Jump to content
OtakuBoards
Sign in to follow this  
Drix D'Zanth

Intelligent design

Recommended Posts

[COLOR=#004a6f]Being a muslim who lives in Canada, which is a country ruled by secular laws, I understand that there is a great diversity of people living here, and people who follow all sorts of religions.

I personally do not think that [I]religion[/I] should be taught in the science classroom, at least in public schools. If parents want their children to learn sceince from a certain religious prespective, then they should send them to a religious school. If I had kids, I personally wouldn't want the christian/hindu/jewish/[other religion] perspective taught to my children in the science classroom. That can be left to world religions class. And I wouldn't want my religion's prespective of science to be imposed on others.

But I do think the concept of intelligent design (not from any specific religion) has validity in the science world. If our universe was truly created, then intelligent design would be a fact, not just some "faith based doctrine". Therefore, since it is a possibilty at least, it should not be considered "crap". I personally see alot of evidence that suggests that intelligent design is true.

Everything has a purpose. The sun gives us light to see and for plants to photosynthesise, and heat to keep us warm.

We need air to breathe, and it controls the temperature. If there was no atmosphere on earth, it would be schorching hot in the daytime, and freezing at night.

Even our actions have purposes. A baby smiles so that its parents want to give it attention, which it needs to live a healthy life.

I find it difficult to believe that all of these things [B]with purposes[/B] came to be by mere chance.

Other things I see as evidence of intelligent deisign is how two creatures, lets say the australian flying squirrel and the north american (or is it europen?) flying squirrel, are very similar, yet apperently come from different ancestors. So these creatures, and a whole bunch of other examples, evolved this way by mere chance?

Also, if all creatures originated from one species, how does this explain the evolution of certain organs? According to the evolution theory, at one point in time, no creatures on earth had eyes for example, and eventually some evolved to have eyes. The eye is a complex organ, and it requires all parts to function. It would be impossible for creatures to appear suddenly that have eyes with all their functioning parts. But at the same time, what role would natural selection play if eyes had to evolve over time, considering that they would not function without all the neccesary parts? Having an eye that doesn't work is no better than having no eye at all, so it would not be "naturally selected" would it?

Evolution as a theory is correct, it has been proven, but I think there is a limit to how much it occurs.[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Being a muslim who lives in Canada, which is a country ruled by secular laws, I understand that there is a great diversity of people living here, and people who follow all sorts of religions.

I personally do not think that [I]religion[/I] should be taught in the science classroom, at least in public schools. If parents want their children to learn sceince from a certain religious prespective, then they should send them to a religious school. If I had kids, I personally wouldn't want the christian/hindu/jewish/[other religion] perspective taught to my children in the science classroom. That can be left to world religions class. And I wouldn't want my religion's prespective of science to be imposed on others.

But I do think the concept of intelligent design (not from any specific religion) has validity in the science world. If our universe was truly created, then intelligent design would be a fact, not just some "faith based doctrine". Therefore, since it is a possibilty at least, it should not be considered "crap". I personally see alot of evidence that suggests that intelligent design is true.

Everything has a purpose. The sun gives us light to see and for plants to photosynthesise, and heat to keep us warm.

We need air to breathe, and it controls the temperature. If there was no atmosphere on earth, it would be schorching hot in the daytime, and freezing at night.

Even our actions have purposes. A baby smiles so that its parents want to give it attention, which it needs to live a healthy life.

I find it difficult to believe that all of these things [B]with purposes[/B] came to be by mere chance.

Other things I see as evidence of intelligent deisgin is how two creatures, lets say the australian flying squirrel and the north american (or is it europen?) flying squirrel, are very similar, yet apperently come from different ancestors. So these creatures, and a whole bunch of other examples, evolved this way by mere chance?

Also, if all creatures originated from one species, how does this explain the evolution of certain organs? Accoriding to the evolution theory, at one point in time, no creatures on earth had eyes for example, and eventually some evolved to have eyes. The eye is a complex organ, and it requires all parts to function. It would be impossible for creatures to appear suddenly that have eyes with all their functioning parts. But at the same time, what role would natural selection play if eyes had to evolve over time, considering that they would not function without all the neccesary parts? Having an eye that doesn't work is no better than having no eye at all, so it would not be "naturally selected" would it?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Your argument for ID is quite valid Chabichou. A non-relegious presintation about ID does deserve to be taught, or at least given the choice to be learned. But in America, it is most liekly the ID theory that would be taught would be heavily Judeo-Christian, which not only brings relegion into the class room, it ignores all other relegions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Axl X
Being a student of the Rosicrucian Order, I have to say that ID should be taught by religious teachers, rather than it being taught in public school. ID is simply a Fundamentalist Christian way of interpreting Evolution. The problem with it stems from the fact that "Christians" want to shove this down our throats without teaching Evolution because to them Evolution never happened. According to all of the evidence I see. Evolution is happening every day. ID requires belief in a Supreme Being, which I do not know if it exists or not. It is not for me to say whether a Supreme Being exists. Only through constant research and learning I will find what I want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Digglu
[COLOR=Blue][FONT=Comic Sans MS]I'm new here, so feel free to skip past this post...

I have the feeling that a number of people are confusing the debate here. I don't believe that it's ID versus evolution, it's really ID versus natural selection. In both cases, evolution (hopefully) isn't being contested, only the means by which evolution occurs. Since evolution is 1) scientifically proven to a reasonable extent, and 2) required for both schools of thought, it should be taught in any school that doesn't have serious issues with it (i.e. public schools). However, I believe that both theories of natural selection and ID require faith, and neither should be taught as "the true path." Both should be offered as alternatives, if at all. As for ID being a "religious argument", yes, it has roots in religion, but is applicable otherwise. The one(s) doing the designing need not be a deity, just something(s) we aren't aware of as yet.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living things are most certainly evolving. We as a people have gotten taller over the past 300 years.

From a personal standpoint, while NS is more valid than ID, I don't bother myself to believe in either. In the end, does it really matter? Life's too short to fight a stalemate between two ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']And I wouldn't want my religion's prespective of science to be imposed on others.[/color][/quote] *cough*bull****!*cough* Sorry, Chabi, but unless you got a lobotomy within the past two months...I find that incredibly, incredibly, [i]incredibly[/i] hard to believe.

[quote][color=#004a6f]But I do think the concept of intelligent design (not from any specific religion) has validity in the science world.[/color][/quote]
But that's the thing, because it doesn't. Your following argument is based on Teological foundations that have existed for thousands of years, but yet still haven't developed a cogent argument that proves the existence of a creator.

[quote][color=#004a6f]If our universe was truly created, then intelligent design would be a fact, not just some "faith based doctrine". Therefore, since it is a possibilty at least, it should not be considered "crap". I personally see alot of evidence that suggests that intelligent design is true.

Everything has a purpose. The sun gives us light to see and for plants to photosynthesise, and heat to keep us warm.

We need air to breathe, and it controls the temperature. If there was no atmosphere on earth, it would be schorching hot in the daytime, and freezing at night.

Even our actions have purposes. A baby smiles so that its parents want to give it attention, which it needs to live a healthy life.

I find it difficult to believe that all of these things [b]with purposes[/b] came to be by mere chance.

Other things I see as evidence of intelligent deisign is how two creatures, lets say the australian flying squirrel and the north american (or is it europen?) flying squirrel, are very similar, yet apperently come from different ancestors. So these creatures, and a whole bunch of other examples, evolved this way by mere chance?

Also, if all creatures originated from one species, how does this explain the evolution of certain organs? According to the evolution theory, at one point in time, no creatures on earth had eyes for example, and eventually some evolved to have eyes. The eye is a complex organ, and it requires all parts to function. It would be impossible for creatures to appear suddenly that have eyes with all their functioning parts. But at the same time, what role would natural selection play if eyes had to evolve over time, considering that they would not function without all the neccesary parts? Having an eye that doesn't work is no better than having no eye at all, so it would not be "naturally selected" would it?

Evolution as a theory is correct, it has been proven, but I think there is a limit to how much it occurs.[/color][/QUOTE] Pointing to changes between species, pointing to purposes of bodily functions and claim they don't support Evolution, rather supporting the idea there's some omnipotent creator?

Do you know the biggest problem with your argument? Just because something is Teleological (i.e., goal-oriented, purpose-oriented) does not mean there has to be a creator, nor does it make the idea of Intelligent Design any more valid.

There's a reason that different squirrels across the globe are different: they've inhabited a different area, with different climates, different physical requirements, etc. The purpose of their evolution--of those differences--is survival.

And the purpose of their evolution, their need to survive, is indicative of one thing and one thing only: that they evolved because they had to, because in a previous form, their bodies were not capable of dealing with their environments.

Evolution works because it's a good system, and it's a good system because it works...not because there's some omnipotent power pulling its strings.

And frankly, I don't see why it's so difficult to understand. Evolution is both chance and purpose. Some animals will evolve; others won't. Which ones will evolve and which ones won't is a matter of chance, but when they do, they evolve for a specific purpose: survival, whether they consciously do it or not, and whether they are consciously aware of it or not.

It's survival of the fittest.

Your evidence doesn't support anything remotely related to Intelligent Design, because it more points to something far more relevant and earthly: Teleological evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Siren]*cough*bull****!*cough* Sorry, Chabi, but unless you got a lobotomy within the past two months...I find that incredibly, incredibly, [i]incredibly[/i'] hard to believe.[/quote]Find me a quote where I tried to force people to convert to Islam and then we'll talk.

[QUOTE] Pointing to changes between species, pointing to purposes of bodily functions and claim they don't support Evolution, rather supporting the idea there's some omnipotent creator?

Do you know the biggest problem with your argument? Just because something is Teleological (i.e., goal-oriented, purpose-oriented) does not mean there has to be a creator, nor does it make the idea of Intelligent Design any more valid.

There's a reason that different squirrels across the globe are different: they've inhabited a different area, with different climates, different physical requirements, etc. The purpose of their evolution--of those differences--is survival.[/QUOTE]Look back at my previous post, and you will see that I am comparing two squirrells from [B]different ancestries[/B]. The australian flying squirrel is a marsipual (it has the pouch like kangaroos and koalas). It has the same common ancestor as the other marsipuals, while the north american flying squirrel has a different ancestor. That's where I question evolution. By chance, you get 2 very similar flying squirrels, that aren't even related to eachother?

[QUOTE] And the purpose of their evolution, their need to survive, is indicative of one thing and one thing only: that they evolved because they had to, because in a previous form, their bodies were not capable of dealing with their environments.

Evolution works because it's a good system, and it's a good system because it works...not because there's some omnipotent power pulling its strings.

And frankly, I don't see why it's so difficult to understand. Evolution is both chance and purpose. Some animals will evolve; others won't. Which ones will evolve and which ones won't is a matter of chance, but when they do, they evolve for a specific purpose: survival, whether they consciously do it or not, and whether they are consciously aware of it or not.

It's survival of the fittest.

Your evidence doesn't support anything remotely related to Intelligent Design, because it more points to something far more relevant and earthly: Teleological evolution.[/QUOTE]I didn't say that evolution is completely wrong. I just don't think that all creatures evolved from one ancestor.

Second of all, why not try making up a decent argument rather than ranting and raving about how others form theirs? I'm not going to let you decide for me how to argue. I think teleological evolution supports intelligent design, also, the faults I see in the evolution theory suggest that something intelligent is required to make evolution a reality, so therefore I decided to use these as arguments.

Rather than trying to provide an explanation for my questions about the eye evolution (because you don't have an answer), you simply dismiss it because it's "not relevant" (in your opinion that is) to intelligent deisgn.[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE]
Look back at my previous post, and you will see that I am comparing two squirrells from different ancestries. The australian flying squirrel is a marsipual (it has the pouch like kangaroos and koalas). It has the same common ancestor as the other marsipuals, while the north american flying squirrel has a different ancestor. That's where I question evolution. By chance, you get 2 very similar flying squirrels, that aren't even related to eachother?[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

Welllll... I do seem to remember a certain supercontinent some few millions of years ago. Lets just say that these common ancestors, whatever they are, were very similar at one time; except that one species ended up drifting to Europe where the pouch was unneccessary, and the other ended up in Australia where one was. Evolution took over and gave the creature what it needed. It's like fossils that have been found on Pacific Islands. Fossils of the exact same animals have been found on mainland asia, but the ones found on islands are 1/10th the size. They're the same animal, but because they were thrust into radically different enviroments they changed completely to suit their needs, be it small size for small enviroment or pouch for keeping young safe.[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']Find me a quote where I tried to force people to convert to Islam and then we'll talk.[/color][/quote]
Oh, yes, trying to force all of us to acknowledge that the Quran holds actual scientific truths isn't wanting your religion's perspective of science to be imposed on others? Blow it out your rear end, Chabi, right after you remove your head from it. At least give me a challenge. You requesting that I provide an example of you trying to shove your religion or your religion's scientific POV on others is like me trying to convince Bruce Campbell to talk about Bubba Hotep. It's too easy, and doesn't make you look any better.

[quote][color=#004a6f]Look back at my previous post, and you will see that I am comparing two squirrells from [b]different ancestries[/b]. The australian flying squirrel is a marsipual (it has the pouch like kangaroos and koalas). It has the same common ancestor as the other marsipuals, while the north american flying squirrel has a different ancestor. That's where I question evolution. By chance, you get 2 very similar flying squirrels, that aren't even related to eachother?[/color][/quote]
Similar squirrels. Big frigging deal. Clearly that shows there's some creator and not that two types of squirrels happened to evolve in similar manners. Do you seriously believe that pointing to similarities like that is sufficient enough to claim Intelligent Design, when a much more likely (and realistic, let's be honest) explanation is that they merely evolved in a similar way because their respective environments required them to? Because their respective environments possessed similar instances? Just think about it. Is it environment or creator?

By the way, they're possums, not flying squirrels.

[quote][color=#004a6f]I didn't say that evolution is completely wrong. I just don't think that all creatures evolved from one ancestor.

Second of all, why not try making up a decent argument rather than ranting and raving about how others form theirs? I'm not going to let you decide for me how to argue. [u][b]I think teleological evolution supports intelligent design[/b][/u], also, the faults I see in the evolution theory suggest that something intelligent is required to make evolution a reality, so therefore I decided to use these as arguments.[/color][/quote]
I've bolded why your reasoning sucks, and why it's clear to me you really do not understand the distinction here.

Intelligent Design supposes--nay, [i]depends on[/i]--the existence of a conscious, aware creator with a conscious goal in mind in creating life.

Teleological evolution is not that. It's nowhere remotely close to it, and it doesn't support ID in the least. Goal-oriented evolution is goal-oriented evolution. It relates to the idea that evolution occurs because there is a physical state that needs to be achieved, and thus over a period of time, that physical state will either be actualized, or it will not, and that animal will die.

This is where you're missing the point, so pay attention. Teleological evolution is not ID, nor is it related to ID, because Teleological evolution is not dependent on outside supernatural forces for evolution to occur--or any outside supernatural forces for anything to occur.

[quote][color=#004a6f]Rather than trying to provide an explanation for my questions about the eye evolution (because you don't have an answer), you simply dismiss it because it's "not relevant" (in your opinion that is) to intelligent deisgn.[/color][/QUOTE]
You mean the following?

[quote name='Chabi][color=#004a6f] Also, if all creatures originated from one species, how does this explain the evolution of certain organs? According to the evolution theory, at one point in time, no creatures on earth had eyes for example, and eventually some evolved to have eyes. The eye is a complex organ, and it requires all parts to function. It would be impossible for creatures to appear suddenly that have eyes with all their functioning parts. [/color][color=#004a6f']But at the same time, what role would natural selection play if eyes had to evolve over time, considering that they would not function without all the neccesary parts? Having an eye that doesn't work is no better than having no eye at all, so it would not be "naturally selected" would it?[/color][/quote]
You don't think it took some time for different species to develop under different conditions? Plus, given that so many species rely on eyesight to survive...why is the abundance of eyes across species a warning flag that you're making it seem? All eyes don't function in the same ways, after all.

Bats' eyes don't work, but I guarantee you they can navigate pitch-black caves far better than you will ever be able to. And why do you think their senses are developed for those environments, while we would stumble about like morons?

Dogs see a much different light spectrum than humans do, as do cats.

And even in humans, all eyes don't operate on the same level of functionality.

Considering how wide the range of your point is, and how everything doesn't work perfectly--and how everything doesn't work the same--I don't see how it supports your point that all of that indicates a creator. "[color=#004a6f]It would be impossible for creatures to appear suddenly that have eyes with all their functioning parts[/color]" isn't some huge revelation, because if you just use common sense, Evolution isn't a super smooth, instantaneous process to begin with, anyway.

Overall, it works, but..."POOF! There are eyes? Impossible!" isn't really a valid argument for ID, or against Evolution, because if "POOF!" were the case, that instaneous "Everyone has eyes that fully function!", that would be evidence of a creator.

And as it stands? Something tells me there wasn't an "eye poof!" Do you get what I'm saying here? You're making an argument that is more the complete antithesis of an argument supporting the idea of ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Siren]
And as it stands? Something tells me there wasn't an "eye poof!" Do you get what I'm saying here? You're making an argument that is more the complete antithesis of an argument supporting the idea of ID.[/QUOTE]

Alex has a valid argument here. While Chabichou and I may agree with regards to ID, I do feel that her representation of the ID ideologue as a whole is in fact detrimental to the point that I?ve been trying to make. While Chabichou?s arguments may not be so antiphonal to ID as Alex has described, they do represent a short-sightedness in the community that supports the implementation of this new idea in our schools.

Case in point: the ?eye? argument. This has been a wide topic of debate within the scientific community, one which will indubitably end in an ?acceptable? theory from the Evolutionary Biologist?s standpoint and a continued ?rebuttal? from the ID Biologist. In fact, this argument doesn?t necessarily illustrate exactly [i]why[/i] ID has any bearing in a scientific forum, aside from being the voice of dissent, whatsoever.

Why don?t we think critically about the possibility of Intelligent Design based on reason? For instance, Alex brought up the fact (somewhat) that bats are blind. It is true that while some bats have poor vision (only able to identify variable shades of bright light, or pitch black) others have more acute vision than our own. However, most (70%) bats rely on echolocation as a specific navigation and hunting mechanism. Echolocation is an irreducibly complex system. That is, if the physiology of the bat (let?s say, through mutation, for instance) is manipulated slightly; or a piece of the system were to be removed ? it would fail entirely. Evolution explains that echolocation is a result of many random mutations occurred in the ancient bat ancestor (who invariably relied on its eyesight). After millions of generations, many of the organs and muscle systems that echolocation rely on were somehow expressed in some of the earlier bats before the mechanism was even capable of functioning, finally the first bat with the primitive echolocation (which, is incredibly complex as it is) was born. It must have beat the odds, and relied on its new advantage to acquire a successful nocturnal lifestyle (where typical visual sight is impaired). This seems reasonable and all, as the bat with a complete echolocation system must have had a [b]dynamic[/b] nocturnal advantage over the bats relying on visible light. However, what about the bats resting in-between the developing echolocation. Why were they evolving physiologically to accommodate a system that wasn?t even functioning for them? Evolutionists could conclude that the actual developments were purposeless until Natural Selection [b]made[/b] it important. Those supporting ID could say that it is neither any more likely nor unlikely to say that some creator had designed this function, than it being a result of random mutation and non-random selection.

Now, I hope that Chabichou let Alex have this last word and please walk away from this thread. If you want to debate evolution, that?s probably another thread. ID is not supposed to be a giant rebuttal, asking questions. It is merely another postulation to a question which is far too complex to definitively answer within our lifetimes. Instead, I ask you to return to my thesis on page 2 of this discussion thread and respond. Is there a valid reason behind it?s discourse in even a science-environment? If ID should be reserved for a social-studies class, why not the idea of Macroevolution (Modern Synthesis)? Why can?t they both draw upon the same science and draw separate conclusions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
evolutionary theory needs to be taught as long as our entire scheme for the classification of life revolves around it.

ID should be taught when and if there is convincing evidence to support it. It would be simply irresponsible not to teach it in that case. Creationism should not be taught. Seperation of church and state and all.

(and for once I find myself actually agreeing with most of Siren's points lol imagine that.)

insert personal religious beliefs here: For me, evolution doesn't threaten my faith at all. It's a fantastic thing in nature (Assuming it's true). If you believe God created and sustains the universe, then learning about evolution should make you marvel at God more, not less. It really doesn't matter how things happen if you know who makes them happen. If someone throws a good pitch in a baseball game, I applaud the pitcher, not the ball and the wind. I honestly don't see why theists get so worked up over evolutionary theory. It's not nearly as threatening to faith as some people seem to think, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank [url=http://www.venganza.org/]Flying Spaghetti Monster[/url] that this sort of talk is limited to America and that the rest of the world is staying perfectly sane about the issue (and ignoring it). I can only hope that American's importance in the world fades before it slips to far into religious control and starts to force its ideas of pseudosciences onto the rest of the world which is honestly trying to understand the world around it - not feel better about that second car and the poor blacks drowning because no one helped them flee because god is once again safe for blind belief. (For flamers who might want to dig into that last comment: Well? Did you even think to raise a finger before the event, heh, even the whites there weren't helped.)

Or is American already there? I have my ticket to Mr Bush's next weekly Bible reading in the Whitehouse, do you?

I urge any one who really wants to be informed on this issue to join myself in the [url=http://www.venganza.org/]one true Intelligent Design theory (clicky! venganza.org)[/url] (of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster]First United Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (clicky! wikipedia.org)[/url] - we have a stripper factory and a beer volcano in our heaven!) or to learn about the the subject by taking an in depth and independent of religious implications (don't ask your priest) look at both Evolution (by Natural Selection) and Intelligent Design.

Please note this is a frustration post based on the pure insanity of the people who honestly support this ?theory? of ID without any understanding of the background or implications of inclusion of a non science in a science class. This is inclusive to all but two of the posters on the side of ID... At least two of you know what you are talking about - and if you still believe it is right to [b]force[/b] this on the science world I guess out of principal I respect your right to do that... Just remember, the earth was once flat according to people just like yourselves.
And for [url=http://www.venganza.org/]FSM[/url]s sake, the Big Bang has nothing at all to do with ID and Evolution - any one who has even made that implication in this thread (or history!) has painted the words ?I Do Not Really Know What I Am Talking About!? on their forehead in big letters.

And I leave you with the definitive proof that the [url=http://www.venganza.org/]FSM[/url] is the one true creator from a fellow Australian who unlike myself holds a PhD...
[quote]"If intelligent design (ID) is based on science, not faith, then it should fulfill the same criteria as any other scientific theory. One of the most important of these is Occam's Razor, the principle that the best explanation for a given phenomenon is the one which is simplest, or to put it another way, raises the least new questions. Most ID theories fail the test of Occam's Razor, because they do not define what entity is doing the designing, or they imply that some sort of god is responsible, which raises the question of whether this god actually exists. However, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism explains clearly who the intelligent designer is, and furthermore, unlike the case for god, there is ample experimental proof that spaghetti does actually exist. I therefore recommend that if ID is to be taught in schools, it should be made clear to students that FSM is by far the most plausible of the many competing ID theories. RAmen."
[b]-- S. Bilson-Thompson, PhD (Australia)[/b][/quote]

RAmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey--I was the first convert on these boards! Way to steal my glory. :p

More seriously, I understand why people in the scientific community are so tense about ID, but lashing out and foaming at the mouth about it just makes them look bad. While I don't agree with teaching ID in science classes--let's save that kind of talk for philosophy & history classes, please--I think they definitely have a point in regards to the fact that those trying to crack down on and totally eliminate the very idea of ID are acting little different from those who have tried to suppress alternative viewpoints throughout history.

Of course, not all alternative viewpoints are right. Not all will survive the test of the years. The theory of evolution itself took a very long time to be accepted. As far as I'm concerned, the scientists are being too defensive, and the IDers are expecting too much to happen in a rather short period of time. I think it would be just as much a victory for them to make ID a major part of the curriculum of philosophy courses; people shouldn't need science's seal of approval to believe in God (or consider the idea of believing in one), anyway. :animesigh

~Dagger~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Dagger']Hey--I was the first convert on these boards! Way to steal my glory. :p[/quote]
We are all equally worthy of being touched by HIS Noodly Appendage.

Heh, you must remember science (as a community, mmm misusing words!) is just treating an incorrect explanation the way any other submission to peers of incorrect research would be. The fact that the submitters are now religious folk and not intelligent (flamebait+1) scientists who have researched and come to a conclusion has thrown a spanner in the works. Think Marge Simpson as "just one screwball" on a mission to put God into every ones lives again.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and has never tried to be, it hasn't submitted any evidence or research to any recognised source... It just rocked up one Friday afternoon when every one just wants to knock off and get a beer from a bunch of guys who thought they could do some thing interesting one day. And that is why it is so laughable in the real world, at least when some one pushes it as a non Christian scientific theory instead of a faith based adaptation of Evolution that sits nicely with the Bible which when you get down to it is all it is. The community of scientists has never had a chance to formally put this theory to death because it has never been presented to them for logical and straight forward debate. (I wonder why?)

This isn't ID vs Evolution. This is a bunch (and a small one at that, they just have big mouths) of Christians putting down Evolution because it doesn't fit their nice safe world as described by God.
Scientists know that it is a joke but they are fighting it because the implication of taking science out of the science class room is unthinkable.

RAmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Siren. Let me all give you another example of Survival of the Fittest that gives a pretty good reason why Evolution works. The example take two animals from Africa, the cheetah and the Gazelle. Now lets just say that there are two kinds of each a cheetah. One kind of cheetah can only run 45 MPH, while the other can run 50MPH. Lets just say that the gazelle can run 50 miles per hour. Now, the 50MPH cheetah will be well fed because it can catch alot of gazelles. The 45MPH one will not because it can only get the very slow or old gazelles. Now, the gazelles hate being eaten so when they pass their genes on to the next generation, the next generations speed goes up to say 55MPH. The 50MPH cheetah starts to starve, so when they pass on their genes to the next generation, the next generation of cheetahs speed goes up to 55 MPH. The cycle continues.




(i'm very sorry if i got this example wrong. I heard it from my Biology teacher a few days ago.) :animeswea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=dposse]I agree with Siren. Let me all give you another example of Survival of the Fittest that gives a pretty good reason why Evolution works. The example take two animals from Africa, the cheetah and the Gazelle. Now lets just say that there are two kinds of each a cheetah. One kind of cheetah can only run 45 MPH, while the other can run 50MPH. Lets just say that the gazelle can run 50 miles per hour. Now, the 50MPH cheetah will be well fed because it can catch alot of gazelles. The 45MPH one will not because it can only get the very slow or old gazelles. Now, the gazelles hate being eaten so when they pass their genes on to the next generation, the next generations speed goes up to say 55MPH. The 50MPH cheetah starts to starve, so when they pass on their genes to the next generation, the next generation of cheetahs speed goes up to 55 MPH. The cycle continues.




(i'm very sorry if i got this example wrong. I heard it from my Biology teacher a few days ago.) :animeswea[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
I don't know... doesn't sound right to me. Animals can't just 'speed up' as it suites them. Now, maybe if a cheetah was born that had an abnormal muscle structure or somthing, or an odd tail, or somthing that allowed it to preform better, than it would likely survive longer. It would live long enough to breed and pass on it's own genes; there's like a 1/10 chance that this animal's offspring will be born similarily. This new litter will probably live to breed, and than their litter will pass on their genes, and so on and so forth.

Some animals have just never had to evolve... that's a very scary thought
:animestun [/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']Now, maybe if a cheetah was born that had an abnormal muscle structure or somthing, or an odd tail, or somthing that allowed it to preform better, than it would likely survive longer. It would live long enough to breed and pass on it's own genes; there's like a 1/10 chance that this animal's offspring will be born similarily. This new litter will probably live to breed, and than their litter will pass on their genes, and so on and so forth.[/COLOR][/quote]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what dposse meant.

I find it pretty depressing that there's even a debate surrounding this issue: religion isn't science. It will never pass for science. It doesn't belong in a science class.

That's really all there is to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Godelsensei]I'm pretty sure that's exactly what dposse meant.

I find it pretty depressing that there's even a debate surrounding this issue: religion isn't science. It will never pass for science. It doesn't belong in a science class.

That's really all there is to it.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
The way I read it, it seemed like dposse meant animals could just 'run faster' when it suited them, that they'd tell their genes 'Psst... make sure that my children can run wickedddddddddddd fast.' But maybe I was wrong.[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
The way I read it, it seemed like dposse meant animals could just 'run faster' when it suited them, that they'd tell their genes 'Psst... make sure that my children can run wickedddddddddddd fast.' But maybe I was wrong.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

:animeswea Im sorry. Like i said, my biology teacher told us that a few days ago and my memory is like a leaky bucket. I [i]think[/i] its more about natural selection than evolution. Anyway, im sorry. Please forget about my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[font=Trebuchet MS][quote name='dposse][/font]I [i]think[/i'] its more about natural selection than evolution.[font=Trebuchet MS][/quote]
Natural selection and evolution aren't different. Natural selection is the central principle of evolutionary theory.

It's true that it's difficult not to see evidence of higher control in the design of humans, at least. It must have taken a massive fluke for our ancestors to develop the specific genetic characteristics required to eventually lead to modern man. But that doesn't mean it should be taught in classrooms.

Drix, what's Macroevolution? I haven't come across it before. From what you said I guess it's another alternative theory to evolution?
[/font]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Raiyuu][font=Trebuchet MS]
Drix, what's Macroevolution? I haven't come across it before. From what you said I guess it's another alternative theory to evolution?
[/font][/QUOTE]

Macroevolution is merely the progression of microevolutionary processes such as natural selection, mutation, and allele shifting to produce two, or more, divergently independent species from one common ancestor.

The problem most people have is not the mechanisms that support the idea of a common ancestor yielding species diversity, but the idea that one species can evolve into two different species. Macroevolution, requiring estimated tens of thousands of years to occur, is not testable or reproducible in a laboratory. It remains, therefore, far less objectively valid than the processes that purportedly generate macroevolution.

Natural selection, on the other hand, influences microevolution.

Let?s address a few recent posts:
[QUOTE=Dagger]
Of course, not all alternative viewpoints are right. Not all will survive the test of the years. The theory of evolution itself took a very long time to be accepted. As far as I'm concerned, the scientists are being too defensive, and the IDers are expecting too much to happen in a rather short period of time. I think it would be just as much a victory for them to make ID a major part of the curriculum of philosophy courses; people shouldn't need science's seal of approval to believe in God (or consider the idea of believing in one), anyway. :animesigh

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]

Well that seems fair. But let?s throw macroevolution, the big bang theory, and every other pseudo-scientific theory in with it. There?s no argument to microevolution. I?m not even opposed to macroevolution, but I can?t help but think that some creator had to drive it. Does this creator need an identity? Maybe classroom discourse would be nice.

[QUOTE=ForgottenRaider] Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and has never tried to be, it hasn't submitted any evidence or research to any recognised source... It just rocked up one Friday afternoon when every one just wants to knock off and get a beer from a bunch of guys who thought they could do some thing interesting one day. And that is why it is so laughable in the real world, at least when some one pushes it as a non Christian scientific theory instead of a faith based adaptation of Evolution that sits nicely with the Bible which when you get down to it is all it is. The community of scientists has never had a chance to formally put this theory to death because it has never been presented to them for logical and straight forward debate. (I wonder why?)

This isn't ID vs Evolution. This is a bunch (and a small one at that, they just have big mouths) of Christians putting down Evolution because it doesn't fit their nice safe world as described by God.
Scientists know that it is a joke but they are fighting it because the implication of taking science out of the science class room is unthinkable.

RAmen.[/QUOTE]

Hey now, Raider, let?s not be harsh. No need to patronize the scientists, scholars, and authors who oppose the idea of a random control over the generation life and it?s diversity. Take Kurt Vonnegut, who appeared on the Daily Show Tuesday (which is running a week-long series entitled, ?Evolution Schmevolution? watch it. It is very entertaining); esteemed author was quoted in response to the idea of Evolution that he was ?Scientifically trained, but had to believe that there was some sort of intelligent designer behind the process of evolution.? Surely you aren?t one to call Mr. Vonnegut- author of renowned works such as Slaughterhouse-Five and Cat?s Cradle- a ?big-mouthed? and essentially [i]stupid[/i] Christian. Obviously Vonnegut, who is not only a self-proclaimed humanist and supporter of the ACLU would have an obligation to push his republican religious-right agenda?

You are going to have to accept the fact that Americans are almost equally divided with this issue, including a great many Scientitsts. There?s nothing wrong with justifying your faith against the indoctrination of high school, is there? Isn?t it a place to learn and grow? Why not provide students with this alternative, so that they may be taught the mechanisms of evolution without having to fear the undue dichotomy of science and religion?

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=DarkGreen][FONT=Trebuchet MS]Bwahaha! Now for the paleontology major to tear up the field.

*looks around* Chabichou! I know he shut up already, but I wish to beat a dead horse. The two flying squirrels. One of them is from Australia. Australia is (no offense) basically a mound of dirt with some dry grass and crazy animals. With few niches available in that particular environment, they evolved strange traits to help them. Basically they did strange things to get food and stay alive. Also, there were very few mammilians who weren't marsupials, if any. (I know very little about Australian mammals.) Therefore, the marsupials had to take the traits of the normal creatures (i.e. the ones who weren't there).

In Europe, I would imagine the wee little squirrels wouldn't benefit much from running on the ground and so, took to the trees. The ones who could leap the farthest didn't fall to horrible, gruesome deaths and lived to breed. Their skin would've more than likely learned to stretch a little farther because squirrel-skin in thin and can be moved easily. Then the skin would've done it permanently. Sort of like how people who spend lots of time at pools and lakes can hold their breath for a long time. Except that it stayed throughout the generations. Like fat people having fat kids. So, the mixture of an unused niche, natural selection, and crazy squirreldom made two different species who do the same thing.
(E-mail me if you need further explanation. I got a really good one with prehistoric cows.)

Xander, good point. Faith should be strengthened by other outlooks. Raider, we get the point. You and the Church of FSM have no respect for ID.

I personally think the idea of ID is, as Ilium said way back when, just a way of saying you did everything and, in case you have any doubts, we did that too. The idea is stupid. Its like saying it happened this way, but if you think otherwise, it happened this other way. The idea completely closes off their original idea and, with conflicting ideas and stories, the whole thing will split up. If ID takes over, it'll cause another schism, if not rip a gaping hole in a religion that needs all the help it can get (if all the critics of ID are to be considered non-christian). As for having it in school? Yeah, religions and philosophy.

My history teacher at a PUBLIC SCHOOL went on for weeks about God creating the world, the 'Great Flood' that created the Grand Canyon, and all other theological aspect. (Besides, the story of Noah is exagerrated. Noah's family was floating in a set of tied-up rafts with a bunch of goats on the Red Sea for four days, according to the original Babylonian version. The rest was probably to make it sound impressive and to teach a lesson. Honestly, polar bears couldn't possibly get to the Middle East. They'de die in the desert. Duh. And aside from that, if we're all descended fromNoah's family, we'd be incredibly inbred.

Regardless, ID is in the best interests of NO ONE. The church has nothing to gain. It'll tear apart the church's core beliefs. Evolution gets nothing. Schools get alot of confused youngsters. So that's how it goes...I'm done...[/FONT][/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR=DarkRed]Thought this was interesting enough to share here:
[/COLOR]
[QUOTE]New evolution spat in schools goes to court

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- A new battle over teaching about man's origins in U.S. schools goes to court for the first time next week, pitting Christian conservatives against educators and scientists in a trial viewed as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s.

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing over the school district's decision to include "intelligent design" -- an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator -- in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.

The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say the policy of the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools.

They also argue that intelligent design is unscientific and has no place in a science curriculum.

Intelligent design holds that nature is so complex it must have been the work of an God-like creator rather than the result of natural selection, as argued by Charles Darwin in his 1859 Theory of Evolution.

The school board says there are "gaps" in evolution, which it emphasizes is a theory rather than established fact, and that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life. In their camp is President George W. Bush, who has said schools should teach evolution and intelligent design.

The Dover school board says it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. It denies intelligent design is "religion in disguise" and says it is a scientific theory.

The board is being represented by The Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based nonprofit which says it uses litigation to promote "the religious freedom of Christians and time-honored family values."

The center did not return phone calls seeking comment.

The trial begins on Monday in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and is expected to last about five weeks.
'Orwellian' efforts

Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute, which sponsors research on intelligent design, said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court.

"It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."

Opponents including the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers say intelligent design is an attempt by the Christian right to teach creationism -- the belief that God created the world -- in public schools under the guise of a theory that does not explicitly mention God. The Supreme Court banned the teaching of creationism in public schools in a 1987 ruling.

"Intelligent design is ultimately a science stopper," said Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Council for Science Education, a pro-evolution group backing the Dover parents.

"It's a political and religious movement that's trying to insinuate itself into the public schools," she said.

But the American public appears to back the school district.

At least 31 states are taking steps to teach alternatives to evolution. A CBS poll last November found 65 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism as well as evolution while 37 percent want creationism taught instead of evolution.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.

Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict, said Darwin's theory did not clash with a belief in God so long as scientists did not assert that pure chance accounted for everything from "the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony." [/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
In my opinion, if this passes, it will be a major step backwards - maybe even the opening of a flood gate for more schools to begin teaching ID in a [I]science[/I].

Another thing I found funny is that, even though the School Board is trying to distance themselves from Christianity, they hired a Christian law firm to represent them. Go figure.[/COLOR]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ID science? Absolutely not. If you don't believe me, then please, by all means, go out and test it. Science is well rooted in proof and fact, and by no means is answering "God made it" to every question anything aproaching prooven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×