Evolution everyone? Ummm...anyone?

[BigBadZep!]

Hello. With all the current fuss about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, this has come to my attention.

According to several recent articles, "half of Americans recently polled (2004) not only do not believe in evolution by natural selection but do not believe in evolution at all" (New Scientist).

I was, at the very least, baffled, perplexed and dumbfounded by this statistic. I mean, wtf. Only idiots don't "believe" in evolution, right?

And I use "believe" in quotes, because it's not really something that requires "belief." Just like I wouldn't say I "believed" in gravity or "believed" in fire.

So I ask you all:

What do you make of this? And dare I even ask it? Do YOU believe in evolution!? Duuuuurrrrr.

Go.

[breastnorton]

there are uneducated people in the world, no surprise there, but people will always believe different things

you want id in schools? great, make a religion class and teach whatever you want, but don't put it in a science class because there is nothing scientific about it, at all

in fact it's the exact opposite of science

[BigBadZep!]

You know, when my dad went to school he learned evolution as a scientific principle, a basic tenet of biology and anthropology, that was thirty or forty years ago.

So think about how far back we set ourselves when we start teaching religious beliefs in science classes. We're talking about going back to the Dark Ages here.

[breastnorton]

it's not even about teaching religion in science, though that would be wrong as well

ID has no scientific merit or foundation at all

[BigBadZep!]

it's not even about teaching religion in science, though that would be wrong as well


Well, whatever. Let's not argue over semantics. Intelligent Design is based on religous principles. It's based on faith and superstition rather than evidence and experiments.

[Trizzak]

I'd want to know how many people were polled and where they were polled.

If it was 2000 people in the southern belt outside of churches that were polled, than yeah, I'm not surprised.

[breastnorton]

well, i mean this is the country that voted for bush twice, so we don't appear to be very intelligent in general

[Joga]

Lemon vs. Kurtzman...look it up. Ruled that it's against the law for the federal government to financially support any religious activity in a public school. Bush will use the Supreme Court to his advantage, of course, and overturn it, knowing him. For now, though, it can be fought, because this goes against a Supreme ruling.

By the way, of course I "believe" in evolution. No question about it. You can't argue against the vast amounts of evidence that support it, not to mention common sense.

[breastnorton]

but see that's the problem

in kansas they expanded the definition of what could be taught as science in public school

ID is of course creationism dressed up a little bit, but it's not technically religious

[Fhilly]

i'm surprised that that many people don't believe in evolution..I mean, I know how stupid Americans can be, but I always thought they were smarter than they seemed...oh well. (assuming this poll was all/most of America, as opposed to, say, every southern state)

I believe in evolution, of course, although I suppose it's always possible there could be a different answer. But when massive amounts of evidence point to one solution, I think you have to go with it... I'm baffled that they're still not teaching it well enough for people to believe in some places- how could you believe in things like, gravity or atoms, and not at least give a thought to evolution..?

[Heath]

Most people say no because they're terribly misguided, and think evolution = big bang theory. If anybody says evolution isn't true, just ask them why the human appendix functioned at one point, and doesn't anymore.

[Person]

That number is surprising to even me.

I thought it'd be more like 90% :capt:

[Joga]

but see that's the problem

in kansas they expanded the definition of what could be taught as science in public school

ID is of course creationism dressed up a little bit, but it's not technically religious

Well, even that is still grey-area against the law. I suppose that if you're teaching about religion, without supporting the theory, as in "one theory of how the world started is this" then it's not against the law. But it really is so grey-area.

I hate how religion gets in the way of everything; especially down here, where it's just expected that you're religious. I have people ask me on a regular basis, "what church do you belong to?" If I'm in a good mood, I tell them the truth. If I'm in a bad mood, I tell them that I'm Mormon. The reaction on their faces after that puts me in a good mood.

[ByrcheWroot]

It's baffling to consider how much further science could have progressed were it not considered evil and the Devil's work for hundreds of years.

[KenKill75]

Religious people have their religious beliefs so drilled into their brain that they wont allow themselves to accept the facts of evolution, since those facts discredit what they have revolved their entire lives around. I dont mean to insult people who believe in God and whatnot, but in my opinion, these people tend to be more weak minded. As young children, we believe what we are told and taught by adults. Some people hold onto those teachings even when they get older and should have a greater ability to think for themselves.

[Godless]

Dipshits...ID is for peple who can't accept things as they are.

[Fhilly]

If I'm in a bad mood, I tell them that I'm Mormon. The reaction on their faces after that puts me in a good mood.

:lmao: i can imagine.

[greg]

you want id in schools? great, make a religion class and teach whatever you want, but don't put it in a science class because there is nothing scientific about it, at all

in fact it's the exact opposite of science
quizzzzote fo da trizzzuth

[Pun'KinG']

My friend has just been "saved" recently so I'm fed Creationism crackers and Bible biscuits on a regular basis as of late. And it's mostly caused by my current view as an agnostic, I know that. He wonders why I don't feel that comfortable talking about it, that we talk about all these other things why not religion. I just feel he's being a little pushy.

And I understand after a person is supposedly "saved" they feel obligated to tell everyone about it, but he has never yet went into detail about that in particular. I asked him once, 'So, when exactly were you saved? What happened?...', but he doesn't really recall. He knows the day and about what hour it happened, but nothing in detail. That didn't seem to fly with me. Sounded fishy....not kosher. But maybe it was something personal and he's not comfortable with it. (You would think if this were the case that he'd know how I felt being subjected to this barrage of damn religious questions. :erm:) Because if you didn't remember such a poignant moment that was such a dramatic turn-around in your life then where's the validity? So, my guess is that he just doesn't feel comfortable talking about it. Oh, he also Speaks in Tongues. And so does his grandfather.

Anyway, I'm straying way off course with all of these details that no one's even going to bother to read, and that's all right I guess.

Last week he introduced me to this one hour sermon of this preacher's seminar or service or something that he downloaded. And this guy, with the help of his projector stuffed with useful graphs, charts, diagrams, etc; went on to explain why the idea of Evolution was defunct. And he would cap off all of his revelations, findings, "facts" and such by saying "That's stupid." He would cite these remarks and such from science book texts and debate them. He'd make jokes and people would laugh. So pretty much in this guy's eyes you're an idiot for believing in any aspect of the evolutionary process.
He was also a Fundamentalist Christian because he believes the world is only 12,000 years old or some shit.

Some of the points that I do remember (I was drinking that night; coffee and alcohol, although not together. :tongue2:) on how he was attempting to solidify his view against the idea of Evolution was that the appendix is useful because it helps with the immune system or something. The tailbone is significant because all the muscles attached to it make it possible for us to procreate...

I'm going to have to acquire that vid and make it available for anyone who'd like to watch it.

[paygee]

wow..

[KenKill75]

EMOlution

[ByrcheWroot]

They were once known as beatniks.

http://ggregsnyder.com/pics/1000faces/beatnik.jpg

Then, over time.

http://www.sensitivityboosters.com/images/emo.jpg

[KenKill75]

An amazing phenomenon. If thats not proof of both evolution and emolution, then I dont know what is.

[Pun'KinG']

wow..

Oh, and I'm referring to The BahJeezus, just so you know.

We used to have the same taste in music; now he frequents the christian rock station on his car's FM dial. I don't get it. :shame:

[paygee]

Oh, and I'm referring to The BahJeezus, just so you know.

We used to have the same taste in music; now he frequents the christian rock station on his car's FM dial. I don't get it. :shame:
somehow i knew who you were talking about.


what a sheep....

[KenKill75]

:sheep:

[Pudie]

My friend has just been "saved" recently so I'm fed Creationism crackers and Bible biscuits on a regular basis as of late. And it's mostly caused by my current view as an agnostic, I know that. He wonders why I don't feel that comfortable talking about it, that we talk about all these other things why not religion. I just feel he's being a little pushy.

And I understand after a person is supposedly "saved" they feel obligated to tell everyone about it, but he has never yet went into detail about that in particular. I asked him once, 'So, when exactly were you saved? What happened?...', but he doesn't really recall. He knows the day and about what hour it happened, but nothing in detail. That didn't seem to fly with me. Sounded fishy....not kosher. But maybe it was something personal and he's not comfortable with it. (You would think if this were the case that he'd know how I felt being subjected to this barrage of damn religious questions. :erm:) Because if you didn't remember such a poignant moment that was such a dramatic turn-around in your life then where's the validity? So, my guess is that he just doesn't feel comfortable talking about it. Oh, he also Speaks in Tongues. And so does his grandfather.

Anyway, I'm straying way off course with all of these details that no one's even going to bother to read, and that's all right I guess.

Last week he introduced me to this one hour sermon of this preacher's seminar or service or something that he downloaded. And this guy, with the help of his projector stuffed with useful graphs, charts, diagrams, etc; went on to explain why the idea of Evolution was defunct. And he would cap off all of his revelations, findings, "facts" and such by saying "That's stupid." He would cite these remarks and such from science book texts and debate them. He'd make jokes and people would laugh. So pretty much in this guy's eyes you're an idiot for believing in any aspect of the evolutionary process.
He was also a Fundamentalist Christian because he believes the world is only 12,000 years old or some shit.

Some of the points that I do remember (I was drinking that night; coffee and alcohol, although not together. :tongue2:) on how he was attempting to solidify his view against the idea of Evolution was that the appendix is useful because it helps with the immune system or something. The tailbone is significant because all the muscles attached to it make it possible for us to procreate...

I'm going to have to acquire that vid and make it available for anyone who'd like to watch it.
My brothers fiances step mom prays in tongues. It's pretty fuckin bizzare.


If and when I have a child, if they are still teaching ID in science class I will pull my child out for that section. I refuse to let my child be force fed that shit.

[Trizzak]

I've never even heard of ID before, let alone seen it taught in science class.

Then again, I'm 4 - 6 years removed from being in a science class. Is it a recent development? Or just an American thing?

[Pudie]

I havent been in a science class for quite a few years now, but ID was never even mentioned.

[breastnorton]

ID hasn't been around long at all. It's not an American thing. Well I guess it is, but as of now there are no schools legally allowed to teach it. The current case rulings were only for public schools in Kansas. It broadened the definition of science so that other beliefs could be taught in a science class, effective next school year. But again, this is only in Kansas, considered by many to be one of (if not the) most ass backwards state filled with christian fundamentalists.

Don't expect any other states to allow anything like this in the near future. The recent elections in Ohio (i think, it was some state, i forget) saw the complete removal of the school board by the voting public because they all supported allowing ID in schools.

[Tzarina]

Hello. With all the current fuss about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, this has come to my attention.

According to several recent articles, "half of Americans recently polled (2004) not only do not believe in evolution by natural selection but do not believe in evolution at all" (New Scientist).

I was, at the very least, baffled, perplexed and dumbfounded by this statistic. I mean, wtf. Only idiots don't "believe" in evolution, right?

And I use "believe" in quotes, because it's not really something that requires "belief." Just like I wouldn't say I "believed" in gravity or "believed" in fire.

So I ask you all:

What do you make of this? And dare I even ask it? Do YOU believe in evolution!? Duuuuurrrrr.

Go.

What I make of this is ignorance... and unfortunately too many people in this country are ignorant...

People are viewing evolution as meaning the same as evolution by natural selection... they are incapable of knowing the difference because they don't bother to look up evolution as a scientific principle...
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
We can see with our own eyes that these events DO occur, what needs to be done is that people need to be educated that evolution is not natural selection, but only part of the idea which is needed to explain how natural selection occurs...

I've even recently encountered people who instead of looking into things themselves run to their church and have things explained for them... Fear is the enemy... it is often human nature to fear the unknown, and when answers are being given by the equally paranoid and ignorant (especially when those answers present safety instead of contemplation); they are in turn accepted by the ignorant and fearful as fact, and a vicious cycle is created.

Too many people in the country base their opinions and ideas upon information that is sppon fed to them with sound bites, why would evolution be no different?

There is no belief to the base definition of evolution, you can see bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics in 24 hours in a petri dish... THIS IS EVOLUTION...and evolution is fact, not opinion... therefore the concept of evolution itself needs to be taught in science classes, and in my opinion drilled into the heads of those who choose to believe the easy way out.

[greg]

pennsylvania tells i.d. to :gtfo:

Court rejects 'intelligent design' in science class

Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 11:50 a.m. EST (16:50 GMT)

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote.

The board's attorneys had said members were seeking to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory that evolution develops through natural selection. Intelligent-design proponents argue that the theory cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

But, he wrote, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

The controversy divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the November 8 school board election.

Said the judge: "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."

The board members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

Eric Rothschild, the lead attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district."

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which represented the school board, did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on a technicality, and the law was repealed in 1967.

Jones heard arguments in the fall during a six-week trial in which expert witnesses for each side debated intelligent design's scientific merits. Other witnesses, including current and former school board members, disagreed over whether creationism was discussed in board meetings months before the curriculum change was adopted.

The case is among at least a handful that have focused new attention on the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials, in suburban Atlanta, to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.

In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.
Text of the school's statement

Text of the statement on "intelligent design" that Dover Area High School administrators have been reading to students at the start of biology lessons on evolution:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

[KenKill75]

Of course schools would reject anything intelligent. :sarcasm:

[greg]

there's nothing intelligent about intelligent design

[KenKill75]

Oh, I guess I should have actually read your post. But im still not going to.

[ByrcheWroot]

there's nothing intelligent about intelligent design


:nerd:

[greg]

Oh, I guess I should have actually read your post. But im still not going to.
of course ken would reject anything intelligent :sarcasm:

[KenKill75]

:uhhh:

[dionysusolympus]

:kentard2:

[breastnorton]

this is good news for a republican hating commie fag like me

[Godless]

there's nothing intelligent about intelligent design
:nod:


(disclaimer: I merely feel the same way...that is all)


...

[dionysusolympus]

:kentard:

:lock:

[Tzarina]

Great image in the sig there dion :lol:

Of course schools would reject anything intelligent. :sarcasm:
:nod:

:roflmao:

there's nothing intelligent about intelligent design
Really? :dammit: I wanted to 'intellegently design' most people I come accross... :hmm:

[Tzarina]

'Intelligent design' ruling may have ripples
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
Backers of "intelligent design" have been advising school boards to avoid lawsuits by encouraging criticism of evolution rather than mandating that students learn about intelligent design. But a judge's ruling this week has given ammunition to those fighting challenges to evolution in three states.
Intelligent design, or ID, is the idea that some forms of life are so complex, they show the distinct hand of a designer.
Proof of aliens?????
Federal Judge John Jones ruled this week that intelligent design is creationism with a new label and can't be taught in public school science classes.

William Dembski, an ID proponent who teaches science and theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, says evolution supporters lost the Scopes trial of 1925 and turned it into a rallying cry. He suggested backers of intelligent design may do the same with the Jones opinion: "There are cultural voices in play that can render that verdict obsolete."

Although the ruling against the Dover, Pa., school board is not binding outside Jones' Pennsylvania district, opponents of intelligent design hope it influences curricula in Kansas, Ohio and Cobb County, Ga. School boards in all three places have adopted policies that encourage skepticism about evolution.

The Dover school board had required biology students to hear a statement saying evolution was flawed and intelligent design was an alternative.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of ID, told Dover its policy would invite a lawsuit. Instead, the think tank urges schools to "teach the controversy" about evolution without mandating intelligent design.

That's the approach several boards are taking. Jones tried to drive a stake through it. "This tactic is at best disingenuous and at worst a canard," he wrote. "The goal of (ID) is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."

He said no other part of the science curriculum was criticized in Dover, there was no evidence of disclaimers on other subjects and science has refuted ID critiques of evolution.

The cases Jones could affect:

• In Kansas, the state board of education adopted standards that opponents say single out evolution for criticism and open the door to supernatural causation. Steve Abrams, chairman of the school board, says the Jones decision won't affect Kansas.

"It's apples and oranges," he says. Abrams says the board won't revisit its policy but voters can decide next year when five of 10 board seats are up: "They will have the final say."

• In Cobb County, Ga., a three-judge federal appeals panel is weighing whether to uphold a lower court ban on a textbook sticker that said evolution is "a theory, not a fact" and should be "critically considered." The stickers were removed from more than 34,000 books in the summer.

• In Ohio, the state board of education adopted a statement supporting critical analysis of evolution and lesson plans opponents say were lifted straight from creationist and intelligent design literature.

"It's the same stuff that went to trial in Dover and was found not to be science," says Patricia Princehouse, a biology professor at Case Western Reserve University.

She says she hopes the Dover ruling changes some board members' minds. Two board members could not be reached for comment.

Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, says "it would really be a stretch" to find it unconstitutional for "students to learn scientific criticism of Darwinian evolution."

He also says there's more to ID than attacking evolution. "We're building a very strong scientific research program," he says. "There are lots of scientists friendly to this position."

Richard Katskee, a lawyer for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says lawsuits are possible in Kansas and Ohio if voters or board members don't bring about change.

"They've taken the plan from ID without using the label," he says of the two states. "That plan is really about attacking evolution. That's all there is to ID."

Most scientists, including White House science adviser John Marburger, call evolution a pillar of biology. President Bush has said intelligent design should be taught along with evolution.

The subject has proven to be risky for some politicians. In Dover last month, voters ousted eight school board members who approved the ID policy.

The Jones decision prompted a quick move by a social conservative up for re-election next year. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said he'd resign from the board of the Christian-oriented Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan firm that represented the Dover board.

The center "made a huge mistake" in taking the case and pushing it so far, Santorum told ThePhiladelphia Inquirer.

:rolleyes2

[paygee]

the idea that some forms of lies are so complex, they show the distinct hand of a designer....

[Tzarina]

the idea that some forms of lies are so complex, they show the distinct hand of a designer....
:clap:

:roflmao:

[greg]

so yeah some dumbass wrote into the uf newspaper saying how evolution was disproved by looking at a flagellum and how if its missing any of its parts it won't work. to him this was proof that it was "intelligently" designed by something and could not have evolved into a flagellum. that's like saying humans must have been intelligently designed because if you take their brain out they can't walk. weak.

there was also someone that wrote in saying there was no scientific proof the earth was more than a few thousand years old. yeah, 'cause carbon dating and geology are fucking myths :jerk:

[Person]

these people are hilarious, but should be shot on sight.

[paygee]

there was also someone that wrote in saying there was no scientific proof the earth was more than a few thousand years old. yeah, 'cause carbon dating and geology are fucking myths :jerk:

:what:

[greg]

exactly

[Tzarina]

so yeah some dumbass wrote into the uf newspaper saying how evolution was disproved by looking at a flagellum and how if its missing any of its parts it won't work. to him this was proof that it was "intelligently" designed by something and could not have evolved into a flagellum. that's like saying humans must have been intelligently designed because if you take their brain out they can't walk. weak.

there was also someone that wrote in saying there was no scientific proof the earth was more than a few thousand years old. yeah, 'cause carbon dating and geology are fucking myths :jerk:
What? And our world is flat, and the universe revolves around the earth...

That has to be one of the dumbest fucking things I have ever heard... obviously these idiots brians didn't fully evolve... or maybe were designed poorly... :sarcasm:

We need his name... I'm guessing a Darwin award will be issued to this moron at some point...

and by the way, this is an 'entertaining' read...
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Send him that... then again his brain may not possess the 'complexity' to understand Dr. Miller... :jerk:


And by the way, I think that all proof in evolution lies in the deevolution of the human species... Look at just who is reproducing the most... idiots like this spin off more idiots... vicious cycle :shame:

[jazz]

there was also someone that wrote in saying there was no scientific proof the earth was more than a few thousand years old. yeah, 'cause carbon dating and geology are fucking myths :jerk:

w
o
w

[jazz]

:bump:

just bringing this forum into the latest year. don't mind me.

[ByrcheWroot]

:orly:

[Pudie]

I just wanna say that anyone that believes in creationism is a moronic douche bag.

[ByrcheWroot]

God still loves you.

[Pun'KinG']

http://www-ti.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/~braunt/LarsonEvolution.jpg

[Pun'KinG']

I just wanna say that anyone that believes in creationism is a moronic douche bag.

God still loves you.

http://www.fargohope.org/hopecare/images/openarms.jpg

[Pun'KinG']

somehow i knew who you were talking about.


what a sheep....

http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/ar/AR50.jpg

[Fhilly]

we were discussing evolution and the like in class today... it is a little scary because i overhear people behind me saying, 'megan, do you believe in evolution?".. this girl goes to church and i get the impression she's somewhat religous.. but it's a bit creepy when you've lived in an area all your life where people generally believe in science over religion, and then you hear that.. i 'unno.. the most 'very christian' contact i've had was when a lady said 'ya'll' to me in houston.. :what:

personally, i'll believe any theory with somewhat strong evidence behind it; i am a firm 'believer' in evolution, but it's not the only theory i might consider..

[breastnorton]

evolution is really a fact

calling it a theory is actually wrong, the theory only applies in the mechanism pushing evolution

and creationism and evolution aren't the opposite of each other

[jazz]

i remember taking an elective in this very same subject at florida int'l. loooooved this class. still wasn't better than astronomy though. :nerd:

you have to be an idiot to take that class and say *australopithecus africanus was not part of our evolutionary history.

*:MAGO:

[Fd2Blk]

Man....the arrogance. :frown: I'm going to hold off on replying for now since I'll just get the standard n00b label and get brushed off. I just can't stand the arrogant attitude.

[breastnorton]

go ahead and reply, you'll get bashed or praised the same amount regardless of how long you've been here

[Person]

I remember you from .org, sort of, kinda liked to stir things up if I am recalling correctly.

[Fd2Blk]

I remember you from .org, sort of, kinda liked to stir things up if I am recalling correctly.

I would say the only source of stirring things up was that my opinions were mostly representative of a very small minority of people on the board. I don't go to boards to act like an ass, I just like to engage in reasonable debate about reasonable topics. I'm glad you remember me (possibly?) because I wanted to be sure this was the screen name I used.



Anyway, upon the invitation of breastnorton, I would just like to say that my beef with the evolution vs. creation (or even ID) debate is that people on the evolution side always blame creationists for being "holier than thou" in their thinking, because they think their (religious) way is the only possibility. But over the years, I have found a large quantity of evolutionists to be very condescending and misinformed. I have found that evolutionists will act like any other theory is just religious fanaticism but will be unwilling to question their own beliefs when they really need to.

Evolution has become a religion. It is so intermixed with religious implications that nobody argues it as purely a scientific theory. There will always be much greater reasons behind the debate.

I just think both sides need to embrace the debate on it scientific merits and quit calling those of differing opinions idiots. There happens to be a large group of very intelligent people who don't believe evolution can answer the questions. How much of what you believe is based on "The top ten reasons evolution is a fact" found on the net?

I think a lot of what you may consider "evidence" for evolution is stuff that has long been disproven (though it is still found in textbooks).

Let's just be a bit more objective here. Who wants to feel like an ass if evolution is ever abandoned in favor of a better theory?

later
Fd

[breastnorton]

I think a lot of what you may consider "evidence" for evolution is stuff that has long been disproven (though it is still found in textbooks).

Let's just be a bit more objective here. Who wants to feel like an ass if evolution is ever abandoned in favor of a better theory?
Yeah, and we still use maps that include the soviet union in our textbooks too, but i would think the majority of evolution taught in schools is using current information

i think the whole thing is trying to find a better theory though isn't it? right now evolution is the best we have (though is happens to be true on a number of levels) and the main problem is that creationism and ID not theories in the scientific sense

come up with a solid theory that we were created by someone or something else and use the scientific method and then you might have a case

the main problem with ID is that it says "wow, this shit is too complex, fuck it, someone else created everything and that's all we need to know"

i'm not satisfied with that and i don't want that kind of nonsense taught to kids in school

[Fd2Blk]

Yeah, and we still use maps that include the soviet union in our textbooks too, but i would think the majority of evolution taught in schools is using current information

Well, some key foundational aspects (ie parts which hold the theory up) are still taught though found to be false. A few examples are the Miller-Urey experiment, the black/white (peppered) moths, Haeckel's embryos, Darwin's finches, etc. These are kind of key in establishing belief in the rest of the theory.

i think the whole thing is trying to find a better theory though isn't it? right now evolution is the best we have (though is happens to be true on a number of levels) and the main problem is that creationism and ID not theories in the scientific sense

come up with a solid theory that we were created by someone or something else and use the scientific method and then you might have a case

I'm all for science and the scientific method. But I have to ask what method you think evolutionists have followed that ID hasn't? I have heard many different interpretations of the scientific method, and I am just curious what your definition is (what is needed for it to be scientific in your eyes?).

And let me just say up front that evolution IS around us on a small scale. Adaptations have been observed. No doubt about that. My problem is when we start talking about a single microbe evolving out of chemicals which then leads to us down here in 2006. It goes against my logical nature to accept this at face value.

the main problem with ID is that it says "wow, this shit is too complex, fuck it, someone else created everything and that's all we need to know"

Unfortunately, this is true for the majority of religious folk. They just don't care. And believe me, it is painful to see people who don't care about critical thinking (I think atheists/non-religious groups do the same in this aspect, just not as blatantly). But (again) there are groups of scientists making predictions based on the ID theory and testing/validating them experimentally. In the scientific realm the "give up, it's too complex" idealogy doesn't exist. I, for one, love the fact that we don't understand the complexity...otherwise what would we do with our time?

i'm not satisfied with that and i don't want that kind of nonsense taught to kids in school

I wouldn't want that attitude of giving up on discovering to be taught in school either. But I do want objective teaching of the strengths and weaknesses of all theories taught in schools. There are no possible pitfalls taught about evolution (although they are certainly around)...because it is gospel in the classroom.


I just wonder what it would even take to sway people who believe in the infallibility of evolution. I don't think it's possible. And that's religion. And that's what I get so frustrated with.

later
Fd

[KenKill75]

Get out you religious fanatic! :what:

[Person]

I don't know if I listed this in this thread, but I am actually a student in University studying Biology and evolution, genetics, etc.

I understand that this is what I have been tought to be correct, and that people who believe that "ID" or "Creationism" have been tought to believe those things. I wouldn't want to be condescending on those facts alone.

The thing that I personally find is that those "other theories" of how life came to be on Earth are just defeatist views.
Evolution is a theory, which can be changed, and is based on empirical evidence which we can actually find.

These other views simply "give up" searching for a meaning, and I believe that to be pathetic.
No scientific proof can be found to support those claims. Now I aren't saying that they are wrong (simply because they are impossible to scientifically prove wrong, at this point in time anyway), but it's those fundamentals that I believe are not helpful to the progress of society. I believe that is a bad thing.

Spirituality is important in a lot of people's lives, but it should not mask their every thought and what they believe other people should do with their lives. Learning ID/creationism in schools is basically teaching kids to give up searching for truth, I think.
And that, to me, is wrong.

Go to your R.E. classes to learn about the unfounded "truths" of the Universe. It actually gives you some insight to thousands of years of most people in the Western world's spiritual ancestry, kind of like a second history class in some ways...


edit:
And yeah, you're the guy I remember alright! :D

[breastnorton]

you cannot test and validate ID, sorry, if that's the arguement you're going to present then i won't even bother

there's really no need to teach the possible shortcomings of evolution in high school (and that's where the arguement rests) because we have nothing better to replace it, that's just kind of the way it works

[greg]

and speaking of arrogance, to believe that humans are somehow special, unique, and above all else in a universe containing billions of galaxies is pretty damn arrogant.

[greg]

/athiest rant

[Fd2Blk]

you cannot test and validate ID, sorry, if that's the arguement you're going to present then i won't even bother

This has been discussed a lot, and unless I am missing something, evolution and ID are only as testable as each other (the reason one is not testable applies to both). I will try to get more specific if you'd like.

there's really no need to teach the possible shortcomings of evolution in high school (and that's where the arguement rests) because we have nothing better to replace it, that's just kind of the way it works

This scares me. I don't ever want to shield students from the truth. Who cares if there is nothing better to replace it? I think all we are doing is slowing progress if we aren't up front about it. Would you want to teach a known falsehood just to teach something?

and speaking of arrogance, to believe that humans are somehow special, unique, and above all else in a universe containing billions of galaxies is pretty damn arrogant.

Well that's a question of philosophy. I try to keep that out of my arguments at this point (one step at a time, right?). I don't like to think of humans as special anyway. We have some very awesome unique qualities, but so do most things on our planet and the observable universe.

[breastnorton]

tell me how you would test any part of ID

[Person]

Actually, you do seem to be missing something with your ideas on the testability claim. Evolution can't be mimicked in a lab, so to speak, but we can monitor it in the environment around us. The evidence we find leads us to conclude that evolution is likely the cause of life on Earth.
Any evidence AGAINST evolution I'd like for you to point out to me right now.

It is something that appears to be correct, and what we teach in schools is not a fallacy, and is something observable. We don't know everything there is about it (yet), but there is promise of greater insight and information which can be applied elsewhere in society for our BENEFIT.

That is already more than something testable on the theory of ID. What possible scientific study could come up with any conclusive results?
There are few, if any, benefits of learning "ID".


Like I said, I don't have reason enough to say you are wrong, I can only say I don't believe you can help anything with your cause.
I can accept another point of view, but not one that doesn't make sense and takes a step backwards.

[Fd2Blk]

Get out you religious fanatic! :what:

Be healeduh!

I don't know if I listed this in this thread, but I am actually a student in University studying Biology and evolution, genetics, etc.

Awesome. I'm always a big fan of students of science. My wife is working on her PhD in biology (specifically molecular-related). And I'm sorry I didn't notice/address your post in my previous response...I don't know where it was hiding. :confused:

I understand that this is what I have been tought to be correct, and that people who believe that "ID" or "Creationism" have been tought to believe those things. I wouldn't want to be condescending on those facts alone.

The thing that I personally find is that those "other theories" of how life came to be on Earth are just defeatist views.
Evolution is a theory, which can be changed, and is based on empirical evidence which we can actually find.

These other views simply "give up" searching for a meaning, and I believe that to be pathetic.

I think I likely addressed this in my last post.

No scientific proof can be found to support those claims. Now I aren't saying that they are wrong (simply because they are impossible to scientifically prove wrong, at this point in time anyway), but it's those fundamentals that I believe are not helpful to the progress of society. I believe that is a bad thing.

Well, that's what is so weird about ID vs. evolution. You can't disprove ID because you can't prove an intelligent designer doesn't exist (though I believe a lack of His/Her/Its necessity will do the trick for me). But I don't think you can prove/disprove evolution either. The idea of evolution is that of continuity. A seamless transition from beginning to end. Well, no amount of discrete snippets of 'evidence' will ever really prove it (though I think we are far from substantial amounts, and I think there is a limit that would suffice). And ID scientists, though there aren't a ton, have made some helpful contributions to science in recent years (not to mention the geniuses of the past).

Spirituality is important in a lot of people's lives, but it should not mask their every thought and what they believe other people should do with their lives. Learning ID/creationism in schools is basically teaching kids to give up searching for truth, I think.
And that, to me, is wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree about teaching students to strive for knowledge, and to think critically. I don't think ID and this attitude are mutually exclusive.

Go to your R.E. classes to learn about the unfounded "truths" of the Universe. It actually gives you some insight to thousands of years of most people in the Western world's spiritual ancestry, kind of like a second history class in some ways...

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure what R.E. classes are.

edit:
And yeah, you're the guy I remember alright! :D
Cool. I knew I recognized your name.


Round II

Actually, you do seem to be missing something with your ideas on the testability claim. Evolution can't be mimicked in a lab, so to speak, but we can monitor it in the environment around us. The evidence we find leads us to conclude that evolution is likely the cause of life on Earth.
Any evidence AGAINST evolution I'd like for you to point out to me right now.

Well obviously we can't recreate evolution on a macro scale (hence one reason why somebody may argue that it is not a science, though that's not my point), but my problems with evolution are on the inference of evidence found in the world around.

Evidence against evolution? Well...my first major hangup with evolution is always how the hell the first cell could have formed. The interdepency of parts, and the self-contained nature of the 'simple' cell are rather...well...unlikely. Also, what is often called the cambrian explosion of life. All of these very different organisms appeared out of the blue at the same time (geologically speaking). That is not really explained by evolution (nor do I see how it could be). Consciousness is a good one, thought that may not belong here. I think we've all heard of irreducible complexity. Darwin said that if we ever find an organism that can't be broken down into stages of simple working structures, it would be evidence against evolution. There are a number of what appear to be examples of this barrier.

It is something that appears to be correct, and what we teach in schools is not a fallacy, and is something observable. We don't know everything there is about it (yet), but there is promise of greater insight and information which can be applied elsewhere in society for our BENEFIT.

Even if the theory were proven correct, beyond a shadow of a doubt, wouldn't you want the lies/weak points to be pointed out to students? Some of the stuff being taught is 100% false information. And what is observed does not have to be explained by evolutionary theory. It is one explanation of what we see. There is a key point there. We USE evolution to try to explain what we see. Evolution is NOT what is seen. A bunch of broken/scattered incomplete fossil records does not a fact make.

That is already more than something testable on the theory of ID. What possible scientific study could come up with any conclusive results?
There are few, if any, benefits of learning "ID".

As I said before, I don't think you can have conclusive results either way. And I'm not necessarily pushing to teach ID in schools. I'm not sure what I would want beyond being completely open and objective about the situation. I don't think honesty/objectivity is expressed very often in schools. The benefits of learning of ID, off the top of my head, would be diversity in discovery. Nothing could be worse for science than closed mindedness. I assume you'd agree on this point. As it is, students are funnelled into believing what is possibly an incorrect theory. No students are taught that there are other possibilities. And that's why any sort of proof against evolution would be absolutely horrific for those in science.


Like I said, I don't have reason enough to say you are wrong, I can only say I don't believe you can help anything with your cause.
I can accept another point of view, but not one that doesn't make sense and takes a step backwards.

Well at the core, my cause is critical/objective thinking with open minded scientific exploration. I hope for the sake of science that this is still a desirable trait.

And I just want to ask you a question. Is it really a step back if we've been moving forward down a wrong path toward a dead end? In your own statement, you've implied that the theory is 100% correct, which is where my problem lies. If fear of open debate isn't religious fanaticism, I don't know what is. We need to be able to accept the possibility of evolution's downfall.


I just want to shake up the 'concrete' foundation that so many think they can stand solidly on top of.


later
Fd

[Person]

I aren't trying to say that evolution is 100% infallable as a theory. I'm saying that what we can and have already learned has had the ability to benefit society. I don't believe it can possibly be a "dead end" as a branch of science, due to that fact.
I believe that due to the lack of an ability to test ANY part of ID, nothing can come from it. I do believe it to be a scientific dead end. I don't think any progress can be made down that path at all.
Evolution is comprised of different parts; some of which can be tested. That, I believe is undeniable. There is undoubtedly evidence to support the theory. Are you trying to make someone admit that nothing in science can be proven? That is already known, we can only say that "this SEEMS to be the case". There may always be something out there that we have yet to see, something that could basically tear a theory apart.

But theories exist to serve a benefit for scientists trying to understand something further. That's all we can do.

I'm not sure if you have read up on how they first cells are believed to have formed, but the idea is less outlandish than a supernatural entity forming them. If it was aliens, who formed them or their own creators and etc. down to a point where it ultimately leads to something random happening or a supernatural entity.

Evidence of life on Earth goes back billions of years, and that is a lot of time for something to happen. An "explosion" of life was always inevitable due to evolution. Life tends to make life possible on its own.

And these ID scientists... were their breakthrough's on ID itself? :P


Fair enough if that is your objective; it's just that, based on everything that I know, the theory of ID is not a valid alternative. It cannot be considered science... and science is evidence.

I don't personally think of evolution as something to be against. If you have a problem with it, find a VIABLE alternative to how life appeared. I am open to other ideas, but there are none; only these claims of mysticism.
That is why evolution is tought in schools. It does the best job we can currently find of explaining how life came to be as it is today.

And sorry about that, R.E. is Religious Education.

[Tzarina]

evolution is really a fact

calling it a theory is actually wrong, the theory only applies in the mechanism pushing evolution

and creationism and evolution aren't the opposite of each other
actually calling it a theory isn't wrong because:

A hypothesis is an idea tested by the scientific method. Once it is proven with relaible data, and the expiriments and/or data can be duplicated by repeated tests, it is a theory... so basically, a theory is a fact. Most people just misuse the word theory when they should use the word hypothesis...

We have proven far too many theories in evolution through sceintific methods for these arguments to continue...

And how can one test ID? Seriously now? I'm curious. People want to say that Social Sciences are not really science, but philosophy... ID isn't even philosophy, it's a damn fantasy...

[Fd2Blk]

I aren't trying to say that evolution is 100% infallable as a theory. I'm saying that what we can and have already learned has had the ability to benefit society. I don't believe it can possibly be a "dead end" as a branch of science, due to that fact.
I believe that due to the lack of an ability to test ANY part of ID, nothing can come from it. I do believe it to be a scientific dead end. I don't think any progress can be made down that path at all.

I am not suggesting you think evolution is 100% infallible. Nothing really is except that I am conscious, so don't worry about that. I'd be curious as to how you think evolutionary theory has benefited society (especially in a way ID couldn't). And what I meant by dead end was that there have been times where we explored a theory until we finally reached an insurmountable barrier at which point we had to undo a bunch of the theory. In the end, we have exhausted a possibility, so it's not a dead end in the broader sense, but that was not the point.


Evolution is comprised of different parts; some of which can be tested. That, I believe is undeniable. There is undoubtedly evidence to support the theory. Are you trying to make someone admit that nothing in science can be proven? That is already known, we can only say that "this SEEMS to be the case". There may always be something out there that we have yet to see, something that could basically tear a theory apart.

I am once again curious what parts are testable. Please tell. We have to start somewhere. The problem is, the idea of evolution is completely based on the past. We can't recreate it, which is a VERY big part of science...repeatability. It's almost as if we are making up a story to explain the rocks, and we just adjust the story to accomodate new rocks. Sure...sounds plausible...but it's not anymore science than ID. So please, what do you think is evidence...at least your top 3 reasons for believing.

I am not trying to get you to say that nothing can be proven. If that was the thrust of my attitude, I wouldn't enjoy science.

But theories exist to serve a benefit for scientists trying to understand something further. That's all we can do.

Correct. I just want theories and myths to be separated and reexamined as such. I think that over the years, numerous lies and coverups have been propogated to keep evolution at the top. Why is it that so many people have concealed the truth about key aspects of the theory? Science is supposed to be honest...not a religion.


I'm not sure if you have read up on how they first cells are believed to have formed, but the idea is less outlandish than a supernatural entity forming them. If it was aliens, who formed them or their own creators and etc. down to a point where it ultimately leads to something random happening or a supernatural entity.

I'd like to hear which theory you are speaking of.

Evidence of life on Earth goes back billions of years, and that is a lot of time for something to happen. An "explosion" of life was always inevitable due to evolution. Life tends to make life possible on its own.

I would DEFINITELY say an explosion of life was impossible. You see, this explosion has organisms coming about at the same time without common ancestors. Instead of an evolutionary tree, we have just a crapload of lines beginning independently at the same time. How can this be? And most importantly, how is evolution the best explanation of this? Isn't science concerned with looking for the best explanation?

Your last sentence is baffling. To me, you have hit on a major aspect of anti-evolution sentiment. Sure life makes life possible, but what makes life possible in the beginning? What in the world caused that initial spark of life? Shouldn't THAT be something we can recreate in a lab??? If anything was repeatable wouldn't it be that???


And these ID scientists... were their breakthrough's on ID itself? :P

They used ID theory to predict certain aspects of biological systems. As you would test any theory, they said, "If ID is true, we should expect to see _____" and they went from there.

Fair enough if that is your objective; it's just that, based on everything that I know, the theory of ID is not a valid alternative. It cannot be considered science... and science is evidence.

Well certainly ID could be true, right? What counterproof do you have? I think that evolution is just as far from science as ID is. Either one only as testable as the other. But to show that, I need to see some of your responses to things I wrote above.

I don't personally think of evolution as something to be against. If you have a problem with it, find a VIABLE alternative to how life appeared. I am open to other ideas, but there are none; only these claims of mysticism.
That is why evolution is tought in schools. It does the best job we can currently find of explaining how life came to be as it is today.

But you have a problem here. Evolution has the burden of proof. And some MAJOR cornerstones have been disproven, and some key aspects have major flaws. But these AREN'T taught in schools. It is like bible study at a christian school. It is just taught as 100% right. WTF? How could this be ok? Simply because we have nothing 'better', we can just lie? What happened to, "Well students, actually nobody is sure what happened here" ??? I don't understand how teaching lies as truth is closer to science than saying I don't know. That is such an important part of science...admitting we don't know.

And sorry about that, R.E. is Religious Education.

Consider me enlightened. :cool:



We have proven far too many theories in evolution through sceintific methods for these arguments to continue...

What kind of examples do you have for me?

And how can one test ID? Seriously now? I'm curious. People want to say that Social Sciences are not really science, but philosophy... ID isn't even philosophy, it's a damn fantasy...

Well I think you'll see that ID is as testable as evolution. Again, I'm just waiting for your 'proven theories'.

Surely you don't ACTUALLY believe that ID doesn't even fit as a philosophy. I assume you are just venting.

[Tzarina]

No, I am not venting... ID is a desperate attempt to fuel creationism and try to have it taught in school as a science... once we can teach all of the bible as historical fact, then this will be next... :rolleyes2

Speaking of evolution, this is interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12000319/

[Trizzak]

How do you prove ID? The only way is for the Creator to step up and say "Yep. It was me." It's a theory based on being unable to disprove it, not being able to prove it.
I'm agreeing with breastnorton's take on ID/Creationalism, it's pretty much bowing out from thinking. "Wow...I have no idea what to think about this. I'm just gonna go with an unprovable theory to ease my mind and get back to my 9 to 5 job and missionary sex with the missus."

[Joga]

Also, they're theories based on a book that not all people believe to be anything more than a book. If we continue to teach things based on the Bible, what's to stop Scientologists from insisting that we teach the beliefs of L. Ron Hubbard in school?

I know it's a stretch, but anything is possible, if enough people push for it.

[Euphonae]

1. Evolution is a factual field of study. It is researched through scientifically valid carbon dating, and not only on evolutionary "theories" of past species, but also through the documentation of current species that have changed genetically.

2. I personally do not buy the "explosion of life" concept, either. Everything is set into motion by something else, therefore there must have been something that set time into motion, and being that we live in a reality confined to time and space, we cannot comprehend or understand it.

3. Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory, just as my opinion is in #2. Since it is impossible to prove (we can only say that all life has a design it follows, humans are not a necessary part of the world, and something non-human had to cause human beings, or even evolution, for that matter), it should not be taught as science. And the idea of intelligent design has been bastardized by fundamentalist christians in attempt to preach christian views in school, rather than truly understand and analyse what ID means.

To sum up: Evolution is real and measurable. Intelligent Design is probable, but not measurable. Being that there is a limit to human understanding, Intelligent Design cannot (IMO) be falsified, just as it cannot be proven.

:ontome:

[Tzarina]

1. Evolution is a factual field of study. It is researched through scientifically valid carbon dating, and not only on evolutionary "theories" of past species, but also through the documentation of current species that have changed genetically.

2. I personally do not buy the "explosion of life" concept, either. Everything is set into motion by something else, therefore there must have been something that set time into motion, and being that we live in a reality confined to time and space, we cannot comprehend or understand it.

3. Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory, just as my opinion is in #2. Since it is impossible to prove (we can only say that all life has a design it follows, humans are not a necessary part of the world, and something non-human had to cause human beings, or even evolution, for that matter), it should not be taught as science. And the idea of intelligent design has been bastardized by fundamentalist christians in attempt to preach christian views in school, rather than truly understand and analyse what ID means.

To sum up: Evolution is real and measurable. Intelligent Design is probable, but not measurable. Being that there is a limit to human understanding, Intelligent Design cannot (IMO) be falsified, just as it cannot be proven.

:ontome:
:agree:

:inlove:

Also, they're theories based on a book that not all people believe to be anything more than a book. If we continue to teach things based on the Bible, what's to stop Scientologists from insisting that we teach the beliefs of L. Ron Hubbard in school?

I know it's a stretch, but anything is possible, if enough people push for it.
Shhhh! Don't give those damn wackos any ideas! I find it interesting that even a religion, based on Christian ideas and as large as Mormonism, is still called a cult... while because some Hollywood nimwits expound scientology science fiction it's never referred to in that way depite fully fitting the definition of 'cult.'

Why does anyone care if they piss off Tom Cruise or Jenna Elfman... wtf?

I seriously don't feel it's long before these people expect us to teach these ideas alongside psychology and evolution... :shame:

Just as ID is science fiction, it has no place in schools. It is based upon no scientific data or fact. It's a null hypothesis that can not be proven or disproven and is an intangible way of thinking...

[Fd2Blk]

No, I am not venting... ID is a desperate attempt to fuel creationism and try to have it taught in school as a science... once we can teach all of the bible as historical fact, then this will be next... :rolleyes2

Speaking of evolution, this is interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12286206/
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12000319/

Well, to me it is speculation about our origins and the meaning (if it exists) behind the universe. Sounds philosophical. And IS philosophical according to dictionary.com. I am at a loss since I've never had to defend the fact that ID is philosophy.

You're are also letting your emotional aversion to the theory(or perhaps religion) take your argument to an unrelated extreme. For starters, a Deist (completely unrelated to anything in the Bible) is (could be) an ID proponent.

Also, let's just start with ID without worrying about motives. I am a firm believer in forming opinions based on merit. Who knows where motivation comes from, and who cares so long as the result is sound?

How do you prove ID? The only way is for the Creator to step up and say "Yep. It was me." It's a theory based on being unable to disprove it, not being able to prove it.
I'm agreeing with breastnorton's take on ID/Creationalism, it's pretty much bowing out from thinking. "Wow...I have no idea what to think about this. I'm just gonna go with an unprovable theory to ease my mind and get back to my 9 to 5 job and missionary sex with the missus."

Well for starters, I always like to put this out there...even IF the Creator revealed himself to you to claim credit for the creation of the universe...what's to say you'd believe him? See here's the thing, the only way he could prove himself would be by physical means, you dig? Anything he does to show himself must be explainable by physical phenomena, otherwise it couldn't happen. So in actuality, he could NEVER prove himself to the steadfast disbeliever. I just like to make that clear right off.

As for proving ID...I would say it is as provable as evolution in that it answers some questions that others don't. How do you prove evolution? Sure, you'll say, because there are fossils that form a chain through history linking us to our ancestors ([a] Not really, [b] it's still using a theory retroactively, with no repeatable testing), but you're not proving anything that way. You're telling a story just as much either way.

Really, I think there is a lot that evolution is lacking, that ID explains.

And you (the collective you, not just Trizzak) say that ID is an attitude of "I can't explain it, let's make something up". The thing is, every theory is designed/reformed based on the shortcomings of other theories. ID is an answer to the barriers that evolution can't (and will likely never be able to) overcome. It is not a defeatist attitude. Tell me, if you were to go to 6 years of graduate school for your PhD, then on to post-doc work, do you think you'd EVER say, "Screw this science stuff, let's throw in the towel"? Doubtful. Well there are lots of PhD ID proponents. Doubtful that it's a defeatist theory.

I think you are using Christians/Mormon/Etc as your archetypal ID proponent. I agree, most of the non-science Christians/Mormons/Etc are very uninterested in exploring the science there, but they aren't the end of the story.


Also, they're theories based on a book that not all people believe to be anything more than a book. If we continue to teach things based on the Bible, what's to stop Scientologists from insisting that we teach the beliefs of L. Ron Hubbard in school?

I know it's a stretch, but anything is possible, if enough people push for it.

Well, as in my paragraph somewhere up above, ID is not Christian, nor Biblically based. It is a Deistic theory as well (for example look up a once famous atheist named Anthony Flew, who is now a Deist based on ID). I don't ever want the Bible taught as anything more than literature in school. I think that it just opens a whole can of worms.

1. Evolution is a factual field of study. It is researched through scientifically valid carbon dating, and not only on evolutionary "theories" of past species, but also through the documentation of current species that have changed genetically.

Well, just to make it known, carbon dating actually depends on Carbon levels in the atmosphere which may have been very different thousands of years ago, but that's unimportant. See, ID does not hold that the earth is young. Carbon dating proves, if anything, the age of the earth and some fossils, not evolution.

And also, what we have seen in current species is NOT macro-evolution. It is adaptation within a species which is so very different from interspecies evolution.

2. I personally do not buy the "explosion of life" concept, either. Everything is set into motion by something else, therefore there must have been something that set time into motion, and being that we live in a reality confined to time and space, we cannot comprehend or understand it.

Well cosmology is one of my favorite arguments for a creator, but I'll shy away from that here since it's an evolution thread, but certainly that initial change from chemicals into life is quite a stumper.

3. Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory, just as my opinion is in #2. Since it is impossible to prove (we can only say that all life has a design it follows, humans are not a necessary part of the world, and something non-human had to cause human beings, or even evolution, for that matter), it should not be taught as science.

Well I contend that evolution is impossible to prove. And I also contend that evolution has holes that are filled by ID. So it seems to me that at LEAST the flaws in evolution should be taught, rather than the current version of infallible evolution.

And the idea of intelligent design has been bastardized by fundamentalist christians in attempt to preach christian views in school, rather than truly understand and analyse what ID means.

I agree 100% in that what Christians in general argue is NOT really representative of ID. I think that they have done such a disservice to the theory. It is really a shame that ID and religion have to be so intermixed.

To sum up: Evolution is real and measurable. Intelligent Design is probable, but not measurable. Being that there is a limit to human understanding, Intelligent Design cannot (IMO) be falsified, just as it cannot be proven.


Again, I don't know how evolution is measurable. How do you measure evolution? You see fossils, and theorize that evolution explains it. The theory changes according to what is found. Never is it necessary for the facts to match the theory. There is no measuring occurring there.

I was hoping somebody would bring up falsifiability, because I want to ask: how could you falsify evolution? It's something that has bugged me since I first heard falsification as an objective to ID as a science. I don't believe evolution is falsifiable, and I would honestly appreciate it if somebody could tell me how it was possible.



:ontome:


No no. Don't run away....the fun has just begun.



No time to proof-read, so I reserve the right to take back any glaring misstatements. :up:

[Tzarina]

Also, let's just start with ID without worrying about motives. I am a firm believer in forming opinions based on merit. Who knows where motivation comes from, and who cares so long as the result is sound?




As a psychologist, I ALWAYS worry about motives, both the obvious and underlying. I firmly believe that ID now exists only to bring the teaching of creationism into schools. Since there is no arguing the lack of scientific merit involved in creation hypotheses, those with these MOTIVES had to come up with something else to push their ideas forward.

In order for something to have sound merit, all its facts must be examined. Therefore the facts of the motives behind the development of ID are as relevant as the ideas within the template.

[Fd2Blk]

As a psychologist, I ALWAYS worry about motives, both the obvious and underlying. I firmly believe that ID now exists only to bring the teaching of creationism into schools. Since there is no arguing the lack of scientific merit involved in creation hypotheses, those with these MOTIVES had to come up with something else to push their ideas forward.

In order for something to have sound merit, all its facts must be examined. Therefore the facts of the motives behind the development of ID are as relevant as the ideas within the template.

I disagree. In the realm of science, only the theory matters. There have been some real whackos with breakthrough theories. If the theory holds up, who cares who came up with it and why?

And in the case of motives, what kind of facts can you possibly gather? All you will ever have is speculation. And that is mostly based on your own (and my own) bias. Besides, you are picking on a very specific group. You seem to be focused on fundamentalists, which aren't exactly those pushing the field.

[Euphonae]

Well, just to make it known, carbon dating actually depends on Carbon levels in the atmosphere which may have been very different thousands of years ago, but that's unimportant. See, ID does not hold that the earth is young. Carbon dating proves, if anything, the age of the earth and some fossils, not evolution.
That was not really my point about evolution. Carbon dating is inexact, but it traces different eras of species through their evolutions in an accurate enough manner to show a pattern of evolution. The biggest issue over evolution is how exactly each species evolved into something else.

And also, what we have seen in current species is NOT macro-evolution. It is adaptation within a species which is so very different from interspecies evolution.
Again, I don't know how evolution is measurable. How do you measure evolution? You see fossils, and theorize that evolution explains it. The theory changes according to what is found. Never is it necessary for the facts to match the theory. There is no measuring occurring there.

Adaptation and Natural Selection are components of evolution. The best adaptable species survives while the rest die off. These components are fairly self explanatory. The only "gap" in dealing with evolution is how a creature evolves in response to its environment. There is a lack of information on this topic because genetics and biological engineering sciences are very new, but in time, I believe, will eventually be able to prove the key ingredients in historical stages of evolution. Gene mutations are fact. Simplest organisms mutate the fastest - and newer generations of viruses have been shown to evolve into organisms with a vastly different genetic code that are much more resistant to antibiotics. This is evolution in response to a need for adaptation. Evolution of complex organisms takes millions of years, and the technology is only now starting to be able to figure it out.



Well cosmology is one of my favorite arguments for a creator, but I'll shy away from that here since it's an evolution thread, but certainly that initial change from chemicals into life is quite a stumper.
The arguments we are discussing are the merits of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design resides in cosmological philosophy.


Well I contend that evolution is impossible to prove. And I also contend that evolution has holes that are filled by ID. So it seems to me that at LEAST the flaws in evolution should be taught, rather than the current version of infallible evolution.
I do not understand what you mean by "infallible evolution". My readings on evolution have found no attempt to answer the questions of why organisms began to evolve (argument of motion) or how they came into existence (causality). Those are what ID attempts to answer philisophically, rather than scientifically. Evolution has been proven on small scale, simple organisms, and historical evidence supports it on the large scale (which will eventually be proven when genetics have matured).

I cannot see how Intelligent Design refutes evolution. Philisophically, like I stated in my last post, there has to be a start to the universe. Time may be of infinite regression, but it still was put into existence by something incomprehensible. I believe that humans will never find the exact origin of evolution or existence, but will infinitely regress to places farther back in time. If anything, Intelligent Design helps explain (in theory) a start of evolution, by a designer. Creationism, on the other hand, directly refutes evolution.








I was hoping somebody would bring up falsifiability, because I want to ask: how could you falsify evolution? It's something that has bugged me since I first heard falsification as an objective to ID as a science. I don't believe evolution is falsifiable, and I would honestly appreciate it if somebody could tell me how it was possible.
Measurable gene mutations and historical facts support evolution as a science. I do not see how ID falsifies that whatsoever.

If the theory holds up, who cares who came up with it and why?

Theories only hold up when there is a lack of evidence to falsify them.

Theories become valid when measurable evidence confirms the supposition given.

bedtime...

[Tzarina]

I disagree. In the realm of science, only the theory matters. There have been some real whackos with breakthrough theories. If the theory holds up, who cares who came up with it and why?

And in the case of motives, what kind of facts can you possibly gather? All you will ever have is speculation. And that is mostly based on your own (and my own) bias. Besides, you are picking on a very specific group. You seem to be focused on fundamentalists, which aren't exactly those pushing the field.
These are not theories... theories have to be proven with science. These are ideas that can not be proven by science. As long as something is an idea, or a philosophy, and is NOT based on science... which ID is not, then all motives must be examined in order to determine the entire picture.

Face it, ID can not be measured by numbers and proven or disproven... There are motives behind it's existance. There is no motive behind the laws of thermodynamics, they are fact... they just occur in every facet of physical science.

There are motives that go hand in hand with the belief in a higher power. Deep seeded motives that range from comfort of there being a reason for life to masking a fear of death... ID goes hand in hand with these ideas, and therefore there are motives clouding all judgement towards it's proof.