Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA

[Rotax447]

An important point to remember about a theory.  If a theory violates the facts, the facts may be wrong.  If a theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the theory is wrong.

Is anyone seriously arguing that the theory of evolution violates the 2nd Law?  If they are, I would love to hear it.

The irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum is often used to support the theory of intelligent design.  On the face of it, the fact of irreducible complexity does seem to violate the theory of evolution.  Here is the catch.  One must always remember that the theory of evolution must obey the 2nd Law.

The 2nd Law states that entropy will be maximized or potentials minimized.  There can be billions and billions of different paths and states to choose from, so how does the Cosmos know which one to take?

Add the Law of Maximum Entropy Production to the 2nd Law.  It states that the system will take the path or paths, out of all available paths, that maximizes entropy at the fastest rate.  Under the laws of our Cosmos, those paths almost always result in the production of ordered states.  Stars maximize entropy faster than dispersed ionized gas.  Life maximizes entropy on planets faster than atmospheric or geological paths.

The 2nd Law created the stars, planets, and life.  It is embedded within the fabric of our Cosmos.  In 2005, we do not understand how it created a bacterial flagellum.  That does not mean we should throw the 2nd Law out the window and invoke unseen spirits in our science classes.

[NUKE]

When you are intelligent enough to actually think the whole thing out, you might realize that science has no answer.

Use your brain and break it all down with logic. Science has no theory that can explain the origin of matter, or of life.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Rotax447
An important point to remember about a theory.  If a theory violates the facts, the facts may be wrong.  

No... facts by their very nature are correct.   We can be wrong thinking a falsehood may be a fact, but if a fact itself is wrong it is not, in fact, a fact.

Originally posted by Nuke
When you are intelligent enough to actually think the whole thing out, you might realize that science has no answer.

Faith has no answer either.  

Who created the universe daddy?  

God.

Who created God daddy?

Uhhh....  he's always existed... yeah that's it.

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by NUKE
When you are intelligent enough to actually think the whole thing out, you might realize that science has no answer.

Use your brain and break it all down with logic. Science has no theory that can explain the origin of matter, or of life.

I actually agree with you.  We may never find the answer to where it all came from.

I disagree on the theories of where matter comes from.  We have a lot of those theories.  First, we have to know where mass come from.  To find that out, we need to know what the mass of the Higgs boson is.  We can’t find that out because Congress, in it’s budget cutting wisdom, canceled the SSC.  

No problem.  The Euros in their budget busting stupidity, were kind enough to build a LHC at CERN which comes on line in 2007.  That loud sucking sound you hear, is the sound of the handful of particle physicists that we produce domestically ever year.  They are migrating to Europe to continue their useless studies on the nature of matter.

The good news is, we can easily replace them with lawyers and ministers.  As we sue ourselves into oblivion, we can at least be secure in the knowledge that God is on our side.

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No... facts by their very nature are correct.   We can be wrong thinking a falsehood may be a fact, but if a fact itself is wrong it is not, in fact, a fact.

[/b]
A fact is as factual as a fact can be unless there is a falsehood in the fact in which case the fact is false.

I thought I said that?

I should have provided an example.  In 1915 the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the Cosmos was expanding.  The facts of that time were that the Cosmos was static.

My point was, just because a theory does not fit the facts, do not automatically assume the theory is wrong.

I thought I said that too?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Rotax447

A fact is as factual as a fact can be unless there is a falsehood in the fact in which case the fact is false.


I thought I said that?

I should have provided an example.  In 1915 the General Theory of Relativity predicted that the Cosmos was expanding.  The facts of that time were that the Cosmos was static.

But in fact the fact was not a fact but a falsehood falsley believed to be a fact.

My point was, just because a theory does not fit the facts, do not automatically assume the theory is wrong.

I thought I said that too?

If the theory is correct but does not fit the circumstances, then it is true that that which was formerly thought to be a fact was in fact a falsehood falsely masqurading as a fact, and more careful experimentation and observation can bring out the facts.

Theoretically, theories are reasoned from a set of observations, then tested by predicting what further observations should show before those observations are observed... obviously.

[Rotax447]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But in fact the fact was not a fact but a falsehood falsley believed to be a fact.

If the theory is correct but does not fit the circumstances, then it is true that that which was formerly thought to be a fact was in fact a falsehood falsely masqurading as a fact, and more careful experimentation and observation can bring out the facts.

Theoretically, theories are reasoned from a set of observations, then tested by predicting what further observations should show before those observations are observed... obviously.

Very Good

Based upon your theories, facts, and observations, I agree.

[thrila]

So would this be a good time to mention that it is UK law that all children up to the age of 15 have to pray everyday in state schools.

[Booz]

Do they steal tokens at pizza parlors?

[Silat]

Originally posted by ChickenHawk
And I'm saying there's no hypocrisy to be found in the situation portrayed.

A reader ignorant of a creationists position gets the impression that creationists don't believe any life form can make changes according to its environment.  This of course is untrue and perpetuates the myth that they are stupid and don't follow the progressions of science.  Everyone knows bacteria mutate and grow immune to antibiotics.  Likewise everyone knows that plants and animals adapt to their environments also.  Creationists work from the same data evolutionists work from, they just come to different conclusions.

The comic writer is showing his ignorance.  There is nothing hypocritical about a creationist enjoying the benefits of science.  Many are scientists themselves.

I can't speak for ID fanatics because I'm not one of them and they were not mentioned in the comic.

They have proved their stupidity as you put it by asking for a religious concept to be taught as science. It is very simple. IDcreationism fails all scientific and theory tests.
I fail to see how you cant see that this is a religious issue and not scientific.

[moot]

Tautological dialectics, huh?

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by lada
The question is.... how did that "chit" manage to get into the school ?
Was it private action of 1 teacher or what ?

Guess the answer lies somewhere between science and theroy. Isnt Evolution taught as Theroy? ROFL..youd think NOT when you start asking school kids how we got here. Intelligent Design would be taught as theroy also. I dont see the problem. unless someone has a phobia or sumthin.

Originally posted by Silat
It is very simple. IDcreationism fails all scientific and theory tests.

As does evolutoin (Many Gaps are proven to exist) But we still teach it as a Theoretic science in our public Schools. LOL

[deSelys]

Originally posted by NUKE
When you are intelligent enough to actually think the whole thing out, you might realize that science has no answer.

Use your brain and break it all down with logic. Science has no theory that can explain the origin of matter, or of life.

ROFLMAO that is some 'logic' indeed! So you need a 'creator' to explain the origin of everything. And how do you explain the origin of said 'creator'?? A super-creator?

[Tuomio]

Does ID theory put forward any testable hypothesis, surely if something is called a theory, it should include one? For example, how does it explain, why there are buried fossilized skeletons that can be dated back millions of years.

[moot]

It reasons that reason is reasonable wrong.