NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay this has probably been hashed and rehashed over and over again here BUT WHAT ABOUT ME? anyway what are your feelings on evolution and what are your feelings about inteligent design(I.E. God created everything) and should it be taught in schools?


I think that I.D. shouldn't be taught and evoultion should But Hey try and change me mind...


Athiest and proud of it!

I think a more interesting topic would be "Intelligent Design vs. Creationism".

I'd like to see those two hash it out.

For one thing, the ID proposed by those who want to push it into schools is much more than "God created everything." After all, one can accept the evidence for evolution and still feel that God created everything. Most books already have a single sentence that says "Some people believe God created everything." That doesn't get in the way of a proper science education, as it isn't taught as a scientific theory.

Okay this has probably been hashed and rehashed over and over again here BUT WHAT ABOUT ME? anyway what are your feelings on evolution and what are your feelings about inteligent design(I.E. God created everything) and should it be taught in schools?


I think that I.D. shouldn't be taught and evoultion should But Hey try and change me mind...


Athiest and proud of it!
Ok for 1 evolution is not really a contradiction with ID but yeah

Anyways I think teaching creation stories and studying them (not just Christianities) is absolutely fine in a THEOLOGY class where it belongs

Creationism and ID are NOT a scientific theory and have NO place in the science classroom

I think a more interesting topic would be "Intelligent Design vs. Creationism".

I'd like to see those two hash it out.
Yeah though technicaly Creationism is one form of ID but yah :)

Evolution = w1n, because it is open to inquiry.

Intelligent Design and Creationism are not open to inquiry, every question is answered by "Because", "It says in the Bible", etc and not physical evidence. Subjects not backed by physical evidence have no place in a science classroom, simple as that. Feel free to discuss it in religious studies classes, but not in a science class.

Evolution = w1n, because it is open to inquiry.

Intelligent Design and Creationism are not open to inquiry, every question is answered by "Because", "It says in the Bible", etc and not physical evidence. Subjects not backed by physical evidence have no place in a science classroom, simple as that. Feel free to discuss it in religious studies classes, but not in a science class.
*cheers* Exactly right.

Ok for 1 evolution is not really a contradiction with ID but yeah

It depends. Either something just developed though evoltion OR it was designed. But you are right... it would be possible that first something was designed and then developed.
So I dont think there is any serious scientist, who denies that evolution takes place, but there are some who feel the theory of evolution is not enough to explain the development of species and the coming into being of life.

Yeah though technicaly Creationism is one form of ID but yah :)
Not necessarily: What about evolutionary creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_creationism)?
Ok, one could argue, that then everything was created indirectly, but that is not what on usually understands as ID!

Evolution does not explain why there is life, what it explains is why life is the way it is, thus, the need not be at odds, that said, ID isn't science, as there is no evidence (this from a Christian) other than several holy books.

Okay this has probably been hashed and rehashed over and over again here BUT WHAT ABOUT ME? anyway what are your feelings on evolution and what are your feelings about inteligent design(I.E. God created everything) and should it be taught in schools?

Intelligent design is the argument from ignorance dressed up in technical jargon.

"I don't personally understand how this or that could have occured naturally, therefore God designed it" <- a fairly comprehensive summary of the "theory" of ID.

All their original examples of "Irreducibly complex" mechanism or organisms in nature have since had possible pathways for their gradual evolutionary development clearly formulated, in many cases multiple possible pathways, demonstrating quite definitively that the IDers don't have a leg to stand on... but that doesn't matter to the IDers because they're more concerned with public relations and politics than with scientific inquiry. They're not out to do honest scientific investigations, they're out to sway public opinion against evolution with the most convincing sounding argument they can dream up (and just happen to sell a bunch of books and videos to the gullible in the process) and their argument being factually correct doesn't appear to be a primary concern for them.

Isn't this just another branch off the 'who wants to be an atheist' thread..?

Ok for 1 evolution is not really a contradiction with ID but yeah

Anyways I think teaching creation stories and studying them (not just Christianities) is absolutely fine in a THEOLOGY class where it belongs

Creationism and ID are NOT a scientific theory and have NO place in the science classroom

I agree that ID and evolution are not necessarily in opposition.
I think ID is an interesting theory. The causes why things happen are:
a)need (if you throw a ball up, it will fall due to gravity, it needs to fall). Here is the realm of evolution.
b) intelligent design (this forum, for example, did appear because someone designed it)
c) random (finding 5$ on the street is a perfect example)
Now I've heard someone comparing the laws that govern the universe to finding a long line of coins perfectly alinged on a streat. Now you could assume those coins have fallen randomely, but it would be against common sense. Naturally, you assume someon put them there.

This is an interesting argument. Personally I'm not convinced by it because:
-given infinite space and time, any possible event, no matter how slight the chance for it to happen, will happen an infinite number of times. Including this Universe
-assuming someone created the universe, that being must be more complex than the universe, so you would have to conclude that it also appeared due to intelligent design, and so on. If one super-complex being could have appeared without intelligent design/existed forever, why couldn't the Universe itself? (Yeah, I know, the Universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, but still).


I'm still ponderig about this one.

Okay this has probably been hashed and rehashed over and over again here BUT WHAT ABOUT ME? anyway what are your feelings on evolution and what are your feelings about inteligent design(I.E. God created everything) and should it be taught in schools?


I think that I.D. shouldn't be taught and evoultion should But Hey try and change me mind...


Athiest and proud of it!

Hey,

Im a creationists and supporter of Intelligent Design. I think Evolution has the right to be taught but so does Inteligent Design. We have the right to choice, just like you choose Evolution, how would you like it if a government took that away? So my point is that by only teaching Evolution alone, you are taking that right away.

Inteligent Designer Supporter, Everyone has rights, even you!

ID does not meet the reqs for a scientific theory, and therefore cannot, and will not, be taught in schools. They day they start is the day I move to Canada.

Neither have any place in the classroom. Biology classes should teach biology, how it works, what it amounts to, etc, etc... Science is not responsible for giving us imaginative explanations for anything; it is responsible for evaluating, defining, explaining, making use of what can be observed, hypothesized, and proven. When something can not be observed, hypothesized, or proven; science SHOULD NOT resort to imaginative theories. Teach what you know to be factual.

Ten years from now, if evolution is still alive and kicking, the theory will bear little or no resemblance to what is taught in schools. Two years ago supporters of evolution clung to their idea with a dogmatic fervor matched by creationists, both have done so for decades. Since then, the theory has been rewritten at least once and seriously reevaluated at least twice. Once when a "hobbit" like primate was discovered on an island in the South Pacific, once when the Neanderthal turned out to be built completely different from what they previously thought (shorter and stockier actually, much like a “dwarf.” I am detecting a theme here.), and once when a plant was found to completely defy conventional heredity. What evolutions claimed to be proven fact two years ago has since been proven inaccurate. In Darwin's day, cells were thought to be "sacs" of unordered amino acids. Today they are known to look like masses of complex machinery. Teach what you know to be factual. Not imaginative explanations that work today but may not tomorrow.

What is now patently wrong is still being taught in outdated text books. It shouldn't be taught at all. The same goes for ID; it has no place in the classroom. The unanswerable question should be left unanswered and no one will even remotely be effected by it. For Christians I give you all you need to know.

In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was thing God, and the Word was God.

That should be enough for you. Now go learn your freaking biology.

Neither have any place in the classroom. Biology classes should teach biology, how it works, what it amounts to, etc, etc...

That's what evolution does.

Science is not responsible for giving us imaginative explanations for anything;

No, it's responsible for giving us the explanation of everything that is best supported by the results of scientific inquiry.

Again, evolution.

it is responsible for evaluating, defining, explaining, making use of what can be observed, hypothesized, and proven. When something can not be observed, hypothesized, or proven; science SHOULD NOT resort to imaginative theories. Teach what you know to be factual.

AGAIN... evolution.

Ten years from now, if evolution is still alive and kicking, the theory will bear little or no resemblance to what is taught in schools.

The odds against this being true are so incredibly slim I'm having trouble expressing them.

Two years ago supporters of evolution clung to their idea with a dogmatic fervor matched by creationists, both have done so for decades. Since then, the theory has been rewritten at least once and seriously reevaluated at least twice.

No it hasn't.

Once when a "hobbit" like primate was discovered on an island in the South Pacific, once when the Neanderthal turned out to be built completely different from what they previously thought (shorter and stockier actually, much like a “dwarf.” I am detecting a theme here.), and once when a plant was found to completely defy conventional heredity.

Neither of thse resulted in any rewriting of evolutionary theory. Neither of these impacted the accuracy OF evolutionary theory. You clearly don't even begin to understand the subject matter.

We all know that the Theory of Evolution, ie; Darwinism, was proposed by Charles Darwin. What you may not know is that his father, was a very religious man who detested the fact that his son wanted to become a scientist. He was furthermore revolted when he (Darwin) developed the Theory of Evolution which challenged his [fathers'] own belief in Gods' Creationism. Origonally, Darwin was also very religious, and quoted Biblical passages regularly. However, he abandoned religion around the age of twentyfive, on a journey in South America. He saw the cruelty towards slaves, and the living conditions of disease-ridden impovershed villages. He began to wonder how God could allow people to suffer so proffousely. He then created the Theory of Evolution. A lesser known meme is the statement he released along with the theory. He stated that his proposal of evolution was, in fact so radical that if it had not been proven within his own lifetime, it should be abandoned completly. In the later years of his life, he even retracted it. Realizing his errors, he returned to a life of faith.
In fact, 97% of all scientists today admit that evolution is false, and favor Intelligent Design.
In addition, there is more than one type of evolution. There is Macro Evolution (Darwinism) and Micro Evolution. Even though I am a religious Christian myself, I believe in Micro Evolution. Actually, many Christians do. Micro Evolution is the small scale evolution of already existant traits. (Compared to Darwinism, Micro Evolution is like a molecule whereas Darwinism is a planet.) In every generation, the pinky toe is becoming smaller and smaller, because of it's inability to do, well, anything. It fails to contribute a single thing to the rest of the foot. The same thing is also happening with the appendix. They both lack the ability to contribute to anything.

-Shadow Monkey

Since then, the theory has been rewritten at least once and seriously reevaluated at least twice.

What exactly are your sources, Ekland? Since Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species", the ideas of evolution and natural selection as Darwin proposed them have remained the same, without alteration. Why else is Darwin alone credited with developing these ideas? If the theory has undergone such large revisals, then why is abolsutely no one else credited with doing so?

and once when a plant was found to completely defy conventional heredity.

What does this have to do with evolution? Evolution is not genetics; take that matter up with Mendel, not Darwin.

Science is not responsible for giving us imaginative explanations for anything; it is responsible for evaluating, defining, explaining, making use of what can be observed, hypothesized, and proven.

Evolution can be observed and hypothesized; it is a theory, and science revolves around theorizing. Much in this universe cannot be directly proven -- can the existence of a God-being, the "intelligent creator" be proven? No, but based on historical accounts, it can be theorized in a similar way as evolution is.

Seriously, I think you need to do some extended research on the subject of evolution, natural selection, and Charles Darwin.

Yeah though technicaly Creationism is one form of ID but yah
And as for the Intelligent Design vs. Creationism discussion, no, they are not the same thing, although they are very similar. Creationism is the belief that God, in His infinite wisdom, created life, the universe, and everything. Intelligent Design is adopted more by people who are currently Agnostic. And although it mirrors Creationism almost exactly, there is one difference. The theory of Intelligent Design does not state what exactly created everything. It simply states that a superior bieng brought the world and everything around it into bieng.

-Shadow Monkey

In fact, 97% of all scientists today admit that evolution is false, and favor Intelligent Design.

-Shadow Monkey
REally? I want to see some links or proof of somekind because every scientist I know find ID to be a rather idiotic idea, But I could be wrong. In the few scientists I know 100% of them agree with evolution please show me some information to the contrary....

Also God wants you to know that he only created the Turtles... long story short he got really drunk...

In fact, 97% of all scientists today admit that evolution is false, and favor Intelligent Design.
This preposterous. Evolution still is the leading theory of the origin of species in the scientific world. Only an extremely small number of organizations are devoted to the promoting of the teaching of intelligent design (in fact, calling them "a number" is already making them seem too plentiful) -- it has not been accepted by any scientists other than a very, very small minority of "creation scientists."

In the later years of his life, he even retracted it. Realizing his errors, he returned to a life of faith.
This is entirely untrue. It had been alleged that Darwin retracted his theories on his deathbed by Temperance campaigner and evangelist Lady Elizabeth Hope, but Darwin's daughter, Henrietta, stated, "I was present at his deathbed ... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier." While it is known that Darwin often questioned his own theories and admitted that creationism was an easier explanation of the origin of species, he was never quoted retracting his views and, quite to the contrary, became an agnostic upon publishing them, renouncing his faith entirely.

And Micro-Evolution?

In every generation, the pinky toe is becoming smaller and smaller, because of it's inability to do, well, anything.
This is in no way related to the theory of evolution as Darwin proposed it. This idea corresponds with the ideas of the scientist Lamarck, who believed that organisms develop based on the use (or lack thereof) of body parts and their physical interaction with the enviornment, an idea entirely independent from the theory of evolution, which stresses development based on natural selection and genetic mutations. The theories of Lamarck and this supposed "Micro-Evolution" was written off by the scientific world many moons ago.

Umbrasimia I understand your new so heres some tips:
Don't state any fact that isn't widely known without providing proof
Same goes for historical evidence
Think before you post

Although very good post except for the glary errors in proof in any of your statements

In fact, 97% of all scientists today admit that evolution is false, and favor Intelligent Design.

Sources? Besides, I should belong to the 3% then, which I somehow don't believe since everybody else i know around here would fall into the cathegory as well. Lastly, evidence for evolution is overwhelming, especially in the geological/palaeontological context. So I assume your claim does not sound realistic.

Sources? Besides, I should belong to the 3% then, which I somehow don't believe since everybody else i know around here would fall into the cathegory as well. Lastly, evidence for evolution is overwhelming, especially in the geological/palaeontological context. So I assume your claim does not sound realistic.

Yes but can you explain the turtles?

Well, this is a bit interesting and I've been in this argument before...

Evolution is here because it hasn't been disproven by the scientific community. If it were proven via solid facts, it wouldn't still be a "theory".

Intelligent Design does not proverbially close the books on inquiry whatsoever. If humanity is a host to constituent organs, tissues, et cetera created by a greater being, then would it not, for the same reasons that evolution is studied, still benefit the human race to study these things? Evolution and ID are as opened and closed for further inquisition as any scientist would wish to take them.

Eleuth made a couple of interest points, but here's something to chew on:
The Big Bang cannot support the belief that the universe, as we know it, is infinite. Theoretically, if the universe were infinite, and all bodies within it acted with some sort of motion, all constituent bodies within that universe would either constantly contract into something that exits a human's comprehension for existence or would constantly expand... although I still don't see how the universe can truly "expand" or "contract" if it is infinite (or, for that matter, how it could have ever been created in the first place - infinite doesn't just appear randomly). I suppose I'd have to take these arguments up with Hawking, though...
Nonetheless, a greater creator/designer would defy any comprehension for our physical sciences, besides as saying that his/her/its sort of Empyreal substance has existed outside of the boundaries of our known "universe". Different planes, dimensions, whatever? I couldn't actually tell you (because then I could end this evolution/ID debate really quickly, now couldn't I? :) ).
Is that a cop-out answer? No. Actually, it opens up a massive field of inquiry as to 1) can humanity possibly graps a higher sort of material, 2) what is that higher material, 3) can humanity enter that material/what are the physical properties (are there physical properties?). Sure, then we get into metaphysics, but still, ID certainly offers nothing in the way of a "cop-out" that some would believe that it does.

What do I, personally, believe about evolution in the school system and the introduction of ID? Well, so far as I'm concerned, everything short of a sensed faith is a theory until we die - might as well study it. Scientists used to say that the world was flat... we might as well learned as many angles as a school year can cram in about a certain topic and THEN begin to personally discern for ourselves what is true and what is fiction. And yes, I do believe in creationism.

In fact, 97% of all scientists today admit that evolution is false, and favor Intelligent Design.


and 98% of statistics are made up on the spot. This most probably includes yours.

Well, this is a bit interesting and I've been in this argument before...

Evolution is here because it hasn't been disproven by the scientific community. If it were proven via solid facts, it wouldn't still be a "theory".

Yes it would. A 'Theory' in science is not a step on a scale of certainty somewhere below a fact, it is the framework which EXPLAINS facts.

Evolution happens: FACT. It's been directly observed.

HOW evolution happens: Evolutionary THEORY.

The establishment of a scientific theory is the primary goal of the scientific method. The metaphorical scientific holy grail.

Eleuth made a couple of interest points, but here's something to chew on:
The Big Bang cannot support the belief that the universe, as we know it, is infinite. Theoretically, if the universe were infinite, and all bodies within it acted with some sort of motion, all constituent bodies within that universe would either constantly contract into something that exits a human's comprehension for existence or would constantly expand... although I still don't see how the universe can truly "expand" or "contract" if it is infinite (or, for that matter, how it could have ever been created in the first place - infinite doesn't just appear randomly). I suppose I'd have to take these arguments up with Hawking, though...

???

I don't think you would, not until you understood them yourself at least.

Nonetheless, a greater creator/designer would defy any comprehension for our physical sciences, besides as saying that his/her/its sort of Empyreal substance has existed outside of the boundaries of our known "universe". Different planes, dimensions, whatever? I couldn't actually tell you (because then I could end this evolution/ID debate really quickly, now couldn't I? :) ).
Is that a cop-out answer? No.

I beg to differ.

Yes but can you explain the turtles?

Turtles. I have to admit this is a good point, and I admit that this isn't solved sufficiently so far. The problem with turtles is obvious: they are highly derived forms, even in their earliest appearance (the oldest turtle is Proganochelys quenstedti from the late Triassic).

One hypothesis on the origin of turtles is that they are descended from the Pareiasaurs. There are two main morphological features that hint at this possibility. First is that some Pareiasaurs had osteoderms (bony armor in skin), and secondly there are similarities in the skull anatomy (specifically, just like turtles, pareiasaurs are lacking temporal openings in their skull.
There is a catching point however: the pareiasaurs apparently became extinct at the end of the Permian, and the first turtles appear in the late Triassic. So we have a gap in the fossil record of about 40 million years. A lot can happen in that time, and one might assume that the necessary evolution did take place during that time. However, this is speculation so far. Maybe we find turtle/pareiasaur fossils from the early and mid Triassic within the next decades - at least the Pareiasaur/Turtle hypothesis would suggest this.

There exists another hypothesis which is not based on morphology but on DNA. Specifically, some molecular biologists noted that the DNA of turtles is suprisingly similar to crocodiles. Thus turtles might have alternatively evolved from relatives of the crocodiles (or somewhere else inside the Archosauria). Archosaurs too have osteoderms (see crocodiles or certain dinosaurs). However, this would require the loss of both upper and lower temporal openings which archosaurs do have.
The problem too with the Archosaur/Turtle hypothesis is that the fossil record has been silent so far in respect for some transitional forms. But, as noted - by luck - this may change within the next decade.

Thanks for bringing the topic up, btw. I appreciate that. :)

Evolution is here because it hasn't been disproven by the scientific community. If it were proven via solid facts, it wouldn't still be a "theory".


Yes, it would. It will always be a theory no matter how much evidence is found in favor of it (and there is a lot) because science can never prove anything, only disprove things. Strictly speaking the laws of gravity are only theories but we see them verified so often we tend to think of them as laws.

Turtles. I have to admit this is a good point, and I admit that this isn't solved sufficiently so far. The problem with turtles is obvious: they are highly derived forms, even in their earliest appearance (the oldest turtle is Proganochelys quenstedti from the late Triassic).

One hypothesis on the origin of turtles is that they are descended from the Pareiasaurs. There are two main morphological features that hint at this possibility. First is that some Pareiasaurs had osteoderms (bony armor in skin), and secondly there are similarities in the skull anatomy (specifically, just like turtles, pareiasaurs are lacking temporal openings in their skull.
There is a catching point however: the pareiasaurs apparently became extinct at the end of the Permian, and the first turtles appear in the late Triassic. So we have a gap in the fossil record of about 40 million years. A lot can happen in that time, and one might assume that the necessary evolution did take place during that time. However, this is speculation so far. Maybe we find turtle/pareiasaur fossils from the early and mid Triassic within the next decades - at least the Pareiasaur/Turtle hypothesis would suggest this.

There exists another hypothesis which is not based on morphology but on DNA. Specifically, some molecular biologists noted that the DNA of turtles is suprisingly similar to crocodiles. Thus turtles might have alternatively evolved from relatives of the crocodiles (or somewhere else inside the Archosauria). Archosaurs too have osteoderms (see crocodiles or certain dinosaurs). However, this would require the loss of both upper and lower temporal openings which archosaurs do have.
The problem too with the Archosaur/Turtle hypothesis is that the fossil record has been silent so far in respect for some transitional forms. But, as noted - by luck - this may change within the next decade.

Thanks for bringing the topic up, btw. I appreciate that. :)


wow that answered some questions... Now explain ahhh yes BALD EAGLES!!

wow that answered some questions.

You're welcome. :)

Now explain ahhh yes BALD EAGLES!!

What about them? :confused:

I propose that they be called jesus flies. and dinosors Jesus horses...... How else can I insult christians...... No Actually lets get a real question..... I think this thread may be dead.... well too bad....

Evolution is here because it hasn't been disproven by the scientific community. If it were proven via solid facts, it wouldn't still be a "theory".
A scientific theory is a reasonable, rational explanation based on observation that most closely conforms to available fact. Your common or garden theory is simply a notion that you've come up with to explain things that needn't necessarily be based on observation. Hence, a scientific theory isn't a common or garden theory, as it is technically proven by facts until additional facts become available and the scientific theory either changes to accommodate them or is binned. Evolutionary theory may have changed over the years, but it's never been binned.

Ok, two way misunderstanding.

1) "theory": my mistake - I forgot that scientists still don't understand the notion of a connotation.
2) "solid": If the theory has been changed and there are still scientists that believe that they've found something new that would so change the theory to the point that it would alter the essential bridge between where evolution stands now and a complete factual basis (I understand that there's not such thing as a complete factual basis - nothing scientific is ever complete - but work with the sense of the word), then the theory, as it stands, is not solid. Now, this diction may be shrouded in by my distaste for science (since science cannot, technically, deal with absolutes), but it nonetheless, hopefully, makes my point that the evolutionary theory is not, to use the term very loosely, perfect (or, at least, up to same standards as something such as the heliocentric theory or the theory of gravity).

We all know that the Theory of Evolution, ie; Darwinism, was proposed by Charles Darwin. What you may not know is that his father, was a very religious man who detested the fact that his son wanted to become a scientist. He was furthermore revolted when he (Darwin) developed the Theory of Evolution which challenged his [fathers'] own belief in Gods' Creationism. Origonally, Darwin was also very religious, and quoted Biblical passages regularly. However, he abandoned religion around the age of twentyfive, on a journey in South America. He saw the cruelty towards slaves, and the living conditions of disease-ridden impovershed villages. He began to wonder how God could allow people to suffer so proffousely. He then created the Theory of Evolution. A lesser known meme is the statement he released along with the theory. He stated that his proposal of evolution was, in fact so radical that if it had not been proven within his own lifetime, it should be abandoned completly. In the later years of his life, he even retracted it. Realizing his errors, he returned to a life of faith.
In fact, 97% of all scientists today admit that evolution is false, and favor Intelligent Design.
In addition, there is more than one type of evolution. There is Macro Evolution (Darwinism) and Micro Evolution. Even though I am a religious Christian myself, I believe in Micro Evolution. Actually, many Christians do. Micro Evolution is the small scale evolution of already existant traits. (Compared to Darwinism, Micro Evolution is like a molecule whereas Darwinism is a planet.) In every generation, the pinky toe is becoming smaller and smaller, because of it's inability to do, well, anything. It fails to contribute a single thing to the rest of the foot. The same thing is also happening with the appendix. They both lack the ability to contribute to anything.

-Shadow Monkey
Your entire post is complete and utter bullshit. And here's why. www.talkorigins.org

Read a little. Then you won't post shit that not even Kent Hovind says.

Ok, two way misunderstanding.

1) "theory": my mistake - I forgot that scientists still don't understand the notion of a connotation.
2) "solid": If the theory has been changed and there are still scientists that believe that they've found something new that would so change the theory to the point that it would alter the essential bridge between where evolution stands now and a complete factual basis (I understand that there's not such thing as a complete factual basis - nothing scientific is ever complete - but work with the sense of the word), then the theory, as it stands, is not solid. Now, this diction may be shrouded in by my distaste for science (since science cannot, technically, deal with absolutes), but it nonetheless, hopefully, makes my point that the evolutionary theory is not, to use the term very loosely, perfect (or, at least, up to same standards as something such as the heliocentric theory or the theory of gravity).

No-one said it was perfect. Most likely there will continue to be minor changes to the overall theory for years to come, but it is the best theory we have.

I'd like to know why you have such a distaste for science though. It has given us rather a lot of things. For instance the computer you're surfing the internet on right now.

I hate science for the same reason that every other Romantic author and Poe-loving Gothic author does - it makes the world a cut-and-dry, boring place to live...

I hate science for the same reason that every other Romantic author and Poe-loving Gothic author does - it makes the world a cut-and-dry, boring place to live...
What? Science makes the world 1000 times more complicated then just by reading the bible... So no....

Near as I can tell, what ID boils down to is trying to poke holes in Darwin's theory, and then using the fact that we - as a species - have imperfect knowledge of every element of the origins of the universe as some defacto proof that it must have been created by God.


A fascinating fucking leap of logic indeed.


Using this precept, God MUST exist up until such time as we have learned absolutely everything there is to know. At that point, I assume, WE then become Gods.


It's represents a moving goalpost guaranteed to satisfy the theists when God is supposed to be an article of faith anyway.


The plague used to be a sign of God's displeasure. Now we know it has to do with little critters in dirty water.


How birds fly used to be a sign of God's magnificence. Now that is understood under basic aerodynamic theory. And when a pigeon can catch an F-18, well then God's understanding of flight will have exceeded ours again.



You want to believe in Creationism wrapped up in a patina of bad science, then ID is the place for you.


But don't for one fucking instant tell me that just because we haven't yet learned everything that this proves anything beyond our own fucking ignorance as a species.

Of all the crazy theories the bible-toters have come up with, the Intelligent Design theory is the only possibility that has any merit. The I.D.T. is an educated Christan's only formidable defense against modern science. However, I dislike that it is accepted as a theory- there is no reasonable proof (beside the guy on the side of the road screaming "I saw Jesus!")that a higher entity exists. Vitalism has holes that modern Evolutionism does not. Also, the I.D.T. just adds more questions-like who, what, and where is this higher entity? What created God? Because these answere will never be found, the bible, creationism, and the I.D.T are instantly debunked.

Umbrasimia, as CthulhuFhtagn said, your post is pure bollocks.
97% of scientists believe that evolution is false? Where the hell did you get that
fact? They may not be entirely sure due to a lack of a time machine, but remember, scientists DECIDED to challenge the ID theory, and something tells me more than 3% of ALL the scientists in the world might just agree with the research. Hmmm?
Find me evidence that there is a giant bearded man perving down on all of us from the sky and I'll gladly join Opus Dei.

I hate science for the same reason that every other Romantic author and Poe-loving Gothic author does - it makes the world a cut-and-dry, boring place to live...

Well........ok then.

Though in my experience the world is none of those things.

Evolution THROUGH Intelligent Design

^ there's no way you can prove that God DIDN'T make things happen, but you're right that evolution most likely DID happen. they don't conflict at all, not to me. either way, religion doesn't dominate my life, so I could really kind of care less. I just think there's probably SOMETHING out there making things work. I guess I'm a kind of Deist.

and I think evolution should be taught in the science classrom, while ID/Creationism should be in Ideology class...

Evolution THROUGH Intelligent Design

^ there's no way you can prove that God DIDN'T make things happen, but you're right that evolution most likely DID happen. they don't conflict at all, not to me. either way, religion doesn't dominate my life, so I could really kind of care less. I just think there's probably SOMETHING out there making things work. I guess I'm a kind of Deist.

and I think evolution should be taught in the science classrom, while ID/Creationism should be in Ideology class...

In that case, you're an evolutionist.

Evolution says nothing about where life started. The theory of evolution (although maybe not the scientists) is quite happy to have God creating life and setting it off. All it says is how life changes over time.
If you accept that, though, you are accepting that irreducable complexity doesn't exist. Everything can be reduced, though evolution, down to God's starting points.

But, as you say, there's no evidence that God created those starting points, so it belongs in theology.

I agree with you, I'm personally not sure if a God exists, but I see no reason why, if a God does exist, and created the world, he didn't just "create" the world in the sense that natural processes (like gravity) work because of him. As a kind of abstract idea. "Creating" doesn't have to mean "moulded humans from clay" it could mean "let evolution happen and create humans".

Neither have any place in the classroom. Biology classes should teach biology, how it works, what it amounts to, etc, etc... Science is not responsible for giving us imaginative explanations for anything; it is responsible for evaluating, defining, explaining, making use of what can be observed, hypothesized, and proven. When something can not be observed, hypothesized, or proven; science SHOULD NOT resort to imaginative theories. Teach what you know to be factual.

Ten years from now, if evolution is still alive and kicking, the theory will bear little or no resemblance to what is taught in schools. Two years ago supporters of evolution clung to their idea with a dogmatic fervor matched by creationists, both have done so for decades. Since then, the theory has been rewritten at least once and seriously reevaluated at least twice. Once when a "hobbit" like primate was discovered on an island in the South Pacific, once when the Neanderthal turned out to be built completely different from what they previously thought (shorter and stockier actually, much like a “dwarf.” I am detecting a theme here.), and once when a plant was found to completely defy conventional heredity. What evolutions claimed to be proven fact two years ago has since been proven inaccurate. In Darwin's day, cells were thought to be "sacs" of unordered amino acids. Today they are known to look like masses of complex machinery. Teach what you know to be factual. Not imaginative explanations that work today but may not tomorrow.

Ok, I guess we can't teach any science now. All of science is made up of explanations that seem right now but may not be tomorrow. This is the beauty of science! It is self-correcting. Any decent teacher will point out where the textbook is now in error - just as I noticed the Smithsonian Natural History museum includes a "corrections on evolution" section until they can fully update the museum. This is the way science works and it is exactly how we should teach science. If we say "only what you absolutely know to be fact," we simply can't teach science. Do you really want that?

The fine details of Darwinism may change over time, but the theory is largely unchanged since "Origin Of Species".

The size and shape of Neadertals (for the record, it isn't "thal", that name was changed years ago through French standardization) has been known for quite a long time. And considering that Neadertals were cousins, not predecessors, of man and that they left no evolutionary lineage, this wouldn't be to shocking anyway.

The Dwarf-like people you speak of do not change anything about evolution. They were an isolated people that developed along different lines. Some races are short and some races are tall. A race that is completely isolated from outside contact for many years and in a different eco-system will differ greatly over just a few thousand years (not in species, but in phenotypes) from others. These Dwarf-life people are still Homo Sapien Sapien and do not change anything about evolution. I should know, I am good friends with one of the people who helped discover, and is helping to research, them.

And, although I have no idea what you are talking about insofar as this crazy plant goes, seeing as I study evolutionary science and have never heard of it and that you are completely incorrect on your first two examples, I can only assume that you have either invented or misunderstood something.

I could write up a post. But that would require me not being lazy.

So, I will just paste the text of a speech I gave a month or so ago here. (with bits removed)
--

[snip introduction]

Across the country, Creationists are pressing for, and in some cases actually achieving, the inclusion of so-called creation-science in scientific curricula. Christianity itself is not at fault; it is the fundamentalist movement that is the problem. However, Christian fundamentalism is powerful, active, and influential, and is therefore a great threat to the integrity of science in the high school classroom.

In science, theory must never be sacred. Observations of natural phenomena, and the inferences made from them, can give new insights, sometimes causing new theories to need to be created, and every once in a while necessitating a change in an existing theory.

Holding theories that disagree with observed phenomena is one of the most unscientific things a person can do. Ask any true scientist if it is possible that one of the theories he believes might someday be proved false, and he will respond “yes, though it is unlikely.” However, if he refuses to admit the possibility that new evidence could disprove his theory, he is not a scientist at all, but priest, prophet, and congregation of his own private cult. Yet across the nation, there are millions lobbying for the inclusion in the scientific curriculum of centuries-old “theories” based on pseudoscience, disproved assumptions, or simple mythology.


In a decision made in August 1999, the Kansas school board voted to strike all reference to long-term evolution from the curriculum, leaving only undeniable short-term evolution. Fortunately, this decision was since revoked. But even now, the 2005 Kansas school board is once again considering a return to that policy. Says the New York Times, August 12 1999, “Alabama, New Mexico and Nebraska have made changes that to varying degrees challenge the pre-eminence of evolution in the scientific curriculum.” In short, these states legislated that evolution is a questionable theory and that there are other, equally valid, theories in existence. As recently as 2001, in the US House of Representatives, a bill was proposed that would force science texts to include a statement that evolution was an unproven theory, contested by an equally valid “theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a creator.”

Their argument is deceptively convincing. Evolution, they say, is “only a theory”. Therefore, why should schools not teach the “conflicting theory” of Biblical creation?

First, claiming that evolution is “only a theory”, while technically correct, is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Evolution, like magnetism and gravitational attraction is both a fact and a well-accepted theory. Factual evolution—that which has been observed—is this. Random mutations in the genetic code of an organism's offspring can make that offspring more or less fit for its environment. Essentially, the mutation can give greater or lesser chance of successfully reproducing. Famous examples of this are Darwin's finches in the Galapagos islands; mutations that gave offspring larger beaks made them succeed in environments where large beaks were helpful. The mutated birds soon greatly outnumbered non-mutated birds with smaller beaks. In different environments, the opposite was true.



Theoretical evolution is that this process, repeated millions of times over successive generations, generates organisms that were very different from their progenitors. It is the logical conclusion derived from of the fact described above. No counter evidence to this theory has ever successfully and legitimately been demonstrated to exist. To the contrary, the more we know, the more we find that supports the so-called “controversial” theory of evolution—a theory which is controversial only in the opinions of those who believe religion over evidence.

On the other hand, we have “Creation theory”. It has two main forms: “Young-Earth Creationism” and “Intelligent Design”. Young Earth Creationism subscribes to a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis (the first chapter of the Bible). Most importantly, it believes in a literal interpretation of the account of God creating the world in 6 days. According to a 2001 Gallop Poll, this is the belief held by nearly 45 % of Americans; numerous polls have confirmed that nearly half the American population believes earth is less than 10,000 years old. The second most common belief, Intelligent Design, is that the complexity of the world demands the existence of a creator actively influencing the universe since its beginning.

[snip paragraph about young earth creationism]

Intelligent Design, while less ridiculous, is so vague as to hardly qualify as a theory. (How did this designer create or shape the existing world? What did he use to accomplish this? Why is it that certain beings can be obviously imperfect, yet adequately adapted to their environment, so long as a competitor is not present?) Intelligent Design attributes that which science cannot explain (or, as is sometimes the case, what it falsely assumes science cannot explain) to the inexplicable actions of an unobservable being. Furthermore, it is one of the very few so called scientific theories in existence that claims that the universe does not follow predictable rules; Intelligent Design claims that the laws of physics can be temporarily ignored if one invokes the name of God. It's last claim is its most contemptible. It asserts that somehow Intelligent Design resulted in a course of development exactly like the one evolution theory predicts. Like its more simpleminded counterpart Young-Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design is only a valid topic for study when it presented as a religion, alongside the creation beliefs of Hinduism and the creation myths of the ancient Greeks. Religion should be kept where it belongs: in Sunday school, in religion and philosophy class, even in sociology or history class. It must remain firmly out of science class—for the sake of the integrity of our scientific curriculum, and for the sake of the integrity of reason itself.

The first, and arguably most important clause in the Bill of Rights is this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Yet if religion is placed alongside valid science in science class, it is entirely possible that someday, one of you or your children, living in Alabama or Kansas or elsewhere, might have to answer the following question:
Question 3: In how many days did God create the world?
Or fail your “science” test.

Look I concede it is alright to teach evolutionary theory if it is not taught to be absolute truth but instead just a belief. After all the government including science class must respect the beliefs of others and not shove anything down their throat. After all freedom of religion can be a two-way street, as well fundamentalists are too common to shut out like the amish are.

The Young Earth Creationalism believers really tend to get on my nerves. My religious state used to be "I believe but am annoyed by other people who believe." Now I don't believe. But I've never had a literal interpretation of the Bible, even when I was Christian.
My reasons for a liberal rather than literal interpretation of this book:
One: it was written in another language, translated, translated again, before it even made it into English. Even when someone has a lot of time on their hands to try as hard as possible to be accurate, it usually translates differently.
Two: It was written before punctuation was invented. That was added later.
Three: For decades, the Bible was passed by word of mouth before anyone bothered to write it down at all.
Four: Things in that book defy laws of nature and science. "Miracles?" Yeah, right.
Five: Evolution disproves Young Earth Creationalism. It's much more than a theory. There's PROOF. All Young Earth Creationalism has is an unreliable book.
Six: Some of the verses of Psalms in the King James version were most likely written by Shakespeare.
I personally think the bible is like the ultimate fairy tale. People want so desperately to believe it because it sounds better than the truth, so they do.
I can respect Christians. I even support Christianity for the way it makes people do good things they otherwise would not have done. It's good for the world to believe because, even if it's not true, it comforts the world to THINK it's true. It gives them hope for "life after death". Eternity is pretty scary when you look at it from a non-Christian point of view. It's better for the people if they don't disillusion themselves now. They'll be happier if they go to their grave thinking, "I am righteous, He will raise me to His bosom" or something like that. Even if Christians do tend to have the annoying habit of spending a great deal of their Sunday school and youth group meetings and so on debating whether people they know will or will not go to Hell.

When I read "Intellegent Design", my thought was that this thread was about minimalist furnature and such. "Form follows function", etc. vs. the evolution of highly decorative furnature. Damn I'm tired...

:rolleyes:

Look I concede it is alright to teach evolutionary theory if it is not taught to be absolute truth but instead just a belief. After all the government including science class must respect the beliefs of others and not shove anything down their throat. After all freedom of religion can be a two-way street, as well fundamentalists are too common to shut out like the amish are.

The problem here is that, for 60 some years, we've had a science and math centered cirriculum. You cannot simply not include parts of science just because it might offend someone's beliefs. That is being a dishonest logician.

Look I concede it is alright to teach evolutionary theory if it is not taught to be absolute truth but instead just a belief. After all the government including science class must respect the beliefs of others and not shove anything down their throat. After all freedom of religion can be a two-way street, as well fundamentalists are too common to shut out like the amish are.

But evolution IS taught as a belief, a belief that has a lot of evidence behind it. As part of science class there should, if the teacher is doing the job right, be classes that discuss the scientific method, and what a scientific "theory" really means. Then, when evolution is taught, a good teacher will teach WHY it happens that way, and what EVIDENCE we have to believe this. I know that's how I got taught (I did go to a good school, I concede I was lucky in that regard). I never got taught that it was an absolute truth. In fact, before evolution we discussed lamarkism, darwinism, yes, even the great flood theories. We looked at the evidence that made people believe these things, and the evidence that didn't quite fit. With that background, it's hard to think that evolution was taught as "rock solid this is the way it is there will never be any better theories".
Science, indicentally, does NOT have to respect the belief of others. Science only has to respect the evidence available. Science can NOT teach that flying is impossible, if there is evidence that birds can fly. Science CAN teach that God is impossible, if there is evidence that God cannot exist. Reardless of your beliefs. It does NOT have to respect them. Incidentally, science says nothing about whether god exists or not.

Freedom of religion can be a two-way street. You're right. And in a religion class, that's fine. Although some people use it as such, science is NOT a religion and should NOT be taught as such.

Yet if religion is placed alongside valid science in science class, it is entirely possible that someday, one of you or your children, living in Alabama or Kansas or elsewhere, might have to answer the following question:
Question 3: In how many days did God create the world?
Or fail your “science” test.

I have no problem with this happening, as long as it doesn't become excessive. I believe for a full education you need to know the background of what you're learning. When learning about computers, I researched the first few computers, and how they were built. It helps me understand why programming languages evolved the way they did. Similarly with evolution, I like knowing what theories came before it, what the first evolutionists were competing with, and why people believed what they did. It's GOOD to say, in science class "people used to believe, and some still do, that the world was created in six days". Just don't spend all your time on that, use it as the background to what you're learning, and knowledge about the opposition you're likely to face.

I makes it much easier to understand intelligent design, or creationists, if you understand them. And it means you can give their theories a fair appraisal, and then accept or reject them appropriately. If you choose to reject them, it only strengthens the claim that the current sciences, like evolution, have.

And, although I have no idea what you are talking about insofar as this crazy plant goes, seeing as I study evolutionary science and have never heard of it and that you are completely incorrect on your first two examples, I can only assume that you have either invented or misunderstood something.

The plant is a recent development. Apparently, a plant was found that seemed to be able to self-correct mutations found in both of the parent plants. The mechanism is still being investigated.

Of course, this has not changed the basics of evolution in any way. It has challenged strict Mendelian genetics and is certainly an interesting find.

When people bring up how this or that has changed evolution, they are generally referring to specific details of a given lineage. This is expected to change with new information. The underlying principles of the theory of evolution have not changed much at all in generations.

But evolution IS taught as a belief, a belief that has a lot of evidence behind it.

Most people would say that a belief is something held to be true without evidence. Thus, the word really isn't used in science. Evolution is a theory. It is the current best explanation of the data we have.

As part of science class there should, if the teacher is doing the job right, be classes that discuss the scientific method, and what a scientific "theory" really means. Then, when evolution is taught, a good teacher will teach WHY it happens that way, and what EVIDENCE we have to believe this. I know that's how I got taught (I did go to a good school, I concede I was lucky in that regard). I never got taught that it was an absolute truth. In fact, before evolution we discussed lamarkism, darwinism, yes, even the great flood theories. We looked at the evidence that made people believe these things, and the evidence that didn't quite fit. With that background, it's hard to think that evolution was taught as "rock solid this is the way it is there will never be any better theories".

And this is how all but the worst teachers teach it. Those who teach it differently don't understand science itself, and should be put out on the street or put into a job that doesn't involve science.

Science, indicentally, does NOT have to respect the belief of others.

True. Science cannot be swayed by beliefs. Evidence is what matters.

Science CAN teach that God is impossible, if there is evidence that God cannot exist.

Of course, such evidence is a logical impossibility. If there is an all-powerful creator, that creator lies outside the rules of the universe, and thus outside of science. For that reason, science can make no assumptions whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of a God - it is outside the scope.

I makes it much easier to understand intelligent design, or creationists, if you understand them. And it means you can give their theories a fair appraisal, and then accept or reject them appropriately. If you choose to reject them, it only strengthens the claim that the current sciences, like evolution, have.

In truth, as a scientist, I would have no problem with Creationism and ID being brought up in a science class - and the class taught exactly why these are not scientific theories and how they do not follow the scientific method. Teaching examples of bad science as such would help drive home the important points that I know are in the first chapter of every grade and high school science textbook but that Creationists and IDers typically seem so unaware of.

We all know that the Theory of Evolution, ie; Darwinism, was proposed by Charles Darwin. What you may not know is that his father, was a very religious man who detested the fact that his son wanted to become a scientist. He was furthermore revolted when he (Darwin) developed the Theory of Evolution which challenged his [fathers'] own belief in Gods' Creationism. Origonally, Darwin was also very religious, and quoted Biblical passages regularly. However, he abandoned religion around the age of twentyfive, on a journey in South America. He saw the cruelty towards slaves, and the living conditions of disease-ridden impovershed villages. He began to wonder how God could allow people to suffer so proffousely. He then created the Theory of Evolution. A lesser known meme is the statement he released along with the theory. He stated that his proposal of evolution was, in fact so radical that if it had not been proven within his own lifetime, it should be abandoned completly. In the later years of his life, he even retracted it. Realizing his errors, he returned to a life of faith.
In fact, 97% of all scientists today admit that evolution is false, and favor Intelligent Design.
In addition, there is more than one type of evolution. There is Macro Evolution (Darwinism) and Micro Evolution. Even though I am a religious Christian myself, I believe in Micro Evolution. Actually, many Christians do. Micro Evolution is the small scale evolution of already existant traits. (Compared to Darwinism, Micro Evolution is like a molecule whereas Darwinism is a planet.) In every generation, the pinky toe is becoming smaller and smaller, because of it's inability to do, well, anything. It fails to contribute a single thing to the rest of the foot. The same thing is also happening with the appendix. They both lack the ability to contribute to anything.

-Shadow Monkey

Oy, the faults in logic and what's worse the completely false information given.

Darwin did not propose the Theory of Evolution. That would be Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who first published his views on evolution eight years before Charles Darwin was born.

Next, your account of Darwin's life is extremely flawed. He first grew an interest in natural history while attending his second year at Edinburg University. He was disgusted with the horrible medical procedures that he had witnessed(He was studying medicine at the time). He and his mentor went to the Firth of Forth(region of scotland) to study marine life. There he discovered that animals that are completely different in outward appearances have similar internal organs.

His father was displeased with this, but because he wanted to his son to go into medicine, and enrolled him into Cambridge University. There, he took up beetle collecting and passed with almost flying colors. He then took up studies in Natural history, and was recommended by a professor to go on the HMS beagle to study in South America. On this voyage, he study Geology, fossils, and a large assortment of organisms, and a chance to talk with the natives. He found fossils of what appeared to be relatives of animals still alive. THIS is what led him to his Theory of Evolution. I have no clue where you got the whole disease and slavery thing, but even if true, that was not the driving force behind his theory.

He was also a staunch defender of his theory. Tell me, where did you get that meme? He worked most of his life gather proof and evidence for this theory, hardly the acts of a man who seriously doubted his own invention. And he NEVER returned to a life of faith. That is a widespread lie and rumor, which never happened.

Your accounts of his life are laughable, and destroy credibility.

97% don't believe, eh? Care to back this little tidbit up? I HIGHLY doubt this. You can't just pull random figures out your ass and call them fact. Show me where you found this, and I'll gladly recant this particular statement, but this smells of major BS.

And as for Micro and Macro... if you study evolution(or even basic biology), you will find out there is no difference. And even if there were, it wouldn't matter: We have observed Micro Evolution, we have observed Macro Evolution, and we have observed Speciation. Evolution does exist beyond the micro level.

And you just used Lamarckian Evolution to explain the pinky toe and appendix. Which will probably destroy your credibility with anybody who knows about Lamarckian Evolution.

I can go further indepth on anything here if you.

well the seings as how the whole reasoning behind evo is mutations like larger lungs i dont really see any arguement against it. also, god may have created the world in 7 days, but it never said 7 24-hour days or even 7 earth days

What? Science makes the world 1000 times more complicated then just by reading the bible... So no....

Are you kidding me?! I know this is a matter of personal opinion, as such drives individual imagination, but I couldn't disagree more (though I will agree that science can, in the rare circumstance, enhance an image in a story). If anything, it is mythologies and religions living or dead that make creative literature so interesting... But that's besides the point... Anyway, I'm going to put my neck out there and ask the question (for my own personal knowledge): what is it about Christianity that upsets people so much? ID isn't a Christian-only concept, so I'm curious as to why everyone automatically associates it with Christianity (like why you said something about reading the Bible, when I clearly made a reference to early/mid 19th century and early 20th century literature)? (And this isn't sarcastic, I really am curious.)

Are you kidding me?!

It's actually common among those of us in the scientific community. Often, that's why we are here. The more I study science, the more I am amazed by the complexity of the world - and the more faith I have a God that created the rules that govern it.

what is it about Christianity that upsets people so much?

Nothing, that I know of. Certain Christians upset people quite a bit, although in my humble opinion, those Christians aren't following Christ's teachings very well.

ID isn't a Christian-only concept, so I'm curious as to why everyone automatically associates it with Christianity

It is primarily Christians that are pushing for ID, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be termed a scientific theory, be taught as such in schools. Many groups have made no attempt at all to disguise the fact that this push is nothing more than an attempt to set precedent so that Creationism can then be taught as well. Thus, ID is highly associated with Christianity and Creationism.

They should teach evolution, but mention that "Evolution is merely the most widely accepted scientific theory." The reason they shouldn't teach I.D. is because not everybody is religious and it has no science and/or evidence backing it up.

well the seings as how the whole reasoning behind evo is mutations like larger lungs i dont really see any arguement against it. also, god may have created the world in 7 days, but it never said 7 24-hour days or even 7 earth days

Exactly. When the Bible was first written(About 3-4 thousand years ago), the meaning of the word "Day" was not the same as it is today. Back then the word "day" referred to a period of time, not the 24-hour rotation of the earth it means today. "Day" could be used to mean any number of periods of time, really.

So thus, "7 days" could refer to the earth being created in 7 periods of time, the length of which we do not know.

They should teach evolution, but mention that "Evolution is merely the most widely accepted scientific theory." The reason they shouldn't teach I.D. is because not everybody is religious and it has no science and/or evidence backing it up.

Which is my main problem with how evolution is currently being taught. It is being taught almost always as law, as the only possible way, which it is not.

Frankly, High School teachers are not prepared to go into the amount of depth that Evolutino needs to gone into for students to truly understand it, so teh lesson plan on it is summed up by "Evolution is the fact that all creatures start as microbacteria billions of years ago, and changed into what creatures are today." Of course, evolution is vastly more complex than this, even Darwinism, which is the most basic of evolution.

They should teach evolution, but mention that "Evolution is merely the most widely accepted scientific theory." The reason they shouldn't teach I.D. is because not everybody is religious and it has no science and/or evidence backing it up.

And, by all but the worst of science teachers, this is exactly how evolution is taught.

The real problem is that students often don't listen, especially to the very first chapter of their textbook - which generally clearly explains the scientific method and the criteria for becoming a theory - and the fact that even a theory is always open to revision or debunking.

And, by all but the worst of science teachers, this is exactly how evolution is taught.

The real problem is that students often don't listen, especially to the very first chapter of their textbook - which generally clearly explains the scientific method and the criteria for becoming a theory - and the fact that even a theory is always open to revision or debunking.

You hit the nail on the head with that comment.

Which is my main problem with how evolution is currently being taught. It is being taught almost always as law, as the only possible way, which it is not.

Frankly, High School teachers are not prepared to go into the amount of depth that Evolutino needs to gone into for students to truly understand it, so teh lesson plan on it is summed up by "Evolution is the fact that all creatures start as microbacteria billions of years ago, and changed into what creatures are today." Of course, evolution is vastly more complex than this, even Darwinism, which is the most basic of evolution.
Then we have to make sure our teachers can teach rather then depriving the student of a good education

ID isn't a Christian-only concept, so I'm curious as to why everyone automatically associates it with Christianity [...] ?

because we know who the proponents of id are, and what they actually believe. you want links to dembski's blog or something?

id is essentially a self-proclaimed smokescreen to sneak regular ol' creationism in the backdoor. the dumb people that have lached onto it (aka most id proponents) aren't even clever about hiding this fact. at least the discovery institute makes the attempt.

Then we have to make sure our teachers can teach rather then depriving the student of a good education
Exactly. Most of the complaints in this thread against evolution, really aren't complaints with the theory. They are complaints against bad teachers.
That's a totally seperate issue.

because we know who the proponents of id are, and what they actually believe. you want links to dembski's blog or something?

id is essentially a self-proclaimed smokescreen to sneak regular ol' creationism in the backdoor. the dumb people that have lached onto it (aka most id proponents) aren't even clever about hiding this fact. at least the discovery institute makes the attempt.

Also, christians get the "blame"/"credit" for want of a better word, when it comes to discussions about teaching ID in schools, just because christians are a large religious group with power to influence government and educational policy.

I've never heard of the zen movement affecting what gets taught in American schools. I've heard about the christians affecting it, though. As such, even if zen believes in ID, I'd be much more inclined to assumed that the ID proponents in this case are christian.

In fact, 97% of all scientists today admit that evolution is false, and favor Intelligent Design.

In a universe where 97 < 1, this might even be true!

Have you all heard about "Project Steve"? After the Discovery Institute (an I.D. thinktank) released a statement signed by as many scientists as they could gather to support their "theory," the National Center for Science Education organized a corresponding statement, but insisted that only scientists with full doctorates named Steve sign it...and still easily garnered far more signatures, and far more prestigious ones.

The statement signed by the Steves: "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

Amen! :)

talk.origins 'project steve' page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/)

In a universe where 97 < 1, this might even be true!

Have you all heard about "Project Steve"? After the Discovery Institute (an I.D. thinktank) released a statement signed by as many scientists as they could gather to support their "theory," the National Center for Science Education organized a corresponding statement, but insisted that only scientists with full doctorates named Steve sign it...and still easily garnered far more signatures, and far more prestigious ones.

The statement signed by the Steves: "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

Amen! :)

I'd never heard of Project Steve. It sounds very cool :)
Here is the website for it: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
Seems like 573 steves have signed so far.

Looks like I was too slow, and Free Soviets already got a link up :)

I'd never heard of Project Steve. It sounds very cool :)
Here is the website for it: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
Seems like 573 steves have signed so far.

Looks like I was too slow, and Free Soviets already got a link up :)
Lol thats great ... the humor of the project (kind of like fighting with one hand behind their back attitude) makes the lies ID believers spout about scientific support seem that much more silly

It must really sting

Why do people keep brining this topic up....look, God is metaphysical and therefore dwells in a plane of existence that science cannot observe. Yes, evolution is most likely fact, however another point made by creationists is that he could have created the universe with the appearance of age which is equally valid and would explain the fossil record and the apparent age of the universe. This debate will never end as neither side can achieve full victory, so why continue!?

Why do people keep brining this topic up....look, God is metaphysical and therefore dwells in a plane of existence that science cannot observe. Yes, evolution is most likely fact, however another point made by creationists is that he could have created the universe with the appearance of age which is equally valid and would explain the fossil record and the apparent age of the universe. This debate will never end as neither side can achieve full victory, so why continue!?
If you notice most of the arguements in this thread (besides doubting that god would have falsly aged thing) is the fact that creationism/ID has absolutly no place in a science class

besides doubting that god would have falsly aged thing

Well, it is an excellent test of faith. A little too excellent, IMO, but that's just me :(

Well, it is an excellent test of faith. A little too excellent, IMO, but that's just me :(
That explination can be used for anytime reality dont match up with the "good" book ,just call it a test of faith or say god works im mestierious ways and everything is "better" :rolleyes:

That explination can be used for anytime reality dont match up with the "good" book ,just call it a test of faith or say god works im mestierious ways and everything is "better" :rolleyes:

Exactly. Which is fine in religion. Religion is about faith.
Not fine in science.

I think everyone agrees that it's possible, if a God exists, for him to have created evidence of evolution. I think the argument is just about whether saying "a god could exist" has any place in a science class rather than religion class.

This topic is starting to wear me down (I just typed up my calculations proving this one guy's version of Noah's flood absolutely impossible, took me an hour and a half and left me disappointed: the total energy wasn't enough to blow the Earth apart, though it was still enough to completely scorch the surface, instantly converting to steam all flood waters and evaporating Noah, his ark, and all the people and animals on it), it will now be about Uncle Otter, the awesome Jazz-fusion band from good ol' PA.

http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=12102084&Mytoken=20050616231701
http://uncleotter.com/index.html

Go, listen, enjoy, love.

This topic is starting to wear me down (I just typed up my calculations proving this one guy's version of Noah's flood absolutely impossible)
But we're not discussing whether creationism is right or not.
We're discussing whether ID is scientific, and if it should be taught in science class rather than religion class.

As such, whether noah's flood is impossible or not isn't really part of the discussion (other than to say that, if it's science, it's a defunct theory)

We're discussing whether ID is scientific, and if it should be taught in science class rather than religion class.

That's a forgone conclusion. It makes an untestable assumption and maintains no core mechanism and, as such, is not scientific.

Now can we get to talking about Uncle Otter?

In the later years of his life, he even retracted it. Realizing his errors, he returned to a life of faith.
In fact, 97% of all scientists today admit that evolution is false, and favor Intelligent Design.

You do realize you're lying, right?

You do realize you're lying, right?

they might not be lying. there is the possibility that they are just mind-bogglingly naive. or perhaps they have some sort of mental condition that prevents them from properly organizing information about the world outside of their head in any sort of reasonable fashion.

or to paraphrase dawkins - the options are stupid, ignorant, insane, or wicked.

But we're not discussing whether creationism is right or not.
We're discussing whether ID is scientific, and if it should be taught in science class rather than religion class.

As such, whether noah's flood is impossible or not isn't really part of the discussion (other than to say that, if it's science, it's a defunct theory)

We can not ignore science and what it tells us about the universe. ID theory does not ignore science. ID theory challenges evolutionary interpretations of science that are unscientific and irrational.

Evolution is a inappropriately small word used to describe a vast mixture of genuine science and questionable theories. For example, chemical evolution, neo Darwinian theory, fossil record, natural selection etc can all be referred to as evolution.

It is therefore possible to accept aspects of evolution, for example, the process of mutation and natural selection, and reject others, for example, the idea that the totality of evolution from amoeba to man plus the wide branching of life forms that we know today all happened because of a sequence of beneficial mutations and natural selection.

As a scientist I find 'evolution' difficult to accept as a rational explanation for life. I believe ID theory provides a logical and plausible scientific alternative explanation for what caused the explosion of life that we see today.

In my opinion, both theories should be taught as different interpretations of science and people should be left to make up their own mind about which is more plausable.

The plant is a recent development. Apparently, a plant was found that seemed to be able to self-correct mutations found in both of the parent plants. The mechanism is still being investigated.

Of course, this has not changed the basics of evolution in any way. It has challenged strict Mendelian genetics and is certainly an interesting find.

When people bring up how this or that has changed evolution, they are generally referring to specific details of a given lineage. This is expected to change with new information. The underlying principles of the theory of evolution have not changed much at all in generations.

Oh, that. I know precisely what you're talking about. And you're correct, that has to do with genetics, but really nothing to do with evolution. It is a very interesting development. The experiment has been duplicated a number of times now. The theory I have heard is that the plant is able to tap into RNA 'backups' of some kind. Very fascinating.

We can not ignore science and what it tells us about the universe. ID theory does not ignore science. ID theory challenges evolutionary interpretations of science that are unscientific and irrational.

Evolution is a inappropriately small word used to describe a vast mixture of genuine science and questionable theories. For example, chemical evolution, neo Darwinian theory, fossil record, natural selection etc can all be referred to as evolution.

It is therefore possible to accept aspects of evolution, for example, the process of mutation and natural selection, and reject others, for example, the idea that the totality of evolution from amoeba to man plus the wide branching of life forms that we know today all happened because of a sequence of beneficial mutations and natural selection.

As a scientist I find 'evolution' difficult to accept as a rational explanation for life. I believe ID theory provides a logical and plausible scientific alternative explanation for what caused the explosion of life that we see today.

In my opinion, both theories should be taught as different interpretations of science and people should be left to make up their own mind about which is more plausable.

And you call yourself a scientist? I find that hard to beleive, as if you were, you would know that ID is not a scientific concept as it is unfalsifiable. Also you cannot pick and chose which parts of evolutionary theory are true, its all well supported. You also dont seem to know what a theory is, as if you did, you would know that ID is not one.

ID theory does not ignore science. ID theory challenges evolutionary interpretations of science that are unscientific and irrational.

and when that fell through as a non-starter, behe and friends abandoned their original claims, took up the old creationist standby of quote mining, gave up on trying to publish scientific papers, and generally just moved on to random lunacy.

As a scientist I find 'evolution' difficult to accept as a rational explanation for life. I believe ID theory provides a logical and plausible scientific alternative explanation for what caused the explosion of life that we see today.

Even though the 'intelligent designer,' if it exists, is the most unoriginal, inefficient and hopelessly incompetant designer in history? Thoughtout the natural world, we see jury-rigging on an enomous scale, multiple solutions to the same problem, mistakes that are corrected in some 'product lines' but still present in others and hundreds of dangerous design flaws that any intelligent agency would be able to spot and correct.

If there is a designer, there is no way it is an intelligent one.

And you call yourself a scientist? I find that hard to beleive, as if you were, you would know that ID is not a scientific concept as if is unfalsifiable.

well, some of the idders put out a few sort of falsifiable claims. like the whole irreducible complexity thing - biological systems that could not even in principle be due to darwinian evolution. of course, when it turned out that pretty much everything tossed out as irreducibly complex can already be explained through darwinian mechanisms, dr. behe essentially gave up the point, picked up the goal posts, and ran away yelling "i still win, neener neener neener!" (see this article (http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001108.html) from the panda's thumb).

they still haven't proposed any alternate mechanisms, but it's ok because their silliness has already been shown to be false.

And you call yourself a scientist? I find that hard to beleive, as if you were, you would know that ID is not a scientific concept as it is unfalsifiable. Also you cannot pick and chose which parts of evolutionary theory are true, its all well supported. You also dont seem to know what a theory is, as if you did, you would know that ID is not one.

Yeh, you're right, I don't know anything about ID theory. I assumed it was a 'theory' that thinly disguised creationism.

It is not a scientists job to blindly accept everything he is told. It is a scientists job to give a theoretical explanation of what can be observed.

Even though the 'intelligent designer,' if it exists, is the most unoriginal, inefficient and hopelessly incompetant designer in history? Thoughtout the natural world, we see jury-rigging on an enomous scale, multiple solutions to the same problem, mistakes that are corrected in some 'product lines' but still present in others and hundreds of dangerous design flaws that any intelligent agency would be able to spot and correct.

If there is a designer, there is no way it is an intelligent one.

HAHAHA.. fair point. I'm a creationist. I believe God created a perfect biosphere that mutated into it's present state after the fall.

I think a more interesting topic would be "Intelligent Design vs. Creationism".

I'd like to see those two hash it out.


I was under the impression that "intelligent design" was an attempt to legitimise the creationist viewpoint into a valid alternative to evolution, thankfully most people see through the shallow pseudo-science

We can not ignore science and what it tells us about the universe. ID theory does not ignore science. ID theory challenges evolutionary interpretations of science that are unscientific and irrational.

Incorrect. ID is completely based upon an untestable hypothesis, and thus cannot ever be considered scientific. It also relies on poking holes in the most supported theory and then going "Hey, look! Evolutionary theory isn't complete! Guess ours must be true!! HAHAHHAHAHA!"

As a scientist I find 'evolution' difficult to accept as a rational explanation for life. I believe ID theory provides a logical and plausible scientific alternative explanation for what caused the explosion of life that we see today.

You are no scientist if you consider something that relies upon an untestable hypothesis to be scientific. Period. If you truly are a scientist by trade, please do tell me where you got your degree, so I can place it on my list of schools that are completely useless.

I would say it was a pretty intellegent design to event evolution... :p

I would say it was a pretty intellegent design to event evolution... :p

I would agree. =)

The intricacies involved, the sheer amount of knowledge necessary to know what might come out of it... For those of us who look at things both from a religious and a scientific point of view, God truly is great. =)

I would agree. =)

The intricacies involved, the sheer amount of knowledge necessary to know what might come out of it... For those of us who look at things both from a religious and a scientific point of view, God truly is great. =)
And even thoes of us who dont believe in god are awed by the universe and the intracies involved