what he doing now!!!!
 

that's the general sentiment of those who don't live in America

and the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4136690.stm

I can't help but feel this a huge step backward and detrimental to scientific progress in America. Also, I can see implications that as America becomes more influenced by the religious right it is becoming more of a target for religious extremists of other faiths.

What. The. Fuck?

I cannot absolutely understand the need to question the theory of evolution. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming compared to the "Theory of Intelligent Design". What fuckin evidence supports that there's a higher being that's affecting the evolution of "complex" species such as Homo Sapiens?

"It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution,"

Are these people in the same boat as the fellows who thought decimals and fractions were too complex for public school students?
Yeah, figures.

There is the possibility of intelligent design, but there's lots of possibilities. I'm not really sure why this is such a debate. How long could it possibly take to "teach" about intelligent design? No more than 5 minuntes. "Some people theorize that life may have been designed by an alien species." Thats pretty much the end of it... what more could you possibly say?

Until this "invisible hand" lands in a spacecraft on the white house lawn, or the heavans open and god and all his angels spew forth to tell the tale.. I really don't see much more coming from the discussion than that 1 sentence. Let the baby have it's bottle.

It is creationism through the back door, It has no scientific merit and i don't think it should be taught, I think it may take up more than 5 minutes and I doubt it will be treated in isolation, why not teach them that everything is made up of 4 elements Earth, fire, water and air? because we have progressed thats why

Well i would like to know what exactly is meant by this.

Cuz really if you think about it, for something to have designed life to be complex, i would imagine that thing would have to be pretty complex itself... so where did that come from? Was it created by an even more complex being? Then who designed it?

There's a major flaw there, so i can see how most people would think its creationism. But there is a difference. Intelligent design doesn't need to be "God" it could be (and would probably have to be) extraterrestrial life. So i think if the prez wants to change the way we've learned about life I think he should cart out some greys from area 51. :p


But really, i don't see how you'd need more than that one sentence. What more is there to say on the subject? You wouldn't be allowed to talk about God doing it in a public school. You'd be dragged out back and shot.

Even supposing that someone argued intelligent design and evolution don't have to be exclusive: Without the evidence of another intelligent life form [I think it's fair to say humans didn't create themselves], intelligent design isn't even a theory. The farthest you can go is a hypothesis: If ___ then ___ else ___.

So, as ObieX said -- you wouldn't need more than a sentence.

There is no compelling Data supporting I D....as there is in evolution. Though the "Theory" of evolution is far from complete, and has inevitable flaws.....it explains much and can be tested thru the scientific method. None of this can be said for intellegent Design, thus I would not accept it bieng taught to my children as a couterpart to evolution. I would prefer to do as we have already done.... explain both to them, and see which draws interest. Mind you.....the dinosaur/bird connection pretty much guaranteed the evolutionary interest....heh.

Did I miss something? Who said that, where and when? To make that statement, takes some serious stones. On the other hand, Mrs. O'Rights and I take our two year old to McDonald's every couple of weeks. I can't remember the last time that the cashier could make change without the assistance of the cash register telling how much to give back. No joke. I think that it's not so much that they can't be taught...so much as it's they're not being taught. But, enough of that little threadjack.

I see it as nothing less than a covert way to establish the teaching of creationism, in the public schools, while carefully skirting any mention of God.
"What? We didn't say that God was the creator...now did we?"
Don't get me wrong. Even though I am an athiest, I have no problem with people believing, expressing, and even teaching creationism. In, of course, the proper venue. Sorry, Spud, science class, in a public school ain't it.

I find this a positive thing. I agree with creationism and I believe it's as valid a theory as evolution. I WILL not get into an arguement over this subject here though. I know there are enough vehement defenders of evolution here and have been attacked for this opinion of mine before. That is why I do not frequent the philosophy board any longer.

I believe it is only fair to allow the theory of intelligent design in schools. Just because you don't believe something does not mean that there aren't thousands of others who DO believe it. To exclude it from school is like burying your head in the sand and refusing to even think that people believe this. Students need to know what others believe to be able to understand why people think certain things. The belief in intelligent design affects a lot of people's opinions about many other things today. If it is taught as something that people do believe in and not as fact then what is the problem in explaining the belief system to our students??

May I direct you to the politics board?

Sounds like a great Social Studies subject.....But I do not see it as science.
Again.....teach it to the kids....but please do not confuse them in science class, We need our children to grasp reality at a young age, and in my opinion confusing Science with Dogma will not help these kids as they grow older and need to face the world of Data.

I'm absolutely fine with this positiion, and I would be perfectly comfortable if they taught Intelligent Design: in a Philosophy class. I can't really disagree with ID since it relies on an unprovable premise, but it's an interesting philosophical position. However, when you're in a science class.. you expect to be learning about provable, repeatable, scientific things. Until you can prove, repeate, or demonstrate ID.. it's not a SCIENCE topic, but one of PHILOSOPHY.

Is Bush right in his drive to "Christianize" the country? No.
Should we ignore evolution? No.
Is there a compromise, yes. Teach both, one as a science (evolution), one as a philosophy and explain that nobody truly knows the truth, that both are hypothesis that are impossible to prove.

My personal view, I said this before in Tilted Philosophy.

When I was in the Navy, a friend of mine was the son of a minister and he put evolution and the Bible into context where both could feasibly exist.

The Bible says God created everything in 6 days, but it does not say if it were 6 of our days or 6 of God's days.

1 day to an omnipotent God maybe a million years.

Maybe it is very possible evolution happened because as much as we may want to believe God is perfect, he couldn't just create everything from nothing but had to create the right circumstances then nourish them and make sure everything came out ok.

That's the very basic gist of what he said, and as I stated he put forth a very good argument that both could exist.

I completely agree... ID has no place in a Science class. Just as Science has no place in a religious class.

By all means, in a philosophy class or a class that studies all religions (i.e. if it is a public school you need to explore them all and not just Christianity) ID should be examined along with all other similar belief systems.

BUT unless science class has changed, there is no room for opinions that cannot be backed up by the Scientific Method. Creationism is religion. It requires faith. Evolution is a theory grounded in the scientific method and does not require faith.

The ironic thing was in the 1800's ID WAS the science, and people thought that science helped prove their religion.

I spent a lot of my early years studying evolution, it was something that just came naturally to me. If you know what you are looking for you can see its signs everywhere in everything. Its really fantastic and will leave you amazed.

Yet there are times when you are so amazed, and in such awe at the apparent adaptations of what you see, the concept of ID is almost comforting. Its far easier to assume some higher power was involved than to assume that the random fluctuations of evolution could have produced something so incredible.

So should ID be taught in science class? No, but not because its not possible but because its not testable. Anything that is not testable belongs in the fuzzy logic classes (which to me is everything non-scientific :) ). Can it be taught? Sure why not, there is no harm in presenting the concept, but only as a philosophy, not as a science.

Everyone knows that God Created Evolution.

Yes, I am being Ironic, but I have officially delcared today as "Ben is Ironic" Day.

I dont see much problem with this.

Do I believe in Intelligent Design? Only for the beginning of life. What do I mean?

Well evolutionists have yet to come up with a reason for life starting. There is nothing that any scientist can effectively theorize what caused the first life to bud out of simple chemicals. Saying it's a natural process carries as much validity as an Immortal being causing it. That being said it's as plausable as alien life being introduced, which MANY respectable scientists agree with.

Whats so wrong with teaching a theory when it's taught side by side with other theories?

The problem is that ID can be related to creationism, which is religious, and that would go against the liberal agenda of constantly attacking christianity. You made a great point-evolution past the first spark is almost a scientific certainty. But evolution still has yet to come up with something explaining the origins of life.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't prove how life was created. It proves how life came to where it is right now.

The message behind "Intelligent Design" theory is clearly made to satisfy (sp) christian voters who strongly believe that God does indeed exist. You can call it whatever you want, the best word for it? "How life was created in six days"

The theory of ID implies that life was created by God himself and that's not even a theory. A theory is an assumption based on limited information or knowledge or a conjecture. There is no knowledge of whether or not God actually exist and yes, the bible does mention him but provides no solid evidence that he does.

To me, the bible is just a fictional storybook

Evolution never even attempted to explain the origin of life.. you might want to read the book by Mr. Darwin himself if you believe otherwise. Evolution explains the process at which organisms have developed since the origin. It is repeatable, testable, documentable, and scientific. There is current and historical evidence, and there are thousands of scientific studies in various magazines and scholarly journals alike. There is thousands of YEARS of evidence in the form of fossils and sedimentation.

I'm less familiar with the idea of Intelligent Design, because I do not study philosophy as much as I do science. I believe, however, that it attempts to clearify the ORIGIN of life, on par with the "Big Bang" or the "Expansion Contraction" theories. Although I do not believe there is any scientific evidence for ID, it does not begin to compete with evolution because evolution makes no scientific claims in this arena.

Similarly, you can note that breaking down the arguments reveals why ID is not scientific in the least. ID says that "life is just too complicated to have been done naturally." That is ALL it claims -- there can be no scientific proof that something is "too complicated." It ... goes against science. Science is there to explain things when they are complicated, not say "they're just too complicated to understand." I challenge anyone reading this post at any time from anywhere to give me scientific proof or evidence for ID. You'd think that a scientific theory could be at least corroborated by some sort of empirical test, wouldn't you? Like in a lab, or with measurements or calculations? ID doesn't have any. It's not a science, period. You can't offer empirical investigation for a philosophical idea, because it is just that... philosophy.

Evolution has millions upon millions of repeatable measurements and calculations, with thousands of sources and just as many scholarly articles. IT is science, becuase it seeks to understand the natural world through EMPIRICISM rather than MYSTICISM.


(By the way, I like the Bible and the things it contains.. just not the horrible ideas it spawns...)

Was just doing some research on the philosophical theory, Intelligent Design, and I found this quote quite interesting:

It comes from a book called "Mathematical Illiteracy and it's Consequences:"

"... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. "

EDIT: I'd like to beg anyone who hasn't given evolution a serious thought or even someone who is convinced that ID is a science to read this very well-written and concise website. It's created by the University of California at Berkeley, and describes in very good detail exactly what evolution is and isn't and many other things: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Error - Intelligent Design does not specifically imply 'GOD'. It is open to many different possibilities that do not specifically suggest 'GOD' as the creator. Look into many Native American tales, Middle Eastern Religions, and Asian belief systems.

You cannot prove something as fact without being about to reproduce it. So far as I am aware, no one has reproduced evolution in a progressively more functional way. No one can prove Creationism, or Intelligent Design. To me and to all others who do not hold to evolution, the two opposing ideas are BOTH theories. You will be hard pressed to convince an ID student that evolution is fact and not simply theory. It is not going to happen here. I have examined both theories and am settled on where I stand.

Thats not quite true. Obviously we haven't seen big evolutionary changes in higher animals, but we have seen it quite readily in fast reproducing life forms. Anti-biotic resistance in bacteria being the classic and deadly example.

Further, reproducing the effect isn't needed to prove a theory. In fact you never really prove a theory, you fail to disprove. We can't reproduce black holes or super nova but there are still very valid theories surrounding them. You need to be able to TEST them. You can't test ID, you can test evolution be it with genetics or more mundane means.

ID may well be true, but we have no way of knowing. Evolution on the other hand has stood up to all challanges.

OMG I agree with ustwo, the end is nigh ;)

In fact there are multiple observations of evolution. One, a story about a ausralian species, has been posted here
the source for this story is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/e...sh_1250708.htm

First, the study of correlation and causation:
http://www.kcfs.org/KsSciSt1999-2001...tion_proof.pdf

We don't have to be able to duplicate evolution in a span of 10 minutes to know it happens, just as we don't have to have someone smoke for 50 years to say that it causes lung cancer.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1
An article on Common Descent and Phylogenetics -- sorry if its a bit wordy, but its scientific. I had quite a bit of trouble reading it, but there are quite a bunch of great examples of transitional fossils, with pictures, throughout evolutionary history. If you're looking for (albeit hard to read) SCIENCE -- it's right here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
That article is certainly biased against christianism (sorry, ID) but it does provide a good scientific approach (with empirical evidence) to the evolution of whales.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
This is a very good usenet newsgroup that discusses biology and evolution, but of most interest on their site is this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...s.html#observe
A contradiction of the "Evolution has never been observed" statement that you seem to be making.

I could continue, but I don't want to inundate you with the 86 MILLION sites devoted to the evolutionary FACT. If these are too complicated to read or you don't want to, that's fine. But ignorance of a fact does not make it nonexistant.

I've read On The Origin of Species... I'm not talking about Darwin himself, but the theory that has evolved. If you take it just as Darwin he never even talked about us decending from Apes, yet that's what has come to be accepted. SO... many evolutionist theorists have debated on how it's started even though Darwin didnt... just like the Ape-Man theory.

I think it might turn out to be a good idea if ID and Creationism were taught in science classes right along with Evolution. In fact, I think it's an excellent place to teach them. In science class, students should be taught to use the scientific method. They should learn not only about current scientific beliefs, but just as importantly, how these beliefs evolved and are supported by observable facts. I think the result of applying the scientific method to ID and Creationism right along with Evolution would be rather revealing to everyone. Give kids some credit; they're not mindless automatons. They certainly don't believe everything they're told. In fact, to a far greater degree than adults, they question everything they hear. So let them hear the scientific and religious views, and encourage them to use the scientific method to evaluate the known observable facts supporting each and debate their findings. I have confidence we will all be better off in the end.

One of my degrees is in anthropology, with a minor in archaeology, and to have the President espousing intelligent design as something that needs to be taught in class is a slap to my face that rocks me to my Republican core. If a district wishes to teach the concept in philosophy, or social studies, or some other NON-SCIENCE class, so be it. I can live with that. Keep it out of science, and DO NOT tell our children that it is a valid scientific alternative.

At the end of life, all stored endorphins (chemicals that make you feel good) are released. This is true for humans suffering from hypothermia, starving rats, antelope getting eaten on the plains of Africa, etc... There is no evolutionary benefit to this phenomenon. Those that are happy right before they die are no more likely to reproduce offspring that share this trait than those that do not. How did lightning strike some elements that somehow developed life? How come the dinosaurs didn't build the pyramids or go to the moon? How come there's only one planet that is the right distance to have abundant liquid H2O? How did the first not-quite-cellular organisms develop DNA or mitochondria? Sexual reproduction? isn't there a far more efficient way to reproduce? If lightning struck the elements and created the first organism, why did that organism even need to reproduce?

I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, nor am I a philosopher or scientist, but I've read almost all of Carl Sagan's writings, in addition to several other books on this topic, and so called "hard science" cannot explain everything. I don't think the world was created in a matter of days, or that the dinosaurs were destroyed in the great flood that spared Noah, or even that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish, but scientists have not figured out everything, and I think it's perfectly alright for teachers to teach to children that one theory is that the watch proves the watchmaker, and some scientists think that there must have been some intelligence that designed the universe. I'm not denying that evolution is valid, just that evolution explains everything.

(My personal opinion is that neither science nor the Bible can explain everything. If science has determined that humans evolved from apes in Africa, how come humans, unlike the other great apes, have a reflex to hold our breath under water, have less hair, populated far-flung islands before we supposedly had the technology to reach them hundreds or thousands of years after they were first populated with humans, require more water intake than any other mammal, spend our vacations at the beach and buy swimming pools, have a great flood myth or legend among almost all independent civilizations, and have noses with nostrils facing downward, as if evolved for diving head first? If mankind came across the land-bridge in Alaska to populate America, why are these archeological finds showing up in South America from way before that should have happened? (don't want to thread-jack, just pointing out that science hasn't explained everything yet.))

Maybe not in Chemistry, and maybe not in Physics, but wherever evolution is taught, I do not have a problem with teaching something along these lines, or asking these questions.

After a bit of thought, I feel I must retract my previous statement about allowing the teaching of ID and/or Creationism in a science class. Superstition has no place in a science class. Let's face it folks, that's what we're really talking about here.

what caused the change of heart? inquiring minds (well, okay, i) want to know. :)

Religion has no place in a science class, just as gym has no place in music class. They are different subjects and should be taught as so. I asm all for a condensed religion class teaching about the many varied religions of the world, but science is supported by the scientific method which cannot be applied to non-secular creationism. If one is to teach ID alongside of evolution as a less likely possibility, so long as God is never brought up, it's alright. Clearly ID does not have to case that evolution does, but there could be a better explainiation we discover 50 years down the road that disproves evolution. They're both stll theories. As long as they are both taught as theories, and God is left at home, in church, and maybe a religion class, I'm cool.

Is ID superstition? I dunno. Anyuthing could be superstition. The scientific world 100 years ago was riddled with superstition, but it was at that time considered sxcientific fact. ID could be something we simply grow out of, or it may be something we can prove. I leave that to much more intelligent people than myself.

Some pertinent reading for y'all:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libra...nd-theory.html

People seem to be slinging the words fact and theory about without much regard as to what is what.

The original idea behind my post was that by applying the scientific method, kids would readily tell the difference between science and superstition. Then after I thought about it a bit more, I realized the inherent problems with teaching non-science in science class. First it would be nonsense in biology, then astronomy, then on and on. Just not a good precedent. And I remembered that most teachers in High School just teach from the book anyway. So what was I suggesting, a chapter on superstitions?

Want to try giving us that link again? Doesn't seem to work.

Doh, try this one.

I don't know about fact v theory, but how about superstition:
"An irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear."

I would say ID stems from ignorance and Christian Creationism from both ignorance and fear. Now relating back to the topic at hand, I would say Mr. Bush is about the most ignorant president in at least a hundred years.

Anybody read the main story in today's Washington Post? (Sunday) "White House Lowers Expectations for Iraq" After reading the article, I couldn't help wondering who is going to break the news to Mr. Bush. I don't think it's going to go over very well with him. History teaches us that leaders with his "mindset" don't take well to being contradicted by anyone, particularly their own staff. My own opinion is that our fearless leader has some rather deep psychological issues. My guess would be that he responds by lashing out at whoever he thinks is behind the article. Then again, I’m assuming someone on his staff has the courage to actually tell him about the story, since he doesn’t read newspapers himself.

Dear Coppertop,
Guess what?!!

Bah, oh well. I am at work and Websense doesn't agree with many sites, so that's all I got for now I am afraid. Maybe later.

A few things:

This has nothing to do with death. During any painful interaction, your body releases these "stored endorphins" into the synaptic gap in order to lessen the pain. Hell, during sex... your body releases "stored endorphins." It has nothing to do with the death, but the pain preceeding the death. Patients who died in their sleep habe no noticable increase of neurotransmitters in the brain at the time of death. It's a defense mechanism for pain/increased pleasure -- not Divine "I want you to feel good on the way to Heaven.."

This really has nothing to do with evolution at all, but the ORIGIN of life -- something we'll all admit is relatively unprovable.

They didn't have the cognitive, social, or economic abilities that we do? Can you imagine building a space ship big enough to hold 8 T-Rexes? That's a big fucking flight suit, too.

In our Solar System? 'cuz. There's trillions of planets in the Universe who could be just as likely to be the same distance.

You got me here, I dunno how or why we became sexual instead of asexual. I don't know enough about it. If there is a God, this is one thing I'm thankful for.

This is a question more suited for an anthropologist, but I believe this is natural selection as well. The homo-series that had more efficient lungs could more effectively catch fish, and therefore lived to reproduce.

Two similar organisms? You know.. like a eagle and a falcon? Those fossils in SA (as far as I know) are much older and have an entirely different bone structures than our ancestors who crossed the Bering Strait.

How do you know they didn't? no human made artifact or building or whatever would survive 64 mio. years. (exeption may be the moon landers, but the could also be hit be Asteroid) ;)

We have found 156 Extrasolar planets so far (May 2005). There are more to come and ou methodes to detect them will be better. Soon we will be able to detect earth sized planets as well. So why do you think there is only one? We are just at the very beginning.

The going theory (last I read) involves research that points to the Black Sea having been much smaller and not connected to the Mediterranian Sea, and when the Ice Age ended the oceans had raised in level enough and broken away the land barrier to the Black Sea. This would have caused a huge raise in water level and enlarged the Black Sea, which was likely surrounded by coastal populations who had to ditch. They ditched in all directions, leading to the tales of "The Great Flood" being spread all over.


And in answer to Bill O'Rights question: http://www.snopes.com/lost/fraction.htm
I know it's unfair to lump all southern states together, but the common thread of degrading the knowledge that's passed on to children in school sticks out.

Intelligent design isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible.

The ancient Egyptians would see the sun rise and set every morning without fail and would notice the life giving properties of the light frm the sun, 'that's clever' they thought it can't be an accident - there must be something behind that and so Ra the god of the sun who journeyed through the sky in his golden chariot every day was born.
Years ahead we have developed rational, measurable explanations for the suns daily rise and fall and the idea of a sun-god is no longer plausible. Yet people are still looking around thinking: this whole creation of life business 'that's clever' it can't be an accident - there must be something behind it and so intelligent design the creator of life who journeyed through the sky in his golden chariot every day was born.

This is the best reply to ID I have ever seen....thanx

The argument against ID in science is simple. Science is the study of the natural world. Science is not the study of the supernatural. ID is an assertion about the supernatural. Therefore it is not science.

You can discuss it all you want in a public school religion or myths class. But it is not science, so it is completely inappropriate for science classes.

I've always had a problem with the first premise of ID, that we are just "too complicated" to be existant without design. To me, it seems to be a very egotistical view to think that you're-so-goddamned-perfect that you must have been Designed by a higher power. Well, I was watching Animal Planet today, and it made me think back to this thread.

If we're so "Perfect" that it must be design by a higher power, then why are we missing so many features that other animals have? Did he not think about these powers when he designed us? They'd be pretty handy to have.. or wait -- could it simply be that evolution only "naturally selected" for us the things that were absolutely critical to our survival?

The show I watched on Animal Planet was about the Hammerhead Shark and how it searches for its prey. It was a study between the Hammerhead and another shark who have identical features, minus the huge hammer. In explaining the value of the hammer, they showed the tiny little pores on the front side of the hammer. The pores were actually little electrical sensors, capable of picking up electrical and magnetic fields generated by living organisms. They're sensitive up to NANOwatts, which would be enough that they could literally "sense" the electricity flowing through our brain. If we're so perfect, why do we only have 5 senses? Sharks have 7. Damn, we must have been designed by a pretty dumb Designer.

Later I was watching a show on Birds of Prey, and they mounted an optical camera to a Peregine Falcon. The PF is a really neat bird, and I actually attended a day long seminar on them when I was a little kid. They're capable of 200 + mph dives. Well, in this video.. the camera mounted to the falcon was barely able to keep up in a series of dives the falcon made at a predetermined target. They had video of the falcon taking out another smaller bird at 140+, just grabbing them right outta the air. The most impressive was a dive at about 180 mph, straight at the target. At about 10 or 20 feet off the ground, the falcon "pulled up" at 10 Gs, grabbing the target and soaring back up into the sky within seconds. The second run, the falcon overshot the target and did a split-second barrel roll at 150 to keep the target in sight. Now then -- if we're so perfect, why can the average person only take 5 G's of acceleration? Couldn't our blood-pumping system be more efficient?

Now I understand the argument that we're not fish and we're not birds, so we inherently don't need those abilities. But if we're so "perfect," as ID purports -- why do we not have better ancillary abilities? Like the ability to breath longer underwater? Throughout man's lifetime we've had water, and there have been millions upon millions of drownings over the ages. If the all-powerful creator knew this would happen, why didn't he endow us with 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 minutes of air for underwater navigation? Why only give the one or two minutes (average) that we have now?

Please. This has nothing to do with a so-called "liberal agenda of constantly attacking christianity". Please remove your tin foil conspiracy protecting hat.

This is simply an attempt to keep public schools secular, as they should be.

ID, as has been pointed out, does not automatically point to GOD. No one says, GOD but really... let's be honest here. That's the only reason it has the support of so many in the camp that wants to see more religion in schools.

Again, I am fine with religion, ID, etc. in a philosphy class but it really has no place in a science class.


I can agree, however, that we do not know where life sprang from. Most scientists will list a litany of ideas as to where life came from and will even give a wink and a nod to some "higher form of life" being responsible for this... This only becomes an issue when it is the ONLY answer to this question.

Here's a great political cartoon on this subject by The Philadelphia Enquirer's Tony Auth:
http://www.ucomics.com/tonyauth/2005/08/04/

It's a great cartoon. Here it is:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2005/ta050804.gif


In other words, if science includes the supernatural, then ID is just the beginning.

I, for one, want functional wings, a protective exoskeleton, and razor-sharp teeth and claws. Sort of like a cross between a Bengal tiger, an armadillo, and a duck. :lol:

As for ID/creationism, I think it belongs in the church. A place for everything, and everything in its place, so to speak. You don't hear scientists clamoring for equal time in the pulpit, and in Sunday school. That's because they understand evolution has no place in the church. Why can't the church understand creationism has no place in a science class?

Here, here!!!

BTW, I wish Creationists would quit insisting that their beliefs are self-evident. It’s just as self-evident that the sun revolves around the earth.

Religion is important. Science is important. When they converge, there is danger in confusing one for the other. This confusion breaks down what each important subject represents. If we lose science or religion, we will have lost something extremly important.

That's about as simple as I can put it.

And to add to that:


To keep them from converging, it is proper that we acknowledge that there is a time and place to teach each one. School is the place to teach science. Church is the place to teach religion.

This whole debate is an extension of the "get church into the schools" movement. Whether it's posting the 10 commandments in the halls, teaching intelligent design, or anything else the religious sector wants to do, it all boils down to the same thing - they want the schools to teach what the church should be teaching.

If you believe God created the earth in 7 days and then planted all those fossils to test us, that's your perogative. If you want your kids to believe that, teach it to them. If you want a higher authority than you to teach it, turn to your church. If they're not doing a good enough job, the correct action is not to expect the schools to do it for the church, but to work to make sure your church does the job right in the first place.

If you want to raise your kid to hold to ancient beliefs even when faced with mountains of evidence that they may not be correct, that is your perogative, but you do not have the right to force my kid to listen to it too.

A-HA
The best argument, yet, against Intelligent Design.
Teenage girls.
Noone with any kind of intelligence would design such a being to contain so many hormones, in such a small container.
It's instant attitude in a can. Just add oxygen and sit back and watch the fun.

Teenage girls? How about teenage boys? Geez!!!
BTW, no one can truly appreciate teenagers until they've raised some of their own--holy crap!

The best argument against ID just has to be the human body itself; or for that matter any living creature. Ever studied anatomy? What a fiasco! No intelligent person would ever design such a thing that way on purpose.

It's easy to attack creationism. Let's just be honest. It's not just full of holes, it practically is a hole.

There is a reason evolutionists fight creationists so hard. We've fought for more than a century against creationists. We saw the creationists as fools who believed that the earth was made in 4004 B.C. during six literal 24 hour days; that fossils, if they had any validity at all, were remnants of Noah's flood. They say that a deceptive God created the universe with starlight already on it's way (giving the illusion of great distances).

To allow for the possibility of any guiding intelligence would open the floodgates. Well, maybe it's time to take a peek out of the flood gates, if just for a moment.

When Darwain first proposed his brilliant theory, scientists assumed the fossil record would bear it out. We should be ablee to see the gradual progression from form to form, with slow changes accumulating over time untila new species emerged. But as most scientists know, thereality is that the fossil record DOES NOT show that. Ohj, there are transitional forms - take ichthyostega, which seems intermediate between fish and amphibians, or caudipteryx the median between dionsaur and bird, even the australopithecus 'ape/man'. The problem is that these are not gradual changes. These are not accumulations of tiny mutations over time. Sharks have been sharks for almost 400 million years, turtles have been turtles for 200 million years, and snakes have been snakes for 800 million years. In fact the fossil ecord is mostly lacking in gradual steps. The only good vertebrate sequence we have is that of a horse (which is why most museums have displays of equine evolution).

Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge responded to such claims, putting fourth a theory of punctuated equilibria (or 'punky-E', as it's sometimes called). Speciaes are stable for long periods of time, and then sudddenly, when environmental conditions change, they rapidly evolve into new forms! The problem is that punky-E states that environments stay the same for extended periods of time, which is absurd. When I lived in St. Louis I enjoyed 20 degree temperatures with snow almost hip deep. Fast forward to 6 months later and the temperature is breaking 100 and the humidity is making it impossible to dry off after a shower.

Of course, evolutionists keep on going. We tried to incorporate punky-E into our understanding of evolution in order for everything to still make sense. We longed for the sense that it all made when someone originally explained it to us. "It all makes so much sense!" we'd say to ourselves. We were even condescending to people who asked about missingh links. Of course this isn't the first time we've been smug...

I remember my grandfather (the inspiration of my early evolutionism) telling me about when Harold Urey and Stanly Miller created amino acids by putting an electric discharge through a primordial soup (what they thought, then, Earth's early atmosphere might have been like). We were half way to creating life in a jar. This was the triumph of evolutionary theory! If we zap the soup just rright, real self-replicating organsms might just appear.

Except we never did. We STILL don't know how to go from amino acids to self replication.

When I look under an electron microscope at things like cilia that turn out to be extremly complex, Darwin must be turning in his grave. The single-step evolution theory can't account for cilia.

We ignored the biochemical argument, too. We all hear about the cascade sequence that causes blood to clot, or the complexity of the human eye, or the ATP driven system of cellular metabolism.


My point?> creationism isn't fact or law. There are big wide gaps all over the theory. Evolution isn't fact or law. There are big wide gaps in the theory.

Newton's seventeenth-century laws of physics are mostly correct; you can use them to reliabally predict all sorts of things. We didn't disgard them; rather, in the 20th century, we subsumed them into a new, more comprehensive physics, a physics of relativity and quantum mechanics. Evolution is a 19th century notion, outlined in the famous "On the Orgin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". But the more we learn, the more natural selection seems inadequate on its own as a mechanism for the creation of a new species; even our best attempts at artificial, intelligently guided selection apparently aren't up to the task-all dogs are still canis familiaris.

And now at the start of the 21st century surtely it's not unreasonable to think that it's POSSIBLE that Darwin's ideas, like Newtons, can be subsumed into a greater whole, a more comprehensive understanding?

look at the homo tree... you call the differences between the different species in that tree major? htere may be ancestors still missing, but there aren't any major jumps between species. and we've got fossils of animals that look like snakes but have legs, etc. a lot of your argument here isn't factually correct. there are some 'jumps' in the fossil record that do seem to use puncutated equilibrium, and even if that is incorrect that doesn't mean 'god did it!'. turtles, sharks and snakes haven't evolved much at all in a long time because they haven't had a need to.

hmm... lets see... in a one year time span, how many generations do you spawn? normally zero. occasionally one (unless you get lucky and have twins or triplets, etc). you're not going to have any mutations in that time and you're not going to pass them on because you're not reproducing. but when there's a sudden climate shift, like from a quick onset of an ice age, a normally warm or moderate area becomes super cold real quick, the animals have to evolve in a very quick time span relative to the norm because if they don't they'll die out. also, there is something that animals do during the normal year that you're talking about... it's kinda crazy... migration.

pot meet kettle. puncutated equilibrium makes a lot of sense if you take the time to learn about it.

the time it took for the primordial ooze to go from just lots of elements and a gaseous atmosphere to amino acids to the first self-replicating amino acids or whatever to cellular organisms was something like 3 billion years of random interactions. and you're complaining that we haven't replicated that in 50 years?

read 'the blind watchmaker' for a start. and do some googling for info about cilia evolution and cascades. there are good theories out there that you seem to be discounting. based on the rest of your post, i have to assume it's due to a mis- or lack of understanding of the topics.


creationism isn't a theory. it's a myth. it's not that there are holes in it as a 'theory' but that the 'theory' is a hole. a big black hole full of nothingness. evolution is a theory, and a fact in the same that gravity is a theory and a fact. yes, there are holes, but few of them are 'wide gaps' and people are actively trying to expand our knowledge about evolution to close those gaps. hell, punctuated equilibrium is one such theory (so far backed up by increased knowledge of the fossil record) and you decide to criticize it. i guess adding ideas to try to explain facts just doesn't cut it for you, eh?

again, punc. e. i just doing what we did with newtons. modifying the theory to include new information. in newtons case it was that his was encompassed by a new theory. in evolutions case it adds information into it. i don't really understadn your 'favoured races' thing. are you perpetuating the lie that darwin was racist? or are you misconstruing evolution to say that it deals with races? it doesn't, it deals with species, and white or black or yellow or pink with purple polka dots we're all human.

it's completely possibe for evolution to be subsumed into a greater understanding, but unlike ID or creationism, newton was subsumed by <b>science</b> whereas you're asking us to invoke the <b>supernatural (aka not science)</b> and include evo into that.


/i should be in bed.

I'll admit it: it's really hard to play devil's advocate, espically if you don't agree with your own argument. No one was playing devils advocate here, so the conversation seemed to be going nowhere. I thought I'd shoot out some of the common arguments. Did anyuone notice I said 'we' when referring to evolutionists? That suggests that I am, in fact, an evolutionist. I've read and reread The Blind Watchmaker. Good read, if a bit harsh. A lot of it makes good sense. Maybe someone can do a better job than I did trying to defend ID or creationism (or puting evolutionism under the microscope, no pun intended).