Evolution & Intelligent Design Books.

[HeroOfPellinor]

The spectacular part is that every book that argues either side can be largely refuted both scientifically and logically. So you aren't going to find a book that give you an answer. Sorry.

But therein lies the answer. The truth is, neither side is proven and, furthermore, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I'm not going to insist anybody acknowledge ID as truth because if they did, they would be forced to also accept God as real. That goes against free will and is probably one reason God left no irrefutable tracks behind. Furthermore, I don't need to accept evolution to understand and utilize things like genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. The only reason anybody would want to force me to accept it solely to have me rule out or marginalize God and the only motivation they would have for that is their own feelings or intellectual insecurity.

Neither belongs in our schools.

 

[meltdown75]

.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
As much of a douche as he can be, Dawkins lays out a compelling argument for the non-existence of god (and, at the same time, reasons against ID) in The God Delusion.

Most people consider him a douche, though, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for even mentioning his name.

Hm, the interesting thing is that intelligent design and evolution aren't inherently intertwined. Intelligent design vs big bang and other creation theories are linked for obvious reasons. I don't know why people slur evolution and God together when the theories of both can both exist with or without each other.

Yeah, I though that too until last week. Turns out ID posits man (and all other species) never evolved from lower life forms. I thought ID was the whole god steering evolution thing (which, hey, is possible if improbable) but nope, it's the man plopped into being as is thing (no comment). Read up and be disturbed.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
The spectacular part is that every book that argues either side can be largely refuted both scientifically and logically. So you aren't going to find a book that give you an answer. Sorry.

But therein lies the answer. The truth is, neither side is proven and, furthermore, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I'm not going to insist anybody acknowledge ID as truth because if they did, they would be forced to also accept God as real. That goes against free will and is probably one reason God left no irrefutable tracks behind. Furthermore, I don't need to accept evolution to understand and utilize things like genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. The only reason anybody would want to force me to accept it solely to have me rule out or marginalize God and the only motivation they would have for that is their own feelings or intellectual insecurity.

Neither belongs in our schools.

Wait, evolution doesn't belong in our schools? the foundation of modern medicine, the entire discipline of Biology should be eradicated from our core curriculum?

I would have to disagree with that.

 

[Mucho]

All your questions were answered in this Nova documentary: Intelligent Design on Trial

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
The spectacular part is that every book that argues either side can be largely refuted both scientifically and logically. So you aren't going to find a book that give you an answer. Sorry.

But therein lies the answer. The truth is, neither side is proven and, furthermore, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I'm not going to insist anybody acknowledge ID as truth because if they did, they would be forced to also accept God as real. That goes against free will and is probably one reason God left no irrefutable tracks behind. Furthermore, I don't need to accept evolution to understand and utilize things like genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. The only reason anybody would want to force me to accept it solely to have me rule out or marginalize God and the only motivation they would have for that is their own feelings or intellectual insecurity.

Neither belongs in our schools.

Wait, evolution doesn't belong in our schools? the foundation of modern medicine, the entire discipline of Biology should be eradicated from our core curriculum?

I would have to disagree with that.

Evolution is not the foundation of modern medicine. It certainly gets a nod to appear in nearly all textbooks, but it has no real bearing on medicine itself. Genetics, certainly, but not evolutionary theory itself. Yes, I am well aware of the claims that predictions that evolutionary theory led to has benefited medicine, but I maintain that it is the observation of genetic and morphological similarities, and microevolution (yes, I maintain a distinction between micro and macro, and so does ID, which is why there is a debate to begin with) that is beneficial to medicine. Macroevolution (again, not even ID is against micro) is a historical matter, which is why this debate continues. It is not that ID proponents are idiots (some may be, just as some proponents of macroevolution may be) ignoring the evidence.

 

[videogames101]

Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" ?

rofl, always a good starting point!

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species" ?

rofl, always a good starting point!

Good idea. He should probably start with that first, since the theory of evolution has...uh... evolved.

It's available for free (PDF format) if you don't mind reading it in an electronic version (or I guess you could always print it out).

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
There is no debate between intelligent design and evolution because ID is not a scientific principle and ID has no basis in fact or reality.

:laugh: you got it all figured out eh Jules?

ID is not falsifiable, therefore it is not valid scientific theory.

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
The spectacular part is that every book that argues either side can be largely refuted both scientifically and logically. So you aren't going to find a book that give you an answer. Sorry.

But therein lies the answer. The truth is, neither side is proven and, furthermore, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I'm not going to insist anybody acknowledge ID as truth because if they did, they would be forced to also accept God as real. That goes against free will and is probably one reason God left no irrefutable tracks behind. Furthermore, I don't need to accept evolution to understand and utilize things like genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. The only reason anybody would want to force me to accept it solely to have me rule out or marginalize God and the only motivation they would have for that is their own feelings or intellectual insecurity.

Neither belongs in our schools.

Wait, evolution doesn't belong in our schools? the foundation of modern medicine, the entire discipline of Biology should be eradicated from our core curriculum?

I would have to disagree with that.

Micro-evolution has been seen in the lab. Life adapts. As zinfamous was hinting at, microorganisms change, and do so quite rapidly. Otherwise, we wouldn't have anything like an "antibiotic resistant" staph bacteria, because the first antibiotic used on it would still work today.
The distinction of changing "species" has to do only with our system of categorizing life. If our definition of "species" were a little finer, we may well observe species changing within our very short lifespans.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
There is no debate between intelligent design and evolution because ID is not a scientific principle and ID has no basis in fact or reality.

:laugh: you got it all figured out eh Jules?

ID is not falsifiable, therefore it is not valid scientific theory.

man you guys are such sticks in the mud sometimes.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Perhaps I am stating the wrong terms.

You have Evolution and Natural selection.
Then you have ID and Creationism. (only difference being they don't say "god" in ID and doesn't apply to the creation of the universe like creationism).

They should very similar to me and I never really made a distinction. I haven't read up on both since high school (evolution and creationsim where taught side by side when i was in high school).

So if you feel I'm asking the wrong questions here then fell free to say so.

-Edit-
I'll make up a list tonight of books I'll buy if I can find them and edit in to the OP.

 

[szechuanpork]

darwin's black box --michael behe
law, darwinism, and public education --francis beckwith
icons of evolution --johnathan wells

here is a link to the discovery institute's essential readings list Text

at the very least the weaknesses of evolution as a theory should be taught at public schools. you don't want id taught because it is religion and not science--that question is almost always assumed and not argued properly--then concentrate on evolution as a scientific theory and weigh the evidence. students will then realize that most scientists today do not place evolution alongside einstein's theory of relativity as one of the most bulletbroof scientific theory of the modern era. evolution is actually being abandoned buy many scientists who are not even sympathetic to id or creationism--id is not equal to creationism.

 

[Alistar7]

Trying to compare a fiction/nonfiction book is going to be interesting.



Evolution is being abandoned?

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: oogabooga

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
THIS THREAD IS NOT INTENDED AS A DEBATE,

Too bad

The OP is more likely to get away with mentioning some hot girl/or girlfriend and not posting pics. The only thing I think we love more than our women is proving people wrong.

x2. BTW, I'm right and the opposition is dead wrong.

 

[Fenixgoon]

two questions:

1) does it really matter?

2) why can't it be both?

evolution makes perfect sense, and is totally, scientifically acceptable. could god (a god, gods, whatever deity, take your pick) started it all? possibly, though we can neither prove/disprove that at the moment.

should people get their panties in a wad about this? HELL NO.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Yeah, I though that too until last week. Turns out ID posits man (and all other species) never evolved from lower life forms. I thought ID was the whole god steering evolution thing (which, hey, is possible if improbable) but nope, it's the man plopped into being as is thing (no comment). Read up and be disturbed.

I thought ID was basically "guided evolution".

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
The spectacular part is that every book that argues either side can be largely refuted both scientifically and logically. So you aren't going to find a book that give you an answer. Sorry.

But therein lies the answer. The truth is, neither side is proven and, furthermore, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I'm not going to insist anybody acknowledge ID as truth because if they did, they would be forced to also accept God as real. That goes against free will and is probably one reason God left no irrefutable tracks behind. Furthermore, I don't need to accept evolution to understand and utilize things like genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. The only reason anybody would want to force me to accept it solely to have me rule out or marginalize God and the only motivation they would have for that is their own feelings or intellectual insecurity.

Neither belongs in our schools.

Wait, evolution doesn't belong in our schools? the foundation of modern medicine, the entire discipline of Biology should be eradicated from our core curriculum?

I would have to disagree with that.

Evolution is not the foundation of modern medicine. It certainly gets a nod to appear in nearly all textbooks, but it has no real bearing on medicine itself. Genetics, certainly, but not evolutionary theory itself. Yes, I am well aware of the claims that predictions that evolutionary theory led to has benefited medicine, but I maintain that it is the observation of genetic and morphological similarities, and microevolution (yes, I maintain a distinction between micro and macro, and so does ID, which is why there is a debate to begin with) that is beneficial to medicine. Macroevolution (again, not even ID is against micro) is a historical matter, which is why this debate continues. It is not that ID proponents are idiots (some may be, just as some proponents of macroevolution may be) ignoring the evidence.

Genetics without evolutionary theory is like breathing without air.

 

[szechuanpork]

let's not piggyback fiction macroevolution on nonficiton microevolution

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Perhaps I am stating the wrong terms.

You have Evolution and Natural selection.
Then you have ID and Creationism. (only difference being they don't say "god" in ID and doesn't apply to the creation of the universe like creationism).

They should very similar to me and I never really made a distinction. I haven't read up on both since high school (evolution and creationsim where taught side by side when i was in high school).

So if you feel I'm asking the wrong questions here then fell free to say so.

-Edit-
I'll make up a list tonight of books I'll buy if I can find them and edit in to the OP.

thats the problem, they aren't similar.
the problem with creationist books is they tend to fall back to already refuted arguments or false logic. they exist not to convince scientists of anything after all, they exist merely to bolster the belief of a certain kind of believer, exploit their ignorance to save their soul. they have similar reasoning to political books. anything goes.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Yeah, I though that too until last week. Turns out ID posits man (and all other species) never evolved from lower life forms. I thought ID was the whole god steering evolution thing (which, hey, is possible if improbable) but nope, it's the man plopped into being as is thing (no comment). Read up and be disturbed.

I thought ID was basically "guided evolution".

"Of Pandas and People" is the text book ID proponents want kids to read in school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Here's the link on Amazon, where you can SEARCH the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Pandas-P...&qid=1208911829&sr=1-1

It states, in part:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
"Of Pandas and People" is the text book ID proponents want kids to read in school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Here's the link on Amazon, where you can SEARCH the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Pandas-P...&qid=1208911829&sr=1-1

It states, in part:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

Oh...umm...well, I'd say that either the evidence is against such a theory, or that the intelligent agency is a lousy engineer.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
The spectacular part is that every book that argues either side can be largely refuted both scientifically and logically. So you aren't going to find a book that give you an answer. Sorry.

But therein lies the answer. The truth is, neither side is proven and, furthermore, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I'm not going to insist anybody acknowledge ID as truth because if they did, they would be forced to also accept God as real. That goes against free will and is probably one reason God left no irrefutable tracks behind. Furthermore, I don't need to accept evolution to understand and utilize things like genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. The only reason anybody would want to force me to accept it solely to have me rule out or marginalize God and the only motivation they would have for that is their own feelings or intellectual insecurity.

Neither belongs in our schools.

Wait, evolution doesn't belong in our schools? the foundation of modern medicine, the entire discipline of Biology should be eradicated from our core curriculum?

I would have to disagree with that.

Evolution is not the foundation of modern medicine. It certainly gets a nod to appear in nearly all textbooks, but it has no real bearing on medicine itself. Genetics, certainly, but not evolutionary theory itself. Yes, I am well aware of the claims that predictions that evolutionary theory led to has benefited medicine, but I maintain that it is the observation of genetic and morphological similarities, and microevolution (yes, I maintain a distinction between micro and macro, and so does ID, which is why there is a debate to begin with) that is beneficial to medicine. Macroevolution (again, not even ID is against micro) is a historical matter, which is why this debate continues. It is not that ID proponents are idiots (some may be, just as some proponents of macroevolution may be) ignoring the evidence.

Genetics without evolutionary theory is like breathing without air.

Your analogy is flawed. "Genetics without macroevolution is like Quantum Physics without Star Trek" would have been a better analogy.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: sirjonk
"Of Pandas and People" is the text book ID proponents want kids to read in school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Here's the link on Amazon, where you can SEARCH the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Pandas-P...&qid=1208911829&sr=1-1

It states, in part:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

Oh...umm...well, I'd say that either the evidence is against such a theory, or that the intelligent agency is a lousy engineer.

Who's at fault if a car is destroyed by rioters: the engineer who designed it, the car owner, or the rioters?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Crono
Your analogy is flawed. "Genetics without macroevolution is like Quantum Physics without Star Trek" would have been a better analogy.

There is no such thing as macroevolution vs. microevolution. Evolution relies on the same mechanisms in the small scale and the large scale.

 

[szechuanpork]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
There is no such thing as macroevolution vs. microevolution. Evolution relies on the same mechanisms in the small scale and the large scale.

supernatural agency and natural human agency is just a matter of scale. if two theories just differ in scale, then based on the legitmacy of the smaller or more accepted scale we can say that the larger or less accepted theory is equally true. supernatural agency seems probable, then considering it only differs in scale to human natural agency. basically, if macroevolution is true because it relies on the same mechanisms as shared by microevolution, then supernatural agency is also true since it too relies on the same mechanism as human natural agency. i don't think similarity of mechanism is good grounds for concluding that a scientific theory holds. if you think so, then be prepared to accept supernatural agency as scientifically plausible, if not entirely true.