NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I just read an article in The New York Times, entitled In Evolution Suit, a Web of Faith, Law and Science (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html?pagewanted=1).

I do believe my favorite quote is the last sentence in the quote below:
Mr. Thompson said his side would prove that intelligent design was not creationism because it did not mention God or the Bible and never posited the creator's identity.

"It's clear they are two different theories," Mr. Thompson said. "Creationism normally starts with the Holy Scripture, the Book of Genesis, then you develop a scientific theory that supports it, while intelligent design looks at the same kind of empirical data that any scientist looks at," and concludes that complex mechanisms in nature "appear designed because it is designed."
So basically, something is round because it is round? :confused:

If, heaven forbid, I am ever required to teach intelligent design as science, then I hope the school board pays attention to this website (http://www.venganza.org/). Because quite frankly, it has just as much validity as science as the "theory" of intelligent design does.

I don't care if you believe there must have been a guiding hand behind evolution. That's your *belief*. But science is about making theories with testable hypotheses. Hypotheses that can be disproven. Intelligent design can't be disproven or tested. We can't replicate the guiding hand, therefore it can't be classified as science.

And sorry for replicating one of the tried and true General topics. I needed to rant. :p

Why dont' people understand that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and thus it should not be taught in a science class.

ID has no place in the science class room period

The fact that ID is being considered as a requirement makes me very glad that I'm out of High School science.

We really ought to get around to implementing that law requiring mandatory sterilization of all proponents of Creationism and ID. It'd do the gene pool a world of good.

Yes, I'm kidding, geez. :)

Neither Creationism nor ID are scientific theories, no matter how much the people supporting them want them to be. I don't know why anyone bothers to keep saying this, though, as those seeking to sabotage scientific knowledge in the US are pretty much immune to reason. :p

So, I just read an article in The New York Times, entitled In Evolution Suit, a Web of Faith, Law and Science (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html?pagewanted=1).

I do believe my favorite quote is the last sentence in the quote below:

So basically, something is round because it is round? :confused:

If, heaven forbid, I am ever required to teach intelligent design as science, then I hope the school board pays attention to this website (http://www.venganza.org/). Because quite frankly, it has just as much validity as science as the "theory" of intelligent design does.

I don't care if you believe there must have been a guiding hand behind evolution. That's your *belief*. But science is about making theories with testable hypotheses. Hypotheses that can be disproven. Intelligent design can't be disproven or tested. We can't replicate the guiding hand, therefore it can't be classified as science.

And sorry for replicating one of the tried and true General topics. I needed to rant. :p


I quite agree. Intelligent Design is just the lastest packaging of Creationism...and, more specifically, CHRISTIAN Creationism...and the latest attempt by far-right religious zealots to push their faith into our science classrooms, and it is wrong. There is a place for this discussion, but the science classroom isn't it. There is no room in science for things which cannot be proven nor disproven...things which cannot be replicated, duplicated, tested, measured.
That said...there may well be room for both Intelligent Design and evolution, after all, if evolution is correct (and we can't entirely prove that, either) which is why it is still a THEORY...and is taught as such...that perhaps an Intelligent Designer might well have used existing design to extrapolate new forms, and thus there could be, say, a guiding habd behind evolution. This is possible...and could be discussed, but not in a science classroom as fact...or even as theory, because there is no means by which it can be proven, disproven, tested, measured, duplicated, or replicated. It cannot be studied under laboratory conditions. It therefore does not qualify as science.

I really wish the zealots would quit trying to pretty up the package to try and force thier way into our schools. They can teach their own damn kids anything they want...but they have no right to try and brainwash other people's kids with what is, at best, junk science...and at worst, outright propaganda.

I have no problem with an elective course and a study comparing various theories of how the species came to be, how life came to be...and comparing various competing theories, of which Intelligent Design is one. But not in the science classroom.

Ahh the Dover case. I listened to a guy talk about it. The way things are going this might be a major setback to the ID cause. From what was read and the arguments presented it opens the door to ask about God being involved. Which then violates the Constitution.

It's bad enough that the Creation Institute was keeping a low profile on this.

Time will tell. Unless of course the Shrub gets some "good" judges installed before it goes to court.

They of course want to use the panda's thumb as the text for the class......

Folks, here's a plan:

Since pretty much every religion on this planet has an idea how the world came into existance, demand that if ID and Creationism and other religious junk is taken into science, that ALL those design theories are to be taken into the fold. After all, there's something in your constitution that claims there's some sort of religious freedom in your country and that no religion is superior to the others.

Let's see how long the religious zealots want to have their kids taught how other religions think the world started.

Intelligent design isn't intelligent.. it is just creationism repackaged. It should be kept out of the science class. It isn't science nor is it based on science. Intelligent design is ridiculous and has been trashed extensively by the scientific community and reality itself. Christian fundamentalists will fail as usual.

"In science class, you don't say to the students, 'Is there gravity, or do you think we have rubber bands on our feet?' "
:p brilliant...


thankfully this isn't such (or at all) an issue over here in the UK, but imho ID and Creationism does belong to be taught in schools... just not in science class. in religious education class or philosophy, or whatver you have over there in the states. is it true you have 'bible studies' classes in high school? (cos thats just weird imo)

Evolution Is just a theory. Theories can be wrong. I don't believe in the theory of Evolution. I don't believe in the theory of gravity. Evolution is mroe soundly backed than gravity, so why should I believe in either?

If George Bush and the Pope both say that Evolution is questionible, thent hey must be right.

(disclaimer: I don't agree with any of this post. I'm being sarcastic.

Why dont' people understand that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and thus it should not be taught in a science class.
Because ID proponents claim they have a method which can find and point out where something has been influenced by intelligent design, yet no one ever provides an example of this. Actually, the entire "method" is pointing out things like "irriducible complexity" and other things above current levels of science.

To me, intelligent design would be a design that would be in greatest harmony with nature, hence being indistinguishable from the normal workings of nature. If there's a theory of life that would be worth investigating, I would suggest looking into stupid design.

They should just compromise. Teach both sides of intelligent design. Teach the fact that many scientists dont consider it a scientific theory and the fact that others do. This issue isnt worth fighting over.

Intelligent Design can be taught, but not in science class. Teach it in an optional Bible studies class. There is no evidence for ID and its sole argument "The universe is too complex to have evolved by chance" leaves out a whole lot of scientific evidence that proves:

a) It did not evolve by chance. Gradually things grew more and more complex based on their environment. It's called evolution.

b) There is no way to prove that an intelligent designer exists.


This is just creationism revised for the 21st century. I'm surprised some people can't see past it.

They should just compromise. Teach both sides of intelligent design. Teach the fact that many scientists dont consider it a scientific theory and the fact that others do. This issue isnt worth fighting over.
It is worth fighting over, in a way. The problem with the proposition isn't whether kids should be told about the newest religious fad. That would simply be a debate about what a suitable ciriculum includes.

The problem is those silly buggers want to undermine the scientific method for some reason. That is a really, really bad idea. It's taken us untold thousands of years to finally realize that the best way of examining our sorroundings, is by observing them, and in the process excluding possible explanations. While that doesn't lead to ultimate truths, it's turned out to be vastly more accurate, than simply formulating some idea, and then deny everything the world throws at us, that doesn't fit our preconcieved notions.

Allowing this daft shite is a staggering blow to human progress, and most likely deeply harmful to progress in the most powerful nation the planet has ever seen.
I don't mind India taking over the role as the leading scientific community on the planet, but I do mind what America will possibly turn into as a result.
..And I also feel a little sorry for them.

i love this debate. once again science tries to disprove the existance of a craetor.... and fails.

oops... i ment creator. i'm not the best typer.

oops... i ment creator. i'm not the best typer.
(You can edit that in using the "edit/delete" button on the bottom of your post...

And don't mind it. A lot of people here can't spell.)

i love this debate. once again science tries to disprove the existance of a craetor.... and fails.
And pray tell, can religion prove the existence of a creator? I'd like to see some proof outside of that 2000-year-old book.

[snip]

The fact remains that ID does have a growing number of scientists on its side. So, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss this debate in science class. Both sides of the debate can be presented, the side that says it isnt real science and the side that says it is, and thats it.

This wouldnt be a big issue if it were an art class discussing the debate on whether works like those of Martin Creed are real art or not (which is a huge debate in the art world).

Its a big issue because both sides want to prove they have the bigger penis. They need to just compromise. Show both sides and let students decide, stop treating them like idiots, they can handle it.

i love this debate. once again science tries to disprove the existance of a craetor.... and fails.
Wrong again mate. Science does nothing of the sort. It's beyond the scope of what science can be applied to.

However, if you were to follow the normal rules of debating, then you are the one with a problem. You see us science wankers makes no claim either way. You , on the other hand, make a concrete claim, thus you must be able to prove it.

Shall I pass you the arsehat & clownshoes?

They should just compromise. Teach both sides of intelligent design. Teach the fact that many scientists dont consider it a scientific theory and the fact that others do. This issue isnt worth fighting over.
No, it does not belong in a science class.

Furthermore, no real scientists consider intelligent design a theory, real scientists consider intelligent design a personal belief (i.e. they are aware that it is not scientific, they simply believe what they believe and don't want it forced into schools)


Teaching intelligent design in a science class is like teaching japanese in an english class.

No, it does not belong in a science class.

Furthermore, no real scientists consider intelligent design a theory, real scientists consider intelligent design a personal belief (i.e. they are aware that it is not scientific, they simply believe what they believe and don't want it forced into schools)


Teaching intelligent design in a science class is like teaching japanese in an english class.

Plenty of real scientists, with real degrees, who work at real universities, do real research, and publish in real scientific journals consider it a theory. I could list names but its been done a million times. Deciding that everyone who disagrees with you is not a real scientist is a dumb argument. Someone who believes in ID could do the same thing and say "no real scientist denies that ID is a theory", and it would sound just as dumb.

Real scientists do support ID as a theory, so there is no problem with teaching both sides of the issue. People in the art world often use the same excuse as you "no real artist considers Martin Creed's work art", but then some artists do.

The fact remains that ID does have a growing number of scientists on its side. So, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss this debate in science class. Both sides of the debate can be presented, the side that says it isnt real science and the side that says it is, and thats it.

This wouldnt be a big issue if it were an art class discussing the debate on whether works like those of Martin Creed are real art or not (which is a huge debate in the art world).

Its a big issue because both sides want to prove they have the bigger penis. They need to just compromise. Show both sides and let students decide, stop treating them like idiots, they can handle it.
If a growing number of scientists believe in ID, well good for them. I'm sure that if you actually ask them, they wouldn't want ID in a science class either. At most, ID is an example of the difference between a philosophical idea, and science.

Teach ID in a religion or philosophy class. You don't teach math in english classes, do you? Or make draw pictures in the math class?

Having a pissing contest isn't the issue here. I'm not religious, but I have no problem with ID being tought in school. But it's not science, so don't muck up science classes with it.

Have faith in the students? Perhaps if you were on the same page as me, I would have faith in the students. Sadly, you aren't, and I unfortunately know you're far from alone. To me that means students should most definitely not suffer further confusion & derailing of their education.

If a growing number of scientists believe in ID, well good for them. I'm sure that if you actually ask them, they wouldn't want ID in a science class either. At most, ID is an example of the difference between a philosophical idea, and science.

Teach ID in a religion or philosophy class. You don't teach math in english classes, do you? Or make draw pictures in the math class?

Having a pissing contest isn't the issue here. I'm not religious, but I have no problem with ID being tought in school. But it's not science, so don't muck up science classes with it.

Have faith in the students? Perhaps if you were on the same page as me, I would have faith in the students. Sadly, you aren't, and I unfortunately know you're far from alone. To me that means students should most definitely not suffer further confusion & derailing of their education.

The fact is there is an ongoing debate on whether ID is an acceptable scientific hypothesis or not. Ive personally sat in on such debates at the university level. Debates held between real scientists. So, why would you want to hide that fact from students? The more they know the better. If there is a debate raging in the scientific community, its a good idea to talk about it in science class.

This isnt typically elementary school level science anyway. The students can handle critical thinking.

The fact is there is an ongoing debate on whether ID is an acceptable scientific hypothesis or not. Ive personally sat in on such debates at the university level. Debates held between real scientists. So, why would you want to hide that fact from students? The more they know the better. If there is a debate raging in the scientific community, its a good idea to talk about it in science class.

Thats still not how it works though. First a hypothesis is formed and evidence assessed for it. It may be rejected, in which case it will come back modified or not at all. It keeps on being subject to criticism for many years and if no-one can find holes in it then maybe it will be considered a theory.

Then after a while if still no-one can find holes in it and its deemed to be useful enough, it will be tought in schools.

You seem to just want to bypass the whole process when ID is not even spelt out in a decent hypothesis yet. ID has to behave like any other scientific idea if it wants to be taken seriously and so far it hasnt even started.

i love this debate. once again science tries to disprove the existance of a craetor.... and fails.
Actually, the ability to disprove the existance of a creator would make intelligent design a theory. Since there is no such ability, intelligent design is not a theory.

The fact is there is an ongoing debate on whether ID is an acceptable scientific hypothesis or not. Ive personally sat in on such debates at the university level. Debates held between real scientists. So, why would you want to hide that fact from students? The more they know the better. If there is a debate raging in the scientific community, its a good idea to talk about it in science class.

This isnt typically elementary school level science anyway. The students can handle critical thinking.
Hahahahahahahaha.

The debate is hardly "raging" most actual scientists want little to do with intelligent design proponents.

And seriously, as though science curriculum in the U.S. aren't lacking enough, you want them to throw in another load of crap that isn't even scientific on top of it?!

Thats still not how it works though. First a hypothesis is formed and evidence assessed for it. It may be rejected, in which case it will come back modified or not at all. It keeps on being subject to criticism for many years and if no-one can find holes in it then maybe it will be considered a theory.

Then after a while if still no-one can find holes in it and its deemed to be useful enough, it will be tought in schools.

You seem to just want to bypass the whole process when ID is not even spelt out in a decent hypothesis yet. ID has to behave like any other scientific idea if it wants to be taken seriously and so far it hasnt even started.

No, not at all. There actually is no process for deciding when a scientific theory or hypothesis should be taught in school. That is in the realm of pedagogy, not science. Its up to teachers, schools, and government. Even if science tried to dictate when it should be taught in schools they would be unable to since its simply not their field.

Talking about the latest advances and hypotheses is actually a great idea.

The fact is there is an ongoing debate on whether ID is an acceptable scientific hypothesis or not. Ive personally sat in on such debates at the university level. Debates held between real scientists. So, why would you want to hide that fact from students? The more they know the better. If there is a debate raging in the scientific community, its a good idea to talk about it in science class.

This isnt typically elementary school level science anyway. The students can handle critical thinking.
San Haiti pretty muche answered, I just want to add: I apologise. This is news to me. I was acting under the impression that American children have basic science classes at around 6th (or was it 7th?) grade, and thus are tought about the basics of evolution theories, as it's one of the most well-founded theories we have.

Also, while you're right that a lot of ID proponents are trying to get ID accepted as a valid hypothesis, you aparently overlook that it can't fulfill the most basic criteria.

No, not at all. There actually is no process for deciding when a scientific theory or hypothesis should be taught in school. That is in the realm of pedagogy, not science. Its up to teachers, schools, and government. Even if science tried to dictate when it should be taught in schools they would be unable to since its simply not their field.

Talking about the latest advances and hypotheses is actually a great idea.

I didnt mean the process for deciding whats taught in schools but the process in which a scientific idea progresses. ID has not got anywhere at the moment. I would think the schools would pay attention to this for ideas as for what to teach, but if you're saying this isnt neccessary, then they can just teach any old crap then, like the flat earth "theory" and, of course, ID.

Plenty of real scientists, with real degrees, who work at real universities, do real research, and publish in real scientific journals consider it a theory. I could list names but its been done a million times. Deciding that everyone who disagrees with you is not a real scientist is a dumb argument. Someone who believes in ID could do the same thing and say "no real scientist denies that ID is a theory", and it would sound just as dumb.

Real scientists do support ID as a theory, so there is no problem with teaching both sides of the issue. People in the art world often use the same excuse as you "no real artist considers Martin Creed's work art", but then some artists do.
Oh, please list these people with all their credentials. It should be amusing.

The main thing here is the definition of a scientific theory.

A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predicions about the results of future observations. For example, Aristotle believed Empedocles's theory that everything was made out of four elements, earth, aid, fire and water. This was simple enough, but did not make any definite predictions. On the other hand, Newton's theory of gravity was based on an even simpler model, in which bodies attracted each other with a force that was proportional to the square of the distance between them. Yet it predicts the motions of the sun, the moon, and the planets to a high degree of accuracy.
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagre, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

Intelligent design neither makes any prediction, nor can it be tested, nor is it relevant to a highschool biology class. It belongs in a philosophy class or a religious studies class... not science.

Talking about the latest advances and hypotheses is actually a great idea.
Yes, it is. Which is exactly why we shouldn't bother teaching intelligent design in schools, to make way for teaching the new technological advances.

In many countries psychology is taught as a science...
(in other countries homeopathy is an official part of medical studies)

Why not ID?

:p

The fact is there is an ongoing debate on whether ID is an acceptable scientific hypothesis or not. Ive personally sat in on such debates at the university level. Debates held between real scientists. So, why would you want to hide that fact from students? The more they know the better. If there is a debate raging in the scientific community, its a good idea to talk about it in science class.

This isnt typically elementary school level science anyway. The students can handle critical thinking.
The kids may not be elementary level, but they have enough problems with evolution as it is. Trying to explain to them the subtle difference between ID and Evolution, and discussing whether it's science or not is a little bit above the level of the normal high school student. It elevates ID to the level of a real scientific theory, just like trying to explain the differences between creationism and evolution does. Additionally, given the amount of material that needs to be covered in a typical 9th/10th grade science class, it's just not important enough.

How do you respond to a student if you offer intelligent design as a theory, but they then turn around and offer you a situation that seems counter to intelligent design? Why do we have a blind spot? I'm sure there are some more questions, but after I just woke up is not the time to come up with them. :p

You can teach that evolution applies equally across the entire world, all organisms, everything. Intelligent design seeks to apply selectively, to things we have no way of predicting or measuring. Why guide certain areas and not others? If it's not predictable or measurable, it's NOT SCIENCE. As The Similized world said, if scientists believe in it, that's fine, but it doesn't belong in a science class.

I've never minded the idea of Intelligent Design, even taught in the classroom. I think that unit would be pretty short, too. "Something greater than we know created everything in existence. Now, onto unit 8..". You wouldn't have to discuss religious technicalities because they aren't really part of the theory. And yes, it is a theory, but not one that can be tested.
But I hate the thought of Creationism being taught in the classroom. That one is blatantly religious, the push for actual Christianity into the classroom, and I find it incredibly sad. Christians have always hated Science because its always disproved them. I guess this is there way of implementing a 'if you can't beat em, join em' policy.

I've never minded the idea of Intelligent Design, even taught in the classroom. I think that unit would be pretty short, too. "Something greater than we know created everything in existence. Now, onto unit 8..". You wouldn't have to discuss religious technicalities because they aren't really part of the theory. And yes, it is a theory, but not one that can be tested.
If it can't be tested, then it is not a theory. That's one of the basic requirements of a theory.

In many countries psychology is taught as a science...
(in other countries homeopathy is an official part of medical studies)

Why not ID?

:p

do you live in a country where psychology is considered to be a small amount of baseless intellectual fluff? does anyone?

I've never minded the idea of Intelligent Design, even taught in the classroom. I think that unit would be pretty short, too. "Something greater than we know created everything in existence. Now, onto unit 8..". You wouldn't have to discuss religious technicalities because they aren't really part of the theory. And yes, it is a theory, but not one that can be tested.
But I hate the thought of Creationism being taught in the classroom. That one is blatantly religious, the push for actual Christianity into the classroom, and I find it incredibly sad. Christians have always hated Science because its always disproved them. I guess this is there way of implementing a 'if you can't beat em, join em' policy.

Given that intelligent design requires a "designer," how is it that far away from creationism? You may not call it God, but when you give the designer godlike powers, it is effectively a god.

Dakini covered the it's not a theory part. :)

If it can't be tested, then it is not a theory. That's one of the basic requirements of a theory.
Not necessarily. Not all theories are even testable, such as many of Einstein's theories. They can be literally just be someone coming to a conclusion from something they know little about. Like, "there is a cow on the carton, so all milk must come from cows", or "we fall towards the Earth, so there must be a force that keeps us from falling off the Earth". These are all theories based on speculation from limited knowledge, and it is just the same as saying "Life is extremely complex and based around very precise mathematics and science, therefore only a being of great intelligence could be responsible for it".

:mad: So that's what they're calling creationinsm now, intelligent design. i'm sick and tired of the government doing this. IT'S CALLED CREATIONISM end of story. GOD CREATED the universe. For centuries it's been called creationism and there is nothing wrong with the title. EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. THERE IS PROOF IN THE BIBLE AND THAT'S ALL THE PROOF I NEED. If you disagree I don't care. Flames are welcome

do you live in a country where psychology is considered to be a small amount of baseless intellectual fluff? does anyone?
Yeah, I don't know what's with this guy, psychology is science...

Perhaps he had it confused with philosophy?

Intelligent Design is not a new idea. It used to be called the teleological argument (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/teleological.html). Anyway, I don't consider "no way" to be a scientific theory either. As in:

- hey look, a starfish
+ what, a fish shaped like a star?
- yup, there in that rock pool
+ no way! someone must've designed that, right?


Not science really.

Not necessarily. Not all theories are even testable, such as many of Einstein's theories.
Oh please, tell me which of Einstein's theories aren't testable.

They can be literally just be someone coming to a conclusion from something they know little about. Like, "there is a cow on the carton, so all milk must come from cows", or "we fall towards the Earth, so there must be a force that keeps us from falling off the Earth". These are all theories based on speculation from limited knowledge, and it is just the same as saying "Life is extremely complex and based around very precise mathematics and science, therefore only a being of great intelligence could be responsible for it".
Did you read Dr Hawking's definition of a scientific theory that I posted earlier?

Stop misusing the word.

:mad: So that's what they're calling creationinsm now, intelligent design. i'm sick and tired of the government doing this. IT'S CALLED CREATIONISM end of story. GOD CREATED the universe. For centuries it's been called creationism and there is nothing wrong with the title. EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. THERE IS PROOF IN THE BIBLE AND THAT'S ALL THE PROOF I NEED. If you disagree I don't care. Flames are welcome

there is proof in the bible? how did i miss that?

incidentally, creationism and intelligent design aren't the same thing, so they need two different names so that they don't get mixed up with each other.

and is there any need to shout? i think if you're so tense maybe you need to masturbate or something.

Intelligent Design is not a new idea. It used to be called the teleological argument (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/teleological.html). Anyway, I don't consider "no way" to be a scientific theory either. As in:

- hey look, a starfish
+ what, a fish shaped like a star?
- yup, there in that rock pool
+ no way! someone must've designed that, right?


Not science really.
You used a bad example :P
Actually there are some pretty stunning arguments for Intelligent Design. Granted, many of them are the ones that Creationism uses but there's some pretty neat stuff, like the mathematical constants and the precise physics of it all. There's a lot of interesting stuff in nature that you probably never even realized was there. In truth, though, it doesn't make you believe in ID after hearing all of it, it just makes you a little blown away by how easy it would have been for life to just never have existed.

You used a bad example :P
Actually there are some pretty stunning arguments for Intelligent Design. Granted, many of them are the ones that Creationism uses but there's some pretty neat stuff, like the mathematical constants and the precise physics of it all. There's a lot of interesting stuff in nature that you probably never even realized was there. In truth, though, it doesn't make you believe in ID after hearing all of it, it just makes you a little blown away by how easy it would have been for life to just never have existed.
And in the end it is still not real science

You used a bad example :P
Actually there are some pretty stunning arguments for Intelligent Design. Granted, many of them are the ones that Creationism uses but there's some pretty neat stuff, like the mathematical constants and the precise physics of it all. There's a lot of interesting stuff in nature that you probably never even realized was there. In truth, though, it doesn't make you believe in ID after hearing all of it, it just makes you a little blown away by how easy it would have been for life to just never have existed.

actually, all examples are the same. whatever topic it is, from the fact that there are starfish, to the infinite anythingness of whatever, the entire intelligent design argument is still just "no way - a starfish" or "no way - the infinite anythingness of whatever". it's what christians call wonder and awe. and not a scientific theory.

I can't believe this is a serious debate in the US. you couldn't have this debate anywhere else in the world, except maybe in islamic theocracies.

You used a bad example :P
Actually there are some pretty stunning arguments for Intelligent Design. Granted, many of them are the ones that Creationism uses but there's some pretty neat stuff, like the mathematical constants and the precise physics of it all. There's a lot of interesting stuff in nature that you probably never even realized was there. In truth, though, it doesn't make you believe in ID after hearing all of it, it just makes you a little blown away by how easy it would have been for life to just never have existed.
Have you ever heard an absolute quack try to sell some sort of new cure for cancer?
It sounds all well and good and like it's got to work and damnit, if only the medical establishment wouldn't keep this man down, his product could cure so many people!


But then when you do the research you find out that really, that guy's full of shit and doesn't know the first thing about curing cancer...

That's what intelligent design arguments are to people who know what the hell they're talking about in various fields of study.

:mad: So that's what they're calling creationinsm now, intelligent design. i'm sick and tired of the government doing this. IT'S CALLED CREATIONISM end of story. GOD CREATED the universe. For centuries it's been called creationism and there is nothing wrong with the title. EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. THERE IS PROOF IN THE BIBLE AND THAT'S ALL THE PROOF I NEED. If you disagree I don't care. Flames are welcome
Time to dispell the misconception yet again. Science isn't about proving things. It's about excluding other possibilities.

You're quite right that the evolution theory haven't been proven. Using the scientific method, it never will be. Because science can't prove stuff. That's now how it works. It can say that something is wrong. So farm the scientific method have failed to prove evolution wrong. Since it's one of the best researched theories (overall) that we have, that makes it look very, very likely to be true.

I'm glad to hear that some Christians are also pissed about all this. Science doesn't exclude God. The scientific method can't be aplied to anything religious. Your faith is quite safe. Noone is contesting it. However, the ID people seems to want to destroy the scientific method for some reason. Because if they succede in pulling God into the scientific method, then science stops working. There'd be no point to it anymore, as the basic rules of how to determine & observe worldly things would get tossed out the window.

No it's not a real science, but it wouldn't hurt to have a quarter page blurb about it in a biology textbook alongside a chapter full of Genetics and Evolution stuff. We've had the notion of intelligent design in our heads since the beginning of man, it's as similar as the great flood stories and the concept of a higher being. Its just human nature, I don't think we have anything to be scared of. I'd have a problem if the cirriculum wanted to preach it for 5 days because that would mean having to discuss the religions and I wouldn't want that, religion has no place in a science classroom.
And by the way, this is all coming from an agnostic who believes in evolution. Geological history totally blows creationism out of the water, and thats just one example. :-P

No it's not a real science, but it wouldn't hurt to have a quarter page blurb about it in a biology textbook alongside a chapter full of Genetics and Evolution stuff.
No it isn't real science and yes, it would hurt to take any time away from an already overburdened science curriculum to talk about something that isn't science.

We've had the notion of intelligent design in our heads since the beginning of man, it's as similar as the great flood stories and the concept of a higher being.
So we should teach about the great flood in geology class too? Despite the fact that there's absolutely no evidence for a global flood?

Its just human nature, I don't think we have anything to be scared of. I'd have a problem if the cirriculum wanted to preach it for 5 days because that would mean having to discuss the religions and I wouldn't want that, religion has no place in a science classroom.
Which is exactly why intelligent design has no place in a science class.

And by the way, this is all coming from an agnostic who believes in evolution. Geological history totally blows creationism out of the water, and thats just one example. :-P
This is coming from an agnostic who is studying physics and is painfully aware of the lack of scientific knowledge among the layman. Teaching intelligent design in schools will only create a more ignorant generation of people.

No it's not a real science, but it wouldn't hurt to have a quarter page blurb about it in a biology textbook alongside a chapter full of Genetics and Evolution stuff. We've had the notion of intelligent design in our heads since the beginning of man, it's as similar as the great flood stories and the concept of a higher being. Its just human nature, I don't think we have anything to be scared of. I'd have a problem if the cirriculum wanted to preach it for 5 days because that would mean having to discuss the religions and I wouldn't want that, religion has no place in a science classroom.
And by the way, this is all coming from an agnostic who believes in evolution. Geological history totally blows creationism out of the water, and thats just one example. :-P

you think it would be sensible to put, in a biology textbook, something like:

"Although every piece of solid evidence so far discovered in the universe backs up the theory of evolution, some people are so amazed by the universe that they can't believe it evolved. They reckon someone built it. This idea is called the theory of Intelligent Design".

And in the geology textbooks, we could have "Although the world is so obviously round that it's, well, round, some people think it is flat. This is called the Flat Earth theory".

And so on:

" ... women are chattels ... taliban ... black people are subhuman ... kkk ... can tell who is a criminal by the shape of their eyebrows ... climate change isn't happening ... "

oh wait, that last one is an American Truth TM

I don't think it's science and it should not be taught in a classroom. And I'm even a 'conservative' most of the time. Seriously, it's rediculous.

lol, I know it sounds rediculous, but I still think everyone overreacts about this. First off you know it won't be taken seriously by any of the teachers, it will never be a focal point in the classroom nor will time ever really be spent discussing it and teaching it. Your children will not become bible thumpers, and it will not become engrained into the scientific community as factual if it's given a tiny spot in a textbook. It won't start a wave of crackpot theories. And let's face it, it technically is possible, and it -is- widely accepted by a lot of people. And yes, they may not be the brightest of people, but there is a healthy minority of them out there.

"Although every piece of solid evidence so far discovered in the universe backs up the theory of evolution, some people are so amazed by the universe that they can't believe it evolved. They reckon someone built it. This idea is called the theory of Intelligent Design".
Classic!!

there is proof in the bible? how did i miss that?
it says "god did it", or words to that effect. if thats all the proof you need then there you go - case closed.
but then, some people are morons, aren't they?

People have looked at how students read textbooks. Even with good explanations they can still revert back to their previously accepted ideas. Some good case studies were done with explaining seasons. Students consistently failed to change their misconceptions, even *with* a good explanation. And frankly, most textbooks explain things in the most horrible way or not at all.

The very fact that intelligent design would be offered as a theory or real alternative to evolution would mean students could latch onto that idea and ignore the accepted scientific theory. It should *not* be placed in a science textbook alongside the tested theories.

I can disprove Intelligent Design rather quickly.

All I have to do is bring my wife to a typical science class, where we will disrobe, and begin having sex at the front of the class for all to see.

After we finish, we will replay a video of the interesting faces we made, the hilarious positions we assumed, and the general mess.

I will then posit that no intelligent designer would have possibly come up with so ridiculous a means of reproduction.

I can disprove Intelligent Design rather quickly.

All I have to do is bring my wife to a typical science class, where we will disrobe, and begin having sex at the front of the class for all to see.

After we finish, we will replay a video of the interesting faces we made, the hilarious positions we assumed, and the general mess.

I will then posit that no intelligent designer would have possibly come up with so ridiculous a means of reproduction.
:D That sounds like Psych 210 class at the UW.

Should we all reproduce in pods then? :p

lol, I know it sounds rediculous, but I still think everyone overreacts about this. First off you know it won't be taken seriously by any of the teachers, it will never be a focal point in the classroom nor will time ever really be spent discussing it and teaching it. Your children will not become bible thumpers, and it will not become engrained into the scientific community as factual if it's given a tiny spot in a textbook. It won't start a wave of crackpot theories.


Then what is the point? Why bother if students won't care and less than 1% of science teachers will give it any time? Why waste resources adding something unscientific to a science curriculum, if it's just going to be ignored?

well, frankly, there is a lot of evidence scientifically, not scripturally, pointing to an intelligent designer. I suggest that you get a hold of some seminars by Dr. Robert Gange. He's a PhD in multiple branches of physics, and has some interesting stuff to say. In particular, also, I suggest that you take a look at the theories of irriducible complexty from people like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe. then we'll talk.

:D That sounds like Psych 210 class at the UW.

Should we all reproduce in pods then? :p

The fact that we manage to reproduce without dying in paroxysms of laughter is an amazing thing.

Why porn is considered exciting, and not slapstick comedy, is beyond me.

Pods would be more orderly.

There was an excellent article about all this in the Guardian recently - not a paper I'm usually a fan of - but this stood out as pretty much closing the case on ID

I posted it before but my thread got blocked for labelling ID enthusiasts 'morons' in the title

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html

I can disprove Intelligent Design rather quickly.

All I have to do is bring my wife to a typical science class, where we will disrobe, and begin having sex at the front of the class for all to see.

After we finish, we will replay a video of the interesting faces we made, the hilarious positions we assumed, and the general mess.

I will then posit that no intelligent designer would have possibly come up with so ridiculous a means of reproduction.I must admit, that does beat explaining that the appendix is a basically worthless organ... :D

well, frankly, there is a lot of evidence scientifically, not scripturally, pointing to an intelligent designer. I suggest that you get a hold of some seminars by Dr. Robert Gange. He's a PhD in multiple branches of physics, and has some interesting stuff to say. In particular, also, I suggest that you take a look at the theories of irriducible complexty from people like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe. then we'll talk.
No, there really isn't any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer.

And this Robert Grange?
http://www.sbes.vt.edu/faculty/grange.htm

The one with the degrees in kinesiology? That's not physics, that's anatomy/gym class.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9642976&postcount=103

Seemed appropreate

Plenty of real scientists, with real degrees, who work at real universities, do real research, and publish in real scientific journals consider it a theory.I would actually be very interested to hear of any peer review journal articles that substantiate ID in any real way. From what I have seen they (along with any christian science or other pseudoscience) just point out minor fallacies in current scientific theories and call it proof that their idea must be true instead. Hence they don't get published in peer review journals.

Ok I have two real problems with it being taught in science class.
1. It's not science, and as such does not belong in a science class. As a fundamental part of ID is the idea of a creator. (see God) Since it is, by there very nature, impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of a creator, creation theory (or the pseudonym intelligent design) is not science. As well as, as pointed out, it doesn't fit the definition of hypothesis at all.

2. While it may be backed by scientists (who are not practicing good science, if they support ID as a valid theory, since it is not science) there are thousands of unsubstantiated ideas and hypothesis (plural?) that are backed by small groups of scientists. Hundreds of which have ideas that are better substantiated than ID. However none of them are well supported enough to be accepted by the scientific community. The only reason that Intelligent Design/Creationism is getting any limelight at all, is not because of any scientific or logical merit that it has as an idea. But because it is supported outside the scientific community by religious groups, who point to the few scientists researching/studying it and say "Look it's science, teach it in schools!"

If 'intelligent design' gets a mention in science class it should be as an example of pseudoscience and logical fallacy.


Also, I'd just like to say. To all those people who keep saying that Evolution Theory isn't proved. While technically you are right, nothing can be proved. As Socrates put it "all I know is I know nothing". But is misleading and gives the impression that it's really up in the air as to whether Evolution is real or not, which is simply not true. If we use the following definition of scientific fact, from the Skeptics Societies: Skeptical Manifesto
Fact: Data or conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement.Evolution is a fact.

And pray tell, can religion prove the existence of a creator? I'd like to see some proof outside of that 2000-year-old book.

no, religion can't prove a damn thing on if there is a creator or not. that is why you need faith. all i see scientists do is try to prove god doesn't exist. the concept in itself is rediculous becuase god is supposed to be superior than us and beyond our full comprehension. so proving something that is beyond us makes me laugh a hearty laugh. don't get me wrong though, i love good ol' science juat as much as the next man with a chemistry set.

no, religion can't prove a damn thing on if there is a creator or not. that is why you need faith. all i see scientists do is try to prove god doesn't exist. the concept in itself is rediculous becuase god is supposed to be superior than us and beyond our full comprehension. so proving something that is beyond us makes me laugh a hearty laugh. don't get me wrong though, i love good ol' science juat as much as the next man with a chemistry set.
Show me a scientist trying to disprove god I will show you a bad scientist

You know what I find sad? I am having this same debate with a hardcore Christian (though I can only assume the people are possessed, as the Christian is not that hardcore, a logical debator has gone hardcore Christian, and a less hardcore Christian has lost his mine) on a Yu-Gi-Oh board, and it has turned into a discussion of quantum physics.

there is proof in the bible? how did i miss that?

incidentally, creationism and intelligent design aren't the same thing, so they need two different names so that they don't get mixed up with each other.

and is there any need to shout? i think if you're so tense maybe you need to masturbate or something.

Go look in the first Book of the Bible, Genesis, it says right there that God CREATED the universe. the gov only wants us to think that they're totally different things. And on a side not, I'm a girl not guy.

Go look in the first Book of the Bible, Genesis, it says right there that God CREATED the universe. the gov only wants us to think that they're totally different things. And on a side not, I'm a girl not guy.
He said PROOF
As in data … information that confirms its story

The bible does not do that … it just presents a hypothesis

:mad: well, frankly, there is a lot of evidence scientifically, not scripturally, pointing to an intelligent designer. I suggest that you get a hold of some seminars by Dr. Robert Gange. He's a PhD in multiple branches of physics, and has some interesting stuff to say. In particular, also, I suggest that you take a look at the theories of irriducible complexty from people like biochemist Dr. Michael Behe. then we'll talk.

If you want evidence scriptually, look in the Bible, there's plenty of evidence in there and if you still cant find tell and I will find it for you

:mad:

If you want evidence scriptually, look in the Bible, there's plenty of evidence in there and if you still cant find tell and I will find it for you
Please do

:mad: So that's what they're calling creationinsm now, intelligent design. i'm sick and tired of the government doing this. IT'S CALLED CREATIONISM end of story. GOD CREATED the universe. For centuries it's been called creationism and there is nothing wrong with the title. EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY AND HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. THERE IS PROOF IN THE BIBLE AND THAT'S ALL THE PROOF I NEED. If you disagree I don't care. Flames are welcome
And all that does not make it a scientific theory

He said PROOF
As in data … information that confirms its story

The bible does not do that … it just presents a hypothesis

FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I'M A GIRL NOT A GUY. SO STOP REFERING TO ME AS A GUY or I'll kick you to kingdom come and farther. Secondly, show me evidence in the THEORY of Evolution that can be considered as facts. HOW DO YOU EXPALIN EVERYTHING AND THE WAY IT IS. :sniper:

And all that does not make it a scientific theory

Not everything has to be a scientific theory for it to be considered.

i love this debate. once again science tries to disprove the existance of a craetor.... and fails.

I quite agree with you :)

Time to dispell the misconception yet again. Science isn't about proving things. It's about excluding other possibilities.

You're quite right that the evolution theory haven't been proven. Using the scientific method, it never will be. Because science can't prove stuff. That's now how it works. It can say that something is wrong. So farm the scientific method have failed to prove evolution wrong. Since it's one of the best researched theories (overall) that we have, that makes it look very, very likely to be true.

I'm glad to hear that some Christians are also pissed about all this. Science doesn't exclude God. The scientific method can't be aplied to anything religious. Your faith is quite safe. Noone is contesting it. However, the ID people seems to want to destroy the scientific method for some reason. Because if they succede in pulling God into the scientific method, then science stops working. There'd be no point to it anymore, as the basic rules of how to determine & observe worldly things would get tossed out the window.

I'm glad that someone is one my side.

it says "god did it", or words to that effect. if thats all the proof you need then there you go - case closed.
but then, some people are morons, aren't they?

Thank you very much, there are morons out that just wont listen to reason :) This case is closed

Please do

When I get home, I'll look it up in the Bible then tell you cased closed

do you live in a country where psychology is considered to be a small amount of baseless intellectual fluff?

No, I live in a country where many intelligent people consider psychology to be a large amount of pseudo-scientific claptrap.

The 'science of mind' is so cluttered with incorrect historical baggage, so muddled by superstition, so dominated by politics, so overpopulated with pretend scientists, and so dirtied by charlatans that discussion about almost any non-trivial topic resembles an Intelligent Design 'debate'.

When I get home, I'll look it up in the Bible then tell you cased closed]

May I suggest you refine your ideas as to what constitutes proof? Unless this causes you to shout again like your other posts. The bible cannot be considered proof by any standards other than concerning your religous beleifs. There are many other books as old as the bible but i take it you dont consider all their words to be proof.

And why is the bible's word inviolate? I would presume you would say (correct me if i'm wrong) that it was written by god. But what evidence do you have of that?

No, I live in a country where many intelligent people consider psychology to be a large amount of pseudo-scientific claptrap.

The 'science of mind' is so cluttered with incorrect historical baggage, so muddled by superstition, so dominated by politics, so overpopulated with pretend scientists, and so dirtied by charlatans that discussion about almost any non-trivial topic resembles an Intelligent Design 'debate'.

So there *is* a country in the world somewhere that was taken over by Scientologists. Be afraid. :p

As to ID, yes it should be in schools. In the philosophy department. Most HS's don't have one, but they should. And religious stuff, including ID, should be there.

And all that does not make it a scientific theoryNot everything has to be a scientific theory for it to be considered.
I don't care what your *personal* views on evolution/creationism/ID are. But I would argue that the final 2 views have NO place in the science classroom.

Scientists are free to believe what they want about evolution being guided by a designer/god, but they should also recognize that it's not science. As people have suggested, a philosophy class or a debate class would be a better place to discuss such things, not the normal Biology class.

i love this debate. once again science tries to disprove the existance of a creator.... and fails.
"Science" has never tried any such thing.

Secondly, show me evidence in the THEORY of Evolution that can be considered as facts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


HOW DO YOU EXPALIN EVERYTHING AND THE WAY IT IS.
With facts. How do you explain it?

Secondly, show me evidence in the THEORY of Evolution that can be considered as facts. HOW DO YOU EXPALIN EVERYTHING AND THE WAY IT IS.
Facts don't explain the theory. The theory explains facts.

The facts are:

- The Earth is old. We know this by observing radioactive decay in mineral deposits, as well as by calculating the time it would take for certain geological process to have occured.
- Life started simply and then became more complex. We know this by observing fossils that have been deposited in different geological layers. The older the layer, the simpler life gets until, at one point, you only get unicellular lifeforms.
- Species come in a wide variety of shapes and functions, yet you can find many commonalities among them, including shared DNA sequences. We know this by studying and classifying living beings.

Given these facts (although there are others) one has to formulate a theory to would explain them. The theory has to be logically sustained and live up to certain scientific rigor.

Not everything has to be a scientific theory for it to be considered.
In a science class it does

I've never been a proponent of home-schooling, but if "Intelligent Design" is ever required to be taught in the public schools, it may be enough for me to consider home-schooling my son. At least he'll wind up better-educated than any of the pro-ID people here.

:rolleyes:

i love this debate. once again science tries to disprove the existance of a craetor.... and fails. I quite agree with you Why do people keep saying that? Science does not attempt to disprove the existence of god.
Such a thing is literally impossible.
It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of a god, short of the god appearing before us all and saying "I am God" and proving it with his godlike powers.
This is because it is not possible to impose any physical test to a god, since he does not exist in any physical way.

Science does not try to disprove the existence of god!


On another topic, has anyone noticed that if you spell God Jesus backwards it makes Susej Dog? Which sounds like sausage dog.... I thought it was funny. :D

Why do people keep saying that? Science does not attempt to disprove the existence of god.
Such a thing is literally impossible.
It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of a god, short of the god appearing before us all and saying "I am God" and proving it with his godlike powers.
This is because it is not possible to impose any physical test to a god, since he does not exist in any physical way.

Science does not try to disprove the existence of god!


On another topic, has anyone noticed that if you spell God Jesus backwards it makes Susej Dog? Which sounds like sausage dog.... I thought it was funny. :D


Yeah, and if you spell Tulsa backwards you get "A Slut." Your Point?

FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I'M A GIRL NOT A GUY. SO STOP REFERING TO ME AS A GUY or I'll kick you to kingdom come and farther. Secondly, show me evidence in the THEORY of Evolution that can be considered as facts. HOW DO YOU EXPALIN EVERYTHING AND THE WAY IT IS. :sniper:
I certainly do not accept The Bible or what it says in it as SCIENTIFIC PROOF of anything.
As much as you might wish that faith and knowledge are the same, and that, because you have faith, no proof is required for everyone else to believe as you do...you are sadly mistaken.

Even I, as a Unitarian Christian, reject the notion that anything in the Bible qualifies as SCIENTIFIC PROOF. It doesn't. Thus, it should not be taught in science classrooms. End of debate.

Nothing in The Bible can be studied, duplicated, replicated, proved or disproved under laboratory conditions.

When we find a scientist who can turn water into wine, I'll reconsider my opinion, okay?

Not everything has to be a scientific theory for it to be considered.

No one said otherwise. We ARE saying it has no room for consideration IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM...because it does not qualify as SCIENCE. Duh!!

As to ID, yes it should be in schools. In the philosophy department. Most HS's don't have one, but they should. And religious stuff, including ID, should be there.
Bing bing bing bing bing!!! We have a winner!!

Not everything has to be a scientific theory for it to be considered.

In a science class, it most definitely does.

By that logic, I could teach in science that God doesn't exist because it's not a scientific theory, and even though it has no basis in fact it merits teaching. Values driven curriculum is against the very principles of the class.

. HOW DO YOU EXPALIN EVERYTHING AND THE WAY IT IS. :sniper:

That's the purpose of...SCIENCE. Holy shit, what a novel concept.

Go look in the first Book of the Bible, Genesis, it says right there that God CREATED the universe. the gov only wants us to think that they're totally different things. And on a side not, I'm a girl not guy.

Go look in the second book of The Hitchhiker's Trilogy, "The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe" and it says right there that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.

In the beginning the Universe was created.

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a
bad move.

Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the
Jartravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe
was in fact sneezed out of the nose a being called the Great Green
Arkleseizure.

The Jartravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call the
coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more
than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.

However, the Great Green Arkleseizure theory is not widely accepted
outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other
explanations are constantly being sought.

For instance, a race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings once
built themselves a gigantic supercomputer called Deep Thought to calculate
once and for all the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe
and Everything.

For seven and a half million years, Deep Thought computed and
calculated, and in the end announced that the answer was in fact Forty-Two - and so another, even bigger, computer had to be built to find out what the actual question was.

And this computer, which was called Earth, was so large that it was
frequently mistaken for a planet - especially bythe strange ape-like beings who roamed its surface, totally unaware that they were simply part of a gigantic computer program. And this is very odd, because without that fairly simple and obvious piece of knowledge, nothing that ever happened on the Earth could possibly make the slightest bit of sense.
So there!

I move that if we begin teaching ID in science classes, we must also begin teaching the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory alongside it. We call this GGAT.

We, the believers in The Great Green Arkleseizure DEMAND that our beliefs also be accepted as scientific proof, and that our hogwash be taught in science classrooms as well. Do I have a second? Anyone else out there care to support GGAT theory?

No, I live in a country where many intelligent people consider psychology to be a large amount of pseudo-scientific claptrap.

The 'science of mind' is so cluttered with incorrect historical baggage, so muddled by superstition, so dominated by politics, so overpopulated with pretend scientists, and so dirtied by charlatans that discussion about almost any non-trivial topic resembles an Intelligent Design 'debate'.

my housemate is going for his psychology major and i am going to show him this...he is going to kill me....AWESOME!!!

i love this debate. once again science tries to disprove the existance of a craetor.... and fails.

science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
science does not and never has tried to disprove the creator
vscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creatorscience does not and never has tried to disprove the creator

OK

So there!

And you believe that to be how the universe came into existence, some glorfinker sneezed it out. that is completely gross. youre disturbed get some help. scratch that ur beyond help. :confused:

And you believe that to be how the universe came into existence, some glorfinker sneezed it out. that is completely gross. youre disturbed get some help. scratch that ur beyond help. :confused:
Psst it was a joke … from a VERY well known book series

(hint they just made a movie about it)

I move that if we begin teaching ID in science classes, we must also begin teaching the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory alongside it. We call this GGAT.

We, the believers in The Great Green Arkleseizure DEMAND that our beliefs also be accepted as scientific proof, and that our hogwash be taught in science classrooms as well. Do I have a second? Anyone else out there care to support GGAT theory?
no no no no NO! The Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) is the *only* true alternative. Anything else is heresy! :D

no no no no NO! The Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) is the *only* true alternative. Anything else is heresy! :D
You're all wrong! Shoddy Design is the only theory that fully explains the state of the Universe. No one has been able to disprove the existence of a inter-departmental design committee!

You're all wrong! Shoddy Design is the only theory that fully explains the state of the Universe. No one has been able to disprove the existence of a inter-departmental design committee!
Maybe the monster is just the committee chair

Maybe we should have a paragraph for every single theory about where we came from and how humans came to be, as long as it can't be disproved.

If we can't disprove something, then we must treat it as a valid theory, yes? :rolleyes:

I want to see half the Bio textbook taken up explaining the various creation theories that anyone in the world can think up.

And you believe that to be how the universe came into existence, some glorfinker sneezed it out. that is completely gross. youre disturbed get some help. scratch that ur beyond help. :confused:
Jesus H. Christ on a fucking Popsicle stick!!

Would you know SARCASM if it came up and slapped you right between the eyes?!!?!?

the premise of The Great Green Arkleseizure is lifted directly from the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, by Douglas Adams!

Jesus, some people have no sense of humor, no ability to detect satire or sarcasm, and no connection to American culture!

Drown in your Bible yet?

I met Douglas Adams once. Got his autograph.

Jesus H. Christ on a fucking Popsicle stick!!

Would you know SARCASM if it came up and slapped you right between the eyes?!!?!?

the premise of The Great Green Arkleseizure is lifted directly from the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, by Douglas Adams!

Jesus, some people have no sense of humor, no ability to detect satire or sarcasm, and no connection to American culture!

Drown in your Bible yet?

I don't do funny

I don't do funny
Hmmm I’m not sure bout that reading some of your posts I got a good chuckle out of them

:p

I don't do funny

Do you do ANYTHING other than Bible this and Bible that?? How unutterably boring and sad.

God in Heaven, lighten up a little bit.

Do you do ANYTHING other than Bible this and Bible that?? How unutterably boring and sad.

God in Heaven, lighten up a little bit.

Can't you recognize when you're dealing with a fanatic?

I once read an extremely apt definition: "A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

With Bible fanatics, it's always the Bible, first, last, and forevermore. It's their answer to everything, and if it isn't in there, they don't need to know and won't listen. You'd have as much luck arguing with a brick wall.
:headbang:
(Actually, you might have more luck arguing with a brick wall. Brick walls can change their position, given enough whacks with a sledgehammer.)
:p

Can't you recognize when you're dealing with a fanatic?

I once read an extremely apt definition: "A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

With Bible fanatics, it's always the Bible, first, last, and forevermore. It's their answer to everything, and if it isn't in there, they don't need to know and won't listen. You'd have as much luck arguing with a brick wall.
:headbang:
(Actually, you might have more luck arguing with a brick wall. Brick walls can change their position, given enough whacks with a sledgehammer.)
:p

Oh, I recognize when I'm dealing with a fanatic. I just enjoy needling them now and again to watch the reaction, that's all.