h a l f b a k e r yThese statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The book "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological
Origin" is way too confusing. There needs to be a dumbed-down
explanation of this intelligent design theory without all the
scientific mumbo jumbo. I think that the demand for a book on this
subject, written in the "Complete Idiot's
Guide" format, would be
overwhelming and would help the company to break into the required
school text arena.
Idiots Guide Series
http://www.idiotsguides.com
Not sure how well known these books are outside of the US [kaeru, Sep 26 2005]
One favorite
http://mitpress.mit...sp?tid=5393&ttype=2
Donald Norman does a great job here. [bristolz, Sep 26 2005]
2 Pandas
http://animal.disco...cams/pandavidr.html
[po, Sep 26 2005]
FSM
http://www.venganza.org/index.htm
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has done a fairly good job at this, including a simple graph that relates global warming to a decrease in pirate populations. Ok, it's Flying Spaghetti Monsterism instead of Intellegent Design, but it's close enough. [Worldgineer, Sep 26 2005]
baa ram ewe
http://www.angelfir.../movies/b/babe.html
[po, Sep 26 2005]
Intelligent Design on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.../Intelligent_design
I trust the wikipedia can be considered a neutral and reliable source of information [zen_tom, Sep 27 2005]
The 'Intelligent Design' Hoax
http://www.textbookleague.org/id-hx-1.htm
[ConsulFlaminicus, Oct 18 2005]
Tai Shan
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9727644/
[Shz, Oct 18 2005]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Complete idiots already understand the intelligent design nonsense perfectly. |
|
| |
//help the company to break into the required school text arena// That's child abuse you bastard - of the worst kind. |
|
| |
As opposed to the not so bad kinds of child abuse [CF]?
The Idiot's guide books are pretty well known in most of the developed world as far as I've seen. |
|
| |
"There are two fundamental approaches to solving the mystery of our existence. Firstly, we can observe the universe around us and attempt to resolve what we see into a coherent and explicable system. Unfortunately, there are parts of the puzzle that will forever be unknowable and will place absolute limits on our knowledge. |
|
| |
"This brings us to the second approach: we can give up the investigation into what is around us and say "God made it." This avoids the rather difficult business of thinking and provides a simple explanation for everything, even the unknowable." |
|
| |
Seriously, this could be a great and informative book. |
|
| |
I'd prefer it if this book
also convinced its readers to
wear distinguishing marks.
That would make it easier for
the rest of the world to avoid
listening to these ejits (by
whacking them with a
clue-by-four before they open
their mouths?).
Next: Holiday resorts for
ID/creationists where they
will be protected from
constant laughter. |
|
| |
Wait, this is not a guide to how to build more ergonomic appliances? |
|
| |
Not about faster, niftier, RPG or business software? |
|
| |
As this limited sampling suggests, those who least understand the concept would also be least likely to read the book. I think also that it would be counterproductive to take a concept, the main criticism of which is that it is "unscientific," and bolster that criticism by putting out an "idiot's guide." |
|
| |
efarns has it right. The topic seems to be best at drawing out the most closed-minded on both sides that each assume the Idiot's Guide is written for the other side. |
|
| |
Hehehe [po], just can’t stay away from the panda cam, can ya? |
|
| |
no, they might actually be awake and running about one day |
|
| |
<munches bamboo nonchalently></mmm bamboo> |
|
| |
What [UB] said (with such concision). |
|
| |
Would someone be kind enough to expand on the Intelligent Design theory for me? |
|
| |
I checked the links, and found a lot of propaganda and politicking, but no actual description of the idea beyond (paraphrasing) "We can't prove evolution is how things work, therefore God must have done it." |
|
| |
I welcome the challenging of accepted ideas, but I'd prefer to see a better argument. |
|
| |
There again, I read the atheist Pope's "The Blind Watchmaker", and rather enjoyed it. He did a rather good job of overturning Rev. William Paley's assertion that complexity proves the existence of an intelligent creator. |
|
| |
Has Intelligent Design moved on since 1802, if so, then what is new, and if not, what are the most salient points? |
|
| |
[fqhwgads] My understanding of this issue is that ID
is a slick ploy to undermine separation of church and state and that
it has nothing to do with the debate going on in the scientific
community. My stab was at the people who wish to have their biology
lessons dictated by politicians and special interest groups. I am
sorry for the name calling, though. My mother taught me better than
that. |
|
| |
I think ID has to do with the meaning of the word "design"
and the connection of the past with the future and how
certain you can be that shit doesn't get really really
weird out there beyond where we can think with very
much certainty. I think the scientists finally got their shit
together enough to think out far enough to realize that
shit doesn't hold together forever no matter how you look
at it and thus leaves a cranny for ID to slip back in again. |
|
| |
Thank you for that eloquent description, [Jesus]. |
|
| |
I'm curious why ID is attacking evolution -- after all, the fact that organisms undergo evolutionary change is evident from the common cold. |
|
| |
But the "origin of life" question is difficult to answer via evolution, so it seems that rather than challenging physically provable evolutionary facts, it would be more profitable to challenge the -- so far -- unprovable assertions that life started from lightning and some amino acides, clay matrixes, crystals, or panspermia, which is god-in-the-machine by a different name. |
|
| |
An intelligent designer would have included evolution in his/her/its toolbox. |
|
| |
My devil is the devil of Devil's Advocate, UB. Shauvian or Pacinian. |
|
| |
I'll write the guide for you here and now ... |
|
| |
What is the universe? God's creation.
Why was the universe created? It is part of God's plan.
When was the universe created? Only God knows.
Who created the universe? God.
How was the universe created? By God's supreme power. |
|
| |
That's all there is to it - and I'm not being insulting to people who believe in ID. The less you know, the more you know about ID. The more you know about evolution the less you feel you know (the more questions you have) |
|
| |
Maybe that's the real difference. There are people who seek answers ... and there are people who seek questions. From the count of the fishbones, I'd say halfbakers generaly seek questions. |
|
| |
God is directed evolution from the very start, a molding of energy in some extreme quantum phase into the pits of free energy, thermodynamically at first, until some of the lowest free energy arrangements were able to replicate themselves. Enter evolution. A process of organization that took a very long time until it spawned a system (the biota) capable of harnessing free energy and releasing it on a large scale. Enter homo sapiens. A subset of that system that seems to harness a well approximated reconstruction of the system as a whole using a massive parallel processing unit; the brain. Its all the same though; its all directed. A favoritism of one arrangement over another. |
|
| |
Did anyone else notice that jesus seems to be against ID, he also used the word "shit" 3 times in his anno.
That was unexpected. |
|
| |
Thankyou for elaborating [Pa've]. If ID is really just saying "God kicked stuff off with the big bang and then let things run their course" and is not creationism under a different name, I may have to change my stance on ID. That seems just as reasonable as "We'll never know why the big bang happened so don't bother asking". If god is just the intent behind the big bang then it fulfills my criteria for a god anyway: unknowable, creator of all, supreme power and all that. Of course it's still only faith, which is alright so long as you don't try to prove it using silly-logic. |
|
| |
I would like to read up on those links but I have to go to hell now (down the A12). |
|
| |
[fghwgadds], at no point does the author presume that intelligent design is accurate, it merely presumes that there is a theory of intelligent design, which there is. |
|
| |
However this idea does stray close to advocacy, i suspect inadvertantly. It seems that people have decided to make a theological debate out of this. |
|
| |
Hey [po]! The baby is awake! |
|
| |
thanks for the alert Shz. I love the panda cam! |
|
| |
if you go to San Diego zoo panda cam, the baby was awake and feeding a couple minutes ago. 11:30 am EST |
|
| |
Yes, I expected [jezusHchrist] to say shit at least four or five times, just goes to show I guess. |
|
| |
I would like this book. I don't believe in god, not in ID and not in the theory of evolution. Where does that leave me? I haven't the foggiest. |
|
| |
[Ixnaum] ID is based on circular reasoning:
Created fact (= assumption to say it mildly):
"There is a god."
"Now lets prove there is a god by taking this watch and view it all in a godlike way" |
|
| |
Here's another:
"I believe the state is checking on me."
"See how that person is eyeballing me?!" |
|
| |
You say "there is a god". I say: Prove it.
You say "god created all". I say: Prove it.
|
|
| |
So far all the evidence I have seen on "God" is a nice book to read before sleeping and a lot of wars. |
|
| |
Yeah so anyone else got a joke we can butcher? |
|
| |
God walks into a bar and orders a martini. The bartender looks up and asks him how he would like it. |
|
| |
"Yeeahh, I wan't it all shook up!" |
|
| |
I'd like to promote "Rather Lamebrained Design" as a theory. I mean, come on, how many bits of DNA are we carrying around that basically serve no purpose? |
|
| |
Then there's the whole genital/urinary tract crossover debarcle. |
|
| |
And of course, no tails for all. |
|
| |
You're right. The HB has a good thousand logical improvements to the human body. Controlled bioluminescence alone would solve obesity and bumping into things in the dark. |
|
| |
There simply isn't a mirror large enough. |
|
| |
[fqhwgads] seperation of state and church does exist. It means the governing power is in the hands of the government and the religous power is in the hands of the church. |
|
| |
The government makes sure everyone is thaught about the mundane life. Church makes sure believers are taught about the religous life. |
|
| |
By no means does the government forbid that children are taught the beliefs of their parents. You can send your child to Temple and have him/her learn all the ways that you think things are. |
|
| |
It is when those children start asking questions (and usually about the differences between school lessons and Torah lessons) that parents are usually at a loss for answers. If parents would simply answer "this is what I believe and that is what they believe" the child could truly choose for itself. But usually it is "this is how it is, and what you are taught at school is nonsense". |
|
| |
Those who oppose the teaching of the evolution theory do not want to be treated equal (in that their views are ALSO taught), they want to be able to teach ONLY about their views. If 'they' were so firm in 'their' beliefs, 'they' wouldn't have to worry about their children to make the right choice. |
|
| |
And on a more personal note:
I do think some of the conclusions science makes based on the found 'evidence' is laughable at the mildest. But I do know that science allows for an open mind and changes its views over and over again. Church does not. It has a book that has all the answers, the stories never change and church frequently points to god as the one making all the decisions and leaves us mortals unresponsable for all our actions and the way they affect others. |
|
| |
Obviously I cannot judge the books Americans use (or any other nation for that matter except Dutch). |
|
| |
What is this 'Bogus' evidence you are speaking of?
Here we are taught that life evolved naturally. By what string specificly is, as of yet, not known but research is still being done and hypothesis are being tested. The way you describe it, it seems to me that the problems lie in old books |
|
| |
And I think we should think of religion in the ideal-sense and science in the real-world sense. |
|
| |
I cant believe this is even an issue. |
|
| |
Panda aside. Why is this back up? Do you really believe that you will convert people with that link. It just seems to prove how closed minded people can be. This is one of my preferred debates simply because it involves two flawed arguments pointing out each other's flaws. I wouldn't recommend use of the "Complete Idiot" bit, but anything that could inform people on the subject from a neutral perspective is good. Very much like [zen_tom]'s Wikipedia link. |
|
| |
Seems to be a bit of a pointless debate. |
|
| |
Chill, agree to disagree, and get on with it. |
|
| |
I for one am glad this debate is here, otherwise I wouldn't have really looked into what ID is or purports to be. At least now I have some understanding of what it's all about. |
|
| |
I can say the same about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well. |
|
| |
I believe the technical term for that is Pastafarianism [wagster]. |
|
| |