More Intelligent Design

[tw]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

so i'm surious to know, (and i'm not being a smart ass, i really want to know) what evidence is there for evolution?

The principles of evolution are even found in children born with what we call deformities. One need only go back through fossils to see the progression of life as species 'deformed' to become other species. In that chain are the so called 'missing links'. But even DNA analysis demonstrates massive identical strains between man and other 'so called' lower level mammals.

To have a theory, first one must demonstrate the theory is consistent with other known facts and theories. To take that theory to fact is what we are all taught even in junior high school science. There must be a consistent theory AND (second) there must be experimental evidence. As additional evidence continues to demonstrate the concept of evolution, the concept becomes a more complete fact. Remember, much evidence of evolution (like most science) has only been discovered in the last hundred years. But already there is much evidence that supports the theory.

Meanwhile Intelligence Design is only speculation. Intelligence Design does not even have sufficient information to be called a theory. Does it have any supporting evidence? No. None. Is it consistent with other existing science facts and theories? No. In fact the concept of Intelligent Design often contradicts well established science principles. But then show me. Show me where Intelligent Design meets the criteria as taught in junior high school science? It does not. It does not even meet the criteria to be a theory.

Intelligent Design (ID) is similar to a Rush Limbaugh decree. Somehow we just know it must exist because someone all powerful told us to believe it. We need not know why nor have any supporting evidence. Somehow that is sufficient to call it a science. ID does not even meet the criteria necessary to be a theory.

ID is based upon an interpretation of an early science book called the bible. Mankind has since used what was learned from the bible and other good books - then moved on. Mankind disposed of parables that were clearly erroneous.

But you tell me. If Adam and Eve had Cain and Able, then how did Cain and Able have children? Spontaneous reproduction? Inbreeding? As even Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor notes, "The Gospel should be read spiritually, but with critical intelligence." "What the church insists on is the spiritual message of the Bible, not its literal truth."

What worked from the bible, then mankind carried forward to develop new ways of thinking, proving, learning, and therefore advancing mankind. The bible was an early attempt at establishing order. To base ID on a strict biblical interpretation when the bible has so many errors, well, that again makes ID only speculation.

Therein lies a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science has long since move forward - established better criteria - defined a difference between a fact, theory, hypothesis, and speculation. Science says we have so many more of god's laws to learn. But the teachings behind Intelligent Design says we already know all god's laws. How myopic - as well as bad science.

The concepts of evolution pioneered by Darwin are regularly demonstrated in fossils, DNA, biochemistry, and other scientific principles. ID is based only upon spiritual speculation which is sometimes in direct contradiction to science. After all, biblical interpretation also insisted that the earth was flat and that the sun went around the earth. This too was proven from scriptures - and then recanted when scientific principles prove those speculations as false. That's right - speculations.

If ID had any scientific basis, then spontaneous reproduction is also a valid theory. Spontaneous reproduction has as much basis in fact as Intelligent Design. Neither meets the criteria as even taught in junior high school science.

But look. If your religion believes Intelligent Design, then good. Do as my religion did. We went to religion class after school to learn about religious beliefs. Concepts based upon religious speculations have no place in science, math and public school. Those parts of the bible that were accurate are already taught in and as science and math. I resent speculations being taught as science when Intelligent Design clearly violates principles upon which science and math are based. The word is 'clearly'. But then show me. Using principals of science as taught in junior high school, show me how ID meets that criteria. It should be easy given that ID has been taught for well over 2000 years. Show me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

snip~~ well, i can say that we can stop teaching kids that the real world begins after high school, and that they're already in it.

High school it the real world? Not even close, neither is college in most cases.

we shouldn't be placing them in these narrow modes of thought, like sending you're kid to school and saying "now remember, if you're teacher talks about evolution, cover your ears because it's not true" rather it should be "here are two theories, what do YOU think about them?".

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.**

it's like in math, i'm horrible at math. they give you rules to solve problems, but never explain how they work conceptually. not that it's difficult to understand, but why teach math if you're only going to make kids memorize a bunch of rules for operation when they have no idea what they're really doing? or care?

I show you a wrench. I show you how to put it on a nut and move it counterclockwise to loosen the nut and clockwise to tighten the nut. That’s all you need to use the tool. You don’t have to know who invented the tool, what steel alloy it’s made of or how much it cost. None of those things matter when you have a nut to turn.
Math rules are tools. If you are that into the concept behind them, become a math major. When you are trying to solve a problem, pass an exam in physics or straighten out your budget, the concepts behind the tool are the last thing your mind, you’re just grateful for any tool that works.

i guess i should also say that i don't think creationism should ever be taught in place of anything scientific, just to clarify.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how the flora and fauna changed over the millennia to what we see today, it’s strictly Biology.
It has nothing to do with other sciences like Geology, Astronomy, Chemistry or Physics.
It takes years of study to learn just the rudiments of evolution.
ID takes 3 minutes to cover in its entirety. Are you going to schedule an entire year, semester or even a class to cover a 3 minute lesson?

so i'm surious to know, (and i'm not being a smart ass, i really want to know) what evidence is there for evolution?

**It took thousands of scientists hundreds of years to slowly put the theory of evolution together and you want me to explain it to you here?

so they shouldn't teach it as truth if they don't know for sure. and that's my big problem, that we teach kids things are true and they don't question it, so when something comes up that challenges this (like how people think god made man out of dirt and women from a rib) they freak out.

They were being told this long before they ever were taught any science.

it's better, in my opinion, to just say "here's everything we know about THIS, tell me what you think"

First of all it would take the rest of your life to just explain "everything we know about THIS", and you still wouldn't be in a position to pass judgement because you're not a trained scientist.

it's dangerous to base an entire tree of thought from a fallible axiom, like in my opinion, creationism as a truth of science. there are so many ways to deny it as truth, it's almost useless to spell it out to the proponents of it. plus we shouldn't be imposing religion on people in public places anyway, i think. spitituality is a personal thing, no one's going to take it away or tell you that you are wrong unless to force them to.

First, find out what you're talking about and stop throwing around terms you don't understand. It you want to make a decision learn the terms and the facts behind them. Don't try to boil it down to choice between two 3 minute statements.

[Amnesiac42]

evolution as science. well, let me put it this way: i think that adaptation and natural selection are scientific facts, like Stephen Hawking's example of the white and black moths on the paper trees and smoke stacks in a brief history of time. but, evolution is still a little shakey. it's still only a theory, there is little to no evidence. however, i suppose by me saying that one could argue that all physics are not scientific either because there is a lot of theory involved. but anyway, that's why i say philosophy instead of science. and philosoophy could discuss way more than moral implications, philosophy is an all encompassing school of thought. sure the mechanics are scientific, i will agree. but what are these mechanics?

you know, this whole thing boils down to two perspectives trying to explain reality. or rather the origin of reality. we have a theological one and a scientific one, neither of which is really what i would call an explination. i do believe in the big bang, that makes a lot of sense to me.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

but, evolution is still a little shakey. it's still only a theory, there is little to no evidence.

No, "theory" is the scientific term for "strongly supported by evidence". There is no word that suggests more certainty than "theory". (If you're curious, the scientific term "law" refers to a theory that can be expressed mathematically. The concept behind the mathematical expression is still "only" a theory.)

you know, this whole thing boils down to two perspectives trying to explain reality. or rather the origin of reality. we have a theological one and a scientific one

Right. The scientific one should be taught in science class, and the theological one(s) should be taught in religious institutions, or comparative religion classes, since there are so many of them.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Cycle: quick, look @ the re-edit. Might clarify.

You've seen a lot of me at daggers drawn, and you've seen me enjoying food and drink. These two have always been around, along with other goodies. It should not cause "character shock" if another facet of a character should from time to time emerge.

[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Cycle: quick, look @ the re-edit. Might clarify.

You've seen a lot of me at daggers drawn, and you've seen me enjoying food and drink. These two have always been around, along with other goodies. It should not cause "character shock" if another facet of a character should from time to time emerge.

Not the Arnie-Connery type I'd imagined at all then? (Sigh) What is a man to do...??

[Amnesiac42]

well, you don't have to be a jerk about it. i don't come here to argue, just to share information. i understand expectly what i'm saying. sorry that you don't. and i don't say you don't because you're stupid, i mean that judging by your reply im really think either i didn't do very good job of making myself clear or you missed my point. who said i waned to make a decision?

so, i'm done with this thread, but just in case anyone has the wrong idea about anything i said:

1. i think ID is bunk because it's a mask for creationism
2. why do people trust in science over religion? (this does NOT mean i distrust science, it's just a question, because both are trying to explain reality. myself, i'm partial to science, because, well, probably for the same reasons anyone else is, it's examination is founded more objectively than myth or religion but, just look at the question, not the one asking it, will you?)
3. i think education should be more objective and just provide information, like how the news doesn't give you the news, they give it to you with their opinions...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

2. why do people trust in science over religion? (this does NOT mean i distrust science, it's just a question, because both are trying to explain reality.

Because science has a by-product, technology, that proves its method to be sound. Whether or not you strust the scientific method, technology works for you. If you don't believe in religion, it does nothing.

3. i think education should be more objective and just provide information, like how the news doesn't give you the news, they give it to you with their opinions...

Exactly. Science is information, and religion is opinion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

well, you don't have to be a jerk about it. i don't come here to argue, just to share information. i understand expectly what i'm saying. sorry that you don't. and i don't say you don't because you're stupid, i mean that judging by your reply im really think either i didn't do very good job of making myself clear or you missed my point. who said i waned to make a decision?

Forget science, ID and evolution. Take remedial English for spelling and punctuation if you want to make your opinions known. :p

[warch]

Yea!
The voters of Dover, Pa just voted out every single sitting republican school board member wanting to insert ID into the science curriculum. Clean sweep. ID belongs in a discussion of comparative religions. Not in science class.

[Elspode]

The fact that The Book of Genesis says what it says, and scientific study says what it says is precisely the whole problem, here. This is why the solution should be simple. Creationism should be taught in Literature classes, and Evolution should be taught in Science classes. Then, the fact that, in Hebrew, Genesis says creation occurred in a 24 hour day could be taught as a language exercise, and Darwinism/Evolution could be taught as a Science exercise.

Seems pretty simple to me. Now...when do I get to sue to be able to teach Evolution in the Churches since we now have to teach Creationism in the schools? Fair is fair, after all.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Elspode

The fact that The Book of Genesis says what it says, and scientific study says what it says is precisely the whole problem, here. This is why the solution should be simple. Creationism should be taught in Literature classes, and Evolution should be taught in Science classes. Then, the fact that, in Hebrew, Genesis says creation occurred in a 24 hour day could be taught as a language exercise, and Darwinism/Evolution could be taught as a Science exercise.

Seems pretty simple to me. Now...when do I get to sue to be able to teach Evolution in the Churches since we now have to teach Creationism in the schools? Fair is fair, after all.

OK, again, for the record, and I'll speak in third person so everyone can be clear.

OnyxCougar does not believe Creationism (or ID, which are two separate things) should be taught in public school. OnyxCougar does not believe Origins Theory should be taught in public school. OnyxCougar believes that Mutation and Speciation occurs, is observable, and repeatable. It is completely within the realm of Observational and Experimental Science, and absolutely should be taught in science classes in public schools. OnyxCougar believes that Observational and Experimental Science has NOTHING to do with Origins Theory, and that cell mitosis and all that other great biology stuff can be taught WITHOUT origins theory. It HAS been done, it CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.

My problem with Origins Theory is that is taught as FACT. I was watching a show on Stonehenge on the Discovery (natch) channel, and they stated AS A FACT that the ice ages came and went over millions of years, blah blah blah. No scientist in the world can prove that anything is "millions of years" old. They can speculate, they can postulate, they can guess. But there is no proof. There just isn't.

When we're talking about "there is no proof there is a god" it's called religion.
When we're talking about "there is no proof of millions of years" it's called Science.

I call it hypocritical.

Any scientist will tell you carbon dating is accurate only when the item is within a few thousand years old. Anything older (millions of years) is a false reading. Even the guy who came up with carbon dating has stated that it's more and more inaccurate as the dates get older.

By the way, the "scientific" program on the "Discovery Channel" about Stonehenge also mentioned that about they have the first history of man in the region, about 5,000 years ago. What a coincidence.

Look, I'm not trying to convert people to Christianity. I'm not saying Science is Evil! I'm just saying that people are not thinking critically about this origins theory, but posit it as a fact, and are trying to brainwash our children into "buying it" as "real science", when it's clearly not. That is wrong.

Let's teach our children to think critically about ALL subjects, ask their own questions, and form their own opinions based on Observational, Experimental Science.

I don't want ANY religion in public school, including Evolutionism. Leave faith to philosophy, huh?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Elspode

The fact that The Book of Genesis says what it says, and scientific study says what it says is precisely the whole problem, here. This is why the solution should be simple.

It is simple.

Creationism should be taught in Literature classes, and Evolution should be taught in Science classes.

I disagree. Creationism and Origins Theory should not be taught in public school at all. Or, if you insist, they should both be taught as philosphy, along with the great turtle, Gaea, Atlas, and other religious theories of Origin.

This is where the debate hinges. I say quell the debate by not teaching ANY of them in public school.

Then, the fact that, in Hebrew, Genesis says creation occurred in a 24 hour day could be taught as a language exercise

Had Hebrew been available in my High School, I would have taken it. But if you offer Hebrew, you better offer Arabic and Latin as well. Wouldn't want to be biased, now would we?

and Darwinism/Evolution could be taught as a Science exercise.

Here is the crux of the debate. Origins theory is NOT science. Hence, it should not be taught as such in public school. Lump it in with Philosophy if you feel it MUST be taught.

Let me throw this out there....

No doctor or surgeon will tell you that Origins Theory has ANYTHING to do with healing a patient. No AIDS researcher needs to believe that we evolved from primordial ooze to find a cure, no geneticist needs to believe that in order to find the gene that "turns on" Altzheimer's or Cancer or Down's or Sickle Cell or ,or, or. No physicist in the world needs to believe that dinosaurs evolved from birds to smash atoms together to try to find theoretical quarks. Origins Theory is just not a science, guys. I'm sorry that you think it is. I truly am.

I'll go so far as to say that you don't have to choose OT or Creationism. You don't have to choose anything at all. You can just accept we're here, this is the way things are, this is how it works, and go from there. That's ok, too. And that's how it should be taught in public school. Origins is entirely the realm of religion. As a parent, I don't want any school teaching my children religion of ANY kind. That is not what that school is there for.

Seems pretty simple to me. Now...when do I get to sue to be able to teach Evolution in the Churches since we now have to teach Creationism in the schools?

I think that every church, synagogue, temple and mosque (and other places of worship) need to teach ALL the theories it can. Absolutely. My particular faiths call me to be responsible for my choices and actions and to be able to answer questions as knowledgebly and with as clear an understanding as I can.

Fair is fair, after all.

Absolutely. Keep Origins Theory (Humanism) in the religious realm with Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Shamanism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the rest of the -isms, and out of my son's school.

[BigV]

and Darwinism/Evolution could be taught as a Science exercise.

Originally Posted by onycougar

Here is the crux of the debate. Origins theory is NOT science. Hence, it should not be taught as such in public school. Lump it in with Philosophy if you feel it MUST be taught.

This is where you derail, no, hijack the discussion. By putting the words "Origins Theory" in the mouths of people who say for themselves "Darwinism/Evolution", you unilaterally move the discussion from the scope of the subject likely to be taught in public grade schools, and into an area that is not at issue in a 9th grade science class. Come on. It is a reasonable direction to explore, backward in time, what might have happened before, and before that and before that, etc. And ultimately the question about the "origin" must be faced. But by the time that question is in front of us, we've left the borders of a high school biology class with a section or two on the Theory of Evolution far far behind.

That's why insisting on the different terms and focusing on a very different aspect of the information is unhelpful.

Originally Posted by onycougar

My problem with Origins Theory is that is taught as FACT. I was watching a show on Stonehenge on the Discovery (natch) channel, and they stated AS A FACT that the ice ages came and went over millions of years, blah blah blah. No scientist in the world can prove that anything is "millions of years" old. They can speculate, they can postulate, they can guess. But there is no proof. There just isn't.

I haven't see the television show you're talking about. But I do know a little about the scientific method, and about colloquial english. Incidentally, the two only overlap in part. And I think you're complaining about one of the areas where the two do not overlap. Terms like "fact" and "theory" and "law" and "proof" mean very different things when used in the context of science compared to watercooler discussions. You interchange their meanings at your peril. The most egregious example of this is when opponents of teaching evolution claim that evolution is weak because it is "only" a "theory". Please save yourself some embarassment and everyone around you some confusion by being clear and correct in your usage.

[warch]

Oh, I think there are some fundamentalist Muslim parents around here that don't dig their kids learning about evolution and science, too. From what I gather, Nancy Drew mysteries are a threat as well.