/sci/ - Science & Math

First, I would like to thank you for making this website and investing your time in a noble cause. This has helped me and presumably millions of others around the world. I would like to sincerely thank you.

That said, I noticed a video about Intelligent Design in the Biology playlist. I am familiar with the style of these videos and that it is not 100% formal, but this is too much. Intelligent Design is not science. This is not about atheism activism or anything of the sort. I am simply concerned about students being instructed about Intelligent Design as though it were somehow even remotely scientific. Perhaps this exposition from the Union of Concerned Scientists will help: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html

This Intelligent Design video belongs in a philosophy section. There's nothing wrong with teaching about this viewpoint. I simply think it should be kept out of the realm of Biology.

Please do not take offense at this. Your videos are otherwise very amazing and perhaps deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize. I am simply concerned about the education of scientific principles--with the clear distinction being made to receptive students between non-scientific/pseudoscientific concepts and actual science that underwent the rigors of the scientific method.

Keep up the brilliant work,
[Name]

ugh. sage.

FUCK YEAH /SCI/

agnostic fag here

it's not being forced upon anyone, who cares.

>>3282730
this is not about atheism/agnosticism, you dense cunt

disliked the video

I can get behind this cause... Intelligent Design has always pissed me off. The closest anologue I can think of to ID is a shady car salesman who puts a fresh coat of paint and some tassles on a broken down lemon and tries to sell it at full price.

My debate club had a debate a year ago against another team that had to argue for intelligent design. As soon as somebody mentioned the Bacterial Flagellum and irreducable complexity I was so happy I almost peed a little. That's like bringing a dildo to a thermonuclear war.

about time /sci/ had something like this

>>3282730
it's the fact that it doesn't belong in a biology class, but maybe in a philosophy/religion class

disliked

Disliked. What a massive bunch of bullshit.

You guys should give this up.

Come and help me get astrology and alchemy put into the science sections.

reported for trying to be the new /b/

really guys, fuck off and leave it alone. I'm sure a kid can tell the difference between God and a eukaryote.

>>3282750
>>3282758
>>3282757
>>3282755
>>3282743

Don't forget to send the email, guys. He's never going to take it down with just dislikes. This needs to be brought to his attention from many unique email addresses.

The email is as polite as possible, but you can of course edit it as you wish.

>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec
>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec
>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec
>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec
>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec

disliked and commented

shit like this is why so many mouthbreathers insist that creationism is valid.

>>3282760
You really need to kill yourself.

Tons of troll threads everywhere. But this thread? Naw, teaching science is not important. I guess we might as well teach homeopathy in medical schools now, or astrology in physics departments.

I hope you die a horrible death.

>Dear Dr Sal khan and associates
> I am very butthurt that you included a video on ID in the biology playlist
> I think that it would fit better in the philosophy playlist
> Please take the time to stop making, editing and uploading videos, and answering questions from students, as well as real world activities to fix this obvious error.
>Thanks, /sci/

>>3282776
Yous should be crucified and burned alive for thinking that all students must be single-viewpointed retards.

And your humor is dryer than my mother's poundcake.

>>3282781
>> Please take the time to stop making, editing and uploading videos, and answering questions from students, as well as real world activities to fix this obvious error.

If you actually read the fucking post with the email in it (2nd post after OP), you will see that it is very gracious and polite. It kindly asks for it to be moved out of the Biology playlist.

>>3282781

>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec
>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec
>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec
>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec
>/sci/ is not /b/ or LulzSec
Second time saying this, folks!
*cymbal*

>>3282786

Which would invariably force some associate or employee of the khan academy to take the time out of his or her day to fix such a fucking minor issue.

LOL HERP DERP YOU INCLUDED A PHILOSOPHICAL IDEOLOGY IN A SCIENCE PLAYLIST PLEASE FIX?

I'd rather they keep moving forward rather than fix small organizational errors.

Everyone is jelly of Sal.
Liked.

>>3282781

>dear mr khan
>someone has erroneously placed an article on Star Wars in the history section
>this is not history, please remove it or move it to a more appropriate section

>>3282790
I know you've been samefagging this thread, so I'm talking to the same person.

But we're not hacking his site or protesting in front of his house. This is just a simple dislike/email. Not "raiding" by any means. Just a little favor we should all do for science and reason, since unfortunately we are in the minority.

>>3282790
Pic Related.

>>OP

I did my part. Sent off a copy.

On an unrelated note: Where the fuck did our sticky go?

>>3282815
>On an unrelated note: Where the fuck did our sticky go?

Dunno, still a mystery I think. But I have the link saved:
https://sites.google.com/site/scienceandmathguide/

Thanks for sending, by the way. Your descendants will thank you.

Sent.
That's the best way to do it, a shitstorm would have a chance to extinguish his flame for education, and that would be catastrophic.

bump

so hard

he is spreading non-science under science, it has nothing to do with religion

>preservation of science

In the interests of preserving science I say we keep it up there purely to troll atheist activists. If you are not an atheist activist you should see the logic in this, it is as logical as evolution.

I would like to commend /sci/ for what could possibly be 4chan's first ever polite, civil raid

>>3282843
By all means, please troll us, it keeps the thread at the top of the page.

Okay, watch the fucking ken miller ID video, during the dover case, ID was thrown the fuck out the window as a hypothesis, I'm sending a polite message, but I'm fucking raging at the people who are going, "It's a theory, teach the controversy hurr durr"

I sent it

Flag the video as fraud/scam!!!
Flag the video as fraud/scam!!!
Flag the video as fraud/scam!!!
Flag the video as fraud/scam!!!

Sent and disliked.
This is a campaign I can stand with. Thanks for not being embarrassing /sci/

Flag --> Reason: --> Child Abuse

Philosophy of science is a subject that should be part of all secondary level science courses. Biology is no different.

Liked the video. Wrote Khan Academy to tell them there was an organized email campaign coming from an atheist group called 4chan.

>>3282892

Everyone on this board is fucking retarded. You all need to find something better to bitch about.

>>3282895

Here: >>>/b/336743773

I'm trying to get /b/ behind us.

>>3282902
Good work. Just crossing my fingers they don't do something retarded to kill his passion for teaching.

>>3282895
Philosophy shouldn't be UNDER biology

you fucking idiot

someone put the message on his facebook

>>3282902

>Try to get /b/ help. Result:
>NYPA asswipe

>mfw while reading this thread

You guys are horrible. What you're doing is horrible. This is stupid. I'll admit, this video doesn't necessarily belong in the Biology section, but in no way does a video that neither advocates or discourages intelligent design but merely tries to display the awesomeness and awe inspiring nature of evolution and natural selection deserves to be disliked, have negative comments left, be marked or flagged, or anything else you people can think off. Fuck off.

/sci/ is leegun!!!11 XXXDDDDD

Seriously you guys? If you don't like the video don't watch it. What authority do you have to decide what theories are taught?

>>3282910
Yes philosophy should be immeshed in teaching of biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It's an important part of starting to think about science and what science is.

Also, if this thread continues, and the one on /b/, I'm linking to both from the comment sections of youtube.

Don't try to get /b/'s help, they'll counter-troll and "like" the video.

Instead, make an "Hurr Durr Atheist Buttmad" thread and exploit all of Dawkins' fanboys.

>>3282895
>Philosophy of science is a subject that should be part of all secondary level science courses. Biology is no different.

Calling ID "philosophy" is partially just being polite. It's certainly not within the domain of philosophy of science. Philosophy of science is more concerned with the study of arriving at scientific discoveries.

But philosophy of science is hardly ever taught in real university science courses beyond the 100 level class's lecture about the scientific method.

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."
- Richard Feynman

>>3282860
>keeps the thread at the top of the page
/sci/ really isn't that important bro, neither is your moral outrage which is my main motivation for writing an e-mail to youtube staff right now to explain how even though I am not a creationist I don't like the idea of little activist groups of angst virgins getting to censor whatever they want in youtube.

>>3282927
Oh my god fucking kill youself, philospohy is the only untestable field and should not be intertwined with them but taught seperately

>Physics >Gravity > Flying Spaghettie Monster pushes us down

That's what you are fucking saying, get rid of your superiority complex

>>3282929
I'm calling the video philosophy. It's teaching people how to think and reflect in a reasoned matter. Did you even watch it? It is the kind of thing that a 1st class high school teacher would include.

>>3282929

>"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

As much as I love Feynman, his ignorance is astounding sometimes.
Falsification was not developed by scientists. It is something purely from and purely based in philosophical reasoning undertaken by philosophers. To say that it is irrelevant is astounding.

>>3282929
And yes, Feynman ushered in an era of science that was ant-philosophical. That worked for where physics was at the time. It's stopped working so well now, and if the generation before Feynman had adopted his view, there would have been no QM in the first place.

>>3282860
>keeps the thread at the top of the page
/sci/ really isn't that important bro, neither is your moral outrage, which incidentally is my main motivation for writing an e-mail to youtube staff right now to explain how even though I am not a creationist I don't like the idea of arbitrary censorship in youtube and don't think they should trouble themselves.

>>3282935
You're a complete fucking idiot, as are everyone who has learned to do science without learning what they are actually doing or the actual FUCKING THOUGHT behind the process.

>>3282949
whatthefuckamireading.jpg

Feyman was a fucking genius, what have you done with your life

>>3282955

Was he? Why? He was the Carl Sagan of physics.

>>3282955
I don't disagree that he was a genius. I've been a fan of his since I was little. But that doesn't change the truth of what I said.

>>3282963
>He was the Carl Sagan of physics
>nuff said

And your a christfag troll, how exactly are you helping anyone?

This has nothing to do with religion if you put it under biology

it is one theory versus another

Evolution is obserable, predictable, and can be used to better understand technology

Intelligent design just says "God did it" and gets us nowhere

When comparing them, it's obvious that one is simply not science, it is unfalsiable

>>3282963
>He was the Carl Sagan of physics.
Christ, are you retarded.
He pretty much singlehandedly did quantum electrodynamics, the path integral representation of quantum mechanics and a lot of other awesome shit that was incredibly important.
And he was right, philosophers are useless, just like you

>>3282965
see this

http://www.4chan.org/rules#sci

>1. All science and math related topics welcome.
>2. Homework threads will be deleted, and the poster banned.
>3. No "religion vs. science" threads.

This thread is a violation of /sci/ rule #3, report the original post as a rule violation.

>>3282977
Exactly, 4chan lurkers who are anti-science are not helping anyone

Fellow /Sci/entists,

although I'm an atheist I'm not offended by this video at all. He doesn't force his believes on others. By flagging this video, you go against your own principles.

It is my humble opinion that religion has no place in the government nor in education. However the theory of natural selection is a theory on *how* life evolved. It does not explain why. So it still is a basic human right to believe what one wants to beliefs. No can force his or her beliefs on others, neither can we.

The only thing we can do is making sure that the population is educated and able to make its own choices.

By raging about this video, you have disappointed me.

>>3282977

And Carl Sagan was an expert on Venus, i.e. shit of minor importance. So what?

>>3282975 No it's not, see this
>>3282982

>>3282986
>By raging about this video, you have disappointed me.

Except we haven't really raged. Read the OP. The email intended to go to him is very POLITE and gracious. There is nothing wrong with moving a video that was misplaced in the science section, when it should be in a religion/philosophy section.

That is, unless you actually believe ID is scientific.

>>3282986
> raging
>polite email about his accomplishments, requesting a change in catagories

>Philosophy of science
Yeah, because "if the theory predicts correctly, it's the correct theory, if it doesn't, it isn't" needs any additional thinking

>>3282986
I'm with you 100%.

However Dawkins cult are not rationalists. In fact I suspect they are not even athiests, just people who hate the dream of a just universe.

To: khan-academy-comments@googlegroups.com

Dear Mr. Khan and members of the Khan Academy team,

I want to thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent treatment of the Intelligent Design issue in your video on the subject. This is the kind of thoughtfulnes that we need more of in society, and especially for informing debates such as those that come up around this subject.

I'm sure you understand that in weighing in at all on such a devisive subject you'll get angry responses from extremists. I just saw, for example, an email-campaign being directed towards you from some angry atheists on 4chan.org. I just hope you'll ignore the extremists and continue producing thoughtfull and intelligent videos of this nature.

Keep up the brillian work,
[Name]

I'm not raging about the video

I'm raging against the fucking troll comments

>>3282982
>This thread is a violation of /sci/ rule #3, report the original post as a rule violation.

Bitch please.

OP here. I can change my IP in less than a minute. In fact, it would be a favor because I can fix a typo in the original post.

>>3282996
>This is what poorly educated fags believe

>>3282996

Yes, I suppose your simplistic views of science don't need much explaining.

Tell me why falsification was not the bedrock of scientific methodology until the 1920s, after the work of the philosopher Karl Popper and others, and you'll have a point.

>>3283001
>brillian
>thoughtfulnes
>thoughtfull

Fucking christfag troll can't even spell.

Fuck off, hillbilly. Science is probably hurting your brain.

>>3282977
He would have been a plumber if there had never been philosophers. He certainly wouldn't have invented QED, as QM came out of a lot of philosophical thought.

>>3283012
>Tell me why falsification was not the bedrock of scientific methodology until the 1920s, after the work of the philosopher Karl Popper and others, and you'll have a point.
Makes this sentence make any sense and you have a point

>>3282776
Do you have any idea why you people express yourselves with such psychotic rage?
I can't seem to figure it out.
The anit-christmas campagine last year was such an epic facepalm; you went after the one tradition everyone likes.
It can't be about winning or educating people. Athiests have no interest in that. you are just flailing about and howling.
What causes this?

>>3283022

It was plain, blunt, unflowery and direct. If you can't understand that, that's not my problem.

>as QM came out of a lot of philosophical thought.
>laughinggirsl.jpg
Seriously, you must be a troll, nobody could be that retarded.
Philosophers weren't anywhere near QM

not gonna watch the video
the subject is extremely important for home schooling
he's not going to take it down

>>3283029
So, you don't even understand you own sentence? That's kinda sad.

>>3283031
He can move it to a philosophy or miscellaneous section. Not the science section.

>>3283031

i lol'd hard

>>3283017
>thanks for reminding me to spellcheck

To: khan-academy-comments@googlegroups.com

Dear Mr. Khan and members of the Khan Academy team,

I want to thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent treatment of the Intelligent Design issue in your video on the subject. This is the kind of thoughtfulness that we need more of in society, and especially for informing debates such as those that come up around this subject.

I'm sure you understand that in weighing in at all on such a divisive subject you'll get angry responses from extremists. I just saw, for example, an email-campaign being directed towards you from some angry atheists on 4chan.org. I just hope you'll ignore the extremists and continue producing thoughtful and intelligent videos of this nature.

Keep up the brilliant work,
[Name]

>>3283030
lol @ philosophers trying to take credit for milestones in science

Nigga please, you guys were just smoking weed while real scientists were actually doing things.

>>3283035

I understand it perfectly. It's right there. If you can't answer that challenge, then you have no basis to make that criticism. How can you reading comprehension suck so very much?

>>3283036
This, math is part of biology in some aspects, but regardless we don't incorperate it

Philosophy = Philosophy

NOTHING ELSE

>>3283041
not even samefag, but you're extremely dense. just shut the fuck up

>>3283022
Seriously, if you can't understand that sentence you have greater problems than videos on youtube.

>>3283030
>Philosophers weren't anywhere near QM
This is what happens when education goes to shit. All of the physicists involved in QM were dealing with highly philosophical issues in their thought and creation of QM, unlike Feynman and his generation, who only needed to calculate to advance the theory.

Counter sage

You got all of my support.

>>3283059
Hahahahahahahah wtf am I reading

Philospohy =/= math

What the fuck are you trolls doing

>>3283049

I've said nothing dense. If you disagree, point it out.
You seem to just be incredibly butthurt. So mad.

Everyone, to successfully report this thread type ha/nds fre/e fap/ping

Without the slashes

>>3283059
>All of the physicists involved in QM were dealing with highly philosophical issues

How much of an understanding of QM do you have? A Michio Kaku video?

Go ahead and report this thread. Report away.

See:
>>3283010

>Black-body-radiation equation doesn't work
>Planck puts in some random constant
>Suddenly it works
Philosophy!
>Discrete energy states of atoms are not explainable
>Bohr uses Planck recently discovered constant
>Suddenly they are
Philosophy!
>Bohrs model relies on a bunch of unfounded claims
>Schrödinger replaces particles with waves
>Everything works perfectly
Philosophy

Seriously, now, it REALLY is that simple.
If it works, it's correct, if it doesn't, it isn't.
Philosophers can babble all day about what it, like, really means dude, but that doesn't produce any worthwhile, testable hypothesis.

>>3283065
>QM sprung up from magically from pure math with no philosophical thought.
This is what preschoolers in bad preschools believe.

>>3282982
">3. No "religion vs. science" threads."

No, it isn't. Intelligent design doesn't imply religion.
If letters are used in religious texts, it doesn't mean that all texts which use letters are religious.

>someone has a different opinion than I do
>I must right this wrong!

Don't you retards have something better to do with your time?

>>3283080
This

And whoever typed the reporting thing gets a ban, that's why I did it

>>3283086
>"Don't you retards have anything better to do with your time?"
> Posting in thread

>>3283081
Tell em one of those philosophical issues those people had, and how it helped quantum mechanics.

>>3283060
making a youtube account so I can link here from the comments. brb

>>3283086
>HURR
>I'm on 4chan and am going to fap to some ponies
>Oh look! Some people are using their 4chan time to better science education. How dare they! What nerd losers!

Die in a fire.

Please someone for the love of fucking Zues, explain how did Quantum Mechanics or anything in math come form philosophy?

>>3283081
Quantum Physics came predominantly from experimental data and mathematical theories, but was proved and developed with philosophy
Why are people being malicious?

>>3283080

So you're saying that falsification as a corner of scientific methodology has not aided the production and demonstration of scientific theories at all?
Cool story, bro.

>>3283092
Read a book instead. I'm not going to try to educate the education-resistant. Read something by Planck or Schrodinger or Bohr or Heisenberg. Or read "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin

>>3283106
falsification =/= philosophy
falsification =/= science

McFucking kill yourself

Prem 1) Intelligence can only be demonstrated by solving and overcoming problems

Prem 2) Problems can only exist if there is some sort of limitation between the current state and desired end state

Prem 3) Limitations do not exist for something that is omnipotent

Conclusion: A being can not be both omnipotent and have demonstroable intelligence at the same time

>>3283113
>LOL IT'S SO OBVIOUS
>doesn't provide one example

>So you're saying that falsification as a corner of scientific methodology has not aided the production and demonstration of scientific theories at all?
Seeing as QM started before Popper was even alive, i would say, yes, philosophy didn't help at all.

>>3283119

>>3283118
Don't start that logic here, ID theorists hate that

>>3283113
Ah,so you can't name an example
Great.

>>3283122
Hahaha point in case

>>3282993
>>3282995

I didn't read the entire post, my apologies. However

Quote: "Our recommendation is to DISLIKE THE VIDEO, AND LEAVE COMMENTS REQUESTING THAT THE VIDEO BE TAKEN DOWN."

Demanding the video being taken down is censorship and thus indemocratic and against science. OP should have used better words.

If we can actually get this pulled from the Biology section, this would make epic /sci/ history.

>>3283121

I never mentioned QM. I was speaking in general in response to this:

>Philosophers can babble all day about what it, like, really means dude, but that doesn't produce any worthwhile, testable hypothesis.

I provided a counter-example.

I think that instead of taking down the ID video, we should petition Khan to put up a video about critical thinking in the realm of science (I.E. a video that teaches kids how to determine which theories are testable and which are just beliefs).

The fact of the matter is we need to teach kids about I.D., creationism and evolution... and simotanteously teach them how WHY evolution is a scientific theory and WHY Creationism and I.D. are BELIEFS.

tl;dr: we can use the comparison of I.D. and Evolution as a way of teaching kids scientific critical thinking. By being able to prove I.D. incorrect, kids will gain a better understanding of evolution.

>>3283116

Doesn't it? So falsification has nothing to do with scientific methodology? It's not vitally important to the creation of correct hypotheses and it totally had nothing to do with Karl Popper, a philosopher?

>>3283113
>I'm not going to try to educate the education-resistant
You misspelled "can't"
> Read something by Planck or Schrodinger or Bohr or Heisenberg
Or you could tell em
>Or read "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin
What has Some book criticizing string theory to do with philosophy?

>>3283143
>Neville Chamberlain approves of your post

>>3283134
Uh, no. Demanding that unproven theories are not given the same level of credibility as strongly supported theories by someone regarded as a good educator is censorship, but it isn't undemocratic and against science.

>>3283141
>I provided a counter-example.
What? No you didn't. Which worthwhile hypothesis did Philosophers provide?

>>3283151

> is censorship
>but it isn't undemocratic

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Sorry I meant to put:

falsification =/= philosophy
falsification = science

McFucking kill yourself

what is this i dont even
liked the video because OP is a giant fag

>>3283118
>intelligence needs limitations therefore god isn't intelligent
wtfamireading.pcx

taking down psuedoscience that has already been disproven is no way censorship, we are not the govenment, we are the people, free opposition is the esscence of democracy

>>3283159
So stopping the teaching of creationism in public schools is undemocratic and against science? Pretty sure it's censorship.

did any of you fags even watch the video

is this whole thread a troll or what

Why is OP trying to censor an idea
the video isn't even pro-intelligent design
saged

>>3283134
OP here. Yeah, sorry about that. Should have used a lighter tone. I was raging.

>>3283154

They provided notions of falsification and demonstrated its importance. Therefore, philosophy is partially creditable for every use of falsification in science, which includes virtually everything done in the past eighty years.

>>3283146
>It's not vitally important to the creation of correct hypotheses
No, it's not.
The "correct" theory is the one with the most supporting evidence aka the one who gives the best predictions.
If another theory is better at predicting, it will replace the worse theory.
Falsification is unnecessary if you use this definition.

>>3283036
history of science is science
politics of science is science
philosophy of science is science

stop whining

>>3283162
It makes perfect sense, god can't make a puzzle he can't solve

Also, what makes me sick is the fact that he uses evolution (science) to demonstrate god

Where have we seen this before?

Religion fights science tooth and nail, then once it's accepted they say, look how incredibly smart god is to use this

It's rediculous, get your unfalsifiable non-sense out of the fucking science section

>>3283181
>history of science is science

>>3283143
>put up a video about critical thinking in the realm of science
That would be philosophy, so you'd get the same bullshit butthurt from /sci/. Oh wait, no you wouldn't because it's not really about philosophy it's about atheist angst.

>>3283166

No. Schooling is an entirely different matter.
Censorship, however, is what we are discussing, not public schools. A defined curriculum is not censorship. Censorship is preventing the airing of viewpoints by an authority. Proving teachers with material to teach and punishing them for failing to do their job is not repression of their freedom of speech, it's job evaluation, and thus it is not censorship.

It's getting really /b/ in here. Should we be donning our mask?

>>3283148
read it and find out.

>philosophy is partially creditable for every use of falsification in science, which includes virtually everything done in the past eighty years.
And all the theories beforehand, which where correct, too?
And why did scientist never sue unfalsifiable hypothesis even before the philosophers told them about it?
Science seemed to be working mighty fine beforehand, why where you necessary again?

>>3283185
Critical thinking is every realm, it's not just philosophy, you can't disprove philosphical statements, but you can disprove scientific ones, and that's where they seperate, ID doesn't have any evidence, but evolution does, we've had fucking court trials about this and that's why we don't teach it in schools

>>3283180

You mean the definition that INCLUDES falsification? Predictions can't be satisfied unless they can fail to be satisfied, i.e. falsifying a theory.
Thank you for proving me right.

>>3283160
It's the other way around, retard. This is what I mean by the sorry state of science and philosophical education.

>>3283187
>is the fact that he uses evolution (science) to demonstrate god
what? where?
>>3283193
Then as the Khan Academy's audience and funders, we don't want ID to be taught in a biology video

>video: even though I'm an engineer
what the fuck, an engineer talking about evolution?

>>3283185
I love it how christfags/agnostics like to tie everything atheists do to their "hate of religion." Seriously, grow up.

This is no more about "atheism" than is the struggle against teaching ID/creationism/general pseudoscience in public schools. It's about science.

This is a science board. And if you don't like science, you can fuck off.

GODDAMMIT YOU PEOPLE

THIS IS LIKE SAYING AN EDITOR TAKING OUT PUNCTUATION ERRORS IS CENSORSHIP

>>3283172
I'm pretty sure no one in this thread, and least of all OP, watched the video.

>>3283214
I watched the entire things, he's not advocating ID, even worse, he's blending it with evolution to create his own fucked up religious psuedo-science

Bump for the hate

>>3283187
>It makes perfect sense, god can't make a puzzle he can't solve
So? You have to make a puzzle you can't solve to be intelligent? You can't just make random assertions and claim they make sense.

>Also, what makes me sick is the fact that he uses evolution (science) to demonstrate god
You didn't watch the video, did you?

>>3283185

Just remember /sci/, it isn't all about learning science, it is about UNDERSTANDING science.

You can memorize anything you please, but if you cannot think critically on the subject you are not a scientist.

If you can regurgitate that evolution is a scientific theory and I.D. is based on beliefs but not be able to explain WHY I.D. is incorrect and WHY evolution is correct, then your knowledge of evolution is more similar to a belief system then an UNDERSTANDING.

You need to understand evolution... and a great way of understanding something is by dissecting faulty theories.

>>3283162

>needs limitations
can only be demonstrated
>wtfamireading.pcx
comprehensionfail.flac

>>3283208
> "God would use a simple and elegant method, i.e. evolution and natural selection"

>>3283201
>You mean the definition that INCLUDES falsification? Predictions can't be satisfied unless they can fail to be satisfied, i.e. falsifying a theory.
That's the point, you idiot
Scientists used this definition, which immediately rejects unfalsifiable theories, long before any philosopher said anything about it.
Poppers stuff was essentially redundant, science already rejected unfalsifiable theories since forever

Call /b/ for help, and link them to this thread.

>>3283228
huh? where's that?

>>3283218
Nope. He gives the two separate theories, stating they are separate, compares them, and implies he supports evolution.

>>3283197

>And all the theories beforehand, which where correct, too?

And the huge number that were incorrect due to a less refined methodology.
Science has advanced faster with falsification that it ever did or could without it. To deny this is to deny history.

>>3283172
11:16It speaks to a more profound God, in my mind.


If someone came on to /sci/ and posted some of the things he said in his video, it would be flamed, saged, and reported.

>>3283236

No it had not. You're using modern scientific methodology and applying it to previous centuries without reason or justification.

>>3283235
>And the huge number that were incorrect due to a less refined methodology.
name them. Especially explain why less refined methodology caused them to be used.

>Science has advanced faster with falsification
Provide evidence

>To deny this is to deny history.
Sure. To deny me the evidence i ask is to deny the scientific method.

>>3283239
5:28

"In order to give credit to an all powerful designer, a simple, elegant design would need to be present, i.e. natural selection and mutation"

>>3283208

He's a private educator. They can do as they wish.
He has no set curriculum, and can make up any shit he wishes. If you don't like it, dislike the video and whine in the comment section.

But this wasn't even the point. The point was you said that censorship isn't undemocratic, which is laughably stupid.

>>3283247

>name them. Especially explain why less refined methodology caused them to be used.

Every incorrect scientific hypothesis generated so far. No incorrect hypothesis can be generated by correct application of correct methodology. Can I name everything incorrect scientific hypothesis? No.

was always suspicious of that muslim

disliked video
sent email
done

>>3283247

>Provide evidence

You're using a computer.

Hypothesis must be falsifiable, we can't use it on intelligent design, therefore it is not science

Evolution is falsifiable if irreducible complexity was ever found, Darwin even stated this, therefore it is science

Intelligent Design is not falsifiable any more than you could prove the non-existence of god, therefore it is not science

/thread

>>3283248
He says that in his mind a designer would have to make a simple, elegant origin of life. He doesn't say that the designer exists. He doesn't say he personally believes a designer exists.

>>3283247
>2011
>still talks about a scientific method

>people complaining about this being "censorship"

Okay, we get it, you just read Fahrenheit 451. Now will you kindly leave us alone?

>>3283249
It's not censorship dumbass, it's PEOPLE PART OF A DEMOCRACY disliking a video and sending emails, NOT THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT

lrn2definition

>You're using modern scientific methodology and applying it to previous centuries without reason or justification.
I don't think so
>In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
This is essentially the same definition. "If the theory predicts correctly, fine, if not, modify it or throw it out"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica

>>3283268
WHY WOULD THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD BE OUTDATED? THIS MAKES NO SENSE

ITT: Trolls, trolls, and more trolls

>>3283255
So, no example, again.
I'll simply ignore your unfounded claims, then.

>>3283279
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Problems_and_issues

>>3283249
>censorship isn't undemocratic, which is laughably stupid.
The idea that freedom=democracy is laughably stupid.
99 out of 100 people vote in favour of not releasing nuclear secrets into the public domain. They have democratically decided to censor that information

Also, once more, as the people responsible for him being capable of making these videos, we decide whether the science videos contain what they're supposed to. I presume your lack of understanding of our democratic right to petition him to remove videos stems from the same ignorant basis as your lack of understanding of the differences between freedom and democracy.

>>3283211
This is barely a science board. It's an atheist angst board. The only reason for the rage in this thread is that in your feeble brains since the idea of ID is associated with god the idea of the thought of it being discussed at all drives you little adolescents nuts.

Of course this is about atheist activism. Preservation of science does not require the abolition of any non-consensus views. The only thing this project serves is atheist homogeny.

>>3283307
Yes, but responsible science <span class="math"> {education} [/spoiler] requires the abolition of any non-consensus views, at least at the level the Khan Accademy caters to and without an accurate comparison of evidence.

>>3283301
>>3283307

Leave this board plox.

>>3282715
>khan
>Ultimate troll
>/sci/ has met the enemy, and it is them.

>>3283307
bingo

I personally fear for the future of science. Not because muslims are talking about ID in youtube science videos, but because aspiring atheist scientists are so dogmatic and intolerant. If that doesn't change it's going to suck for the future.

>>3283316
At the level Kahn aspires to, no. In middle school and high school, I can accept that argument. At the collegiate level, along with Kahn's higher level math and science courses? No. Once you're in that arena, isolationist strategies for education do much more harm than good.

>>3283323
If you can't handle dissenting opinions, you don't belong in science. I'm staying, you can go away and do some growing up.

>>3283332
So you don't think there should be an accurate comparison of evidence?

What?

>>3283316
>Yes, but responsible science education requires the abolition of any non-consensus views
wat? WAT? fucking WAAAT?

>ITT: people thinking philosophers haven't contributed anything to science
Okay, I always thought that all this PHILOSOPHY CAN YOU HERP WHEN YOU DERP business on /sci/ was joking and trolling, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Protip: the average philosopher contributed way more in their lifetime to science than 99% of /sci/ will, it's just that they're not famous for it.
Case in point: whenever someone mentions Kant, nobody thinks about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant-Laplace_theory

Face it, philosophers contributed to science, mainly due to the fact that they were all highly educated, highly intelligent people with diverse interests. It's just that their philosophical work overshadows their other work.
By being so close minded your limiting yourself. I'm not saying that you should open your mind to shit like homeopathy and creationism but at least don't bitch about subjects you have no idea about and have never even read a book pertaining to the topic because once you actually express your views in real life you run a great risk of being exposed an idiot.

disliked the video
sent email

I don't understand what all this fighting is about? haven't read the whole thread, but there are really some people here defending "intelligent" design being taught in schools?

Watch these videos by Lawrence Krauss (real scientist, not some indian guy in paint, mind you)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYfh_ZXy70U&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

>>3283339
Abolition from the syllabus. ID should not be taught in science lessons, it should be taught in psychology.

>>3283347
*being taught in internet schools

correction

>>3283338
An accurate comparison of evidence, absolutely. That's not what is being proposed ITT. What OP is asking for is for his ideology to be represented in Kahn's channel. There are plenty of videos detailing accurate comparison of evidence and totally crushing ID all over youtube. The answer to problematic speech is *more speech* not less.

>If you can't handle dissenting opinions,
kill yourself

>>3283354
>teach the controversy

Kill yourself

>>3283347
Maybe you should watch the video before you dislike it.

>>3283354
The fact remains, this video is not a problem for science or people who take science seriously. It's only a problem for people who are overemotional and can't handle dissent from their authority.

>>3283348
So the Copenhagan Interpretation should not be taught in schools, nor the Many Worlds Interpretation, nor string theory, nor M-theory, nor loop quantum gravity?

Are you advocating just a STOP to scientific progress, or do you prefer actually going back to the fucking stone age?

>>3283374

>2011
>believing in the GEUSS of evolution

>>3283367
i did watch the video, it was utter crap

has anyone even seen the video?

>>3283353
It would be significantly easier to compare the evidence were there any. What OP is asking for is for unscientific opinions to be removed from a group of scientific videos.
I agree, there should, and can be debate between ID proponents and supporters of evolution. However, this should not be done on a channel that's supposed to be teaching biology. Teaching science has never been about comparing geocentrism to big bang theory, or new earth creationism to geology, or pi=3.125 to the area/diameter of a circle.
OP is asking for the scientific consensus to be represented in Khan's channel. Nothing more than that. On a channel with a reputation for doing so accurately, we should expect nothing less.
>>3283374
Cretin.

>>3283380
please explain.

>>3283374
Sorry, all the things you listed are falsifiable. ID is GOD DID IT THE END.

bump for a good cause

>>3283394
>Cretin
wtf?

You really advocate not teaching any of these things?

>>3283402
That has nothing to do with what is being discussed, which is the abolishment of teaching anything that does not have consensus.

bump.
Everyone needs to dislike this video, there are still more likes at the moment.

PERHAPS ID is an "alternative view"..
but it is most certianly NOT an alternative scientific theory.
There is literally no argument here.. There are certain requirements for something to be considered a valid scientific theory.
ID just does not meet those requirements..

You can call it whatever you want, but to call it an alternative theory to evolution... I'm sorry, it is literally just a flat out lie.

>>3283405
No, I advocate not being an ass who has to rely on false dichotomies or the straw man fallacy. Obviously, theoretical physics is theoretical.

>>3283394
It's Khan's channel; if he wants to teach nothing but scientific consensus he can do that, and if he wants to add in his own personal opinions that are not canon he can do that too. You're not paying him to provide you with baseline consensus, he's charitably giving info he considers to be important to you. He's not exactly an accredited university, and he shouldn't have to be held to those standards.

But intelligent design is related to biology. Some people just watch the biology videos (not the philosophy ones), and so they'd never reach this viewpoint. It's an important issue for everybody to know about, Khan hasn't done anything wrong.

It's time to /sci/ to return to its roots.

>>3283415
And how did I rely on false dichotomies or straw man fallacy? What I said was a direct effect of what you suggested, which was not teaching any non-consensus views. It is your dichotomy, not mine.

>>3283427

/sci/ you are so awesome

SO MUCH FUCKING WIN

get out

>This is barely a science board. It's an atheist angst board.

But wouldn't it be better to expose viewers to both sides of the argument so they could debate better than some sputtering moron who just first heard his opposition. Seriously, /sci/? This is pathetic. You say this is for the preservation of science, but you are unwilling to accept the possibility of an IDEA against your own. That is unscientific.

>>3283424
Ok, this is going nowhere. I'll state my views:
-The Channel is Khan's
-The Channel claims to, and has a reputation for, being a responsible source of educational information
-The Channel is -on the whole- completely in line with that, and a useful resource
-I donated to the academy to allow them to continue to be in line with that
-This video doesn't meet the regular standards, a fact Khan may not be aware of
-He should therefore be alerted to our disappointment with it.

If he wants continued donations, then he should be responsible. If you are in favour of democracy, you shouldn't be arguing with me for wanting to express my view.


>>3283433
False Dichtonomy:
>Are you advocating just a STOP to scientific progress, or do you prefer actually going back to the fucking stone age?
Straw man:
Claiming that hypotheses that aren't given as factually accurate by their proponents equate to theories who are. No public educator should claim any of these to be true, only to be possible.
In retrospect, "unevidenced" would be a more apt word in place of "non-consensus"

>>3283473
I am SICK of hearing this..

ID is NOT one side of the argument. Evolution is literally THE ONLY scientific view right now.

THIS IS NOT AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN BASHING THREAD!!
We are simply pointing out that ID is NOT a valid scientific theory, so it doesn't belong there.
It is not "the other side of the evolution argument". Evolution is a theory, ID is NOT.
get over it.
You can still believe it if you want, but you have to step into reality and realize that ID.. really just does not meet the requirements of being a theory.. quit lying to yourselves

>>3283473
Then he should make a debate section.

BUT EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY THEORY WITHIN THE REALM OF SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT. INTELLIGENT DESIGN, CREATIONISM, ETC. HAVE _NEVER_ WITHSTOOD THE RIGOR OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR PEER REVIEW. EVOLUTION IS THE FUCKING CONSENSUS. THERE SHALL BE NO "WEASELING" AROUND THIS GLARING CENTURY-LONG SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IN FUCKING SCIENCE VIDEOS. KEEP IT FOR THEOLOGY CLASS.

ITT: faggotry.

A man universally admired for bringing math to the internet masses posts a video you don't like, and you raid him with troll messages.

Is that how you repay a stranger's kindness?

No wonder communism didn't work. Faggots.

>>3283488
I withdraw my objections. I was not aware they took donations for this stuff.

>>3282715
Keep up the good work guys. You are showing the world just how much you oppose free speech and closed minded you are. How about you actually respond to the video making coherent arguments if you don't like it?

>>3283500
Hey summerfriend. Let me guide you to the post that you skipped over:
>>3282716

We are not trolling him. We are being very polite in asking to move the video out of the biology section.

>>3283473
Some of us want everybody to be an atheist.
Once in a while, they find a Champion that will explain Science (truth) to the plebean. When this Champion is failing them, they try and help him keep on following "the good" tracks and they feel frustration, as a natural reaction (moreso in the younger part of population), frustration leads to anger, they express it . You only are witnessing the end result.


So, care to talk about the real subject here?

>>3283500
Typical way of non-scientific thinking.

Science doesn't give a fuck what you have done for anyone. If Richard fucking Feynman himself posted this video we would be doing the exact same thing... because it is NOT science!!

It does not matter WHO says it. But I wouldn't expect creationists to understand that..

>>3283508
Awesome, thanks for replying. It makes a nice change to see people here not typing without thinking

wow he got millions of dollars from Bill Gates and Google, and this is what he is shitting out

>>3283513
>Some of us want everybody to be an atheist.

Yes, this is definitely an evangelical board.

>>3283522
And thanks in turn for letting me know more about the situation (than was revealed in the OP).

I didn't realize /sci/ is where all the children on 4chan go to.

>>3283518
>Rage, Rage, Rage against the dying of the light.

epic win /sci/!

We do not forgive, we do not forget.
Expect us.

>>3283512

>summerfag calls a summerfag a summerfag

>>3283535
Wow. So far I haven't seen any legitimate objections ITT except ad hominems along the lines of:

You're immature!
You're a bunch of angsty atheists!
Report this thread
Teach the controversy! (derp)
Look at you, you are all kids!
Lol u didn't watch the video, it's 2deep4u!!

Stay classy, ID-defenders.

>>3283548
So if people are so feeble minded that they can't see the true, you think the only option is to brainwash them to speak the truth?

>Good luck with your communist china

>>3283586
>>3283586
fuck off, tripfag

>disliked
>sent email

there's nothing "intelligent" about intelligent design

>>3282902
OH MY SCIENCE, WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT??
I'd much rather have an ID video in biology than risk having /b/ do something horrible.

>>3283586
Nobody is "feeble minded" . Unless by that you mean : poorly educated and/or uncorrectly educated in some fundamental parts of one's set of tools to understand reality with the less bias towards mistycism possible.

After all, Science is a method . Methods are learnt, not innate.

Empathy is a very important type of intelligence when dealing with other individuals .
The most inneficient way to communicate ideas is by being agressive and condescendant.

>/sci/ thinking Sal is making a case FOR ID

The Asperger's is strong in you.

How's this:

>Dear Khan Academy,

>I, as well as many others, find your videos to >be both entertaining and educational. I have >watched many of your videos in preparation to >exams, and they have helped me a great deal. >I find your videos to be a now extremely >important source for free education and the >spreading of information. It has, however, >recently come to my attention that you have a >video about intelligent design housed within >your biology playlist. I am 100% against this. >Intelligent Design, despite what some may >think based on their religious doctrine, is >a "branch" of pseudoscience since it has >absolutely no evidence to support it. I do >sincerely hope that you can either remove the >video or change it to a philosophy playlist >where it would be more at home. Continue >your good work, but please tread carefully >when it comes to things of a religious sense.

>Thank you for your time

>>3283647

This.
You're all faggots fagging in a fag thread.

>>3283659
looks good

>>3283672
gullible fuck

>>3283638

so, why are you so condescending then?

I'm beginning to think most of this thread is a samefag. Surely /sci/ducks are better than playing inquisition.

>>3283703
I am not. This was my first post in this thread...

>>3283682
brain-dead asspie

you faggots are such pussies, hes is just presenting the argument. There is no other decent places that do the same thing. If their audience is retarded enough to change their whole ideology for 10 minutes of video, then so be it.


This is how you sound OP HURRR DURR if he is not on my side, he is wrong and promotes hate!! DURR.

fuck you OP, and fuck everyone in here that is supporting taking down this shit. He doesnt even praise intelligent design.

I rarely came to /sci/ (always stay in the site that is forbidden to name) but im disappointed of what this board has become

>>3283720
Far, Far too obvious.

>>3283720
>tripfag
>not a /sci/itizen
>on the side of promoting ID as a valid concept in a biology lecture

>>3283720

he is giving ID credit by comparing it to a scientific theory within a science section

>>3283730
>>3283729
Perhaps not, then.

>>3283730
While by mentioning ID at all, thereby at least giving it somewhat credit, Sal is saying the following:

"Hey Christians, evolution and theism aren't actually mutually exclusive. Since we have reasons to believe evolution is true, you might as well believe it now that you know it can be reconciled with Christianity. Also, if you say your all-powerful god created every single species on the planet instead of coming up with something better and clever (or "more elegant basic ideas ad principles"), like evolution, you are kinda insulting his abilities/intelligence and not doing him justice in a way."

>>3283755

then khan might agree to teach ID in schools after all

>>3283755
this. it's implanting the seed in people's minds that ID should even be given the time of day.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN DOESN'T IMPLY RELIGION, you morons.

>>3283769
Check Kitzmiller vs. Dover board of education.
Judge ruled clearly otherwise.

>>3283769
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

>>3283548

^^ the best post so far!
and still no noteworthy responses.

We have stated over and over that ID is not scientific, and no one has refuted this point yet..

It's very simple creationists... try and follow carefully..
If "X" is not scientific, then where does "X" not belong?
in a .... "science lecture", very good!!

Any objections?
Pay attention to the responses, not one of them will address this point, they will just call me a childish fag, or continue to "argue" with me but if you look close enough you realize that they will really just change the subject.

>>3283739
>>3283730
>>3283729

He nevers says is science or that it should be taken seriously, he doesnt even defend intelligent design. He understands that a lot of people that consult their videos believe in intelligent design. What is he doing is telling them how they can reconcile both theories without insulting them.

You see..in the instant you faggots hear that someone believes in intelligent design, you name call him, you bash him and insult him. How fucking mature.. how do you think he is going to react??

And now, Mr Khan is presenting to them how can they remain chirstians and believe in evolution too, yet you faggots go into rage mode.

The posters in this board are beyond infantile.. Its obvious that the average age in this board is 17-18

im out of there

>>3283769
Yes, and I would have rather had Sal not touch upon the subject (the "debate" which actually doesn't exist) at all.

But he actually tried to steer away from any talk about ID itself (there isn't much to say, anyway) and rather talked about evolution and its inherent elegance/beauty, therefore actually making a case for evolution.

With the video being the way it is, I don't know if taking it down is really necessary.

>>3283755

Wait, so he speaks about theistic evolution, not ID, in the vide? I have not watched the video, I jsut came now to see what the fuss is all about..

>>3283800
Well, it's certainly implied it's science, given it's a video in the Biology playlist, and it's also implied it should be taken seriously, as its given as an alternative on par with ID. I haven't name called
OH WELL PLAYED

This is how far I'd gotten before I realised. 8 out of 10, you pulled it back.

>>3283800
>im out of there

Leave, no one loves you.

>Hundreds and hundreds of hours worth of decently taught and completely free education
>Does it simply because he likes to teach and believes you should not have to pay to become educated
>Makes one video about his own opinions

DOOD WAT THE FUKC KAHN!!?!1!?

>mfw this guy is 10 times as smart as any neckbeard on /sci/

>>3283769
>hurr


Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms.[3][4] It is also a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one that deliberately avoids specifying the nature or identity of the intelligent designer.[5] Its leading proponents—all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[n 1][6]—believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n 2][n 3]

In other words: NOT SCIENCE

>>3283800
>>How fucking mature..
>>im out of there
ya... real mature.

You sir, are completely missing the point.
Why can't they put this off to the side then as a separate link?
No, it is listed as a normal scientific video as a biology lesson.. which it most certainly is NOT.. We aren't debating religion, we aren't bashing ID..
we are simply stating the FACT, that ID does not fall into the scientific realm, it is not falsifiable therefore it cannot.
So it doesn't belong there. Now, that doesn't mean it can't be on the website, but don't try and pass it off as a fucking biology lesson...

>>3283804
Wrong quote, meant >>3283768

>>3283813
Not really, no. He mentions the idea behind it briefly in the beginning, but doesn't really talk about it again. He argues that evolution would be a "more profound form of design" than literally creating species and tries to reconcile evolution and theism.

>>3283786
This article doesn't say that intelligent design is always related to religion at all.

>>3283829
>trolololol

If you cared to read the OP, we're not planning on insulting him. We're graciously asking him to move this vid to a philosophy/religion/misc section.

>>3283838
What else could intelligent design imply, then?
Aliens?

>>3283852
or anything intelligent. Doesn't have to be a god, or even alive itself.

>>3283864
Quit'cho spam.

>>3283844
>>3283864
>>3283860
are you a mod?

>>3283871

Take off your tripcode permanently

>>3283849

eh

"Our recommendation is to DISLIKE THE VIDEO, AND LEAVE COMMENTS REQUESTING THAT THE VIDEO BE TAKEN DOWN....This video should be in the philosophy section at best."

We know what OP really wants

ITT: STOP, SUMMERTIME

ITT: people that didnt even bother to watch the video

>>3283880
Oh dear, here we go.
Give me a reason to not post with a tripcode, given that I've been here for at least a week and you're the first person to even mention it, I don't use a name, and I don't troll with it.

>>3283903

Everyone post images!

proof that /sci/ is a bunch of underage fags

did you guys even listen to what he says in the video?

you guys sound like a bunch of fucking hipsters

herp derp pseudoscience herpy derpa derp

you are worse than christfags themselves cause at least most christfags can consider for a second that evolution and ID may coexist when you atheistelitistfags want to ban the whole idea.

"Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof. "

>>3283903
>>3283910
...lol

someone's bombing this thread

gingedi colman

1

>>3283931

Your mom's bombing this thread

2

>>3283924
Is this why atheism is highly correlated with IQ and educational levels?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

10/10

One of the issues I am having with this video is that he describes evolution as random processes, which is only partially true. There are several factors acting which fall under the umbrella term of evolution.

You have variation in the population, which we can agree exists. (As stated in the video, near-sighted, far-sighted, astigmatism, etc.)
These variations are caused by mutations in the gene sequence of the particular organism, which makes them able to be inherited by offspring.
The mutations are random. That is true. Now, some types of mutations are more likely than others (which is a lesson for another time), but they are essentially randomly occurring.

However, there is this other process, called natural selection. Now, this is VERY NON RANDOM. Natural selection is very specific, and it is specific to a particular environment. For example, if you take an organism that has features that make it very successful in a desert environment, and move that organism to a tropical environment, it probably will not do that well. It's specific combination of mutations is not going to work well, and the organism will either die, or be unable to produce viable offspring in some way, and therefore will not be able to pass down it's specific set of mutations to the next generation. This organism is ill-adapted to the tropical environment.

(cont., if you would like.)

>>3283959
do continue

>>3283959

don't contine

Y THIS THREAD NO BUMP?

This thread is about to explode.

>Smartest guy on the plaent with an IQ of 190 believes in ID
>HURR ID IS NOT SCIENCE, DURRR <post by an angsty 15 year old atheist

>>3283972

>>3283959 (samefagging it up; maybe I should use a temporary trip?)

Additionally, this video does not really present much information as to what evolution actually is, or what ID really is either. It is one guys philosophy of how the specific arguments against evolution do not make sense to him, and he is using a lot of "ifs."

7:00 into the video, I am not really offended that this is in the biology section, although it does not really seem to be appropriately placed there, as it does appear to be a philosophical argument, and doesn't really speak to much about what evolution or ID actually are.

Did you idiots even watch the video ? HE IS BASICALLY SAYING EVOLUTION = RIGHT, ID = WRONG in a rather subtle way

Gregor Mendal
Isaac Newton
Albert Einsteins
The monks who helped create mills which lead to many inventions
Nikola Tesla
The Muslims in the middle east who we can thank for algebra
Leonardo Da Vinci
and so much more... all were religious.

>>3284013
Albert Einstein wasn't religious except for when he was a child.

>>3283965
Okay, I will.

>>3283966
I won't not continue. If even one person would like me to explain, it's worth my time. Sorry. Why don't you just skip this?

So, let's take something less extreme than moving a desert organism to a tropical environment. Let's use a sort of a forest-like environment for the background here. So, the tree trunks are brown, and there are these moths. Some moths are brown, some are green. Let's also say there are predators which eat these moths that rely heavily on sight cues. (Which predators they are is really of no consequence for this example. If it makes you feel better, we'll just go with birds.) The moths that are least likely to be eaten are those that are less likely to be seen. Now, these moths also have another trait; a behavioral trait. Some moths prefer to be in the leaves, some prefer to be on the trunk.
The brown moths are less likely to be seen if they are on the trunk, and the green moths are less likely to be seen if they are on the leaves. If a moth doesn't survive, it doesn't reproduce, and it doesn't pass on it's color and place preferences to the next generation.
The moths most likely to not be seen, and not be eaten are the brown moths that prefer to be on the trunk and the green moths that prefer to be in the trees. These moths can interbreed, but the offspring of a brown/trunk moth and a green/leaf moth will either be brown and prefer to be in the leaves or be green and prefer to be on the trunk, and so are more easily seen, and will die.
Because these populations cannot interbreed and produce successful offspring, any moth that has a preference for mating with it's same color and location preferences will be more successful.
(cont.)

>>3284064

So, the next generation, there are fewer moths born to brown/trunk and green/leaf combinations of parents. And the next generation, fewer than that until, at some point, these two populations no longer interbreed.
That is speciation.
That is evolution.
The random mutations exist, but are acted upon by NON-RANDOM SELECTION. In this case, the mutations are the different colors, and the different location preferences. The non-random selection is the sight-based predators. Had the predators used a different sense to determine where the moths were, then the separation of the population by color and location preferences would not have occurred. It would have been due to entirely different traits, and different members of the moth population would have had an advantage.

>>3284013
This doesn't prove that a God exists, dipshit. You clearly don't understand that nothing is infallible.

>>3284013
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
Albert Einstein

Einstein was ambivalent about gods existence at best, nice try buddy.

"Everyone must have ideals. If they do not...." He shook his head in despair, then went on to talk about religion. "Religion," he said, "is simply an ideal. It is an ideal force that tends to free the human being from material bonds. I do not believe that matter and energy are interchangeable, any more than are the body and soul. There is just so much matter in the universe and it cannot be destroyed. As I see life on this planet, there is no individuality. It may sound ridiculous to say so, but I believe each person is but a wave passing through space, ever-changing from minute to minute as it travels along, finally, some day, just becoming dissolved."
Nicola Tesla

Nicola Tesla was mentally unstable most of his life. For instance he had a profound fear of mallards for reasons only he knew. Taking his non scientific beliefs in to a account is not a good idea. He was however able to create good experiments to show evidence for his theories about electricity.

Its funny how you mention algebra and Islam because that religion went on to condemn intellectualism and science ensuring that they would remain behind the western world until modern day and still continues until this day. It practically kept them in the dark ages until the twentieth century.

>>3284940
continued

Regardless of all the half truths and incorrectness in your statement it doesn't matter. Among the modern scientific community only 7% would describe themselves as religious. This however also means nothing because science is based on evidence and a good scientist should base their judgments on evidence. There is not one piece of credible evidence or a repeatable experiment to show god exists therefore there is no reason to believe he exists at all. Of course this only applies if you discount the notion of faith, which by definition means believing something without evidence. I tend to think faith is a bad thing rather than a virtue.