New Evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

[Busyman]

How do you figure that?

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection. Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.

How many athiests subscribe to the theory of intelligent design?

Sorry clocker. I meant particular religion.

[GepperRankins]

i don't understand what you're getting at JP

[Busyman]

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

if one must first assume that there's a distant intelligence without testing the existence of the distant intelligence, assume that there's a design without testing the existence of the design, and then assume that there's a connection between the distant intelligence and the design without testing the connection... that's quite a lot of assumption from which to begin one's scientific study of this design-created-by-a-distant-intelligence.

i reckon it falls into the domain of philosophy because it's (seemingly) all deduction and no test.

I think the basic laws of physics and chemistry were designed and set in motion. Everything else fell in place.

[3RA1N1AC]

right, and there's nothing wrong with making such a deduction, it's just that we can't really test it.

my next bit of navel-gazing. going by jpaul's implication that it's not philosophical (and therefore scientifically relevant?) if it's completely about the design and completely not-about the designer: what's the significance, then? suppose one person studies the physical nature of a thing under the assumption that it is the result of design, yet has no intention of bringing the nature of the designer into the equation; and another studies the same thing under no assumption of design. why should there be any essential difference at all between the conclusions that these two people reach? if there were no difference, wouldn't it suggest that the assumption of design is unnecessary to the study? (just as much as an assumption that there is no design would also be unnecessary)

[GepperRankins]

what's intelligent design without an intelligent designer?

[Busyman]

right, and there's nothing wrong with making such a deduction, it's just that we can't really test it.

my next bit of navel-gazing. going by jpaul's implication that it's not philosophical (and therefore scientifically relevant?) if it's completely about the design and completely not-about the designer: what's the significance, then? suppose one person studies the physical nature of a thing under the assumption that it is the result of design, yet has no intention of bringing the nature of the designer into the equation; and another studies the same thing under no assumption of design. why should there be any essential difference at all between the conclusions that these two people reach? if there were no difference, wouldn't it suggest that the assumption of design is unnecessary to the study? (just as much as an assumption that there is no design would also be unnecessary)

That's why it's idiotic to have it in science class. I believe in ID but don't think it's cool to put it in schools any way I see fit.

[j2k4]

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

Must we discount human deduction?

Have you ever looked at a snowflake?

Randomly occurring, natural, mathematically provable perfection.

[GepperRankins]

i still wonder how one determines whether or not a naturally occuring structure qualifies as a design. what test could possibly be used, to distinguish such a thing?

Must we discount human deduction?

Have you ever looked at a snowflake?

Randomly occurring, natural, mathematically provable perfection.

miracle?

[j2k4]

Must we discount human deduction?

Have you ever looked at a snowflake?

Randomly occurring, natural, mathematically provable perfection.

miracle?

And the first Encarta (safely secular source, no?) definition of miracle is:

1. act of God: an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[GepperRankins]

so a snowflake is a miracle?