The irresponsibility of ID

Remove all ads!

Tonight I realized what would happen if for some peculiar reason evolution theory would be forgotten totally. The results would be catastrophic, eventually. Who cares how evolution happens, all you need to know at this point that it does, this issue isn't exactly about that. Of course in a perfect world everyone knows the basic principles how evolution works, right?

Too bad that they don't.

Pesticide resistant pests, like the malaria mosquito resistant to DDT might be considered as a proof that evolution works. The same case is antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, multiple -drug resistant hospital superbacteria in all around the world and antibiotic resistant tuberculosis strains are all worrying examples of evolution taking place.

These examples are not only proof that evolution theory works.

They're also examples of what happens when people are not aware of adaptation in successive generations; that evolution takes place. Just to think of all the ignorant normal people pumping those antibiotics in their bodies or down the drains and the equally ingorant doctors who prescribe these antibiotics for every minor malady. To think of all the good willing farmers
pumping those herbi-/fungi-/pesticides into their fields. Thinking of these people is somewhat frightening: how short-sighted can people really be!

If you want to get rid of a biological nuicance or threat, make sure you exterminate every single reproductive one of them. This, of course, is close enough to be totally impossible. So different solutions should be discovered, and discovering these solutions should be encouraged. Tougher poisons won't work, they'll only kill other, useful living things as well, and eventually they'll take their toll on human lives. This already happens, but the lives are of those with the value of slave labour.

Every school taking ID in their curricula ensure that more ignorant generations of humans will be spawned into this world. Every school doing this ensures that humankind is further way on the road to greater misery. Not only for the sake of the nature and every living, sentient being should the teaching of ID be stopped, but first and foremost for the sake of every single human, healthy or not, old or young. ID should be forgotten for the sake of yourselves, if not for the sake of others.

Thank you

 

Wondeful! Absolutely awesome. Intelligent Design is just presenting Creationism in another way. It should not be taught in schools (unless, of course, the school is specifically religious), and evolution should not stop being taught.

ID is essentially trying to explain everything that we haven't figured out yet by saying "it is too complex for us to figure out because some greater being made it so." Not even one bit of proof, whereas evolution is evident. I agree completely.

 

I see one major flaw in your thesis. I believe the ID crowd is stating that something started everything, I don't believe they are saying that that something created everything. Who is to say evolution didn't start afterwards. It is like counting; once you get past the number one it takes off on its own, but who created the number one?

 

Surely there will be those, yes. My argument would be on a safer basis if all the people against evolution theory would be just regular fundamentalists. This, I think, is the very reason why they came up with 'Intelligent Design'.

But how many steps away is a person thinking that Intelligent Design is a sound theory from a religious fundamentalist? How many steps away is a religious fundamentalist from a religious fanatic? How many people believing in intelligent design would say that Bible's Genesis is simply not true and start talking about UFO's and civilizations in galaxies far far away?

There might be a few, I admit, but the discussion about what the people believing in ID are like is a different discussion.

This is about the consecuences what happens when people get the message, that evolution theory is not true.

Every single detail doesn't mean anything to the regular farmer or doctor. But they will understand the message from 'respectable' authorities in schools and universities that evolution theory is false.

By making such big noise in the matter about the origin of life, they dangerously distract people from matters that are important whether you are of any faith, a religious person or not. Good people will suffer as much as the bad, and the innocent will suffer even more. This cannot be in the interest of any person believing in justice, righteousness and compassion; believing that what they do is good. If this should however be the case, then they are seriously misled and blinded in error.

edit: noticed an 'are' and a 'like' that were missing and added these

[ December 07, 2005, 05:24: Message edited by: Ichor ]

 

I might have missed something, but what does "ID" stand for in this context? Something to do with being anti-evolution, I assume.

 

This doesn't come from the ID crowd, but scientists that should know that this is going to happen.

I could say the same for every ruling that prohibits prayer in school and teaching religion to school children. The people here at BoM and AoDA wouldn't let me have that so I, by their same logic, say no dice to those claims.

Until the theory of Evolution is clarified, then perhaps it ought to be similarly scrapped. The complaints you make stem not from ID, but from people who ought to know better showing a poor understanding of the Science they've been taught.

Thank you. Who is to say that the two are mutually exclusive?

That's an assumption I will not grant. When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. I don't need any help making an ass out of myself...

My complaint is simply that the theory is not quite accurate. That's where the ID crowd comes in. The evidence presented is sketchy, and for those of religious persuasion, it contradicts that which they've been taught...

Then maybe people pushing these theories ought to examine possibilities that don't contradict each other. I've tried on more than one occasion to find such middle ground, but eventually, what religion teaches is expected to be cast aside infavour of science. As long as that is in place, then this issue will not go away.

There has to be more to ID than simply "Evolution is bull****".

So you suggest that the disagreement is on where that start point is? Basically, Religion claims that Man was formed from the dust, by the hand of God. Evolution teaches that Man was born to a more primitive primates. As long as that arguement ensues, there will be opposition to Evolution.

But let us assume that there is a designer, and that Genesis, chapter 1 is more or less correct. From there, through genetic diversity, the process of evolution occured, under the guidance of God.

God serves as the designer for ID, and it accounts for the observations that Darwin made.

 

But ID was formed without proof, just to say what religion says, but without the word "God" in it. Evolution has proof, ID does not. That is why Evolution should not be 'similarly scrapped.' They are not similar at all, and thus should be treated differently.

But I thought God created everything as it is right now? (According to the Bible, at least). So if God helped evolution, then he would be contradicting what his little disciples wrote about him.

 

As you might know, science is self-correcting, but not every single hypothesis is uniformly accepted. Scientists, as well as everybody else have found out that pesticide/antibiotic resistant strains are have come into existence. Evolution theory predicts such occurences.

On what basis?

So, what does religion teach of the nature of living things that surround us?

Evolution teaches that Man was born to a more primitive primates. As long as that arguement ensues, there will be opposition to Evolution.

How much more or less? And what happens if we assume? Should we make more assumptions? Were would these assumptions take us?

I have no arguments in who or what or when the beginning of life happened. But when people start making claims that the theory of evolution is not correct, it gives the wrong message, for it is understood the wrong way. Who gives a damn if we'd be apes or not, if it doesn't improve the condition of the suffering.

 

But the problem is that people would reject it straight up if the name of God was included. That's the problem. My beef is not that God's words are not heard, but that these scientists rushed a theory out without full understanding or it and those in the public have latched onto it and used it to attack religion.

There were only 2 dogs in the garden of Eden (or Noah's Arc for that matter). How many breeds of dogs are there now? I didn't come right out and deny evolution. Darwin did observe something, but I don't accept all the conclusions that were made.

 

"Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."
Source: http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm

That is IT. ID goes no further than that.
Since humans have an opposable thumb which clearly allows us to grip items, it has to be the work of an intelligent designer and not a case that various species of mammals consequtively developed an opposable thumb from it being just another finger via evolution.

Seeds, plants, trees, fruits, vegetables, incests, mice, monkeys, humans, etc. were created as is. Any minor changes henceforth; like why humans continue to carry an appendix, which is only useful in herbivores; why asians are physically different from europeans or africans are to be proved by the Darwin proposed theory of evolution.

They do not refute evolution. They cannot.
However the one thing that evolution can only surmise, and not actively demonstrate on account of the shortness of human life as compared to the pace of change via evolution, ie. the creation of completely new species, wether from an already existing species or not, is sought to be appropriated by ID.

In other news: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html

@Gnaff
Next time you are going to leap out of a building do invite me and my camcorder, since the theory of gravity is ... just that, a theory.

 

The ideas put out in ID are not irresponsible -- ideas and beliefs cannot be irresponsible. It is the people who use these ideas in their own personal agenda that are irresponsible.

The basic premise of ID is a reasonable one -- evolution works, it just needs a push now and then to get the right final product. The idea behind ID is an interesting blend of science and traditional religious belief. Some people go overboard with it (just as some people believe in the religion of evolution and go overboard with that).

However, religion -- be it Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, ID or evolution -- does not belong in a public school classroom (private school can do whatever they wish). Evolution needs to be taught (the basic scientific fundamentals) but not the religion of evolution.

 

That would be 'Intelligent Falling'

 

ID is not a scientific/religious blend: it is trying to explain what evolution hasn't yet by giving religious reasons without using Christian-specific words.

 

I must take umbrage with such a statement. Normally, my good sense tells me not to argue with people who support ID instead of evolution as it doesn't do any good. But I can't let a statement such as this go by unchallenged.

When talking about evolutionary theory, it is impossible to separate it from the field of genetics. Both evolutionary theory and genetics got their start about 150 years ago, and have been extensively studied for about the last 100 years. In the past 50 years, detailed experiments by Miller, Watson and Crick have even provided mechanisms for tranfer of genes into subsequent generations, and how life may have got a start on the planet through originally abiotic means. There is nothing about either field that has been "rushed" in any way, shape or form.

In fact, given the conservative nature of science, most new ideas take a really long time to gain momentum. Sorry, but a concept that has been around for 6 generation, a study that has been around for 4 generations, and a detailed scientific understanding that has been around for 2 generations cannot be considered "rushed".

 

@Aldeth:
I think he was talking about ID. Though I can understand your confusion when he referred to scientists and not theologians(sp?).

Didn't we already shoot down ID before? Why the renewed interest?

 

The websites I've seen are fairly recent. The idea behind ID has been around for a very long time (at least 40 years from the writings I've seen, perhaps even further back). It wasn't called intellegent design but it was around. And it was an attempt for the scientific faithful to come to blend knowledge and faith. Other whack jobs have come along since then and perverted it for their own purposes. I would not call them the creators of ID -- pushers, yes.

And I don't believe in ID, either.

[ December 07, 2005, 22:02: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]