expelled: no intelligence allowed

[Mr. SmartyPants]

On both accounts the math seems very clear that the chances of either happening are extremely small. Yes math does seem athoritative to me. 2+2=4 no way of getting around it.

Well it can certainly equal something else in a different number system.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

"2+2 is 10... IN BASE FOUR! AHAHAH!"

- GLADoS

[Nate]

That's a new one on me. Translation please?

Oh oh oh. Sorry, I thought the term was common enough that it didn't need explanation. XP "Godwinning" refers to Godwin's Law, which basically states that as an online discussion/debate continues, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler or Nazis approaches one.

In relation to the current topic of discussion, uc already summed up what I basically think. I'll requote him:

Everyone must be given a voice, yes, but not necessarily at all times. For example, it is not appropriate to stand up in the middle of a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox liturgy and say, "Wait, I would like to express my opinion about that."

And being that ID is not science, it's not appropriate to talk about it in a science class, any more than it would be appropriate for me to start asking questions about the injustice of racism during a math class.

And then to say that any professor who tells his student to stop talking about ID in a science class, is somehow censoring speech and promoting atheism, is akin to me saying that a teacher who tells me to stop talking about racism in a math class is censoring speech and promoting racism.

It just doesn't add up.

Note that this analogy doesn't apply to a professor who says "ID is wrong," or "Atheism is the only logical choice" or something along those lines. Merely a professor who says "Don't bring up ID in this class."

[Warrior4Christ]

Because the lack of dialogue and free flow of information and ideas is damaging. Students should be able to decide for themselves whether or not a commonly accepted interpretation of information is accurate, acceptable, or even believable. Forcing them to accept another's interpretation, even that of an expert, without considering it for themselves with information and arguments from both sides does not help students to learn. Students instead should be credited with having enough intelligence to know when what is being presented has no validity and draw sound conclusions with guidance but not dictation.

I have one lecturer who does encourage taking everything and testing it yourself (with first principles). He did he himself when he was in university. And he managed to find a flaw on on the of the theories presented, which he managed to resolve some years later when he published his thesis. That was in the electrical engineering-ish field.

Do you see the problem here? I admit that not all of my teachers are this extreme, but many of them have an ingrained idea that evolution is the one and only possible correct answer. When you say that you believe differently, they respond by saying something to the effect of “]
I share this frustration with you (not really teachers; just in general).

The problem is, that in the case you cite, there are clear examples of natural and artificial signals. We know they are artificial or natural because we can observed their production. In biology, you have no such examples, nor does ID even attempt to define or predict in any clear and consistent way what the characteristics of a natural vs. artificial organism should be. Instead, all it does is say "Gosh that's complicated!" and end there. This is not the way towards progress.

Isn't the point that there are no "natural" organisms in ID? Complicated -> Information -> Design!

No, it doesn't. Not in the math and certainly not in the fossil record. The mathematics may sound authoritative to philosophy students, but it cuts no ice with any one seriously familiar with the subject.

I disagree. I have heard of mathematicians' support of ID. I thought the fossil record was one area that didn't have strong support of evidence of evolution.

Again, this is simply false. Nowhere does ID have any sort of academic support. Not among mathematicians, nor computer scientists, and certainly not among astronomers or archaeologists.

Untrue. Some do.

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Werner-Gitt/dp/3893972552
http://clv.dyndns.info/pdf/255255.pdf (PDF of whole book (I think))

The author studied engineering and worked in computer science, and published a book on information theory.

...People. All Darwin's theory of evolution discusses is variation in species. There is no "Micro" or "Macro" evolution, just the alteration of inherited characteristics over time. The end. Evolution does not say that we were all spawned from fish that wanted beach front property, nor does evolution say life as we know it is accidental and purely random. These are completely different theories. Stop diluting evolution by throwing them all into the same melting pot.

I thought evolution did claim to have a single-celled organism (whereever it may have appeared from magically) change into virtually every organism we see today, including humans? (ie. getting increasingly better over time)
And random? How can it not be? I thought we were excluding an intelligent designer here?

And being that ID is not science, it's not appropriate to talk about it in a science class, any more than it would be appropriate for me to start asking questions about the injustice of racism during a math class.

Evolution and ID are two different views on the same thing: origins of life on earth. They are not too different in that respect.

[Technomancer]

Going back to this, since it was an open question.

Why? Because, like it or not, they are teaching from a certain religious point of view. Atheism.

No they are not. Evolution is without reference to religion or to any putative creators. Many of the scientists who have developed the theory and work with it are themselves Christian or otherwise religious. Many others have found no conflict between the theory and the religons of the world.

As much as I'm sure atheists hate being considered a religious movement, they really are. What is a religion? A set of beliefs which explains the cause, purpose, and nature of the universe. Look it up in any dictionary.

Fortunately, I own a better dictionary. While religions may discuss the origin of the world, not all discussions of the world's origins are religious. Religion encompasses far more than its body of stories. Instead, it is foremost about the relationships between humans and God and between humans. That is, it concerns morality and worship, and most especially within a community of believers. Evolutionary science has none of this; for that matter neither does atheism.

Evolution no more makes a statement about morality than does Boyle's law. There is no standard of behaviour, or system of ritual, or common ethos. Indeed, the scientists who have developed evolutionary theory come from such a wide array of political, religious and ethnic backgrounds that such a commonality would be impossible.

[ich1990]

...People. All Darwin's theory of evolution discusses is variation in species. There is no "Micro" or "Macro" evolution, just the alteration of inherited characteristics over time. The end. Evolution does not say that we were all spawned from fish that wanted beach front property, nor does evolution say life as we know it is accidental and purely random. These are completely different theories. Stop diluting evolution by throwing them all into the same melting pot.

I am sorry if you were confused. I was using the terms micro and macro because believed there meaning to be self-evident. Darwin didn't promote the seperation of micro and macro-evolution, but I do. There are many differents types of evolution now, but the gist of what Darwin was saying is that "Something suffered many small changes. Eventually these small changes stacked upont one another to make big changes."

I agree with the first part (the small changes]"2+2 is 10... IN BASE FOUR! AHAHAH!"

- GLADoS[/QUOTE]

I just knew that someone was going to say this. 2+2=4 in base ten. 2+2=4 in base four. If you make one side base four, and translate the other into base ten, then 2+2=10.

However, if 2+2=10 in base four, then 2+2=25 in base ten. Therefore, 2+2=4 in base four and base ten. At least, that is how I understand it.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Dude... I was quoting a video game.

[ich1990]

Dude... I was quoting a video game.

Well in that case, you get +10 extra cool points. I was wondering who in real life would name their kid GLADoS.

[mathgrant]

I just knew that someone was going to say this. 2+2=4 in base ten. 2+2=4 in base four. If you make one side base four, and translate the other into base ten, then 2+2=10.

However, if 2+2=10 in base four, then 2+2=25 in base ten. Therefore, 2+2=4 in base four and base ten. At least, that is how I understand it.

. . . I'm mathgrant, and I'm still friggin' confused. D=

The way I understand it, there is no digit 4 in base four. You count, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 100, 101. . . and so on.

. . . also, the big atheism/theism debate always confuses me. So many people on both sides accusing the other side of being unscientific and wrong and responsible for baaaad things! And politics always confuses me, too. It's one thing to have beliefs, but another thing entirely to decide how a country with such diverse beliefs should be run. D= But I had to comment on how base four works. XD

[ich1990]

. . . I'm mathgrant, and I'm still friggin' confused. D=

The way I understand it, there is no digit 4 in base four. You count, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 100, 101. . . and so on.

. . . also, the big atheism/theism debate always confuses me. So many people on both sides accusing the other side of being unscientific and wrong and responsible for baaaad things! And politics always confuses me, too. It's one thing to have beliefs, but another thing entirely to decide how a country with such diverse beliefs should be run. D= But I had to comment on how base four works. XD

Ok, cool, it has been a long time since I have done any base changes, thanks for the refresher. I am guessing that GLADoS was saying that the fourth digit in base four is ten. That I can understand. What I was trying to get across is that the fourth digit in base four is still the fourth digit. It is equal to the tenth digit in base ten, but it is still the fourth digit in base four. Believe it or not, there have been entire books written explaining that 2+2 does indeed equal 4, so I think that I will just happlily live my life under the assumption that 2+2=4.

As to Atheism vs. Thesim, the more I read, the more I am tempted to just say "hang it all".

This is why I am an introvert and generally keep my mouth shut. "It is better to keep you mouth closed and have people think that you are an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt". Unfortunately I seem to have opened my mouth on this thread.

[Technomancer]

Isn't the point that there are no "natural" organisms in ID? Complicated -> Information -> Design!

My point is that you have no basis for comparison. All you can say is from the vantage point of ID is that something is complicated.

I disagree. I have heard of mathematicians' support of ID.

And yet these (very, very few) mathematicians don't submit their work for the scrutiny of their peers. I can think of at least a half-dozen mathematics and computer science journals that would be an appropriate venue for their work, and that's just off the top of my head. On the other hand, the power of evolution as an algorithm has been amply demonstrated through genetic algorithms and genetic programs.

I thought the fossil record was one area that didn't have strong support of evidence of evolution.

Not at all. Examples of transitional forms are well-described in the fossil record.

Untrue. Some do.

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Werner-Gitt/dp/3893972552
http://clv.dyndns.info/pdf/255255.pdf (PDF of whole book (I think))

The author studied engineering and worked in computer science, and published a book on information theory.

I was not aware that "amazon.com" was rated highly amongst academic fora. The reality is though that these notions don't hold sway among research-oriented computer scientists, or computational neuroscientists, or among engineers and those studying information theory. Whatever a privately published book might say, the literature on the relationship of these fields to evolution is quite abundant, and the evolutionary paradigm has proven to be a very valuable one in terms of producing applications. Intelligent Design on the other hand, not so much.

[Nate]

I looked at that book on Amazon and the fact that Ken Ham cites it already proves it bogus as far as I'm concerned. XD

Y'know, all this talk about how ID doesn't really say anything important as far as science is concerned, and doesn't present any new hypotheses, and all that. It reminded me of this. So I must now post it.

[Fish and Chips]

I thought evolution did claim to have a single-celled organism (whereever it may have appeared from magically) change into virtually every organism we see today, including humans? (ie. getting increasingly better over time)

See, this is what I am talking about. No, evolution never claimed that. Not under Darwin's watch anyway. That's Abiogenesis, which builds off of the basic premise of evolution but has no real scientific evidence that can hold water. Darwin's theory deals with changes in species, not the point of origin for life.

And random? How can it not be? I thought we were excluding an intelligent designer here?

Actually, evolution is very practical. The only "Random" variable is waiting for advanced mutations to occur in the DNA, whenever that will be, which then take precedence out of usefulness to the organism. If you weigh the evidence, it is not unthinkable that the evolutionary process could be controlled by a higher intelligence.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

The difference between ID and Evolution, at least from a darwinian standpoint is that ID tries to address the start of life and Evolution does not even touch upon that subject. However, it's worth noting that Evolution has a long term association with abiogenesis as well as Big Bang theory from a naturalistic standpoint in that usually if you are a strict naturalist you will follow similar theories which "leave no room for a God" (words of some proponents, not the theories themselves)

[Ashley]

Wow. I step away for a few days and we have ourselves a full-on war. If you guys want to keep talking past one another, take it to PMs.