Intelligent design

[Edge]

The evidence we have for "evolution" does not support macro-evolution, and yet this evidence (for micro-evolution) is used as evidence for macro-evolution via an assumption that macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution on a larger scale.

Exactly, and that's why it is a scientific theory. It's using something we know that already happens extrapolated on other level. If there were enough evidence for macro-evolution it would be a fact, which is isn't.

 

And I see that ID may support that maybe Aliens or whatever god would have created or designed us. That seems fair to me.

[TRoutMac]

Exactly, and that's why it is a scientific theory. It's using something we know that already happens extrapolated on other level. If there were enough evidence for macro-evolution it would be a fact, which is isn't.

 

Well, that's why it's a theory, at any rate. I guess it's "scientific" just by virtue of the fact that many "scientists" believe it. Still, the broad picture of Darwinian evolution (micro- and macro-evolution) is accepted by many as fact as a package.

 

Many of the others who have participated in this discussion, however, seem reluctant (at best) to admit what this means, namely, that there is no "hard" evidence of macro-evolution. The idea that the extrapolation of micro-evolution into macro-evolution is equivalent to "hard" evidence for macro-evoution is laughable, and guys like Behe have demonstrated precisely why.

 

And I see that ID may support that maybe Aliens or whatever god would have created or designed us. That seems fair to me.

 

Since Intelligent Design theory leaves the identity of the Designer open, this is true. However, it's also true that many supporters of ID believe (that is, based on faith, not science) that the Designer is God. As pgrmdave pointed out earlier, since Intelligent Design ultimately is intended to account for the existence of the entire universe it's a pretty tough sell to suggest that aliens are the Intelligent Designer(s) who created the universe, without which there would be no aliens. Small problem there.

 

Still, the point is simply that the identity of the designer is not relevant as far as Intelligent Design theory is concerned, so you can draw whatever conclusions you want about the identity.

 

This is precisely why I have the unmitigated gall to suggest that I.D. is religiously more neutral than Darwinism. Evolution (as preached by guys like Dawkins) makes two basic religious statements:

 

Part 1) Don't believe the Bible; you're a kook if you do.

Part 2) Your life is completely meaningless and without purpose.

 

I.D., on the other hand, allows the "audience" to draw its own conclusions about whether the Bible ought to be believed (since I.D. doesn't use the Bible to support any of its tenets) and the only thing I.D. has to say regarding purpose or meaning is that, apparently, the Intelligent Designer created the universe for some reason. You could conclude, for example, that it was "just for fun" in which case you're still free to believe that your life is meaningless and without purpose.

 

Therefore, if you want religious neutrality in schools, support the teaching of I.D.!! (Dontcha just love the irony?!)

[Edge]

Wait a minute. Evolution mainly focus on the development of life in Earth not the creation of the universe. When I was referring that aliens would be the creator I was meaning the responsibles of the life in Earth.

 

Part 1) Don't believe the Bible; you're a kook if you do.

I don't remember when did evolution tell that. If it's contradicts the bible is another thing. However, I don't remember being taught at school on evolution classes that the bible is bullshit.

Part 2) Your life is completely meaningless and without purpose.

Why is that? I was never taught that either. If there's a god or not your life will not be meaningless. You don't see atheists killing themselves or acting like if they didn't care.

[pgrmdave]

Part 1) Don't believe the Bible; you're a kook if you do.

Part 2) Your life is completely meaningless and without purpose.

 

Evolution has absolutly nothing to do with Chrisitanity, Hinduism, Taoism, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or the Wizard of Oz. It only claims to be an explanation of the diversity of life. Nothing else. It doesn't have anything more to do with the meaning of life than relativity does. Evolution does not in any way make statements about religion.

 

What it does do is contradict certain specific beliefs within many religions (it doesn't target Christianity). It claims everything comes from a common ancestor, rather than having been created from dust, or sneezed into existance.

[TRoutMac]

Wait a minute. Evolution mainly focus on the development of life in Earth not the creation of the universe. When I was referring that aliens would be the creator I was meaning the responsibles of the life in Earth.

 

Of course, you're right… evolution by itself does not address the creation of the universe. But I didn't say it did. What I said was that Intelligent Design does, even though most of what you read about I.D. pertains to the origin of life.

 

I don't remember when did evolution tell that. If it's contradicts the bible is another thing. However, I don't remember being taught at school on evolution classes that the bible is bullshit.

 

Oh, no… they didn't tell you this outright. But I for one was never taught that evolution happened in six days… were you? Of course not. Consequently, the teaching of evolution, particularly if it's taught as though it's a proven fact, carries an implicit religious statement that the Bible is not to be believed as written.

 

Why is that? I was never taught that either. If there's a god or not your life will not be meaningless. You don't see atheists killing themselves or acting like if they didn't care.

 

I'm not saying to you can't do "important" things with your life… that's not what I'm talking about. If the textbook definition of evolution is true (result of chance; random, undirected and purposeless) then there is no "larger purpose" for our existence, or whatever "larger purpose" you can imagine is just whatever you can conjure up in your own mind, not a purpose handed down by some transcendant being.

[TRoutMac]

Evolution has absolutly nothing to do with Chrisitanity, Hinduism, Taoism, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or the Wizard of Oz. It only claims to be an explanation of the diversity of life. Nothing else. It doesn't have anything more to do with the meaning of life than relativity does. Evolution does not in any way make statements about religion.

 

No, it doesn't have "anything to do" with Christianity, et al. Why would it, and when did I say that it did?

 

What it does do is contradict certain specific beliefs within many religions (it doesn't target Christianity). It claims everything comes from a common ancestor, rather than having been created from dust, or sneezed into existance.

 

This is a bit like when you can't find your wallet and you say "It's not lost, I just don't know where it's at!"

 

To make a religious statement, all evolutionary theory has to do is offer anything that contradicts a religion. The minute it did that, it inserted itself into a religious debate, and made a religious statement. Now, you might say it would be impossible for any theory on origins to do otherwise, and I would agree wholeheartedly. Yes, it is impossible to offer a theory of origins which does not carry religious implications. But for reasons I've already explained, the theory of I.D. carries less religious 'baggage' than evolution.

[Edge]

Of course, you're right… evolution by itself does not address the creation of the universe. But I didn't say it did. What I said was that Intelligent Design does, even though most of what you read about I.D. pertains to the origin of life.

Agreed.

Oh, no… they didn't tell you this outright. But I for one was never taught that evolution happened in six days… were you? Of course not. Consequently, the teaching of evolution, particularly if it's taught as though it's a proven fact, carries an implicit religious statement that the Bible is not to be believed as written.

Well, I don't know what are you trying to say here. Sure, it should be stated before the teaching of it that it is not a proven or disproven fact, so, the students should not see it as absolute truth.

 

Now, about the Bible. Some christians believe that the 6 days referred in the Bible is not equal to 6 solar days, many think that it means that a day for god is equal to many years. That's mainly a matter of belief.

 

I'm not saying to you can't do "important" things with your life… that's not what I'm talking about. If the textbook definition of evolution is true (result of chance; random, undirected and purposeless) then there is no "larger purpose" for our existence, or whatever "larger purpose" you can imagine is just whatever you can conjure up in your own mind, not a purpose handed down by some transcendant being.

Again, there are people who don't believe in god and don't waste their life. If a student begins to think this because the teaching of evolution even when it was stated that it is not a fact, then it is more a matter of his/her own faith.

 

And you are kinda implying that if something from religion is proved false then it shouldn't be taught, even when it has evidence.

[TRoutMac]

Sure, it should be stated before the teaching of it that it is not a proven or disproven fact, so, the students should not see it as absolute truth.

 

Well, sometimes when it is stated, teachers lose their jobs. Where I live a biology teacher at the community college lost his contract because he had the audacity to stand up in front of his class and say that there was some controversy about evolution, some unanswered questions, and that [students] should consider carefully the issues and make up their own mind. He then proceeded to teach the state-mandated evolution curriculum. This ended up being quite a controversy here and the college refused to renew the instructor's contract the following year.

 

A recent case in California involved a parent who proposed to his school board nothing more than a curriculum which taught the scientific weaknesses of evolution alongside the scientific "strengths". No mention of I.D. Apparently, the school board was obligated to hear the proposal and vote on it, but they refused. The parent filed suit and apparently has won.

 

So, I agree it would be nice if there was some intellectual honesty about the theory of evolution and I wish students were taught more than one theory. But currently there appears to be little tolerance for any view which either competes with evolution, or even merely raises questions about it. It is orthodoxy and is not to be questioned.

 

Now, about the Bible. Some christians believe that the 6 days referred in the Bible is not equal to 6 solar days, many think that it means that a day for god is equal to many years. That's mainly a matter of belief.

 

Well, I hesitate to discuss this particular issue much further, since this is a science forum and not a Bible forum. Suffice it to say that there are many individuals who take the 6 days literally, and to those people especially, evolution says unequivocally that the Bible is wrong.

 

Again, there are people who don't believe in god and don't waste their life. If a student begins to think this because the teaching of evolution even when it was stated that it is not a fact, then it is more a matter of his/her own faith.

 

I don't personally believe that anyone's life is a waste. I personally believe everyone's life has a larger purpose; larger than anything they could ever assign themselves. Obviously, I cannot prove this… it is my faith-held belief. However, if I'm right, then my life (and the atheist's life as well) doeshave a larger purpose. But if the person who doesn't believe there is a larger purpose in their life is right, then even if they don't waste their life, their life (and my life) is indeed meaningless and without purpose.

 

And you are kinda implying that if something from religion is proved false then it shouldn't be taught, even when it has evidence.

 

What I'm saying is that if someone wants to teach a scientific theory which contradicts a religious belief then that person (or persons) shouldn't be surprised when people say that they are making a religious statement. If their theory can be proven true, then so be it. The people who hold the religious belief that was contradicted will just have to deal with it. However, we're not talking about a theory (evolution) which has itself been proven or has disproven any religion; probably because there is no evidence to support it. (again, speaking of macro-evolution)

[pgrmdave]

TRoutMac, every modern scientific theory that I can think of (Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics) in some way contradicts the bible. According to the bible, the sun 'stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day' (Joshua 10:13) Are we to claim that all of astonomy and physics is a religious statement? Should teachers be required to check to make sure that factual, tested evidence fits with the Bible? And if those things are okay even though they contradict the bible, why is evolution so bad?

[Edge]

Well, sometimes when it is stated, teachers lose their jobs. Where I live a biology teacher at the community college lost his contract because he had the audacity to stand up in front of his class and say that there was some controversy about evolution, some unanswered questions, and that [students] should consider carefully the issues and make up their own mind. He then proceeded to teach the state-mandated evolution curriculum. This ended up being quite a controversy here and the college refused to renew the instructor's contract the following year.

 

A recent case in California involved a parent who proposed to his school board nothing more than a curriculum which taught the scientific weaknesses of evolution alongside the scientific "strengths". No mention of I.D. Apparently, the school board was obligated to hear the proposal and vote on it, but they refused. The parent filed suit and apparently has won.

 

So, I agree it would be nice if there was some intellectual honesty about the theory of evolution and I wish students were taught more than one theory. But currently there appears to be little tolerance for any view which either competes with evolution, or even merely raises questions about it. It is orthodoxy and is not to be questioned.

I agree.

 

Well, I hesitate to discuss this particular issue much further, since this is a science forum and not a Bible forum. Suffice it to say that there are many individuals who take the 6 days literally, and to those people especially, evolution says unequivocally that the Bible is wrong.

Which is matter of their faith not of evolution. Personally, relativism conflicts with my belief that classic physics are absolute; yet, it is taught, should it be outlawed of school?

 

I just accepted the fact that classic physics are not absolute.

 

Evolution has evidence that says that the Earth is more than 6000 years old that supposedly the bible suggests. Evolution has evidence on dinasaurs and cavemen. Those contradict the bible too, should it not be taught just because christians feel that it contradict their beliefs even when they have no evidence other than the bible?

 

I don't personally believe that anyone's life is a waste. I personally believe everyone's life has a larger purpose; larger than anything they could ever assign themselves. Obviously, I cannot prove this… it is my faith-held belief. However, if I'm right, then my life (and the atheist's life as well) doeshave a larger purpose. But if the person who doesn't believe there is a larger purpose in their life is right, then even if they don't waste their life, their life (and my life) is indeed meaningless and without purpose.

I don't see it that way. Even when I believe in God and I'm catholic, I can see that you don't need to believe in god in order to appreciate the things life has to offer. You don't need a bible, koran, god etc. in order to be able to love your fellow men.

 

However, hey that's just me. And I think this is offtopic. What evolution implies over the purpose of life is not to be discussed.

 

What I'm saying is that if someone wants to teach a scientific theory which contradicts a religious belief then that person (or persons) shouldn't be surprised when people say that they are making a religious statement. If their theory can be proven true, then so be it. The people who hold the religious belief that was contradicted will just have to deal with it. However, we're not talking about a theory (evolution) which has itself been proven or has disproven any religion; probably because there is no evidence to support it. (again, speaking of macro-evolution)

The evolution theory tries to explain the origin of life, not that there's no god, or that christiany or any particular religion is wrong. It never implies that the bible is wrong, if it's contradicts the bible; well, it's the bible's problem, evolution has evidence to support that the earth is older than it apparently suggests (fossils). Just because some folks feel threatened because evolution is taught is not reason enough to outlaw it from school. Evolution do not imply anything religious... it doesn't say anything about god or the bible...

 

And franctly, we are talking about ID not evolution. By that logic, ID should not be taught either, it contradicts the atheist belief of no existing god, the difference is the evidence given by one and the other.

 

Still, I still think that it should be told by the teacher that evolution has not been proven or disproven, and there's a chance that an intelligent being designed the life on earth (universe?).

[goku]

TRoutMac, every modern scientific theory that I can think of (Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics) in some way contradicts the bible. According to the bible, the sun 'stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day' (Joshua 10:13) Are we to claim that all of astonomy and physics is a religious statement? Should teachers be required to check to make sure that factual, tested evidence fits with the Bible? And if those things are okay even though they contradict the bible, why is evolution so bad?

that is the purpose of theories, to make people doubt the bible.

just because god isn't bound by any law, doesn't mean the laws are false.

[Boerseun]

When you throw a stone up into the air, it comes down. Whether you like it or not. Our lives might have meaning, or it might have not. Whether you like it or not. Whatever the outcome will be, doesn't depend on whether you want your life to have any meaning or not. Let's say, for a moment, that your life is indeed totally and utterly meaningless. And that you don't like it. Will it change the fact? No.

 

When ID says (like Trout did a few posts ago) that ID is better because 'evolution' says our lives are meaningless, it will not change one single iota of the truth. ID is stringing the guitar of human emotions, and contributes zip, zero, nada, in terms of scientific inquiry and truth. Believe ID if you think it'll make you sleep better at night. Don't expect more than a good night's rest, though.

 

Trout, please anser my post this time. I can't understand why you've been ignoring my posts recently. Cutting close to the bone, or what?

[rockytriton]

Well, looks like Kansas is the first to require kids to learn ID in science class: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html

[TRoutMac]

TRoutMac, every modern scientific theory that I can think of (Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics) in some way contradicts the bible. According to the bible, the sun 'stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day' (Joshua 10:13) Are we to claim that all of astonomy and physics is a religious statement?

 

I'm not aware of how the big bang, relativity or quantum mechanics contradicts the Bible. In fact, without actually citing verses, the Bible does use language in a couple of places that seems to support the big bang. Phrases like "He stretches out the heavens", etc. Again, I don't want to get into citing chapter and verse lest this thread be closed!

 

As for the sun stopping, yes our understanding of scientific laws would certainly lead one to conclude that this is impossible. However, a proper understanding of the Intelligent Designer would lead one to conclude that the Intelligent Designer, by virtue of the contention that "It" has the knowledge and power to design and create the universe and all of its laws, has the knowledge and power to suspend those laws. So astronomy and physics do not contradict the Bible… in fact I would say they tend to reinforce the Bible in a number of ways.

 

Should teachers be required to check to make sure that factual, tested evidence fits with the Bible? And if those things are okay even though they contradict the bible, why is evolution so bad?

 

No, they shouldn't. I never suggested they should. All I said was that when a scientific theory is presented which contradicts a pillar of any religion, those people advancing the theory should not be surprised when it is said that they are making a religious statement. I mean nothing more than just that. I'm not saying that you cannot present the information. But understand the logical implications of the information and don't pretend that you're not contradicting a religious teaching or making a religious statement.

[TRoutMac]

Well, looks like Kansas is the first to require kids to learn ID in science class: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.html

 

Rocky, I'm sorry but you've got it quite wrong. The assertion that "Kansas is the first to require kids to learn ID in science class" is patently false and I would think that, having posted the link to the article, that a) you would have actually read the article, and that :friday: you would understand this.

 

The decision requires that the scientific weaknesses of evolution be taught alongside the scientific strengths. There is no requirement to teach Intelligent Design.

 

What's interesting is that it would appear that you find this objectionable. Perhaps you do not, but to the extent that you do find it the decision objectionable, it means either of two things: 1) you don't believe there are any scientific weaknesses or 2) you think the scientific weaknesses of evolution should be hidden from children.

 

Obviously, the latter is unconscionable. But the former is untenable. If there were no scientific weaknesses in evolution, it would be fact. But many on this forum have admitted that this is not the case, although they advocate strongly that is a credible theory.

[rockytriton]

ok, they will be "expected" to, which means it can be "expected" to be on a test.

[TRoutMac]

ok, they will be "expected" to, which means it can be "expected" to be on a test.

 

"Expected to" what? Teach Intelligent Design? No, that's not what the article says. The article says that "students will be expected to study doubts about modern Darwinian theory," That is, they will be "expected to" learn about the scientific weaknesses of evolution as well as the strengths.

 

There is no requirement or "expectation" that Intelligent Design be taught or studied. These are the facts, it's right there in black and white.