Nice to know some people get it.

[jschild]

http://laughingsquid.com/flying-spaghetti-monster-statue-outside-of-tennessee-courthouse/

Sweet, so sweet.

[Stowned]

Wow I live pretty close to Crossville, I should go check it out :-D

[jschild]

The Flying Spagetti Monster has prevailed before...

In one school that was about to support religous answers in science class...when they realized they would have to accept the spagetti monter, they faltered :)

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

The Flying Spagetti Monster has prevailed before...

In one school that was about to support religous answers in science class...when they realized they would have to accept the spagetti monter, they faltered :)

Even if the flying spaghetti monster is a total straw-man argument.

[jschild]

It's a useful tool, to help drive home the point why science classes should focus on science.

Church, your home, religious texts, and religious studies classes is where you should learn about religion.

Also, it's no more disprovable than any other religion.

[XCompanion]

Here we go again *cue silly cartoon music*

Also the church of the flying spaghetti monster claims to be a legitimate religion... whether that claim is legitimate is another matter entirely.

[jschild]

They are a "Legal" Religion.

However, they in no way are a "real" religion, if there is such a thing.

They exist solely to prove a point, which they typically do an excellent job of.

IE, if you are gonna force religion into places that it has no place being in (IE, Biology classes), then you have to admit all religions (can't discriminate) no matter how silly they are.

[XCompanion]

Oh i know. I was more talking about Darkhelm's comment of it being a strawman "argument" - which it is; if it's used that way.

In the case of the school system it doesn't apply. It's cut and dry.

The hate mail they get is SOOOO funny. They post the best and the brightest. I couldn't stop laughing when a particularly agitated zealot wrote "YOU NEED JESUS YOU STUPID MF'R". It ranked right up there with the one who tried to punch out Chris Pontius for wearing a devil costume with a "keep god out of California sign" http://youtube.com/watch?v=MUZ0CPmTYrk&feature=related

[Herald of Doom]

It ranked right up there with the one who tried to punch out Chris Pontius for wearing a devil costume with a "keep god out of California sign" http://youtube.com/watch?v=MUZ0CPmTYrk&feature=related

Wooh that was pretty disturbing to watch, I'll have to be careful next Karnaval (I went as the devil two years ago with a cardboard "God may offer salvation, we have beer" :shocked: )

Also, OP, that is pretty cool and a nice example that is set :smiley:

HoD

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

It's a useful tool, to help drive home the point why science classes should focus on science.

Church, your home, religious texts, and religious studies classes is where you should learn about religion.

Also, it's no more disprovable than any other religion.

I'm not going to get into an argument over a dead horse that should not be dug back up, but their "point" is more or less a straw-man argument. I get what their point is, but it is an incorrect assumption made, and an attempt to set up a straw-man to tear it down to make a relatively false point about religion.

Believe me, I get what that "church" is saying. I don't need you to sit here and tell me what they are saying. It still is a false assumption, a false claim, and basically mocking religions in general, without actually doing... the scientific thing and I dunno.... showing that they are false. It is far easier to just mock than actually have a discussion, after all.

[jschild]

Well, since you cannot fully prove a negative, what's the point.

Even if science could 100% prove there was no god, people would not change. They would instead choose to ignore the evidence, which they do all the time regarding many things (even other science).

And no discussion is possible. We've tried discussions. But guess what, we still have schools that want to push creationism and intelligent design in science classes.

This is despite the huge fact that they cannot even meet the most minimal standards of a theory and all their "evidence" is actually just attacks at weak points in evolution (which fully admits those weak points) and then ignores almost every bit of heavy evidence in its favor (which is there massive amounts across multiple disciplines).

If they want to bring an actual theory - that fits the evidence at least as good as evolution, the debate will go forward.

The polite way, showing why those should not be taught in science classes failed. Politicians ignored the evidence so they wouldn't suffer any political fallout. It's when blatent mistruth's are pushed as fact, is where we have the problem.

Bring a viable theory and it can be taught as an alternative.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

/sigh

Look, I'm not getting in an evolution vs creation debate here. Especially as you seem to be spouting the same, tired argument that has been beaten to death time and again. Evolution can't be proven, Creation can't. Both fit the evidence. One makes the assumption there is nothing supernatural, the other says that there is. At the core, that is the fundamental difference. Either you can choose to accept there are things that might not be able to be explained with our current science, or you can choose to deny that there is anything like that.

In the end, neither can really be proven or disproven (sic). Coincidentally, that makes neither by definition fall into the category of being testable by the scientific method... they both are equally just as scientific as the other.

[jschild]

that makes neither by definition fall into the category of being testable by the scientific method... they both are equally just as scientific as the other.


That statement is so untrue it is not even funny. Evolution makes predictions that are fully testable and have been. If you don't know that, that then explains some lack of understanding.

Creationism makes no predictions. God did it. That's it. Game over.

No theory can be fully considered 100% proven, but they can be considered "true" when all the available evidence fits. There is no competing theory to evolution because nothing else even comes close to fitting the evidence. Meanwhile, discovery after discovery continues to reinforce and support evolution.

That is the difference and the falsehood that evolution cannot be tested is at the very root of the arguement. It can be and is regularly tested. there are reams of evidence from multiple disciplines that support it. It's predictions have proven true, time after time.

If the theory 100% complete? No. But that is a lack of knowledge, not a limitation of the theory itself (much like people used to say since we had not found any planets, life outside of earth is unlikely. Of course, new planets are found pretty much monthly, if not weekly now thanks to advances in technology.).

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

That statement is so untrue it is not even funny. Evolution makes predictions that are fully testable and have been. If you don't know that, that then explains some lack of understanding.

I think you are confusing the two parts of evolution, which unfortunately the term has gotten more and more diversified. There are two definitely different parts of evolution. There is the process of adaptation, something which is testable, verifiable, and doesn't contradict a darned thing. Creationists have never, ever argued against the concept of a species adapting to the environment or situation it is presented. This is referred to often in scientific circles as "micro-evolution".

The untestable part of it all, is when this form of adaptation is assumed to work on a much grander scale, where creatures literally become something completely and fundamentally different from each other -- jumping not merely from one subspecies to another, but literally one kind of creature to the other in an effort to explain the origin of everything. That is often referred to as "macro-evolution", and is neither testable, nor verifiable. It does not follow any scientific method, it is making an assumption that something in the micro-scale applies directly to the macro-scale.

Creationism makes no predictions. God did it. That's it. Game over.

Straw-man argument. This is not true at all. Quite honestly, there is a great many creationist scientists, or at the very least "intelligent design" scientists. Whatever belief there is for how the world came into being and everything originated does not impact, one bit, the capability of people being able to do things scientifically.

No theory can be fully considered 100% proven, but they can be considered "true" when all the available evidence fits.

The evidence found in fossil records can be interpreted a number of ways. If you start with the presumption there is no god, no supernatural, then you will interpret the evidence one way, if you start with the presumption that there is the possibility of a god, or at least that our current science can't fully explain everything, then you will interpret the evidence a different way.

As far as scientific theories, which follow the scientific method, there is a very specific set of rules for them. First there is a hypothesis. For it to be a valid hypothesis for the scientific method, it has to be testable, more importantly, it has to be able to be testable as false (falsifiable). Then, the hypothesis is tested, empirically. If this is done enough times, and is not found false, it gets elevated to the position of theory. A scientific theory, following the scientific method, must be a hypothesis that has been tested typically in laboratory conditions and not found to be incorrect. That theory then gets tested further, until basically the scientific community gets tired of testing it. If it gets tested enough, and found to be true consistently long enough, it gets elevated to becoming a scientific law, which basically is that the scientific community more or less gives up testing it, because all tests have come back true rather than false. Now, if a theory or hypothesis is ever tested false, it is allowed one small, minor adjustment to fix it. If that still is proven false, it is stricken completely as a false hypothesis, and discarded. They are not continually tweaked to fit new data, it goes completely against the very nature of the scientific method.

Macro-evolution is a philosophical stance and position taking in evidence, and mapping that evidence according to what is known on the micro- level, and then guessing that it probably works on the macro- level. If something doesn't work, it gets adjusted to fit the new data. Sure, it is a theory, it just fails as a scientific theory, as in, a theory that follows the scientific method. Micro-evolution can be tested, and has been tested. That is a scientific theory.

There is no competing theory to evolution because nothing else even comes close to fitting the evidence. Meanwhile, discovery after discovery continues to reinforce and support evolution.

Actually, there is a competing theory to macro-evolution. It is simple, really. Either we all came from one source, or we didn't. Either all species came from the same progenitor, or they didn't. If all species came from the same progenitor, there would be evidence to support the claim. If everything was designed to function together and potentially made at the same time... there would be evidence to support that. Just look at how heavily integrated the ecosystems and food chains are across the world, how fine-tuned the various creatures in a given environment function together. There is evidence to support that there is a design to it all, and not just random chance.

That is the difference and the falsehood that evolution cannot be tested is at the very root of the arguement. It can be and is regularly tested. there are reams of evidence from multiple disciplines that support it. It's predictions have proven true, time after time.

Ok, where in the fossil records is there actual evidence to support dinosaurs becoming birds? Where is the evidence that humans came from apes?

If the theory 100% complete? No. But that is a lack of knowledge, not a limitation of the theory itself (much like people used to say since we had not found any planets, life outside of earth is unlikely. Of course, new planets are found pretty much monthly, if not weekly now thanks to advances in technology.).

I'm just saying there is a competing theory. You might just casually want to discard it, but that doesn't make it any less so. Hell, the head of the research team at the Human Genome Project was a staunch macro-evolution supporter until they really started gathering the genome information, and the way it all fit together so well... to the point he now says he can't see how there wasn't a design to all of this.

I'm not going to sit here and keep arguing the merits or flaws of the theories. But a total disregard of one theory in favor of the other, a complete disregard to even the notion that the theory you disregard has merit, is roughly equivalent to the people who disregarded the notion that the Earth moved around the sun, or that the Earth was round.

[Valas Azuviir]

Evolution can't be proven.

Have to disagree with you there Xlorep.

Example of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRSA).
Now you may have improperly phrased what you were trying to say, but there's enough evidence of evolution on a micro scale, that to claim that evolution cannot be proven is simply incorrect.

The various domesticated animals we humans keep, dogs, cats, cattle, horses etc are also good examples of specialized breeding, which is a component of evolution. Creatures adapting to fit a ecological niche and thus ensure their own survival and the survival of their offspring.



Ok, where in the fossil records is there actual evidence to support dinosaurs becoming birds?


This is considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx) a transitional form.
Fairly recent form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuvuuia_deserti) of dinosaur with feathers.


Where is the evidence that humans came from apes?


Strawman argument. Humans are not descendants of apes, apes and humans have a common ancestor, there's a noted difference between the two concepts.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Have to disagree with you there Xlorep.

Example of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRSA).
Now you may have improperly phrased what you were trying to say, but there's enough evidence of evolution on a micro scale, that to claim that evolution cannot be proven is simply incorrect.

The various domesticated animals we humans keep, dogs, cats, cattle, horses etc are also good examples of specialized breeding, which is a component of evolution. Creatures adapting to fit a ecological niche and thus ensure their own survival and the survival of their offspring.


It was my mistake to not be specific. I am not arguing that micro-evolution is untestable or unverifiable. I am arguing that on the macro- scale, that as an explanation to the origin of life on Earth, it is as untestable as Creation.

On the micro- scale, of course. This used to just be called adaptation. However people started calling it "evolution" too, which is a failure of the language I believe, because it confuses the term with the Darwinian (or other later variations, like punctuated equilibria) Evolution that attempts to explain the origin of everything within that context.

[jschild]

Sorry, but there are MASSIVE amounts of evidence for macro evolution. Pretty much all DNA and genetic studies support evolution. Hell, even us having one less pair of chromosomes than the other great apes supports evolution. I am not misunderstanding a single thing.

It's this misconception that something becomes suddenly different. You want to seperate out adaptation from evolution, except that adaptation is part of evolution.

Please give me 2 examples of things that are testable from "Intelligent Design"


The evidence found in fossil records can be interpreted a number of ways. If you start with the presumption there is no god, no supernatural, then you will interpret the evidence one way, if you start with the presumption that there is the possibility of a god, or at least that our current science can't fully explain everything, then you will interpret the evidence a different way.

Again, its not just interepting the evidence, but also making predictions form it. What predictions can you make if "god did it".

Ok, where in the fossil records is there actual evidence to support dinosaurs becoming birds? Where is the evidence that humans came from apes?

Ummm..there is tons of it...similar bone arrangements, feathered dinosaurs, evidence of some dinosaurs being warm-blooded. Have you missed all the research over the last dozen years? Same with humans - DNA studies, fossil studies, chromosomal studies all bring even more evidence, not less.


I'm just saying there is a competing theory.

No..there isn't. It doesn't make predicitions. It doesn't fit evidence. Evolution itself expains why things "seem" tailored to the enviroment. Those most successful will succeed. Bring evidence...what predictions does it make. ANything testable? That is what I am talking about. It doesn't make predictions that can be tested, yet guess what. Without ever seeing DNA, darwin made an educated guess about people being related to apes. When DNA studies became available...guess what - the NEW evidence supported the idea. There is no stream of evidence disproving evolution. Just a "theory" that doesn't meet the minimum definition of a theory because it doesn't make predictions that can be tested.

It was my mistake to not be specific. I am not arguing that micro-evolution is untestable or unverifiable. I am arguing that on the macro- scale, that as an explanation to the origin of life on Earth, it is as untestable as Creation.

On the micro- scale, of course. This used to just be called adaptation. However people started calling it "evolution" too, which is a failure of the language I believe, because it confuses the term with the Darwinian (or other later variations, like punctuated equilibria) Evolution that attempts to explain the origin of everything within that context.

You do know evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, right?

I think you are the one who is confused because evolution does not address the origin of life, but how life changed.

Unfort, he is using the (probably paraphrasing this horribly) Reducto ad Infinitium arguement. IE, for each new layer we explain, they just drop the next level and say "ah-ha" you can't prove this. On, and on, while ignoring most recent research.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222155420.htm
Very good article explaining why Intelligent Design is not a real theory.

[Valas Azuviir]

jschild do try to avoid the back to back posts.
It's fairly easy to edit one's post.

Heck, I did it as well, when I saw that Xlorep had responded to your own counter arguments.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

You do know evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, right?

I think you are the one who is confused because evolution does not address the origin of life, but how life changed.

Evolution, that is, macro-evolution attempt to explain that everything came from a single starting point. Or have you not read Darwin's book "Origin of the Species"? Basically, it is an argument from a specific case being used to explain a more general one.

I'm signing off from this, as I see where it is heading quickly, and honestly, I am tired of defending, over and over and over and over to people who quite honestly couldn't care anyway, the position of Creationism -- especially as I'm not really all that qualified to make a strong argument for it, and I am tired of sounding like a broken record on the subject... it isn't necessarily you or anyone else here that has me like this... I've just seeing a creation vs evolution argument online for years, and neither side really gets anywhere... because neither side can prove anything, it just becomes a bunch of back-and-forth, which typically gets more and more heated and inflamed.

Going back to the original point of discussion, as I said, the "spaghetti monster thing" is a straw-man argument. The straw-man being that religion is just made up mumbo-jumbo people believe, and has no place in "real" scientific discussion. It is a false claim entirely, it also minimalizes (sic) and trivializes pretty much any effort people have had to verify anything. It is a mockery that instead of making a point, all it does is throw down a proverbial gauntlet and dares people to be offended.

Now, people who blindly follow a set of beliefs without studying them, or attempting to validate them with other information and evidence... those people are foolish. And it doesn't just take someone who is "religious" to have that particular kind of zeal, I've seen just as many atheists get on soap boxes professing the evils of religion as I have the other way around.

Me, I like to study... history is something of a hobby for my family. Rather than relying on some untrustworthy translation in English, I'll often go into the actual Hebrew and Greek words, phrases, and meanings for the Biblical books. And... there is a lot of evidence that verifies and validates the Bible outside of the Bible (but translated versions of the Bible might be... weak on points due to inherent problems with translation). Completely discrediting the Bible and all of the books in it as being "just another religious book" to me is somewhat silly... since it is comprised of historical records that are verifiable outside of it... enough so to validate that it is true -- any more than we have proof that the US had a Revolutionary War, or that the Roman Empire once controlled a large portion of the world.

[rgirty]

I dont' believe in evolution.

If evolution was true the ret paladin would be a viable pvp/pve spec now!

/ducks

LOLcats

[jschild]

I dont' believe in evolution.

If evolution was true the ret paladin would be a viable pvp/pve spec now!

/ducks

LOLcats

:p

I say thee nay base villain!!!!!!!!!!!

[XCompanion]

I'm not going to get into an argument over a dead horse that should not be dug back up, but their "point" is more or less a straw-man argument. I get what their point is, but it is an incorrect assumption made, and an attempt to set up a straw-man to tear it down to make a relatively false point about religion.

Believe me, I get what that "church" is saying. I don't need you to sit here and tell me what they are saying. It still is a false assumption, a false claim, and basically mocking religions in general, without actually doing... the scientific thing and I dunno.... showing that they are false. It is far easier to just mock than actually have a discussion, after all.

They are certainly mocking religion in general, and quite openly. I think you are missing the point though.

The only way this can be called a straw man argument is if it's being used to refute other religions, which it isn't (at least not in the case of the schools).

For someone who isn't going to get into an argument...I see this has grown to 3 pages of you and jschild going back and forth :P

[surodat]

Suprisingly, I'm going to back up xlorep on this one, at least partially.

It is true that macro-evolution cannot be proven, because to do so would mean proving that:
1. There hasn't been some variation (micro) of every animal that has always been on Earth since life began here.
or
2. At each subsequent natural holocaust there wasn't a new set of templates created.
(At least that's how I think the argument would have to go.)

Lack of evidence doesn't point to lack of truth. DNA and other arguments don't prove anything they're just evidence that can support either perspective. (We're related/God is consistent in His beauty)

However, in my own opinion, I don't believe that this is the case. Summary:

It's been pointed out to me time and time again that "what are the chances that life could evolve?" All the probabilities that combined together to create something as complex - and yet as simple - as an eye are astronomical aren't they?

Yet, and here is where my 'belief' system comes in, I believe that the Universe is an eternally cyclic system, expanding and contracting forever. From what I've read, there is some evidence to support this, but it is far from proven. If true it does help explain the probability argument - because in an infinite timeline that has constantly changing system, all probabilities greater than zero resolve to one eventually - and that's why I think life exists. This is no more, or no less valid that xlorep the only difference is scope:

I don't believe that something had to have a beginning, he does. It's the beginning that's the difference. If I believed that the Universe had a true beginning, then I think I'd have to agree with xlorep.

Yet, that's just my faith.

Kudos xlorep for taking a beating you don't deserve. (As long as you don't think we should put in science class that the world is a few thousand years old and Dinosaur bones are a trick. :P )

Also I apologize if I've misstated anything about your faith.

PS. The OP!
As to the flying spaghetti monster, yeah, people are crude and callous sometimes, on both sides. But what can you do? You know?

It's like how I hate watching Michael Moore. I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but he makes ****ty arguments that can be torn apart and he's not very kind to those he disagrees with. So instead provoking debate, he just fuels attacks from the extremists on the other side. And the issue is hijacked and we're off the the races.

Although it looks like a nice statue. Very colourful.

[TheConfusedCaster]

I don't believe in a god. But creating effigy's or symbolic statues that designate rejection of a god is no different than Christians erecting crosses. 2,000 years from now, atheists will be donning this spaghetti monster around their necks the way Christians do the cross, and there will be an "Atheist Bible"-esque book.

Just be careful what you do now, it may shape history.

[jschild]

I don't believe in a god. But creating effigy's or symbolic statues that designate rejection of a god is no different than Christians erecting crosses. 2,000 years from now, atheists will be donning this spaghetti monster around their necks the way Christians do the cross, and there will be an "Atheist Bible"-esque book.

Just be careful what you do now, it may shape history.

Lol, someone's been watching South Park

[TheConfusedCaster]

Lol, someone's been watching South Park

Coincidentally, I thoroughly dislike South Park. It's interesting, I have a good sense of humor and I crack jokes regularly, but South Park isn't my thing. Family Guy, George Carlin, Tom Green, now that's comedy :p

[Twoflower]

i am getting more and more scared of what a weirdo Xlorep must be... glad i live on another continent.

Karl Marx said that "Religion is the opiate of the masses". To start to believe into your drug is one thing. To let it cloud your perception is another. To try to force your strange perception onto little children at scool is just sick.

edit : sorry that came across a little harsh maybe. i am mostly scared of the thaught that we somehow have to get along, even though our opinions seem to differ completely. But we will have to get along or this global unit thingy i sometimes dream about will never happen.

[Turonx]

Guys guys we all have our own opinion on how we were made and our beliefs and to push your religion/ideals is just wrong. everyone has there own view of things like me..ppl hate it when I make fun of jesus/god but I truly think(if god is real) that god and jesus has a sense of humor and I don't think just because I said a dirty joke about jesus doesn't mean i'm going to hell. The point i'm trying to get across is the fact that that whole video about the Spaghetti monster was about how everybody has there own views and theres nothing wrong with being different.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

i am getting more and more scared of what a weirdo Xlorep must be... glad i live on another continent.

I have no problem with anyone else's beliefs. I'm just irked a bit when people are basically mocking another set of beliefs. Just as much as they have the right to do the mocking, I have the right to be annoyed by it.

I also have done considerable amounts of research on a lot of things over the years, including the various beliefs on how everything originated. Honestly, I have seen that most of the different beliefs (of which, macro-evolution is one) are interpreting the existing data in different ways. From a strictly "scientific" approach, none of them are any more provable than the other, and I find it a bit frustrating when people express that one is scientific and the others are not, without providing any actual evidence or proof to show it, just claiming that the proof is there. Much like how the scientific community hundreds of years ago knew for certain that the sun went around the earth, or that the earth was flat.

[jschild]

Well, considering there was no scientific community 400-500 years ago.

Columbus did not prove the world was not flat in 1492. Every educated navigator in the european world knew that. Maybe not the uneducated masses, but it was a well established fact. The reason no one wanted to pay for his trip was that they thought he had grossly underestimated the size of the earth. Which he had. Hell, a greek figured it out to within a couple hundred miles nearly 2 thousand years before, by sticking 2 sticks in the ground in different cities.

It was the Church who refused to place anything but the sun at the center because they believed the bible stated otherwise. And when scientists sought to say otherwise, they punished, arrested, and tortured them.

Also, saying none are more "provable" than the others is a red herring, because nothing in science can be said to be 100% proven.

However, evidence more than supports one, and only one idea (and its variations) and that is "macro-evolution" as you say it. DNA evidence, fossil evidence, everything that pops up, every new discovery supports, not debunks it. Again, it is not complete (which is why there are variant theories that explain why or how it happens), but that does not make it wrong. It just means we need more knowledge.

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

Also, saying none are more "provable" than the others is a red herring, because nothing in science can be said to be 100% proven.

Correction, empirically testable through the scientific method, which is the basis for something to be "scientific".

However, evidence more than supports one, and only one idea (and its variations) and that is "macro-evolution" as you say it. DNA evidence, fossil evidence, everything that pops up, every new discovery supports, not debunks it. Again, it is not complete (which is why there are variant theories that explain why or how it happens), but that does not make it wrong. It just means we need more knowledge.

Why I end up being the one forced to have to provide my side of the argument, but the other side isn't equally required to do so is amazing. I'll dig up my books if necessary. But DNS evidence, and the fossil record itself actually contradicts macro-evolution. Bones are found in the wrong order in the trata for the interpretation that supports macro-evolution. There is no intermediate forms from one kind of creature to the other (and Archaepterix (sic) was found to not be a conclusive intermediate form in the 70's yet people still shove that particular one around as if it is). The evidence doesn't fit. Even the head of the Human Genome Project conceded that the DNS sequences in the human genome are just too complex to be random chance, changing his position from evolution to some kind of intelligent design.

The problem is, that I really can't argue my position from here, even if I pulled out the supporting references and materials to my case. Why? Because of the straw-man that is used to discredit anything suggesting that there is a supernatural presence, or that thereis some kind of design or plan to it all. Why? Because after all, "God" can't be scientific, as the straw-man goes, it is a cop out... if you don't understand something just say "God made it that way"... Which the creationist, or even the more generalized intelligent design communities do not put forward.

It places me on needing to prove my side, while those disagreeing with me don't have to... why? their's is "obviously scientific" (with no evidence typically), or "the commonly accepted normal (sic) position". It makes it so the burden of proof falls to me to attempt to prove a negative, or to provide scientific evidence to support the theory, while the other side doesn't have to lift a finger.

It is why I really dislike creation vs. evolution arguments. There is a level of hubris I've seen show up time and again on the side of the evolutionist claims, and a disdain toward anything opposed to it as being "unscientific" and therefore not valid in a scientific discussion... And often, it turns into mocking insults, thinly veiled or otherwise.

There are two immediate positions toward the origin of life, and the universe in general. You can either accept that there was sume supreme being or designer which came up with it, or you can chose that there is no such thing. That initial presumption will drastically color & affect the rest of your position on it. Both positions can map rather well to the evidence based on whatever the initial presumption is. I'm not going to argue the merits of one over the other (because convincing someone that they are wrong on this doesn't, in my experience, accomplish much) -- just that they are both valid presumptions, and I'd even say have equal validity. To completely and utterly disregard one is, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest. Science should have open minds on the positions, especially as the two positions can't be tested in a laboratory to determine which one is really correct.

[jschild]

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence16.htm

I think much of your information if you think there are no transitional forms other than that one, which DOES support evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
A very good overview of WHY there are gaps in the fossil records among other things.

And here is a very good refutation to virtually every creationist claim from a scientific perspective.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[Xlorep DarkHelm]

/sigh... ok, when I get home, if I have time, I'll pull the list of references I have... since apparently having an opposing position and claiming it is valid isn't good enough...

[jschild]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

Very nice post by Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project.

Enspecially this tidbit

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things

He has absolutely no doubt that Evolution (or "macro-evolution") exists - he believes in it 100% completely. He also thinks it is part of god's plan (which is not the same as creationism).

[jschild]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

A very well thought out review of the many issues that Expelled, the pro ID film coming out has. It has pretty much been slammed by every single source. Even Fox News ripped it one and that takes work. It does a very good job showing the intellectual dishonesty that is rife in much (but not all) of the ID/Creationist movement.

[surodat]

Firstly,

Xlorep,

I agree, anyone who considers themself a scientist or a philosopher must attempt to approach every problem with an open mind, free of presupposition when attempting to learn more about the world. Find the thing that's wrong, find the thing that's impossible the way we currently see the world.

I've only seen black crows, but that doesn't mean there's not a white crow out there somewhere. Sometimes science is the search for the white crow. The very cutting edge of science is the study of tiny particles that do things 50 years ago we would have said were impossible. Yet the science has changed to accommodate these new advances.

The people you're railing against are just rejectionists. Ignore them, eventually they'll grow up or they won't. Religious rejectionists who dismiss those attempting to voice legitimate limitation to current scientific theory by the methods you describe are themselves exactly the same as the religiously devout who regress to "God did it, and it's not mine to question." They can have their own Monty Python-esque arguments and you should trust your first instincts to not get involved.

However, on a separate level, there is some criticism of religious hypotheses in the scientific community because they do bring something of a presupposition to the table. It's interesting that "atheism" is a belief system, especially when it comes to science. The complete absence of any predisposition towards any belief system should be considered the "blank slate" that science should evolve from, but that predisposition has been given the "-ism" status that is equated to be an opposition to religious belief. The true "Atheist" has no opposition to religion, just devotion to materialism.

But to agree with you: whether or not a particular belief system proposes a hypothesis should not enter into the question when examining the supporting evidence for that hypothesis.

jschild,

You and xlorep are miles apart on this. Let's use a neutral-ish analogy:

Say you two are both arguing about a painting.

xlorep believes this painting was paited in France, you believe this painting was painted in Germany.

xlorep is arguing the influence of this painting on other French painters since it was painted, and you are arguing about it's influence on German painters.

You're never going to get anywhere until you identify and solve the orgin of you disagreement. Or at least identify that no agreement can be made. Arguing the other points just results in noise and anger on both side.

So find out where your disagreement stems from, see if you can resolve that point, and then move into the specifics, once you're both on the same page.

You can refer to my previous post for a guess as to where that disagreement starts.

[jschild]

Once again you are starting from an invalid point, however.

ID makes no testable claims. It's primary arguement is infinite reduction. Every single time science explains some facet of evolution, they go "Aha!, but you can't prove this part now!" And they do this, ad infinitum.

They make no testable predictions, the very standard definition of a theory, while ignoring vast reams of data to support their "theory".

Is it no wonder, that the so-called and much derided "documentary" Expelled with Ben Stein has been ripped apart, even by those not in the scientific field (even Fox News ripped them a new one) for not even bothering to actually challenge the science, but instead spending much of the movie explaining that evolution was the cause of the Holocaust. That of course, despite that Hitler never mentioned it once, but instead heavily used religious texts to support his reasoning (heavily misused them to be honest).

There is no problem challeging parts of evolution, challenging facets of the science. It is the wholesale creation of a "theory" that doesn't even meet the most minimum standards of scientific work that is the issue. Why is virtually all ID work just released to public and not even submitted to peer review in the first place? Because the science simply isn't there and they know it.

They just want their stuff taught in school and damn the science, because it IS about religion, despite their claims. If they want to solely focus on the science, good. Everyone can be happy, but once you start ignoring that science you claim to support, use invalid logic to support your arguements, and disregard any evidence that disproves your claims, you leave the science class and need to head to the religion class. They are not equal.

Again, please go through the reams of info I have supplied to see WHY ID proponents are, for the most part, charlatains.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Alot of good info here too about the "documentary"

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5725955.html
Texas surprised me here and actually made the right decision.