1. Comment #114132 by Stormkahn on January 21, 2008 at 12:24 pm

You're right, I'm concerned, so concerned I'm flabbergasted that my American cousins are slipping back into the slime after 120million years of progress.

We should have fought a little harder in the war of independence and perhaps today things would be "better"?

Other Comments by Stormkahn

2. Comment #114147 by mikecbraun on January 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Are the orange and yellow counties the swampy ones populated by Sasquatch's closest living relatives (skunk apes?), or are there actually modern hominids living there?

Other Comments by mikecbraun

3. Comment #114164 by quill on January 21, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Haha, I love this. The new education standards apparently don't just mention evolution in passing, but give it a central pominance in the lesson plans. The carpet is being pulled out from under these simpletons and all they can do is complain.

School boards can pass as many meaningless resolutions as they want, but if the state says it's in, it's in, biatch.

Other Comments by quill

4. Comment #114204 by AllanW on January 21, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Re; comment #114164 quill

"but if the state says it's in, it's in, biatch."

That's true apart from two things; the state has not approved the standards yet and even if they do they need to be enforced in every school.

I've suspected for awhile these statements and resolutions are meant to put pressure on the standards board to water down or throw out the evolution parts of the new standards. They must be countered.

I don't mean at the school boards but spend a little time on the local newspaper forums and forcefully put the rational arguments to people. There are plenty of rational humanists in these counties but they need support and need to know they can win these battles. Look up the link to the Florida Citizens for Science and send some e.mails, please.

These are activities that are important and can make a difference and are happening now.

Other Comments by AllanW

5. Comment #114253 by The Schuermannator on January 21, 2008 at 4:14 pm

What floors me about this is our space program based here in Florida has done so much to expose our ancient past and contradict young-earth teachings along with creationism in general, yet these idiots are still so blind to all the information that is (locally) available to them.

Many of my fellow KSC co-workers are deeply religious, and reject the findings of these satellites that are what's giving them a paycheck! Absurd!

edit: I'm including this link which closely relates to this topic... Thanks for AfraidToDie for posting it in The New Theology thread.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-newvoices19a08jan19,0,5685754.story?coll=orl_news_opinion_util

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

6. Comment #114264 by fatcitymax on January 21, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Evolution---Smellvolution.

Who needs science??

I'll have you know that Florida produces the best football and basketball players in the country!

GO GATORS

Other Comments by fatcitymax

7. Comment #114274 by The Schuermannator on January 21, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Kentucky Seared Chicken to be exact... Sauteed was voted out due to most of Floridians not being able to pronounce nor spell the word.

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

8. Comment #114278 by MelM on January 21, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Here's a report dated Dec 11, 2007 from NCSE (The National Center for Science Education: Eugenie Scott is Executive Director): Creationist pressure mounting in Florida

A little sample from the story:

A scant two days later after its report on Callaway, the St. Petersburg Times (December 8, 2007) revealed that there was opposition to the treatment of evolution in the draft standards within the state department of education itself: "Selena 'Charlie' Carraway, program manager for the department's Office of Instructional Materials, recently used her personal e-mail on personal time to send a missive urging fellow Christians to fight the proposal to include evolution as a "key idea" in the science curriculum. But she invoked her position as a way to, in her words, 'give this e-mail credibility.' And that, it turns out, is a no-no." A spokesperson for the department told the newspaper, "It is inappropriate for any department employee to use their public position to advocate their personal positions."

Other Comments by MelM

9. Comment #114288 by quill on January 21, 2008 at 7:05 pm

I really don't think the anti-evolutionists are going to find a receptive audience for their complaints this time. Weren't these revisions prompted by Florida receiving one of the lowest educational ratings in the country? Normal Floridans seem to be recognizing that the need for better education outweighs these old religious objections, at least for now.

Other Comments by quill

10. Comment #114292 by The Schuermannator on January 21, 2008 at 7:48 pm

And abnormal Floridians get to listen to me!

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

11. Comment #114294 by dragonfirematrix on January 21, 2008 at 8:00 pm

What is happening to our nation? What is happening to truth and reason? Is America becoming so stupid that it believes fantasies instead of fact? Has America fallen that far?

What happens if a parent objects to the lies of creationism forced on their children? What can parents do to ensure their children learn real science and secular education? Can parents force the school boards to do the right thing? What can parents do to ensure future peace?

This forcing of religion on America is a very sick and deadly path. I hope the Christians realize the horror for America they alone are creating if they carry out their crusade/jihad.

America should be "one nation, of many different people" with liberty and justice for (I hope) all, not a nation ruled by preachers calling for sectarian violence because of petty differences in citizen beliefs.

How do we reasonable people stop the horrible problem that the Christians are hell-bent to implement?

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

12. Comment #114299 by LorienRyan on January 21, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory as Evolution is - although the evidence supports Evolution as the reasonable conclusion.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

13. Comment #114300 by MPhil on January 21, 2008 at 8:26 pm

LorienRyan
Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory as Evolution is - although the evidence supports Evolution as the reasonable conclusion.

I'll have to disagree firmly.

If the invoked "creative intelligence" is not supernatural, then you have an infinite regress, because if it is natural, it too has to be explained by invoking a creator. Therefore the naturalistic ID-hypothesis is completely vacuous and has no merit whatsoever, no explanatory force.

If the invoked "creative intelligence" is supernatural - ie metaphysical, then ID is idle metaphysical speculation, not even testable in principle. Add to that that for all we know, spacetime is causally closed (see thermodynamics)- and therefore "external" interference is contrary to all physics. But ID needs physics to work, so it's not only biting the hand that is feeding it, but tearing it off and swallowing it whole.
If that were not enough, invoking anything metaphysical to explain something natural is not a real explanation for another reason: We would first have to explain how anything nonphysical would be able to influence anything physical - and then assume that this is indeed possible AND factual. But this is simply not explainable - all you can do is stipulate that this is somehow possible.

So, the "natural designer"-hypothesis fails in principle because it leads to an infinite regress,
and the "nonnatural/metaphysical designer"-hypothesis is not admissible in empirical science, because it invokes a nonempirical enitity - and biology, chemistry and physics are empirical sciences.

You can't get away with declaring it nonempricial science, because it tries to explain something natural, empirical.

So, it's not a valid scientific theory.

Other Comments by MPhil

14. Comment #114302 by kraut on January 21, 2008 at 8:32 pm

"Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory as Evolution is"

In the name of the zombie - it ain't a "theory" it ain't even a hypothesis, it is solely based on writings of several books written at a time when scientific investigation was not even on the horizon. It presumes a non falsifiable entity so it ain't science.

Man, where did you crawl from?

Other Comments by kraut

15. Comment #114303 by The Schuermannator on January 21, 2008 at 8:34 pm

LorienRyan
Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory as Evolution is - although the evidence supports Evolution as the reasonable conclusion.

If that is the case, then Pastafarianism is just as much a valid theory as ID or Darwinian evolution. That brings us to 2 alternative theories of why we're here as there's certainly more suggestions being brought to the table as we speak. Isn't it only fair to give equal time to each theory?

NO, it's not. The only theories that belong in science classrooms are theories that have verifiable evidence to back them up. Last I recall, cold fusion isn't being taught in our physics classrooms. And while it's not based on a supernatural presumption, there was simply no evidence to support it, therefore, it gets dropped.

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

16. Comment #114304 by LorienRyan on January 21, 2008 at 8:41 pm

MPhil,

Evidence validates scientific theories, although theories are needed in order to initiate the process of scientific enquiry. The point I am trying to make is to let the evidence do the talking, so to speak. I do agree with your point, it's just not exactly what I was implying. On second look I didn't phrase it very well.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

17. Comment #114305 by Roland_F on January 21, 2008 at 8:49 pm

14. Comment #114299 by LorienRyan

Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory as Evolution is - although the evidence supports Evolution as the reasonable conclusion.

Theory has a very specific meaning in science, something proofed many times and not yet falsified.
ID is just some fantasy story of 6 days creation around 6000 years ago, teaching it in schools is like also adding Ron Hubbard's science fiction fantasy of Scientology about first creation in Space Opera " 70 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years ago (7×10**85 years): The Story of Creation Implants " .

Or what about 'enriching' Physic teachings with lightening in thunderstorms are made from Zeus as alternative to high Voltage discharges, or thunder is made from Thor's hammer etc..

Other Comments by Roland_F

18. Comment #114360 by Roger Stanyard on January 22, 2008 at 4:22 am

LorienRyan:

"Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory as Evolution is - although the evidence supports Evolution as the reasonable conclusion..."

What the heck are you talking about? Even Phillip Johnson, the driving force behind it, admits that it is not even a theory or a hypothesis - just a set of ideas.

If it is a theory, why didn't the Dover School Board put together a curiculum for it? Answer: they couldn't. All they could use was the scam "teach the controversy".

Guess what? They lost the Dover trial, big time, specacularly and completely because the Judge found ID wasn't science but creatonism.

Ha ha! You lost completly.

Bet you can't tell us what the scientific theory of intelligent design is and how it can be tested by the scientific method. Just like every other IDiot.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

19. Comment #114363 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 4:33 am

Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory as Evolution is - although the evidence supports Evolution as the reasonable conclusion.

I am afraid you haven't even got the terms right.

Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact - that organisms have changed through time.

There are various ideas about how organisms change. ID is one of them, and Natural Selection is another. The difference between these is that Natural Selection makes predictions, and is falsifiable. ID makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable. It is simply a statement of belief that certain changes in organisms not only can never be explained by Natural Selection (which is a pretty arrogant position to take), but that the way that those changes happened was through the actions of some being, presumably God.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

20. Comment #114365 by Tyler Durden on January 22, 2008 at 4:39 am

Comment by LorienRyan:

The point I am trying to make is to let the evidence do the talking, so to speak.

But the Creationists don't let something like evidence get in the way of spouting rubbish and lies, and while I agree the evidence should be enough to convince most people, some people are beyond listening.

My friend "Dave" is one of these. Intelligent guy, deeply religious, but when I try to explain evolution to him, he simply switches off. Does not want to know.

I gave him Darwin on Natural Selection book for Christmas :)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

21. Comment #114367 by octopus on January 22, 2008 at 4:47 am

ID makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable.

http://cectic.com/comics/050.png

Other Comments by octopus

22. Comment #114385 by mikecbraun on January 22, 2008 at 6:12 am

Before we jump on LorienRyan, I think this is the point that this person was trying to make:
When we say a theory is valid, that means that the conclusion follows from the premise(s). Therefore, an argument is valid if I say:
All horses are male.
All horses are white.
Therefore, all male horses are white.
It's valid, but not sound, because we know that both of the premises are false. Is this what you were trying to say, LorienRyan? In such a case, ID is valid, although completely unsound. And Steve Zara, evolution is a theory. It's a scientific theory, which makes it as close to fact as science is comfortable to admit. I wish they would start using the term 'law' for evolution, and the term theory for natural selection, as evolution is as plainly true as gravity, but the details of natural selection are not yet crystal clear.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

23. Comment #114390 by Ian Bamlett on January 22, 2008 at 6:18 am

Comment #114302 by kraut:

Man, where did you crawl from?

I recommend asking for a little clarification from a poster before you assume you know what you think they said. The fault may be theirs for not being clear enough but a quick look at the "other comments by..." is also useful to a get a ball park feel for where someone is coming from based on where thery have been before.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

24. Comment #114392 by mikecbraun on January 22, 2008 at 6:23 am

The term 'theory' is too often bandied about by peons with bad ideas. Hence, we have the public confusion, especially in the U.S., with the term. People think that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the same as Cousin Dave's theory that there's a liberal media conspiracy to undermine our great president's agenda (dripping with sarcasm). It's not worth it to even waste the breath explaining this to people. I've tried (and was shocked to have to try) explaining this to coworkers with science degrees (albeit two-year degrees in a lot of cases) in a medical laboratory in one of the world's foremost healthcare centers and been met with opposition and blank stares. That's why I advocate changing it to, "God's Holy Law of Evolution by Natural Selection with Penalty of Unending Nether-Region Torture for those Who Don't Believe." Or maybe just the law of evolution.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

25. Comment #114393 by al-rawandi on January 22, 2008 at 6:25 am

fatcitymax,


bull shit. USC, Pac 10 my friend.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

26. Comment #114397 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 6:36 am

And Steve Zara, evolution is a theory. It's a scientific theory, which makes it as close to fact as science is comfortable to admit. I wish they would start using the term 'law' for evolution, and the term theory for natural selection, as evolution is as plainly true as gravity, but the details of natural selection are not yet crystal clear.

Well, I think you have backed what I say, albeit unintentionally.

Gravity is not a theory. But, there are theories of gravity. Similarly, evolution is not a theory, but there are theories of evolution.

Evolution is the observation that organisms have changed through time. Gravity is the observation that things fall towards massive objects.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #114401 by mikecbraun on January 22, 2008 at 6:44 am

Yes, true to a point. For common usage, we say, "theory of evolution." To you and me, it implies a description of how evolution may have happened, not if evolution happened. But we do leave that little bit of wiggle room because, like all things in science, new evidence could come to light and blow the whole thing out of the water. So, we have the law of gravity, the theory of special relativity, and still the theory of evolution. I wonder how many more years of being right must be endured by certain theories before they graduate to laws?

Other Comments by mikecbraun

28. Comment #114405 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 6:52 am

Yeah, I am being pedantic. But I think it is useful attitude, as it may help to create a "wedge" between IDers and others if we can point out that they aren't denying "Evolution" - simply a mechanism for it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

29. Comment #114408 by Geoff on January 22, 2008 at 6:54 am

7. Comment #114264 by fatcitymax on January 21, 2008 at 4:45 pm


I'll have you know that Florida produces the best football...players in the country!

Go Dolphins!

Other Comments by Geoff

30. Comment #114410 by mikecbraun on January 22, 2008 at 6:56 am

But you see how sneaky they are. They are good at using linguistic pitfalls to their advantage. Take a word that has two or more definitions when used in different contexts, pigeonhole it to the one commonly used definition. Then evidence becomes immaterial for all intents and purposes. Most laypeople only get as far as, "It's only a theory," and their minds are already closed off. It works very well.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

31. Comment #114411 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 6:59 am

Most laypeople only get as far as, "It's only a theory," and their minds are already closed off. It works very well.

Well my approach to that is to point out that Evolution is not any kind of theory. It isn't even the same kind of thing as a theory. It is an observation. Like gravity is an observation.

But I guess we all have different approaches.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #114412 by al-rawandi on January 22, 2008 at 7:04 am

Geoff,

Bah! Dolphins. Laughable.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

33. Comment #114416 by GoneGolfing on January 22, 2008 at 7:11 am

There is no need to be suppositional with regard to Evolution. It is clearly seen in practice so it is clearly then "not" a theory.

GG :-)

Other Comments by GoneGolfing

34. Comment #114418 by mikecbraun on January 22, 2008 at 7:18 am

I see what you're saying, and I agree with what you're saying and think you're absolutely right in reasoning but wrong when it comes to the overall common usage. There is the fact of evolution, which is the fact that natural life forms have changed over time, and then there is the theory of evolution, which is the mechanism(s) by which these changes have happened. So you're right--evolution is not a theory, it is the observation of changes, a fact that only a dunce would deny. But you're wrong--there are theories of evolution which all get shortened to just 'the theory of evolution' (most obvious is the theory of evolution by natural selection, which should be shortened to the 'theory of natural selection', but instead gets shortened to the 'theory of evolution' in popular culture). It is this subtle difference that these IDers exploit and use to ensnare the layperson. So, you see, I don't think you are really fundamentally wrong, you're just wrong in the popular sense, which unfortunately trumps what reasonable people think. Hopefully I made a little sense there.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

35. Comment #114420 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 7:21 am

Comment #114412 by al-rawandi

Bah! Dolphins. Laughable.

Bloody Americans, they call a game where the ball is carried for most of the time football, which means they have to rename the real game "soccer".

On top of that their players carry as much armour as a tank. What a set total wusses, compare this to Rugby League (or Union if you must). That's how people should be dressed for body contact sport.

Anyway, cricket is the only team game that is worth playing or watching.

Other Comments by epeeist

36. Comment #114421 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 7:24 am

I do see what you are saying. I just think we could make progress by attempting to educate people about the difference, using analogies like that of gravity. An IDer would surely (?) have to answer "yes" if asked the question "do you believe in evolution?".

I am not sure it is really appropriate to say "wrong the popular sense", as I don't believe the popular understanding makes any sense at all :)

Anyway, cricket is the only team game that is worth playing or watching.

True, but remember to bring a newspaper and pencil along if you go to a game. The newspaper will provide a crossword or soduko puzzle to help prevent boredom, and in addition to its use for those the pencil can, in extreme situtations (such as when watching Geoff Boycott) be stabbed into the thigh to keep you awake.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

37. Comment #114422 by al-rawandi on January 22, 2008 at 7:33 am

epeeist and Steve,


I must forcibly object. Any game where there are tea breaks, and the game last 3 or 5 days, there is a problem. They wear big floppy hats and use a bat as wide as a mercedes. Try baseball if you want a game to watch.

I must say Rugby is an impressive sport, I am a proud owner of an All Blacks jersey. American Football involves far more strategy than is presently obvious to my English friends.

In a reference to evolution, baseball and football are the more evolved forms of cricket and rugby, respectively. Perhaps that will be taught in Florida this coming school year.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

38. Comment #114423 by Tyler Durden on January 22, 2008 at 7:36 am

Bloody Americans, they call a game where the ball is carried for most of the time football, which means they have to rename the real game "soccer".

And call a score a "touchdown" when in fact the ball does not even have to touchdown, whereas in rugby it most definitely does! Daft Yanks!

As for cricket, any game that lasts 5-days and can still be called a draw is just I-N-S-A-N-E ;-)

And Steve, my mate "Dave" who is an intelligent guy, yet deeply religious, thinks the theory of gravity is still open as something may come along in the future to succeed it!?!?!? I know, I know, I've lost the will to live trying to explain evolution to him.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

39. Comment #114424 by Incredulous on January 22, 2008 at 7:39 am

Steve, I think I need some education here. Creationists don't believe in evolution. ID is considered analogous to creationism.

Therefore, is ID a form of evolution, i.e. an attempted explanation of evolution? In which case it is simply a crazy theory of evolution, or is it an alternative to evolution? When to me it would simply seem crazy.

Sorry to be so foggy, Steve. I just thought ID was an alternative to Evolution, i.e. God made us and everything in the 'perfect' form we see today. I didn't realise it could be seen as an alternative theory of evolution, in which case these people believe in evolution and we can all hug and forget the whole sorry discussion.

Simply writing that last sentence made me want to laugh out loud at anyone who believes this creationist nonsense.

Other Comments by Incredulous

40. Comment #114425 by AllanW on January 22, 2008 at 7:41 am

Re; comment #114422 al-rawandi

"In a reference to evolution, baseball and football are the more evolved forms of cricket and rugby, respectively."

And there we have a mis-appropriation, my friend.

Baseball has no common ancestry (apart from deep in geological time) with cricket. It is a transitional form between rounders (played in England by little girls) and a predicted game 'Steroid-blast' that will be played by junked-up monsters, barely human as we know the term.

Whereas American Football shares a lineage solely with war rather than gentlemanly sporting pursuits. But equally played by junked-up etc etc

:)

Other Comments by AllanW

41. Comment #114426 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 7:45 am

Sorry to be so foggy, Steve. I just thought ID was an alternative to Evolution, i.e. God made us and everything in the 'perfect' form we see today. I didn't realise it could be seen as an alternative theory of evolution, in which case these people believe in evolution and we can all hug and forget the whole sorry discussion.

ID is really weird. IDers believe in a form of evolution. They accept that organisms change over time. But, they don't accept that these changes result from Natural Selection, or any other "Natural" mechanism. They insist that these changes must be the result of "a Designer". It is clear that they mean this designer to be God.

A good way to think of ID is as "continous Creationism".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #114427 by irate_atheist on January 22, 2008 at 7:47 am

39. Comment #114422 by al-rawandi -

I must forcibly object. Any game where there are tea breaks, and the game last 3 or 5 days, there is a problem.

Yeah, right. I bet you don't appreciate the Duckworth-Lewis method either.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

43. Comment #114429 by mikecbraun on January 22, 2008 at 7:50 am

But there are some IDers who just believe that all present-day life forms were created exactly as they appear today at some point 4,000 or 6,000 years ago (details obviously not important when relating bullshit). Aren't there? Or are the young Earth creationists different from IDers? Anyway, fossils are the work of Beelzebub, Lord of the Flies. As far as I can tell, there are also people who believe God created everything, then let the mechanisms of natural selection take over--must be like a divine computer program then.

Other Comments by mikecbraun

44. Comment #114430 by octopus on January 22, 2008 at 7:51 am

I must forcibly object. Any game where there are tea breaks, and the game last 3 or 5 days, there is a problem.

Insert somewhere "...and one plays in jumper...".

Other Comments by octopus

45. Comment #114431 by irate_atheist on January 22, 2008 at 7:52 am

43. Comment #114426 by Steve Zara -

A good way to think of ID is as "continous Creationism".

A misprint methinks. Surely, "continuous Cretinism", is more appropriate?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

46. Comment #114432 by al-rawandi on January 22, 2008 at 7:53 am

AllanW,


I understand the connection to rounders. I would still consider it linked to cricket, even if by way of rounders.

As for steroids, I played professional baseball, and never used steroids. In fact I only met a couple of people who had.

This is not evidence that people don't take steroids. I figure at the Major League level the levels of usage are probably pretty high if you count all performance enhancing substances (HGH, Testosterone, and steroids).

I no longer watch baseall because I am simply disgusted. Furthermore, how is Rugby a gentleman's sport? Eye gouging, testicle grabbing, etc... If that is a gentlemanly pursuit, I prefer to remain a ruffian.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

47. Comment #114434 by al-rawandi on January 22, 2008 at 7:56 am

irate_atheist,


I had to look up Duckworth-Lewis. It seems to be a joke. Predicting the score? Only two English statisticians could have wasted the amount of time necessary to come up with something like that. Did you see the study where they found cricket can induce comas? :-)

Other Comments by al-rawandi

48. Comment #114436 by Steve Zara on January 22, 2008 at 7:57 am

Or are the young Earth creationists different from IDers?

Yes. They are quite different species of Cretinists.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

49. Comment #114439 by AllanW on January 22, 2008 at 7:59 am

Re; comment #114432 al-rawandi

"how is Rugby a gentleman's sport? Eye gouging, testicle grabbing, etc... If that is a gentlemanly pursuit, I prefer to remain a ruffian."

You have to remember where most of these sports had their rules codified; English public schools ..

Other Comments by AllanW

50. Comment #114442 by epeeist on January 22, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #114434 by al-rawandi

I had to look up Duckworth-Lewis. It seems to be a joke. Predicting the score? Only two English statisticians could have wasted the amount of time necessary to come up with something like that. Did you see the study where they found cricket can induce comas? :-)

Please don't say things like this. I am trying to cajole Annabanana into going to the real home of cricket when she comes across to the UK, namely Headingley. Take no notice of the MCC, cricket is far too good for Surrey.

Other Comments by epeeist