Bloody Libertarians, Imagine the Mess if they Ran Government

Masomnia

Degenerate wrote: »

Most people who take this line are completely ignorant of what "intelligent design" is all about.

The theory starts by conceding all the proven science on evolution. ID proponents acknowledge that the Earth is billions of years old, and than man evolved through a line going back through primates, to the simplest early life forms. The Darwinian view attributes all these changes to purely random mutations, with those that present advantages winning through (natural selection). ID proponents reject the notion that it is 100% random. To support their view they point to biological structures that they say are too complicated to have arisen randomly in one step, and that have no functional intermediate steps that would have presented evolutionary advantage.

They do make rather bold claims of a scientific basis for their theory, when clearly it is a religiously motivated attempt to squeeze the hand of God (or a "designer") into this area of perceived reasonable doubt. But then, it could be said the Darwinian view is an article of faith for the atheist perspective too - the structures the ID folks point to are genuinely hard to account for, and it's hard to see how it can ever be conclusively proven either way without a time machine to go back and examine the cellular structure of the earliest life on Earth.

Rather than "pure idiocy", the people behind ID are pretty clever and have successfully exposed those parts of Darwin's theories that are weaker and/or unprovable. This is probably why they attract such hostility and disinformation from opponents. I'd rather people try to reconcile their faith with the proven science than bury their heads in the sand and pretend the earth is 6000 years old. I certainly wouldn't want to see ID taught in schools as scientific fact, but I could see it being presented in faith schools as one perspective on how God might fit into the whole evolution thing.

Good post.

So you know, the question in the survey does mention it being taught in science lessons.

Generali

Masomnia wrote: »

Good post.

So you know, the question in the survey does mention it being taught in science lessons.

Intelligent design, if it is to be taught, should be taught in Philosophy or RE lessons.

It isn't science as it has never been put up for peer review and isn't replicatable IMO. If its proponents start to use scientific method and it is 'provable' then there is a case for it being included in science lessons.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Intelligent design, if it is to be taught, should be taught in Philosophy or RE lessons.

It isn't science as it has never been put up for peer review and isn't replicatable IMO. If its proponents start to use scientific method and it is 'provable' then there is a case for it being included in science lessons.

As this thread inadvertently, at one point, veered towards library sciences, I thought I'd mention the Dewey System. Intelligent design is normally classified under 213 (religion: creationism) rather than 576 (science: evolution). However there is a slow creep (particularly in America) towards shelving intelligent design as science. Personally I'm with Gen on this one. Teach it as religion if you must, but not science.

lostinrates

I once got snapped at for pointing that we weren't designed according to evolutionary theory, right here on this board I think. its very misunderstood, often by people who also knock religion as ''crazy''. Often just semantics....but a semantics that belies a lack of ...understanding...

kennyboy66_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

As this thread inadvertently, at one point, veered towards library sciences, I thought I'd mention the Dewey System. Intelligent design is normally classified under 213 (religion: creationism) rather than 576 (science: evolution). However there is a slow creep (particularly in America) towards shelving intelligent design as science. Personally I'm with Gen on this one. Teach it as religion if you must, but not science.

The teaching of creationism (and ID) has been ruled as unconstitutional in state schools (public) in the USA.

Before 1925 the teaching of evolution was illegal in 15 USA states.

It was only in 1968 that the ban on teaching evolution was lifted in Arkansas.

There is a long history of certain states trying to ban the teaching of evolution and force the teaching of creationism which is then usually prevented by the Supreme Court.

ID is only clever in the sense that it attempts to muddy the waters and shoe horn looney religious beliefs into education. If it was a Muslim country doing it, we would be rolling our eyes at the backwardness of it.

It makes my blood boil when I see UK state schools teaching creationism like this one;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3088444.stm

and don't get me started on Homeopathy on the NHS !

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

The teaching of creationism (and ID) has been ruled as unconstitutional in state schools (public) in the USA.

Before 1925 the teaching of evolution was illegal in 15 USA states.

It was only in 1968 that the ban on teaching evolution was lifted in Arkansas.

There is a long history of certain states trying to ban the teaching of evolution and force the teaching of creationism which is then usually prevented by the Supreme Court.

ID is only clever in the sense that it attempts to muddy the waters and shoe horn looney religious beliefs into education. If it was a Muslim country doing it, we would be rolling our eyes at the backwardness of it.

It makes my blood boil when I see UK state schools teaching creationism like this one;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3088444.stm

and don't get me started on Homeopathy on the NHS !

Homeopathy is a crock, put simply. It always makes me think of a doctor's acronym: GROLIES.

GROLIES? "What does that stand for Generali?" I hear you cry.

Guardian Reader Of Limited Intelligence, Ethnic Skirt.

They are the people that insist that homeopathy should be on the NHS despite it never having undergone a successful double blind study (although I believe its proponents claim they have).

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

Homeopathy is a crock, put simply. It always makes me think of a doctor's acronym: GROLIES.

GROLIES? "What does that stand for Generali?" I hear you cry.

Guardian Reader Of Limited Intelligence, Ethnic Skirt.

They are the people that insist that homeopathy should be on the NHS despite it never having undergone a successful double blind study (although I believe its proponents claim they have).

there is also a lot of conventional stuff that's next to useless or...useless, given out though, while helpful stuff isn't.

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

there is also a lot of conventional stuff that's next to useless or...useless, given out though, while helpful stuff isn't.

True although at least it has a demonstrable medical benefit which isn't the case AIUI with homeopathy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/23/2827284.htm

Britain should end its state funding for homeopathic treatments because they are "scientifically implausible" and work no better than placebos, an influential parliamentary panel says.


The Science and Technology committee says homeopathic products are not medicines and should no longer be licensed by medicine regulators.


The panel also says homeopathy producers should not be allowed to make medical claims on product labels without evidence they work.

It's a good and short article as is this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2

Time after time, properly conducted scientific studies have proved that homeopathic remedies work no better than simple placebos. So why do so many sensible people swear by them? And why do homeopaths believe they are victims of a smear campaign? Ben Goldacre follows a trail of fudged statistics, bogus surveys and widespread self-deception.

michaels

As a libertarian I am happy for anyone to believe in ID or homoeopathy.... or economics or smoking if that is what floats their boat and they don't try to impose it on others...

Generali

michaels wrote: »

As a libertarian I am happy for anyone to believe in ID or homoeopathy.... or economics or smoking if that is what floats their boat and they don't try to impose it on others...

....or expect me to pay for it.