Intelligent Design Shot Down

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

Makkun wrote:
[…]

Actually I don’t agree totally that this was purely about the sanctity of science. I believe that to be a bit naive of you.[/quote]

I think that this is the main motivation of people opposed to the threat of forcing ID into school science curriculums. Well if it is not everyone’s, I’m pretty sure it is mine. Pretty naive, I know… :wink:

Yes. I have to point out though that I said “if” it is to be taught in schools - and I am opposed to that generally, as ID still touts itself to be scientific, and an impressionable youngster might still mistake it as “science”, if it is being taught “only” in religious education. But I am happy to compromise and allow it in religious study classes nonetheless - if taught with the appropriate disclaimer. Better there than in science classes where it is unacceptable in my view.

Yes, I accept that. My statement was a bit more blanket as to the motives of “activists” opposed to ID encroaching school curriculums.

Makkun

62

Watch this Lockwood:

Vroom,

Science is about observing the observable. In so far as ID does this, it is scientific. If you don’t like the final philosophical conclusion, well you can reject it. Of course the Theory of Evolution has it’s philosophical conclusions as well.

Heh, I have an idea, we could have a scientific discussion here. You could read a book, like “Of Pandas and People”, I have, and we could discuss the facts presented.

It looks like this thread has a lot of scientific guys on it. Anyone want to discuss some the scientific arguements presented in the book “Of Pandas and People”. If you don’t, please don’t whine and give excuses, just say you are not up to reading the book. Just admit you don’t actually have the honesty to delve into the subject and learn something about what you criticize.

63

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Show me the absolute scientific evidence of evolution.
Why would people be so afraid of offering another ‘unprovable’ option?

This has NOTHING to do with science. It has everything to do with the radical liberal jurists new interpretation of the constitution. Remember, it’s only been the past 35-40 years that this has been the ‘intent’ of the constitution.
First: science isn’t “discussed” in schools. It’s tought.
There’s no discussion between equal partners. One of them is the teacher, and he has studied for a couple of years and learned from the experience of thousands and thousands of scientists out there.
So he knows what the “concensus” is and he teaches this to “the others”. They are called students.
Now the scientific community can discuss the “concensus” amongst themselves, but the students are not to participate in this discussion.

This is not fair you say?

Let me give you an example. You’re teaching a bunch of six-year olds. You teach them that 2+2=4. One of them starts “discussing” this and they finally vote that you’re wrong. Cool eh?

Second
Some people believe that evolution is on an island in science. You can simply take it out and replace it with creationism and you still have a working “machine” called science. This is not the case.
Evolution is linked with:
Bioligy (why are some animals similar)
Chemistry (why is DNA in similar animals more similar)
Geology (Fosiles)
To name only the most important.
This leads to the concensus about evolution.

Would you care to take a swing at it with creationism?

This might be the biggest bunch of crap I’ve seen posted in some time
[/quote]

Perhaps it’s over your head.

Yup, it’s over your head. Evolution is SCIENCE. Scientists have a consensus about what is accepted science. Therefore, you can’t compare evolution with religion, you can compare it with math however. And just like a 6 year old can’t discuss math with his teacher, a student can’t discuss evolution either. Ok, perhaps 1 really, really smart student could. Rest assured, you wouldn’t qualify.

Anyway, funny that you would compare creationism (sorry, I.D.) with religion and philosophy. A great argument for those who believe that IF I.D. should be taught at all, it would have to be during religious / philosophical classes, not in science classes.[quote]
Your closed-mindness is overwhelming. Now we should only accept your view on evolution. Once again the lack of accepting others views and explanations for things that are truly unexplainable is telling.

God bless you–sorry

DNA bless you

[/quote]

Hmmm, I notice you didn’t take a swing at part 2 with your “intelligent design”.

Why is that? :wink:

64

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
…
I think there is more proof of Intelligent Design than there is for Evolution. Intelligent Design should be taught in school as another theory. I am not saying teach who you/they think created everything.
…
A question for all no-Christians- Why is Christianity so vehemently apposed in America? Why not every other religion or ?faith??

Me Solomon Grundy

You think? You seem to believe in creationism and you THINK there’s more proof for it than for evolution.
Me personally, I would prefer to look these things up thoroughly before make such statements.

Rest assured Solomon, when the Buddhist or Muslims want to impose their view of creation in schools, they’ll be confronted with equally stiff oppositon.

Another nice try hotshot

Nobody–except you–has used the word imposed. That in itself would be a problem. We are merely asking why you would be opposed to an elective class that explored different options wrt the CREATION of the universe as it stands.

The budhists,Muslims, and Chritians can help you with your anger and your desire to impose your will on others.[/quote]

I explained that. Read my previous post.

And I used the word “imposed” deliberately. Because that’s what you’re trying to do. You want to force teacher, often against their own personal believes, to teach I.D. in science classes.

65

[quote]sasquatch wrote:

I feel sorry for you. Once again people like you can’t grasp the fact that whether or not this is science is not the debate. You wasted alot of your own baloney on that little bit of nonsense.

So I’m glad you made yourself feel all smarty pantsy, but seeing as you missed the entire gist of the thread and really just agreed with what everyone before you said,albeit much more concisely.

Nice job----yawn[/quote]

Well, I feel sorry for YOU. You probably yawned your way all through every science class, but here you are: discussing science.

The “gist of the thread” is that a judge overuled some cavemen who decided that I.D. should be taught in biology class. Biology is science, I.D. is not.

Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, that doens’t make him a stupid. Some people, like yourself, obviously think that logical thought, argumenting a case, is somehow cheating.

Perhaps because you’re uncapable of developing your own line of reasoning.

66

when did theory stop being that which is observable and replicable?
last time i checked, the “Theory of Evolution” has been neither observed nor replicated, and therefore should be the “Model of Evolution” based on the hypothesis of natural selection.

an interesting similarity i find between creationists and evolutionists is their willingness to find evidence to fit their beliefs. this is akin to naming a suspect, and then trying to find his crimes, instead of discovering a crime, and then trying to find the suspect. how about finding the truth, instead of trying to find evidence to support your beliefs?

67

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Second
Some people believe that evolution is on an island in science. You can simply take it out and replace it with creationism and you still have a working “machine” called science. This is not the case.
Evolution is linked with:
Bioligy (why are some animals similar)
Chemistry (why is DNA in similar animals more similar)
Geology (Fosiles)
To name only the most important.
This leads to the concensus about evolution.
[/quote]

actually, the three branches of science you used as your examples predate evolution as an hypothesis, and creationism was the model of the day.
science does not depend on evolution to exist, nor does it depend on creationism, nor any other theory or hypothesis. your claim that any other branch of science depends on the existence of evolution is therefore invalid.

68

Why does it seem that claiming that life is “far too complex” to not have a god sound like trying to convince people that we can’t find the origins?

It still, and always will, seem to promote religion over science. I am glad that they have it in an elective- thats where it belongs.

69

Uhhh, fossil records, different species, differences within species? Evolution has definitely been “observed.”

Actually, I recall reading that scientists were able to force some type of insect to “evolve” in the laboratory. Ever read about how over-prescribing antibiotics has lead to strains of bacteria that have become resistant to the current crop of antibiotics? That’s evolution. Well, not quite - it’s adaptation of an organism to its environment, which is a key component in evolution.

70

[quote]rawda wrote:
actually, the three branches of science you used as your examples predate evolution as an hypothesis, and creationism was the model of the day.
science does not depend on evolution to exist, nor does it depend on creationism, nor any other theory or hypothesis. your claim that any other branch of science depends on the existence of evolution is therefore invalid.
[/quote]

I never claimed “any other branch of science depends on the existence of evolution”.
I said evolutions has links with biology, chemistry and geology and I gave a few examples of the top off my head.

Why don’t you have a go at it with creationism or I.D. How does I.D. explain the similarity among certain species? Did “the creator” run out of creativity?
What does I.D. have to say about the increased similarity of DNA between similar species. That human has more genes in common with the big apes than with a cow for instance.
How does I.D. explain the existence of fossils?

71

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
last time i checked, the “Theory of Evolution” has been neither observed

Uhhh, fossil records, different species, differences within species? Evolution has definitely been “observed.”

nor replicated, and therefore should be the “Model of Evolution” based on the hypothesis of natural selection.

Actually, I recall reading that scientists were able to force some type of insect to “evolve” in the laboratory. Ever read about how over-prescribing antibiotics has lead to strains of bacteria that have become resistant to the current crop of antibiotics? That’s evolution. Well, not quite - it’s adaptation of an organism to its environment, which is a key component in evolution.[/quote]

Im not arguing with your last point but I just wanted to point out that what you are describing is “micro-evolution” and creationists dont deny its existence. A creationist would argue that its simply the environment “selecting” the genetic variation best suted for survival. If you think about, if there is a God, how else would he have done things? It makes perfect sense to create an organism capable of numerous genetic variations…

72

Who created God…?

73

[quote]DPH wrote:
Massif wrote:
I just wanted to clarify that I don’t have any problem with religion being taught in schools as an elective subject. I do have a problem with this subject being taught as a science subject.

I also think that there are far more interesting things that could be taught in a religion class, rather than spending a semester concentrating on a Christian alternative to evolution.

Yes, they could teach from, “The Case for Christ” or the “The Case for Faith”. They could be presented with alternatives in order to make a decision with their own minds.

You know evolution is so riddled with holes even a new and non religious alternative would be great! Maybe one that made sense and was provable using the scientific method. Then it could be science.

I agree…

I think that having a religious studies course as an elective taught in public schools would be cool…

but religion should not be taught as science…

So then all of the sudden BANG, time began? Then one day BANG again it will all end and there will be what? A bunch of nothing? Isn’t nothing something really? Can something come from nothing? Can’t be done in scientific terms. But if we incorporate intelligent design the holes are filled, scientifically of course. Maybe they should both be taught as philosophy. Science, bah. Interesting if true.

I.D. is a religious subject and has nothing to do with science…

Huh? Its just as much of a science as the THEORY of evolution is.

the concept of I.D. taught in a religious studies course wouldn’t bother me a bit.[/quote]

I’m sure it would presented the in the most factual and enriching manner by the liberal school boards.

Sorry Massif, I don’t meant to use your post to launch a personal attack, which it isn’t and as such I apologize, but these people who are so scared to death of anything with any religious overtones they have to overreact bug the crap outta me. (yes they are on both sides of the issue.) I mean what’s next. Ooh the commandments say Thou Shalt not Kill, that religious, we should be able to kill if we want to! OOOPs doing that already. Abortion. I think the world and people have already done a GREAT job of removing religion from their lives. Look at the world around us. Religions serves as a reminder of responsibility for our actions and rules to live by. Don’t want to be reminded of that whilst we fornicate, steal, and kill. Yikes.

Flame away! (Some will find irony in this statement.)

74

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Who created God…?[/quote]

He is the Alpha and the Omega. (The beginning and the end.) Just suppose it for a second. To me it makes infinitely more sense than "Oops there it is! theory of evolution.

Its like a frog asking how does a car work.

Nope, can’t grasp it says the frog, and hops off into the pond.

IMO - I’m not equipped to understand it either. Only image the possibilities.

75

[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Who created God…?[/quote]

I dont know what that has to do with the topic at hand but the argument I’ve heard that best answers the question for me is that if God exists outside of space-time, he is outside the chain of cause and effect. If thats the case, he needs no cause. Check out C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity. He gives one of the best explanations I’ve ever seen…

76

[quote]btm62 wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
Who created God…?

He is the Alpha and the Omega. (The beginning and the end.) Just suppose it for a second. To me it makes infinitely more sense than "Oops there it is! theory of evolution.

Its like a frog asking how does a car work.

Nope, can’t grasp it says the frog, and hops off into the pond.

IMO - I’m not equipped to understand it either. Only image the possibilities. [/quote]

Wow. Sheer insanity.

Imagine if, instead of billions of people sharing this delusion, just ONE person thought this.

He’d be called crazy, wouldn’t he?

77

Evolution Theory suffers from two unrecoverable failures:

  1. It violates the second law of thermodynamics which states that all things tend toward entropy - in other words all things are winding down. Complex structures and systems are breaking down. This is what we all readily observe in our day to day lives (and indeed THE major reason most of us read this site - to help stem the deterioration of our physical bodies). Unpainted metal surfaces rust, mechanical mechanisms degrade and fail, etc.

  2. The fossil record does not support the predictions of the theory. There are no transitional forms, yet the theory demands endless transitions. If the fossil record supported the theory,a great many biologists should employed trying to determine exactly where one species begins and another ends. Instead we find whole species appearing suddenly without precursor (the cambrian explosion).

Since evolutionary theory has such major difficulties, it remains theory until these can be resolved. However atheists and secularists must overemphasize the viability of the theory in order to squelch the discussion of God. They cannot even assent to discussion (in the classroom) of the problems in their theory.

ID is an alternative explanation of how things came to be. If the leading theory has such problems, why not consider some other ideas? The answer is: atheists can’t face the concept of God and won’t tolerate any competition to their explaination of the observable.

Teaching evolution as the ONLY explaination for origins is indoctrination. Declaring that your 3 lift total is 1 ton+ does not make it so. Screaming that there is no God does not mean He can’t hear you.

78

[quote]BigBif wrote:
Evolution Theory suffers from two unrecoverable failures:

  1. It violates the second law of thermodynamics which states that all things tend toward entropy - in other words all things are winding down. Complex structures and systems are breaking down. This is what we all readily observe in our day to day lives (and indeed THE major reason most of us read this site - to help stem the deterioration of our physical bodies). Unpainted metal surfaces rust, mechanical mechanisms degrade and fail, etc.

  2. The fossil record does not support the predictions of the theory. There are no transitional forms, yet the theory demands endless transitions. If the fossil record supported the theory,a great many biologists should employed trying to determine exactly where one species begins and another ends. Instead we find whole species appearing suddenly without precursor (the cambrian explosion).

Since evolutionary theory has such major difficulties, it remains theory until these can be resolved. However atheists and secularists must overemphasize the viability of the theory in order to squelch the discussion of God. They cannot even assent to discussion (in the classroom) of the problems in their theory.

ID is an alternative explanation of how things came to be. If the leading theory has such problems, why not consider some other ideas? The answer is: atheists can’t face the concept of God and won’t tolerate any competition to their explaination of the observable.
[/quote]

  1. Sorry you’re wrong about this. The second law of thermodynamics definitely does NOT contradict evolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability go there for more info as I don’t feel like writing it all out.

  2. First, It’s called punctuated equilibrium. Second, not everything that that lives leaves a fossil. It is instead a VERY small percentage. and Finally, new fossils are being found all the time. Just because they haven’t all been found (yet) does not mean they aren’t there.

  3. Whenever creationists bring up the “it’s only a theory” debate is when they lose all credibility. Like theories can become facts or laws. A law is an observation, a theory explains why the observation happens. Gravity is a theory, yet nobody runs around yelling “Gravity is ONLY a theory!” and puts stickers on science books saying it’s not a fact.

79

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
…
I think there is more proof of Intelligent Design than there is for Evolution. Intelligent Design should be taught in school as another theory. I am not saying teach who you/they think created everything.
…
A question for all no-Christians- Why is Christianity so vehemently apposed in America? Why not every other religion or ?faith??

Me Solomon Grundy

You think? You seem to believe in creationism and you THINK there’s more proof for it than for evolution.
Me personally, I would prefer to look these things up thoroughly before make such statements.

Rest assured Solomon, when the Buddhist or Muslims want to impose their view of creation in schools, they’ll be confronted with equally stiff oppositon.

Another nice try hotshot

Nobody–except you–has used the word imposed. That in itself would be a problem. We are merely asking why you would be opposed to an elective class that explored different options wrt the CREATION of the universe as it stands.

The budhists,Muslims, and Chritians can help you with your anger and your desire to impose your will on others.

I explained that. Read my previous post.

And I used the word “imposed” deliberately. Because that’s what you’re trying to do. You want to force teacher, often against their own personal believes, to teach I.D. in science classes.

[/quote]

Seeing as you have difficulty reading and understanding what you’ve read, let me explain for the 10th time on this thread that I have said THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. I concede/agree that point.

My question is simply why it bothers you so that it may be presented as an alternative/elective class if the interest and of course finances available. Why is that so troubling to you.

I’ve never used the term imposed or any such reference. This is your big hangup and it’s quite unfounded. AGAIN, as I and many have stated ad nauseum on this thread why not elective?
It’s so ridiculous that you would post that I in any way want anyone to do anything against their will. You’re an idiot if you can’t post one line of mine that supports your conclusion. I’m waiting—find it.

To answer your other nonsense would take too long and this thread is over. Rest assured though, your attempts to ‘clarify’ your nonsense were fruitless. You brought nothing new to the table.

Your continued effort to offset your post with more uncredible crap di nothing but bring attention the weakness of your debatable debate skills. And your evolution/science reference was already beat up by someone else so I won’t do it again.

Have a good day. Try and put some thought and effort into your next post.

80

[quote]btm62 wrote:
DPH wrote:
Massif wrote:
I just wanted to clarify that I don’t have any problem with religion being taught in schools as an elective subject. I do have a problem with this subject being taught as a science subject.

I also think that there are far more interesting things that could be taught in a religion class, rather than spending a semester concentrating on a Christian alternative to evolution.

Yes, they could teach from, “The Case for Christ” or the “The Case for Faith”. They could be presented with alternatives in order to make a decision with their own minds.

You know evolution is so riddled with holes even a new and non religious alternative would be great! Maybe one that made sense and was provable using the scientific method. Then it could be science.

I agree…

I think that having a religious studies course as an elective taught in public schools would be cool…

but religion should not be taught as science…

So then all of the sudden BANG, time began? Then one day BANG again it will all end and there will be what? A bunch of nothing? Isn’t nothing something really? Can something come from nothing? Can’t be done in scientific terms. But if we incorporate intelligent design the holes are filled, scientifically of course. Maybe they should both be taught as philosophy. Science, bah. Interesting if true.

I.D. is a religious subject and has nothing to do with science…

Huh? Its just as much of a science as the THEORY of evolution is.

the concept of I.D. taught in a religious studies course wouldn’t bother me a bit.

I’m sure it would presented the in the most factual and enriching manner by the liberal school boards.

Sorry Massif, I don’t meant to use your post to launch a personal attack, which it isn’t and as such I apologize, but these people who are so scared to death of anything with any religious overtones they have to overreact bug the crap outta me. (yes they are on both sides of the issue.) I mean what’s next. Ooh the commandments say Thou Shalt not Kill, that religious, we should be able to kill if we want to! OOOPs doing that already. Abortion. I think the world and people have already done a GREAT job of removing religion from their lives. Look at the world around us. Religions serves as a reminder of responsibility for our actions and rules to live by. Don’t want to be reminded of that whilst we fornicate, steal, and kill. Yikes.

Flame away! (Some will find irony in this statement.)[/quote]

what are you talking about?

I said I would be fine with ID (religious overtones and all) being taught as an elective in high school.

just not as a science class…

ID is nothing more than the teleological argument (which I studied thoroughly in college)…not science…

I’m a christian by the way.