Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

[justone]

What The F@CK Does this MEEEAAAAN?.....I seriously have no Idea what you just tried to Type.

Which part? If it is #5 I had tried to explain a few time. Here I tryed AGAIN to repeat myslef and to ADD to myself - may be from a slightly defferent angle. It could depend on my ability to put T-cs in civil terms.
Cannot do more. If it is any better for you: wikipedia:
A real or imaginary boundary separates the system from the rest of the universe, which is referred to as the environment or surroundings (sometimes called a reservoir.) ...
Systems are divided into three types:

An isolated system can exchange neither energy nor matter with its surroundings.
A closed system can exchange energy but not matter with its surroundings.
An open system can exchange both matter and energy with its surroundings. All real systems are open, though they can sometimes be theoretically approximated as closed or isolated.

...Likewise, the system loses matter to its surroundings. The materials that the test tube and insulation are made of will gradually dissolve in the air. This process, too, can usually be neglected...
It may look a little bit confusing and somewhat contradictory to you, but if you put yourself in envoroment of T-cs .... well at first you will be even more confused, then you would see it clear, then you would be confused again, but you would not care anymore (joke with a bit of truth)
Again you would have to operate with the definitions - not like you know the same words in your meanings, but on terms of T-cs. I tryed to translate a few in a civil language , but ...


if it is #6: first 2 sentences are just a little bit of b/s which do not matter foe the subject' but were important to indicate that I was a little bit pissed off. The 3rd sentence was from previous posts.

 

[justone]

Now I did some google search again, though I am still afraid of Internet because it is loaded with a lot of b/s.
Again, these quotes did not mean ID or ToE. I was looking for something to support my personal opinion. I was very pleased that I did not invent anything new:


[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.
Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, Thermodynamics in Einstein's Universe, in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509.


The law that entropy always increases -- the second law of thermodynamics -- holds I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much worse for Maxwell equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, in The Nature of the Physical World. Maxmillan, New York, 1948, p. 74.

 

[MrFungus420]

Look, he supports, but does not mandate, that ID be presented in school. I remember taking an Alternative Religions class in high school. Nobody asked me to accept it as absolute and nobody asked me to make a stink about it either. School is for provacotive thought. Science is fine. Evolution is fine. Creation should be equally fine.

In a class on comparative religions, or something similar, I have no problem with creationism/ID being taught. However, trying to teach creationism/ID as science is something else, entirely. Teaching creationism/ID as a scientific alternative to evolution is about on par with teaching astology as being as scientifically valid as astronomy.

 

[MrFungus420]

Earth is not a closed system

Doesn’t matter, Doesn’t matter, Doesn’t matter, Doesn’t matter,

Since the Laws of Thermodynamics apply only to closed systems, why would you think that it doesn't matter that the Earth is not a closed system?

and therefore the first law of thermodynamics

2nd law, 2nd law, 2nd law, 2nd law, 2nd law and the 1st law too

In this instance, it doesn't really matter which of the Laws of Thermodynamics being refered to. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, therefore, there is no violation of the Second law.

cannot be applied to what happends on earth as if it were one.

MUST be applied everywhere, MUST be applied everywhere, MUST be applied everywhere,

It must be applied everywhere that it is appropriate. Since the Laws of Thermodynamics specifically refer to a closed system, and the Earth is not a closed system, the Laws of Thermodynamics are not entirely applicable.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say that the Second Law does apply in this case. Now, in order for there to be a violation, you would have to show that evolution makes more useable energy available.

 

[Indy]

Now I did some google search again, though I am still afraid of Internet because it is loaded with a lot of b/s.
Again, these quotes did not mean ID or ToE. I was looking for something to support my personal opinion. I was very pleased that I did not invent anything new:


[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.
Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, Thermodynamics in Einstein's Universe, in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509.


The law that entropy always increases -- the second law of thermodynamics -- holds I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much worse for Maxwell equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, in The Nature of the Physical World. Maxmillan, New York, 1948, p. 74.

Ok, not to sound harsh or anything, but you're posts seem to meander around quite alot without actually getting anywhere. If you want to make a point that is fine, but please get to it. And as for "dumbing" it down for us, I'm sure you have quite a bit of education but remember you aren't the only person on this forum with education. We could do without the condesension.

 

[justone]

If you want to make a point that is fine, but please get to it. And as for "dumbing" it down for us,

I was politely answering questions imposed on me when I was in the process of making my point. I accept that it is quite possible I have not been expressing my point quite clearly. also sometimes I am not sure what would be the point in the end when I am in the process of researching a problem

I'm sure you have quite a bit of education .

Well, in difference from you I am not quite sure about my education, even if I have diplomas and licenses. it has been looong time ago since i opened a book the last time. I'm not like walking around proud of my "education". I treat everyone here as everyone has a slightly better education than I have.

 

[steen]

2. the second law seemed to me more applicable to Biogenesis or genesis, rather than to ToE, and I said so.

Why is it applicable at all? What is it that applies and casts doubt on Abiogenesis, or even on Evolution? That argument by itself simply makes no sense at all.

3.T-cs is applicable – in my view – to living organisms and I described why,

Could you provide that explanation again? We missed where it showed relevance. Because as far as I read it, you are trying to extrapolate from energy flow of a closed system to merely looking at information. certainly, if the argument is that complexity can't arise, then you personally arising from a single cell is impossible. So THAT argument is pure nonsense.

and I described why you will die in my opinion.

Death is not from any energy issue, but rather from cells being unable to replicate after a certain amount of time.

I am not aware of such studies combining T-cs and biology.

Because the mixing of these two unrelated concepts are nonsense.

Evolution certainly involves T-cs but I have no descriptions or reference beyond my own mind.

Could you tell us how it involves thermodynamics? You have failed to show the relevance.

4. First of all we applied the 2nd law to a snowflake (crystal) as to a “”complex system” in T-cs – without any ties to a definition of a complex system – it was the right thing to do to follow the text.

Again, as long as energy can be applied from the outside, the part of 2LoT about entropy is utterly irrelevant.

And the second law is applicable in the any place of the universe. you started your life in the universe.

But the entropy of this "any place" is not irreversible locally with the addition of energy. your very existence can be claimed to be a reversal of entropy, yet when you eat, you maintain this anti-entropy existence.

6. Everyone knows that I like to pick on ToE because of my personal frictions with Darwin,

Which seems to be rooted ignorance about Darwin and Evolution, yes. PARTICULARLY about Evolution.

and everyone knows that the most of my knowledge of ToE comes from this forum.

Which makes it very risky for you to make absolutist claims about Evolution that you don't even know and understand.

 

[steen]

Your hate for the man is so out of control that your argument is laughable. Words like moron suffocate your party. It's funny none of you have been able to see that yet. :mrgreen:

False. Bush has shown himself to be an utter moron as to what science is. Your pathetic and lame denial merely shows your avoidance of the evidence and lack of integrity.

 

[steen]

The law that entropy always increases -- the second law of thermodynamics -- holds I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature.

But locally, it can decrease. THAT is what you ignore. YOUR EXISTENCE is evidence that locally, entropy can be reversed with addition of energy.

But if your theory is found to be against the second law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

What theory is that?

 

[KCConservative]

False. Bush has shown himself to be an utter moron as to what science is. Your pathetic and lame denial merely shows your avoidance of the evidence and lack of integrity.

Tell us the science involved in your moron analysis. Opinions are funny things.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Two more items of evidence, supporting Evolution instead of Intelligent Design:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5325720
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/science...9wDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhcmljNmVhBHNlYwNtcm5ld3M-

And so the score is:
Intelligent Design: Zero Supporting Evidence
Evolution: Lots of Supporting Evidence, and Accumulating.

 

[BodiSatva]

I am not sure why this is even a debate?

Also, why can't the two co-exist?

 

[Sir_Alec]

I am not sure why this is even a debate?

Also, why can't the two co-exist?

Because Intelligent Design is a religious theory and has no place in school.

 

[justone]

Could you provide that explanation again?
Death is not from any energy issue, but rather from cells being unable to replicate after a certain amount of time.
Could you tell us how it involves thermodynamics? You have failed to show the relevance.
Again, as long as energy can be applied from the outside, the part of 2LoT about entropy is utterly irrelevant.
.

I accepted that I failed. Approximately 3 times I returned to open/closed systems – but Mrfungus, is asking the same question the 4Th time. Did he ever read my posts?
I hardly feel at this moment I can provide explanation again for you – I already did a lot, the most I could.
I would really have to figure out what you do not understand., and how I can do better explaining, - if I ever can do better.
If you look where 2LoT question originates, - you will see it was in the techoyah’s post . Also I may think you did not read my posts which started from replying to the tecoyah’s post. If you read and still don’t understand, you really are getting me lost, I don’t know how I can do more simple and clear.

 

[justone]

Death is not from any energy issue, but rather from cells being unable to replicate after a certain amount of time.

.

Let me make an attempt.
A cell replicates if certain conditions are met -food, energy from the sun, enviroment, etc.
After a certain amount of time cell is unable to replicate anymore, but the conditions remain the same - energy from the sun, food etc.
Which order is followed by the cell?
This cycle and death of the cell is a repeated with no exclusion observation, fact. How do you explain it? What is the reason?

 

[Duke]

I am not sure why this is even a debate?

Also, why can't the two co-exist?

Why can't evolution co-exist with the fundamentalist Christian idea of creation? Or the Aztec "theory" of how the world came to be? Or the Theory of the Flying Spahetti Monster, that the Flying Spahetti Monster (the one [/I]true[/I] deity) created the world in Five Days?


Duke

 

[MrFungus420]

I accepted that I failed. Approximately 3 times I returned to open/closed systems – but Mrfungus, is asking the same question the 4Th time. Did he ever read my posts?

Yes, I did read them. Even your quote from Wikipedia makes the point. The Earth is not a closed system. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to closed systems.

So, this brings me back to the question of why you would think that it doesn't matter that the Earth is not a closed system when we are talking about the Laws of Thermodynamics, which only apply to closed systems?

That simple fact shows that there is no conflict between evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.