d*d

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.

feelgood

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?

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

Journeyman

"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.

ObieX

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.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

d*d

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

ObieX

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.


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.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Smedgie

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.

__________________
My signature is pointless.

tecoyah

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.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Bill O'Rights

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 distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

raeanna74

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??

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Ustwo

May I direct you to the politics board?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

tecoyah

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.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Jinn

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.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

pan6467

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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Charlatan

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.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

BigBen

Everyone knows that God Created Evolution.

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

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Seaver

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?

alansmithee

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.

feelgood

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

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

Jinn

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...)

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Jinn

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/

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

raeanna74

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.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Pacifier

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

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Jinn

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'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Seaver

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.

wtsitmn

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.

MoonDog

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.

dy156

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.

wtsitmn

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.

hannukah harry

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

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Willravel

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.

Coppertop

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.

wtsitmn

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?

wtsitmn

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

Coppertop

Doh, try this one.

wtsitmn

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.

wtsitmn

Dear Coppertop,
Guess what?!!

Coppertop

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.