Pages

24 comments

Jump to bottom
1 dragonath  Fri, Feb 8, 2013 6:23:35pm

“Density… I mean, destiny”

2 Kragar (Antichrist )  Fri, Feb 8, 2013 7:12:16pm

I see they’re also well on their way to redefining GOP politician to “braindead theocrat”.

3 dragonfire1981  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 1:18:41am

*sigh* This makes a train wreck look organized.

4 leebowman  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 2:26:26am

The (9) implementation requirements of the Bill are rather stiff, and will meet immediate resistance, as in past lessor Bills. But for this Bill to have any chance whatsoever, some points within it conceptual context need be addressed. I suggest reading the Bill in its entirety, along with my ruminations.
[Link: www.house.mo.gov…]

• “Analogous naturalistic process” is defined correctly, if not always applied correctly, however. It is, in fact, the only way to empirically verify a proposed prior process which culminated in an evolved formation. Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult within evolutionary theory.

• “Biological evolution” is also summarized relatively well by a 105 word paragraph.

• “Biological intelligent design”, correctly stated as “a hypothesis” rather than a theory, and correctly attributed to “intelligence” rather than the singular form “an intelligence”, but incorrectly connoted “by inference” as the source of “all original species on earth”. I feel that ID can be hypothesized at various junctures, but the presumption of ID as its sole source cannot be stated as fact. It further correctly states that intelligence identity is not required or allowed, short of “present-day” [empirical] observation.

It then goes on to define “concepts inherent within the hypothesis”, summarized by (9) arguments in its favor, and which are largely inferential, as are natural precepts. These then may not be presented as fact; only as ID inferences, and must therefore be presented as such, if included in the final Bill.

In particular, I take exception with, (f) “Intelligence-directed design and construction of all original species at inception without an accompanying genetic burden is inferred rather than random mutational genetic change as a constructive mechanism.”

With (h), “The irreducible complexity of certain biological systems implies a completed design and construction at inception rather than step-by-step development.”

And with (i), “The lack of significant transitional forms between diverse species existing today and in the fossil record implies all original species were completed at inception rather than by a step-by-step development from other species.”

The term ‘all’ cannot be presumed at this point, if ever. Nor can ‘step-by-step’ be ruled out, although at some point, certain steps [genetic/ phenotypic alterations] may in fact be confirmed as directed by intelligent input, at least in part.

And finally, (4) stating that “Destiny [and other a priori defined processes] may be founded upon faith-based philosophical beliefs is incorrect; data only within science classes. Beliefs may ensue from the data, but NOT be considered as evidentiary within science. Rewording of (4) and (9) is essential IMO.

The term ‘empirical data’ appears (15) times, essentially to emphasize its relevance in assessing the data, rather than an over-use of extrapolation [non-verifiable and non-relevant parallels], and of assumptions [both of natural and guided causations]. ID’s support is largely based on statistical improbabilities of naturally occurring building-blocks of novelty and complexity with no immediate heritable advantages, rather than a goddidit presumption. Likewise, more than chance and environmental pressures being responsible for similar events, natural causation may require more than slight adaptive alterations to produce novelty and multi-dependent complexities.

5 leebowman  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 2:32:59am

A lot to consider, but hey, the Bill is too all-conclusive to pass ‘as is’. IOW, this bill, while rightly allowing for ID as an adjunctive hypothesis within evolutionary theory rather than in opposition to it, does need to tone down any portions that overly presume ID as (1) the only causality, and (2) as operating ex nihilo, rather than step-by-step, as the current data tends to support. ID, properly defined, is a valid science based hypothesis, which may or may not have validity.

Lastly, why have Bills such as this befallen society ad infinitum? To bring about a Theocracy? BS. Or to allow teaching religion within science curricula? Not a chance, given Constitutional constraints. It’s for a more unobstructed rather than a severely constrained science, bro.

6 Varek Raith  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 6:31:08am

re: #4 leebowman

re: #5 leebowman

No.
ID is simply saying ‘God Did It’.
There is no scientific validity to it.

7 Charles Johnson  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 6:58:59am

“Intelligent design” is absolutely NOT a “valid scientific hypothesis” - that is complete nonsense. ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism masquerading as science in order to trick those gullible enough to fall for it. In other words, ID is a scam.

8 Romantic Heretic  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 7:19:50am

re: #4 leebowman

re: #5 leebowman

Oh, for Christ’s sake. There isn’t a shred of evidence for ‘intelligent design.’ Even if there was, and there never will be, which creation myth will it demonstrate? There’s so many and none of them have evidence to support them.

Save that evidence ‘created’ by confirmation bias.

Just because you can ‘create’ evidence doesn’t mean that evidence demonstrates ‘intelligent design.’

9 Mongo only pawn... in game of life.  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 9:29:29am

Newspeak. Welcome to the crossroads of the future. The GOP is out to redefine truth, facts, reality and freedom. 2014 is a big year.

10 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 9:33:00am

re: #5 leebowman

Bills like this normally get shot down in court as unconstitutional.

Bro.

11 Mongo only pawn... in game of life.  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 9:43:04am

re: #10 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

Brah. Yo.

12 aagcobb  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 10:03:08am

re: #5 leebowman

ID isn’t a scientific hypothesis. Its a legal strategy, which failed spectacularly in Kitzmiller v. Dover, in which the transitional form “cdesign proponentsists” was identified in the textbook “Of Pandas and People” as it transitioned from “creationists” to “design proponents” with virtually no other significant change.

13 Gus  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 10:09:28am

re: #4 leebowman

Translation: MAGIC!

14 Skip Intro  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 10:11:34am

ID is nothing but faith-based science, or, as I prefer to call it, religion.

15 b_sharp  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 10:28:00am

re: #5 leebowman

A lot to consider, but hey, the Bill is too all-conclusive to pass ‘as is’. IOW, this bill, while rightly allowing for ID as an adjunctive hypothesis within evolutionary theory rather than in opposition to it, does need to tone down any portions that overly presume ID as (1) the only causality, and (2) as operating ex nihilo, rather than step-by-step, as the current data tends to support. ID, properly defined, is a valid science based hypothesis, which may or may not have validity.

Lastly, why have Bills such as this befallen society ad infinitum? To bring about a Theocracy? BS. Or to allow teaching religion within science curricula? Not a chance, given Constitutional constraints. It’s for a more unobstructed rather than a severely constrained science, bro.

Science is self constraining. This attempt to unobstruct a process that has evolved into the most efficient and accurate method of acquiring knowledge is no more than a design to let in irrelevant and inaccurate bullshit.

16 FemNaziBitch  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 10:32:08am

I think the problem is systemic:

In the United States, only 7 percent of students reached the advanced level in eighth-grade math, while 48 percent of eighth graders in Singapore and 47 percent of eighth graders in South Korea reached the advanced level. As those with superior math and science skills increasingly thrive in a global economy, the lag among American students could be a cause for concern.

17 Randall Gross  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 10:34:03am

I’m not from discovery institute, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn.

18 jaunte  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 10:51:53am

“…ID’s support is largely based on statistical improbabilities of naturally occurring building-blocks of novelty and complexity with no immediate heritable advantages, rather than a goddidit presumption.”


Peter Olofsson:

In the last decades, arguments against Darwinian evolution have become increasingly sophisticated, replacing Creationism by Intelligent Design (ID) and the book of Genesis by biochemistry and mathematics. As arguments claiming to be based in probability and statistics are being used to justify the anti-evolution stance, it may be of interest to readers of Chance to investigate methods and claims of ID theorists.
[Link: www.talkreason.org…]

19 b_sharp  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 10:54:59am
“ID’s support is largely based on statistical improbabilities of naturally occurring building-blocks of novelty and complexity with no immediate heritable advantages,…”

Statistical improbability is misused in this instance, and tells us nothing. The idea of novelty and complexity have been covered both in biology as a mechanism of DNA replication and in physics as a result of self organization. The red herring of ‘immediate’ heritable advantages has also been addressed by biology several times, including the statistical likelihood of neutral drift.

When ID comes up with some way of identifying and testing for design in complex systems, then it may become worthy of the science label. “It just looks designed” simply doesn’t cut it.

20 EiMitch  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 11:58:54am
“I’m a science enthusiast…I’m a huge science buff,” Brattin tells The Riverfront Times. “This [bill] is about testable data in today’s world.”

So “destiny,” a purely philosophical concept, has testable data?

Why are we still debating this? These bull-chips scrapped from the bottoms of clown-shoes are officially satirizing themselves. “Destiny is science? HA-HA! Enough said.

21 Etaoin Shrdlu  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 3:00:17pm

re: #17 Randall Gross

I’m not from discovery institute, but I stayed at pasted myself into a stock photo of a Holiday Inn.

FTFY

22 wheat-dogghazi  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 6:31:57pm

Will students learn about destiny, as in the kind that required Luke to follow in his father’s footsteps?

23 Charles Johnson  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 7:30:04pm

Five years ago, Lee Bowman sounded pretty much the same:

[Link: www.pearceyreport.com…]

24 jaunte  Sat, Feb 9, 2013 7:34:00pm

For those who haven’t seen it yet,
The Revisionaries: [Link: video.pbs.org…]

In Austin, Texas, fifteen people influence what is taught to the next generation of American children. Once every decade, the highly politicized Texas State Board of Education rewrites the teaching and textbook standards for its nearly 5 million schoolchildren. And when it comes to textbooks, what happens in Texas affects the nation as a whole. Don McLeroy, a dentist, Sunday school teacher, and avowed young-earth creationist, leads the Religious Right charge. After briefly serving on his local school board, McLeroy was elected to the Texas State Board of Education and later appointed chairman. During his time on the board, McLeroy has overseen the adoption of new science and history curriculum standards, drawing national attention and placing Texas on the front line of the so-called “culture wars.” n his last term, McLeroy, aided by Cynthia Dunbar, an attorney from Houston and professor of Law at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, finds himself not only fighting to change what Americans are taught, but also fighting to retain his seat on the board. Challenged by Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, and Ron Wetherington, an anthropology professor from Southern Methodist University in Texas, McLeroy faces his toughest term yet. THE REVISIONARIES follows the rise and fall of some of the most controversial figures in American education through some of their most tumultuous intellectual battles.

[Link: www.therevisionariesmovie.com…]


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Romantic Heretic
Why America is Losing The War on Terror
Here's an interesting article on how America is losing The War on Terror and why. I've noted many times that 9/11 was meant to provoke just the response it did, with just the results it did. Among those results was ...

9 seconds ago
Views: 0 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
Randall Gross
Video: Test Flying Parrot’s Bebop Drone
With the release of the Parrot's Bebop drone coming December 1st, IEEE Spectrum took the opportunity to take one for a test flight at an event in New York City. As we've previously reported, the Bebop has a number ...

29 minutes ago
Views: 49 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
The Vicious Fergushka
The Scientific Explanation of Why People Kill Each Other Over TVs on Black Friday
More: The Scientific Explanation of Why People Kill Each Other Over TVs on Black Friday What causes people to kick, shove and even stab each other on Black Friday? Each year there are reports of violence during the Black Friday ...

1 day, 20 hours ago
Views: 305 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 6 • Rating: 1
Skip Intro
Anti-Gay Hate Preacher Accidentally Tweets 4,000 Followers Cartoon Clip of Him ‘Confessing’ to Be a ‘Homosexual Sodomite’
Adam Reakes Promotes Truth That Starbucks Markets Semen Laced Lattes http://t.co/RY06dEEb0I— James David Manning (@DrJamesDManning) November 20, 2014

1 day, 21 hours ago
Views: 479 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Lumberhead
One Man Should Not Dictate Immigration Policy
Well played. You know, the more I mull over the Republican complaint about how immigration reform is being implemented, the more I sympathize with them. Public policy, especially on big, hot button issues like immigration shouldn't be made by one ...

2 days, 15 hours ago
Views: 348 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 7
teleskiguy
“Chelsea Hotel” performed by Tal Wilkenfeld
I first saw Austrailian bass player Tal Wilkenfeld play with Jeff Beck (not live, mind you. On YouTube) and was amazed at her skills and chops. She was only 20 when she scored that gig. She's coming into her own ...

4 days, 12 hours ago
Views: 231 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4
FemNaziBitch
History of Laws Concerning Immigration and Naturalization in the United States -WIKI
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.[1] Pursuant to this power, Congress ...

4 days, 20 hours ago
Views: 341 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 3
MichaelJ
COMFORTABLY NUMB - Peahi Nov 12 on Vimeo
Channel angle of the Nov 12th swell at Peahi.

1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 498 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 2
 Frank says:

And now....you are going to dance...like you've never danced before!