A Flock of Dodos: The Evolution and Intelligent Design Circus

[Starwind]

Recently I was sitting about my house, just minding my own business, causually watching tv, waiting to find something interesting on, when something caught my eye. It was a show about the debate between whether or not evolution should be taught in schools over intelligent design. Don't ask me why I watch these kinds of shows, because by the end of them I am always fuming mad and filled with yet another deep psychological scar. Anyway, this was something I wanted to put forth here on my online stomping grounds of the OB.

Personally, I think the idea of intelligent design is just another attempt for bible thumping rednecks to put god in school. They call it a science, but it's a science based on nothing but "intuition". I'll never understand how people can by into this stuff or how it can even be with a 5 minute discussion on any college campus, but sure enough this has become a topic of debate. We've actually done it. We've managed to pit real science against imaginary science.

I don't think people relize how primitive this whole "Intelligent Design" way of thinking really is. What there doing is basically creating a "God in the Gaps" ideaology. The idea that everything we don't understand is gods work. That was something we did back in the dark ages to explain away things like lightning and plagues, but in the year 2007 we still think that just cause we don't know it yet, that makes it god.

I know I starting to rant a bit, but it just drives me up the damn wall to hear about people trying to debate science with religion and it's still consider a point of controversy whether or not our schools should be allowed to teach evolution in school. They it's too contorversial, but at the end of the day, it is still the only real scientific explanation, so it's the only therory that has a place in a science classroom.

I sincerly hope that no one here is all for this intelligent design mess, cause the more I've botherd to learn about it the bogus it starts to sound.

[TheShinje]

[quote name='Starwind']Don't ask me why I watch these kinds of shows, because by the end of them I am always fuming mad and filled with yet another deep psychological scar.[/quote]

Where, oh where, was your remote?

[quote]
Anyway, this was something I wanted to put forth here on my online stomping grounds of the OB.[/quote]

Hmmm. It scars you so much psychologically you just have to debate it further?

[quote]Personally, I think the idea of intelligent design is just another attempt for bible thumping rednecks to put god in school.[/quote]

Good to see you can refrain from personal insults when discussing peoples personal beleifs.

[quote]I know I starting to rant a bit, but it just drives me up the damn wall to hear about people trying to debate science with religion ...[/quote]

And yet, you create a thread with the purpose of debating it. Go you!

[quote]I'll never understand how people can by into this stuff or how it can even be with a 5 minute discussion on any college campus, but sure enough this has become a topic of debate. [/quote]

Because maybe, just maybe, you're not giving the creationist side the light of day, and you're too damn biased to do so. You're mind is already made up, so flip the god damned channel next time!

[quote]I sincerly hope that no one here is all for this intelligent design mess, cause the more I've botherd to learn about it the bogus it starts to sound.[/quote]

The more I've bothered to learn about this thread the more bogus it starts to sound!

*click*

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]I believe that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.[/COLOR]

[Aberinkula]

[quote name='2007DigitalBoy'][COLOR="DarkOrange"]I believe that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Navy"]I completely agree, a famous man once said if you believe you do not exist, you do not. Evolve? ha, that's funny because we're only evolving in terms of stupidity. War, government, and media, that's all there is to our culture. 3 religions for one god, and look at us! We squabble over who is right. Is Jesus the messiah? Who knows anymore. If I remember correct, Jesus was Jewish not Christian. So huh? I am confused.

Besides wold god really waste his time making veins and organs? If he loves us so much than why does he take away the ones we love?

You see evolution just makes us less human. We were perfectly fine as apes, sniffing our assess and all. Muslim, Christianity, Judaism. The 3 mainstream religions, each one more confusing than the other and vice versa. Jesus, just make up our minds![/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[size=1]This thread is becoming depressingly pseudointellectual (DB, Prem I'm looking at you).

Starwind, no one likes it when you bash on their beliefs. Not only do you polarize the debate, you look like a jerk by doing so. Lose-lose situation.

I am personally opposed to the idea of intelligent design. It seems to me that evolution has all the evidence on its side, and intelligent design is standing on the leg of "You gotta believe!". I'm heavily opposed to the idea of teaching it in [public] schools. America's already far behind her European and East Asian counterparts, we need to pick up the slack... and teaching a totally unsupported theory isn't getting us there.[/size]

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]@ Prem and Retri: I was quoting a Bill Hicks joke. Yall went and reall all into it.[/COLOR]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]Evolve? ha, that's funny because we're only evolving in terms of stupidity. War, government, and media, that's all there is to our culture.[/quote][/color]

[color=crimson]Within the close minded realm you inhabit the three realms mentioned have made unreal leaps and bounds within the last century.

Within warfare World War 2 revolutionized armored combat and introduced mechanized warfare. Large scale strategic and tactical aerial bombings also found their place within modern warfare in this war. The use of RADAR by the UK, the German's jet engines, the foundations of rocketry foremost in the Reich which allowed the exploration of the moon and stars. These have a basis in Warfare.

De-colonization has had mixed and strange effects upon Africa and Asia. Many states have found their place on the globe within the last century. The fall of Fascism and the Soviet bloc has caused States with Democratic elements to become the most wide spread method of rule. The increased unity within the EU and similar, less successful movements in Africa and Latin America continue to move forward at a slow pace. Government has certainly changed since the opening moments of the 1900s when Monarchies controlled much of Europe and Asia.

Within media you have radio, television, the internet and mobile phones. The increasing, subjective small nature of the world where communicating across the world seems relatively easy to do and perhaps can be done anywhere with the correct equipment. The negative connotations of 24h a day media cannot ignore the revolutionary concepts of having access to news, weather, sports, anything at all at your fingertips given the right money and equipment. Being able to call any telephone on the go, being able to access the internet without wires in increasingly larger areas and the very idea of the internet.

If you choose to be so naively cynical at least take the time to appreciate what you are insulting.[/color]

[quote name='Prem][color="Navy"']3 religions for one god, and look at us! We squabble over who is right. Is Jesus the messiah? Who knows anymore. If I remember correct, Jesus was Jewish not Christian. So huh? I am confused.[/quote][/color]

[color=crimson]If I recall from my years as a JW, Jesus states that he is bringing down the old order of the Jewish ways and ushering in a new era. Yes, according to Christianity Jesus is the Messiah. No, people do believe in that and, from that point of view, 'know' that.

And, yes, you are easily confused.[/color]

[quote name='Prem][color="Navy"']Besides wold god really waste his time making veins and organs?[/quote][/color]

[color=crimson]Yes, using human invention as an example to create a greater X you will create smaller x's if it is necessary to finish the product.

Also a God's concept of time would be very much so hard to gauge by creatures limited to lifespans barely reaching into the centuries at the most extreme of points.[/color]

[quote name='Prem][color="Navy"'] If he loves us so much than why does he take away the ones we love?[/quote][/color]

[color=crimson]Within the narrative of Christianity Satan brings about a temptation upon Eve that ultimately leads to most of the suffering currently felt upon Earth.

Alternatively, and to my point of view, Death is a necessity. Mortality and suffering serve a purpose, ruthless though it may be.

The concept of a wise, all knowing God spending the time to tinker and create does not seem outlandish to me.

Where we are headed within this tinkering is what interests me.[/color]

[TheShinje]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]
I am personally opposed to the idea of intelligent design. It seems to me that evolution has all the evidence on its side, and intelligent design is standing on the leg of "You gotta believe!". I'm heavily opposed to the idea of teaching it in [public] schools. America's already far behind her European and East Asian counterparts, we need to pick up the slack... and teaching a totally unsupported theory isn't getting us there.[/size][/QUOTE]

Not necessarily, It's all down to how you interpret things, I guess.

I view science and scientific explanations as complementary to the Bible, and it is not necessarily against the word of God. I think of examples like the big bang theory. It works with the creationist account of a creator speaking into his creation, and BANG, there is light...

I believe that Dinsoaurs are recorded as creatures in the bible, but given names such as "Leviathan" and "Dragon," both of which are used to describe large lizards and sea monsters. Dinosaur is such a modern word, isn't it feasable that the dragons of old could be the dinosaurs we hear about today?

Then I look at the fact that there is multiple accounts of a world wide flood (Gilgamesh Epic, Noah's Ark) not as "zomg plagiarism," but evidence that such a worldwide flood could have occured. Did you know the Australian Aboriginal culture also has a flood story? All the way over the other side of the world. It speaks volumes.

I do think both should be taught in schools , and taught as theories. Creationism may be fish-out-of-water in the science lab, but it would go quite well in a social studies enviornment, given that a religion of some sort is the foundation stone of many nations around the world.

Teach them both, give the kids some credit and room to make their own minds.

[liamc2]

[quote name='Starwind']They call it a science, but it's a science based on nothing but "intuition". [/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="1"]I'm pretty sure most, if not [i]all[/i], science originated from intuition.

Not meaning to derail anything here but these religion vs science arguments ultimately come down to individual beliefs. If you're being taught both the theory of evolution and intelligent design, then I really don't see the issue here. It's up to you what you take to be canon, it's only fair that you are presented with both sides of the argument. If there's an anti-religion streak running through this issue, then deal with it.

The point of these debates [from what I can gather] is that the public can be educated on reforms that are being suggested. If you have a valid reason for Intelligent design to not be taught alongside evolution in schools, then get involved with the legislation and sign a petition or something.

[and no, thwarting "bible thumping rednecks" doesn't count as a legitimate reason, though I agree with you that people can sometimes froth at the mouth over such sensitive issues as religion]

It's always important to hear both sides of a topical issue and allow people to make up their own minds. It's what freedom is about, right?

The Evolution vs Intelligent Design argument can be compared to the Climate change argument that plagued the news recently. "Opinion+hard facts" Science vs "Opinion+ hard facts" Science always means the argument will go around and around...

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Jeremiah']I view science and scientific explanations as complementary to the Bible, and it is not necessarily against the word of God. I think of examples like the big bang theory. It works with the creationist account of a creator speaking into his creation, and BANG, there is light...[/QUOTE]
[size=1]There’s always that possibility, but as it stands, “Intelligent Design” is a theory that attempts to explain the inexplicable. I mean, a few thousand years ago people idolized lightening and fire because ultimately, they could not understand its nature.

Therefore labeling what we cannot grasp at the moment as evidence of “intelligent design” is imprudent to say the least, and moreover discourages scientific inquiry. When you say that “God did it” you are outright rejecting additional examination via scientific method. Once you say “God did it,” it becomes an untouchable statement… sort of like when a parent tells their child “Because I said so”.

[QUOTE]I believe that Dinsoaurs are recorded as creatures in the bible, but given names such as "Leviathan" and "Dragon," both of which are used to describe large lizards and sea monsters. Dinosaur is such a modern word, isn't it feasable that the dragons of old could be the dinosaurs we hear about today?[/QUOTE]
Or it could be a mythological tale. And if you want to base things off of fossil record, then no, humans and dinosaurs never existed concurrently. To support that argument that the authors of the Bible knew of Dinosaurs, you would have take one of two stances. 1) Dinosaurs existed concurrently with humans, or 2) these humans had divine knowledge of the past. Considering the first is almost entirely debunked by modern science, I’ll assume you mean #2. And that is a leap of faith I’m unwilling to take, that ancient humans had divine knowledge, and for some unknown reason, we don’t have that anymore.

[QUOTE]Then I look at the fact that there is multiple accounts of a world wide flood (Gilgamesh Epic, Noah's Ark) not as "zomg plagiarism," but evidence that such a worldwide flood could have occured. Did you know the Australian Aboriginal culture also has a flood story? All the way over the other side of the world. It speaks volumes.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. A regional flood of Mesopotamia is possible, which to Noah would be his entire known world. And a regional flood of parts of Australia I probably doubt, but again, it could be fiction.

[QUOTE]I do think both should be taught in schools , and taught as theories. Creationism may be fish-out-of-water in the science lab, but it would go quite well in a social studies enviornment, given that a religion of some sort is the foundation stone of many nations around the world.[/QUOTE]
Taught as a theory? Evolution is a theory that has been supported by overwhelming evidence (fossil records, carbon dating, observation of microevolution), and has been crosschecked by countless controlled experiments. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is entirely based on intuition and speculation, and remains dubious at best in terms of support. Teach intelligent design in a world religions class, or in the context of history, but not anywhere else.

[QUOTE]Teach them both, give the kids some credit and room to make their own minds.[/QUOTE]
Is it valid to teach a child that gravity is a constant (i.e. it ‘exists’) and also teach him that [i]others believe[/i] that god is pulling him to the earth, and that this is a possibility as well? Absolutely not. The job of public education is to teach what we know as scientific fact, not hearsay or unsupported speculation.

[quote name='liamc2'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="1"]It's always important to hear both sides of a topical issue and allow people to make up their own minds. It's what freedom is about, right?[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
Not if one has little to no support and the other have volumes of it. Rarely is there two sides to an issue concerning science, and evolution isn’t really one of them. Of course our knowledge is finite, but to the best of that, everything points to evolution, while the notion of an intelligent designer is unsupported.

[QUOTE] [FONT="Trebuchet MS"][SIZE="1"]The Evolution vs Intelligent Design argument can be compared to the Climate change argument that plagued the news recently. "Opinion+hard facts" Science vs "Opinion+ hard facts" Science always means the argument will go around and around...[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
Please point me to some hard facts that support intelligent design. I mean things that have been heavily scrutinized, tested, and after the scientific process, have results that now bolster intelligent design.

As for climate change, the vast majority of the scientific community says that global warming is happening. Not too many people are debating that at this point.

Sorry if that was ranty/preachy at any point. I'm bored at work. :p[/size]

[Sara]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]I completely agree, a famous man once said if you believe you do not exist, you do not. [/COLOR][/QUOTE][color=#db2007]If you're trying to reference René Descartes, that's not what he said, [i]at all[/i].

Based on my own experiences, I think Intelligent Design ought to be taught in schools. [b]Not in the sense of [i]this is true[/i] but in the sense of [i]some people believe this, so let's make you a well-informed individual[/i]. [/b] I feel the same way about the world's major religions?I think very few people would suffer from learning [i]about[/i] the history and tenets of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i... or, to come right down to it, a philosophical discussion about agnosticism or atheism.

I was raised Lutheran, and I spent most of my life (age eight to age eighteen) attending Lutheran schools. The result of this? I was [i]never[/i] taught about evolution (save a brief discussion in the sixth grade?I knew that Darwin went to the Galopagos and that he had something to do with finch beaks) or the Big Bang Theory. We literally skipped those chapters in our textbooks. If something didn't make sense in (senior year) Physics class, a completely valid response to "Why does this happen?" was "Because God said so."

I'm not kidding. This is really the way I grew up. And believe you me, this is [i]not[/i] the way to produce well-informed individuals. Just because you don't believe something is true (or even if you think something is [i]total bullcrap[/i]), if it's a widely-held belief, I think you oughta teach your kids about it, just so they aren't completely clueless on the subject.[/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Sara'][color=#db2007]Based on my own experiences, I think Intelligent Design ought to be taught in schools. [b]Not in the sense of [i]this is true[/i] but in the sense of [i]some people believe this, so let's make you a well-informed individual[/i]. [/b] I feel the same way about the world's major religions?I think very few people would suffer from learning [i]about[/i] the history and tenets of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i... or, to come right down to it, a philosophical discussion about agnosticism or atheism.[/color][/QUOTE]
[size=1]I absolutely agree. Personally, I think a world religions class should be mandatory in public school. It?s undeniable that religion has profoundly impacted history, and continues to play a key role in modern events, therefore knowledge of what?s driving these events is essential.

[QUOTE][color=#db2007]I was raised Lutheran, and I spent most of my life (age eight to age eighteen) attending Lutheran schools. The result of this? I was [i]never[/i] taught about evolution (save a brief discussion in the sixth grade?I knew that Darwin went to the Galopagos and that he had something to do with finch beaks) or the Big Bang Theory. We literally skipped those chapters in our textbooks. If something didn't make sense in (senior year) Physics class, a completely valid response to "Why does this happen?" was "Because God said so."[/color][/QUOTE]
And that?s what I?m talking about. We need to be extremely careful while mentioning intelligent design in classes ? never should it be a cornerstone in science. But I think it has a place in a history or world religion course, where it could be adequately contextualized and explained as ?Some people believe that ____?.[/size]

[Red]

I'm fine with intelligent design itself. Here in the UK many schools have compulsory religious education classes, which cover the idea pretty well. Under no circumstances should it be presented as a subject of science, though, because it simply isn't one. Evolution is.

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1] Is it valid to teach a child that gravity is a constant (i.e. it ?exists?) and also teach him that [i]others believe[/i] that god is pulling him to the earth, and that this is a possibility as well? Absolutely not. The job of public education is to teach what we know as scientific fact, not hearsay or unsupported speculation.[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]How many people believe that, though? There's a sizable difference between an extreme (and unlikely) example that never actually comes up and an actual conflict of belief.

Something else. The theory of the Big Bang is based largely upon an assumption; the Copernican principle, which has not been proven. Meaning, it is [i]based on faith[/i] with little testable evidence. Should we not teach the Big Bang because it is also based on unsupported speculation?

Further, there is such a thing as observational evidence (also something the Big Bang theory is based on and, to a great extent, the theory evolution). People observe the intricacies of life, how complicated and convenient the interactions are, and draw the conclusion that there must be some higher mind at work here.[/color]

[Aberinkula]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]I absolutely agree. Personally, I think a world religions class should be mandatory in public school. It’s undeniable that religion has profoundly impacted history, and continues to play a key role in modern events, therefore knowledge of what’s driving these events is essential.
[/size][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Navy"]Actually that would not be a good idea. Someone would object to it. This kid I know is Wiccan and he would surely fight his way out of that class. Plus in my 6th grade social class we were taught about all the big religions and their impact on the world. It would be a better thing as a selective class because there will always be someone who objects. I myself would rather have a study hall then learn about religious impact because I only appreciate my Christan roots.

And of coarse there will be someone who quotes me and counters my thoughts. [/COLOR]

[Sara]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]I myself would rather have a study hall then learn about religious impact because I only appreciate my Christan roots.[/COLOR][/QUOTE][color=#db2007]*winces*

I myself would rather have a study hall than a world history class, because as an American I only appreciate events which have directly affected me. And by "directly effected" I mean "resulted in a national holiday."

The point isn't that you [i]enjoy[/i] it. The point is that you learn something.[/color]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]Actually that would not be a good idea. Someone would object to it.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]You're never going to have a class that no one objects too. Even ignoring the obvious "everyone hates math!" comments, there are going to be religious people who object and try to fight their way out of science classes because they teach evolution or whatever. That's not much of a reason to quit making some level of science mandatory.[/color]

[Aberinkula]

[quote name='Sara'][color=#db2007]*winces*

I myself would rather have a study hall than a world history class, because as an American I only appreciate events which have directly affected me. And by "directly effected" I mean "resulted in a national holiday."

The point isn't that you [i]enjoy[/i] it. The point is that you learn something.[/color][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Navy"]Wow, see what I mean, and it didn't take long... ugh.

What does that have to do with anything? I enjoy learning about all cultures, just not all religions. The point is that you learn something! I don't want to learn about Buddhism unless I'm intrigued by it. I was intrigued and my questions were answered. I only care about my American roots but I put up with learning about India so I can live on with my life and go to college. But religion has nothing to do with my public life! I keep my religious actions personal and private.

@ Nerdy: So what? you don't think I know that? People won't fight to get math gone for good because that would be the wrong thing to do. But being forced to learn about religions you don't care about for a whole semester! I don't care about Hinduism because I'm happy being a Methodist. And if I were forced to learn about Hinduism I'd surely fight to have myself removed from that class.Why? Because it would interefere with my riligious thoughts. Having to learn about some other god for more than a unit; I'd be pissed.[/COLOR]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]@ Nerdy: So what? [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Your entire stance is "but people won't want to do it!" which doesn't cut it. High school is full of people who don't want to be there and learn, but they're forced to anyway. This means that desire (or intrigue) [i]is not a factor.[/i] That's what.

I'm curious; if you "knew that," like you claimed, why did you use it as justification for not having a class on religion?

As for people fighting to get rid of math... they do actually try, despite it being the "wrong thing to do." I've bourne witness to it. They fail, because they don't have a leg to stand on.[/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]How many people believe that, though? There's a sizable difference between an extreme (and unlikely) example that never actually comes up and an actual conflict of belief.[/color][/QUOTE]
[size=1]The example was anecdotal and in my opinion, is an adequate analogy for the debate. Let me explain what I mean.

You have two opposing forces vying for our belief ? gravity and god?s pull. Science would tell us that gravity is what pulls us to the earth, while a proponent of intelligent design would say that god is ultimately the force that pulls us to the earth (and that this dynamic is manifested in what we understand as gravity). Now, it?s possible that god does indeed pull us to the earth, but we have no evidence. We have nothing to support nor refute the claim. The extent of our knowledge is that what we know as gravity pulls us to due to the earth?s immense mass.

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]Something else. The theory of the Big Bang is based largely upon an assumption; the Copernican principle, which has not been proven. Meaning, it is [i]based on faith[/i] with little testable evidence. Should we not teach the Big Bang because it is also based on unsupported speculation?[/color][/QUOTE]
It its supported by our observational evidence that the universe is still expanding. We can infer from data to reach a vague conclusion that is logically supported by the physical evidence. But what?s more, the explanation still relies on physical phenomena rather than a mystical creator. The idea of a creator introduces an entirely new set of ?rules? by which we are governed, none of which have root in science or [veritable] observational evidence.

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]People observe the intricacies of life, how complicated and convenient the interactions are, and draw the conclusion that there must be some higher mind at work here.[/color][/QUOTE]
See, that?s the thing. People often assume there is a creator because everything is so intricate. But this is equivalent to assuming lightening is magic, attributing it to a higher power, and calling it a day. We must assume that there is an explicable cause for everything.[/size]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]

What does that have to do with anything? I enjoy learning about all cultures, just not all religions. The point is that you learn something! I don't want to learn about Buddhism unless I'm intrigued by it. I was intrigued and my questions were answered. I only care about my American roots but I put up with learning about India so I can live on with my life and go to college. But religion has nothing to do with my public life! I keep my religious actions personal and private.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=dimgray] Culture and religion are pretty much intertwined. Have your ever taken world history? It's inevitable that you learn some aspects of Hinduism or Buddhism or what have you. Saying you only want to learn something if you're intrigued by it defeats the whole purpose of education. I sure as hell didn't want to learn about physics, but I did.

And seriously, US History is not that awesome. lol [/color]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1] Now, it’s possible that god does indeed pull us to the earth, but we have no evidence.[/size][/quote]

[color=deeppink]But in this case, there [i]is[/i] some evidence in favor of some higher power.[/color]


[quote]It its supported by our observational evidence that the universe is still expanding. We can infer from data to reach a vague conclusion that is logically supported by the physical evidence. But what’s more, the explanation still relies on physical phenomena rather than a mystical creator. The idea of a creator introduces an entirely new set of ‘rules’ by which we are governed, none of which have root in science or [veritable] observational evidence. [/quote]

[color=deeppink]The observation evidence is only useful if we [b]assume[/b] (similar to assuming that lightning is magic, perhaps?) that the Copernicun Principle is correct. If we are wrong and it's not (there's evidence throwing that into doubt), then such observational data is meaningless. It isn't veritable either, due to us not being able to leave the solar system.

Further, life is physical phenomena, so using the intricacies still counts. Hell, I'd even say that intelligent design better satisfies Occam's Razor; what's simpler, something this complex happening by accident, or by design?[/color]


[quote]See, that’s the thing. People often assume there is a creator because everything is so intricate. But this is equivalent to assuming lightening is magic, attributing it to a higher power, and calling it a day. We must assume that there is an explicable cause for everything.[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]If we were indeed to "call it a day," then I'd agree with you. However, I'm not saying that we should just say "God did it, true story." We should present it as it stands; a somewhat plausible theory supported by basic evidence.

I also don't see this as above research; I certainly agree that there is an explicable cause for everything (for the most part), I just don't see intelligent design as being inexplicable. We may not understand it now, but after applying science to it, then perhaps we will.[/color]

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="Navy"]Oi, this isn't the way I should have said i! I'm not a great arguer. I don't mind learning somethings about Hinduism and it's impact on culture. But I would just hate to learn about other religions every single day and just religion too. I'm just saying that it should be a selective class that's all. Ugh, i am so damn confusing aren't I?[/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[color=dimgray] I don't think you have to worry, lol. The day World Religions becomes a mandatory class is a long way off.[/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]But in this case, there [i]is[/i] some evidence in favor of some higher power.[/color][/QUOTE]
[size=1]Not really, unless you are to take gravity for being a higher power. There’s no way to know, much like evolution. It’s entirely possible for evolution to have been guided by some higher power, but it’s also possible that it was a biological process that occurred outside of a higher power. Like I said previously, there’s no evidence for or against the intelligent designer. All we have is what we can see.

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]Further, life is physical phenomena, so using the intricacies still counts. Hell, I'd even say that intelligent design better satisfies Occam's Razor; what's simpler, something this complex happening by accident, or by design?[/color][/QUOTE]
This is entirely subjective and totally reliant upon one’s perspective of a higher power. Evolution happening without the added complication of god is simpler than evolution happening with the added complication of god. But if you alter your opinion on how all this happened (none of which is cast in stone) then you’ll reach a different conclusion. Occam’s Razor is void here, imho.

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]If we were indeed to "call it a day," then I'd agree with you. However, I'm not saying that we should just say "God did it, true story." We should present it as it stands; a somewhat plausible theory supported by basic evidence. [/color][/QUOTE]
What evidence is intelligent design supported by? At this moment, you’re right; we have no bulletproof theory of how the universe was created. We have to settle for what the majority of the scientific community puts their weight behind, not any and every theory of creation (which would all have equal validity). If that happens, it’ll be impossible to cover the topic in a science (or religion) class.

[QUOTE][color=deeppink]I also don't see this as above research; I certainly agree that there is an explicable cause for everything (for the most part), I just don't see intelligent design as being inexplicable. We may not understand it now, but after applying science to it, then perhaps we will.[/color][/QUOTE]
Isn’t intelligent design by its very nature outside the comprehension of science? I don’t get this point at all.[/size]