Intelligent design != Science

[Anonymous No.3284035]

Other thread autosaged >>3282715

DISLIKE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOEz9aPZNY
Comment too -- BUT KEEP IT FUCKING CIVIL AND POLITE; Khan's a pretty cool guy

EMAIL: [e-mail]

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

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]

[Anonymous No.3284052]

Sage for trolling faggotry
>autosage
It's a bump limit you dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.3284053]

better

[Anonymous No.3284058]

>>3284052
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.3284062]

>>3284058

>>>/sage/

[EK !ZhIwRWbYz. No.3284063]

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2011/06/evolution.html

[Anonymous No.3284077]

[Anonymous No.3284088]

stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg

[Anonymous No.3284089]

disliked
sent email

[Anonymous No.3284090]

Do it /sci/:
To: [e-mail]

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]

[Anonymous No.3284101]

(Reposting from other thread so that it makes sense...)

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.)

[Anonymous No.3284103]

>>3284090
You're a homosexual!

[Anonymous No.3284111]

>>3284101
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.)

[Anonymous No.3284120]

>>3284111

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.

(done)

[Anonymous No.3284131]

>>3284090
>implying there are other Christians on /sci/

You're on your own, buddy. Go ahead and samefag and pretend there are more of you, but nobody's buying it.

[Anonymous No.3284138]

>>3284131
awshitnigga_5starpost.jpg

[Anonymous No.3284141]

[Anonymous No.3284145]

[Anonymous No.3284146]

>>3284141

Costanza

[Anonymous No.3284147]

[Anonymous No.3284148]

As to the video, he doesn't really say too much that is scientific, but he isn't in theology either. There is a lot of "if" used, and while it seems out of place in the biology section due to the fact that it is somewhat more on the purely philosophical end of things, it does not offend me being placed there. The guy does not claim that ID is true and evolution is false. It is a more philosophic view surrounding this current controversy.

Additionally, viewing the Introduction to Evolution and Natural Selection (which is the very first video in the Biology section) essentially explains everything I did in these previous posts. >>3284120, >>3284111, >>3284101
(Also, the example of the peppered moth is used a lot; I based my example on what I half-remembered from that example. They both say the same thing.)

[Anonymous No.3284151]

[Anonymous No.3284154]

[Anonymous No.3284157]

[Anonymous No.3284159]

no costanza bombing please

[Anonymous No.3284162]

[Anonymous No.3284170]

[Anonymous No.3284173]

[Anonymous No.3284174]

[Anonymous No.3284176]

[Anonymous No.3284179]

>>3284035
Science is about making conclusions based upon the available evidence. If you are so convinced intelligent design is complete BS then it should be obvious to the viewer when they contemplate the data. By wanting to hide any theories alternate to your own, you appear to be a scared child unsure of your own beliefs. The only way you validate yourself is by shitting on others. As an atheist myself, I would rather spend the day getting assfucked by bishops than to have a single discussion with you over coffee.

[Anonymous No.3284182]

>>3284159

Problem?

[Anonymous No.3284183]

[Anonymous No.3284188]

Fuck you OP, that was a good video

[Anonymous No.3284190]

[Anonymous No.3284193]

[Anonymous No.3284197]

you sure do have a lot of costanzas?

[Anonymous No.3284198]

It seems like OP didn't even watch the video.

[Anonymous No.3284199]

>>3284193

[Anonymous No.3284201]

[Anonymous No.3284205]

>>3284199

[Anonymous No.3284209]

>>3284197

Indeed

[Anonymous No.3284213]

[Anonymous No.3284224]

>>3284213

[Anonymous No.3284228]

Lol Sal

what a faggot

[Anonymous No.3284229]

[Anonymous No.3284233]

[Anonymous No.3284239]

[Anonymous No.3284247]

Report -> Reason: -> Violence -> Promotes Terrorism

[Anonymous No.3284253]

You know, all of those mutations, they can really add up!

[Anonymous No.3284254]

Khan is too bro to be petitioned.

[Anonymous No.3284255]

[Anonymous No.3284256]

>>3284247
>flagging YouTube video

[Anonymous No.3284270]

Email sent. Didn't dislike because I'm too hip for a youtube account.

Strangely enough, I sent the email with my gmail account.

[Anonymous No.3284272]

>he ran out of costanzas
>mfw

[Anonymous No.3284276]

>>3284272

[Anonymous No.3284279]

>>3284272

just made some new ones

[Anonymous No.3284286]

[Anonymous No.3284288]

This is a perfect example of the arrogant hypocrisy tjat pervades much of the left; you defend free speech as long as you agree with it. As soon as someone believes something out of line with the conventional authoritarian academic apparatus' ideas they're villified and mocked. Guess what? NOBODY F'N KNOWS HOW WE GOT HERE; NOT YOU, NOT EVANGELISTS, NO ONE. BUT WE'RE ALL ALLOWED OUR OPINIONS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR OPINION SO THE FUCK WHAT. YOU CAN NOT TELL THEM WHAT TO THINK. YOU CAN ONLY TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK.

People on 4chan arguing to restrict free speech; you have reached a new level of faggotry.

[Anonymous No.3284291]

[Anonymous No.3284301]

>>3284288
>didn't read the thread
>buttmad

[Anonymous No.3284302]

>>3284288

Join our Costanza dump.

[Anonymous No.3284306]

>>3284288
>christfag

[Anonymous No.3284312]

[Anonymous No.3284322]

[Anonymous No.3284327]

[Anonymous No.3284330]

>>3284288

I think you are missing the point.
This leads me to ask you what you believe science to be, and whether or not you understand how the term is used by scientists. And whether or not you understand that science is not just some dude's opinion, or some group of dudes' opinions. It is a set of 'rules' about how particular aspects of the natural universe work backed up by observable evidence and testable hypotheses.
ID is not science due to the fact that it is predicated upon the supernatural aspect that some magic being created everything.
Science deals with the natural world.

However, I don't believe this video is controversial, and as I have stated several times, I do not think it is presenting false information; merely oversimplifying evolution and overstating the amount of randomness involved without clarifying that there are both random and non-random components to it.

[Anonymous No.3284332]

[Anonymous No.3284341]

Now I'm out of Costanzas.
I can make moar, if needed.

[Anonymous No.3284346]

>>3284301
>>3284306

Buttmad Christian here.

I support this notion because objectively, intelligent design isn't science. There were a lot of religious scientists in history, but they separated their personal religious life from their scientific work. This is one of the sacrifices you have to make as a scientist.

And to you Costanza bombers, great job on giving Christians a bad name. Fucktards.

[Anonymous No.3284351]

>>3284306
Nope. If you'd actually comprehended my post you'd realize I made absolutely no claims of knowledge as to our universes origins.

[Anonymous No.3284356]

>>3284346
>Christian

stopped reading there

please stop existing

[Anonymous No.3284359]

>PEOPLE STILL THINK SINCE EVOLUTION IS REAL GOD DOESNT EXIST

>PEOPLE STILL DONT UNDERSTAND THAT CREATIONISM IS A THEORY JUST AS COMING FROM NOTHING IS

>YOU JUST HAVE TO PICK ONE, YOU CANT JUST NOT TEACH CERTAIN ONES

>YOU IGNORANT FUCKS

[Anonymous No.3284369]

>>3284359

>implying this has anything to do with god or religion

[Anonymous No.3284379]

>>3284369
>implying that god couldnt have intelligently designed us before time and evolution was an after effect of the genius

deal with it

[Anonymous No.3284380]

DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP

[Anonymous No.3284381]

>>3284330
I'll accept your definition of science seeing as how it's the most commonly used and believed definition. I simply think when it comes to the mysteries of the origin of everything neither science or religion can claim any absolute truths. It's all just mental masturbation and pontification to me. I simply abhor dogmatic, simple-minded naivete, which runs rampant on both sides of the debate.

[Anonymous No.3284395]

>>3284346
>Christian

AHAHAHAHAHAH WHAT A RETARD

[Anonymous No.3284401]

>>3284381
Saved.

Very well said.

[Anonymous No.3284405]

>>3284381
>hurr

[Anonymous No.3284409]

>>3284405

see >>3284380

[Anonymous No.3284443]

>>3284380
>>3284405
>>3284409

Some real genuises here. Please elaborate on your monkey-like verbal ejaculations. God forbid you expend the energy to form a coherant thought.

Hurrhurrdurrdurrblahblahwahhhhhhhhhh see i can do it too

[Anonymous No.3284444]

ATTENTION NIGGAS. EMAIL SAL DIRECTLY AS HIS COMMENT INBOX IS BEING TROLL'D.

[e-mail]

GOGO.

[Anonymous No.3284445]

>>3284381

Yeah, except that evolution also does not specify the origin of all of life on earth. It merely describes the laws and mechanics of speciation.

[Anonymous No.3284453]

>>3284443

>derp

[Anonymous No.3284471]

Why so many butthurt christfags?

A true man of /sci/ence would realize that ID is nothing but a quasi-religious fantasy that has no place within 1 lightyear of biology.

Disliked, emailed.

[Anonymous No.3284475]

>>3284445
Would you not agree though that advocates of evolutionary theory tend to extrapolate their ideas into an unknowable past?

[Anonymous No.3284492]

>>3284475
please be a troll, please be a troll, please be a troll

[Anonymous No.3284498]

>>3284475

Anyone tends to extrapolate, but no where in evolutionary theory does it really describe, or claim to describe the origin of life.

However, abiogenesis (in the scientific sense) is quite an amazing subject of study in the biological field. Eugene Koonin has several papers on the subject and lucky for you, he writes a shitton, and you can generally find the exact papers for free.
However, most of the theories regarding abiogenesis are shaky at best, lacking evidence taken through repeatable experiments. It takes time and money to devise experiments to falsify hypotheses. There was something I read about Einstein's theory of relativity being tested recently. Let me see if I can't dig it up for you, if you want, but that's really a different matter entirely.

[Anonymous No.3284523]

>>3284379
That's called deism, it's a really old belief and has NOTHING to do with I.D. , so stop pretending it does.
I.D. asserts that we were made, out of the blue, by god, we were designed specifically by god, not evolution. Why would there be so many arguments for 'irreducible complexity' coming from the I.D. camp if not to try to disprove evolution?

tl;dr you don't know what the fuck you're even debating

[Anonymous No.3284530]

IF YOU HAVEN'T SENT SAL THAT VERY POLITE & COMPLEMENTARY EMAIL, YOU'RE EITHER A CHRISTFAG OR A DICK.

[Anonymous No.3284579]

>>3284498
I appreciate your thoughts, I wasn't addressing the theory itself, I am not a scientist and don't claim any greater authority than anyone else. I'm speaking to the dogmatic methods of debate some scientists and most religious nuts employ. They impart upon their beliefs an unwarranted divinity that allows them to simply dismiss all criticism as ignorance. This is what is so repulsive to me.

[Anonymous No.3284581]

Video was pretty good. Tackled some of the flaws in ID but treated the people who believe it with human dignity.

Basically he just says it's bollocks without saying it's bollocks.

[Anonymous No.3284582]

>>3284530

Once again, this has nothing to do with religion.

If you haven't sent the email, you're an ignorant /b/tard who knows nothing about science.

[Anonymous No.3284583]

>>3284530

Fuck you and everyone in this topic.

[Anonymous No.3284598]

we should attack his website until he take the video down

[Anonymous No.3284605]

>>3284579

I agree; I am tired of the preachers on my campus making the same ill-informed arguments and begging for evidence while ignoring it.
However, do you not agree that that kind of action in response to reasonable debate does not tire one and train one to more readily tell the difference between someone who is going to waste your time "debating" evolution and someone who has actual relevant questions or comments?
The same arguments are largely used and have been used for centuries on the ID/Creationist/god made it perspective (irreducible complexity, for example) and this kind of unwillingness to listen to explanations is bothersome, and the trouble would more easily be avoided by ignoring it.

[Anonymous No.3284613]

>>3284598
No, we shall not. Everything else he does is superb EXCEPT for this video. Plz be nice to him.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3284636]

>>3284613
This video is superb too. This thread just gave me fucking cancer

[Anonymous No.3284639]

>Intelligent design is as much a theory of biology as evolution. If intelligent design belongs in philosophy, so does evolution. Try growing a fucking brain

>>>/b/336794672

[Anonymous No.3284646]

>>3284639
>this is what ID defenders actually beleive

[Anonymous No.3284649]

>>3284605
I do agree with you for the most part, though I think there's an important reason those ideas of our creation have been passed down from our forefathers and are so readily believed by the average layman. I believe their origins and the power with which they entrap people need even further investigation. If we simply ignore them nothing will ever be reconciled.

[Anonymous No.3284655]

>>3284636
This tripfag just gave me cancer.

Mainly because he didn't read the thread. The video isn't bad nor does it need to be removed. We're saying it belongs in the philosophy section, not the biology section.

[H+ No.3284671]

Got a response guys.


Ford Stewart (Gmail) to khan-academy-c., Forrez, Bronson, Robert, me, Kyle, Science
show details 3:13 PM (4 hours ago)
All,

I'm not affiliated with Khan Academy - I am a volunteer on this forum.

While it is true that Intelligent Design is discussed in Sal's videos, he does not appear to defend ID. Rather, my understanding is that he discusses ID in order to discredit the "theory" in favor of evolution.

Hope this helps,
Ford

I'm responding back to clarify.

[Anonymous No.3284682]

>>3284671
Our point is that it should not even be mentioned. It's like talking about the "unicorn hypothesis" when discussing horse evolution. Not science.

[Anonymous No.3284694]

>>3284682

>talking about a mainstream thought

We know it's wrong fuck head. It's why Khan MADE A FUCKING VIDEO ABOUT IT!

[Anonymous No.3284707]

>>3284649

Well, there are several other religions available throughout the world which all have relatively different creation stories. People tend to make up stories for things they do not understand; stories based on feelings, or partial understandings, or personal observations. In fact, you have constructed your own "private universe." Everyone does this, as they integrate and reconcile information.
As far as the persuasive tactics are concerned, look no further than the fact that many churches are highly concerned with grabbing up young children, who don't yet have the same information differentiating ability as an adult. For anyone who is an adult, still, look no further than sororities or fraternities that utilize hazing. Why would anyone go through these debasing rituals? Why would they then perpetrate those rituals on others?
However, this question regarding human social behavior and the resulting interactions is a topic far from that of evolution, at least in the way we are discussing it.

You seem like you'd enjoy reading Heinlein's Revolt in 2100 and the sequel Methuselah's children. He explores these topics in great detail through both their effects as well as his personal proposed causes for them. (Persuasion, propoganda, etc.)
I love his future histories, and his optimism.

[H+ No.3284723]

>>3284707
>>3284694
>>3284682
>>3284671

My response:

Hi Ford.

First, thanks for taking the time to respond to our inquiries. I think however that you misinterpreted our focus on looking at the ID video. We don't have a problem with discussing ID as it compares to Evolution; it's obvious to most which of those arguments comes out on top when you examine actual evidence.

Our issue is that, by including the video of Intelligent Design discussion in the Biology section of the site, it promotes the idea that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, and a valid opponent to Evolution. In a sense it validates Intelligent Design even if the video itself is arguing against it. We would request the video be moved to the Philosophy or Political Science sections, as a discussion of the popular arguments against and resistance to Evolution rather than in the science section as a valid, scientifically-backed alternate theory. It is this claim by people who support ID that it is valid 'science' and that it should be taught in a science classroom that we oppose.

Thanks for your time,

-X

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3284749]

>>3284682
Science should not be afraid to discuss any potential explanations about natural phenomena. You need to be less defensive about your materialist worldview, and engage in more critical thought.

[Anonymous No.3284772]

no longer recommending Khan academy to anyone...

[Anonymous No.3284785]

>>3284723

Talking about ID doesn't make it anything close to scientific, and YOU KNOW IT.

Stop this childish bullshit before people like Khan stop making videos.

[Anonymous No.3284787]

>>3284772
OP here. Don't do that. HE IS STILL GOOD FOR _EVERYTHING_ ELSE EXCEPT THIS ONE VIDEO. Do not hold a grudge against him. That's not cool and counterproductive.

[Anonymous No.3284790]

>>3284707
Hey just wanted to express my appreciation towards you for actually engaging with me in discussion, this is why I started coming here in the first place though it seems to
be a rare occurence nowadays. I'll take at those Heinlens you recommended.

[Anonymous No.3284800]

>>3284772

Don't lie. You don't have any actual friends to talk to about the site.

[Anonymous No.3284809]

>>3284790

Me too. =) (Thank you & you're welcome.)
It's just because it's summer.
Everything decent on 4chan is few and far between during the summer.

[Anonymous No.3284900]

This is why I fucking love /sci/

Winning!

[Anonymous No.3284963]

>>3284900
word, nice dubs

[Anonymous No.3285137]

What a disappointment.

Sent the email.

[Anonymous No.3285158]

Have you even actually seen the video, OP? If I recall correctly, Khan doesn't endorse the view of intelligent design. In fact, though he doesn't give a formal position on it (trying to remain as objective as he can), he seems to actually be against the notion of the "designer" that intelligent design often seems to imply.

It's there only because it is such a hot-button (and ridiculous) issue, and that it's a good idea to know and understand the outlier arguments so you can better avoid the bullshit. I don't think he's teaching ID as an established scientific theory, just as an opinion, so there's really no problem. If someone chooses to believe ID anyway, it's their own retarded fault.

Stop being a butthurt faggot, OP. ID's not being taught as a valid scientific point in the video, only as an opinion that some people (not Khan himself) hold. Go back to Chanology you knee-jerk drone.

[Anonymous No.3285171]

>>3285158
>ID's not being taught as a valid scientific point in the video

Not OP, but you clearly didn't watch the video.

[Anonymous No.3285280]

>feelsbadman.jpg

[Anonymous No.3285297]

>>3285171

I really would like you to show me where he endorses it. Oh wait, it's not there.

[Anonymous No.3285686]

bumping for timezonefags