Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal ellem's Journal: ID and Evolution... Why we should stop dissing Evolution 60

Journal by ellem

Look, ID is a crummy theory. It just is. Stop. It's a crummy theory. And yeah it could be totally right. We could also be the spawn of alien snot; who knows? The fact is Evolution while not a perfect theory is a better theory than ID. We CAN, through Evolution, predict certain things. We can't predict anything through ID. The fact that ID and Evolution could and do work hand in hand is irrelevant. What is revlevant is that if you want to point to something America show a really bad face on it's this. ID isn't a good enough theory to fight about.

So, shush. Let's go with Evolution until we can find something better(er).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ID and Evolution... Why we should stop dissing Evolution More

ID and Evolution... Why we should stop dissing Evolution

Comments Filter:
  • I think it's funny that the only form of ID that seems to have gained traction is the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory- the idea that God or whatever created the world in a short time period. What about the other forms of ID- which simply claim that where atheists see chance and rolling dice, religious people see God? Doesn't actually alter Evolution in the slightest, and solves the problem with an adequate compromise.

    The real problem isn't the theory of how we got here- it's fundamentalism on both sides.
    • Wait, what if god rolls the dice? (With appologies to Einstein)
      • Wait, what if god rolls the dice? (With appologies to Einstein)

        Einstein's original assertion was that despite appearances to the contrary, we live in a deterministic universe; that events which appear random to us are not truly random (which kind of throws Chaos theory AND Quantum Mechanics into a bit of a quandary, unless you believe Schrodinger and the whole theory about observing the universe being the determining factor in collapsing waveforms).

        In other words, if God did play dice with the universe,
        • There is much in physics that seems to depend on the presence of an intelligent observer.

          This leads to some interesting questions and possiblities though not ones you hear about in the evolution vs. creationism debate.
          • That's because neither side of the evolution/creation debate is interested in truth any longer- only supporting their personal worldviews. Fundamentalism does that to people- destroys curiosity and learning.
            • Thankfully Science Ficton hasn't been afraid to tackle the subject. I just wish the 'debate' was a bit more mainstream rather than having to find geeks with the right background to even have a discussion.

    • What about the other forms of ID- which simply claim that where atheists see chance and rolling dice, religious people see God?

      Fine. but have the taxpayers fund discussion of it in math class, instead of biology class.

      No, it doesn't belong there either, but scientists have had to put up with this crap long enough. It's someone else's turn.

      Teacher: "Jimmy, if I flip a coin, what are the chances that it will come up heads?"

      Jimmy: "It depends on what Yog-Sothoth's plan for the coin is."

      Teacher: "Very

      • Fine. but have the taxpayers fund discussion of it in math class, instead of biology class.

        Then maybe biologists should stop declaring their faith that random chance could have created DNA, since they have no proof of it.

        No, it doesn't belong there either, but scientists have had to put up with this crap long enough.

        The only scientists who have to put up with it are the ones who are dishing it out- those who actually admit ignorance where we are ignorant instead of making up delusions of grandeur tha
        • Then maybe biologists should stop declaring their faith that random chance could have created DNA, since they have no proof of it.

          No proof, but plenty of circumstantial evidence. Much of astronomy and palaeontology are based on sufficiently large amounts of mutually corroborating circumstantial evidence.

          Given the right selection biases in an environment, anything those biases favour will develop given sufficient time. You can say that the process is based on random chance, but so is rolling a loaded d
          • No proof, but plenty of circumstantial evidence. Much of astronomy and palaeontology are based on sufficiently large amounts of mutually corroborating circumstantial evidence.

            Just as the Roman Catholic Church has 2000 years of mutually corroborating circumstantial evidence for visions predicting the future- but even by Canon Law, no Catholic is required to believe it. They may if they wish- but your mortal soul doesn't depend on it.

            Given the right selection biases in an environment, anything those bias
            • I, of course, am none of the above, never having been anything but an atheist. This means I get to sneer at fresh converts as my neophyte inferiors. Yay!:P

              Happy coincidences generally don't need scientific explanations, as they start out within the realm of the possible by definition. They are a consequence of statistics. There's nothing impossible about, say, sinking ten thousand 3-point-shots in Basketball in a row without missing missing once, as the probability of sinking a shot remains doesn't chang
              • Exactly right. And speaking of the original Santa Claus, St. Nick- one of his "miracles" was throwing dowry money in the windows of girls he knew were about to be sold into slavery (a common practice in Europe of that time). NOTHING magical about that- he was relatively rich and they were relatively poor and he helped- but it was a miracle to the girls he helped and it contributed to his sainthood.
  • how dare you speak against the flying spaghetti monster!

    (okay, sorry... i mean what discussion is complete without mention of teh monster?)
    • You're probably the first person I've seen bring this up that I would even bother asking.

      Why do you wish to mock people who believe in a creator or supreme being?
      • You know... I mean. The point is really, WTF is the Flying Spaghetti Monster anyway. Yeah I read the Wiki I just don't get it.

        Besides b1inder is a hardcore Cthulhuist.
        • its just a joke, that's all it is. a rather silly one at that, but just a joke that caught on. nothing more, nothing less. you either think its funny and laugh... or not and say, "um okay... whatever."

          • I understand the joke. To understand the joke, you have to understand who is being made the butt.

            But you didn't answer the question.

            You might dismiss or laugh at a straightedge mockery the first couple of times you saw it. How do you think you would like it after seeing it a few hundred times on most of the geek websites you frequent?
            • the question was "wtf is the fsm anyway?"

              i answered: "a joke."

              You might dismiss or laugh at a straightedge mockery the first couple of times you saw it. How do you think you would like it after seeing it a few hundred times on most of the geek websites you frequent?

              i've been straight edge since i was 15... i've tolerated (and appreciated) jokes (at my expense) for 17 years.

              i'm an easy target. i get this. i don't care. i do what i do, i am what i am. me and my ego can take the jokes, the prodding and the sni
              • My apologies. Due to the way Slashdot does messages, I didn't see that you weren't answering me. The question I asked was "Why do you wish to mock people who believe in a creator or supreme being?". I didn't see that you were answering ellem instead of me. (When you read each reply from the Messages page, you see it alone, out of context.)

                Sorry for accusing you of dodging my question. My fault.
            • the flying spaghetti monster is a creation myth as good as any other, since they are all based on beliefs rather than science they are all equally valid. A small sample [wikipedia.org]
              • Of course, science is based upon beliefs as well- but if you were to admit to that, you'd become a solipsist or have to commit yourself to an insane asylum.
                • If it weren't for that pesky thing called the scientific method we couldn't be having this exchange in the first place.
                  • If it weren't for that pesky thing called the scientific method we couldn't be having this exchange in the first place.

                    No, actually, the scientific method is accepted by some forms of ID. If it weren't for the pesky wish of humans to sound smart when they're at the limits of their knowledge, we wouldn't have so many biology teachers attempting to turn evolution into atheism- that's where the real problem lies.

                    Whenever a person becomes a fundamentalist, claiming that what we currently know is fact regard
                    • Yeah, the church has always been a true friend of scientific progress.

                      How can you on one hand say that what bothers you most about evolution is that it takes what evidence it has and calls it fact, while on the other you back a theory with no evidence at all and call it fact?

                      Which is more likely; that scientists all over the world that reach the same or similar conclusions about evolution studying fruit flies, starlings or dinosaur bones are correct; or that your particular religion's creation myth is corr

                    • Yeah, the church has always been a true friend of scientific progress.

                      The Roman Church was the inventor of scientific progress in a way- the insistance that Natural Law was a source of revelation is what created the scientific method to begin with. But "progress"- I'm not really sure we've had any progress. Sure, we've had discoveries- but have they made us happier? Have they increased our love for our fellow man? I don't think so- and that's the problem. Fundamentalism, of any stripe, can be overdon
                    • You're the rock and I'm Sisyphus, not sure why Hades is pissed at me though.
                    • Nah- Peter's the rock, I'm just the hill...And as for why Hades is mad at you, might I suggest you examine your own beliefs for stuff that is implied but isn't proven? That's usually where fundamentalism starts. And once you start, it's hard to stop before (to stretch a alegory with Catholicism to Gibsonesque dimensions- Mel Gibson being a fine example of an old fashioned Roman Catholic Fundamentalist, the type that had to split away from Rome over Vatican II) you're insisting on the Internet to all who w
                    • You keep using that [m-w.com] word. [reference.com] I do not think it means [sharperiron.org] what you think [atheistnetwork.com] it means [die.net].
                    • In my JE on the topic, I admitted to using a different than normal version of the word. I also find it interesting that the link under "you think" led to a discussion that I nor any of my other online aliases took part in. To clarify here- I'm using Pope John Paul II's version of the word, which is in no way related to the root word. JPII used it to refer to people who had become so certain in their personal set of opinions and beliefs, that they were closed to any other opinions and beliefs. He persona
      • hmph. i wasn't mocking anyone. ellem brought up id... and a discussion on id just isn't complete without fsm... that was the joke.

        i think saying bringing up fsm as a way to mock people who believe in a creator or supreme being is not really fair. fsm, the joke, was created as a way to lampoon id as scientific theory to be taught in science classes. _not_ as something to make fun of people who believe in god(s).

        sheesh... i'm no athiest either. i just like a good pseudo-science joke.
        • i wasn't mocking anyone. ellem brought up id... and a discussion on id just isn't complete without fsm...

          It seems obvious to me that the FSM is designed to mock ID. And by ID, I mean specifically the current flavor that some are attempting to introduce into science curriculum, not the overall general concept.

          Secondarily though, it has been quickly adopted by techies who want to mock christianity in general.

          I view the "joke" in about the same light as I would a joke based on ethnicity or nationality. I un
          • For those playing the home game, the point is that there are people out there who are a little offended by the whole FSM thing. If that matters to you...

            I find the whole ID/Christianity thing offensive. The difference is that I don't expect you to do anything regarding my personal feelings on a site like this given that we don't have a personal relationship.
             
  • Your JE didn't exactly support the title. Why is the evolution hypothesis better than Intelligent Design?

    According to your JE, the reason to side with evolution seems to be because it allows us to predict things. To what end?

    From a matter of tangible evidence to choose one over the other, neither side can provide a whole lot. Evolutionists offer up a few faulty aging methods (C14 being one of them, the geologic column being another) and a bunch of numbers that were determined because they fit the data av

    • It must be unreliable, after all, it showed that the Shroud of Turin was a fake.

      • The Shroud of Turin is a fake, but not because C14 dating says so.
        • So a long time ago I wrote this story about the End of the world in like my first year of college or whatever... so like 86 maybe 85 I forget... the story was crap anyway.

          The point is - I made the Shroud Of Turin being a fake a big point and how they figured out it was a fake and I threw in a bunch of other things along those lines. And of course (DUH) The Shroud was fake. My friends, who appear prominently in the story were all "freak out" because I "predicted" it would be a fake.

          *sigh*

        • The Shroud of Turin is a fake, but not because C14 dating says so.

          So you're a Protestant man?

          Tell me, why does Evolution bother you so? Why are you so keen on shoehorning in ID? What vested interest do you have?

          Surely objective reality bears no relation to religious faith?

          I thought the point of it was, as long as you believe hard enough, you get to Heaven?

          • So you're a Protestant man?

            No. I'm a Baptist. (The difference is that where the Protestant denominations get their start at/around Luther's ranting at the Catholic Church, the Baptists have a large part of their history coming from the Christian church that paralleled the Romish Church. It was some of the ancestors of the Baptists that the Romish church deemed "heretic" and set about murdering every chance they got.)

            Tell me, why does Evolution bother you so? Why are you so keen on shoehorning in ID? Wha
            • My biggest beef with evolution is not that it is taught, so much as the idea that it is being taught as fact,

              Because evolution is "fact" -- or at least as close as you're going to get in science (which has rather different definitions for meanings of words, such as "theory", than what most people understand behind them). Evolution is an observable process. It does not, however, have anything to say about why this process exists or how it got set in motion.

              ID tries to answer the why, which isn't science

              • Thanks for that. :-)
              • ID tries to answer the why, which isn't science. Science is only interested in how.

                This is likely the most lucid argument in this whole thing I've heard to date.

                Science has at a minimum requirement that any notion to be accepted as "fact" must be testable. ID isn't testable. Therefore it isn't science.

                This is exactly why I don't accept evolution as science, either. Interspecies evolution (aka macroevolution) has not been seen. Nobody has ever pointed to one animal and said, "See? Here's one animal, of

                • "The fossil record that we have seems to indicate that evolution of species occured." That is an accurate statement, but that is not what is being taught.

                  Well I don't know about YOUR school, but that is what was taught in mine.

                  Evolution is a theory, it convienently forms a logical basic around the observed evidence, when new evidence comes in, you reform your theories.

                  Not doing such would mean you are believing on something inspite of evidence to the contrary, and that would go under religion. ;)

                  I c

      • it showed that the Shroud of Turin - was a fake

        Actually it didn't- it showed that the Shroud was last laundered in the 1300s and was conaminated with all sorts of spores and other biological material from the time. As newer tests would require a larger sample- and the nuns who take care of the shroud aren't willing to have more of it destroyed- there the question sits.
        • even if someone could prove the shroud to be genuine, it is in many ways expedient to allow it to be thought a fake.

          since biological contamination brings challenges the authenticity of the original carbon dating, it might be better to be able to cast the shadow of doubt on the testing, but not do any new tests that would be more difficult to challenge. having an excuse makes it easier to convince others to take it on faith than a new test that is more accurate.

          on the other hand, allowing nay-sayers a reaso
          • And that's the sad part. But probably correct (considering what it's proveable the shroud has already been through- an earthquake, a fire, early 1970s scientific testing; and that's all within the RECORDED history of the shroud) considering that it's not just human enemies the shroud has to contend with.
        • As newer tests would require a larger sample

          Maybe they should use the whole thing.

          "Wow! It was for real!"

          Cheers,

          Ethelred

    • I'm not sure if you're talking about ID or Young Earth philosophy. ID can allow for geologic dating. Young Earth cannot. Last I'd looked though YE proponents couldn't adequately explain away evidence of the speed of light and it's doppler effect. With which of course shows stars being very far away and the light from them is millions of years old.
  • Sorry, I thought this was about 'AD' and 'Evolution', and since we're playing with Active Directory...

    But you're right. ID is a nice 'pet theory' but its based on belief, not studied, potentially provable, assumptions and is bad science. (for whatever my $0.02 are worth)
    • OK, seriously, AD is a MUCH WORSE theory than ID :)
      • OK, seriously, AD is a MUCH WORSE theory than ID :)

        Are they teaching that shit in science classes?! Man, I've got to pay more attention to local curriculum... Fragile young minds and all... they can't take that.

        "You mean, the computer, the user, and the mail server are all specializations of the same object?!"
      • Very true. It's possible that ID happens to be correct, despite having nothing to do with science. AD is clearly, testably, faithfully wrong.
  • saw other people getting hundreds of responses in their journal entries and wanted a part of the action.

    You attention whore, you. *grins*
  • It's not. A theroy provides testable predictions. All ID does is say, wow life is really complex, there's no way that could have happened on it's own. Please, any ID'er show me a testable aspect of ID. And, "we exist" doesn't cut it. For the moment, we can look at the available evidence for Evolution, and run small scale tests, and studies [ucl.ac.uk] which show that environmental conditions force changes in a species through natural selection. The only, big, hole in Evolution for the moment, id the inability for

Slashdot Top Deals

At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer.

Close