Stupid-as-a-Post Design

| 8 Comments | No TrackBacks

I'm getting really, really tired of the "Intelligent Design" crowd. You know, the people who say that we should not be teaching kids evolution, or "just evolution" in school because there is another theory "Intelligent Design" that posits that life on earth is too complex to have arisen naturally - it had to be guided by an intelligence. They will then disingenuously tell "we don't know what that intelligence might be -it could be aliens! Or maybe God."

They also like to use the example of someone driving down the highway and seeing Mount Rushmore - Obviously when you see Mount Rushmore you don't think that it occured naturally - it could only have been made by an intelligence. Well, life is more complicated than Mount Rushmore - so, ipso facto, Intelligent Design.

Well, morons that are not trying to put religion into school, let me ask you this. Your aliens...I assume they came from you know, another planet. How did they come into being? Not evolution, right, because you have already "disproved" that. So, let's say that other aliens made them. Now continue along that path...who made them? More aliens? And so on. Well morons, at some point something either needed to be created by God, or evolve. And guess what..."created by God", is not going to make it in a science class.

Now shut the hell up, and go watch the Discovery Channel.

Oh, and Mount Rushmore? It is a naturally occuring phenomena. Think about it...you have some primordial slime....you wait about 3 billion years....you get a monkey...wait a few million years more...a "man"...then about 300,000 years later, they make Mount Rushmore. See? Perfectly natural.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.edgore.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/94

8 Comments

Yo!

Hehe. IMHO, they shouldn't "teach" any of these things at all. It's like, ICT teachers teach children how to write letters TOTALLY different to how English teachers do and this will cause certain people to fail stuff 'cos other lessons have fucked them up. Same with this. Science shouldn't go on about evolution while RE speaks of a God creating everything. It also causes a conflic in beliefs and it really involves personality and beliefs where they shouldn't be - academic intelligence.

Anyways. I'm a man of questioning, so I'm gonna ask you something. Theory of evolution is that things develop differently each time, more adapted to their environment and such so they have a better chance of survival. It also states that only the strongest survive and the weak die. Now, if you're a believer of the theory that apes evolved into men, why are monkeys still here? They're not stronger and theoretically should of died, just like rabbits and shit. Explain?

I'm with phoxpherous on this.
It's not natural seeing as it's made by man... hence the word Artificial.
If they're not putting religion is school, why do we have a lesson called RE (Religious education)?
3 billion - a few million years - 300,300 years = not the time it took for man to make mount rushmore. It'll still be in the billions of years then, and that means that your saying that man is still evolving but made mount rushmore?
Natural is an adaptation of the word nature... Natural means it came from nature, not man made.
Explain that?

FFS. To end the Rushmore arguement, mountains are formed by plates pushing together. End of.

Thanks for backing me up on the evolution thing, Vertigus.

Lmao. I'm somewhere else today. Rushmore is the big-ass thing with the faces, right? Was mistaking it with something else. Ne'er mind.

Feh. I doubt this was done by another being... at the same time, I doubt it could be done by humans... (well, it could, but not exactly secretly)

I'm going to just jumble up responses to all the comments in this post...

I'm not sure why you say we should not be teaching either evolution or ID/creationism in school. We shouldn't be teaching ID/reationism in schools (i the U.S. anyway) because we have the seperation of church and state, so we can't teach somethign that is based on faith and unprovable as fact. We can teach evolution/natural selection because it is a scientifically tested theory with observable evidence found in nature, and it provided predictions of outcomes that can be tested. It's as solid as physics (actually probably more solid once you start to get the sub-atomic physics...).
As for monkeys, evolution/natural selection does not state taht things keep evolving and replacing what came before them. That may happen, but it's just as likely that, as in the case of monkeys and men, monkeys are still really well adapted to living in trees and flinging poo, while the process of natural selection on humans actually made us well adapted for a niche that monkey are not. It's about diversification, not replacement.

We do have a class called Religious education in American public schools, but it's about educating students about the hisptry, beliefs and underpinnings of the religions - not about teaching those beliefs as if they are facts.

What I was trying to say about Mt. Rushmore is that yes, Mt. Rushmore is man-made, but that Man is the results of billions of years of natural selection, therefore, Mt. Rushmore is the end result of a natural rocess. It's the idea that you cannot commit an act against nature, because by definiation nature encompasses everything under the sun.

What the ID people try to say about Mt. Rushmore is that you see it, and you know it had to be made by a thinking intelligence, in this case man. I am saying that they are thinking way to short term. If you have several billion years of natrual selection, eventually ending up with an intelligence like man, then Mt. Rushmore is, indirectly, the result of a natural process.

Lets see...
Natural selection is when humans pick 2 of the strongest creatures from a species and breed them together until only creatures that are stronger are in the species. Man never did it on themselves. Therefor, man cannot perform natural selection on themselves or we'd be rid of all genetic diseases by now such as Cystic Fibrosis, Down sydrome, etc.

Artificial(www.dictionary.com - source):
Made by humans; produced rather than natural

Mount rushmore is made by humans.
Your trying to say that all things are natural because they start from something natural.
What about machinery? The materials (metals and oils) in machines are all natural, but they are put together to make a working machine by man, therefor making it artificial. But your saying that machines are natural seeing as they origionated in nature in some sort of way.

Evolution (www.dictionary.com - source):
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Your saying it's about diversity, when the defention is if it becomes better, it replaces the weaker form of it's species to that the species can be stronger and survive better (survival of the fittest to be precise).

Also, the thinking intelligence bit, your saying that there is more to life by being created by a higher form, in your example you are also saying that Mount Rushmore had more intelligence behind it than making something to celebrate the former presidents of USA.

...Explain?

What you are referring to is breeding - when humans decide which animals will mate, and will breed animals to try to get a result that is desirable to the humans. Natural selection is what occurs in the wild. For example, human cattle breeders have decided that what they want from cattle is a lot of meat and a docile animal, so they select the largest and most tame animals, and breed them, trying to get animals that are larger and tamer then the last generation.

Natural selction is what happens in the wild. There a docile meaty animial is more likely to be killed by predators, therefore it is less likey to have offspring, and it's not going to pass on it's genes. A lean aggressive animal, in this case, is going to be more likely to survive in the wild.

Now, as to the whole replacement thing, it's a common misconception that evolution means that things improve and replace the old. That does happen sometimes, but not always.

Let's take fish, for example. Let's say we are way back, millions of years ago, and the highest form of life on earth is fish. Let's say that one of those fish has a genetic mutation that allows it to live outside of water for a short period of time. That fish is going to have an improved chance of survival, because if it's being pursued by a predator, it has an option that other fish don't - it can flop itself onto land, escape the predator, and then flop back into the water five minutes later when the predator has gone, or eaten another, normal fish. Because this fish has an increased chance of survial, it's going to pass it's genes on to its offspring, including the ability to flop ontot land. Over millions of years, that fish's offspring will get better at flopping onto land - maybe one of the offspring has mutates to stay on land longer, and one of that fish's offspring develops fins that allow it to crawl around on land, like a lungfish. Eventually, over millions of years, the fishes offsprin cease to live in the water at all. They have gotten so good at breathing air and crawling around on the land that they don't go back into the water - there aren't any predators on the land, so it's a pretty sweet place to live.

Now, this doesn't mean that all fish are now replaced by the land-fish. There are still plenty of fish that live in the water, and are regular old fish. In fact, not the descendants of the flopping fish aren't even going to interbreed with regular old fish - they have splintered off into a new species that live on land. Evolution does not mean replacement of the old - it just means that there is adaptation to circumstances. Sometimes that means an old species may die out, but more often it means that a new species move on to a new environment, and leave the old one behind, still just as viable as it was.

And actually, mankind does do a LOT do avoid natural selection these days - but because we are, generally, moral, most of it actually works at odds with the rules of natural selection. THe genetic diseases that you mention are actually more common now than in the past because we now intervene in the natural selection rpcess. People with diseases that would normally kill them before they had the opportunity to breed now do live to adulthood, and pass on their genes - including any that result in genetic diseases.

As far as the Mt. Rushmore thing goes, it was sort of a joke. Obviously Mt. Rushmore was made by humans, for the specific purpose of honoring four presidents. My point is that while Intelligent Design claims that when you see Mt. Rushmore, it's obvious that it had to be created by intelligent creatures using tools. They then claim that because human physiology is WAY more complex than Mt. Rushmore, it's obvious that it could only be the result of an intelligent effort by some guiding force - maybe aliens, maybe god.

My point is that yes, Mt. Rushmore is the results of an intelligent force. But Intelligent design is only paying attention to the 14 years that were spent making the monument. If you take the standpoint of evolution, that monument is the result of a billion years of adaptation and natural selection to get to the intelligent beings that did that carving.

If you take the Intelligent Design standpoint and apply it to Mt. Rushmore, all they can say is that Mt. Rushmore is too complex to have just happened, so it had to be made by an intelligence. When asked how that intelligence came to be, they shrug and say "we don't know", and have no scientific theory that can explain how the creators on the monument came into being.

Which is funny, what they are saying is that the creation is too complex not to have a creator, but they have no way of explaining how the obviously even more complex creator was created.

Evolution/natural selection does - it just works on a timescale that they are unable, or unwilling to grasp, and there is evidence of it all around us.

I'd reccomend reading some of the work of Stephen Jay Gould, which give a very good overview (I would say Richard Dawkins too, but he's a bit of an asshole). Then compare it the work major Intelligent Design advocate Michael J. Behe. Behe has no answers, no theories, he just says "I can't see it happening by accident". Which of course, ignores the fact that it's not an accident- it's the accumulation of millions of accidents that add up...

"Let's take fish, for example. Let's say we are way back, millions of years ago, and the highest form of life on earth is fish. Let's say that one of those fish has a genetic mutation that allows it to live outside of water for a short period of time. That fish is going to have an improved chance of survival, because if it's being pursued by a predator, it has an option that other fish don't - it can flop itself onto land, escape the predator, and then flop back into the water five minutes later when the predator has gone, or eaten another, normal fish. Because this fish has an increased chance of survial, it's going to pass it's genes on to its offspring, including the ability to flop ontot land. Over millions of years, that fish's offspring will get better at flopping onto land - maybe one of the offspring has mutates to stay on land longer, and one of that fish's offspring develops fins that allow it to crawl around on land, like a lungfish. Eventually, over millions of years, the fishes offsprin cease to live in the water at all. They have gotten so good at breathing air and crawling around on the land that they don't go back into the water - there aren't any predators on the land, so it's a pretty sweet place to live."

Lmao. What do you think happens to the fish which don't adapt? They die either by getting killed or just die of "old age", as it were... soooo.. the new ones are the only ones left. They say 40,000 years is how long humans have been human? Considering how vicious and hungry humans are/were, requiring shit loads of energy, monkeys would be an easy kill and thus should of died. Not to mention all the lions, etc. who would shit their kecks at the sight of a human... then wander off to the "come eat a monkey which can't escape or kill you" bar ...

Anyways. There's no guarantee that monkeys would of died, but it's more likely (I suppose)

"Natural selection is what occurs in the wild. For example, human cattle breeders have decided that what they want from cattle is a lot of meat and a docile animal, so they select the largest and most tame animals, and breed them, trying to get animals that are larger and tamer then the last generation."

And...


"Natural selction is what happens in the wild. There a docile meaty animial is more likely to be killed by predators, therefore it is less likey to have offspring, and it's not going to pass on it's genes. A lean aggressive animal, in this case, is going to be more likely to survive in the wild."

May want to read over them - you contradicted yourself.

Leave a comment

OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID
Powered by Movable Type 5.04

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by edgore published on December 19, 2004 11:31 PM.

Cult site is up was the previous entry in this blog.

We've moved is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.