How retarded is this 'intelligent design' nonsense?

[goofball]

Believe whatever you want. Seriously, I could care less what people believe. My degree of respect for you will vary depending on how internally consistent your beliefs are, but people can believe whatever they want.

Your beliefs arent' science though.

http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=200509271aa
http://www.kcentv.com/news/c-article.php?cid=3&nid=3962

How can any rational person think we should be teaching id in a science class? Is it testable? No. Is it reproducible? Does it even remotely resemble science? No. Teach it in philosophy, teach it in mythology, teach it in religion. Don't teach it in a science class. Science is beatiful. In it's purest form it joins art as the only hope we have as a human race. TO claim that intelligent design theory is science is akin to claiming the fucking greek gods were science too. Evolution is fucking science. Evolution can be tested and disproven (hasn't, but could). It is reproducible, independent scientists looking at the same data could come to the same conclusion. It has been peer (and non-peer) reviewed countless times, and it helps us in our journey to understand the universe around us. Evolution is as much of a theory as gravity or gauss's law.

[Kuky]

Yeah, that stuff does not belong in a biology class. Maybe in some worldviews-type class. Then again, one might argue that, in a way, science is a worldview. But then I'd argue that they don't teach italian worldviews in an indian worldview class. So no matter what, they don't belong in science class.

[Wolf]

Yeah. I mean, christ. What the hell is there to teach, anyways?

"The world is complex. We think something had to design it."

How the hell can they teach that and actually think it has scientific merit?

[Brass Monkey]

My cat's breath smells like cat food...

[Jared]

Yeah, it's pretty unintelligent if you ask me. Such a blatantly underhanded way for a certain agenda to be pushed into schools. This is something I'd discuss in a philosophy class, not a science class, where things are measured empirically with some sort of solid backing.

[goofball]

My cat's breath smells like cat food...


Yeah Yeah obvious I know, but clearly not obvious to everyone.

[Lone Wolf]

How come radical Christians don't give a shit about the second commandment?

How come Christians are so selective about which parts of the Old Testament are to be considered?

Creation in seven days: yeahhh!

Moses says to kill the motherfuckers of others religions: c'mon, guys, go down to the Kwik-e-mart and burn Apu to please God!

Don't eat pork: what? I'm not a Jew!



I don't criticize faith, I try to respect the beautiful variety of creations, 'cause we're all children of God, but you can't tell me the Bible's the ultimate Truth, harass me because I think genesis is a not so original creation myth like many others and then just follow those statements of the Bible you like.

It's just weird if the Bible's completely absolutely 1000% right about Adam and Eve and then I can't kill Apu because he's a cow-worshipper.

Bah...

[AllHailTheThief]

Pretty much the most effective way to argue against this nonsense is to simply point out that it does not even begin to be defined as science.


Keep it in the social studies classes folks, there's no need to bring a creationist viewpoint into the lab.

[Lone_Raider]

What amazes me is how kids go to college, major in sciences such as biology, or pharmacy, and they still dispute evolution and refuse to fill MAP prescriptions for religious reasons? Go major in religion or philosophy if you want to be a bastard and deny people medication for your own personal religious reasons.

[lain13ego]

maybe thats why they get involved in those majors...to fuck with people by denying birthcontrol and such

[Bath of Glitter]

Go major in religion or philosophy if you want to be a bastard and deny people medication for your own personal religious reasons.

Yeah! And with that religious degree, start a church and poison people you Jim Jones wannabes.

[The Sage]

evolution is not 'fucking science' - it cannot be proven just the same as creation cannot be proven by mere mortals.

[Bath of Glitter]

You're not serious, are you?

[Brass Monkey]

Yeah Yeah obvious I know, but clearly not obvious to everyone.
Actually, you asked how retarted the whole thing was, so I felt it necessairy to include a Ralph Wiggum quote to demonstrate exactly how retarded.

You're not serious, are you?
Who?

[Bath of Glitter]

Post sequence.

The Sage.

[ittakessome]

evolution is not 'fucking science' - it cannot be proven just the same as creation cannot be proven by mere mortals.

amen.

[Mr. Mod]

Why shouldn't intelligent design be taught? It has just as much merrit as evolution or creationism does.

[Kuky]

The nice thing about generalizing science as "just another worldview" is that then, just because something cannot be proven, it can still qualify as a "scientific theory", and some (not all) who ascribe to science will believe in it.

Thus, though neither evolution nor ID/creation can be proven, evolution IS science, but creation is NOT (in much the same way that creationism is a theory from a religious worlview, and evolution isn't, so evolution does not fit into religion). It's when someone says "let's teach both in a science class" that things get messed up.

[The Sage]

it's funny that BOTH ideas basically state that everything came from somewhere, somehow, that we cannot understand, reproduce or explain - however, as soon as one side says that it started by some'one' or some'thing' it becomes faith/religion and not science.

i think that's pretty messed up.

[Wolf]

it's funny that BOTH ideas basically state that everything came from somewhere, somehow, that we cannot understand, reproduce or explain - however, as soon as one side says that it started by some'one' or some'thing' it becomes faith/religion and not science.

i think that's pretty messed up.


I think it's messed up that religion is infiltrating everything. I do not want any type of religion in my life, and ID is a thinly veiled excuse.


Evolution is not a mandatory subject in science class, it can be replaced if you do not agree with it. Ergo, ID should not be a mandatory subject.



Comparing Evolution to Intelligent Design

Evolution:

"Many types of animals show similar characteristics which show that they have evolved from the same type. For example, dogs and wolves, whose paths diverted more recently compared to others, like orangutangs and apes. Also, common links can be found in animals that are not similar in appearance. For example, humans and giraffes both have seven bones in the neck, along with most other mammals."

Now, it's not hard fact, and no-one says it is. It's a theory. The best scientific theory we have.

Intelligent Design:
"The world and life is so complex that something must have created it."

That's not a theory, that's religion. That's talking about an ultimate creator who designed the universe. That's God. God is religion, and religion is NOT SCIENCE. You are free to disbelieve in evolution if it does not jibe with your religion.

Many people, though, take much of the bible metaphorically. Instead of creating the world with a snap of his fingers each day for seven days, six thousand years ago, many people believe he is simply the one who started the world, planted the seeds of life. How long is one of God's days, anyways? Maybe today is still the seventh day, and the world ends when he stops resting?

[The Sage]

true, the 7 days of creation are symbolic and could be millions of years in length as agreed on by science as to age of the earth, etc. today is still His seventh day, too - you're right.

[goofball]

Why shouldn't intelligent design be taught? It has just as much merrit as evolution or creationism does.


I made no value judegement about it's merit. I merely said it shouldn't be taught as science.

I think it's pure crap but that's not relevant.

[goofball]

it's funny that BOTH ideas basically state that everything came from somewhere, somehow, that we cannot understand, reproduce or explain - however, as soon as one side says that it started by some'one' or some'thing' it becomes faith/religion and not science.

i think that's pretty messed up.

Evolution says nothing of the sort. Are you even debating honestly here?

Evolution says here's how we turned into the creatures we are from the one celled organisms our ancestors were, and we're pretty confident. Big bang theory says that we aren't sure what happened at the beginning of the universe, but takign into account all the evidence and considering waht we know aobut the physical universe here's what we think happened.

Religion says: here's what we wrote down in a book, we're goign to persecute you if you don't belive us.......oh crap, that's probably wrong, well, we'll chance how we interpret that.....oh crap, another thing that's wrong, well, that's probably not literal. Repeat ad infinitum.

[goofball]

evolution is not 'fucking science' - it cannot be proven just the same as creation cannot be proven by mere mortals.

Evolution can't be proven conclusively? I agree. Congratulations, nothing can.

What makes evolution science though, is that it helps us further understand the physical world around us, and it can be disproven. We can test the theory of evolution. I'm not even going to start with rational thought processes and data. Theory of evolution is as much science as theory of gravity, or quantum mechanics.

ID or the "theory" of creation do neither of those things. They don't help us to understand our physical world, and they aren't testable/disprovable. Again, not even starting with rational thought or data.

[goofball]

true, the 7 days of creation are symbolic and could be millions of years in length as agreed on by science as to age of the earth, etc. today is still His seventh day, too - you're right.

Religous folk didn't used to think that. IN fact in the right time in history you could probably be burned as a heretic for making that claim.

[Lone Wolf]

evolution is not 'fucking science' - it cannot be proven just the same as creation cannot be proven by mere mortals.


Evolution per se is quite obviously a fact.

Hell, I do/did directed evolution.


It's also quite obviously logical:
- you have genetic variation
- statistically those individuals with more genetic luck get laid more
- slooooooooowly some attributes of a species are lost while no longer useful (or even dangerous because the environment has changed) and some new ones are "aquired"

This is the Darwinian theory.

The other famous guy, Lamarck thought that living being evolved by "inheriting" useful attributes/habitudes from their parent(s). There's the famous example of a the giraffe-ancestor extending her neck more and more and whoopla, the kid's got a 10 ft neck. :agree:


Evolution per se doesn't deny creationism, while creationists usually deny evolution.

The problem's all the palaenthological evidence of creatures living millions and millions of years before us and the theory from that evidence that we descend from them.

Now, there's the possibility that *insert name of divinity and/or antagonist(s) of said divinity here* wanted to confuse us, have fun, whatever.

Adam and Eve where the first two people of Earth, which at least would explain the high rate of idiots on the world (incest, incest, incest).



I prefer to think that *random divinity* wishes things to go into a certain direction and whoopla, evolution goes that way and from fishes to stupid to swim arises Mr DaVinci, the Pope, human culture, whatever.




Bah... but as long as we can argue we're happy, so who cares really...

[Lone Wolf]

Religous folk didn't used to think that. IN fact in the right time in history you could probably be burned as a heretic for making that claim.



...or in the "right" country.

Or maybe God sends Katrina/Rita/whatever to punish you and all the other sinners.

[Kuky]

it's funny that BOTH ideas basically state that everything came from somewhere, somehow, that we cannot understand, reproduce or explain - however, as soon as one side says that it started by some'one' or some'thing' it becomes faith/religion and not science.

i think that's pretty messed up.

Who ever said believing that evolution is the true answer is not a form of faith? Oh, how mistaken you are, if you think science does not involve faith. Remember, whatever is out there, is out there, but "faith" is a human construct. In science, people believe in what they feel are the most intuitive conclusions that can be drawn from current scientific knowledge. And they believe many of these things without proving them. It's an educated guess. It's FAITH! For how long have people assumed that the world was flat, for instance? That was considered scientific knowledge at the time. It was considered obvious. You have no idea how many scientists will hold on to their beliefs and have violent arguments with scientists who believe something happened some other way. Even when they've been disproven, they will go into withdrawal for a while, until they accept that their paradigm has been debunked. The religious worldview, much in the same way, follows to conclusion what is most intuitive, and some people are wired in such a way that they can't bear the idea of there not being anything out there. That's perfectly fine, and BOTH worldviews ought to be taught, but for heaven's sake, they should be taught in a "this is how xxx see it" kind of way, not in a "yyy might say this, but they're idiots, the xxx way is the only truth" way. Both worldviews cancoexist in perfect harmony like that, and both deserve respect. Except, of course, those just do something some way because it was drilled into them. You HAVE to go through the thought process yourself and choose... otherwise, you really ARE just an automaton. That goes for the science people too. Just because you were raised to believe there is no higher consciousness, you really should figure out what YOU believe (or don't believe).

Now, as for why the notion that 'someone' created everything is concerned, the answer is very simple. Science and religion are the same, in the sense that they are ways to model existence. Science just doesn't have the tools to model existence as something conscious, because it doesn't have the tools to model consciousness as a separate entity (i.e. the soul). If, one day, science shows that one can separate some form of consciousness from the body, and transfer it to another body WITHOUT use of any DNA, it will be considered proven that the body really IS a vessel for something bigger, and not just some system that works the way it does. If that ever happens, very interesting things will transpire, and the entire scientific paradigm will be shifted.

I choose science as a worldview because, although it's faith either way, science is focused on things humans can prove and disprove, and ventures into things that we can, theoretically prove. It explores the unknown, and considers what is CURRENTLY unknowable, but doesn't make beliefs based on things that are absolutely unknowable.

On a slightly unrelated note, this is why I can't be anything but agnostic. Man's greatest fear is the unknown, and even moreso, the unknowable. To me, being agnostic is not just acknowledging what is unknowable during our human existance, but coming to terms with it, and being happy with what we are given (by whatever gave it to us).

[Bath of Glitter]

Why shouldn't intelligent design be taught? It has just as much merrit as evolution or creationism does.

Heh. Number one, Creationism has no relevance outside of religious texts and churches. Secondly, there is no merit to intelligent design whatsoever. Not only is it lacking in proof, it is lacking in evidence. Those 'scientists' who support it are merely biased and will look at everything from eyeballs to feathers on a bird and come to the conclusion that, "Well, this stuff is so complex, and since we can't explain it, there must be a designer." That's the crux of their arguments.


Evolution can't be proven conclusively? I agree. Congratulations, nothing can.

Well you're wrong on two counts. One being what Lone_Wolf (oops...I said Lone Raider initially, sorry) already said and that is that evolution is a fact because there are multiple facets, not just one. Most people see it as a decent from common ancestor to man.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Nothing can be proven? What the hell. So what's the point of science?
Could the whole of medicine fall on its face because we just may be clueless in regards to the onset of disease, what cures it, and so on?
You mean Penicillin can't be proven to work?
You mean the solar system might not even be here afterall? Oh god, the earth might be a square.

What makes evolution science though, is that it helps us further understand the physical world around us

Yeah and Timothy Leary felt the same way about LSD. Drug usage must be a branch of science as well.

and it can be disproven.

Speaking of drugs...

[ittakessome]

You’re all probably too thick to understand but…

Do you see how strong your convictions are about the reality of evolution? To you it is a truth. Not a theory. (Even though it is.)

NOW…do you think that maybe… just maybe…. there are other people in the world that saw the same evidence and came up with another theory. And for them, their certainty in Creationism or Intelligent Design mirrors your certainty for evolution.

And neither of you are any less right b/c BOTH ARE THEORIES. I'm sorry that you believe whole-heartedly that evolution isn’t a theory. Just like religious people, of almost every faith, believe that something or someone created the world. but yet you are too thick to see you’re both exactly the same.

[Bath of Glitter]

Once you study science, even minimally, and understand what the definition of 'theory' entails, your posts may be worth reading as opposed to making eyes roll.

[Lone_Raider]

Do you see how strong your convictions are about the reality of evolution? To you it is a truth. Not a theory. (Even though it is.)

NOW…do you think that maybe… just maybe…. there are other people in the world that saw the same evidence and came up with another theory. And for them, their certainty in Creationism or Intelligent Design mirrors your certainty for evolution.

To have a hypothesis, one must first have a testable or measurable trait/event. So if you are trying to measure how lucky people who wear orange shirts while taking tests are, it can't be done as "luck" is not a measurable trait! Knowing this, how does one test creationism? Is their some kind of magic dust or invisible spirits I didn't know about that can be summoned to test or provide me with the answers? I'll save you a lot of rambling answers and say, no there isn't.

Evolution however, is testable (that's why its science), and micro-evolution has been witnessed. Now I often hear creationists say that only micro evolution has been witnessed but that doesn't prove we evolved from Ape's! Well indeed it doesn't, but how do you think evolution happens? All at once in a 10 year period? It takes millions of years to occur, and it happens at micro levels along the way as we have witnessed. Not to mention the skeletal structures we have from various species that show them evolving over the years into different creatures.

Of course, I guess the fossils were put their by Satan to trick you all into sin!!! :roll:

[ittakessome]

Once you study science, even minimally, and understand what the definition of 'theory' entails, your posts may be worth reading as opposed to making eyes roll.

Bath of Glitter... wow. You never, ever, respond to a post that questions you head on. You always seem to wiggle out of it. It is a THEORY THAT OUR SOCIETY HAS ACCEPTED AS FACT. Nonetheless a theory. But everything just seems to fly over your head.


from Cambridge Dictionaries Online:
theory [Show phonetics]
noun [C or U]
a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation:
economic theory
scientific theory
Darwin's theory of evolution
He has a theory that the hole was caused by a meteorite.

haha. now argue amongst yourselves while you think someone is listening. however many times you say it, it doesnt disprove the fact that it is a theory.

[goofball]

Bath of Glitter - There's a small chance the world does not exist as your experience it. That you live in a matrixish world and that nothing you know about your universe is correct. I exist, is the only thing anyone can prove to themselves (and they can't prove it to anyone else).


Ittakessome - One difference between evolution and creationism/ID: Evolution was a conclusion come to after a critical analysis of evidence, and logic. Evolution has been scrutinized by countless scienfitif minds, actual physical evidence for evolution exists. Creationsism/ID is what someone wrote down in a book and intimidated people into believing. Which sounds more reasonable to you?



I am a scientist. I graduated from college with a physics degree, let me go over this very carefully one more time. If you want to know if something is science you must ask yourself the following questions.

-Can it be tested, and conclusively disproven if the tests say?
-Does it move us along in our journey to understand the physical world?

The answer to both questions must be yes.

Can anyone rationally claim that for ID/creationism the answer to both of the questions is yes?


(p.s. has anyone but me noticed that the acronym for intelligent design (id) is also psychology's term for part of the unconoscious mind that exists to serve instinctual impulses and satisfy our most primitive needs)

[Wolf]

You’re all probably too thick to understand but…

Do you see how strong your convictions are about the reality of evolution? To you it is a truth. Not a theory. (Even though it is.)

NOW…do you think that maybe… just maybe…. there are other people in the world that saw the same evidence and came up with another theory. And for them, their certainty in Creationism or Intelligent Design mirrors your certainty for evolution.

And neither of you are any less right b/c BOTH ARE THEORIES. I'm sorry that you believe whole-heartedly that evolution isn’t a theory. Just like religious people, of almost every faith, believe that something or someone created the world. but yet you are too thick to see you’re both exactly the same.

I don't believe in evolution as a hard and fast truth.

I think it is a very likely theory.

Creation belongs in the churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, or wherever one might worship. Not the classroom. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING scientific about "Intelligent Design". Tell me the ONE goddamn scientific merit to ID. Just give me one. ID isn't a theory, it is religion. It's an asinine attempt to put religion into the classrooms. You're just pissy because everyone sees through that BS.


Evolution is a scientific theory. ID is not.

Theory belongs in science class, religion does not.

[Bath of Glitter]

Bath of Glitter - There's a small chance the world does not exist as your experience it. That you live in a matrixish world and that nothing you know about your universe is correct. I exist, is the only thing anyone can prove to themselves (and they can't prove it to anyone else).

Theoretical physics has no place in a discussion such as this. That's really great that you have a physics degree. Too bad it is completely irrelevent.

Ever hear of argument from authority? That's exactly what you are doing.

[goofball]

When did I mention theoretical physics?

Also, if someone said "I'm a doctor, this is what I think about this medical issue and this why" would you tell them they were appealing to argument from authroity?

Well, I did the same thing. I didn't say believe me because I'm a scientist, I said this is what I think and this is why.

[AllHailTheThief]

You’re all probably too thick to understand but…

Do you see how strong your convictions are about the reality of evolution? To you it is a truth. Not a theory. (Even though it is.)

NOW…do you think that maybe… just maybe…. there are other people in the world that saw the same evidence and came up with another theory. And for them, their certainty in Creationism or Intelligent Design mirrors your certainty for evolution.

And neither of you are any less right b/c BOTH ARE THEORIES. I'm sorry that you believe whole-heartedly that evolution isn’t a theory. Just like religious people, of almost every faith, believe that something or someone created the world. but yet you are too thick to see you’re both exactly the same.


Whoever came right out and said that evolution is undeniably a fact may be a little off base, but there is certainly piles and piles of evidence for it, unless you're one of those flat-earthers that believe all that evidence was placed here be your creator.

Intelligent design, despite my thoughts on it (i think it's absolutely daft), has absolutely no place WHATSOEVER in a science class, and there is no way shape or form you can refute that. I don't care what your faith or anybody else's faith is, there is no evidence of any such thing. If you want to push to have a scientific theory taught in the classroom, knock your socks off, but this has gotten to the point of being ridiculous.

ID IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!

[goofball]

oh, also appeal to authority typically refers to someone else's authroity. For example if i said "Stephen Hawking says this is a bunch of bunk so it is" that would be an appeal to authority.

[ittakessome]

i dont know what ID is. so i'm not arguing for it or for it to be taught in the classroom. i was just saying that evolution is a theory.

::just clarifying::

[Brass Monkey]

Let me clarify:

Evolution is a theory.
Gravity is a theory.
Absolute Zero is a theory.

Intelligent Design is mythology
Creationism is mythology.
Heaven and Hell is mythology.


Theories can be tested in our physical world. Theories are tangable.

Mythology is made up by people to lazy to do any actual reasearch, thinking, or effort.

[goofball]

Well put.

[Bath of Glitter]

When did I mention theoretical physics?

What do you think this implies --

There's a small chance the world does not exist as your experience it. That you live in a matrixish world and that nothing you know about your universe is correct.

Also, if someone said "I'm a doctor, this is what I think about this medical issue and this why" would you tell them they were appealing to argument from authroity?

Yes. Because the 'doctor' was not asked to show their expertise, and in turn is asserting that his/her opinion should be upheld since they're an expert.

Well, I did the same thing. I didn't say believe me because I'm a scientist, I said this is what I think and this is why.

You did something even worse, actually. Physics and evolution have nothing to do with eachother. At least this doctor of which you speak sticks to his field -- medical issues. You're throwing around your credentials, which you cannot even prove exist, insert them into a discussion as though you are an authority, and on top of that, it does not pertain to the subject matter.


oh, also appeal to authority typically refers to someone else's authroity. For example if i said "Stephen Hawking says this is a bunch of bunk so it is" that would be an appeal to authority.
.
The fallacy is argument from authority. But technically that is only semi-right in this case. What should've been used in regards to yourself was argument from anonymous authority.

This is a deviation, although it probably doesn't matter seeing as this thread isn't going anywhere.

[goofball]

The matrixish world I mentioned is pure philosphy. It has nothing to do with theoretical physics. Read Descartes.

You're wrong, physics and evolution do have something to do with each other: they are both science. I'm certainly not a biologist and would never claim an expertise in evolution theory. I do however claim that as someone witha science degree Ihave a very good understanding of what science is, and a sufficient understanding of both the theory of evolution and the mythology of intelligent design to know that one is science and the other is not.


Several of you need to stop reacting to semantics, stop ratholing the issue, and stop throwing up defensive walls and issuing standard talking points. Instead you might listen to what I'm saying.


Independent of a value judgement on evolutionary theory, or creation/ID mythology, I'm merely pointing out that the latter isn't science. Don't take it as an insult, but science is very carefully defined, as is what we teach to children as such. The former fits perfectly in the definintion of what is science, and the latter does not. It's that simple.


As I said before I have no problem teaching intelligent design in schools. Teach it in a religion/philosophy elective along side islam, bhuddism (sp?), wiccan, greek gods, judaism etc.


(oh, I do have a physics degree, I don't particualrly care if you belive me but plenty of members including one staunchly on your side would probably feel fairly comfortable vouching)

[Bath of Glitter]

The matrixish world I mentioned is pure philosphy. It has nothing to do with theoretical physics. Read Descartes.

Fine. Philosophy doesn't apply here either. You don't want dogma involved in science, why are philosophical ideas acceptable?

You're wrong, physics and evolution do have something to do with each other: they are both science.

Ok. Let's talk about engineering next and how it's involved with evolution.

I do however claim that as someone witha science degree Ihave a very good understanding of what science is

Looks like your evasive degree didn't teach you a damn thing:

What makes evolution science though, is that it helps us further understand the physical world around us


(oh, I do have a physics degree, I don't particualrly care if you belive me but plenty of members including one staunchly on your side would probably feel fairly comfortable vouching)

Someone is on my side here? Flattering.

[ChloëAuChocolatChat]

Nobody can ever truly prove anything. All we can do is believe, and in my opinion, fighting about and pushing beliefs isn't really all that productive. It happened how it happened. Despite not knowing for sure how eveything came to be, I think people should just believe whatever they feel best believing in and focus on making the best of what's going on in the world now.

[Kuky]

Fine. Philosophy doesn't apply here either. You don't want dogma involved in science, why are philosophical ideas acceptable?

Philosophy doesn't apply in a "why we're here" discussion? :). And he wasn't argunig that philosophy should be taught in science class, he was using a philosophical argument (one of my favourites - the brain in the jar theory) to demonstrate a key difference between science and religion, as perceived by scientists.

[goofball]

Heh, it doesn't appear you've actually said anything in that last post.

[AllHailTheThief]

Nobody can ever truly prove anything. All we can do is believe, and in my opinion, fighting about and pushing beliefs isn't really all that productive. It happened how it happened. Despite not knowing for sure how eveything came to be, I think people should just believe whatever they feel best believing in and focus on making the best of what's going on in the world now.


That's not what the discussion is really about. The discussion is about whether or not intelligent design should be taught in a classroom as an alternative to evolution as a theory for our existence.

I'm pretty sure almost 90% of us here can agree there's no need to fill our children's heads with such nonsense. Teach them what we actually KNOW about tangible aspects of our lives, and let them draw their own conclusions regarding faith.

[Crash Override]

-Can it be tested, and conclusively disproven if the tests say?
-Does it move us along in our journey to understand the physical world?

The answer to both questions must be yes.
Ah, the old Popper-style falsification argument. I'm going to play devil's advocate here and mention that in the end, if your argument is that what makes one theory scientific and one not is that a scientific theory can be proven false, then no theory is scientific.
Let me begin by quoting one of your earlier statements:
Theory of evolution is as much science as theory of gravity, or quantum mechanics.
That's good. Let's take something more or less undesputed, like Newtonian gravity. Now, you're saying that a scientific theory can be proven false. So what you mean is, we have a stated theory, and if by testing it, the test comes out negative, then we have no choice but to reject that theory, correct? And that's what makes it scientific, correct?

Well, let's say you tried testing one of those theories, and your test came up negative. You wouldn't reject the theory despite the observational consequences; more likely, you would justify it by saying "Well, I probably did the experiment wrong" or something, and therefore you'd have to add qualifiers like "this theory only applies if the experiment is done correctly, etc. etc."
A concrete example would be way back when they discovered that Uranus didn't operate under Newtonian gravity laws. According to the widely held falsification belief, Newtonian gravity was tested, and failed. Yet they retained the theory, saying that perhaps some unseen force that they simply hadn't discovered yet was acting on Uranus (and, in truth, later on they discovered that it was Neptune's fault, and that the theory did hold true). However, you could potentially add a qualifier like this to any supposedly "scientific" theory, making them all completely immune from falsification and therefore no longer scientific under your definition!

So you either need to redefine what you mean by "scientific," or agree that both Newton's Laws and Intelligent Design are not disprovable and therefore are not scientific.

Personally, I agree with you that Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in a science class, but I still thought it was an interesting point to bring up. :)

[Brass Monkey]

As for an explanation for why I included gravity in my list of theories, I recommend you read over this link:
Gravity is Only a Theory by Ellory Schempp ('http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm')


I also find it kind of ironic that I'm bringing up Ellory Schempp in this debate, as he was the plaintiff in the court case that declaired Bible readings in school unconstitutional.

[goofball]

Your point is interesting but ultimately entirely ineffective. First, Newtownian gravity has been disproven, his theories while impressive and good at the time don't agree with experiemnts nowdays.

That's kind of a side thing though. The point you mention strikes at the heart of the difference between men in religion or politics and men of science. If a scientist believes one thing, and an experiment disproves his belief, or if someone presents a compelling argument for the other side, he changes his mind. It actually happens and you never hear the old theory from him again. Now there's human frailty involved so it doesn't happen as quickly as it sometimes should but it does happen. Science is filled with old theories proven false by experiemnt or even clearler logic, and then being discarded. Of course you can prove a theory wrong. Your point mostly speaks to how quickly people are to accept that.

[Wolf]

i dont know what ID is. so i'm not arguing for it or for it to be taught in the classroom. i was just saying that evolution is a theory.

::just clarifying::

Well don't get into a debate if you're only telling us what we've already said.

[Wolf]

Ah, the old Popper-style falsification argument. I'm going to play devil's advocate here and mention that in the end, if your argument is that what makes one theory scientific and one not is that a scientific theory can be proven false, then no theory is scientific.
Let me begin by quoting one of your earlier statements:

That's good. Let's take something more or less undesputed, like Newtonian gravity. Now, you're saying that a scientific theory can be proven false. So what you mean is, we have a stated theory, and if by testing it, the test comes out negative, then we have no choice but to reject that theory, correct? And that's what makes it scientific, correct?

Well, let's say you tried testing one of those theories, and your test came up negative. You wouldn't reject the theory despite the observational consequences; more likely, you would justify it by saying "Well, I probably did the experiment wrong" or something, and therefore you'd have to add qualifiers like "this theory only applies if the experiment is done correctly, etc. etc."
A concrete example would be way back when they discovered that Uranus didn't operate under Newtonian gravity laws. According to the widely held falsification belief, Newtonian gravity was tested, and failed. Yet they retained the theory, saying that perhaps some unseen force that they simply hadn't discovered yet was acting on Uranus (and, in truth, later on they discovered that it was Neptune's fault, and that the theory did hold true). However, you could potentially add a qualifier like this to any supposedly "scientific" theory, making them all completely immune from falsification and therefore no longer scientific under your definition!

I'm sure they didn't just toss out their findings as heresy, either. They tested and retested and found what the anomaly was.

If you go against the mainstream church, you're a godless heathen. If you go against mainstream science, you are still a scientist. I think that's an important difference too.






(Not part of reply)
Creationists throughout history have always been in power, and now that they're not the be all, end all power, boy are they pissed. Religion has had a very easily defined negative impact on society. The theory of Evolution has not had a negative impact on society. No-one was hanged for saying Evolution was false. No wars have been waged over Evolution. Comparatively speaking, Evolution works better as an accepted truth (Yes, we know it's a fucking theory. Shut up.) than religion has worked as a faith. I mean sure, we've only had the theory of evolution for about a hundred and fifty years, but still it has a better track record.

I will not hear a Christian speak of science to prove their case when the Church has hanged scientist for over a thousand years.

[Lone Wolf]

I'd like to clarify my previous post:

diversification of the species by evolution is a possibility
"diversification" of the species by creation of those various species by *insert name of your preferred divinity or rockstar* is another possibility


I went through wikipedia :agree: and "theory" has various meanings not to be discussed here, because in most of the previous posts the meaning was "hypothesis more or less based on scientific facts" and that is ok.


now about evolution by natural selection (which is the evolution which has so far appeared in the discussion)


evolution by natural selection is a "theory" proven by various facts most people with an IQ over room temperature can grasp

evolution basically means things change in a species over the generations

take a look at your mom/dad, take a look at a picture of yourself: if you find no differences, report to the government, because you're a human clone

now changes are due to quite some factors, the most simple and important one being the mix of DNA when mommy and daddy do funny things in the bedroom (I vaguely remember decent sex-ed being opposed by people similar to the "ID-good Darwin-bad"-ones)

evolution is about which features are passed on through the generations

usually bad features, like inactive enzymes, abnormal development and whatever are less likely to be passed on than good features because the poor guys with bad features are either born dead or die before reaching sexual maturity (yeah, once again, it's all about sex!!!)

good features on the other hand may raise the chance of an organism to be healthy and have loads of sex and make loads of kids

the statistical result is that many organism of the next generation will have inherited the good features and few will have inherited the bad features

good and bad is relative, depending on a fuckload of things (think sickle cell anemia and malaria)

this is evolution through natural selection


now evolution has been proven to work like I've described for many organisms with short reproductive cycles, the best example being bacteria, but it's not completely unlikely that evolution works for most things with some genetic material and the ability to reproduce (or be reproduced, for, alas, it works also on viruses)

there's quite a big probability that things have worked that way for quite some time; actually for so much time that, like Darwin said, the actual biological diversity is due to evolution

there's also the possibility that *insertnameofdivinityoradmin* created the universe, adam and eve and everything else, hid loads of bones in the earth, and let life start from roughly 5000 years ago

there's also the possibility that *insertnameofdivinity*, being all-knowing (which is something quite interesting and dangerous, supporting predestinationism and a good excuse for killing 200 people and collecting their livers) has created things to evolve the way they have

the problem I have with *divinity* creating a "finished" world is that you can argue the world was made 50 years ago


I suggest "The lost continent" by Terry Pratchett for much evolutionary fun.

[Kuky]

I like making the "world was created 5 minutes ago" argument, because it's irrefutable :-).

[huh]

I like making the "world was created 5 minutes ago" argument, because it's irrefutable :-).

It's not very logical though...almost as silly as just saying "God-did-it". That, and we have pictures and videos from our life that show the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago (About 15 billion years off!). I always like to look at it this way: It's good to keep an open mind, but no so open that your mind falls out.

[Wolf]

It's not very logical though...almost as silly as just saying "God-did-it". That, and we have pictures and videos from our life that show the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago (About 15 billion years off!). I always like to look at it this way: It's good to keep an open mind, but no so open that your mind falls out.


The point of the 5 minute existence argument is that you can never KNOW anything, except maybe your own existence, and even that is iffy. There's no way to know if reality is an illusion. But that's rediculously off-topic.

[huh]

Oh, I understand what the point of that argument is...I just find it really silly :D Hence, my last line in that post.

[goofball]

Good to see we basically are at a consensus. Starts to confirm what I suspect about that, there a re few people who are fanatically (and retardedly) devoted to getting this taught and they are trying to impose on the rest of the rational people.

[water nymph]

I can understand your not believing in ID but I don't see it as nesc. to belittle the people who believe in it. Granted, its scientific basis is weak if not nonexistant but I don't think that give you liscence to be mean. OK, so their belief system isn't as scientifically based as yours, they can still delude themselves because it is their right to do so. I don't have a problem arguing about the scientific basis of ID and evolution but it seems that jere it always turns into mudslinging and then I don't want to debate anymore.

All I'm saying is this, talk about the idea all you want, say whatever you want about it because it is an idea and only that. But leave the people out, they have every right to think whatever they want without your insulting them for it.

[Kuky]

It's not very logical though...almost as silly as just saying "God-did-it". That, and we have pictures and videos from our life that show the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago (About 15 billion years off!). I always like to look at it this way: It's good to keep an open mind, but no so open that your mind falls out.

it IS as silly as saying god did it... but the nice thing is that no matter how silly it is, you still can't prove that those videos weren't created 5 minutes ago, along with your memories. In the same way that if I put in a DVD and pick a chapter... the characters still remember the previous chapters :P.

[BabyDiva]

Didn't have time to read the whole thread, on my way out before I'm late (again).

Intelligent design theory is no different than an evolutionary theory. It's not pushing a "Christian agenda" as every other main, and even lesser known, religions have a theory that involves intelligent design. From Cherokee to many wiccan theories to African theories, Norse myths, buddist, islamic, etc etc. They all have a theory as to a creator. Therefore, it does need to be discussed as it is a true theory (keep in mind, a theory in science isn't something that can be proven...that's why it's "theory" and not "law").

Big Bang and Evolution are also both THEORIES. Neither can be scientifically proven. Sure, one guy made slime with amino acid building blocks appear in a flask, but by putting certain types of chemicals together and forcing them together by electricity. Amino acids are NOT life. It doesn't explain how our ball of carbon, nitrogen, etc came to be the 3rd planet (because one closer or one farther and we wouldn't have appropriate temperatures, etc for life). It doesn't explain why we have a protective atmosphere or where life came from. Evolution cannot be proven. Adaptations over time can be...but that's a stretch to consider that some evolutionists consider life to have evolved randomly from those amino acids that somehow crept out of a primordial ooze-type ocean.

If we can present evolution in classes, and force kids to study a theory that runs counter to their beliefs, why can't we also allow the students to see the other side of the fence, that there are some theories that don't involve us descending from a variety of primitive men? I think it's fair to allow both theories to be given air-time. Now, there's far more written about evolution in our day, so of course it will probably always be in the spot light, but in needs to be so in the light of the fact that it is a THEORY which has not, and really cannot be proven.


So you see, we're beating a dead horse. You think ID is insane, I think evolution and big bang are stupid ideas.

Someone above said "you're free to disbelieve if it does not jibe [sic...jive] with your religion...the only problem is it's a theory and, as such, unproven. If you're going to present it as "fact," then I want both theories to be included and given equal credibility by the weight that they ARE both theories. Just because one involves a creator (from whatever religion someone claims) and the other involves accident...doesn't change the fact that they are both theories and neither can really,honestly be recreated.


**I'll read through and add more when I get home. I've gotta go now! Stay tuned! **

(Goofball, there ya go. Your wish is granted! BTW - hope you're doing better!!)

[goofball]

Heather, you wrote:

ID theory is no different than an evolutionary theory

This is a crucial misunderstanding. Whether or not one is more true is irrelevant to the disucssion I wish to start. The difference between evolution and ID is that one is a scientific theory and the other is a religous theory.

our specific planet hosting life isn't explained by evolution

Sure isn't (and thsi is a side issue) but are you familiar with the law of averages? It says essentially that if something is possible, given enough trials, it will happen. Since we clearly can happen, and the universe is very very big, we were likely to happen sometime and somewhere.

some evolutionsists consider life to have evolved randomly from these amino acids on prehistoric earth

This might just be misinformation you have, but evolution is anything but random. The process of strong genes surviving and weak ones not is beatifully simple and elegant and is basically all you need to fully understand to understand evolution. Evolution is not random, the strong genes are likely to survive and do, that's basically it.


why cna't we also allow the students to see the other side of the fence, that athere are some theories that don't involve us descending from primitive men? I think it's fiar th allow both theories to be given air-time.

I agree, it's entirely reasonable to teach both theory of evolution and christianity/creationism in schools. Evolution can be science classes with the scientific method, cells, DNA, and other theoretical concepts. Creationism/ID can be in a religion class with Islam, greek gods, mormonism, wiccan, and other religious theories.


Finally you said I think the big ibang and evolution are stupid ideas... ...it's a theory, unproven

I see you say that but I also see you say that evolution is random which says to me you don't fully understand these ideas. It might be best if you didn't unleash such trenchant criticism at theories on which you don't have all the information.

Also, I'm not even sure you fully understand the term "theory." Gravity is a theory, so is DNA, so is conservation of angular momentum. I need to make this absolutely clear: there is as much doubt in the scientific community about evolution as there is about gravity. Both could be off. It's possible that we don't really see the things we see, the direct visual evidence for evolution has an alternate explanation, but as far as you know it's possible that I don't exist either.


I noticed a theme running through you post. The theme was one of putting creationism/ID and evolution theory on equal footing. This is severly misguided. Evolution is science, creationsism/ID is religion, why the constant need to try to put them on the same footing? Evolution has been scrutinized by scientists, it as been tested for reasonableness and agreement with the data. It has been tested and if the tests proved it false it would have been discarded. Creationism/ID has not been subjected to such a scientific criticism. It's own proponents speak of the importance of faith, not proof. Not to say it hasn't been scrutinized, but typically it's scrutinized and found to be demonstrably false and then adjusted.

A litmus test of 'is it science' is jsut that, can it be disproven. Nothing could ever disprove the existence of an omnipotent god because the beliefs surrounding him could always be adjusted. Evolution could be disproven (such a disproof is pretty unlikely today, but that's irrelevant) if it were conclusively disproven it would be discarded, just like that.

Creationism/ID is religion, and evolution is science. Why are there objections to teaching each in an appropriate class with similar material?

[Wolf]

About Creationism/ID not pushing a Christian agenda? I've got to say, that's a lie whether you know it or not. I've escaped the Christian agenda enough to know what it is. Everything they do is to create more followers. Guaranteed 99% or more of ID's supporters are evangelical Christians.

Evolution is not taught as fact. It is taught as theory. No-one is disputing that. I wish you would read what we've been saying. We freely admit that evolution is a theory, one we think much more likely than not. You won't find people who deny that evolution is a theory. It is, however, a scientific theory. It being the most popular scientific theory, it is taught in science class. Creationism/ID, loathe as I am to call it as such, is a theory, but not a scientific theory. It is a [b]religious[b] theory. Even secular schools have religion classes, and religion should be kept where it belongs, i.e. not in science classes.

ID has zero scientific merit.

[AllHailTheThief]

How can you begin to say that evolution and ID are the same thing? I mean really, that's just dense.

I know you're not dumb, so why make a dumb statement?

[BabyDiva]

Back up - I openly admitted that I didn't read most of the thread. Whether you guys specifically admitted it or not, I was asked to give my two cents - which I did based on the original thread. Just because I came in late, doesn't mean I have to post in repsonse ONLY to what came immediately before mine.

Goofball, perhaps my terminology was messed up. The random thing comes from the Big Bang issue. Survival of the fittest does show the picking of genes. I do know that.

All hail, I never said they were "the same thing" - I said they were equally theories. Neither really can be disproven at this point, neither can really be proven. As much as you want to say that evolution or big bang is up there with GRAVITY - that's your opinion.

Scientific theories are just as much based on faith in what you don't see as ID is. Both require the person to believe in the particular tenants. Depending on your outlook, they are both shakey if you don't hold that particular belief.

However, science courses teach "this is the only way it could have happened" without leaving room for the other argument. While the other side may not contain anything about amino acids, etc., it does still involve the creation of the world. Like I said, there's a lot more written about evolution to be taught from. Logistically speaking, it will always be given more time. However, I think that there needs to be the allowance in the room for the opposing viewpoint to feel that their theory is correct since neither have been proven physically.

Now, you cannot say to divide the two into different classes. Coming from an educational background, I can tell you there will never again be a day in the public schools where religion is a mandatory course. It just simply won't happen in this society. So to force a student to take bio 1 where they are taught to buy into evolution (which is the way 90% of teachers teach it) is wrong when it is counter to what their belief is. It wouldn't be right for a student to be forced to act as if they are ok with being told that this theory is more valuable than theirs because scientists claim it to be so. It would be just as wrong for me to force a student to stand up and say the pledge because a bunch of dead guys wrote it.

I think we need to look at what is fair and equitable, which would be to mention both theories under the same class conditions. If you're forced to listen to one, then you should be forced to listen to the other.


As far as it being 99.9% EVANGELICAL supporters...do you realize what constitutes evangelical? All evangelical means is that they actively support the spread of the gospel of Christ in order to preach salvation. There are quite a few other sects of Christianity that don't consider themselves "evangelicals" (which usually tend to consist of southern baptists, a few non-denoms, and probably some charasmatic...I'm not sure about the rest of the denominations) but still support creationism with a vengence.

Now, is it mainly Christianity? Yes, but only because the others are less vocal since the media focuses on mainly the Christian God and Creationsim. However, if the media suddenly switched, the new opposed religion usually flairs to the forefront.


Keeping things in perspective. They are both viable things to be discussed. In all other subjects we have to take things from all perspectives, why should science be different? The evolutionary or BB theory requrie no more or less faith to believe in them than ID. Why, then, should they be seperated since they address the same topic?

[Brass Monkey]

BabyDiva... let me explain this as simply as possible, otherwise you just won't get it.

Evolution, gravity, the Big Bang, and other scientifically recoginzed ideas are theories because they are tangible, they are physically there and we can experiment as to assern their validity. Evolution can be observed (in it's macro state) with the experiements done by Darwin and others. The Big Bang can be hypothesized by observing other solar systems and galaxies, Dark Matter, gravitational shifts, and everything else that astronomers study.

Now tell me in what form, in what possible way, the Scientific Method can be applied to something that we have no proof exists. There is no tangible way to observe or test if such a claim could ever be proven.

Hence... gravity, the Big Bang, evolution, absolute zero, dark matter, and such are taught in science classes.
And things based on beliefs are taught in a theology class.

[AllHailTheThief]

NO! They're both theories!


Sorry, just thought I'd try it.

I thought we as a society moved past this nonsense. Generally I'm angry when I hear something this craptastic, but this time I'm just sort of...disappointed. I don't hold Americans to a very high standard but honestly I thought this type of thing was over.

[goofball]

Your second post includes a lot of things that simply aren't true. I don't know if you are just beingn diengenuious (sp?) or were told these things by ministers et al.

evolution or big bang is up there with GRAVITY - that's your opinion

It is what is commonly accepted in the scientific community. Any scientists worth his salt will tell you that we are at least as confident of our theory on evolution as we are on gravity (if not more).

science courses teach "this is the only way it could have happened"

Well, science teaches evolution with the same confidence it teaches about gravity, or DNA, or newtons laws.

there will never be a day in the public schools wehre religion is a mandatory course

true. But you imply that bio is required. I'm sure it is some places but i'm not aware of that school. In my schoola nd the school of any friends growing up, they had to take a year of either bio, chem , or physics.

As an aside why do you feel your religous belief shoudl be part of a mandatory class?


it wouldn't be right fro a student to be forced toa ct as if they are ok with being told that this theory is more valubale than theirs because scientists claim it to be so

untrue. First, scientifically it is more valueable. Second, it's not because scientists claim is to be so, its' because through years of scrutinization and effort its' the conclusion scientists (and most reasonable people) reached. If the student has an alternate theory for which they can provide substantial supporting data they will be taken seriously.
You're welcome to do it yourself, but be aware that scientists hold each others theories to the highest of standards.




I just had a hard time seeing that you've said much of anything here. I mean, you just keep saying that id/creastionsim is the same as evolution, it's not. Evolution is a scientifically accepted fact. THis doens't mean it's 100% proven, it does mean it is, given everything we know, 99.99% or better proven. I'm not kidding here, I'm sure you've misinformed about evolution but we are that confident it is right, and that conclusion did not come about lightly. This is not a 60/40 thing we're talking about here.

The only jobs I've ever had were as a teacher as well and it's frustrating to me and you seem to not understand my point I've said it several different ways.

Creationism/id is based on faith, there's no more proof for it than for islam, greek gods, wiccan or any other faith based belief.

Evolution is science. In the scientific community it's as solid a fact as anything else taught in biology, chemistry or physics.

Creationism/ID is essentially a story told to explain our presence here, backed up by no evidence or proof, and can only be believed with faith, nay, requires faith of it's believers.

Evolution requires skepticism as does all science.

Evolution/big bang and creatoinsism/id are not the same thing. Their only similarity is that creationsim purports to explain the same thing but makes claims with nothing to back them up.


This whole discussion is indepdent of the merit you place on creationism/id or on evolution. It is about what is science and what is not, and about things that are not science having no place in a science class.

[The Sage]

Evolution is a scientifically accepted fact.
this is where you just fucked up. it is not a FACT, it is a THEORY. there is no two ways about it, it's a theory and a theory only.

[The Sage]

now, I understand goofball's original theme:

he 'may' not be disputing that ID shouldn't be on the same level as evolution, just that evolution is a scientific theory and ID is religious theory, only evolution should be taught in science classes.

i kinda agree from your POV. however, ID is scientific in that it explains the source of energy that created the mass and matter we have today... etc etc.

by your comments, neither evolution nor ID should be taught in school since they are BOTH theories! you don't want ID crammed down your throat just as much as i don't want evolution crammed down MY throat!

you try to say that since evolution is a 'scientifically ACCEPTED FACT' then it's okay. remember too, that the 'world was flat' theory was a scientifically ACCEPTED FACT..... think about that goofball. scientists are proven wrong daily, often on long entrenched thoughts and theories. they were just as sure that the earth was the centre of the universe as you are about evolution being fact.

[Wolf]

Evolution is a scientifically accepted theory, which many regard as fact but will admit is a theory. If you prove it wrong, people will stop believing it.

ID is not scientific in the slightest. There have been no scientific studies done on the subject. If it were proven wrong, you'd still believe.


Tell me which should be in a science class.

bear in mind, any objectors to evolution can skip those classes without penalty.

Also, I was never taught either in science class, I chose evolution over religion without those satan-preaching teachers. :/

[BabyDiva]

In the majority of the schools I know of (even out of state ones), you have to take a bio and a chem - the others were choices. Aside from that, to do advanced couses (AP/IB) they ARE required in most areas. Therefore - they are required.


I've said just as much as you have. You claim that it's recognized as scientific fact because you can test it and view it. Very sorry hun. You view adaptations of animals in order to survive. Darwin's theories were based on such a slight adaptation that you couldn't begin to validate that humans evolved the same way the finches, etc evolved from one into another. Darwin's finches are STILL finches. Their species didn't change, they merely adapted to fit their needs.

I don't see how you could come anywhere NEAR saying that science claims evolution is a fact. I don't even know of any scientists who have done any more than CLAIM it. You can claim it all day long, just like I can claim the sky is pink. It wouldn't change that the sky is blue, and nothing (thus far) can verify that evolution OR the big bang are anything more than theories. Red shift, doppler effects - none of it actually substantiates either theory.

It shouldn't be taught on the same validity level as DNA or gravity...those ARE tangible. Big Bang and evolution aren't tangible. You can attempt to pull straws, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a theory.


And yes, if one is taught, they both should be. Not to stand up and read Genesis, but the same way that abstaining was taught in sex ed...you talked about the alternative views.

If there were varying theories on gravity...you'd share them. With varying theories of the world's creation, you should at least make a mention of varying views. It doesn't have to be anything huge...but it is not something that should be ignored.

I'd liken it to literary analysis. While I propose the side that is considered "fact" about Julius Caesar or To Kill a Mockingbird, there are other views that present interesting ideas as to the meaning, underlying meaning, themes and symbols in a piece. I address as many as I can in order for the kids to be able to learn the varying aspects and make the call as they see it.

I still maintain that if one HAS to be taught, the other should be taught in order to maintain fairness in the classroom to the two PREDOMINANT theories in this country. Should either group be robbed of understanding the value of each side? A kid who wants to staunchly support evolution would need to have SOME knowledge of what the other person thinks or might say. Otherwise they'll be simply spouting off from what they want with no basis since they aren't well informed.


As far as being erroneous in my thought...1) I'm a literature teacher, not a science teacher. Don't expect me to use all lingo. 2) I haven't even OPENED a bio or science book of any kind (except to see which student left it in my class) since my IB test in 2000. BTW - the IB special area that year was evolution. Unless we didn't go as in depth as the colleges go when you specialize in a certain field...I do understand the concepts even if I can't get them typed back out. I do understand your arguments. I just flat out think you're wrong. It's not a matter of pushing Christianity down someone's throat. It's a matter of showing both sides of the culture we live in for the creation of the world. You cannot mandate that one is given in a required class and the other be dropped into a class isn't. If one group has to listen to their opposition, the other should have to as well.

And wolf...
There have been no scientific studies done on the subject. If it were proven wrong, you'd still believe.

Exactly. There haven't been any conclusive studies on BB or the evoltutionary theories. There have been hypotheses. There have been attempts, but there has been nothing found to prove OR disprove it. I cannot tell you that your theory is wrong off of anything but faith. I wonder what would happen if scientists find out that the Big Bang or Evolution couldn't have happened. What would happen to all of our staunch agnostics? Would they be forced to believe then by proof of their theories being false? Or would they just come out with some new theory of how the earth was created?

[Wolf]

And wolf...


Exactly. There haven't been any conclusive studies on BB or the evoltutionary theories. There have been hypotheses. There have been attempts, but there has been nothing found to prove OR disprove it. I cannot tell you that your theory is wrong off of anything but faith. I wonder what would happen if scientists find out that the Big Bang or Evolution couldn't have happened. What would happen to all of our staunch agnostics? Would they be forced to believe then by proof of their theories being false? Or would they just come out with some new theory of how the earth was created?

It's hard to even begin to describe how wrong your thinking is.

Atheism is not a religion. It is the absence. If evolution is ever proven false, we will not suddenly believe in some silly idea of an omniscient and all-powerful creator. We would use the new data to form or adjust our theory or create a new one, based on the new data. Scientists never just throw out valid information and call it heresy, unlike the church, which has before and still does.

You are using a "what if" to prove your argument, which is as retarded as the idea of teaching ID as science.

You act as though we are blind sycophants to Evolution as you are to Christianity. We're not. It's just the way we explain how we came about. It is not religion, it is nothing like religion. It's just a theory. Some regard it as fact, but I'm sure it doesn't mean that much to them either. We're not defending evolution, we're defending science from religious intrusion. We don't go to Atheist Mass every Sunday morning. We don't find salvation in evolution.

[Brass Monkey]

I think the point that is trying to be made is that, people who are thinking scientifically, have an idea that we came to be from evolution. However you and other religious nutjobs believe that something created you some 3,000 years ago.

An idea does not equal belief.

I just think it's better to have ideas then beliefs, changing an idea is easy but changing a belief is trickier, people will die for a belief.

[BabyDiva]

Salvation and church aren't required to make a religion. Athiesm...by it's definition would mean anti/against theism or belief in a God. Meaning that you hold a belief that there is no god. There is still a belief system there that is a common idea...that there is no god. The holding of a belief is what I'm referring to...when one's belief is shattered, what do you have to turn to? If all the "evidence" is proven false, there wouldn't really be anything to salvage. It would be a back to the drawingboard situation. It wouldn't be a matter of throwing out valid info if that info is proven false.

If it were a law or fact, you wouldn't be able to just pick up and continue on. If a "law" was somehow disproven, part of the foundation and faith in science would be shaken. If a THEORY is disproven, then you look for a new way around it.

My "what if" situation isn't retarded at all. Many in the thread said that if you tried to prove creationism wrong, people would still believe in it anyway because they'd adapt to the situation and make the new info coincide with the old belief. If you actually do prove that evolution or Big Bang was false, then you'd adjust or create a new theory in order to assimilate the new information...still holding to the belief that there is no god. So you see, whether you prove either ID or BB/Evolution true or false, you're still going to come into the same situation - assimilating and adapting to your new situation. If the outcome of being proven "false" is the same, then how can you claim one has more validity than the other? You're dealing with belief. It all boils down to where you want to place your beliefs.


BTW - I didn't say to teach ID as if it were a science. I propose that it is taught as an opposing viewpoint so that students are well informed of ALL sides. Therefore, calling it retarded to teach it AS science doesn't matter, since that wasn't what I said at all. Teaching something DURING science isn't the same as saying you have proof or evidence of something. Just as a science teacher would include many different beginning of the world/universe theories (since there are many, many more than just Big Bang...at least from what I remember from science class) in order to allow all students to see what is out there apart from the mainline Big Bang theory. If off shoot, and albeit sometimes insane, ideas are introduced when they too cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, why can one not also simply introduce to the students that there is another theory where the universe was put into existance by what the followers believe in as a "higher power" and that they might want to look into the issue on their own time?


Again, if one theory - unproven theory - must be taught in order for someone to pass those classes, the other deserves at least a brief mention so the students are not kept to the belief that this is the ONE theory that matters on earth. To allow students to stay in the belief that there is only one way of thinking without giving them a chance to think for themselves would be a disservice. It would be like a psychology class only doing Freud but missing out on Pavlov, Skinner, etc. All were theories of behavior, and some conflicted, but all are worthy of metioning.


BTW - Brass Monkey - Keep the hands above the belts. There is absolutely NO reason to start throwing in names and classifications simply because you don't believe. I don't call people hell-bound morons since this isn't about whether you believe in something or not. This is about should ID be taught in a classroom. Keep to the topic and don't start dragging out insults. It's counterproductive.

BELIEF: The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

^ That last definition seems to be what evolutionists are holding to....they believe that it is true based on their opinions or doctrines.


IDEA: Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity.
An opinion, conviction, or principle: has some strange political ideas.
The gist of a specific situation; significance: The idea is to finish the project under budget.
A notion; a fancy.


^So the only thing between what is considered an idea or a belief is when you actually out your money where your mouth is and claim that something is true. I have tons of IDEAS to make money, but the moment I attempt one it changes to a belief that it could possibly be true because I'm no longer idly letting it roll about in my mind, I'm doing something about it. I'm making my opinion a reality. Instead of being a "notion" or a "fancy" I'm out working with it, testing it.


Those who are looking scientifically at evolution and big bang are no longer just having these mental images or potential concepts of it being true, they are actively attempting to prove its truth and validity. They don't just have an idea that it's true. They believe it's true and want to get off their duff and prove it.

So to claim some sort of superiority because of belief vs. idea wouldn't really be in the best interest of those who are on the side of evolution. Makes them look like idle sloths who would rather sit in a room and smoke a pipe while exchanging ideas. Darwin didn't spend a large part of his life working on experiments because just an idea. He actually believed it was true/correct/fact and worked on proving it through experiments.

[AllHailTheThief]

Atheism is NOT being AGAINST anything. Please don't speak so ignorantly. Atheism is the thinking that there is nothing outside of our own little world/universe, and that ALL of you are crazy, not any specific religion. I just happen to live in the land of evangelicals, so I think Christians are crazier than the rest due to the fact that we don't even have the excuse of being impoverished and completely ignorant. Just goes to show how gullible humans are.

BabyDiva and TheSage have still yet to show in any way that intelligent design (and can we cut the crap and call it creationism? It's the christians that are supporting this, nobody else) is a viable SCIENTIFIC theory or that it belongs in a science class. It is an intangible thing and one that only belongs in a church, and lest we forget, separation of church and state. This is nothing other than a way to pass on your twisted religion, at least give the kids a chance of not being brainwashed. If you all want to push to have it taught in some sort of world/social studies class, knock your socks off, I'd probably even support you.

I hope all the christians here realize, the world is every so slowly turning against you. Now we're going to have to combat muslim fanatics for the next 1,000 years instead of christian fanatics. Religion is CONSTANTLY fuckin shit up.

Keep your fingers crossed for nuclear war!

[Wolf]

Salvation and church aren't required to make a religion. Athiesm...by it's definition would mean anti/against theism or belief in a God. Meaning that you hold a belief that there is no god. There is still a belief system there that is a common idea...that there is no god.

This is stupid. Atheism is the lack of belief.

The holding of a belief is what I'm referring to...when one's belief is shattered, what do you have to turn to? If all the "evidence" is proven false, there wouldn't really be anything to salvage. It would be a back to the drawingboard situation. It wouldn't be a matter of throwing out valid info if that info is proven false. So what the hell did you just say? That if theories are proven wrong, we'd have to create new ones? Holy shit, welcome to science.

If it were a law or fact, you wouldn't be able to just pick up and continue on. If a "law" was somehow disproven, part of the foundation and faith in science would be shaken. If a THEORY is disproven, then you look for a new way around it.A new way around it? Wtf? Around what, the disproving of something? Around it to what goal, to keep believing in our god that doesn't exist?
So let's say the Law of Conservation of Matter was proven false. We most certainly wouldn't just cry about our "foundations" and "faith" being shaken, because such things don't exist in science. We'd find some way to take advantage of the situation, create new theories, and experiment on them. Again, welcome to science.

My "what if" situation isn't retarded at all. Many in the thread said that if you tried to prove creationism wrong, people would still believe in it anyway because they'd adapt to the situation and make the new info coincide with the old belief. If you actually do prove that evolution or Big Bang was false, then you'd adjust or create a new theory in order to assimilate the new information...still holding to the belief that there is no god.
The two groups are too different to make such a comparison.

Religious sycophants wouldn't accomodate the new information in the slightest. You would clamp your hands on your ears and scream until it goes away. What's worse, you're going to do that to what I just said, too, but you know it's true. You religous types, Christians especially, have burned scientists for trying to prove them wrong. If it was proven that there was no god, a great many people would take their own life, unable to deal with that.

Scientists and atheists would acknowledge the information, use it to form new hypotheses. It wouldn't shake a goddamn thing. No-one would commit suicide over evolution being false, it just doesn't matter that much.

Atheism IS NOT FAITH. It's the lack thereof. You cannot compare atheism to Christianity based on matters of faith, because faith is believing in SOMETHING, believing in NOTHING is the exact opposite.


So you see, whether you prove either ID or BB/Evolution true or false, you're still going to come into the same situation - assimilating and adapting to your new situation. If the outcome of being proven "false" is the same, then how can you claim one has more validity than the other? You're dealing with belief. It all boils down to where you want to place your beliefs.No, it doesn't. You're wrong on every level in that statement. The entire idea is fucking preposterous. If I came up to you and showed you proof that there is no God, you would just walk away from that information, feeling smug that your faith is oh-so-strong. If you were to come up to me, with proof of evolution being impossible, I just wouldn't give a damn either way, and just wonder how they'll explain how we're here.

Evolution is not a religion. You just don't understand that. We don't have a belief in it, we don't have faith in it, we regard it as science, not the infallible word of God. It just doesn't matter that much. Evolution is to religion as apple is to orange. Not opposite viewpoints on the same subject, but completely different subjects that don't coincide. You can't compare the two with scientific terms or religous terms. The words faith and belief cannot apply to science, just as the terms theory, law, and hypothesis cannot be applied to religion.


But you aren't going to listen. You're going to clamp your hands over your ears and deny I said anything. I know it, and deep down, so do you.

[BabyDiva]

This is nothing other than a way to pass on your twisted religion, at least give the kids a chance of not being brainwashed. If you all want to push to have it taught in some sort of world/social studies class, knock your socks off, I'd probably even support you.

I hope all the christians here realize, the world is every so slowly turning against you. Now we're going to have to combat muslim fanatics for the next 1,000 years instead of christian fanatics. Religion is CONSTANTLY fuckin shit up.


Oh yeah, because statistics STILL show that there are more people who claim Christianity and it is still growing. There are more Christian missionaries than any other. If anything, the world has moved towards a more "do what you want" mentality, which is hardly turning against Christianity. Nice try.

Atheism is NOT being AGAINST anything. Please don't speak so ignorantly.

A = without (often opposed); absence of
Theist - from the root meaning God/god, deity or divine

THEREFORE without or in opposition to there being a god, deity or a divine person. Don't be stupid. The people who claim athiesm typically are seen as being ANTI-religion. That's a fact of our society. Get over it.

Just goes to show how gullible humans are.

I could say the same thing about you - being fed stuff by the public schools and secular humanists without full understanding or even looking at things from the other side of the fence. HOWEVER - I wouldn't make that statement since I don't know you or your background. Since you don't know about me or my experiences, I'd kindly ask you to not call someone gullible unless you have all the info.


It's the christians that are supporting this, nobody else) is a viable SCIENTIFIC theory or that it belongs in a science class. It is an intangible thing and one that only belongs in a church, and lest we forget, separation of church and state. This is nothing other than a way to pass on your twisted religion, at least give the kids a chance of not being brainwashed. If you all want to push to have it taught in some sort of world/social studies class, knock your socks off, I'd probably even support you.

What are you going to call viable? You're operating off of YOUR agenda of what is or is not viable. I'm assuming you're operating from this definition: Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable. ALL depends ONCE AGAIN on where you're going to stake your belief. If you're looking at it from the source of life stance, then think about the fact that BB doesn't explain how life came from non-life which is counter to all that science teaches (that like comes from like...a skunk doesn't randomly give birth to a cat and rocks don't all of a sudden have slugs spouting forth from it...they don't even give rise to other ROCKS by reproduction).

SCIENCE: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Observation - the world being randomly created by a bouncing universe or explosion/implosion series doesn't sound very reasonable. You'd have a better chance of being hit by lightning twice while cross dressing singing "I will survive" during the autumnal equinox while your mother cries for the lost world of Atlantis and a politician is being honest. How slim of a chance do you want to operate on?

Identification - Placing a name or identifying evidence that points to a specific theory being true...can be through ID.

Description - Genesis, any creation myth from any culture

Experimental Investigation - Science is looking for conclusive proof of evolution/BB...in the process you could stretch it to say they're looking for evidence AGAINST creationism...therefore, ongoing

And the theoretical explanation - we have that in several different forms of religions.


BTW - that definition I operated off of...was 1a for "science".


Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, in any way, so that doesn't apply. They aren't telling kids to believe it, they're simply stating that SOME DO (which is 100% truth). Calling it twisted because that's your right is your opinion. I think you're stupid and would claim to be "open minded" when you really are only open minded to what YOU see as real. At least people like me entertain your ideas.

There is absolutely NO good reason why it should NOT be mentioned. Who does it hurt to mention that there is another side other than evolution? Absolutely no one. To neglect to put it in means you're denying someone the right to get information clearly from all areas. That, my friend, is censorship. I doubt you'd be really big on censorship if your ideals were being taken out. No one likes that. You cannot silence one group and infringe on their rights for a full, well rounded education without taking out the other side.

[Wolf]

A = without (often opposed); absence of
Theist - from the root meaning God/god, deity or divine

THEREFORE without or in opposition to there being a god, deity or a divine person. Don't be stupid. The people who claim athiesm typically are seen as being ANTI-religion. That's a fact of our society. Get over it.

That's what YOU are calling it. We're not against anything. While I would rather see people not waste their lives on religion, I don't actually care. I don't pass out pamphlets at the local mall or put up billboards. You don't ever see "Repenting does nothing" ads in the local paper.

The only people who see athiesm as anti-religion are religious types. We don't give a shit. Get over yourselves. The fact of our society is that you condescending religous types have to keep your meddling fingers in every facet of society. ID is religion, not science. There's no way to rationalize putting religion into science, and you still haven't even responded to that argument (without saying "ZOMG THEY ARE THEORIESSSS!!!11" or something equally inane).



I could say the same thing about you - being fed stuff by the public schools and secular humanists without full understanding or even looking at things from the other side of the fence. HOWEVER - I wouldn't make that statement since I don't know you or your background. Since you don't know about me or my experiences, I'd kindly ask you to not call someone gullible unless you have all the info. Oh that's the most asinine thing I've ever head. "I could say... but.." is the most annoying thing ever. Just out and say it.

And you're right, you don't know my background. I do have all the info. I was a Christian, I went to church, and I believed all that garbage they fed me.

Unlike some, I wasn't fed religion as a small child when I was most gullible. That's the most evil thing I can think of, by the way, teaching young children about your religion, when they believe anything. They can't think rationally yet, that's akin to raping their mind. And since you're going to deny it, think Santa. The biggest lie in a young child's life. They believe it because they believe everything.

I overcame that mind-raping, and looked at life with a rational mind, and came to the conclusion that there are just too many hypocracies in Christianity for me to take it seriously, that it's way too far-fetched to be believable.




What are you going to call viable? You're operating off of YOUR agenda of what is or is not viable. I'm assuming you're operating from this definition: Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable. ALL depends ONCE AGAIN on where you're going to stake your belief. If you're looking at it from the source of life stance, then think about the fact that BB doesn't explain how life came from non-life which is counter to all that science teaches (that like comes from like...a skunk doesn't randomly give birth to a cat and rocks don't all of a sudden have slugs spouting forth from it...they don't even give rise to other ROCKS by reproduction).
By viable, he means "likely," "probable," hell, even "possible" fits.


Observation - the world being randomly created by a bouncing universe or explosion/implosion series doesn't sound very reasonable. You'd have a better chance of being hit by lightning twice while cross dressing singing "I will survive" during the autumnal equinox while your mother cries for the lost world of Atlantis and a politician is being honest. How slim of a chance do you want to operate on?

Observation - The idea of an all-powerful creator, defying all laws of physics, especially the Law of Conservation of Matter (you cannot simply create something from nothing, basically), creating the universe with a whim is preposterous. Furthermore, that doesn't even describe the beginnings of life, where did this "God" figure come from? Who is this "God" person anyways? Why would he create evil, if he is so good? Why would his followers, in the name of Love and God deign to burn people who just want to do their own thing?

Frankly, the Big Bang theory is sketchy at best, and has far fewer followers than the theory of Evolution.
Experimental Investigation - Science is looking for conclusive proof of evolution/BB...in the process you could stretch it to say they're looking for evidence AGAINST creationism...therefore, ongoing No, YOU could stretch it to say that. Hence why your type has BURNED PEOPLE ALIVE for not believing.
Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, in any way, so that doesn't apply. They aren't telling kids to believe it, they're simply stating that SOME DO (which is 100% truth). Calling it twisted because that's your right is your opinion. I think you're stupid and would claim to be "open minded" when you really are only open minded to what YOU see as real. At least people like me entertain your ideas.

I am open minded. I already said I used to be a Christian. I was open to it then, and if it were to somehow get its proverbial head out of its proverbial ass and start making rational sense, I might believe it again.

Church and state, constitution or not, should be separated. If you think they shouldn't be, you are scum, evil. I would shoot you dead if you tried to force me to believe as you, no word of a lie. Harsh? You're damn right. Not because you don't believe as I do, but because no-one should be forced to believe in any religion. Religion has a long and bloody history, and you are living proof of what would happen if it was in power. I'm not attacking your religion, this is self defence.

There is absolutely NO good reason why it should NOT be mentioned. Who does it hurt to mention that there is another side other than evolution? Absolutely no one.
See this is the stupid reasoning you religious types favour. Hurt? No-one would suddenly fucking explode for reading something in their textbook. This is non-sense.

To neglect to put it in means you're denying someone the right to get information clearly from all areas. That, my friend, is censorship. I doubt you'd be really big on censorship if your ideals were being taken out. No one likes that. You cannot silence one group and infringe on their rights for a full, well rounded education without taking out the other side.
Religion doesn't belong in schools. That's all there is to it. You are trying to put religion into something that should not be a religious institution.

No-one is fucking teaching ANYONE to not be religious. You have no idea how bloody infuriating you are. You aren't being persecuted by anyone, yet you certainly act the part. No-one is saying "Okay, students, religion is false," yet you claim they are. No-one is being silenced in favour of another group. Science belongs in science class, religion does not. ID isn't science. Go ahead, take evolution out of the class. I don't give two shites about evolution. Religion, however, must be kept out of public schools (mandatory courses, that is).

You cannot give me a single argument that gives a good reason why church and state shouldn't be separated, without resorting to "because God's going to fucking spank you."

[Kuky]

Actually, I have to agree with heather that atheism IS a belief, in a way. You affirm that you think there is no god. To me, the likelihood that there is a god and that there isn't are equally unknown (which is why I'm agnostic hehe).

[AllHailTheThief]

Oh yeah, because statistics STILL show that there are more people who claim Christianity and it is still growing. There are more Christian missionaries than any other. If anything, the world has moved towards a more "do what you want" mentality, which is hardly turning against Christianity. Nice try.


Please don't quote a statistic without putting up some sort of number. Islam is quickly becoming the largest religion in the world, or would you like to argue with that so I can shoot you down?

The rest of your argument is completely flawed and has no support whatsoever in the world except from you and other christians. I know you understand why creationism is not to be taught in science class, your "faith" simply won't let you admit it.

It is not science. You still have not shown me where it is a scientific theory. Please keep spinning though, your long-winded asinine answers are actually becoming amusing.

[AllHailTheThief]

Simply put there is no possibility of some absurd higher power. It is an absurd notion created by men in order to control other men. It's people like BD that are being so willingly controlled, and absolutely loving it.

A god? I mean really. We are too smart for this kind of bullshit in this day and age.

Keep reading your book of man-made fairy tales though it really makes the rest of us look quite good.

[Wolf]

Actually, I have to agree with heather that atheism IS a belief, in a way. You affirm that you think there is no god. To me, the likelihood that there is a god and that there isn't are equally unknown (which is why I'm agnostic hehe).


But she is calling it a belief system, she makes reference to it as a religion in and of itself. Yes, we believe that there is no god. That doesn't make it a religion.

[Kuky]

No, it makes it a worldview. Part of that involves beliefs. I don't know what a "belief system" is though, sounds like some bloated term like when weather forecasters talk about "shower activity" or "rain events" :lol:.

[AllHailTheThief]

That's the problem with calling yourself an atheist.

I'd rather just call myself "the guy that thinks religion is for dummies" and leave it at that.

The only "belief" i have is what i've already posted. I don't worship it, i don't deal with anything because of it, other than my disdain for evangelicals, muslims, and all the rest.

Hindus and buddhists however are cool by me.

[JHXMT]

Did I miss the point where this thread turned into a "we should never teach intelligent design/evolution in schools" debate?

I thought the original point was that evolution, as a scientific 'world view', to steal Kuky's term, should be taught in science classes, while intelligent design, as a religious world view, should be taught in religious classes.

I don't really see how there's room for debate in that. *shrugs* And nobody's really pointed it out yet.

Edit: Unless, of course, you want to deny that evolution is scientific or that intelligent design is religious in background.

If you do, then I think we're headed towards madness here.

[goofball]

You guys yelled at her and she left and who are we going to discuss with?

I disagree with everything she says too, no need to be personal though. I think religous people as a group are dumb too, but not all of them are. A friend of mine is very devout and is in a Ph.D. program in atmospheric science at MIT, and heather did graduate from college and get a real job, something many here cannot claim.

Anyway, onto the fun.

Atheism
Atheism, agnosticism, christianity, it's all about percentages. No reasonble atheist would say they know there's a 0 probability of the existence of god, just as no reasonable theist would say they know that the probability of the existence of god is 1. A an atheist I put the probability of some kind of creator at maybe .01 or .001, and the probability of it being the christian god about about 100,000,000 to 1. I don't know where christians are, but I would guess maybe they are the opposite. God is a billion to 1 favorite, and the christian god is 100 or 1000 to 1? We're all on the same scale :p

Definition of Science
Heather gave us a definirion that was the following:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.


This seems reasonable, but isn't really the definition scientists use, but we can evaluate the two theories using both our definitions. Mine is, if is science is it satisfies two conditions:

1. It can be testable and if found false conclusively disproven.
2. If true it helps us further our understanding of the universe.

So...

Is evolution science
Remember whether it's science is independent of whether it's fact or theory. Plenty of things that are just in the theory stage are science (bleive me, i still had to learn about them).

Heather's definition:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Evolution is based on observation of the data collected around world regarding prehistoric each. It does describe/explain the process of the creation of the human race on earth. Finally, it was reached after much investigation, and it was/still is thourghly investigated, checked for errors, refined.

Regarding my definition, both fairly easily qualify under condition number two and clearly evolution qualifies under number one. I can think of countless ways that evolution could be proven false, and yes, heather, if evolution was proven false it woudl be abandoned without a second thought.

Remember scientists aren't fundamentally against religion. We are just searching for the true. We seek to understand the world around us. Now, I dislike many religious people because they are anti intellectual or anti science. Of course I'm going to loathe the people that try to stop science, stop humanity from bettering themself, but I have nothing fundamentally against the theory of creationsism. What I do have against it is that I see no scientific evidence in it's favor. I find it very unlikely to be true so I discard it. Later if evidence came in favor of it of course I would reconsider.

Is Creationism/ID science?
Using heather's definition, Creationism/ID is a description and theoretical explanation of the phenomena, but it was not based on observing and identifying data, and it was not created from experimental investigation nor has it been subjected to same.

Using mine, as above this theory clearly meets condition 2, but one can never disprove creationism/ID, one can never test it. In fact, I'm reasonably confident that one of the very principles of the faith is that it shouldn't be tested.

According to both definitions the answer is no, and again that hasn't really even been disputed.

Nate you said that ID explains the creation of matter/energy in the universe, I'm not sure how it does that, maybe you could share. If there is a solid scientific rationale then maybe it belongs in a physics class. Physicsts do have a theory about that though (this is definietly a theory), and that is that the total energy of the universe is zero(remember e=mc^2, matter and energy are the same). There's antimatter there's gravitational potential energy and other negatives to balance out the mass/energy we see around us every day.

Why teach religion in a science class?
Well, we shouldn't. But I posed this question to heather and she did give an answer. She said essentially that there is value in presenting alternate theories. Unfortunetly her argument leads to us teaching many alternate theories. You want ID submitted to students as an alternate theroy for our creation, now you are forced to also include my theory that we all we birthed by big unicorns, kuky's theroy that we originated 5 minutes ago, crazy homeless guy's theory that we're government drones(hyperbole i know), or even more popular theories like that we all originated from cosmic dust, or even more popular than that like the theories of the buhddists or the muslims. All of a sudden this science class soudns like a religous class. Before you get worked up, I'm not necesarily claiming that the above theories are of equal merit to yours, but I'm certainly claiming that they are all of equal scientific merit. They are, this is undisputable. It doens't matter that varying degrees of people believe them not one has a basis in science. Physicsts sometimes joke about electromagnetism being caused by gnomes (i know, we're cool) according to you we should includ that 'alternate' theory as well.
So your point about proposing competing theories is fine and it happens in science classes all the time, but they have to be competing scientific theories. If we allowed every theory on everything from anyone we'd have no time for science.

Evolution, fact or theory
First I still maintain that most creationists don't even begin to fully understand evolution. There was a very informative like posted earlier you may want to check out, if nothing else it would help you debate the subject on a higher level. The question here is a question of semantics. In the scientific community we consider something to be a fact if it's a prohibitive favorite to be true. If, given everything we know and can imagine know it's true. We sometimes discard our 'facts' when they proven false, but we do so easily and without reservation. I would say evolution is over a billion to 1 favorite to be true, and as such I call it a fact. If you wish to claim that only things that can be proven are facts than fine, that's ok with me too. Evolution is a theory along with everything you know about the world excepting the fact that you exist. There's a nonzero (very very close to zero) chance that everything you see and experience is not really happening, and for that reason under the second definition nothing is a fact,and evolution is indeed a theory. I'm indifferent as to how we define it so long as we are consistent.

Conclusion
Evolution is science and ID/creationsism is not. We saw that when examining two defitions of science of very different sources. We can't go about teaching theories about the world in science class that have no basis in science. If we do that we open ourselves up to being forced to teaching every theory every joe blow has about everything, and I'm pretty sure no one wants that. Evolution is a scientific fact, I submitted to you the definition and evolution fits the bill. Whether evolution is a fact outside the scientific community depends, as we saw, on how you define the world. However we define it we could always just say that evolution is an overwhelming favorite to be true and leave it up to the reader whether they want to call it fact or theory.




(I feel like I just wrote a paper for school or something, anyone wanna grade me?:p)

[Bath of Glitter]

Philosophy doesn't apply in a "why we're here" discussion? :).

True, this discussion is/was all over the place. However, my stance is strictly scientific, not this "Why we're here" spiritual hogwash.

And he wasn't argunig that philosophy should be taught in science class

No kidding. But he was refuting my comments in a way by saying, "There's a chance that you are not experiencing the world properly." So my scientifically proven additions are pushed to the side because of his philosophical ideals. And of course my question is ignored. But don't bother answering it, goofball, as though you would anyway. This thread is a cesspool.

[goofball]

I must have missed your question bathofglitter, what was it?

[AllHailTheThief]

Did I miss the point where this thread turned into a "we should never teach intelligent design/evolution in schools" debate?

I thought the original point was that evolution, as a scientific 'world view', to steal Kuky's term, should be taught in science classes, while intelligent design, as a religious world view, should be taught in religious classes.

I don't really see how there's room for debate in that. *shrugs* And nobody's really pointed it out yet.

Edit: Unless, of course, you want to deny that evolution is scientific or that intelligent design is religious in background.

If you do, then I think we're headed towards madness here.

But I did indeed say that.

[BabyDiva]

I disagree with everything she says too, no need to be personal though. I think religous people as a group are dumb too, but heather did graduate from college and get a real job, something many here cannot claim.

Goofball (you know, I never did catch your real name...and we've been talking for what, OH MY GOSH, 6 YEARS?! Dang. Boy, we're getting old!) There's a little thing called maturity that some have and some don't. Whereas I could battle all day long, it's really not worth it to me. I have grades to do and I'm in the middle of EXTREME back spasms that have been getting worse throughout the last 2 weeks. I'm about in tears right now from the pain, again.

BTW - I didn't run away. I don't run away from opposition. Little thing called sleep, church and that job you mentioned (I can't surf this in the classroom!)

All that aside. This will be my last post out of the fact that people are more about attacking religion than about fairness in this case.

Legally, in the scholastic world, you cannot force feed a group one theory then ignore another. In these days of law suits over everything from not providing supplies to kids to the racism in books to book banning to creationism/Big Bang all the way to sexual molestation TO and FROM teachers - the only way to save your neck and cover your butt is to teach both.

We aren't talking about kindergarteners here. We're talking about middle and high school. In my area (in the south, yes) you find more often than not this phrase "there is the truth and there is intelligent design which is only followed by sheer morons who cannot think rationally" (that would be almost word for word from bio teachers at my old high school and several middle schools in the area). Whether you believe in relgion or not gives you #1. No right to call us brain washed. Those who are "brain washed" never expand beyond the text. Most people who refer to themselves as Christians do not walk around preaching hellfire and brimstone - that's something that the media would like you to believe. Just like most homosexuals don't run around in flamboyant costumes grabbing each other, most of them would rather quietly live their life and not be infringed upon. #2. Your arguments are the same drivel over and over. Split them up into different classes. That wouldn't be logical. If you want a well-informed group, you talk about all angles. To not do so would be to censor based on your whims. Again, most of you would go against censorship if it involved things like Harry Potter or would get up in arms if schools took BB/Evolution out of the picture. Why? Because you place value on it. The majority of this country has been introduced to the theories for YEARS, and it's quite odd that both groups still exist without showing any backing down. SO, neither theory negatively impacts the other. In fact, there is a greater growing in the group that meshes the two theories...saying that the "six days" was really millions of years since we don't know what "1 day" is to God (or the creative being). These people support the science side by saying that God ordained it to happen. So, they aren't hurting either theory in their mind, just meshing what they know from their faith with what they find in science. Our middlegrounders.


Here I am actually being understanding and mulling over what you're saying in order to battle it back using your own terminology and terms (BTW - the dictionary definition and roots of words are hardly my "interpretation" - for Pete's sake, use a brain! Borrow Goofball's if you need one that thinks rationally). The only thing you can shoot back is a shakey "you're brainwashed" argument.

Background: I was raised in the church. I became a Christian in elementary school. In high school I was a Christian, but I investigagted other religions with a vicious will - to find truth. College, first two years I spent pondering IF it was even true. I went to church, but wondered what for. Sure, I was a Christian in appearance, but my heart wondered. After YEARS of investigating, questioning and reading - - - the most LOGICAL thing I could come to as a conclusion is that everything in this life couldn't have just been a mistake or accident. I chose by reasoning that if life has value and meaning, it couldn't just be something we make up generation by generation. So my choice, my free, unhindered choice was to move back into Christianity without doubt.

To begin to throw into this debate anything about your personal preferences towards Christianity being introduced at any age really makes it seem like you have no clue how to otherwise support your position and are grasping at straws to fight. Get over yourself.

Everyone in this country has a right to their own belief. YOU have no right to tell me what to do or believe just as I cannot stop you. However, all ideas or theories have equal right to be unbiasedly introduced. In a World Relgion class you should not find a teacher who will neglect to inform of ALL major religions and followings - even if some (like Wiccan) don't have a common following as far as rituals, rites, or even procedures go. They're a very open religion, but it doesn't negate that it's one with one of the largest followings in the world.

Also, I find it very poor logic for everyone to say "your religion" in reference to ONLY the Christian religion when there are HUNDREDS of religions you could point at with the same frame of reference. There are dozens who have the same vocal points as Christians, same exposure, but those are protected as "freedom of expression or religion" while Christians are just "brainwashed." Do you guys even REALIZE what you are doing?

By that method, you cannot consider yourself a full "atheist" (Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.) It's like saying you're a vegetarian but you eat chicken or fish. A vegetarian eats only vegetables - any exceptions and you're just playing games because of your preference.

"Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude. Unless questioned, they will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends. Of course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in many countries."

^ You guys also don't follow this tenant since you're actively trying to remove "god" (although you directly attack only the Christian God in most posts) from public view in order to "protect people." Which would also mean that you're not under a "live and let live" since you wouldn't feel that a high schooler would be brainwashed by the mere mention that SOME people believe in a higher power that created the world, universe and humankind.

Someone cited the crusades earlier...that athiests don't kill for what they hold to be true, but Christians do. Crusades and even the witch hunts may have had some sort of religious cover, but that all boils down to the fact that those people ran counter to the scripture and did what they wanted by their human nature. IF you were to link it to the church (actually the Catholic church for crusades and puritan church for witch hunts of Salem, MA) you also have to look at a basis for WHY. It's poor logic to say that it was the full Christian religion that did it. A corrupt system did it. It would be like saying that communism killed thousands. Communism is an idea, a governmental system. The system itself didn't kill, a corrupt group did. Communism in theory isn't that bad...it's the implementation and the fact that classes ALWAYS exist that causes it to become corrupt, fail, and to be what we consider "bad."


The question here is a question of semantics. In the scientific community we consider something to be a fact if it's a prohibitive favorite to be true. If, given everything we know and can imagine know it's true. We sometimes discard our 'facts' when they proven false, but we do so easily and without reservation.
Fact, by definition is what can be proven to be TRUE. Fact, I'm female. Fact, I'm 99.9% sure you're male. Fact, I can type quicker than I can write.

Theory/Belief - Big Bang (no proof) Evolution (circular and theorized proof) Religious natured topics (faith...proof is what you make it and your view).

IF you're going to teach something as FACT, you'd better have a FACT. I have to teach kids the difference between fact and opinion. "Seperation of church and state" - opinion of the forefathers that much of the country has accepted as a truth. It was alluded to, but was not (to my knowledge) actually put in any of our creating documents.

Goes on both sides: 52 of 55 Constitution founders were active members of their church. Actually, many of them weren't members of a church although they did often attend one church or another, or claimed to believe in A god, but not always claiming the Christian God publically.

Overall, atheists feel theists (although typically only referring to Christians) have no understanding of science. Theists say that atheists have little understanding of religion since they never give themselves a chance to really feel it. There's a difference between what you can get from a text and what you get from worship.

BTW - just because atheism isn't labelled a "religion" doesn't change the fact that it is a belief system based around a particular tenent. Based on your meanings of atheism, many Buddhists would be considered "atheistic" since they claim no god.

[BabyDiva]

Anyway, this is my last contribution to what I agree is a cesspool. While the person who originated it may have wanted some intelligent conversation, I think we all know that it cannot happen on this forum with any type of success since too many people are "in favor" of being open minded, but won't think outside of their circle since they think (and outright STATE) that they know everything.

My bottom line. I'm a teacher. I want well-rounded students. I have atheistic, agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, Christian, and about every other religious belief or anti-belief you can think of, and probably a few you cannot. In class, ENGLISH, I don't agree with some of the theories the kids come up with on meanings for works or analysis. However, I allow them all to share their views and give each equal merit, even when one or two are off the wall. Science classes do teach theories. Whether it's a theory based off of belief in a higher power or based off of a belief in scientific theories...they're both theories. If you want to create well-informed kids you have to allow them the chance to hear everything you legally can. You should not and cannot expect a student to take a course that they don't have to in order to become "well-rounded" on their own. Some of them MIGHT, but the majority of students would not dare. It's kind of like how they now teach about religions in history and sex ed in science. They know the kids won't take a separate class in order to be aware of what is in their world. They're more interested in video games and shopping. So, if it takes 5-10 minutes to mention another viable (it could STILL be true, no matter your position...just because YOU don't believe doesn't mean it can't be true) theory that is the opposite position of evolution/big bang only enriches the class becase it shows 1) the teacher is aware, 2) the teacher cares enough to inform the students of counter arguments, 3) the students will be able to assimilate the belief as they see fit into their schemata of how the world works and 4) does no harm whichever belief the person has because if someone is firm in their belief it won't matter that the opposing side is given a chance to speak.


That's all I have to say. Goofball, sorry others can't show some level of respect for opposing viewpoints. At least you and I both know that intelligent conversation CAN be achieved if speaking in terms of an item and not the intelligence of either side. By the way, thanks for at least sticking up for the fact I'm not a moron in spite of the beliefs you disagree with. You and I know it does no good to attack a belief or belittle people. Eventually maybe the rest of the forum will come to grips with the TRUTH that a religion doesn't equal being brainwashed. Simply an argument used to throw stones when the matter at hand cannot be intelligently responded to.

Bid you good night/day/whatever it is where you are.

[goofball]

I'm going to repost this part of what I wrote because I feel it was glossed over and not noticed and I feel it's an important point.


Why teach religion in a science class?
Well, we shouldn't. But I posed this question to heather and she did give an answer. She said essentially that there is value in presenting alternate theories. Unfortunetly her argument leads to us teaching many alternate theories. You want ID submitted to students as an alternate theroy for our creation, now you are forced to also include my theory that we all we birthed by big unicorns, kuky's theroy that we originated 5 minutes ago, crazy homeless guy's theory that we're government drones(hyperbole i know), or even more popular theories like that we all originated from cosmic dust, or even more popular than that like the theories of the buhddists or the muslims. All of a sudden this science class soudns like a religous class. Before you get worked up, I'm not necesarily claiming that the above theories are of equal merit to yours, but I'm certainly claiming that they are all of equal scientific merit. They are, this is undisputable. It doens't matter that varying degrees of people believe them not one has a basis in science. Physicsts sometimes joke about electromagnetism being caused by gnomes (i know, we're cool) according to you we should includ that 'alternate' theory as well. So your point about proposing competing theories is fine and it happens in science classes all the time, but they have to be competing scientific theories. If we allowed every theory on everything from anyone we'd have no time for science.

[goofball]

Oh, and my name is Patrick.

[Wolf]

Repeatedly we've asked for a good solid reason to teach non-science in a science class, yet still you haven't answered that basic question. You don't see anyone teaching math in an english course, or latin in a mechanical engineering course.

You call Evolution and Religion opposing worldviews. Fine, but that still doesn't make religion science. It's not worldview class, it's science class. I don't know how much simpler I can express this. There is nothing scientific about ID. There's nothing remotely religious about science. There's absolutely no reasoning you can put forth to advocate teaching non-science in a science class.

And yet you persisted in saying that evolution and religion are both valid science.

You never even address the parts of my posts that most easily topple your arguments.

I'm done here also, because you don't even bother to retort the biggest argument we have.

And yeah, that is why I get mad and swear. The way you debate is more infuriating than crabs. It's like trying to hold a conversation with a tape recorder. You can't get anything new, just the same thing rewound and played over again.

[BabyDiva]

And yet you persisted in saying that evolution and religion are both valid science.

Just to address this...NO I DID NOT. Read what I said. I said they are both equal THEORIES since the are the opposing ideas. I never claimed it to be science. I used the definition to stretch it to possibly become a science with testing, but on the basis of faith, proof means it's no longer faith. I'm fine with agreeing with that - it's scriptural. Still never claimed that they are both scientific. I said they are both valuable to understanding EITHER theory by knowing its most common counterpoint. Common logic.

You think they easily topple, whatever. I think that mine easily topple yours. Whatever, deal.


I put forth reasoning. You just don't like it. No biggie...keep your bigoted point of view. At least I lend a chance to your theories. No one does me the same courtesy. Whah, I don't topple to your scientific powers. Sorry for being catty, but I find your consistant ignoring of simple facts in MY argument annoying as well. Call it even and get over it.


Patrick (yay, I have a name), there's a difference in presenting every single theory involved in something (not even all SCIENTIFIC theories are presented) and giving the two main theories in existance. Let's not get involved in the slipper slope, darlin.

[Wolf]

Just to address this...NO I DID NOT. Read what I said. I said they are both equal THEORIES since the are the opposing ideas. I never claimed it to be science. I used the definition to stretch it to possibly become a science with testing, but on the basis of faith, proof means it's no longer faith. I'm fine with agreeing with that - it's scriptural. Still never claimed that they are both scientific. I said they are both valuable to understanding EITHER theory by knowing its most common counterpoint. Common logic.

You think they easily topple, whatever. I think that mine easily topple yours. Whatever, deal.


I put forth reasoning. You just don't like it. No biggie...keep your bigoted point of view. At least I lend a chance to your theories. No one does me the same courtesy. Whah, I don't topple to your scientific powers. Sorry for being catty, but I find your consistant ignoring of simple facts in MY argument annoying as well. Call it even and get over it.


Patrick (yay, I have a name), there's a difference in presenting every single theory involved in something (not even all SCIENTIFIC theories are presented) and giving the two main theories in existance. Let's not get involved in the slipper slope, darlin.


Oh? Where did you address the fact that ID is not science and give reasoning that it should be in a science class?

[Brass Monkey]

BabyDiva, one point that you still faill to even acknoledge is that science is based on what is tangible, what we can visualize and interact with on some scale. Creationism comes from nothing but blind faith.

You cited the Big Bang theory as science that has no material basis... however you completely missed my earlier post were I already invalidated that argument. It is becuase of astronomers we can theorize about there being a Big Bang. It is from the movement of stars, the gravitational impact of solar systems and galaxies on one another, and other observations made that gave rise to the idea of the Big Bang.

Evolution can also at least be witnessed on a micro scale around us. I recall coming across a news story not long ago that wild gorillas were finally observed to be using objects and tools. This makes them the last primate observed in the wild to do this. This is prime example of a tangible form of studying evolution.

Where is the tangible evidence to even suggest we were created by a god or other form of life? (in broad creationism, this does includes aliens or some other type of being)

[AllHailTheThief]

You think you'd be happy that we're even willing to let creationism pass as a theory. To think it's going to be taught to children in a science class is just the most retarded most regressive thing ever.

I'm through with this discussion due to the sheer ignorance of the opposition.

[goofball]

Two main theories? Science has only one theory, the religous world has many theories. Other religions have enough members to be considered a main religous theory.

That was my point exactly, we need to stay off the slippery slope. THe best way to do that is to confine the competing theories we present in science class to theories that are science. And present religous theories in religion classes.
I'm wouldn't object 100% to a required world religions/mythologies class but you would likely be offended as to why.

[Brass Monkey]

I found this on Wikipedia, read it and then please try to give me an answer of why anyone should feel Creationism should be taught in a science class.

Scientific critique of creationism

Creationism was never based primarily upon scientific findings or upon a scientific approach to uncovering the origins of life. Many modern forms of creationism, particularly Young Earth Christian creationism, were created to defend the literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation in genesis, when evolution started to become scientific orthodoxy. Many modern creationists are widely regarded as 'anti evolutionists' rather than as people putting forward an honest alternative to explain the origins of life. Indeed, virtually all creationist arguments take the form of attacks on evolutionary theories.

Creationists sometimes minimize the explanatory power and validity of evolution theory by criticizing it as being "just a theory" implying that the word "theory" is synonymous with "conjecture" or "speculation", instead of the technical, scientifically accepted use of the word "theory" to mean a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and verified through empirical observation. In this sense, evolution is a very powerful theory.

Critics charge that Creationism is not a theory that has come about through a similar systematic accumulation of evidence. It is based on a literal interpretation of religious scripture and the emphasis of scripture over other sources of knowledge. Young Earth Creationism also fails the criteria of falsifiability and parsimony. While the hypothesis that the Earth is only a few thousand years old allows many predictions, evidence which refutes these predictions cannot invalidate creationism, because creationism itself is a belief and not a scientific theory. The belief can persist in spite of evidence to the contrary.

There is a fundamental difference between the scientific approach and the approach used by creationist advocates. The scientific approach uses the scientific method as a means of discovering information about the natural world. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. This is a meritocratic form of systematic enquiry, where the best ideas supported by evidence and positive experimental results survive. Science does not seek answers that fit a certain pre-determined conclusion, but rather works to construct viable, testable, and provable theories based on a solid evidential foundation. Creationism works in the opposite direction: creating the conclusion first and working backwards to 'discover' corresponding evidence. This is fundamentally unscientific, and a hallmark of pseudoscience.

All scientific theories are falsifiable; that is, if evidence that contradicts any given theory comes to light, or if the theory is proven to no longer fit with the evidence, the theory itself is shown to be invalid and is either modified to be consistent with all the evidence or is discarded. Evolution is a theory that fits in with all known biological evidence, fits in with all known genetic evidence, and is backed up by overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. Contrary to frequent claims by Christian and Islamic opponents of evolutionism, transitional fossils exist which show a gradual change from one species to another. Moreover, evolutionary selection has been observed in living species (for instance, "tuskless elephants"--see elephant). Because of this and other evidence, there is little debate within scientific circles as to whether evolution is a fact or not, and none of it suggests creationism as a viable alternative. It is worth pointing out that even if evolution as biologists currently understand it turned out to be false, this would not automatically mean that special creation was true (such a binary view being a logical fallacy). It is exclusively in the public sphere, where young Earth creationists (especially in the US) have fought for recognition of their world view, that the debate about creationism and evolution rages.

In addition to that, no conclusive proof for Creationism or Intelligent Design has been ever brought forward. Because both styles of Creationism presume the actions of a supernatural being (God or the "Designer"), any person capable of proving either of the theories is eligible for the sum of $1,000,000 (see James Randi's offer).

You can read the whole article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

[goofball]

I just realized that nate after starting interested totally went mia in this thread.

[Wolf]

I just realized that nate after starting interested totally went mia in this thread.

Well he somewhat conceded.

[Crash Override]

Let's be clear, there's a big difference between "creationism" and Intelligent Design.

All ID proposes is that there was an initial cause for the world that did not stem from any other cause, and that the world the way it is didn't happen by accident, but some force did indeed direct it to be the way it is. It could conceivably work in tandem with evolution, simply by accepting that evolution could have been part of the design.

Creationism is a totally different breed of assumption.

[Brass Monkey]

You may view Intelligent Design and creationism as seperate, but it doesn't mean that the main movement pushing ID shares your same viewpoint.

From Wikipdedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)
Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.

Adherents of ID claim it stands on equal footing with the current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe [1]. This claim has not been accepted by the scientific community and intelligent design does not constitute a research program within the science of biology. Despite ID sometimes being referred to popularly and in the media as "Intelligent Design Theory", it is not recognized as a scientific theory and has been categorized by the mainstream scientific community as creationist pseudoscience. The National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own [2]. Critics argue that ID proponents find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs, and that ID in this context may ultimately amount to the "God of the gaps" [3].


So, to be totally clear on this: Creationism = Intelligent Design

[Crash Override]

Wow, that seems like an incredibly biased source. I don't think I've ever seen a dictionary use terms like "creationist pseudoscience" before.

Read that passage over again. Especially read the first part. Basically, what it's saying is, "The Intelligent Design people SAY that they aren't trying to teach Christian Creationism, but since a lot of them are Christian, we know deep down they really are! We know their REAL secret motives here!"

What the hell kind of unbiased source says shit like that?

[Lone Wolf]

Observation - The idea of an all-powerful creator, defying all laws of physics, especially the Law of Conservation of Matter (you cannot simply create something from nothing, basically), creating the universe with a whim is preposterous. Furthermore, that doesn't even describe the beginnings of life, where did this "God" figure come from? Who is this "God" person anyways? Why would he create evil, if he is so good? Why would his followers, in the name of Love and God deign to burn people who just want to do their own thing?


Dude, the physical laws are somewhat less dogmatic than some time ago. I can safely presume that with our actual knowledge the creation of the universe is impossible - too bad it's actually here; well, no, it's not bad.




See this is the stupid reasoning you religious types favour. Hurt? No-one would suddenly fucking explode for reading something in their textbook. This is non-sense.


I'd like to point to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

[Brass Monkey]

Call it bias if you want. But all the sources for that information are listed at the bottom of the article. Also, remember that Wikipedia is not written by one or a handful of people. Thousands upon thousands of people contribute, peer review, and peer edit all the articles on that site to ensure a more balanced and accurate point of view than any encyclopedia or dictonairy I've ever come across.

It is more evidence than I have seen from anyone here on the subject.

But this whole debate isn't really about there being evidence of anything, right?

[Lone Wolf]

But this whole debate isn't really about there being evidence of anything, right?


Uhm... possibly...


No ID-person has answered any of my posts, although I was under the impression I tried to point at how the two sides are not really excluding each other and all I knew was that evolution's working right now, having no idea if it's been working that way all the time.


BTW, what's this new option about rating threads...

... urge ... too strong ... must ... click ...


Edit:

WOAH, I just rated the first thread in here...


Edit/2:

Hey, who's rated it without adding a post?

[Kuky]

"ID" also encompases the possibility of it being aliens that set things into motion. Oooh, how sci-fi :P

[Wolf]

"ID" also encompases the possibility of it being aliens that set things into motion. Oooh, how sci-fi :P


Yes, it does.

Now let's go and see how many sci-fi loving alien worshippers are ID proponents...

It's a foot in the educational door for Christianity. A foot I'd rather see dismembered by the door.

[AllHailTheThief]

Does it really matter? The people with any sense (christians included, contrary to the "beliefs" of babydiva) understand that it's not to be taught in a science class.

I think the debate is really over, and hopefully this shit will get struck down, and struck down hard.

[Kuky]

Does it really matter? The people with any sense (christians included, contrary to the "beliefs" of babydiva) understand that it's not to be taught in a science class.

I think the debate is really over, and hopefully this shit will get struck down, and struck down hard.

There are places in the US where people are taught that Pi = 3.0. So don't take the debate being struck down for granted :lol:.

[Wolf]

There are places in the US where people are taught that Pi = 3.0. So don't take the debate being struck down for granted :lol:.

Argh, no way, I refuse to believe that..

[Crash Override]

Uhm... possibly...


No ID-person has answered any of my posts, although I was under the impression I tried to point at how the two sides are not really excluding each other and all I knew was that evolution's working right now, having no idea if it's been working that way all the time.

Okay, I'll bite. I'm an "ID person" if you want to put it that way, I'm a firm believer in a singular entity crafting the universe from its inception. I also believe in evolution, so there you go; the two do NOT have to be mutually exclusive.

I think all the arguments about whether it "is science" or "isn't science" are fairly fruitless and beside the point, because in one of my previous posts I showed how all the theories we take for granted (such as gravity) aren't "science" because they don't fulfill certain criteria people have (being falsifiable, for one, although I think that's a silly criterion anyway).

The reason why I don't think it should be taught in a science class is because for me, the whole purpose of a science class is to provide ideas that can be built upon, researched in more detail, manipulated and adapted to ultimately provide us with some sense of both knowledge and control over our universe. I don't think there's anything taught in science classes up to the university level that can't be drawn upon to ultimately have a practical application (I'm excluding university classes because there are plenty of highly advanced theoretical physics classes in which the material taught does indeed have no practical application, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting to know nonetheless).
Even evolution and natural selection, for that matter, one can take the principles of and try to apply them to various systems present in our current world.
Intelligent Design, however, is not a springboard. It is not a starting point for further learning. Even if we proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a God and He created the universe, why would we teach that in a science class? So what? How can we take that information and make any use of it? How can we adapt it to any sort of practical application? If it did end up being proven 100% true, even then, it should be taught in a history class if anything.
This is why I don't think there's any point in teaching it in a science class. Who cares if ID is a "theory" or isn't a "theory" or whatever bullshit is being put forth in the media wars? The real question shouldn't be "is it a scientific theory," but should rather be, "is it useful?" Does it provoke further study and thought? Can you run experiments on it? Can you learn ANYTHING about the world we live in through teaching and learning it? The answer is, simply put, no.
This is why I don't think it should be "Intelligent Design" vs. "Evolution," because they're not even contrasting theories (since as I said, the two could work in tandem, if you really wanted to stretch it or interpret it that way). To me, that debate is as pointless as saying "Well, should we teach the periodic table of elements, OR newton's laws?" The two are simply unrelated and therefore shouldn't be put at odds.

Now, there are plenty of people out there who think Intelligent Design is Creationism, and in that case, then yes, it certainly IS at odds with evolution. However, even in that case, I still don't think it should be taught, again, simply because you can't do anything with ID. You can still DO THINGS with evolutionary theory, or parts of it (natural selection), and adapt it to change/better our current world. It isn't purely theoretical, it has practical applications. However, ID doesn't, whether you think of it as synonymous with Creationism or not. It is a statement that must be either taken at face value or rejected, it cannot be explored, or analyzed, or parts of it rejected and others accepted.
And ultimately, why would we want to teach something to impressionable young minds that can't even be further researched and investigated, should it spark curiosity?

[Lone Wolf]

There are places in the US where people are taught that Pi = 3.0. So don't take the debate being struck down for granted :lol:.


http://i.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/10-08-04-products/Wafulz.jpg




@Crash:
Thank you for answering.
Yes, it makes sense to teach things you can build more things upon. ID's more about the cause. It's like teaching Newton's life in physics class. Well, no, not quite, but it goes in that direction.

[Kuky]

Hahaha Alabama Pi :lol:

[Kuky]

Argh, no way, I refuse to believe that..

Actually, that was an April Fool's story someone published over the net a few years ago.