Can it really be true? Is it possible that the United States of America, the world leader in educational enlightenment, actually has a president who last week announced that "intelligent design" should be taught in schools? Yes, I'm afraid it's all true - and it's worse than you think. See, George W. Bush didn't just advocate teaching the concept of intelligent design (aka creationism minus all specific references to God) in religion or philosophy classes - he said it should be taught alongside evolution -- in biology classes -- as a "competing theory". The National Science Teachers Association is reportedly "stunned and disappointed." As if annual education funding cuts weren't harmful enough to the intellectual wellbeing of America's youth, now the madmen in office want to load them up with this pseudoscientific drivel.
You talk as if something's wrong with that. After all, evolution in itself is only a theory as well; something many people seem to have forgotten.
Intelligent design is also a theory.
Some believe in evolution.
Some believe in intelligent design.
What's wrong with teaching both?
Ok there arent enough hours in a school day let alone year to go through two theories in one lesson (Science).
Its just another case of liberal elite vs sensible America.
(The 48 Percenters)
Theres nothing wrong for teaching both but the theory of evolution has scientific evidence (Those couple of tonnes of Dinosaur Bones for starters) where intellegent design is religous in nature and should be taught in R.E.
Of course im speaking from a UK perspective.
According to the Intertron, in plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. Since we're talking about teaching this horseshit in science class, we'll be using the scientific definition for this discussion.
The Law of Universal Gravitation, Newton's Laws of Motion, Snell's Law, the Pythagorean Theorem, and Evolution are all theories that have been accepted by the scientific community as either true or as the best possible conclusions we can apply in their respective situations at this time. Each one consists of a hypothesis, experimentation, observation, a conclusion, and subsequent testing and review of said conclusion. For example, Pythagoras hypothesized that there was a formula for right-angle triangles, no matter how big or small, that determined the length of their hypoteni. He experimented with right-angle triangles of all shapes and sizes, observed that there was a relationship between them, and concluded that the sum of the length of the two legs squared equals the length of the hypotenuse squared. Over the last couple thousand years, this theory has yet to be proven false. That does not necessarily mean that it is true, however, it can be generally assumed that it is until such time as it is proven to be false.
While evolution is a far more general field of study, the general belief is that all living organisms are in a constant state of change relative to their surrounding environment, and that human beings are the result of millions of years of evolution from something completely different from how we appear now. This is strictly opposed to the religious idea that the earth and all living things upon it were created in the space of six days approximately 5000 years ago, and that they are all static. Evolution has a multitude of experimentation and observation on its side, such as archaeological findings, basic geology, and even the observation of other organisms over the last century or so. Scientists have used the conclusions gathered from this data to form predictions, and in the last few decades dozens of experiments have demonstrated that their predictions are largely correct. While its truth is not as certain as a^2+b^2=c^2, for a theory that's only about a hundred years old, if it were clearly wrong, it would have fallen out of scientific attention years ago.
Intelligent Design, however, is not a theory. It is mere blind speculation, derived largely from religious creationism, that is well outside the realm of reasonable plausibility. There is no experimentation or observation to support the hypothesis, therefore it is not a theory. In fact, Intelligent Design is the most contemptible of all creation hypotheses because it lacks the honesty and integrity to openly declare its religious basis. Its proponents know, and we all know, that "the intelligent designer" is just another way of saying "God", obviously in an effort to bypass constitutional prohibitions against using public schools to promote one religion over others. Keep the same theory, but try to call it "science" by not explicitly mentioning God. They expect us to forget that all proponents of "intelligent design" just happen to be Christian, or that none of them can explain what mechanisms this "designer" might have used, or more importantly, why this "designer" would have performed this design process over billions of years, in a linear progression precisely matching the predictions of evolution theory.
Intelligent Design has no place in high-school science class, and frankly, it hardly qualifies as a minor footnote in philosophy textbooks. It has little or no mainstream acceptance in either the scientific or religious community, and the only reason Bush is endorsing it is so he can get around constitutional roadblocks against teaching religion in the public education system.
It is possible to believe in both. I do.
I speculate that the beauties and wonders of the universe are too great to have happened by accident. But that Evolution was the path it took.
God gives us nudges, prods and pokes. Maybe He decided that Dinosaurs sucked and sent a comet, or a worldwide climate shift, or something. Or maybe He didn't. Maybe He made the first slime crawl out of the sea and decide to try breathing oxygen. Who knows?
But whether He did or not, I know this for sure - humans invented religion, with the aid of the imagination. And humans also invented science, with the aid of research. Science has a lot more proof behind it than religion, and less wars have been started as a direct reuslt of it as well. It's been said by many acclaimed scientists that if we hadn't had the Dark Ages, a period of 400 or so years when all scientific research was outlawed in Europe and you got burnt, hung and stoned for trying it, we'd be colonising space by now.
If Bush wants to teach 'Intelligent Design' as a plausible theory, it's all very well. But it should stick to where it belongs - R.E. And he should remember that the Middle East strictly theocratic countries do similar things.
And why doesn't he just condone the use of leeches and the chopping off of legs in hospitals? Or the drilling of holes in the skull, to relieve headaches? Rub their brains with salt? If someone disagrees with him, will he have them burned at the stake for witchcraft?
The Law of Universal Gravitation, Newton's Laws of Motion, Snell's Law, the Pythagorean Theorem, and Evolution are all theories that have been accepted by the scientific community as either true or as the best possible conclusions we can apply in their respective situations at this time.
I am so freaking sick of hearing Evolution/Drawinism referred to as a "theory." Because it is not. It is a tautology.
Darwin told us this: "Anything that survives, survives. Anything that does not survive, does not survive. this has been going on for millennia."
Umm.... duh?
This is strictly opposed to the religious idea that the earth and all living things upon it were created in the space of six days approximately 5000 years ago, and that they are all static.
Not all believers in intelligent design are biblical creationists.
In fact, Intelligent Design is the most contemptible of all creation hypotheses because it lacks the honesty and integrity to openly declare its religious basis.
Not everyone who believes in intelligent design is tied town to some specific religion. Many people will tell you "yeah, I guess I believe in some sort of God who created the universe, but I don't know about all this church and jesus stuff..."
Its proponents know, and we all know, that "the intelligent designer" is just another way of saying "God", obviously in an effort to bypass constitutional prohibitions against using public schools to promote one religion over others.
Now, explain these two things to me, because I must be frightfully stupid.
(1) Where in the United States Constitution does it prohibit teachers, schools or any government employee from expressing a belief in religion? In fact, the first amendment guarantees their right to do so, so if that's contradicted elsewhere in the constitution, I'd like you to point it out to me.
(2) How would it be promoting one religion over another if a teacher said to the class "Some people believe in intelligent design. Some people believe in evolution. Let's discuss both." In fact, I think it would be healthy if the teachers allowed the students to have a class discussion debating the merits of either theory, as long as it didn't become too heated.
They expect us to forget that all proponents of "intelligent design" just happen to be Christian,
As I mentioned above, there are quite a lot of people who have a vague beliefe in a creating God, but don't tie themselvesdown to one religion.
or that none of them can explain what mechanisms this "designer" might have used, or more importantly, why this "designer" would have performed this design process over billions of years, in a linear progression precisely matching the predictions of evolution theory.
Umm... because intelligent design and evolution are not contrary to each other maybe? Some people believe in both ideas (and I do not say theory because neither one is).
I honestly don't see what would be so wrong if a teacher discussed intelligent design.
ISNT what this about, if Bush thinks it should be taught so be it...
But it should be taught in RE lessons, not Science. It doesnt fit into the field of science and it isnt a scintific study.
I mean, teaching it in Science class???
Quite frankly, I fail to see any scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design. I have no qualms with it, but it is no scientific theory and as such should not be taught in science classes.
I am so freaking sick of hearing Evolution/Drawinism referred to as a "theory." Because it is not. It is a tautology.
Darwin told us this: "Anything that survives, survives. Anything that does not survive, does not survive. this has been going on for millennia."
Umm.... duh?
That isn't evolution.
Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
And indeed, it is no redundant statement. It's, y'know, a theory. A theory, unlike Intelligent Design, based on scientific evidence.
The problem is not with pointing out that evolution is a theory in class or discussing alternatives, it's that there just isn't time to devote intelligent design (being as it is not a scientific theory) to the syllabus.
Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Which can be restated as: All traits present in current-generation species are present because the ancnsetors who originally carried these traits were able to reproduce. Those traits that hinder ability to survive or reproduce are not passed on.
Which is basically a long-winded way of saying: "Anything [any trait] that survives, survives. Anything [any trait] that does not survive, does not survive."
No. You're over-simplifying. Genetics and inheritance is a huge part of evolution, which you can't gloss over by saying "Well, yeah. If something dies then it won't be around any more and if it does then it will."
I can see what you're getting at here, but just because something isn't blindingly complicated doesn't mean it's redundant, nor does it deny it being classed as a theory.
(1) Where in the United States Constitution does it prohibit teachers, schools or any government employee from expressing a belief in religion?
Nowhere. Don't get me wrong; there's nothing stopping teachers from declaring their belief in Intelligent Design, even if it'll probably get them laughed at.
(2) How would it be promoting one religion over another if a teacher said to the class "Some people believe in intelligent design. Some people believe in evolution. Let's discuss both." In fact, I think it would be healthy if the teachers allowed the students to have a class discussion debating the merits of either theory, as long as it didn't become too heated.
That's not what Bush is pushing for; he wants it taught in the science curriculum as a "competing" scientific theory. We're not talking an offhand footnote, we're talking entire units on the thing. It would be like teaching Chinese Taoism (five elements) in chemistry, or that the universe revolves around the earth in astronomy. This crap belongs in humanities class, if anything.
Quote:
That's not what Bush is pushing for; he wants it taught in the science curriculum as a "competing" scientific theory. We're not talking an offhand footnote, we're talking entire units on the thing. It would be like teaching Chinese Taoism (five elements) in chemistry, or that the universe revolves around the earth in astronomy. This crap belongs in humanities class, if anything.
EXACTLY...
In Biology in my school, we were taught the theories of spontaneous generation and inheritance of aquired characteristics by subsequent generations. Of course, we were also taught that these theories had been disproved long ago.
I see no problem in doing a similar thing with intelligent design (though that's unproved rather than disproved), unless someone can come along with decent scientific proof for it, in which case - sure - teach it in all the Science classes you like. More in-depth discussion of intelligent design should occur in something like a Philosophy class, if at all.
As such, I disagree with Bush's proposals. There's nothing wrong with teaching kids to consider alternative points of view, just don't give them the wrong impression about them. Regardless of whether or not you believe in intelligent design, without an iota of conclusive evidence to back it up, it is not a competing theory. It's at best a hypothesis.
Religion in the science class... *rubs forehead*
Thing is though, what you learn in science class is things built up through scientific study...
The theory of spontaeous creation (which, believe it or not I AM a christian yet i disagree with the view it should be taught in Science.)
If it should be taught, teach it in RE where it belongs, Science is for things that have a scientific founding, and intelligent design has NONE, it's a matter of personal faith and belief and OUGHT to be put where it belongs, not pushed in with other theories.
"The theory of spontaeous creation (which, believe it or not I AM a christian yet i disagree with the view it should be taught in Science.)"
Did you mean to say Intelligent Design there? While ID does bear obvious similarities to religious creationism, spontaneous generation does not, to my knowledge, have a religious basis: it suggests that living creatures can grow out of non-living/dead matter, such as maggots appearing inside corpses (before it was known that they actually come from fly eggs).
Since I'm posting, I might as well elaborate. When I say we were taught these bogus theories, I don't mean we went into any great detail on them - just an explanation of the gist of the theory and what evidence there existed to prove them wrong. So you could do the same thing with intelligent design (explain the basic idea) then say that there's no evidence for it, but there is plenty of evidence for the theory of evolution. I'm not saying that you should do that, but just that I wouldn't make a big fuss if it did happen (since you'd only be wasting a bit of a lesson in each set of pupil's entire education). It's a moot point, though, since it's not what Bush is proposing (which I've already said I disagree with).
Cycle,
Stop behaving like such an Athiest, Athiests use the "Theory of Evolution" as proof of nonexistence of a Creator. I know that you prefer to be called an athiest with lower case a, but denying that your anti Intelligent Design stance is anything but an anti-God is simply foolish.
The Law of Universal Gravitation, Newton's Laws of Motion, Snell's Law, the Pythagorean Theorem, and Evolution are all theories that have been accepted by the scientific community as either true or as the best possible conclusions we can apply in their respective situations at this time. Each one consists of a hypothesis, experimentation, observation, a conclusion, and subsequent testing and review of said conclusion. For example, Pythagoras hypothesized that there was a formula for right-angle triangles, no matter how big or small, that determined the length of their hypoteni. He experimented with right-angle triangles of all shapes and sizes, observed that there was a relationship between them, and concluded that the sum of the length of the two legs squared equals the length of the hypotenuse squared. Over the last couple thousand years, this theory has yet to be proven false. That does not necessarily mean that it is true, however, it can be generally assumed that it is until such time as it is proven to be false.
I would like to point out that your allegorical use of gravity, refraction, Newtonian physics, and triangles to show that "Evolution" is erroneous. Show me the equation for Evolution. You can show me the equation for every other Law simply because they have been mathematically proven to be true. Mathematical proofs are a pain in the posterior, I've had to long hand enough of them back when I was really interested in math. Taking math from a quirky Ph.D. cured that quickly.
There is no proof for evolution, only evidence, and all evidence is arguable, just ask a Lawyer or scientist. Scientists argue over the evidence all the time, especially when the subject CANNOT BE OBSERVED DIRECTLY, like quantum physics or evolution.
Now, as a workable theory Intelligent Design has a lot going for it, number theorists and biologists alike, "irreduceable complexity" at the cellular level. And if you cared so much about evolution, you would know that it has been largely abandoned for neo-evolution as a workable theory.
The fact that you believe the scientific community has fully endorsed "Evolution" as fact shows once again that people are most passionate about that which they know the least.
Jimro
Quote:
Stop behaving like such an Athiest
LOLZ! QOTW!
Hey! Jimro!
If that remark was directed at me, I'd be really insulted by now. As it is, you're talking like all atheists are bad things. Which means you're insulting quite a lot of people in this forum. Especially Cycle. I thought generalising was supposed to be a bad thing here?
Anyway, I prefer to believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Mainly because the First Testament has a tendency to display a vengeful, wrath-filled God who could do with some anger-management courses, but the Second Testament is rather more forgiving - God doesn't even get tetchy when a bunch of religious jerks crucify his son.
But I love my God all the same. Just because I think the Bible spouts a load of nonsense doesn't mean I don't believe in Him.
~
A competing scientific theory - Bush is suggesting that the 'Theory' of Intelligent Design should be taught as if it holds just as much clout as the Theory of Evolution.
Not only have we got those dinosaur bones, we've got arrowheads, very, very old skulls - which at the very least prove that man has changed over millions of years - drawings on cave walls, carbon dating and a whole lot of other useful stuff.
Did you know that in the 1600's, the religious people of the time suggested that the arrowheads were shot by pixies, and some people had actually said that they had seen them fall out of the air? Or that they were rocks shaped by nature, or thunderbolts? That dinosaur bones came from dragons, unicorns and giants? That Stonehenge was a natrual formation of rocks?
As late as the 1800s, people said that the ancient skulls had come from an idiot - or an Irishman. And they still argued that the Earth was only 6000 years old.
To believe in the Theory of Intelligent Design is to believe all this. Because the people who suggested those ideas certianly did.
If that remark was directed at me, I'd be really insulted by now. As it is, you're talking like all atheists are bad things.
He was differentiating between "Atheism" and "atheism." I have no idea what he's talking about, but I assume he does.
I thought generalising was supposed to be a bad thing here?
It is, unless you're generalizing about republicans, Christians, believiers in Intelligent Design, or pretty much anything that could be perceived as right-of-center. Then it's okay, 'cause they're not really human beings anyway.
Did you know that in the 1600's, the religious people of the time suggested that the arrowheads were shot by pixies, and some people had actually said that they had seen them fall out of the air? Or that they were rocks shaped by nature, or thunderbolts? That dinosaur bones came from dragons, unicorns and giants? That Stonehenge was a natrual formation of rocks?
As late as the 1800s, people said that the ancient skulls had come from an idiot - or an Irishman. And they still argued that the Earth was only 6000 years old.
To believe in the Theory of Intelligent Design is to believe all this.
I do not believe that load of impertinent rot, but I do believe that the universe was created by some sort of God (the Abrahamic God, in fact). The latter means that I believe in Intelligent Design; the former has nothing to do with it.
denying that your anti Intelligent Design stance is anything but an anti-God is simply foolish.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I would like to point out that your allegorical use of gravity, refraction, Newtonian physics, and triangles to show that "Evolution" is erroneous. Show me the equation for Evolution.
I wasn't trying to make evolution out to be a mathematical law, simply trying to highlight what a theory is and what a theory isn't. Maybe I should have used something from chemistry, such as that liquids of different density don't mix.
There is no proof for evolution, only evidence, and all evidence is arguable, just ask a Lawyer or scientist.
Technically, I never said there was "proof" for evolution. In fact, I have not used the word at all in this thread. Also, I never said it was inarguable. Quite the contrary -- I said it is a scientific theory, or "a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated". I was simply trying to hilight the fact that scientifically, Intelligent Design does not qualify as a theory.
The fact that you believe the scientific community has fully endorsed "Evolution" as fact shows once again that people are most passionate about that which they know the least.
I don't claim to be an expert on evolution theory -- I've said before many a time that I'm more of a physicist than anything. However, there is no doubt in my mind that "Intelligent Design" is a load of hogwash, has no basis in fact, and has little or no mainstream acceptance. I am also quite certain that Bush has latched onto it only because he's bound and determined to have Creationism in school -- even if it means falling back to Creationism Lite.
And don't worry about the letter a.
However, there is no doubt in my mind that "Intelligent Design" is a load of hogwash, has no basis in fact, and has little or no mainstream acceptance.
About mainstream acceptance: From what you say, you make it sound like the American mainstream is atheism. I dont' have any statistics in particular, but in my personal experiece, I've found that it's closer to a kind of apathetic agnosticism... a willingness to say, "yeah, maybe there's a God." If this is true, and I suspect it is, then the mainstream of America accepts the possibility of an Intelligent Designer.
Quote:
I do not believe that load of impertinent rot, but I do believe that the universe was created by some sort of God (the Abrahamic God, in fact). The latter means that I believe in Intelligent Design; the former has nothing to do with it.
I also believe that God created the universe. But that doesn't mean that I believe in Intelligent Design.
My personal theory - and you have every right to ignore it - is that God created the Fluctuation in Nothingness that kick-started the Big Bang. And now he's sitting around, laughing at us.
And with any luck, when we die, it won't just be infinite blackness. But then again, just because you've forgotten something doesn't mean it didn't happen. So maybe it's just perpetual reincarnation. Or something.
Personal theory = load of crap, especially what with the total lack of evidence I've got. It's just faith. Just like all religions.
As it is, you're talking like all atheists are bad things.
Athiests are "things"? Like coffee tables? o.O
To be honest, I don't believe in intelligent design, at least not in the way that certain (NON-FORUM, I may remark) Christian fundementalists teach it. The way they teach it, you must believe their "theory" or you go to hell. o__o
The big problem with intelligent design is this:
Science is a verifiable body of data established through experimental investigation empirical knowledge of phenomena that can be observed or repeated, and a set of techniques for investigating, through research, repeatable events using a systematic procedure known as the scientific method.....The concept of reproducibility is the unsung workhorse of the scientific method: Galileo relied on this concept to develop his law of falling bodies. Without this concept, scientists would be unable to verify the claims of others. Without it, technological products would fail upon second use.
In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). (both from wikipedia)
1. Can you reproduce the intelligent designer so they can recreate the universe? No. Can you reproduce the intelligent designer so they can recreate humans as shown in the Bible - from dust? No.
2. A theory has to be based on some observable facts. As in, the guy writing the theory had to have seen in order to hypothesize. Did someone see an intelligent designer create humans? Has anyone else observed the creation of life based on intelligent design? Has anyone actually created life with intelligent design from scratch (as this is what the Bible, and intelligent design suggests)? No. Can we even prove that such a possibility of observance is possible? Not even.
But let us pretend that the Bible is, in fact, a book containing the entire truth of everything it says. That God spoke to the writers about it. That Jesus existed as is, and people wrote it down. There is one very big problems with it still - the script was written after the fact based completely on hearsay. That and (particularly in the Book of Genesis) God neglected to tell the readers how he actually did it. I think an intelligent designer would have told someone how they did it, so they could recreate the scenario and make sure it was right.
3. The very idea of intelligent design suggests that every animal came from spontaneous generation. We know that spontaneous generation in general is not possible. It is not possible that something as complex as a mouse without a tail will have a child with no tail just because the parent has it. Therefore, it is not possible that nothing, or something like dust, can have a child that is a bird, or an alligator, or a human.
4. And speaking of birds....Take a gander at this and tell me that an intelligent designer thought of THIS.
I also believe that God created the universe. But that doesn't mean that I believe in Intelligent Design.
That's what the term Intelligent Design means, Harley.
from Wikipedia:
Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion which states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by positing an intelligent designer(s).
So, essentially, if you believe that some outside force (ie, God) caused the creation of the universe, then that's ID.
What I find ironic is that while Intellegant Design is a belief that "an intellegant designer created life", which of course lacks specifics thusly cannot be backed up; Christianity and it's god CAN be backed up with some science, regarding the Ark discovery and various other religious artifacts which can indeed back up the Bible's story.
Dirk, you tactfully read around my personal theory bit. I don't believe that the universe is and always was in the same state. I just think God created the universe a few hundred billion years ago and then left it to its own designs. That's not intelligent design. That's the universal equivilent of knocking over a paint can and then having the cheek to call it modern art.
And I know it contradicts my theory, but I kind of noticed the order in which the seven days happened. Light, darkness, sun and moon, plants, fish and flying creatures, mammals, humans, or whatever the order was, is reasonably accurate for something written by someone several thousand years ago. The thing is, it's also LOGICAL to assume things happened in that order.
I think Craig's referring to the tv program that suggested the Flood and the Ark existed. Didn't they end up giving the animals wine to drink?
Oh, and it's not okay to generalise about the right wing, even if they're the minority here. But because they're a minority, they seem to have special perks, one of which seems to be the permission to generalise about and offend anybody they like.
'atheists' and 'Atheists'. Mind specifying the difference, Cycle or Jimro?
This is getting out of paw. It's not a political debate any more, it's turning into a religious debate. ANd that's what will happen in the classrooms - people will get science and religion mixed up.
I hate to say this but Harley does have a point. ANYTIME God or Jesus or Intelligent Design is mentioned, it turns into a religious debate. Evidence? My high school science class, marble garden, this topic, the world.
I have a feeling teachers will just skip of astronomy altogether now. Now knowledge people won't have. 
~Rico
*shakes head* Uh, I'm going to stay out of the debate and just say some things, if that's all right...
Intelligent Design doesn't seem to qualify as a scientific theory, from all I've ever seen from its proponents. The primary motivator of the ID movement seems to be to disprove evolution somehow. ID itself offers no predictions, which the ToE has in the form of change over time -- which is pretty much the whole meaning of the term "evolution", anyway. We've seen it observed in contained fruit fly populations, and just a few months ago we had managed to turn a formerly-wild breed of foxes into domestication over the course of 40-something years over in Russia. See here for the latter.
Essentially, the fact is that basic evolution is proven. Populations and traits change over time, and in a great enough period of time will be very different from the original. And evolutionary theory predicts it -- which is one key thing in scientific progress. Side Tangent: Please, I hope no ones starts up the "macro-microevolution differentiation" thing. Someone tell me why a thousand small differences don't end up being a big difference eventually? It's as inane as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic argument. This planet isn't a closed system, you know. We have a star called Sol that the Earth orbits around.
Erm, back on track. Intelligent Design "theory" [as presented by the average supporter] doesn't try to predict anything except evolutionary theory's falsehood. Arguments are not created to try and prove ID, but rather to try and disprove present evolutionary theory. That isn't science.
Evolutionary theory isn't perfect, but neither are our theories on physics, either. Or anything else, for that matter, be it sociological, psychological, geological, astronomical, or what not. Science is incomplete, and probably will for the entirety of the human race's existence -- once the computers take over, though, that might change. Singling out evolutionary theory as if the fact it isn't complete is some great tragedy would indicate to me an ulterior motive or a dense skull [or both] in most of the proponents. Why don't they go after the theory of gravity? Most of our theories of physics? They are just as incomplete as evolutionary theory, if not moreso. Especially quantum physics.
I'm not even going to try and comment on the religious issues. If you want to believe evolution is wrong, fine. That's your choice. But if you want to have "equal time" for ID, you'll have to first create some substance to it. Like trying to find some evidence for it and not just spend time poking evolutionary theory with a spear. Predict things with your hypothesis. Use real science if you want it in a science class -- otherwise, what's the point? Isn't that what science class is for? Or should we also include the "hypothesis" about Nibiru when the class goes over astronomy?
Anyway, that's all I really have to say. I'm unfortunately not as qualified as I'd like to be, but I've seen enough debates -- which, sadly, Rico correctly states almost always collapse into religious debates [and I've personally never witnessed an exception] -- to gather a fair bit of information about both sides and their general claims. I kept my words from being generalizing, hopefully, so that no one is offended.
Quote:
Athiests are "things"? Like coffee tables? o.O
Now that you mention it, my coffee table doesn't believe in God. It did kneel before Zod though.
Now that you mention it, my coffee table doesn't believe in God. It did kneel before Zod though.
If I remember correctly, Zod is the god of the letter H and the number 51, right?
Dirk, you tactfully read around my personal theory bit. I don't believe that the universe is and always was in the same state. I just think God created the universe a few hundred billion years ago and then left it to its own designs. That's not intelligent design. That's the universal equivilent of knocking over a paint can and then having the cheek to call it modern art.
Then I misunderstood you. I took you for a deist.
Cycle,
falsifiable
adj : capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation [syn: confirmable, verifiable]
Intelligent Design can be disproved if order can be shown to arise from a truly chaotic system. If order can be shown to arive from disorder, or chemical determination (abandoned by it's author) can be shown to work, then ID is proven false.
However, if every attempt to prove it false fails, then the odds of ID being a legitimate model go up, however it only takes one repeatable experiment to prove it false and end the debate. Just like the experiment that showed that DNA was semi-conservative. Sometimes the trick in biology is to design an experiment so simple that the results are such powerful evidence for only one argument. That is a successful experiment, when the data speaks for itself and the bias of the researches isn't reflected.
Jimro
Quote:
If I remember correctly, Zod is the god of the letter H and the number 51, right?
NO! SUCH BLASPHEMY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! Now...
ZOD!
I created the universe! 
~Rico
I.D. definately doesn't belong in a science class. If they want it taught in class, I've got no problem there being some class for it, but not in science. Intelligent Design is obvious religious theories, and I'm sorry, aren't public schools part of the government?
What's this about the constitution saying seperation of church and state? Or is I.D. so cleverly hidden from religion that it doesn't even fall on that subject?
Nexus,
Essentially, the fact is that basic evolution is proven. Populations and traits change over time, and in a great enough period of time will be very different from the original. And evolutionary theory predicts it -- which is one key thing in scientific progress. Side Tangent: Please, I hope no ones starts up the "macro-microevolution differentiation" thing. Someone tell me why a thousand small differences don't end up being a big difference eventually? It's as inane as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic argument. This planet isn't a closed system, you know. We have a star called Sol that the Earth orbits around.
If your claim is true then you can show me the proof. You can't show me the proof because there is only evidence, evidence that can support either Evolution or Intelligent Design. Adaptation is NOT "micro-evolution" and the mechanism of adaptation is the driving force of "evolution".
Now, lets get down to the brass tacks of adaptation. Biological fitness levels are determined by the environment, and certain traits increase the fitness level and are therefore preferentially passed onto the next generation. These traits did not appear out of thin air, they were part of the existing genetic pool, already in the blueprint so to speak.
Now, we are not arguing about adaptation, both Intelligent Design and Evolution agree on adaptation. Evolution requires that random mutations be beneficial, and there is NO evidence for this. Don't even bring up antibiotic resistance, that is a loss of function mutation, not a gain of function even tho it increases fitness levels in an environment with antibiotics.
As far as Earth being a closed system, it in the vast majority is a closed system, other than meteors and space launches, matter does not exchange freely. Remember that a closed system does not shift matter, but freely shifts energy across system boundaries, this is why physicists and biologists consider planets to be closed systems. An isolated system does not shift matter or energy, and only the universe can possibly qualify as an isolated system.
Jimro
*bows*
Does that suffice? 😮
But.....why?
But....I ask again....why? o_o
They should teach Superman II in science class. We can't have people not recognising the legandary quote!
Heh. I can see it now...
"Kids, there's NOTHING more cool than ZOD!, but if someone tries to DEFY ZOD! in a place or a way that makes ZOD! uncomfortable, that's NO good. It's ZOD! Nobody should DEFY ZOD! if you don't want them to. So what d'ya do? First, you say WHO IS THIS 'SUPERMAN'? Then, you say COME TO ME, SUPERMAN, IF YOU DARE! I DEFY YOU! Then, you COME! COME AND KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! ...ZOD!"
Ooooooh.
I see. A movie I saw only once. o.o
Can we stop going on about zod now?
Rico pretty much killed the topic last page, which was a good thing in my opinion. Zod belongs in the Spa.
National Geographic, November 2004 - "Was Darwin Wrong?"
This is a very insightful pro-evolution article. It argues much more cogently than I could.
Just a nitpick:
Quote:
Ok there arent enough hours in a school day let alone year to go through two theories in one lesson (Science).
Its just another case of liberal elite vs sensible America.
(The 48 Percenters)
I think liberal means something different in the US than it does in the UK. In the UK, the Liberal Party is the more conservative (rightist) party and the Labor Party is more liberal (leftist)? *confused*
I'm a centrist anyway. 😛
Adaptation is NOT "micro-evolution"
THANK YOU. You have no idea how many ID supporters I've seen claim that. My whole point there was that every ID supporter I've ever seen [a number going into the high hundreds at this point] tries to deny that even adaptations occur.
These traits did not appear out of thin air, they were part of the existing genetic pool, already in the blueprint so to speak.
So every positive trait that's ever existed has existed since the beginning of life on Earth billions of years ago? Or are you among the people who think the world is 6000 [give or take several thousand, depending] years old?
Evolution requires that random mutations be beneficial, and there is NO evidence for this.
Don't even bring up antibiotic resistance, that is a loss of function mutation, not a gain of function even tho it increases fitness levels in an environment with antibiotics.
...now, let me get this straight. You say there is no evidence for positive random mutations, then give me an example of a positive random mutation and tell me "not to bring it up"? It doesn't matter if it's a loss of function or gain of function, isn't it still a positive mutation? 
Any mutation which would help an organism survive rather than hinder its survival would be considered positive...
Thermodynamics stuff here
I'm not very good with the Thermodynamics terminology, but I've seen claims that "evolution is wrong" for some reason based off it. Usually stating something involving energy and entropy...despite the fact the sun bombards the planet constantly with its energy.
As a final note...you ignored everything I stated about ID not being science. Would you care to dispute them? Or do you agree that Intelligent Design bases its existence on combatting evolution rather than trying to prove itself on its own grounds?
HARLEY!
YOU.
SHALL.
...now, let me get this straight. You say there is no evidence for positive random mutations, then give me an example of a positive random mutation and tell me "not to bring it up"? It doesn't matter if it's a loss of function or gain of function, isn't it still a positive mutation? Any mutation which would help an organism survive rather than hinder its survival would be considered positive...
Losing the ability to metabolize an antibiotic is a loss of function mutation. Most antibiotics target specific cell wall protiens, and protiens come from RNA, which comes from DNA. Loss of functions are either from deletions, or scrambling of DNA. They make the organism resistance because the target is no longer there because the organism lost the ability to make the target protien. This is not evolution, evolution must have a gain of function, not a loss of function.
Jimro
