NationStates Jolt Archive

President Bush advocates "intelligent design" and further believes it should be part of all public school's curriculum along with the traditional evolution. He has taken some measures to promote his ideas. I am not saying his beliefs about creationism are wrong, however the ideas of creationism come from the bible. This would conflict with the seperation of church and state laws and would offend those students whose religions are not affiliated with the bible. Also, let science be science and don't taint it with religious beliefs.

"rarely is the question asked.....is our children learning?"

Frankly, any science class that begins with "evolution is just a theory, it's not a fact" has already lost any actual relationship with science...

Unless they give time for MY religion - Flying Spaghetti Monsterism - then no, fuck Intelligent design.

*check the sig*

Frankly, any science class that begins with "evolution is just a theory, it's not a fact" has already lost any actual relationship with science...

yep

gravity is just a theory, its equally likely to be pixie magic

If you want a separate, optional class on origins or creation mythologies or something, then fine, intelligent design can be taught. Otherwise, keep it the hell out of a biology or science classroom.

Evolution is a theory exactly. However, its has no religious affiliation. If you have read Genesis closely you would also notice that there are different stories about how the world was created.

Unless they give time for MY religion - Flying Spaghetti Monsterism - then no, fuck Intelligent design.

*check the sig*

you tell em brother pastafarian.check my sig.


oh and btw.ID in classrooms has other threads here somewhere,thats what search is for.

Frankly, any science class that begins with "evolution is just a theory, it's not a fact" has already lost any actual relationship with science...
Too bad evolution and Intelligent design are both theories.

That's not just science, that's a fact. ;)

Antre_Travarious']Too bad evolution and Intelligent design are both theories.

That's not just science, that's a fact. ;)

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

You are surprised?


He is against stem cell research so the fact he wants ID in the classroom should not be a surprise.

Thank God the Europeans are going full force on this. While they are discovering things we will be thinking "Don't worry God will provide"

The shrub has to throw bones to his masters so it is no real surprise. Was Dobsen or Robertson hiding anywhere when he made that announcement?

Ahhh well.

Europe had its Dark Ages, I guess we have to have ours :rolleyes:

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

its a thoery,an idea created that fitted the given evidence,as is ID,as is Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

Antre_Travarious']Too bad evolution and Intelligent design are both theories.

That's not just science, that's a fact. ;)

Actually ID hasn't even passed the Hypothesis level.....

Evolution is supported by several scientists. Creationism is supported by mainly religious figures. Teach evolution in science class and teach creationism in religion class.

if we believe that God creating the world in 7 days is a valid, possible theory then we must also take into account other religious creation stories. eg the norse story that the first humans came from the sweat in a giant's armpit.

if we believe that God creating the world in 7 days is a valid, possible theory then we must also take into account other religious creation stories. eg the norse story that the first humans came from the sweat in a giant's armpit.

Creationism isnt even a valid theory.

Antre_Travarious']Too bad evolution and Intelligent design are both theories.

That's not just science, that's a fact. ;)

ID consists of a few attempted holes poked in evolutionary theory, once it makes some testable predictions it will be considered a theory.

I oppose ID not so much for the lack of proof, but mostly because even if true it has no practical purpose.

ID doesnt really count as a theory. Its conjecture added to the evidence of evolution. The differences in evolution to ID is ID adds conjecture, pure conjecture, to the existing parts. If it adds no new real evidence, it doesnt stand on its own.

Frankly, any science class that begins with "evolution is just a theory, it's not a fact" has already lost any actual relationship with science...

Actually, evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories it is based on fact.

ID is based on the same fairy stories as most religious faith.

President Bush advocates "intelligent design" and further believes it should be part of all public school's curriculum along with the traditional evolution. He has taken some measures to promote his ideas. I am not saying his beliefs about creationism are wrong, however the ideas of creationism come from the bible. This would conflict with the seperation of church and state laws and would offend those students whose religions are not affiliated with the bible. Also, let science be science and don't taint it with religious beliefs.

I quite agree. However, I do not see a problem with teaching the theory of Intelligent Design as an alternate theory, AS AN ELECTIVE-ONLY CLASS as long, also, as it is not categorized as SCIENCE...because it cannot be proved.

The way I would handle it would be to have a class that would present both theories, evolution and Intelligent Design, comparitively...and the class would be elective-only - no one forced to take it to graduate...and the class would draw no conclusions on it's own, allowing the students to draw their own conclusions. Also, the Intelligent Design Theory could not specifically cite or name an actual Creator (God) but just present the theory that things were created by an "Intelligent Designer."

In fact...here's a thought for you...perhaps there is room for BOTH in the truth?? Would it not make sense for an Intelligent Designer, when making a new species...to follow a pattern of extrapolation from the old form, instead of starting over from scratch constantly? this pattern of extrapolation would be...evolution! Just that evolution was CONTROLLED...rather than random, as suggested by Darwin. Ya think?

if we believe that God creating the world in 7 days is a valid, possible theory then we must also take into account other religious creation stories. eg the norse story that the first humans came from the sweat in a giant's armpit.

Also, the gods were licked out of a great saltstone by said giant's giant cow.

We have some funny mushrooms up here.

I quite agree. However, I do not see a problem with teaching the theory of Intelligent Design as an alternate theory, AS AN ELECTIVE-ONLY CLASS as long, also, as it is not categorized as SCIENCE...because it cannot be proved.

The way I would handle it would be to have a class that would present both theories, evolution and Intelligent Design, comparitively...and the class would be elective-only - no one forced to take it to graduate...and the class would draw no conclusions on it's own, allowing the students to draw their own conclusions. Also, the Intelligent Design Theory could not specifically cite or name an actual Creator (God) but just present the theory that things were created by an "Intelligent Designer."

Its called a philosophy class. This debate already has been going on in there for some time, ID is simply its newest sheep skin.

And no, i wouldn't think creating a new course in public schools is all that wise. Its already part of philosophy, let it be taught in that course. Since... you know... it already is.

The way I would handle it would be to have a class that would present both theories, evolution and Intelligent Design, comparitively...and the class would be elective-only - no one forced to take it to graduate...and the class would draw no conclusions on it's own, allowing the students to draw their own conclusions. Also, the Intelligent Design Theory could not specifically cite or name an actual Creator (God) but just present the theory that things were created by an "Intelligent Designer."

That would be a seriously limited class. I mean, there's only so many things you compare between Evolution and ID. It'd make more sense to have some sort of Creation class, that started with multiple religion's view and the scientific theories of how the Universe was created, and then work up from there.

Though we did something a bit like that in History 10.

I quite agree. However, I do not see a problem with teaching the theory of Intelligent Design as an alternate theory, AS AN ELECTIVE-ONLY CLASS as long, also, as it is not categorized as SCIENCE...because it cannot be proved.

The way I would handle it would be to have a class that would present both theories, evolution and Intelligent Design, comparitively...and the class would be elective-only - no one forced to take it to graduate...and the class would draw no conclusions on it's own, allowing the students to draw their own conclusions. Also, the Intelligent Design Theory could not specifically cite or name an actual Creator (God) but just present the theory that things were created by an "Intelligent Designer."

In fact...here's a thought for you...perhaps there is room for BOTH in the truth?? Would it not make sense for an Intelligent Designer, when making a new species...to follow a pattern of extrapolation from the old form, instead of starting over from scratch constantly? this pattern of extrapolation would be...evolution! Just that evolution was CONTROLLED...rather than random, as suggested by Darwin. Ya think?

I think that is an excellent idea to have ID as an elective.

Teaching the idea of "intelligent design" in science classes isnt any different than teaching in a history class that the holocaust is a hoax.


People are welcome to whatever speculation they choose, but a school is obliged to teach the most widely accepted and valid theories. This goes for history as well as science.

and just yesterday i was proudly wearing the sistine (sp?) chapel styled "touched by his noodly appendage" t-shirt.

Intellegent design points to the simple and obvious flaw in any discussion of evolution. Evolution has yet to ascribe any kind of satisfactory explination as to how life actually started. There is no proof of any kind for abiogenesis (life comming from nothing) and so unless you can prove that then the rest of evolution is pretty screwy. There is more infomation in a single cell than there is in 30 volumes of encylopedia britanica. So far there is no natrual force that has been observed by scientists which can be seen to be able to arrange matter in that kind of complexity. The closest thing they have to that is crystal formation, and that is rediculously simple in comparision. Cave paintings are less complex than DNA. I presume you assume them to be the random chances of nature.

If ID gets allowed, then I want YC taught as well.

What's YC, you ask?

It's Yimr's Corpse.

n the beginning there was the void. And the void was called Ginnungagap. What does Ginnungagap mean? Yawning gap, beginning gap, gap with magical potential, mighty gap; these are a few of the educated guesses. Along with the void existed Niflheim the land of fog and ice in the north and Muspelheim the land of fire in the south. There seems to be a bit of confusion as to whether or not these existed after Ginnungagap or along side of it from the beginning.

In Niflheim was a spring called Hvergelmir from which the Elivagar (eleven rivers - Svol, Gunnthra, Fiorm, Fimbulthul, Slidr, Hrid, Sylg, Ylg, Vid, Leiptr, and Gioll) flowed. The Elivargar froze layer upon layer until it filled in the northerly portion of the gap. Concurrently the southern portion was being filled by sparks and molten material from Muspelheim.

The mix of fire and ice caused part of the Elivagar to melt forming the figures Ymir the primeval giant and the cow Audhumla. The cow's milk was Ymir's food. While Ymir slept his under arm sweat begat two frost giants, one male one female, while his two legs begat another male.

While Ymir was busy procreating Audhumla was busy eating. Her nourishment came from licking the salty ice. Her incessant licking formed the god Buri. He had a son named Bor who was the father of Odin, Vili, and Ve.

For some reason the sons of Bor decided to kill poor Ymir. His blood caused a flood which killed all of the frost giants except for two, Bergelmir and his wife, who escaped the deluge in their boat.

Odin, Vili, and Ve put Ymir's corpse into the middle of ginnungagap and created the earth and sky from it. They also created the stars, sun, and moon from sparks coming out of Muspelheim.

Finally, the brothers happened upon two logs lying on the beach and created the first two humans Ask [ash] and Embla [elm or vine] from them.

It's just as valid as ID, after all. The world could have been made out of an ice giant's corpse. I mean, have you ever seen an ice giant? How do you know, hmmmm?

Intellegent design points to the simple and obvious flaw in any discussion of evolution. Evolution has yet to ascribe any kind of satisfactory explination as to how life actually started.
Neither does ID. "Some dude in a lab did it" is very very far from being a satisfactory explanation. "It was God's will" is also very unsatisfactory. And they explain absolutely nothing.

There is no proof of any kind for abiogenesis (life comming from nothing) and so unless you can prove that then the rest of evolution is pretty screwy.
No. Because evolution doesn't concern itself with the origin of life, but with what happens to it after it started. How it changes, adapts and diversifies.

There is more infomation in a single cell than there is in 30 volumes of encylopedia britanica. So far there is no natrual force that has been observed by scientists which can be seen to be able to arrange matter in that kind of complexity.
So, before humans were able to explain electricity it was Zeus sending down lightning?

Teaching the idea of "intelligent design" in science classes isnt any different than teaching in a history class that the holocaust is a hoax.


People are welcome to whatever speculation they choose, but a school is obliged to teach the most widely accepted and valid theories. This goes for history as well as science.


Except history happened. Stating the Holocaust is a hoax is merely your interpertation, however millions of people were slaughtered and no one can remark otherwise. On the other hand, creation is a belief supported by weak facts not interpertations about factual happenings.

Intellegent design points to the simple and obvious flaw in any discussion of evolution. Evolution has yet to ascribe any kind of satisfactory explination as to how life actually started. There is no proof of any kind for abiogenesis (life comming from nothing) and so unless you can prove that then the rest of evolution is pretty screwy. There is more infomation in a single cell than there is in 30 volumes of encylopedia britanica. So far there is no natrual force that has been observed by scientists which can be seen to be able to arrange matter in that kind of complexity. The closest thing they have to that is crystal formation, and that is rediculously simple in comparision. Cave paintings are less complex than DNA. I presume you assume them to be the random chances of nature.


Evolutionary biology functions regardless of the origin of life, because it does not seek to describe the origin of life.

If space monkeys made the first living ooze from moon rocks with their magic, evolutionary biology is still the true description of how it progressed from ooze to the species of today.

If Zeus made the first living ooze, there is no detriment to evolutionary biology, none of its evidence is degraded and none of its findings are invalidated.

It abiogenesis was responsible, it is trivial to the factual nature of the changes in organisms described by evolutionary biology.

-

The origin of life is devoid of any relevance whatsoever to evolutionary biology, which only describes the changes which have taken place over time in organisms.

Except history happened. Stating the Holocaust is a hoax is merely your interpertation, however millions of people were slaughtered and no one can remark otherwise. On the other hand, creation is a belief supported by weak facts not interpertations about factual happenings.


The evidence for the holocaust stands on equal epistemological grounds as the evidence for evolution ary biology.

In order to deny the holocaust, you have to deny reasonable standards of proof, it is exactly the same in denying biological science.

Holocaust denial is an "alternate explanation" in the identical sense that science-denial is.

If we allow one unreasonable "alternate explanation" to be lent the credibility of a class devoted to teaching facts, we must extend the same to them all.

If we allow one unreasonable "alternate explanation" to be lent the credibility of a class devoted to teaching facts, we must extend the same to them all.

quite,this would include things such a conspiracy theories,ancient mythology,and any fools half attempt at an explaination for anything that isnt the accepted norm

[In reference to the teaching of "alternate explanations" like "intelligent design" or holocaust denial] quite,this would include things such a conspiracy theories,ancient mythology,and any fools half attempt at an explaination for anything that isnt the accepted norm


I've never heard of ancient mythology taught as an alternate explanation to anything.

It is studied as literature.

Attempted explanations should not be taught to children, they should be tested by experts, and if they are accepted by people who devote themselves to study and expertise, then they should be taught in schools.

So, before humans were able to explain electricity it was Zeus sending down lightning?

I didnt say that. What I said was that you cant say that life began from nothing upwards untill you can somehow prove it. Which you cant. I am not saying you can prove for certiantiy it was the Christian God. But you can see that from the level of complexity behind it, it lends itself to being desinged by someone. DNA can be said to be a language. Built of 4 letters granted but still a language. It forms sentences and paragraphs which can be decoded to mean things, quite clearly (see the human geneome project) and most langauages useually have been used by someone with an intellgence.


The origin of life is devoid of any relevance whatsoever to evolutionary biology, which only describes the changes which have taken place over time in organisms.?

I had a feeling someone was going to say this. My answer to that then is that evolution has yet to explain any example of any genetic infomation being gained. It can give examples of where infomation had been changed or altered but never added to. It can only assume that it has happened at some point because we have advanced life forms, but there has never been a documented example. And before you mention bactiria becoming resistant to antibiotics, there are two problems with that. One is that there is some evidence to suggest that the genes for resitiance may reside in bactiria anyway regardless as to whether they are exposed to it or not as bactiria has been found in isolated areas which is resitant to antibiotics. Seing as how these isolated areas would not have been subjected to the antibiotics, how they evolved to fit their circumstance is a mystry. And secondly resitance to antibiotics is not an increase in genetic material, but merely it changing. Your not adding to it, your just altering it, rather like rearanging a series of sentance in a paragraph and have it still make sense. If you can't explain how life originated then I suppose you must be willing to accept the Cambrian explosion as evidence that all life may have come into being at the same time. After all, there is no predecsors to the Cambrian strata that look even remotely like whats there so there is no evidence of progresive change which is what evolution preeches.

Actually, evolution is a theory - a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories it is based on fact.

ID is based on the same fairy stories as most religious faith.

That was exactly my point, as any science class that gives the impression that 'theory' suggests weak support is not teaching science.

I've never heard of ancient mythology taught as an alternate explanation to anything.

It is studied as literature.

it is,but it's an alternate explaination to the creation of the world/universe,of life,of all manner of things,eg lightning and rainbows.my poiny was letting ID be thought as a science opens the way for other theories that have even less proof,every religion will form its own 'intelligent design' theory and demand it be thought in science classes.

I didnt say that. What I said was that you cant say that life began from nothing upwards untill you can somehow prove it. Which you cant. I am not saying you can prove for certiantiy it was the Christian God. But you can see that from the level of complexity behind it, it lends itself to being desinged by someone. DNA can be said to be a language. Built of 4 letters granted but still a language. It forms sentences and paragraphs which can be decoded to mean things, quite clearly (see the human geneome project) and most langauages useually have been used by someone with an intellgence.

It has a very high degree of complexity, but although the process itself has not been observed yet, there's nothing in the laws of chemistry or physics that would prevent such complexity arising gradually by itself.

And even if it was designed by someone, and created by someone, so what? It's completely irrelevant, because the real question is how was it done? How was the trick performed?

Just saying that an Intelligence did it really solves or explains nothing. Which is why ID as a theory is completely unsatisfactory.

The evidence for the holocaust stands on equal epistemological grounds as the evidence for evolution ary biology.

In order to deny the holocaust, you have to deny reasonable standards of proof, it is exactly the same in denying biological science.

Holocaust denial is an "alternate explanation" in the identical sense that science-denial is.


The problem is you cannot deny something that has already happened, where as you can deny speculations that certain phenomena for example are related to how the world was created. We dont speculate that the Holocaust happened because we KNOW that there was a genocide. Its like saying the Korean War didnt exist, but we know that is impossible because peoplewho live today have fought in it. The reason science and the bible were created were to appease the curiosity of the people about how the world was created. One can even say science is the modern bible. The Bible has become obselete in its creation views and the more credible evolution has taken its place. All science is speculation, its just more credible than any former beliefs such as the Bible or the Greek gods.

The problem is you cannot deny something that has already happened, where as you can deny speculations that certain phenomena for example are related to how the world was created. We dont speculate that the Holocaust happened because we KNOW that there was a genocide. Its like saying the Korean War didnt exist, but we know that is impossible because peoplewho live today have fought in it. The reason science and the bible were created were to appease the curiosity of the people about how the world was created. One can even say science is the modern bible. The Bible has become obselete in its creation views and the more credible evolution has taken its place. All science is speculation, its just more credible than any former beliefs such as the Bible or the Greek gods.


The same principles of epistemology that allow us to 'Know' the holocaust happened allow us to know that evolutionary biology is real.

It is just as unreasonable to deny one as to deny the other, because it involves denying palpable facts.

The same principles of epistemology that allow us to 'Know' the holocaust happened allow us to know that evolutionary biology is real.

It is just as unreasonable to deny one as to deny the other, because it involves denying palpable facts.

If we get into a philosophical battle the conversation will never end. There are to many different perceptions.

I had a feeling someone was going to say this. My answer to that then is that evolution has yet to explain any example of any genetic infomation being gained.
Nylon bug. You lose.

Intellegent design points to the simple and obvious flaw in any discussion of evolution. Evolution has yet to ascribe any kind of satisfactory explination as to how life actually started.

Wrong, we know how life started - we just haven't been able to replicate it in the lab yet. Carbon compounds (amino acids, alcohols, formaldehyde, etc.) have been found in dust clouds throughout the galaxy. We also know they are also present in meteors, asteroids and comets. Scientists have shown that amino acids were formed from UV or electrical discharge in the atmosphere of the early Earth.

OK, so far, nobody has managed to create self replicating molecules from scratch but Earth had millions of years and a lot more organic molecules to do the job.


There is no proof of any kind for abiogenesis (life comming from nothing) and so unless you can prove that then the rest of evolution is pretty screwy. There is more infomation in a single cell than there is in 30 volumes of encylopedia britanica.

Actually, not true. Simple cells have very simple structures.

So far there is no natrual force that has been observed by scientists which can be seen to be able to arrange matter in that kind of complexity.

Of course not - evolution does that.

The closest thing they have to that is crystal formation, and that is rediculously simple in comparision. Cave paintings are less complex than DNA. I presume you assume them to be the random chances of nature.

Pardon?

If you can't explain how life originated then I suppose you must be willing to accept the Cambrian explosion as evidence that all life may have come into being at the same time. After all, there is no predecsors to the Cambrian strata that look even remotely like whats there so there is no evidence of progresive change which is what evolution preeches.

Do you really believe there were no ancestors to the Cambrian life?

Do you really even believe there no evidence for the progressive changes that led to the Cambrian "explosion"?

Try reading up on the subject:-

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Cambrian/Index.html

If they teach FSMism, then I'm fine.

Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is what seeks to explain how evolution works. ID is not a fact or a theory. its just something someone made up. Which isnt the same as a theory.

The University of California refuses to recognize science classes that include "intelligent design" or creationism in disguise, as it is, as valid classes.

Basically, the entire ID argument rests on people going "but everything is so darn complicated, somebody must have designed it!" I'm sorry, but in the world of science, that's not good enough.

People talking about "intelligent design" always remind me of the Three Engineers talking about God joke.

Here it is:
So, three engineers are talking about what kind of engineer they think God is. The first one, a mechanical engineer, says "He must be a mechanical engineer- just look at the bones and muscles and the way they interact so perfectly to move the body. Genious"

The second engineer, who is an electrical engineer, responds "No way, he's gotta be an electrical engineer. It's obvious if you look at the nervous system, all those messages being sent back and forth from the brain to different parts of the body, he couldn't possibly be anything but an outstanding electrical engineer."

The third engineer listens to the other two quietly, and then says slowly "I think both of you are mistaken. I think God must be a civil engineer." The other two look at him, eyes wide in astonishment, but he continues, explaining his reasoning. "You see, who else besides a civil engineer would put a waste disposal facility right next to a recreation area?"


Basically, the biggest argument against intelligent design is that our design isn't all that intelligent. I could do a better job at designing the human body. I mean, really, why the hell are the penis and testacles mounted externally where they are so damn vulnerable? And why are some of our most important blood vessals located just under the skin instead of deep within us? And why, if our legs are made for walking upright, are our spines more suited to a four legged gait? Complete idiocy, is the "design" of the human body.