hoyle, who died recently at age 86, will be remembered as one of the most distinguished and controversial scientists of the 20th century. Soon after the end of the second world war he became widely known both by scientists and the public as one of the originators of a new theory of the universe. He was a fluent writer and speaker and became the main expositor of this new theory of the steady state, or continuous creation, according to which the universe had existed for an infinite past time and would continue infinitely into the future, as opposed to what Hoyle styled the "big bang" theory.

Hoyle wrote a seminal book he titled The Intelligent Universe. He made many controversial statements in his book that raised the ire of the scientific community, but he was never one to shy away from a good argument and he engaged his critics with challenges that were impossible to ignore.

Central to the debate is whether life in the universe is a matter of accident, whether unguided events led to the evolution of all forms of life on earth. Hoyle concludes that random events and chance occurrences are insufficient to account for the complexity of living organisms and that a cosmic control system exists, that there is a hierarchy of intelligences beyond human up to a limit we call God. This was a most disturbing statement to make as a scientist and a former atheist.

According to Hoyle, “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God."



He also said, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."

And further, “I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics."

Hoyle continues these thoughts in the book titled The Mathematics of Evolution. In this he uses mathematics to reveal the constraints imposed on any Darwinian theory of evolution. Again critics attacked his work and even called his conclusions wrong.

Was Hoyle wrong or do we live in an intelligent universe, not one governed solely by blind chance?

The newest discoveries indicate that the expansion of our universe is accelerating and that our universe is filled with a mysterious dark energy and an equally mysterious quantity of dark matter.

Intelligent Design: A new cavalry has rushed to the rescue and calls its thesis, “Intelligent Design”. This new movement, starting with life sciences, has further raised the ire of conventional scientists. Critics of this rising tide of advocates allege that those who back this concept are just the old Christian Creationist in a new suit of clothes. However, Hoyle was no Creationist, and neither is Dr. Richard Thompson who prefers Eastern Religious Philosophy to that of Western. Also, advocates of ID say they are not Creationists in the old sense of the term and only wish to present an alternate paradigm for understanding life in the universe.

Who are these leading advocates of Intelligent Design? One is William A. Dembski, a philosopher and logician and Michael Behe, a very insightful biochemist. These two have been prolific in writing on this subject and are heavily criticized by the Darwinists who will not accept Intelligent Design as science.

Dembski describes the theory behind ID in an abstract: “For the scientific community intelligent design represents creationism's latest grasp at scientific legitimacy. Accordingly, intelligent design is viewed as yet another ill-conceived attempt by creationists to straightjacket science within a religious ideology. But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. In my paper I shall (1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured, and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information. My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.

Information Theory: This brings us to other considerations that have been proposed for a universe that is rich in information. Cyberneticist David Foster also wrote a book he titled The Intelligent Universe, but his concept was the universe as data, as a cybernetic entity. Some of his concepts were simplistic and speculative, but he paved the way for more sophisticated theories of a cybernetic universe. These tentative theories see the universe as information and the information is processed according to instructions as one finds in a computer program. These theories may imply the hidden existence of a programmer. We have had God as an Architect, a Dreamer, a Mathematician, an Engineer, and a Programmer. All of this seems rational, but scientists prefer the non-invocation of intelligent agents in the process of creation.

Mathematics: We would not have science without mathematics. Quantities, measurements, equations, and formulas give us exactness in science. Probability theory has been used to demonstrate the improbability of a universe by accident, notably by Albert Einstein. The internal harmony of universal processes can be analyzed with the aid of mathematics.

PI: The recurrent use of this mathematical ratio throughout physics and all natural sciences gives us one of the fundamental bases of all dynamic processes.

PHI: The Golden Section, the Fibonacci sequence has been found throughout the biological world and was a proportion most revered by the Greeks as it is found in nature and replicated in architecture and the arts.

E: The relationships of the natural logarithms are also found in many physical equations.

The Fine Structure Constant: designated as α = 0.007297352533(27) is one of those ubiquitous numbers found throughout microphysics.

There are so many special numbers and equations that show up in theories of the physical world that it is a marvel that we can use the predictive power of mathematics to forecast the future.

Consciousness: The last great frontier. We know of its existence in living entities, but its source and nature remains a scientific mystery. The pundits of the East say that all reality is based on consciousness.

Though all the galaxies emerge from him, He is without form and unconditioned.
(Tejabindu Up. 6, p. 239)

The Eastern view of consciousness is that it is the Supreme Reality, and though we live in a world of form and condition, it itself remains without form or condition and projects all that we witness. The western view is that consciousness is restricted to organisms, with the human as the highest expression of consciousness. New ideas treat consciousness as universal and omnipresent.

Attempts are being made to construct a science of consciousness which calls on many disciplines. A recent conference on consciousness studies lists these subjects:

Philosophy: conceptual foundations, ontology, explanation, self, intentionality, mental causation, reality, free will
Neuroscience: neural correlates of consciousness, neuropsychology, vision, motor control, blindsight, anesthetic and psychoactive drugs, binding/integration
Cognitive Science and Psychology: implicit processes, attention, metacognition, memory, language, emotion, sleep, cognitive models, artificial intelligence, animal consciousness.

Physical and Biological Sciences: quantum theory, space and time, evolution, biophysics, medicine, computational theory, quantum computation and information, life
Phenomenology and Culture: first-person methods, religion and contemplative studies, anthropology, transpersonal psychology, hypnosis, parapsychology, aesthetics

That such a basic subject calls upon our most developed sciences and progressive minds gives us an idea on how we are evolving toward a greater understanding of our role in the universe.

The Holographic Paradigm: The concept of the universe as a giant hologram containing both matter and consciousness as a single field will, I am sure, excite anyone who has asked the question, 'What is reality?' This book may answer that question once and for all."
-- Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D., author of Takiing the Quantum Leap

London physicist David Bohm, a former protégé of Einstein's and one of the world's most respected quantum physicists, and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, one of the architects of our modern understanding of the brain -- believe that the universe itself may be a giant hologram, quite literally a kind of image or construct created, at least in part, by the human mind. This remarkable new way of looking at the universe explains not only many of the unsolved puzzles of physics, but also such mysterious occurrences as telepathy, out-of-body and near-death experiences, "lucid" dreams, and even religious and mystical experiences such as feelings of cosmic unity and miraculous healings.

Borrowing ideas from holographic photography, the *hologram* is Bohm's favorite metaphor for conveying the structure of the Implicate Order. Holography relies upon wave interference. If two wavelengths of light are of differing frequencies, they will interfere with each other and create a pattern. "Because a hologram is recording detail down to the wavelength of light itself, it is also a dense *information* storage." Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a "total content--in principle extending over the whole of space and time--is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region." The hologram illustrates how "information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film." It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is "completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns." Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object.

Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order--the Implicate Order where "everything is enfolded into everything." This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded. Bohm puts it thus:

"The actual order (the Implicate Order) itself has been recorded in the complex movement of electromagnetic fields, in the form of light waves. Such movement of light waves is present everywhere and in principle enfolds the entire universe of space and time in each region. This enfoldment and unfoldment takes place not only in the movement of the electromagnetic field but also in that of other fields (electronic, protonic, etc.). These fields obey quantum-mechanical laws, implying the properties of discontinuity and non-locality. The totality of the movement of enfoldment and unfoldment may go immensely beyond what has revealed itself to our observations. We call this totality by the name *holomovement.*"

Bohm believes that *the Implicate Order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality;* in other words, the holomovement endlessly enfolds and unfolds into infinite dimensionality. Within this milieu there are independent sub-totalities (such as physical elements and human entities) with relative autonomy. The layers of the Implicate Order can go deeper and deeper to the ultimately unknown. It is this "unknown and indescribable totality" that Bohm calls the holomovement. The holomovement is the "fundamental ground of all matter."

Finally, the manifest world is part of what Bohm refers to as the "explicate order." It is secondary, derivative; it "flows out of the law of the Implicate Order." Within the Implicate Order, there is a "totality of forms that have an approximate kind of recurrence (changing), stability, and separability." It is these forms, according to Bohm, that make up our manifest world. (12)

Bohm’s implicate order also led Bohm to consider a super-intelligent agent as a causative force in the universe.

Some see the vision of a Cosmic Mind who has created, and is creating a manifold reality based on pure thought that manifests itself as order and energy, as a universe.

Cosmic Evolution: All evolution, whether particulate, galactic, biological, or mental is part of one virtually infinite progression and unfolding of an intelligent consciousness as a universe full of life. That this evolution may be charted, and studied at this stage in our sciences is remarkable and is probably one of the foremost studies that we could undertake. Science has previously left out of its purview subjects of spiritual interest such life after death or reincarnation or a search for moral and ethical laws beyond the purely mundane physical. The restrictive, reductionist approach to science is undergoing transformation with new holistic approaches and incursions into off-limit territories. Perhaps we will see the dawning of a new understanding of existence before the human race rushes to its ultimate extinction.

__________________
create evolution

KMA-628

Oh, its been a good day here at the TFP!.

First, I start chuckling over Shakran's comment in the "In America?" thread (i.e. the one about Kerry signs on UsTwo's lawn).

And then Art throws out a good one, thanks, I had a good guffaw on this one too.



Anyway, what about both, working together? What if a part of Intelligent Design included an evolutionary process? Why must the two be separate and against each other.

Also, the same problem with ID also applies to Evolution. What started the ball rolling? Neither theory can answer that question. If a "God" created the universe, who created "God". If we started from an explosion or whatever, who created the stuff that lead to explosion. It didn't come from nowhere.

Both theories lead to this ultimate question that cannot be answered. Sure, one contains scientific data to show proof of the process, but nobody knows who created the first little atom that started the whole thing.

I honestly believe that neither can be taught as absolute proofs, since both lack fundamental evidence regarding the origin.

In other words, there is no proof to truly teach "where we came from". It is a leap of faith regardless of the position.

ARTelevision

KMA-628, absolutely. I think they both are valuable and meritorious views. I'm interested in a pluralistic solution as well.

.............
I don't want to get into a debate about sources here - or even "evidence". My point in quoting that piece was that there is something worth at least researching regarding ID before one just does a knee-jerk dismissal of the subject. And that's what is bothering me about all this. There is a trend toward simply dismissing - as pure lunacy - anything that can be associated with religious thought. This is more narrow-minded and antithetical to respectful discourse than a lot of what we consider as such when discussing many other groups of people and/or philosophical positions. I'm not going to just sit by and watch this poor trend continue.

__________________
create evolution

Locobot

I will not have the Manx Theory of the Orange Peel Universe (MTOPU) taking time away from the right and proper teaching of Norse Creation Theory (NCT). "For those of you not familliar with this venerable theory of creation, it states that the world as we see it is made up of the fragments of the dead giant Ymir--his blood forms the oceans, his shattered bones the mountains and rocks, his skullcap the sky above, and levitating fragments of his brain tissue form the clouds." MTOPU limits our universe to part of a giant orange while there is clear and observable evidence of Ymir's remains all around us. So called "theories" of faith-based Intelligent Design and science-based Evolution do not account for what is obviously a Ymir-based universe.

Yakk

ID is different than Creationism. ID is different than Darwinism.

ID adds another postulate (an intelligent designer) to a theory (natural evolution). There isn't any testable (testable = an assertion that can be proven false by new evidence) need for that postulate to be added. By good old occam, you cut the postulate unless it is needed.

We know random chance can and does cause evolutionary behaviour in complex systems, and that random chance is acting on life forms. Additional evolutionary agents should be dismissed until you can prove that the existing agents are insufficient.

You can't just show that an intelligent designer is consistent with your evolutionary model -- as noted above, an orange creating reality is consistent with the evolutionary model. You need to show, in a falsifiable way, that random chance is insufficient.

And, given the strength of the 'random-chance' model, you need a really really really strong case to provide another postulate.

After you pull that off, you need to show that there aren't other sources for evolutionary pressure that make fewer assumptions than an intelligent designer -- you need to show, in a falsifiable way, that intelligent design is the best explaination. And you need to hold up testable (falsifiable) predictions that intelligent design supports.

Given the nebulousness of the intelligent design arguement, it basically completely lacks testable (falsifiable) predictions. The best it does is generating a flurry of weak attacks on the random-chance based evolution (that eye's couldn't form in the time allotted, etc).

And that is why Intelligent Design doesn't belong in a Science class. Feel free to place it in Philosophy or Religious studies or even Social Studies.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Locobot

Good point Yakk, there could be an intelligent designer, just as there could be magical pixie dust, or unicorn farts, or a farsical big bang (how big could this bang be?), or a dancing ogre which would explain the beginning of the universe. But we know that we inhabit, and evolution takes place on, the corpse of the giant Ymir.

Artelevision, the article you posted had blatant falsehoods throughout the first ten paragraphs, I refuse to take it seriously or finish reading it. Are you sure it isn't a piece of satire lampooning Intelligent Design? I had much more respect for ID before I started reading that. I also have a difficult time believing this "Hoyle" has any kind of science background seeing as how he doesn't at all use a scientific discourse even when he is apparently trying to sway scientists.

joeshoe

If the town wants to include another view in addition to evolution, I don't see why anyone outside that town should try to stop them. But that letter is blatantly inflamatory.

Mojo_PeiPei

Does ID parallel the Anthropic principle?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

guy44

The problem with ID is that it isn't any more scientific than creationism. Science classes in public schools need to focus on actual science. There is ZERO evidence for an intelligent being "designing" this world, or anything in it.

Richard Dawkins wrote that relying on intelligent design to explain complex biological organisms was "a pathetic cop-out of [one's] responsibilities as a scientist." I agree. To quote Stephen Jay Gould, "science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example)." Just because we cannot yet explain everything in this world does not mean that we should assume intelligent interference.

And why assume that this "intelligence" is God? Why not aliens? Is there proof somewhere that God had a hand in creating the functioning eye but not superpowerful aliens from outerspace?

No. There isn't. And until there is, keep creationism AND ID way the hell far away from public schools.

As to the insistence that ID somehow provides a "why" that is needed:

"Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparantly purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker)."

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

ObieX

I went to a Catholic elementary school and high school, and whil we may have touched on genesis and the creation a bit any time we were in science class it was all about evolution, natural selection, etc... you know.. SCIENCE. I dont see creationism/ID having any part in public schools whatsoever. The whole point of a public school is education for EVERYONE. If a parent wants their child to learn creationism/ID that is what sunday school is for or catholic school. They could even *gasp* go to church/temple. I'm sure you'll get your fill with the 3 minute explaination that ID/Creationism consists of.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

ARTelevision

Mojo_PeiPei, there are strong correlations between some ID concepts and the Anthropic principle, yes.

Locobot, on Fred Hoyle:

The late Sir Fred Hoyle, a world-renowned astronomer, is acknowledged to have been one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century. He has held the position of Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, and was also the founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge. He was an Honorary Fellow of both Emmanuel College and St. John's College Cambridge and an Honorary Professor at Cardiff University of Wales. He was best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of stars and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He was a joint proponent of the Steady-State model of the Universe, and in collaboration with Chandra Wickramasinghe he pioneered the modern theory of panspermia. Amongst the numerous awards and distinctions bestowed on him are the UN Kalinga Prize, 1968, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1997 he was awarded the highly prestigious Crafoord Prize by the Swedish Academy in recognition of outstanding basic research in fields not covered by the Nobel prize. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences. He published over 40 books, including technical science, popular science and science fiction.

From the Cardiff University, UK, web site.

__________________
create evolution

Kadath

Art, my favorite thing about you is how can do a total aboutface in less than twenty minutes and not even comment on it. You have absolutely no qualms about changing your mind. Also, your willingness to jump wholeheartedly into a cause that has absolutely no importance to you.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Superbelt

We don't have to give equal time to defending the holocaust. Why? It is blatantly wrong and everyone knows it (And that is the extent of my comparison) Similarly science blows IDiots out of the water. (hehe, that's my funny)

Here is something that completely destroys ID.
Vestigal parts.

Why did the Intelligent Designer give us other vestigals like a Pancreas that serves absolutely no purpose? Why did IDer give us parts of our brain that record no activity? Why did that IDer give us a vestigal tail? Why do we have gills, when we are young fetuses? Why do we lose those gills as we develop in the womb?

The human eye. Human eyes are INCREDIBLY complex. Our eyes have parts that we don't even use. Parts that correlate to reptile eyes that are developed to pick up movement very well. Our eyes don't have every little piece in them anymore for those parts to work. WHY, would an Intelligent Designer put those parts in our eyes? Why not simplify a very complex organ that is prone to severe breakdown and defects specifically because of how complex it is?

Why do our bodies have so many parts that correspond directly to lower order animals, and are completely useless to us when an intellient Designer focused our development? Wouldn't he just simplify everything for perfections sake? Why make it imperfect at all?
The Human eye could be so much more simpler if the Designer just focused everything into the most efficient combination. Why didn't ID do it?

I know what the ID answer is. Because the Intelligent Designer wanted to do it that way. (The all purpose cop out) That all powerful Designer just decided, hey it'll be fun this eon to create a world of fragile, redundant creatures and see how much they get fucked up per generation.

We can't win against that because it relies on your personal belief that the unmeasurable aspect of your fake theory .

The Intelligent Designer is a sick kid in a biology class testing out fruit fly generations and seeing how messed up he can make the descendents. Apparently. Cool.