Could the culture war become civil war?

[2CentsWorth]

There have been previous threads in which the right to bear arms, and to some extent to form militias, has been discussed though groups considered anti-government usually are disbanded fairly quickly in the US.

A civil war would be between groups, for example blue states versus red states. If against the government, it would be a revolution, no? I feel Americans got pretty upset about Terri Schiavo, and many were quite concerned about the 'nuclear option.' In other words, government intervention against the right to privacy, or a majority power grab toward a one party system are too much. If these kind of things are pushed too far, perhaps people would take to the streets. Then again, maybe Americans are too apathetic...

 

[Smurf]

There have been previous threads in which the right to bear arms, and to some extent to form militias, has been discussed though groups considered anti-government usually are disbanded fairly quickly in the US.

A civil war would be between groups, for example blue states versus red states. If against the government, it would be a revolution, no?

No, a civil war is usually government vs. rebels. If the rebels are successfull they might decide to call it a revolution afterwards, but whatever. If Blues states went to war with Red states the federal government would be backing one of them, and the other ones would be rebels. If the federal government didn't exist then there would have had to have been a previous revolution to get rid of it, otherwise the red/blue states never would have formed their own independant governments with standing armies.

But really, a Civil war is any Intra-state conflict.

Then again, maybe Americans are too apathetic...

There you go.

 

[Pengwuino]

There you go.

I was just thinking to myself about how I am too lazy to even respond to this thread...

 

[Rev Prez]

Hmm...the culture war turns into a civil war...then the libs have seriously geographically and http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_military-data_10-15_report.pdf screwed the pooch.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

No, a civil war is usually government vs. rebels. If the rebels are successfull they might decide to call it a revolution afterwards, but whatever. If Blues states went to war with Red states the federal government would be backing one of them, and the other ones would be rebels.

At which point only one arm of the federal government matters, one that breaks 6 to 3 for Republicans every time.

Rev Prez

 

[Pengwuino]

Quickly nuke LA and NY and you got a huge advantage :D Thats the plan! Then take Area 51... there bound to have some sweet weapons there.

 

[SOS2008]

Remember where you are. This is a physics forum so there is precious little ignorance of science and biology on these pages.

Exactly -- please see the thread on Bush and endorsement of ID and you will see that PF members do not feel ID to be an "academic" topic, but rather to be religious. Therefore guidelines of separation of church and state apply, and has nothing to do with censorship (please see my most recent post in the thread on Bush and ID). “A telling state of affairs, at least as far as your and my makeup goes” indeed.

Bush doesn't work against science.

Right. Here is my post from the Bush [NOT] Honest & Trustworthy thread:

Here is an area of deceit that members in this forum should be very concerned about:

Is the Bush administration suppressing hard science on the environment to further its political agenda in policy areas like global warming? NOW's Michele Mitchell investigates allegations that a former energy industry lobbyist was rewriting scientific findings to support the political priorities of the White House. In the report, government insider Rick Piltz says that Philip Cooney, a lawyer and former energy industry lobbyist, was making changes to reports on behalf of the White House and that it was part of a pattern to downplay the effects of global warming. "The 'fox guarding the henhouse' aspect of it was so blatant," says Piltz. "You had somebody who was essentially an oil industry lobbyist, who now is the White House environment policy maven." The White House announced Cooney's resignation as chief staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality in June. http://www.pbs.org/now/thisweek/index.html

A petition drive aimed at publicizing perceived abuses in the administration's use and oversight of science by the environmental advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists has gathered the signatures of 6,000 scientists — including 49 Nobel laureates and 154 members of the U.S. National Academies of Science. In addition to the stir over the climate change reports, the administration is facing accusations that reports on the environmental effects of grazing on public lands were altered to support a proposed new policy. http://www.pbs.org/now/science/scienceandpolitics.html

In this evening's program, several scientists were interviewed, and the findings of all their studies not only were altered (not just edited), but completely changed to the opposite of what they submitted. All, including one scientist who has been a registered Republican all his adult life stated that the Bush administration is the worst ever seen in history for suppressing science.

No, not Bush!

…A) no man with a spine would give you the time of day based on the quality of your ideas alone, and B) you're not bitter at all, so there must be at least one man (with a spine) in your life.

A contradictory argument, but if you want to ask personal questions you should send a PM.

Edit: Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left is so big on gun control - they need something to level the playing field.

Yes, back to the topic (I asked Evo to split these posts from the thread on Bolton, because the discussion had strayed to a topic one could only guess about).

I mentioned previously that it would be interesting if the blue states could succeed and join Canada. Of course with the urban and/or coastal centers of commerce that would go with them, the rural red states would not be part of such a wealthy country—especially after global warming and the bread basket moving farther north…to Canada.

Seriously, I agree that examples of the Terri Schiavo intervention, or ‘nuclear option’ really reflect a culture clash in that both reflect fundamentalist versus more secular views. And as Smurf says, the government would be supportive of one or the other. With Frist abandoning Bush on stem cell research, Sanatorium abandoning Bush on ID, who knows where the chips would really fall. In the meantime, I hope you’re not suggesting I should upgrade my handgun to a semi automatic…?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

no no, his predictions were like... there were 5

One was that a mini-black hole woudl be created in a lab
The second one was that a civil war will occur in the US in either 2004 or 2005
.
.
.
3 more predictions...

Nuclear war in 2025. I think one was like a super flu virus that'll whipe out 1/2 of the worlds population.

I've been thinking about John Titor too. I don't really believe that he was a time traveler but the coincidences keep happening.
I actually read through all of his posts. His predictions...
2006: Americans will lose more and more civil liberties eventually resulting this year in multiple Wako Texas type incidents creating a deeper cultural/idealogical schism in the country.
2008: By this year the president will have delcared martial law and forgo the election reasoning a nation wide state of emergency. This will further fuel civil unrest pushing the US closer to all out civil war.

After that I don't quite remember exactyly what he said. There is supposed to be extreme escalation of violence in the Middle East at some point resulting in a third world war which leads to nuclear attacks.

Pretty generic end time story really. He said all this before Bush was elected and obviously then before 9/11. I don't remember seeing it in there myself but he supposedly made some referance to terrorism airplanes and buildings aswell. I do though remember that he said around this time there would be an extreme increase in terrorism. I think he mentioned US interferance in the Middle East but not an actual war I don't think.
Oh and yes I think he did mention a black hole being created by a particular lab which apearantly did happen just recently.
I need to reread his posts.

At any rate there you have a rather brief summery of how civil disobedience can result in civil war. You need to remember that even as of now this country is divided idealogically and probably only a very small fraction would have the guts to tell the government off. When a certain number of people become rebelious enough to warrant attention they will go after groups of people that are high profile to make an example of them (see "Wako Texas type incidents").

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah that black hole one was really a weird one for me! But was the creation of the black hole something that had been planned for a while or did they just decide to try it spur of the moment? Its not very extraordinary if they were announccing they were buildin gsomething that will attempt to create a mini-black hole years before they actually did it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm pretty sure that it was announced before hand. I can't quite see someone deciding "hey I think I'll try making a black hole today".

---edit---
Actually now that I think about it it may have been an unexpected event. Though someone out there may have thought it possible for such a thing to occur. Pretty much most people didn't think it was possible. One of the ways that Titor was debunked was through a physicist who stated that it was impossible to create and contain a miniture black hole since this was supposedly one of the parts of his time machine.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well... 4 more months until big war :D Things better hurry up because i sure as hell don't see a civil war popping up anytime soon.

 

[pattylou]

Conversely, there is currently no good
explanation from evolutionists for how one species becomes another.
No amount of natural selection will alter the number of chromosomes a
species has.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong.

Example, bacteria can have multiple genetic units (chromosomes and plasmids of varying numbers.) It is very easy, and observable, to either induce the plasmid to incorporate into the chromosome (presumably even easy to make it so it can't get out again) or to alter the number of plasmids that a strain carries.

There is an example of two closely related species (I forget which but they are mammals) where one chromosome in one species (with the centromere in the middle) is clearly two chromosomes (each with a centromere on the end) in the other species.

I am a conservative and I want students to hear this discussion.
You are a liberal and you want students to be shielded from this discussion.
A telling state of affairs, at least as far as your and my makeup goes.

I can't speak for SOS, but I am an educator, who happened to believe in ID for a very long time. I oppose introducing ID into a science classroom because to promote it as *science* is to *undermine* all the work we do in teaching what science *is!*

Science makes testable predictions, for one thing. But start teaching intelligent design as science, and suddenly science doesn't *have* to have testable predictions any more.

Does this seem like a problem to you, when you consider how it might affect other areas of science and policy-making?

Teach it in a non-science class. I don't find it threatening, as an idea, but it ain't science and science education should be what it says - science education.

Edit: Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a
long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left
is so big on gun control- they need something to level the playing field.

So, you're saying that the idea that people like you (religious) shooting us, murdering us, is a valid concern ("level the playing field")?

 

[loseyourname]

I can't speak for SOS, but I am an educator, who happened to believe in ID for a very long time. I oppose introducing ID into a science classroom because to promote it as *science* is to *undermine* all the work we do in teaching what science *is!*

Science makes testable predictions, for one thing. But start teaching intelligent design as science, and suddenly science doesn't *have* to have testable predictions any more.

You know, it does seem to me that a lot of the issues brought up by the IDers as to how complex subcellular systems evolve is an important topic that should be discussed. What doesn't belong in a science class is the hypothesis that they were created by divine intervention, as that simply isn't a scientific hypothesis.

 

[pattylou]

You know, it does seem to me that a lot of the issues brought up by the IDers as to how complex subcellular systems evolve is an important topic that should be discussed. What doesn't belong in a science class is the hypothesis that they were created by divine intervention, as that simply isn't a scientific hypothesis.

Saw a good analogy on the "evolution" of the camera not too long ago. I'll try to find the original.

The few things I recall were:

The camera started as not much more than a pinprick through which light transmits an image (think of the pinprick box you can use to observe a solar eclipse.)

You add film. Then a shutter.

Then you add a lens.

Then you add the next bit, maybe a hardier casing, and modify an earlier bit.

Then you have Nikon developing one set of components and Minolta developing a different set, and NIkon might have an additional gizmo that Minolta does have and vice versa.

Presently, we have automatic film advance, digital, zoom, visual effects - many many modifications to the pinprick that we started with.
~~~~~~~

If you take your camera, and remove one part, it won't work properly. This is patently not evidence that it didn't develop in a stepwise fashion. (We know the camera developed in a stepwise fashion!) The eye is often used as an example of something that couldn't have evolved, "because remove one part and it doesn't work. Thus, there must be a supreme being." The argument is (how did someone else phrase it?) ...torturous to follow.

And it doesn't even get into the idea that lenses (or pick the component of your choice) may have evolved (been developed) for a different reason entirely, and then co-opted byt the visual system.

 

[loseyourname]

If you take your camera, and remove one part, it won't work properly. This is patently not evidence that it didn't develop in a stepwise fashion. (We know the camera developed in a stepwise fashion!) The eye is often used as an example of something that couldn't have evolved, "because remove one part and it doesn't work. Thus, there must be a supreme being." The argument is (how did someone else phrase it?) ...torturous to follow.

Something like this:

Irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved from simpler systems.
Therefore, they must have been created.

Actually, when I think ID, though, I think Michael Behe, but at least isn't stupid enough to claim that the eye cannot be reduced. I think two of his claims (I can hardly remember at this point) are blood clotting and flagella. The thing is, he actually seems to present a fairly compelling case when you only read his side of it. Fortunately, I was introduced to his work through another man, Kenneth Miller, that makes counterarguments to his claim, giving examples of simplified versions of the systems that Behe claims to be 'irreducibly complex.' (Ironically, Miller does this as part of a book that goes on to use physics to argue for God - I initially read it as part of a presentation I was giving on making counterarguments to these arguments from aspects of physics.) I have to admit that following their debate really increased my knowledge of subcellular evolution, something that does not receive much coverage in biology classes.

And it doesn't even get into the idea that lenses (or pick the component of your choice) may have evolved (been developed) for a different reason entirely, and then co-opted byt the visual system.

Have you ever read any of Richard Dawkins publications? He does the most wonderful job of debunking all these design claims. The quality of his arguments tends to lag when he moves outside of science (although Dan Dennett does a great job of picking up for him in some of his work), but he has to be the one science writer I most enjoy reading. Either he or E.O. Wilson.

 

[pattylou]

Something like this:

Irreducibly complex systems cannot have evolved from simpler systems.
Therefore, they must have been created.

LOL. Yeah, and I think that's some torturous logic!

Actually, when I think ID, though, I think Michael Behe, but at least isn't stupid enough to claim that the eye cannot be reduced. I think two of his claims (I can hardly remember at this point) are blood clotting and flagella. The thing is, he actually seems to present a fairly compelling case when you only read his side of it. Fortunately, I was introduced to his work through another man, Kenneth Miller, that makes counterarguments to his claim, giving examples of simplified versions of the systems that Behe claims to be 'irreducibly complex.' (Ironically, Miller does this as part of a book that goes on to use physics to argue for God - I initially read it as part of a presentation I was giving on making counterarguments to these arguments from aspects of physics.) I have to admit that following their debate really increased my knowledge of subcellular evolution, something that does not receive much coverage in biology classes. [.quote]

That's right, the arguments have been debunked. Some components of the flagella evolved initially for other reasons (export pathways, I believe) and so on.

Have you ever read any of Richard Dawkins publications? He does the most wonderful job of debunking all these design claims. The quality of his arguments tends to lag when he moves outside of science (although Dan Dennett does a great job of picking up for him in some of his work), but he has to be the one science writer I most enjoy reading. Either he or E.O. Wilson.

I haven't, but I have heard others enjoy these authors as well. As far as I am concerned, there is no question mark in my mind over these issues, so I have no motivation to read the debunking. If I had to teach ID, I would use the books as a resource, to facilitate my teaching, however. You might also like: Darwin's Watch, by Terry Pratchett. I don't know what genre it is, but I understand it is easy to follow and bears on this debate.

 

[arildno]

Now, the last posts here are really interesting in relation to ID!

As I see it, one of those natural processes ID thinkers ignore is that of pruning, streamlining a clumpy, yet functional system into a sleek "miracle" of nature, by removing elements no longer strictly necessary for the functioning of the system.

For example, if we tentatively assume that multicellular organisms arose out of colonies of unicellular organisms with a shared ancestor, we can quite well imagine that over time (and colony generations), some of the individual cells become preferenced to do some vital task benefiting the whole community, SO THAT THE OTHER CONSTITUENTS NEED NO LONGER PERFORM OR RETAIN THE CAPACITY TO PERFORM A TASK VITAL FOR ITS OWN SURVIVAL, since it gains what it needs in this respect from the other, specialized cells.

While I don't think what I wrote here is either new to either LYN or pattylou (it is, in essence, her own previous argument in my words) or many others here at PF, I thought my comment was relevant anyway..

 

[SOS2008]

At last the weeping and wailing of a vigil comes to an end, the candles snuffed out…now only about 59,146,826 more to go… Looks like this is the new thread for Intelligent Design?

A little exercise in the scientific method…here is a survey on the American Family Association (AFA) web site:

Should students be exposed to different ideas, or should they be shielded from information about intelligent design? Give us your opinion.

* Yes, students should be exposed to the theory of intelligent design in public schools.
No, the theory of evolution is the only theory which should be taught in public schools.

Count the number of ways this survey fails to control variables that may result in biased outcome.

http://www.afa.net/petitions/intelligentdesign/takesurvey.asp

 

[SOS2008]

BTW -- For anyone interested, there is to be an intelligent design discussion on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” tomorrow, August 10, at 9 a.m. EST.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You might also like: Darwin's Watch, by Terry Pratchett. I don't know what genre it is, but I understand it is easy to follow and bears on this debate.

Pratchett is a science fiction author prone to satire and humour.
Ah.. I see though that it apearantly does delve into hard science...
The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen (2005)

 

[Antiphon]

Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a
long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left
is so big on gun control- they need something to level the playing field.

So, you're saying that the idea that people like you (religious) shooting us, murdering us, is a valid concern ("level the playing field")?

That's a serious misread.

No- I'm saying that people on the left can't shoot people on the right
unless they disarm them first, hence the left's obsession with eliminating
the right to keep and bear arms. The playing field of reason is what's
not level for the left. Their main weapon in the culture war is usually
an appeal to one's (com)passions.


Science does not always generate testable hypotheses. The scientific
method relies on disproving a theory by testing it. But the frontiers of
science are often in untestable waters.

Intelligent design (which I do not advocate) is nevetheless appropriate
for the classroom. If one were to discover a piece of machinery on a
deserted island, it would follow that something was once there to create
the machine since it does not follow scientifically that a machine
would appear on its own on an island.

The testable hypothesis in intelligent design is this: is the probablility of
a system coming into existence through random iteration large enough
to suggest that it could have happened in the given time frame?

If I allow one week for an organism to evolve out of a jar of dirt and water,
then intelligent design is the only scientifically acceptable hypothesis
for how this can happen, and it is a completely testable theory.

If I allow 5 billion years, then the probabilities may shift in favor of
evolution. It is still a scientific discussion either way and it DOES belong
in the science classroom.

 

[Smurf]

I'm pretty sure this is wrong.

Example, bacteria can have multiple genetic units (chromosomes and plasmids of varying numbers.) It is very easy, and observable, to either induce the plasmid to incorporate into the chromosome (presumably even easy to make it so it can't get out again) or to alter the number of plasmids that a strain carries.

There is an example of two closely related species (I forget which but they are mammals) where one chromosome in one species (with the centromere in the middle) is clearly two chromosomes (each with a centromere on the end) in the other species.

You should PM moonbear and get her in here to give us all a lecture on the finer details of subcellular biology and evolution.

 

[BobG]

Intelligent design (which I do not advocate) is nevetheless appropriate
for the classroom. If one were to discover a piece of machinery on a
deserted island, it would follow that something was once there to create
the machine since it does not follow scientifically that a machine
would appear on its own on an island.

The testable hypothesis in intelligent design is this: is the probablility of
a system coming into existence through random iteration large enough
to suggest that it could have happened in the given time frame?

If I allow one week for an organism to evolve out of a jar of dirt and water,
then intelligent design is the only scientifically acceptable hypothesis
for how this can happen, and it is a completely testable theory.

If I allow 5 billion years, then the probabilities may shift in favor of
evolution. It is still a scientific discussion either way and it DOES belong
in the science classroom.

The piece of machinery probably wasn't your main point, but it's a really strange analogy. It reminds me of Cargo Cults. The piece of machinery is too complex for any man to have created, so it must come from the Gods. During WWII, quite a few 'useless' islands, occupied only by primitive cultures, suddenly became useful as refueling stops for airplanes. Having an airstrip on the island brought unimagined riches to the island (at least from the natives perspective). After the war, the islands were 'useless' again. Decades later, you could go back to the island and find bamboo control towers, wooden desks with wooden boxes with circles and symbols drawn on them and a coconut microphone tied to the box with a person to dutifully talk to the microphone - they do all the right rituals, only the planes still don't come back.

So much relies on perception. You know the machinery wasn't delivered by the Gods - they don't. There's other things in the world where we don't know the answer. If the capability exists to analyze the piece of machinery, or something else in the world that puzzles us, and to determine how it came about, then there certainly seems to be more benefit to finding out what's really up with the piece of machinery and to adapt to new facts rather than stay fixed in old traditions from a less knowledgeable time.

 

[Archon]

Intelligent design (which I do not advocate) is nevetheless appropriatefor the classroom. If one were to discover a piece of machinery on adeserted island, it would follow that something was once there to create
the machine since it does not follow scientifically that a machine would appear on its own on an island.

Not a machine as we know it. But if you saw a new species of snake on an island, you would not come to the same conclusion, would you? Your analogy is not accurate because to the best of our knowledge, there is no process by which (truly complex) machines could evolve spontaneously from simple materials.

The testable hypothesis in intelligent design is this: is the probablility ofa system coming into existence through random iteration large enoughto suggest that it could have happened in the given time frame?

The entire principle behind a testable hypothesis is that if you test it, and your tests indicate that it is correct, then it must be (at least to a reasonable extent) correct. This is not the case with the "test" you have given. The "probability of a system coming into existence through random iteration" is irrelevant, because if there is no "Intelligent Designer," then no matter how small the probability of this happening, it has happened. That's why we're here to ask these questions. Saying that evolution is impossible because it is unlikely is not a reasonable argument.

If I allow one week for an organism to evolve out of a jar of dirt and water, then intelligent design is the only scientifically acceptable hypothesis for how this can happen, and it is a completely testable theory.

Again, this is not an effective test, because it only provides "evidence" for one side of the argument. If life evolves from the jar, then you can say that Intelligent Design is valid. You could also say that we just don't understand, at the most basic levels, evolution. But if life doesn't evolve from the jar, then you can't say that Intelligent Design is invalid: you can only say that life didn't evolve from the jar.

If I allow 5 billion years, then the probabilities may shift in favor of
evolution. It is still a scientific discussion either way and it DOES belong
in the science classroom.

You've missed a major component of the concept of "testable hypothesis." You can argue all you want that Intelligent Design is testable in theory.Until there is actual evidence pointing toward its truth, however, it is no more testable (in reality) than the belief that you're actually being held by aliens on a planet light years away and everything you see and feel is a simulation they're using to study you.
Evolution, on the other hand, does provide such evidence: it has effectively described much of how life on Earth has developed. Evolution can be tested through observation, has been, and is currently accepted by the scientific community as the best theory on the subject that we have.

 

[Skyhunter]

Hmm...the culture war turns into a civil war...then the libs have seriously geographically and http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_military-data_10-15_report.pdf screwed the pooch.

Rev Prez

I really don't believe that someone as aggressive and militant as you could be a reverend.

If the culture war becomes a civil war then I will become a casualty.

I will not compromise my beliefs, nor will I take up arms against fellow humans.

 

[SOS2008]

I really don't believe that someone as aggressive and militant as you could be a reverend.

If the culture war becomes a civil war then I will become a casualty.

I will not compromise my beliefs, nor will I take up arms against fellow humans.

Rev Prez isn't a reverend, but no matter, I believe he's been banned. To which I gave my eulogy:

At last the weeping and wailing of a vigil comes to an end, the candles snuffed out…now only about 59,146,826 more to go…

 

[Astronuc]

I am a conservative and I want students to hear this discussion. You are a liberal and you want students to be shielded from this discussion.

Not quite - liberals want an 'honest' and factual discussion.

SOS2008, I'll bet my bottom dollar that you are drop-dead gorgeous.

Yes, she is!

You'd have to be- because A) no man with a spine would give you the time of day based on the quality of your ideas alone, and B) you're not bitter at all, so there must be at least one man (with a spine) in your life.

What's with the personal attack? SOS happens to be a very fine lady - outspoke and strong-willed perhaps - but nevertheless a very fine lady.

Edit: Oh yes, I almost forgot- The culture war has been a civil war for a long time. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet. No wonder the left is so big on gun control- they need something to level the playing field.

No- I'm saying that people on the left can't shoot people on the right
unless they disarm them first, hence the left's obsession with eliminating
the right to keep and bear arms. The playing field of reason is what's
not level for the left. Their main weapon in the culture war is usually
an appeal to one's (com)passions.

Interestingly, I often observe that it is those on the so-called 'right' who mention the use of violence - guns, bombs, nuking cities! I have yet to see someone on the so-called 'left' advocating violence. Certainly SOS or pattylou have not advocated violence.

Incidentally, I have heard more inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda from the 'right' than from the 'left'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What doesn't belong in a science class is the hypothesis that they were created by divine intervention, as that simply isn't a scientific hypothesis.

That is an interesting statement. If we were in fact designed, then, if the scientific method works, wouldn't it lead us to the concept of a designer? You seem to be saying that science can only work if there is no God. If it could be shown that no known physical processes can account for life on earth, if we find that for some reason it is not possible for this all to happen by accident, then isn't the concept of intelligent design reasonable to suggest under the constraints of science?

 

[Archon]

That is an interesting statement. If we were in fact designed, then, if the scientific method works, wouldn't it lead us to the concept of a designer? You seem to be saying that science can only work if there is no God. If it could be shown that no known physical processes can account for life on earth, if we find that for some reason it is not possible for this all to happen by accident, then isn't the concept of intelligent design reasonable to suggest under the constraints of science?

If no known processes could account for life on earth, then our first assumption would be that some unknown (but still "non-Divine") process accounts for it. The scientific method would only allow us to accept Intelligent Design if we could show that there is absolutely no other possibility. This will (probably) never happen. Showing that there are no possibilities to the best of our knowledge is not enough to satisfy any sort of scientific rigor.

 

[Skyhunter]

That is an interesting statement. If we were in fact designed, then, if the scientific method works, wouldn't it lead us to the concept of a designer? You seem to be saying that science can only work if there is no God. If it could be shown that no known physical processes can account for life on earth, if we find that for some reason it is not possible for this all to happen by accident, then isn't the concept of intelligent design reasonable to suggest under the constraints of science?

Darwin never suggested that there was not a creator. It is my understanding that he believed in God and like many scientists has no problem reconciling science and religion.

And what about un-intelligent design?

Take rabbit digestion, for example. As herbivores, rabbits need help from bacteria to break down the cell walls of the plants they eat, so, cleverly enough, they have a large section of intestine where such bacterial fermentation takes place. The catch is, it's at the far end of the small intestine, beyond where efficient absorption of nutrients can happen. A sensible system -- as we see in ruminant animals like cattle and deer -- ferments before the small intestine, maximizing nutrient absorption. Rabbits, having to make do with an unintelligent system, instead eat some of their own feces after one trip through, sending half-digested food back through the small intestine for re-digestion.

complete article
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...2DK21.DTL&hw=intelligent+design&sn=007&sc=394

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This will (probably) never happen. Showing that there are no possibilities to the best of our knowledge is not enough to satisfy any sort of scientific rigor.

This obliquely assumes that the notion of intelligent design is excluded by science. My point was that if, based on the evidence, the proposition of ID is as or more likely than any other explanations, if for some reason this is the case one day, then it is not anti-science to follow that line of reasoning and look for any evidence of ID. Science cannot speak to issues of a God unless we find evidence for one. I agree that the lack of a complete theory of evolution would not be evidence for ID, but if, for example, "unguided evolution" was somehow shown to be statistically impossible, then I think this could be interpreted as evidence for ID.

 

[Archon]

This obliquely assumes that the notion of intelligent design is excluded by science. My point was that if, based on the evidence, the proposition of ID is as or more likely than any other explanations, if for some reason this is the case one day, then it is not anti-science to follow that line of reasoning and look for any evidence of ID. Science cannot speak to issues of a God unless we find evidence for one. I agree that the lack of a complete theory of evolution would not be evidence for ID, but if, for example, "unguided evolution" was somehow shown to be statistically impossible, then I think this could be interpreted as evidence for ID.

Like I said in some previous post, it's entirely possible that the development of life on Earth was "statistically impossible." But this is not evidence of Intelligent Design because regardless of how unlikely this was, it may have happened. We could at some point in the future find evidence that it was virtually impossible for humans to develop without a "creator." But we won't be able to differentiate between intelligent design and our unlikely but still possible spontaneous development. In both cases, the end result is the same and no "traces" are left.

I don't necessarily disagree with Intelligent Design. I just think that there's no way we'll ever know whether it's the real explanation or not. This is why it shouldn't be taught as science: there's no way for us to know with any reasonable degree of certainty whether or not it is a valid theory. It can't be tested in the usual sense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, obviously this is all completely hypothetical, but just for the sake of what-ifs, what if evidence was left by a designer? My basic objection is that science does not assume the lack of designer, rather, most scientists feel that we have a fairly comprehensive model that accounts for life without the need for a designer. Were there evidence to the contrary we could address this question just as any other - through the application of the scientific method. The original comments suggested that science implicity excludes the possibility of an ID, which I think is completely wrong, but I would agree that most scientists feel that it appears to eliminate the need for ID explicitly; based on the evidence.

 

[Archon]

It's not that science excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer. Rather, science (probably) cannot be used to determine whether there is an intelligent designer, so the theory of Intelligent Design is currently outside the realm of science. It's true that if evidence existed that life was created by an intelligent designer, then we could apply the scientific method. But no such evidence has been found yet, and thus, supporting I.D. is an act of faith. Much as supporting evolution would be if we had no evidence to support it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It's not that science excludes the possibility of an intelligent designer. Rather, science (probably) cannot be used to determine whether there is an intelligent designer, so the theory of Intelligent Design is currently outside the realm of science. It's true that if evidence existed that life was created by an intelligent designer, then we could apply the scientific method. But no such evidence has been found yet, and thus, supporting I.D. is an act of faith. Much as supporting evolution would be if we had no evidence to support it.

So ... it follows then that a geneticist IS an intelligent designer.

On the contrary ... Men have nipples. Where is the inteligence in that?