NationStates Jolt Archive

So I've looked around about the subject of Intelligent Design a bit. Several months ago, in fact, I had to give a debate for a class in favor of it (not by choice -- I lost the coin toss with the guy I had to debate with). After having researched it a bit, I've come to the conclusion that, unlike evolution, there's really nothing to it. So if I.D. were to be taught in a science classroom, wouldn't the teacher just spend five minutes with it and be done with it from then on? This is supported by the fact that, in the Dover school board case, the controversial language in the curriculum that referred to I.D. was unbelievably short:

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."
So isn't I.D. really just a side note in the evolution curriculum that reads along the lines of "Evolution is a theory, and some people think that stuff is really complicated so somebody or something had to have made everything"? That being said, is there really any harm in a school district allowing such wording to be inserted into their curriculum? I mean, it certainly doesn't argue in favor of anything, really, let alone a specific, or even vague, set of religious beliefs. I just really don't see the harm in teaching it at all.

It opens the door to religious belief in a science class.

It opens the door to religious belief in a science class.
I definitely get where you're coming from, but when it's so tiny and insignificant, I just see rallying against it as a waste of time.

I definitely get where you're coming from, but when it's so tiny and insignificant, I just see rallying against it as a waste of time.
It would be a stepping stone for broader inclusions of religion. Think of how successful ID would be today if there was precedent.

We can't have a relligion belief in science class. Even if evolution itself can't be proven 100%, doesn't mean that students shouldn't be taught it on faith. As for religion, it might upset the 1% Jews, and 0.25% Islamic students, ad well as the 8% computer geeks who are rebelling agaisnt their parents religion. (I think Jews and Islamic students also believe in Creation, but its a different kind.)

It's not science.

It's not science.

You are aboslute right Dinaverg. If students aren't taught Evolution, first of all, how can they compete in the modern world, secondly they might buy into morality and then the programs for teaching safe sex, including the teaching of how to use condoms, diaphragms and the proper timing of birth control pills might get pulled, and it would be a "domino effect" for progressive science based education. :(

Teaching intelligent design is silly. Science class is where we learn science, not mythology. If you want that, there's literature classes down the hall. There's theology classes at the university, and there's a church just down the street.

Teaching intelligent design is silly.
Hehe...religion is silly! :p

Teaching intelligent design is silly. Science class is where we learn science, not mythology. If you want that, there's literature classes down the hall. There's theology classes at the university, and there's a church just down the street.

Andaluciae, you are absolutely right. Even though evolution cannot be 100% proven, its a much more scientifically oriented faith than the Bible.

And with evolution, we can promote more immorality and ultimately more government programs, which, as progressive leader Karl Marx did say, it will lead to the FREE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL.

This is my dream. Anyhow, in the way of free development is the "chains" of morality based in religion. So, while evolution is quite dubious probably, it must be maintained at all public institutions so that we can irradicate all previous notions of class and family structure.

How does God create everything, if God does not exist?

Therefore Atheists will have to either swallow their beliefs or fail.

How does God create everything, if God does not exist?

Therefore Atheists will have to either swallow their beliefs or fail.

Posi, you cannot make religion-based arguments on the Forum. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

This is the problem is that people believe in God, and then they always want to stop funding for comphrensive sex education, including instruction on condom use, bill control pill timing, diaphragams and access to abortion.

Also, they want marriage inequality.

This is why the government has to separation religion from politics, which is the same as not separatijng church and state.

Of course teaching it is silly. I'll give you that. But it seems to me that the issue is insignificant, and will change very few student minds about the subject of a supernatural deity creating the universe. It appears to me that the issue gaining attention is yet another way to distract the public's attention away from more pressing matters, like the Iraq war, extraordinary rendition, government spying, etc. It just seems like it was blown out of proportion, the same going for the controversy about the pledge of allegiance. Unfortunately for the part of me that wants to be "hip" and jump on the conservative bandwagon, though, I've found that I oppose intelligent design, the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, and I favor euthanasia, the legalization of gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research...Fuck, when did I get so liberal? ...But I digress.

I guess what I'm saying is that this I.D. issue is really a giant waste of time for both sides, because there's a lot more pressing matters at hand.

Even though I strongly believe in Evolution and hate church, the one thing that I don't get is why so many people are so passionate about Evolution. Quantum Electrodynamics is also a True Science, but no one is insisting on it being in public school.

Personally, I like having evolution in school to show students that their parents lied to them about God, and then it makes it easier to encourage students to use safer sex. Without this option, so many religious students would have unsafe sex and the spread of AIDS would increase. Already Ronald Reagan and the fundies have caused so many deaths from AIDS. :(

Of course teaching it is silly. I'll give you that. But it seems to me that the issue is insignificant, and will change very few student minds about the subject of a supernatural deity creating the universe. It appears to me that the issue gaining attention is yet another way to distract the public's attention away from more pressing matters, like the Iraq war, extraordinary rendition, government spying, etc. It just seems like it was blown out of proportion, the same going for the controversy about the pledge of allegiance. Unfortunately for the part of me that wants to be "hip" and jump on the conservative bandwagon, though, I've found that I oppose intelligent design, the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, and I favor euthanasia, the legalization of gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research...but I digress.

I guess what I'm saying is that this I.D. issue is really a giant waste of time for both sides, because there's a lot more pressing matters at hand.
The problem with it is it makes people more comfortable with the idea that Christianity should have moral athority over everyone, instead of just their followers.

I guess what I'm saying is that this I.D. issue is really a giant waste of time for both sides, because there's a lot more pressing matters at hand.
Well, yes, but it should be opposed when it is brought up. Yeah, for many teachers it might be a throwaway mention, some may use it as a springboard for more indepth lesson. However where I see the fight is the attempt to put what is a non-science issue into a science class. It doesn't belong there. There's no reason for it to be there, and it is against the laws of the land for it to be there.

Even though I strongly believe in Evolution and hate church, the one thing that I don't get is why so many people are so passionate about Evolution. Quantum Electrodynamics is also a True Science, but no one is insisting on it being in public school.

Personally, I like having evolution in school to show students that their parents lied to them about God, and then it makes it easier to encourage students to use safer sex. Without this option, so many religious students would have unsafe sex and the spread of AIDS would increase. Already Ronald Reagan and the fundies have caused so many deaths from AIDS. :(
I think the reason it's defended to such a large extent is not, as Ann Coulter suggests, related to the fact that evolution is the creation myth of the State Church of "Liberalism." I think the reasoning lies in the fact that it's definitely a point of contention for many fundmental religious people who would see it toppled due to the fact that it conflicts with their beliefs. Opponents of religious-political assimilation then logically see evolution as threatened by religious fundamentalists and, being opposed to the goals of the fundamentalist movement, they logically seek to defend the target of their enemies in order to preserve what they see to be a credible, non-theocratic program. In a way, evolution isn't really what people are fighting over -- it's really only just one of several possible points of contention that could be used that represent the larger issue at hand.

I just really don't see the harm in teaching it at all.

the problem is that they don't intend to stop there

the wedge strategy (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html)

the problem is that they don't intend to stop there

the wedge strategy (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html)
I've read it. I don't think they'll succeed.

I've read it. I don't think they'll succeed.

me neither. but only because we'll stop them cold.

the problem is that they don't intend to stop there

the wedge strategy (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html)
Hopefully people will see this for what it is. The same old jokers trying the same old tricks.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."
A big problem with those two points is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather the origin of the diversity of life. If anything, this is evidence that we just don't teach evolution well enough.

I mean, it certainly doesn't argue in favor of anything, really, let alone a specific, or even vague, set of religious beliefs. I just really don't see the harm in teaching it at all.

Currently ID indeed is nothing more than an attack on the theory of evolution. Now, attacking a scientific theory is in principle fine - in fact, it is what scientists are supposed to do. It stops being fine however if the majority of your attacks are based on simplifications and distortions of the theory - or even on direct lies and misrepresentations of facts. When ones arguments are more concerned with appealing to lots of people than with having scientific merit. Calling ID valid science in a classroom would imply this behaviour is condoned.[1]

Secondly, since ID currently is nothing more than an attack on evolution, there is no reason to credit it as a valid hypothesis, even if its arguments against evolution were valid. Saying that A is wrong does not automatically make B right. IDers currently have nothing to show in support of their hypothesis - and yet they demand classroom time. What kind of message does one send students by obliging ?

[1] And I always wondered: does God wish to gain followers through lies ?

If you want to learn about religion, go to a theology class. I don't go to my science classes to hear about what God did in a week. I go to my science classes to learn about actual scientific theory that can be tested with reasoning and observation, not faith.

The whole ID thing makes the US look really sad. I mean, I go to a Catholic school, and not only do they not teach ID in science, they teach evolution in RELIGION CLASS.

That being said, is there really any harm in a school district allowing such wording to be inserted into their curriculum? I mean, it certainly doesn't argue in favor of anything, really, let alone a specific, or even vague, set of religious beliefs. I just really don't see the harm in teaching it at all.
I don't see the harm in inserting a rootkit. I mean, it just sits there. It doesn't really do anything. :rolleyes:

I don't see the harm in inserting a rootkit. I mean, it just sits there. It doesn't really do anything. :rolleyes:
Nice.

What is the harm in saying "But we don't know that's what happened, and other theories exist." I don't care if you mention what they ARE just that they exist. What's wrong with that?

What is the harm in saying "But we don't know that's what happened, and other theories exist." I don't care if you mention what they ARE just that they exist. What's wrong with that?
Because we do know that that is what happened.

These people want to use it as a wedge for subsequent challenges of cosmology, etc. Once intelligent design is acceptable, the Young Earth and attacks on cosmic background radiation and hubble's constant become possible.

A big problem with those two points is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather the origin of the diversity of life. If anything, this is evidence that we just don't teach evolution well enough.

Or you just didn't learn it well enough. Evolution includes origin as well, but with several variations. One starting at the Big Bang, another that every living thing started as an microscopic organism then branching off, etc.

Or you just didn't learn it well enough. Evolution includes origin as well, but with several variations. One starting at the Big Bang, another that every living thing started as an microscopic organism then branching off, etc.

Umm...no...It really doesn't.

Umm...no...It really doesn't.

Yeah it does. It also includes the evolution of the universe, as well as the evolution of life.

Yeah it does. It also includes the evolution of the universe, as well as the evolution of life.

Actually, Big Bang Theory is completely seperate from the Theory of Evolution.

Actually, Big Bang Theory is completely seperate from the Theory of Evolution.

They're taught together; they mean little alone.

Yeah it does. It also includes the evolution of the universe, as well as the evolution of life.

No it doesn't.

Diversifying and development of organisms over time = Theory of Evolution
Origin of life from non-life = Theory of Abiogenesis
Beginning of the universe = Big Bang Theory

Also (not directed at you, GA), I'm so sick of hearing the "it's just a theory" nonsense. People who use this argument obviously have no clue as to how science and scientific theory works.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html


One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.

No it doesn't.

Diversifying and development of organisms over time = Theory of Evolution
Origin of life from non-life = Theory of Abiogenesis
Beginning of the universe = Big Bang Theory

Also (not directed at you, GA), I'm so sick of hearing the "it's just a theory" nonsense. People who use this argument obviously have no clue as to how science and scientific theory works.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Gravity is just a theory. Does that mean we should teach Intelligent Falling?

Or you just didn't learn it well enough. Evolution includes origin as well, but with several variations. One starting at the Big Bang, another that every living thing started as an microscopic organism then branching off, etc.Can you say "Abiogenesis?" Evolution deals with the changes in organisms over time, not where they came from in the first place.

Gravity is just a theory. Does that mean we should teach Intelligent Falling?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

:D

They're taught together; they mean little alone.

No, they're really not.

Big Bang = Physics.

Evolution = Biology.

Unless they were taught to you so early that they were in an all purpose science class in which case they cant have been taught with much detail at all.

Though I think I actually do beleive that G-d guided the evolutionary process, I am still staunchly against teaching that in schools. Freedom of religion! The Constitution entitles us to practice whatever religion we want however we want. It strictly prohibits teaching any specific religion(s) in our government-run public schools. What happens to those who don't beleive in G-d (Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) of which we have many in our country. Requiring that we teach them a religion in which they don't beleive is proslatizing. Being from a religion that has been persecuted for millenia, I would not permit anyone else's religion to be shunned in such a way. Whether or not we agree with Intelligent Design, it would be wrong to force it on others. Science cannot be faith-based. Please support freedom of religion by keeping church and state seperate.

Though I think I actually do beleive that G-d guided the evolutionary process, I am still staunchly against teaching that in schools. Freedom of religion! The Constitution entitles us to practice whatever religion we want however we want. It strictly prohibits teaching any specific religion(s) in our government-run public schools. What happens to those who don't beleive in G-d (Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) of which we have many in our country. Requiring that we teach them a religion in which they don't beleive is proslatizing. Being from a religion that has been persecuted for millenia, I would not permit anyone else's religion to be shunned in such a way. Whether or not we agree with Intelligent Design, it would be wrong to force it on others. Science cannot be faith-based. Please support freedom of religion by keeping church and state seperate.You're Jewish, then, I take it?

For those who still don't understand the theory of evolution, I point you to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution
The chemical evolution from self-catalytic chemical reactions to life (see Origin of life) is not a part of biological evolution.
Edit: For further clarification, I was referring to biological evolution in my previous post, assuming that it is the topic of this thread.

No, they're really not.

Big Bang = Physics.

Evolution = Biology.

Unless they were taught to you so early that they were in an all purpose science class in which case they cant have been taught with much detail at all.I think that where people get the problems are in dinstinbguishing capital-'E' Evolution ("The Theory Of ..." or "Darwinian ...") and the general concept of small-'e' evolution ("the concept of ...").

Small-'e' evolution, the general principle, can be applied to a whole range of subjects. Obviously to The Theory Of Evolution, but also to the theories surrounding how the availability of particles in the original quark-gluon plasma (should this be the how the Universe existed during the first 40th of a second, or so) allowed the production of the right mix of hadronic matter as the later universe is observerd to have had and the theory of how proto-stellar clouds can 'evolve' planateary disks, planetesimals and full-blown planetary systems.

Small-'e' evolution also describes fairly adequately the develpment of modern racing cars, insofar as designs that make for faster designs, and are not killed off by the relevant controlling authority's safety/pro-competition regulations.

Capital-'E' Evolution is, of course the subset of evolution related to the biological speciesm. But it's very easy to be a bit 'loose' with your meaning if you don't specify "Darwinian Evolution" or "evolution of life from prior life", especially now that people are taking anti-Evolution advocates to task by using such as evolutionary programming to show how small-'e' evolution isn't incorrect (regardless of whether the anti-Evolution person knows or cares whether they're rallying against the general principle or the pure Darwinian aspect... We 'Evolutionists' do tend to assume they don't care, of course, though this does seem to fit closer to reality than assuming that they all do given the usual misunderstanding of the boundaries.)

And the marvelous thing about this is that any hypothetical God could have started the Universe up at any point from the moment of the Big Bang to a nanosecond ago (or less!) and all subsequent universal occurances could have (as seen in all observations of data not pre-established by the Deity in question at the moment of Creation) 'evolved' in their particular manner and sub-set of science, and everyone could be happy. Well, apart from those who want to enforce beliefs in others.

And Darwinian Evolution isn't a Belief, [though it may indeed be Believed by some], it's a Theory which is roughly equivelent to "the truest fact we know of, but you never know, we'll let you know if something better comes along but it hasn't happened yet". The same cannot be said about ID, not being upheld by the level of critical analysis. That's a Belief [and definitely Believed, at least by those not using it as a wedge to what they truly Believe] and small-'t' theory that doesn't stand up to an serious scrutiny without huge allowances or shoe-horning.

*snip*

Thanks for the clarification. ;)

Even though I strongly believe in Evolution and hate church, the one thing that I don't get is why so many people are so passionate about Evolution. Quantum Electrodynamics is also a True Science, but no one is insisting on it being in public school.

Personally, I like having evolution in school to show students that their parents lied to them about God, and then it makes it easier to encourage students to use safer sex. Without this option, so many religious students would have unsafe sex and the spread of AIDS would increase. Already Ronald Reagan and the fundies have caused so many deaths from AIDS. :(

You are really not that subtle or as smart as you think you are. Either post your real opinions or shut up......................

You are aboslute right Dinaverg. If students aren't taught Evolution, first of all, how can they compete in the modern world, secondly they might buy into morality and then the programs for teaching safe sex, including the teaching of how to use condoms, diaphragms and the proper timing of birth control pills might get pulled, and it would be a "domino effect" for progressive science based education. :(

Sooo...

Creationist, huh?

It seems like people would rather that the theories of the Big Bang and evolution are seperate entities. However, in explaining a completely naturalistic origin and development of life and the universe, both theories must fall in line with being completely naturalistic. You could seperate them which makes things less complicated, but if you want a strong naturalistic "no creator" explanation, you need both. This is why both are often in question in the debate of Evolution vs. ID/Creationism.

I personally believe the reason Evolution is so passionatly debated is because failure of it to stand up to scrutiny and perhaps eventually be disproven would lead to implications that some people wouldn't want for various reasons.

There is also a very good book out there that I would recommend about this topic that very thorougly defends ID and gives a better understand of it. It is called "The Case For a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

As a practicing Christian who actually believes the argument that evolution is just a theory/faith based religion and believes in creationism,I have to say...intelligient design is a farce. I think it's ridiculous when Christians try to stoop to the level of legalism to trick people into believing/pushing your views. Where is your faith, Christian? Isn't your God all-powerful? Instead of trying to manipulate the system, why don't you try...praying? Why don't you try telling others the Word? You might be surprised how effective your efforts are when you stop trying to buck the system. The world is the world. It has enmity with God. What makes you think you can use their systems to do God's work?:rolleyes:

It seems like people would rather that the theories of the Big Bang and evolution are seperate entities. However, in explaining a completely naturalistic origin and development of life and the universe, both theories must fall in line with being completely naturalistic. You could seperate them which makes things less complicated, but if you want a strong naturalistic "no creator" explanation, you need both. This is why both are often in question in the debate of Evolution vs. ID/Creationism.That doesn't mean that they aren't separate entities though. The theory of evolution is very well supported. Abiogenesis and the Big Bang theories much less so.
Of course, if there was actually a big "no creator"-athiest conspiracy, you might have a point.
I personally believe the reason Evolution is so passionatly debated is because failure of it to stand up to scrutiny and perhaps eventually be disproven would lead to implications that some people wouldn't want for various reasons.It has failed to stand up to scrutiny? How so?
There is also a very good book out there that I would recommend about this topic that very thorougly defends ID and gives a better understand of it. It is called "The Case For a Creator" by Lee Strobel.How can it be good if it defends a thoroughly flawed philosophy?

It seems like people would rather that the theories of the Big Bang and evolution are seperate entities. However, in explaining a completely naturalistic origin and development of life and the universe, both theories must fall in line with being completely naturalistic. You could seperate them which makes things less complicated, but if you want a strong naturalistic "no creator" explanation, you need both. This is why both are often in question in the debate of Evolution vs. ID/Creationism.

I personally believe the reason Evolution is so passionatly debated is because failure of it to stand up to scrutiny and perhaps eventually be disproven would lead to implications that some people wouldn't want for various reasons.

There is also a very good book out there that I would recommend about this topic that very thorougly defends ID and gives a better understand of it. It is called "The Case For a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

Hilarious

It seems like people would rather that the theories of the Big Bang and evolution are seperate entities. However, in explaining a completely naturalistic origin and development of life and the universe, both theories must fall in line with being completely naturalistic. You could seperate them which makes things less complicated, but if you want a strong naturalistic "no creator" explanation, you need both. This is why both are often in question in the debate of Evolution vs. ID/Creationism.

I personally believe the reason Evolution is so passionatly debated is because failure of it to stand up to scrutiny and perhaps eventually be disproven would lead to implications that some people wouldn't want for various reasons.

There is also a very good book out there that I would recommend about this topic that very thorougly defends ID and gives a better understand of it. It is called "The Case For a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

Goddamit, another one. Oh, and Strobel is a much discredited hack.

If they were to teach ID along with FSM, I'd be all for it.;)

LOL! I guess that would be a benefit for the kids. A 5 minute lecture is always appreciated. But seriously, ID is a joke. There is no evidence supporting it and it is nothing but a ploy by fundamentalist evangelical christians to get religion in the classroom. Jack Chick, Schnoblow, etc. Read my lips... THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS YOU WILL GO TO HELL FOR BELIEVING EVOLUTION!

My god people, when it was first introduced Pope Pius said he was cool with evolution as long as the theory didn't tread into religious dogma and belief.

"the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

But Evangelicals will just say the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon according to Revelation and continue to push their fault-ridden ideas and filth.

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals--->:upyours:

LOL! I guess that would be a benefit for the kids. A 5 minute lecture is always appreciated. But seriously, ID is a joke. There is no evidence supporting it and it is nothing but a ploy by fundamentalist evangelical christians to get religion in the classroom. Jack Chick, Schnoblow, etc. Read my lips... THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS YOU WILL GO TO HELL FOR BELIEVING EVOLUTION!

My god people, when it was first introduced Pope Pius said he was cool with evolution as long as the theory didn't tread into religious dogma and belief.



But Evangelicals will just say the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon according to Revelation and continue to push their fault-ridden ideas and filth.

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals--->:upyours:
Well, there you have it. Goodnight, folks!

It seems like people would rather that the theories of the Big Bang and evolution are seperate entities.It's got nothing to do with what people want. The theories are seperate in all respects.However, in explaining a completely naturalistic origin and development of life and the universe, both theories must fall in line with being completely naturalistic.Scientific theories cannot involve supernatural causes. They cannot, because there is no way to falsify the supernatural. The phenomenon we call gravity could be caused by hordes of little green elves. The entire universe could be the result of a bad case of indigestion. Both of those ley theories are possible, no matter how silly you might think they are. They do not, however, have anything to do with hard science, because there's no way to disprove them - and that's a problem the lay theories of ID share.You could seperate them which makes things less complicated, but if you want a strong naturalistic "no creator" explanation, you need both. This is why both are often in question in the debate of Evolution vs. ID/Creationism.I'll repeat: falsification must be logically possible, if something is to be considered hard science. Supernatural causes aren't falsifiable, and thus scientific methodology cannot be applied to ideas involving them.

You, regardless of what you feel, aren't arguing about the validity of any scientific theory or theories. You're arguing about the validity of the scientific method.I personally believe the reason Evolution is so passionatly debated is because failure of it to stand up to scrutiny and perhaps eventually be disproven would lead to implications that some people wouldn't want for various reasons.And why would you believe that? Has any proponent of the ToE ever done anything to justify your belief? Or are you simply assuming that because you're in love with ignorance, everyone else are as well?

On the odd chance you'll actually pay attention to what I say, instead of listening to your prejudice about people like me, I'll let you know that I love seeing established scientific theories get debunked. I love it, because every time it happens, they're replaced with more accurate theories & an increased understanding of how things work - unlike IDists, I'm not afraid to learn & I don't consider knowledge, or the persuit of it, dangerous to society.There is also a very good book out there that I would recommend about this topic that very thorougly defends ID and gives a better understand of it. It is called "The Case For a Creator" by Lee Strobel.If I recall, there's two of them. You may wish to read the criticisms of Strobel's propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, slander, quoting massacre & outright lies though.. Because while Strobel might be a decent writer, he's got neither integrity nor facts on his side. The criticisms are published in book form, but I think they're still available free online, and I suspect the Gutenberg project may have digitised them as well (they're serving ebooks for free 'til the 4th next month). Google is your friend. Alternatively, try searching for Strobel & The Similized world on here. I believe I posted links to various Strobel critics last year.

Finally, I think you'd benefit immensely from looking up the scientific method on Wikipedia, taking a crash course in biology & reading something besides the Bible before bedtime.

It's got nothing to do with what people want. The theories are seperate in all respects.

Though some of their conclusions and implications *do* support eachother. Both for instance require an age of the earth that is somewhat higher than 6000 years.

Of course, the idea that multiple independent methods can arrive at the same conclusion is scary for people whose beliefs conflict with it.

ID makes assumptions that cannot be proven. To believe these assumptions are true is just that: a belief. Therefore this belief should not be taught as science, but perhaps a class on religion. End of thread.

ID makes assumptions that cannot be proven. To believe these assumptions are true is just that: a belief. Therefore this belief should not be taught as science, but perhaps a class on religion. End of thread.

That depends on what part of ID you are talking about.

The underlying idea that humanity, or all life on earth, the whole solarsystem or even the entire universe was designed by a superior entity or entities is indeed worthy of debate in classes on religion or philosophy.

The idea that one can show life was designed by the useage of the concepts of design inference and irreducible complexity deserves a place in logic class -as an example of flawed logic that nevertheless convinces many people.

The idea that "sounding good" makes something just as valid as "fitting the facts" deserves a trashcan.

It's got nothing to do with what people want. The theories are seperate in all respects.Scientific theories cannot involve supernatural causes. They cannot, because there is no way to falsify the supernatural. The phenomenon we call gravity could be caused by hordes of little green elves. The entire universe could be the result of a bad case of indigestion. Both of those ley theories are possible, no matter how silly you might think they are. They do not, however, have anything to do with hard science, because there's no way to disprove them - and that's a problem the lay theories of ID share.I'll repeat: falsification must be logically possible, if something is to be considered hard science. Supernatural causes aren't falsifiable, and thus scientific methodology cannot be applied to ideas involving them.

You, regardless of what you feel, aren't arguing about the validity of any scientific theory or theories. You're arguing about the validity of the scientific method.And why would you believe that? Has any proponent of the ToE ever done anything to justify your belief? Or are you simply assuming that because you're in love with ignorance, everyone else are as well?

On the odd chance you'll actually pay attention to what I say, instead of listening to your prejudice about people like me, I'll let you know that I love seeing established scientific theories get debunked. I love it, because every time it happens, they're replaced with more accurate theories & an increased understanding of how things work - unlike IDists, I'm not afraid to learn & I don't consider knowledge, or the persuit of it, dangerous to society.If I recall, there's two of them. You may wish to read the criticisms of Strobel's propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, slander, quoting massacre & outright lies though.. Because while Strobel might be a decent writer, he's got neither integrity nor facts on his side. The criticisms are published in book form, but I think they're still available free online, and I suspect the Gutenberg project may have digitised them as well (they're serving ebooks for free 'til the 4th next month). Google is your friend. Alternatively, try searching for Strobel & The Similized world on here. I believe I posted links to various Strobel critics last year.

Finally, I think you'd benefit immensely from looking up the scientific method on Wikipedia, taking a crash course in biology & reading something besides the Bible before bedtime.


Actually, I did take several years of biology AND an college biology course. The teacher who most certianly wasn't affliated with any religion, admitted a design several times through the course of the ciricullum. Reading between the lines of the book, which definetly was anti-bibilical, I was only further convinced on the problems of evolution.

creationism and evolution are both theories and both have to be thaught to give kids their own choice abouth these things

creationism and evolution are both theories and both have to be thaught to give kids their own choice abouth these things

So do you believe we should teach all the other 37 million "theories" on this issue too ?
If not - what are your selection criteria ? Why teach about evolution and creationism, but not about the FSM or the Egyptian god Atums autofellatio ?

Actually, I did take several years of biology AND an college biology course. The teacher who most certianly wasn't affliated with any religion, admitted a design several times through the course of the ciricullum. Reading between the lines of the book, which definetly was anti-bibilical, I was only further convinced on the problems of evolution.The design you propose is entirely unsupported. Do you know what an argument from incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) is? I think you should follow the link & seriously reevaluate your proposition.

Conveniently, I have no way of contacting your teacher, to verify your claim & check whether you're misquoting him/her or quoting out of context, to help yourself construct a strawman. Nor can I check your book (just one?!), to verify whether or not there really is something for you to read between the lines, or if you're just gathering more straw for your strawman.

That your biology book was anti-biblical, however, I have a very, very hard time believing. If that was really the case, it would no doubt be infamous by now, and freely available online from some Christian extremist site or other. Still, you can always give me the details on it so we can debate your claims.

The "problems" of the ToE you talk about, seems to revolve about your failure to grasp that lack of understanding isn't proof of anything, and that theory based on factual evidence isn't per definition wrong, just because it doesn't provide literal support for what you would prefer to believe.

But again, it would be nice if you could provide a theoretical, logically sound argument for ID. No amount of shouting that the ToE doesn't agree with you, "evolutionist" bashing or strawmen, will make ID a serious alternative. A logically sound, consistent theoretical argument for ID (that means; no pseudo-ToE slamming, just pure ID) won't make it science, but it'd be a start.

creationism and evolution are both theories and both have to be thaught to give kids their own choice abouth these things

Creatiomism has little to no scientific backing while Evolution is not definate it has quite a bit. It curiculum is already over crowded. If you teach something in Science you have to let the kids question that belief to some extent, if you truely want them to have their own choice. I can't speak for everyone but I can safely say the kids I know and my self with question and debate this to no end cutting out the things of relavance. I don't know who said this (although I think it was said on nation states) and I don't remember the exact quote but it was somewhere along the lines of evolution has a purpose to be taught. It helps us predict how bacteria/viruses will evolve (mutate). Creationism/ID does nothing. You can not expend that science beyond. The world was created by the giant sky wizard. The End. It just doesn't contribute to our education.

creationism and evolution are both theories and both have to be thaught to give kids their own choice abouth these things

Creationism is not a theory. It is, perhaps at best, a hypothesis. One which is not supported by any finding of facts. Ignoring its basis in religion, which should automatically get it excluded from any public school (with some exception such as the study of religious mythology, which includes it and others), it is simply not scientific. Creationism no more so belongs in science class than Socrates. It, simply, is NOT SCIENCE.