Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution which should be taught in schools?

[kasm 0]

..kasm, you said that there is no scientific proof so far for evolution and no experiments that can be done to prove it - that's not true. For example, some years ago an experiment was created that replicated primordial earth. Amino acids 'spontaneously' occurred and amino acids are one of the building blocks of life. The experiment, if left long enough, would have then produced proteins...

224497[/snapback]

I didn't said there are no researches or studies about Evolution but I said there is no proof had received to this hypothesis then it is still not fact. I am aware what the three [in fact 5 ] groups are saying in thousands of publications. The question has this experiment mentioned above has produced living thing?. Saying "The experiment , if left long enough" lead us to square zero? i.e we still not proved it . And how "long enough" to be enough.

..Hox genes indicate that all living creatures on earth have a common ancestor.

224497[/snapback]

It is invalid inference. If we have similarities does not mean we have a common ancestor. This is wrong conclusion and jump to the point you want to prove. Take this example , the PC Pentium 4 and another computer Pentium 3, have many in common. That not mean that Pentium 4 was before Pentium 3 or first generation of PC.

I could of course, if you like, come up with more experiments and research that lends itself towards evolution but that would take up a lot of time and space and I know that some people will only argue contradictions anyway.

224497[/snapback]

..

I could of course, if you like, come up with more experiments and research that lends itself towards evolution but that would take up a lot of time and space and I know that some people will only argue contradictions anyway.

224497[/snapback]

Please give us even one example that one animal changed to another in reality.

You have to understand that everything is science and science is everything. That may sound a bit odd but true when you think about it. Science is the subject of the universe. It shows how the universe works

224497[/snapback]

I agree and I am highest degree scientist [i said that in my first reply]. If it is not enough I give details:? I studied 4 years? in Faculty of Science for Bachelor degree then 3 years preparing Master Degree. then 4 years for PH.D degree.

It shows how the universe works. Just because something has not yet been 'proven' in science does not mean it does not have a scientific grounding.

...

224497[/snapback]

If all the course's subjects are still not approved, then it is belief so it is not be taught in science class. As well as Creation or Intelligence Design.

 

I'm with evolution. It's still happening all around if you look.

224497[/snapback]

Show us where it's happening. But don't confuse Micro Evolution with Macro Evolution

 

I'm a very spiritual person yet I believe that my soul has a scientific 'explanation' just as much as gravity, or molecular weight, or lightspeed or mendelian genetics or anything else anyone considers 'sciencey'. .

224497[/snapback]

This is another own belief so I will not debate it as you said "I believe...". But do you believe in Evolution the same manner?

[alfredglenstein 0]

I have seen scientific experiments for both. Some proved either side and some disproved.

What?! How is that even possible- the two theories utterly contradict each other! How could you have seen both sides be "proven"? And remember, being proven is very different from just some evidence that helps the cause of either side. You said "proven".

 

I could of course, if you like, come up with more experiments and research that lends itself towards evolution but that would take up a lot of time and space and I know that some people will only argue contradictions anyway.

I agree. There are some people on the Usenet groups that have been arguing on evolution for 10+ years

 

Overvall, TR, I agree with your post, but am worried at how you are trying to put up a "middle ground" on evolution that resolves everything. There may not be a middle ground.

[alfredglenstein 0]

Kasm, asking evolution to produce a whole entire animal or organism is remarkably disingenuous and unfair. The changes in a new direction are all that is needed to prove that things evolve. And they have been observed- any honest scientist (if you really are one, which I seriously doubt) would be aware of at least a few examples of OBSERVED, happening evolution.

 

Remember, factual, undeniable proof, doesn't require a whole new animal, it requires a change in an animal.

 

Here are some observed instances (these are from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ... go look yourself there are a ton more)

1. Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P.

floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

This is where the FACTS validate the HYPOTHESIS.

 

Take this example , the PC Pentium 4 and another computer Pentium 3, have many in common. That not mean that Pentium 4 was before Pentium 3 or first generation of PC.

It's really ironic that you use this example, because you can look closely enough and see that their similarities do suggest that they are related. And I'm sure someone educated enough could observe the two, and see which one is more highly evolved, and see that the Pentium 3 came before the Pentium 4... but it's kind of a silly example, that doesn't prove my point any better than it does yours.

 

If all the course's subjects are still not approved, then it is belief so it is not be taught in science class. As well as Creation or Intelligence Design.

What do you mean "approved"? Even in places where it may be a beleif- it is a "beleif" backed up by empirical evidence, collections of information that can reasonably explain how we got to where we are today. That's how the string theory is being developed- not with observable proof, but with hypotheses that work and can explain things without going that far off course. Because of this abscence of "proof", you lump evolution in as "beleif" with intelligent design, which is unbeleivably dishonest, as it is a beleif with a whole lot more weight behind it.

 

But don't confuse Micro Evolution with Macro Evolution

Micro and Macro aren't different types of evolution- they are different viewpoints. Macroevolution IS microevolution over a large enough period of time to show significant, rather than minor, changes. From wikipedia:

 

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic.

The invented idea of Macro vs. Micro as different methods of evolution is the last straw creationists have to cling on to, as Micro evolution has been proven beyond a doubt (which is why I guess you tried to disqualify it as proof of evolution), and the last debate they have left is whether the two are different at all.

 

And it is remarkably convenient and self-serving to shift the debate to Macro which takes hundreds or thousands of years and then claim it's not true because no one has lived to see it. What if it WAS only micro evolution? Why are we discounting it? Honestly, NO amount of Micro can produce new animals in that 50,000+ years?

 

It's kind of like looking at a giant 500 year old tree and saying we should disregard everything we know about trees; and say that this tree was always this way, because no one lived to see it grow. And don't confuse Micro growth with Macro growth!

[CroSpartacus 0]

The idea that life sprang out spontaneously without anything to cause it is illogical just as evolutionists say "How did God begin"Evolution has some ideas that are correct such as adaptation. Like when you work out lifting weights, your body begins to adapt and build muscles which makes it easier for you. However things such as we are the same ancestors as every single life form on Earth is something that cannot be taken as factual without some strong evidence and not some assumptions or guesses or "we still have to figure out how this happened". Just because evolution uses some ideas that are obvious to everyone doesn't mean that their Macro-Evolution ideas are correct. Even Darwin admitted on his death bed that Evolution has major flaws.Evolution still does not explain how this entire universe was created. Some people believe that God created the building blocks of evolution and allowed the process to take place. This kind of thing we will never know since Genesis was written in a way for the people of that time to understand.

[alfredglenstein 0]

Evolution still does not explain how this entire universe was created. Some people believe that God created the building blocks of evolution and allowed the process to take place. This kind of thing we will never know since Genesis was written in a way for the people of that time to understand.

Ok, Scientific American, a science journal, can probably answer this question better than I can...

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

Even if that peice turns up untrue (which has not been demonstrated) that does NOT render the rest of evolution irrelevant. Not just adaptation, not just micro-evolution, but ALL of evolution.

Even Darwin admitted on his death bed that Evolution has major flaws.

The Lady Hope story! This story is famously untrue and has been demonstrated as such repeatedly (which you could discover quickly in a google search), but still gets perpetuated. Nothing against you dude, but even Answers in Genesis, a christian web site that defends genesis has dismissed this as uncredible. Don't listen to it because it's them, listen to it because it's true:

link [The Lady Hope] story first appeared in print as a 521-word article in the American Baptist journal, the Watchman Examiner,3 and since then has been reprinted in many books, magazines and tracts.
The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin's family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was 'false and without any kind of foundation',4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had 'no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view'.5 Charles's daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, 'I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . The whole story has no foundation whatever'.6 Some have even concluded that there was no Lady Hope.

And what if it was true? Does that mean because Darwin said it no one should take evolution seriously anymore? Evolution isn't established and credible because Darwin said things about it, in fact it was the other way around- Darwin became established and credible because of his testable and remarkably accurate theory of evolution. If he did recant, the only thing that would matter is WHY he recanted and if it is credible. This is not what our evolution debate should be about!

Reducing the science evolution to gossip about what one evolutionist may or may not have said has nothing to do with science.

Just because evolution uses some ideas that are obvious to everyone doesn't mean that their Macro-Evolution ideas are correct.

Blank assertions are great, but when I talked about Macro and Micro I at least discussed the ideas and their definitions a little. Like with Darwin, I will listen to this when I hear about the SUBSTANCE behind it. The surface level assertion won't do it for me.

[CroSpartacus 0]

So now Darwin saying that his theory has flaws in it is untrue? What next, was Darwin being a devout Christian also untrue and Creationist propaganda?Science cannot explain nothing coming from nothing. It is against all logic, something must come from something else. If there is nothing how can there be something?I find it very hard to believe that particles came up in the water (which somehow got there spontaneously along with the water) and formed life where humans, animals, insects etc. all sprang up from the same ancestor. (macro-evolution)Intelligent Design being taught in schools doesn't necesarrily have to be the Christian view of the universe. Only an alternate explanation that an all powerful supernatural force created the world. Even long-time famous devout atheists conede the possibility of a God but they don't take the Christian God.

[alfredglenstein 0]

So now Darwin saying that his theory has flaws in it is untrue?

I saw in the main forum, before I read this, that you had responded. Naturally, as I think is mostly the case for anyone in an e-debate, I felt a sense of intimidating anticipation that you may have responded with this towering post shredding down my logic. I can be wrong, it's happened before... But to do that you'd at least have to have internalized a bit of what I said, and I wish you would have looked at my argument a bit more if you are earnestly concerned with convincing me, and not just having the last word (I will apologize in advance if you prove me wrong in this respect).

 

But without going any further into that, I will make a response here to your post, but if the discussion just keeps circling back around, as it looks like this one is, I will move on to other subjects.

 

To start, YES, it IS untrue that Darwin recanted on his death bed. But don't take my word for it. Take Russel M. Grig's word (writer for Answers in Genesis) or Travis Case's word (a Creationist Minister).

 

Or, take the combined word a Christian magazine and that of Darwin's daughter, Henrietta, who wrote in the Christian:

?I was present at his deathbed,? she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. ?Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.?

And STILL, it is not relevant to evolution even if he did!

 

What next, was Darwin being a devout Christian also untrue and Creationist propaganda?

I don't see how or why that would logically follow or again, why it would be relevant even if it did.

 

Science cannot explain nothing coming from nothing. It is against all logic, something must come from something else. If there is nothing how can there be something?

I think I agree with what you said before on this one...

[J]ust as evolutionists say "How did God begin"

Again, (as I posted before) that wouldn't invalidate all of evolution. If you think it DOES, would you please address the substance of my older post?

 

I find it very hard to believe that particles came up in the water (which somehow got there spontaneously along with the water) and formed life where humans, animals, insects etc. all sprang up from the same ancestor. (macro-evolution)

Well I still don't see how or why you are seperating Macro from Microevolution. If you can, maybe you've got something, otherwise microevolution (as I posted before, no response) explains it, regardless of how hard it is for you to beleive.

 

Intelligent Design being taught in schools doesn't necesarrily have to be the Christian view of the universe. Only an alternate explanation that an all powerful supernatural force created the world. Even long-time famous devout atheists conede the possibility of a God but they don't take the Christian God.

I.D. is minimally different from Christian Creationism. But if we go into that (and I'd be glad to) could we do it in another thread? It would distract from the many unanswered points already on the floor for this subject.

 

So that is it for me in this thread I think. Hopefully some serious substance comes up to throw around, but if not, you'll see me in other threads.

[catfish 0]

So now Darwin saying that his theory has flaws in it is untrue? What next, was Darwin being a devout Christian also untrue and Creationist propaganda?

Just because Evolution might be wrong (it isn't, and is quite well evidenced at the micro-level if not the macro level.) doesn't give id any credit to its name. if a is not right that does not make b, c, d, e, f, or g right either.

Science cannot explain nothing coming from nothing. It is against all logic, something must come from something else. If there is nothing how can there be something?

Religion cannot explain something(i presume you meant something?) coming from nothing. It is agaisnt all logic. Something(god) must come from something else. If there is nothing how can there be something?(god(

I do love how matter cannot spring from thin air but god can...

I find it very hard to believe that particles came up in the water (which somehow got there spontaneously along with the water) and formed life where humans, animals, insects etc. all sprang up from the same ancestor. (macro-evolution)

it is quite unlikely, yes. but so is winning the lottery. but yet people DO win the lottery. (obviously)

experiments have concluded that the proposed life from water is theoretically plausible, (which ironically enough, is not-related to darwnism/evolution) by the creation of basic amino acids/organic compounds from a few gases (h2, ch4,n2,o2, etc.) and a little electricity.

It should also be noted that it is possible that there was a simultanous evolution, that life "spawned" originally in more than once fashion, that it wasn't necessarily 1 single single celled organism that spawned all of life as we know it, it could have been 2, it could have been a dozen. (however "unlikely" such an act might be, we will probably never know.)

Intelligent Design being taught in schools doesn't necesarrily have to be the Christian view of the universe. Only an alternate explanation that an all powerful supernatural force created the world. Even long-time famous devout atheists conede the possibility of a God but they don't take the Christian God.

Then what veiw of intelligent design do you propose? If a non-scientific theroy (id) deserves a spot in a science classroom so do all the other non-scientific theories/pseudo sciences.

http://www.venganza.org/ would be one such theory. (which has just as much evidence as id, for the record.)

Notice from serverph:

fixed quote tags. PLEASE USE PREVIEW BEFORE POSTING.

Edited January 28, 2006 by serverph (see edit history)

[Thorned Rose 0]

alfredglenstein, thanks for all you've said. You've made a lot of the points I was going to anyway. It does feel like going round and round in circles. My reborn Christian mother drives me nuts in that respect - just when I'm finally getting somewhere she brings up some completely irrelevant point that she somehow thinks disproves what I am saying. I seem to be having a very similar arguement in the Religion Thread. My husband's going on at me just to give up because most christians will never get it. I'm about ready to give up . I hate it when people with very little understanding of biology, chemistry (and physics for that matter) go on about it like they can somehow make educated statements. And before any christian says that it the same with their religion and beliefs - I used to be catholic so I'm well and truely familiar with the bible and your beliefs and I don't believe that myself or people like alfredglenstein have pretended to be experts in your beliefs. But you have to realise there is a difference between belief and scientifically deduced 'theory'. As I said before - Just because something has not yet been 'proven' in science does not mean it does not have a scientific grounding. Everything is science and science is everything.

[Joshua 0]

I find the idea that "if you can't use the scientific method on it it shouldn't be taught highly ironic, and here's why... Empirical evidence can't apply to historical people, events, or information. You can't recreate George Washington's life. By that standard, we'd need to throw out everything learned from Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, etc... That means virtually EVERYTHING we consider science is gone.

 

Science DOES allow for a different kind of proof in the case of historical documents. The first is bibliographical, which examines the manuscript authority of a document, or how accurate the copies (called manuscripts) are in regards to the originals (called autographs), and the amount of time between finding accurate manuscripts to what we now have. The Iliad is 2nd in manuscript authority to the New Testament, with 643 manuscripts. The New Testament has over TWENTY THOUSAND manuscripts from multiple countries, in multiple languages, over almost 2 MILENNIA. Furthermore, all the manuscripts agree word for word with each other with the exception of 16 manuscripts, and the changes for some are only in spelling and grammar. To see a further examination on how the Bible meets those historical standards, I suggest a $5 paperback which is very easy to obtain called More Then A Carpenter, by Josh McDowell. It has over 10 million copies in print worldwide right now and McDowell is one of the foremost Christian apologists in the world today, and has spoken in multiple countries and around our nation.

 

As for the Old Testament, as quoted from How We Got Our Bible by Bill Donahue:

 

Fact:  Until moveable-type printing was invented in 1455, all copies of the Bible were made by hand.  The Jewish scribes valued the sacred Old Testament text so much that they numbered certain Hebrew letters on every page that they copied.  The middle letter of the manuscript was marked.  So, if while making a copy, the letters did not line up with the original, they assumed there was an error in copying and destroyed the entire page and began over again. 

 

If we trust the sources used for our history classes in universities, why not trust the Scripture?  It has far more accuracy and evidence for quality.  I doubt the writers of Caesar's time, and those who made copies of those writings, took such care.  The Biblical translations we hold are based on manuscripts of the highest quality and accuracy of all ancient literature combined.

Now, if you want to talk about evolution, let me mention a point made by Ravi Zecharias in Jesus Among Other Gods: Since evolution says before the Big Bang there was a singularity, or where all the laws of science break down, that means their starting point is no more scientific then that given in Genesis.

 

Shouldn't it bother you that the only way evolution (macroevolution of course, micro is Biblical) can be explained is to say that science doesn't apply? Now of course, some will say that intelligent design isn't any better. But which of the 2 are my tax dollars being spent to fund? If you're going to teach an idiotic theory, at least teach the alternate one that is backed by archeology, history, and logic as well.

[kasm 0]

Kasm, asking evolution to produce a whole entire animal or organism is remarkably disingenuous and unfair. The changes in a new direction are all that is needed to prove that things evolve. And they have been observed- any honest scientist (if you really are one, which I seriously doubt) would be aware of at least a few examples of OBSERVED, happening evolution.

224585[/snapback]

1. Even this is "Vent" forum but does not mean one can insult other or use words like "stupid" or "silly" or seriously doubt that other person is "honest scientist". Do you know what they call that person who insult other because he/she not reachable in the time of insult ?

2. I asked:

Please give us even one example that one animal changed to another in reality

it was response to the extreme sentence.:

I'm with evolution. It's still happening all around if you look...

Since I can not see except micro evolution examples. That why I previously warned to not confuse us with micro evolution examples as samples for the Darwin evolution (i.e macro evolution).

 

We are familiar with breeding process to produce various kinds of horses, cows, cheep, dogs, cats,...etc.. The "variation within a kind" is what Darwin observed in the mid-1800's, and what we still observe today... The mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey. Nectarine is cross between beach and apricot..

 

Also We all know and recocgnise the viruses and bacteria development(microevolution) as well as the development of the defence system (microevolution).

 

But no scientist has ever seen a host animal develop a new defence mechanism causing it to evolve into a higher life-from; similarly, no one has ever witnessed a parasite develop a new, improved attack method that ultimately resulted in its transformation into a new species. (macro evolution if occurred)

 

Evidence that microevolution occurs but macro evolution does not .

 

3. When we speak about "Evolution" we mean Macro Evolution or   "Darwinism hypothesis" and not the word "evolve" from the dictionary and say any change in new direction is Evolution. Yes it is Evolution but not what cover our argument "Darwin' Theory".

 

There are 6 types of evolution known to me:

(i) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing, there are 5 different theories competing . Each has its strength or weakness. the famous one the "big bang" theory does not address the major question, "where did everything come from?" .  How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion causes only disorder and dist ructions? Also the Big Bang also violates two out of three Laws of Thermodynamics);

 

(ii) Chemical Evolution:(the development of the higher elements from hydrogen that can verified);

 

iii) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets amount to anything more than "fairy tales," and imagination has no part in real science);

 

iv) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life. Kids taught Spontaneous Generation as the Origin of Life, despite the apparent contradiction to empirical science? Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur have  succeeded in disproving Spontaneous Generation long time ago)

 

(v) Macro Evolution (the study of how new species arise but it is still lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record, and the harmful trend of genetic mutation (a beneficial mutation is yet to be observed)); and

 

(vi) Micro Evolution (the study of how alleles in a population change i.e. the variation within the kinds  This  observed and documented

Remember, factual, undeniable proof, doesn't require a whole new animal, it requires a change in an animal.

Here are some observed instances (these are from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ... go look yourself there are a ton more)

224585[/snapback]

Don't wory, I read these articles and the given examples are either micro evolution examples or abnormality cases.

This is where the FACTS validate the HYPOTHESIS.

224585[/snapback]

Which hypothesis you speak about?. Occurance of micro changes which we recognise and we don't debate it or the change from one type to higher type as Darwin theory sugests.

It's really ironic that you use this example, because you can look closely enough and see that their similarities do suggest that they are related. And I'm sure someone educated enough could observe the two, and see which one is more highly evolved, and see that the Pentium 3 came before the Pentium 4.

224585[/snapback]

The discussion is not wich was first or whether there are similiraties between pentium 3 or 4 !! or if they are related. I give this example to say "even there are big similarities between them, does not mean Pentium 4 evolved from Pentium 3 (physically) not the idea. Then if you want add the real reason for that you can do your own (mine is because the creator or the designer whetever individual or a team was the same) . I hope that what you called by alfredglenstein as "silly Example" is clear now

 

I was programmering for the computer since 1964, In our times wasn't software as it now. I considered myself a creator when I produced programs. Because we put the algorithm then draw flow chart then check the flow chart then write the program using the current computer languages. If there were not ready mathematical methods, we try to drive one. Of course when I programed for prime number , I put idea as when I programmed to factorization(90%). When I programmed for T-test in statistics I put ideas like that when I programmed to normal distribution test or f-test.

Macroevolution IS microevolution over a large enough period of time to show significant, rather than minor, changes. From wikipedia:

224585[/snapback]

That what theory Darwin says. But until now we didn't see one example that change microevolution to become macroevolution (change the kind). I still asking alfredglenstein or Thorne Rose and I still waiting.

The invented idea of Macro vs. Micro as different methods of evolution is the last straw creationists have to cling on to, as Micro evolution has been proven beyond a doubt

224585[/snapback]

I don't know who originaly invited the terms of micro or macro evolution, but I know that Darwinism are using these terms and there are department in Faculty of science called microbiology. So please answered the question and don't go shouting and accusing who invite them. They are different and has accurate diffinition [see above] and you have not enforce others how to classify . Scientifically, you define or give assumption, infer and deduce and experiement and others see what gaps in your procedure. Am I right?

Honestly, NO amount of Micro can produce new animals in that 50,000+ years?

224585[/snapback]

Then we go to square zero. The hypothis still Hypothis need proof. This fact has not to bother anybody.

It's kind of like looking at a giant 500 year old tree and saying we should disregard everything we know about trees; and say that this tree was always this way, because no one lived to see it grow. And don't confuse Micro growth with Macro growth!

224585[/snapback]

Not right. I do not say that and will not . There are history and civilisation and nobody recorded anything related from 7000 years.

By the way in Egypt there is tree new by Jesus was playing when he and his mother was refugee in Egypt. We know what happened in Egypt 7000 years from what written in papyrus or on Temples.

[alfredglenstein 0]

I find the idea that "if you can't use the scientific method on it it shouldn't be taught highly ironic, and here's why...  Empirical evidence can't apply to historical people, events, or information.  You can't recreate George Washington's life.  By that standard, we'd need to throw out everything learned from Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, etc...  That means virtually EVERYTHING we consider science is gone.

Very solid point there Joshua. I have a feeling that going in this direction, the bible gains a sort of validity (and it ought to), for the same reasons we would grant validity to to historical facts.

 

But I would like to toss in there, that certain kinds of info can be empirically challenged. We wouldn't have to throw out everything we learned from Isaac Newton I don't beleive, because he left us with testable concepts we could challenge. We might have to throw out Newton... but we have his concepts, we don't have to throw those out.

 

But then what? Eventually our re-testings would have to be thrown out as well once they get old enough.. so surely there is some rule of historic merit that is being invoked.

 

Hope I'm not misunderstanding you, and please correct me if I am!

 

So, getting back to evolution and the bible- if we accept that different definitions for evolution are merely perspectives of the same single process of evolution, that is something we can test and see around us. A creationism or I.D. process we can't. This applies to both, regardless of where they came from. And if evolution were "proven" in some ancient book, I hold that it would not be valid on the authority of the book, but on its own truth.

 

So, I guess I see a bit of a conflation between science and history here. We still have Newton & Pasteur's science, even if THEY themselves can't be empirically proven.

 

Does that work?

[CroSpartacus 0]

Another common myth is people thinking that Christians "don't know anything about science". Newton, Copernicus, Gallleo all Christians. Is there some new type of theory going around saying these men were actually not Christians?To be brief it is hard to imagine life forming naturally without a cause. However, God is a supernatural factor meaning he does not a natural. God is existence. All things in the universe are recievers of existence. From a wooden chair to a human being. It will be illogical to have a infinate amount of recievers of existence. Example of how illogical infinate amout of recievers of existence would be is; what came first the chicken or the egg? The chicken? So before that, the egg? And before that the chicken etc. etc. etc. into infinity? We can conclude with pure reason that this is, well stupid. Something had to have been the giver of existence, and two, self-sufficiant. God is this giver of existence.So what created God? Nothing did. For if something did God would then become a reciever of existence, and then we are back to the same problem. Hence God is self-sufficiant. He exist because he has to exist.God is existence... He is the "I am who am", not the I who has become.And about the Darwin thing. I have heard many times that he conceived that Evolution has its flaws on his death bed. Then I hear people saying he did not. We hear that Hitler killed himself, then later on other people say "No, it was Soviet propaganda. He is alive" We hear that the Founding Fathers of the United States were devout Christians, then later on we hear other people saying "no they weren't they were something else". My point being that there will always be two points of view on every subject and i'm afraid the only way to know whether Darwin doubted his theory or not is to ask him.

[ago 0]

Sorry, but if we put so much energy into deciding that Intelligent Design and/or Evolution is science and that is should be teached or not, we are letting ourselfs into accepting some serious presuppositions - what should be teached, what is science, was there ever an immanent God or can a biological creature (an "animal") make an ontological mutation so that it BECOMES another animal?

 

If you ask me, I consider that evolution is part of the intelligent design. Given a set of elements (given in the sense of intelligent design), they are let to evolve in an expected way. "Let to evolve" and "expected way" may seem somewhat contradictory, but they aren't. It dependes on our vision of evolution and our vision of predestination. We have to accept that our actions are influented (even determined) by exterior factors - and still we are free (ar we?) to do what we want. Somewhat the same is the situation with the contradiction.

 

Anyway, to answer the original question, either all the alternatives should be taught, or none.

[anarchyboard88 0]

GREAT DEBATE!.. very nice topic of choice. i'm not religious in any way shape or form.. but nor am i athiest. i belive what i see. and if i ever say god i guess id become a christian.. but anywayz, Intelligent Design is a LOAD OF CRAP!.. last time i checkd, science kind of disproved this theorem with probability and change over time.. and as stated b4 me, just because a lot of people like the idea, doesnt make it work.. if everyone got together and thought ham cured aids, doesnt mean its true.. in any way. there needs to be evidence for something to be believed and moved past the state of a theorem. and how would they teach "gods design"?..... ok, we were put here by god. . . . ok prove it?.... then the class would abruptly end because of the lack of answer... this angers me just enough to speak out against it.. there are 100 religions out there, not all agree on the same god, practice, ways of living, and/or how the earth came to be. and intelligent design only focuses on the christian way. . .what about the muslims or athiests or bhudists?? their "intelligent design" ideas may be far off from these... i think they should seperate church and state a LITTLE further... or at least church and school... thats like religious propoganda for kids.. and thats eff'd up hardcore.. .