'Intelligent designers' trying to up their game in Scotland

[hibs0666]

Sunday Herald article on the lunatic fringe (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/would-you-adam-and-eve-it-top-scientists-tell-scottish-pupils-the-bible-is-true-1.1060545)

If ever this Tom Kite gets anywhere near a Scottish schools curriculum then I'll be taking to the streets.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Sunday Herald article on the lunatic fringe (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/would-you-adam-and-eve-it-top-scientists-tell-scottish-pupils-the-bible-is-true-1.1060545)

If ever this Tom Kite gets anywhere near a Scottish schools curriculum then I'll be taking to the streets.

Not a chance it will ever get near a school science class in Scotland. They may get in to certain schools to talk to kids and present their ideas in a religious class, which I would have no objections to, under the stipulation that they were unable to mention ID being scientific. (As ID is a religion, it is not a science).

[IndieHibby]

Bonkers. Every last one of them.

[hibs0666]

Not a chance it will ever get near a school science class in Scotland. They may get in to certain schools to talk to kids and present their ideas in a religious class, which I would have no objections to, under the stipulation that they were unable to mention ID being scientific. (As ID is a religion, it is not a science).

I wouldn't let them near a classroom at all. The only way I would let them into a school would be as a comedy turn.

[One Day Soon]

Paul Braterman, an emeritus professor of chemistry, now at Glasgow University, and a founder of the British Centre for Science Education, a campaign to keep religion out of science classes, said intelligent design was simply using God to plug the gaps that science has yet to answer.I like this bit best. Mr Braterman objects to people ascribing to intelligent design the responsibility for unanswered questions in relation to the creation/emergence of life. His answer is that science just hasn't explained it yet. If that is the case then he doesn't actually know whether or not intelligent design is responsible. He is making an assumption that it isn't, based on his own beliefs rather than evidence which puts him in the same position as, er, intelligent designers.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sunday Herald article on the lunatic fringe (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/would-you-adam-and-eve-it-top-scientists-tell-scottish-pupils-the-bible-is-true-1.1060545)

If ever this Tom Kite gets anywhere near a Scottish schools curriculum then I'll be taking to the streets.

I could see myself doing time.:agree:

[ballengeich]

I like this bit best. Mr Braterman objects to people ascribing to intelligent design the responsibility for unanswered questions in relation to the creation/emergence of life. His answer is that science just hasn't explained it yet. If that is the case then he doesn't actually know whether or not intelligent design is responsible. He is making an assumption that it isn't, based on his own beliefs rather than evidence which puts him in the same position as, er, intelligent designers.

I don't think the positions are quite the same. Intelligent designers believe that the world was created in seven days etc and ignore any evidence which might contradict or disprove their beliefs. Braterman is willing to acknowledge that science doesn't explain everything, but objecting to using a faith to fill the gaps without any evidence to back up that faith other than lines from the bible.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't think the positions are quite the same. Intelligent designers believe that the world was created in seven days etc and ignore any evidence which might contradict or disprove their beliefs. Braterman is willing to acknowledge that science doesn't explain everything, but objecting to using a faith to fill the gaps without any evidence to back up that faith other than lines from the bible.

Their stated position is very clear in that this is not their belief when it comes to ID. ID is a position that seeks to show evidence that various biological systems and entities could not have come into creation without it being guided by design.

The most common area proponents point to is irreducible complexity - the commononest example given is a bacterium system called the flagellar motor. (http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/berry/research/BFM/) It is an astonishing piece of biology, and does to all intents and purposes look and work like an outboard motor. The ID lobby, usually through a biologist called Michael Behe, claim that the flagellar motor is irreducibly complex, and that without all the parts being in place, the rest of the system has no purpose. On face value, it is a seductive argument, but science has shown time and time again that the arguments put forward are absolutely wrong. The supposed "science" behind ID was effectively put on trial in the US in the Dover v Kitzmiller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) case, and was shown as part of the trial to be falacious.
(There is a very good, even-handed programme on the case which is worth looking at on You-Tube - link to 1st bit) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O-vsq48ZoU&feature=PlayList&p=3725344168B6ACE1&index=0&playnext=1)

What ID people do not do - and indeed are at pains to avoid - is linking with religion of any kind. they claim, with a straight face, that the fact that there is a virtual 100% correlation between ID activists and evangelical christians is coincidence.

Despite the complete rejection of ID as anything other than creationism in disguise, the movement has chosen to essentially ignore the judgement and carry on banging away. It is very worrying that they are even thinking about coming over here. The next phrase, if they continue to push their agenda, is "Teach The Controversy" which sadly doesnt exist anywhere but in their minds. Watch for it!

[One Day Soon]

I don't think the positions are quite the same. Intelligent designers believe that the world was created in seven days etc and ignore any evidence which might contradict or disprove their beliefs. Braterman is willing to acknowledge that science doesn't explain everything, but objecting to using a faith to fill the gaps without any evidence to back up that faith other than lines from the bible.

No, they are exactly the same. Where there are as yet inexplicable gaps in understanding and explanation one side makes an assumption or assertion about what is the explanation without the evidence to support its position and the other side makes an assumption or assertion about what is not the explanation without the evidence to support its position. If they had the evidence we would not have the gaps.

[ballengeich]

No, they are exactly the same. Where there are as yet inexplicable gaps in understanding and explanation one side makes an assumption or assertion about what is the explanation without the evidence to support its position and the other side makes an assumption or assertion about what is not the explanation without the evidence to support its position. If they had the evidence we would not have the gaps.

I still don't agree with you on this. The scientific side would accept the existence of an intelligent designer if it was proved by observation and experiment. They don't claim to have disproved the existence of such a being, they simply don't have any evidence to support the hypothesis.

The intelligent designer side has a set of beliefs in which they ignore any facts which don't fit into their preconceptions and are therefore impossible to engage with in rational debate (does that remind you of anyone you've exchanged posts with on this forum:greengrin).

[hibs0666]

This mob has created quite a funky website - doesn't look cheap. :wink:

http://www.c4id.org.uk

I see that Dr. Behe is heavily featured on video clips. Interestingly, his own university distances itself from his views...

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

[IndieHibby]

No, they are exactly the same. Where there are as yet inexplicable gaps in understanding and explanation one side makes an assumption or assertion about what is the explanation without the evidence to support its position and the other side makes an assumption or assertion about what is not the explanation without the evidence to support its position. If they had the evidence we would not have the gaps.

Even if you are just playing devil's advocate, trying to equate ID's position with that of the scientific community, on the basis that one side states that the lack of evidence shows god does exist while one side says that the lack of it shows he doesn't is poor form. And wrong - the whole point of ID is that they have their own 'scientific evidence' proving designer theory. otherside they would be your run-of-the-mill god botherers.

I.D'ers are charlatans of the lowest order. I have respect for those who admit theirs is a position of faith - this lot claim "scien fic" evidence in support of a designer theory, which basically states that natu is so complicated that there must have been a designer, which is convenient since that's what we happen to believe"

and then there is the......

EVIDENCE, THE HUGE TOMES OF EVIDENCE

which support Darwin's theory of, what we now call evolution, primarily via natural selection.

It wouldn't be so bad if the ba5tards weren't trying to weasel their way into the state education system to confuse our already confused teenagers.

but they are. and you are defending them. shame. :greengrin