President Bush Endorses Intelligent Design?

[philh 0]

Newtonian physics is certainly not all wrong. It is exactly right for all purposes on a scale most people will ever deal with. Relativity modifed newtons theories for large scales and high speeds. The fact we sent men to the moon using only the principles of newtonian physics backs this assertion. Knowledge comes though testing theories with data. This has been done overwhelmingly with evolution. When the ID people come up with a way of potentially falsifying their theory then it can approach science, until then they should not pretend to be doing science otherwise they will be justifiably laughed at. Id should be taught in schools in my opinion but in a religious education class where it belongs not in science class. Should flat Earth theory be taught in science as well? How about if a chapter on sceintific views on origins be inserted into every bible, would that make you "equal timers" happy?

There is no distinction made in biology between macro evolution andf micro evolution. However there is something akin to this: it is is called speciacation. This is the creation of new species. This is defined in the biological literature as a process whereby two fertile partners cannot mate and produce fertile offspring. For example two humans maybe be genetically different, for example in their skin colour but they are the same species because they are able to produce fertile offspring. But humans and chimps despite having 98% identical DNA are not the same species as they would not be able to mate and produce fertile offspring. the process of gentic change to the point where speciacations occurs has been observed many times. So in that sense evolution (even macro evolution if you want to think of it that way) is a fact. What is a theory is Darwinian natural selection to explain the fact that evolutionary change occurs. perhaps everyone that touts the "evolution is a theory" comment should understand this difference.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Check this out.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

You will find the answer to many of these questions in a college level General Biology class.

I have taken college level biology courses as well as geology, and they teach everything you guys are arguing, but I've never seen or been taught in these classes anything that could answer even one of these questions. However, I have researched the other arguments as well, and I just can't see how evolution can continue to be taught as a legitimate theory or a fact as almost any school or college teaches it. But don't mind me, i'm just a religious nut with no common sense even though nothing I've said had anything to with God, just the faults with the current system. At least I gave the thought of evolution a chance, since that's all i've been taught my whole life, but fortunately I was able to realize what a shitty theory it was.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Newtonian physics is certainly not all wrong...........hat is a theory is Darwinian natural selection to explain the fact that evolutionary change occurs. perhaps everyone that touts the "evolution is a theory" comment should understand this difference.

woah there buddy, relax. The use of the word 'You' in the 'equal timers' leads me to believe that perhaps you didnt read my posts clearly enough.

1. I am not religious, certainly not Christian, although I have a background in both.

2. I was trying to illustrate the dangers of learning by rote rather than what i consider real knowledge.

Yes, Newtonian physics works at a certain scale! EXACTLY MY POINT! Then you move to the next level and learn the exceptions to those rules. I am sorry for generalizing my wording but you still knew exactly what I meant, which is that gain information in stages.

And my only point in all of this is simply one of: This scientific discussion, to be something which will educate, inform and perhaps lead somewhere other than god/anti-god would be better served if it was argued by people with indepth knowledge of the subject rather than a high school level of knowledge.

You are responding to a post regarding the nature and role of knowledge vs data, NOT a discourse on the validity of ID and evolution. Just in case you thought I was arguing for or against either (although I did let slip that I thought evolution made most sense).

On ID vs Evolution, I recall a really intense and interesting thread elsewhere regarding magma heat, gaseous deposits in rock strata as evidence of the 7 day creation myth, which was then rebutted with an awesome response regarding physical properties of rock and the method in which it cools from a PhD theoretical chemist.

THAT is the level of information in which I am interested, and that is a level of information that I would assume is not on the tips of any high schoolers biology level brain. And that is EXACTLY what I am refering to regarding knowledge. Each party was able to use their knowledge to go beyond parroting and actually talk about the physical science behind each of their viewpoints. something which this thread has been lacking.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I just can't see how evolution can continue to be taught as a legitimate theory or a fact as almost any school or college teaches it.

Enlighten us, please. What scientifically valid evidence disproves evolution?

[wmw999 2,588]

Did you read the website that tmontana posted? Or are you waiting for a point-by-point refutation?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Check this out.

That's awesome!

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Enlighten us, please. What scientifically valid evidence disproves evolution?

What scientific evidence is there that honestly proves evolution? I don't have the desire to waste my time getting into a huge science debate. Your calling me out prove my point. I'll do the same, try to come up with a valid answer for any of those questions I've posted. Anyone educated in this area should know that it's going to take more than just a little internet debate to make any leeway on this subject. Besides, it's friday and I don't have the desire to sit at my computer all night and write a thesis paper on the faults with evolution. If you're interested there's plenty of material available for research. I would look up a video put out by Illustra Media called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life." It's simply a scientific video with no religious bias. It doesn't have all the answers, but it's what got me questioning everything I've been taught all my life.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

That's awesome!

If you liked that, check out this site.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

What scientific evidence is there that honestly proves evolution?

There is evidence that supports evolution. Until there is evidence to disprove the theory, it remains a valid explanation, scientifically speaking.

ID doesn't have the same kind of supporting evidence. It is not based in science or knowledge. It is based in faith. That is fine, but it has no place in the science curriculum.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Did you read the website that tmontana posted? Or are you waiting for a point-by-point refutation?

I read a good portion of it, but do not have the desire to read that entire thing, since I've have already heard everything I read in the first half. But all I really care to do in SC, since it is nothing more than a silly internet debate, is the "point-by-point" refutation.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

There is evidence that supports evolution. Until there is evidence to disprove the theory, it remains a valid explanation, scientifically speaking.

Fair enough, I have no problem with it being taught as a theory, although I will always think it's a really bad one. However it is taught as a fact, and most scientists would never consider anything else. I'm not trying to say that in the classroom, we need to say God did it, and that's it. We just need to get our minds unglued from the current evolutionary theory, and maybe just maybe allow some of the scientific findings that contradict the current theory into science books instead of throwing them out as if they were never discovered.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I have no problem with it being taught as a theory, although I will always think it's a really bad one. However it is taught as a fact, and most scientists would never consider anything else.

It is taught as theory, utilizing the scientific definition of theory, rather than the layman's.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Quote

I have no problem with it being taught as a theory, although I will always think it's a really bad one. However it is taught as a fact, and most scientists would never consider anything else.

It is taught as theory, utilizing the scientific definition of theory, rather than the layman's.

But I think it's valid to point out that not everyone who believes in ID misunderstands the scientific meaning of Theory, just an awful lot of them.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

Fair enough, I have no problem with it being taught as a theory, although I will always think it's a really bad one.

Gravitation is also a theory. What facts would you like to see included in the textbooks? Are you willing to open your mind to other alternate theories that are not based on the Bible?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[diverborg 0]

Quote

It is taught as theory, utilizing the scientific definition of theory, rather than the layman's.

It's taught as the only theory too.

I know your next response will be "because its the best and most scientific that we have"

Then my response will be "then we need to start working on a new theory"

Then I don't know what you're next response will be

Then my next response will be "I have to go skydive now and then drink lots of beer. Have a good weekend."

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Are you willing to open your mind to other alternate theories that are not based on the Bible?

Who said my theories were based on the bible? You don't have to believe in any religion to see that evolution is fundamentally flawed. And, for the record I do believe the bible, I just haven't seen how any actual scientific findings contradict it. It's just the theories behind the findings that contradict it. The bible was not meant to be a science book, and I'm not arguing that we teach the bible in science class. We just need to come to grips that the evolutionary theory is outdated, and flawed.
And, I've already heard all the arguments on how science does contradict the bible, so don't waste your time. I use to believe evolution at one time.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

But humans and chimps despite having 98% identical DNA are not the same species as they would not be able to mate and produce fertile offspring. the process of gentic change to the point where speciacations occurs has been observed many times.

I would be interested in studying this if you have some exampes.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

It is taught as theory, utilizing the scientific definition of theory, rather than the layman's.

It's taught as the only theory too.

I know your next response will be "because its the best and most scientific that we have"

Then my response will be "then we need to start working on a new theory"

Then I don't know what you're next response will be

Then my next response will be "I have to go skydive now and then drink lots of beer. Have a good weekend."

"Intelligent Design" has as much evidence in support as does the existence of Fairies or Santa Claus. Maybe less than Santa.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

what might fail to be apparent is, that the Scientific Method is a means of inquiry, a process by which you can examine all phenomena based on available evidence. This process does not allow "then God did this" to explain anything.

you dont need a PhD in Geological studies to know the 'Earth' wasnt formed in 7 days... basic Science teaches you why that is impossible in the 7th grade...unless we follow Kansas and introduce ID there as well... why not teach ID in place of Geology too?

Evolution is certainly not 'fundamentally flawed'. As a theory in the Scientific Method, it is it is simply the best explanation based at our current level of understanding and so it 'evolves' as our understanding grows.

Knowledge isnt the accumulation of facts, its learning how to Reason. Google is simply a tool. Do you memorize everything you 'know' ? or do you know how to 'look it up' when you need to?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

what might fail to be apparent is, that the Scientific Method is a means of inquiry, a process by which you can examine all phenomena based on available evidence. This process does not allow "then God did this" to explain anything.

I realize thats true for you, others and myself. That is not true for those who believe in ID over evolution. While I believe in evolution I'm always open to hearing a coherent argument.

Quote

you dont need a PhD in Geological studies to know the 'Earth' wasnt formed in 7 days... basic Science teaches you why that is impossible in the 7th grade...unless we follow Kansas and introduce ID there as well... why not teach ID in place of Geology too?

Again, I understand what you're saying but 'my science is better than your god' lacks a lot. Like i said, mindlessly quoting high school science is akin to mindlessly quoting biblical passages in my mind.

Quote

Evolution is certainly not 'fundamentally flawed'. As a theory in the Scientific Method, it is it is simply the best explanation based at our current level of understanding and so it 'evolves' as our understanding grows.

I didnt say it was flawed, why does being open to debate a subject == having faith in God and ID? (of which neither are true for me) I'm simply interested to hear the argument.

Basically I do not believe that every adherent to ID or Creationism is backwards or blinded simply by faith. I am interested more in why those with a strong scientific background and solid education still believe in those things. That goes far beyond misunderstanding what 'Theory' means, and the best ones will use physical data to try and argue their point (see post regarding rocks cooling for an example).

Quote

Knowledge isnt the accumulation of facts, its learning how to Reason. Google is simply a tool. Do you memorize everything you 'know' ? or do you know how to 'look it up' when you need to?

Urm, actually I'm blessed with an ability to retain pretty much everything I read that's of interest. I know about Google, it's been the crux of my argument today.

My problem with the scientists on this subject is the amount of scoffing and lack of reasoned argument. The God of Science is no more powerful than the God of Xtians when invoked without true comprehension of the subject at hand. Sure, high school biology says 'A', but as I've said time and time again today: with 15 jumps should I be teaching people how to skydive? I've read lots of books about it and I retain 95% of what I read, according to your argument (and others who I've tried to explain this concept to) my book smarts == mastery of the information rather than simply being able to repeat pertinent information without the critical faculty to accurately criticize and evaluate it.

I believe that you dont require a PhD to reject creationism and accept evolution, but I do believe you'd better have a very solid background in biology if you're going to argue beyond quoting scientific scripture at non-believers.

Or is my point still being totally lost?

Simplified: you reject Xtian points of view for their ignorance and the fact that 'then god did this' is not an explanation. Then others say 'it's Darwinism', how many in this argument could summarize Origin of the The Species, or discuss the various animals that Darwin uses to provide examples? What areas of the initial theory have been modified. What is neo-darwinism?

Without understanding those points the 'science' side is no better than the Bible thumpers (those that merely quote scripture rather than provide their own perspectives).

I'm going back to laughing and pointing, it was so much easier and fewer people misunderstood what I was trying to say.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[philh 0]

Crowley, I wasnt reffering to you as a representative of the ID clan or equal timers, sorry if that was misleading.
Some examples of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

On the same web site you will see a very interesting section which provides 29 falsifiable seperate pieces of evidence for evolution ranging from a variety of dirrent field of study.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The concept of falsification is key for any science. If we cannot test a theory or potentially falsify it, it is not going to be accepted into the scientific mainstream. So anyone who believes ID is science: please tell us a way to test it and potentially falsify it, otherwise shut up.

[Lindsey 0]

Again, I understand what you're saying but 'my science is better than your god' lacks a lot. Like i said, mindlessly quoting high school science is akin to mindlessly quoting biblical passages in my mind.

This issue that, at least originally, was/is being discussed is that our president endorses intelligent design being taught in the schools. I'll go back to what was said by Nightingale, and probably a few others, that it's probably fine for intelligent design to be taught in a philosophy or religion class. It has its place in our education system, but it doesn't belong in our science classes. It shouldn't be taught in a science class as an alternative to evolutionary theory.

Peace~
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[JackC 0]

Quote

My problem with the scientists on this subject is the amount of scoffing and lack of reasoned argument.

Maybe scientists wont bother trying to refute ID for the same reasons they wont bother trying to refute Archimedes Plutonium's famous Plutonium Atom Totality Theory. But if you want a reasoned argument, you could try The National Academy of Sciences' book "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences" which you can read online here

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And my only point in all of this is simply one of: This scientific discussion, to be something which will educate, inform and perhaps lead somewhere other than god/anti-god would be better served if it was argued by people with indepth knowledge of the subject rather than a high school level of knowledge.

You can't have a debate on this topic if you restrict it to 'highly qualified' individuals. One side is devoid then. The leading advocates for ID aren't PhDs, or remotely close.

And whether you can accept it or not, you don't need to have written your dissertation on the subject to know that ID has no place being taught alongside evolution in high school science. At least in American public schools.