Pa. School to teach 'Intelligent Design'

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: piasabird
To teach Evolution you have to explain how life started. Otherwise the whole theory is a theoretical impossibility. So did one strand of life start everything on earth or how exactly did that work? If Evolution works as a theory it has to be testable. To be testible you have to prove how life started. If you cant, it is not a testable theory.

Chemical evolution is different than biological evolution. Chemists have shown how certain biochemical compounds can 'spontaneously' form given the appropriate precursor atoms/molecules & environmental conditions. Unfortunately, we simply do not know with a degree of certainty what the conditions on earth were at the time life first arose.

Biological evolution addresses only how life changes over time, not how life initially began.

I admire your fortitude in posting in this thread, but you really understand neither biological evolution nor scientific tenets in general.

 

[Sixtyfour]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Originally posted by: slash196
Pardon me for being blunt, but evolution is right, and creation "science" is wrong. Plain and simple.

Show me the proof.

there is countless of scientific evidence which support evolution, can you show me ... anything... anything at all which supports ID ?

"There is".. But where and what ?

Can you make a computer by shaking sand in a bucket 10 billion years ?

Originally posted by: Czar

People used religion to fill up the unexplainable

Dark matter ?

:laugh:

 

[sisq0kidd]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Originally posted by: slash196
Pardon me for being blunt, but evolution is right, and creation "science" is wrong. Plain and simple.

Show me the proof.

there is countless of scientific evidence which support evolution, can you show me ... anything... anything at all which supports ID ?

Sure there is. Let me tell you a story I've posted before.

I served as a missionary for my church for two years in New York City. There was a young girl, about 15 or 16, who has recently been baptized and join our church. Shortly after joining our church, she was diagnosed with cancer in her stomach, a rather large tumor, and surgery was scheduled. The day before the surgery, exercising what we call faith, she asked for a blessing. With authority given from God, we gave her a blessing. The NEXT day, before the surgery was to begin, the doctor took another x-ray and found that the tumor was completely gone, no trace of it ever having even existed. He had no explainantion. Science has no explaination.

I have seen countless experiences such as these which have increased my faith in a supernatural being. Does this mean I have no faith or belief in science? Absolutely not. However, I have seen too many events in my life that science can not explain for me to believe that there is nothing else out there. There may be a "lack of evidence" in your eyes, but there is no lack in mine. I see evidence almost every day that tells me there is a God. The only difference is that you don't accept it as evidence, you choose to call it coincedence, or luck. And as the all wise Obi-Wan once said, "In my experience, there's no such thing as luck."

Wait... So if science can not explain something, then it must be god's doing? Why does it have to be god? Can't it just be science that we do not understand yet?

In short, why did you come to the conclusion that it was god that performed this "miracle"?

 

[sisq0kidd]

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Originally posted by: slash196
Pardon me for being blunt, but evolution is right, and creation "science" is wrong. Plain and simple.

Show me the proof.

there is countless of scientific evidence which support evolution, can you show me ... anything... anything at all which supports ID ?

"There is".. But where and what ?

Can you make a computer by shaking sand in a bucket 10 billion years ?

Well, if god can do it, I don't see why it's so unbelievable.

Originally posted by: Czar

People used religion to fill up the unexplainable

Dark matter ?

:laugh:

Dark matter is taught as a theory. Religion is not.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: piasabird
To teach Evolution you have to explain how life started. Otherwise the whole theory is a theoretical impossibility. So did one strand of life start everything on earth or how exactly did that work? If Evolution works as a theory it has to be testable. To be testible you have to prove how life started. If you cant, it is not a testable theory.

To teach gravity does one have to prove where matter came from?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: mribnik1

Originally posted by: conjur
Are you trying to imply there's a giant Monsanto in outer space and we're a giant experiment for some lab workers?


I might believe that over an intelligent designer (aka God)

But do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I was converted a few days ago. 😉

http://www.venganza.org/

A fellow Pastafarian? 😉

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: ketchup79
"It is the atheists (and others) who are pushing the thought of creation "out" of public schools.

No, because religion has no right being taught in a science class in the first place. Theology is its own study and should not be confused with science. They rely on fundamentally different principles. It is not just atheists that do not want creationism taught in science class, it is anyone that understands and values science that does not want to see this happen.

You also have to keep in mind that evolution, like creation, is a theory.

Here you are wrong. Creationism is not a scientific theory. You can not test creationism, but you can (and we do) test evolution. Creationism allows us to predict nothing of the future. Even if we could all agree that it was indeed true it would belong in a history class and not a science class. Creationism does not give any systems that can be tested it is a simple statement of a set of events that it claims occurred in the past.
ID is a little more interesting because it does give a framework of an on going process around creationism. It still falls short of science in the fact that it can not be tested.

There will never be proof for evolution, neither will there ever be proof for creation. Both creation and evolution rely on faith, the difference is, most of the posters here have been taught evolution their entire lives, so evolution would seem more like facts to them.

As I have said before, science is a set of rules. We do not arbitrarily decide that one thing is science and another is not. We evaluate how closely it follows the rules. What makes evolution a valid theory is that it follows these rules precisely, what makes creationism or ID not science is that they do not follow these rules at all.

"There are so many leaps of logic and outright reliance upon faith for ID that it CANNOT be taught in schools as a valid alternative." Not in my logic, but I think there are many more "leaps" in development in the evolutionary chain than "leaps of logic" in ID.

Logic is also a set of rules. You can not have your logic and my logic, there is but one code of logic. Like in science, that code is written down for anyone to learn who wishes to. We evaluate how logical an argument is based on how closely it follows those rules, not on how many people agree with it.

You can argue about whether that code (of logic or science) is correct or not, or if it has flawed premises. You can argue whether something follows the code correctly or not. You can not accept that something does not follow the code but is still scientific or logical, nor can you claim that something does follow the code and is not scientific or logical.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: ketchup79
"We're talking about religious extremists push their belief system into public schools"
I believe you have that backwards. It is the atheists (and others) who are pushing the thought of creation "out" of public schools.
You also have to keep in mind that evolution, like creation, is a theory. There will never be proof for evolution, neither will there ever be proof for creation. Both creation and evolution rely on faith, the difference is, most of the posters here have been taught evolution their entire lives, so evolution would seem more like facts to them.

"There are so many leaps of logic and outright reliance upon faith for ID that it CANNOT be taught in schools as a valid alternative." Not in my logic, but I think there are many more "leaps" in development in the evolutionary chain than "leaps of logic" in ID.

"In the end the truth will work its way out. " By then it will be too late my friend.

:shocked:Since when did (scientific) theory mean: "Stuff we just made up and has no supporting evidence whatsoever"? Evolution is proven as it is can consistantly explain known data and phenomenons, can make predictions based upon those assertions, and is falsifiable (which is never has been.)

ID meets none of those criteria. The phrase "apples and oranges" would even be too generous to apply as at least those are both fruit.....

 

[CaptnKirk]

Buying into Intelligent Design

 

[fjord]

There is no debate between ID and Evolution. Proponents of ID accept Evolutionary theory. Essentially they have had to, and in so doing appropriated Evolution--since they can't argue scientifically.

ID only further adds that Evolution must have been designed by a higher being (=God), their justification (Note: no evidence at-all) being that Life is sooooo complex--it must have been the product of willfull design.

In a classroom it would take 1 minute to explain ID and move on...

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: sisq0kidd

Wait... So if science can not explain something, then it must be god's doing? Why does it have to be god? Can't it just be science that we do not understand yet?

In short, why did you come to the conclusion that it was god that performed this "miracle"?

Actually, I apologize. I should have worded that differently. I believe all thing will "eventually" be explainable by science. As a matter of fact, there are few "miracles" that I think can't already be explained, including the one I previously listed. The explanation is actually very simple. The tumor cells simply started working properly again. The question is how or why did it happen?

As wonderful as science is, and trust me, I do love science quite a bit, but science is based upon laws. The real question that I don't think science alone will be able to explain is where these laws came from or how they came into existence. That is where my belief in God comes in. I don't believe that the laws of science just "worked out that way." I believe that God was behind the creation of the laws of science.

So to answer your question, and again I apologize for not being accurate, the reason I believe it was God who performed this miracle is because God is the only one who could. Science may understand how things work, and I believe they do a very good job of trying to understand, but science can not alter or cjamge the laws of science. Take the creation of water for instance. The combination of hydrogen and oxygen. Pretty simple right? The reason science can put the elements together and get water is because the elements obey certain laws. However, science can only USE the laws, they can't create them or destroy them.

Therefore, behind every "miracle" is God, because he created the laws whereby these events could happen. Science, as wonderful as it is, is subject to these laws and does not govern them.

I hope that makes sense, though I'm sure I've confused at least more than one person.

 

[Whaspe]

Here's a different take on things... a Christian on why it's not a good idea to put ID in the classroom. Link

I like his approach, and agree with his ideas.

"My basic thesis," he said, "is that the Biblical creation accounts offer religious tenets while science reveals the structure, operation and origin of the physical world."

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Here's a different take on things... a Christian on why it's not a good idea to put ID in the classroom. Link

I like his approach, and agree with his ideas.

"My basic thesis," he said, "is that the Biblical creation accounts offer religious tenets while science reveals the structure, operation and origin of the physical world."

He's got my vote, and I'm Christian too.

 

[RightIsWrong]

The latest in this battle......teacher testifies in the case brought against the school that she refused to read the disclaimer on ID. Seems the rumor was that the school was considering it before ever voting it into the ciriculum.

Linky

Dover teacher says she resisted intelligent design

Thursday, October 06, 2005
AP

HARRISBURG -- A high school biology teacher testified today that she and her colleagues refused to read a statement on "intelligent design" in class because they questioned the concept's scientific validity.

In a landmark trial over the Dover Area School Board's decision to include reference to intelligent design in its biology curriculum, teacher Jennifer Miller testified she didn't see the concept as a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

"It would misrepresent the importance of the theory of evolution to our students," said Miller, one of a group of teachers who presented a memo to the district asking to be excused from reading the statement on intelligent design.

She said that mentioning intelligent design would be contradictory in science class because it wasn't a legitimate scientific theory.

Under a policy approved by the school board in October 2004, students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to a textbook called "Of Pandas and People" for more information.

Eight families sued, saying that the policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state. The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to last as long as five weeks.

Intelligent design supporters argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Miller said she and other teachers knew before the October 2004 meeting that the school was considering using "Of Pandas and People" in class, but not that they were considering making any official curriculum change or having teachers read a statement on intelligent design.

 

[wchou]

by intelligent design??? We've forgotten we're the most intelligent species to ever evolved from a single organism called amoeba. What started the big bang? I think a spark of negatively and positively charged particle... No one believes me now but maybe it will be proven sometime in the near future.

life is only interesting when we all believe something different and then it gets really boring when some proves that something is a fact and other things are not that are based on faith and belief.

 

[blackllotus]

Why are we debating this? ID is not science and is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable. It cannot be proven wrong because there is nothing to prove wrong. The entire theory is based off of ambiguous holes in evolution. This is not evidence.

No evidence = Not science = SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS

 

[engineereeyore]

You know, I don't know of too many religion classes/courses that discuss evolution (other than saying it's wrong), so why should a science class/course discuss ID?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
You know, I don't know of too many religion classes/courses that discuss evolution (other than saying it's wrong), so why should a science class/course discuss ID?

Because religion is trying to wrest away the power that our society gives to science.

There is no scientific debate, it's all politics.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
You know, I don't know of too many religion classes/courses that discuss evolution (other than saying it's wrong), so why should a science class/course discuss ID?

Because religion is trying to wrest away the power that our society gives to science.

There is no scientific debate, it's all politics.

I would say some religious groups/individuals, not religion as a whole. Several religions are very accepting of scientific discoveries.

 

[her209]

For all we know, life could have originated elsewhere in the galaxy and was transported to Earth by sheer chance.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: her209
For all we know, life could have originated elsewhere in the galaxy and was transported to Earth by sheer chance.

That is the comet theory.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
You know, I don't know of too many religion classes/courses that discuss evolution (other than saying it's wrong), so why should a science class/course discuss ID?

Because religion is trying to wrest away the power that our society gives to science.

There is no scientific debate, it's all politics.

I would say some religious groups/individuals, not religion as a whole. Several religions are very accepting of scientific discoveries.

Like Christianity.

1000: Die infidel!
1500: The Bible is the uncontestable word of God almighty!
1800: Hey, this doesn't make any sense...
1900: Well, God must have put this here to test our faith...
2000: Look, obviously the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, it's... it's allegorical! Yes, that's right.

I wonder what's gonna happen when scientific discoveries put conclusive nails in the coffin of Christianity? Probably what is happening right now: despite extremely compelling evidence, the faithful will refuse to see the writing on the wall because they can't help it. That's all fine with me of course, as long as they keep their beliefs in their homes and churches and out of my life.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: her209
For all we know, life could have originated elsewhere in the galaxy and was transported to Earth by sheer chance.

It is very possible and makes perfect sense to a sane person but their are other possibility as well but close enough thought. Everyday inlife is based on chance, some use their huge brain to take advantage of the not so bright individual who are prone to exploitation. what how do you exploit someone? you find their weakness and attack it without them even realising it. the governments have done it repeadedly to wage war that are unnecessary and most criminals do it too because they are smart and know how to get away with it.

 

[wchou]

Is it just me? When I make a long post it seem not to post it but will post if these is less to say.

They exploit our weakness, we are easy to manipulate and convince such as a lie that is repeated so often like telling a person that the world is flat and not round. Don't forget that we are all animals in the beginning and have been fighting to survive ever since. It hasn't changed at all but some have been conditioned to believe otherwise such as created from soil like adam and eve fictionist folk tales. what they all have in common is they talk a lot to convince you just like what I'm trying to do now. make any sense? 🙂

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: kogase

Like Christianity.

1000: Die infidel!
1500: The Bible is the uncontestable word of God almighty!
1800: Hey, this doesn't make any sense...
1900: Well, God must have put this here to test our faith...
2000: Look, obviously the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally, it's... it's allegorical! Yes, that's right.

I wonder what's gonna happen when scientific discoveries put conclusive nails in the coffin of Christianity? Probably what is happening right now: despite extremely compelling evidence, the faithful will refuse to see the writing on the wall because they can't help it. That's all fine with me of course, as long as they keep their beliefs in their homes and churches and out of my life.

Actually, most of that would be the Catholic church, not Christianity. But thanks for proving my point.

I have to doubt that science will ever put a "conclusive nail" into Christianity's coffin. First off, I think you mean religion's coffin, not just Chrisitianity's coffin. Otherwise, all you're proving is that Christ wasn't who Christians think he is, and I'm not sure science really cares about that type of thing. Second, science will never prove religion absolutely wrong, just like religion will never prove science absolutely wrong. Why? Because neither of them can prove how life came into existence, and I doubt either will for a long, long, long time. Until there is absolute proof of how life came into existence, you'll always have two possibilities.