Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.

[Ebowed]

As soon as you said, "There is nothing to debate," you showed your intolerance.

Wrong as usual.  How is accepting science intolerant?

[J. J.]

As soon as you said, "There is nothing to debate," you showed your intolerance.

Wrong as usual.  How is accepting science intolerant?

Itr isn't, but in reality, you are not accepting science.

Sbame just said that, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."   Okay, I'll ask you, where did the bacteria come from?

[Alcon]

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

I don't understand how this relates to ID.  If God is an "uncreated creator," then not everything needs a cause.  It makes no real sense to assume that there is a "one magical exception."  Logic is axiomatic--if God can be immune to it, why not something else, even non-sentient?  I've been asking that too, for a good long while, and I've been getting no answers. 

Moreover, even if that did makes sense, this doesn't really relate to ID.  There are plenty of hypotheses about the origin of existence.  ID could be included in that discourse.  But when juxtaposed with evolution as an alternative, it should not be; macroevolution and creation are different subjects entirely, and creationism as an opponent to macroevolution has a greater scientific standard than creationism as an opponent to non-theistic creation theories.  The latter is a genuine "currently impossible to know" situation; the former is not.  It is documentable, it is testable, etc.  ID can feel free to compete on that plain when it is those things.

In any case, what's the point of debating untestable theories?  Again, fine with "limits of science"; not really fond of "random guessing with cultural pretexts" in the classroom.

[Ebowed]

Itr isn't, but in reality, you are not accepting science.

Sbame just said that, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."   Okay, I'll ask you, where did the bacteria come from?

I'm not going to play these games - since we aren't sure where the bacteria came from, the only logical, scientific conclusion is that God placed it there?

Grow up.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite right. However, such delicate and complex matters are probably beyond the competence of the bulk of the teachers in secondary schools, sadly, since the place is packed with drones. That is the countervailing consideration.

[J. J.]

Itr isn't, but in reality, you are not accepting science.

Sbame just said that, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."   Okay, I'll ask you, where did the bacteria come from?

I'm not going to play these games - since we aren't sure where the bacteria came from, the only logical, scientific conclusion is that God placed it there?

Grow up.

Or debate, since you disapprove of it.  It's a perfectly fair question, and actually has an experimental answer.  Elbowed, your intolerance is showing.

[Ebowed]

Elbowed, your intolerance is showing.

LOL

People can believe whatever they want to believe about the origin of life.  However, in a science class, only science should be taught.  This is a pretty simple concept.

So, Jfraud, how am I "intolerant"?  I'm not forcing you to abandon your religious principles by any means.

[© tweed]

Jfraud

epic

[War on Want]

How the hell am I intolerant? I just said that having a debate on evolution is akin to having a debate on gravity. It's a waste of time. These debates should be left outside the science classroom or conversations with your teacher or professor during your own time, not class time. I also think we should perhaps have religious studies classes where we can compare different creation theories from different cultures and then maybe we will realize that they were all wrong. Hell maybe we are still wrong. But we must use the scientific method to find out and frankly you cannot test creationism or ID since the argument is basically " creatures are too complex to have been created out of nothing". Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing. We can basically find them in any form of habitat and in fact we might be close to discovering some on mars. And when there are enough bacteria of the right type the atmosphere can become oxygenated and more complex life can form from there. So yeah how the f*** am I intolerant?

As soon as you said, "There is nothing to debate," you showed your intolerance.

You'll note that I've just said that I don't agree with my old science teacher who thought liquid water proved God existed.  Some of the debate, as it crept in, gave me the ability to realize that her logic was wrong.  I was better able to evaluate an argument, because I was exposed to one.

Since you said, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."  My next question is "Okay, where did that bacteria come from?"

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

He still isn't being intolerant at all. People like this should not teach evolution if they bring this stuff up and try to teach it in a secular education system. I don't have a problem with it, if they believe in it personally. Do I think it is a very stupid idea and that they need to study the Bible more? Yes but I respect their belief.

[J. J.]

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

I don't understand how this relates to ID.  If God is an "uncreated creator," then not everything needs a cause.  It makes no real sense to assume that there is a "one magical exception."  Logic is axiomatic--if God can be immune to it, why not something else, even non-sentient?  I've been asking that too, for a good long while, and I've been getting no answers. 

The question itself is good thing.  It teaches to think, and it shows are limitations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're capable of asking this question.  Something that separates us from the bacteria, a crustacean, a fish, an amphibian, reptile, a "lesser" mammal.  Even where we have had some cross species communications, some primates with sign language, they are not asking these questions.  Why are we asking it?  

We have several posters here who say, we shouldn't be asking these questions.  I would however define science, broadly, an effort to answer the question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  We divide into numerous small sections of the universe.

Why do we ask that question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  Why are we, alone among species, asking that question?  IIRC, other species both prehistorically and currently, have larger brains, so it's not just a question of humans reaching a critical mass of brain cells.  Did some other, outside intelligence prompt us someway to ask the question?  I don't know, but I have to admit that possibility.

Science, at any rate, is about asking questions.  I do question the tolerance of those people who say, we shouldn't talk about the question, when asked.

[J. J.]

How the hell am I intolerant? I just said that having a debate on evolution is akin to having a debate on gravity. It's a waste of time. These debates should be left outside the science classroom or conversations with your teacher or professor during your own time, not class time. I also think we should perhaps have religious studies classes where we can compare different creation theories from different cultures and then maybe we will realize that they were all wrong. Hell maybe we are still wrong. But we must use the scientific method to find out and frankly you cannot test creationism or ID since the argument is basically " creatures are too complex to have been created out of nothing". Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing. We can basically find them in any form of habitat and in fact we might be close to discovering some on mars. And when there are enough bacteria of the right type the atmosphere can become oxygenated and more complex life can form from there. So yeah how the f*** am I intolerant?

As soon as you said, "There is nothing to debate," you showed your intolerance.

You'll note that I've just said that I don't agree with my old science teacher who thought liquid water proved God existed.  Some of the debate, as it crept in, gave me the ability to realize that her logic was wrong.  I was better able to evaluate an argument, because I was exposed to one.

Since you said, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."  My next question is "Okay, where did that bacteria come from?"

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

He still isn't being intolerant at all. People like this should not teach evolution if they bring this stuff up and try to teach it in a secular education system. I don't have a problem with it, if they believe in it personally. Do I think it is a very stupid idea and that they need to study the Bible more? Yes but I respect their belief.

Where did anyone get the idea that this was a religious belief or something in the Bible?

[Alcon]

(Please see bolded part first )

The question itself is good thing.  It teaches to think, and it shows are limitations.

So, teach limitations.  Why teach theories that do not result from science in a science class?  Because you, and many other Americans, believe them?

What would you feel about students being taught the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It's arbitrary.  It's no more proven than, "things just existed."  Which is fine.  But you're arguing by instinctual assumption, not scientific proof.  And that doesn't belong in a class based on the scientific method.

We're capable of asking this question.  Something that separates us from the bacteria, a crustacean, a fish, an amphibian, reptile, a "lesser" mammal.  Even where we have had some cross species communications, some primates with sign language, they are not asking these questions.  Why are we asking it?

We have several posters here who say, we shouldn't be asking these questions.  I would however define science, broadly, an effort to answer the question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  We divide into numerous small sections of the universe.

Why do we ask that question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  Why are we, alone among species, asking that question?  IIRC, other species both prehistorically and currently, have larger brains, so it's not just a question of humans reaching a critical mass of brain cells.  Did some other, outside intelligence prompt us someway to ask the question?  I don't know, but I have to admit that possibility.

Science, at any rate, is about asking questions.  I do question the tolerance of those people who say, we shouldn't talk about the question, when asked.

Science is about asking testable questions.  Philosophy is about asking existential questions.  I have no problem with teaching the limitations of science, as I've said.  Teaching a specific idea that explains away something in science's blind spots, because a lot of people believe it, does not make sense.

What does metacognition have to do with intelligent design?  Brain size has little to do with brain function, beyond a certain point.  Are you saying that our brains should work like animals of equal size, but somehow don't, so there's a soul or something?  Whatever you're implying, it's very confusing.

And, again, macroevolution is not incompatible with all forms of creationism, so I don't know why you're arguing like that's the dichotomy, here.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yeah!!!

[J. J.]

(Please see bolded part first )

The question itself is good thing.  It teaches to think, and it shows are limitations.

So, teach limitations.  Why teach theories that do not result from science in a science class?  Because you, and many other Americans, believe them?

Teach that we don't know things.  And then people offer possible explanations

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Great, we who still have questions on how the Flying Spaghetti Monster does things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PAny explanation is arbitrary including science.  Ever hear of piiltdown man?

We're capable of asking this question.  Something that separates us from the bacteria, a crustacean, a fish, an amphibian, reptile, a "lesser" mammal.  Even where we have had some cross species communications, some primates with sign language, they are not asking these questions.  Why are we asking it?

We have several posters here who say, we shouldn't be asking these questions.  I would however define science, broadly, an effort to answer the question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  We divide into numerous small sections of the universe.

Why do we ask that question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  Why are we, alone among species, asking that question?  IIRC, other species both prehistorically and currently, have larger brains, so it's not just a question of humans reaching a critical mass of brain cells.  Did some other, outside intelligence prompt us someway to ask the question?  I don't know, but I have to admit that possibility.

Science, at any rate, is about asking questions.  I do question the tolerance of those people who say, we shouldn't talk about the question, when asked.

Science is about asking testable questions.   I think MUON said that was not the case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But no one is asking to explain science's blind spots; what is effectively being ask is to explain science as a concept.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm saying that there are species, that we can communicate with, that have bigger brains than ours.  Why aren't they[i/] asking the same question?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never claimed that the were incompatible; I asking if were why we ask these questions?

[Sbane]

How the hell am I intolerant? I just said that having a debate on evolution is akin to having a debate on gravity. It's a waste of time. These debates should be left outside the science classroom or conversations with your teacher or professor during your own time, not class time. I also think we should perhaps have religious studies classes where we can compare different creation theories from different cultures and then maybe we will realize that they were all wrong. Hell maybe we are still wrong. But we must use the scientific method to find out and frankly you cannot test creationism or ID since the argument is basically " creatures are too complex to have been created out of nothing". Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing. We can basically find them in any form of habitat and in fact we might be close to discovering some on mars. And when there are enough bacteria of the right type the atmosphere can become oxygenated and more complex life can form from there. So yeah how the f*** am I intolerant?

Since you said, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."  My next question is "Okay, where did that bacteria come from?"

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

Guess what I don't know where that bacteria came from. But since they were here about 3 billion years ago I guess it is a bit hard to find out. And honestly science just does not have the ability to find out but since there might be bacteria on mars, I am guessing there are some floating around the universe perhaps? I don't know what this has to do with ID of course. The problem with ID is that they are not saying "hey we don't know where these bacteria come from or how life was started" but they rather try and argue that since eyes are very complex, we must have been created by someone. Of course seeing is something incredibly important to many species and it makes sense that over hundreds of thousands of years more and more complex optical sensors were created by "mother earth". And these debates can be had in a upper div college course or in philosophy classes, but intro bio classes have a very different purpose. For that intro course it is very unnecessary to get into debates about evolution. And like I have said if there is a god then evolution is the tool that he uses to enact change, or perhaps this has already been planned somewhere. But this is a discussion to be had on political forums and philosophy classes and perhaps with college professors, not in a high school class. They just need to be taught what happens and trust me evolution is a proven theory. Just look up drug resistant TB.

[Alcon]

J. J.,

I was probably making an oversimplification, but if you read the rest of muon2's post, there's very little support for your argument there.  In fact, I think he essentially said he opposes it.  His point was not related to theories, or anything likely to come up in high school science, if I'm understanding him correctly.  But whatever.

Scientific explanation can be wrong, as in the case of the Piltdown man.  How does that make it "arbitrary"?  Teaching that science can be wrong, or mis-applied, is fine.  I have said that much.  But you have failed (for three posts now) to provide me for an explanation of why intelligent design should get special treatment.  "Potentially fooled" does not = "arbitrary."  If it did, the entire world would be arbitrary, and that's not what the word means.

Less semantically, you're basically saying:

I. Concession: Evolution has strong evidence for it.

II. Caveat: Science can be wrong.

III. Possibility: Because science has no solid theory for the universe's creation, God's existence is plausible.

IV. Extrapolation: Because God's existence is plausible, it is possible that God would "guide" design.

Correct me where my interpretation is wrong.

(I) is fine.  (II) is all right, too, although no less for this subject than elsewhere.  (III) is also fine -- but you're starting to run into a problem.  What is your scientific proof for (III) being any more likely than other hypotheses?  That's the central problem.  This is not being taught because it is the most plausible idea.  Evolution is a theory.  It has the same status as gravity.  Should alternative arguments against gravity be presented, if they have no supporting evidence beyond "it would be an explanation if gravity were actually untrue"?  No, I do not think they should, in a high school setting.  It's giving ID special treatment just because of cultural issues.

---

Why do we ask these questions?  I already answered that -- we have more complexly designed brains, that allow for metacognition.  Chimps also demonstrate limited forms of self-thought abilities.  What point are you trying to make?  If you said it outright, I might actually be able to address it.

[Sbane]

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

I don't understand how this relates to ID.  If God is an "uncreated creator," then not everything needs a cause.  It makes no real sense to assume that there is a "one magical exception."  Logic is axiomatic--if God can be immune to it, why not something else, even non-sentient?  I've been asking that too, for a good long while, and I've been getting no answers. 

The question itself is good thing.  It teaches to think, and it shows are limitations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do we ask that question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  Why are we, alone among species, asking that question?  IIRC, other species both prehistorically and currently, have larger brains, so it's not just a question of humans reaching a critical mass of brain cells.  Did some other, outside intelligence prompt us someway to ask the question?  I don't know, but I have to admit that possibility.

Science, at any rate, is about asking questions.  I do question the tolerance of those people who say, we shouldn't talk about the question, when asked.

Honestly our way of surviving on this earth is by being curious and asking questions. We have the ability to do critical problem solving and one of the reasons might be because we have usable hands. A dog or bear does not have any need for their hand except to walk but we have the ability to actually manipulate objects with our hands. Could be a reason why most primates are smarter than other mammals. Add to that our brain can get much hotter than other animals since our bipedal motion is a natural Air conditioner which helps keep our brain relatively cooler. Also notice how relatively weak we are when compared to other animals, even other primates. Thus if we didn't have this higher critical thinking ability, we would be f'ed. And so this is why we do ask so many questions and which led us to create the scientific method. Also I do not think anybody said questions about the universe should not be asked, it's just that questions about who created it just get us nowhere. It is better to ask how it was created and that in itself should lead us to whether it was created by a higher power or not. Problem is our technology is extremely primitive when it comes to space. It indeed is the next frontier and anybody who presumes to tell us we know everything out there or that we shouldn't ask questions about it is deluded.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

I was probably making an oversimplification, but if you read the rest of muon2's post, there's very little support for your argument there.  In fact, I think he essentially said he opposes it.  His point was not related to theories, or anything likely to come up in high school science, if I'm understanding him correctly.  But whatever.

Scientific explanation can be wrong, as in the case of the Piltdown man.  How does that make it "arbitrary"?  Teaching that science can be wrong, or mis-applied, is fine.  I have said that much.  But you have failed (for three posts now) to provide me for an explanation of why intelligent design should get special treatment.  "Potentially fooled" does not = "arbitrary."  If it did, the entire world would be arbitrary, and that's not what the word means.

I don't recall calling it "arbitrary" or suggesting teaching ID as a theory.  I think if someone raises it, a student, it is fine and fine to say it is a possibility, at some level.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, I think there is strong evidence for evolution. 

Second, while I will concede science can be wrong (and Piltdown man is a good example), that is not my caveat.  That caveat, is that there is that there are things unknown. 

I think it is wrong, and narrow minded, to say we can't discuss a possible explanation, when a student raises it.  It's different to say science, and religion, doesn't know the answer and science is wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are jumping around here, but I'll go back to the idea of the universe.  What is the most "plausible" idea to what was before the big bang?  It's unknown to science.  It's not a question to science being "wrong," but a question of science not knowing and not having any more plausible theory (and I'll probably buy into it if they do).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me try to give you this example:

Most land animals (including humans) that can eat fruit see a piece of fruit ant think, "food."  They may think "food" and try to eat it.  They may think of ways to get at the food.  They may even think, "Food is here," and come back later to see if there is more food there.

A few million years ago, one of our unevolved ancestors, thought, "How did the fruit get there?"  That isn't a survival skill; species survive without thinking about that question for longer periods of time, an alligator for example.

They obviously had to observe their environment so it isn't that they couldn't explain it or see the patterns; they had to, much like any native animal today, had to be in tune with there environment.  They could easily figure out that it grows, or "food is here."

It isn't that their brain size finally got big enough to ask that question; other species that have reached that brain size don't ask that question.

When they asked that question ""How did the fruit get there," the answer was universally (so far as I know) was that was a god, gods, even a flying spaghetti monster, something that ultimately created it.  This occurred across vast geographical distances, so it is had to start very early in prehistory.  (I'm not saying that the answer is correct, only that it was very early.)

Unlike other species, human ancestors asked the question, even though other species with large brains and that we have some idea of what they think, are not asking this question.  Dolphins are not asking these questions about the fish.  Primates are not asking the question.

Something triggered that question in human ancestors, which ultimately led to both religion and science, and it does not appear to be brain size or body to brain mass ratio, a need to survive, or even too much time on the Internet.  ID?  A flying spaghetti monster?  Aliens?  Maybe.  Unknown, definitely.  It's easier to say what it isn't than what it is.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, a militant atheist, the answer might equal the question.

[Alcon]

I don't recall calling it "arbitrary"

"Any explanation is arbitrary including science.  Ever hear of piiltdown man? "

You were confusing "potentially incorrect/flawed" with "arbitrary."

or suggesting teaching ID as a theory.  I think if someone raises it, a student, it is fine and fine to say it is a possibility, at some level.

...

I think it is wrong, and narrow minded, to say we can't discuss a possible explanation, when a student raises it.  It's different to say science, and religion, doesn't know the answer and science is wrong.

That's fine.  My objection was to Palin's suggesting it be taught, not her suggestion that discussion not be muzzled.

Let me try to give you this example:

...

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, a militant atheist, the answer might equal the question.

You seem to be presenting an argument against atheism, which is fine; I'm not an atheist.  You still haven't explained how this relates to ID.  I've already said that the existence of God is plausible enough so as not to be laughed out of a classroom.  You still haven't explained how this relates to teaching ID.

---

What's not to say that metacognition is evolutionary?  You didn't really substantiate that claim.  Abstract thinking is really no more evolutionary, yet babboons possess it.

One final point:  You seem to be arguing that, if two beings have equal brain size, but one has greater brain power, it's a potential indicator that God designed them to be that way.  How does that follow?  "Intelligence" is a function of brain structure.  Larger size allows for more intricate structure, but does not necessitate it.  It's a weak correlation that you're somehow bestowing with vague meaning.

---

In any case, my sole objection to Palin's statement was her (probably instantaneously articulated) support for teaching ID alongside macroevolution in schools.  Nothing you've said really addresses my original concern, just peripheral issues.

[J. J.]

I don't recall calling it "arbitrary"

"Any explanation is arbitrary including science.  Ever hear of piiltdown man? "

You were confusing "potentially incorrect/flawed" with "arbitrary."

Where did I say this on this thread?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's fine.  My objection was to Palin's suggesting it be taught, not her suggestion that discussion not be muzzled.
[/quote]

If you would have read the quote, you would have realized that this was Palin's position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huh, I'm arguing that Adams was right, even though we have different religious views.  As I've just pointed out, Palin is not saying it should be taught.  Here is the quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

Emphasis added.  How does Palin's view of what should be taught differ from yours?

I am critical of people who say, "We shouldn't discuss this." 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not abstract thinking as much as asking one question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's the only correlation we have, what other species have done and how they interact with the environment.  I don't say it's an "indicator" of God, gods, aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I do not see any evolutionary mechanism that explains it.  The genus Homo has somehow asked this question, "Why is there fruit?"  It is not tied to survival or to the environment.  It does not seem, at this point, to be tied to brain function or brain size.

There is the question and, so far, there is not a plausible explanation within science for this question being formed.  So far, you have not provided one.

BTW, we are both still asking this question.

[Alcon]

Where did I say this on this thread?

Here.

If you would have read the quote, you would have realized that this was Palin's position.

I've read several articles about this, and in the process have read her quotes nearly a dozen times.  Here's the relevant one:

"Teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both."  She goes on to say it shouldn't be part of the cirriculum, but teaching is a different thing than allowing debate.  She's contradicted herself--which is basically why I think she hasn't contemplated this much.

Emphasis added.  How does Palin's view of what should be taught differ from yours?

If she supports allowing it to be taught in schools as an option, I'm against that.  Schools should enforce their own curricula, but I don't find this to be an acceptable inclusion.  But whether she wants it mandated or not is irrelevant.  I know this is an issue she's not going to push.  I still disagree with her that it should be "taught."

I am critical of people who say, "We shouldn't discuss this." 

Yeah, I know, but I'm not saying that.

Not abstract thinking as much as asking one question.

That doesn't really matter.  They both fall into your criteria, which is your perceived lack of evolutionary benefit.

It's the only correlation we have, what other species have done and how they interact with the environment.  I don't say it's an "indicator" of God, gods, aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I do not see any evolutionary mechanism that explains it.  The genus Homo has somehow asked this question, "Why is there fruit?"  It is not tied to survival or to the environment.  It does not seem, at this point, to be tied to brain function or brain size.

There is the question and, so far, there is not a plausible explanation within science for this question being formed.  So far, you have not provided one.

BTW, we are both still asking this question.

There's not a plausible explanation?  You can't possibly be serious.  There has been a ton of scientific research and theory on this subject.  The Human Genome Project has had a lot to say on the matter.

You're using a fairly simple construct of evolution, from all I can tell.  By your standards, evolutionary necessity would have limited us to single-celled organisms.   Besides, I kind of reject the idea that intelligence and critical thinking skills don't have evolutionary positives.

[J. J.]

Where did I say this on this thread?

Here.

Acton, you raised the reference:

J. J.,

I was probably making an oversimplification, but if you read the rest of muon2's post, there's very little support for your argument there.  In fact, I think he essentially said he opposes it.  His point was not related to theories, or anything likely to come up in high school science, if I'm understanding him correctly.  But whatever.

Scientific explanation can be wrong, as in the case of the Piltdown man.  How does that make it "arbitrary"?  Teaching that science can be wrong, or mis-applied, is fine.  I have said that much.  But you have failed (for three posts now) to provide me for an explanation of why intelligent design should get special treatment.  "Potentially fooled" does not = "arbitrary."  If it did, the entire world would be arbitrary, and that's not what the word means.

I am saying that there is a difference between a wrong "scientific explanation" and a situation where there is no "scientific explanation."

If you would have read the quote, you would have realized that this was Palin's position.

I've read several articles about this, and in the process have read her quotes nearly a dozen times.  Here's the relevant one:

"Teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both."  She goes on to say it shouldn't be part of the cirriculum, but teaching is a different thing than allowing debate.  She's contradicted herself--which is basically why I think she hasn't contemplated this much.

Emphasis added.  How does Palin's view of what should be taught differ from yours?

If she supports allowing it to be taught in schools as an option, I'm against that.  Schools should enforce their own curricula.  But whether she wants it mandated or not is irrelevant.  I know this is an issue she's not going to push.  I still disagree with her that it should be "taught."
[/quote]

The posted comments were made a day later clarifying this comment.  The clarification was:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I know, but I'm not saying that.

[/quote]

And I'm not saying that you're one of those closed minded people.

Not abstract thinking as much as asking one question.

That doesn't really matter.  They both fall into your criteria, which is your perceived lack of evolutionary benefit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's not a plausible explanation?  You can't possibly be serious.  There has been a ton of scientific research and theory on this subject.  The Human Genome Project has had a lot to say on the matter.

You're using a fairly simple construct of evolution, from all I can tell.  By your standards, evolutionary necessity would have limited us to single-celled organisms.   Besides, I kind of reject the idea that intelligence and critical thinking skills don't have evolutionary positives.
[/quote]

The Human Genome Project is pretty irrelevant to this. 

The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't a key question to survival.  It may deal with Homo becoming a higher thinking creature, but it isn't necessary for the survival of the genus Homo.  Becoming a higher thinking creature is not necessary for the genus Homo (and was possibly fatal to other members of the genus Homo).

We, humans, ask "Why?" Other species don't.  Proto-humans did.

I've heard you talk around it, but I've yet to see you answer the question or science answer the question, "Why do humans ask why?"

[Alcon]

Acton, you raised the reference:

Acton?

I am saying that there is a difference between a wrong "scientific explanation" and a situation where there is no "scientific explanation."

That's...true.  But regardless of what you're saying, my argument was against teaching ID as an alternative to macroevolution.  I called that "arbitrary."  You then pointed out that science was "arbitrary" by pointing out how it could be wrong.  That does not make it "arbitrary."  There is a difference between "arbitrary" and "wrong."

The posted comments were made a day later clarifying this comment.  The clarification was:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Which needs further clarification.  There is an official state curriculum, too.  That may be what she was referring to.  Since that contradicts her prior comments, the only belief that wouldn't entail self-contradiction is:  I encourage teachers to teach it, but it shouldn't be part of the official curriculum.  I disagree with that.  If she misspoke originally, then I don't have an objection.  But since she reiterated, I doubt she misspoke.

The Human Genome Project is pretty irrelevant to this. 

You're quite incorrect.

The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't a key question to survival.  It may deal with Homo becoming a higher thinking creature, but it isn't necessary for the survival of the genus Homo.  Becoming a higher thinking creature is not necessary for the genus Homo (and was possibly fatal to other members of the genus Homo).

We, humans, ask "Why?" Other species don't.  Proto-humans did.

I've heard you talk around it, but I've yet to see you answer the question or science answer the question, "Why do humans ask why?"

I have already given you a very valid (albeit simplified) answer.  Metacognition is a function of critical thinking.  In fact, it's an extension of critical thinking.  It's on the same continuum.  Critical thinking has documented evolutionary benefits.  Hence, why some of our primate relatives have abstract thinking abilities that, as you mention, are not essential for survival.

The brain is not some sort of mysterious box whose functions we don't understand.  We know why we're more intelligent than other primates, and it has almost nothing to do with brain size; that correlates somewhat, but we also understand brain complexity, which correlates absolutely.  So, why bother with brain size?

You also didn't answer my question: If your only criteria for evolving is survival, why would anything evolve beyond a single-celled organism?  The answer is, they're not as good at surviving -- because there are not "fittest."

Anyway, I have trouble thinking that anyone could be at all familiar the current research and assert:

1. That the Human Genome Project is irrelevant; and,

2. That science has not developed any remotely plausible answers on this issue.

I'm far from fluent on evolutionary science, but I'm fluent enough to know those are wrong.

[J. J.]

Acton, you raised the reference:

Acton?

I am saying that there is a difference between a wrong "scientific explanation" and a situation where there is no "scientific explanation."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alcon, (got it right), I do not favor teaching ID as an alternative to evolution, but neither has Palin, with her next day clarification. 

The posted comments were made a day later clarifying this comment.  The clarification was:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Which needs further clarification.  There is an official state curriculum, too.  That may be what she was referring to.  Since that contradicts her prior comments, the only belief that wouldn't entail self-contradiction is:  It's fine if teachers teach it, but it shouldn't be part of the official curriculum.  I disagree with that.  If she misspoke originally, then I don't have an objection.  But since she reiterated, I doubt she misspoke.

Or, she feels that it isn't the role of state government to order the local government to expand or contract the curriculum.  I would not favor teaching ID side by side with evolution, but I'd oppose the state telling a local school board that it couldn't (there are other methods for controlling it, such as the PA court case).

The Human Genome Project is pretty irrelevant to this. 

You're quite incorrect.

The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't a key question to survival.  It may deal with Homo becoming a higher thinking creature, but it isn't necessary for the survival of the genus Homo.  Becoming a higher thinking creature is not necessary for the genus Homo (and was possibly fatal to other members of the genus Homo).

We, humans, ask "Why?" Other species don't.  Proto-humans did.

I've heard you talk around it, but I've yet to see you answer the question or science answer the question, "Why do humans ask why?"

I have already given you a very valid (albeit simplified) answer.  Metacognition is a function of critical thinking.  In fact, it's an extension of critical thinking.  It's on the same continuum.  Critical thinking has documented evolutionary benefits.  Hence, why some of our primate relatives have abstract thinking abilities that, as you mention, are not essential for survival.

The brain is not some sort of mysterious box whose functions we don't understand.  We know why we're more intelligent than other primates, and it has almost nothing to do with brain size; that correlates somewhat, but we also understand brain complexity, which correlates absolutely.  So, why bother with brain size?

[/quote]

It may be on the same continuum, but it is not the same.  A question of, "Where is the fruit," "How can I get some fruit," "Is the fruit good to eat," are all survival questions, that are effectively asked by most animals (that eat fruit) at some level.  They are the product, arguably, of instinct.  The question, "Why is the fruit here," is not an instinctual question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the argument, except that that you seem to implying that Homo has more to do than survive.  The question is, why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is completely irrelevant to this situation; we are not discussing the genetics of humans but why humans do certain things, in this case ask "Why?"  Are you or the HGP claiming that there is a genetic reason for our genus asking "Why?"  I have not heard it.  Please, site it.

I am also troubled by the the claim, "It's science," and therefore, it must be relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please state the "remotely plausible answer."  I have not heard it, and I would be interested in an answer.

Our genus has asking this question for hundreds of millennia, at least; I should say that they have been answering the question for that time.  (I know that the answers they came up with were not cultural, or proto-cultural.)  I know that other intelligent species, that we can communicate with, don't ask that question.  "Science" tells us these things. 

Genus Homo started asking "why," and I have heard a solid biological or evolutionary reason for it.  They may be one out there, but I have not heard it.  Apparently, you have not either.

I do know that the question of "why" is the question that science attempts to answer.  So the question of "why" is a valid one. 

[Alcon]

J. J.,

Yes, I understand that Palin's governmental policy is not disagreeable to me.  However, her personal opinion (that ID should be taught) is.  That's all I've ever claimed.

You just re-iterated the same point you made before.  You replied to neither of my contentions:

1. That other species demonstrate abstract thinking skills, that go beyond "where is the fruit?"; and,

2. That abstract thinking, and logical, humanistic thought may have evolutionary benefit.

The latter is my (heavily simplified) "remotely plausible answer."  Your contention seems to be that there has to be an obvious, direct evolutionary benefit, i.e., a life or death situation.  I pointed out that single-celled organisms were able to sustain themselves as single-celled, but they evolved anyway.  You're operating on a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary process, and demanding I define things within that construct.  The problem is, your construct is not reality.  It is demonstrably unreal.

If you had read the article I linked to you on the Human Genome Project and its impact on our understanding of the human brain's evolution, instead of just ignoring that part of my post, you'd know that.

But, really, I'm not sure what to say.  This has been the focus of scientific debate, contention and research for decades.  You seem to have been completely unaware of that (you thought the Human Genome Project was irrelevant), so it seems like you haven't bothered to look for potential answers.  So, it's really not surprising that none of come to you.

P.S. To complete the jerkocity I'm unintentionally demonstrating in the tone of these posts...yo momma!