Comments: Survival of the Fittest / Intelligent Design

Comments

No, it's not. But the problem with that is that the ID proponents would want those ideas in the school even less than the scientific community, as it would marginalize their *religious* belief. I believe those ideas SHOULD be there... but in religion class, for the same reason that in Physics class you should teach gravity (just another theory) and not flat-earth suppositions or about angels pushing apples down to the earth.

Science is "only open to change mediated on its own terms and through its own system." Well... yeah, no kidding. Why is this a problem? Science is a *method*, a process for determining the validity of theories based on observable and reproducible results. It makes perfect sense that changes would only be accepted if they were reproducible or observable. The priesthood is open to all, if they'd bother to think critically for once - or are all those cross-referenced journals of experimental results at the library just furniture store styro-books?

I haven't heard many coherent arguments for keeping ID out of schools, but I do think it should be kept out of the science curriculum, because its core punt ("this is too complicated, therefore the wizard made it") is inherently unquestioning and unscientific. This judo only works on the flabby and unfit.

Intellectual judo? Nah, intellectual junk. 'Intelligent design' is attractive because it appeals to the same latent demographic as the Fortean Times: people who want to believe in the gaps. It's also parasitic, because it depends entirely upon the scientific honesty of evolutionary biologists.

Oh, and on the necessity of teaching teenagers a certain amount of bullshit: something that applies in pretty much every subject.

I say, teach 'ID': with a copy of Hume's 'Dialogues concerning natural religion'.

ID and creationism can be taught as a prelude to discussing the scientific dimensions of evolution and what's known so far and what's still in question--what's wonderful about the scientific method is that it's predicated on questions.

But Genesis should be set in context by adding Egyptian, Hindu, Greek, Yoruba, Hopi, Chinese, Mohawk, Congolese, Maya, Australian, Balinese, Aztec, Norse, etc., etc., etc. ideas of the creation of the universe. The children of people who think the Biblical idea of creation is the only possible one are exactly the ones who need to be reminded that people have come up with all sorts of beautiful and imaginative concepts of the origins of life and cosmos.

If the ideas that people believe were themselves "intelligently designed" so as to be purely beneficial to to those who believed in them, then sure, let them teach ID in science class and may the most intelligently designed ideas win.

But ideas, like genes, propogate based solely on how well they're able to be copied. And so even as we inherit bad genes that can copy themselves well, intelligent design is an idea that can spread regardless of scientific value (of which it has almost none). Teaching it in school will just further promote an otherwise useless idea.

Saying that someone designed something, out of lack of imagination (not that you need much imagination if you look at the evidence) that it can happen naturally is not a scietific theory, and saying it to students in a classroom won't contribute anything to their science education.

Margaret Thatcher started this, in the modern era. She invented the 'stupidity judo', by which dumb ideas will chase out clever ideas because they are easier to understand.

But its a very dangerous problem, no matter how lightly we put it.

So-called intelligent design proponents are blinded by ideological zeal. They fail to see that their "logic" can lead to alternative explanations that don't involve their deity.

What would these proponents say if one day an extraterrestrial race of beings showed up in orbit and produced incontrovertable proof that they were the ones who designed and created life on Earth, including humans? Would these zealots abandon their deity worship and begin to worship these aliens as deities? Call me naive, but somehow I doubt they would.

"Intelligent Design" is not science. It does not conform to the methodology of science. As Michal said above, "...therefore the wizard made it" is not science.


Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa."
Favor.
And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.


The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.


Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management –
3. Mafia (evil) aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere ("On planets where they approved evil.")

Then we come to terrestrial management:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

Survival of the favored.


Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1986 James Bond View to a Kill – 1989 San Fransisco Loma Prieta earthquake.


Journal: 10 composition books + 39 megs of text files