Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

A judge ruled out the possibility that Intelligent Design could be offered as an alternative in public school in a small statement to be read before Evolution was taught.

Do you think that Intelligent Design has a place in science class alongside Evolution?

Keep in mind that Intelligent Design is a logically thought out and entirely plausible theory, exactly the same as the theory of Evolution. Also keep in mind that both theories are impossible to scientifically prove 100% correct.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

The best argument I've heard against it lied with the fact that Intelligent Design wasn't really a testable scientific theroy, rather a theory that was created to be contrary to evolution.

I believe it's this statement that lost ID the court case.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 21st December 2005 16:09

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

I just read an article from another forum about this. Here's the link, in case anyone wanted to read before discussing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

I personally think that ID has no place in public schools. It's appropriate in Catholic schools, or in religion courses, but definitely not a science class in a public school.

While there is some evidence for ID, there is much more hard evidence for Evolution, making it much more likely.

I also think that if they start letting religious teachings like that in science classes, it will just lead to problems. Other religions will want their parts included, etc etc.

If parents want their kids taught about their religion, that is what their church and courses like Catechism are for.


--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

Intelligent Design has a place in the class room. A philosophy classroom sure, not a science classroom. It is fundamentally unscientific in nature. It is not parsimonious. It is testable or falsifiable. The theory's movement has not even even published an article in a scientific peer review journal. (It attempted to publish one article but it was later withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards).

This sums up my beliefs better and more eloquently than I possibly could:

Quote

The debate over creation and evolution continues to this day. Unfortunately, in our universities and in the media, only the extremist views are taken and no one ever discusses a rational, �middle of the road� view that can satisfy both sides. What this short essay hopes to do is to discuss both extremes, point out errors in those extreme views, and then synthesize a view on theistic evolution that draws from the author�s background as a seminary-trained presbyter of the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church.

On one end of the spectrum, there is the notion of what we can term �atheistic evolution.� This is the view that science has adequately demonstrated that life has been around for billions of years and that the mechanism for change in the various life forms is evolution. The basis for evolution is simply, as we discussed in class, natural selection favoring the survival of organisms with certain alleles that make them better adapted to their environment and therefore better able to survive. In this view, there is no need for a deity and the conclusion is that persons of faith are somewhat �silly and superstitious.� Life itself is nothing more than organized self-replicating molecules in nice neat little packages. There are those who do point out that, despite the best intentions of these scientists, they can not adequately explain, with the proofreading ability of DNA polymerases - where only one mutation occurs per one million replications - how life on this planet has evolved beyond a simple bacteria. There has not been enough time to accumulate enough mutations to allow the evolution from the first prokaryotic cells to a complex multicellular rational organism like a human.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are the so-called �creationists�. These are individuals who reject the theory of evolution and the commonly held notions of the geological age of the earth. They hold strongly to an absolutely literal reading the Judeo-Christian Bible and argue that creation occurred about 6,000 years ago over a period of six days exactly as it is written in the Genesis creation account. Just type �creation vs. evolution� on an internet search engine and see how many websites show up (many of which do not agree with each other) or browse the science section of your favorite bookstore and you will see how vehemently the creationists attack evolutionary biology (at least the 130 year old original Darwinian model).

Unfortunately, any logical person with a good knowledge of Scripture will be able to point out the following confusing points (which Creationists can not provide answers for). They include:

1. God did not create time (the sun and the moon to mark the days and seasons) until the fourth day. How long then were the first 3 days without time to measure them?

2. In the absence of the warmth of a sun, space is a chilly �270oC, only 3 oC above �absolute zero� where the random motion of the atoms themselves stops. Why then would God create the plants on day 3 and then kill them in the near absolute zero temperatures of a planet that does not get the warmth of a sun�s electromagnetic radiation until day 4?

3. God did not say �Let there be�� and then name every single living organism on earth. Rather, on day 5, God commanded the waters to bring forth life. Scripture never stated how this happened, it just states that God commanded it to happen. Likewise, God also commanded the earth to bring forth life, �and it was so.� Again, no mechanism is mentioned, but only that the command was given.

4. How could Moses, to whom the authorship of Genesis is attributed, have been on hand to write down a literally interpretable account of the creation that occurred on days 1 � 5 when humankind, and then only Adam and Eve, was not created until day 6?
The argument for a literal interpretation of the Genesis account fails miserably when critically evaluated in the strict literal sense that the creationists claim it must be read and accepted.

What does scripture really say about God and His creation outside of the Genesis creation accounts? Several texts from the Old Testament provide us with the answer and with an approach to evolutionary science.

Psalm 104 is a psalm that praises the Lord of creation. The first nine verses discuss the creation of the cosmos and the earth in a much different way than the account one reads in Genesis 1. Most importantly, the psalm continues on praising and admiring God for His continual and ongoing presence and activity within creation. God causes grass to grow for the cattle (v14), God feeds his creation (v 27-28), God ends life (v 29), God touches the mountains and they smoke (v 32) and, most importantly, God sends for His Spirit and life is created (v. 30). In other words, God, from the moment of creation until the very present moment and on into the future, is present and active within His creation. God did not just �wind the watch� 6,000 years ago and let it run at random. Instead the very harmony of nature is dependent upon a God who loves and participates in creation.

Psalm 19 also contains verses that are relevant to the student of science who is also a Christian. Reading the first six verses of the psalm, one finds that the very cosmos itself is a declaration of the glory of God the creator. The heavens tell of His glory and the firmament proclaims His handiwork. To whom do they speak? They speak to the wise person who observes and contemplates them. One who observes and contemplates nature is a scientist! So, it could be interpreted that God�s glory is understood through the lens of science.

One of the lesser read texts of the Old Testament, the Wisdom of Solomon, found in the so-called Apocrypha also has something of merit for this discussion. Chapter 13 of this text, in its refutation of idolatry, states men who are ignorant of God do not ��recognize the craftsman while playing heed to his works� (v. 1). It continues on, in verse 5, to state that from ��created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.� Once again, it is the observer of nature, the scientist, that should see the splendor of God and His handiwork in creation.

Now, let us examine the notion of theistic evolution. How does it work? First of all, there is the notion of a creator God. Divinity is completely and totally transcendent to creation. The divine nature/essence, Divinity itself, is invisible, infinite, ineffable, incomprehensible, inconceivable, ever-existing and eternally the same. The material universe is wholly other than God and is created, not out of the transcendent divine nature, but created out of nothing, ex nihilo, by the will of God. So how does God interact with creation? God does so, in this theistic model, by what are called the divine uncreated energies. This concept is used to describe God�s love, grace, and eternal �embrace� of creation which issues forth from God�s divine nature upon creation itself. It is through the divine energies that God interacts with creation to uphold and maintain it. These divine energies are also the means by which God can direct the �developmental� or �evolutionary� path that creation takes.

The correct understanding of the creation accounts in Genesis is not a story of how God created, but rather a story telling you that God created. The unlocking of that mystery of how God created has been left to the scientists. The idea being that as humankind learns more and more about God�s creation that humankind will desire more and more to seek out that God of creation, of life, and of evolution. What to some appears as a Godless process of random mutations in a nucleic acid leading to higher and higher forms of life with no apparent �rhyme or reason� to others is actually the word and wisdom of God interacting with creation through the divine energies.

An Eastern Christian monk, John of Damascus, wrote in the 7th century A.D. stating, �Some say that it is not important to study nature. We ought to know that these are the words of the indolent and lazy. The study of nature, which is the basis of theology, proves theological truth. The student will see the spirit of God in nature.�

Take this notion into account: the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that after the Big Bang some 10 billion years ago, that the materials formed in that explosion should have cooled down, condensed and fallen into complete disorder, perhaps even collapsing into a big black hole. Somehow, though, matter became more organized and more complex and the first stars came into being and then the first planets and then later generations of stars and planets. Then, on some average planet orbiting an average star with in an average galaxy, the conditions arose for some molecules to increase their complexity and to further organize themselves into the first cell. From there, the cells continued to change and to evolve and become more and more complex until one day the universe itself became conscious and intelligent; then the universe could literally study itself. Evolution demonstrates that the cosmos itself is going from disorder and chaos to further increasing degrees of order. The fact that you and I are here to discuss this issue of creation vs. evolution, in fact, defies the very Second Law of Thermodynamics that governs the universe itself.

In molecular biology and the study of DNA, it is known that the organic molecules called nitrogenous bases � the �letters� of the genetic code � can �flip-flop� out of and back into their natural molecular configurations. These odd transient changes in molecular shape are called tautomers. Tautomers can �confuse� the DNA-replicating enzymes causing them to insert incorrect DNA nitrogenous bases. As a result, a mutation, a change in the genetic code, occurs. Isn�t it possible, that the God who is powerful enough to bring about the creation of the universe by His will, or who can touch the mountains and make them smoke, can also manipulate the very molecules of our DNA according to His will? Unfortunately, creationists, in their arguments, imply that once God created, He just sat back and watched what happened. This borders on the heresy of deism (God as the cosmic �watchmaker� and nothing more) and not the apostolic and orthodox theology of theism (God is present and active within creation even now).

In conclusion, it is possible to accept the tenets of modern science, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life arose nearly 3.5 billion years ago while still maintaining and upholding one�s personal religious beliefs in a creator deity. In fact, Charles Darwin himself, when asked one time where the first link in the chain of his evolutionary theory was to be found, he replied, �It is riveted to the throne of the Most High.� Via the �middle road� of theistic evolution, one is not forced to be either �an evolutionist� or �a creationist�. One has the option to be a �theistic evolutionist� who accepts modern scientific discoveries and the theory of evolution while understanding that it is God who ultimately directs the formation, development, and evolution of life on this planet, and perhaps, on other planets. These narrow categories of belief systems and the pitting of the 2 schools of thought against each other are mostly fueled by the media and by narrow-mindedness. Theistic evolution, on the other hand, to one who chooses to view the world through the eyes of faith, allows one to be open-minded and unafraid of the advances in our scientific knowledge concerning the origins of life and the evolution of life without forcing an abandonment of equally important spiritual knowledge.

Rev. Dr. Steven C. Salaris, M.Div., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Dept. of Science and Mathematics
Concordia College
Presbyter, Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

And if you're still reading this, here's the conclusion to the judgment to the case in Dover, PA. I don't think the judge could have been more dead on in this case:


Here's a PDF from the actual judgment yesterday.

Quote

H. Conclusion

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board�s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs� scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin�s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board�s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, � 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs� rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants� actions. Defendants� actions in violation of Plaintiffs� civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. � 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs� attorneys� services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs� constitutional rights.

Elena:

Quote

Personally think that ID has no place in public schools. It's appropriate in Catholic schools

This makes me sad, actually. The Catholic church is "cool" with evolution and teaches it in its schools. Please don't mix us up with the fundamentalists.

This post has been edited by SSJ_Cloud on 21st December 2005 16:26

--------------------

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

I wanted to add some more to my statement.

I believe in Intelligent Design of a sort. I don't think natural selection quite covers the scope of the universe's development and I think that there are too many coincidences that it does not explain. To me, there must be something more than the random evolution of organisms in order to provide benefit in thier existing environment.

However, that's not a scientific belief I have right there. I can not test it. And the fact of the matter is, stating that there is a theory of an intelligent being molding creation is implied religion. I'm sorry but it is, and so people who care about the seperation of church and state will go up in arms about putting it in public schools.

Do I think evolution(natural selection) belongs in biology courses? I'm not so sure, I can use the same arguments against it as I can against Intelligent Design. So I'm not positive it belongs in the school either. However I can see the following point, it doesn't really promote religion while Intelligent Design does.

Personally I think the biggest problem is a confusion of terms. To me, Evolution is provable, we can witness life forms evolve currently. Bacteria becoming immune to anti-bacterial agents, insects becoming immune to pesticides...we witness these occurances. It's Natural Selection I take issue with, the process which conventionally describes why evolution occurs. It doesn't really have any more supporting evidence than Intelligent Design does.

Yank em both out of our science programs. Talk about them in History or Social Studies if ya want.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 21st December 2005 16:31

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (SSJ_Cloud @ 21st December 2005 13:19)

Elena:

Quote

Personally think that ID has no place in public schools. It's appropriate in Catholic schools

This makes me sad, actually. The Catholic church is "cool" with evolution and teaches it in its schools. Please don't mix us up with the fundamentalists.

I didn't mean to put down Catholic schools (and churches), sorry. I meant that since ID assumes Christian teachings to be true, is has much more of a place in Christian schools. I didn't know Catholic schools taught evolution. Do Catholic schools not want ID either?

--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

Quote

Elena99 wrote:  I also think that if they start letting religious teachings like that in science classes, it will just lead to problems. Other religions will want their parts included, etc etc.

Intelligent Design is NOT a Christian spin on creationism. Never does ID identify a diety as being specifically responsible for creation. You can inject whichever god that you want, be it Jesus, Buddha, Zeus.... whoever. I wish people would stop equating ID with Christianity, because that is simply not correct.

As far as evolution goes, I have a problem with any THEORY being the ONLY method taught. Evolution is theory, not fact, and as such it is open to ridicule, and students should be able to hear other vialble options.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Hamedo @ 21st December 2005 11:35)

Evolution is theory, not fact, and as such it is open to ridicule, and students should be able to hear other vialble options.

Per my earlier comments this is where I have a problem.

Darwin's ideas on Natural Selection are indeed a theory. Evolution is not a theory, it is fact that species change into different organisms. We have witnessed it on a microbiological level.

If that is what is taught in schools then you don't need to shove Intelligent Design in as an introduction to that. Neither Intelligent Design or Natural Selection offer contrasting statements to that fact.

Of the two Natural Selection benefits from the fact that it is a scientific theory. It is possible to test it. It has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because you can not devise a test for it. It is just a theory.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 21st December 2005 16:47

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (Hamedo @ 21st December 2005 13:35)

Quote

Elena99 wrote:  I also think that if they start letting religious teachings like that in science classes, it will just lead to problems. Other religions will want their parts included, etc etc.

Intelligent Design is NOT a Christian spin on creationism. Never does ID identify a diety as being specifically responsible for creation. You can inject whichever god that you want, be it Jesus, Buddha, Zeus.... whoever. I wish people would stop equating ID with Christianity, because that is simply not correct.

Alright, Hamedo, let's agree to disagree here and now, then. From what I've read, ID is nothing more than Creationism masked and changed just enough so that it's something else (the article I posted mentions that, too). I respect that you believe differently, however.

--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

Aside from microbiological organisms, what has humanity actually seen evolve?

I think the idea of evolution is rather silly, myself. If it were a fact, then why do species ever go extinct? Why didn't they adapt and evolve to their conditions in order to survive? Also, if humanity evolved from apes, then why didn't apes as a whole evolve? Why are there still apes around today, in areas where humans have been for thousands of years? Why haven't they evolved yet?

Lastly, if humans evolved from apes, where is the upside of that? Take a human and an ape and drop them down in a remote, isolated jngle, and tell me which one will have the higher probability of survival. The ape will, which flies right in the face of the idea that we evolved from them. Sure, you can say that evolution equipped us with larger skulls, which increased our intelligence... but thats a bunch of crap for two reasons. One, the size of the cranium does NOT indicate intelligence. To wit, we use relatively little of our "big brains". Two, evolution is based on the precepts of physical needs dictated by the environment. The environment doesn't demand growth of a species knowledge. It would demand growth of a species physical prowess.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (Hamedo @ 21st December 2005 11:51)

Two, evolution is based on the precepts of physical needs dictated by the environment.

The modern theory of Evolution is based on that. The one termed 'Natural Selection' by Darwin. Do you see how that's different from the statement that a species of organisms can change into another species? The latter we have witnessed in insects and microorganisms.

Regardless, what you have failed to do is put forth a reason why Intelligent Design belongs in public schools. If you wanted to make a topic about why the Theory of Evolution doesn't belong in public schools you should have labeled it as such.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (Elena99 @ 21st December 2005 11:14)

While there is some evidence for ID, there is much more hard evidence for Evolution, making it much more likely.

oh, that's so, elena? you're telling me for sure, i take it? i can't have that. it's bizzare that as a bioengineer i have never in my entire study come across a more troubled by flaws and less substantiated by hard evidence theory in all of science. what, then, do you know about the theory of evolution that i do not? do you, elena, have some sort of privileged access to a totally different fossil record than everyone else in the world that explains the cambrian explosion and that actually has a SINGLE fossil of darwinian evolution's supposed intermediate species? i suppose that you have also beaten all the more talented and intelligent evolutionary biologists to the punch of actually explaining the "numerous slight, successive modifications" necessitated by darwinian evolution for the emergence of irreducibly complex biological features? you must also have an answer for the obvious discrepancy across closely related species in certain biological and social functions that appear to have regressed on the evolutionary timescale. how about the fact taht the earth isn't nearly old enough for life to have arisen from non-life and speciated into the large variety of species we see to day based on positive mutations -- in fact, given the rate at which we observe positive mutations in non-controlled (read: no scientists specifically fixing conditions to elicit positive mutations), which is damn near ZERO, the earth would have to be close to infinity years old for evolution to even begin to be a viable theory (and then it has those other inconveniently noxious INSUSMOUNTABLE WALLS of evidence against it). this is all not to even begin speaking of humans and the fact that there is nothing like them anywhere in the animal world.

what evidence do you have? there is *NONE* for interspecial evolution, AT ALL. it seems quite clear to me that you have done absolutely no research on darwinian evolution and what it truly entails, so why make authoritative staments as though you have a great deal more than the slightest clue?

(note here that natural selection leading to differentiation of species [e.g., longer beaks in finches] is a well-documented and observable biological phenomenon.)

as far as id being taught in schools -- what, really, is there to teach? the government can show no preference to one religion over another; thus all that can be said for the specificity of id by a biology teacher is that it is an alternate theory to evolution and it entails x and y. on the other hand, there is a good bit of philosophical and scientifically observable evidence for id of the universe and of life -- evidence that, i suppose, could be taught in schools, but to what effect? like many here have said, it is impossible to prove or disprove id. there can be made logical inferences by ockham's razor that id is really the only plausible theory in the sicnetific bag of tricks at the moment (and interestingly, every new challenger theory is quickly debunked or only stays around because it is patently undisprovable), but we can never say, by science alone, that id is true.

YET, it is indeed a well-documented scientific theory! it can be argued that the big bang theory is likewise as undisprovable as id, since it is impossible to travel to t=0, but we have *so much* evidence for the big bang that it has all but become established fact in the cosmological community (there are plenty of experiments one can do to test the validity of the claims of bbt, such as cosmic bg radiation sweep, but to be sure while they might have put the nail in the coffin of bbt within the community, they could not possibly have disproved the theory entirely). so for those of you who, out of probably ignorance of the scientific community and her theories, argue that id is "fundamentally unscientific" by nature or being undisprovable, we have quite a paradox here in that many inquisitive theories reaching back to the origins of All That Is are indeed undisprovable and at the same time completely scientific! of course, there are plenty of nondisprovable scientific theories (the skimming reader i remind that this is *not* an oxymoron) that are crackpot pop-science, too, like multiverse, rna-world, and prebiotic soup.

finally, the fact of the matter is that evidence is obviously the LAST thing darwinian macroevolution supporters seem to care about; after all, they still cling to a theory that has been constantly weakened and debunked by the advances in molecular and evolutionary biology that even its supporters are making! darwinian evolution is a tool the delete God from the equation -- most scientists want to be able to explain everything from a completely naturalistic viewpoint. they're still working on how something comes from nothing in a universe whose physical laws preclude such an occurance (bbt, origin of life). so, how, then, dare we argue "scientific evidence" and "nondisprovability" as the crux of the anti-id case?

but the judge may have something there. you'll be surprised to hear me say this, and you know like hell i don't agree with it, but with the evolution of the first amendment and the contrived and fabricated phrase "seperation of Church and state" to what they have become today, it seems that teaching id in school as a viable theory is deferring to all religions that have a creator-like figure over religions that do not (atheism, for one). so perhaps it is not "constitutional," by today's definition of the word, to teach id in the public school system. that still doesn't mean the biology teacher can say exactly what i suggested above: "t is an alternate theory to evolution and it entails x and y." there must need to be no in-depth study of the implications of id, no study of the evidence, no study of the power of id as an alternate theory to evolution, but mention of the theory as a viable and respectable alternate theory to the clusterfkcu that is darwinian evolution does not appear to violate constitutionality.

edit: oh, geez, i haven't even begun to finish here.

Quote

1. God did not create time (the sun and the moon to mark the days and seasons) until the fourth day. How long then were the first 3 days without time to measure them?

oh, yeah, because time doesn't pass at all in the absence of a sun and the moon, right? because time stands completely still in the far reaches of the universe where there is nothing but empty, unoccupied vaccum for millions of au, right? WRONG! einstein showed in the 1920's that time and space are inseperable. if there is light, then there is space for the photons to constitute light to vibrate in. if there is space, there is time. of course, there is really no way to tell how figurative a "day" of geneis 1 is. almost assuredly it is not to mean 24 hours; although there are compelling arguments for the day being 24 hours (use of the hebrew word yom, reference to morning and evening of the "days"), it was probably given in its most ideally understandable version, as a parable/allegory. i'm sure if God thought it necessary to know how long the "days" were, he'd have told moses more explicitly and exactly. WRONG!

Quote

2. In the absence of the warmth of a sun, space is a chilly �270oC, only 3 oC above �absolute zero� where the random motion of the atoms themselves stops. Why then would God create the plants on day 3 and then kill them in the near absolute zero temperatures of a planet that does not get the warmth of a sun�s electromagnetic radiation until day 4?

WRONG! your guy here is a total idiot who knows absolutely NOTHING about the simplest concepts of astrophysics. if, in the absence of the warmth of a sun, the random motion of atoms stopped, it would be entirely impossible for the universe to have even begun! indeed, in space, the cbr gives vacua an abolsute temperature of about 3K -- but this is not the mythical absolute zero (which is where atoms would REALLY theoretically stop their quantum fluctuations) which cannot ever be attained under any circumstances because it would cause the subatomic structure of the universal fabric and anything it contained that reaches absolute zero to collapse in a catastrophic and most assuredly self-propagating paradox of non-reality. not to mention God created light and seperated it from the dark on the first day (big bang??). if there is light, there is energy. if there is energy, there is heat. if there is heat, there can be life. WRONG!

Quote

3. God did not say �Let there be�� and then name every single living organism on earth. Rather, on day 5, God commanded the waters to bring forth life. Scripture never stated how this happened, it just states that God commanded it to happen. Likewise, God also commanded the earth to bring forth life, �and it was so.� Again, no mechanism is mentioned, but only that the command was given.

it would have been *such* a useful and efficient method of filling up hundreds of pages in genesis 1 by naming every single animal, wouldn't it have been, ssjcloud? WRONG! did you even read this before you quoted it? the animals weren't even NAMED yet, since adam, given dominion over all the earth, was tasked by God with naming the animals. how, then, should God say, "let there be dogs," when they aren't yet called dogs? finally, no, no mechanism is given, but your author conveniently skips over the two verses which explicitly give God the active voice in creating the sea creatures and animals of the earth. the original hebrew is "Wayibraa' 'Elohiym 'et hataniynim" (and God created the sea monsters) and "Waya`as 'Elohiym 'et xayat haa'aarets" (and God created the animals fo the earth). WRONG!

Quote

4. How could Moses, to whom the authorship of Genesis is attributed, have been on hand to write down a literally interpretable account of the creation that occurred on days 1 � 5 when humankind, and then only Adam and Eve, was not created until day 6?

lol, your "reverend" doesn't even appear to have ever read the Bible. if moses can talk directly to God in a burning bush about egypt, and if moses can go on mt sinai and talk directly to God and recieve the 10 commandments, then by all means moses can easily talk to God and be given the account of creation that God wants moses to put in the book. it's also entirely plausible that adam and eve, having full fellowship and walking with God in the garden pre-Fall, were told by God of his creation story. it is an easy extension then that the story became an important part of hebrew tradition passed down through the generations. i tend to prefer the more elegant former explanation to the latter. oh, WRONG!

it's a shame that there is so much false information you people put on this boards. you may accuse me of a lot, but one thing i have never done is used false information and faulty reasoning to attempt to prove my points. can we not be civilised and mature enough to at least check our facts, or just not post if we are certain we don't have a clue how to go about checking them?

edit 2: embarassingly unexcusable grammatical error corrected. othe errors left in for flavour and voice.

This post has been edited by gozaru~ on 21st December 2005 18:02

My reasoning is that evolution is not a fact, and there is no conclusive evidence that proves it as such. Why, then, is this theory beig taught as the only viable option in our public school system? Whether it's intelligent design or something else, students should have the opportinuty to hear all available options, not just the one that "is most likely".



--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote

in fact, given the rate at which we observe positive mutations in non-controlled (read: no scientists specifically fixing conditions to elicit positive mutations), which is damn near ZERO, the earth would have to be close to infinity years old for evolution to even begin to be a viable theory (and then it has those other inconveniently noxious INSUSMOUNTABLE WALLS of evidence against it).

To be fair, an environment where scientists introduce artificial instabilities into the system in order to spawn mutation is more similar to Earth than a stable system. That's the idea behind the experiment. It doesn't prove Natural Selection, in fact if it resembles any process it's the theory behind intelligent design. What it does do is serve as proof that mutations can occur and most likely do occur in the natural world.

Quote

YET, it is indeed a well-documented scientific theory! it can be argued that the big bang theory is likewise as undisprovable as id, since it is impossible to travel to t=0, but we have *so much* evidence for the big bang that it has all but become established fact in the cosmological community

This is an excellent point. Even the scientific community is not above hypocrisy. I will offer though that evidence that supporters of the Big Bang theory use is slightly more tangible in nature than supporters of ID. Hard numbers involving radiation and particle movements just appear more solid than observations about the common occurance of the fibonacci sequence.

Edit

heh. heh. heh. Big Band theory. Don't get me started on my feelings about the Brian Setzer Orchestra

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 21st December 2005 18:15

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (The Ancient @ 21st December 2005 13:13)

To be fair, an environment where scientists introduce artificial instabilities into the system in order to spawn mutation is more similar to Earth than a stable system. That's the idea behind the experiment. It doesn't prove Natural Selection, in fact if it resembles any process it's the theory behind intelligent design. What it does do is serve as proof that mutations can occur and most likely do occur in the natural world.

This is an excellent point. Even the scientific community is not above hypocrisy. I will offer though that evidence that supporters of the Big Band theory use is slightly more tangible in nature than supporters of ID. Hard numbers involving radiation and particle movements just appear more solid than observations about the common occurance of the fibonacci sequence.

1) i'm not really sure what you mean here. i have never been able to accept the logic of an *intelligently designed* experiment, designed for the specific purposes of eliciting positive mutations (which no creationist is denying *can* occur, but you'll be hard pressed to show me that the mutated dna can survive and be miscible enough to actually begin the formation of a new species/new biological apparatus), properly emulating the conditions of a purely naturalistic and random earth.

wait. actually, re-reading what you said, you seem to exactly agree with me to the letter.

2) to be certain there is plenty of hard empirical evidence outside of the fact that the majority things that "evolved" appeared to all have had the exact same positive mutations for certain features (irreducible complexity, apparent impossiblilty of evolution fo consciousness [and that nasty black secret of near-death experiences], and perfect [although the anthropic principle can be cheaply applied here] physical constants, among others). but fairly, a lot of what is touted as "evidence" for id is of the "well, we have no other way to explain it" sort, which circumvents the whole point of contingency, which is really the crucial ideal to reach for in arguing scientifically for id.

My opinions on evolution vs. 'intelligent design':

First, let me re-state that I am not a Christian, or a follower of any mainstream religion. One of my main reasons for refusing to believe in an esstablished religion is that I don't want to have a doctrine about how the world works and how it came to be. I want to have a belief system that can adapt to new discoveries, by staying open to new ideas. Other than a few really unproveable ideas, nothing's set in stone for me.

I agree with Hamedo's statement that ID should not be associated only or mostly wth Christianity. One could easily believe in ID due to the beliefs of another religion; ID doesn't necessarily have to be "[insert deity name here] created the world in exactly 7 days."

I believe that ID can and possibly should be taught in public schools. However, it should not be taught alongside evolution. Hamedo is right in saying that ID is a logically possible but never definitively proveable theory, just like evolution. However, evolution was produced from scientific thought. Intelligent design and other such theories were produced through cultural influences and tradtiions. Evolution may in fact be wrong, but no competent scientist believes that the discoveries of science are necessarily correct anyways. And scientists understand that evolution is just a theory. One reason it's generally accepted is because it was derived from the more 'objective' method of observing data and drawing conclusions rather than the more 'subjective' method of postulating conclusions and fitting data to them, the former being less likely to err than the latter (and we know this empirically from psychology studies of the effect of bias on people's thinking).

Ironically, as I studied biochemistry, I myself became amazed at the sheer near-perfect complexity of biomolecular systems and connections that I wondered if nature had indeed been designed by an 'intelligent designer'. Sure, one could argue that, given enough time, effects of evolution might be able to produce life as we know it today, but on the other hand, I could argue that the chance of something like this happening are extremely slim. Keep in mind that evolution depends on probability. Now, given enough time, there's a decent chance that a very unlikely event will have happened. There's no guarantee it will have happened, though.

Quote (Hamedo)

Aside from microbiological organisms, what has humanity actually seen evolve?

I think the idea of evolution is rather silly, myself. If it were a fact, then why do species ever go extinct? Why didn't they adapt and evolve to their conditions in order to survive? Also, if humanity evolved from apes, then why didn't apes as a whole evolve? Why are there still apes around today, in areas where humans have been for thousands of years? Why haven't they evolved yet?

Lastly, if humans evolved from apes, where is the upside of that? Take a human and an ape and drop them down in a remote, isolated jngle, and tell me which one will have the higher probability of survival. The ape will, which flies right in the face of the idea that we evolved from them. Sure, you can say that evolution equipped us with larger skulls, which increased our intelligence... but thats a bunch of crap for two reasons. One, the size of the cranium does NOT indicate intelligence. To wit, we use relatively little of our "big brains". Two, evolution is based on the precepts of physical needs dictated by the environment. The environment doesn't demand growth of a species knowledge. It would demand growth of a species physical prowess.

1. Humanity has only been around for a very short period of time compared to the (theoretical) age of the Earth. Scientists know that the probability of positive random mutations is darn near zero, very low compared to the probability of negative mutations, and that an organism with a positive mutation would have to survive long enough to divide and/or mate, which still wouldn't guarantee the propagation of its particular positively mutated gene. But I'm sure we all understand that if I buy two lottery tickets with different numbers, my chances of winning the lottery are greater than if I just buy one. Now, in the propagation of genes, time is analogous to "number of lottery tickets". Given enough time, something very unlikely in a single case would likely (although not necessarily) have happened. Then there's the second step.

Given that a positive mutation has occured and been propagated into new organisms, that merely means biodiversity, but not yet evolution. There must be natural selection--the agent that 'decides' whether a mutation is positive or not--to select preferentially for the positive mutations. Such a pressure must exist long enough such that the species can change, or split into two species (which happens more easily if the mutant population were separated).

The reason it's a lot easier to observe evolution with microorganisms than with 'macroorganisms' is mainly the time of their life cycle. E. coli bacteria double every 20 minutes or so; while elephants can take more than a year to give birth to one offspring. Only when a creature carrying a positive mutation can pass it on to future generations can evolution happen, and thus the number of 'lottery tickets' is the frequency of reproductive cycles.

As a sidenote, ironically, one could say that the development of modern medicine has held back the evolution of our own species by reducing the pwoer of natural selection.

2. Why do species ever go extinct? Why can't they adapt and survive?

Different species have differential abilities of adaptation and different tolerances to change, but that doesn't mean any given species can necessarily adapt to any condition you give it. If I put you and a cactus in Antarctica, the cactus would almost surely die, and you probably would, too, unless you had a ton of gear with you to protect you from the cold. Now, I'm not familiar with cactus biochemistry, but while there's the (albeit very slim) chance that that cactus would have all the mutations that would let it survive in Antarctica (and so might you), that chance is pretty darn slim, and even if I were to grow cacti all my life and have them all sent to Antarctica, I might never see a plant that survives. Mutations are up to chance. Animals can adapt easier to plants, but that doesn't mean they don't have a limit either.

3. Humans evolving from apes: One could for one thing say that, while apes are more adapted to living in forests, humans are more suited for living on plains. Also keep in mind that humans weren't produced directly from apes, according to any evolution theory that has any merit; what's more likely is that humans and apes branched from a common ancestor--and don't think ancestor merely as in a caveman; think about reproductive timescales and you'll realize how long it would probably take.

I'd agree it's hard to get out of the misimpression that 'evolution' doesn't mean that somewhere along the way, some apes suddenly turned into humans. I have trouble visualizing what that 'ancestor creature' might be myself.

And Pokemon should NEVER have been allowed to misuse the term 'evolution' the way they have.

Okay, now I'm going to finish printing out some handouts and start studying for tomorrow's final exam.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Well, let's put it this way.

What should schools be teaching? Concepts people can use to pick theories apart, a few theories to study, and to let their students draw their own conclusions? Or to pick a theory, only present that one theory, introduce it as a truth, and leave it at that?

In an ideal world, every religion's theory on the birth of life and every accepted scientific theory on the same subject should be presented to students, and they should be tested on their understandings of the strenghts and failings of each theory. No bias should be introduced, and students should be the ones to draw their own conclusions, not the teachers or the higher ups. But this is, of course, just idealism and not reality.

One thing's for sure though. If my school would've forced me to learn a theory and treated it as fact, I would've never set foot there again. I can't bring myself to writing about "Reasons why Creationism is true" when I don't even believe in it, or "The Theory of Evolution: Why All Other Theories Suck Balls."

We all know the world was sneezed out of the nose of a giant space-squid. People are just stupid for trying to think up of some other explanation. "Oooh, I'm special. I came up with a perfectly reasonable theory!" Whatever. You should've stayed in the kleenex, simpleton.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote (Hamedo @ 21st December 2005 11:35)

Quote

Elena99 wrote:  I also think that if they start letting religious teachings like that in science classes, it will just lead to problems. Other religions will want their parts included, etc etc.

Intelligent Design is NOT a Christian spin on creationism. Never does ID identify a diety as being specifically responsible for creation. You can inject whichever god that you want, be it Jesus, Buddha, Zeus.... whoever. I wish people would stop equating ID with Christianity, because that is simply not correct.

As far as evolution goes, I have a problem with any THEORY being the ONLY method taught. Evolution is theory, not fact, and as such it is open to ridicule, and students should be able to hear other vialble options.

Of course, most of those pushing for intelligent design make an embarrassing attempt to extricate themselves from their own religious beliefs (i.e. Christianity). Perhaps intelligent design is equated with Christianity because so many Christians are pushing for its teaching in public schools. Why do you think groups such as The Foundation for Thought and Ethics and the Discovery Institute are so supportive of intelligent design?

You think the idea of evolution to be "rather silly," but then go on to ask "rather silly" questions: Why do species ever go extinct? Why are there still apes around today? It's impossible to be critical of people accepting evolution when your questions reflect a misunderstanding of the theory itself.

Oh, I said "theory." There's no purpose for these silly textbook warnings that state the theory of evolution to be a theory. The word "theory" is already attached to the phrase! I'm sure by their sophomore year of high school biology students can read!

Why should intelligent design not be taught in schools as an "alternative" to the theory of evolution? Simple: it's dogmatic. When your so-called theory vaguely states that "it must have been some intelligent designer" (of course leaving much speculation as to who that "intelligent designer" is, because you don't want those nasty scientists recognizing your transparent evangelical agenda for what it really is), then we really have a problem. You attack the gaps in evolutionary theory but produce nothing in your own defense, save your own religious beliefs. Again, introducing God into the biology classroom is not in any way a "viable option" to evolutionary theory.

This post has been edited by The_Pink_Nu1 on 22nd December 2005 02:55

--------------------

SPEKKIO: "GRRR...That was most embarrassing!"

Oh gods, I have to debate this topic for speech team (or forensics team if you prefer).

The problem I have found is the definition of science. Is it based on facts or theories? I have found definitions which say both.

Another problem is whether you consider ID to be religiuos in nature or not. It could be god, it could be some agnostic force, it could be bloody Ban Ku, or it could be somthing else completly. As such, the "seperation of church and state" argument is shot down.

In my personal opinion, it should not. But That's just what I think.

--------------------

What if he shot you first instead of your secretary?

I suppose I'd have to catch the bullet, wouldn't I

I'm not going to get overly involved in this, but i would like to point out on thing: evolution does not happen overnight. theortically it takes a very large number of generations to make any sort of physical change in a species, and the reason humans haven't witnessed evolution is because of the incredibly short time frame the theory has even been considered. 'evolution' has been witnessed in virus and bacteria, because they go through a generation a minute. anti-bacterial soap eventually stops working because the bacteria develop into 'superbugs' resistant to whatever it is that killed them earlier. when penicillin was discovered it was a miracle drug because it killed everything, now it's pretty reduntant like a cough syrup because it's lost a lot of its effect.

so, no, humans can't prove evolution on a mass scale unless we're around 1 or 2 million years from now, collecting evidence along the way. and i don't really see us around that long...

intelligent design can't be proven either. unless it wants us to know, but whats going to cause that? does it care if we want to know? why did it make us so aware of things only to make us suffer until it unleashes the truth? and what the heck is the truth about our existence and the way humanity has changed in the past 16,000 years since man started scribbling on cave walls?? is it sadistic or something?!? will we ever be given a point to living other than to suffer through time with the blunt awareness of how bloody stupid we really are?!?!?!? does it even still exist or are we stuck on auto-pilot now?

This post has been edited by Jenny on 22nd December 2005 04:13

--------------------

The first duty in life is to assume a pose,
and the second duty is...well, no one's found out yet.

Quote (Hamedo @ 21st December 2005 11:51)

Aside from microbiological organisms, what has humanity actually seen evolve?

I saw gozaru mentioned the finches and their beaks, I also remember reading about moths in England after the industrial revolution. This species of moth tended to be entirely brown to help them blend into trees. But as industrialization released pollution into the environment, scientists noticed that charcoal covered moths began to have an advantage with camoflauge, since pollution was turning the surrounding environment a more grey-ish color.

As a liberal, I don't think ID should be taught in schools. But my instincts as a teacher tell me that a teacher should have the right to teach what they want to, as long as they're not forcing their own opinions on their students. I know it's hard to do, but it's also hard to teach something you don't know anything about. I believe teachers should have the right to design their own curriculum and teach multiple perspectives of how people came to be.

--------------------

Hip-Hop QOTW:

"Yeah, where I'ma start it at, look I'ma part of that
Downtown Philly where it's realer than a heart attack
It wasn't really that ill until the start of crack
Now it's a body caught every night on the Almanac"

"Game Theory"
The Roots

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth--the whole shebang. And if I want to hear about it, I'll suggest it as a Bible study topic.

Evolution isn't perfect. There are a lot of problems with the theory; intraspecies evolution is a lot more solid than interspecies evolution, which is riddled with gaps and unanswered questions. But evolution is still a theory that's presented and understood in the framework of scientific thinking. Intelligent design is not.

I have a hard time understanding the argument that intelligent design isn't the same as creationism. Intelligent design says that the universe is too complex to not have been created by an intelligent power. If this "power" isn't somebody's god, who is it? Thetans? Magic Emperor Bush? Sure, maybe. But that still amounts to what is essentially a religious belief. Furthermore, it's an idea that lies on something that can't be rigorously debated. Something is "too complex"--what does that mean, and compared to what? Is it really anything special that the world is so marvelously put together so as to allow for human life? (It's not like we'd be here to notice if it weren't; something resembling the complexity of our universe was absolutely necessary before we could even ask this question.)

--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

Quote (Gears)

I also remember reading about moths in England after the industrial revolution.

While I don't remember the finch beaks example, I personally wouldn't call the moth colors example one of "evolution". "Natural selection" yes, but it didn't really involve the creation of new genotypes/phenotypes, just the redistributing of them, in my opinion.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

An interesting parallel with evolution (and one I DO have hands-on experience with ) is the algorithmic version of evolution used in programming expert systems: genetic programming.

http://www.geneticprogramming.com/Tutorial/
(Just a random link I pulled from google that seemed to cover it well enough...)

To accomplish AI systems, real-life systems and theories have been observed and made into algorithms. Neural networks are one example, which base themself on the neurons in our brains (literally; it's a series of virtual axones firing signals into dendrites. Very, very close model to what we know of the brain's low-level workings) and actually produce very surprisingly good results. Genetic programming bases itself on the theory of evolution.

While this is by no means any proof, GP produces very interesting results. Speaking from personal experience, I've written game AIs using GP and often seen very surprising behavior (my favorite being a very watered-down ant colony; seeing them form groups and having different roles emerge is quite a surprise, though by no means as impressive as I make it sound. ) The best example of GP would have to be Tom Ray's "game," Tierra Mutants (and quite frankly, the project which got me into GP in the first place.)

Tierra Mutants is basically a virtual environment where assembly programs "live." The programs just sit there, reproduce themselves in a field of memory, and sometimes "evolve" by merging and tweaking their code. Some REALLY scary emergent behavior rose out of Tom Ray's program after a while mimicking parasites, predators, prey, and so forth: programs that gut other programs and use their copy routine to replicate, programs that refined their copy routine to the point of being uotrageously small, programs which just "grow" and serve no other purpose...

http://www.his.atr.jp/%7Eray/tierra/index.html <- Tierra.
http://www.his.atr.jp/%7Eray/tierra/whatis.html <- What is Tierra?

This, as I've said, is by no means proof of ANYTHING. But it's very interesting and does raise the question: if we can make a theory work on a computer, just what does that say about real life applications? It's not a step towards proving it right, but it's certainly a step away from proving it wrong.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Personally, I believe that the discussion of Evolution or Intelligent design should both belong in school, but not a biology classroom setting. It should belong in World History or U.S. History class setting, and Speech and Debate. The one thing we have to remember is we cannot take Either one as pure fact, or for granted. Keep in mind that they are both Theories, not Proven Fact, and children should have the equal oppertunities to learn about both, then make their desicion.

Of course, this runs under the same catergory that I view Censorship in. I could debate about either side of the argument, but I choose not to.

--------------------

Neneko is Neneko because Neneko couldn't be Neneko if Neneko wasn't Neneko!
--as quoted from Neneko, Mahoraba {Heartful Days}

I can stab a man with a thick paperback book thru the ribcage.

This is turning into an excellent discussion. I think I'm digging Glen Magus Harvey's post the most so far.

Strikerbolt brings up a good point with the introduction of censorship to the discussion, though. Why should only evolutionists have the stage? Why can't other opinions be explored?

Overall, I still stand by my earlier posts in that I do not believe that a theory that cannot be proven should be the only methos being taught in schools.

In response to Gears, I like the thought of the idea, if that makes sense.... but some type of structure is almost required when developing curriculum, otherwise you'll have varying degrees of learning going on, depending on if someone gets a "good" teacher or not.

By the way, is that you (Chi-Town) I play in fantasy football this week?

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Apologies for the double-post, but I felt this article would be a bit out of place, being edited into my post above.



This is an article from Yahoo.com by John West, a writer for the A.P.

Quote

Pyrrhic victory.

ADVERTISEMENT

It's a phrase proponents of Darwin's theory might do well to ponder as they crow over the decision by a federal judge in Pennsylvania "permanently enjoining" the Dover school district from mentioning the theory of intelligent design in science classes.


Contrary to Judge John Jones' assertions, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory that holds there are certain features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. No legal decree can remove the digitally coded information from DNA, nor molecular machines from cells. The facts of biology cannot be overruled by a federal judge. Research on intelligent design will continue to go forward, and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.


Still, Darwinists clearly won this latest skirmish in the evolution wars. But at what cost?


Evolutionists used to style themselves the champions of free speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. But increasingly, they have become the new dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.


Now, Darwinists are trying to silence debate through persecution. At Ohio State University, a graduate student's dissertation is in limbo because he was openly critical of Darwin's theory. At George Mason University, a biology professor lost her job after she mentioned intelligent design in class. At the Smithsonian, an evolutionary biologist was harassed and vilified for permitting an article favoring intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed biology journal.


Those who think they can stop the growing interest in intelligent design through court orders or intimidation are deluding themselves. Americans don't like being told there are some ideas they aren't permitted to investigate. Try to ban an idea, and you will generate even more interest in it.


Efforts to mandate intelligent design are misguided, but efforts to shut down discussion of a scientific idea through harassment and judicial decrees hurt democratic pluralism. The more Darwinists resort to censorship and persecution, the clearer it will become that they are championing dogmatism, not science.


John G. West is associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture, andassociate professor of political science at Seattle Pacific University.

This post has been edited by Hamedo on 22nd December 2005 14:52

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (gozaru~ @ 21st December 2005 12:19)

finally, the fact of the matter is that evidence is obviously the LAST thing darwinian macroevolution supporters seem to care about; after all, they still cling to a theory that has been constantly weakened and debunked by the advances in molecular and evolutionary biology that even its supporters are making!  darwinian evolution is a tool the delete God from the equation -- most scientists want to be able to explain everything from a completely naturalistic viewpoint.  they're still working on how something comes from nothing in a universe whose physical laws preclude such an occurance (bbt, origin of life).  so, how, then, dare we argue "scientific evidence" and "nondisprovability" as the crux of the anti-id case?

but the judge may have something there.  you'll be surprised to hear me say this, and you know like hell i don't agree with it, but with the evolution of the first amendment and the contrived and fabricated phrase "seperation of Church and state" to what they have become today, it seems that teaching id in school as a viable theory is deferring to all religions that have a creator-like figure over religions that do not (atheism, for one).  so perhaps it is not "constitutional," by today's definition of the word, to teach id in the public school system.  that still doesn't mean the biology teacher can say exactly what i suggested above: "t is an alternate theory to evolution and it entails x and y."  there must need to be no in-depth study of the implications of id, no study of the evidence, no study of the power of id as an alternate theory to evolution, but mention of the theory as a viable and respectable alternate theory to the clusterfkcu that is darwinian evolution does not appear to violate constitutionality.

Y'know, I'm doubting I'm the only one here who read through a slew of scientific textbooks detailing loads of alleged evidence in support of evolution way back in my grade school days. I'm guessing you've perhaps read at least parts of one as well. But whether their info is factual or not - and since biology isn't chemistry I really don't give enough nuts to sway one way or another - that really doesn't justify blowing a simple opinion ridiculously outta proportion at the start of your post there, chief. Not everyone has access to the same sources you do and vice versa (it's also evident that everyone has a different outlook on what the term "evolution" refers exactly to - whether it's a mere positive mutation, a larger act of natural selection, or a recurring process that greatly alters a given species over hundreds of generations time). The fact is you presently do hear much more in general about evolution than intelligent design, therefore making it appear as though the former has the harder evidence, regardless of reality. Also, I fail to see how the largely incorrect generalizations you provided present any bit of relevance whatsoever.

Also, you mentioned Ockham's Razor which, given a differing viewpoint, supports the evolution theory just as well as the arguably simplistic theory of intelligent design.

Anyhoo, you did bring up a point rarely addressed: Indeed the Constitution lacks the direct phrase "separation of Church and State," but what it does say in the Establishment Clause is sure close enough. The confused aforementioned line is actually from a famous letter written by Thomas Jefferson on the issue, where he mentions a wall separating the two. The first amendment simply became associated with the phrase afterwards while never actually containing it, but it'd be pretty redundant even if it did. However, it would still be flat-out wrong to assume that just 'cause that particular phrase isn't included within the Constitution it automatically invalidates what all IS said concerning freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

But more on topic: My problem with intelligent design is that it's grounded in faith in an almighty of some sort. While that's all well and good, it runs the risk of other science subjects being dragged in somewhere down the road in order to abide by religious principles, like geology for example. Due to its dating systems that take into account attention to natural formations in the planet, river/lake locations and depths, comparisons to ancient geological texts, changes in soil and rock types underground and along cliffsides, satellite data, etc., the estimated ages for many features including the Earth itself contradict that of holy scriptures such as the Torah and Bible. Not everyone believes in an ultimate "creator" though, and some religions have varying beliefs in the formation of the universe than what's normally stated by most who're pushing for the teachings of ID. Unfortunately public schools are attended by students of all races and religious backgrounds, thereby making anything related to the divine pretty touchy. Around here it wouldn't pose too terribly much of a problem (there again, I have no idea what kinds of people attend the schools 'round here nowadays), but in highly diverse areas it'd likely be hell. It's not that it would be outta place in all schools, just possibly outta place in public schools. On the other hand, if there was a choice offered between studying evolution or intelligent design then everything would be just peachy, but as far as I know the school boards interested wanna teach 'em side-by-side, sorta as disclaimers for one another.

Course, there's still the fact that plenty of scientists manage just fine to perfectly and easily believe in both evolution and intelligent design. If one's under the impression that a higher being created the universe and all living things, who's to say evolution couldn't have still occurred as far as they're concerned just as who's to say some deity didn't start the evolutionary process in the same person's eyes? It's widely accepted that the projected seven relatively short days (at first thought, that is) taken for Jehovah/Yahweh to create the universe, Earth and life upon it actually lasted, in theory, over the course of millions of years. Deity timeframes =/= mortal timeframes; there would be many opportunities then for natural selection, survival of the fittest, yadda yadda, plus it'd allow ample time for prolonged geological formations and a run through all the dinosaur periods and their eventual extinction.

However, if worse came to worse I could always side with the theory of stupid design. What's "stupid design," you ask? Why, it's the complete disbelief in evolution and intelligent design. Given the fact that humanity's existence goes against the very "survival" aspect of evolution - seeing as humans just plain love destroying each other - and entails destruction of both our habitat and the habitats or other animals alike, natural selection can't very well be relied upon nor have much of a fighting chance. Likewise, intelligent design dictates that some powerful creator initiated the life cycle and all, yet no god or goddess could possibly be behind the making of a world in which people like Joan Rivers and Tom Cruise inhabit and flourish.

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

Quote

Oh, I said "theory." There's no purpose for these silly textbook warnings that state the theory of evolution to be a theory. The word "theory" is already attached to the phrase! I'm sure by their sophomore year of high school biology students can read!

in the past, the word "theory" was used by scientists in regard to scientific ideas that, if disproven by evidence, would be discarded. this is no longer the case in the hypocritical and dogmatic world of naturalistic science these days; for evolution, there has been a consistent stream of evidence against (and the lack thereof for as we continually flesh out the fossil record and have yet to find a single example of intermediate species [and hell, we could go so far as to bring up all of the FALSIFICATIONS, like usgin pig bones and ape bones to create fake fossils of "primitive humans," that evolution's supporters have desperately made in hopes of breathing new life into the embattled theory]). but the way evolution is taught in school and even at the uni level is as though it was ESTABLISHED fact! i can't say how many biology &c. professorrs i've had that speak of "well, when x species evolved from y species, it had to find a way to deal with z, so by mutations and natural selection, w came about." this is the problem. it's one thing for physicists to speak of bbt as a fact (and i'm not even sure many *do,* although assuredly most agree with it); it's another to throw out a totally unevidenced theory as established fact.

let me also say, nu, as usual, it's obvious that you haven't the foggiest clue what the breadth of intelligent design really involves. i invited you to debate with me the validity of behe's irreducible complexity at one point, as you were running your mouth off about how it was scientifically ungrounded and just wrong besides; you were not interested, presumably because you were just parroting back something (wrong) you had read somewhere that you immediately jumped on because it sounded anti-id. it's really too bad that no one has been able to offer a proper critique of irredcible complexity, besides adding billions and billionsw of more years to the evolutionary timescale in the implicdation of OTHER intermediate species and organisms that we have no artifact of here today. i invite you again, but this time, the burden of proof is on you. you must first take the initiative to understand the science in which id is grounded -- and there is *so much* science in which id is grounded, far more than evolution by all means. all you're really doing here is throwing around derisive quote marks and offering no real substance to the argument besides "id clearly implies God, so don't know jack bout no science." please.

Quote

I have a hard time understanding the argument that intelligent design isn't the same as creationism. Intelligent design says that the universe is too complex to not have been created by an intelligent power. If this "power" isn't somebody's god, who is it? Thetans? Magic Emperor Bush? Sure, maybe. But that still amounts to what is essentially a religious belief. Furthermore, it's an idea that lies on something that can't be rigorously debated. Something is "too complex"--what does that mean, and compared to what? Is it really anything special that the world is so marvelously put together so as to allow for human life? (It's not like we'd be here to notice if it weren't; something resembling the complexity of our universe was absolutely necessary before we could even ask this question.)

i would tend to agree: id implies a creator. then, id is creationism. there is no getting around that. but at the same time, id is scientifically grounded and most certainly can be rigourously debated. what proponents of id mean by "too complex" is that there are certain functions and apparatuses found in the naturalworld that could not possibly have been the result of "numerous lsight, successive modificatyions," bedcause they are dependant on many molecular and biological parts working exactly and perfectly in tandem to be even conceivable. what you have put in parentheses is known as the "anthropic principle" and, while very difficult to argue philosophically against, really amounts to running away from the full collection of facts.

Quote

Quote (Gears)
I also remember reading about moths in England after the industrial revolution.


While I don't remember the finch beaks example, I personally wouldn't call the moth colors example one of "evolution". "Natural selection" yes, but it didn't really involve the creation of new genotypes/phenotypes, just the redistributing of them, in my opinion.

right, here is the whole idea. natural selection is certainly a well-documented phenomenon, and speciation (finches of differnt beaks) can certainly be a product thereof. but it's a huge and logically fallacious stretch to say that since moths change colour as a sign of the times, the next step is for them to evolve into intelligent life some billion years down the road. there is no evidence for interspecial evolution, period. we have a nice fossil record that shows us apes, lizards, birds, but none of the so-called intermediate species in between them.

Quote

This, as I've said, is by no means proof of ANYTHING. But it's very interesting and does raise the question: if we can make a theory work on a computer, just what does that say about real life applications? It's not a step towards proving it right, but it's certainly a step away from proving it wrong.

if we must resort to "making" a theory of evolution "work" on a computer by *intelligently designing* (this is the crucial point) an algorithm to get *Expected* results, which theory are we really more prone to supporting, here? if entropy and random chance have shown us basically evolution is contrary to the principles of the universe and the fossil record offers no defense, we have no support for that theory from the natural world. we are choosing using specific conditions and criteria to get the results that we want; *intelligently design* of evolutionary model algorithms is no support for darwinistic evolution.

Quote

Y'know, I'm doubting I'm the only one here who read through a slew of scientific textbooks detailing loads of alleged evidence in support of evolution way back in my grade school days. I'm guessing you've perhaps read at least parts of one as well. But whether their info is factual or not - and since biology isn't chemistry I really don't give enough nuts to sway one way or another - that really doesn't justify blowing a simple opinion ridiculously outta proportion at the start of your post there, chief. Not everyone has access to the same sources you do and vice versa (it's also evident that everyone has a different outlook on what the term "evolution" refers exactly to - whether it's a mere positive mutation, a larger act of natural selection, or a recurring process that greatly alters a given species over hundreds of generations time). The fact is you presently do hear much more in general about evolution than intelligent design, therefore making it appear as though the former has the harder evidence, regardless of reality. Also, I fail to see how the largely incorrect generalizations you provided present any bit of relevance whatsoever.

well, silverfork, you *almost* had something here. *almost.* how the hell can you admist earlier i the post you are not up to snuff in biology, and later deign to tell me that the fundamental and incomplete list of points of evidence against darwinistic evolution are "largely incorrect generalistations?" you're wrong, and you must know it, becuase you mad no effort to scientifically debunk a single one of them. if you re-read the posts i make, you see in every one of them when i am arguing against science i use science to make my point. you, it seems, just make idle and faux-authoritative words with no real meaning behind them. i am prepared to debate with you to any extent you want the "correctness" of my "generalisations." a "failure to see" on your part because you have blinded your eyes to the scientific evidence in favour of darwinistic dogma is certainly not attributable to me or anyone else but yourself. as far as the "evidence" for evolution provided in evolutionary biology textbooks, you're quite right, it's wrong. i don't think they even teach the same things they taught when i was in highschool anymore, because it's embarassing to have as evidence for your main biological dogma a bunch of lies and unsubstantiated illogicalities. of coures, they've moved on to new wrong evidences, like miller-urey (which *intelligently* picked-and-chose the proper environment: a reducing environment, which is both cosmologically and biochemically illogical and more or less wrong...why do you think they have to keep reinventing the miller-urey experiment? with new and different atmospheres? picking and choosing atrmospheres is intelligent design, sorry). and as far as everyone not having access to the same information i do, it is all public domain. go to the nearest med centre/uni library and you can study the *facts* to your hearts' content.

Quote

Also, you mentioned Ockham's Razor which, given a differing viewpoint, supports the evolution theory just as well as the arguably simplistic theory of intelligent design.

uhm, no? ockham's razor suggests that we look to the simplest explanation given by the facts (don't pretend you understood this; you wouldn't have said what you did). to accept evolution, we must overlook the evidence against it and accept it in spite of there being *NO* concrete evidence for it anywhere in our scientific history. yes, it's more that we are inventing facts and cases that can "exaplin away" the problems with the darwinistic theory, and that is most certainly *not* usage of ockhams razor, it's dogmatic stubbornness.

Quote

Course, there's still the fact that plenty of scientists manage just fine to perfectly and easily believe in both evolution and intelligent design. If one's under the impression that a higher being created the universe and all living things, who's to say evolution couldn't have still occurred as far as they're concerned just as who's to say some deity didn't start the evolutionary process in the same person's eyes? It's widely accepted that the projected seven relatively short days (at first thought, that is) taken for Jehovah/Yahweh to create the universe, Earth and life upon it actually lasted, in theory, over the course of millions of years. Deity timeframes =/= mortal timeframes; there would be many opportunities then for natural selection, survival of the fittest, yadda yadda, plus it'd allow ample time for prolonged geological formations and a run through all the dinosaur periods and their eventual extinction.

the whole point is that evolution is unsubstantiated and bad science. why do you suggest that the theories should be viewed as compatible, when the idea behind science is not to accept what makes us feel good, but to accept what we see to be true? who is to say that evolution couldn't still have occured by God's hand? hmm, well, to start,

[quote]do you, elena, have some sort of privileged access to a totally different fossil record than everyone else in the world that explains the cambrian explosion and that actually has a SINGLE fossil of darwinian evolution's supposed intermediate species? i suppose that you have also beaten all the more talented and intelligent evolutionary biologists to the punch of actually explaining the "numerous slight, successive modifications" necessitated by darwinian evolution for the emergence of irreducibly complex biological features? you must also have an answer for the obvious discrepancy across closely related species in certain biological and social functions that appear to have regressed on the evolutionary timescale. how about the fact taht the earth isn't nearly old enough for life to have arisen from non-life and speciated into the large variety of species we see to day based on positive mutations -- in fact, given the rate at which we observe positive mutations in non-controlled (read: no scientists specifically fixing conditions to elicit positive mutations), which is damn near ZERO, the earth would have to be close to infinity years old for evolution to even begin to be a viable theory (and then it has those other inconveniently noxious INSUSMOUNTABLE WALLS of evidence against it). this is all not to even begin speaking of humans and the fact that there is nothing like them anywhere in the animal world.[quote]

i'll be waiting for your *scientific* critiques of my "generalisations." given that you have accused me mof providing "incorect" information, it's to be expected that you have information that proves that they are "incorrect."

edit: of course, to stay on topic, it's necessary that i examine my reply to karasuman -- id is in fact creationism, and then it cannot (as per modern understanding of constitutional law) be especially endorsed by the schools in that it defers to religions with such a creator. so, i really don't think id can be taught in schools -- but to mention it an a contender is valuable and encourages ferment. evolution, even were it actually evidenced, needs to be one theory among alternates, not the sacred and unassailible dogma of biological science.

This post has been edited by gozaru~ on 22nd December 2005 18:46

Quote (gozaru~ @ 22nd December 2005 11:36)

.why do you think they have to keep reinventing the miller-urey experiment? with new and different atmospheres?

I figured it's cause science is about finding out what works, even after you found out one way that doesn't work? Least that's what I remember being told. I tended to sleep through biology, but at least it was easier than chemistry. God, don't even get me started on chemistry.

ID looks to be a slap in the face to the very concept of science. It's a cheat code and poorly done one at that. It says that all the things we don't understand about (in this case) biology must be the result of God simply saying 'let it be so' and it is. I can see how it'd be far easier to prove ID rather than evolution. I have no doubts evolution is flowed or outright wrong, but I don't see how that automatically makes ID right. What makes it 'right' is that it takes all that we know up to this point in human discovery and says the rest is a higher power. How do you disprove that?

Evolution, wrong or right has its heart in the right place. Science is about trying to find out why things work the way they do. All things. Step by step and all that. If ID wants to be more than just a faulty bridge to creationism, it should take the next steps in the path it's chosen and find out what that intelligence is and how it changes whatever it's supposed to be changing. One way or another I think we're going to find out the truth...or at least more of it.

We're gonna be around...humans that is...maybe for not much longer in the grand scheme of things, but I figure at least a thousand more years God willing (hee hee). We're gonna learn new things that we didn't know before about how life works and apply it to what we know and think we know now that may (and of course may not) explain what we're saying is God right now. Although, personally, I don't think it matters for squat. The layers for the mechanics of life I think are damb near infinite and beyond the scope of human beings. Meaning, we'll die out as a species before we get to the bottom of it. Just not enough time.

Or maybe I'm reading ID wrong. Goz, you seem to be the formost priest on this thing. If you should decide to attack this post with vague scientific ramblings I obviously won't understand (not being a microbiologist or whatever the hell you are), could you do me a favor and just post up the whole of the theory of ID itself? And while your at it, put up the theory of evolution too, whatever recent one we're going by nowadays.

Thanks, your a doll.

This post has been edited by Narratorway on 22nd December 2005 19:48

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts