Intelligent design

[Brasil]

This is why Jefferson and the Founding Fathers set up that whole "Separation of Church and State" thing.

Because even [i]back then[/i], during the [u][b][i]birth of our nation[/i][/b][/u], that religious doctrine makes for absolutely horrible governmental and state procedures--including education. Let's face it. Religion [u][b][i]sucks[/i][/b][/u] when it comes to education.

It greatly upsets me that so many people [i][u][b]still[/b][/u][/i] don't "get" what Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were doing some 230 years ago.

[quote] 'Orwellian' efforts

Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute, which sponsors research on intelligent design, said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court.

"It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."[/quote]
And Dr. West is a ******* quack, and he will be one of the first to go (read: assassination) when I become President. I won't tolerate that kind of bull****.

[Drix D'Zanth]

And the wonderful, and misconstrued, idea of ?The separation of Church and State? rears its ugly mane. While, of course, there is really no such thing as a separation of church and state in the constitution? but wait? there isn?t? Well, let?s examine the constitution: ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That doesn?t sound like we shouldn?t teach religion in schools at all.

Let?s examine the historical context behind the claim. Many people do not truly understand the historical context of this statement. The vast majority of America?s first settlers were the Puritans, who left England for *gasp* religious differences. Of course, England is a perfect example of how government and religion do [i]not[/i] always get along. So our framers thought it wise to prevent a religiously-dictated government within the first amendment.

How exactly does this support the argument that religion should not be taught in public schools?

Now the tune changes from ?No religion should be taught? to ?Religion is fine if it?s in a religion class or history class, not science?. Why is that? Surely, as long as there is no law prohibiting such a ?religious idealism? as Intelligent Design, it should be allowed in our science classes?

?Of course not, because it?s not science. Science is objective, rational, and relies on proof. Religion is faith based, subjective, and relies on testimony.?

So then, the idea of all of the complex life on earth evolving from common ancestry through allopatric speciation (macro-evolution) is objective and provable? Certainly, to be taught as a science it must be. Because we all have empirically observed an example of macroevolution and can most certainly test the theory in a laboratory, right?

The truth is, the modern synthesis is no less faith-based than any of the major religions.

[Brasil]

Jordan, think about it, though. Religion by its nature is oppressive. It has its good points and tendencies, sure, but in general? You've heard about female circumcision, I trust? Yeah...that's a case of religion dictating how a society works, from a quasi-governmental state.

We've had theocracies across the globe that function like Fascism (and sometimes, [i]are[/i] Fascist societies).

We've seen the Inquisition because of a religious doctrine taken a step (a few steps, lol) too far by a leaderbase that was, for all intents and purposes, psychotic.

You mentioned England, and you're not even doing that kind of turmoil justice with one brief mention. Governmental rules and laws would change with each passing of the crown between the Protestants and Catholics. Government resources were used to suppress and in some cases, hunt down religious "heretics." Saying "not always get along" is an understatement in the worst way. lol

And it is a separation of church and state, because the ammendment establishes that the government will not attempt to restrict religious practice and freedoms, in that it will not act with regards to religion.

Public schools are government insitutions, and therefore, by extension, they also will not endorse or suppress religion or religious freedoms.

Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to say that there is certainly a very clear separation of church and state as it applies in this situation.

And if that's not a valid reason why to argue for religion or religious doctrine not being taught in public school?

Religion isn't science. Religion is religion. A belief structure based on ancient human reactions to and rationalizations of a world that they fully did not understand. That in itself is reason enough why religious doctrine and ideology has no place in modern coursework. Religion itself is outdated.

So why should a concept like Intelligent Design, which is no different than the people of Mesopotamia blaming the gods for floods, a concept that [i]relies[/i] on a belief in a higher power that is unproven, be taught in a modern classroom? I.D. is no different from ancient superstitions. For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing.

We don't teach that thunder and lightning occur because Zeus is angry. Why should we teach that the world was created because God felt like it?

We study Zeus in mythology courses because Zeus is mythology. We study God, religion, etc., because they're religious ideas and occasionally, philosophical ones.

To point to I.D. and say that it should be taught in a science course because particulars of evolution can't be observed? If unobservable particulars of evolution deem that evolution shouldn't be taught exclusively in a science, and if I.D. is just as unobservable, seems like it makes that pro-I.D. argument moot.

[Morpheus]

The reasoning applied to "Religion should not be taught in science classes" is the same as not learning about trigonometry in Language Arts or Spanish Culture in French. It simply belongs somewhere else.

[Stark]

I concur with that last point.

IMHO, a religious theory such as ID does belong in a social science class because it is just another way of thinking. Religion, Judeochristianity in particular, has a major issue about unquestioning faith in its followers. Such an issue doesn't welcome a very inquisitive academic class like science too well.

Evolution should be kept inthe science room, ID in a more philosophical class. I'm not against it being taught; quite the contrary, I'm all for it. Being allowed to choose what you believe in seems right to me, and I don't condone people trying to force their ideals down other people's throats.

Thus, a happy medium should be figured out some how, not just one or the other. Both can be taught on the public school level, only in different classrooms. It should be availiable for those who have an inquisitive mind, and I actually regret not taking any philosophy classes so far in my high school career.

Then again, this is coming from the one who was lectured to by the church youth leader about reading books like Siddhartha and other pseudo-philosophical texts.

I'm not saying I know anything. I'm still looking for the answers. Maybe other people are too, and there should be better resources for them to find those answers.

If it means teaching a religious theory in a public school, so be it. Just, it should be kept in the right context, and it should be kept as unbiased as possible.

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Stark]Then again, this is coming from the one who was lectured to by the church youth leader about reading books like Siddhartha and other pseudo-philosophical texts.

I'm not saying I know anything. I'm still looking for the answers. Maybe other people are too, and there should be better resources for them to find those answers.

If it means teaching a religious theory in a public school, so be it. Just, it should be kept in the right context, and it should be kept as unbiased as possible.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]No. At least up here in the North, teachers in public schools aren't allowed to discuss God, lest they be fired as a result. I really hope it stays that way. School should be a place of religious neutrality; because so many different people with so many opposing beliefs are in one classroom, it becomes extremely easy to offend someone.

If you want religion, go to a Catholic school or Sunday School/CCD, and shut up.

And if by some horrid luck religion does end up in public school,[B] make it an elective[/B]. Else, there'll be riots and picketers on the Mall.[/size]

[SunfallE]

I?ve been hearing a lot about ID lately and I?m of the opinion that it shouldn?t be taught in a science class along with Evolution. Though I?m more opposed to those where I live who want it to replace Evolution. Since there is no proof of a creator so to speak I think if it is to be taught in school then it should be a religion or philosophy class instead of being a science class. If that were the case I wouldn?t have a problem with it being offered as an elective.

Seems to me that religious people are just looking for another way to claim God was behind everything. That?s a matter of faith and not a valid reason to replace Evolution with ID.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Brasil']You've heard about female circumcision, I trust? Yeah...that's a case of religion dictating how a society works, from a quasi-governmental state.[/quote]Correction, that has to do with culture (well, it does).[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']Correction, that has to do with culture (well, it does).[/color][/quote]
"Believed that it will deter sexual desires, and thus a woman will be 'pure' (i.e., a virgin for marriage)" should tip you off that culture isn't the only thing driving it. Culture and religion go hand-in-hand. Religion influences culture. Culture influences religion.

Considering that deterring sexual desires is not exactly something purely cultural, and how it's an ideology found in just about every religious doctrine on the face of the planet...

...you may want to reconsider saying female circumcision is purely cultural, because in that cultural aspect, there's a religious aspect and vice versa, and so on.

Think about it.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Brasil]"Believed that it will deter sexual desires, and thus a woman will be 'pure' (i.e., a virgin for marriage)" should tip you off that culture isn't the only thing driving it. Culture and religion go hand-in-hand. Religion influences culture. Culture influences religion.

Considering that deterring sexual desires is not exactly something purely cultural, and how it's an ideology found in just about every religious doctrine on the face of the planet...

...you may want to reconsider saying female circumcision is purely cultural, because in that cultural aspect, there's a religious aspect and vice versa, and so on.

Think about it.[/QUOTE]There is no religion that says that women should not be sexually pleased as well. And there is also no religion that says that only women should not have premarital sex. And there is definitely no religion that encourages or condones the practice of female circumcision. Hence, you cannot blame relgion.

Women have been mistreated by men and seen as sexual objects before any of the major religions came into play. Even in atheist societies virginity before marriage was important.

Certain cultures take that one idea from religion: Virginity before marriage, and use it to oppress women, even though the religion teaches not to oppress.

Anyway, back to ID.

As I have said before, there is a line to draw between religion and ID. There is a completely logical and non-faith based way of looking at Intelligent design, leaving any specific religion out.

Most of the ID non-supporters say that there is no "proof" and no solid evidence for ID, and that's why it shouldn't be taught in science class. But there are many ideas taught in science that do not have solid evidence. The ideas are simply taught because they are logical and possible.

Take for instance, the big bang theory. It is a [B]fact[/B] that the universe is indeed expanding. Hence, that is solid evidence and [B]actual proof[/B] that the universe was indeed smaller before.

But how small? Why do science books claim that it was zero volume and infinite (well, almost infinite) mass? Because logically, it's possible. But there is no evidence to actually support this.

It's perfectly possible that the universe started out with a finite volume and mass, and began expanding from there, is it not? This idea is also perfectly logical and possible too.

Hence, both these ideas should be presented as possible in the science class.


No one has adequately explained how the universe came to be. It is impossible for it to appear out of nothingness. The science books do claim that you cannot create matter or energy. It must have come from something, but what that something is we don't know.

We have observed that there is a logic behind the way everthing works, there is indeed something intelligent about it. Hence, it is logical to assume that an intelligent being created the universe. It is possible, and therefore, it should be presented in the science class.[/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

The thing is that the Big Bang [B]Theory[/B] is a scientific theory: A theory of something happening in our physical world. Intelligent design is based on thought while the big bang is based on sciencentific evidence.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']There is no religion that says that women should not be sexually pleased as well.[/color][/quote]
Sex only for procreation. Not for pleasure (for either sex). It's there. Find the religion and get back to me.

[quote][color=#004a6f]And there is also no religion that says that only women should not have premarital sex.[/color][/quote]
So you don't think there's any correlation between that religious dogma of "No sex before marriage" and what's happening currently?

[quote][color=#004a6f]And there is definitely no religion that encourages or condones the practice of female circumcision. Hence, you cannot blame relgion.

Women have been mistreated by men and seen as sexual objects before any of the major religions came into play. Even in atheist societies virginity before marriage was important.

Certain cultures take that one idea from religion: Virginity before marriage, and use it to oppress women, even though the religion teaches not to oppress.[/color][/quote]
And it's strictly cultural how? You've just said that cultures take the virginity before marriage and skew it into all hell. The virginity before marriage is a [i]religious doctrine[/i], and thus any social rituals and customs based upon that religious doctrine are religious as well as cultural, because religion influences culture and vice versa. Female circumcision is not strictly cultural, Chabi. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Religion teaches not to oppress? Re-read that sentence. lol. Religion teaches not to oppress...just take a look at the Old Testament and really pay attention. Why do you think Christians more often quote the OT than the NT when making arguments for social restrictions? Because the NT largely contradicts the entire fundamental philosophy of the OT.

[quote][color=#004a6f]Anyway, back to ID.

As I have said before, there is a line to draw between religion and ID. There is a completely logical and non-faith based way of looking at Intelligent design, leaving any specific religion out.

Most of the ID non-supporters say that there is no "proof" and no solid evidence for ID, and that's why it shouldn't be taught in science class. But there are many ideas taught in science that do not have solid evidence. The ideas are simply taught because they are logical and possible.

Take for instance, the big bang theory. It is a [b]fact[/b] that the universe is indeed expanding. Hence, that is solid evidence and [b]actual proof[/b] that the universe was indeed smaller before.

But how small? Why do science books claim that it was zero volume and infinite (well, almost infinite) mass? Because logically, it's possible. But there is no evidence to actually support this.

It's perfectly possible that the universe started out with a finite volume and mass, and began expanding from there, is it not? This idea is also perfectly logical and possible too.

Hence, both these ideas should be presented as possible in the science class.


No one has adequately explained how the universe came to be. It is impossible for it to appear out of nothingness. The science books do claim that you cannot create matter or energy. It must have come from something, but what that something is we don't know.

We have observed that there is a logic behind the way everthing works, there is indeed something intelligent about it. Hence, it is logical to assume that an intelligent being created the universe. It is possible, and therefore, it should be presented in the science class.[/color][/QUOTE]
And again, you've stumbled upon yet another flimsy philosophical argument that I'm surprised nobody has realized just how flimsy it is.

The basis for your argument here is the idea of the caused universe (the proper term for the philosophical argument escapes me at the moment).

What the argument supposes is that the universe and creation are series of causal events that do not regress into infinity, instead at the very beginning, arriving at one ultimate cause, which is labeled God or what-have-you.

The problem is, that when asked what that God was, or if everything is a cause-and-effect, essentially, how could God be there? What caused him?

Their answer? He's the "uncaused cause." I hope I don't need to point out how absurd that entire idea is, because it's nothing more than a religious cop-out after they realized their entire argument is moot based on their very own premises throughout.

And frankly? The "uncaused cause" theory is utterly destroyed by Ockam's Razor, so already it's a flimsy philosophy because there are better, more streamlined, less clumsy explanations out there. Like Tralfamadorianism. Look up Tralfamadore. You'll enjoy how they see time.

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]And the wonderful, and misconstrued, idea of ?The separation of Church and State? rears its ugly mane. While, of course, there is really no such thing as a separation of church and state in the constitution? but wait? there isn?t? Well, let?s examine the constitution: ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That doesn?t sound like we shouldn?t teach religion in schools at all.

Let?s examine the historical context behind the claim. Many people do not truly understand the historical context of this statement. The vast majority of America?s first settlers were the Puritans, who left England for *gasp* religious differences. Of course, England is a perfect example of how government and religion do [i]not[/i] always get along. So our framers thought it wise to prevent a religiously-dictated government within the first amendment.

How exactly does this support the argument that religion should not be taught in public schools?

Now the tune changes from ?No religion should be taught? to ?Religion is fine if it?s in a religion class or history class, not science?. Why is that? Surely, as long as there is no law prohibiting such a ?religious idealism? as Intelligent Design, it should be allowed in our science classes?

?Of course not, because it?s not science. Science is objective, rational, and relies on proof. Religion is faith based, subjective, and relies on testimony.?

So then, the idea of all of the complex life on earth evolving from common ancestry through allopatric speciation (macro-evolution) is objective and provable? Certainly, to be taught as a science it must be. Because we all have empirically observed an example of macroevolution and can most certainly test the theory in a laboratory, right?

The truth is, the modern synthesis is no less faith-based than any of the major religions.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

Evolution is based on reactions and forces and various other effects that are going on now and have been documented. Thus it can be concluded that these same processes were going on billions of years ago - barring the laws of physics getting changed somwhere down the road. Than it's simple a matter of determining which is the more likely course of evolution based on discoveries and natural observations.

ID, on the other hand, is based on the one unprovable: the existence of a god. Therefore, teaching it in science class is preaching - preaching is somthing we need a lot less of. If you have a class that discusses religions, than it's fine. It's not telling you to believe that there was some creator who created us and these natural processes. It's saying 'X believes Y', not 'X happened'.
[/COLOR]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Brasil]
And it is a separation of church and state, because the ammendment establishes that the government will not attempt to restrict religious practice and freedoms, in that it will not act with regards to religion.

Public schools are government insitutions, and therefore, by extension, they also will not endorse or suppress religion or religious freedoms.

Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to say that there is certainly a very clear separation of church and state as it applies in this situation.

And if that's not a valid reason why to argue for religion or religious doctrine not being taught in public school? [/QUOTE]
I shall only address certain key arguments that I might have with your overall point, Alex. You make a very reasonable and valid argument. We agree more than you may think concerning the establishment of religion in governing people. Church and State are separated for an important reason; as bureaucrats will often use religious zeal to manipulate or excuse often tyrannical actions. But that is a digression from the current subject matter.

I would agree that religious indoctrination in highschool is obviously an abuse of the First, however, not the education of said religions. That being said, I must point out that the Idea of Intelligent Design does not necessarily call into specific bearing the identity of said creator. You cite ?teleological? or purposeful evolution as perhaps a valid option. The idea of a purposeful evolution flies in face of current evolutionary theory, and right along track of Intelligent Design. The idea is that the designer isn?t nearly as important as the purposefulness of life?s conception and composition. That said, a class period of open debate as to the ?designer? of life may or may not be warranted, but it never calls upon a specific creed or religious doctrine. It calls upon primarily, a restructuring of our current ideas of macroevolution and the Modern Synthesis.

Intelligent Design basically evens down to: your theory is disproved, how about this idea?



[QUOTE=Brasil]
So why should a concept like Intelligent Design, which is no different than the people of Mesopotamia blaming the gods for floods, a concept that [i]relies[/i] on a belief in a higher power that is unproven, be taught in a modern classroom? I.D. is no different from ancient superstitions. For all intents and purposes, it's the same thing. [/QUOTE]

It is quite different; ID doesn?t need to point to anything but objective and quantitative evidence.

[QUOTE=Brasil]
To point to I.D. and say that it should be taught in a science course because particulars of evolution can't be observed? If unobservable particulars of evolution deem that evolution shouldn't be taught exclusively in a science, and if I.D. is just as unobservable, seems like it makes that pro-I.D. argument moot.[/QUOTE]

Almost, not just unobservable, but the basic mechanics behind evolution as a current theory is broken. This isn?t the first time this has happened, and it is important to all scientific theories to re-evaluate each as new evidence becomes available. While I?m not saying these problems with the theory warrant disproving it, you must consider that if an ?unprovable, unobservable? evolutionary force is to be taught, why not the same ?unprovable, unobservable? idea of ID?

[quote name='Morpheus]The thing is that the Big Bang [B]Theory[/B'] is a scientific theory: A theory of something happening in our physical world. Intelligent design is based on thought while the big bang is based on sciencentific evidence.[/quote]

Well, you demonstrate a misunderstanding for Intelligent Design. It uses the same information that Evolution uses, and doesn?t disprove the vast majority of evolution. Instead, ID. Proposes a necessary [i]means[/i] behind the current biological unity and diversity.

Ah, Ilium. Good to see you?ve made your return on this thread. I can see that given time, you?ll take away plenty from this discourse. But it?s time to educate :

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
Evolution is based on reactions and forces and various other effects that are going on now and have been documented. Thus it can be concluded that these same processes were going on billions of years ago - barring the laws of physics getting changed somwhere down the road. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Evolution is an emergent property at the [b]population[/b] level based on selection pressures acting on specific gene frequencies. Many evolutionary functions are only emerging following the more complex emergence of eukaryotic organisms about 1.5 bya. While certain biochemical processes may be evidenced dating so far back as 3.8 bya, the actual processes of more complex evolution did not arise until much later. That?s not much of a concern, however, to either of our arguments.

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
Than it's simple a matter of determining which is the more likely course of evolution based on discoveries and natural observations. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Now, what if said discoveries based on ?natural observations? prove to be out of line with the current evolutionary design? Is saying, ?We haven?t discovered it yet? any less of an excuse than ?because god willed it??

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]
ID, on the other hand, is based on the one unprovable: the existence of a god. Therefore, teaching it in science class is preaching - preaching is somthing we need a lot less of. If you have a class that discusses religions, than it's fine. It's not telling you to believe that there was some creator who created us and these natural processes. It's saying 'X believes Y', not 'X happened'.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

You?ve learned of Socrates and Plato in high-school? Correct? Now, the two Greek philosophers relied on ?reason? to argue the vast majority of their claims. However, each of these philosophers staunchly defended ?piety? (with regard to Greek mythology) as a virtuous trait. In fact, Socrates defended his own piety when put on trial in Plato?s Apology. Now, is it necessary to accept the dogma of Greek Mythology to put their philosophies into context? It is not.

Neither is it necessary to examine or determine an applicable dogma to the purposeful design and co-ordination of biology.

So, enough about that worry, let?s try to look at it from a scientific standpoint, please.

[Raiyuu]

[font=Trebuchet MS]Okay, this doesn't exactly contribute to the discussion, but I thought it might provide some light relief in the midst of what is becoming quite a heavy debate.

[u][url="http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-676.png"]Ryan North's Dinosaur Comics[/url][/u] just featured a comic about Intelligent Design. Ryan, it seems, is of the opinion (as are many posters in this thread) that ID belongs in the Religion Department, not the Science Block.

Also, I love the image of [spoiler]God dancing in his underpants...[/spoiler]
[/font]

[Brasil]

Some time until my next class. Let's have some fun.

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]I shall only address certain key arguments that I might have with your overall point, Alex. You make a very reasonable and valid argument. We agree more than you may think concerning the establishment of religion in governing people. Church and State are separated for an important reason; as bureaucrats will often use religious zeal to manipulate or excuse often tyrannical actions. But that is a digression from the current subject matter.

I would agree that religious indoctrination in highschool is obviously an abuse of the First, however, not the education of said religions.[/quote]
It's relevant, though, because we both agree there needs to be a separation of church and state as much as possible--or at least as much as is reasonable. (Atheists getting their panties in a twist over the "In God We Trust" on dollar bills is laughable, for example).

The very notion of teaching I.D. in schools is laughable--especially when said religious/spiritual concept is being proposed for science courses--because while it wouldn't necessarily be a government endorsement of religious thought, it still violates that principle, especially considering the inappropriate context of such a proposal.

[quote]That being said, I must point out that the Idea of Intelligent Design does not necessarily call into specific bearing the identity of said creator.[/quote]
But it does require a divine presence in the universe, Jordan. It's the entire crux of the I.D. argument: that there's some type of divine presence behind every single process, because there are some processes yet unexplained by science. To say that it "does not necessarily" define a said creator is dodging the point, I think, because the fundamental reasoning behind I.D. is absolutely identifying a specific creator figure.

[quote]You cite ?teleological? or purposeful evolution as perhaps a valid option. The idea of a purposeful evolution flies in face of current evolutionary theory, and right along track of Intelligent Design. The idea is that the designer isn?t nearly as important as the purposefulness of life?s conception and composition.[/quote]
What I'm citing is a trend I'm amazed nobody has ever noticed, considered, or conceived. I'm not a genius by any stretch, and my intellect isn't vastly superior. Teleological Evolution contradicts mainstream evolutionary theory, sure, but it is not right along the track of I.D. I won't argue that evolution is random. It fits together too well to be random. [i][b]But[/b][/i] a purposefulness of life's conception and composition (i.e., a detectable goal, if you will) in evolution neither establishes nor sets a precedent for making the leap to "Therefore there must be a creator."

You see, the problem with the I.D. argument is that it derives from people figuring a purposeful process must be the work of a conscious entity who operates independently of the given process' environment. This brings me back to what I said previously about people applying a divine meaning to something grounded exclusively in the physical reality of their world, and it's why I mentioned Mesopotamia and the floods.

[quote]That said, a class period of open debate as to the ?designer? of life may or may not be warranted, but [b]it never calls upon a specific creed or religious doctrine[/b]. It calls upon primarily, a restructuring of our current ideas of macroevolution and the Modern Synthesis.[/quote]
God or Yahweh isn't named, but let's be honest here, Jordan: anything that proposes a higher power is a religious doctrine. It's a spiritual proposal. It's a mythological proposal. The minute something suggests "Divine Presence" is the minute it adopts a religious viewpoint, whatever that religion may be. The very act of inserting divinity calls upon religious doctrine.

[quote]Intelligent Design basically evens down to: your theory is disproved, how about this idea?[/quote]
Disproved how? Because someone can't accept that a gorgeous system works without the hand of some conscious, divine higher power? That perhaps that system works due to say...I don't know...Natural Selection? Merely the natural progression of things? Not even the abstract notion of "Mother Nature," either. I'm talking about a realistic "this is how nature works in an evolve-or-die" type of state.

We see it already, even in something as mundane as the Avian Flu that's spreading. The thing is mutating, but not randomly, because it's adapting to new environments, to new antibiotics, to new treatments. There's a purpose behind its mutations, but that purpose is not due to any higher power or divine presence. It's like "That which does not kill me makes me stronger." Adapt or die is the name of the game; it's the ultimate conclusion. Not Intelligent Design.

[quote]It is quite different; ID doesn?t need to point to anything but objective and quantitative evidence.[/quote]
Jordan, I.D. goes from "Evolution sucks" to "There's a divine presence at work here" in under a paragraph. It's not pointing to anything objective and it's not pointing to anything quantitative. If anything, I.D. is entirely [b]sub[/b]jective and entirely [b]qual[/b]itative, which is exactly what the ancient belief structures of Mesopotamia were.

[quote]Almost, not just unobservable, but the basic mechanics behind evolution as a current theory are broken. This isn?t the first time this has happened, and it is important to all scientific theories to re-evaluate each as new evidence becomes available. While I?m not saying these problems with the theory warrant disproving it, you must consider that if an ?unprovable, unobservable? evolutionary force is to be taught, why not the same ?unprovable, unobservable? idea of ID?[/QUOTE]
And these broken basic mechanics are? It seems to me that because we have thousands--possibly millions--of different species on the planet today, because over the course of 65 million years, we've seen so many different forms of life occur, looks like both microevolution and macroevolution actually do exist.

We can't exactly observe micro/macro-E because they take tens of thousands of years. How does that prove (or even set precedent) for the Pro-I.D. argument? Simply, it doesn't.

Like I said over AIM last week...pointing to a supposed gap--a timespan of twenty millennia that absolutely no human being could ever, ever witness first-hand--and then leaping into I.D. is jumping the gun to an absurd degree.

And at least in-between those twenty millennia, we can see the results of evolution. Modern birds and ancient dinosaur skeletons featuring similar bone structures, for example. So while evolution may be "unobservable" because we can't be there every step of the way, the evidence is there. I.D. still has no evidence (and remains completely unobservable), because like every single other religiously/spiritually-founded doctrine, it requires a leap of faith, not a leap of science.

[TheShinje]

You are correct, ID has no evidence and that's why we're called to have faith, i guess. We have a faith in God that he is there and at work in our lives.

Yet Evolution theories evidence is not exactly concrete, the transitional fossils remain sparse, and the vast mnajority of them have been found to be some other kind of species. (Lucy herself, the most famous transitional, was found to be some other kind of knuckle -walking ape)

I agree with micro-evolution, ot a degree. I believe that species adapt to their enviornments and surroundings with the hand of God guiding them.

I beleive that macro evolution is implausable,It reqires the belief that life ranomly started out of a primordial soup. Evolution teches us that life must have evolved from a single cell, but even that cell must have had reproductive systems in place and a kowledge of it's purpose. Indeed, even the most simple cells have been foudn to have some of the most intricate coding making up it's being. Just look at the genome prohect.
I like to think of DNA as the coding of God. It is such a complex, dynamic code that makes up who we are, that I would readily believe that it came from an intelligent designer who created us with a purpose.

God is real to me, I find belief that he created the world in 6 days just as plausible as evolution taking millions of years, and randomly spewing us out of some primordial soup.

Two cents for the discussion :animestun

[Guest Warmaster]

Some things are hard to grasp, and some people find it hard to not wrap these things in something they think they CAN grasp. Hence, Intelligent Design.

[TheShinje]

Well, that's up to interpretation, Warmaster. Some people, like myself, woudl claim that getting your head around God is as complicated, or intristic as any evolutionary theory. I myself have asked many people what they think Christianity is all about, and there are a lot of muddled answers out there.

I definately don't see ID as some kind of "make-everything-go-away-it's-too-hard-mommy" answer to life.

[Guest Warmaster]

Well, a lot of people make a lot of claims, don't they. ^^

[Guest kuroinuyoukai]

[QUOTE=PyroGirl]Yes, I am a Christian and if you don't like it deal with it. I did not want to be taught the theory of evolution, but it's not my decision. So maybe all of you atheist should just learn to deal with being taught ID if all of us Christians have to deal with learning evolution.

P.S. Where IS the missing link?[/QUOTE]
When I was in school some of my teachers refused to teach evolution. (I am thirty now.) i agree with PyroGirl, in public school we have to study Darwinism and if we disagree and answer the way we believe-we flunk our tests. If Christians must learn this- why can't everyone else learn ID. You can go to a class- you don't have to believe what you're taught. My question is if we all evolved from one celled organisms into monkeys..I know about the Big Bang creating the Earth. My question is who created the stuff that existed before the big bang?

[Retribution]

[quote name='kuroinuyoukai']When I was in school some of my teachers refused to teach evolution. (I am thirty now.) i agree with PyroGirl, in public school we have to study Darwinism and if we disagree and answer the way we believe-we flunk our tests. If Christians must learn this- why can't everyone else learn ID. You can go to a class- you don't have to believe what you're taught.[/quote][size=1]
Well, I address this in a lower paragraph, but I'll say it here too. In public school, there are people from all walks of life, many of whom are NOT Christians. On top of this, there is also a clear separation between Church and State, and Public School, which is funded by the government, can be considered an extention of the State (Brasil said this earlier).

Point blank, you should stop pushing your divine belief on other people. They don't want it. Darwinism is accepted scientific fact. It's a theory, with physical evidence, and I really don't understand why people plug their ears to it. It's just as real as the computer you're typing on.

[quote]My question is if we all evolved from one celled organisms into monkeys..I know about the Big Bang creating the Earth. My question is who created the stuff that existed before the big bang?[/quote]
What's so wrong about accepting the fact that we evolved from monkeys? Does it ever say anywhere in the Bible that evolution did not occur? Unless you're one of those literalists... >_>

From what I understand, there was nothing before the Big Bang. Not heaven, not hell, not light, nor darkness. In the beginning there was God, and He created everything else. But that doesn't mean that people who don't believe in God have to study about Him. That's what Church is for. That's what Sunday School is for. Want your children to be educated about God? Send them to a Catholic school, to Sunday School, to Church.[/size]

[Guest kuroinuyoukai]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]
Well, I address this in a lower paragraph, but I'll say it here too. In public school, there are people from all walks of life, many of whom are NOT Christians. On top of this, there is also a clear separation between Church and State, and Public School, which is funded by the government, can be considered an extention of the State (Brasil said this earlier).

Point blank, you should stop pushing your divine belief on other people. They don't want it. Darwinism is accepted scientific fact. It's a theory, with physical evidence, and I really don't understand why people plug their ears to it. It's just as real as the computer you're typing on.


What's so wrong about accepting the fact that we evolved from monkeys? Does it ever say anywhere in the Bible that evolution did not occur? Unless you're one of those literalists... >_>

From what I understand, there was nothing before the Big Bang. Not heaven, not hell, not light, nor darkness. In the beginning there was God, and He created everything else. But that doesn't mean that people who don't believe in God have to study about Him. That's what Church is for. That's what Sunday School is for. Want your children to be educated about God? Send them to a Catholic school, to Sunday School, to Church.[/size][/QUOTE]
I don't remember pushing my beliefs on you. I let people believe what they want. I understand that not everyone is a Christian and not everyone believes in God. No I am not a literalist. I have questions about the Bible and stuff just like other people, but I just don't believe in evolution. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. We can all find out what the truth is when we die. I will not fight over religion again. I have found that it goes on and on. My thing was it shouldn't matter what you are taught- you have to stick to your beliefs.

[Decadence]

[color=dimgrey]Ok,I ignored PyroGirl's comment before, but the "Deal with it"part really bugged me. If you don't want to be harrassed about being Christian, don't go around announcing it. Simple as that. Also test's don't check what you know, they check to see if you've been listening in class. So you answer as the class dictates, not what you believe. If i beleaved that this world was just a creation of my mind, or that we are in the matirx (as an example) answering that would flunk me. (And get me deleted from the system) But if i answered as the class dictated, it would prove that I payed attention in class, not that I beleaved what they were teaching.

PS: The Matrix was used to lighten up this subject.
PPS: Also teaching ID makes a test on it moot, because the answer to every question is "A Higher being created it." thats the entire depth of the subject. Unless you want to infuse relegion into it, which lets think about this... yep pretty sure its illegal.
So you can deal with "Us Godless Heathens" having control the government.
Ps-pps: "Godless heathens" is not to be taken seriously. [/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='kuroinuyoukai]I don't remember pushing my beliefs on you. I let people believe what they want.[...']My thing was it shouldn't matter what you are taught- you have to stick to your beliefs.[/quote]
*cough*[quote name='kuroinuyoukai']If Christians must learn this- why can't everyone else learn ID.[/quote]*cough*

...reconcile those two quotes. lol

And also,

[quote]My thing was it shouldn't matter what you are taught- you have to stick to your beliefs.[/quote]
Then who cares about Evolution being taught in schools? Why do you care about shoving I.D. into science class syllabi? If "it shouldn't matter what you are taught," then you just blew away your own argument and contradicted yourself, all at the same time.