Christine the Lioness (3122)
Christopher the Pyro (1985)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1234)
Trouble the Pirate (600)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (532)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
Ben2 the Soldier (56) Kevin the Soldier stated
Actually, there are significant pieces of intelligent design that show that evolution cannot explain current humans. Evolution as a theory is easily applied in the small scale, observable adaptations, but begins to struggle when used to explain long term changes such as the “evolution” of humans from the primordial soup. As far as Christians not supporting Intelligent Design because they are supposed to believe in Creationism, that is simply untrue. Intelligent Design embodies creationism and evolution together. The theory is that God created humans through a guided evolutionary method. No one in their right mind would deny small scale evolution, proponents of intelligent design would simply like the alternative presented as another theory, or at least the ability to poke holes in the theory of evolution. It is a theory after all, not a law in the same league of Newton’s Laws of Motion.
Christine the Lioness commented
Kevin, you make some good points. Just because we, as humans, can’t answer some of the questions that seem to be “holes” in the theory of evolution, doesn’t mean that the answers aren’t there and we just aren’t keen enough to see them. Other theories, like Big Bang and Continental Drift, etc. are discounted by both Creationism and Intelligent Design. The dinosaurs are discounted by Creationism and Intelligent Design. It’s difficult to believe that Adam & Eve were created within days of dinsoaurs being created… but to try to keep parts of Creationism in tact and then suggest that all the evidence we have found to support that humans have indeed, evolved, seems like we are simply looking for ways to fill in the holes because the human mind will “create” answers for anything it doesn’t fully understand.
Kevin the Soldier mentioned
That is where I struggle with some of the Christian viewpoints (and I consider myself a Christian). To me, the Big Bang theory, Continental Drift, Dinosaurs and Evolution all dovetail into Christian teachings from the bible. I realize, many “Christians” believe this to be heresy. I don’t think that any of the above theories is incongruent with the story of Genesis. God created the heaven and the earth… it doesn’t say how (Big Bang). God created the land and oceans… it doesn’t say how (Continental Drift). God created Animals… again, nothing to discount Dinosaurs or Evolution. In fact, I’d say that evolution is explicitly supported in the bible, but not without a guiding hand.
Christine the Lioness added
I am no expert on the Bible… as a matter of fact, I view the text contained within as a loose interpretation of events… so I agree with what you’re saying, Kevin. Just to play Devil’s advocate… and please correct me if I’m wrong… doesn’t the Bible specifically say all those things were created within a 7 day time frame? “On the seventh day, He rested…” Christians who take the Bible literally would suggest that the other theories, for that reason if none other, are incongruent with the Bible. For myself, I think the phrase about resting on the seventh day can be more loosely interpreted as a description of the completion of all that was created on “Days 1 through 6,” and not a specific reference to time in the 24 hour sense of a day.
Kevin the Soldier added
EXACTLY! Time is a concept that was constructed by humans for the use of humans. In fact, many different calendars have existed throughout history. What many people don’t seem to realize is that the bible is an “instruction manual” on how to be human. It is not meant to be taken literally. The bible says God created everything within the 7 day time frame, we have no way of knowing if our “days” would match with the “day” of God. The bible also says to not eat meat after a certain number of days after the animal was killed. Do we all adhere to this now? Most do not, because we have this novel invention called a fridge. When the bible was written, it was a bad idea to eat meat after a certain number of days because it would KILL you.
Trouble the Pirate added
Yes… A bit like using the service manual from a 1949 VW Beetle, to work on a 747-400…
Christine the Lioness uttered
Trouble… I gotta hand it to ya, darlin’… you always bring a slightly different take on stuff. 
Kevin the Soldier asserted
LOL… better than nothing. At least you’d have some point of reference.
Kevin the Soldier mentioned
Came across this on the web, thought it was pertinent though I can’t decide if I’m for or against it. http://www.venganza.org/index.htm
Lei the Mercenary mentioned
kevin, that was funny. FSMism sounds like a very interesting theory huh. if this finds its way into the science curriculum,i bet kids would have a fun time studying science. LOL!
Kevin the Soldier pontificated
The thing is, I completely support the teaching of other theories. I have no problem with evolution, intelligent design (which is what the Flying Spagetti Monster is) or any other plausible theory. It irks me to know end when large scale evolutionary theory (in contrast to small scale adaptive evolution) is taught as FACT with no analysis of the flaws in the argument. If you want to read a good book about this, yes with a religious slant, then read “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel.
Truly though, I’m not surprised that there is such a resistance to teaching evolution as a theory instead of a law. These are the same people who teach that the civil war was about slavery instead of state rights.
Trouble the Pirate added
Kevin? Remind me not to fly on any planes you have serviced recently 
The following is only a theory:
The moment we accept anything as ?law?, we presume to understand it fully. We cease searching further down that path, and we stagnate? That is the pinnacle of vanity.
Any subject taught in school, started out as a concept, then progressed through the various stages of development, until it became ?generally accepted? as ?so.?
Most humans require acceptance of their ideas, their opinions? Their selves? We strive to comprehend everything, but only that which interests us, and to a level that suits us individually.
?General acceptance? has always been the measure of validity, and it is influenced by many factors not limited to geography, timing, and human emotion.
When an individual, or group holds a belief that something is ?so?, they feel a need to protect that opinion, it?s only a natural preservation instinct? The same way that a parent can look past the flaws of their child, these people can deny the flaws in a theory.
Every theory is flawed; those flaws are the manifestation of our inability to comprehend certain aspects of the process.
The only way to progress as a species is to understand that there are pieces of every puzzle missing, and unless the search for those pieces continues, they will never be fully solved.
Hence, teaching anything to our children as ?law?, is the greatest mistake we can make? That is the glue to the wheels of progress? Let children do what they do best? Discover?
Christopher the Pyro asserted
After read every bodies post here.. I finally felt the need to join this discussion. Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean. Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are “scientific law,” “hypothesis,” and “theory.” In layman?s terms, if something is said to be ?just a theory,? it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don?t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook?s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
How does this apply to our discussion here, the scientist who are claiming intelligent design is a theory are not creditable scientist while evolution has been supported by thousands of sciencetist and tested over 150 years. Intelligent design might be a feel good theory is has no credible basis in the reality of cold hard facts of science nor would I support the claim that evolution is a theory that has holes.. if it did it would not be called a theory it would be called a hypothesis nor would it be supported by the vast majority of scientist to be true. It is also important to note that just because you think evolution might not work for large scale jumps.. (apes to humans), this is not really much more complicated then your everyday bacteria mutating and resisting every antibiotic that has been invented over the last 80 years. Apes and humans share 99.9% of the same DNA. While a new drug resistant bacteria might only share 80% of the same DNA as it’s predecessor. After all that, even if you think evolution is still flawed.. That in itself does not make intelligent design a creditable “theory”.
Christine the Lioness chimed in with
All this talk about evolution and intelligent design is making me hungry… how many people do you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster feeds?
Seriously, though… Christopher did bring up a good point. What exactly are the holes in evolution theory? And just because we don’t have all the detailed answers, doesn’t necessarily mean that what we don’t know are “holes.” I think we get very caught up in believing that we have the ability and potential to actually comprehend something as complicated as the creation of the universe, life, the world… While the human mind constantly surprises me at how much can be understood (especially by people much smarter than myself), I don’t think we will ever have the ability to manage that type of intricate information in our minds and entertain an accurate conception of it. Instead of accepting those limitations, I think it human nature to try to invent another explanation that we can understand.
Kevin the Soldier stated
Be careful on your definitions of theories and laws. Newton’s Law’s of Motion have been disproved at extreme velocities at both the subatomic level and as we reach the speed of light. Einstein’s Theories of Relativity appear to be a “law” except he thought it was incomplete.
To poke holes in Evolution as a Law or Theory is easy… repeat it. Any scientific law or theory has to be repeatable. Now, I will agree that that is a cheap way to “disprove” large scale evolution. One thing I want to seperate is Darwinian Evolution from Evolution. These are not the same things. Evolution I believe in, Darwinian Evolution is to much of a stretch and to me is on an equal plane with ID or FSM. The problem with Darwinian Evolution is that there is no way that random or natural selection could have led to the development of the Human species. There are far to many complexities for a random evolution. Hell, even Francis Crick (discoverer of DNA) didn’t believe in evolution. In addition, Darwin’s Tree of Life is unsupported by fossil record. The Cambrian age saw a significant jump in the number of major animal phyla (categories for the laypeople). Pre-Cambrian= Jellyfish, worms, sponges. Cambrian= Crabs, Insects, Starfish, Vertebrate Anmials, etc. There is simply not enough time for Darwin’s evolution to have occurred. There are many other issues with Darwinian evolution, I just don’t think that this qualifies as a theory or a law. Maybe a hypothesis, and if thats the case it should be taught right along with ID in schools.
Christopher the Pyro pontificated
Keven,
Low level evolution has been repeated thousands of times using things like fruit flys.
Kevin the Soldier got all philosophical
Exactly, low level evolution. I don’t disagree with that, and I don’t think anyone does. But that isn’t what we are talking about, we are talking enriched non-alive soup to full fledged human (or dog or insect, etc).
Christopher the Pyro penned this
Oppps, I’m sorry about the mispelling of the name. I’m sorry Kevin, but honestly your arguement does not hold water, I’m still trying to figure out what your argument is, … that the Darwinian Evolutional Theory has holes it in.. so your saying.. that we shouldn’t be teaching Darwinian Evolution.. I agree.. we are teaching Darwinian Evolution that has been improved and researched for the last 150 years and is supported by almost anybody who isn’t afraid of the idea that maybe just maybe plain old evolution is the how God intended things to be. Saying fossile records don’t show this is how things happens is not really true we have bene digging up fossiles for oh maybe 200 years, and we pretty much have it nailed down for except for some last grasp areas that people who want evolution to be false grasp onto.. the facts are, there could be many reasons why those fossile records are missing, maybe where humans made teh evolutionary jump from ape to human wasn’t prime land and temature for fossiles to deveope.. maybe there just arn’t any does that make Evolution false.. no it does not disprove it. For something to be a theory, “read the above definition I didn’t post it just for the fuck of it” it has to be supported by alot of information.. for it to stop being a theory it HAS to be be DISPROVEN ONCE. I’m not trying to beat you down but if you spent half as much time reading factual scientific studies on evolution as you did on “The Case for a Creator” you would realize your arguement here is deeply flawed.
Kevin the Soldier said this
I seriously doubt that I would be considered to have a limited grasp of science, timelines or history. I am not saying we shouldn’t be teaching Darwinian Evolution, quite the contrary. If you read my above posts you’ll see that I am merely asserting that we present all alternatives to a current unanswerable. Have you read the Case for the Creator? Have you read peer reviewed scientific journals on the flaws in evolution? Do you know what you are talking about or are you just banging the Darwinian drum because that is the commonly taught theory?
The lack of a direct link from Human to Ape (which is a long way from soup) does not in itself contradict Darwinian Evolution. I would argue that there are many things that do contradict Darwinian Evolution, and likely as many arguments that contradict an intelligent design.
I am saddened by close mindedness in the American school system. As someone with a science background, I only wish that the alternatives were presented equally and a discussion of the pros and cons of each was commenced.
My personal belief that evolution was the method that God chose has no bearing on my arguing for equal time of the existing theories instead of the current indoctrination that students receive.
Christopher the Pyro said this
Kevin
I have no vested interest in proving or disproving either theory.. the problem is not science, or evolution it is politics and religion they do not mix on this subject. We should not teach are students thoeries that are the vast majority of scientists in the world are telling are flawed and flat out wrong.. the fact is if their was anything at all to the idea of ID then scientists from all over the world would embrase it but at this time only paid scientists at Christian think tanks think this hypothisis has any basis in reality.
If something works on a small scale then it pays to reason it works on a large scale, do we have fossil records of fruit flys form 2000 years ago.. No we do not, yet we know if we lock up some fruit flys in an environment and expose them to some factor that makes them evolve that a year later they will be a completely different species that would be unrecognizable from the original one. To claim humans are different is the height of arrogance, the only real differnce is that we take to long to reproduce have you happened to notice that some people on earth are BLACK and some are WHITE do you think that was just random?.. Or is that an example of small scale evolution lol.
Probably the best way I can demonstrate to you that your thinking on this subject could be a little off is to attempt to prove it to you with fact. My main issue with ID (Intelligent Design) is that its strongest two arguments are easily shown to be flawed by a lay person such as myself.
Irreducible complexity - Irreducible complexity asserts that certain biochemical systems in nature contain parts that are too well matched to be products of evolution. Every part of an irreducibly complex system is necessary: take away even one, and the entire system will no longer work. Because their parts are so intricate and so interdependent, such systems could not possibly have been the result of evolution, ID supporters argue. Among the systems that are irreducibly complex are the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic whip-like structure that some bacteria use to swim, and the cascade of proteins that make up the human blood-clotting system.
Darwin himself admitted that if an example of irreducible complexity were ever found, his theory of natural selection would crumble. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down,” Darwin wrote. Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community.
To understand why, it is important to remember that the main argument is that in an irreducibly complex system, every part is vital to the system’s overall operation.
A necessary ? and often unstated ? flipside to this is that if an irreducibly complex system contains within it a smaller set of parts that could be used for some other function, then the system was never really irreducibly complex to begin with. It’s like saying in physics that atoms are the fundamental building blocks of matter only to discover, as physicists have, that atoms are themselves made up of even smaller and more fundamental components. Viewed this way, all of the systems that claim to be irreducibly complex really aren’t.
Specified complexity - The second major argument for intelligent design comes from William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based Christian think tank. Mr. Dembski argues that nature is rife with examples of non-random patterns of information that he calls “complex specified information,” or CSI for short.
To qualify as CSI, the information must be both complex and specified.
An example of CSI from nature is DNA, the molecule found in all cells that contains the genetic instructions for life. DNA is made up of four repeating chemical bases arranged into complimentary pairs. The bases can be thought of as “letters” in a four-letter alphabet and can be strung together to form genes, which can be thought of as the “words” that tell the cell what proteins to make. The human genome is made up of some 3 billion DNA base pairs and contains about 25,000 genes. DNA is obviously complex. The fact that humans always give birth to humans and not chimpanzees or naked mole rats shows that DNA is also specific. The fact that CSI exists in nature is evidence for design because intelligence is necessary to produce CSI.
If this was right then a new gene with new information conferring a brand new function on an organism could never come into existence without a designer because a new function requires complex specified information.
In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn’t exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont.
The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria poses a problem for ID proponents. Where did the CSI for nylonase?the actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nylon?come from?
There are three possibilities:
Apart from simply being the most reasonable explanation, there are two other reasons that most scientists prefer the last option, which is an example of Darwinian natural selection. First, hauling around a nylonase gene before the invention of nylon is at best useless to the bacteria; at worst, it could be harmful or lethal. Secondly, the nylonase enzyme is less efficient than the precursor protein it’s believed to have developed from. Thus, if nylonase really was designed by a Supreme Being, it wasn’t done very intelligently.
Right there I just threw HUGE wrenches in the arguments that ID uses to claim that evolution does not work.
Also please remember these FACTS
In science, unlike in common usage, a successful ?theory? is an overarching explanation that accounts for all known facts, hypotheses, and observations.
Evolution is supported by millions of observations over at least 150 years that life has evolved on this planet. This fact of evolution did not have a scientifically satisfactory overarching explanation?a theory?until Charles Darwin developed his complex ideas. His explanation rapidly convinced the scientific minds of his own age and of every generation since then.
No scientifically supported theory of why life on this planet evolved rivals basic Darwinian theory. If there was a legitimate alternative, scientists would go to great lengths to win prestige by testing and developing the alternative.
Kevin the Soldier hunt n' pecked this
Chris, all you have managed to prove is small scale evolution within a species. That I don’t disagree on. Where is the evidence that species have evolved from one form to another? If this truly is the method then we would expect to see some sort of evolutionary link wouldn’t we? Fruit fly evolution is a proven fact, skin color adaptation is obvious and the development of the nylonase enzyme; but none of these transforms one species to another.
You brought up the blood clotting cascade in relation to irreducibly complex systems but then didn’t expand on it. Was that because it is an example of an irreducibly complex system that Darwin couldn’t explain or was it because it isn’t a system that could have formed over time?
GeekThug the Groupie got all philosophical
I think there should be something other than just evolution. The devil is all over the place in school. God should be slipped into the school from time to time.
“God doesn’t play dice with the universe” - Albert Einstein
Christine the Lioness chimed in with
Kevin… my question is this… if you are correct and it is true that evolution theory does not account for large scale evolution of one species to another, then explain how Intelligent Design’s claims explain that any more than the Roman and Greek beliefs that Zeus and Poseidon and all the rest served the same purpose. In the same way they connected their gods to scientific reasoning, aren’t we trying to do that as well? The only difference is that most of the world, despite their religious beliefs, are monotheistic?
Kevin the Soldier got all philosophical
ID claims that the mechanism of evolution was assisted by a designer who made choices and guided the process instead of leaving it to random chance. I take no issue with the mechanism. The support for ID can be found where Darwinian Evolution (DE) appears to fail. For example, the concept of irreducibly complex systems or the Cambrian Explosion as stated above. By the same token, the theory of ID appears to fail where DE my succeed. That is why they are both still (and may remain) theories.
I don’t particularly care what deity you believe assisted with the guidance, it could be Zues, Allah, Flying Spagetti Monster, Thor, or the Christian “God”. I do believe the school system should teach evolution the law (small scale) and if they choose to teach Darwinian Evolution the theory then they should be required to point out the holes and present alternatives such as ID.
I recognize that the separation of church and state is very touchy to many people (including myself). As such, the teaching of intelligent design should be done very carefully and respectfully. Truly the only people who should get offended by presentation of the theory of ID are atheists as everyone else would logically have a god or gods that they look to as the designer (and not necessarily the same one). Now I’m not for stomping on peoples rights but do feel that if we are going to teach DE (no god needed, an atheist viewpoint) then we should be comfortable teaching ID.
Trouble the Pirate said this
When Christine said Chris brought up a good point… I had to check that I hadn’t been transported to a parallel anti-universe…
There are only 3 possible ways humans have come to be:
1) A single or collective entity possessing powers and/or intelligence far beyond our comprehension, created us either directly or indirectly, here on Earth, or somewhere else and brought us here, for reasons we do not, or may not ever have the ability to know or understand? Making us slaves, servants, children, autonomous entities, or something else.
2) We ?evolved? through a mutational process from absolute nothing, which began either on Earth, or somewhere else, along some timeline, from absolute nothing, through a naturally occurring need and thrived because conditions on our planet just happened to be suitable for the process to take place? This same process having culminated with the creation of Angelina Jolie.
3) Some other thing?
I personally believe we were created by the guy from ‘The crying game’ to make him jewelry and build his pyramids… Where are Kurt Russell and James Spader when we need them?
We?re here, and we?ve been here a long enough time to understand that we are tied to our world as an integral part, being self aware, and aware of our surroundings; whether or not we ever understand why, we know from precedence that we have the ability to positively or negatively affect those around us, and our environment? Teach whatever you want in whatever school you wish, it is all for naught unless the main lesson is ?personal accountability??
Kevin the Soldier thought this
Sounds like we have similar tastes in movies and woman.
You bring up an interesting point that I was thinking about earlier… is there a third option? I couldn’t think of one earlier but I find it hard to believe there are only two that have been advanced. Hell, there are dozens of theories on how the universe began.
Christopher the Pyro got all philosophical
Kevin,
Your clearly completley misunderstanding the idea of scientific theory. There is no law of evolution. There is evolution that has never been disproven.. people like to pretend there are flaw with it, but you not having a fossil record does not disprove evolution. If you were standing in Times square and a flash of light occured and a new species has hanging out there, that might disprove evolution. Your telling me that evolution is incompletely because there is no fossil records, fossil records to does prove or disprove a theory there are thousands, probably millions of scientiest that have studied this and tested it and it’s pretty much a proven fact that evolution is how things happened. While there is absolutely not one piece of evidence that ID has any basis in fact.. how can we teach something that has no basis in fact. This is not about offending a group of people it’s about keeping science based on fact. A scientific theory is basically fact.. I keep trying to fuckign get this point across. If it was a random bs guess it would be a hypothisis.
In the U.S it is unconstitutional to bring God into our public schools which are a government provided service. To start pushing an a Christian agenda which is what ID is which I think I showed farily clearly would be unconsitutional.
Back to the bacterial example.
A subset of the bacterial flagellum proteins, are used by other bacteria to inject toxins into other cells and several of the proteins in the human blood-clotting system are believed to be modified forms of proteins found in the digestive system. Evolution takes pieces and parts and re-uses them.
Christopher the Pyro penned this
I’m curious to know, since we can test evolution with fruit flys. Why it is such a hard jump to see the same happening with people. I mean seriously, if I have a fruit fly and i make it evolve for oh lets say 5 years, and when I look at that fruit fly again, now it is more like a wasp, has a stinger and maybe we exposed it to a stimuli that would remove it’s current way of communication and it developed a new way of communicating.. maybe like bee’s.. that would be a whole new species that didn’t exist 5 years ago. If I could do that, it is such a strech that somewhere along the line people got a little smarter, a little smarter and a little smarter.
I think this would be an ok link for those interested in understanding the debate about fossil records.. and note.. this article is rife with the word hypothisis.
Kevin the Soldier spake, and sayeth
I have no idea if you are reading my posts or your just vomiting on the page but you don’t seem to get the nuances of my argument. By stating that evolution is a LAW (not a theory or a hypothesis) I was agreeing that it is inarguably so! You can’t have a partial blood clotting system so your argument is flawed. There was not time for it to evolve. If it didn’t clot enough, you died. If it clotted to much, you died. As far as your fruit flies, you are extrapolating beyond reality. I’ll tell you what, you turn a fruit fly into a talking wasp in 5 years and I will publically declare that Darwin was right.
Christine the Lioness added
Kevin… I know this conversation has progressed since I posted last, but I wanted to go back to something you said… you said that ID should be taught carefully and respectfully… AND that there are dozens of theories on how the universe began… (I’m assuming you’re using the word “theory” loosely and actually mean “hypotheses” because Christopher’s definition on what constitutes a theory and what’s a hypothesis was actually accurate– so if there are dozens (and I’ll go so far as to say there may even be hundreds), then why are we choosing ID as the rival theory of evolution? Why aren’t we teaching “The Omnipotent Spaghetti Monster” theory? Or the theory that nothing in the tangible world is even real and we are all fictitious (a simplification of Deepak Chopra’s theory)? Since there is no scientific basis for ID– based on the fact that the Christian belief in “God” is nested solely in “faith” without proof (if we had unrefutable proof, there’d be no need for faith)… how does it qualify as something that should be taught under the guise of “science?”
Christine the Lioness got all philosophical
Oh… I forgot to mention what I wanted to say about ID being taught respectfully and carefully… I’m assuming you mean so not to offend those who do not subscribe to a religion in which a monotheistic god could be inserted into ID’s foundation… but how do you treat something “carefully” when you there is no proof it exists? What exactly are you being careful about? Anything you state regarding the god aspect of ID, is based only on an unprovable notion… so by nature, you are being reckless by including it, not careful. Not sure I explained that well… do you understand what I’m saying?
Kevin the Soldier uttered
I meant theory not hypothesis, for example the different varieties of the big bang are all theories. Regarding teaching the Omnipotent Spaghetti Monster, it is a simple derivative of the ID theory so in essence we would be teaching it.
I’m not sure that I agree that teaching ID means that we have to teach about God. ID simply means that our being was designed by something other than random chance. That is what I mean about being careful. Certainly we don’t want some strict creationist teacher teaching that the Christian God created man and there is no room for anything else.
Your right, there is no concrete scientific fact supporting ID. There are only hypothesis that look to explain the discrepancies in evolution. The proof of ID may start and finish with the failure of Darwinian evolution. The failure of existing theories generally is what led to future developments. Einstein wouldn’t have felt a need to create his body of work if Newton’s Laws of Motion hadn’t begun to fail.
Christopher the Pyro quibbed this
Evolution is hardly random chance, and I wanted to point out a flaw in your blood clotting comment. It seems to me, that everybody in the world has a different rate in which their blood clots, and it can also be affected by outside conditions.. (the amount of iron you ingest for exampe. I mean do you think people are the only animals that’s blood clot? This is probably a mechinism that was well in place millions of years before it ever got to humans… and wouldn’t this be a prime example of natural selection.. (people who are prone to bleed to death from a scratch would die off pretty quickly eh?)
My personal beliefs on this are kind of simple, I stop and look at a tree and I think hmp that is pretty amazing.. all of this must have come from somethings.. (God) but do I for one second thing he actually guilded things along the way.. nah, even without year by year fossil records there is just too much evidence that things just came to be through evolution.. yes even on a grand scale. Now if someone wanted to argue ID should be tough ina philosphy class I would be all for that.. but lets keep science to proven facts.
Kevin the Soldier asserted
Chris, I am well aware that blood clotting is not a singularly human trait. Your right, blood clotting probably has been in place for a long time, but COULDN’T have arisen through evolution as you point out. If you don’t clot, your dead. If you clot to much your arteries clog and your dead. There cannot be an iterative evolution of this trait. Either it works or it doesn’t.
Christopher the Pyro got all philosophical
Kevin, do all animals have blood clotting? No. Therefore it could have been so mething that was formed from the lowest levels over millions of years, bactira don’t have blood so they can’t clott. The fact is your arguements are so broad and not specific it is completely impossible to show your wrong point for point because everytime I point out why ID is flawed you just ignore it.
Kevin the Soldier scribbled
I was not aware that all animals didn’t have blood clotting. Which ones? If bacteria don’t have blood then we couldn’t have “evolved” from them. I am addressing your points head on. You talk blood clots, I talk blood clots. What we are talking about with the blood clotting mechanism is an irreducibly complex mechanism… the kind that Darwin himself said would destroy his theory. Please tell me how blood clotting could have evolved over time?
Kevin the Soldier chimed in with
By the way, if you want to agree disagree then say the word. I’m in your house afterall. I could debate and argue this forever…
Christine the Lioness chimed in with
Let me get this straight… Kevin, are you suggesting that blood clotting is not a result of evolution? That God created humans and gave their blood the ability to clot so they wouldn’t bleed to death? And if God hadn’t done this, there would be no human race because we all would’ve bled to death? It sounds like that’s what you’re suggesting, but that simply isn’t the case. Blood clotting is controlled by the level of blood proteins in an individual’s blood. There are two types of hemophiliacs… those with low levels of this protein which causes blood to clot very slowly, and those whose blood is completely void of the protein making their blood “unclottable.” The fact that Hemophilia is hereditary suggests that indeed, the body’s need to manufacture the necessary proteins could have very easily been the product of natural selection. If you didn’t have the proteins, you bled to death and therefore didn’t pass that factor on to your progeny. If your blood clots, you were more likely to survive. The evolution of proteins in single and multi-celled organisms is well documented, so it follows that blood-clotting proteins could have even been present as a fluke in some species, but as those species survived through the process of natural selection, the protein became commonplace and then began to evolve. Not so different from studies that have shown that changing a species’ diet (either on purpose or through the extinction of whatever it was they were eating before) causes changes in the animals’ digestive system– evolution allows it to better digest what it’s eating. So I’m not convinced that the blood clotting thing does anything to help your case. But more fundamentally… the problem with ID is that it employs hypotheses that cannot be proven to fill in the “holes” of a theory (evolution) that can be proven. So, in essence, ID brings no new information to an existing theory, and is therefore, not a theory at all. It’s a hypothesis. So to teach a hypothesis as an alternative to a theory, makes no logical, scientific sense (unless of course, you are a Christian whose goal is to use baby steps to slowly pave the way for Creationism to be taught in public school as a scientific alternative to Evolution). It’s not an uncommon tactic to try to sway public opinion.
ID will never become a theory because the definition of a theory is that it has been proven… this is where Christopher’s argument about theory vs. hypothesis comes in. ID cannot be proven… ever. The whole crux of Christianity is that the religion is based solely on faith. If you believe in Christ, you go to Heaven. If you don’t, you go to hell. To prove Christ/God exists eliminates the faith aspect and obliterates the entire religion. So inherently, there is no way to ever scientifically prove ID without destroying Christianity, which in turn, destroys ID. It is paradoxical.
Stacey the Virgin mentioned
Other theories, like Big Bang and Continental Drift, etc. are discounted by both Creationism and Intelligent Design. The dinosaurs are discounted by Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Actually, you are quite wrong on this. For some detailed information on Intelligent Design, please refer to Reasons to Believe. Hugh Ross is one of the main proponents of Intelligent Design. ID does not discount dinosaurs. ID does not discount Big Bang. You really need to check your facts on this.
Stacey the Virgin added
ID Does not discount Continental Drift either, BTW. forgot to include that. There is more to it than you know.
Christine the Lioness added
Since there’s so much more to this than we know, Stacey… why don’t you enlighten us and explain how Big Bang specifically (since the theory behind Big Bang is that the universe was created by an explosion of gases instead of a divine being) fits into ID. I guess actually explaining how that works is much more difficult than telling us all to read a book on it… It makes sense that if you want to believe in something that there is inherently no proof for (ie–Creationism and ID), then of course, you would find a way to incorporate things that have been proven to exist (like dinosaurs). But just because you can explain how proven things fit in to your ID hypothesis doesn’t mean your hypothesis has any validity. I seem to find a commonality between the proponents of ID… they avoid discussing the inherent paradox of including a faith-based, unprovable element to an existing theory and calling it scientific.
Christopher the Pyro quibbed this
Dolphins. They do not have the mechism for blood clotting. Also The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the “challenge” of irreducible complexity evolving gradually.
Christopher the Pyro said this
The thing is here, every single arguement of ID is easily proved at best seriously flawed, except the faith based part of it. I cannot prove or disprove the existance of God.
Christine,
I guess I struck a nerve. Didn’t mean to get your feathers all ruffled about this. Big Bang describes the beginning of the universe as an enormous explosion from which everything moved outward, and is continuing to do so. From this, other chimical reactions occurred, and over a long period of time, we have what we have today. Big Bang is a scientific theory, and does not address God, nor does it discount it.
I referenced a website that has a lot of great information, mostly scientific, but you won’t read it. Why? Probably because you are set in your ways, and no one is going to tell you what to do. That’s fine. I am ok with that. It is your choice. The thing is, though, until you are willing to read what the other side has to say, instead of making up your ideas about what you think they believe, you really don’t have an argument to make, and really should just keep queit. That being said, let’s talk about evolution some.
Let’s assume that evolution did occur. Let’s assume that a single cell organism was formed, and somehow went from being a single cell asexual organism to a multicell sexual organism. There are a lot of steps assumed there, but let’s assume it happened. For it to reproduce, it would have to have a mate. And that mate would have to have undergone the same processes, at relatively the same time, and not only that would have to be capable of mating with it. And additionally, they would have had to have found each other, and mated. Multiple times, and then those offspring would have to find mates, and so on. Now, that is for just one species. This would have to happen for all species. Intelligent Design again is easier to swallow.
What say you, Christine?
Kevin the Soldier got all philosophical
Chris, you misunderstood the evolution research you are using for your support. Dolphin’s do have a blood clotting mechanism, it is just different from the one that humans have. Regarding Gene Duplication, how does the duplication of one gene get you a multigene unique system? You merely end up with a whole bunch of the same gene.
Trouble the Pirate said this
This debate started with whether ID should be taught as a scientifically viable opponent to ?Evolutionary theory? in public schools, and if so, is it ethical for those who tout themselves as good ?Christians? to support it. It seems to have ?evolved??
Historically, State has always stemmed from Church, because the process of government is born of a ?need? for control of the masses. Don?t believe me? Study the history of the most successful empires, starting with the Chinese, Egyptian, Roman, British, and American?Every one of them has manipulated the collective fears of the everyman to their political advantage. Separation of church and state is a utopian concept. Opposing proponents that are for the most part human will always bolster both sides, and because we are dealing with the inherent vanity of human nature, there is little hope of separating the two, because that end would require complete acquiescence of one party?
I have no problem with ID being taught in public schools? The process of looking at every conceivable explanation on a subject before formulating your consensus is actually one of the building blocks of science itself, and only serves to create forward thinking adults who have the ability to further progress? Conversely, it should not be taught in a biased manner that attempts to smuggle another agenda into their minds?
The idealist concept of school, is to impart our understanding of ideas and theory to our children, who are looking to us for guidance and answers? If we have yet to discover those answers for ourselves, then the only ethical progression is to make it abundantly clear to our children, our own limitations as to our current level of comprehension of the more complex issues? There is no place for VANITY in the education of our children.
There?s no argument that science has already ?disproved? practically all of the historically accepted rules and laws associated with the Christian belief system, in relatively recent past the ?church? has had to do some ?fast-talking?, and even go so far as to pronounce some proponents of science as heretics, having them slandered or put to death in attempts to quell the pesky ?questioning of the faith? that would breed dissent, and wreak havoc on the ?control? aspect of religion in general?
?The bible? is an anthology of narratives, collected from varied sources not limited to ?pagan? books included simply to ease the transition and works excluded because the would only serve to ?confuse? the issue with conflicting arguments. It was originally compiled by a non-Christian roman emperor and his associates, for the political purpose of unifying his kingdom, by siding with, but maintaining a level of control over a ?religion? that was growing in popularity, at a seemingly unstoppable rate during a time when people were looking for a ?hero? to save them from their miserable lives. It has been translated umpteen times with differing levels of accuracy, due to semantics and understanding of events, which have evolved over time.
Those ?Christians who base their faith on an unflappable understanding that this is true, do not have a problem accepting that you can humbly believe that there is a greater ?plan? out there in the ether, controlled by an omnipotent unseen ?hand?, whilst still searching for answers and accepting progress, science and other ?arguments?? It is only through the humility of shrugging one?s shoulders and relinquishing ?control? of one?s universe, that we can truly be spiritual.
Then again? Maybe I?ll burn in hell for my ideas?
Christopher the Pyro said this
Trouble,
I agre with you 100% the religion is a means to control the masses, that is one of the reasons it exists, it also exists to meet a basic human need, to explain death and the meaning of life. I also agree with you that the most powerful and succesful goverments the word have known manipulate and use religion as a basis for the government and America is no different… where I disagree with you is that in America speration of Church and goverment is an utopian idea that we are trying to uphold and ignoring the constitution is not an acceptable alternative. (That is what in my opion bring ID into the classroom would be).
That being said, I also take issue with the idea that ID has any basis in fact or reality it has much scientific proof and me writing up a hypthosis about how I’m actually 3000 years old and 3000 years ago I decided to make some people and some other things and put some fossils in the ground, ect, ect, ect. ID has ZERO, I’ll repeat ZERO basis in fact, science, and the real issue here is that Christians have brainwashed some of the intelligent people who read our site into thinking it is based somehow on fact, or even possibly on fact. It is not and I keep pointing out how it is not and why the arguments don’t work and yet people keep saying but maybe God did do it, YES MAYBE he did but that CANNOT be taught in Science, philosphy.. maybe, religion class.. 4 sure.. but not Science.. that is undermining teh subject of science all together, and the fact that the consnsus on evolution has been formed for quite a long time.. it seems like we are going backwards here.
I also don’t know if I would agree that science has disproved Christian beliefs.. because theologins have always know the Bible was put together by the Catholic church and they picked what books they wanted and which they didn’t and it is nothing more then an historical account written by PEOPLE .. so it’s obviously open to some pretty hefty interpatation.
I personally do not see any conflict between evolution, the bible, and God.. I think they can all exist and might very possibly exist but I do see issues with dumbing down children for a political agenda.
Christine the Lioness asserted
Just responding to “Anonymous” who I am assuming is Stacey… let’s set the record straight. I’m not opposed to reading anything… I just think it’s pretty lame to jump into a conversation on a blog or elsewhere and tell everyone they should just go read a book on something that you, yourself, seem to be having trouble explaining… it’s a pathetic cop out and if that’s all you can contribute, keep your mouth shut and your fingers off the keyboard because I don’t care to hear it. Now if you have something worthwhile to say, I’ll listen. If you’re simply going to tell me I’m set in my ways because I don’t rush out and buy the book you want me to read, then that’s a bit presumptuous on your part. So your first post didn’t get my “feathers ruffled.” But your accusation that I’m too set in my ways to be open-minded, did. It was completely unfounded by anything you know about me (sort of like your back up supporting ID– based on no facts whatsoever).
I think if you’d read everyone else’s comments who actually have something to back up their positions other than just instructing us all to go read a book… you’d get the picture. As for your attempt at arguing for intelligent design by “assuming” that evolution did happen… I think we should stop right there. Evolution has been proven… and we all know that not all organisms are assigned genders. So I guess I’m still waiting to hear something I didn’t already know. How about this? Why don’t YOU read that book you mentinoed, and then come back to us with something scientific that supports Intelligent Design as a credible SCIENTIFIC theory.
Christine the Lioness penned this
Trouble, well said. Christopher and I had this discussion the other night about why religion exists. Expounding upon what Christopher just commented… humans created religion because they needed to believe that (1) their lives had meaning, and (2) that there was something more for them after death. We are much more comfortable “knowing someone has gone to Heaven” when they leave us, than to believe that they are simply gone. Every culture in the history of manking has created a religion. All of them… and they’ve all done it for the same reason. Now… like most things… smart people, who have an agenda to control others, use religion to do just that. Anything and everything can be corrupted and manipulated. Sometimes it’s used for good… like instilling moral values that help people co-exist peacefully together (”Thou shalt not kill,” etc.) Sometimes they’re used for corrupt reasons– like evangelist Benny Hinn– who made lots of money “healing” people even though people were stopping their treatments for Cancer because he told them they were “healed” and then died because of it. In this instance, I agree that Intelligent Design’s place belongs in a philosophy class, or religion class… but the nature of “science” is that we classify things based on proof. Since there is no “proof” for ID, it doesn’t belong being taught in a science class. If you want your child to learn about ID, take them to Sunday School. But I think a lot of the problem is that some proponents of ID want ID to be accepted by everyone, because it is one step closer to convincing non-believers in the Christian faith. There are agendas at play here, other than the interest in furthering science.
fuzzit the Groupie said this
I just wanted to point out the four purposes of schools courtesy of John Taylor Gatto.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history4.htm
Here’s a gem of a quote
“……mutilation (of human resources/ students) in the interests of later social efficiency has to be one of the biggest tasks assigned to forced schooling.”
Stacey the Virgin remarked
Christine,
Anonymouse was me… Didn’t mean for that come as anonymous.
Ok, I am not trying to sell a book, and I am not trying to tell you to read a book. I posted a link to a website with a lot of great information for you and any one else who would like to get a little insight into some of the thinking in the Intelligent Design community. I’m not asking you to go read it, and respond to everything posted there. Read it whenever, or never. That is your choice.
I think that my questions were legitimate. You come out and say x,y, and z have been proven. I do not recall that macro-evolution has been proven. To be proven, it has to be testable. For it to be testable, it has to be reproducable. Can you give me links to some articles on this? I would love to read them.
I’m not discounting micro-evolution. I know that it has been witnessed, but there is a big difference. Actually, I am not discounting evolution either. It hasn’t been proven, and it hasn’t been disproven either. Much like ID.
Let’s take a step back though for a moment, and let’s assume by whatever process, evolution, or what have you that we all came into existence, just as you say. Now, let’s assume that all of this happened by sheer chance, and that there is no God that started it. Ok, so here we are, by chance. We have taken God out of science, and as such, all we have to prove anything and everything about our world is science, and it’s theories, and its laws. How do explain morals? More specifically, and I am going to go out on a limb here and make another assumption, that you like myself, and just about everyone else in the world, that pre-meditated nurder is wrong. I think we can probably all agree on that. I could be wrong, and if I am, point that out to me. So, we all agree that pre-meditated murder is wrong. WHY? If there is no God, and we are all the result of chance, and purely natural processes, then why is pre-meditated murder is wrong? What dictates that?
See, the thing is that you can take God out of science, but that does not discount His existence. Without an absolute there can be no wrong. Logic dictates that.
Stacey the Virgin spake, and sayeth
Christine, you know, I guess it might help if I read all of the original post. I started reading in the comments, and have made some assumptions about you, and I apologize for that. But based on your original post, you said you believe in ID, yet, go on to say that dinosaurs are discounted by ID, and so on. Seems like you are playing both sides of the fence, so which is it?
Christopher the Pyro penned this
Ok.
There is ALOT of very misinformation here.
1. To prove evolution I do not need everybody on earth to make it true. I need the scientific communicty that is neautral and not paid off by Christian think tanks to have tested the facts, reproduced those facts thousands of times. That is what evolution has done. ID has not. ID can’t be disproved because it is based on something that can’t be proved it will never be science, it is just not possible. Evolution has been proven, plain and simple, this isn’t even something that is debated in scientific circles. There are elements of evolution that are debated.. for example what area of hte world humans moved up from ape, or in what year, ect but the idea that it actually happeend isn’t even debated anymore except by people who choose to believe some random Christian Science website. Look up Intelligent Design in Wikipedia… does it sound at all creditable, it’s like scientolgy.
Stacey, I can also say that Christine is a very open minded person I know a lot of people and most people spend there whole life being misguilded and dumb, that cannot be said about Christine, she will listen to whatever anybody has to say, educated herself on a subject and then form her own opinion, many times that opinion is still different then mine.. (so obviously it is still wrong, but hey she’s a woman so we can’t ask for much j/k cc) anyway.. the point is don’t go accusing someone that is close minded and not willing to change there opnion, I can also say that she isn’t playing both sides of the fense she has just made a distinction.. (I think) Christine correct me if I’m wrong.. she still believes ID could be true or is true, but that it is utterly unprovably so we can’t teach it as a science and and doesn’t belong in our Classrooms.
Kevin the Soldier said this
I went back and reread some of my posts. As Trouble pointed out, we have branched out significantly from the initial discussion. For the record, I think Darwinian Evolution should be presented in school but not without analysis of the apparent flaws (Post 11). I also completely support the teaching of other theories but never specifically stated that I thought they should be taught in Science class. I’ll give it to you Chris, I don’t think (and never really did) that ID should be taught as science. I question whether Darwinian evolution should be taught as science either (as opposed to general evolution) but have no problem with it as long as the discrepancies are pointed out and discussed. The argument then evolved into a discussion of ID as a valid theory. I personally feel that these debates are very useful and hopefully can show people the opposite sides of the debate. I think you are very much in error to classify people who are searching and trying to discover the truth as “Christians have brainwashed some of the intelligent people”. The best and brightest thinkers in this world are people who have challenged existing thinking because of unexplained flaws (Einstein, Copernicus, Darwin, etc.) Darwin challenged the status quo as taught by the church and his theories are now the status quo. The problem with this is that people are now unwilling to challenge his theory and examine the discrepancies. That is unfortunate but not unexpected. These brainwashed people that you mentioned are simply try to push the envelope of human understanding. Who is really the brainwashed now, the people who dig in with unquestioning support of a theory with holes in it or the people who are looking for other explanations (with or without religion)?
Nicole the Virgin chimed in with
“Darwin challenged the status quo as taught by the church and his theories are now the status quo. The problem with this is that people are now unwilling to challenge his theory and examine the discrepancies”
Actually Kevin, one of the hallmarks of good science is falsifiability. That’s why scientists call Darwin’s Theory just that, a THEORY. In science a theory is defined as a hypothesis that has been extensively tested and not yet disproven. Biologists especially continually test and retest evolution in all organisms, from the development of new viral strains to human evolution. This is where we get to the part of “has yet to be disproven.”
In good science, evolution is accepted as a fact, yet constantly called into question by repeated tests. That is the nature of science , to continually ask why and how. Until a hypothesis is tested thouroughly, it is still a hypothesis.
I think a lot of people get hung up on the word “theory” and try to use it in the colloquial sense. I have a theory that based on the fact that I haven’t read all the replies here, I am probably repeating something someone else said much better. My theory is not the least bit scientific, however, because “better” isn’t quantifiable, and therefore is untestable. Just like intelligent design, my theory has no place in science. Not because it’s untrue, but because its untestible, and therefore not falsifiable.
Heathen Dan the Virgin penned this
My opinion is that evolution, and only evolution, should be taught in science class. There is no doubt that it is the best explanation for the myriad sets of evidences from different areas of biology and geology. It has withstood all attempts at falsification, it has made a multitude of confirmed predictions, and it has unified the disparate disciplines of the life sciences under its general framework.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, is an empty void of evolution denial, first articulated by overt creationists, now rehashed by more sophisticated-sounding arguments. It makes no empirically verifiable predictions, it makes no addition to the body of scientific knowledge, it does not inspire any new fields of inquiry, and it has not made any definite, testable claims (other than the aforementioned evolution denial). Given its vacuous content, it has nothing to offer to science, because it is not science.
In science class, one must present the best theories, the best ideas, the best evidences. A science class is not the place to argue for a nonscientific view, any more than teaching the “flat earth hypothesis”. If ID supporters want their doctrines to be taught in science classes, they must first present it to the scientific establishment, survive peer review, and make confirmable (and confirmed) fact claims. Teachers already has precious little time to teach science in any substantive degree, by introducing unsupported “alternatives”, their time would be even more curtailed.
Christine the Lioness up'n wrote this
Thanks, Christopher. You are 100% correct about my position on ID. Stacey… I am not saying that Evolution discounts the existence of God. I’m not saying there isn’t a God. But I am saying that only what can be scientifically proven belongs in a science class. And since, God is inherently faith-based, He doesn’t belong there. Plain and simple. I am also a proponent of the separation of church and state, as I believe our forefathers who wrote the Constitution did a pretty damn good job in creating a basis for what became a world superpower in only 200 years. I don’t think it is worth it to violate the constitution because there is a minority of people right now, who believe that Intelligent Design (which has a definite religious component, and has yet to be proven) feel ID should be taught in school. If, at some point, ID is proven to have some scientific merit beyond what Christian think tank scientists would like us all to believe, then I’ll be all for teaching it as a scientific theory. Until then… it belongs in Sunday School.
Christine the Lioness scribbled
I know this is long… but I just found the actual Pennsylvania law requiring the teaching of Intelligent Design in 9th grade biology. Here it is if you’re interested…
See Case # 1731 (12/04) (E.D. Pa.)
Intelligent Design; Creationism; evolution; teaching of. The Dover Area School District Board of Directors in York County, Pennsylvania passed a resolution reading: ?Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin?s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught.? Thereafter, the school district announced that teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in the ninth grade biology class: ?The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin?s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin?s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin?s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.? Students who did not wish to be exposed to the this statement and students whose parents did not care to have them exposed to it, had to ?opt out?, a procedure that involved the necessity of students having a form signed by parents and returned to the classroom before the statement was read. The district court held that the School District?s ID (Intelligent Design) Policy was unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, ? 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and permanently enjoined defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. The court applied both the endorsement test and the Lemon test. Applying the endorsement test the court held that an objective observer would know that ID and teaching about ?gaps? and ?problems? in evolutionary theory were creationist, religious strategies that evolved from earlier forms of creationism, a religious, non-scientific teaching which had previously been barred from being taught in public school science classes. Given, given ,inter alia, the Board?s public hearings, the public controversy over ID in the local press, and a newsletter sent by the Board to every household in Dover to help explain the changes in the biology curriculum, the court found that not only were students, their parents, and other Dover citizens part of the listening audience for the Board?s curriculum change, but they were all part of its ?intended audience.? The court found that ID was a theological argument, not science, because (1) ID violated the ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employed the same flawed reasoning that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID?s negative attacks on evolution had been refuted by the scientific community. In addition, ID had failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it had not generated peer-reviewed publications, and it had not been the subject of testing and research. The court discussed in detail the concept of irreducible complexity as applied to (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system and found defendants? arguments as failing to meet scientific standards and as having been refuted in the scientific literature. Applying the Lemon test, the court found that defendants? actions violated both the purpose and effect prongs of the test. The court found that any asserted secular purposes by the Board were a sham and were merely secondary to a religious objective and that several Board members, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to the court and to plaintiffs and their attorneys in an attempt to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. The court also found that the ?effect? of defendants? actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. The court was scathingly critical of what it termed the activism of an ill-informed faction on the School Board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy Case # 2140 (M.D. Pa.)
Old Fart the Virgin uttered
Yada, yada, yada. Disguise it with any verbiage you want the bottom line is that “right-wing”, “conservative”, “fundamentalist”-Christians don’t think it’s enough for them to enjoy freedom of religion without denying me the right to freedom from religion. In other words they not only insist on being free to believe as they believe, but they think everyone must have their beliefs to. No middle ground, not alternatives, no rational thinking. “Vee haff our beliefs, und zo must you”!
Christine the Lioness quibbed this
I agree 100%, O.F.!
Christopher the Pyro thought this
Except everybody believes that shit in one way or another. (Maybe not about religion but about some idea or ideology). Leftwing pussies wants us all to be leftwing pussies, vegans want everybody to love the animals, bikers want everybody to ride bikes, stoners want everybody to stone… and if any of them had any power at all they would force it on other people because they believe in their cause.
Ben the Kingpin up'n wrote this
The difference, Old Fart, is that all of it–no matter how “scientific” it claims to be–is philosophy. Excluding any philosophy is a form of censorship. Since the schools are run by the government, on government funds (tax dollars) and establish a “government sanctioned environment”, they should include teaching about every philosophy.
Thus, the atheist who wants to be “free from religion” has the same course available to him as others–home schooling or private schools–if they want a customized curriculum.
Schools should teach about everything. The point of schooling is to educate someone about the world around them without skewing or biasing the perspective.
If you remove religion from school, then you are removing something that 95% of the nation believes in, in one form or another. (I’d also posit that atheism is, itself, a religion, but that’s for another discussion.)
Yada, yada, yada from the atheists–schools should teach about every viewpoint, like an encyclopedia: Here’s the information, this is what some people believe, this is what science has proven, this is what the majority viewpoint is, here are some significant minority viewpoint.
What it really comes down to is the tyranny of the extremely vocal, extremely minority viewpoint (atheism) trying to dictate to the rest of the nation how to live their lives because they’re so afraid to hear anything about religion, they can’t even hear about it.
Closed-minded fools is all they are.
Christine the Lioness stated
Let’s be realistic, Ben. Schools don’t have time to teach about everything. If you want to learn about a religion– and there are hundreds of them– there’s no reason to waste a student’s limited time in school teaching what can’t be proven. If a parent wants a child to learn about a religion, they can send them to sunday school or hebrew school or hale bop school or whatever. The notion that other theories exist should be brought up, but not taught.
And aetheism isn’t being taught in school last time I checked. Just because a curriculum doesn’t choose to teach about Christ and God doesn’t mean it’s teaching aetheism.
And if 95% of the population believes that learning about religion is important, then I’m guessing 95% of the population would be making an effort to go to church or Bible study or whatever. I don’t really see that happenening, so that tells me that your statistic of 95% of the country feeling strongly about something is pretty much a skewed number.
You just proved Old Fart’s point… that you’d rather force the teachings about God on aetheists than to exclude it from a curriculum and allow the religious teachings to happen where they belong… in a religious setting.
Christopher the Pyro chimed in with
Trust me.. we need to focus a lot more on math and writing (Christine can’t do math for shit and I can’t write for shit) focusing on religion is basically a waste of precious time. Putting religion into science class is asnine. If schools wanted to offer religion as an after school class or something that is one thing, but forcing it on students when there is already not enough time and resources to teach subjects that are based in the real-world and fact is idiotic if you ask me.
danial the Virgin uttered
heloo
i need the information fore lessen chimical (( reaction explosion apparent))??????
i am forgive for question
pelase help me
bye friednS
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
