Comments for Pooyie 06.22.2011 at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 16 out of 16 comments http://www.theind.com Tue, 21 May 2013 18:42:25 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19563 First, Einstein's quote was not about evolution or intelligent design. It was about quantum mechanics. Not that it is at all relevant, but it turned out that he was wrong on that count, as he eventually admitted. Second, the only nobel laureates you should cite to on this issue are biologists & biochemists. Physicists don't know much about anything except physics. Third, I love it when people who know nothing about science act like they do, so please continue with your postings! - db Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:25:13 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19343 @ragin_cajun When I read down there in the interview, I found Prof. Townes said "People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view." - Tom_Li Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:14:45 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19309 Dudley, putting capital letters on "theory of intelligent design" does not make it any more legitimate. It's not a theory. ID has been shown to be unscientific; its premise of "irreducible complexity" has no scientific basis. Therefore it cannot and should not be taught in the science classroom. Proponents are trying to circumvent this fact by going through the legislature and appealing to fervent Christians with pretzel logic. - Resident Fri, 01 Jul 2011 20:42:23 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19239 Hey 'Resident,' you're exaggerating, and 'Rajun Cajun,' I don't think allowing the board of a school district or the Representatives of a state to vote on whether or not to teach or not teach intelligent design alongside evolution will lead to tyranny and chaos. By 'public vote' I mean via the current system of representation. Maybe I should have clarified. Besides, the issue was whether or not to include the Theory of Intelligent Design alongside Evolution, not a vote on deciding which one would be taught. Chill! - Dudley E. LaBauve, III Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:41:29 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19119 "Subjecting major foundations of science to "a public vote" would be asinine. " Yep. Unlimmited democracy leads to tyrrany and chaos. Framers of the Constitution were terrified of that. - ragin_cajun Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:03:09 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19096 Dudley, if the majority of the public wants to teach bloodletting as an alternative to cancer treatment, would that be OK? Or teach that a black hole is a concentration of the devil's power, instead of a super-compact mass? Or how about shifting continents being a result of a 40 day flood, instead of plate tectonics? Point is, we have fields of knowledge that are built over decades and centuries by experts who dedicate themselves to that particular field of knowledge. The principles that are taught in the classroom should be formed by experts in the field. Subjecting major foundations of science to "a public vote" would be asinine. - Resident Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:20:01 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19095 Also, Charles Townes. I like his take on the whole debate a lot. http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml - ragin_cajun Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:56:35 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19080 If the majority of the public wants/does not want 'intelligent design' to be taught alongside 'evolution,' then, so be it. Maybe each state, or each school district can just vote on it every few years. I assure you, the textbook publishers will have the book you need. The rest is up to the parents to explain their position to their kids. - Dudley E. LaBauve, III Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:59:05 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19073 Hehe, late to the comments here but Rabid Realist certainly sewed that one up. - Resident Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:29:45 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19035 "Intelligent Design" is the creation of pagan Aristotle. - reader Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:46:29 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19005 Also Arthur Compton.... - ragin_cajun Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:35:59 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-19001 Einstein was also wrong about quantum mechanics. How about George Wald? - ragin_cajun Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:12:49 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-18990 OK, if you want to engage - Einstein was talking quantum mechanics, not about evolution. That was your connection, not his. "Intelligent Design" as promoted as an alternative to biological evolution, with its concepts of "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" has nothing to do with quantum physics. By definition, ID says a supernatural designer intervened in the natural mechanisms of chemistry and biology to explicitly make DNA, to make certain features like the bacterial flagellum. Now, let's see what Einstein thought of a god that tinkers with nature: "The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events — provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion." He believed so strongly in causation in nature that he rejected the concept of human free will. Too bad we can't ask ol' Albert whether he accepts that all live on Earth, including humans, evolved through natural means. Because if we could ask him, I'd bet you a LOT of money on his answer. - Rabid Realist Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:40:57 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-18966 " Bachman made an off-hand reference to Nobel laureates having doubts about evolution in 2006, a claim challenged by recent Louisiana high school graduate" Actually, this line states "the real question". I think public discussion of issues like this would be greatly improved if we could have the discipline to discuss one thing at a time. It seems every comment here is either expanding or changing the entire debate. Einstein is a giant in the pantheon of Nobel Prize winners. He obviously thought, and publicly stated, that there was some order to the universe that could not be explained entirely by biological evolution. Is that not what the high schooler and the editor asked the politician? I have an answer. - ragin_cajun Thu, 23 Jun 2011 06:13:31 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-18954 The real question is: can you name a single scientist or author of books promoting "Intelligent Design" that isn't a senior fellow of the hyper-conservative political lobbying organization The Discovery Institute? Meyer, Behe, Wells, Dembski, Denton... all the big names are officers of the same little organization behind a nondescript steel dorr in Seattle. Doesn't that trigger a warning for anybody? It's like in the 60s, when the only scientists claiming smoking was healthy worked for tobacco companies. Intelligent Design is a marketing campaign, and a good one too considering how many people think that Intelligent Design has something to do with science. Interesting that the Discovery Institute is funded by hyper-conservative Christian creationists who don't give a rodent's rear about science. Don't take my word for it - google the names above as well as "Wedge Strategy", "Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr." for yourself. - Rabid Realist Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:18:15 +0100 http://www.theind.com/pooyie/8536-pooyie-06222011#comment-18940 I literally could NOT care less about the ID/Evolution debate.....and I don't go around with a list of Nobel Prize winners in my head in case some rabid leftist challenges me on this whole stupid issue....BUT...Albert Einstein does cone to mind..."God does not play dice"... - ragin_cajun Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:28:04 +0100