To Answer His Question: Scientists conduct studies, apply math, and use strenuous logic and striking skepticism because it is Empirical evidence, which is the basis of science. Being testable means being empirical, being untestable means being non-scientific. Until you can find a way to empirically test something it is and always should be considered non-scientific. I believe in some sort of intelligent designer but until I can test it it is not scientific it is religious.
I have studied many things in science, and only the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts Biblical teachings.
The Big Bang doesn't really, in light that we can't accurately make a timeline of it.
I respect but won't speak for other religion, in that other religion does not address human corruption at all and therefor cannot attempt to offer a solution for it, only a distraction.
@IamDUFF We can make an incredibly accurate timeline of the big bang, its 13.7 billion years ago to within 1%. We have actual snap shots of the universe at 300,000 years old. All this seems a lot older than 6,000 years old. Maybe you should get a degree in the science you want to criticize so you actually know what youre talking about.
@nfarboody How could it NOT be intelligently designed? The idea that it's not stems from the mindset that we are the highest form of life that exists and we don't know that.
We are less than specs in a Universe that we think is AT LEAST 13+ billion years old. We've existed in this form for what miniscule portion of that 13+ billion. Just because most religious texts are just etho-centric history books filled with bad history doesn't mean that there is no GOD.
@PerfectlyBlack If there is a designer, how can you call it intellegent. 99% of everything it designed has failed. That includes stars that have die and exploded, and species that havent made it. What a terrible designer. The problems is that there is absolutely no evidence of a creator. We have scientific explainations that offer better solutions. The very idea of a god or designer is the ultimate something from nothing.
@IamDUFF A collection of bones? Are you serious? Because if you're trolling I commend you. The evidence of evolution is not just in the myriad of fossil records (which are not bones) but most convincingly in genetic records that detail how we relate to the animal kingdom. It actually forms a family tree believe it or not. I think you should go back to "studying" science. There is a lot in cosmology and astrophysics that contradicts the bible as well.
"Separation of Church and state" is not in any legal document, and was coined in the 1800's to mean that the state should not be allowed to hinder the Church.
The reason why education is as it is in America is because of the early 20th century.
The 'lost generation' took place, the Church was marginalized, Darwinian evolution took root, people spoke out (rather impulsively, i might add) against the Church, and the general populace through all this spawned liberalism.
What I got out of this was that he is attempting to merely open up a dialogue between the scientific community and the religious community, and I don't thing that there is anything wrong with it...
What I got out of this was that he is attempting to merely open up a dialogue between the scientific community and the religious community, and I don't thing that there is anything wrong with it...
Clearly this dude switched his head with his ass and poorly glued hair to it so that it loosely resembles something akin to a real human head. No actual human head, though, would contain such a ridiculous opinion.
Cocksucker doesn't even mention a damn thing about id creationism! He just rants and rants and rants! Read his books? This cocksucker is full of bullshit! I personally believe his mother fucked a cowdung shaped as a dick to get impregnated with him!
He doesn't get why there needs to be a split between science and religion. A few reasons are (the six day creation story), (the whole earth flood story), and (the young earth belief derived from bible genealogies). It is amazing to me that anyone would be gullable and stupid enough to believe and defend ancient fables written by fools who thought the earth was flat.
He's a good speaker...but you just cant teach intelligent design because its not science. Your not going to go out and conduct field research, your not going to combine chemicals in a lab, your not going to measure distances between stars, your not going to inject mice and chimpanzees to observe the effects of medications, your going to open the bible to chapter one.
Yes, we should think in a way like people in 300 years ago did. We should not improve ourselves. We should follow the old dying tradition. By all means, burn the heathens!
great idea. lets also teach geocentricism and that apples sometimes float in air to encourage people to study science...... the gullible ones we need in science.............
dumb. Thousands and thousands of words could be offered on this pablum to enlighten to its incorrect nature and its irrelevance, but simply, dumb, sums it up with more beautiful elegance than this deserves.
Before reacting negatively to what this guy is saying, it is important to realize the position from which he is saying it. Someone here says "why is sociologist discussing science?". I want to point out that he is talking about science as a subject, from an outside perspective, in order to address the question of education as a place where different subjects interact, and by that I mean knowledge and ideas. In fact, he explicitly tries to divorce the ideas of creationism and religion.
I do agree that he probably picked the wrong example to establish his point of view as a mediator, an outsider, or an impartial educator. He also is very redundant as he says the same thing over and over, but he makes a good point when saying that creationism (as an idea, or as a specific text) can motivate student to get into science, and I'm sure that as a sociologist he would have better examples to illustrate this. The question of intelligent design has always been a relevant question in....
....science, is it might also be understood as an analogy to how we interact with nature and the effects we can have in it, not only as an intelligence that preceded human knowledge.
I think that more concretely, fuller is trying to say that this science vs. religion dichotomy is the product of the American system and the current state of its politics. I agree with this, I just don't think he proposes anything concrete or for that matter, even understands the problem thoroughly.
He does propose that a solution might be in the selection of appropriate texts, as this can inspire an expansion of knowledge in the classroom, either through acceptance or rejection, and always through critical reading. Then the problem has to do more with the ability of the educator to provoke and encourage, not just guide the students towards the "right modes of knowledge".
@momez86 Science is not an analogy of how we interact with nature. Science is a tool . A method that can be used by anyone, religious or not, to explain what we don't know or even what we thought we knew, to expand knowledge and understanding. The problem with ID is people want to push ID without doing the research, publishing peer reviewed journals, providing data that can easily be reproduced by anyone conducting the same experiments. ID is being legislated into education by political means.
@galbijoe Well, that is not what I said at all. You just read my last comment, which was a continuation of the one before, so you read the sentence half way. Read the end of the previous one, where the sentence actually starts and you'll see what it was that I was referring to as an analogy.
Now, read my comments in chronological order and you will see we are not that far apart in our views. What I said is the concept of an "intelligent designer" can also be applied to curious scientific.....
@galbijoe (continued)....minds, and not only to a religious creator or a god. In other words, a scientist could be understood as the creator of the world; as the designer that explores and reorganizes what is around himself. For example, the anthropic principle is not that different from what I am saying, in the sense that it makes human experience the cause, and at the same time the consequence, for what we perceive as such a specifically and delicately designed universe.
@momez86 Sure I understand that the designer(s) does not have to be a god; however, they would appear god-like to us. To clarify I'm not opposed to ID being taught in schools, but NOT in a science class or science until there is more evidence in the way of credible published scientific paper/research supporting it. For me ID holds about a much water as creation stories from Terry Pratchet's Ring World series. It may be interesting/entertaining, but should not be taught as science.
Does Teaching Intelligent Design Benefit Science Education?
NO, no, definitely not. Creationism isn't science by it's own nature. It states that a supernatural thing/being created everything and by it's own nature it doesn't follow natural, scientific, observable, demonstrative laws.
God or whatever supernatural being you want to go with created and can break any of the natural laws that govern our world.
@galbijoe listen closely to the first sentences he says, and you'll find that he explicitly separates Creationisms (more specifically in the Christian rhetoric) and intelligent design. From here he attempts to build his argument; at no point he talks about god, or says that intelligent design necessarily implies a supernatural being that "created and can break any of the natural laws that govern our world", as you say.
@momez86 I did listen to the video closely. Please read my OP carefully. I was responding with my opinion to the question/title of this video "Does Teaching Intelligent Design Benefit Science Education?" Sorry if that wasn't clear.
wow...the "Divine Plan" idea is not the best answer...this guy is a dumbass. We try to find out how everything works so we can understand it and then manipulate it to improve our lot. And because we have ontological questions we could answer with hard science. We could teleport and travel to other galaxies if we know how to bend space-time. Just because there IS a way everything works, it doesn't mean it's "divine" or has been designed by something. That's just fucking retarded.
Science is about reality! You can't teach, for example, how there are different types of cellular flagella, of varying levels of complexity, that clearly evolved from specific genes, whose components are found in all different cell organelles, and then give equal time to the guy who says "There's only one type of bacterial flagellum, and no less complex type can exist, therefore it's designed." That's obviously not a fact, and not logical, but it's one of many 'arguments' supporting I.D.
He says "forms of inquiry that are alien to ordinary modes of understanding". poor retard... if it doesn't have to do with the mortgage and how to pay it, then it's alien.
And I thought the church boasted its intelligent design hocum on all people being capable of reason...
What people consistently get confused about with science is its purpose. Science at its core, has no grand purpose, or grand meanign behind it. It is simply a discipline that explains the natural world. If it has a practical benefit, than thats a byproduct. Obviously politicians will only fuund science if it has a benefit, but again thats irrelevant.
Science does not make claims on ethics, or morality. This is for humans to do.
For me science is the only pure discipline, and I love it for that
Oh Steve...... you are clearly not a scientist. You confuse science and free speech. In free speech, all opinions are valid and equal, regardless of their basis on morality or factual evidence.
Science is based on evidence, its not the forum for multiple theories that require separate pieces of evidence. A fact must be based on observation and data. If you haven't got the data, that you cannot propose your idea (unlike in political discourse, where you can appeal to emotion or moral appeals)
The suggestion that scientism is as fundamental as religion is certainly a valid point. But that is a subject for discussion in a philosophy or social studies class. It should be expected that science be the only thing taught in a class called "Science." If you want other things taught, call the class something else. Feynman once put it perfectly: "If something is said not to be a science, it does not mean that there is something wrong with it; it just means that it is not a science."
Teaching intelligent design in a science class is equivalent to teaching alchemy in a chemistry class, or astrology in an astronomy class. Steve Fuller is not qualified, as a psychologist, to talk about evolution or any other science, outside of psychology.
He sounded to me intelligent enough to not make comments like yours. Being that, by your own criteria, you must be a Chemist, Astronomer & Psychologist for having asserted your opinions about all three fields. You also sound like you're aware of the fact that Psychology has, throughout its history, had its theories developed from the evolutionary viewpoint
But some people just happen to be hypocritically special enough to be exempted from the rules which they themselves impose
@Chuichupachichi " Evolution is 'just a theory' after all - surely in the spirit of encouraging critical thinking we should teach the controversy? "
These words appear in the information under this clip... I'm assuming they are Fuller's.
In it he clearly shows a misunderstanding of the word " theory " as it relates to scientific practice, and he implies a controversy where one does not exist in scientific circles...
So... I agree.. he doesn't know what he's talking about.
He sounded to me intelligent enough to not make comments like yours. Being that, by your own criteria, you must be a Chemist, Astronomer & Psychologist for having asserted your opinions about all three fields. You also sound like you're aware of the fact that Psychology has, throughout its history, had its theories developed from the evolutionary viewpoint
But some people just happen to be hypocritically special enough to be exempted from the rules which they themselves impose
What a facetious argument. The reason we see a unifying system in science is completely unrelated to mythology and fantasy. It's because evidence shows common factors simply because the universe is physical and physical laws are not local. In essence he stated the exact opposite of the truth.
There is no need to inject ego fantasy labeled a 'theory' (which ID is not. a theory describes evidence, not lack of evidence) into science education.
@thejugglenaut91 Isn't sociology a science of studying group phenomena? I don't think you are really speaking to his point. He was a bit convoluted in his presentation, but he was essentially just saying that the scientific community's view of religion is so laden with hubris that it defeats it's own purposes sometimes. I think that Neil Tyson puts it best when he talks about people being too big headed about their knowledge of approximately 4% of the known universe.
130adi, I like you. You're more intelligent than most people I've debated on this subject. But your constant assertions that we do not know how evolution works flies straight in the face of the various book I have here in my bookcase which definitely show quite opposite. I do not wish to continue if all can you do is wave off research.
Evolution is not an easy subject to accept. It deals with our origins, and some people take offence to that, however I'm not implying that you are one of them.
I'm definitely not closed minded and I want to see better explanations for evolution. When I say we don't know, is not because we don't know how selection works. That we undestand and we had experience with selection way before Darwin. However, we don't know what is involved in evolution, how mutations or genetics can create new phenotypes. We see longer beaks are selected during a dry season, but how are beaks created in the first place?
Every phenotype that is generated finds its origins in the embryology of the organism. Delete or alter certain genes and thereby you change the embryological development and therefore the phenotype. A mutation or gene duplication may increase or decrease the enzymatic activity of a developmental protein. This in turn may lead to enlarged bone structures, such as the beak.
All the variations in phenotype in multicellular organism originate in changes in embryological development.
The neo-Darwinian synthesis incorporates genetic embryology intensively when look at phenotype changes. I'd recommend you to look up some information concerning embryological development: it may answer some of your questions concerning new phenotypes.
Embryology in my experience is often neglected or forgotten in discussion about evolution. Which is a shame, as it can answer many questions.
"Saying that there is no consensus on evolution is sort of like..."
The question is not about evolution, the question is about wether there is design in nature and if can be studied or infered using logical and scientific reasoning.
Also it is not clear how evolution occurs, we simply don't know. It could very well be designed, programmed and front-loaded evolution.
With the rise of epigenetics there seems to also be a trend to go back to some Lamarkian principles of evolution.
I would argue that we have a pretty good understanding of how evolution works on the ecological, organic and molecular level. Even if we did not, that would still not justify researching the design hypothesis: that concept would have to be verified on account of its own evidence, not resting on the falsification of a different theory.
Epigenetics does play an important role in eukaryote evolution, but it's pretty obvious that it is not the only concept (genetic drift and flow are as well).
You think we have a good understanding of evolution but yet there are no mechanisms given to explain how anything evolved.. What were the steps taken, to evolve a wing or a hair folicle or whatever? What were the molecular changes, mutations or what can we predict about where evolution is taking us?
All we are given is a possible selection pressure and poof there it must have evolved. These are nothing but handwaving explanations, not real and rigorous scientific work.
Keep telling yourself that mantra - maybe it'll start to become true one day (I doubt it though). Look up "evolution mechanism of [insert item interest here]" on either PubMed or Web of Knowledge and you'll find loads of peer-reviewed scientific articles on research involving evolutionary mechanisms.
Thanks for telling where to looks things up.. I assure you I'm familiar with the literature and it is for this reason that I say it is lacking. For the most part we have no clue how evolution really works. Evolution needs to be backed up by mathematics, genetics, the kind of mutational changes to produce the effect in question, not just insert random variation and natural selection or find a few transitional forms. It doesn't answer the question of "How"?
"For the most part we have no clue how evolution really works."
I told you to repeat that mantra, and here we are. You're following my instructions carefully, well done. Have you ever, ever read a book on molecular evolution? Ensure you do, you'll see you're mistaken and save me a lot of trouble explaining it. Also, if you're asserting that we can deduce molecular evolution by merely looking at fossils there is little point in discussing this issue any further.
"...what can we predict about where evolution is taking us?"
Predicting the evolution of a species is hard if not impossible, because we do not know what the selective pressures will be a few million years from now, nor can we know exactly what kind of mutations will arise in the future. Evolution is a blind watchmaker without a goal: it works with whatever variations come about at random instances. Suitable variations are preserved, not so suitable ones are discarded.
"These are nothing but handwaving explanations, not real and rigorous scientific work."
Explanations for a certain evolutionary process come with their own predictions and expected observations. Like the Big Bang model, produced solely from observation that the universe is expanding. That model made predictions concerning matter ratios and radiation levels. Those predictions were met and verified. Therefore the Big Bang model is an accurate approximation of reality. Just like evolution.
"This guy isn't promoting science, but pseudo-science."
He just said at the end that it has to be legitimate scientific work, or do you randomly define now that anything questioning materialistic evolutionary thinking is pseudo-scientific?
Are we not allowed to do any research in the area of design just because there is "a consensus", so you say?
Anything that defies evolutionary theory on a scientific basis would be considered valid: one example is the one you mentioned: Lamarckian evolution.
ID is not a scientific theory because it doesn't offer true methodological explanations or verifiable predictions. Scientists don't criticise ID for the concept of a designer, but for the lack of evidence and scientific content.
That is not true. One can use design filters in biology to detect intelligent agency just like other fields of science. We can filter intelligence when it comes to cryptography, forensic science or archaeology, so why not in biology?
Think about it, if you detect mathematical logic in a biological system, would you not infer design? Would it not help our understanding of the system better, or help us in reverse engineering to build a similar system ourselves. ID could be very fruitfull.
I detect mathematical logic in the diffusion of chemicals in Petri dishes or test tubes all the time in the laboratory. Should I then infer that there is an intelligent agent 'guiding' the molecules through the water? Of course not.
The subjects of study you mentioned deal with cultural phenomena - not biology. Culture is a distinct feature of intelligence. We do not see such a phenomenon in the natural sciences, which are absent of culture.
"I detect mathematical logic in the diffusion of chemicals in Petri dishes"
You are really confused about what I mean when I say mathematical logic so let me explain. I don't mean us calculating reaction rates or difusion gradiants, or anything of that sort. It is the system itself making use of abstract mathematical principles, like angles, or the value of pi, or the storing of mathematical values for later use using calculations and iterations of certain values.
Well thank you for clearing up any alleged confusion I seem to have had. However, your point of trying to recognise mathematical logic in biological systems fails to work, because there is little to no mathematical logic to found in such systems. If any such logic like angles can be found in life, they're are equally found in inanimate substances (like the water molecule - 109.5 degrees) or in geological formations (the hexagonal basalt columns at Fingal's cave in Scotland for example).
"your point of trying to recognise mathematical logic in biological systems fails to work"
why? because you said so?
You simply don't understand it. You compare it with water having an angle of 109.5.
There are many mathematical systems in nature. Look at bees, they comunicate mathematical polar coordinates to each other to find food. They have a system in place that stores and transfers mathematical data. This is just one simple example.
Now you're talking about neurology I take it? Yes, the brain is in a sense capable of creating abstract concepts of mathematics and apply it reality. However we do not know much of this, because as of yet it is beyond our knowledge. Research in brain activity is ongoing, and I'm not willing to speculate about this topic because I'm not all that familiar with neurology and behaviour. I'm not a neurologist nor an ethologist; rather I'm a medical biology major.
One instance that I would like to comment on that bees (and we) take reality as a mathematical realm. We don't really do that: we grok reality, meaning that we can instinctively imagine such things as relative velocity, components, force, trajectory. But that grokking ability is limited to our level of experience. This is why special relativity and quantum mechanics seem extremely weird to us: they are beyond our usual realm of experience.
I know of no biological system capable of "storing of mathematical values for later use using calculations and iterations of certain values". The only '(contemporary) storage devices' I know of are DNA and RNA. But they are not used for storing mathematical values. They only code for a sequence of chemicals, directly related to their chemical properties. Implying that DNA is a calculator is similar to saying that ice-crystals are microchips: they simply react in accordance to their properties.
You're forgetting that evolution, rather than ID, is being used in mechanical engineering all the time: generate random variations of particular design by a computer and select the most suitable ones. Allow the designs to procreate, recombine, create more variation and select again. Aeroplane wings are just one example of the numerous designs which have been optimised using an evolutionary process.
ID would not at all be fruitful. It's a lazy non-explanation, which is also unverifiable.
So, would the mechanical engineer, who is "selecting" the most suitable ones, be considered an "intelligent designer," or is he selecting a design by pure chance? Your argument defeats itself...there is a designer. Show me how the engineer is not using intelligence by selecting. Your example implies intelligent design.
No, even though he is intelligent, he's not designing. Design implies a predetermined goal followed a completely non-random construction of the design that we made, before construction began. Like natural selection, the engineer builds on top of pre-existing variations (which are not designed, but randomly generated). It's sort of like giving a toddler random blocks, which the toddler then has to use to build "something" that can be built using those parts. There is no design element in this.
You can even place a blind engineer in the seat or not an engineer at all to select parts purely at random. The only constructions that will be able to maintain themselves without collapsing are constructions whose building blocks are aptly put together, though not necessarily efficiently. Life is like this, it's not efficient, it's overly complex and there is lots of redundancy to be found.
Design implies efficiency, non-complexity and a goal. Life overall shows none of those features.
"Design implies efficiency, non-complexity and a goal. Life overall shows none of those features."
You're starting to sound like PZ Myers with such silly comments... There is no restriction you can put on design like that. Design can be either efficient or inefficient, with a goal in mind or not, and it can be hugely complex, really intricate, irreducible and have a lot of specified complexity.
The man is not important, the argument is. PZ Myers is right on this. Complexity (or "specified complexity") in any form or shape does not constitute by default a design.
The ID hypothesis itself lacks the quantitative essence or research of which you accuse evolution is lacking. Unlike what people like Dembski want you to believe, there is no way to 'calculate' the probability of an eye or a flagellum evolving: we simply lack probabilistic data to do so.
I have a question for you then also. If it is allowed for life not to show efficiency, goal, or non-complexity, then what is the point of attributing the adjective "intelligent'? Why would something be called "intelligently" designed if it's simply over-excessively complicated, inefficient and aimless?
Also, you should have known by now that irreducible complexity has been debunked in 2005 at Dover vs Kitzmiller. And that specified complexity is mathematical nonsense, as mentioned before.
So you are saying that in mechanical engineering there is no "intelligent designer." Engineers don't perform calculations, chose materials that are best suited for certain applications and use ideas from past design? They might employ the methods you are suggesting, but they use "intelligent design" more. To suggest otherwise is totally dishonest.
In an evolutionary mechanism of engineering optimisation (not design) there is no intelligent designer, rather artificial selection ('breeding') of pre-existing patters and designs.
You're taking my analogy of evolutionary engineering beyond what it's meant to illustrate. Yes, engineers design using mathematics and physics - that is designing intelligently. But for optimisation of certain pre-existing elements, they sometimes resort to an evolution mechanism of artificial selection.
And it was the evolutionary mechanism that I used to illustrate that selection can produce an optimal configuration which has the signature of design, but rather isn't actively designed. It would be the process of random variation and artificial selection.
I do not deny that engineers mostly design actively with the use of modern science. But it was the difference between actively designing something and using an evolutionary mechanism to optimise that I tried to illustrate.
This man rambles, is vague, and generalizes his arguments with burning men. No one "shuns" ID. The movement has not published one article in a major scientific journal. Beyond its scientific rubbish, it is also bad science. We seek to find how things came to be. We will not be satisfied with chalking things up to design.
A professor in sociology siding with teaching both evolution and creationism. What's that about.
Should we also teach that the holocaust never happened in history, that the moon landing was a hoax...?
Creatiionism/ID doesn't have a single supporting piece of evidence contrasted with an overwhelming number of perfectly consistent facts supporting evolution. We simply can't put them on equal ground. That would only mislead the kids.
Has anyone ever noticed that people who criticise evolution the most (via creationism or ID) are often not scientists in the field of biology or scientists at all?
And that people who don't criticise evolution are often biologists?
Is anyone seeing the trend here of understanding being correlated with acceptance?
You're implying here that people who don't agree with certain types of evolutionary thinking simply don't understand it.
I think a person that can understand Quatum Theory and Particle Physics like this guy does, has no problem understanding Natural Selection. It's some of the Biologists that I'm worried about, who simply accept Evolution by Natural Selection as a given.
I implied that, because he is a sociologist he doesn't have the authority to question scientific consensus. In much the same way that biologists don't go about questioning quantum theory or elementary particle physics, sociologists don't go about questioning biological theories such as evolution.
Accepting evolution by natural selection and genetic drift does not happen overnight. It's difficult material and it takes time and effort to fathom it completely.
"because he is a sociologist he doesn't have the authority to question scientific consensus"
There is no such thing as a consensus in science. There are only hypotheses that are being tested using logical reasoning. You are allowed to question everything in science, including evolution by natural selection no matter what field you're in.
May I remind you that Hardy_Weinberg equation that is used so much in evolution was derived by a mathematician, not a biologist.
I beg to differ. Scientific consensus is when scientists agree which results in recent years are uniform in such a way that the implications could very well be considered fact instead of just hypotheses. This is how discoveries in the field get published in school and university text books.
You can very well be damned sure that if 99.99% off all the physicists (a.k.a. the experts) in the same field agree that gauge theory is valid, then gauge theory to all our knowledge is valid. Period.
Science is always challenged by new discoveries. You can't say everybody agrees on this, therefore the case is closed! This is not science!
This guy is not criticising science, he is promoting it! Or is it now wrong to question certain aspects of evolution and encourage intelligent design?
Even if there was a concensus on evolution, which is not at all true, the greatest theories in history have challenged the consensus view. Think Galileo or Copernicus.
May I remind you, that HW is hardly used in evolutionary theory. Why? Because for the equation to be applicable to real-life, the population has to meet certain criteria which in reality are almost never met. These criteria include amongst others the absence of mutations, non-random mating, natural selection, genetic drift and genetic flow. As mentioned, these criteria are hardly ever met. HW is a good model to predict allele frequencies, but it's not used in evolution "so much".
Another thing, the HW principle is directly applicable to population genetics. Genetics by its very nature involves a certain amount of mathematics, just like physics and chemistry do. The HW principle has not been developed in light of evolution, but to explain genetic allele frequencies in an ideal population. Mathematics, statistics and the like are used in all variants of natural science so your argument is a complete fallacy.
2nd: I do not see where he is an idiot; what he say is actually a clear reference to how to make a class...And this is how a teacher should make a class. It does look like it starts upside down. You start be puting the goal...What they should know&be able to do at the end of "X"... Then is what will be the acceptable evidence of the progress and success and then you do some plan of the activity to hit the goal.
Sadly, he is not an idiot. I will love it if he was because we will not have to lose time with these ass holes.
By saying that ID have no evidence, therefor you are saying that it's does not answer to the goal of a particular class without saying what is the goal of this class. If it a studies of people's believes, why not... But no way it could enter in a biological class.
I do not agree on his ultimate goal, but to know that, I have to google his name.
To know he is not talking about anthropology or sociology (which are 2 branch of the human sciences, by the way), you have to know more about this ass hole.
ID should not be teach as science in biology or in physics. And I totally disagree with his position, but I do not think he is an idiot... And I will prefer him to be an idiot, like that I will not want to use a sledgehammer on his face.
If only schools would spend at least 60 hours on teaching at least the basics of the theory about how the world was created by the flying spaghettimonster It would do a lot to develop and further a critical attitude of the students. Especially critical of the educational system obviously.
Well, it is a good question but I do have one answer... Sociology is a science by itself, so... It's studies the human social activity, sometime in the goal of using knowledge to create some social welfare. Believes and knowledge that people have does have a part on how people act. So he might not speak about science first hand but education and religion first, then the sciences classes because of some interaction from the religious group with sciences classes. Only think: might not be organised
Sociology is indeed a science. But it is unlike biology, physics, chemistry and mathematics not an exact science with quantifiable variables and parameters.
Sociology is less exact and more detriment to philosophy and both personal and cultural bias. The exact sciences are uniform and unrelated to such influences. Nor should they be influenced by such pseudo-sciences like ID in the classrooms.
Well, I hope that children are enough good to avoid such influences in these days...
But if, for any reasons, somebody decide that we should teach sociology to children... Then ID could be teach, as a mater of believe to some people and not as a mater of truth.
If, for any reasons, they decide to not do that just do not show ID in other classroom where it does not belong, like geology or sex-ed or 'washing your hands'...
all things in science work with god in the equation.
" Napoleon asked Laplace why there was not a single mention of God in Laplace's entire five volume explaining how the heavens operated. Laplace replied to Napoleon that he had "no need for that particular hypothesis". "
Where are all the muslim clerics who are also quantum physicists. If the quran is so scientific, clerics should be the most advanced of all scientifically. After all, they know how to translate the poetry of the quran. But when you ask them anything about science, they know nothing. Ask a cleric yourself what they think about the heisenberg uncertainty principle? Ask a hundred of those clerics. Ask thousands of them. See what answer you get. NONE.
Now aside from the debate on intelligent design...I am extremely saddened by the scientology ads presented on some of the scientific sites. Don't these channels have a choice in who they promote or advertise. Why would they help promote this garbage?
this makes noooooo sense..science discovers truth through testing and re testing. Science is something that you can understand and can be explained. And your saying we shouldnt separate this and the fairy tales of religion. This is not intelligent at all. science has evidence for many of the bibles tachings to be wrong. For example, the earths age, and adam and eve STORY! plus we have our reason that can tell us such stories as noahs ark are silly and impossible. Plus every religion is right?
ilya prigogine, Toshiyuki Nakagaki, Turing. These are but a few names that strike fear in the "minds" of intelligent design proponents. I find it odd that those who aren't particularly intelligent try to define "intelligence" or try to make any case for "design." Even believers like priest/physicist, Lamaitre ,was careful not to even try it!
anyone who wants answers, read an english transalation of quran you will get all the answer for one moment 4get about everything that u were told about islam, everything that were represented for u in media and told by people. i mean after all everyone is confused here u want answer its a book worth reading it give it a try.
what if I already read the Q'uran in Arabic, and found it to be just as flawed as any book that claims to tell the absolute truth? Think about it, folks, MEN, 1400-4000 years ago telling you what is true?! They were smart. Many were brilliant. They did astronomy, they did higher math, they invented calendars, they understood the Earth. What none of them have ever done is to prove that there is any god, much less one God. It's a fairy tale Hello?!
can sceince disprove the existence of god? no! they are not elemeniting god, but they are eleminating the existance of god. look at urself there are signs in u, look at how the universe and the earth is created, we muslims believe in the big bang theory cos its mentioned in the quran 1400 years ago and sceince discovered it recently. who caused dat big bang to take place? look beyond that space was a dark place before, where did that come from was it just there or was it created for u?
If the quran new so much about cosmology, then we would expect millions of nobel prize winning islaamic cosmologists. I can only think of Abdus Salam. In any case, it is not the job of science to disprove things...If YOU make a claim, then YOU have to prove it. Suppose I said, "disprove my imaginary two headed friend." You would say, "you have to prove it, I don't have to disprove it." The same logic should apply to god.
ok yh i agree muslims are backed up from everything but lets not forget that the world owes islam if u want prove then type the history of islam u will get all the answer who muslims were in 8 century, why the world owes islam and why western countries soo advansed in sceince and technology. if that does not prove some of ur question u can ask me again plz i'll be greatfull to discuss these issues.
I'm sure there were intelligent muslims in the 8th century as there are now. That is not the point. The point is quran is not a cosmology book. There were astronomers back then, as in most cultures, but this is no thanks to islam. It had more to do with individuals, culture and the time. In fact, astronomy predates islam!! No disrespect, but religion (islam, others) is simply not a factor in progress.
well not really there were some greek intellegent but they were not accurate, what im talking about is the quran vs modern sceince, 1400 years ago a man who didnt knw how to read and write his name at age of forthy claimed that he is reciving revelation from god, the words that came out of his mouht were like poetry none of the arab poets had ever heard every time deye heard muhammad's words it was shocking for them and these words happen to be soo accurante no mistake con....
...... and it does not contridicts modern sceince. how we came to knw about things like stars galaxys, universe matter, the creation of man its reveald to muhammad in a poetic way aswell as having sceinific facts glorifying god at the same time. every human being who have the quran had no doubt to accept it being reveald to muhammad from god in a period of 23 hears, a man asked muhammad dat al da prophets prreformed miracle whats if ur miracle he said the quran and indeed it is. make reasearch
If the quran is so poetically scientific, would you like to tell everyone where in the quran is the poetic periodic table of elements? How about the poetic quantum structure of matter? What about the poetic general theory of relativity? How about conception of time as a fourth dimension? What about evolution? What about poetic geometry? Topology? Give examples of each please.
ok wot about all the other sceitific facts discoverd recenlty by man mentioned in the quran 1400 years ago thinks like planetary system, universe, big bang, all the things that we discoverd abt earths system like goeology, biology, physics chemestry and much more, why dont u think abt that for a while then come up with things that man has created, bdw evelotion is the bigest bull to belive in. i'll give u a prove and use ur logic. watch?v=H5sfHz3xyNc dnt belive in wat sceintists says.
Afghan, you haven't answered my questions. Tell us where in the quran is the periodic table, where is the theory of relativity, where is tectonic plate theory? where does it talk about black holes? Saying "look yourself" does not make it a science book. If you were in a physics class and the professor said "look yourself for answers" then you would hardly call him an expert on science. You would call him a fraud or a fake!!
We would expect the professor or a book that claims authority to prove itself. The professor would have to show his specific knowledge. Otherwise, he does not deserve the respect of being an authority. There are virtually no clerics who know anything about science, because your quran knows nothing about science.
well in my religion Allah(god) says look at yourself there are signs in u, look at the heavens(universe space) and earth look at the solar system and ask yourself that could all of this is an accident, look at ur internal organs how they work, how we see, her, taste, think, hear indeed these are signs of the creater, the one who created u and fashioned you and called u human, and said to all the angels that man should be respected for ever. watch?v=Sg6NhnYbqUQ
Afghan, I looked at one of the videos you suggested. There are some serious problems. You can't possibly believe that you "come from clay...that becomes a sperm...becoming a blood clot...which becomes bones and muscle." I had to confirm that the quran actually says this. Sure enough, it is in Surah 23. Whoever wrote the quran gets a "Fail." Where is the egg!!! If the quran is a book on science, then it is the worst display of biological understanding ever. You are smarter than this, I know it!
what can i say ignorance will belive " when he guidesome1, no one can miss guide him, when he misguides some1 there will no one for him to guide him. thats all i can bdw the quran was not written by anyone it was reaveald to muhammad, from your lord and my lord, we created from earth and we go back to the same earth. even if you are an athiest u will go through the same process as we all do, u will asked questions in the grave, wether u wanna belive it or not there is no compulsion in religion
did u watch the videos about theory of relativity, periodic table, plate tectonic, and blackholes. i did send u the links though it seems like it is pretty true and u have no questions abt that.
You have sent nothing about relativity, periodic table, or plate tectonics because there is nothing in the quran about those things. I even read quran passages that say even more scientifically absurd things. In the Ya Sin (quran) it talks about the orbits of the sun and moon in a way that is only possible if the sun revolves around the earth! The site you suggested claims, you were born of sperm with no egg!
Is this the best the quran can come up with. WAKE UP!
Your quran, as all other religions books was clearly written by fallible humans. Otherwise it would not make so many mistakes and claims like I mentioned. Any god would be to embarrassed to get his own work wrong. Would you like me to point out more errors. I found an example that shows god is really a stupid mathematician that can't add fractions. Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 . See yourself.
many things have been stated in religious texts over time. If one statement can be twisted to agree with modern science, we should apply that same logic to the countlessly wrong assertions. It takes less effort to twist the words of religious texts to complete lies than to produce something resembling a truth.
is it by chance that dinosours ceased before human exists...? is it by chance that human existence simply make the earth worse than our non-existence...can science answers these questions? tq.
mud is not an element and not worth discussing. That being said, "mud" can be made of many different elements and a solvent, such as water, or nitrogen. All gasses could theorhetically be solid, gas, or liquid depending on atmospheric pressure an temperature.
thank you, in fact i'm questioning about the origin of sciences. it's there isnt it? does it have origin?..u r right, fairy tale dont answer answer to questions, but science does..no?
thus, my questions then..
1 - Can mud contains iron, gold, calcium or other elements?. were these gas originated too. how gas come to being then? were they evolved too..from what?
2 - what about the arrangement of planets in our solar systems? how can the sytem evolved so that our earth is singled out?
A book written by men who had dreams and claim false accounts of ever meeting jesus doesn't constitute understanding of anything. Do these religious morons even read the bible? Personally I doubt jesus ever existed at all and we're supposed to take the word of a man nobody has ever met because some old paper that's been translated more times then I could wipe my ass with it in a lifetime says so? These days religion doesn't even have a leg to stand on. Why isn't it just forgotten? who needs god?
Great. A youtube wannabe genious acts like he would be legitimated to judge the professionals.
I feel sorry for those hard working scientists who just recives crap from you in response. I really hope he listens to other professionals and not you! =)
In this video: Some moron denying science in a video posted on the internet.
lolgepwnt 3 months ago
To Answer His Question: Scientists conduct studies, apply math, and use strenuous logic and striking skepticism because it is Empirical evidence, which is the basis of science. Being testable means being empirical, being untestable means being non-scientific. Until you can find a way to empirically test something it is and always should be considered non-scientific. I believe in some sort of intelligent designer but until I can test it it is not scientific it is religious.
huronwarriors 3 months ago
This guy is the stereotype for boring middle aged American males.
I can't fap to this.
HarrysSecret 5 months ago
What a moron this guy is, not worth my time, I´m not watching till the end
rokkvi1 5 months ago
the day intelligent design gets in science classrooms, is the day we plummet straight back into the dark ages.
HAS ALL OUR YEARS OF PROGRESS MEANT NOTHING TO YOU BIBLE-THUMPING MORONS!?!?
Mikeybetts 7 months ago
@Mikeybetts
It's actually pretty simple. The distribution of human intelligence is not gaussian.
DasKrabbe 7 months ago
@DasKrabbe Genial answer.. The only good in these videos are the answers...
balhoto 7 months ago
I have studied many things in science, and only the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts Biblical teachings.
The Big Bang doesn't really, in light that we can't accurately make a timeline of it.
I respect but won't speak for other religion, in that other religion does not address human corruption at all and therefor cannot attempt to offer a solution for it, only a distraction.
My apologies, i mean no harshness.
IamDUFF 7 months ago
@IamDUFF We can make an incredibly accurate timeline of the big bang, its 13.7 billion years ago to within 1%. We have actual snap shots of the universe at 300,000 years old. All this seems a lot older than 6,000 years old. Maybe you should get a degree in the science you want to criticize so you actually know what youre talking about.
nfarboody 6 months ago
@nfarboody How could it NOT be intelligently designed? The idea that it's not stems from the mindset that we are the highest form of life that exists and we don't know that.
We are less than specs in a Universe that we think is AT LEAST 13+ billion years old. We've existed in this form for what miniscule portion of that 13+ billion. Just because most religious texts are just etho-centric history books filled with bad history doesn't mean that there is no GOD.
PerfectlyBlack 5 months ago
@PerfectlyBlack If there is a designer, how can you call it intellegent. 99% of everything it designed has failed. That includes stars that have die and exploded, and species that havent made it. What a terrible designer. The problems is that there is absolutely no evidence of a creator. We have scientific explainations that offer better solutions. The very idea of a god or designer is the ultimate something from nothing.
MrKGatl 5 months ago
Also, I have only found in support of Darwinian evolution a collection of miscellaneous bones in which entire skeletons have been theorized.
There was even one instance in which the bone that the (Nebraska Man) skeleton was formed was a swine's tooth.
And i've found good debates (Flagellum, the Cambrian Explosion) in which have been overwritten by theories and idle-fancy.
However, i have a book (The Bible) which explains not only why we are the most destructive species, but offers a solution.
IamDUFF 7 months ago
@IamDUFF A collection of bones? Are you serious? Because if you're trolling I commend you. The evidence of evolution is not just in the myriad of fossil records (which are not bones) but most convincingly in genetic records that detail how we relate to the animal kingdom. It actually forms a family tree believe it or not. I think you should go back to "studying" science. There is a lot in cosmology and astrophysics that contradicts the bible as well.
nfarboody 6 months ago
"Separation of Church and state" is not in any legal document, and was coined in the 1800's to mean that the state should not be allowed to hinder the Church.
The reason why education is as it is in America is because of the early 20th century.
The 'lost generation' took place, the Church was marginalized, Darwinian evolution took root, people spoke out (rather impulsively, i might add) against the Church, and the general populace through all this spawned liberalism.
IamDUFF 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What I got out of this was that he is attempting to merely open up a dialogue between the scientific community and the religious community, and I don't thing that there is anything wrong with it...
Helen1957ful 8 months ago
What I got out of this was that he is attempting to merely open up a dialogue between the scientific community and the religious community, and I don't thing that there is anything wrong with it...
Helen1957ful 8 months ago
Clearly this dude switched his head with his ass and poorly glued hair to it so that it loosely resembles something akin to a real human head. No actual human head, though, would contain such a ridiculous opinion.
alphaenemy 8 months ago
It was like something vomited out by a pomo generator.
croutonfada 8 months ago
a great amount of charisma for such a little amount of intelligence
euphorazine 9 months ago
GO THROUGH THE SAME FUCKING PROCESS AS EVOLUTION DID, GET THE EVIDENCE AND UR IN....retard...
Deliwio 9 months ago
Cocksucker doesn't even mention a damn thing about id creationism! He just rants and rants and rants! Read his books? This cocksucker is full of bullshit! I personally believe his mother fucked a cowdung shaped as a dick to get impregnated with him!
ajwrocksinger 9 months ago
This is just another religious rant to get the church into education because it will die without indoctrination.
UnlistedAccount 9 months ago 2
Science, it works bitches!
Thats why we value science.
omegavalerius 9 months ago
He doesn't get why there needs to be a split between science and religion. A few reasons are (the six day creation story), (the whole earth flood story), and (the young earth belief derived from bible genealogies). It is amazing to me that anyone would be gullable and stupid enough to believe and defend ancient fables written by fools who thought the earth was flat.
john17972 9 months ago 2
He's a good speaker...but you just cant teach intelligent design because its not science. Your not going to go out and conduct field research, your not going to combine chemicals in a lab, your not going to measure distances between stars, your not going to inject mice and chimpanzees to observe the effects of medications, your going to open the bible to chapter one.
viancu 10 months ago 4
religion falls behind on everything... sorry bro
2nDoppelganger 10 months ago
good speaker
fdr100100 11 months ago
Why is this clown's mic on?
fielsjd 1 year ago 5
What a dumbass, not much more to say for this confused putz.
spartamerican 1 year ago
Iheardanawfullotofwordsbutdonotrememberanyofthem.
Did he blabber anything important?
clothearednincompoop 1 year ago 17
Yes, we should think in a way like people in 300 years ago did. We should not improve ourselves. We should follow the old dying tradition. By all means, burn the heathens!
bbsonjohn 1 year ago
great idea. lets also teach geocentricism and that apples sometimes float in air to encourage people to study science...... the gullible ones we need in science.............
Aanthanur 1 year ago
dumb. Thousands and thousands of words could be offered on this pablum to enlighten to its incorrect nature and its irrelevance, but simply, dumb, sums it up with more beautiful elegance than this deserves.
Tetrahedragon1 1 year ago
Before reacting negatively to what this guy is saying, it is important to realize the position from which he is saying it. Someone here says "why is sociologist discussing science?". I want to point out that he is talking about science as a subject, from an outside perspective, in order to address the question of education as a place where different subjects interact, and by that I mean knowledge and ideas. In fact, he explicitly tries to divorce the ideas of creationism and religion.
momez86 1 year ago
I do agree that he probably picked the wrong example to establish his point of view as a mediator, an outsider, or an impartial educator. He also is very redundant as he says the same thing over and over, but he makes a good point when saying that creationism (as an idea, or as a specific text) can motivate student to get into science, and I'm sure that as a sociologist he would have better examples to illustrate this. The question of intelligent design has always been a relevant question in....
momez86 1 year ago
....science, is it might also be understood as an analogy to how we interact with nature and the effects we can have in it, not only as an intelligence that preceded human knowledge.
I think that more concretely, fuller is trying to say that this science vs. religion dichotomy is the product of the American system and the current state of its politics. I agree with this, I just don't think he proposes anything concrete or for that matter, even understands the problem thoroughly.
momez86 1 year ago
He does propose that a solution might be in the selection of appropriate texts, as this can inspire an expansion of knowledge in the classroom, either through acceptance or rejection, and always through critical reading. Then the problem has to do more with the ability of the educator to provoke and encourage, not just guide the students towards the "right modes of knowledge".
momez86 1 year ago
@momez86 Science is not an analogy of how we interact with nature. Science is a tool . A method that can be used by anyone, religious or not, to explain what we don't know or even what we thought we knew, to expand knowledge and understanding. The problem with ID is people want to push ID without doing the research, publishing peer reviewed journals, providing data that can easily be reproduced by anyone conducting the same experiments. ID is being legislated into education by political means.
galbijoe 1 year ago
@galbijoe Well, that is not what I said at all. You just read my last comment, which was a continuation of the one before, so you read the sentence half way. Read the end of the previous one, where the sentence actually starts and you'll see what it was that I was referring to as an analogy.
Now, read my comments in chronological order and you will see we are not that far apart in our views. What I said is the concept of an "intelligent designer" can also be applied to curious scientific.....
momez86 1 year ago
@galbijoe (continued)....minds, and not only to a religious creator or a god. In other words, a scientist could be understood as the creator of the world; as the designer that explores and reorganizes what is around himself. For example, the anthropic principle is not that different from what I am saying, in the sense that it makes human experience the cause, and at the same time the consequence, for what we perceive as such a specifically and delicately designed universe.
momez86 1 year ago
@momez86 Sure I understand that the designer(s) does not have to be a god; however, they would appear god-like to us. To clarify I'm not opposed to ID being taught in schools, but NOT in a science class or science until there is more evidence in the way of credible published scientific paper/research supporting it. For me ID holds about a much water as creation stories from Terry Pratchet's Ring World series. It may be interesting/entertaining, but should not be taught as science.
galbijoe 1 year ago
Fuller has only negative suggestions. He cannot posit a single, viable ID theory. He just says, "Wait, we'll have something someday!"
Xenophile665 1 year ago
Holy shit, this guy's a professor at a UK university??? Fuck, it's time for UK to start worrying.
squidfanny 1 year ago
I think that it's amazing that people with mental disabilities can get a Phd in America.
NoCrispin 1 year ago
Why is this debate so 2 sided?
I Love God with a pantheistic understanding.
I study what I Love.
I am a scientist-artist.
silasviris 1 year ago
The fact that there's an established church in UK doesnt mean much when you consider how secular it is here.
msugda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, this guys an idiot...
monkeytwineball 1 year ago
Does Teaching Intelligent Design Benefit Science Education?
NO, no, definitely not. Creationism isn't science by it's own nature. It states that a supernatural thing/being created everything and by it's own nature it doesn't follow natural, scientific, observable, demonstrative laws.
God or whatever supernatural being you want to go with created and can break any of the natural laws that govern our world.
galbijoe 1 year ago
@galbijoe listen closely to the first sentences he says, and you'll find that he explicitly separates Creationisms (more specifically in the Christian rhetoric) and intelligent design. From here he attempts to build his argument; at no point he talks about god, or says that intelligent design necessarily implies a supernatural being that "created and can break any of the natural laws that govern our world", as you say.
momez86 1 year ago
@momez86 I did listen to the video closely. Please read my OP carefully. I was responding with my opinion to the question/title of this video "Does Teaching Intelligent Design Benefit Science Education?" Sorry if that wasn't clear.
galbijoe 1 year ago
Wow that was stupid, and quite tipical for modern american thinking.
VladMSTR 1 year ago
wow...the "Divine Plan" idea is not the best answer...this guy is a dumbass. We try to find out how everything works so we can understand it and then manipulate it to improve our lot. And because we have ontological questions we could answer with hard science. We could teleport and travel to other galaxies if we know how to bend space-time. Just because there IS a way everything works, it doesn't mean it's "divine" or has been designed by something. That's just fucking retarded.
CrocodileTears88 1 year ago
this guy is an idiot.
why don't we teach the Greek mythologies in school too?
atheistkyo 1 year ago
Science is about reality! You can't teach, for example, how there are different types of cellular flagella, of varying levels of complexity, that clearly evolved from specific genes, whose components are found in all different cell organelles, and then give equal time to the guy who says "There's only one type of bacterial flagellum, and no less complex type can exist, therefore it's designed." That's obviously not a fact, and not logical, but it's one of many 'arguments' supporting I.D.
DoctorNociceptor 1 year ago
He says "forms of inquiry that are alien to ordinary modes of understanding". poor retard... if it doesn't have to do with the mortgage and how to pay it, then it's alien.
And I thought the church boasted its intelligent design hocum on all people being capable of reason...
harkonexus 1 year ago
Comment removed
markgg1 1 year ago
What people consistently get confused about with science is its purpose. Science at its core, has no grand purpose, or grand meanign behind it. It is simply a discipline that explains the natural world. If it has a practical benefit, than thats a byproduct. Obviously politicians will only fuund science if it has a benefit, but again thats irrelevant.
Science does not make claims on ethics, or morality. This is for humans to do.
For me science is the only pure discipline, and I love it for that
markgg1 1 year ago
Oh Steve...... you are clearly not a scientist. You confuse science and free speech. In free speech, all opinions are valid and equal, regardless of their basis on morality or factual evidence.
Science is based on evidence, its not the forum for multiple theories that require separate pieces of evidence. A fact must be based on observation and data. If you haven't got the data, that you cannot propose your idea (unlike in political discourse, where you can appeal to emotion or moral appeals)
markgg1 1 year ago
The suggestion that scientism is as fundamental as religion is certainly a valid point. But that is a subject for discussion in a philosophy or social studies class. It should be expected that science be the only thing taught in a class called "Science." If you want other things taught, call the class something else. Feynman once put it perfectly: "If something is said not to be a science, it does not mean that there is something wrong with it; it just means that it is not a science."
account9019 1 year ago
Teaching intelligent design in a science class is equivalent to teaching alchemy in a chemistry class, or astrology in an astronomy class. Steve Fuller is not qualified, as a psychologist, to talk about evolution or any other science, outside of psychology.
heathdwatts 1 year ago
@heathdwatts
He sounded to me intelligent enough to not make comments like yours. Being that, by your own criteria, you must be a Chemist, Astronomer & Psychologist for having asserted your opinions about all three fields. You also sound like you're aware of the fact that Psychology has, throughout its history, had its theories developed from the evolutionary viewpoint
But some people just happen to be hypocritically special enough to be exempted from the rules which they themselves impose
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi " Evolution is 'just a theory' after all - surely in the spirit of encouraging critical thinking we should teach the controversy? "
These words appear in the information under this clip... I'm assuming they are Fuller's.
In it he clearly shows a misunderstanding of the word " theory " as it relates to scientific practice, and he implies a controversy where one does not exist in scientific circles...
So... I agree.. he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Roper122 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@heathdwatts
He sounded to me intelligent enough to not make comments like yours. Being that, by your own criteria, you must be a Chemist, Astronomer & Psychologist for having asserted your opinions about all three fields. You also sound like you're aware of the fact that Psychology has, throughout its history, had its theories developed from the evolutionary viewpoint
But some people just happen to be hypocritically special enough to be exempted from the rules which they themselves impose
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
What a facetious argument. The reason we see a unifying system in science is completely unrelated to mythology and fantasy. It's because evidence shows common factors simply because the universe is physical and physical laws are not local. In essence he stated the exact opposite of the truth.
There is no need to inject ego fantasy labeled a 'theory' (which ID is not. a theory describes evidence, not lack of evidence) into science education.
bezzleboo 1 year ago
let's ask a scientist what he thinks about how to teach sociology in schools.
Caps3000 1 year ago
you gotta give them some hope to live right?
This guy needs to learn science before talking about it in such a bullshit way.
thejugglenaut91 1 year ago 23
@thejugglenaut91 Isn't sociology a science of studying group phenomena? I don't think you are really speaking to his point. He was a bit convoluted in his presentation, but he was essentially just saying that the scientific community's view of religion is so laden with hubris that it defeats it's own purposes sometimes. I think that Neil Tyson puts it best when he talks about people being too big headed about their knowledge of approximately 4% of the known universe.
PerfectlyBlack 5 months ago
130adi, I like you. You're more intelligent than most people I've debated on this subject. But your constant assertions that we do not know how evolution works flies straight in the face of the various book I have here in my bookcase which definitely show quite opposite. I do not wish to continue if all can you do is wave off research.
Evolution is not an easy subject to accept. It deals with our origins, and some people take offence to that, however I'm not implying that you are one of them.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
Thanks Gigano I like you too.
I'm definitely not closed minded and I want to see better explanations for evolution. When I say we don't know, is not because we don't know how selection works. That we undestand and we had experience with selection way before Darwin. However, we don't know what is involved in evolution, how mutations or genetics can create new phenotypes. We see longer beaks are selected during a dry season, but how are beaks created in the first place?
130adi 1 year ago
Every phenotype that is generated finds its origins in the embryology of the organism. Delete or alter certain genes and thereby you change the embryological development and therefore the phenotype. A mutation or gene duplication may increase or decrease the enzymatic activity of a developmental protein. This in turn may lead to enlarged bone structures, such as the beak.
All the variations in phenotype in multicellular organism originate in changes in embryological development.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
The neo-Darwinian synthesis incorporates genetic embryology intensively when look at phenotype changes. I'd recommend you to look up some information concerning embryological development: it may answer some of your questions concerning new phenotypes.
Embryology in my experience is often neglected or forgotten in discussion about evolution. Which is a shame, as it can answer many questions.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
"Saying that there is no consensus on evolution is sort of like..."
The question is not about evolution, the question is about wether there is design in nature and if can be studied or infered using logical and scientific reasoning.
Also it is not clear how evolution occurs, we simply don't know. It could very well be designed, programmed and front-loaded evolution.
With the rise of epigenetics there seems to also be a trend to go back to some Lamarkian principles of evolution.
130adi 2 years ago
I would argue that we have a pretty good understanding of how evolution works on the ecological, organic and molecular level. Even if we did not, that would still not justify researching the design hypothesis: that concept would have to be verified on account of its own evidence, not resting on the falsification of a different theory.
Epigenetics does play an important role in eukaryote evolution, but it's pretty obvious that it is not the only concept (genetic drift and flow are as well).
Gigano1986 2 years ago
You think we have a good understanding of evolution but yet there are no mechanisms given to explain how anything evolved.. What were the steps taken, to evolve a wing or a hair folicle or whatever? What were the molecular changes, mutations or what can we predict about where evolution is taking us?
All we are given is a possible selection pressure and poof there it must have evolved. These are nothing but handwaving explanations, not real and rigorous scientific work.
130adi 1 year ago
Keep telling yourself that mantra - maybe it'll start to become true one day (I doubt it though). Look up "evolution mechanism of [insert item interest here]" on either PubMed or Web of Knowledge and you'll find loads of peer-reviewed scientific articles on research involving evolutionary mechanisms.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
"Look up evolution mechanism"
Thanks for telling where to looks things up.. I assure you I'm familiar with the literature and it is for this reason that I say it is lacking. For the most part we have no clue how evolution really works. Evolution needs to be backed up by mathematics, genetics, the kind of mutational changes to produce the effect in question, not just insert random variation and natural selection or find a few transitional forms. It doesn't answer the question of "How"?
130adi 1 year ago
"For the most part we have no clue how evolution really works."
I told you to repeat that mantra, and here we are. You're following my instructions carefully, well done. Have you ever, ever read a book on molecular evolution? Ensure you do, you'll see you're mistaken and save me a lot of trouble explaining it. Also, if you're asserting that we can deduce molecular evolution by merely looking at fossils there is little point in discussing this issue any further.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
"...what can we predict about where evolution is taking us?"
Predicting the evolution of a species is hard if not impossible, because we do not know what the selective pressures will be a few million years from now, nor can we know exactly what kind of mutations will arise in the future. Evolution is a blind watchmaker without a goal: it works with whatever variations come about at random instances. Suitable variations are preserved, not so suitable ones are discarded.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
"These are nothing but handwaving explanations, not real and rigorous scientific work."
Explanations for a certain evolutionary process come with their own predictions and expected observations. Like the Big Bang model, produced solely from observation that the universe is expanding. That model made predictions concerning matter ratios and radiation levels. Those predictions were met and verified. Therefore the Big Bang model is an accurate approximation of reality. Just like evolution.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
"This guy isn't promoting science, but pseudo-science."
He just said at the end that it has to be legitimate scientific work, or do you randomly define now that anything questioning materialistic evolutionary thinking is pseudo-scientific?
Are we not allowed to do any research in the area of design just because there is "a consensus", so you say?
130adi 2 years ago
Anything that defies evolutionary theory on a scientific basis would be considered valid: one example is the one you mentioned: Lamarckian evolution.
ID is not a scientific theory because it doesn't offer true methodological explanations or verifiable predictions. Scientists don't criticise ID for the concept of a designer, but for the lack of evidence and scientific content.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
That is not true. One can use design filters in biology to detect intelligent agency just like other fields of science. We can filter intelligence when it comes to cryptography, forensic science or archaeology, so why not in biology?
Think about it, if you detect mathematical logic in a biological system, would you not infer design? Would it not help our understanding of the system better, or help us in reverse engineering to build a similar system ourselves. ID could be very fruitfull.
130adi 1 year ago
I detect mathematical logic in the diffusion of chemicals in Petri dishes or test tubes all the time in the laboratory. Should I then infer that there is an intelligent agent 'guiding' the molecules through the water? Of course not.
The subjects of study you mentioned deal with cultural phenomena - not biology. Culture is a distinct feature of intelligence. We do not see such a phenomenon in the natural sciences, which are absent of culture.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
"I detect mathematical logic in the diffusion of chemicals in Petri dishes"
You are really confused about what I mean when I say mathematical logic so let me explain. I don't mean us calculating reaction rates or difusion gradiants, or anything of that sort. It is the system itself making use of abstract mathematical principles, like angles, or the value of pi, or the storing of mathematical values for later use using calculations and iterations of certain values.
130adi 1 year ago
Well thank you for clearing up any alleged confusion I seem to have had. However, your point of trying to recognise mathematical logic in biological systems fails to work, because there is little to no mathematical logic to found in such systems. If any such logic like angles can be found in life, they're are equally found in inanimate substances (like the water molecule - 109.5 degrees) or in geological formations (the hexagonal basalt columns at Fingal's cave in Scotland for example).
Gigano1986 1 year ago
"your point of trying to recognise mathematical logic in biological systems fails to work"
why? because you said so?
You simply don't understand it. You compare it with water having an angle of 109.5.
There are many mathematical systems in nature. Look at bees, they comunicate mathematical polar coordinates to each other to find food. They have a system in place that stores and transfers mathematical data. This is just one simple example.
130adi 1 year ago
Now you're talking about neurology I take it? Yes, the brain is in a sense capable of creating abstract concepts of mathematics and apply it reality. However we do not know much of this, because as of yet it is beyond our knowledge. Research in brain activity is ongoing, and I'm not willing to speculate about this topic because I'm not all that familiar with neurology and behaviour. I'm not a neurologist nor an ethologist; rather I'm a medical biology major.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
One instance that I would like to comment on that bees (and we) take reality as a mathematical realm. We don't really do that: we grok reality, meaning that we can instinctively imagine such things as relative velocity, components, force, trajectory. But that grokking ability is limited to our level of experience. This is why special relativity and quantum mechanics seem extremely weird to us: they are beyond our usual realm of experience.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
I know of no biological system capable of "storing of mathematical values for later use using calculations and iterations of certain values". The only '(contemporary) storage devices' I know of are DNA and RNA. But they are not used for storing mathematical values. They only code for a sequence of chemicals, directly related to their chemical properties. Implying that DNA is a calculator is similar to saying that ice-crystals are microchips: they simply react in accordance to their properties.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
You're forgetting that evolution, rather than ID, is being used in mechanical engineering all the time: generate random variations of particular design by a computer and select the most suitable ones. Allow the designs to procreate, recombine, create more variation and select again. Aeroplane wings are just one example of the numerous designs which have been optimised using an evolutionary process.
ID would not at all be fruitful. It's a lazy non-explanation, which is also unverifiable.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
So, would the mechanical engineer, who is "selecting" the most suitable ones, be considered an "intelligent designer," or is he selecting a design by pure chance? Your argument defeats itself...there is a designer. Show me how the engineer is not using intelligence by selecting. Your example implies intelligent design.
Gideon74123 1 year ago
No, even though he is intelligent, he's not designing. Design implies a predetermined goal followed a completely non-random construction of the design that we made, before construction began. Like natural selection, the engineer builds on top of pre-existing variations (which are not designed, but randomly generated). It's sort of like giving a toddler random blocks, which the toddler then has to use to build "something" that can be built using those parts. There is no design element in this.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
You can even place a blind engineer in the seat or not an engineer at all to select parts purely at random. The only constructions that will be able to maintain themselves without collapsing are constructions whose building blocks are aptly put together, though not necessarily efficiently. Life is like this, it's not efficient, it's overly complex and there is lots of redundancy to be found.
Design implies efficiency, non-complexity and a goal. Life overall shows none of those features.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
"Design implies efficiency, non-complexity and a goal. Life overall shows none of those features."
You're starting to sound like PZ Myers with such silly comments... There is no restriction you can put on design like that. Design can be either efficient or inefficient, with a goal in mind or not, and it can be hugely complex, really intricate, irreducible and have a lot of specified complexity.
130adi 1 year ago
The man is not important, the argument is. PZ Myers is right on this. Complexity (or "specified complexity") in any form or shape does not constitute by default a design.
The ID hypothesis itself lacks the quantitative essence or research of which you accuse evolution is lacking. Unlike what people like Dembski want you to believe, there is no way to 'calculate' the probability of an eye or a flagellum evolving: we simply lack probabilistic data to do so.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
I have a question for you then also. If it is allowed for life not to show efficiency, goal, or non-complexity, then what is the point of attributing the adjective "intelligent'? Why would something be called "intelligently" designed if it's simply over-excessively complicated, inefficient and aimless?
Also, you should have known by now that irreducible complexity has been debunked in 2005 at Dover vs Kitzmiller. And that specified complexity is mathematical nonsense, as mentioned before.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
So you are saying that in mechanical engineering there is no "intelligent designer." Engineers don't perform calculations, chose materials that are best suited for certain applications and use ideas from past design? They might employ the methods you are suggesting, but they use "intelligent design" more. To suggest otherwise is totally dishonest.
Gideon74123 1 year ago
In an evolutionary mechanism of engineering optimisation (not design) there is no intelligent designer, rather artificial selection ('breeding') of pre-existing patters and designs.
You're taking my analogy of evolutionary engineering beyond what it's meant to illustrate. Yes, engineers design using mathematics and physics - that is designing intelligently. But for optimisation of certain pre-existing elements, they sometimes resort to an evolution mechanism of artificial selection.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
And it was the evolutionary mechanism that I used to illustrate that selection can produce an optimal configuration which has the signature of design, but rather isn't actively designed. It would be the process of random variation and artificial selection.
I do not deny that engineers mostly design actively with the use of modern science. But it was the difference between actively designing something and using an evolutionary mechanism to optimise that I tried to illustrate.
Gigano1986 1 year ago
This man rambles, is vague, and generalizes his arguments with burning men. No one "shuns" ID. The movement has not published one article in a major scientific journal. Beyond its scientific rubbish, it is also bad science. We seek to find how things came to be. We will not be satisfied with chalking things up to design.
MST3KLives 2 years ago
'debate is being rhetorically managed'
There is no debate.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
"why should we be studying science ..." i could not watch any more after that, what a pathetically dumb question.
how people like this get any kind of attention at all amazes me. must be a 'stupid american thing'.
quosmo1 2 years ago
What a dumb limp penis this guy is. PLEASE KEEP OUT OF SCIENCE!
thefragile900 2 years ago
A professor in sociology siding with teaching both evolution and creationism. What's that about.
Should we also teach that the holocaust never happened in history, that the moon landing was a hoax...?
Creatiionism/ID doesn't have a single supporting piece of evidence contrasted with an overwhelming number of perfectly consistent facts supporting evolution. We simply can't put them on equal ground. That would only mislead the kids.
HumanMan1234 2 years ago
Has anyone ever noticed that people who criticise evolution the most (via creationism or ID) are often not scientists in the field of biology or scientists at all?
And that people who don't criticise evolution are often biologists?
Is anyone seeing the trend here of understanding being correlated with acceptance?
It's sad.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
You're implying here that people who don't agree with certain types of evolutionary thinking simply don't understand it.
I think a person that can understand Quatum Theory and Particle Physics like this guy does, has no problem understanding Natural Selection. It's some of the Biologists that I'm worried about, who simply accept Evolution by Natural Selection as a given.
130adi 2 years ago
I implied that, because he is a sociologist he doesn't have the authority to question scientific consensus. In much the same way that biologists don't go about questioning quantum theory or elementary particle physics, sociologists don't go about questioning biological theories such as evolution.
Accepting evolution by natural selection and genetic drift does not happen overnight. It's difficult material and it takes time and effort to fathom it completely.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
"because he is a sociologist he doesn't have the authority to question scientific consensus"
There is no such thing as a consensus in science. There are only hypotheses that are being tested using logical reasoning. You are allowed to question everything in science, including evolution by natural selection no matter what field you're in.
May I remind you that Hardy_Weinberg equation that is used so much in evolution was derived by a mathematician, not a biologist.
130adi 2 years ago
I beg to differ. Scientific consensus is when scientists agree which results in recent years are uniform in such a way that the implications could very well be considered fact instead of just hypotheses. This is how discoveries in the field get published in school and university text books.
You can very well be damned sure that if 99.99% off all the physicists (a.k.a. the experts) in the same field agree that gauge theory is valid, then gauge theory to all our knowledge is valid. Period.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
Science is always challenged by new discoveries. You can't say everybody agrees on this, therefore the case is closed! This is not science!
This guy is not criticising science, he is promoting it! Or is it now wrong to question certain aspects of evolution and encourage intelligent design?
Even if there was a concensus on evolution, which is not at all true, the greatest theories in history have challenged the consensus view. Think Galileo or Copernicus.
130adi 2 years ago
I clearly said: "to all our knowledge", as in "as far as we can tell with the information available today".
This guy isn't promoting science, but pseudo-science. ID is not a valid scientific theory for all the same reasons that homoeopathy isn't science.
Saying that there is no consensus on evolution is sort of like saying no transitional fossils have ever been found: a simple lie.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
May I remind you, that HW is hardly used in evolutionary theory. Why? Because for the equation to be applicable to real-life, the population has to meet certain criteria which in reality are almost never met. These criteria include amongst others the absence of mutations, non-random mating, natural selection, genetic drift and genetic flow. As mentioned, these criteria are hardly ever met. HW is a good model to predict allele frequencies, but it's not used in evolution "so much".
Gigano1986 2 years ago
Another thing, the HW principle is directly applicable to population genetics. Genetics by its very nature involves a certain amount of mathematics, just like physics and chemistry do. The HW principle has not been developed in light of evolution, but to explain genetic allele frequencies in an ideal population. Mathematics, statistics and the like are used in all variants of natural science so your argument is a complete fallacy.
Criticising science requires understanding and expertise.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
Fuller: An idiot with an agenda.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
1st: Everybody have an agenda...
2nd: I do not see where he is an idiot; what he say is actually a clear reference to how to make a class...And this is how a teacher should make a class. It does look like it starts upside down. You start be puting the goal...What they should know&be able to do at the end of "X"... Then is what will be the acceptable evidence of the progress and success and then you do some plan of the activity to hit the goal.
therrydicule 2 years ago
Just look at the title of the video. That should suffice, assuming you have any knowledge of:
1) How disingenuous the ID promoters have been, and persists to be.
2) How there's absolutely no evidence to their argument.
Ok?
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Sadly, he is not an idiot. I will love it if he was because we will not have to lose time with these ass holes.
By saying that ID have no evidence, therefor you are saying that it's does not answer to the goal of a particular class without saying what is the goal of this class. If it a studies of people's believes, why not... But no way it could enter in a biological class.
I do not agree on his ultimate goal, but to know that, I have to google his name.
therrydicule 2 years ago
Not an idiot? Listen to what he says, and what his conclusion is around 1:49. What a petty-minded fool.
No, what justifies science are results! As the oft quoted mantra goes "Science - it works, bitches".
Not some fanciful notion of a orchestrator, no, results.
The whole issues here is not sociology or anthropology, but whether or not ID should be taught as science.
To demand that unsubstantiated make-believe is to be taught as an alternative to an impressively supported theory is mere folly.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Well, this is a wrong conclusion...
To know he is not talking about anthropology or sociology (which are 2 branch of the human sciences, by the way), you have to know more about this ass hole.
ID should not be teach as science in biology or in physics. And I totally disagree with his position, but I do not think he is an idiot... And I will prefer him to be an idiot, like that I will not want to use a sledgehammer on his face.
therrydicule 2 years ago
If only schools would spend at least 60 hours on teaching at least the basics of the theory about how the world was created by the flying spaghettimonster It would do a lot to develop and further a critical attitude of the students. Especially critical of the educational system obviously.
tommyrjensen 2 years ago
And that's why sociologists ought not teach physics and chemistry :)
vatoencabronado 2 years ago 25
I'm fine with teaching any creation myth are out there in a science class - to show how it's NOT science.
EyeLean5280 2 years ago
right?
elutz1212 2 years ago
Is he stoned?
820423 2 years ago
I like this , and I bet in a one on one debate he could kick some butt
gravestone555 2 years ago
Why do we keep assuming there is an all encompassing universal theory? Because we have no reason to believe there isn't one.
Religion offers no rational answers, physics does. Study science!
Perrickan 2 years ago 3
Why is a sociologist discussing science??? Go back to studying your tribe in central africa... I mean this is reality not humanity.
Eachonset630 2 years ago 12
Well, it is a good question but I do have one answer... Sociology is a science by itself, so... It's studies the human social activity, sometime in the goal of using knowledge to create some social welfare. Believes and knowledge that people have does have a part on how people act. So he might not speak about science first hand but education and religion first, then the sciences classes because of some interaction from the religious group with sciences classes. Only think: might not be organised
therrydicule 2 years ago
Sociology is indeed a science. But it is unlike biology, physics, chemistry and mathematics not an exact science with quantifiable variables and parameters.
Sociology is less exact and more detriment to philosophy and both personal and cultural bias. The exact sciences are uniform and unrelated to such influences. Nor should they be influenced by such pseudo-sciences like ID in the classrooms.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
Well, I hope that children are enough good to avoid such influences in these days...
But if, for any reasons, somebody decide that we should teach sociology to children... Then ID could be teach, as a mater of believe to some people and not as a mater of truth.
If, for any reasons, they decide to not do that just do not show ID in other classroom where it does not belong, like geology or sex-ed or 'washing your hands'...
therrydicule 2 years ago
all things in science work with god in the equation.
" Napoleon asked Laplace why there was not a single mention of God in Laplace's entire five volume explaining how the heavens operated. Laplace replied to Napoleon that he had "no need for that particular hypothesis". "
xfvkemosx 2 years ago
"without"
right?
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Where are all the muslim clerics who are also quantum physicists. If the quran is so scientific, clerics should be the most advanced of all scientifically. After all, they know how to translate the poetry of the quran. But when you ask them anything about science, they know nothing. Ask a cleric yourself what they think about the heisenberg uncertainty principle? Ask a hundred of those clerics. Ask thousands of them. See what answer you get. NONE.
qigong1001 2 years ago
Now aside from the debate on intelligent design...I am extremely saddened by the scientology ads presented on some of the scientific sites. Don't these channels have a choice in who they promote or advertise. Why would they help promote this garbage?
qigong1001 2 years ago
this makes noooooo sense..science discovers truth through testing and re testing. Science is something that you can understand and can be explained. And your saying we shouldnt separate this and the fairy tales of religion. This is not intelligent at all. science has evidence for many of the bibles tachings to be wrong. For example, the earths age, and adam and eve STORY! plus we have our reason that can tell us such stories as noahs ark are silly and impossible. Plus every religion is right?
johnperry89 2 years ago
ilya prigogine, Toshiyuki Nakagaki, Turing. These are but a few names that strike fear in the "minds" of intelligent design proponents. I find it odd that those who aren't particularly intelligent try to define "intelligence" or try to make any case for "design." Even believers like priest/physicist, Lamaitre ,was careful not to even try it!
qigong1001 2 years ago
anyone who wants answers, read an english transalation of quran you will get all the answer for one moment 4get about everything that u were told about islam, everything that were represented for u in media and told by people. i mean after all everyone is confused here u want answer its a book worth reading it give it a try.
afghanistan321 2 years ago
what if I already read the Q'uran in Arabic, and found it to be just as flawed as any book that claims to tell the absolute truth? Think about it, folks, MEN, 1400-4000 years ago telling you what is true?! They were smart. Many were brilliant. They did astronomy, they did higher math, they invented calendars, they understood the Earth. What none of them have ever done is to prove that there is any god, much less one God. It's a fairy tale Hello?!
kissrev1 2 years ago
can sceince disprove the existence of god? no! they are not elemeniting god, but they are eleminating the existance of god. look at urself there are signs in u, look at how the universe and the earth is created, we muslims believe in the big bang theory cos its mentioned in the quran 1400 years ago and sceince discovered it recently. who caused dat big bang to take place? look beyond that space was a dark place before, where did that come from was it just there or was it created for u?
afghanistan321 2 years ago
If the quran new so much about cosmology, then we would expect millions of nobel prize winning islaamic cosmologists. I can only think of Abdus Salam. In any case, it is not the job of science to disprove things...If YOU make a claim, then YOU have to prove it. Suppose I said, "disprove my imaginary two headed friend." You would say, "you have to prove it, I don't have to disprove it." The same logic should apply to god.
qigong1001 2 years ago
ok yh i agree muslims are backed up from everything but lets not forget that the world owes islam if u want prove then type the history of islam u will get all the answer who muslims were in 8 century, why the world owes islam and why western countries soo advansed in sceince and technology. if that does not prove some of ur question u can ask me again plz i'll be greatfull to discuss these issues.
afghanistan321 2 years ago
I'm sure there were intelligent muslims in the 8th century as there are now. That is not the point. The point is quran is not a cosmology book. There were astronomers back then, as in most cultures, but this is no thanks to islam. It had more to do with individuals, culture and the time. In fact, astronomy predates islam!! No disrespect, but religion (islam, others) is simply not a factor in progress.
qigong1001 2 years ago
well not really there were some greek intellegent but they were not accurate, what im talking about is the quran vs modern sceince, 1400 years ago a man who didnt knw how to read and write his name at age of forthy claimed that he is reciving revelation from god, the words that came out of his mouht were like poetry none of the arab poets had ever heard every time deye heard muhammad's words it was shocking for them and these words happen to be soo accurante no mistake con....
afghanistan321 2 years ago
...... and it does not contridicts modern sceince. how we came to knw about things like stars galaxys, universe matter, the creation of man its reveald to muhammad in a poetic way aswell as having sceinific facts glorifying god at the same time. every human being who have the quran had no doubt to accept it being reveald to muhammad from god in a period of 23 hears, a man asked muhammad dat al da prophets prreformed miracle whats if ur miracle he said the quran and indeed it is. make reasearch
afghanistan321 2 years ago
If the quran is so poetically scientific, would you like to tell everyone where in the quran is the poetic periodic table of elements? How about the poetic quantum structure of matter? What about the poetic general theory of relativity? How about conception of time as a fourth dimension? What about evolution? What about poetic geometry? Topology? Give examples of each please.
qigong1001 2 years ago
ok wot about all the other sceitific facts discoverd recenlty by man mentioned in the quran 1400 years ago thinks like planetary system, universe, big bang, all the things that we discoverd abt earths system like goeology, biology, physics chemestry and much more, why dont u think abt that for a while then come up with things that man has created, bdw evelotion is the bigest bull to belive in. i'll give u a prove and use ur logic. watch?v=H5sfHz3xyNc dnt belive in wat sceintists says.
afghanistan321 2 years ago
Afghan, you haven't answered my questions. Tell us where in the quran is the periodic table, where is the theory of relativity, where is tectonic plate theory? where does it talk about black holes? Saying "look yourself" does not make it a science book. If you were in a physics class and the professor said "look yourself for answers" then you would hardly call him an expert on science. You would call him a fraud or a fake!!
qigong1001 2 years ago
We would expect the professor or a book that claims authority to prove itself. The professor would have to show his specific knowledge. Otherwise, he does not deserve the respect of being an authority. There are virtually no clerics who know anything about science, because your quran knows nothing about science.
qigong1001 2 years ago
its not science's job to disprove god its YOUR JOB to provide imperical evidence of god.
xfvkemosx 2 years ago
well in my religion Allah(god) says look at yourself there are signs in u, look at the heavens(universe space) and earth look at the solar system and ask yourself that could all of this is an accident, look at ur internal organs how they work, how we see, her, taste, think, hear indeed these are signs of the creater, the one who created u and fashioned you and called u human, and said to all the angels that man should be respected for ever. watch?v=Sg6NhnYbqUQ
watch?v=H5sfHz3xyNc u want prove
afghanistan321 2 years ago
Afghan, I looked at one of the videos you suggested. There are some serious problems. You can't possibly believe that you "come from clay...that becomes a sperm...becoming a blood clot...which becomes bones and muscle." I had to confirm that the quran actually says this. Sure enough, it is in Surah 23. Whoever wrote the quran gets a "Fail." Where is the egg!!! If the quran is a book on science, then it is the worst display of biological understanding ever. You are smarter than this, I know it!
qigong1001 2 years ago
what can i say ignorance will belive " when he guidesome1, no one can miss guide him, when he misguides some1 there will no one for him to guide him. thats all i can bdw the quran was not written by anyone it was reaveald to muhammad, from your lord and my lord, we created from earth and we go back to the same earth. even if you are an athiest u will go through the same process as we all do, u will asked questions in the grave, wether u wanna belive it or not there is no compulsion in religion
afghanistan321 2 years ago
did u watch the videos about theory of relativity, periodic table, plate tectonic, and blackholes. i did send u the links though it seems like it is pretty true and u have no questions abt that.
afghanistan321 2 years ago
You have sent nothing about relativity, periodic table, or plate tectonics because there is nothing in the quran about those things. I even read quran passages that say even more scientifically absurd things. In the Ya Sin (quran) it talks about the orbits of the sun and moon in a way that is only possible if the sun revolves around the earth! The site you suggested claims, you were born of sperm with no egg!
Is this the best the quran can come up with. WAKE UP!
qigong1001 2 years ago
Your quran, as all other religions books was clearly written by fallible humans. Otherwise it would not make so many mistakes and claims like I mentioned. Any god would be to embarrassed to get his own work wrong. Would you like me to point out more errors. I found an example that shows god is really a stupid mathematician that can't add fractions. Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 . See yourself.
qigong1001 2 years ago
many things have been stated in religious texts over time. If one statement can be twisted to agree with modern science, we should apply that same logic to the countlessly wrong assertions. It takes less effort to twist the words of religious texts to complete lies than to produce something resembling a truth.
Thundermonk99 2 years ago
Ok, I just finished reading one. Turns out its just as BS as all other religions.
Well that was an anti climax..
fightthepurple 2 years ago
is it by chance that dinosours ceased before human exists...? is it by chance that human existence simply make the earth worse than our non-existence...can science answers these questions? tq.
javabeserk 2 years ago
Actually, yes. Science can.
EricMLopez 2 years ago
my first 2 questions..
1) if liquid is evolved from space gases, what about matter like iron or mud?
2) is it by chance that among all planets earth is unique and the rest within our system more or less the same? why? and how could that happen?
javabeserk 2 years ago
mud is not an element and not worth discussing. That being said, "mud" can be made of many different elements and a solvent, such as water, or nitrogen. All gasses could theorhetically be solid, gas, or liquid depending on atmospheric pressure an temperature.
kissrev1 2 years ago
Bingo! Of course it can. Java read a book that doesnt disseminate fairytales about heacen and hell. You might learn something.
kissrev1 2 years ago
thank you, in fact i'm questioning about the origin of sciences. it's there isnt it? does it have origin?..u r right, fairy tale dont answer answer to questions, but science does..no?
thus, my questions then..
1 - Can mud contains iron, gold, calcium or other elements?. were these gas originated too. how gas come to being then? were they evolved too..from what?
2 - what about the arrangement of planets in our solar systems? how can the sytem evolved so that our earth is singled out?
javabeserk 2 years ago
A book written by men who had dreams and claim false accounts of ever meeting jesus doesn't constitute understanding of anything. Do these religious morons even read the bible? Personally I doubt jesus ever existed at all and we're supposed to take the word of a man nobody has ever met because some old paper that's been translated more times then I could wipe my ass with it in a lifetime says so? These days religion doesn't even have a leg to stand on. Why isn't it just forgotten? who needs god?
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
hah the truth is hillarious i laughed out loud reading this comment
VomitYouOut 2 years ago
Why is this silly twat allowed to teach at Warwick?
CaptainRhoo 2 years ago 2
great. a sociologist acts like he knows evolution... I feel sorry for those hard working scientists who have published papers about evolution
Nades129 2 years ago
Great. A youtube wannabe genious acts like he would be legitimated to judge the professionals.
I feel sorry for those hard working scientists who just recives crap from you in response. I really hope he listens to other professionals and not you! =)
MERisenForce 2 years ago
I hope you watched the full vid of this. Fuller wants to change science where in even pseudoscience would be considered science too.
Nades129 2 years ago