Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[TRoutMac]

Fine, then describe to me testable criteria I can use to support either your designed hypothesis.

 

Start with something you know was designed by an intelligence, (a car, for example) and take note of its characteristics. Then, compare those characteristics with those of a living organism and see if you don't see some characteristics in common. For example, the car was built according to instructions (plans) devised by its designer. Likewise, a one-celled animal carries with it instructions (DNA) for building duplicates of itself. Both the car and the one-celled animal contain functionally integrated systems that rely on each other for the function of the whole. And this is just one of MANY examples of simple tests that easily steer any reasonable person toward Intelligent Design and away from evolution. And the nature of these tests is exactly the same as those used daily in the fields of forensic science, anthopology, etc. Deny that I.D. is science, and you deny all the fields of science that use the same methodology.

 

How is that DNA must have been designed? Give me criteria I can use to test for this design.

 

Imagine that you were the one to discover the Rosetta Stone. Imagine how absurd it would be for me to insist that those markings were the result of natural processes. We know the Rosetta Stone is the result of intelligent action, do we not? How do we know this? Because the inscription carries INFORMATION. And that information is EXTRINSIC to the properties of the stone itself.

 

John Kimball, (NOT an I.D. proponent so far as I know) in his "biology pages" web site says, "[The genetic code] could well be called the Rosetta Stone of life." See http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html

 

Everywhere you look, DNA and the genetic code are described in terms of a LANGUAGE. Even down to terms such as "phrases", "sentences", "grammar", and "punctuation". DNA has ALL of that. Look it up yourself, if you doubt me. One good site is the University of Utah: http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/basics/

 

Other terms like "translation", "transcription", "decode", "encode" all reveal that DNA is a system of language. We all KNOW that language doesn't just HAPPEN. Devising a system of language requires INTELLIGENCE. The Universal Genetic Code is a system of language which encodes instructions (get that? "INSTRUCTIONS") about how to build and operate a living organism.

 

When you, or any evolutionist says that the information in DNA arose by chance, or by undirected natural processes, you are essentially pointing at the Rosetta Stone and saying "this was an accident." Do you not see how truly absurd and ridiculous that is? Do you not see how utterly reasonable and rational Intelligent Design is?

 

What features do desgined systems have that undesigned do not? If it is designed and laid out, why is there so much junk DNA? How is it that organisms develop new abilities (such as the bacterial ability to digest nylon, as I believe C1ay mentioned earlier)?

 

Designed systems have obvious characteristics. A mousetrap is a designed system. Although very simple in function, the mousetrap has a functionally integrated system of parts that work together, and each part is dependent on the action of the other parts. Same is true for a hammer. Same is true for a computer, a car, a plane, a boat. These systems were all built and assembled according to INSTRUCTIONS drawn and devised by the designer(s).

 

Along these lines, how do we know Stonehenge was designed? Think about it. That arrangement of stones cannot be explained by reference to natural processes, could it? NO!! To suggest such a thing would be insane! We don't even know the FUNCTION of the stones, or the PURPOSE, and yet we can tell instantly that it was designed and we would laugh at the person that would suggest it was the result of natural processes. Right?

 

As for "junk DNA", you have to remember that science is a progression. To the extent that there IS junk DNA, IF there is junk DNA, then it is DNA that science has not YET discovered the purpose of. Just like the cell used to be considered "simple"… just some gelatinous protoplasm or whatever. Now we know that a cell is as complex as the space shuttle. We thought it was full of "junk" back then. Now we know different. But, for an explanation of why "junk DNA" isn't really "junk", visit this site: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html

 

What exactly is the distinction between micro and macro evolution? Are you suggesting that many small changes can't add up, over time, to large changes?

 

Micro-evolution is adaptation within a species. My daughters are essentially an example of micro-evolution. They don't look EXACTLY like me OR my wife, and yet they still follow the same 'body plan'. Their appearance is the result of the encounter of two randomly chosen carriers of the genetic information. My sperm and her egg. I didn't pick which sperm, she didn't pick which egg. Micro-evolution can be related to specialized breeding of dogs and cats. (or anything else) That there are different breeds of dogs is the result of micro-evolution, in that case guided by selective breeding.

 

Macro-evolution takes one species and turns it into a new species with new body plan, adding complexity and function along the way. Or at least CHANGING complexity and function. This has NEVER been observed. It has ONLY been inferred. And Macro-evolution is what has to go. It's a fraud. It is NOT scientific, it has NO scientific support.

 

Why so condescending? Do you always think that those people who don't agree with you must be morons, who don't understand the slightest thing about DNA, and hedge trimming?

 

I'm sorry if I sound condescending. It's just that this stuff isn't really that complicated. It's very frustrating that people, in effect, point to the Rosetta Stone and, with a straight face, tell me that it came about by chance and that somehow THAT is scientific, and that I'm nuts for suggesting that an intelligence carved those characters into the tablet. You've gotta understand how frustrating that is, and that's exactly what I'm fighting.

 

I don't think anyone's a moron because they don't agree with me. And truth be told, I don't think anyone on this forum is a moron. But I most certainly do think that a person who would dare say, again, in effect, that the Rosetta Stone was formed by undirected natural processes has been seriously misled and deceived and when these same people insist that my children ought to learn the same fraud that they've learned, and call it "science", and that we cannot teach children THE TRUTH, then frankly, that makes me a little angry.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[rockytriton]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

gawd

 

can we lock this thread?

[TRoutMac]

'Religion' and 'science' are two completely different things and I would never equate them. Neither should 'religion' be taught as a 'science' because it's not. And then there's the problem that if we teach one religion, in all fairness, we have to teach them all.

 

No one is talking about teaching a religion, dduckwessel. Think of it this way… if you believe that creationism, for example, should not be taught in schools because it teaches a religion, then you ought to ALSO reject evolution on the same basis. Why? Because evolution makes a religious statement (at LEAST one) and that is, that the Bible is WRONG and that you shouldn't believe it. Likewise, you should WELCOME the teaching of I.D. because strictly taught, I.D. would not attempt to IDENTIFY the designer. A teacher would leave that as a philosophical question for a child to work out with his or her parents, and that's as it should be.

 

Truth is, if you want a "religiously neutral" curriculum with respect to origin of life issues, I.D. is the ONLY answer.

 

However, and I know it sounds strange, 'the Bible' (properly taught) is not a 'religious' book, altho it has always been wrongly perceived as such.

 

Actually, I agree with you completely.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

The Bible is not a religious book. And intelligent design is not a poorly hidden Christian front.

 

Right. How many times will this gobbledygook turn up.

[TRoutMac]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

gawd

 

can we lock this thread?

 

Oh, come on, Rocky. You don't have to be here. If you don't have the patience, attention span, or interest to read what's here, you're free not to. It's no skin off my nose. No sense in complaining about it. If you don't have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to contribute to the discussion, you're quite free to stay out of it.

 

And that goes for anyone else who can't handle the tough questions.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

Oh, come on, Rocky. You don't have to be here. If you don't have the patience, attention span, or interest to read what's here, you're free not to. It's no skin off my nose. No sense in complaining about it. If you don't have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to contribute to the discussion, you're quite free to stay out of it.

 

And that goes for anyone else who can't handle the tough questions.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

Careful. We have heard each and every one of your arguments over and over and over and over.

[TRoutMac]

The Bible is not a religious book. And intelligent design is not a poorly hidden Christian front.

 

Right. How many times will this gobbledygook turn up.

 

Well, you all (with the exception of Lolic, of course) are proving to be pretty typical. You've got no real arguments to make, and you're incapable of challenging my arguments or Lolic's arguments. Eventually you're reduced to whining and complaining and making little sideways jabs at Christians.

 

Again, if you can't handle the tough questions, and if you cannot contribute anything to the discussion, please exercize your freedom to NOT click your mouse on this discussion.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

Careful. We have heard each and every one of your arguments over and over and over and over.

 

And yet you persist in believing a myth, and worse yet, you insist on TEACHING IT TO MY KIDS and calling it "science".

 

Again, you've failed to contribute anything to the discussion.

 

Why don't you explain why I should believe the Rosetta Stone is the result of undirected natural processes?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Turtle]

___I voted no & this thread is my justification. Inasmuch as agreement is lacking on what ID is & says, how in god's name does anyone intend to teach it? Science is founded on reproducable results & none such is extant in ID. If there exists an intelligent designer, that intelligent designer is the only one qualified to teach the principles. :D Reading, writing, arithmetic, & library organization belongs in the class & the rest belongs in the library as independant study. The debate only exists because ID must subsume science for its validity.

____I once worked in a cabinet shop with an ID enthusiast & if I wasn't busy holding an 8 foot upper island cabinet to the ceiling while he prayed it wouldn't fall I might have convinced him to pray I didn't choke him unconcious. :)

[Tormod]

And yet you persist in believing a myth, and worse yet, you insist on TEACHING IT TO MY KIDS and calling it "science".

 

Again, you've failed to contribute anything to the discussion.

 

Why don't you explain why I should believe the Rosetta Stone is the result of undirected natural processes?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

What do you know about my beliefs? And how am I teaching it to your kids?

 

This is a warning: Your behaviour is out of line and it will not be tolerated for much longer.

[TRoutMac]

Not wanting to dispute you overly much TRoutMac because I really like your thinking, I do believe, however, that I.D. is expressly considered a 'religious' idea. The scientific community does not understand that evolution is a 'God ordained process' of nature.

 

Thanks, dduckwessel. Please allow me to pose some questions to you.

 

If I.D. doesn't identify the designer, and if I.D. IS based on scientific methodologies, then why should it be "expressly considered a 'religious' idea"?

 

I agree with you, by the way, it is CONSIDERED to be a religious idea. But Lolic and I have demonstrated here in numerous ways, that it is NOT a religious idea and that it should not be considered as such.

 

You also allude to something here in your last sentence… strictly speaking, I.D. and evolution are not necessarily incompatible. At least in a narrow sense. Intelligent Design simply makes the observation that life was designed. The method of creation isn't necessarily within the scope of I.D. Having said that, macro-evolution really has no scientific basis and many I.D. proponents have proven that Darwinian macro-evolution is impossible. Michael Behe being one of them. So yes, the Intelligent Designer, COULD have designed nature so as to make macro-evolution possible, the question is, "Did it?" And the answer, given the evidence we have, is a resounding "No!"

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

What do you know about my beliefs? And how am I teaching it to your kids?

 

When did I say I knew anything about your beliefs?

 

If you stand opposed to teaching I.D. (REAL science) in schools, then you are in effect, insisting that a lie be taught to my children (and everyone else's) and that we label the lie "science".

 

This is a warning: Your behaviour is out of line and it will not be tolerated for much longer.

 

What behavior is that? How is it out-of-line, exactly? I haven't insulted anyone, called anyone names, used profanity.

 

All I've done is present some excellent arguments in support of I.D., why it SHOULD be taught in schools, why evolution should NOT be taught in schools, and have asked thought-provoking questions that most of the opponents of I.D. here have conveniently avoided answering. That's okay… that's their prerogative. They don't have to answer if they don't want to… that's their business. But how is it that I'm out-of-line?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

When did I say I knew anything about your beliefs?

 

You wrote:

"And yet you persist in believing a myth, and worse yet, you insist on TEACHING IT TO MY KIDS and calling it "science"."

 

If you stand opposed to teaching I.D. (REAL science) in schools, then you are in effect, insisting that a lie be taught to my children (and everyone else's) and that we label the lie "science".

 

This is a science site, not a soapbox. Stop putting words into other people's mouths.

 

What behavior is that? How is it out-of-line, exactly? I haven't insulted anyone, called anyone names, used profanity.

 

It seems you may not have read our site rules, which are accessible from the menu above.

 

All I've done is present some excellent arguments in support of I.D., why it SHOULD be taught in schools, why evolution should NOT be taught in schools, and have asked thought-provoking questions that most of the opponents of I.D. here have conveniently avoided answering. That's okay… that's their prerogative. They don't have to answer if they don't want to… that's their business. But how is it that I'm out-of-line?

 

Again, read our rules. You are in violation of several of them.

[Boerseun]

When did I say I knew anything about your beliefs?

Sheesh...

If you stand opposed to teaching I.D. (REAL science) in schools, then you are in effect, insisting that a lie be taught to my children (and everyone else's) and that we label the lie "science".

I'm so close to flaming you good and solid and get myself forever banned from hypography by my friends here it's not even funny. Do you know the difference between 'objectiveness' and 'subjectiveness'? You are saying now that anything except ID is NOT 'real science'. What is 'real science', pray tell? You don't seem to know. Let me tell you, then. Real science is something verifiable, falsifiable, testable. The crap you spout is subjective, non-testable rubbish. Get over yourself. Go and visit http://www.biblethumpers.com or something.

What behavior is that? How is it out-of-line, exactly? I haven't insulted anyone, called anyone names, used profanity.

Sure. No name calling. Fine. But when you signed up here, you did read the bit about this being a science-oriented forum, right?

All I've done is present some excellent arguments in support of I.D., why it SHOULD be taught in schools, why evolution should NOT be taught in schools, and have asked thought-provoking questions that most of the opponents of I.D. here have conveniently avoided answering. That's okay… that's their prerogative. They don't have to answer if they don't want to… that's their business. But how is it that I'm out-of-line?

There is no explaining the difference between clear-cut objectiveness and blinding subjectiveness to those who aren't interested in understanding. Read up about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and come present your ID-arguments again.

By the way - give me a rundown of all your 'thought-provoking' questions, and I will blow them all out of the water. Please, get me a summary, post it, and I will do just that.

 

PS to Mods and Admins:

 

Whether you agree with me or not, I apologise. But TRoutMac is spewing subjective nonsense with no backup. It's not the ID premise that gets me, its the subjectiveness. If you do support ID, sure - explain yourself. But I will not condone statements like "what SHOULD be taught in schools" and what "should NOT be taught in schools" from a high-and-mighty point of view that is built on pure vapour.

If I came too close to a flame on this, you know where the Rep buttons are. Burn me.

[rockytriton]

What behavior is that? How is it out-of-line, exactly? I haven't insulted anyone, called anyone names, used profanity.

 

I would argue with this kid, but for some reason I get the idea that this is just some little kid sitting around in his mom's basement trying to find ways to make people on the science forums angry, meanwhile he is probably just laughing at us while we go mad.

[TRoutMac]

You wrote:

"And yet you persist in believing a myth, and worse yet, you insist on TEACHING IT TO MY KIDS and calling it "science"."

 

Alright, I'm busted. I DID presume that you believe the myth of macro-evolution. Your are right, and I was wrong to presume that you believe it.

 

Now, just curious. DO you believe that macro-evolution is a scientifically valid theory? DO you believe that macro-evolution should be taught to the exclusion of I.D. in public schools, as it has been for a number of years?

 

This is a science site, not a soapbox. Stop putting words into other people's mouths.

 

To the extent that I have put words into your mouth, I apologize. But if this is a science site, then why don't the opponents of I.D. (whoever they may be) care to reply with science-based reasoned responses or arguments? Why, instead, do some merely poke their heads into the forum and make wise-cracks about how boring the topic is to them?

 

It seems you may not have read our site rules, which are accessible from the menu above.

 

I have read the rules, Tormod, and I do not see how I am in violation of them. Rather, I see now a few others in this discussion have been in violation. Namely, the "Hit & Run" post from Rocky, and, in fact, from YOU when you recently posted this sarcastic remark in the midst of an otherwise serious discussion:

 

"The Bible is not a religious book. And intelligent design is not a poorly hidden Christian front. Right. How many times will this gobbledygook turn up."

 

Not that I mind, exactly, but another poster to this discussion sent me a private message without my permission, which is also a violation of the rules. It was a friendly message, mind you, from someone here who is (apparently) an opponent of I.D., and I replied in kind and was not bothered or offended by the message.

 

But once again I will ask you to tell me what rules I have violated. I don't believe I have violated ONE of them.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

I won't bother to quote any part of your message, Boerseun. It is typical… I'm not going to waste any of my time "summarizing" my arguments for you just so you can avoid them by attacking and insulting me as you have already done. I know your tactics, I'm not the fool you think I am. You wanna see my arguments? Go find them yourself, then get back to me. Otherwise, exercise whatever freedom you feel you have. Ain't no skin off my nose.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon