Of course intelligent design should be taught.
For the simple philosophical premise of it being more than enough, And the fact that having consciousness within creation automatically proves its being designed, since consciousness is the only thing that can comprehend “design” and “not designed” infact, its the only thing that can comprehend at all. So if creation were not designed, it would not contain consciousness capable of “design” and we wouldnt all be here debating this would we.
-brian
of course intelligent design should be taught
Published by Bobby Henderson December 8th, 2007 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism). 128 Comments
128 Responses to “of course intelligent design should be taught”
| 
Listen. If we believe everything happened by chance we can keep exploring. If we say it’s a miracle then scientific progress is doomed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I don’t exactly disagree with intelligent design I just find it contradictory, I mean religion relys on faith and science relys on questioning everything. So how can those two polar opposites be combined WITHOUT contradictoring each other, In my eyes this proves that intelligent design is without purpose and therefore should not be taught.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Apprentice Frederic
.
Here’s the third law: “As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value.”
It means that as you cool something of to –273.15 °C it has as much order as it is ever going to have and that near that temperature the disorder is almost completely a function of temperature.
.
There is also a zeroth law: “If two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.”
To me, this seems like the transitive property of equality/inequality/congruence in math.
.
There is also a combined law: ” dU – TdS + pdV is greater than or equal to 0.”
It says that the differential of the systems energy minus the product of temperature and the differential of entropy added to the product of pressure and the differential of volume. I don’t really know what that means, but I should by the end of next semester! :) I love thermodynamics (and calculus).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Well at least this isn’t all in caps…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
El Peatieablo Dec 15th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
“I love thermodynamics (and calculus).”
.
You’re one sick puppy El Peatieablo! ;p)
I didn’t mind thermodynamics and calculus so much…but wouldn’t go back and do it for fun.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Wench Nikkiee
“You’re one sick puppy El Peatieablo! ;p)”
Thanks! That just brightens up my day. :) :)
.
I do hope you were talking about seal pups though, ’cause they are cool (except when the polar bears are eating them).
.
And just to keep this relevant and unmoderated: any fundies out there who want to try and use thermodynamics as an argument against evolution should do it. I like to laugh at people who don’t know how to correctly set up a closed system and then try to say they are better at science than me (or my physics profs).
.
Also for the purpose of getting through moderation: any living people out there who want to do anything should study calculus. It is very applicable to many situations. Though I will admit most people will find statistics to more applicable. An example of their usefulness is, again, in evolution (well, technically abiogenesis). When you use both statistics and calculus to find the probability of certain molecules forming, you will be able to disprove many of the IDiots claims.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@El Peatieablo, @Wench Nikkiee
I think I’ve got it straight. In thanks, let me offer a – somehow, fundie- relevant – restatement of the SECOND law of thermo (of which there seem to be many): You can’t shove s**t up a horse’s ass and expect to get hay out of its mouth…..
.
…and I promise to stop using the s-word.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I myself, I have to say in all honesty, don’t very much think that the ID theory should be taught. The ID theory, as well as FSMism both build on the theory of evolution, one by saying that evolution was made part of the world at its creation, the other by saying that “proof” for “evolution” was “forged” by the creator of the universe, His Noodliness Himself. Although I am sceptic of both, I can see that there is neither scientific proof nor disproof for either. I think that the theory of evolution should continue to be taught, and that the ID theory and FSMism should be told about and made aware of, but not necessarily made into the main course. (Unless you are talking about dinner, then I say that pasta may surely be the main course.)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
OK. Somebody help me out here. I attempted to register with this Holy website and was informed that my registration would not be complete until I responded to an email. No email arrived. Then I attempted to register using my wife’s email address, and again, no email arrived.
I attempted to email the High Priests of the FSM and am not allowed to do so because my registration is not compete. The only entry allowed to me is on this message board.
Honest. I love pasta. Linguini with pesto is holy food. Has the malevolent designer interferred with my registration?
Will somebody contact the High Priests for me?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@ Apprentice Frederic
I like your statement of the second law. Another good one is, “If your perpetual motion machine doesn’t violate the first law, then it violates the second.”
Obviously that has nothing to do with evolution/ID, and that’s the point.
Remaining a noncommunicant …
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@jack666
I had the same problem. I still haven’t fixed it months and months later. Posting out here is the way to go, man, more fundies. :)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Gotta love circular logic…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
If everyone hasn’t seen it already, check out cracked’s really good (and pretty serious) article on making atheists and christans agree on maybe a few things:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html
Highly recommended, especially for this kind of discussion. :-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First, to reiterate mentos’ point, if we decide we already know how everything came about, that’s it. Bam. Scientific dead-end. The point about science is to find out everything there is to know, and explore any theory that seems plausible and can’t be disproved. Currently, the most interesting and open to exploration path is evolution. ID is a dead end.
.
Second, I’m not sure I understand the argument you’re trying to put across. Admittedly it’s 3am, so my brain may be slightly bleurgh, but it seems to my sleep-starved brain (please, anybody with a different interpretation, tell me) that what you’re saying is “ID is true because if we weren’t designed, there would be no concept of design”
.
This argument, no matter how much I think about it, makes no sense to me (which could well be because I misinterpreted what you were saying) for the very simple reason that you seem to be assuming that the greater entity that allegedly created the universe (let’s call this entity God)had a consciousness and a mind even vaguely resembling ours.
.
Also, crucially, WE DON’T KNOW HOW OUR MINDS CAME TO BE. That is, in fact, a large part of the question and therefore cannot be given as part of the answer. What we essentially possess is IMAGINATION. We can imagine that we were created, because our minds can handle that. Our minds can’t handle the amazing range of possibilities that come with the idea that consciousness simply came about by coincidence.
.
.
…I think that was quite coherent, coming in at 3 am from a teenager who’s had less than eight hours sleep over the last three days.
.
More coherent than yours, anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, and ID SHOULD be taught. Just not as science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s been a few years since I read it, but for Ayumi-chan and anyone else interested in the evolution of consciousness, it’s worth trying to look out a copy of Stephen Mithen’s The Prehistory of the Mind. From what I recall, it’s a pretty accessible read for anyone with at least some understanding of science and human origins (think I first read it when I was 17 or 18 which argues for it not being a desperately specialised book where you can only grasp the concepts at graduate level). Hmm, perhaps I might look it off the shelves to take for train reading over the break.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Ayumi
Did you steal Nature Via Nurture?
‘Cos I couldn’t find it this morning, and that thing about intelligence/imagination//mind sounds suspiciously like one of Matt Ridely’s points. If you did, GIVE IT BACK NOW!
@the world in general, but particularly the part of it consisting of fundies
Humanity. Has. Evolved. To. Use. The. Mind.
Mind over matter and all that; humans survive by using tools, designing weapons, making clothes, etc, etc. Badgers survive by having big teeth and claws and a huge body density. Albatrosses survive by being able to fly over sea and have therefore evolved to fit. Gnus survive by being big and hairy and able to eat what’s available. Humans survive by having a mind capable of conscious thought.
GET OVER IT!
.
‘God’, if it exists (note the openness of that statement) would not be human. It would not have a human mind, and, if it interfered directly in animal/plant life, would do so in a way that would be incomprehensible to the human mind. Would a reindeer (FESTIVE!!!) be able to understand why Santa made it drive around randomly at the speed of light once a year? No. It doesn’t give out presents at Chrimbo, so it doesn’t understand the concept of it. It probably thinks Santa sees nice food in Britain/America/Germany/France/Australia/Italy/Ireland/anywhere else he goes; i.e. it interprets Santa’s actions as it would itself react.
We do the same thing; we attribute a process similar to humanity’s to the creation of the world. Merely to say ‘it exists in this way because I would make it exist in this way’ is ridiculous. It goes against all logical thought. Whether or not there is a ‘God’ (I personally subscribe to the latter view), I find it highly dubious to assume that it acts in a human way.
.
This is why the watchmaker argument is nonsensical; it assumes that the ‘divine watchmaker’ or ‘God’ exists on the same logical plane as humanity, and makes itself ‘plausible’ on that basis. This post isn’t intended to disprove the existence of a ‘God’, only the sanity of ID. Which hardly needs disproving.
@ Brian specifically
That post was phenomenally hard to understand the thread of, which, as I see it, leaves one of two possibilities:
1. It was a very deep and complex philosophical point
or
2. It was a load of stupid bullshit which it is impossible to understand the logic behind because there isn’t any.
I stand by number 2.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What horrible reasoning. That fact that you believe that logic has lead you to your conclusion is the very reason we need to protect and enhance the state of science education in the US.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you’re too tired to read my entire post, this question should wrap it all up: Huh?
.
“For the simple philosophical premise of it being more than enough”
Enough of what? ID lacks a lot of things to explain the world, perhaps more than FSM. For example, who created the Creator? How did he create this place (scientifically speaking)? Why are we 50% genetically related to a banana? ID begs for more unanswerable questions than evolution, and often fails to agree with our gathered data. That simply isn’t scientifically enough.
.
“And the fact that having consciousness within creation automatically proves its being designed,”
We don’t even know if there was any consciousness within creation as you say it. Almost all scientists agree that we can’t ever know without a tight definition of “conscious thought” you speak of, and inevitable proof that it exists. And if, as the FSM has, this “conscious thought” alters our world constantly to deceive us, then then there’s no reason to teach it within the realm of observable (i.e. scientific) field.
It’s also worth noting the most solid proof of ID is our ability to clone animals (we made glow-in-the-dark rats!!), making us HUMANS the Creator of new species (albeit, a tiny range of them). We cannot extrapolate this fact to the beginning of the world without first being cautious about it.
.
“since consciousness is the only thing that can comprehend ‘design’ and ‘not designed’. In fact, its the only thing that can comprehend at all.”
You’re right, but this leads to nothing. My ability to comprehend ‘design’ and ‘not design’ does not give me the ability to design the world. The ability to comprehend doesn’t automatically give someone an ability to design the world.
.
“So if creation were not designed, it would not contain consciousness capable of ‘design’”
You’re right, but as I said before, this amounts to nothing. It is like saying “the roll of the dice cannot determine whether you will win or lose the game (that, hopefully, involves in dice)”. A roll of dice can determine who wins or who doesn’t, but it obviously doesn’t have a conscious thought, let alone comprehend win/lose. Genetic mutation is the same thing; it happens spontaneously, and causes our physical appearance to change, sometimes (by chance, it could causes cancer). Genetic mutation has no conscious thought to it, yet it’s perfectly capable of “designing” us humans.
“and we wouldn’t all be here debating this would we.”
Aye, but your thought process is debatable!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m willing to admit God may exist.
Are you willing to admit He may not?
“Of course intelligent design should be taught.”
I agree. So should Pastafarianism.
“For the simple philosophical premise of it being more than enough,”
Yup, Pastafarianism too.
“And the fact that having consciousness within creation automatically proves its being designed, since consciousness is the only thing that can comprehend “design” and “not designed” infact, its the only thing that can comprehend at all.”
Of course, whilst it’s easily proven that consciousness exists, it is still not proven that “Creation” is in fact the creation of a designer. There are no patents, no signatures, no blueprints, and no occurences within the “creation” that prove it is indeed a designed creation.
” So if creation were not designed, it would not contain consciousness capable of “design” and we wouldnt all be here debating this would we.”
Is God conscious? If not, He didn’t design the Universe, and if He is, by your logic, He was designed.
So if God was not designed, He would not contain consciousness capable of design and blah blah blah…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course intelligent design should be taught. It should be taught in churches and anywhere else people CHOOSE to go and learn about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“So if consciousness emerges from consciousness, and only consciousness can create consciousness, which consciousness created the consciousness that created our consciousness? And which consciousness created that consciousness that created the consciousness that created our consciousness?”
You say that word one more time I’m gonna hurl. hehe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I could spend months trying to parse these sentences and get nowhere…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Jimmie D
I once took a philosophy course and all I remember from it was the name of a single philosophical school of thought: “nomothetic axiological relativism.” I taught the phrase to my daughter at a VERY early age, and, many years later, she still can repeat it, and we still laugh like hell. Brian’s school deserves no less laughter.
.
Thank you for your succinct summary of the whole wacko situation! Any a*****e who wants to teach anything has permission, and any a*****e who chooses to listen to him has permission as well. Who funds the teaching, though, is a constitutional issue and – unfortunately – a taxpayer’s issue. Maybe the FSM Church should start funding lobbyists and talking like whatstheirnamesians. I’d love to see Abramofff dressed like a pirate and walking the halls of Congers…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Philosophy is such bullshit Brian. Just be; and don’t make up or believe any lies about why any of this is here. The Truth is, we don’t know, because we haven’t figured it out yet. You delude yourself. Sad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You actually hit the nail on the head with this. ID is a philosophical premise, not a scientific one, so teach it in a philosophy class, not a science class. Evolution, on the other hand, has repeatedly been supported by scientific evidence, so it is well suited to a science class. If the IDiots want ID to be treated as a science, go through the scientific method just like everybody else. See you around the conferences!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, there is ‘design’. Our design has come from thousands of years of evolutionary processess. When we were faced with problems we evolved new ways or ‘designs’ of managing them. Evolution is the greatest designer of them all. Where there is weakness evolution will see to it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Either this guy is claiming mankind made the universe so that the universe would give rise to man (which at least has a certain circular elegance to it….), or he’s just talking out of his butt. I swear I can’t tell which…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0