Just because something is refuted, does not mean it does not have some standing. I am interested in ID that has scientific proof, not faith based claims.

I stand corrected. You are correct in saying that evolution could explain how we came to be. But, it has not yet shown so. All I have been trying to say is that it is not the law of evolution, it is still a theory at this point. The theory of evolution has a lot more evidence behind it than does ID as well. However, no one has shown me how the two are incompatible yet.

Once again, ID isn't a theory, because there is no scientific way to study it.

As to compatability, they are completely compatable for the exact same reason.

I personally believe that God created the universe and all that it contains, and used the mechanism of the big bang and evolution to do so.

No incompatability. But ID requires faith in some larger power or "designer" and such faith is not in the realm of science.

Once again, there will never be a LAW of evolution. That isn't how science works. Your use of the words law theory shows that you do not have a proper understanding of the scientific meanings of the words.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...DF&catID=2

generally when something has been refuted, it does mean that it has no standing. as far as ID's claims about specific and irreducable complexity, those have no standing and are not worth continually discussing. it's like someone continuing to want to discuss a flat earth even after pictures of a spherical earth have been shown to them... a waste of time.

and as lebell said, there is no scientific proof for ID, you have to take it all on faith. and that just isnt' science.

maybe this deserves a new thread, but maybe not...

more on the c v. e debate in dover...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...liticsreligion

the part i find most intersting and telling of the people who oppose evolution...

you cant deny that creationalism at least has a water-tight internal logic... if for God all things are possible, then anything can be done.

So you can say "well, what about this evidence that the earth is far more than 6000 year old..."

Oh well, God created that evidence to test your faith

etc etc...

I have nothing against peopel being aware of creation muths of various cultures... after all, evolutionalism doesnt really explain the concept of the creation of the universe, does it?

I WOULD have a big problem if these people are only pushing the Jewish creation story... that is basically using the tools of the state as a system of religious indoctrination... in that case the society is a theocracy. If children are to be taught the creation stories of all religions and cultures... fine: whether or not they are scientifically valid it is still worthwhile to study theology. Evolution does have gaps, and the creation myths rely on a tautological argument (God is all powerful and everything is possible for God, therefore God has the power to do all these things and make a 6000 year old earth appear much older, and so on...)... a lot of intelligent people have concluded that extra-terrastial beings played a big part in the population and evolution of life on earth... these theories should be equal footing with the religious creation theories.

My feeling about this is, basically, let them waste their time, money, and effort trying to bring creationism back into the schools. It's a pipe dream, will never be successful, and it keeps them busy doing things that are relatively harmless (nobody is going to be killed or made homeless by this particular political goal).

Plus every time an initiative like this gets passed, it creates enormous controversy and provides a very effective lesson for students about what is and is not science, that they will remember for the rest of their lives.

The courts have beat them back every time, even "conservative" judges beat them back on this issue. They're not going to win it. I say let them continue tilting on this windmill as long as they like. All it accomplishes is to drain them of energy and resources.

Rekna,I watched the same video as you. With the pastor high school teacher(we'll atleast he used all the same facts word for word as you).And anyman who calls evolutionalist druggie nazi's is not a man to listen to imo.

Teach creationism in theology class. Teach evolution in science class. Teach 'Grapes of Wrath' in boring, rambeling, crappy book class.

I think that the best solution is to teach evolution as the means of getting people where we are, and leave out all discussion the origin of life. The big debate over ID vs. evolution seems to me really to focus on the origin of life, as opposed to the manner in which life changed (or didn't change) on earth. Because the evolutionists don't have the answers as to how life came about, and that (currently) cannot be proven false or true, the same as ID. But there seems to be ample evidence to support evolution.

And calling The Grapes of Wrath boring, rambling, and crappy? I've heard some crazy things on this board, but that might take the cake ;) .

evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. just with the change from the first single cell organism to the diverse life that we know of today. and pepole still have problems with that.

I would push evolution back even earlier than the first single cell organism. Why would it begin there?

My understanding is that evolution addresses the origin of life by virtue of electrical events altering carbon molecules (or similar). That it is something that we have not replicated in a lab means little - we also haven't turned an ape into a human, but we can see how the progression existed.

Of course, what was the origin of the carbon molecule? Or the electrical energy? Some would say the Big Bang - but I've never been able to wrap my head around that explanation ... what about BEFORE the Big Bang? As long as God can be considered first cause (whenever and whatever that was), evolution will never suffice. However, ID and/or creationism is not specifically attempting to explain first cause, so they can be discounted as purely agenda driven as long as they are proposed as alternatives to evolution.

well, i havent' had biology since AP bio in 11th grade, and have only added to that knowledge through what i've read on the internet. but the study of evolution only deals with how life has changed since it it began. not how life began (abiogenisis). technically, you could probably take it all the way back to the development of self-replicating non-life. like proteins, then whatever came next, and next, and next all the way to the first single celled organism. but evolution, strictly speaking, doesn't deal with that (at least as far as i know).

if god is the first cause, that asks the question: where did god come from? i don't consider 'he's always been, always will be" to be a sufficient answer. but that's just me.

From what some people were saying earlier in the thread, evolution (or offshoots of it) do attempt to state the cause of life. I say ignore that part, and that should be a decent compromise to those who advocate the teaching of ID. If they don't like it, tough. Neither can be proven as the origin of life, so don't give either time. Post-origin, evolution can be proven for the most part, so that should stay. ID (to my knowledge) does nothing to address the issue of how life might have gotten to this state, so they don't have any footing in debating the validity of that part of evolution being in schools.

The origin of life is a valid, thriving scientific field of research just like any other scientific field, and it is entirely valid to discuss it in a public science class. In fact it would be disgraceful not to include the subject in a biology class. Whether or not you include it under the aegis of "evolution" is really beside the point.

As far as the origin of life is concerned, consider the fact that scientists have been able to create life in the lab for several years now. Viruses are now routinely synthesized and used as vectors in gene transfers, on a daily basis. So you could say that through scientific progress, we now know how to create life from nonlife, and it is quite easy if you know how.

There of course is still a lot of controversy about the precise chemical pathways through which this spontaneously happened in the early history of the earth, but it is beyond any doubt that it can happen, in fact very easily under the right circumstances.

ID, on the other hand, is not science. It is completely outside the realm of science, and is completely inappropriate to include in a science class. It has contributed absolutely nothing to scientific knowledge. It is simply a surrogate for creationism.

To my knowledge, viruses are'nt considered life because they only meet one of the definitions (replication, iirc). Although it's been a few years since i've had a biology class, so my knowledge could be out of date.

There are many scientists who believe in ID. It is your opinion that it is outside the realm of science, not fact. In either this thread, or another on the subject there were many links giving the scientific basis for ID. That is why I say stick to what is fairly certain to be scientifically accurate (evolution theory post-creation) and leave the rest out.

And honestly, from what I remember we might have spent a whole 2 weeks on evolution in high school, and that was with 2 years of AP classes (bio and chem). IMO many of the nuances required to truly understand the underlying theories can't be covered in classes geared toward high school students, at least if you want anything else to be covered.

Your recollection is not accurate. Viruses not only replicate, but they have DNA/RNA that codes for many biochemical processes that are present only in living organisms.

But whether or not you consider them life, the fact that these functional biochemical entities are routinely created in the test tube is certainly pertinent to the debate about the origin of life on this planet. This subject is a scientific subject (whether or not you want to call it "evolution") and it is entirely appropriate to include in a biology class, whereas ID is not appropriate.

There are in fact very few scientists who believe in ID, just like there are a few scientists who believe just about anything. Scientific consensus is the criterion of what should be taught in public schools, not fringe beliefs.


Yes it is my opinion, which is supported by argument that probably 99% of scientists agree with.


I saw those links, and my opinion is that those arguments are completely laughable pseudoscience. The core of the arguments are a little number juggling by people who have no knowledge of probability or statistics, followed by some quoting of Scripture.

Two weeks is plenty of time to expose students to the current science regarding the origin of life.

Assuming there is a first cause, God is first cause. The most basic and underlying definition of God is first cause. You can add on to that things like "he" or "He" or "she" or intention or continuation, if you like, but those are not required properties of god. Without first cause, god (as in the creator of everything that we know) is really nothing more than a possibly nonexistent superior being.

If you prefer the concept of no first cause, then we're dealing with infinity. And I'm not sure what is more difficult to conceive of - infinity or nothingness.

But you ignore the fact that outside of a host cell, viruses exibit none of the evidences of life. The strand of RNA/DNA they have is useless unless they attach to a cell. There is no definate answer as to whether viruses are alive or not. Therefore the creation of viruses does not indicate the ability to create life. Teaching that viruses can be created has little to do with the creation of life.

But there is also no concensus as to how life did originate. So by your reasoning, there should be nothing taught about the origin of life.

And in many people's opinion, the opposing arguments are also pseudoscience, put forth by people who lacking evidence have imposed their own beliefs as to how things originated.

How can it be when the current science isn't consistent with itself? If you expose the current theories, you have to allow ID. That is why I say teach evolution, but leave out origin.

The fact that their DNA/RNA codes for very complex life processes that are present only in living organisms certainly constitutes strong (just about all biologists would say irrefutable) evidence that viruses came from living organisms.

And many living parasites are also useless until they attach to another organism. That does not imply they are not living. And, like viruses, many parasites are highly reduced organisms that have lost many processes and structures that they don't need because they exploit the host for those processes. That doesn't mean they aren't alive, or didn't originate from living organisms.

There certainly is a scientific consensus that life originated in a stepwise process involving simple carbon based molecules similar in structure to biological molecules that are still found in living cells or viruses. The precise details are still a subject of scientific research, but the fact that there are things we don't know does nothing to invalidate the consensus.

But the difference between the two sides is simple: one side always allows evidence and intellect to guide their theories, and the other side does not.

Here's a simple thought experiment: what would you have to observe that would absolutely refute the hypothesis of ID? If you can specify what that observation would be, then ID is indeed a scientific hypothesis.

The trouble is, there is nothing that can be observed that can refute the hypothesis, because ID contains within it an intelligent, all powerful actor who can apparently orchestrate all kinds of phenomena across the entire universe. Hence this actor is outside the realm of physical constraint. Hence anything you observe is consistent with ID.

You don't have to tell the students every detail about every controversy, just the basic scientific consensus. And this is exactly what students are taught in public schools. For example they are taught the scientific consensus and the scientific theories involved in the origin of life. I don't see any reason to change this.
No you don't have to allow ID, because it is not science, for the reason I summarized above. Allowing it would bring the supernatural into the science class, which is educationally completely inappropriate.

But sure, teach ID in a theology class in public school, or in a mythology class. I have no problem with that.

It seems that people on BOTH sides are willing to ignore parts of the constitution when it fits their needs, not just people who have religious beliefs. If people want to have schools teach their children creationism, let them.

I like that idea. I was taught about Islam in 7th grade, in a public school. I have no problem with schools teaching about all religions, including agnosticism and athiesm. Giving preference to one is a bad idea, however. Teaching different religions also helps teach about different cultures, so that students may gain new perspectives.

Does it boil down to if a parent wants to have their child taught creationism as "the way" should they be forced to have to pay for a private school ie(catholic school) or similiar? Or simply let them go to Sunday school? Thats a tough one.

The opinions made here will depend on a persons beliefs, which will continue be an issue.

Personally I wish there wasnt as much historical credence as there is; placed on the old testment. I problem I see is what source of historical documentation does one find valid, and what are the facts the science states.

Like historical documentation; that can be altered according to different political motives through the ages- the old testment shows to have been changed (one source of many) http://www.earth-history.com/

Even then substance from a story; that has numerous similarities to Sumerian text, that has divine intervention I compare to Homer's writings.

I see the fight the founding fathers made to have the freedom to worship as they desired; to outweigh the religion itself. I hear several references in the news latley the fact this country was built on the principles of Judeo-Christian beliefs. While I have argument with that; one point stands out- was there no room left for social evolution?
Today is different than yesterday. How close does the Bill of Rights resemble the ten commandments?

I believe evolution is easier to grasp than Adam and Eve. Faith isnt a bad thing, but in some instances it can detract from the here and now and influence action that affect the present and future. A future that may have been a little more constructive if accountability had been place more on the thinking minds of the humans living here; opposed to outside forces tempting our weakness, and other judging them.

It doesnt mean that a higher power may not be present, I wonder where the common ground can be found? Certainly children can learn values that are good; such as treat others as you would be treated, and still learn evolution. Or even study the Old Testament as inspiration of values opposed to historical fact.

A very tough issue.

Here's what I get out of all of this:

ID shouldn't be taught in biology classes, but I see little harm in mentioning "The Christian faith believes this, but in this biology class we will be discussing Darwin's evolution. If you wish to discuss the relationships between these two ideas, please talk to me, or if there is great enough demand then we will discuss in class."

I think the main problem with this is that we have the thought that we cannot discuss both. Yes, they are in opposition to one annother, and yes one has more scientific background. But what I believe is that if we are discussing "The beginning of the earth" then we should present common conceptions of how the Ball got rolling.

I completely disagree with teaching Creationism as The Truth, which is what I suppose is being proposed by the US government (?) but I see no harm in presenting it as an idea.

I first heard of ID in my grade nine biology class. My teacher was a creationist, but he still taught us evolution, because he believed that both could work in tandem. I can't support his ideas here, but I can say that this did happen. I then learned more details about ID in my grade eleven philosophy class, while discussing Aquinas, and have recently discussed it again in my History of Western Philosophy class in university.

The problem with arguing back and forth between Creationism and Evolution, is that both have their limits. Both suggest that something happened that "started" whatever it is that we are doing now. Neither is comfortable with the idea of infinite regression, but one is slightly more comfortable with it than the other. The thing is that science relies on Microbes (which we have concrete evidence of existing, but we have no definite explaination of how got here) whereas Creationism relies on "god" for comfort.

What I find most interesting about the argument is that ID doesn't nescitate the Christian God, and yet it is mostly Christians that fall back upon this.

Oh, and just for info, I'm a deist who believes that evolution and creationism can coincide. I don't believe in the Christian god, but I do feel that the universe probably had a Starting Force, which I guess I choose to call "god."

A couple things -- first, promoting a specific religion ("the Christian faith believes this . . . ") in a public school in this context is probably not constitutional.

And although I don't see any real problem in taking a little time at the beginning of a biology course to discuss what science is and does (as compared to say religion), I don't see any need to discuss the "religious" point of view on every topic treated in a biology class, even if there is a lot of interest. Evolution is just one of many that intersects with religion; if you discuss evolution vis a vis religion, then why not bring religion in at every turn, if students are interested?

The reason is that it's a science class; religion is simply not pertinent, either logically or pedagogically.

But I do agree that the basics of the philosophical differences between science and religion should be taught at the HS level, probably best in a social studies class.

The problem I find with this, raveneye, is that sometimes it's hard for kids to differentiate between science and religion. When a kid discusses evolution for the first time, when throughout their entire life they hear only about creationism, I think it would be important to ease them into it.

What I suggest is that when going into the evolution unit they give a short history of the science. How the theory itself grew out of doubts of creationism, and this was a more scientific answer to the religious ideas. It's actually a relatively interesting story as well, especially when you hear about how much the idea of evolution bothered Darwin, who was a Christian himself.