[Peter Barker]

Peter Barker asked the Naked Scientists:

Do you wince at the fundamentalist Christians who estimate that the Earth is around 3,000 to 6,000 years old and dismiss carbon dating? Further, do you, like me, lead a good moral life without the belief in an imaginary higher being in 'heaven'? Yes, I am an a-theist, just as I am an a-fairyist. Does your knowledge of science also make you non-believers ?

What do you think?

[DoctorBeaver]

I am certainly not a believer in intelligent design. I do have religious beliefs, but they are not in conflict with science.

[blakestyger]

There is a very good article in this week's New Scientist about getting religion into US science classes and what seems to cause most annoyance is the way that ID proponents have "taken a cherished feature of science and turned it on its head to promote a non-rational agenda". It's on p.8 Class Conflict.

[BenV]

I find intelligent design to be quite dishonest - rather than just saying "I choose to reject the scientific explanation of how species form and change over time, and instead believe the christian doctrine of creation" it seeks to distort science to fit a set of religious assumptions.

I don't mind if people chose to believe the bible instead of reason and science, that's up to them.  However, I feel that once you do this, you opt out of discussion on the science of evolution and speciation.  I'm not sure how people can choose to reject logic and science on this topic, but continue to work within other scientific fields, but I accept that this is a personal issue that each individual has to deal with.

I am deeply offended, however, by the intelligent design movement seeking to censor evolution in schools, or worse, to insist that it is taught alongside evolution in science lessons.  I feel that all the creation myths should be taught in religious education lessons, as they are key to understanding different cultures.

[DoctorBeaver]

I think it would be really funny if, one day, it was proven that an alien prankster dictated the Bible  []

Well, I've seen it "proven" that spaceships and aliens are referred to in the Bible.

[opus]

Worryingly some book companies, who have a reputation for producing good quality science resources, are adding intelligent design workbooks to their available lists. Surely, they shoud be offered alongside religious theory books, not science...?  Wadyathink?

[DoctorBeaver]

Worryingly some book companies, who have a reputation for producing good quality science resources, are adding intelligent design workbooks to their available lists. Surely, they shoud be offered alongside religious theory books, not science...?  Wadyathink?

I agree. There is no science whatsoever in ID.

[opus]

In a an advertised sample page, they were suggesting that descriptions of ancient animals in the bible were in fact descriptions of dinosaurs!!!!!!!!!! The book was intended for primary school pupils- how outrageous is that  ......?

[rosalind dna]

I will never believe in Intelligent design as it's all because of some schools and certain court cases in the States.

But we've evolved from fish, monkeys to early humans to the modern world that we live in Now. With all of its problems.

[opus]

When teaching, I used to regularly say how things were 'designed' in nature for instance- I  wince myself if I say  that now, in case it sounds like I believe in intelligent design!

[Asyncritus]

The politics have obscured the science. Behe's case is absolutely watertight despite evolutionist blathering.

Has any of you ever read the book, or are you simply taking up positions for less worthy reasons?

[atrox]

lol...I read some very convincing articles and homepages and arguments of creationists... they convinced me, that I will never believe in ID.

My favourite: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/ []

I really love the "Thale of transition from water to land"... better than any good-night-thale!

I´m always wondering if lungfish, mudskipper and eels never read the "Why Transition From Water to Land
is Impossible"-part.
Maybe someone should tell them, that they will die within the next few Seconds, when they leave water..

Why does the eel not know, that its impossible for him, to cover the distance between two habitats, spending hours out of water without a propper sceletton or the right muscles?
Why does the Mudskipper not know, that he will dry up immediately, when spending more time out of water (like all the amphibias do, which should have the same skin-problem as described).
Why does the lungfish not know, that he wasn´t allowed to suddenly (all evolutionists know, that the fish ages ago jumped suddenly out of the water and started climbing the trees, eh?!...Thats what evolution ist all about, isn´t it??) develop these organs for breathing which gave him his name?
Why the hell do some fish die, when you prevent them from taking the chance to breath air (Anabantoidei, Corydoradinae).

Maybe someone should go out an tell them, that they don´t exist... there are no transitional forms...nooo! []
 

[Asyncritus]

I followed your link, atrox, and came on this:
"Mathematicians looking for answer to this question (why bees construct hexagonal cells) reached an interesting conclusion: "A hexagon is the most appropriate geometric form for the maximum use of a given area."

A hexagonal cell requires the minimum amount of wax for construction while it stores the maximum amount of honey. So the bee uses the most appropriate form possible."

Now a bee has a brain the size of a pinhead, and I doubt very much if there are too many bees out there with mathematical degrees.

How did they figure out the extreme intelligence-requiring fact that a hexagon would be the ideal mathematical structure for the storage of their honey?  It also requires the minimum amount of wax, I gather.

If there's no intelligence at the back of it, how did they come up with the design?

Cheers
Asyncritus

[Asyncritus]

In a an advertised sample page, they were suggesting that descriptions of ancient animals in the bible were in fact descriptions of dinosaurs!!!!!!!!!! The book was intended for primary school pupils- how outrageous is that  ......?

No more outrageous than my hearing a 7 year-old telling her mother in the pharmacy that 'you know the  reptiles became birds, mum'. There's been some serious brain washing there!

[paul.fr]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjqdLG5RNg

that is all you need to know.

[atrox]

Oh wow, Asyncritus... did you even read what I wrote?

You know what the problem whith ID is? That most of the arguments are either just a lie/not true (as the example with the fish) or meaningless because they wont prove a theory to be wrong (as argueing, that evolution was an instrument of the nazis... even if so, thats just no argument in science...btw, I´m still waiting for the acurate quotation, where they got the idea from, that Darwin himself was a racist...he never said anything like that) or because it fits with the theory of evolution as well.... as your example with the bees (btw. thats not the only argument you would base your opinion on, is it?  [] )
If this is the best form to fit honey in, then it is also the form, where the chance to survive is the biggest... just as simple as that.

You know, what the real problem with ID is?
I would never go out there and say, people who believe in god or an intelligent designer or whatever they want to are brainwashed, stupid...whatever.  ... as long as they won´t do exactly that with people believing in the theorie (oh yes, it is a theorie, not the ultimate truth...we know that...do you creationist know that too?) of evolution  *yeah, thats me for example*... and trying to demonstrate that trough arguments without rhyme or reason. Sorry, but I really wonder who is the brainwashed then... I repeat: didn´t you read the thing with the fish? What do you say about that argument?

cu
aj

[BenV]

Asyncritus, I think you've missed the point.  The bees that produced hexagonal cells were the most successful, as they were getting the maximum gain from the minimum use of wax.  Therefore, they were more likely to breed than the other bees. This is how natural selection works.

No intelligence required.

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus, I think you've missed the point.  The bees that produced hexagonal cells were the most successful, as they were getting the maximum gain from the minimum use of wax.  Therefore, they were more likely to breed than the other bees. This is how natural selection works.

No intelligence required.

You couldn't have figured that out by yourself, Ben - I know I couldn't. Because I wouldn't know how to make honey, certainly not how to make wax without an organic chemistry lab, and without a mathematics degree I wouldn't be able to figure the hexagon bit out.

How do you see it happening? There are all these bees, each trying out different shapes some square, some round etc etc.

The hexagonal ones are the best, so all the others turn up their toes and die out.

That sound likely to you?

[Asyncritus]

lol...I read some very convincing articles and homepages and arguments of creationists... they convinced me, that I will never believe in ID.

My favourite: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/ grin

I went and read that, and found the bees point on there. It was your reference that I was checking.

Now do stick to the point, and answer my question. How did the bees figure out that the hexagonal shape, in 3-dimensions yet, was the most economical for the purpose?

There are other related points, like how did they figure out how to make honey, wax,and then get it into their genes to pass the info on to their progeny?

[Asyncritus]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjqdLG5RNg

that is all you need to know.

Har de har!

I love it!