Intelligent Design School and religion, church and state
#1
Posted 07 October 2005 - 09:32 PM
By the way, I think they've recently found flaws with the evolution theory that suggests it couldn't have happened. I'm not sure, but I think that's why this all started. Here are a few question you can think about and let us know your opinion on. Obviously you don't have to stick to them, but I thought they were important things to consider. I hate people making decisions without thinking of all the aspects.
1. Do you think this is a violation of the seperation of church and state?
2. Why do you think the seperation of church and state is so important?
3. Do you think they should do away with evolution theory and only teach intelligent design, or have a mix of both?
4. Do you think it's wrong for them to push their views on atheists, or have atheists been pushing their views on people with religious beliefs?
5. Do you think that a church (or whatever place of worship) acts as a school for the religious side of things, or is it not enough?
6. Does religion have enough basis in fact to be taught in such a factual subject like science?
Personally I think church and state should be kept seperated. I mean, the parents who would want their children to learn about this have probably already taught it to them, and I think everyone's beliefs are there own, and shouldn't be forced on others. I also think that a very large part of religion is faith, and faith is just that: faith. You can be taught all about it, if you don't believe it, you don't believe it, and that is that.
However if evolution has it's flaws, and we know only "believe" it's right, then maybe we should teach other "beliefs" also. But also is the key word there, not instead. A major flaw that I see is that many religions wouldn't be represented. If you teach one, you have to teach them all or it's discrimination (at least all the ones that have creationism theories, which are lots) and that will be very difficult.
By the way if there's already a topic on this I'm very sorry, but I looked back a few pages and I couldn't see anything. Oh, and no flaming. I'll report you so fast your head will spin. I want an intelligent discussion, please, not a bunch of monkeys shouting that they're right :P
And I apologize, I wrote alot. Skim it at least please n.n
#2
Posted 07 October 2005 - 09:45 PM
As for my views on intelligent design, it's something that's plausible, but cannot sustain itself on a platform by its lonesome. You simply can't state that some other intelligent being created life on Earth without falling into a religious contradiction, because only gods seem to be notioned as intelligent designers.
It also doesn't help that some zealots claim evolution is tantamount to atheism - when it simply isn't. Evolutionism is a scientific theory aimed at how species progressed, not at assessing that there is no god who created us and that the universe came about this way, not that (otherwise, it couldn't be evolution, because then it would tackle things like the origins of the universe). Is it so hard to think that maybe god developed a set of logical laws and concepts, including evolution?
Science aims at explanations, and science classes should be devoted to explaining things with scientific processes applied. ID theory has not shown me evidence that it has a properly formulated scientific theory backing it, save for a statement. Theories can be statements, but more often than not, they also have extensive research and hypotheses attatched.
EDIT: Ah, just remember what I'm trying to say. Religion seems to want to get their say in the science class, but science never attempts to barge into religion and assert itself as the only viable answer. Simply put, science is not meant to decry religion, and religion should not try to debase science. If anything, they are complementary - and that is why the ID theory should not be a complete replacement of evolution.
I think I'll answer other related questions later
#3
Posted 07 October 2005 - 09:55 PM
Another thing that you mentioned that I agree with is that evolution isn't atheists creation theory. Science isn't about atheists teaching their ways of seeing things, it's about what we know about how the world works. It is completely unbiased, just giving out pure information untainted by beliefs. So why would you go and introduce biased opinions? and what about the teachers who refuse to teach it, because some will...
#4
Posted 08 October 2005 - 01:22 PM
Andross said:
Again, Andross words everything perfectly.
In the end, I don't think they should really MIX but, they should compliment each other instead of attack each other. o.o No one can be 100% sure that either of the two is 100% right but, if you blend them; they sort of make more sense.
AND FINALLY , a passage by Ray Bradbury from The Martian Chronicles:
Quote
"It's not that alone. Yes, their cities are good. They knew how to blend art into their living. It's always been a thing apart from Americans. Art was something you kept in the crazy son's room upstairs. Art was something you took in Sunday doses, mixed with religion, perhaps. Well, these Martians have art and religion and everything."
-----
The captain nodded. "Tell me about your civilization here," he said, waving his hand at the mountain towns.
"They knew how to live with nature and get along with nature. They didn't try too hard to be all men and no animal. That's the mistake we made when Darwin showed up. We embraced him and Huxley and Freud, all smiles. And then we discovered that Darwin and our religions didn't mix. Or at least we didn't think they did. We were fools. We tried to budge Darwin and Huxley and Freud. They wouldn't move very well. So, like idiots, we tried knocking down religion.
"We succeeded pretty well. We lost our faith and went around wondering what life was for. If art was no more than a frustrated out flinging of desire, if religion was no more than self-delusion, what good was life? Faith had always given us answers to all things. But it all went down the drain with Freud and Darwin. We were and still are a lost people."
"And these Martians are a found people?" inquired the captain.
"Yes. They knew how to combine science and religion so the two worked side by side, neither denying the other, each enriching the other."
"That sounds ideal."
Both should be taught. The school should take care of science. Religion is something you usually learn "at home". The school/state has no say in what you will/might believe in.
Sorry for the long post but, that's all I had to say .
#5
Posted 09 October 2005 - 08:43 AM
I go to a Christian school and I'm a Christian so I don't mind it, but Americans do, always creating some stupid law and arguement :P
So yeah, I don't mind having Intelligent Design in classroom, neither do I mind not having it.
#6
Posted 10 October 2005 - 09:44 AM
#7
Posted 10 October 2005 - 02:57 PM
I go to a private school and it's not like they taught me about intelligent design.
#8
Posted 10 October 2005 - 06:51 PM
Creationism cannot be taught, neither can evolution. Basically, Religion or evolution should ONLY be taught if they are explaining it. IE, if you are in a religion section of the year, teach about Buddah, Jesus, Moses, Muhammed, Etc, or as historical figures. Darwin and evolution should only be touched if you are learning about the time in which he lived.
Sheba, private schools are not owned by the state/government. Public schools are. That is why they are both explained through this.
#9
Posted 10 October 2005 - 06:53 PM
edit: A few sources of my own
http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigi...ms/compare.html <-- I expect you're just going to say that the skulls are fakes/fake fossils have been used to claim fact. But you're going to have to give me an actual scientific publication which states such, or at least a news report; all I've ever seen are links to creationists saying they've been proven fake.
edit2: And I am looking for more sources, as it is obvious, the site is heavily biased =P
#10
Posted 11 October 2005 - 04:02 PM
#11
Posted 12 October 2005 - 03:27 PM
It's really not a question as to which can be proved to the furthest extent.
My personal belief is that if intelligent design HAD to be taught in school, it should be dubbed "intelligent design," lowercase letters and all. The term "evolution" is hardly capitalized; why should we give such respect to a theory that seems to be implanted by Christians who refuse to integrate science and faith? Although I may be generalizing, I see no purpose of science being twisted to the government's, or the majority's religion's, accord.
By no means should these two theories be mixed; at worst, let the teachers present two theories without bias towards one or another. Intelligent design, in my perspective, seems lacking.
Personally, I'm against it.
#12
Posted 15 October 2005 - 01:28 PM
Andross, on Oct 10 2005, 07:53 PM, said:
edit: A few sources of my own
http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigi...ms/compare.html <-- I expect you're just going to say that the skulls are fakes/fake fossils have been used to claim fact. But you're going to have to give me an actual scientific publication which states such, or at least a news report; all I've ever seen are links to creationists saying they've been proven fake.
edit2: And I am looking for more sources, as it is obvious, the site is heavily biased =P
No, actually I don't think they are "fakes," nor is this topic here to dicuss if evolution is real or not, it's to dicuss if it is to be taught in school.
#13
Posted 15 October 2005 - 08:31 PM
#14
Posted 15 October 2005 - 08:52 PM
think of it this way, evolution, whether people have enough guts to admit it or not, requires JUST as much faith as inteligent design. so to turn it around, are the teachers pushing their faith about evolution on the students?
#15
Posted 15 October 2005 - 09:20 PM
It's not as if evolution is trying to debunk that there is a God, but zealots and theists constantly treat it as such - and as I've said before, science and religion are meant to be very separate in their objectives, which in turn allows them to be complementary when compared (as there is no contradiction). The why and reason comes with science; the ultimate why comes with religion.
#16
Posted 18 October 2005 - 03:27 PM
Andross, on Oct 15 2005, 09:31 PM, said:
I knew you were going to say that. But you do have a point for once. And using words you never use in actual sentences didn't help (thus). :D
I don't think that evolution contridicts GOD so much, so don't say it's all zealists or anything. I consider my self faithful, but I do not consider evolution to be in the nature of God, because if it was, then God would have lied to Moses, Abraham, and many other prophets.
I just think if it is a theory(evolution cannot be tested and retested, so scientists agree it is not technically a theory anyway) that tries to contridict religious belief, then there's no reason to teach it as fact.
And no, science and religion are NOT seperate. If God is true, then surely he created science. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that we use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic. A believer in GOD can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect, and which is not.
Now, if you think evolution should be taught and not God, then think: God has NEVER been proven wrong. Why? Because he cannot be, neither can you disprove God. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creationism and combat disease and so forth. The people who put science first are no different than anyone devoted to a religion – they have chosen faith in man rather than works created from a divind conscience, and can defend it.
Science is meant to be a NEUTRAL discipline, seeking truth, not proof of an agenda.
Now, I see Andross goes for Darwinian Evolutionism, which is the belief that God created evolution, but I have already explained that above. Many people commomly mistake Darwinian evolution as evolution with no god, but that is Special Evolution or Atheistic evolution... or something... But anyways, If you say that God created an evolutionary scenario, and that Genesis says it, then you are saying that the verses are sopposed to be in a different order. The Genesis account clearly states birds were created with sea creatures on the fifth day while land animals were not created until day six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view which state the birds evolved from land animals.
Both contridict. Learn about BOTH, but do not teach both as truth (now why couldn't I have just said that?).
*Takes a break*
#17
Posted 18 October 2005 - 07:48 PM
#18
Posted 22 October 2005 - 05:14 PM
"you're as obstinate as I am. "
Thank you! :silence:
#19
Posted 31 December 2007 - 06:19 PM
Maybe a moderator can reset and modify the poll? Since we have new members here, and everyone opinion can change in two years.
Anyway, I believe my viewpoint contradict my previous post in this topic, because now I believe Intelligent Design should not be thought in any science lesson, or be in any science textbook because it is not testable. I personally believe in a God, but Intelligent Design is not science in all honesty, and is totally based on faith. Possibly, ID should be allowed in "History of science" courses, but that's about it imo.
If anyone is interested in the debate, I strongly suggest watching Ken Miller on Intelligent Design. He's a professor at Brown University, and possibly wrote the textbook you Americans use in Biology lessons. This video can change opinions.
#20
Posted 31 December 2007 - 06:58 PM
My personal opinion on the matter of intelligent design in the classroom isn't one of how "factual" it is vs. purely faith, but a matter of ignorance. Why shouldn't our children learn that there are alternatives to evolution? Something along the lines of, the lessons proceed on the scientific basis of evolution, but round up the lesson by stating that there are many people (and by "many", I'm talking about three quarters of the world population) who subscribe to other ideas about the origin of life, most prominently religion.
For me, it's about informing the students - after all, if the debate here is about what to teach surrounding humanity's origin, then shouldn't all aspects of humanity be included, including the adherents of faith?
#21
Posted 31 December 2007 - 08:20 PM
The explanation, "And God said, let there be Hepatitis" is of very little use when attempting to treat the disease. You can believe whatever you want on your own time. Go ahead and believe that the ocean is Thor's semen if it helps you sleep at night, but if you get into oceanography, base your conclusions on the "Large body of salinated water" theory.
#22
Posted 01 January 2008 - 12:38 PM
#23
Posted 01 January 2008 - 01:32 PM
this is just another science vs. religion debate. Science always wins such debates as he has a very good friend, known as COMMON ****ING SENSE. how people can be so narrowminded as to ignore facts and credible theories and instead place belef in nonsense is beyond me.
#24
Posted 01 January 2008 - 03:27 PM
However if you teach that theory of creation, you also have to teach every theory. Soo I'm afraid if you support intelligent design being taught but not the greek gods version or some hobo in Argentina's theory then you're a hypocrite :S such is life.
#25
Posted 01 January 2008 - 05:30 PM
#26
Posted 01 January 2008 - 05:44 PM
laharl the slayer, on Jan 1 2008, 08:32 PM, said:
this is just another science vs. religion debate. Science always wins such debates as he has a very good friend, known as COMMON ****ING SENSE. how people can be so narrowminded as to ignore facts and credible theories and instead place belef in nonsense is beyond me.
Sweet meatball soup that would be awesome!
And yeah, the people who still think Adam and Eve were the first humans should be beaten to death like the inbreds they are :)
#27
Posted 01 January 2008 - 11:55 PM
Golden Legacy, on Dec 31 2007, 08:58 PM, said:
Intelligent design has its place in many lessons, (eg Theology and History In Science) but not in a Biology lesson. How exactly can we test it?
Golden Legacy, on Jan 1 2008, 02:38 PM, said:
Earth Dude, on Jan 1 2008, 07:44 PM, said:
#28
Posted 02 January 2008 - 09:19 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 1 2008, 01:38 PM, said:
The connection between intelligent design and religion is something of a steretypical view, I'll give you that, but that stereotype is based in fact. The fact that religious organizations are the only ones that have anything to gain by peddling a construct with virtually no scientific basis as a "theory." (While simultaneously condemning evolution as "Just a theory" to boot.)
#29
Posted 03 January 2008 - 05:37 PM
#30
Posted 04 January 2008 - 01:50 PM
#31
Posted 04 January 2008 - 03:33 PM
#32
Posted 04 January 2008 - 05:47 PM
#33
Posted 05 January 2008 - 10:25 AM
The fact remains is that the human body is full of little things that nobody could have intended to be there in the first place. It means it has to have come out of something that had use and no longer does.
Also people who claim intelligent design is the beginning of evolution is wrong. With this statement you are discarding your other beliefs of Genesis thus contradicting yourself.
The theories are mutually exclusive to eachother.
As the only claims of intelligent design are made by the church, all the people who don't care about the Church shouldn't hear about it either. While the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the universe and ourselves does have hearing in a theory that has more proof then intelligent design.
#34
Posted 05 January 2008 - 12:39 PM
And that's not true about people who don't care about church not having to hear about it. If you haven't heard all perspectives, how can you decide which is your own. That's exactly the reason I don't believe anyone who says they're a certain religion if they don't know all about other ones.
Anywho, the fact that religion and science can work together doesn't have a lot to do with it being taught in classrooms. That's something about seperation of church and state, not an idea that we shouldn't know both theories.
#35
Posted 05 January 2008 - 12:52 PM
.eugine, on Jan 2 2008, 01:55 AM, said:
Intelligent design has its place in many lessons, (eg Theology and History In Science) but not in a Biology lesson. How exactly can we test it?
Wind Dude, on Jan 4 2008, 07:47 PM, said:
That actually makes solid sense, now that I think about it. Teaching it in a History of Science class as Eugine suggests probably is the better place for Intelligent Design. (For the record, I chose the "Maybe" option in the poll - there are just too few people arguing in favor of it, so I've decided to take up that position).
Mathak Kraven, on Jan 5 2008, 12:25 PM, said:
The fact remains is that the human body is full of little things that nobody could have intended to be there in the first place. It means it has to have come out of something that had use and no longer does.
Also people who claim intelligent design is the beginning of evolution is wrong. With this statement you are discarding your other beliefs of Genesis thus contradicting yourself.
The theories are mutually exclusive to each other.
The story of Genesis (from what I can gather as a non-Christian), similar to all the Abrahamic faiths, is simply that the universe was created in a number of days - and what a "day" is to God could be thousands, even millions of years to us. That's to put it in layman's terms.
However, what you've done is again associate Intelligent Design with Religion; Religion is an example of Intelligent Design, but the converse is not true - that is, Intelligent Design does NOT necessarily refer to organized faith, it simply refers to something that explains how the complexity of the universe is as it is. Think about how the structure of the atoms in our bodies are the same - the exact same - as the atoms that make up the stars. Think of the mathematical wonders of how they bond in the same ratios, how you have seemingly simple scientific concepts as bonding to fulfill the Octet rule and such that exist and apply always. There are textbooks and post-doctorate degrees justifying and explaining the nature of their complexity - do you really think this came about as "random chance"? It's infinitesimally small, the chances of EVERYTHING in the universe coming together after the Big Bang as they are now - too small a chance that the original explosion of matter condensed into the stars and galaxies, that there was a star just large enough to have planets orbiting it, that there was a planet just big enough to have its own atmosphere, that there was that same planet just far away enough so that it's neither too warm nor too cold, that it was just ideal enough to sustain water and life.
All too unlikely.
#36
Posted 05 January 2008 - 01:04 PM
As for it being taught in schools, I think it might be a good idea, but people always associate it with some kind of religion. Which then starts some big arguament about the seperation of Church & State.
#37
Posted 05 January 2008 - 01:30 PM
Learning either evolution or intelligent design, or he could pick to learn both. Would that work?
#38
Posted 05 January 2008 - 02:40 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 5 2008, 07:52 PM, said:
All too unlikely.
Even if the chances are astronomical so that life is created, the universe is pretty infinite. So even with all those odds the chance is there, and because we have so many places where this chance could've become reality, it can happen once. Also we owe alot of our Life bearing qualities to only our planets form and the suns form, and not it's distance from the sun.
Winter is created by the tilt of the earth, when the sun doesn't get enough time to heat up the atmosphere. So basicly if mars was still vulcanicly active, it could equally sustain life.
The fact that infinity is already a hard to grasp concept makes it harder on alot of people. Even if something was highly unlikely to happen, if the conditions can exist and you have a large enough room for them to be created, they will.
But maybe it's better to say this:
If there is no-one to observe a universe, will it have existed? To me it's a bit like the Shrodingers cat paradox.
#39
Posted 05 January 2008 - 02:55 PM
That's why I really believe in space exploration. Finding life, or atleast past life in another part of the universe will help science so much ;_;
#40
Posted 05 January 2008 - 08:21 PM
Question: I understand the big bang theory, but what I don't know is where the things that caused the big bang came from. Did I miss that page on wiki or do we just not have a theory for that yet?
#41
Posted 06 January 2008 - 10:34 AM
kate, on Jan 6 2008, 03:21 AM, said:
Question: I understand the big bang theory, but what I don't know is where the things that caused the big bang came from. Did I miss that page on wiki or do we just not have a theory for that yet?
Actually, we cannot know the condition of the cat unless we observe it, same with the universe, we can only know it's there by observing it. And how it looks like. Whatever is past the creation of the universe is unknown, there could be alternate life there, or not, but we cannot know until we observe it.
Off topic: Shrodinger's cat is a quantum mechanics problem which states, if you put a cat in a box and have the box be flooded with e poison gas on the activation of the radioactive decay of an atom, then that cat would be both dead and alive inside the box. Until the box is opened and somebody observes it.
#42
Posted 06 January 2008 - 11:15 AM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 5 2008, 01:52 PM, said:
All too unlikely.
To be perfectly accurate, the origin of life by spontanaety is not impossible, only extremely unlikely. And that factor of a small chance is exactly what disproves that theory. The people that say evolution is like "Having a tornado hit a junkyard and getting a 747" have never seen a tornado hitting the entire universe and staying there for 15 billion years. On that kind of scale, it's not unthinkable that the occasional Cessna might crop up here and there. The reason that Earth appears conspicuous is that it's the excetion to the rule. For Earth, there are untold septillions of planets in which one or more of these parameters failed to line up. We only have Earth to observe properly because other planets are simply too far away. The point is that Earth appears so perfect for life because we are life. If Earth wasn't perfect for the development of life then we wouldn't be here to wonder why everything is so darned perfect.
And, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as random chance. There are merely events that depend on variables we cannot observe. If you had a lens through which you could see the entire universe, you would be able to precisely predict the movement and actions of everything. Every electron, every atom, even all the way up to star clusters and galaxies.
#43
Posted 06 January 2008 - 12:24 PM
#44
Posted 06 January 2008 - 12:40 PM
#45
Posted 06 January 2008 - 01:20 PM
Platinum Sun, on Dec 31 2007, 09:20 PM, said:
Yep, there it is. My problem is that Intelligent Design is being presented as a scientific fact even though it has no scientific basis whatsoever and is much more closely tied to philosophy and yes, Religion.
#46
Posted 07 January 2008 - 11:47 PM
Golden Legacy, on Jan 5 2008, 11:52 AM, said:
The story of Genesis (from what I can gather as a non-Christian), similar to all the Abrahamic faiths, is simply that the universe was created in a number of days - and what a "day" is to God could be thousands, even millions of years to us. That's to put it in layman's terms.
However, what you've done is again associate Intelligent Design with Religion; Religion is an example of Intelligent Design, but the converse is not true - that is, Intelligent Design does NOT necessarily refer to organized faith, it simply refers to something that explains how the complexity of the universe is as it is. Think about how the structure of the atoms in our bodies are the same - the exact same - as the atoms that make up the stars. Think of the mathematical wonders of how they bond in the same ratios, how you have seemingly simple scientific concepts as bonding to fulfill the Octet rule and such that exist and apply always. There are textbooks and post-doctorate degrees justifying and explaining the nature of their complexity - do you really think this came about as "random chance"? It's infinitesimally small, the chances of EVERYTHING in the universe coming together after the Big Bang as they are now - too small a chance that the original explosion of matter condensed into the stars and galaxies, that there was a star just large enough to have planets orbiting it, that there was a planet just big enough to have its own atmosphere, that there was that same planet just far away enough so that it's neither too warm nor too cold, that it was just ideal enough to sustain water and life.
All too unlikely.
Riad, marry me. o.o
I completely agree with EVERYTHING you said.
And also going along with what escout said, I think people should be given the chance to see all the options, seeing as none of them are completely scientifically proven, and then go along with what they believe. Because if no one ever teaches a kid intelligent design at home, and it's banned from being taught at schools, then the school is practically forcing them to have a closed mind on the subject of creation, when I thought the media and society wants everyone to have "broad horizons" and "open minds".
#47
Posted 27 January 2008 - 03:50 PM
So as long as the evolution theory is thaught in classrooms, there should also be intelligent design theories mentioned. But I'd rather have school and religion separated->no origin theories, because teachers for sure wouldn't be able to present them balanced.
Peace & love
#48
Posted 01 February 2008 - 07:13 PM
Of course, if it's a Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish or any other religious denomination school, you would expect a certain level of that religion to permeate the faculty and the subjects which they teach, so perhaps one option is to found 'intelligent design' schools which present that theory to some extent in all subjects, just like any other religious school.
#49
Posted 05 February 2008 - 08:42 PM
#50
Posted 05 February 2008 - 09:35 PM
Being a christian myself, I believe in Intelligent Design, and not evolution. However, I don't believe either should be taught in manditory science classes, or any other manditory class. They should be optional.
#51
Posted 06 February 2008 - 01:43 AM
Agatio, on Feb 2 2008, 12:13 PM, said:
Golden Legacy, on Feb 6 2008, 01:42 PM, said:
I covered all the bases ;)
#52
Posted 06 February 2008 - 04:57 AM
And I believe Evolution is the center piece of modern biology. It should be compulsary in Biology class.
#53
Posted 07 February 2008 - 03:24 PM
.eugine, on Feb 6 2008, 11:57 AM, said:
And I believe Evolution is the center piece of modern biology. It should be compulsary in Biology class.
Why should one theory get thaught and all the others not?
Don't get me wrong, I think the best would be to teach NO origin theory at all in school.
I mean the theory of evolution is an unproven theory, just as any other one... does it really have priority because it is accepted by the majority of scientists?
Peace & Love
SC
#54
Posted 07 February 2008 - 03:31 PM
Mind you, like I said before... I believe God 'directed' Evolution.
#55
Posted 08 February 2008 - 01:04 AM
However Eugine, those other theories are the only ones of their kind, or if there ARE any others, there's only a handful who believe them. Evolution however, is a theory which has another competitor, ID. Both have many believers. On top of that, it's like forcing religion on students. At SOME point, Science takes faith as well. And I don't mean scientology. When it comes to other scientific theories, there's just no other way to explain it.
#56
Posted 08 February 2008 - 02:53 AM
.eugine, on Feb 7 2008, 10:31 PM, said:
Mind you, like I said before... I believe God 'directed' Evolution.
Believeing that we came here by chance has absolutely nothing to do with science. It's religion disguised as science.
#59
Posted 08 February 2008 - 11:14 PM
#60
Posted 08 February 2008 - 11:43 PM
Anywho, that's not the point, technically with most sciences you can say it's a matter of faith according to your reasoning, since many are based on unprovable theories (string theory anyone?) However no one's saying that shouldn't be taught. Really the only science that isn't based on unproven theories is math (damn you theory of knowledge >.<) so if that's what your basing the idea of teaching ID in the classrooms on, you're in deeper than you think.
It is true no one's really coming up with other theories to combat the theories studied in chem physics or most of bio, but then again, neither is id. It's a theory that's not based on fact (I say that loosely, I do know there's reasoning behind that), and therefore not acceptable in the classroom. If we let it in, then I could just say there's no such thing as atoms or gravity and really there's just invisible fairies pulling things to the ground with an accleration of 9.81 m/s^2 and then that would have to be taught as well, because it is a theory.
#61
Posted 09 February 2008 - 03:25 AM
kate, on Feb 9 2008, 06:43 AM, said:
I'd really like to read some of the proof you're talking about. =D
I heard of Darwin of course... and his finches story.
He looked at the finches on the Galapagos islands and noticed variations in beak size (PS: he couldn't know alot about genetics back then =P).
What he noticed was actually micro-evolution, which doesn't have to do anything with macro-evolution (animals turning into different animals).
Micro-evolution is what created different breeds of cats for example.
There are many different cats, but they're still cats. Their genome didn't change. It already contained information for all the breeds of cats you see today, when the 1st one appeared.
That's variation, not transformation.
That's what's happening to the Galapagos finches.
What's happening is that natural selection with a long term drought in the islands was causing their seed cases to harden, how? The heavier beaked finch allele in the genome was favored->it became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles. It was not a mutation, but an allele already in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced....
No mutation, no change in the genome, no new species arising. Finch remains finch. Micro-evolution at it's best. =)
I hope this text is understandable.
kate, on Feb 9 2008, 06:43 AM, said:
It is true no one's really coming up with other theories to combat the theories studied in chem physics or most of bio, but then again, neither is id. It's a theory that's not based on fact (I say that loosely, I do know there's reasoning behind that), and therefore not acceptable in the classroom. If we let it in, then I could just say there's no such thing as atoms or gravity and really there's just invisible fairies pulling things to the ground with an accleration of 9.81 m/s^2 and then that would have to be taught as well, because it is a theory.
I get what you mean, but that wasn't my point (aka i don't see atoms->they don't exist lol).
What I meant are things which actually need faith, like mathematical miracles (life coming from nowhere by incredible odds), genomes changing with time->producing new species, the faith to believe something like 4 billion years is enough for all the species to emerge (lol) from lifeless material. As i said before, you can show me some valid proof to make it clear to me that there is no faith involved.
PS: it being talked about everywhere as fact doesn't count as proof obviously.
Have a nice day =)
#62
Posted 09 February 2008 - 04:01 AM
For us to have come from single celed organisms, the DNA of those organisms would have to have been completely reworked over the 4 billion years to get a human being. That is simply not possible.
Besides, when the engineers that worked on the Apollo mission designed the moon lander, they based it upon there being 4 billion years worth of dust on the surface of the moon. Turns out they were off by a few billion years.
Agatio, on Feb 8 2008, 09:14 PM, said:
Ah, but they haven't been able to prove evolution OR the big bang yet, so therefore, it still takes faith to believe that they're the truth. :blink: Just like it takes faith to believe the ID is true.
#63
Posted 09 February 2008 - 04:03 AM
#64
Posted 09 February 2008 - 04:18 AM
One scientist who was trying to prove evolution took a monkey's skull and a pig's jaw he found lying nearly a half mile apart, and claimed that he had found the "missing link."
#65
Posted 09 February 2008 - 12:16 PM
Charon, you are right, but Darwin observations give more reasons to believe Evolution than to believe Intelligent Design.
Quote
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
This is just one of the many examples to show your statement is inaccurate x.x
In any case,
http://en.wikipedia...._moth_evolution
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ambulocetus
lalala, anyway I can't really prove Evolution is true cuz I don't really know much about it unfortunately.
#66
Posted 09 February 2008 - 12:34 PM
MICRO EVOLUTION LEADS TO MACRO EVOLUTION *hauls out ib bio course companion and opens to evolution chapter*
now I can see how you wouldn't believe me since I only spent a year studying this subject hardcore, so let's consult this handy dandy textbook with facts accepted across the world!
holy pop culture reference batman! there appears to be many sections talking about the different types of evidence to support evolution, but that can't be right, they must be just kidding, let's read on.
evidence for evolution: domesticated animals
evidence for evolution: fossils
evidence for evolution: homologous structures
evidence for evolution: the process of natural selection
galapagos finces: evolution in action (but surely microevolution has nothing to do with macroevolution!)
anitbiotic resistance in bacteria: evolution in action (but bacteria has nothing to do with monkeys lolol this must be written by crack addicts)
Now if anyone actually wants me to go into detail on any one of those sections, I'd be more than happy to as I have it all sitting right in front of me. It's just the SHEER VOLUME OF EVIDENCE is too much to write down at any given time, so instead of not doing the subject justice, I'll let you choose which section you'd like to whole heartedly contend to be based on false logic.
for a short little summary of how evolution works though, skipping the beginning of life (rna being converted into dna and then prokaryotes consuming smaller prokaryotes to create eukaryotes, and then those cells dividing into different simple organisms to suit the environment, and over the BILLIONS OF YEARS those diverging into more and more species through MICROEVOLUTION) I'll just discuss it on a gentic level, because HAY I have those chapters right here too. Now I'm sure I don't have to prove that mutations exist, seeing how we have all sorts of people with different genetic disabilities based on a large scale version of mutation, so I'll skip that too and move on to how evolution works SLOOOOOWLY. Pour exemple, manymanymany coniferous trees are born in a forest. However, due to mutations on some of the genes, some trees are born resistant to a certain type of disease that the others are not. Lo and behold, said disease comes along and kicks the trees butts. However, some of them remain alive because of their mutations (o noes!) The ones that are left alive are able to reproduce (because dead things aren't so good at the reproduction) meaning that their offspring will be born with the same mutation (and maybe some other mutations! who knows! only time will tell). Thus after a looooong period of time, only trees with those mutations are left. Wellwellwell, another disease comes along and kills off many trees, except the ones with the mutation that's resistant to that disease. I think we all know what happens! those guys reproduce and now only ones with those two mutations are left. Well golly gee whiz, we're starting to see some change. Hardly a new species though, I'll agree. If only they had BILLIONS OF YEARS to keep this up, eventually they'd be nothing like the original trees. Well, they'd still share some of the same characteristics, kinda like how humans share some with those cute little apes at the zoos. Basically what I just described is natural selection, more or less, and is not only entirely possible, but has been seen time and time again, one prime example being the galapogos finces. Now Darwin was awesome, but unfortunately not immortal, so he couldn't hang around for the amount of time it would take for completely new species to evolve, so he could only record microevolution. Thank jiminy that microevolution is a stepping stone to macroevolution, or else I'd really be up the creek!
And OMFG I'm sorry that there's a couple of missing links in our ancestory, good gosh considering the amount of time we've had to study it, it's pretty darn impressive we have as much of a timeline as we do. Not to mention that despite the missing links it's a pretty huge coincidence that the rest fit so nicely in line.
phew, well that's my bio summary with only the slightest hint of patronizing sarcasm :blink: I would be more than thrilled to hear the "evidence" you have to support id, other than "the chances are too astronomical". Hmm...chances are astronomical?? Good thing we have a whole universe for them to take place in! By the way I believe in God creating the universe and then setting evolution in motion, it just reeeeally bugs me when people say there's no evidence to support something just because they don't know enough about the subject.
Oh and as I said, anything you'd like me to elaborate on, I've got a whole textbook worth of evidence. But I think I'd like to hear your evidence now, I think you owe it to everyone who's spent their lives trying to give the evidence you skeptics need.
EDIT: I'd also like to point out that while I'm extremely hot headed and angsty about the subject, scientists follow a code that dictates they must always be open to the idea that their theories might be wrong, and should forever be looking for a way to disprove them. Religious leaders on the other hand (and I know you don't have to be religious to believe in id, it's just a generalization) believe solely in their idea and try only to prove it, not disprove it. So science is not really all that cult like as some have been proposing. I totally would join a science cult if I could, but that's just me <_<
Also it's interesting to note that over time, whereas science as gotten more and more popular as the accepted norm (ie when darwin first published his work, no one really believed it, same with galileo when he said the world wasn't flat and revolved around the sun), meanwhile the idea of id has gotten less and less popular (entire countries were based on a certain religion and followed the idea of God creating the earth, yet now there's a seperation of church and state). I'm just sezzing, why would it be that as we learn more about our universe we believe science more and religion less if id is really the right theory? It was sorta the most popular back in the time when they believed spontaneous generation and that if a stick fell in a pond, a duck would appear.
#67
Posted 09 February 2008 - 05:13 PM
I'll make a real answer on kate's post some other day, as I'm too sleepy now.
But gonna try to make a reply to eugine's post at least:
1st it's just there are not more facts and observations of MACRO-evolution then there are of any ID (when i talk about the evolution theory, I always talk about macro-e., if otherwise i state it)
It's interesting that almost all people asked about proof for evolution, point to Kettlewell's experiment (peppered moth). This experiment is again just variation of already existing species and again doesn't prove anything regarding macro-evolution. Dark peppered moths existed already long before the industrial pollution-> no new species, as no acquired physical trait was transmitted to subsequent generations.
But that's not everything regarding this...
Almost none of the dark peppered moths rest on tree trunks. Kettlewell forced moths to act unnaturally to obtain favourable results.
For the pictures, he actually glued dead dark peppered moths on tree trunks...
I'm off to bed for now lol.
Peace and Love everyone
#68
Posted 10 February 2008 - 04:55 AM
kate, on Feb 9 2008, 07:34 PM, said:
i hope you don't mean this seriously
micro-evolution is variation of already existing information->a labrador and a pitbull have a common ancestor (a dog obviously)
macro-evolution is animals transforming into different species by information added and changed in their DNA->a labrador and a strawberry have a common ancestor.... rofl
it's clear that microevolution cannot and will never cause macroevolution. if it's stated otherwise in your textbook, it's one more textbook that's telling lies.
PS: let me remind you what hitler said at one point: "let me control the textbooks and ill control the world!"
now I can see how you wouldn't believe me since I only spent a year studying this subject hardcore, so let's consult this handy dandy textbook with facts accepted across the world!
didn't i already say that "it being talked about everywhere as fact doesn't count as proof"?
in the evolution chapter, textbooks really have lies in. for example, in most of them there is still that picture showing how similar the embryos are in their primary stage...
1. it was proven fake 20 years ago
2. it's not their primary stage, the author just took out the most similar ones and "made them even more similar". in the stages before the 1st shown most of them are much less similar than in those... so how does this prove that embryos of different species are similar at start...
and like that matters! i mean, if species share similarities it's no more proof they evolved, than it is proof they have the same designer!
evidence for evolution: domesticated animals
huh? are they?
evidence for evolution: fossils
there are no transitions between very different types of animals, not in the living world, neither in the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other.
evidence for evolution: homologous structures
if i am right, this is about vestigial structures.
1. at on time there was a big number of human organs listed as vestigial, but till now most have been shown to have important functions.
2. if some organs really lost their function over time, this doesn't prove evolution. to prove it, you have to show development of completelly new structures, not degeneration/loss of previous characteristics.
evidence for evolution: the process of natural selection
the powerful ability of natural selection lets an organism adapt to its environment. but how does this explain the development of completelly different types of animals? like in the peppered moth example, we started with light and dark moths and ended up with...light and dark moths. nothing new developed
natural selection is jsut that - selection o_O"
it cannot cause new info getting added to DNA
galapagos finces: evolution in action (but surely microevolution has nothing to do with macroevolution!)
http://www.goldensun...ndpost&p=377891
anitbiotic resistance in bacteria: evolution in action (but bacteria has nothing to do with monkeys lolol this must be written by crack addicts)
if we face a group of certain bacteria with antibiotics, the ones that survive, will indeed pass their genetic material to subsequent generations. but as antibiotic resistant bacteria already existed in their population, no new species arised there-->no evolution
for a short little summary of how evolution works though, skipping the beginning of life (rna being converted into dna and then prokaryotes consuming smaller prokaryotes to create eukaryotes, and then those cells dividing into different simple organisms to suit the environment, and over the BILLIONS OF YEARS those diverging into more and more species through MICROEVOLUTION) I'll just discuss it on a gentic level, because HAY I have those chapters right here too. Now I'm sure I don't have to prove that (bad) mutations exist, seeing how we have all sorts of people with different genetic disabilities based on a large scale version of mutation (but we have to prove that good mutations exist =D), so I'll skip that too and move on to how evolution works SLOOOOOWLY. Pour exemple, manymanymany coniferous trees are born in a forest. However, due to mutations on some of the genes, some trees are born resistant to a certain type of disease that the others are not. Lo and behold, said disease comes along and kicks the trees butts. However, some of them remain alive because of their mutations (o noes!) The ones that are left alive are able to reproduce (because dead things aren't so good at the reproduction) meaning that their offspring will be born with the same mutation (and maybe some other mutations! who knows! only time will tell). Thus after a looooong period of time, only trees with those mutations are left. Wellwellwell, another disease comes along and kills off many trees, except the ones with the mutation that's resistant to that disease. I think we all know what happens! those guys reproduce and now only ones with those two mutations are left. Well golly gee whiz, we're starting to see some change. Hardly a new species though, I'll agree. If only they had BILLIONS OF YEARS to keep this up, eventually they'd be nothing like the original trees. Well, they'd still share some of the same characteristics, kinda like how humans share some with those cute little apes at the zoos. Basically what I just described is natural selection, more or less, and is not only entirely possible, but has been seen time and time again, one prime example being the galapogos finces. Now Darwin was awesome, but unfortunately not immortal, so he couldn't hang around for the amount of time it would take for completely new species to evolve, so he could only record microevolution. Thank jiminy that microevolution is a stepping stone to macroevolution, or else I'd really be up the creek!
great story with the trees and all =P
but still, microevolution doesn't cause macroevolution!
i explained the finches above
PS: if you use many o's in the word slowly/long and repeat the word "many" more times, it doesn't really make it more believable or something, it just makes you look dumb =(
And OMFG I'm sorry that there's a couple of missing links in our ancestory, good gosh considering the amount of time we've had to study it, it's pretty darn impressive we have as much of a timeline as we do. Not to mention that despite the missing links it's a pretty huge coincidence that the rest fit so nicely in line.
are you kidding me? there are like um NO transitional forms.
excavations have clearly showed that living beings always apear fully formed in distinct structures... there is not even one transitional form between species and groups as darwin imagined. but there were fossils of animals, evolutionists claimed they are transitional forms, which later turned out be no such thing at all =/
like the coelacanth!
it was claimed it had characteristics of land animals and that it died out like 200mio years ago
guess what....it's alive =O
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZQMm5HN1Ums
what was the reaction of evolutionists when they heard that?
"wow, it survived for so long..." XDDDDDd
don't let me start to talk about archeopterix...
phew, well that's my bio summary with only the slightest hint of patronizing sarcasm :) I would be more than thrilled to hear the "evidence" you have to support id, other than "the chances are too astronomical". this debate is about if evolution is fact or theory, not about evidence for some other theory Hmm...chances are astronomical?? Good thing we have a whole universe for them to take place in! By the way I believe in God creating the universe and then setting evolution in motion, it just reeeeally bugs me when people say there's no evidence to support something just because they don't know enough about the subject.
Oh and as I said, anything you'd like me to elaborate on, I've got a whole textbook worth of evidence. But I think I'd like to hear your evidence now, I think you owe it to everyone who's spent their lives trying to give the evidence you skeptics need. i dont need evidence to prove evolution is false, evolutionists have to show evidence that it's true
EDIT: I'd also like to point out that while I'm extremely hot headed and angsty about the subject, scientists follow a code that dictates they must always be open to the idea that their theories might be wrong, and should forever be looking for a way to disprove them. Religious leaders on the other hand (and I know you don't have to be religious to believe in id, it's just a generalization) believe solely in their idea and try only to prove it, not disprove it. So science is not really all that cult like as some have been proposing.
i agree totally =D
it's just that the evolution theory has nothing to do with science
evolution has been mixed with science for the last 30 years, but that doesnt mean it's the same as science.
I totally would join a science cult if I could, but that's just me ;)
Also it's interesting to note that over time, whereas science as gotten more and more popular as the accepted norm (ie when darwin first published his work, no one really believed it, same with galileo when he said the world wasn't flat and revolved around the sun), meanwhile the idea of id has gotten less and less popular (entire countries were based on a certain religion and followed the idea of God creating the earth, yet now there's a seperation of church and state). I'm just sezzing, why would it be that as we learn more about our universe we believe science more and religion less if id is really the right theory? It was sorta the most popular back in the time when they believed spontaneous generation and that if a stick fell in a pond, a duck would appear.
To make it clear, I'm absolutely pro science and that's why I also agree with your last chunk of text.
This is not about which of many theories is the right one, its about evolution(macro evolution of course) being true or not. Nothing more.
Have a nice day =)
SC
EDIT:
How do I delete a post?
Because I forgot, that no one posted after my last post.
I want to edit this post into my previous one, but first I'd need to delete this one.
#69
Posted 10 February 2008 - 10:03 AM
Let me ask you some questions.
Do you believe Evolution is science?
Do you believe Intelligent Design is science?
(yes/no answers plz!)
#70
Posted 10 February 2008 - 10:49 AM
.eugine, on Feb 10 2008, 05:03 PM, said:
Let me ask you some questions.
Do you believe Evolution is science?
Do you believe Intelligent Design is science?
(yes/no answers plz!)
I'm arguing against it, because at one point in my life I found out there are numerous flaws in this nice theory and that it's unable to explain the origin of life scientifically (no theory we know at the moment does, of those that I'm aware of).
Evolution is actually antiscience, as science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable...of which qualities evolution has none.
To call evolution science, is to confuse fairytales with facts. =/
No, obviously.
No.
Be happy for no reason everyone, it works =D
SC
#71
Posted 10 February 2008 - 11:08 AM
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3790531.stm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...26/MN172778.DTL
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/1123973.stm
And if I can find evidence (someone who is still trying to fully understand Evolution), I hope someone who studied Evolution in detail doesn't encounter you x.x
#72
Posted 10 February 2008 - 11:54 AM
.eugine, on Feb 10 2008, 06:08 PM, said:
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/3790531.stm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...26/MN172778.DTL
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/1123973.stm
And if I can find evidence (someone who is still trying to fully understand Evolution), I hope someone who studied Evolution in detail doesn't encounter you x.x
This debate (not just being off-topic here anyway) won't end.
Even if I refute and explain every "3link posts proving evolution", you will still post another 3 links...
There is sooo much proof for evolution! That's what everyone says, but then, where is it?
In the latest 3 links?
Let me see...
1. A speculation of how 1 species turns into 2.
It reminds me alot of ligers and tigons.
Tigers and lions also produce sterile offspring because they're enough different species to be on the verge of not being able to interbreed.
But why did you post this? It's a speculation for which you need to believe in evolution, not proof for it.
2. ..gosh...again this stupid finches example that's used everywhere....XD
WTF... they found 2 slightly different species of birds. What does this tell us? Does it prove evolution?
It tells us that there are those 2 slightly different species of birds existing somewhere.
That doesn't mean they have evolved from the same bird species. If you believe in evolution first, then you can speculate they evolved from the same bird. If not, they're just existing....nothing more.
To explain more clearly:
There exist lions and tigers.
They're a different species with many similarities.
How the hell does this prove they had a common ancestor?
3. That's the same story...
Maybe we should end this "debate" or move it in it's own thread...
#73
Posted 10 February 2008 - 11:58 AM
Saiph Charon, on Feb 10 2008, 11:49 AM, said:
Evolution is actually antiscience, as science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable...of which qualities evolution has none.
To call evolution science, is to confuse fairytales with facts. =/
I recall in one of my classes that the origin of life on Earth came from astroids and metiors that hit the Earth and carried organic copmounds. The same coumpounds and chimicals that make up our DNA. They have also been found in metorites that have been dug up. It is thought that this space junk is what brought these compounds to Earth and that they evolved over hundreds of millions of years.
#74
Posted 10 February 2008 - 12:08 PM
What point are you trying to make anyway Charon? You just seem skeptical, rather than giving proof to show that those observations are inaccurate. If Evolution, no matter how minute it is, happened in this small time frame. Imagine what millions of years will produce.
But then, you seem to be the kind of people who believe the world began with Adam and Eve...
Also, you need to remember Endegenous retrovirus. This is a key evidence of Evolution.
#75
Posted 10 February 2008 - 04:28 PM
.eugine, on Feb 9 2008, 10:16 AM, said:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
This is just one of the many examples to show your statement is inaccurate x.x
In any case,
http://en.wikipedia...._moth_evolution
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ambulocetus
lalala, anyway I can't really prove Evolution is true cuz I don't really know much about it unfortunately.
Not everything about evolution can be scientifically proven, so it takes faith to believe that it's true.
If evolution is true, then why didn't ALL of the primeapes evolve? The theory of evolution states that species evolve to fit a niche, to improve so that they can live in their environment more efficiently. So, why haven't monkeys gorillas, or orangutangs (sp?) evolved? It doesn't mean that they had to evolve into humans, but they haven't really changed.
And also, if evolution is true, where's the "missing link"?
#76
Posted 10 February 2008 - 06:08 PM
This is why there are still monkeys, and this link vaguely explains why the monkeys in Africa are have not evolved.
And what missing link? http://en.wikipedia....iki/Ambulocetus ?
#77
Posted 10 February 2008 - 07:55 PM
By the way, my nice little tree story? It really happened. Also I'd like to point out the main reason we say there's so much evidence to support evolution yet we don't show you much is because there's too much to write at one time. Plus it's very frustrating when all you do is read it a then refute it using reasoning not based on actual principles, or logic that has been twisted to suit your means.
All in all I think you just have to do more research before debating with me, or any of us, about this. You obviously aren't informed enough. Don't get me wrong, you know more than most people that I've had this debate with, but you've unfortunately learned only enough to make you think you know everything, while not seeing the bigger picture. If only you delved deeper perhaps you could raise some actual counterarguements instead of just, as I said, half points that aren't complete in their basis. Probably because if you actually researched into the basis of many of the points you're making you'd realize that it is only partly true, and in the end actually supports evolution.
However I doubt you're actually going to do that, seeing how you obviously think I'm the misinformed one, so if you like I can continue to point out the errors in your arguements. Honestly though you seem stubborn as a mule and I appreciate that, since I am too, so I think we should just agree to disagree. I do like a lively debate but I wouldn't like it to become heated (such as nitpicking at the way I write things when obviously I was doing it to add a comical aspect to a very long and boring post. if that makes me seem stupid, then I can rest assured in the fact that my reasoning is at least logical and can stand alone without any embellishment by me).
All in all, I can see what you're getting at, but you're just missing a few main ideas that would show you what I'm talking about. I'll make sure I address the issues of your post tomorrow, as I obviously need to get more specific in order for you to understand that many of your counterarguements have already been explained by science.
#78
Posted 10 February 2008 - 08:13 PM
.eugine, on Feb 10 2008, 04:08 PM, said:
I meant the one between humans and monkeys. Scientists have only been able to fake it so far. No one's found the "missing link" yet.