NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry if an answer to this question has already been posted. These forums are labyrinthine, so if there was an answer already, please direct me towards it.


I've been a believer in evolution for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in creationism, but I respect those who do - their faith is much stronger than mine. But these Kansas debates have piqued my interest. The advocates of teaching alternate theories in science classes aren't calling this theory creationism, but intelligent design.

They seem to want to distance intelligent design from creationism, as I understand it. I'm not familiar with the theories surrounding it, unless it does sum it all up as "God did it". I know there are advocates of it on this board, so could somebody explain the scientific basis for it, if one exists? This doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to cast off evolutionary theory in favor of intelligent design, but I want to at least know what it involves before forming an opinion on the issue.

I'm being completely serious here. No sarcasm, no ridicule, I just want to understand the other side.

I've been a believer in evolution for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in creationism, but I respect those who do - their faith is much stronger than mine.

Blind belief in what other people tell you != faith.

But these Kansas debates have piqued my interest. The advocates of teaching alternate theories in science classes aren't calling this theory creationism, but intelligent design.

Of course not. Calling it Creationism would be too obvious. It's proponents, however, have been very obvious in the Christian communities that Creationism is where this will lead.

They seem to want to distance intelligent design from creationism, as I understand it. I'm not familiar with the theories surrounding it, unless it does sum it all up as "God did it". I know there are advocates of it on this board, so could somebody explain the scientific basis for it, if one exists? This doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to cast off evolutionary theory in favor of intelligent design, but I want to at least know what it involves before forming an opinion on the issue.

As a scientific theory? There is no basis. The idea is based in half-truths and misconceptions of evolution. It incorporates untestable hypotheses as the very basis of its idea and purports to have evidence of something outside of any realm that can be measured. Even if the idea were not, at its core, unscientific, it hsa not been tested and thus could not be called a theory.

Blind belief in what other people tell you != faith.

I'm not religious myself, but to each his own, right?



Of course not. Calling it Creationism would be too obvious. It's proponents, however, have been very obvious in the Christian communities that Creationism is where this will lead.

I thought that, but I wanted to make sure this wasn't something else entirely that I've never heard of.


As a scientific theory? There is no basis. The idea is based in half-truths and misconceptions of evolution. It incorporates untestable hypotheses as the very basis of its idea and purports to have evidence of something outside of any realm that can be measured. Even if the idea were not, at its core, unscientific, it hsa not been tested and thus could not be called a theory.

And thus shouldn't be taught in a non-religious school, right. Okay, thank you. Again, I wasn't sure if the intelligent design concept was really different, or just a new name for an old belief.

I'm not religious myself, but to each his own, right?

To be truly religious, you must truly have your own beliefs. Simply believing what another person tells you is faith in that person, not in God.

I thought that, but I wanted to make sure this wasn't something else entirely that I've never heard of.

And thus shouldn't be taught in a non-religious school, right. Okay, thank you. Again, I wasn't sure if the intelligent design concept was really different, or just a new name for an old belief.

It is less detailed, and not attached to any given religion. But it is, at its core, the idea that an intelligent deisgner (aka. a deity) must have made everything, because it is just so complicated.

Faith does not merit respect.

I think that if people have faith in something you should respect it enough to not just rubbish it without good reason. Faith can have a positive impact as well as a negative impact on a person's life... still, fundamentalism, people trying to move supposedly secular governments towards theocracy, and religious-biased teaching in state schools are not good things. Faith should be an individual choice, a personal belief. Nobody has the right to force theirs on other people, even if they're trying to "save" them.

Anyway, from all that I've heard this "Intelligent Design" is just Creationism by another name. Giving it a new name which sounds more scientific and less religious (and what's more involving the word "intelligent" for good measure!) doesn't change the fact that it's not a scientific theory.

Intelligent design is just a different name for creationism. All they did was change the wording to make it sound that it is not religous, however it is hard to deny the religious foundation of this theory. Either way it and creationism has absolutely no place in the classroom unless it is a religious class that is an elective.

Sorry if an answer to this question has already been posted. These forums are labyrinthine, so if there was an answer already, please direct me towards it.


I've been a believer in evolution for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in creationism, but I respect those who do - their faith is much stronger than mine. But these Kansas debates have piqued my interest. The advocates of teaching alternate theories in science classes aren't calling this theory creationism, but intelligent design.

They seem to want to distance intelligent design from creationism, as I understand it. I'm not familiar with the theories surrounding it, unless it does sum it all up as "God did it". I know there are advocates of it on this board, so could somebody explain the scientific basis for it, if one exists? This doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to cast off evolutionary theory in favor of intelligent design, but I want to at least know what it involves before forming an opinion on the issue.

I'm being completely serious here. No sarcasm, no ridicule, I just want to understand the other side.

Really intelligent design is just creationism by a different name. The reason why they shun the word creationism is because creationism was banned in the classroom by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of religion. If intelligent design equals creationism in the legal world, then intelligent design will be banned as well.

The basic theory isn't scientific, but rather philosophical/theological. It goes back to a reverend by the name of Paley. He argued that if you walk on the beach and find a watch, you'd assume it was made by someone rather than naturally occurred. Why? Because it's too complex and works too harmoniously to have anything other than a maker as its creator. He then asked the rhetorical question of why we believe that it would be true of the watch, but not of us, or the universe in general. Thus, God exists, dogs and cats live together, and everyone is happy.

. . .Until we realize that Paley simply ignored the fact that a Scottish philosopher by the name of David Hume already considered this possibility about 70 years before Paley made his argument, and concluded that there was no way to infer the existence of God from the complexity of the universe. The universe, for instance, can be explained as being the way it is if you assume it's the product of sexual or asexual reproduction from another universe. Or if you assume that there are an infinite quantity of universes, and this is simply one that happened to have conditions suitable to life. Moreover, the theory only works if you don't really look at the universe too closely. For example, why if God designed everything to work harmoniously do people have parts that don't work, like wisdom teeth or appendixes? Why do people have illnesses or defects? One would expect that God, provided he generated the universe, wouldn't have been such a shoddy workman. As such, Hume concluded that there was no real way to conclude from the fact that the universe exists that God must have created it.

They seem to want to distance intelligent design from creationism, as I understand it. I'm not familiar with the theories surrounding it, unless it does sum it all up as "God did it". I know there are advocates of it on this board, so could somebody explain the scientific basis for it, if one exists? This doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to cast off evolutionary theory in favor of intelligent design, but I want to at least know what it involves before forming an opinion on the issue.

'intelligent design' works in two different ways. firstly, it is essentially a god of the gaps argument that makes the claim "current science cannot explain x, therefore god is the explanation for x." what's sad is that a good chunk of the gaps they are on about have already been filled in. the smartest id people essentially surrender all of the ground to evolution, but hold that god must be involved somewhere and that this is a scientific belief. the dumb ones surrender nothing and are still saying things like "what good is 50% of an eye?"

however, there is an alliance between the smart id people, the dumb id people, and the young earthers. for example michael behe never says anything to offend the fundies when giving talks on id at churches, even though he claims in other places to accept the scientific explanations for just about everything. out of this alliance comes the use of the phrase 'intelligent design' as code for a literal interpretation of genesis being taught as science in public schools. this is appealing because as long as they stay vague they think 'intelligent design' can pass constitutional muster, and will have greater cultural support.

even the smart ones are really just playing games to hide a general push for cultural conservativism. the discovery institute (the people behind id) put out a strategic plan called the wedge stategy (http://www.kcfs.org/Fliers_articles/Wedge.html). in it appear such gems as:


The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

...

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies

...

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism.

I've been a believer in evolution for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in creationism, but I respect those who do - their faith is much stronger than mine.
Actually, the beliefe in creationism because their faith is weak. They need concrete evidence of God, something their religion purposefully demands they should not expect, to truly believe. The rules for Christianity are thus, you can question, shout, argue, whatever with God, but you can't doubt and you must be certain without any proof. Now that's not what makes it to the pulpit much of the time. If you select the right parts, Christianity is a pretty great religion on paper. And there are people who will truly blow you away with kindness, and credit those papers. But there are other less admirable parts of the religion too. Unfortunately, they're more theatrical, and we live in theatrical times. Especially in the US.

They deny evolution because if they admitted it, they'd start doubting their God, without knowing that their doing it already.

Actually, the beliefe in creationism because their faith is weak. They need concrete evidence of God, something their religion purposefully demands they should not expect, to truly believe. The rules for Christianity are thus, you can question, shout, argue, whatever with God, but you can't doubt and you must be certain without any proof. Now that's not what makes it to the pulpit much of the time. If you select the right parts, Christianity is a pretty great religion on paper. And there are people who will truly blow you away with kindness, and credit those papers. But there are other less admirable parts of the religion too. Unfortunately, they're more theatrical, and we live in theatrical times. Especially in the US.

They deny evolution because if they admitted it, they'd start doubting their God, without knowing that their doing it already.

This is all dependent on what churches you have gone to, or what facets of "Christianity" you've heard of. I hate the word "Christian" now because of what it has turned into. I simply have faith in what I believe, and I don't agree with everything my church says, because only mortals speak, and you can't depend on everything they say.

There are two kinds of Christians now. New Testiment and Old Testiment. The new testiment is better, for obvious reasons. But it's not as theatrical. It takes some very keen insight, and a kind of joy to sustain it. They are the *real* Christians. The others, they don't care about the message, they want certainty in an uncertain world, the want dominion over that which they do not understand, and they most of all want to believe that their getting the VIP stamp when the time comes for the naked party in the sky. They can't believe without proof, or at least something to call proof, they have neither the courage nor the imagination.

Sorry if an answer to this question has already been posted. These forums are labyrinthine, so if there was an answer already, please direct me towards it.


I've been a believer in evolution for as long as I can remember. I don't believe in creationism, but I respect those who do - their faith is much stronger than mine. But these Kansas debates have piqued my interest. The advocates of teaching alternate theories in science classes aren't calling this theory creationism, but intelligent design.

They seem to want to distance intelligent design from creationism, as I understand it. I'm not familiar with the theories surrounding it, unless it does sum it all up as "God did it". I know there are advocates of it on this board, so could somebody explain the scientific basis for it, if one exists? This doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to cast off evolutionary theory in favor of intelligent design, but I want to at least know what it involves before forming an opinion on the issue.

I'm being completely serious here. No sarcasm, no ridicule, I just want to understand the other side.


They call it intelligent design because not all froms of creationism believe a diety created everything. I am pretty sure the people pushing for alternative theories are just christian fundamentalist. There is one sect in the US and canada (I think they published a book called the "The True Face of God") where they believe that aliens created life on earth. There are thousands of forms of creationism. However, as to the factual basis, there is almost none. Evolution (at least microevolution) has been witnessed. With a little imagination we can also see macroevolution. But since this is a theory rather then a natural law there are discrepancies. The main one, which actually pisses some people off is this, the origin of life is still a comlete mystery. So it does take faith to believe in evolution with out a god as it would to believe it with a god or everything was made singularly by a god. Spontanious generation (living things coming from nonliving things) has not been believed in since the 18th century or so (not exactly sure when it was officially casted off). A process with out anything to go through it is useless.

First of all, Kibolonia, the problem exists if someone only follows one or the other. The Bible contains the Old and the New Testament for a reason. The prophesies in the Old Testament help give you a better understanding of the significance of the New.

Now, with evolution, I would like to know what "proof" has been presented that supports it. Just because you say proof exists doesn't mean anything. I would like to know how a bunch of nothing somehow turned into this large, cosmic, explosion and then by some miracle the Earth was placed the absolute perfect distance from our sun so it wouldn't be too hot or cold to support life. Not to mention the great diversity of animals and plant life. Oh, could you also explain how mankind is the only creature that contains such a high intellect that we could create all the things that we have over the past millenia? Sorry, it seems like science has a long way to go before I believe that evolution really took place and is continually going on.

Now, I'm a believer in creationism and people who claim to be Christian but also believe in evolution clearly aren't reading the Book of Genesis.

The whole point with Kansas is that they aren't discriminating against the beliefs of a very large percentage of the population in their schools. I remember when I went through school, evolution was passed off as fact (which is clearly not in-line with my beliefs) and I was expected to believe it. The point is, the idea of creationism (or more recently modified into intelligent design) has been a long-held idea throughout mankind. Even the founders of our great nation believed in a creator. So think about this please before you completely dismiss intelligent design being taught as an equally valid theory as evolution.

P.S. Sorry about the long post. I always hate it when people do this.

There's no proof for ID at all. Next "theory" please.

Now, with evolution, I would like to know what "proof" has been presented that supports it. Just because you say proof exists doesn't mean anything. I would like to know how a bunch of nothing somehow turned into this large, cosmic, explosion and then by some miracle the Earth was placed the absolute perfect distance from our sun so it wouldn't be too hot or cold to support life.

For the 6 billionth time in the history of evo/creo discussions... Evolution is BIOLOGY. It has not one single thing to do with the Big Bang or planetary formation.

if you do not know that much it can be safely assumed that you know nothing about evolutionary theory and would be well advised to pick up a book on the subject before trying to post about it.

For the 6 billionth time in the history of evo/creo discussions... Evolution is BIOLOGY. It has not one single thing to do with the Big Bang or planetary formation.

if you do not know that much it can be safely assumed that you know nothing about evolutionary theory and would be well advised to pick up a book on the subject before trying to post about it.

Yes, let's forget about this foolishness of planetary formation affecting life. Cuse it's apparent that gravity (both Earth's and it's moon), the tilt of the Earth and the Earth's chemical make up have nothing to do with life and how it changes. No life form on Earth has been wiped out from a heavenly body (asteroid, comet etc) nor does the Moon's stablizing affect for on the Earth's tilt play any role. Because each science is strictly kept to their independent selves and cannot intertwine...oh wait a second.

What is the proof of Intelligent Design? Did these intelligent beings use magic to create everything? Science needs proof not speculation. If people want to learn creationism or ID then ask to learn about it in church or whatnot. And, yes the founding fathers were religious and believed in a creator but they also believed in separation of church and state. And would someone please explain to me how evolution is considered religious? It is based on fact and evidence. I would appreciate it, if someone could tell me.

Yes, let's forget about this foolishness of planetary formation affecting life. Cuse it's apparent that gravity (both Earth's and it's moon), the tilt of the Earth and the Earth's chemical make up have nothing to do with life and how it changes. No life form on Earth has been wiped out from a heavenly body (asteroid, comet etc) nor does the Moon's stablizing affect for on the Earth's tilt play any role. Because each science is strictly kept to their independent selves and cannot intertwine...oh wait a second.

...which has nothing to do with the fact that the theory of evolution is in no way dependent on the big bang theory.

Now, with evolution, I would like to know what "proof" has been presented that supports it.

I'll tell you what. Start reading every biology book you can get your hands on. When you feel you have a handle on it, start reading peer-reviewed papers. To get basic ideas, you're going to have to go pretty far back, so make sure you have a library card. When you're done with that, come back, and we'll have a discussion.

I would like to know how a bunch of nothing somehow turned into this large, cosmic, explosion and then by some miracle the Earth was placed the absolute perfect distance from our sun so it wouldn't be too hot or cold to support life.

Irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Not to mention the great diversity of animals and plant life.

If you had any knowledge at all of the theory, this wouldn't be a problem for you.

Oh, could you also explain how mankind is the only creature that contains such a high intellect that we could create all the things that we have over the past millenia?

How much room do we take up? Do you really think there are ample resources and room on this planet for another species like us? And barring that, to ask this question, you have to assume that evolution is idrected and that you are somehow a part of the most evolved lifeform.

Now, I'm a believer in creationism and people who claim to be Christian but also believe in evolution clearly aren't reading the Book of Genesis.

Anyone who claims that there is only one Creation story in Genesis clearly hasn't read it. Would you please tell me which came first, man or animals? Was the world and everything created for man, or was humankind the pinnacle of creation?

The whole point with Kansas is that they aren't discriminating against the beliefs of a very large percentage of the population in their schools.

You are right. They are currently not discriminating against anyone. They are only teaching scientific theories in a science class, regardless of whether or not their students "believe" in them. Forcing Christianity into the schools would be starting discrimination.

I remember when I went through school, evolution was passed off as fact (which is clearly not in-line with my beliefs) and I was expected to believe it.

There are two possibilities here. One is that you were a horrible student incapable of understanding the very first chapter of your textbook. The other is that you had one of the very few horrible teachers out there.

The point is, the idea of creationism (or more recently modified into intelligent design) has been a long-held idea throughout mankind. Even the founders of our great nation believed in a creator. So think about this please before you completely dismiss intelligent design being taught as an equally valid theory as evolution.

Intelligent Design "theory" and a belief in creation are not the same. One can easily believe in creation without having any problem with evolution.

(Writhing in pure disgust)

Don't ever call FUNDI-WHO-THINKS-A-BOOK-WRITTEN-BY-OLD-JEWISH-MEN-IS-THE -WORD-OF-GOD-CREATIONISM 'Intellegent Design'!

I am sorry. That was un-called for, but I am unhappy when people of faith (like me, Reform Jewish) are so insecure because their book might not be the literal truth. So they feel they have to form their whole belief system around that book, taking that book as infallable, therfore if one thing is wrong, it is all negated.

Now, I'm a believer in creationism and people who claim to be Christian but also believe in evolution clearly aren't reading the Book of Genesis.

The whole point with Kansas is that they aren't discriminating against the beliefs of a very large percentage of the population in their schools. I remember when I went through school, evolution was passed off as fact (which is clearly not in-line with my beliefs) and I was expected to believe it. The point is, the idea of creationism (or more recently modified into intelligent design) has been a long-held idea throughout mankind. Even the founders of our great nation believed in a creator. So think about this please before you completely dismiss intelligent design being taught as an equally valid theory as evolution.

P.S. Sorry about the long post. I always hate it when people do this.

1) What does being Christian have anything to do with believing in the literal, word-for-word translation of Genesis? To be a Christian, you only have to do two things: love God with all your heart, and treat all people as if they were your neighbor. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see why Biblical fundamentalism with respect to Genesis is required for either of those two things.

2) Again, just because people believe something has no bearing on whether or not it is true, and that is the purpose of science: to discover what is true, or at least, inductively infer what is most likely to be true. The idea that blood carries oxygen around the body was at one point in history highly unpopular as an idea, because hey, we all know that blood is just a humor designed to carry rage around the body, because that's what Galen said. Nevertheless, the concept of circulation and oxygenation of the blood has since saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Should we dismiss that simply because it wasn't what captured the popular imagination of what blood did 250 years ago?

Intelligent design is just the belief that an intelligent being created the universe. It doesn't have to be any God that we believe in, but it could be the equivilant to a god, say a being who lives in a dimension so high that he can do just about anything. Maybe one of these uber-dimensional beings just decided on a whim to create the universe, just as we decide on a whim to create nations on the internet.

Intelligent design is just the belief that an intelligent being created the universe. It doesn't have to be any God that we believe in, but it could be the equivilant to a god, say a being who lives in a dimension so high that he can do just about anything. Maybe one of these uber-dimensional beings just decided on a whim to create the universe, just as we decide on a whim to create nations on the internet.Which does not in the slightest change the fact that intelligent design isn't science, and teaching it as science would be nothing less than dishonest.

Ask yourself: Can the theory of intelligent design be refuted? Tested? Verified experimentally? Is it falsifiable? Does it provide specific mechanisms?

No, no, no, no, and no.

Intelligent design is just the belief that an intelligent being created the universe. It doesn't have to be any God that we believe in, but it could be the equivilant to a god, say a being who lives in a dimension so high that he can do just about anything. Maybe one of these uber-dimensional beings just decided on a whim to create the universe, just as we decide on a whim to create nations on the internet.

If that's all it was, it wouldn't pretend to be a scientific theory.

Intelligent design is a specific idea that biology is so very complex that it had to be designed by an intelligent being. It is directly contradictory to the theory of evolution, as its very basis is that evolution could not have possibly happened.

Which does not in the slightest change the fact that intelligent design isn't science, and teaching it as science would be nothing less than dishonest.

Ask yourself: Can the theory of intelligent design be refuted? Tested? Verified experimentally? Is it falsifiable? Does it provide specific mechanisms?

No, no, no, no, and no.

Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. It has nothing to do with religion, thus the constitution cannot come into play on this theory. Just because something hasn't been proven or shown right doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to at least be mentioned as something other people are looking into to verify if it is true or not.

Now, with evolution, I would like to know what "proof" has been presented that supports it.

Well, i can't give you all the evidence here, but i will refer to a few proven things:

Butterflies with a preference for yellow flowers who are put in a field with nectarless yellow flowers, but red flowers with nectar. Within just a few generations, you have butterflies that prefer red flowers.

Single cell organisms have been made to evolve into very different organisms within observable generations.

And then, of course there is the archaeological evidence that shows how humans have changed just over the last few hundred years. (we are much taller, for instance)

Is it Intelligent Design? Well, i'm sure that trial-and-error randomness was also a part of evolution. Many of the evolved species didnt survive. So did God have rough drafts that didn't work? Guess he isn't so omniscient after all.

If there is any Intelligent Design, it would have to be the cumulative intelligence of the entire Universe over time.

I believe the Universe directs itself from within, not from some outside God. In other words, every little thing we do and every bit of energy we put out there as individuals ends up being a PART of the mind of the Universe (God).

Now, I'm a believer in creationism and people who claim to be Christian but also believe in evolution clearly aren't reading the Book of Genesis.

I read the Hobbit, and enjoyed it, but i didnt believe it either. Besides, Jesus said his Covenant replaced the old one (from which comes Genesis)

The whole point with Kansas is that they aren't discriminating against the beliefs of a very large percentage of the population in their schools. I remember when I went through school, evolution was passed off as fact (which is clearly not in-line with my beliefs) and I was expected to believe it. The point is, the idea of creationism (or more recently modified into intelligent design) has been a long-held idea throughout mankind. Even the founders of our great nation believed in a creator. So think about this please before you completely dismiss intelligent design being taught as an equally valid theory as evolution.


I dont care if they all believe that Ice Cream created the world. If it is based on religious doctrine, it shouldnt be taught in public schools. Teach it in church, teach it at home, teach it in private parrochial schools. But it is not for the realm of the government (public schools) to promote this item of faith.
P.S. Sorry about the long post. I always hate it when people do this.[/QUOTE]

To be a Christian, you only have to do two things: love God with all your heart, and treat all people as if they were your neighbor.

Ummm....i thought it was "love God with all your heart and treat your neighbor as yourself."

Cuz personally, i can't stand my neighbor. If i were to treat everyone as my neighbor, i would have to put up fences everywhere!

Treat your neighbor as yourself seems more in keeping with the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which is represented in every religious philosophy that man has intelligently designed.

Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. It has nothing to do with religion, thus the constitution cannot come into play on this theory. Just because something hasn't been proven or shown right doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to at least be mentioned as something other people are looking into to verify if it is true or not.

If it is not a theory derived using the scientific method, it has no place in a science class. If you would like to talk about it in a philosophy class, fine.

Just because it cannot be proven doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned.[quote]Why should it be "mentioned"? It's a doctrine. A dogma. An arbitrary belief. Why should it be taught when teachers are on the subject of biology, for crying out loud? It's not even a scientific theory.

We teach science in our schools because we have, as a society, determined it's a very useful thing to teach. We don't teach religious doctrines.[quote=The Border Colonies]It has nothing to do with religion, thus the constitution cannot come into play on this theory.It has everything to do with religion. The sole motivation for trying to teach intelligent design is to provide support for the particular brand that is biblical creationism. This has been fairly well established by examining its support base.

Again, there is no reason to be teaching "intelligent design" as a theory of biology.

At its best, rendered neutral of all deitic and theological references, intelligent design is nothing more than a vague philosophical doctrine. We generally don't have a reason to teach those in biology classes either; that's an issue for classes on philosophy. Classes on religion. Etc.
Just because something hasn't been proven or shown right doesn't mean it doesn't have the right to at least be mentioned as something other people are looking into to verify if it is true or not.People aren't looking to verify intelligent design; it's fundamentally not verifiable, as I mentioned. It's pure speculation that would, bar miracle, never be demonstrated reasonably by evidence and cannot be disproven. It's not a scientific theory at all.

Teachers have quite enough to cover that we can think of good reasons for covering. Why should intelligent design receive special treatment?

Posted by the border colonies

Intelligent design is just the belief that an intelligent being created the universe. It doesn't have to be any God that we believe in, but it could be the equivilant to a god, say a being who lives in a dimension so high that he can do just about anything. Maybe one of these uber-dimensional beings just decided on a whim to create the universe, just as we decide on a whim to create nations on the internet.


Well what about atheists who dont believe in any god? Is it fair to force the belief that there is a god on them? (as you can probably tell, im an atheist)
And I will say it one more time, how is that a SCIENTIFIC theory? There is no evidence at all supporting Intelligent Design. How did these uber-dimensional beings create thee universe? Science has no room for theories that have a complete lack of evidence and proof.

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

Intelligent design by it's very nature relies on the holes in evolution. It is not based on scientific evidence and as science learns more it will be forced to focus on smaller and smaller errors.

It is not a scientific theory, as it relies on the absense of evidence to back up it's claims. Therefore it has no place in science education.

Intellegent design is a crock, it doesn't even qualify as a theory.

Evolution is a theory, all forms of creationism or intellegent design are simply hypotheses with no evidence. Theory implies there is some degree of evidence in support of the hypothesis.

That said, I have no problem with alternate hypothoses being mentioned in passing, however classes should only teach theories with supporting evidence, not select what's science based on people's beliefs. Creationism belongs in religion class, evolution in science class.

It seems that the biggest problem with Creationism is the insistence that the Universe had a beginning.

There is no proof that the universe began or that it is going to end. Time is apparently infinite. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The big bang is a product of the big crunch, and this is an ongoing cycle.

Creationism, like many religious beliefs, essentially humanises that which is not human. The idea that the universe has a definite beginning (no mass:mass) is probably based on our own experiences of non-birth:birth. Our own fear of death is probably the stimulus of End of World prophecies.

Our perceptions and theories are constantly moulded by our animal make-up.

Why does the universe exist? Perhaps only to give definition to everything that does not exist...

for "intelligent" design, there's not much intelligance there. I've yet to see a good arument save one: the watchmaker argument. "There is a wtch, the watch is complex, therefore there must be a watchmaker".

I don't fully understand the refutation myself, but it seems to me that it's not different than when the used to put on maps "here there be dragons" because they didn't know what was there. There's something about an eye having evolved from a light-sensitive spot, but then it's so complex that partial stages are of no use, but I read someplace that "Half an eye is better than a quarter of an eye because half an eye can see half a predator so it gets eaten less", but that makes no sense either...

Frankly, it's just, are you ok with the idea that there isn't a canned answer for everything? If so, Evolution suits you, if not, go for religion and ID

On a side note, I belive that this planet was comissioned by mice in order to find out the Ultimate Question, to which the answer is 42. CAn we teach that in schools?

I think if some god did design life, they did a substandard job of it. I mean, why give animals features that are redunant? Such examples being human tail bones, appendixes and body hair (too short to serve any insulating of proptective function). Also, why make such deisgn flaws such as spines that are poorly adapted to the stress of standing vertical, resulting a world of back problems, and feet so unsuited to the stresses of bepedal travel that we actually require shoes to support our arches. I mean, if the various gods that religions would have us believe created mankind are supposed to be all knowing, then there's no way we were directly designed by a divine hand.

I think if some god did design life, they did a substandard job of it. I mean, why give animals features that are redunant? Such examples being human tail bones, appendixes and body hair (too short to serve any insulating of proptective function). Also, why make such deisgn flaws such as spines that are poorly adapted to the stress of standing vertical, resulting a world of back problems, and feet so unsuited to the stresses of bepedal travel that we actually require shoes to support our arches. I mean, if the various gods that religions would have us believe created mankind are supposed to be all knowing, then there's no way we were directly designed by a divine hand.


Brilliant. Gotta remember this one.

Vestigial tail bones and appendicies.

(I guess one could say that God enjoy messing with our minds - certainly true if Mohammed, Moses and Jesus (and bin Laden and Bush) were all telling the truth).

Faith does not merit respect.
Hear, hear. *bows*
Any more than continuing to allot yourself an environment for addiction supplementation deserves sympathy.

On a side note, I belive that this planet was comissioned by mice in order to find out the Ultimate Question, to which the answer is 42. CAn we teach that in schools?
Seems to me there's just about as much proof .... ;)

Intelligent design by it's very nature relies on the holes in evolution. It is not based on scientific evidence and as science learns more it will be forced to focus on smaller and smaller errors.

It is not a scientific theory, as it relies on the absense of evidence to back up it's claims. Therefore it has no place in science education.
Well put. *bows*

I'll tell you what. Start reading every biology book you can get your hands on. When you feel you have a handle on it, start reading peer-reviewed papers. To get basic ideas, you're going to have to go pretty far back, so make sure you have a library card. When you're done with that, come back, and we'll have a discussion.



Irrelevant to the theory of evolution.



If you had any knowledge at all of the theory, this wouldn't be a problem for you.



How much room do we take up? Do you really think there are ample resources and room on this planet for another species like us? And barring that, to ask this question, you have to assume that evolution is idrected and that you are somehow a part of the most evolved lifeform.



Anyone who claims that there is only one Creation story in Genesis clearly hasn't read it. Would you please tell me which came first, man or animals? Was the world and everything created for man, or was humankind the pinnacle of creation?



You are right. They are currently not discriminating against anyone. They are only teaching scientific theories in a science class, regardless of whether or not their students "believe" in them. Forcing Christianity into the schools would be starting discrimination.



There are two possibilities here. One is that you were a horrible student incapable of understanding the very first chapter of your textbook. The other is that you had one of the very few horrible teachers out there.



Intelligent Design "theory" and a belief in creation are not the same. One can easily believe in creation without having any problem with evolution.
EXCELLENT POST. *bows*
Ka-POW! :sniper:

To be truly religious, you must truly have your own beliefs. Simply believing what another person tells you is faith in that person, not in God.


Absolute gold.

This is exactly my thought.

Lip-service is not faith.

Intelligent design is just a different name for creationism. All they did was change the wording to make it sound that it is not religous, however it is hard to deny the religious foundation of this theory. Either way it and creationism has absolutely no place in the classroom unless it is a religious class that is an elective.

The change of name is nothing more than marketing.

You can sell anything to (most) people, if you just package it right.

Example: the increase in 'popularity' of Anti-Abortion campaigners, after they changed their platform to 'Pro-Life'.

People like positive movements (pro-) and positive images (life). So - if you package it right, they can ignore the fact that children starve, people die, every day.

So - you repackage a totally unscientific system (Creationism) with fake science credentials (as Intelligent Design) and (many) people don't feel so bad about letting their children be brainwashed by a religion in their science classes.

I think if some god did design life, they did a substandard job of it. I mean, why give animals features that are redunant? Such examples being human tail bones, appendixes and body hair (too short to serve any insulating of proptective function). Also, why make such deisgn flaws such as spines that are poorly adapted to the stress of standing vertical, resulting a world of back problems, and feet so unsuited to the stresses of bepedal travel that we actually require shoes to support our arches. I mean, if the various gods that religions would have us believe created mankind are supposed to be all knowing, then there's no way we were directly designed by a divine hand.

Don't forget my personal favourite... the fact that human eyes are inferior products... since our optic nerve actually interferes with our vision.

i'm sick of all these people who just wanna have fun at our expense...o well. intelligent design is the belief that something intelligent (usaully God) designed and created everything, people, space, time, the universe, the laws that govern all of the above...creationism is the belief that God created the earth with it's species, and they have remained relatively unchanged since. i'd like to not that creationism has no basis in sciense, but no basis in Christianity either.