INTELLIGENT DESIGN FAILS THE KISS TEST
This Post Was Updated to Reflect the Decision by Judge Jones' December 20, 2005 Opinion excoriating the Stealth-Creationists for lying about their motives. A PDF of that opinion is attached directly below.
[quote="The Original Post“]The ACLU is putting the latest version of Creationism, aka ”Intelligent Design,“ on trial starting Monday September 26, 2005 in a Pennsylvania courthouse. Opening statements start tomorrow.
The ACLU is suing because the school district in Harrisburg adopted a rule that Dover High School had to ”teach intelligent design“ as an alternative to Natural Selection.
This is somewhat similar to requiring teachers in Driver's Ed to teach students that, although most people think it's wise to drive safely, while sober and calm, that some people find driving recklessly, while taking meth, or in a constant state of road rage, is perfectly effective. Truck drivers, Air Force pilots and New York cabbies would have to be brought in as evidence that you can even hold down a job with this behavior.
We don't do that, because it would be irresponsible, and would plant stupid ideas in their head about how we drive. Similarly, teaching Creationism under any name will plant stupid ideas in a kid's mind about how we do science.
We don't do science by reasoning backward from our chosen conclusion, then selectively identify ”evidence," pull it out of context, and project a fantasy of a theory that might somehow be supportable, if all of the other evidence weren't against it. That's not science, because science is a method that leads to further discoveries. Science outdates its old theories. The best way to identify good science is when it nullifies or forces radical modifications to its own prior conclusions. This will never happen with Creationism, because its purpose is to bulwark faith with pseudo-logic for those ashamed to stand naked in their absurd faith.
This is too bad, because the main benefit of believing somethin outlandish is that you develop character from defying the obvious truth. This can lead to the discovery of truth, on occasion, when popular beliefs turn out to be flat wrong, as in the case of Galileo's assertion that the earth is spherical. While it is unlikely that Christians will turn out to be correct about the age of the earth, the origin of life, and the way it all ends, if they want to keep their faith burnished, they will avoid bulwarking it with intellectual sophistry. It all becomes too absurd. The intelligent Christian keeps his mouth shut about how God performed his miracles. If God could engineer a virgin birth, he could do anything. One miracle per religion is enough. Believe and be saved. Disbelieve and go to the eternal pit.
As Science, Intelligent Design is a joke. And as religion, it fails the KISS test: Keep It Simple, Stupid.[/quote]
Let us take a random set of one hundred numerals:Zero to nine. We would be perfectly unsurprised to see two Zeros nestling together in this random set,(...654987778543006553545329...) with a set of a thousand numbers, again we might see three “zeroes” “000” nestling together, or even the dreaded “666”. In fact if there were no such subsets of conjoined integers, we might suspect the whole set was not in fact random, but pseudo-random.
Let us Up the anti, and considder a set of a Google random integers, and for argument ignore how such a vast set might be created. by extension we would expect “?”possibly“?” one subset of one hundred conjoined integers, about ten subsets of 99 zeroes, one hundred 98“zeroes, a thousand subsets 0f 97 zeroes, and so on.
This argument was derided when some wit stated that if you gave enough monkeys, sufficient time, and provided sufficient Typewriters they would eventually compose the Complete Works of Shakespeare. ” To Be... or Not to BE... THAT IS THE ZXUEhYt677%^6“ a failed attempt.
For Those interested you can now search for your name and address located in the Transcendental Constant Pi. as it is being calculated in 64 bits, so includes the numerals and lower & upper case Alphabet.
This is all in the nature of Chaos.and mysteriousley you dont seem to be able to get more Chaotic than Pi.
Let us now take a flight of fancy, and Mathematicians are so licenced to do. It still has Scientific relevance. Let us take an even bigger set, sayn Ten to the power of Ten to the power or ten. TEN TEN TEN. or One followed by ten billion zeroes. Big to us, but very small compared to infinity, if such a thing exists.
We are confronted with a random set so large that in 64 bit notation, just about every work of fact and fiction is transcribed within, allong with millions of sets of multy million enless zeroes. endless ones and so forth. In fact smallish subsets of near perfection exist within the ”Chaos“.....
Let us Change the subject,
Sony are experimenting with Ultrasound in an attempt to stimulate the visual and other perceptory cortexs of the brain. one product to come from this ongoing research might be a pair of spectacles with two small cameras in the frame. so that blind folk might have a crude vision. Those who remember the first Computer Game ”PONG" a bouncing ball and a bat. Think how far we have come. Given a few Decades, it may be possible technically to create artificial Virtual Reality, that effectively is indistinguishable from Actual reality.
Would it be so boring that it made you fall asleep I often wonder......
And going back to my first subject would the instruction manual allready be printed millions of times in the Ten Ten Ten RANDOM SET? in ALL KNOWN LANGUAGES?
BestRegards Everyone.
Very nicely expressed ... I'll imagine that next time I tire of counting sheep
:) Chas
ID is a philosophical concept. ID is not Science, in the strict sence. Faith and Hope are permitted in the Science Lab, but 'Worship' is frowned upon. A mathemetician will point out that somewhere or other it is highly probable that a Science Teacher also teaches Religeon in the same School. As long as ID is taught in the Theological Class and not in the Science Class, I see no problem with that. I suspect it would be encumbent upon such a Teacher to clarify that ID was NOT Science to his students. If I was that Dual-Teacher and one of my students asked about ID in the Science Class, I think I might respond, " in this Classroom,'ID' stands for 'Infinite Doubt', that is the bedrock of science. Here we even doubt the existence of 'Infinity', but please don't tell the maths teacher that I said so.
[quote="The Original Post“]The ACLU is putting the latest version of Creationism, aka ”Intelligent Design,“ on trial starting Monday September 26, 2005 in a Pennsylvania courthouse. Opening statements start tomorrow.
The ACLU is suing because the school district in Harrisburg adopted a rule that Dover High School had to ”teach intelligent design“ as an alternative to Natural Selection.
This is somewhat similar to requiring teachers in Driver's Ed to teach students that, although most people think it's wise to drive safely, while sober and calm, that some people find driving recklessly, while taking meth, or in a constant state of road rage, is perfectly effective. Truck drivers, Air Force pilots and New York cabbies would have to be brought in as evidence that you can even hold down a job with this behavior.
We don't do that, because it would be irresponsible, and would plant stupid ideas in their head about how we drive. Similarly, teaching Creationism under any name will plant stupid ideas in a kid's mind about how we do science.
We don't do science by reasoning backward from our chosen conclusion, then selectively identify ”evidence," pull it out of context, and project a fantasy of a theory that might somehow be supportable, if all of the other evidence weren't against it. That's not science, because science is a method that leads to further discoveries. Science outdates its old theories. The best way to identify good science is when it nullifies or forces radical modifications to its own prior conclusions. This will never happen with Creationism, because its purpose is to bulwark faith with pseudo-logic for those ashamed to stand naked in their absurd faith.
This is too bad, because the main benefit of believing somethin outlandish is that you develop character from defying the obvious truth. This can lead to the discovery of truth, on occasion, when popular beliefs turn out to be flat wrong, as in the case of Galileo's assertion that the earth is spherical. While it is unlikely that Christians will turn out to be correct about the age of the earth, the origin of life, and the way it all ends, if they want to keep their faith burnished, they will avoid bulwarking it with intellectual sophistry. It all becomes too absurd. The intelligent Christian keeps his mouth shut about how God performed his miracles. If God could engineer a virgin birth, he could do anything. One miracle per religion is enough. Believe and be saved. Disbelieve and go to the eternal pit.
As Science, Intelligent Design is a joke. And as religion, it fails the KISS test: Keep It Simple, Stupid.[/quote]
» Click here to download USDC.ID.pdf.
KISS AND TELL?
Or rather Kiss and Tally.Let us take a random set of one hundred numerals:Zero to nine. We would be perfectly unsurprised to see two Zeros nestling together in this random set,(...654987778543006553545329...) with a set of a thousand numbers, again we might see three “zeroes” “000” nestling together, or even the dreaded “666”. In fact if there were no such subsets of conjoined integers, we might suspect the whole set was not in fact random, but pseudo-random.
Let us Up the anti, and considder a set of a Google random integers, and for argument ignore how such a vast set might be created. by extension we would expect “?”possibly“?” one subset of one hundred conjoined integers, about ten subsets of 99 zeroes, one hundred 98“zeroes, a thousand subsets 0f 97 zeroes, and so on.
This argument was derided when some wit stated that if you gave enough monkeys, sufficient time, and provided sufficient Typewriters they would eventually compose the Complete Works of Shakespeare. ” To Be... or Not to BE... THAT IS THE ZXUEhYt677%^6“ a failed attempt.
For Those interested you can now search for your name and address located in the Transcendental Constant Pi. as it is being calculated in 64 bits, so includes the numerals and lower & upper case Alphabet.
This is all in the nature of Chaos.and mysteriousley you dont seem to be able to get more Chaotic than Pi.
Let us now take a flight of fancy, and Mathematicians are so licenced to do. It still has Scientific relevance. Let us take an even bigger set, sayn Ten to the power of Ten to the power or ten. TEN TEN TEN. or One followed by ten billion zeroes. Big to us, but very small compared to infinity, if such a thing exists.
We are confronted with a random set so large that in 64 bit notation, just about every work of fact and fiction is transcribed within, allong with millions of sets of multy million enless zeroes. endless ones and so forth. In fact smallish subsets of near perfection exist within the ”Chaos“.....
Let us Change the subject,
Sony are experimenting with Ultrasound in an attempt to stimulate the visual and other perceptory cortexs of the brain. one product to come from this ongoing research might be a pair of spectacles with two small cameras in the frame. so that blind folk might have a crude vision. Those who remember the first Computer Game ”PONG" a bouncing ball and a bat. Think how far we have come. Given a few Decades, it may be possible technically to create artificial Virtual Reality, that effectively is indistinguishable from Actual reality.
Would it be so boring that it made you fall asleep I often wonder......
And going back to my first subject would the instruction manual allready be printed millions of times in the Ten Ten Ten RANDOM SET? in ALL KNOWN LANGUAGES?
BestRegards Everyone.
: INTELLIGENT DESIGN FAILS THE KISS TEST
We are confronted with a random set so large that in 64 bit notation, just about every work of fact and fiction is transcribed within, allong with millions of sets of multy million enless zeroes. endless ones and so forth. In fact smallish subsets of near perfection exist within the “Chaos”.....
Very nicely expressed ... I'll imagine that next time I tire of counting sheep
:) Chas
Is There A Federal Mandate to Teach ID?
Attached is a PDF of a 13-page paper on this topic by the National Science Education group, indicating that teaching religion as science is a Bush-administration culture-hijacking-in-progress.» Click here to download FED.STEALTH.ID.PROG.pdf.
Santorum Amendment
Read the FED.STEALTH.PROG.pdf and it is clear that Congress rejected the wording of the Senator Rick Santorum Amendment, after giving it all due consideration. There is no mandate to teach ID in the American science classroom.ID is a philosophical concept. ID is not Science, in the strict sence. Faith and Hope are permitted in the Science Lab, but 'Worship' is frowned upon. A mathemetician will point out that somewhere or other it is highly probable that a Science Teacher also teaches Religeon in the same School. As long as ID is taught in the Theological Class and not in the Science Class, I see no problem with that. I suspect it would be encumbent upon such a Teacher to clarify that ID was NOT Science to his students. If I was that Dual-Teacher and one of my students asked about ID in the Science Class, I think I might respond, " in this Classroom,'ID' stands for 'Infinite Doubt', that is the bedrock of science. Here we even doubt the existence of 'Infinity', but please don't tell the maths teacher that I said so.