Intelligent Design Vs Science

[Maelstrom]

OK. This is going to be a rant more than anything. Apologies.

Recently I saw a documentry about Intelligent Design (ID) and how it is slowly worming its way into the classroom. For all those who do not know, ID refutes the commonly accepted Darwinian theory of evolution, by claiming that because human beings are so beautifully created, someone of extreme intelligence must have created us - We cannot have simply evolved from apes. Of course the notion of the designer is married to God.

Now what annoys me is ID is somehow a) finding its way into classrooms and b) trying to pass itself off as a science. Furthermore, all the educational aid supporting the idea of ID is made and distributed by Christian groups. So in effect, what they're trying to do is link science with God, which is complete nonsense. We all know how credible science is today, a lot of what science revealing is being accepted as fact. By linking God and science, the obvious outcome is to make the notion of God and religion and all that bullshit fact, which it's not.

Should our kids be learning about the elusive and unknown in a subject where concrete and definate answers are sought?

[Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch]

No. Scientific method cannot prove God (or disprove God for that matter, even more reason why it shouldn`t be in science) America is stupid, and Christians are at the helm.

[Maelstrom]

This is happening in Australia too.
I assume it will slowly worm it's way into all Western countries.

[Athildur]

Like I said, I believe god is a bunch of hokey.

How can one call something science when it deals with things that cannot be proven?

And humans might be complex and beautiful, but so are some viruses, which came to be because of coïncidental clashes between several viruses...so ID is also a bunch of hokey.

[Maelstrom]

LOL
Viruses aren't complex and beautiful.
They're subcellular, the simplest things on the planet.

[Athildur]

It all depends on your point of view. And that's the whole point. Humans probably aren't as complex as we want to believe. (We humans like to believe we are masterpieces and so on, but we really aren't.)
The point is, the fact that something is complex does not mean it has to be made from something really intelligent. You'd need a helluva lot more proof.

[Maelstrom]

Personally I think their argument is quite valid.
The human body IS a masterpiece.
Consider the human heart for example, for an average 20 year old, their heart will beat ~100/150 times per minute (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4736). The human heart manages to live for atleast 60 years these days, so it quickly becomes obvious how hard an average heart works during a life time. One cannon not be truely mesmerised at how this is done, given the heart never stops for a break/for a rest. 60 years of continuous beating. Now that is an extremely finely tuned organ.

[Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch]

But then, every other animals heart is a masterpiece. Why stop there? Every other animals organs, or every other animal. Why stop there? Some trees live to be thousands of years old, photosynthesizing all the time. Why stop there? Why stop at all? The whole universe is a masterpiece. Ooh, so elaborate it is.

The thing about "masterpieces" is that they require an artist to create it, going back to Athis point; What`s beautiful and perfect is all POV.

[Maelstrom]

Beauty cannot not be universal.
It has to be.
It relies upon that very notion.

[Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch]

What?

[Maelstrom]

Aha.
My non sensical bullshit wins the day.

[Athildur]

Actually, beauty does not have to be universal. Beauty is a matter of taste and personal appreciation/attitude, and therefor it cannot ev er be universal.

[Maelstrom]

You need some kind of common ground though.
Otherwise everything is nothing.

[Pimpmaster McSlap-Bitch]

You need to explain yourself more clearly. Two short sentances was never enough to describe anything How about the common ground being existance, whatever the hell you need a common ground for... See, with two sentances I end up not having a clue what the hell anybodys talking about -__-

[Athildur]

There is no need for common ground.
Why should there be? Isn't being an individual all about making your own decisions and having your own opinions? If so, how can something based on opinion be universal?
If that were the case, the opinion would be forced upon others...
It is rather impossible for something to be universally beautiful, unless it looked different for every person.

And not everything is nothing. In fact, nothing is nothing. things based on opinion, such as beauty and the like, are not universal. That does not mean they are nothing, that simply means that they are not the same for every person. How can that mean being nothing?

Oh, and Pimp: Maybe I'll PM you sometime explaining everything .