"Intelligent Design" & Public Schools

“In support of JS's distinction:

Natural: existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly
natural explanation" [ant: supernatural]”

“In support of my distinction:

Natural: The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.

We agree, what is natural cannot be supernatural - therefore, if there is an IDer, which by definition is a force or process that produces and controls all the phenomena of the material world, then, again by definition, it cannot be supernatural, and again, by definition, may be considered science.
last edited: 3/19/06 9:35:54 PM”

“Hogwash.

Nature is all observable matter and energy.

Naturalism confines explanations of observable nature within the scope of this same observable matter and energy. Science deals strictly with naturalism and not the supernatural.

If the "ID force or process" is entirely naturalistic then it would have to be contained entirely within the scope of observable matter and energy. If it didn't then it isn't naturalistic. Where, then, did this intelligence come from? Who designed the designer? The minute you claim that the IDer is naturalistic you wind up with the classic "which came first" problem... the design or the designer.

ID is a supernatural theory because it requires a source of "intelligence" to ultimately come from outside the scope of observable matter and energy. It's supernatural (not-naturalistic) and hence not Science.”

“Nature is all observable matter and energy.

Bullcrap. Some things have not been observed, but have been predicted - and were considered "science" at the time. Please tell me I'm wrong. Please please please.

Naturalism confines explanations of observable nature within the scope of this same observable matter and energy. Science deals strictly with naturalism and not the supernatural.

If there is an IDer, it is natural, not supernatural - we are synthetic. It is you who is incorrectly using words. You are using words based upon what you envision the universe to be - not what it is or might be. The designer designs sythetic material/energy. What is not designed is natural. That is how the terms are used - unless you are a scientist speaking specifically about Intelligent Design, then we can't use the words as we normally would. It's magic!

If the "ID force or process" is entirely naturalistic then it would have to be contained entirely within the scope of observable matter and energy. If it didn't then it isn't naturalistic.

You are limiting what is "observable" to what you have created the tools to allow you to do the observing. Quarks were science, even before we had the tools to see them - even before we had the math to predict them - they were still predicted and considered science. But as we all know ... the double standard continues ...

Where, then, did this intelligence come from? Who designed the designer?

That is completely irrelevant. Scientists until a couple of decades ago didn't have a good mathematical model (and still don't really) of where the universe came from ... yet the pursuit of that knowledge was still considered ... you guessed it .... science.

The minute you claim that the IDer is naturalistic you wind up with the classic "which came first" problem... the design or the designer.

Irrelevant, although, the designer came first, by any definition.

ID is a supernatural theory because it requires a source of "intelligence" to ultimately come from outside the scope of observable matter and energy. It's supernatural (not-naturalistic) and hence not Science.

An incorrect conclusion based on multiple faulty premises.”

“Humans are host for a parasite, 'language' which would have to be a subset of mathematics.”

“Depends what your definition of "is" is.”

“Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)”

“pedxing - You really want to go with that definition?

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe;”

“I love it how scientists try to explain the universe with science - and in doing so - attempt to define science (or the pursuit of that knowledge) in such a way that if the reality of the universe is it is controlled by a god - then that is not recognized.

Sounds like they already have it figured out (in their minds).

And they laughed at christians who said we were the center of the universe! LOL!

scientist creed - "I will accept any mathematical explanation of the universe as science, no matter how theoretical, no matter how bizarre, no matter how unsupported it is with data, as long as there isn't a god involved."”

“That darn Mirriam-Webster gang and their cabal of manipulative atheistic scientists has me in their grasp, so yes - as a rule I'm willing to accept the idea that words mean what what the dictionary says they mean. When I want to hire words to mean something different, I try to make it clear that I am using the words in some other way.”

“When I have proof of the hearsay that the tallest giraffe in the Ark had with him both girl and boy friend ,I will burn the ark full of science books that I built in my back yard.”

““That darn Mirriam-Webster gang and their cabal of manipulative atheistic scientists has me in their grasp, so yes - as a rule I'm willing to accept the idea that words mean what what the dictionary says they mean. When I want to hire words to mean something different, I try to make it clear that I am using the words in some other way.”
pedxing

There's a shiney object! Look over there!

What the heck are you talking about?

The point I am making, which you are missing, is that you are only using the definitions as they fit your needs, and ignoring them when they don't. I have also given numerous examples of said practice, which have gone completely ignored. Between a scientist and a teacher, sarcasm and name calling and other personal attacks have been used in response instead.”

“"As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes ..., the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design!"

Frank Zindler”

“What designed the designer, Sarge? If the designer is naturalistic then what designed it?

Irrelevant you say? Expected. Infinite regression is an ugly way for a theory to die.

Origins, Sarge… remember that we are talking about origins here! Where did your designer come from? Who designed the designer?

If the designer is supernatural (non-naturalistic) then you don't need to answer this painful question. Most of the ID material I have read is focused not on denying that the designer is non-naturalistic (since it clearly must be) but rather on challenging why Science should limit itself to strict naturalism and hence the exclusion of the supernatural.

This was the root of the insanity in Kansas where they changed the curriculum for the school system to remove the naturalistic requirement. Now you have all sorts of people lobbying to get the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” taught in schools next to Intelligent Design. After all it’s just another non-observable, non-naturalistic theory so if you won’t discount one non-naturalistic theory why discount others? Hey, as far as I am concerned have at it. The Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims have their own supernatural views on this matter and it’s only fair that they get in the door as well.

That’s why Science is the study of nature using naturalistic explanations. Science is not intended to be the answer to everything, although a strict naturalist would claim that it is. It’s just a structured body of knowledge built by explaining observations in nature using only information contained within nature. It doesn’t cheat and “peek” outside of nature to short-cut things it doesn’t understand. It is a slow, tedious, and historically very productive way to build useful natural knowledge based on what we can observe about us in nature.”

“Oh, and I know a lot of religious scientists that would be rather put off by your "scientists creed". Science doesn’t preclude the supernatural from being true. It only precludes it from being Science.”

“What designed the designer, Sarge? If the designer is naturalistic then what designed it?

That says is all right there. Did you even read what you wrote?

Correction: Did you even think about what you wrote?
last edited: 3/20/06 4:55:17 PM”

“Did you?

What a 'tard.”

“More name calling ...

Aren't you a public school teacher?

Oh, I'm sorry, that was mean.”

“
pitts' contention #1: we are natural

pitts' contention #2: science is the study of nature only, not the supernatural

pitts' contention #3: if we are designed, we were designed by something supernatural

pitts' conclusion: if we were designed, the study of the designer would not be science

"What designed the designer, Sarge? If the designer is naturalistic then what designed it?" - pitts

pitts' uber-dilemma #1: being designed by an intelligent designer of natural origin presumes it was designed
”

“The point I am making, which you are missing, is that you are only using the definitions as they fit your needs, and ignoring them when they don't.
Sarge
4:43:56 PM
3/20/06

And where do I ignore definitions of words?”

“And where do I ignore definitions of words? - pedxing


Natural: The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.”

“It's really a futile discussion, IMHO. The glory of creation is so obvious for those of us who see it. Trying to explain and logically 'reason' what is so obviously intelligently and wondrously created is like trying to tell to a blind man that the Mona Lisa is a beautiful work of complex art. He can't see it, he can only run his fingers along it and say, "so, what's the big deal, I can feel gobs of paint but that doesn't mean it's a masterpiece of intelligent design?".

Well, actually the Mona Lisa is a bad example because I don't think it's all that. But the principle is true. But, as my beliefs say, the wisdom of man is actually foolish. We go SO far out of our way to deny the obvious and we use our inherent "intelligence" to vehemently deny its source. There is no logical reason for this other than the obvious denial by men of a Creator, which was conveniently explained and prophesied in detail. They don't even realize the obvious characters they are playing in an ancient story that is still being played out today.”

“"They don't even realize the obvious characters they are playing in an ancient story that is still being played out today."

One might argue that some "don't even realize that it's just that...an ancient story".”

“They have to deny science to deny a designer.”

“Imagine what kind of world we would be living in if it was acceptable (scientifically speaking) to answer questions of physics, biology, etc. by throwing your arms up and saying "I don't know why, how or where...must have been god".

I think that might have been the method they used back in the dark ages.”

“so il hiker®, the greatest minds of science, those who even 'invented' the scientific method, were extremely intelligent scientists who believed in 'God' who didn't simply throw their arms up and said, "must've been God". I'm glad Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Fancis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, William Thomson Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, Albert Einstein, etc. didn't just throw their hands up and say, "it must've been God!" and then give up. No, to the contrary, they were fascinated with the workings of intelligence behind creation. I have no idea why so many of you suggest "it must've been god so that's it" when it's the opposite that's true. Albert Einstein said, "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." This is what drives the greatest minds. If you are well-read on scientific history, you would be aware of this simple fact.

As for the ancient story, it's ancient, it's current, and it's future, all the same, and your way of thinking fits perfectly in how the story plays out, what has been said, what is currently being said, and what will be said, but you probably don't even realize it. I don't fault you for it, I am merely eternally thankful that I recognize and know the Truth, because my nature could have very well played out the way with those who don't clearly see the obvious majesty of God. The reason Christ often used the analogy of a "blind man that can now see" is because it is that obvious, and that true, and that blatant when you go from being blind to being able to see. It all becomes so clear that the simplicity of it seems foolish.
last edited: 3/20/06 7:15:31 PM”

“You miss the point on my "throw you arms up" comment.
I am not as well read on scientific history as perhaps I should be, but I don't recall any of these scientists denying scientific progress they had made in order to further the agenda of the church. Perhaps I am wrong about that. However, I am well aware of the religious convictions of many of the greatest scientists who ever lived, but I am also aware that many have been anything but in love with the church.

I'm not going to argue with you about why I do not put much stock in your "story" (no offense). I grew up in a catholic household and endured catholic high school. Your message is one I've heard a gazillion times, and has never been succesfully "defended" by any of those that tried to get me to "see the light" when challenged, IMO, of course. I apologize if that offends you, it's nothing personal, it's just a tired argument to me that certainly isn't going to get resolved in the www. universe.

I have no beef with teaching ID as an elective, and as a philosophy class. My problem is that the only "benefit" of teaching it as science, is that it acts as a recruitment tool for the church. It makes people more likely to dismiss science in the future in lieu of what their churches tell them. (Contraception, medicine)
last edited: 3/20/06 7:40:04 PM”

“Natural: The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
Sarge
6:17:55 PM
3/20/06

Unless you are taking that radically out of context - I certainly haven't ignored that definition. I'd be interested if you could show me how and where I have ignored it.

Let's also look at the whole entry:

na·ture (nchr)
n.
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" Gertrude Stein.
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: "Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill" Percy Bysshe Shelley.
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.
.”

“Anyhow - its a pretty neat trick to turn the attack into character and evasion. When you are confronted with the discrepancy between your use of the word "supernatural."”

“I'm just speaking truth pedxing. There is NO discrepancy between my use of the word "supernatural". In fact, you're using my argument - which really makes no sense in this context. I really don't think you understand what anybody is saying other than yourself.

You are perfectly willing to use definitions when, and only when, they allow you to ignore that what is natural is what is real.

In any other context, "natural" means what is real - unless we're talking about Intelligent Design - then we have to break out the dictionary and choose which definition works. Very convenient for you.”

“Natural: The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
Sarge
6:17:55 PM
3/20/06

Unless you are taking that radically out of context - I certainly haven't ignored that definition. I'd be interested if you could show me how and where I have ignored it. - pedxing

Ok, so do you agree that what is natural includes the forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world?

If so, and if there is an IDer, then you must agree that it is a "force and/or process that produces and controls all the phenomena of the material world". That is what we're talking about when we talk about an IDer.

And if you agree with that, then you must agree that science would include the study of such a force, since science studies what is natural.”

“so il hiker, no offense taken whatsoever, nothing you said would or could offend me. We just see things differently. And I'm sorry you grew up Catholic®, you should've been Protestant. :Þ As for the "church", the "church" in those days were part of the state, which corrupts both, which is one major reason Protestantism came into being.

As for Intelligent Design, I would never want a specific religion taught in a science class, nor any religion. Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with religion, it merely recognizes obvious intelligence in nature just as you would a cairn while backpacking cross-country. But the most basic molecule is infinitely more sophisticated than a cairn, yet we are so quick to recognize a cairn as intelligently created, but not DNA? Me no fathom, other than what is written and prophesied and how it plays into the story, which then makes it extremely obvious. No one can make you see, that's for sure. But once you do (IF you do, and I honestly hope you do someday!), it'll be so obvious that you'll wonder what you were thinking!”

“I went 30 over years not seeing, laughing at Christians, ... I actually stomped on a Bible once in front of one. Naive Christians ... Then one day out of the blue, God had mercy on me - opened my eyes to the truth (funny, it talks about that very thing in the Bible) ...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATT%2013:1-23;&version=31;”

“I've always respected your beliefs Buck. But the Blind man analogy is a little condescending, no?”

“You've never respected Buck's beliefs, you've disrespected them time and again. You might have respected his right to have beliefs - but that is entirely different.”

“Intelligent design theorizes that there is a designer. Therefore, it is inherently religious. To say it has nothing to do with religion, I think, is misleading.”

“Talking out of your ass as usual. Just Trolling for the fun of it, srg?
last edited: 3/20/06 9:22:43 PM”

“bearmagent, the blind man analogy shouldn't be condescending at all, and that's not the intention. That's not my term, but the words of Christ. It's very simply saying that unless one can see (as Christ speaks of) then the wisdom of man is foolishness (blind). It's truly as if the blinders are taken off. I cannot even fathom the thought that God did not create all that we see, it is so utterly obvious to me in every regard. I know it to be true, it's not just what I hope, it's not what I wish, I just know it is. It's as clear as if I saw my father write me a note and hand it to me. Then others come along and say it wasn't written by my father, and I'm like, hello? That's why these kinds of discussions are really futile (although enjoyable to some degree) because unless one knows the true God, none of it really makes sense at all. And once you do know the true God, then it's all so clear, as if blinders were removed. I don't say it condescending, and even me saying the "true God" is not from me, it's not exclusive to me or anyone else, it's a matter of acknowledging Him no matter who you are. It's the most amazing feeling in the world! And I've got a beautiful new bride and a spankin' new 1 week old son and it's tough to beat those! :^D But knowing God (and knowing my family knows God!) is truly the most amazing feeling I have ever experienced.”

“Intelligent design theorizes that there is a designer. Therefore, it is inherently religious. To say it has nothing to do with religion, I think, is misleading.

so il hiker, Intelligent Design presupposes nothing and it has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Check out the definition of religion:

re·li·gion
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Tell me, which religion in a science class are they gonna teach? Hinduism? Mormonism? Islam? Judaism? Christianity? Animism? I could go on and on. No one would teach any of these. No one is saying one must worship a diety, or identify a diety, or even care. I would never want religion taught in a science class. Most religions can't even agree upon their own religion. Recognizing obvious intelligence in nature is not religion. Do you think the SETI scientists, if/when they detect possible patterns in outerspace, run from the building screaming, "time to call in the clergy!". No, it's done in the name of science... intelligence. Archeologists look for intelligent patterns to find possible past cultures. When you're backpacking and you come across a cairn, isn't it rather obvious that even a series of 3 or more stacked rocks along a route were intelligently designed? Do you simply ignore it when you see them and pretend you didn't, lest it take you down a path you don't wanna go? Do you care who made them, is it your goal to say, "I want to find out the person(s) who placed these cairns here"? I doubt it. Intelligence can even come from naturally evolved aliens from another planet, do we exclude that possibility too? Where the intelligence comes from is not the issue, and scientifically recognizing it is not a religion. We should not exclude anything from science that uses scientific methods from the get-go and if we do, it is not true, honest science. Intelligent Design does not want naturalistic evolution thrown-out, it only seeks to be taught as an option when speaking of origins. The same cannot be said of naturalistic evolution.”

“Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe

That pretty much sums it up, IMO.

Explain to me the scientific methods used to explain a "Designer".

The Cairn comparison is silly. It's fairly obvious that the cairns were placed by a person, unless other evidence of "glacial dumping" exists in the area. (I've seen "natural cairns" in Illinois.)

As for what you "know" to be true. Charles Manson "knew" a race war was coming. Hitler "knew" the jews were responsible for all of Germany's troubles. On the other hand Columbus "knew" he would not fall off the edge of the earth. Confidence does not equal reality. To me, the "arrogance" that Christians seem to speek with is a major turn off to the faith and also makes them seem a bit "loony". Again, no offense intended. I'm not calling you arrogant or loony, I'm telling you how it can be perceived by us hethens sometimes. LOL!”

“"Naive Christians ... Then one day out of the blue, God had mercy on me - opened my eyes to the truth (funny, it talks about that very thing in the Bible) ..."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATT%2013:1-23;&version=31;”

“Geez, you guys still lookin' for sinners?”

“We're all sinners MarkO.”

“I wish there were more Chrisitans like Sarge. Sarge is an exmeplary Christian! Please Christians go out into the world, follow his lead. Make sure everyone knows that you owe your understanding and outlook to the grace of God and Jesus.”

“chicken”

“Intelligent Design does not want naturalistic evolution thrown-out, it only seeks to be taught as an option when speaking of origins. The same cannot be said of naturalistic evolution.”
Buck
2:20:39 AM
3/21/06

A. Thanks for the explanation on the Blind Man

B. I think most proponents of ID would want evolution thrown out

C. Evolution and ID is Apples and Oranges

4. We'll probably never agree on B&C.

Part of the futile fun, no?”

“B. I think most proponents of ID would want evolution thrown out

I know lots of IDers, and personally no of ZERO that want evolution thrown out. Not that they don't exist, but they are an extreme minority.”

“You guys should come over here and help the discussion along...

http://jdubrecords.org/boards/viewtopic.php?t=3114”

“And I don't know anyone who wants religion thrown out.”

““And I don't know anyone who wants religion thrown out.”

You should get out more. The misquoted phrase "separation of church and state" is often used in this debate to justify removing religion from public schooling completely.
last edited: 3/21/06 9:02:24 AM”