Bloody Libertarians, Imagine the Mess if they Ran Government

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Obviously that should read Governments aren't very good.....

I loved the freudian slip. I don't think you've ever been a banker gen. I think you were secretly a civil servant in the Ministry of Silly Walks.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

I loved the freudian slip. I don't think you've ever been a banker gen. I think you were secretly a civil servant in the Ministry of Silly Walks.

I don't think I've ever worked for any state owned entity. The banks I worked for have all remained in the private sector I think and even the uni I taught at was privately owned.

Degenerate

tomterm8 wrote: »

Frankly, Degenerate, I find the entire question both dishonest and pure idiocy. Describing Intelligent Design in the context of science as a theory is dishonest; it comes down the definition of theory. At best Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. In order for something to be described as a theory, it must have been tested in very many repeatable scientific experiments, where all alternative hypothesis have been disproved. Very few things reach the height of "theory".

Now you're splitting hairs. Scientists made this problem for themselves when they started inferring more into the word "theory" than the rest of humanity.

Can you tell me a single scientific experiment that has been offered in order to disprove the hypothesis of God ? I don't know of one.

In short, it doesn't fall into science, it can't be tested, it is not a theory, and to teach it as science is pure idiocy and dishonest. If they can come up with actual experiments to disprove their intelligent designor, I'll start listening. Until that point, I'll put it into the wibble wobble category of nonsence that doesn't, in any way, expand our knowledge of the universe.

The aspects of Darwinism that the ID folks dispute fail all the same tests.

What do we have to prove any of it? We have the fossil record that shows a clear line of descent through various ancient species to the modern day. There are quite a few gaps yet to be filled, though. We have genome sequencing that shows us how significant portions of genetic code are shared between species, which confirms the observations of the fossil record. We have witnessed minor genetic mutations being naturally selected in bacteria in a lab, proving the viability of natural selection. The weight of evidence is such that you would indeed have to be an idiot to deny that evolution of lesser species into modern complex life has occurred. However, when an ID proponent points to a flagellar motor and says "this is complicated and doesn't work with even one bit missing, how could it come into being from small random changes?", anyone with an open mind ought to concede that they have a point. I've seen the counter arguments from Darwinists and whilst they certainly have as much merit as attributing it to him upstairs, they have to shoe-horn concepts like "scaffolding" into the mix, which is pretty blatantly bending the theory (sorry, hypothesis) to suit their conclusions just like the ID folks. There is no evidence either way. Give me a microscope and a time machine and I'll get back to you.

We should recognize when we are moving into the realms of the unprovable and let people attribute things to God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever they want, without trying to claim it is scientifically disproven. Scientists in some fields are very bad at admitting they don't know everything.

Generali

Degenerate wrote: »

........We should recognize when we are moving into the realms of the unprovable and let people attribute things to God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever they want, without trying to claim it is scientifically disproven. Scientists in some fields are very bad at admitting they don't know everything.

Science lessons, however, are for teaching Science, hence the name. We have separate classes for Philosophy etc.

Actually, I would have thought that it would be relatively simple to perform some experiments to turn the ID hypothesis into a theory. Then there'd be a very good reason to include ID in Science classes as you'd have theory and counter-theory. Until then it's a Philosophy or a sub-branch of religion (I would class it under Philosophy myself).

sabretoothtigger

No system should be above question not even Librarianism

treliac wrote: »

It's rather more easy to be libertarian until you experience the loss or harm of someone whose own personal humanity is denied them by the greed, selfishness or cruelty of another.

It would be contradictory for a freedom to impose upon others or deny them the same rights



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklOsdsWQr0

Degenerate

Conrad wrote: »

Could you give some examples.

The eye is the example I've seen put forward by ID proponents, but Darwinism points us to the many intermediate steps available in nature right now such as light sensing patches in deep sea worms.

I very much doubt that was a true ID proponent putting that one forward.

The best one I have seen is the flagellar motor:



These microscopic turbines, which power the motion of bacteria, are 98% efficient at turning chemical into rotational energy - much better than any human-built motor to date.

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hsg/176/table-images/bacterial-motor.html

http://utsusemi.nims.go.jp/english/mailmag/2004/011a.html

Take away any part of it and it won't work. Now what are the odds of that structure occuring randomly, even over millions of years?

Incidentally 'sudden leap' mutations are all around us - dwarfs, people with 5 limbs and so on.

Those aren't "sudden leaps" any more than people with different coloured hair or eyes. Genetically speaking these are either variations produced by very small genetic changes that produce a large affect when expressed through the development of a single cell embryo into a fully developed human, or in the case of the extra limb, might not be genetic at all, but rather a failed division of the embryo.

Degenerate

Generali wrote: »

Science lessons, however, are for teaching Science, hence the name. We have separate classes for Philosophy etc.

Which is why I already said at the start that I certainly wouldn't want it taught as science...

Actually, I would have thought that it would be relatively simple to perform some experiments to turn the ID hypothesis into a theory. Then there'd be a very good reason to include ID in Science classes as you'd have theory and counter-theory. Until then it's a Philosophy or a sub-branch of religion (I would class it under Philosophy myself).

How exactly does one conduct an experiment to prove what happens over million-year timescales?

Generali

Degenerate wrote: »

Which is why I already said at the start that I certainly wouldn't want it taught as science...

How exactly does one conduct an experiment to prove what happens over million-year timescales?

I've got no idea, I'm not a biologist.

However, my belief is that they experiment with animals such as the mayfly which has a very short breeding cycle.

Until ID is a science, it shouldn't be included in science lessons any more than the work of Shakespear, Sartre or Keynes.

Degenerate

Until ID is a science, it shouldn't be included in science lessons any more than the work of Shakespear, Sartre or Keynes.

We established that several times already...

tomterm8

Degenerate wrote: »

Now you're splitting hairs. Scientists made this problem for themselves when they started inferring more into the word "theory" than the rest of humanity.

No, actually I am not. In the domain of science, Theory means a specific thing. Any claim that ID is a theory is dishonest.

Degenerate wrote: »

The aspects of Darwinism that the ID folks dispute fail all the same tests.
.

That's irrelevant. Before we knew about gravity, some people proposed that a dung beatle pushed the sun around the sky. The fact that science hadn't got around to explaining the sun mystery didn't imply any validity into the dung beatle hypothesis. Frankly, degenerate, claiming so is pure idiocy.