Intelligent Design struck down in Federal Court
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Great idea. This is what we know, and I would be in favor of telling public school children the following:
1. Verifiable scientific experiments have demonstrated that random mutation and natural selection can cause DNA in living organisms to change over long periods of time, and these accumulated changes are visible in the myriad of diverse life forms currently existent on Earth.
2. The instantaneous transmutation of empty space into a distinct, live, organic species of life, violates every known principle of science, and cannot be verified via any repeatable test.
3. Despite the overwhelming proof in support of statement #1, above, the majority of the adult population of the United States, believes that #2 is true, and #1 is false.
You think it is "empty space."
Hundreds of years ago, the thought of X-Rays, gamma rays, and other unseen more subtle aspects of life would have generated an equivalent type of responses from the likes of those who thought themselves so knowledgeable......it is somewhat natural I suppose for the closed and narrow minded intellectuals to have a need to feel superior and project such a smug sense of "knowingness", and ridicule or put down that which they don't know or don't understand.
Closed minded holier than thou dogma is obviously not the exclusive province of theist, as modern day "scientists" dwell there as well...
Hundreds of years ago, the thought of X-Rays, gamma rays, and other unseen more subtle aspects of life would have generated an equivalent type of responses from the likes of those who thought themselves so knowledgeable......it is somewhat natural I suppose for the closed and narrow minded intellectuals to have a need to feel superior and project such a smug sense of "knowingness", and ridicule or put down that which they don't know or don't understand.
Closed minded holier than thou dogma is obviously not the exclusive province of theist, as modern day "scientists" dwell there as well...
Not quite, I don't think. #1 assumes the material from which life self-generated is a part of the universal 'sum' of matter, what Joni Mitchell meant when she said 'we are stardust'.
#2 assumes that the Creator 'materialized magistrates out of pure potentiality', that is, that the stuff from which we are made is divine in origin.
Worshipers of the supernatural keep making a mess in their pants because of their complete and total inability to separate fantasy from reality.
I don't "think" that empty space is empty. It IS empty space until someone provides a scientific proof that it is NOT empty space.
Prior to Einstein, the theory was that empty space was filled with an "ether" that permitted the transmission of energy so as to accord Newton's physics a means of operating (action/reaction). Then Einstein came along and blew the "ether" theory to pieces. But, until he did, basic science classes weren't running amuck with rampant theories completely unsupported by any science. The "ether" theory was based on Newtonian physics, so it had some science to ground itself in, while waiting for something more precise to come along.
But, ID is not based on Newtonian physics, or Einsteinian physics, or ANY physics at all. ID is based on the desire of certain theistic persons to "believe" that there must be some way to salvage humanity from the desperate fate of being merely ordinary matter and energy.
And, so, absent any science whatsoever, the theist wants to march into a public school science classroom and set up a competing theory of existence that depends on the theist's personal unscientific view that empty space can be instantaneously transformed by "magic" into organic life, and the theist wants to do it precisely because the theist doesn't "like" the alternative that there is no divine intervention/magic in the universe.
The theist isn't really interested in providing any affirmative proof for his/her position. The theist just wants his/her position to be true, and therefore wants it taught as a realistic probability, and BEFORE/WITHOUT providing any supporting evidence.
This opens the door to the introduction of every discredited magical theory of existence from astrology to druidism to voodoo, as being a reasonable subject for a science curriculum, because, despite the non-existence of any scientific support, all of these theories are "reasonable probabilities."
What a farce.
But, of course, the theist doesn't want all those "other" viewpoints taught as reasonable probabilities, the theist just wants one particular viewpoint, taught. And that theory is that there is a single, almighty benevolent creator in the universe who has appointed MAN as the magistrate to oversee creation while the creator looks on with endless paternal interest.
And, so the theist promotes this fairytale theory of existence as viable, based on nothing but the fact that most people believe as does the theist, and that "scientists" are dogmatic nutballs for opposing the theistic view as unreasonable.
I could respect theists if they could produce some scientific principle to support their totally speculative view. But, they can't, and more to the point, they WON'T. They prefer to obfuscate reality by proposing "arguments" and tossing stones at the competing scientific theories that actually have evidentiary support, and then simultaneously proclaim that those who don't adopt the theistic view are closed minded bigots.
So, who's the real closed mind, here, Z? The person who wants some proof before he starts filling the heads of kids with visions of Narnia as reality, or the one who wants to fill their heads with Narnia as reality absent all proof?
Another great post kj, clear and concise.
The fascinating thing is that Z doesn't even try to hide the fact that his faith based-beliefs about ID and other mystical theories are anything other than his own opinion! Repeatedly, in this thread, when we begged him to provide anything that represents a reason that he believes these things, anything that remotely represents proof of his claims (for example that biological organisms have a fixed lifespan that will never change and that no biological organism's lifespan has ever changed since the beginning of time and that no organism's lifespan will change as a result of genetic mutation in the future), he has stated that
"I feel it is a reasonable belief" and
"I believe it because I prefer to believe it" and
"I am not interested in your requests for clarification - when I want your opinion, I will ask for it" and
"You have no proof to the contrary" and
"It is a reasonable assumption" and
"that is off-topic"
A review of the thread will reveal that he claimed several requests were off topic when in fact they were direct requests for clarification of his statements, or challenges to statements he had made.
So we can see that Z doesn't even claim that there is any reason to believe his assertions other than the fact that he feels strongly that they are true.
I repeatedly asked him for answers to specific questions formulated by a review of statements he made on this thread and illustrated by the cutting and pasting of those statements. He wouldn't answer and eventually started to accuse me of personal attacks. This is interesting because the record shows that there were no personal attacks (perhaps a bit of mocking that he refused to answer our questions, though) and the record shows that he is the first to suggest that I suffer from a mental illness.
I am now trying to determine whether this constitutes a Terms of Use violation, since calling another poster who challenges your position 'mentally ill' may be seen as a personal attack. Also, I think a review of the thread would show that every time Z said 'You are becoming personal', the record would show that what I was in fact doing was trying to either get him to respond to a statement he made, or get him to answer to a previous request for clarification which was ignored. This in itself might be seen as unnecessarily 'personalizing' the debate.
I should know soon....
The 'scientific' picture of the world is the belief that the universe began with big bang, that the stars and planets all happened to come together; and that a few billion years ago, on this planet, some chemicals mixed together to form amino acids.
These then happened to mix together and form DNA, which then, by chance and circumstance formed a bacteria. These chance events happened again and again until bacteria were common and then, by chance, small seaborn creatures developed. Not long after that we had bigger animalas evolving until in a very short time humans arrived. No creator God, no other forces needed.
What was before the big bang? Well basically nothing - it came out of nowhere..