Intelligent Design in schools.

[Drix D'Zanth]

I would like to get a debate going on the growing unmitigation of the Evolutionary Model in our society today. I, like some of you, have already completed my secondary education, etc. A class that every student was required to take in our school was Biology. I remember biology fondly, I loved it, it's what fueled my desire to pursue my pre-med major today! However, as a strong christian, I found my beleifs put into scrutiny when Biology class's second trimester ran a three week study of evolution and natural selection.

I don't want to go spewing off my opinions JUST YET, so I'm going to let a few people express their opinions precursarily. I want to know, should evolution be taught in schools at all? What about kids that choose not to belive in this Model? Do you think that BOTH evolution and Intelligent Design (aka, creationism) should be taught in public schools? What are your thoughts.

Oh, let me also ask that you SUPPORT your opinions. And avoid the phrase "Theory of Evolution", because it isn't.

[Transtic Nerve]

I think it should be taught on the basis of lietrary science and Darwin as an author and a philosopher.... but I don't think they should teach the Evolutionary theory (man evolving from ape) as something factual, afer all it's a theory, just as they shouldn't teach the creation theory as something factual either. It's a good peice of literature. Then again so is the bible, the quaran, and the torah. They should teach all those too, but they don't. If they want to teach specifics on Darwin other than "he wrote On the Origin of Species which talks about evolution in such and such year" they should have a specific class. Maybe even having a creation theory class. Hell you could fit all that material in one semesters worth of class. lots of discussion to. Not to mention tons upon tons of other theories on creation they could use. I'm personally a fan of the bubble theory lol.

Let me also reiterate the use of the term "Evolutionary Theory." When I say it I'm specifically refering to the "man from ape" theory, which hasnot been proven obviously... for all sorts of evolution HAS been proven factual, so there's no debate on that. Be careful in your use of the terms.

If a specific biology teacher wished to teach it [The Evolutionary Theory], I think they should make it very clear that it is a theory. And I think they should also go into the several other creation theories around. Including the biblical explanation, thats what my Bio teacher did in college.

[James]

[color=#707875]When you study biology, you learn about evolution by default. It's present in just about every aspect of biological study. And you [i]need[/i] to understand evolution in various forms to become any kind of doctor.

So, as a part of biology, yes...of course it should be taught. Creationism is a religious theory, which should be taught in a Church or Sunday School.

It's that simple. I mean, even if you are religious, I'm sure you wouldn't necessarily want your schools teaching religious education. If you don't like evolution, don't learn biology. lol

Either way, you can't really complain. You're learning facts about nature/biology. So whether you like it or not, it's there and it's a biological fact. *shrug* As I said, if you dislike it or disapprove of it, don't learn biology.[/color]

[TheShinje]

[size=1] That's exactly why I ditched Biology lol.

I think they should teach every theory equally, albeit, where's the time to do that!
[QUOTE]
James
[b]When you study biology, you learn about evolution by default. It's present in just about every aspect of biological study. And you need to understand evolution in various forms to become any kind of doctor.

So, as a part of biology, yes...of course it should be taught. Creationism is a religious theory, which should be taught in a Church or Sunday School[/b] [/QUOTE]

[size=1] I disagree, I don't think that you learn evolution by default. People who are steeped up in biological studies see things a different way from Creationistic views. They see evoilution whereas I can see design, so they teach evolution. I may be reading your point wrong anyway. If our faith was onyl taught at a sunday school, then our theory reaches [b] no one[/b] which defeats the purpose we believe Jesus has kept us on the earth, to spread the gospel. However, I can't prove god exists any more than an evolutioist can prove his views, so That's my reasoning for wanting them both taught. [/size]

[Guest cloricus]

I look at it this way.
The bible -
GEN1:1
7 days
GEN 2:1
Adam & Eve

Two completely different creation stories that came from two equally distant parts of the Jewish country before they really got into science and both theory?s were accepted by the early church (120ad ish) and have been included in the finial "definitive" version of the bible which was just a cut down version of about 150 books and has stayed in until this day and to go with the fundamentalist Christian view it is tort to young children (and it bible basher neighbourhoods to older people) that these are in fact two factual stories that follow on from one another. This is plainly not the case since the "church" states that they are separate stories.

Now you cant have two different absolute correct right ways for the same thing to happen at the same time which is the first (of many) examples of why the bible cannot be taken as "gods word" which brings the possibility that it is in fact very flawed and leaves it as basically a book that has what some guys a few thousand years ago said that is really just a good moral way to live a Christian life and since you no longer have a logical reason to believe the creationism story over others it just becomes another possible theory out of the thousands of others and gives you the opportunity to adopt the evolution theory if you wish.

Or at least that?s how I deal with that sort of thing. (An insight into my thinking?)

[Ninjaman]

Funny, my English class was discussing this very topic all last week. Mainly because it was the very theme of the book we read, [i]Inherit the Wind[/i](Read it, it's good, IMO), which is Evolution vs. Creationism.

Anyway, I believe evolution should be taught in school. I just don't think it should be taught as something factual, like TN said. Students are [i]not[/i] supposed to be forced to believe it. Students can believe in whatever they want to believe in. I think they should at least [i]know[/i] what beliefs or theories there are in the world such as Evolution.

EDIT: added the not. How could I forget to type that one word?

[Mystfyre]

They should know of both and should be forced to believe in neither. It should all be up to the individual person to go and think or believe in what that one person chooses to believe in. Or he/she can believe in nothing, and simply not know.

[Doukeshi]

Evolution is not a belief system, it's scientific and based on more fact than creationism. You have to be taught evolution in biology simply because it relates to every living organism on this planet. Let me point you to the evolution of moths in industrial London. Now, the original moths were brown and mottled, easily camoflauged against the trees and shrubs in the woodland areas surrounding London. However, once the industrial revolution started the trees were blackened with soot and waist from the chimenys of the ever growing factorys. Because of this the brown moths didn't survive because their comflauge didn't work. because of random mutation certain moths of the colony with darker markings survived, thus spurring on the creation of a new generation of entirely black moths...which, incidently, survived.

Evolution in your back garden.

Creationists are merely blind to scientific facts that have been discovered. How do you explain dinosaurs huh? However, there has been no proof either that the creation story is a myth, though why you deem this one fact and all the other creation stories myth is a mystery to me. To deny evolution to the public schooling system is merely denying pupils the chance to decide for themselves. Hell I had a science teacher who had to get someone else to come in and teach evolution cause he was firmly christian...he's a reverend now.

Thats like saying not to teach astronomy 'cause it's blashphimous to the heavens. Pish.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]I look at it this way.
The bible -
GEN1:1
7 days
GEN 2:1
Adam & Eve

Two completely different creation stories that came from two equally distant parts of the Jewish country before they really got into science and both theory?s were accepted by the early church (120ad ish) and have been included in the finial "definitive" version of the bible which was just a cut down version of about 150 books and has stayed in until this day and to go with the fundamentalist Christian view it is tort to young children (and it bible basher neighbourhoods to older people) that these are in fact two factual stories that follow on from one another. This is plainly not the case since the "church" states that they are separate stories.

Now you cant have two different absolute correct right ways for the same thing to happen at the same time which is the first (of many) examples of why the bible cannot be taken as "gods word" which brings the possibility that it is in fact very flawed and leaves it as basically a book that has what some guys a few thousand years ago said that is really just a good moral way to live a Christian life and since you no longer have a logical reason to believe the creationism story over others it just becomes another possible theory out of the thousands of others and gives you the opportunity to adopt the evolution theory if you wish.

Or at least that?s how I deal with that sort of thing. (An insight into my thinking?) [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think you realize that Adam was the man that was created in genesis (god wanted to create man, remember?). I don't think you've intepreted the bible or this topic correctly. It was a sequence of events that eventually led to adam and eve, not random misaligned stories.
Also , this thread isn't just christian. In fact, Intelligent Design refers to all major religions.
---------------------------
Now this guy is a real Einstien, not only does he spew ONLY RHETORIC instead of his OWN opinions, he decides to attack someone elese's veiws!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]
Evolution is not a belief system, it's scientific and based on more fact than creationism. You have to be taught evolution in biology simply because it relates to every living organism on this planet.
[/B][/QUOTE]

You, like many other people i know, has been happily exposed to the "I teach it , so it is fact." method favored by many a highschool teacher. You claim it is fact when it is not even theory. You see to have a theory you need to be able to TEST a hypothesis in a controlled environment. Creationism relates to every organism as much as evolution. It is just the same facts with different intepretation. For example, There is a tree that secretes sap that traps a type of ant, giving the frog species around it sustinance.
1) evolution- the symbiotic relationship between the tree and the frog evolved the tree into somehow having this sap through fairly random, and unrequieted mechanisms not fully relaible or unmitigated. While each in itself came about through random unguided processes.
or
2)Wow, this is great! God saw this one coming so he made the sap, good call god.
-While as incredibly simple and uncomplex as the 2nd one may be, BOTH are as "unscientific" as the other. I'll elaborate later.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]Let me point you to the evolution of moths in industrial London. Now, the original moths were brown and mottled, easily camoflauged against the trees and shrubs in the woodland areas surrounding London. However, once the industrial revolution started the trees were blackened with soot and waist from the chimenys of the ever growing factorys. Because of this the brown moths didn't survive because their comflauge didn't work. because of random mutation certain moths of the colony with darker markings survived, thus spurring on the creation of a new generation of entirely black moths...which, incidently, survived.
[/B][/QUOTE]

GOOD JOB. You just displayed the theory of microevolution, while also leaving the debate as to whether the mechanisms of such are random (evolutionary) or driven by god is still up to debate.
I'm not talking about variation in a species, I'm talking species changing to a species. That's what we haven't proven.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]
Creationists are merely blind to scientific facts that have been discovered. How do you explain dinosaurs huh? However, there has been no proof either that the creation story is a myth, though why you deem this one fact and all the other creation stories myth is a mystery to me. To deny evolution to the public schooling system is merely denying pupils the chance to decide for themselves. Hell I had a science teacher who had to get someone else to come in and teach evolution cause he was firmly christian...he's a reverend now.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually no one here is blind to the facts, it's just how you intepret the SAME facts. The dinosaurs, well good question. Ask a theologist. Personally I belive god created and destroyed them within the same period of time, wishing to change the earth to his grand plan, perhaps he may have wanted some dinosaurs to be here, perhaps he thought they should not exist, you can comprehend the infinite wisdom of God if you dare. I'll be asking him when I reach him.

You also seem to misunderstand, I deem INTELLIGENT DESIGN as fact not a single creationist story, Intelligent design works with all creationism stories, not just Christianity, let's not make this a christian argument shall we?

Listen, neither can be proven, neither can be disproven. In fact I belive telling me that the world was created in 6 days (depending on your creationism story, I'm quoting the one that judaism/christianity/islam use) is neither more or less RADICAL or INCREDIBLE than beleiving that a molecule as complex as DNA/RNA with its millions of sugars, proteins, and nucleotides, came together through RANDOM events. Evolution can't seem to describe the chicken-and-egg problem, which came first DNA, or the organism to support it?

Understand that because you CANNOT take 1 species and put it into a controlled environment, take it out, and change it into another species, evolution is NOT a THEORY! Both of these require FAITH to follow and understand. I resent the fact that i share a different faith from evolution yet I am told like it is FACT and graded upon an modele entirely determinated by one's FAITH. I think both should be realized and taught for what they are, not fact, not theory, but models from which a person can individualize his/her opinion.

Evolution isn't any more scientific than Creationism. Granted, evolution has spured much discovery, but what most people dont realize is that the facts presented by Evolutionary Biologists could be attributed to Intelligent Design.

The fundamentals of evolution are that the world and everything around us through unguided, random occurances. Random occurances like the formation of COMPLEX organs such as the eye, or the ear. Why do we have an ear? Why is it shaped so? I'll get some more quotes on evolution about this later , but the ear really shouldn't have evolved in the first place. It's a fluke of evolution in it's mechanisms especially considering the course it has taken. But the ear has a purpose right? Why yes it does! Fluke of evolution or design of some immaculate being, I leave that up to you guys.

I agree with TN with his reply, even though he used evolutionary "theory" . Bastard ;-P .

[Doukeshi]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth
[/i][b] GOOD JOB. You just displayed the theory of microevolution, while also leaving the debate as to whether the mechanisms of such are random (evolutionary) or driven by god is still up to debate.[/b][/QUOTE]
No need to be sarcastic.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth
[/i][b]I resent the fact that i share a different faith from evolution yet I am told like it is FACT and graded upon an modele entirely determinated by one's FAITH.[/b][/QUOTE]

Maybe the point is that you are graded on the theory of evolution in biology because it links to the scientific practices of an "evolving world". Granted there is no proof to state whether or not this part of God's plan and whether or not God is directing it to a certain wish, however there is no proof to state otherwise. Therefore it is necessary for both to be taught with equal zeal. You are graded on your understanding of the concept of evolution, are you not also graded on you understanding of religious theory and the belief system that stems from that in Religious Studies? If you aren't then that is a shame that should be rectified within you schooling system

Just because you choose not to believe in it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. Actually [i]because[/i] you don't believe in it is the very reason why it should be taught.

[Justin]

I think all theories should be taught from a non-biased perspective. I have my beliefs, yes. But I do not want to be ignorant of others. Not because I may one day change, but more for the sake of changing others--and just general knowledge.

No cares about your opinion, unless it's an educated opinion.

-Justin

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]No need to be sarcastic.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Not trying to be a jerk, sorry .

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]Maybe the point is that you are graded on the theory of evolution in biology because it links to the scientific practices of an "evolving world". Granted there is no proof to state whether or not this part of God's plan and whether or not God is directing it to a certain wish, however there is no proof to state otherwise. Therefore it is necessary for both to be taught with equal zeal. You are graded on your understanding of the concept of evolution, are you not also graded on you understanding of religious theory and the belief system that stems from that in Religious Studies? If you aren't then that is a shame that should be rectified within you schooling system
[/B][/QUOTE]

I think that is the problem though. Right now evolution is taught as FACT and there is no exchange of ideas, no discussion of Intelligent design! The problem is that many schools do not teach religion because they belive in something called "separation of church and state". While teaching isn't the same as indoctrinated, as stated earlier.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]Just because you choose not to believe in it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. Actually [i]because[/i] you don't believe in it is the very reason why it should be taught. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think if one is taught, both should. So in this respect I agree with you. Except the reason i should be taught is for a greater understanding, not a lack of belief. In this post I agree with you, as you seem to be coming from a more reasonable viewpoint in my opinion (note: opinion). So there's not to much to argue.

Keep up the good discussion!

[Kent]

I didn't bother with any of the above. (that is rude. I am sorry about my actions.)

However, I still wish to address the first post.

To teach this subject in public schools there must be one thing. (IMO)

Uniformity of material.

The concepts of the entitled subject are all plausable and supportable.

With out a standardized subject guideline, the individual teacher can interpret the material.

Now that the teacher can interpret the slow and gradual changes of "man," it is possible for an individual's beliefs in the "soul" be expressed in the lecture portions of the course.

That also reminds me of one more time to discuss the subject, and that's the area of the text books themselves.

This actually presents a real dilemma to me.

I would like to see a representation of (frankly... evolution) "intelligent design" in a text book that presented a very objective view of the changes with in each individual species over time.

However, any suggestions of man's earliest possible connections to a different species should be avoided.

Oh shoot, I just realized another thing... the level of education this subject is being taught at should also come into play!

I guess this is a symbol to me now that, this subject is just too hard to fully cover in a single post.

Sorry to "ramble on" so long. :D

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]I look at it this way.
The bible -
GEN1:1
7 days
GEN 2:1
Adam & Eve

Two completely different creation stories that came from two equally distant parts of the Jewish country before they really got into science and both theory?s were accepted by the early church (120ad ish) and have been included in the finial "definitive" version of the bible which was just a cut down version of about 150 books and has stayed in until this day and to go with the fundamentalist Christian view it is tort to young children (and it bible basher neighbourhoods to older people) that these are in fact two factual stories that follow on from one another. This is plainly not the case since the "church" states that they are separate stories.

[/B][/QUOTE]

the "church" that states this is mis reading the Bible. I will clear this up. Man was created on the [i]6th day,[/i] according to the Genesis creation account. The story of Adam and eve in the garden of Eden is an [i]elaboration[/i] on the 6th day creation of man, and then it goes on to tell of the fall of mankind from that Garden paradise.
- It doesn't contradict the creation story in any way.

[Estraya]

For a second, stop thinking about science and think about english. In order to read and understand alot of the older pieces of writtings (ie Beowulf...) we have to understand that the people in those days were for the most part, strictly Christian. So, you have to have disscussions about how their lifestyles and their beliefs influenced them to understand their writting. Its the same in science. Both theories have influenced science, so both theorys must be taught. Yet, they cannot tell you that "this is how it is." People have the right to believe in what they wish, if they want to believe that purple bananas created the world, then they are welcome to, and that belief should not be held against them. Yet, its not the purple bananas theory that changed the way science is delt with, its the two theories that we are now dealing with. So, both should be taught, but in only in a "so and so theorized this, and so and so theorized that," kind of way, not a "so and so said this, and it must be true" kind of way.

[Guest cloricus]

Shinji - The "church" that states this is mis reading the Bible.

The Vatican states it. You are wrong. (I believe the leader of the church I subscribe to and that also compiled the bible over some person in America who has read it once or twice.)

Drix - I don't think you've interpreted the bible or this topic correctly. It was a sequence of events that eventually led to adam and eve, not random misaligned stories.

No it was not sequential at all, this is a known fact that is supported by records in Rome and other places with documentation from that time. (Or rewrites of such documents.)

See what I mean? It is because of fundamentalist views that the bible is absolute truth that it has been projected to people as a series of events when they were just the two leading theories on how the world (which was flat at that time my I remind you according to the bible) was created at the time the books that finally made up the bible we known today were written.
Please now that you know this stop quoting your own opinion with out knowing some amount of basic background to the bible it's self. (Eg. You?re not going to win this part of the argument because I think the people that made the bible know better than you.)


Really I'm sick of the constant arguing about this topic, the Christians mainly want their thing tourt and people who believe in fact want their ideas tourt. The Christians that normally get into this mis-interpreted the whole thing and some of them even compromise and have an out come like Drix up there which I find utterly disgusting, not only do they dis others idea's they modify them to what they want and then call it a theory that is better than both. Then you have scientists who are so busy laughing at Christians because they are believing a story that a guy who thought the earth was flat wrote a few thousand years ago that they don't address creationism better and leave them selves open to attacks which brings us to this whole damn big circle again.
Frankly the creationism story from my religion is stupid, I would have a hard time convincing any realistic person that it?s was true and happened. Then again evolution is so incomplete it can collapse in on it's self when you try and explain it, this I'm sure will be fixed with future research and smart people have a pick at it.

So really none of you can be right, you can't prove a god so you can't prove creationism. But you can prove evolution and I'm sure if it is right it will be proved or adopted as factual some time in the near future and to me it sounds like the best bet at the moment and well if it's wrong well it's better than the 2000 years where no one was allowed to question the creationism theory.

So evolution and believable theories should be reviewed and be added into the syllabus as required by unbiased people if possible. Or you could just move to Australia where we have a decent school system and you can believe what ever the hell you want as long as you pay attention is classes.

[Baron Samedi]

I must say first of all, that this is [i]another[/i] worthwhile, but pointless discussion. There is no point to this. People can say "God made the Earth and Man" people can say "Mankind evoloved" But there is very little, consistent evidence to back up either. There is more going for "Mankind evolved" than there is for "We just appeared when God made us". I may be slightly ignorant on this subject, at my distinct lack of Chritianism (apologies, I know this isn't only Christianity) but wasn't Eve created from Adam's Rib? Or something. And Men and women have the same number of ribs. Hell, this might not be relevant, but Yeah...

Anyway, this is about whether it should be taight in school (intelligent design). Religious people may find it their 'duty' to spread the word of the Bible, but they should not be, or more correctly, others should not have to hear it if they do not want to. It works both ways, but here is my reasoning. People who want to, learn about 'how the world was created' from many different sources, Generally Bible or Church. If it was not taught at schools, than how would that theory (Evolution) get out? Where would we find out about it? If I wanted to learn about Creatonism, I can easily find out from Christians or the Bible. If I want to learn about Evolution, I go to school. All views have a right to be expressed, until one is proven right. But there are places for it to occur. Perhaps they could have 'Evolution' as an extra part. People can give that a bye on Moral or religious grounds, if they so wish to, rather than having to learn about it. It (Evolution) should be taught, as school is a proper place fir it to be taught at, as Church is the place for 'Creationism'.

In the end, the beauty of the religious belief, is that it [i] can not be disproven[/i] because who is to say that God wasn't of a scientific frame of mind, and made it so. Who is to say that a force does not make the necessary changes for 'evolution' of a species possible. But, on the flip-side, Who is to say there is a force. Another unprovable argument, that generates some truly interesting, but fruitless, discussion. Unprovable. Because, Science is fighting an uphill battle, because the 'God' group has many things to fall back on, because God may have been a scientist. In the End which is true does not overly matter to most people, only that they should have the chance to learn both (or all theories/ideas). Evolutionism [i]should[/i] be taught at schools in my opinion, because where else are they going to find out about it? Church for Creationism, School for Evolutionism. They both have a place, and to my mimd, while I do not believe in God, I do not refute, as there is no proof of either. So should all keep an open mind, whether they believe or not. Because, never forget: You could be wrong. It all comes down to Faith, in the argument of Life.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I think that there is a huge difference between evolution and Darwinism. Evolution is just a creature?s ability to adapt and reform to its set environment. It happens all of the time and is apparent in even the simpilist organisms. So in that respect I defiantly think that evolution should be taught in school.

Darwinism is a theory based on observation, with a conclusion stating that all organisms share a common ancestoral background. In the school system Darwinism should be treated as a theory, and nothing more, despite its popularity throughout much of the scientific community. I think that far too many teachers give students the impression that man evolving from monkey is fact (which defeats the purpose of Darwinism in a sense because the theory emphasizes that man and monkey have similar ancestoral triats). I don?t think that Darwinism should be emphasized the way it is in schools but I think it should be mentioned along with creationism or at least the idea that a supreme being but us on this earth (I think that schools are often scared of allowing students to be given a choice in what to believe in).[/color]

[Xaru Silverfire]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Estraya [/i]
[B] In order to read and understand alot of the older pieces of writtings (ie Beowulf...) we have to understand that the people in those days were for the most part, strictly Christian.[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, true and they didn't have the intellegence we have today. They were going basicly on thoughts. But....

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Estraya [/i]
[B] People have the right to believe in what they wish, if they want to believe that purple bananas created the world, then they are welcome to, and that belief should not be held against them. [/B]

That is absolutly true. People have the [b]right[/b] to believe in what they want.

[scrmngfangrl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B]I think all theories should be taught from a non-biased perspective. I have my beliefs, yes. But I do not want to be ignorant of others. Not because I may one day change, but more for the sake of changing others--and just general knowledge.

No cares about your opinion, unless it's an educated opinion.

-Justin [/B][/QUOTE]

dudes, i agree with justin. in sixth grade we learned about muslim beliefs and such. why can't i learn about evolution in biology class? it's all just theory right? so is a lot of stuff like in physics. we still learn it as fact. well, most times anyway.

anyway, what i really wanted to say is this: who the heck ever said we came from apes? darwin sure as heck didn't! if your going to argue about sometning, make sure you know about. its good. trust me.
dryopithecine, not apes
so yeah, sry if someone already mentioned. i hate it when people misquote darwin. ^^;

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Drix - I don't think you've interpreted the bible or this topic correctly. It was a sequence of events that eventually led to adam and eve, not random misaligned stories.

No it was not sequential at all, this is a known fact that is supported by records in Rome and other places with documentation from that time. (Or rewrites of such documents.)
[/B][/QUOTE]
I can see we are off to a good start. Next time before giving me some random reference to Roman records, give me a reference. Some weblink or book, before touting it as "fact". Unless you have gone to rome and seen the records yourself ;). As for the valitdity of the records, you are asking people their INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Why bother writing an intepretation when you agree with the current dogma? I belive the 'records' you speak of, if they exist, may be thoughts or possibilities envisioned by theologists at the time.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]See what I mean? It is because of fundamentalist views that the bible is absolute truth that it has been projected to people as a series of events when they were just the two leading theories on how the world (which was flat at that time my I remind you according to the bible) was created at the time the books that finally made up the bible we known today were written.
Please now that you know this stop quoting your own opinion with out knowing some amount of basic background to the bible it's self. (Eg. You?re not going to win this part of the argument because I think the people that made the bible know better than you.) [/B][/QUOTE]

The bible never says the earth is flat. That was assumed by MEN, not told by God. While people were considered "heathenous" for disputing the Pope's perception of the world and it's shape, this is not because God told them to. As for Absoulte truth, well, the Bible says "thou shalt not kill", that's about as absolute as you get. No bible will say "thou shalt kill". If you don't belive in some form of absoulte truth, what do you belive in? The only option is relative truth, where the human mind and opinions are all their independent 'absolute' thruths. We've seen how trusting the mind of man is, so I'll refer back to a source of wisdom far more profound and absolute than Mr. Cloricus here.

Side note: Don't you love it when people think a civil debate is considered an "argument", where one person is intended to "win" such argument? I sure do ;). Kid, get over yourself , and understand this for what it is: an exchange of ideas with critical intepretation. Let's not force our critical intepretation as fact.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Really I'm sick of the constant arguing about this topic, the Christians mainly want their thing tourt and people who believe in fact want their ideas tourt. [/B][/QUOTE]

Solution: Don't argue, discuss. I'm not quite sure how to "tourt" anything (flips through a dictionary). Don't forget that Christians belive their "thing" is fact. Don't fall into redundancy here, kiddo.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]The Christians that normally get into this mis-interpreted the whole thing and some of them even compromise and have an out come like Drix up there which I find utterly disgusting, not only do they dis others idea's they modify them to what they want and then call it a theory that is better than both. [/B][/QUOTE]

I love this. After turning our debate into a supposed "argument, claiming i "quote my own opinion" (what the hell is that supposed to mean?), (in the following paragraphs) calling my religious views "stupid", and clearly claiming his opinions as "fact" (multiple times); he says that [B]I[/B] "dis" other's ideas. And I'll have you know I'm not modifying the bible, I think that the complexity of the world is far too great to be attributed to anything less than something immaculate or divine.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Then you have scientists who are so busy laughing at Christians because they are believing a story that a guy who thought the earth was flat wrote a few thousand years ago that they don't address creationism better and leave them selves open to attacks which brings us to this whole damn big circle again. [/B][/QUOTE]

I like this one. You realize that the only reason science is around today is because people belive in fairly [I] unbelievable[/I] events? Think of it, gravity wasn't realized as a definable force until the renaissance(sp..)! Let's see, apparently this "guy" that wrote this "story" (for the less astute, i belive he is referring to God influencing people through his Spirit to write the Bible), don't adress creationism bettter, leaving themselves to "attacks". I'm not sure what you were on when you wrote this, but get me a perscription! I don't think any of the arguments of creationism are open to "attacks" as it is a mute effort anyway. Creationism cannot be proven or disproven.

On another note, dont use run on sentences. You are no Cormac McCarthy here , buddy.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Frankly the creationism story from my religion is stupid, I would have a hard time convincing any realistic person that it?s was true and happened. Then again evolution is so incomplete it can collapse in on it's self when you try and explain it, this I'm sure will be fixed with future research and smart people have a pick at it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for insulting my beliefs. You think creationism is "unreasonable?". Try convincing me the reason to these common evolutionary principles:
-Despite any rhyme or reason, there is a Big Bang. Nothing is recorded before this, because we have no way of understanding why this could possibly happen.
-Despite the extremely necessity for the PERFECT distance from the son, and somehow the right mix of molten lava and asteroid dust, water condenses on earth. (Yah, I know i'm exaggerating with "asteroid dust" but you get the idea)
-Despite the severe complexity, millions of particles, and need for nearly percise order to FUNCTION , RNA/DNA forms from nothing. Note here, there is no way to support the fundamental genetic material responsible for producing life.
-Desipite the fact that it would take hundreds of thousands of carbon molecules to form some sort of organism to support this DNA, it all happens through a random lightning strike on a pool of inorganic material. This material survives on a world about as harsh as venus.
-Despite the fact that according to fundamental evolution principles, most organisms mutate and evolve through competition, this seems to mutate for no apparent reason, but to mutate, somehow RANDOMLY mutating into an organism that utilizes oxygen.

Listen, while I don't belive in this, I'm not going to say that it's wrong. It's a difference of opinion, something requiring faith, not even a theory, but a Model. I suggest you and your "scientist" buddies stop laughing at my beliefs and try to answer this scrutiny.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]So really none of you can be right, you can't prove a god so you can't prove creationism. But you can prove evolution and I'm sure if it is right it will be proved or adopted as factual some time in the near future and to me it sounds like the best bet at the moment and well if it's wrong well it's better than the 2000 years where no one was allowed to question the creationism theory. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's funny, after calling your opinion "fact", laughing at my beliefs, and insulting my intelligence, you suddenly reverse your role to neutral-omniscent. OOPS! Never mind. Even after saying "none of you can be right" (you are refering to both models, I belive), you suddenly decide that evolution will be "proved (i think it's spelled 'proven') or adopted as factual". How do you adopt something as factual without proving it? The two are mutally exclusive, and your entire paragraph is a big oxymoron. (special emphasis on the "moron")

Actually the most recent time I believe questioning the creationism "theory" was 1782 (off the top of my head) , when the US constitution ratified that all men have freedom to speech and religion, ironically, unaliably endowed by their "Creator".

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]So evolution and believable theories should be reviewed and be added into the syllabus as required by unbiased people if possible. Or you could just move to Australia where we have a decent school system and you can believe what ever the hell you want as long as you pay attention is classes. [/B][/QUOTE]

I like living in the USA, it's a nice country :D. As for your final statment, I suppose it's odd that you seem to be saving face. You decide to bash creationism ideas, then suddenly have a turn around and say both should be added to the syllabus.

It's funny when I see people who have all the time in the world to write up well-thought rebuttles and opinons, and evidence to support those opinions. Yet, they choose to post crap like this. *sigh* Good thing people like James and Baron Samedi are posting on this thread.

-----------------------------

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]I must say first of all, that this is another worthwhile, but pointless discussion. There is no point to this. People can say "God made the Earth and Man" people can say "Mankind evoloved" But there is very little, consistent evidence to back up either. There is more going for "Mankind evolved" than there is for "We just appeared when God made us". I may be slightly ignorant on this subject, at my distinct lack of Chritianism (apologies, I know this isn't only Christianity) but wasn't Eve created from Adam's Rib? Or something. And Men and women have the same number of ribs. Hell, this might not be relevant, but Yeah...

Anyway, this is about whether it should be taight in school (intelligent design). Religious people may find it their 'duty' to spread the word of the Bible, but they should not be, or more correctly, others should not have to hear it if they do not want to. It works both ways, but here is my reasoning. People who want to, learn about 'how the world was created' from many different sources, Generally Bible or Church. If it was not taught at schools, than how would that theory (Evolution) get out? Where would we find out about it? If I wanted to learn about Creatonism, I can easily find out from Christians or the Bible. If I want to learn about Evolution, I go to school. All views have a right to be expressed, until one is proven right. But there are places for it to occur. Perhaps they could have 'Evolution' as an extra part. People can give that a bye on Moral or religious grounds, if they so wish to, rather than having to learn about it. It (Evolution) should be taught, as school is a proper place fir it to be taught at, as Church is the place for 'Creationism'.

In the end, the beauty of the religious belief, is that it can not be disproven because who is to say that God wasn't of a scientific frame of mind, and made it so. Who is to say that a force does not make the necessary changes for 'evolution' of a species possible. But, on the flip-side, Who is to say there is a force. Another unprovable argument, that generates some truly interesting, but fruitless, discussion. Unprovable. Because, Science is fighting an uphill battle, because the 'God' group has many things to fall back on, because God may have been a scientist. In the End which is true does not overly matter to most people, only that they should have the chance to learn both (or all theories/ideas). Evolutionism should be taught at schools in my opinion, because where else are they going to find out about it? Church for Creationism, School for Evolutionism. They both have a place, and to my mimd, while I do not believe in God, I do not refute, as there is no proof of either. So should all keep an open mind, whether they believe or not. Because, never forget: You could be wrong. It all comes down to Faith, in the argument of Life.[/B][/QUOTE]

I would acutally like to thank you Baron Samedi, you have proven to , once again, provide one of the more reasonable and well substantiated opinions in this topic (breath of fresh air considering my last rebuttle). I agree with you, except you must realize that people aren't given the option to ignore, evade, or otherwise not-learn evolutionism/darwinism in our school without a substantial effect upon their grade. You aren't bound by law to attend church, however you must attend highschool. I remember back when I was in highschool, and I felt that it seemed biased, and unfair that only one of these 'models' was being taugh. As you have aptly put it, it all comes down to Faith. I resent being taught a faith-based philosophy, without the option of the next.

[Krademon]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]
Creationists are merely blind to scientific facts that have been discovered. How do you explain dinosaurs huh?

O this note not having any personal favorites in religion...what is the dinosaurs screwed up majorly and god didn't want us to find out?


I agree with alot of what you are saying and Drix D'Zanth...you are quite right about there baing a lack of intellegant disscusion in Highschool on topics such as this. During my time at school my friends and I studied evolution theories and spent many hous disscusing, relating comparing and comtrasting the theories of evolution. Our lot was also very mixed religiously. A christian, Muslem, beleiver and indifferent. These mixtures gave us a very good insight not only into the mindframe of eachothers beleifs but also we got to find what was proper and what was wrong in the bible. I am not saying that the bible is wrong, just that after thousands of years, numerous translations and a massive compression they had to go wrong somewhere.

[Bandit Joeykuba]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]Evolution is not a belief system, it's scientific and based on more fact than creationism. [/B][/QUOTE]

Have you ever looked up the definition for evolutionism?
[B]ev-o-lu'tion-ism[/B] [i]n.[/i] a theory of gradual biological change over time; a [B][i]BELIEF[/i][/B] in biological evolution.

Straight from Websters, the theory of evolution [B]is[/B] a belief system, just a intelligent design/creationism is. So is it fair that only ONE is taught in school? I think not.


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]Let me point you to the evolution of moths in industrial London. Now, the original moths were brown and mottled, easily camoflauged against the trees and shrubs in the woodland areas surrounding London. However, once the industrial revolution started the trees were blackened with soot and waist from the chimenys of the ever growing factorys. Because of this the brown moths didn't survive because their comflauge didn't work. because of random mutation certain moths of the colony with darker markings survived, thus spurring on the creation of a new generation of entirely black moths...which, incidently, survived.

Evolution in your back garden.[/B][/QUOTE]

Micro-evolution my friend. Micro-evolution. True evolution is when a species turns into a completely DIFFERENT species. Like a cat turning into a dog.

Besides, the [i]New York Times[/i] has said something against that.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]Creationists are merely blind to scientific facts that have been discovered. How do you explain dinosaurs huh? [/B][/QUOTE]

Ever hear of Dinosaur Park in Texas?

Human footprints found along side the dinosaurs. Score one for creationism.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by doukeshi03 [/i]
[B]To deny evolution to the public schooling system is merely denying pupils the chance to decide for themselves. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I'll agree with you there. BUT, by not teaching Intelligent Design, isn't that denying the students of freechoice as well?
---------------------------------------

I'll end this little rant of mine with this:

Charles Darwin (himself) stated in his book (Theory o Evolution... Can't think of it's title...) that ANY veiws of how man got here should be heard, not just his. He never claimed any of hisstuff to be factual, just hoped that there may be proof in the future.

Okay, I'm through.

[The Original]

[QUOTE][/B]


Ever hear of Dinosaur Park in Texas?

[/B][/QUOTE]

This may seem trivial when compared to the entire discussion, but have you ever been to Dinosaur Park, Bandit Joeykuba? I happen to live in Texas, and I have been to the park a few times. Yes, there are human footprints there. However, thermoluminescence dating has proven that the human prints were made thousands of years after the dinosaur ones. It was merely a coincidence that early humans walked alongside the same river a group of dinosaurs had trekked through a few thousand years previously. Get you're facts right.

[Justin]

Yes, but fossilizaton can also take place over a period of a couple thousand years. For instance, the discovery of fur hats and other man-made articles that are fossilized.

But the discussion here is not about whether one thing is fact or not. I can bring up as many logical points to support one side as the other--but that's not what my faith is about anyway.

The discussion is about morals, and the freedom of choice. People ar [i]entitled[/i] to salvation, but it can't be forced on them. Therefore, they should hear the unbiased choices that they have. As for their choosing, I believe the Holy Spirit will deal with the hearts of men.

-Justin