Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Which Should Be Taught In Schools?

[Ferbian]

Yes. Evidence.

Just because we have evidence that Evolution might have been the cause of everything, that doesn't necessarily mean that we should only be teaching that, while as I mentioned, I don't believe in God, but I won't deny those who does the chance to learn more about it in school.

So we use schools to teach an idea that has no basis in evidence? That's why parents shouldn't be choosing what students learn. Teachers should be.

I don't know how the American system works, but as far as the Danish system works, we don't have a say in what classes our kids should be taught, and I'm not gonna complain if my kid gets multiple lessons about a subject I don't believe myself, if my kid will eventually go on to believe that it's the superior background of creation, despite the lack of "evidence" I'll support that.

School has enough problems on its own. It shouldn't cater to students who want a principle that has no scientific backing whatsoever. If they want that, they can talk to their parents and whomever wants to teach them that. School is there to teach science, math, reading, and writing. Not theories that hold no water in the world at large.

True, the school is there to teach things that can prove necessary to survive and get a proper education in the world, but it's also there to teach you the values of life (at least that's what they filled my brain with) and if you believe in a higher power, and have the urge to pray towards a being of "massive powers" then so be it, let them be taught that, and let the teachers teach it, just because there's no theories backed by evidence, doesn't mean it should be completely ignored.
Lets remember how long the religious belief of creation has been around as opposed to the scientific beliefs of Evolution, neither one of them should be ignored no matter how long they've been around although, and neither one should be cast aside just because the other one suddenly popped up with more evidence, let me ask in this way: If God popped up in your room one day, would you slam your books on Evolution in the trash can? I certainly wouldn't.

So I can get schools to teach about some bullshit idea that I came up with myself? Say I believe that the sky is really made of diamonds, and we should harvest the sky for those diamonds. If I get a bunch of people to believe me, but scientists the world round saying "No, you're ridiculous," I should still be able to get teachers to teach my children that? That's ludicrous.

Touche.
Although while you have a completely valid point right there, I'll give you that, as mentioned above, religion has been around for so many centuries, it's hard just to throw it to the side just because one person comes up with some evidence that there might have been another way, I mean wasn't it Darwin's theories that were so highly argued in the church councils between scientists and bishops (could've been somewhere else, but I'm pretty certain it was scientists vs bishops)
So when Darwin's theories was introduced, the world looked down on it certainly, but they didn't slap Darwin in the face and told him to get himself together.

Algebra is really hard to understand as well. That doesn't mean I could say "I only believe in adding with single digits. No variables for me!" and get away with it. Let them struggle to reform their opinions or back up their own. The world (well, beyond the American Political System) is not going to let you just run around spouting shit and yelling about how we liberal scientists have it wrong. Give me evidence beyond a bunch of people who still seem to think the world started 6000 years ago, or go home.

Yeah I still have problems with Algebra to this day.. I really hate it.
But either way, that's what I'm exactly saying in my original post, I believe that both things should be taught hand in hand, because one thing shouldn't be pushed to the side because the other one is "more right", because let's just look at this thread, it's far from dead, and people are still debating the subject, of course we could continue for years to debate which one is more right than the other, and where would we be? nowhere.

 

[Mufasa]

Didn't the whole push for intelligent design in science books come about because of Christian reaction to evolution? I don't know the whole history of the debate, but as best I can tell Christians got upset that Genesis had been discredited, went out of their way to prevent evolution from being taught at all, and then when they lost that battle tried to add their religious beliefs into science books.

Intelligent design is still mostly promoted by Christians trying to defend their religion. It's mostly a lot of Christian parents with no background in science at all wishing their local schools would teach it. That's where the majority of the intelligent design support comes from.

Intelligent design should not be discussed outside of a theology class or a church until some major ground breaking peer reviewed work that becomes widely accepted in the scientific community supports it. If you add that into science books simply because a bunch of vocal Christians want it, then you leave the door open to things like trying to add the theory of heaven and hell to the discussion of the life cycle.

 

[Tastycles]

Slyfox, I'm not going to break down your post into a million different subheadings like everyone else, but you're arguing from a flawed premise. You absolutely can explain the origins of life with the theory of evolution. There is an experiment in the 50s, which I would have typed up, had I access to my lecture notes, which shows that given the primordial atmosphere, an electrical surge can make basic amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of life, and given a few of them, you can get proteins, and life from there on out is pretty straightforward over a long time.

As for the beginning of time, we have fairly good evidence for what happened from 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang, and our theoretical understanding is vast.

I think religion should be taught in schools, as long as it is taught as that. The evidence for evolution is copious, and the evidence for intelligent design is nil. We do not teach flood geology alongside tectonics, even though there is more chance that is real than intelligent design, as it can actually explain the evidence, intelligent design can explain nothing as it has no evidence whatsoever. Sly, I see your point, but conventional science can do everything creationism can in terms off speculation, and it has evidence to back everything else it says. I don't care if people want to say that God guides intelligent design, or ordered the Big Bang, but lets not teach kids something that has no chance of being true as science.

 

[The Roid Rage]

I stand by my previous statements on the matter. I think that the two should be equally represented, not as science or fact, but what they are "Theory". Just because someone did more research on one than the other doesn't really make that big a difference to me. We're not saying one is more accurate than the other, or that one or the other is wrong just that these are two theories that have been heavily supported and debated. You give the information about either or, and let the student make up their own mind, especially since neither side of the isle really has a leg to stand on after the way all of you have torn down each one.

The whole thing I am looking to avoid is promoting or tearing down either theory, or teaching either on as absolute fact. I think that instead of any bias being taught to children as the truth, both should simply be presented, and the child has the choice of embracing or rejecting either or on their own. Present what info on both exists fairly, and discuss them as theories that have been formulated from here or there, giving no more credit to one than the other.

I will say this about Evolution though, since we are apparently nothing but high functioning primates, how come there are no other primates evolved to our level? Can anything be proven to show the evolution of the primates we supposedly evolved from to date? If we have advanced, surely they too have as they would be going through the same process of evolution, unless there is some kind of discriminating factor in nature. Also, how were there that many monkeys to turn into this many people. One would have to think there must have been a shit ton of them.

I think the best answer is that WE DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE. If we were meant to we would, but we don't so obviously there will be a time and place for that at some point. Until then what is taught in school should be a variety of things so that we aren't brainwashing people into one thought or another. It's the only fair answer to appease all sides in some way I could think of. Unless, you make it an elective class in schools. That would be more sensible maybe than including it in the science class since it is such a big deal apparently.

 

[Tastycles]

I stand by my previous statements on the matter. I think that the two should be equally represented, not as science or fact, but what they are "Theory".

But that's bullshit. You shouldn't treat any theory as fact, I agree with you, but you certainly shouldn't treat two theories that have vastly different explanatory powers on the same footing. We teach Einstein's general relativity because there is more evidence for ti than Aristotelian likeness relationships. They are theories that explain the same thing, but there is overwhelmingly more evidence for one so we teach it. If we teach intelligent design as science, we should also be teaching that the sun goes round the earth alongside modern astronomy. They're both theories after all. Science chooses the theory that best matches the evidence, which is evolution without question.

Just because someone did more research on one than the other doesn't really make that big a difference to me. We're not saying one is more accurate than the other, or that one or the other is wrong just that these are two theories that have been heavily supported and debated.

One is heavily supported with evidence by those with an understanding of what they are doing and the other is supported by people with a book written 6,000 years ago and religious dogma. We don't teach that the earth is flat, but that's in the Bible.

You give the information about either or, and let the student make up their own mind, especially since neither side of the isle really has a leg to stand on after the way all of you have torn down each one.

When you were taught, say geometry, did your teacher give you a picture of a triangle and then say "Euclid said there were some relations here, find them for yourself" or did they teach you the theorems? I'm willing to bet my house that it is the former. Children are not intelligent enough to understand the evidence fully, so they should be taught what matches the evidence best, and explained the pitfalls with that explanation. There is absolutely zero evidence for intelligent design that isn't flawed. What do you tell them so they can make their own mind up "God made the animals, it says so in the Bible"? That's hardly fucking scientific is it?

The whole thing I am looking to avoid is promoting or tearing down either theory, or teaching either on as absolute fact.

I absolutely agree, no theory should be taught as fact.

I think that instead of any bias being taught to children as the truth, both should simply be presented, and the child has the choice of embracing or rejecting either or on their own. Present what info on both exists fairly, and discuss them as theories that have been formulated from here or there, giving no more credit to one than the other.

But you should give more credit to the one with the more evidence surely?

I will say this about Evolution though, since we are apparently nothing but high functioning primates, how come there are no other primates evolved to our level? Can anything be proven to show the evolution of the primates we supposedly evolved from to date? If we have advanced, surely they too have as they would be going through the same process of evolution, unless there is some kind of discriminating factor in nature. Also, how were there that many monkeys to turn into this many people. One would have to think there must have been a shit ton of them.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of evolution, based on this paragraph, I'm going to break it down for you very simply.

I will say this about Evolution though, since we are apparently nothing but high functioning primates, how come there are no other primates evolved to our level?

Evolution is not about which animal is the best, it is about which is best adapted to suit their environment. As our ape ancestors left the jungle, those that developed cognitive abilities did better to survive. Later, those with more cognitive ability were better than those with less, and they succeeded better. This is why many of the branches off out evolutionary tree died off. There are no neanderthals because they didn't learn to source food and use tools as well as theearly homo sapiens.

As for being "on our level", I'm pretty sure a gorilla is better adapted to living in the jungle than you, in the same way you are better adapted to living in a town in the USA which is lucky, because you live in a town in the USA, and gorillas live in the jungle.

One of the flawed premises that people believe about evolution is that there is some drive towards complexity. That's wrong. You'll be hard pressed to find an animal better adapted to its habitat than an amoeba, which is why they're still amoebas.

Can anything be proven to show the evolution of the primates we supposedly evolved from to date? If we have advanced, surely they too have as they would be going through the same process of evolution, unless there is some kind of discriminating factor in nature.

Well, we evolved from tree dwelling primates to where we are now. We don't live in trees anymore, so the first step was moving to walking on two legs. That was these guys

Then, as we no longer lived in trees, we had to learn to catch our prey. Unfortunately, we don't have any natural attack tools like claws and big teeth, so instead of going that way, we instead developed cognition and language, which is where these guys came in

Later on, they got a bit smarter, and they spread around the world, using tools and increasingly sophisticated language till they got here, to this point, with me arguing with you on the internet.

Also, how were there that many monkeys to turn into this many people. One would have to think there must have been a shit ton of them.

You cannot possibly be serious. Imagine I have four early humans. They have, say three children in couples of two. Those six make three more couples who have 3 more children each. This happened about 100,000 years ago. By the time you get to this generation now, assuming those births happen every twenty years, you end up with somewhere in the vicinity of more children than there are atoms in the universe. Fortunately, we've inbred a lot and disease has wiped us out along the way, and we stand at 6 billion.

I think the best answer is that WE DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE. If we were meant to we would, but we don't so obviously there will be a time and place for that at some point. Until then what is taught in school should be a variety of things so that we aren't brainwashing people into one thought or another. It's the only fair answer to appease all sides in some way I could think of. Unless, you make it an elective class in schools. That would be more sensible maybe than including it in the science class since it is such a big deal apparently.

If there was a single piece of supporting evidence for creationism, then it should be taught. However, there isn't, and making answers up for questions for which we don't know the answer isn't good enough a reason to teach a subject that has no basis. Religion has a place in schools, but science should be presenting the facts and explaining them as well as we know how, and creationsim just doesn't do that. If someone wants to teach that God is the driver of the Evolution Express, I don't care, but inventing a science to which the evidence doesn't fit to maintain religious dogmatism is completely unfounded.

One thing of note is that every argument for teaching it in schools centres on the flaws of evolution, and not the strengths of creation science. If someone offers a piece of evidence in support of the latter, then this should be a debate, but as it stands, it really, really isn't. Creationism has just as much supporting evidence as the theory that Bill Cosby created the universe in 1959 and planted all our memories of time before that to test us. If we're teaching creationism, teach that too, because it is as substantiated.

 

[Remix]

I stand by my previous statements on the matter. I think that the two should be equally represented, not as science or fact, but what they are "Theory".

Game, please dont confuse the scientific meaning of the word theory with the everyday one. Theory in a scientific context is something that explains facts. It does not mean guess as it seems you are suggesting. The two theories are not equal.

Just because someone did more research on one than the other doesn't really make that big a difference to me.

Other way round, people did research and developed a theory to explain their findings.

We're not saying one is more accurate than the other, or that one or the other is wrong just that these are two theories that have been heavily supported and debated. You give the information about either or, and let the student make up their own mind, especially since neither side of the isle really has a leg to stand on after the way all of you have torn down each one.

Evolution certainly has a leg to stand on. Given that it A has no evidence refuting it B has thousands of facts supporting it and C there's no evidence of an intelligent force guiding the creaton of species.

The whole thing I am looking to avoid is promoting or tearing down either theory, or teaching either on as absolute fact.

The facts of evolution (of which there are many) should be taught. As should the theory which explains them. Just like the theory of atoms should be taught with the theory that explains them (e.g. we know atoms exist because of brownian motion, beta particles travel through gold leaf, suggesting that most of an atom is empty space, sometimes the beta particles paths are bent, suggesting that most of the mass of an atom is concentrated in a 'nucleus', sometimes the course of a particle is sent right back 180 degrees, suggesting that the nucleus is positively charged. pulling these together with the evidence for electrons orbiting the nucleus and you develop a theory for the structure of an atom which is a small, positively charged centre of mass surrounded by empty space and a few electrons).

I think that instead of any bias being taught to children as the truth, both should simply be presented, and the child has the choice of embracing or rejecting either or on their own.

If the two theories are equal then they should be taught as equal. ID and evolution are not equal though. Evolution is supported by hundreds of pieces of evidence, thousands of peer reviewed articles, millions of scientists and refuted by no evidence, > 100 articles and very few scientists. Evolution is also refuted by very few (if any) evidence.

Present what info on both exists fairly, and discuss them as theories that have been formulated from here or there, giving no more credit to one than the other.

What evidence is there for intelligent design is there Game? There is no evidence for the intelligent designer, and if you're looking at the evidence without looking to prove the existance of what you're assuming exists, you dont see the evidence for it. The commonly cited example of a designed structure is the eye. Which could have easily evolved gradually.

I will say this about Evolution though, since we are apparently nothing but high functioning primates, how come there are no other primates evolved to our level?

Gorillas are the only lower functioning primate to have rediculously huge arms. How come there aren't any others like that? We branched off from Chimps, gorillas, orangutangs and other primates hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Can anything be proven to show the evolution of the primates we supposedly evolved from to date?

Fossils and Genetic sequencing. Also, no evidence to te contrary.

If we have advanced, surely they too have as they would be going through the same process of evolution, unless there is some kind of discriminating factor in nature.

There is. It's called natural selection.

Also, how were there that many monkeys to turn into this many people. One would have to think there must have been a shit ton of them.

...It took millions of years for us to appear in our current forms. We're not going to encounter a chimp with the ability to build cities over night. We've taken 5-6 million years to get from our last common ancestor with chimps to now. and we've got 98.6% of our genome in common with them.

I think the best answer is that WE DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE.

Time, and our speces going in different directions. Fact is, we've got over 5 millions years of differences between us and chimps. hence why we're so different from them. At some point in time we branched off, and we became what we are now, and they became what they are now.

[YOUTUBE]JiTMJFdMlc[/YOUTUBE]

this video goes through that in more detail.

If we were meant to we would, but we don't so obviously there will be a time and place for that at some point. Until then what is taught in school should be a variety of things so that we aren't brainwashing people into one thought or another. It's the only fair answer to appease all sides in some way I could think of. Unless, you make it an elective class in schools. That would be more sensible maybe than including it in the science class since it is such a big deal apparently.

since we do have a fucking clue, and there is no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution (wheras the fact that there's no evidence for a designer goes against ID), and there is mountains of evidence pointing towards evolution, is enough to say that evolution should definately be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design, which has far less evidence going for it, evidence going against it, and cannot be tested (which, by the way prevents it from being a science. If it can't be tested, it's not a science) shouldn't.

 

[The Roid Rage]

First things first, I'm pretty neutral on the matter. It doesn't really matter one way or the other to me what ends up happening with the two. I'm just trying to be kind of a mediator listening to both sides of the argument. After I got so far I noticed there was no point in reading further because both sides are closed off to the other. So, I decided to state what I thought would be the fairest thing to do, and why. I am not denying your arguments or anyone else's really. I just figured that everyone could maybe come to some conclusion possibly meeting on common ground somewhere, rather than shooting each other in the feet for lack of a better term. I thought that common ground would be pretty smooth if we agreed that they both had their merits and could be taught, maybe not even in the same class but at some level taught none the less.


I look at both the same, I think this just comes down to trust. I trust my faith as much as I trust science, I'm a spiritual person I live of principle and faith. You might trust science more than faith not seeing any rationale in ID. I trust faith as well as science which is why I think that they are equal. The topic transcends science it comes down to trust and faith. I know that ID is strongly supported by Christians who would say that the designer is the Christian God, but that is religion.

We're not talking about teaching a religion, but more so the possibility of a higher power which science and religion are already theorizing the existence of with the topic of dark matter/anti-matter. That's something that can't be ignored or cast aside like it has no scientific backing. You could easily use that science as THEORY to back ID.

There is no reason that specifically couldn't even be discussed in a science class, or why the subject couldn't be an elective class like a philosophy course. Considering some of the ridiculous classes there are at a lot of colleges too, it's not like this could be without it's place based on it's implications alone. It could be something to aid science as a possible explanation for how all the things they can prove happened, or theorized, were made to happen.

After all, it's a series of perfect events that has led to this, here, now. Slyfox made a good point about that too. It's not as radical as people make it to be. The difference though is that at the moment there isn't much science in it's favor, making trust and faith more apart of understanding it which could be useful as a learning experience anyways.

One is heavily supported with evidence by those with an understanding of what they are doing and the other is supported by people with a book written 6,000 years ago and religious dogma. We don't teach that the earth is flat, but that's in the Bible.

It's not teaching any religions dogma at all, and I fail to see why that keeps coming up other than possibly as a very superficial accusation. No ones saying we need to be teaching the Adam and Eve story, or to go to church on Sunday and pay your tithes. No one is necessarily trying to teach the bible, that's just the way it has been received by those who are primarily against religion and the idea of the existence of a God at all. It's like all your really doing is arguing semantics because the term to describe the intelligent designer or as I like to call it THE FORCE, is God, and that's also the same thing that Christians call the higher power or something. There's a lot of anti-Christian overtones in this whole thing, but this has little to nothing to do with Christianity.

There is absolutely zero evidence for intelligent design that isn't flawed. What do you tell them so they can make their own mind up "God made the animals, it says so in the Bible"? That's hardly fucking scientific is it?

Here's a great example of what I was talking about earlier about faith and trust. Right away your saying what evidence that exists for intelligent design is flawed, and that The Holy Bible is basically going to be the textbook requirement showing no trust in it's ideals. Yet in the case of science you have a great deal of faith and trust in it. In some ways I think that immediately eliminates your input from the equation because you have a heavy bias. Maybe your argument should be used to defend the argument that MORE scientific research should be devoted to answering the mysteries surrounding ID actually.

But you should give more credit to the one with the more evidence surely?

Reiterating on trust and faith again;That all depends on how you plan on interpreting the information you have, what conclusions you are going to draw, and what kind of evidence you value. Explanations from science are of more value, more credible to you because that is what you place your trust and faith into, that is what makes sense to you. it's the logical answer because it doesn't require acknowledging and accepting the existence of a greater entity than ourselves, it all just happened without rhyme, reason, or influence and that's the explanation.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of evolution, based on this paragraph, I'm going to break it down for you very simply.

That was all said pretty joking actually I just thought all that sounded like kind of funny observations or something. I did find how you laid it all out though very amusing, and somewhat educational since I've never really looked as far into it as you have obviously.

You cannot possibly be serious.

No, obviously I wasn't serious. I just had this funny image of it being like Planet of the Apes or something and thought of that. It was pretty hilarious watching you go through explaining it like I was serious or somethin' though.

If there was a single piece of supporting evidence for creationism, then it should be taught. However, there isn't, and making answers up for questions for which we don't know the answer isn't good enough a reason to teach a subject that has no basis.

Here wait, before you were basically accusing the basis of ID being completely from the Christian bible, now your saying it has no basis. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence, Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm.

The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.


Just saying, I am willing to listen to both sides, I actually find the idea of Evolution pretty interesting, I just find the the other interesting as well and think both have enough of a message, enough to teach, that they are both worthy of being taught.

One thing of note is that every argument for teaching it in schools centres on the flaws of evolution, and not the strengths of creation science. If someone offers a piece of evidence in support of the latter, then this should be a debate, but as it stands, it really, really isn't.

As displayed above. You miss the point though. If you can prove that Evolution is a flawed theory, and is still taught, than there is no reason that ID can not be taught even though it too is flawed to you. As long as the standard is flawed information of some kind, you can't really say one thing can't be taught because you think there are some loop holes that you don't agree with.

I didn't agree with some of the so called facts about society that they taught in sociology, but I still listened and learned something, also exposing myself to a different ideology, point of view, and experience all together. I see that as a healthy thing, and don't see why letting different ideas be explored is suck a big deal that it needs to be abolished. Just because you don't think so, or because you can't bring yourself to consider some of the information doesn't eliminate it from the equation. Not everything worth studying or teaching is science based as reflected be the many subjects outside of it that are taught, this one seeks to be in the same arena but not replace science, more so to coexist with it, and I don't think anyone should have a problem with that.

 

[Mufasa]

My biggest problem again with intelligent design is that the only reason it's being considered for science textbooks is because a bunch of Christians with no background in science at all are pushing for it. It's things like parents writing letters to the school board rather than solid research and peer reviewed studies by scientists that's getting intelligent design forced into textbooks.

If Christian parents really want this taught then they can teach it themselves to their children inside of their private homes just as they already teach their children they must believe in god as their savior.

 

[Slyfox696]

I have no desire to get back in this discussion, as I've said everything I need to say more than once or even twice, but I do want to address this one thing.

My biggest problem again with intelligent design is that the only reason it's being considered for science textbooks is that a bunch of Christians with no background in science at all are pushing for it. It's things like parents writing letters to the school board rather than solid research and peer reviewed studies by scientists that's getting intelligent design forced into textbooks.

And what, pray tell, is forcing the issue of possible intelligent life on other planets into the classroom? We have less evidence of intelligent life than we do intelligent design, and yet, science teachers seem to have no problems discussing that.

What's the difference? The difference is EXACTLY as you just said, science is scared to death of religion. Not that religion may prove science wrong with hard evidence, but that people may believe religion over science. And it's THAT small-minded mentality which is the REAL reason scientists don't want the theory of Intelligent Design offered in the classrooms.

Science has LONG been known to accept ANY theory or possibility, no matter how inane or unproven it may be. But, when it comes to religion, science wants no part of it. Do you think, perhaps, it may be because if religion is truly responsible for science, then science is nothing but a lie? Could be...

The argument that ID shouldn't be taught because there is no scientific basis for it is hypocritical. Science teaches all sorts of theoretical possibilities, such as the possibility of intelligent life on other planets, or even things like the Big Bang theory, or any other explanation for the beginning of life. The fact is, the reason people don't want ID taught in science class, is because they fear religion. That's it.

 

[The Roid Rage]

I have no desire to get back in this discussion, as I've said everything I need to say more than once or even twice, but I do want to address this one thing.


And what, pray tell, is forcing the issue of possible intelligent life on other planets into the classroom? We have less evidence of intelligent life than we do intelligent design, and yet, science teachers seem to have no problems discussing that.

What's the difference? The difference is EXACTLY as you just said, science is scared to death of religion. Not that religion may prove science wrong with hard evidence, but that people may believe religion over science. And it's THAT small-minded mentality which is the REAL reason scientists don't want the theory of Intelligent Design offered in the classrooms.

Science has LONG been known to accept ANY theory or possibility, no matter how inane or unproven it may be. But, when it comes to religion, science wants no part of it. Do you think, perhaps, it may be because if religion is truly responsible for science, then science is nothing but a lie? Could be...

The argument that ID shouldn't be taught because there is no scientific basis for it is hypocritical. Science teaches all sorts of theoretical possibilities, such as the possibility of intelligent life on other planets, or even things like the Big Bang theory, or any other explanation for the beginning of life. The fact is, the reason people don't want ID taught in science class, is because they fear religion. That's it.

I think you just hit the nail right on the head. That's kind of what I was getting at with trust and faith and I think you are completely correct on the matter there as you were previously. Mankind seems to be afraid of God, and religion. I don't see why scientists wouldn't want to prove the existence of God somehow though.

Obviously as you noted that makes their theories wrong, and then science takes a back seat to religion, but if we did prove the existence of God, I'd say the answers mankind seeks would be answered for the most part. I think it's just an ego shot to a lot of peoples minds because as you said they are afraid of religion, and if suddenly religion was proven right, where does that put all these people who have acted against it so fervently in the grand scheme of things?

 

[Mufasa]

People with actual backgrounds in science are the only ones who should be responsible for what goes into science textbooks. Science is the only thing that should be taught in science classrooms. Rant and rave about intelligent design all you want inside of a religion class.

I've never been presented with the possibility of intelligent life on other planets in the classroom. I've seen video's for it on like the discovery channel or something. I would disagree with you and say that although I don't personally believe that there is any reason we should yet believe in aliens, there is already more support for intelligent life on other planets than there is for intelligent design. We already know specifically for certain there is one planet with life on it. We have a good idea of what kind of environmental conditions are necessary for supporting life on our own planet. Should we find another planet with similar environmental conditions it would be worth taking a look into it. We should not claim that there is life on other planets until we have real evidence to support it, and thus far every serious study of life on other planets comes to the conclusion that we don't have the evidence necessary to yet make positive claims. All that we know is that there is one planet with life on it, and we know some of the environmental conditions necessary for supporting life on this planet.

Science is scared of religion being forced into science education without evidence. Science is scared of vocal religious fundamentalist with no backgrounds in science protesting science being taught. In some communities evolution is still not taught specifically because of Christian parent protest. So in that regard religion is something to fear. Christians use emotional and theological arguments to block science and wedge their unscientific beliefs into the science curriculum.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Intelligent Design as is recognized by the majority of Americans is rooted in the late 80's, when Christian Science groups failed in efforts to establish Creationism as an equal to Evolutionary Theory for educational purposes. After the US Supreme Court shut down their cause, many of it's supporters lent their weight into "Of Panda and People"; a textbook written for and by the Creationists. All references of "Creation", "God", and "Creationism" in the text were changed to "Intelligent Design" before publication so that this text tip toed around the legal parameters that were just set.

The Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank based out of Seattle, WA and center of the ID movment, released a manifesto entitled "The Wedge". It detailed a combination of PR strategies, speaking guides, and apologetic pandering to Christian groups to "wedge" ID into the popular culture as the dominant perspective in science, and use this position to inject the Christian (namely, evangelical Protestantism) dogma into schools and classrooms.

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." - Phillip Johnson, author of "The Wedge", associate of the Discovery Institute, and longtime ID proponent - "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997)

While I'd love to have the conversation that the two theories can actually support each other in many ways, and while I am aware that not everyone who supports ID is also a Christian Creationist, I don't think it can take or share the same spot in the public education curriculum as Evolutionary Theory as is because it still inextricably linked to Christian Creationist thinking, and is unconstitutional to teach in classrooms (as was found to be as recently as 2005). That being said, I would totally love to see it as an elective course available in public high schools and colleges here in the states. The only part of ID that I've disagreed with is, because of it's undeniably Christian origins, that the movement has only ever worked to entirely discredit and replace Evolutionary Theory instead of enhancing and expanding upon it.

In regards to a "fear of God" in the United States: issues most of us have with ID and it's relation to Christianity aren't a fear of religion, but an expressed desire to keep religion and government as far away from each other as possible. This goes as far back as the fore fathers. If you want your children to learn about these sorts of things in school, there are private schools available for you. Next we will have new age cults trying to tell us we need to teach that we are descendant of clones and some other craziness.

 

[Tastycles]

First things first, I'm pretty neutral on the matter. It doesn't really matter one way or the other to me what ends up happening with the two. I'm just trying to be kind of a mediator listening to both sides of the argument. After I got so far I noticed there was no point in reading further because both sides are closed off to the other. So, I decided to state what I thought would be the fairest thing to do, and why. I am not denying your arguments or anyone else's really. I just figured that everyone could maybe come to some conclusion possibly meeting on common ground somewhere, rather than shooting each other in the feet for lack of a better term. I thought that common ground would be pretty smooth if we agreed that they both had their merits and could be taught, maybe not even in the same class but at some level taught none the less.

I have no problem with religion being taught as the "why" of the universe, whatsoever. Scientific theories can and do tell us how things happen, they do not tell us why they do. Intelligent design attempts, without basis, to teach how we have the variation of life that we do on earth, that is the problem.

I look at both the same, I think this just comes down to trust. I trust my faith as much as I trust science, I'm a spiritual person I live of principle and faith. You might trust science more than faith not seeing any rationale in ID. I trust faith as well as science which is why I think that they are equal. The topic transcends science it comes down to trust and faith. I know that ID is strongly supported by Christians who would say that the designer is the Christian God, but that is religion.

I do not have what you would call a strong faith, but faith in science and faith in God is two sides of the same coin. Clearly, you have both, and you are entitled to believe whatever you want, the problem comes when you try and treat one with the same thought process as the other. If you believe in a creator God, that's your perogative, but as a scientific theory, it has no basis and shouldn't be taught as such.

We're not talking about teaching a religion, but more so the possibility of a higher power which science and religion are already theorizing the existence of with the topic of dark matter/anti-matter. That's something that can't be ignored or cast aside like it has no scientific backing. You could easily use that science as THEORY to back ID.

No, you can't. There's no evidence for it being the right theory, or even the best wrong theory. You quite clearly are an intelligent person, but I have to question your scientific knowledge here if you think there is anything remotely beyond human understanding at work in anti-matter.

There is no reason that specifically couldn't even be discussed in a science class, or why the subject couldn't be an elective class like a philosophy course. Considering some of the ridiculous classes there are at a lot of colleges too, it's not like this could be without it's place based on it's implications alone. It could be something to aid science as a possible explanation for how all the things they can prove happened, or theorized, were made to happen.

That's where I am seeing your argument. If you teach that there is a shepherding higher power that is pushing science along in a philosophy class, that's fine. What isn't fine is treating something as science, when it quite clearly isn't.

After all, it's a series of perfect events that has led to this, here, now. Slyfox made a good point about that too. It's not as radical as people make it to be. The difference though is that at the moment there isn't much science in it's favor, making trust and faith more apart of understanding it which could be useful as a learning experience anyways.

But if you teach this thing, which you say has no science backing it, then why not teach aromatherapy alongside medicine, because some people believe in that? Faith and trust should not be a tool of understanding at all. They can be a metaphysical tool for understanding what you are understanding but that is it.

It's not teaching any religions dogma at all, and I fail to see why that keeps coming up other than possibly as a very superficial accusation. No ones saying we need to be teaching the Adam and Eve story, or to go to church on Sunday and pay your tithes. No one is necessarily trying to teach the bible, that's just the way it has been received by those who are primarily against religion and the idea of the existence of a God at all. It's like all your really doing is arguing semantics because the term to describe the intelligent designer or as I like to call it THE FORCE, is God, and that's also the same thing that Christians call the higher power or something. There's a lot of anti-Christian overtones in this whole thing, but this has little to nothing to do with Christianity.

I did bring Christianity into it, and was probably wrong to do so, but implying that there is a creator is a religious sentiment, no matter what you call it. If you are abandonning the religious dogmas of organised religion, then you are also removing the last bastion of argument for intelligent design. Without anything to support it, it becomes an arbitrary belief, which has no place in school.

Here's a great example of what I was talking about earlier about faith and trust. Right away your saying what evidence that exists for intelligent design is flawed, and that The Holy Bible is basically going to be the textbook requirement showing no trust in it's ideals. Yet in the case of science you have a great deal of faith and trust in it. In some ways I think that immediately eliminates your input from the equation because you have a heavy bias. Maybe your argument should be used to defend the argument that MORE scientific research should be devoted to answering the mysteries surrounding ID actually.

I don't have a heavy bias at all, actually. I think there's a lot wrong with modern biology, but as somebody with a degree in the philosophy of science, I can quite objectively argue that it is the least wrong of our current theories. The remainder will come with a better understanding of the facts.

Intelligent design has no supporting evidence, so nobody in their right mind is going to do any research into it, it would be pissing into the wind. If I go to the beach in Dorset, I can see evidence for evolution before my eyes. The fact that there are animals who are fundamentally flawed in their design should be enough to prove that there isn't an intelligent designer, but regardless, there still isn't any evidence for it.

Reiterating on trust and faith again;That all depends on how you plan on interpreting the information you have, what conclusions you are going to draw, and what kind of evidence you value. Explanations from science are of more value, more credible to you because that is what you place your trust and faith into, that is what makes sense to you. it's the logical answer because it doesn't require acknowledging and accepting the existence of a greater entity than ourselves, it all just happened without rhyme, reason, or influence and that's the explanation.

I value any sort of evidence. If there was no fossil record, I'd support arguments for intelligent design. If I didn't have a blind spot, I'd support arguments for intelligent design. If my DNA didn't spontaneously mutate, I'd support arguments for intelligent design. The lack of evidence to the contrary is all intelligent design supporters have, and 99.99% of those are fundamentally flawed.

That was all said pretty joking actually I just thought all that sounded like kind of funny observations or something. I did find how you laid it all out though very amusing, and somewhat educational since I've never really looked as far into it as you have obviously.

It really shows.

No, obviously I wasn't serious. I just had this funny image of it being like Planet of the Apes or something and thought of that. It was pretty hilarious watching you go through explaining it like I was serious or somethin' though.

I'm not so sure.

Here wait, before you were basically accusing the basis of ID being completely from the Christian bible, now your saying it has no basis. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence, Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Neither of those pieces of evidence are true. Show me the part of Darwin that has been refuted. The fossil record is actually suprisingly complete, considering how old it is. For example, here is a dinosaur with feathers.

However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm.

It's not that unimaginable really. Firstly, a creator wouldn't make DNA that can mutate and lead to such pleasant illnesses as cancer and cystic fibrosis. Secondly, the fact that Darwin didn't know about DNA is irrelevant. Edison didn't know about the electron when he invented the lightbulb, did he? Thirdly, the manufacture of proteins is innovative, but really isn't unimaginable. The amino acids, which I have already explained the origin of, are linked to transpose RNA, a chemical that isn't particularly complex by weak bonds, a well understood chemical phenomena. Again though, these are not evidence for creationsim, they are evidence for the unlikelihood of evolution, and even as that they are misguided.

The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.

This is a completely flawed argument. Because somebody has related a cell to a factory, there can be no margin for error. It's actually pretty simple to see how, over time, enzymes could appear near each other, and subsequently end up as part of the same system, which itself builds up and up. The arguments that life is too complex not to be intelligently designed is completely bullshit. What is your basis for that? The fact of the matter is simple, imagine a billion universes. In one, by chance, the physical laws are such that the universe is born where life can form. In the others, it doesn't happen. As living beings, we are going to end up in the one that works, so we shouldn't be suprised how everything works.

If you're going down this route, it's quite simple to make arguments to the contrary. If intelligent design is a fact, why are there parasites? Surely that would be an incredibly pointless thing to create. By the same token, why are there so many flaws in the designs of animals? Why make a chicken flightless but give it wings? One would think that if given all time and all power, a being capable of creating any creature would have come up with something better than the war fighting, planet ruining, fellow animal killing human race to be at the top of it all.

Just saying, I am willing to listen to both sides, I actually find the idea of Evolution pretty interesting, I just find the the other interesting as well and think both have enough of a message, enough to teach, that they are both worthy of being taught.

A creator deserves to be considered in a religious context, absolutely, but not as science when there is no basis for such a belief.

As displayed above. You miss the point though. If you can prove that Evolution is a flawed theory, and is still taught, than there is no reason that ID can not be taught even though it too is flawed to you. As long as the standard is flawed information of some kind, you can't really say one thing can't be taught because you think there are some loop holes that you don't agree with.

I think the best theory should be taught. There is 4 billion years worth of fossil evidence that backs one theory, and human superstition that backs the other. By all means, say where evolution falls short in the classroom, but under no circumstances should the alternative, which has no basis be taught. We don't teach that the earth is at the centre of the universe just because we're unsure about certain object's trajectories. Teaching an incomplete theory as complete is wrong, but filling in the blanks with something entirely arbitrary is much worse. The idea that evolution is incomplete in itself is something controversial/.

I didn't agree with some of the so called facts about society that they taught in sociology, but I still listened and learned something, also exposing myself to a different ideology, point of view, and experience all together. I see that as a healthy thing, and don't see why letting different ideas be explored is suck a big deal that it needs to be abolished. Just because you don't think so, or because you can't bring yourself to consider some of the information doesn't eliminate it from the equation. Not everything worth studying or teaching is science based as reflected be the many subjects outside of it that are taught, this one seeks to be in the same arena but not replace science, more so to coexist with it, and I don't think anyone should have a problem with that.

I don't think it should be taught as science when it isn't science, that's the sum total of it. If somebody wants to treat creationism as a metaphysical explanation for the big bang, go for it, but something that has no basis in actuality should not be taught in schools as fact.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I think you just hit the nail right on the head. That's kind of what I was getting at with trust and faith and I think you are completely correct on the matter there as you were previously. Mankind seems to be afraid of God, and religion. I don't see why scientists wouldn't want to prove the existence of God somehow though.

This has been explained multiple times, but you aren't addressing it. Scientists build theories around existing evidence, not the other way around. Scientists do not think of a theory and then try to find evidence that supports it, they develop a theory that would explain the evidence, and then see if further evidence supports that theory.

All of your arguments have come to:

• Who cares if intelligent design has no evidence.
• You value faith and science the same
• Scientists are afraid of intelligent design

Science cares if there is no evidence, that's how we determine if we are going to teach something. Did you read any thing that Remix or Tasycles had to say? They have given you the exact reasons why intelligent design shouldn't be taught, how it isn't a scientific theory, how evolution works, and why we teach theories with evidence.

Obviously as you noted that makes their theories wrong, and then science takes a back seat to religion, but if we did prove the existence of God, I'd say the answers mankind seeks would be answered for the most part. I think it's just an ego shot to a lot of peoples minds because as you said they are afraid of religion, and if suddenly religion was proven right, where does that put all these people who have acted against it so fervently in the grand scheme of things?

Once again, we do not seek out explanations, we discover evidence and use it to come up with theories that best explain the evidence. Anything religious does not best explain any evidence, that is why there is such a disconnect between the two, it's not because of some conspiracy theory that scientists fear God. There is no arguing with you because you would rather believe that scientists fear 'proving' religious views correctly, rather than what it really is, which is that evidence dictates the theories, and there has never been evidence for religious theories.

 

[The Roid Rage]

I have no problem with religion being taught as the "why" of the universe, whatsoever.

Ok, agreed.

Scientific theories can and do tell us how things happen,

True.

they do not tell us why they do.

Ok, correct again.

Intelligent design attempts, without basis, to teach how we have the variation of life that we do on earth, that is the problem.

I wouldn't word it that way and I wouldn't say ID is without basis. Obviously there is, just not the one you put your stock into that's all, I explained this. It should be apart of science classes because of this discussion alone, take a look at all the observations, and all the discussion. This is the type of thing that needs to be represented along side science. It puts both into perspective. I think the two are very complimentary. I'm not looking at it like it's a bad thing from the start though, so obviously my view is going to be different.

I do not have what you would call a strong faith, but faith in science and faith in God is two sides of the same coin.

Exactly!!!! That goes along with my point about trust and faith. I think where we individually put our faith and trust has a bearing on what we are and are not willing to believe obviously.

the problem comes when you try and treat one with the same thought process as the other. If you believe in a creator God, that's your perogative, but as a scientific theory, it has no basis and shouldn't be taught as such.

See here again, I don't see a problem, you do. I've been trying to explain why there need not be one, but you guys are pretty insistent, lol. So you're saying the existence of God, and proving it, has no basis whatsoever in science? Wouldn't science, since it's so great, be the route you would go if you were trying to prove God or am I missing something here? Keep in mind here too, we're not trying to prove the existence of the Christian God, or any other religions specific God.

I don't see how there is not a scientific process to coming to a conclusion that there is a god based on all the science you are talking about and cherish so much. You've been missing the obvious the whole time, all that science is the proof of God. Evolution itself, Big Bang Theory, all of it that is the idea, hence why I have been repeatedly talking about trust and faith. It's trusting another interpretation the same science.

If you teach that there is a shepherding higher power that is pushing science along in a philosophy class, that's fine. What isn't fine is treating something as science, when it quite clearly isn't.

And here is the common ground. I can agree right here. Obviously you can't say intelligent design itself is a science, no that's not what I was getting at. I'm talking about the intelligent design being apart of the discussion when they talk about evolution simply because they are two highly popularized ideas with differing perspectives that happen to as you said it be "two sides of the same coin". That's all, that's why I was saying "We're not talking about putting The Holy Bible in the class room" or anything, just allowing more than one idea to be presented. It doesn't mean that in a science class the teacher must say "Science clearly supports the idea of ID contrary to the theory of evolution" or anything calling ID a better answer, just another theory.

But if you teach this thing, which you say has no science backing it, then why not teach aromatherapy alongside medicine, because some people believe in that

?

No science backing it because your essentially talking about proving that there is a God which is no small feat, lets at least appreciate the ambition here, lol. How does one prove God exists? Figure that out and you've got the rest of the world beat.

In regards to aromatherapy, in some sectors it is now being looked on as a form of new age medicine. No Shit, you can go to school now to learn to be an aromatherapist. It's supposed to be physically and mentally healthy or some shit. Apparently by smelling pleasant aromas you can improve your blood pressure and mental state or something, I don't buy it, but a lot of the medical community does. New age medicine is a crock of shit, but you've still got plenty of scientists backing it.

Then take a look at another practice becoming popular in the medical field, Reiki. These are basically spiritual healers who can manipulate the energy in your body and theirs to heal people. Can it be proven that it works? NO, nothing to prove it yet, but people think it helps them so it is supported. That's not me, that all happened without my help. I didn't make it up. Go look for yourself.

I did bring Christianity into it, and was probably wrong to do so, but implying that there is a creator is a religious sentiment, no matter what you call it.

I can agree with that statement, that's fair. I'm just trying to make it clear though that the idea of ID isn't to teach Christianity anymore than it is to teach Buddahism, or Islam who also all refer to a God, just God in general. Imagine a science class comparing the different religions ideas on Evolution, and how their stories of the worlds creations align or do not align with Evolution. You could use them just to embolden evolution for that matter if that's your agenda.

As somebody with a degree in the philosophy of science, I can quite objectively argue that it is the least wrong of our current theories.

Well I respect your education, and I'm not going to try and say I know more about it than you. I'm taking on a very simplistic view to begin with, I like simplicity. I never said I disagree with evolution, I can see how it makes a lot of sense. I just don't mind entertaining a wide variety of ideas.

Intelligent design has no supporting evidence, so nobody in their right mind is going to do any research into it, it would be pissing into the wind.

There is support, just nothing concrete, all we have at the moment is an idea. People are researching the topic of Gods existence all the time, so going by your word there are a lot of people who are completely out of their minds, pissing in a very unflattering position.

Neither of those pieces of evidence are true. Show me the part of Darwin that has been refuted. The fossil record is actually suprisingly complete, considering how old it is.

I never said they were true, I presented them as supporting arguments for ID, and not mine. I don't know what parts of Darwin's theories are now refuted, it's not my field but that's what I read from a source of information. The fossil record I thought was a pretty good point though, there really isn't as supportive of Evolution as you'd think if indeed it is accurate. They can find a dinosaur with feathers as you have shown me, but can't produce the proof of the stages of evolution they've tried to support? C'mon?

The lack of evidence to the contrary is all intelligent design supporters have, and 99.99% of those are fundamentally flawed.

It's not about disproving evolution though for starters which seems to be the belief. I already went over this too. If you can prove that evolution is flawed and still accepted, than there is no reason to not accept ID even though it's not a perfect theory either, it is however very popular, and the fact that it is so widely accepted makes it relevant especially considering the fact that there isn't much science to it's support. From what I have read on disproving Evolution and the arguments made by creationists and others who support creationism or ID, they make some good arguments in their favor, and often point out plenty of facts about the flaws of Evolution. Your view of how valid they are though, doesn't change the relevance of the arguments.

Firstly, a creator wouldn't make DNA that can mutate and lead to such pleasant illnesses as cancer and cystic fibrosis.

Now I like you plenty, I am enjoying this conversation with you, but I don't even need to point out how off that comment is now do I? I hardly think that you or I can evaluate the psyche or intent or creative insight of God. We know man is born, lives, and dies and that is what we are designed to do. There are a number of things that can kill us, disease happens to be one of them. All organic things naturally break down, not just humans, maybe that is a clue to ID as well?LOL.( I know you loved that one, LOL.)

Secondly, the fact that Darwin didn't know about DNA is irrelevant.

The answer for that was actually the next paragraph you quoted. From the source, what they were saying was that if Darwin could have understood the complexity of human DNA or even a single cell for that matter, the intricacy of it would blow his mind and his theory would be changed with the introduction of this new evidence. And, they argue that the evidence would swing the opinion in their direction which no one could ever know, but the first part is a good point that carries relevance to the argument.

Thirdly, the manufacture of proteins is innovative, but really isn't unimaginable. The amino acids, which I have already explained the origin of, are linked to transpose RNA, a chemical that isn't particularly complex by weak bonds, a well understood chemical phenomena. Again though, these are not evidence for creationsim, they are evidence for the unlikelihood of evolution, and even as that they are misguided.

YO! Mr. Wizard!!! Calm Down!!! It's really OK!!! I'm not on Grey's Anatomy so I don't know all the deep scientific stuff. Once again, as I said earlier, I presented these to show some of the arguments against Evolution from supporters of ID, it's not my field, this is just what I have heard, so I brought the evidence to you to see for yourself. Apparently some people don't see it the way your calling it. I'm not saying that is me, but it's true. The point there is that no matter what you say, and how infallible you say your science is, there is someone else every bit as convincing with infallible evidence of his own too.

I don't know that proving the unlikelihood of evolution is misguided. Maybe to you it is as your admittedly apart of the scientific community, so you even against your own admission of otherwise, do have a bias. The theory of evolution means more to you than a lot of others because it's one of the cornerstones of your education and what you've studied and devoted your life to. Some may want to devote their life to trying to prove creationism or ID, they should be able to pursue that if they wish whether it is popular or not.

This is a completely flawed argument. Because somebody has related a cell to a factory, there can be no margin for error. It's actually pretty simple to see how, over time, enzymes could appear near each other, and subsequently end up as part of the same system, which itself builds up and up

.


Call it flawed it makes sense without having to be dissected. If you changed the smallest thing about how a cell is created and what makes it be it wouldn't be, as you stated there is no margin for error, it is an intelligent design in and of itself. Once again, I'm not going to try and argue all the super scientific stuff with you, as I said I do respect your education and your degree, I am just explaining how that makes sense.

The arguments that life is too complex not to be intelligently designed is completely bullshit. What is your basis for that? The fact of the matter is simple, imagine a billion universes. In one, by chance, the physical laws are such that the universe is born where life can form. In the others, it doesn't happen. As living beings, we are going to end up in the one that works, so we shouldn't be suprised how everything works.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, however it's apparently not bullshit to a lot of other people. You know the basis, it's been explained. Look at the key word in your next sentence "In one, by Chance" what ID is eluding to is that it's not chance, the science that shows how intricate everything is, and how everything works so flawlessly together, and can not work any other way is a good indicator that there quite possibly could be an intelligent designer. It's just too much coincidence.

If intelligent design is a fact, why are there parasites? Surely that would be an incredibly pointless thing to create. By the same token, why are there so many flaws in the designs of animals? Why make a chicken flightless but give it wings? One would think that if given all time and all power, a being capable of creating any creature would have come up with something better than the war fighting, planet ruining, fellow animal killing human race to be at the top of it all

.


Your the guy who knows the science so well you tell me? Technically we Humans are nothing but a bunch of parasites on the Earth, do you think humans were useless to create? Who is to say any animals are flawed in design either? Remember Mr. Wizard, your the one who was talking all about animals adapting to their environments and stuff. Just because they are different does not mean they are flawed, nor does you not understanding why they are the way they are. There are plenty of mammals that can't walk on two legs as man does, but there's nothing flawed about their design? You think a bear that can run you down, snap your body in half with it's jaws, and eat you is flawed? I'd say not my friend. That bear also survives in conditions man is no longer conditioned to, so who's really flawed here, LOL. As for your question about humans, I could lecture you all day on that one, I think in your heart either you already know, or one day something will let you know the answer to that one.

A creator deserves to be considered in a religious context, absolutely, but not as science when there is no basis for such a belief.

What about above science based on religious belief?

There is 4 billion years worth of fossil evidence that backs one theory, and human superstition that backs the other.

No, that's not fair or respectful my friend. That human superstition has been around a lot longer than your science, and you should respect that. The fossil evidence isn't as solid of evidence as your letting on either. It doesn't have enough proof to say for sure that their theory is correct, just enough to make the theory, and I have respected that. Up until now you've done the same in return.

By all means, say where evolution falls short in the classroom, but under no circumstances should the alternative, which has no basis be taught.

That is your opinion that there is no basis, and it shouldn't be taught. We pretty much agreed already that it would be ok to teach it anyways, just not as science itself because we both agreed it wasn't itself a science.

Teaching an incomplete theory as complete is wrong, but filling in the blanks with something entirely arbitrary is much worse. The idea that evolution is incomplete in itself is something controversial/.

ID isn't arbitrary it seeks out a goal, and is not just filling in the blanks so to speak. It's another theory, another idea that uses the current scientific facts we have at our disposal to prove the theory that an intelligent designer exists. This again is a reflection of your opinion not facts.

The idea that evolution is incomplete in itself is something controversial.

Yet that is acceptable but something else that is just as controversial has no place? That's not a very fair stance. The controversy of the topic doesn't make it wrong, or exclude it from discussion. Purposing that it does is not a very fair way to handle it either.

In regards to a "fear of God" in the United States: issues most of us have with ID and it's relation to Christianity aren't a fear of religion, but an expressed desire to keep religion and government as far away from each other as possible. This goes as far back as the fore fathers. If you want your children to learn about these sorts of things in school, there are private schools available for you. Next we will have new age cults trying to tell us we need to teach that we are descendant of clones and some other craziness.

Separation of Church and state isn't about suppressing religion, and it was a shared belief amongst the forefathers that this country couldn't function peacefully without society embracing Christianity, they just weren't going to make anyone subscribe to it. Ever notice that the private schools at every level that teach the religion are also the top schools in the country? Gee, I wonder if there is a correlation? And by the way, Scientology is already on the loose, too late for the new age cult theory, lol.



(Salviswin, I don't even need to address your shit, let the adults talk son)

 

[Барбоса]

Personally, I do not see what the benefits of teaching Intelligent design would be. Even if it was accepted that a higher being/force was guiding creation and the development of the universe, what use would that be?

I see it as either useless or potentially detrimental. At best it would have no effect on man's attempts to understand his surroundings but at worst it could impact natural curiosity amongst future generations.

It was mentioned above that Science is scared of Religion but the opposite is also true for the same reasons. The development of Science has been of great disadvantage to Religion over the last three centuries

 

[Jack-Hammer]

For me, while I do have faith in God, how is one supposed to scientifically prove the existence of a supreme being? Attempting to do so seems to diminish the very concept of faith in such a being in and of itself. I won't say that it's impossible, but it certainly seems to be something that's beyond the realm of human capability and imagination at this particular time. We're still trapped within the confines of our solar system, this one extremely tiny corner of the universe and, for the most part, we have little to no idea what's really out there. I've seen photographs taken the the Hubble Telescope in the past so beautiful that it almost takes your breath away. Pictures of far off nebulas, star systems and so on and so forth but there is still so much that we don't know about and don't really even know how to go about finding out the answers at this time. For me, Intelligent Design is a concept that has its foundations in faith in something that can't be proven. For me, I can "know" that God exists, but I'm shit outta luck if someone asks me to show them definitive proof that they can see and touch with their own two eyes and hands. Evolution, on the other hand, does offer evidience that can be seen and touched. Now, that doesn't mean that Evolution couldn't still be wrong, nobody's saying that it's 100% definitive. After all, that's why it's still a theory. One has tangible, physical evidence that can be viewed and studied and one is primarily based on one's religious and/or philosophical views.

I can't look at someone and say "No being of supreme power and intelligence created us" because who am I to insult someone's religious beliefs? Whether that person be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, or whatever. However, when it comes to subjects taught in school, there should be something with more tangible substance about it. For instance, an anthropologist or paleontologist can display two skulls from two different species of primates and show similarities in them and give detailed information as to why one of them may have evolved from the other. With Intelligent Design...well...what is there to say really? That God, Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus or whomever snapped his fingers or carved the world from the bones of dead giants or used the body parts of fallen gods to shape the world? I don't mean that to sound flip, it's not my intention, but Evolution is a concept that has solid, scientific evidence to back it up whereas Intelligent Design is a belief based on faith. Faith has it's place, science has its place in my view.

Some say that the Seperation of Church and State is an attempt to supress religion. I don't agree with that. The history books are filled with examples of what can happen when religion takes a foothold in the matters of state. The Crusades, the Holy Inquisition, the systematic torture and even murder of men and women declared to be enemies of Christ. Unfortunately, it's something that hasn't always been strictly enforced. After all, we have "In God We Trust" printed on our money and the same phrase is often seen inside courtrooms and people taking witness stands often swear on the Bible. I just feel that the lines have been blurred a bit too much already and teaching ID in schools doesn't help matters.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Separation of Church and state isn't about suppressing religion, and it was a shared belief amongst the forefathers that this country couldn't function peacefully without society embracing Christianity, they just weren't going to make anyone subscribe to it.

Seeing as how ID and Christianity are linked at the hip, it's safe to say that opening up mandatory education of ID in public schools is unconstitutional (also, a court has already decided this). Separation of Church and State is about ensuring that the government is for the people, and acts according to all people's best interests, not just those of the church. It is about ensuring that the government can never be used to invade the privacy between a person, their religion, and their right to worship. It is to ensure that the government can never establish a "Federal Religion". So, again, while I'd love to see more open discussion about ID, and certainly more research and findings written about it, it lacks the scientific data to teach without losing focus on the science based side of it and instead focusing on the faith based side of it.

Ever notice that the private schools at every level that teach the religion are also the top schools in the country? Gee, I wonder if there is a correlation?

Most all private schools have better programs, better test scores, and better teachers; this might have as much if not more to do with the fact that they are a business that receives more money than public schools do than it does with the fact that they teach religion. Also, being private schools, they are allowed more control over how and what is taught, and more control over the student body. Public schools do not have that freedom.

And by the way, Scientology is already on the loose, too late for the new age cult theory, lol.

Yeah, that was kind of the point. If you can open the door for why ID is an acceptable replacement for Evolutionary Theory in public classrooms, you have set a precedent that allows for Scientology and all manner of other new age religions to get their beliefs thought as fact. All they'd have to do is scrub the overtly religious references out and replace it with vague terminology.

 

[The Roid Rage]

Seeing as how ID and Christianity are linked at the hip, it's safe to say that opening up mandatory education of ID in public schools is unconstitutional (also, a court has already decided this).

Stereotypically yes this is true, but that doesn't mean that is the entire ID community. Again as I've mentioned one more than one occasion, Christianity isn't the focus of ID. Just because some of them may have tried to make it so, doesn't mean that that is the deal amongst the entire ID community either. Different courts, rule differently. In a lot of those cases, which I did look into, Christianity was being promoted indirectly which is why those rulings make sense.

I'm not talking about doing that though, all I have been saying is that it is worthy of mention at least in class discussions which seems like a relatively harmless thing to do. I never said promote it as science or fact. If a college decided they wanted to have an elective ID class similar to a philosophy course, that seems relatively harmless too, and I don't get what the big deal is.

Separation of Church and State is about ensuring that the government is for the people, and acts according to all people's best interests, not just those of the church. It is about ensuring that the government can never be used to invade the privacy between a person, their religion, and their right to worship. It is to ensure that the government can never establish a "Federal Religion".

And I said any different? So why are you then lecturing me? More on that later.

So, again, while I'd love to see more open discussion about ID, and certainly more research and findings written about it, it lacks the scientific data to teach without losing focus on the science based side of it and instead focusing on the faith based side of it.

Uhhhh, Hello. No one is trying to do anything pertaining to church and state. ID isn't for the interests of the church, it's in the interest of education, philosophical exploration, and scientific advancement. Excuse the shit out of me. If I didn't know any better it's like you think we're trying to turn the education system into a Sunday school session which is the furthest thing from the truth.

You keep clinging on to some argument about Christianity and separation of church and state, and how solid evolution is trying to beat me in the ground with it, when it has nothing to do with what I am trying to communicate to you. You just know I'm not against ID so I must be a bible toting, dogma enforcing idiot without a lick of knowledge on the subject and keep trying to use Christianity as some crux. Nope no not today. Your assuming that it has to be so heavily focused on religion, which it doesn't, and that there isn't enough science to it's points.

Well, FYI all the scientific information we have would more than likely be used as an example of the theories merit, which means you can explore that science as a way of looking at how the intelligent designer if there is one, put everything together. Once again, I see no harm and no foul here, or how seeing it that way is wrong in some way. I've been trying to be as fair as possible which I think I have done. Not just you, but you and a few others have completely taken everything I have been saying out of the context in which it was spoken, and I've been trying to clear that up and explain that but it is getting increasingly frustrating to do so, but I'm really trying not to be an asshole here.

Most all private schools have better programs, better test scores, and better teachers; this might have as much if not more to do with the fact that they are a business that receives more money than public schools do than it does with the fact that they teach religion. Also, being private schools, they are allowed more control over how and what is taught, and more control over the student body. Public schools do not have that freedom

That's what you would say, I am making an observation. Christian and Catholic private schools have more money though because they hold a higher standard of education and environment than the public school system. As a result they have the better test scores, programs, teachers, control over what is taught, and more control over that student body, which funny enough you call a Freedom not allowed to the public schools. Your right it is a freedom and by them doing things their way, according to the standards of their faith, they produce better students, and an overall higher class of education. Just as I said, an ironic observation.

Yeah, that was kind of the point. If you can open the door for why ID is an acceptable replacement for Evolutionary Theory in public classrooms, you have set a precedent that allows for Scientology and all manner of other new age religions to get their beliefs thought as fact. All they'd have to do is scrub the overtly religious references out and replace it with vague terminology.

Woah, woah, woah wait a second here. Once again, who said anything about trying to replace Evolution, not I, not anyone I have seen thus far? So why are you arguing that? As arduously mentioned already, ID isn't about replacing evolution. It is another theory that is worth of mention in the discussion of evolution in the class room. I never said push it as the gospel truth, just present it for what it is. If anything this would help support evolution which has more scientific backing, giving more credibility to evolution and therefore also giving it more than one purpose, and one for sure that is beneficial, the promotion of concrete science.

Any further exploration of ID, I said, would be the kind of thing you have a separate class for. Also, ID isn't a religion or lifestyle or practice like Scientology, so once again we're not talking about some the religions corruption you are all so obsessed about, or anything of the sort meaning there is nothing wrong with ID.


Here are some quotes I looked up that I think have some relevance to the argument.

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.

We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.

Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual

.

Anyone know who said these words? I guarantee I know who will.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Stereotypically yes this is true, but that doesn't mean that is the entire ID community. Again as I've mentioned one more than one occasion, Christianity isn't the focus of ID. Just because some of them may have tried to make it so, doesn't mean that that is the deal amongst the entire ID community either. Different courts, rule differently. In a lot of those cases, which I did look into, Christianity was being promoted indirectly which is why those rulings make sense.

I'm not talking about doing that though, all I have been saying is that it is worthy of mention at least in class discussions which seems like a relatively harmless thing to do. I never said promote it as science or fact. If a college decided they wanted to have an elective ID class similar to a philosophy course, that seems relatively harmless too, and I don't get what the big deal is.

As I stated before, I personally wouldn't have a problem with this. There are plenty of courses in college I don't agree with or believe in, but at that point it's usually just for general interest, so I am fine with that. Even offered as a part of a larger overall program that focused on a similar philosophy, that would be fine as well, and I don't think any one would argue against that.

The next logical problem however is that I would still argue that evolution and natural selection belong in science class, and belong in regular curriculum. It's a scientific theory with supporting evidence, and thus it fits the criteria for being a part of mandatory study. I would imagine some intelligent design supporters would take issue with this, because they want to put intelligent design and evolution on equal footing, and in the hypothetical I just described they clearly not equal at this point.

Uhhhh, Hello. No one is trying to do anything pertaining to church and state. ID isn't for the interests of the church, it's in the interest of education, philosophical exploration, and scientific advancement. Excuse the shit out of me. If I didn't know any better it's like you think we're trying to turn the education system into a Sunday school session which is the furthest thing from the truth.

You keep clinging on to some argument about Christianity and separation of church and state, and how solid evolution is trying to beat me in the ground with it, when it has nothing to do with what I am trying to communicate to you. You just know I'm not against ID so I must be a bible toting, dogma enforcing idiot without a lick of knowledge on the subject and keep trying to use Christianity as some crux. Nope no not today. Your assuming that it has to be so heavily focused on religion, which it doesn't, and that there isn't enough science to it's points.

Well, FYI all the scientific information we have would more than likely be used as an example of the theories merit, which means you can explore that science as a way of looking at how the intelligent designer if there is one, put everything together. Once again, I see no harm and no foul here, or how seeing it that way is wrong in some way. I've been trying to be as fair as possible which I think I have done. Not just you, but you and a few others have completely taken everything I have been saying out of the context in which it was spoken, and I've been trying to clear that up and explain that but it is getting increasingly frustrating to do so, but I'm really trying not to be an asshole here.

I think what he is trying to say is that there isn't any scientific evidence to back up intelligent design, besides the controversial and debatable evidence such as the eye is too complex to be the result of mutation and natural selection (which of course scientists and evidence would argue against).

If you were to teach intelligent design, there is only so much quasi-scientific theory you can cover before you run out of conversation, and at that point, the logical questions most people would have would be regarding the designer: What is the designer? What is the nature of the designer? Things of the like. At that point, you're exiting the science aspect of intelligent design if you can call it that, and entering the religious aspect, or at least the aspects that have clear parallels in religion.

This wouldn't be a problem at all of course if this was offered in an elective, or a similar philosophy program at college. If people were dissatisfied with the religious-esque curriculum that would be their own fault for not properly researching the course and understanding the logical follow-ups when discussing intelligent design.

Anyone know who said these words? I guarantee I know who will.

Those are some fine Galileo quotes that certainly would be in line with your opinion, but let's not forget that they are simply quaint and poetic comments.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

Religious theories should never be taught as fact and they should also not be required learning.

Through my academic life, science was never really approached with a great deal of depth until i was about 12. Yeah we poked at bugs, and played with magnesium etc etc but we didn't look into Evolution or anything like that until the age of 13.

Comparatively we weren't forcibly exposed to religion in the class rooms either. Ok so we sang hymns and said prayers etc but we weren't sat down and preached to about religion again, until the age of 13.

Then suddenly we're forced to learn both. Being the souless bastard that i am, i immediately switched off in Religious Education, once i realised that the teacher was going to hype Christianity the whole way through every lesson and never touch on any other form of religion, or take anything from an objective perspective.

Once we reached the age of 15, Religious Education was no longer mandatory. You had a choice as to whether or not you continued to GCSE level and took exams. Of course, no one did except the people who would classify themselves as religious individuals. The saddest part was that by then, new teachers had come along and had actually kicked the doors of R.E. wide open, as opposed to the previous guy who merely shouted 'Praise the Almighty!' through the catflap.

I remember doing a practise exam about God, where i argued that why should we follow God's rules purely because he gave us the gift of life? We should be eternally grateful of course, but why would you give someone a gift and then tell them how they may or may not use it?

Here Timmy, here's a big red ball for your birthday. You can use it for football or basketball, but i will ground you for a month if ever see you playing Netball with it!'

And i got an A for that. Sadly, i had little to no interest by then, and didn't continue with R.E.

Now you're probably asking, 'what's your point?' well my point is, i believe the way my schools operated towards the end is how all schools should operate. Teach one form of science that the majority of people accept as fact, but offer an alternative explanation, but stress that the two are not to be brought up in either classroom. Don't choose to attend the alternative theory class and then come back to the scientific class and say 'They taught us that God made it! So you're wrong!' Now that alternative would probably have to be held outside of school hours, and a lot of kids wouldn't go, but then at least you'd know whether it was worth doing or not, and if kids don't turn up and the parents whinge about it being after school, then they clearly don't care about their religious beliefs as much as they claim to do they? Otherwise they'd make their kids go wouldn't they?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, no one should be forced to accept something they don't believe, especially if a lot of that stuff is airy fairy bullshit that can't be proven either way. As long as an alternative is made available, everyone can choose which doctrine they wish to be brainwashed by.

 

[I Suck Ass]

I think that kids should be taught both sometime around middle school, and then once they get to high school, have an intelligent design branch and an evolution branch. I think evolution is BS, but that's just me.

 

[Ferbian]

I think that kids should be taught both sometime around middle school, and then once they get to high school, have an intelligent design branch and an evolution branch. I think evolution is BS, but that's just me.

Erh.. what? bullshit?

Now I'm not telling you "oh no you didn't just say that" but I'm kinda lost considering I'm hoping you took the time to read this thread to the fullest, and actually study a little bit into the direction of Evolution, seeing as I'm guessing your beliefs are lying mostly in the direction of Intelligent design or religion in it's pure form.

And even if you did, I'd still be lost how you could consider the theory of Evolution which has clearly backed up by some very decent proofs to be considered bullshit, and by bullshit I'm guessing you mean it's just one big fluke, myth, call it what you want, bullshit it's not.