Intelligent Design rejected by Federal Court

[JoshM]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.html
I'm glad to hear they're keeping this nonsense out of Science classes. Intelligent Design is certainly not science. If anywhere, this so called "theory" needs to be in a Comparative Religion or philosophy course.

[BTlaxripper]

It's funny how liberals argue for freedom of expression until this nonsense about God starts showing up and they try to stamp it out.

If you ever read Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas and got educated on the matter than you wouldn't be so obstinant about this not being a valid theory.

score one for the hypocrites

[JoshM]

It's funny how liberals argue for freedom of expression until this nonsense about God starts showing up and they try to stamp it out.

If you ever read Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas and got educated on the matter than you wouldn't be so obstinant about this not being a valid theory.

score one for the hypocrites
Haha, please. Intelligent Design is not a theory. It was something created to please creationist voters. Evolution is a theory, and therefore should be taught in a science class.

Notice I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught, just not in a science class.

[JoshM]

While I'm thinking about it;
Intelligent Design is a belief, something based on faith. Evolution is a theory with evidence to back it up. Take the eye, for example. Intelligent Design basically says that since we can't explain everything, God did it.

[BTlaxripper]

Haha, please. Intelligent Design is not a theory. It was something created to please creationist voters. Evolution is a theory, and therefore should be taught in a science class.

Notice I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught, just not in a science class.

But why not?
Please explain that if evolution is a theory, Intelligent Design is a theory.

Trace the entire existence back to the beginning to the big bang.

The big bang theory goes something like this
"The universe began as nothing but hydrogen, helium, and some other gasses. They reacted, combusted, and exploded releasing such a great amount of energy spewing energy over the entire universe infusing all particles with attractive forces (electrons) enabling the formation of atoms and material."

Okay, now if you are a darwinist, how did those hydrogen gasses exist even before the formation of time. They just appeared? The universe started somewhere, and we can not as humans, comprehend it. And that's where God comes in.

It is perfectly logical- Evolution deals with the progression of species, not with the formation of the universe. No scientist can explain it.

The ID theory goes soemthing like a "creator" aka God, started the universe, put the first amoebas on the planet and just sat back and watched it evolve. And once humans came about he stopped and said "wow! this is it!" and continuing on a religious note gave us souls.

Sounds like a theory to me.

[BTlaxripper]

^^Quoted for emphasis...

Quoted for emphasizing the obvious.

The eye started due to the massing of light sensitive cells at the front of the organism.

And your point is?

I hope you aren't trying to mislead people making them think the Christians have no idea where the eye came from.

[JoshM]

Quoted for emphasizing the obvious.

The eye started due to the massing of light sensitive cells at the front of the organism.

And your point is?

I hope you aren't trying to mislead people making them think the Christians have no idea where the eye came from.
My point is, it's a prime example of evolution.




Look, the key issue here is that ID is based on faith, not something falsifiable. Anything based on Faith is not falsifiable. If you believe some supreme being had a hand in evolution, that's fine. But it's just a belief. Because the belief in a Supreme being is based on Faith. Therefor, making ID based on faith, and not somethign that should be taught in any science class.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

But why not?
Because intelligent design isn't science... it's based off a belief of a higher being, which entails religion.

I have no problem teaching intelligent design in a theology class, but not in a biology class.

If students choose to take a theology class, then it's completely legit. but dont put religious ideas into biology class.

[twin58]

Intelligent Design is a belief, something based on faith. Evolution is a theory with evidence to back it up.

No more calls, please; we already have a winner.

[JoshM]

Because intelligent design isn't science... it's based off a belief of a higher being, which entails religion.

I have no problem teaching intelligent design in a theology class, but not in a biology class.

If students choose to take a theology class, then it's completely legit. but dont put religious ideas into biology class.
Thank you. My point exactly. Here's a great anology using ID:

"Intelligent Design is as scientific an explanation for the evolution of man, as Angels Bowling is as an explanation for thunder. Both are possible, but neither is science."

[zak]

Notice I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught, just not in a science class.
THANK YOU! I think its rediculous, intelligent design doesnt belong in science class, seing as it is not a scientific theory.

[HCrum05]

Evolution is a theory, meaning it hasn't been proven. Why should it be taught? When I have kids, I don't want them to be taught about evolution since I'm a Christian. Yet in middle school, when a child has no way to choose his/her classes, they are going to be taught evolution. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. But I guess one has to be hypocritical to be liberal....

[D-middie9]

RELIGION...I garauntee you the ones that are all up at arms about this are atheist or darwinists, or one of those "facts only" people...Oh ye of little faith...

[LowRida]

I totally agree with BTLaxripper, we as humans do not understand everything and cannot understand how the universe was created. So why not teach a theory (emphasis on not a law) of a supreme creator. This does not include talking about Heaven, or Hell or any other part of religion. Just because it may involve parts of religion does not mean it should not be taught in school.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

RELIGION...I garauntee you the ones that are all up at arms about this are atheist or darwinists, or one of those "facts only" people...Oh ye of little faith...

no, i'm catholic, but thanks for playing...

I totally agree with BTLaxripper, we as humans do not understand everything and cannot understand how the universe was created. So why not teach a theory (emphasis on not a law) of a supreme creator. This does not include talking about Heaven, or Hell or any other part of religion. Just because it may involve parts of religion does not mean it should not be taught in school.
hell, it can be taught... just not in biology class, where SCIENCE is taught.

[RockStar]

......When I have kids, I don't want them to be taught about evolution since I'm a Christian. Yet in middle school, when a child has no way to choose his/her classes, they are going to be taught evolution. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.....

What's the problem?

It's your God-given right to "correct" any aspects of your kids' education that you don't happen to agree with through Sunday school, church sermons, or Bible readings.

Besides, you can accept both Evolution (which has happened and is happening) and Creation (may have happened, but can't be proven and is an article of faith).

Best part - You can buy into both of these without even stretching too hard! The only aspect of Creation that needs to be junked is the myth presented in Genesis.


.....hell, it can be taught... just not in biology class, where SCIENCE is taught.


Careful, there are many scientists that would argue that Biology is not a real science, except for the parts of it that are sub-sets of the two real ones, chemistry and physics!

[LowRida]

hell, it can be taught... just not in biology class, where SCIENCE is taught.

That was not my point, nice try though. I meant that saying there may be a supreme creator is only part of religion, not religion.

[raykessler]

Evolution is a theory, meaning it hasn't been proven. Why should it be taught? When I have kids, I don't want them to be taught about evolution since I'm a Christian. Yet in middle school, when a child has no way to choose his/her classes, they are going to be taught evolution. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. But I guess one has to be hypocritical to be liberal....

I totally agree with BTLaxripper, we as humans do not understand everything and cannot understand how the universe was created. So why not teach a theory (emphasis on not a law) of a supreme creator. This does not include talking about Heaven, or Hell or any other part of religion. Just because it may involve parts of religion does not mean it should not be taught in school.


wow you two don't know what a scientific theory is do you??? here are definitions of a law a theory and a hypothesis the three things that all science falls into

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

[HdGLaxWarrior]

Intelligent design? Another word for Creationism?

[raykessler]

Intelligent design? Another word for Creationism?


not the same thing creationism is the belief inthe biblical way of thinking, that God created the universe and all that

intelligent design is an attemt to combind creationism and evolutionism sayint that God started the whole thing and guided it, but that specied evloved, it is in my opinion exceedingly stupid, has no place in schools, and the only reason it even exists is to please the hardcore religious folk who were tired of evolutionism being right

[JoshM]

That was not my point, nice try though. I meant that saying there may be a supreme creator is only part of religion, not religion.
Regardless of that, it's a belief in something; faith even. Not a theory with facts to back it up. Again, this is reason enough for it not to be taught in a science class.

[enjoi]

As a Catholic, Intelligent design is just a bunch of wacko bible belters trying to pass off creationism as science.

And I even think that Intelligent design is what happend.

[HdGLaxWarrior]

Well, yeah, it's either evolution or creationism. Take your pick.

[raykessler]

But why not?
Please explain that if evolution is a theory, Intelligent Design is a theory.

Trace the entire existence back to the beginning to the big bang.

The big bang theory goes something like this
"The universe began as nothing but hydrogen, helium, and some other gasses. They reacted, combusted, and exploded releasing such a great amount of energy spewing energy over the entire universe infusing all particles with attractive forces (electrons) enabling the formation of atoms and material."

Okay, now if you are a darwinist, how did those hydrogen gasses exist even before the formation of time. They just appeared? The universe started somewhere, and we can not as humans, comprehend it. And that's where God comes in.

It is perfectly logical- Evolution deals with the progression of species, not with the formation of the universe. No scientist can explain it.

The ID theory goes soemthing like a "creator" aka God, started the universe, put the first amoebas on the planet and just sat back and watched it evolve. And once humans came about he stopped and said "wow! this is it!" and continuing on a religious note gave us souls.

Sounds like a theory to me.


sounds like jumping to conclusions to me, i really dont understand the science but saying there is some all powerful being that started it all is just taking the easy way out of finding an answer

this also begs the question... where did this god of yours come from??

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

That was not my point, nice try though. I meant that saying there may be a supreme creator is only part of religion, not religion.
ok, now you're just nitpicking... saying jesus was perfect and rose from the dead is only "part of religion" as well, it's not the whole religion...

[JoshM]

sounds like jumping to conclusions to me, i really dont understand the science but saying there is some all powerful being that started it all is just taking the easy way out of finding an answer

this also begs the question... where did this god of yours come from??
You hit the nail on the head. They just use the "Supreme-being-created-everything" excuse for whatever they can't explain.

[Ram-X-manII]

The biggest problem with intellegent design other than the fact that it is not science is that the "supreme being" they want to be taught is the christian god. Honestly, can you imagine if they said, "ok, we'll teach evolution and the creation story told by native americans, or some other pagan religions." Guess, what, the christians would still be up in arms because they won't be happy until they push Their supreme being into the classrooms of public schools.

[LymanLax28]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.html
I'm glad to hear they're keeping this nonsense out of Science classes. Intelligent Design is certainly not science. If anywhere, this so called "theory" needs to be in a Comparative Religion or philosophy course.
Thank God :chuckle:

[zak]

The biggest problem with intellegent design other than the fact that it is not science is that the "supreme being" they want to be taught is the christian god. Honestly, can you imagine if they said, "ok, we'll teach evolution and the creation story told by native americans, or some other pagan religions." Guess, what, the christians would still be up in arms because they won't be happy until they push Their supreme being into the classrooms of public schools.
True, it seems like only Christians are pushing ID, (bush/bible hugging christians). If they wanted to teach intelligent design, even in a philosophy class, they should include a wide spectrum of religions.

[JoshM]

True, it seems like only Christians are pushing ID, (bush/bible hugging christians). If they wanted to teach intelligent design, even in a philosophy class, they should include a wide spectrum of religions.
I don't even think there's enough substinance in ID to teach it in a class. But I agree with you.

[zak]

I don't even think there's enough substinance in ID to teach it in a class. But I agree with you.
There isnt enough substance in half the crap they teach us, one more cant hurt. :banghead: :nut:

[superlaxman2]

Evolution is a THEORY, intelegent design is a THEORY, and creation is a THEORY. They are all theorys and none of them have been proven, so they should all be tought as possibilities, not just one of them.

[raykessler]

Evolution is a THEORY, intelegent design is a THEORY, and creation is a THEORY. They are all theorys and none of them have been proven, so they should all be tought as possibilities, not just one of them.


did you not read my long as heck post A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS AN EXTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC PRINCAPLE, theory is different in science then from everything else, you know what intelligent design and creation are based on NOTHING extremly old books, no one knows who wrote them no one knows they are true, religious people spout about faith as a way to cover up what can not be proven true

[moondog]

I agree with Ray...With ID, we might as well teach kids that we (Earth and its inhabitants) are "other species' trash" from other universes, that we will never be able to locate, study, or acknowledge.

Science does not, and never WILL have all of the answers.

And reality will always exist independently from human representation. Science is a human representation.

Knowing "how we got here" is like knowing "the meaning of life"--we will never know, and there probably is not even an irrefutable answer.

[BTlaxripper]

I don't even believe in the ID thing, just find it ironic

[ColtsLax]

Well, we know that some of the stuff in these "old books" are true, because they have been verified by outside sources, the famous Jewish historian Josephus for example. it all had to start somewhere, and its not so crazy to think that there may be a higher being.
The science if ID comes in explaining the way the universe was created.

[raykessler]

Well, we know that some of the stuff in these "old books" are true, because they have been verified by outside sources, the famous Jewish historian Josephus for example. it all had to start somewhere, and its not so crazy to think that there may be a higher being.
The science if ID comes in explaining the way the universe was created.

josephus isnt during the old testimate, he was a jew who became a roman general... sorta later in history

ID is not a science and is insulting to say it is so, as i said before intelligent design is jumping to conclusions, it really does make me angry, religious people spout about faith, how you need faith to have religion it makes people fallow their religion without question they dont even see how silly some of these things are... like intelligent design

[ColtsLax]

most people, especially catholics, are the most inqusitive of all religions, look at the enlightenment, it was a basic overhaul of the entire catholic way of thinking. Some of the greatest minds in the worlds history were catholic, or at least religious. The only religion that hasnt had an enlightment is Islam, because they kill anyone who tries.

And i never said Josephus was in the OT, i knew he was NT, but he wrote accounts of things that happend that are parallel with things in these "old books"

If it actually makes you angry that people talk about their faith, then thats pretty sad, you need to find god.

[roughrider]

But why not?
Please explain that if evolution is a theory, Intelligent Design is a theory.

Trace the entire existence back to the beginning to the big bang.

The big bang theory goes something like this
"The universe began as nothing but hydrogen, helium, and some other gasses. They reacted, combusted, and exploded releasing such a great amount of energy spewing energy over the entire universe infusing all particles with attractive forces (electrons) enabling the formation of atoms and material."

Okay, now if you are a darwinist, how did those hydrogen gasses exist even before the formation of time. They just appeared? The universe started somewhere, and we can not as humans, comprehend it. And that's where God comes in.

It is perfectly logical- Evolution deals with the progression of species, not with the formation of the universe. No scientist can explain it.

The ID theory goes soemthing like a "creator" aka God, started the universe, put the first amoebas on the planet and just sat back and watched it evolve. And once humans came about he stopped and said "wow! this is it!" and continuing on a religious note gave us souls.

Sounds like a theory to me.

Has it ever occured to you that all matter has existed forever and will exist forever? That the big bang that helped shape ur universe was only one in an infinite line of them? This is my belief on the origin of the universe. Matter expands, collaspes upon itself and expands again indefinatly.

The problem I have with intelligent design is that you cannot test whether of not it is true. it is dogmatic law. It is religion. You cannot test whether or not a God exists. it has no room then in a science class. Science is the art of examining our universe and determining, using emperical data, theories that explain our world. ID is fine and itself is too a theory but it is a religious theory-it has no place in the world of science. Keep it out of my classroom.

[ColtsLax]

Has it ever occured to you that all matter has existed forever and will exist forever? That the big bang that helped shape ur universe was only one in an infinite line of them? This is my belief on the origin of the universe. Matter expands, collaspes upon itself and expands again indefinatly.

The problem I have with intelligent design is that you cannot test whether of not it is true. it is dogmatic law. It is religion. You cannot test whether or not a God exists. it has no room then in a science class. Science is the art of examining our universe and determining, using emperical data, theories that explain our world. ID is fine and itself is too a theory but it is a religious theory-it has no place in the world of science. Keep it out of my classroom.
that matter had to come from somewhere, it just doesnt appear out of thin air, that would violate laws of physics. Only one thing can go over physics, and thats God.

[Frndlefire]

most people, especially catholics, are the most inqusitive of all religions, look at the enlightenment, it was a basic overhaul of the entire catholic way of thinking. Some of the greatest minds in the worlds history were catholic, or at least religious. The only religion that hasnt had an enlightment is Islam, because they kill anyone who tries.

And i never said Josephus was in the OT, i knew he was NT, but he wrote accounts of things that happend that are parallel with things in these "old books"

If it actually makes you angry that people talk about their faith, then thats pretty sad, you need to find god.
and many geniuses of the human race were attacked and forced to keep their ideas underground and unpublished because the church didn't like what they were saying...a few amongst many are DeVinci, Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, etc, etc.

The church has historically weilded and enormous amount of power over what can and cannot be researched or published. They have also been quick to squash anything that contradicts how they believe it to happen.

and I'm not even going to get into your rediculous assertions about Islam...once again...it's not a religion of hate and violence like you see on tv.

[Frndlefire]

that matter had to come from somewhere, it just doesnt appear out of thin air, that would violate laws of physics. Only one thing can go over physics, and thats God.
and arguably god only exists because we say he does...so in one sense it is just inventing an answer because we have no idea what the real answer is.

[Frndlefire]

And does everyone here reject something like Deism?...god created initial matter and let the pieces go from there. No control over what happens...just set the pieces in motion...

[Ram-X-manII]

Ahh, are you talking about the theory where you find a pocketwatch in the middle of the field, and you have to suppose it was made by the watchmaker, even though he has no control over how the watch works.

To me it seems better than any organized religion thats out there today, but still not for me.

[GBaschski]

The biggest problem with intellegent design other than the fact that it is not science is that the "supreme being" they want to be taught is the christian god. Honestly, can you imagine if they said, "ok, we'll teach evolution and the creation story told by native americans, or some other pagan religions." Guess, what, the christians would still be up in arms because they won't be happy until they push Their supreme being into the classrooms of public schools.

That was an extremely ignorant statement. Most religions practiced in America believe that a supreme divine figure created the world. And Christians, Jews and Muslims (three most populous religions in America) share the same God.

Good try, though.

[GBaschski]

and I'm not even going to get into your rediculous assertions about Islam...once again...it's not a religion of hate and violence like you see on tv.

Agreed...people are generally extremely ignorant about Islam.

[roycegracie47]

That was an extremely ignorant statement. Most religions practiced in America believe that a supreme divine figure created the world. And Christians, Jews and Muslims (three most populous religions in America) share the same God.

Good try, though.


Most but not all. Hindu beliefs trace the earth being carried atop the back of a giant turtle.The old Norse related religions told of the Earth being created from the rotting body of Odin's father. These should then carry equal weight in the ID lesson. Not every religion sees the universe created the same way, whether it's the most populous in America or not or whether or not it is still practiced.

My stance: You want it in school, keep it to theology or comparative religion it has no basis for being in a science class.

[roughrider]

that matter had to come from somewhere, it just doesnt appear out of thin air, that would violate laws of physics. Only one thing can go over physics, and thats God.

No, if time is infinite nothing has to have a beginning. It has forever existed and will forever exist. It is a hard concept to grasp, but one that is popular amoung astrophysicists.

[Ram-X-manII]

That was an extremely ignorant statement. Most religions practiced in America believe that a supreme divine figure created the world. And Christians, Jews and Muslims (three most populous religions in America) share the same God.

Good try, though.

Show me a Jewish and/or Muslim leader who is actively involved in putting Intelligent design into schools.

[raykessler]

most people, especially catholics, are the most inqusitive of all religions, look at the enlightenment, it was a basic overhaul of the entire catholic way of thinking. Some of the greatest minds in the worlds history were catholic, or at least religious. The only religion that hasnt had an enlightment is Islam, because they kill anyone who tries.

And i never said Josephus was in the OT, i knew he was NT, but he wrote accounts of things that happend that are parallel with things in these "old books"

If it actually makes you angry that people talk about their faith, then thats pretty sad, you need to find god.

im not angry about people talking about their faith, im angry about people trying to bring faith into my classrooms

the muslims never had an enlightenment because they are too busy killing people you say??? wow way to show how ignorant you are, during the crusades when catholics were really nothing more then barbarians in castles trying to recapture jerusalem from the muslims, the muslims were among the most intelligent people in the world, they pioneered medicine, mathamatics, and astronimy... you know what ruined all this intelligence, a major awakening of islamic religion, yes they became more religious and all that genious went down the tube

Josephus lived after Jesus, also iv read several of his books which are mostly about judiesm as he was a former jew and the rebellion in judea

catholics are the most inquisitive?? i have no grounds to argue with you there, but i CAN say they are one of the violent, just look at the inquasition and crusades, dosn't seem like they were promoting sciense and learning there??

about me finding god i am jewish, but i also consider myself an athiest, i find a way to make keeping both of those work and so far iv been pretty happy with it, i dont need god

[ColtsLax]

the muslims never had an enlightenment because they are too busy killing people you say??? wow way to show how ignorant you are, during the crusades when catholics were really nothing more then barbarians in castles trying to recapture jerusalem from the muslims, the muslims were among the most intelligent people in the world, they pioneered medicine, mathamatics, and astronimy... you know what ruined all this intelligence, a major awakening of islamic religion, yes they became more religious and all that genious went down the tube


OK, your clearly didnt read my post, In the history of islam, they have yet to experiance an enlightement on the scale that the christians did in the 15th century. The reason is because anyone who tries to revise the koran, or challenge it in anyway, is either exiled or killed. There is a 33 MILLION dollar bounty on the last guy who tried, and thats dead or alive.

im not saying the chrisitans were all good all the time, but they did foster some truly great minds. Read Summa Theologica, and you will see.

and you cant be an atheist and a jew. You either beleive in god, or you dont, its not situational.

[raykessler]

as much as i dont want this to turn into a religious debate as that is not what this thread is first you can, just because i dont believe in god dosn't mean that i dont find some of the rules set down by religoun a good moral code to live by, i go to temple, but i dont go for god

you clearly didn't read MY post they started out with an enlightenment, they went down hill, christianity started out down hill and then started to go up, i dont really see where the enlightenment happens in the history to be of any consequense,

christians fostered great minds?? good for them so does every other religion, im not seeing how this fits in anywhere

going back to intelligent design i still find it an extremly stupid idea that has no place in our schools

[twin58]

... revise the koran, or challenge it in anyway.... There is a 33 MILLION dollar bounty on the last guy who tried, and thats dead or alive.

Is this a reference to the fatwa and bounty placed on Salman Rushdie? (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&c2coff=1&q=salman+rushdie+fatwa&btnG=Search) Please elaborate. Thanks.

[zachm90]

I have no problem with intelligent design, but it isn't science, so it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Evolution is science, therefore it belongs in a science classroom.

[raykessler]

I believe it was Longest who brought up this situation-

"Teacher, Im not really feeling this whole evolution thing. Are there any other theories on what could have happened?"

"Im sorry, but I cant tell you"

To ban the teaching of a thought or ideal is plain censorship. There are always some that do not believe that it holds enough scientific relevance to be included in the curriculum, however when did that become grounds for BANNING the teachings of it?

The fact of the matter is that it should be unregulated and if the school system feels that its relevant enough to bring up they will teach it, if they do not then they obviously have no obligation to.

The only reason that people have taken the stance of trying to ban the material is because they think science teachers are trying to baptize their children behind their backs. Its pure paranoia, and thats no lie.


its not censorship its keeping something out of a class that dosn't belong there, would you teach english in math class??? i didn't think so so you shouldn't teach religion in sciense class

[RockStar]

........The only religion that hasnt had an enlightment is Islam, because they kill anyone who tries.......

I still can't believe how incredibly frocking arrogant ColtsLax is about his own religion vs. other religions!

Someone should actually sit down (sit for like a few YEARS that is) and total up the attrocities that have been committed over the past 2000 years in the name of the Roman version of Christianity. I would not be too surprised if Catholicism outscored everything put together. By now, Islam may have caught up, but Catholicism had a great ~700 year head start.

In any case, regardless of absolute numbers, there has still been almost enough Catholic nonsense to make some of us want to rush out and join the local Orange Lodge!

[raykessler]

again i say... SAYING THAT THERE IS AN ALL POWERFUL BEING THAT STARTED IT ALL, OR DID ANYTHING IS JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS there is no proof, it is baised on faith

why do you have a problem with it being banned??? ITS NOT SCIENSE, i go to an episcopal school our revrend even thinks ID is BS, why cant everone else seem to grasp that

[zak]

Seriously, stop feeding me what people tell you and tell me why creationism isnt a valid scientific theory yourself.
Because, from my understanding, creationism is based on a higher being creating the universe from nothing. Its the higher being that moves it out of science. Creationism is a valid theory for origins of the universe, but not a scientific one because it does not include "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

The theory that types of matter can spontaneously generate has been used to fill in holes in numerous theories. This theory has absoulutely no scientific backing, or evidence, but was put there in place because they could not come up with a half decent explination of how that matter came into being. There are currently no regulations on the teaching of this material.
Yes, but there is a vast difference between spontaneously appearing, and spontaneously created by a higher being.

evolutionism tracing man back to single cell organisms is hardly near that level.
And? It doesnt claim to be.

Is it so hard to comprehend that the thought of a higher being could be at play?
No, not at all. Philosophers have been debating this for many, many years. I have even learned about such theories IN SCHOOL. THATS RIGHT, Ive learned about the theory of Creationism in school, and in assigned reading. Ive studied Jesus in assigned reading. It just wasnt assigned in a science classroom.
Heres the key issue, in my mind:
Science: Explains phenoma with observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation
Religion: Explains phenoma with a supreme being
Niether is wrong, just different.
It makes no sense to teach Religion in a Science classroom, nor would it maek sense to teach Science in a Comparitve Religions classroom.

Is it somehow that worse than saying that matter can simply appear out of nowhere?
Yes, again, spontaneous vs supreme being. Not that the supreme being is wrong, it just isnt relevant to the subject.

I have no problem with creationism being left out of textbooks. I DO however, see a problem with creationism being BANNED from textbooks
I agree completely. As long as no beliefs are taught as the right ones , leaving them out is shooting yourself in the foot.

Teacher, Im not really feeling this whole evolution thing. Are there any other theories on what could have happened?"

"Im sorry, but I cant tell you"
Longest brought up a good point, despite the clear bias and objective behind it. What teacher, class, and unit are they learning?

"Teacher, Im not really feeling this whole evolution thing. Are there any other theories on what could have happened?"

"There are no other scientific theories."
Sounds more like it.

People are also forgetting creationism and evolution teach two different things. Creationism explains the formation of the Earth in a religiously based manner. Evolution explains the different species in a scienftifically based manner. Its just different.

[Frndlefire]

Seriously, stop feeding me what people tell you and tell me why creationism isnt a valid scientific theory yourself. Because it has no real evidence? Personally I don't consider "well you can't explain ___" as evidence. Just because something hasn't been explained yet doesn't it wont/cant be. Like I said before, evolutionary theory is a young science. We are always learning more and more and with better genetic technology and time we will explain a great deal more. I don't reject that God could have had a part in it (specifically the origin of original matter), but I don't think the fact that evolution can't explain everything makes ID a legitimate scientific theory.

The theory that types of matter can spontaneously generate has been used to fill in holes in numerous theories. This theory has absoulutely no scientific backing, or evidence, but was put there in place because they could not come up with a half decent explination of how that matter came into being. There are currently no regulations on the teaching of this material.
Can you cite this please? It's a fairly basic chemistry/physics law that matter cannot be made from, or become nothing. I also think the prominant position is that time is infinite and matter has always existed, our big boom is just one in a series of infinite big bangs and collapses. Not positive about this, but I thought that is what I heard from my astron. prof.

evolution on a short term scale can be justified and taken as fact, evolutionism tracing man back to single cell organisms is hardly near that level. so you agree that evolution is a fact in the short term (which I assume means on the order of 10s of millions of years?), but refuse to accept that the same rules could apply to the rest of the existance of life? What...evolution just started happening some 30 million years ago but did before that?

[zak]

Thanks for not giving any reasoning at all or answering any of my questions while restating the same think you said earlier.

So should we ban teaching that there are theories that matter can suddenly appear because they lack any evidence or proof whatsoever?
Ignore him, and maybe we can have an intelligent convorsation.

Can you cite this please? It's a fairly basic chemistry/physics law that matter cannot be made from, or become nothing. I also think the prominant position is that time is infinite and matter has always existed, our big boom is just one in a series of infinite big bangs and collapses. Not positive about this, but I thought that is what I heard from my astron. prof.
I honestly know little on either side of this part, but form what I do know, wouldnt it be possible that the theory is: We think matter appears spontaneuously, not that its created, we just dont know how it got to that location/state.?

[JoshM]

Stating that there are other...opinions about Evolution is not teaching it, and I have no problem with that. It's when people start actually teaching ID where I begin to have an issue.

[Frndlefire]

Ignore him, and maybe we can have an intelligent convorsation.


I honestly know little on either side of this part, but form what I do know, wouldnt it be possible that the theory is: We think matter appears spontaneuously, not that its created, we just dont know how it got to that location/state.?
at the subatomic level I think matter moves/appears/dissapears in ways that we can't explain, but this isn't the same as it really spontaneously appearing. It had existed elsewhere, but like you said, we just can't explain how it got to where it is.

We have also created simple polypeptide chains in laboratory settings from basic chemicals....those are the building blocks of proteins (which are the building blocks of life)...so science is getting close on that unicellular creating from early earth chemicals.

[Fartman]

I don't know if you guys have heard of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, but it's a satirical parody religion created to mock intelligent design. It's pretty funny. Check it out:

FSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monsterism)

[ColtsLax]

Someone should actually sit down (sit for like a few YEARS that is) and total up the attrocities that have been committed over the past 2000 years in the name of the Roman version of Christianity. I would not be too surprised if Catholicism outscored everything put together. By now, Islam may have caught up, but Catholicism had a great ~700 year head start.

Yes, i know Catholics are bad, we killed our own people at one point, im not denying this. My point is that Catholics have also be responsible for some of the greatest thinking minds the world has ever know, Kant, Newton, Augustine, Assisi...they are more than that, but i would be here forever listing them.

iTS A HISTORICAL FACT that the Islamic religion has not experianced what the catholics experianced in the 15th century. They sat down and reexamined the bible as a histoical account vs a faith account, and changed a lot of preconcieved notions, relaxed some rules, and made RC a more accepting thing. Islam has not had the kind of reevaluation yet, and the problem is that they exile or kill people who try. Rushdie is the most recent example, but there have been others throughout history.

no religion is perfect, but thats not what im talking about here.

[JoshM]

Well its pretty obvious that spontaneous generation is, as we know it, physically impossible. The instances that I was taught about it being used was in cases where theories could not explain the jump from A to B, so they put in spontaneous generation as a placeholder. Get what Im saying?

I do believe that evolution can possibly be traced back, however there are still unexplainable gaps that prevent you from teaching it as anything more than a logical theory.

Look, this is my major problem with this whole thing. You can argue that it doesnt belong in the curriculum, which is something that I can understand. But under no circumstances should it be BANNED from schools. It has enough relevance to be there should there be a want for it.
Logical theory, which is much more than you can say about Intelligent Design. I don't think anybody's suggesting it should be banned from school, just banned from a science classroom.

And I think arbitrarily assuming that there was some "higher being" at work when we can't explain something is silly.

[Frndlefire]

Logical theory, which is much more than you can say about Intelligent Design. I don't think anybody's suggesting it should be banned from school, just banned from a science classroom.
agreed, nothing should be banned from school (but I am a firm believer that it is much safer for kids to be educated about a negetive topic than kept ignorant and misinformed - a la DARE and the drug war). I just don't believe the ID is a scientific theory that should be taught as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution. I don't think it should be forced into science classes and science textbooks. Keep it in another classes (theology, philosophy, what-have-you) and I will line up in support, but don't try and tell me it's science.

[zak]

(but I am a firm believer that it is much safer for kids to be educated about a negetive topic than kept ignorant and misinformed - a la DARE and the drug war)..
Off topic for a second, but are you kidding? DARE teaches you nothing, and its not like theyll ever teach us the whole story on the wdrug war.

[Frndlefire]

Off topic for a second, but are you kidding? DARE teaches you nothing, and its not like theyll ever teach us the whole story on the wdrug war.
right, that's my point. I think that education is about telling kids everything...not just telling them that all drugs are bad and will instantly ruin your life, because that isn't true. I could rant for pages on how the war on drugs is a complete failure and DARE is a negligent and dangerous program and how I would like to sue the gov't for wasting my money...but I've had that discussion before on here (though that thread was deleted by a modifier).

[GuapoGrande]

I think alot of you guys don't understand what was trying to be done with Intelligent Design... People were not trying to get Creation taught out over a span of two months with in depth details of all the theories that it entails, but they were rather trying to get a statement before the evolution section that says something along the lines of "Please be skeptical of what we teach you, there are many other theories that exist concerning how we are here, and how we have become who we are. On of these theories is that the universe is created by a Higher Being."

That's very obviously pointing towards God, which obviously helps Christianity, but isn't rejecting God and keeping him out of our lives also a religion? Atheism? Agnosticism? If the whole point of this ruling was to keep religion out of schools, than it didn't do a very good job.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

"Please be skeptical of what we teach you, there are many other theories that exist concerning how we are here, and how we have become who we are. On of these theories is that the universe is created by a Higher Being."
Why does that last line even have to be in there, though... they already are required to say everything but that when they teach evolution. why is a non-scientific theory of a higher being even being mentioned in a science class?

[GuapoGrande]

It would be kind of ridiculous to exclude anything that is not scientific from the classroom. That's like saying that a teacher can't tell his students about a car accident that he was in, or about where he went to college because it isn't scientific. It sounds ridiculout but that's what was just said.

And besides, that one little line isn't gonna convert anybody that believes in evolution to all of a sudden believe in God. It just lets kids know of another idea. They shouldn't be spoonfed evolution like it is the absolute truth, because i'm sure that many of you would say to take everything you're taught and find out what you actually believe, and not what the teacher says is true. Am i wrong?

[Frndlefire]

It would be kind of ridiculous to exclude anything that is not scientific from the classroom. That's like saying that a teacher can't tell his students about a car accident that he was in, or about where he went to college because it isn't scientific. It sounds ridiculout but that's what was just said.

And besides, that one little line isn't gonna convert anybody that believes in evolution to all of a sudden believe in God. It just lets kids know of another idea. They shouldn't be spoonfed evolution like it is the absolute truth, because i'm sure that many of you would say to take everything you're taught and find out what you actually believe, and not what the teacher says is true. Am i wrong?
I agree that it isn't going to convert anyone... but it also isn't science and on par with evolution. I am not advocating banning it, but it shouldn't be taught as a legitimate scientific theory beside evolution. In the same respect, why do we have to include that little blerb making a special concession just for intelligent design?

[GuapoGrande]

Evolution and Creation (Intellegent Design) are without any doubt the two main views held by all people about where we all came from, there is no doubt in that. All that little line does is say the other main theory, so that kids know. Creation is not a science that can be tested by experiments or or have its own new hypotheses, and that is why it is not taught. I can see the validity in that argument. But why should the one theory be taught on like it is a verity, and the other completely ignored? Evolutionists should not be outraged that Intelligent Design could be mentioned because they get to teach their belief to so many kids, while Creationism can't even be mentioned.... WHY??? How does that even make sense? Why would mentioning another theory that is believed as commonly as Evolution be soooo horrible for the classroom??? It simply lets kids know the other main belief.

This is how I see it.....
There are so many small things that can go wrong with our bodies, or our solar system, or anything like that... but it doesn't. The design is perfect. If our universe is truly something that came from a few cells, or a big bang, than how in all sanity can it combine or evolutionize to create such a perfect system?? For example...if we simply have too many long-chain saturated fats, than we can have bad memory, visual loss, learning disabilities, seizures, bad speech, deafness, no coordination, fatigue, increased skin pigmentation, and progressive deteriation of the brain. Something as simple as having too many long-chain fatty acids can completely screw up our body system. (The disorder is called Adrenoleukodystrophy or ALD). I could never believe any theory that says that this perfect complex (the body) happened by chance. There are simply too many things that can go wrong with it for it to be random.

[TheKOB]

But why should the one theory be taught on like it is a verity, and the other completely ignored? Evolutionists should not be outraged that Intelligent Design could be mentioned because they get to teach their belief to so many kids, while Creationism can't even be mentioned.... WHY??? How does that even make sense? Why would mentioning another theory that is believed as commonly as Evolution be soooo horrible for the classroom??? It simply lets kids know the other main belief.

Scientific theory isn't the same as what you're thinking. Scientific theory is basically fact (the fact that we revolve around the sun is still a "theory"). Theories have evidence to back them up. Faith and religious convictions don't. That is why they shouldn't be mentioned in science class. The problem is that you think evolution is a belief. Evolution is fact, because there is proof. A belief is something religious.


This is how I see it.....
There are so many small things that can go wrong with our bodies, or our solar system, or anything like that... but it doesn't. The design is perfect. If our universe is truly something that came from a few cells, or a big bang, than how in all sanity can it combine or evolutionize to create such a perfect system?? For example...if we simply have too many long-chain saturated fats, than we can have bad memory, visual loss, learning disabilities, seizures, bad speech, deafness, no coordination, fatigue, increased skin pigmentation, and progressive deteriation of the brain. Something as simple as having too many long-chain fatty acids can completely screw up our body system. (The disorder is called Adrenoleukodystrophy or ALD). I could never believe any theory that says that this perfect complex (the body) happened by chance. There are simply too many things that can go wrong with it for it to be random.

I don't see how you can say anything in this world is perfect. I think a lot of intelligent design has to do with one's own issues with themselves. I've met people that just don't like the idea that they are in any way related to monkeys. They like to think that they are special, chosen by God to lord over the animals, etc etc etc. I personally feel that God gave us a soul and a conscience...that to me is much more important than wearing clothes or thinking that somewhere in heaven there's a blueprint of Kevin O'Brien....

[zak]

This is how I see it.....
There are so many small things that can go wrong with our bodies, or our solar system, or anything like that... but it doesn't. The design is perfect. If our universe is truly something that came from a few cells, or a big bang, than how in all sanity can it combine or evolutionize to create such a perfect system?? For example...if we simply have too many long-chain saturated fats, than we can have bad memory, visual loss, learning disabilities, seizures, bad speech, deafness, no coordination, fatigue, increased skin pigmentation, and progressive deteriation of the brain. Something as simple as having too many long-chain fatty acids can completely screw up our body system. (The disorder is called Adrenoleukodystrophy or ALD). I could never believe any theory that says that this perfect complex (the body) happened by chance. There are simply too many things that can go wrong with it for it to be random.
Read Candide. You'll be kicking yourself in the behind.

[GuapoGrande]

I don't see how you can say anything in this world is perfect. I think a lot of intelligent design has to do with one's own issues with themselves. I've met people that just don't like the idea that they are in any way related to monkeys. They like to think that they are special, chosen by God to lord over the animals, etc etc etc. I personally feel that God gave us a soul and a conscience...that to me is much more important than wearing clothes or thinking that somewhere in heaven there's a blueprint of Kevin O'Brien....

That last little part of my previous post wasn't an argument, it was just some of my personal viewpoints, but I will probably get bashed for them nonetheless. I'm not saying that the world is perfect or that everything in it is, but that the body, and all of it's intricacies are simply far too organized to be random. that's all I was trying to say. And I don't have any issues with myself, that was a low blow. Christianity doesn't make a person feel all good about themselves. It makes me realize how bad I am compared to how good I should be. But it gives me security in that I know where I'm going when I die. If anything, not believing in God would entail some personal issues. Many people don't like the idea that they're not good enough for God, or that they're never live up to the standard.

And we're not even arguing over whether the world was actualy created by ID, we're just arguing over whether there should be a one-sentence line that mentions it at the beginning of science classes. And creation IS a THEORY, it's just not a SCIENTIFIC theory. Like I said before a theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. A scientific theory can be tested and experimented. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE CREATION ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND IT SHOULDN'T BE TAUGHT IN A SCIENCE CLASS. And it isn't. It would only be mentioned.

And I probably am just kicking myself in the behind. Many liberals are going to hate me. BTW, I'm in Colorado until January 2nd, so it'll be awhile 'til I comment back. that should leave plenty of time for people to leave some hateful comments. I just kicked myself again.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

ok, so you say it shouldnt be taught, but it should be mentioned... i'm not really followin ya here, bud. why even mention it in a science class. teachers are already required to tell students that evolution isn't the only theory to explain how we are what we are what we are today. why does intelligent design have to have a special blurb?... i don't think you see what this does in the long run... first, since the teacher mentions it, kids will soon start asking questions about it, which then brings christian teachings into a science class. also, as soon as we mention ID in the classroom, every ever group of theorists are gonna complain that their theories arent mentioned, and by the end of it all, we'll have 16 theories trying to be taught in a semester...

[TheKOB]

My thinking doesn't even go into the supposed seperation of church and state. It's just a matter of what is science and what isn't.

[GuapoGrande]

Ok mr. worst scenario, lets keep going with this imaginary story.... All the 16 theories would be taught, and than kids wouldn't like it and than they would drop out of school, and the teachers wouldn't have jobs, and we wouldn't have any smart people left in the world, and everybody's science education would be ruined. I think I follow you "bud"

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

now, you're just bein ridiculous...

and, even without what i said, what would you do if they mentioned another non-scientific theory in biology class, instead of intelligent design? what would you say to that?

[zak]

Ok mr. worst scenario, lets keep going with this imaginary story.... All the 16 theories would be taught, and than kids wouldn't like it and than they would drop out of school, and the teachers wouldn't have jobs, and we wouldn't have any smart people left in the world, and everybody's science education would be ruined. I think I follow you "bud"
Gasp, all the idiots in remedial Foundations of Science their Senior year of HS would get scared of a lesson plan they wouldnt pay attention to anyways and drop out, who will serve me fries now?!?!?! :banghead:

Sorry man, you are waaaaay out there on this one.

[The H Hour]

science is observable and testable.

as far as i know, no one has (or lived long enough to) observe and test evolution. and if no one has been able to test or even observe evolution IN ACTION (sure, similarities between human and lizard parts can be explaind by evolution, but it can also be explained by an intelligent designer creating both, you havnt OBSERVED the lizard eventually evolving in to the human), then they must be putting there FAITH in evolution, because they are believing something they do not see! And this doesnt mean that evolution is neccesarily wrong. Even though i cannot see mars, it is still there, so something doesnt need to be observed to be right. but if some people are blindly putting their faith in intelligent design (i wont call it a religion), then others are, putting their faith in evolution, which has not be proven or even once observed!

and dont get it mixed up with microevolution, which even creationists/IDists believe. im referring to evolution mainly as the theory that species can comepletely changes into another.

[zak]

Sure, no one has solid 100% proof for evolution. However, you are entirely missing the point. YES people put faith in evoloution. Im putting faith in this chair not falling apart. Its not the faith in something that isnt proven, its the faith in believing in a higher being.

Look up General Relativity Theory. No one has proved it 100%, but its proved itself to be pretty damned important to science today.

[The H Hour]

Sure, no one has solid 100% proof for evolution. However, you are entirely missing the point. YES people put faith in evoloution. Im putting faith in this chair not falling apart. Its not the faith in something that isnt proven, its the faith in believing in a higher being.

Look up General Relativity Theory. No one has proved it 100%, but its proved itself to be pretty damned important to science today.

and yet it contradicts quantum physics. and it it is a well publicized fact that the contradict each other, and that there is a such thing as each of these. i didnt say something had to be proven to be correct, or specifically that evolution is wrong/ ID is right. but if we are keeping ID out of SCIENCE class because there is no proof and no way to verify it, what makes a theory that everything happened through completely undefined and unguided randomness over billions of years any more plausible? what difference does it make that ID is faith in a higher being, and evolution is faith in this "scientific" randomness? are either of them SCIENCE??? and if neither really are, then why is just ID being kept out?

[Frndlefire]

science is observable and testable.

as far as i know, no one has (or lived long enough to) observe and test evolution. and if no one has been able to test or even observe evolution IN ACTION (sure, similarities between human and lizard parts can be explaind by evolution, but it can also be explained by an intelligent designer creating both, you havnt OBSERVED the lizard eventually evolving in to the human), then they must be putting there FAITH in evolution, because they are believing something they do not see!
I feel that you are just being stubborn. To me this is just like closing your eyes and sticking your hand in a bag to feel a baseball. You admit that everything your feeling would make it appear to be a baseball, but refuse to accept that the object in the bag is in fact a baseball. Evolution happens over an incredible amount of time, it is unreasonable to say that it is BS because no one has been alive long enough to see it "in action." The human race hasn't even been around but for a blink of the eye... ~27,000 yrs for sapiens...and all they while we ourselves have been evolving. You're just setting an unreasonable benchmark for evolution to reach so obviously it will fail. I can't touch the moon, but I believe it's made of rock

[GuapoGrande]

now, you're just bein ridiculous...

and, even without what i said, what would you do if they mentioned another non-scientific theory in biology class, instead of intelligent design? what would you say to that?

I would actually be fine with other theories being mention during class. I only want other theories besides Evolution to be mentioned so that it doesn't seem to the students that evolution is the only thing to believe. they need to understand that even though evolution is the main SCIENTIFIC theory, there are many others.

[The H Hour]

no i didnt say it was wrong, but how is that any more science then ID? and i also dont see hwo the evidence we have here before us today points any more toward evolution than ID.

[Frndlefire]

no i didnt say it was wrong, but how is that any more science then ID? Do we really need to go back and define science again for you.... I thought we pretty well covered the basis of scientific thought in this thread already. While evolution has a tremendous amount of physical evidence (bones, fossils, etc.) that show a progression in anatomical structure and complexity over great amounts of time, but which you somehow refuse to accept as truely proving anything, ID has...what physical evidence? We don't evolve randomly so I don't see how the complexity of an eyeball can count as strong evidence... Again, I feel you're just being stubborn.

[LowRida]

somehow refuse to accept as truely proving anything, ID has...what physical evidence?

Maybe the real evidence is the lack of evidence.

[aof09lax]

My question is what do we leave to the scientists and what we leave to the church? I do not think that Intelligent Design is a theory, but more of a belief. The whole goal of religion is to find out why we are here. ID gives people a little bit of the answer. People need these beleifs to survive and religions give them it, not science.

[JoshM]

My question is what do we leave to the scientists and what we leave to the church? I do not think that Intelligent Design is a theory, but more of a belief. The whole goal of religion is to find out why we are here. ID gives people a little bit of the answer. People need these beleifs to survive and religions give them it, not science.
What's your point? And was it really necessary to dig this thread back up for this post?

[zak]

Personally, I dont see why we need all these huge scientiffic research projects into where we came from. Do we really need to know? Does it really make that much of a difference? All this "science" is doing is trying to take the place of religion, not that religion did much good in the first place.

The whole goal of religion is to find out why we are here. ID gives people a little bit of the answer. People need these beleifs to survive and religions give them it, not science.
Id venture to disagree. Thats not the goal of religion at all. Religion provides comfort for the weak. It tells them that you can be forgiven, and you are promised eternal happiness. Looking at Christianity, didnt Jesus preach to the poor and sick? Telling them that "so and so God made you at so and so point in time" wouldnt have done much. They wanted to hear that if they live "righteous" lives they would be rewarded.

ID doesnt give them a little bit of the answer, it claims to give them the 100% absolute word of God ("On the first day..." etc). I dont see why people need religion to survive either. Sure its nice, but sometimes relgion seems a little anti-survival.

[westcoastlaxr4]

Everyone seems to hate the idea of a "higher being" and think that it is the biggest problem with ID. However, human and animal minds are sorts of "higher beings", conciousnesses based upon the firings of neurons.
How is that so different from a higher consciousness that has all the universe's bodies as its neurons and their actions as its firings?
In fact, there has been some recent scientific thought on the human genome having such a conciousness that directs the changes of the human species throughout time. So maybe a "higher being" isn't such an unscientific idea.

[zak]

Everyone seems to hate the idea of a "higher being" and think that it is the biggest problem with ID. However, human and animal minds are sorts of "higher beings", conciousnesses based upon the firings of neurons.
How is that so different from a higher consciousness that has all the universe's bodies as its neurons and their actions as its firings?throughout .
Uhhh, you mean how are the neurons in our brain different from a planet? Do i really have to explain the physical difference and the implications of said differences? I mean thats like saying theres not much difference between stepping on a blade of grass and crushing a human.

[westcoastlaxr4]

Seriously, there isn't that much difference, except in a sense of scale. That is why a "higher being" would be able to comprehend and do so much more. Also, I don't enjoy your condescending tone. We can have a lively, opinionated discussion without you acting like your ideas are automatically better than mine. I would appreciate it if you would act more gentlemanly in the future.

[James]

Ok way back in darwins time he was considered crazy, well not orthadox poeple thought his theory was crazy. What if 200 years from now someone was able to prove that there is a greater being, now you say thats impossible but think back to 1700's no one would ever believe darwins theory. So in 2100 they might find a way to prove a higher being and we are sitting here saying that it shouldnt be tought in class because there is no proof. How is our society supposed to move forward if we are not open. How are great minds supposed to ponder these thoughts if they are never brought up.

[zak]

Seriously, there isn't that much difference, except in a sense of scale. That is why a "higher being" would be able to comprehend and do so much more. Also, I don't enjoy your condescending tone. We can have a lively, opinionated discussion without you acting like your ideas are automatically better than mine. I would appreciate it if you would act more gentlemanly in the future.
I wasnt being condescending. I actually thought I didnt have to explain the differences between a planet and a neuron. Its not a matter of scale. If it was a matter of scale, we would live on a giant neuron, which we dont.
1) "Higher Being" would have created the planets intentionally. We do not intentionally create and design neurons.
2) You said the planets and their actions would be Higher Being's neurons and firings. That would imply that H.B.'s conciousness is dependant on the planets, like our ability to think is dependant on neurons. However, as the HB created the planets intentionally, I dont see this working out.
3) Neurons are associated with science. A HB is associated with religion. More people die over religiong than over science. Science may kill more people (ie weapons), but people dont kill each other because one likes Glocks and one likes Smith and Wessons.
4) Recent scientiffic "thought" is not a thing to base an arguement concerning the existence of a HB and the instruction of this nations future off.
5) By comparing humans to a HB, arent you committing a little blasphemy? Isnt God not just a Higher Being but a "Supreme" Being, none otehr like Him?

[HRodLAX]

science is observable and testable.

as far as i know, no one has (or lived long enough to) observe and test evolution. and if no one has been able to test or even observe evolution IN ACTION (sure, similarities between human and lizard parts can be explaind by evolution, but it can also be explained by an intelligent designer creating both, you havnt OBSERVED the lizard eventually evolving in to the human), then they must be putting there FAITH in evolution, because they are believing something they do not see! And this doesnt mean that evolution is neccesarily wrong. Even though i cannot see mars, it is still there, so something doesnt need to be observed to be right. but if some people are blindly putting their faith in intelligent design (i wont call it a religion), then others are, putting their faith in evolution, which has not be proven or even once observed!

and dont get it mixed up with microevolution, which even creationists/IDists believe. im referring to evolution mainly as the theory that species can comepletely changes into another.

You say we cannot see evolution in action,

If you don't beleive in Evolution obviously the whole scare of AVIAN FLU is a lie fabricated by our government because the Flu virus CAN'T EVOLVE. And the flu shots you get every years, well why heck are you getting them if the FLU CAN'T EVOLVE? You shouldn't need them because it can't change because it was all made that way by the creator and doesn't change.

If some one can give me a straight answer to that question, no bullsh*t i will believe in ID.

[westcoastlaxr4]

1. I said bodies, not planets, which could mean any different types or sizes of matter. Also, we do create our own neurons. They are not surgically implanted, are they?
2. We subconciously act in many ways because our concious brains cannot deal with too much information. A higher being with the brainpower of the universe would have a lot more ability to act upon itself.
3. That is the whole point. ID connects belief with science, and I was putting forth one scientific segway.
4. I was just saying that some of the brightest minds in science are moving in this direction, and that sould make ID at least mentionable in a class concerning science. After all, possible cures for AIDS are discussed in class, and many of those are just thoughts.
5. Actually, humans were created in God's image, according to the bible, so I don't see anything wrong with showing a comparison between the two. Plus, I never said that God was the higher being I was speaking of.

[zak]

Its a different strain of flu, its very possble that it has existed for thousands of years, but hasnt caught on until recently. Not that I disagree with you though.

Ok way back in darwins time he was considered crazy, well not orthadox poeple thought his theory was crazy. What if 200 years from now someone was able to prove that there is a greater being, now you say thats impossible but think back to 1700's no one would ever believe darwins theory. So in 2100 they might find a way to prove a higher being and we are sitting here saying that it shouldnt be tought in class because there is no proof. How is our society supposed to move forward if we are not open. How are great minds supposed to ponder these thoughts if they are never brought up
If they can teach it in High School, how is our societ going to move forward from it?

[cbhslacrossemid]

Guys settle down.

There's no such thing as evolution or "intelligent" Design. Chuck Norris created the universe and populated the earth with his spirt children. Thus we are all children of Chuck.Duh.

[westcoastlaxr4]

When people have many ideas and hypotheses put before them, they can form their own beliefs and ideas, therefore forwarding society. Free information allows people to form their own opinions.

[zak]

1. I said bodies, not planets, which could mean any different types or sizes of matter. Also, we do create our own neurons. They are not surgically implanted, are they?
2. We subconciously act in many ways because our concious brains cannot deal with too much information. A higher being with the brainpower of the universe would have a lot more ability to act upon itself.
3. That is the whole point. ID connects belief with science, and I was putting forth one scientific segway.
4. I was just saying that some of the brightest minds in science are moving in this direction, and that sould make ID at least mentionable in a class concerning science. After all, possible cures for AIDS are discussed in class, and many of those are just thoughts.
5. Actually, humans were created in God's image, according to the bible, so I don't see anything wrong with showing a comparison between the two. Plus, I never said that God was the higher being I was speaking of.

1. True, but it could include planets too, so why not? You seemed to have missed the word "intentionally" in my post.
2. I didnt mean that type of concious.
2. No, ID does not connect belief with science. Science is the explanation of phenomena without using a HB. By the very nature of science, such a connection does not exist.
4. Again, possible cures for AIDS are not "thoughts," but lab research. Id also like to see you cite this claim. What scientiffic minds?
5. Dont play the "HB doesnt mean the Christian God" card. In this country, the backers of ID are almost exclusively Christian. One of the commandments is something to the effect of "No False Idols." Basically He is the only god. In saying that humans are capable of the same thigns as God, you are implying that humans could be gods, at least froma neurons point of view. Blasphemy, humans cant be gods.

[zak]

When people have many ideas and hypotheses put before them, they can form their own beliefs and ideas, therefore forwarding society. Free information allows people to form their own opinions.
Information is free. Its not liek you arent allowed to learn about ID. In fact I believe theres a popular book out about now. If you only learn things in school, and tehrefore dont learn ID, I highly doubt you are going to forward society.

[westcoastlaxr4]

I'm not going to argue with you anymore, because you obviously understand conciousness, blasphemy, and science in a completely different way than I do. I can't say that I agree with you, but I can see that we're not going anywhere. Oh well, it was fun.

[zak]

I can respect that. I dont see why everyone around here likes to quit when it gets fun though.
On the conciousness thing:
You were using "concious" to mean knowing what you were doing. I meant it as like a sentient being. Similar, but a little different. Probably some confusion on that.
Science and religion are very similar, they both attempt to explain things. Religion uses a HB, Science is defined by the lack of one.
Just to clarify.

[centlax21]

well, heres my 2 cents, I think that evolution might be in part right like if a problem presents itself animals will adapt. Like say something is active at night. Its eyes get bigger or soemthing like that. But What a boring universe it is if all we came from is from some hydrogen that decided it wanted to move so it came to life. I just cant figure that out. What would be the point of living. Why not teach it along side it. It cant hurt anyone. because people need to stop whining "omg the pledge of alligence uses god in it my kids are going to be poisoned for life" Just take a chilll pill and relax. Who knows whats right. Lemme just throw out something and u can just throw it right back. Im a christian, blah blah u know the drill. Just say im wrong and evolution is right and there is no god or watever. What happends to me? oh i just turn into nothing but recycled matter. Now say religion is right and blah blah. Well then lets say religion is right. Then i go to heaven and live happily ever after. Then the people who dont believe opps where do they go.... i know hell. Thats not the only reason for my faith nor should it be anyone elses. but its a nice comeback to atheists who arnt very friendly. in the long run seriously who cares. one more thing. the atheists are like "omg i cant believe they have god blah blah" well by taking watever down or changing it you are imposing your beliefs that no god exists on me and i dont like that! im gunna go complain ahhhhhhh endless cycle. Well i hope we all have gained some knowlege from this little gathering. Good luck and dare i say it God Speed!

[JoshM]

well, heres my 2 cents, I think that evolution might be in part right like if a problem presents itself animals will adapt. Like say something is active at night. Its eyes get bigger or soemthing like that. But What a boring universe it is if all we came from is from some hydrogen that decided it wanted to move so it came to life. I just cant figure that out. What would be the point of living. Why not teach it along side it. It cant hurt anyone. because people need to stop whining "omg the pledge of alligence uses god in it my kids are going to be poisoned for life" Just take a chilll pill and relax. Who knows whats right. Lemme just throw out something and u can just throw it right back. Im a christian, blah blah u know the drill. Just say im wrong and evolution is right and there is no god or watever. What happends to me? oh i just turn into nothing but recycled matter. Now say religion is right and blah blah. Well then lets say religion is right. Then i go to heaven and live happily ever after. Then the people who dont believe opps where do they go.... i know hell. Thats not the only reason for my faith nor should it be anyone elses. but its a nice comeback to atheists who arnt very friendly. in the long run seriously who cares. one more thing. the atheists are like "omg i cant believe they have god blah blah" well by taking watever down or changing it you are imposing your beliefs that no god exists on me and i dont like that! im gunna go complain ahhhhhhh endless cycle. Well i hope we all have gained some knowlege from this little gathering. Good luck and dare i say it God Speed!
You're missing the point. Intelligent Design is not science; therefore it should not be in a science class room.

[TheKOB]

But What a boring universe it is if all we came from is from some hydrogen that decided it wanted to move so it came to life. I just cant figure that out. What would be the point of living.

This is the way this quote seems...

science's explaination for how we got here...boring, I don't want to believe it because I want to feel special.

As for the point of living, that's more a philasophical question than a scientific one. Religion and philosophy are abstract, science fact is absolute. Until there is proof (real physical proof, not just thinking, wanting or somehow "knowing") that they're connected, they shouldn't mix.

The danger is reversing the scientific method. You can't start with conclusion and then prop it up with stuff...leave that to politicians...

[The H Hour]

You're missing the point. Intelligent Design is not science; therefore it should not be in a science class room.


right....but as i explained before, evolution really isnt either. and someone said i had the wrong definition of science...buttttt he didnt give me a new one. i see the "evidence", sure....the similar bone structure between humans and whales, etc. but i dont see how that is evidence that a common ancestor slowly evolved, some eventually into whales and some eventually into humans, and the bone structure just happened to be untouched by this randomness. thats like saying 1) theres a cup right there, so therefore 2) sally put the cup there. the way you are using the bones doesnt really show HOW they became like that (common anscestor or an intelligent designer). and, of course, the bones would also not give any evidence that an intelligent designer designed them. but that was a given.

[zak]

right....but as i explained before, evolution really isnt either. and someone said i had the wrong definition of science...buttttt he didnt give me a new one.
Ive given a definition of science at least twice in this thread.

[The H Hour]

Science: Explains phenoma with observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation


well im sorry...but i did find that. and i dont believe ive seen evolution observed, or that observation identified, or that observation described (well yes i know because it has not been observed), or any TRUE experimental investigation. umm yeah.

[raykessler]

well im sorry...but i did find that. and i dont believe ive seen evolution observed, or that observation identified, or that observation described (well yes i know because it has not been observed), or any TRUE experimental investigation. umm yeah.

we havnt observed evolution on a large scale, but we have seen it on a very small scale, we see viruses evolve, why do you think AIDS is so hard to cure, it evolves whenever we get close to curing it

[zak]

Science and religion are very similar, they both attempt to explain things. Religion uses a HB, Science is defined by the lack of one.
No, ID does not connect belief with science. Science is the explanation of phenomena without using a HB. By the very nature of science, such a connection does not exist.

well im sorry...but i did find that. and i dont believe ive seen evolution observed, or that observation identified, or that observation described (well yes i know because it has not been observed), or any TRUE experimental investigation. umm yeah.
You basically just said you havent seen it observed three times. Anyways, read the freaking thread. That right there is the fundamental difference between science and religion. Saying evolution isnt scientific just incorrect.

Also, YES! No one has observed evolution, but that doesnt mean crap. Evoltuion occurs over a looong period of time, and its was only thought up in the 1860's (ish?). And its funny, your ciriticism of evolution, that you cant observe it, is what ID, religion, God, and Christianity revolve around.

[TheKOB]

I haven't observed a molten center of the earth, but I'm still pretty sure it's there.

Also, if any of you guys on the ID bandwagon are catholic, feel free to stop, and take a breath knowing that you won't go to hell for believing the SCIENCE of evolution...

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creation.html
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1866

and most recently...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/19/news/evolution.php?rss

[JoshM]

I haven't observed a molten center of the earth, but I'm still pretty sure it's there.

Also, if any of you guys on the ID bandwagon are catholic, feel free to stop, and take a breath knowing that you won't go to hell for believing the SCIENCE of evolution...

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creation.html
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1866

and most recently...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/19/news/evolution.php?rss
Nice links :)

[The H Hour]

Right... but i never said ID, religion, God, and Christianity were science. I pointed out that although they arnt, neither is evolution.

And im pretty sure if you went to a teacher or scientist and asked them what science was, they would not say "the explanation of natural phenomena without using a higher being. Science means knowledge, as observed , described, etc. Defining it by a lack of the usage of a higher being it only making assumptions that you cannot back up. I never said that ID was neccesarily right, only that evolution is not.

[JoshM]

Right... but i never said ID, religion, God, and Christianity were science. I pointed out that although they arnt, neither is evolution.

And im pretty sure if you went to a teacher or scientist and asked them what science was, they would not say "the explanation of natural phenomena without using a higher being. Science means knowledge, as observed , described, etc. Defining it by a lack of the usage of a higher being it only making assumptions that you cannot back up. I never said that ID was neccesarily right, only that evolution is not.
Evolution is science. If you had read the thread, you would know why.

[TheKOB]

Right... but i never said ID, religion, God, and Christianity were science. I pointed out that although they arnt, neither is evolution.

And im pretty sure if you went to a teacher or scientist and asked them what science was, they would not say "the explanation of natural phenomena without using a higher being. Science means knowledge, as observed , described, etc. Defining it by a lack of the usage of a higher being it only making assumptions that you cannot back up. I never said that ID was neccesarily right, only that evolution is not.

the problem is that a higher being who created everything can't be proven, it's accepted on the basis of faith.

Are you seriously saying that, because we can't produce any evidence that god doesn't exist, science must accept it? Doesn't that seem pretty backward to you? Have you had ANY science classes at all?

[The H Hour]

Are you seriously saying that, because we can't produce any evidence that god doesn't exist, science must accept it? Doesn't that seem pretty backward to you? Have you had ANY science classes at all?


Right... but i never said ID, religion, God, and Christianity were science. I pointed out that although they arnt, neither is evolution.


oh cmon....i just said it ...

[TheKOB]

oh cmon....i just said it ...

Explain to me again how evolution isn't science? It's researched by scientists, the theories are formed by scientists, taught in science classes at the college level.

How is it not science again?

[Frndlefire]

How is it not science again?
I'm not sure either...it's something about him not believing that we have fossils that give a pretty complete anatomical lineage of us from apes. It happened, but no, I can't hold evolution in a bottle

[twin58]

Religion and philosophy are abstract, science fact is absolute.

Well, to the best of our knowledge. Until 1905, for example, it was accepted as fact that time proceeded at a constant rate. Then, someone named Einstein proposed a new theory. It was the speed of light in a vacuum that was a constant, and the rate at which time proceeded depended on the speed of the clock. The faster you go, the slower time runs. If you could travel at light speed, time would stand still.

[twin58]

well, heres my 2 cents, I think that evolution might be in part right like if a problem presents itself animals will adapt. Like say something is active at night. Its eyes get bigger or soemthing like that.

That's the Lamarckian view, which is not accepted anymore.

Wikipedia entry on Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck)

One proponent of Lamarckianism in the 20th century was Trofim Lysenko, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko) who caught the ear of Joseph Stalin.

In December 1929, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin gave a famous speech elevating "practice" above "theory", elevating the judgment of the political bosses above that of the scientists and technical specialists. Though the Soviet government under Stalin gave much more support to genuine agricultural scientists in its early days, after 1935 the balance of power abruptly swung towards Lysenko and his followers.

Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose faithfully, causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and the demise of genetics (a previously flourishing field) throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the death of the greatest Soviet biologist, Nikolai Vavilov, at the hands of the NKVD.

You can see the kind of trouble a country can get into when fanatics put themselves in charge of determining what is scientific knowledge. There is nothing original about the current fascination with and adoption of Stalinist tactics shown by so many Republicans and the religious right. Been there, done there, already seen the failure.

Wikipedia notes an exception to the general rejection of Lamarckianism with which I am not conversant.

Nowadays, the idea of passing on to offspring characteristics that were acquired during an organism's lifetime is called Lamarckian. This view was, until very recently, thought to be completely inconsistent with modern genetics, but recent discoveries, as discussed in the article on epigenetic inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_inheritance), show that this is not quite the case.


Epigenetic inheritance is the transmission of information from a cell or multicellular organism to its descendants without that information being encoded in the nucleotide sequence of the gene. The study of epigenetic inheritance is known as epigenetics.

I'm going to have to read up on that. It seems to occur pretty early in the development of the organism. The classic example of Lamarckian theory would be if giraffes, stretching their necks to reach leaves high from the ground, could pass that trait on to their offspring.

[TheKOB]

Well, to the best of our knowledge. Until 1905, for example, it was an accepted that time proceeded at a constant rate. Then, someone named Einstein proposed a new theory. It was the speed of light in a vacuum that was a constant, and the rate at which time proceeded depended on the speed of the clock. The faster you go, the slower time runs. If you could travel at light speed, time would stand still.

So theory is fluid, meaning that we believe something until something comes along with better proof. We had no reason prior to 1905 to believe that time wasn't constant. Of course, it was proven wrong. We had no reason prior to the discovery of skulls leading up to homosapians, dna evidence, etc, that we had evolved from apes. Now that we do some people still don't believe it. I'd think that if time being constant was a basis for a parable in the Bible, some people still wouldn't believe it either. It seems to be the reason said people don't believe something to be true is because they'd rather believe otherwise. As I previously said, belief isn't proof, and isn't applicable in the realm of science.

[camthraxFHK]

FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! hahah. All I have to say about the matter. (hint: google it)

[twin58]

More fraud from the usual suspects.

This post could go in either the "Intelligent Design" thread or the "Cheating Tips" thread.

This time the fraud was at NASA. 24-year-old George Deutsch was put in charge of editing and "correcting" remarks of senior scientists. Here's a sample of his idea of editing:

NASA pledges 'open and full communications' (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/3644847.html)

....
A key figure in the controversy, George Deutsch, resigned Tuesday. He had told NASA writers in an e-mail to refer to the Big Bang as a "theory" because NASA should not discount "intelligent design by a creator."
....

"The theory that the universe was created by a 'big bang' is just that -- a theory," Deutsch wrote in an e-mail on Oct. 17, 2005, which was obtained by Reuters. "It is not proven fact; it is opinion. Yes, the scientific community by and large may share this opinion, but that doesn't make it correct ... .

"It is not NASA's place, nor should it be, to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator -- the other half of the argument," the e-mail continued.
....

The e-mail appeared to conform to Bush's views on the debate over intelligent design and the theory of evolution, as he said last August: "Both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about."

One small problem: George Deutsch's only qualification for the position was that he worked on Bush's 2004 campaign and inaugural committee. He had been inserted into NASA to see to it that NASA's output would consist not of science, but of the Bush administration's beliefs. Acting on a tip, Nick Anthis, a blogger at http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/ made one phone call to Texas A&M and learned that Deutsch's résumé, on which he claimed to have a degree, was falsified. He uncovered the fraud, and his finding was picked up by other bloggers and finally mainstream media.

The New York Times covered the story too.

A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html)

A copy of Mr. Deutsch's résumé was provided to The Times by someone working in NASA headquarters who, along with many other NASA employees, said Mr. Deutsch played a small but significant role in an intensifying effort at the agency to exert political control over the flow of information to the public.

Such complaints came to the fore starting in late January, when James E. Hansen, the climate scientist, and several midlevel public affairs officers told The Times that political appointees, including Mr. Deutsch, were pressing to limit Dr. Hansen's speaking and interviews on the threats posed by global warming.

Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information.

"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."

"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."

He has also achieved the ultimate in infamy, his own entry at Wikipedia.

Wikipedia entry on George Deutsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Deutsch)

How many other George Deutsches are out there?

[zak]

You mean like the head of FEMA?
Or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown) guy?
Plenty in my opinion.

[aof09lax]

my point is that, in my opinion, bringing ID into classrooms would be bringing church and state together. the idea of it being taught is unconstitutional