You thought perhaps that I was against ID in your first response. I'm not. As you can hopefully now see. Nor am I completely against Teleologist's position or his/her fringe notion of what ID can also be. (which is properly termed alien progeny and not ID - look it up. Especially since Teleologist is only concerned with life on earth and not the origin of the universe also. But in this day and age of the internet, it's difficult to combat peoples improper word/terminolgy use. They all have agendas which are unabated by any accredited review process. ) I just think Teleologist should come clean about his/her beliefs. He/she believes ET is the ID. I know Scientologists think that and thought he/she might be one. He /shedeines it. So then, what is his/her belief? What group does he/she identify him or herself with? He/She thinks it's unimportant to reveal his/her beliefs. That's silly. Everyone knows that your worldview guides how you assimilate and process information to one degree or another. Anyway, he/she has to put in twice as much effort into his/her premise than a creationist would because he/she's added another element into the game. I don't know. Maybe he thinks he/she's being clever and is calling God the alien intelligence. As if "alien" is more palatable than "god" to those who are adverse to the notion of God or gods.
I think your requests are your requests, but his beliefs, your beliefs, my beliefs, the beliefs of others have no direct relevance to making a logical argument in support of a claim that Intelligent Design is not creationism. I don't care what his beliefs are, I for one agree with him that ID is not necessarily creationism, which I think is really the issue this thread generates. In addition, the idea of "fringe notions" are quite meaningless in this instance, as the concept of "fringe notions" are not logically derived truths but simply a statement of what is normative and what is not, and history has show repeatedly to us that because a prevailing belief or theory is normative does not necessarily a true nor a logical belief system. People get so far away from the central issues of this thread: 1. Does ID have to be the creationists point of view? Can alternatives to creationism still qualify as ID, and if so, then ID is not necessarily creationism and the terminology needs to catch up with the reality of competing ID theories. 2. Is design theory a logical impossibility? Is there any method to determine the probability of design vs. non design? If there is no test of either one, then why is only one theory taught in schools? 3. Is teaching non design theory exclusively and shunning any thought of ID in public schools biology classes to children the method that will truly educate them as to think broadly with an open mind to alternative concepts? Or does this indoctrinate children to a set of belief system in a dogmatic manner, where children graduate stating that man evolved from apes as if this were a known fact. Do we create better human beings by indoctrinating them into scientific dogma, or by giving them choices to make on their own as to what belief systems to hold.
I agree in part. The problem is, Alien progeny only addresses life on Earth and not the origin of the universe. There appears to be a ntaural order to everything contained in the universe. To narrow focus down to just life does not truly make for intelligent design in the grand scheme of things. It begs the questions is the universe intelligently designed and were the alien progentors intelligently designed? If you properly ratchet the ID notion all the way up to a god, now you have an all encompassing theory. Much like multiverse which practically eliminates the need for a god (actually replaces God.) Partly true. However, in this case, Alien progeny does not sit squarely within the concept of intelligent design. You can't have life intelligently designed and nothing else since life is interelated with the universe and its conditions. Alien progeny is fringe and less viable because it fails to address all logical steps beyond it. Whereas ID attempts to address all logical steps (except the ridiculous logical fallacy of who created God?) Great points. To #1 I say, sure as long as any subconcept is fleshed out to its logical ends. Alien progeny is not. To #2 I say, I believe design theory is a logical possibility. And so would all scientist. The problem lies in proving it or even beginning to address it with our current modes of observation. And that is why only one theory is taught in schools - the observable and quantifiable one. To #3 I say, I was taught that Pluto was the ninth planet. At the time, that was the best our observations could conclude. Today, with increased powers of observation, we've come to realize that Pluto is more a planetoid than a planet. The fact that science continues to "evolve" is enough for people to keep an open mind. Hey, they say red wine is good for you - oh wait bad- oh wait good - no, wait... And then you have churches who indoctrinate children to believe the world was created in 6, 24hr days - 6000 years ago. Well, now, that's a problem. And people believed this for thousands of years, until one day we discovered radioactive half-life decay. So then the 6 day theory began to evolve (in some instances at least.) Some not willing to perhaps admit that those who taught them might have been wrong, believe that God created things with age. That's how they account for the radioactive decay and the light from stars that are more than 6000 light years from Earth. While others believe that the 6 days are not 24 hr days but six distinct epocs of creation of undetermined length and have sufficient scripture and scriptural logic to back that up. Etc, etc. Point is, interested parties are capable of researching alternative ideas especially in this day and age of the internet. Those who really couldn't care less simply won't. And that has little to do with school based indoctrination. For instance, do you think Brittany Spears cares if we evolved from lower primates or are the direct handiwork of God sans evolution? And what about those who are able to incorporate or appreciate evolutionary theory and the possible orgins of the universe alongside their faith that ultimately God is responsbile for all things observed and that which is yet to be observed? And then you seem to ignore family and community indoctrination which might temper the school based indoctrination. I don't know. There's no evidence either way. Although, many children of religious households do not entirely abandon their religions in favor of scientific/materialist philosophy under the current state of affairs. So I don't see any harm in teaching science, true science, in a science class. If parents want their own children to learn ID, learn yourselves and teach your own kids. What's stopping them?
I agree in part. The problem is, Alien progeny only addresses life on Earth and not the origin of the universe. There appears to be a ntaural order to everything contained in the universe. To narrow focus down to just life does not truly make for intelligent design in the grand scheme of things. It begs the questions is the universe intelligently designed and were the alien progentors intelligently designed? If you properly ratchet the ID notion all the way up to a god, now you have an all encompassing theory. Much like multiverse which practically eliminates the need for a god (actually replaces God.) Yes, an alien source of life on earth does not necessarily reveal the cause of a proposed alien life that created life on earth, but it is not necessary to know who created such aliens to hold a position of ID that life is a result of alien intelligence. Again, science reaches limited conclusions all the time based on limited instrumentation, and those conclusions do not demand an ultimate perspective to be accepted as facts in evidence. Partly true. However, in this case, Alien progeny does not sit squarely within the concept of intelligent design. Whose concept of ID? Yours? The creationists? The scientists who reject it? You can't have life intelligently design and nothing else since life is interelated with the universe and its conditions. Everything in the universe is interrelated on some level. So? that means we need to know all these relationships to advance a theory of partial values? Hardly... Alien progeny is fringe because it fails to address all logical steps beyond it. That would make big bang fringe as well, ignorant chance theory fringe as well, etc. Fringe is only a relative term to what is accepted by the majority, and has no logical truth or actual truth as a consequence of popularity. Whereas ID attempts to address all logical steps (except the ridiculous logical fallacy of who created God?) I think you are entitled to your own definition of ID, but that doesn't make Teologist's theory of ID any less wrong or right than yours. Great points. To #1 I say, sure as long as any subconcept is fleshed out to its logical ends. Alien progeny is not. Science does not flesh out all theories to their complete logical ends. To #2 I say, I believe design theory is a logical possibility. And so would all scientist. The problem lies in proving it or even beginning to address it with our current modes of observation. And that is why only one theory is taught in schools - the observable and quantifiable one. Ignorant chance is not proven, yet it is the foundation of non design theory. Ignorant chance, which is a logically fallacy derived from an argument from ignorance itself, is not observable and quantifiable. The assumption of random ignorant chance is a circular argument which is the underlying foundation of neo Darwinism...with no method to rule out ignorant chance being false. To #3 I say, I was taught that Pluto was the ninth planet. At the time, that was the best our observations could conclude. Today, with increased powers of observation, we've come to realize that Pluto is more a planetoid than a planet. The fact that science continues to "evolve" is enough for people to keep an open mind. Hey, they say red wine is good for you - oh wait bad- oh wait good - no, wait... So the mere fact that science "evolves" should generate skepticism, not blind loyalty to theories of scientists... And then you have churches who indoctrinate children to believe the world was created in 6, 24hr days - 6000 years ago. Well, now, that's a problem. And people believed this for thousands of years, until one day we discovered radioactive half-life decay. So then the 6 day theory began to evolve (in some instances.) Some not willing to perhaps admit that those who taught them might have been wrong, believe that God created things with age. While others believe that the 6 days are not 24 hr days but six distinct epocs of creation of undetermined length and have sufficient scripture to back that up. Etc, etc. Hey, I oppose indoctrination of children into any particular belief system, including unprovable scientific theories or religious belief systems, when such indoctrination is funded by public money. Point is, interested parties are capable of researching alternative ideas especially in this day and age of the internet. Those who really couldn't care less simply won't. And that has little to do with school based indoctrination. For instance, do you think Brittany Spears cares if we evolved from lower primates or are the direct handiwork of God sans evolution? No, the point is that teachers in schools are role models and authority figures, and children absorb their opinions as some sort of truth. Teaching a child how to think, and not what to think is entirely different in nature. And what about those who are able to incorporate or appreciate evolutionary theory and the possible orgins of the universe alongside their faith that ultimate God is responsbile for all things observed? What about them? They are entitled to hold their own beliefs, just as much as anyone else holds their own. This for me, comes down to what we teach in public schools, not what people choose to believe. I don't think we are producing children who learn how to think for themselves, to reason to their own conclusions. I think we produced indoctrinated youth who absorb and then perpetuate their own dogma as if it were some known fact. And then you seem to ignore family and community indoctrination which might temper the school based indoctrination. Family has the right to pass their beliefs to their children, I have no desire to see the state get involved with that at all. I do want the state though, in the public schools, to teach kids how to think...not what to think. I don't know. There's no evidence either way. Although, many children of religious households do not entirely abandon their religions in favor of scientific/materialist philosophy under the current state of affairs. So I don't see any harm in teaching science, true science, in a science class. If parents want their own children to learn ID, learn yourselves and teach your own kids. What's stopping them? Parents can and do what they want, which is their right to pass along to their children. We are talking about what the state does with public funding. The state should be educating, not indoctrination children into any particular belief systems. If the state does their job, teaches critical thinking, how to think, logical concepts, the nature of logical fallacies, and gets kids to question what they are taught and not just sponge their education away, then as adults the citizens will be better equipped to reach their own rational conclusions.
pretty much correct, and do not underestimate the fact that (real) scientists, beyond all sorts of petty provocations etc usually in response to excessive bible-thumper propaganda or similar, are constantly and painstakingly assessing whether they can establish any form of "causal type relationship" between whatever "phenomenons" included possible origin of the universe scenarii etc, and researching every possible alternative mode of "observation", that may help identify "any-thing" that escapes us, now, yesterday, tomorrow etc... what the defiance against the ongoing scientific approach betrays is simply massive frustration from a "school of thought" that is just not able to make its case... take a look at the wedge document again http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1299704&highlight=wedge#post1299704 and you will see that phase 1 has delivered exactly what?... nothing..... THE WEDGE STRATEGY Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
Zx10, There's a serious problem IMO with your concept. Where do you draw the line concerning what is indoctrination and what is not? You say teach kids how to think and not what to think... That could possibly undermine the very fabric of society. Some... most humans cannot think for themselves even when you attempt to teach them how. Most humans are followers. They feel safe with learning what the few free thinkers have discovered. If everyone were thinking for themselves, what standards could be agreed upon if people are questioning for the sake of questioning because that is what they are taught to do. Isn't teaching kids to "think for themselves" an indoctrination into a philosophy of "think for themselves and questiioning everything?" Anyway, who gets to determine what ID is and isn't? Well, the ones who coined the term. The ones who advanced it. The ones who promote it. Not the fringe who are trying to gain acceptance for their ideas by "piggybacking." You know, if Teleologost said, "I believe Aliens are responsible for life on Earth b/c of data taken from secret sources at Roswell revealed that the aliens were doing more than just observing us but were engaged in some sort of husbandry. And had in their possession what appears to be the seeds of life..." Maybe then we can begin to understand we're he's coming from. ID is first and foremost creationism. Period. Alien progeny, is just that. Alien progeny. Can you lump it in with ID? Sure, in the same way you can lump babies in with atheism. Simply label it properly. Something along the lines of Alien Intelligent Design given that the accredited definition of ID is most closely associated with creationism. And was of course, a term coined by creationists in an attempt to pretend it's a scientific theory that has nothing to do with religion. You say scientist make all sorts of unfleshed out claims/theories - and in some respects they do. But it is based on something they OBSERVED. Has Teleologist observed aliens. How is it that Teleologist arrives at this conclusion or possibility? It's an extraordinary claim. If he/she had stopped at, the universe and life appears to be designed - well, who could fault him/her? We'd all know where that idea came from. But Alien progeny? Where did that come from? Anyway, this thread will go on and on partly because some people just don't know or appreciate proper language/word/phrase use. They feel the only way to forward their agenda is via semantics and idiosyncratic modification of accreditted definitions as oppossed to any developed credibility in their theories or ideas. And If Teleologist were a true IDer, he properly mask his personal views of who the designer might be and concentrate on the notion that things appear intelligently designed. But the thread's title set up Teleologist on the wrong foot. It should have been "Intelligent design can be more than just creationism. And here's why?" And then Teleologist could straight away propose his idea of alien progeny and discussed why he thinks that is the better proposition than mainstream ID. But a better thread title given his revelations would have been "aliens are responsible for life one Earth." Yes, he would have been flamed and he/she knows it. That's why the thread was titled the wy it was. A rouse.
Yep 2cents, no peer review. Yet they(IDers) still wish to be taken seriously or put on equal footing with peer reviewed theories and observations. I'm trying to understand Zx10 objection to teaching evolution in school. If there is one thing that I might object to is teaching abiogenesis in biology class as it technically has nothing to do with evolution. But I understand the logical extension of evolution. It of course begs the question of what was the first lifeform that all life evolved from? So I wouldn't join any grassroots movement to stop it from being taught. Some kids would come to that conclusion anyway after being taught evolution. I'm a creationist. The old Earth variety. I have to qualify that because creationists are primarily young earth creationists. Earth is 6k-12k yrs old they believe. I don't. I'm in the billions. Older somewhat than the oldest rocks found but younger than the postulations of the universes age. I believe evolution occured as I, myself have dug up fossils in Upstate NY - Trilobites. I can see the resemblance to Horseshoe crabs. And in reading about evolution and the predictions made, it is confirmed to me. I also believe the big bang and its subsequent big crunch are valid concepts. All of these things I have found scriptural support for - enough for me to believe that God is responsible for all these things. The only thing I reject is Multiverse. But so what, it is equally as fanciful as believing in God. You'll accept it or not based on your worldview be it materialist or religious. Anyway, I'm done with this thread for now. The ID proponents can't seem to disengage from disengenuous arguments. As if there is something wrong with saying, "here is what I believe..." Why the seemingly dire the need for validation of one's untestable, non-falsifiable beliefs?
If you don't know what indoctrination is, I can't help you. If you think people can't be indoctrinated into scientific dogma, people who then believe with the same degree of faith of a theist they are descended from apes by ignoring the flaws and "missing links" in Darwinism, I can't help you either.
It' simple. You're using the term "indoctrination" simply to be inflammatory. ID is not a competing theory nor is it is a proper means for addressing the inadequacies of the theory of evolution. The best thing to do in a science class is to present the various views (some of which dissent from one another on specific aspects of evoltuionary theory) in the scientific community concerning evolution. To counter it with a faith based or theory or quasi-scientific hyperbole makes little sense in a science class. No, make that, no sense in a science class. I mean, if you're going to obsess about evolution as a dogmatic indoctrination, why not obsess about dogmatic indoctrination that simply prepares students for merely landing a job and not how to be enterpreneurs. Schools are little more than working stiff production factory. Anyway, you act as if parents are somehow absolved of the responsibility for shaping and molding their children. Who cares if public schools teach this or that? When the child comes home, a parent(s) can temper whatever is taught. Why would you care what another parent's child believes? Especially where Evolution is concerned. Maybe you can help me understand the detrimental implications of not questioning evolutionary theory when taught to children. I'm all eyes. I won't even interupt. I'm in the reading mode now. Make your case. I'm reasonable in the face of a reasonable explanation.
"You say teach kids how to think and not what to think... That could possibly undermine the very fabric of society." Continue then with the propagation of your shabby fabric of society... What a tremendous lack of vision you have displayed... Too much...too much.