Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

[Vicky]

[quote name='Anime_girl5']1) everyone has a religion. No matter what they believe. they can say that they dont have one. Even tho they do.



2) I dont care if you call me a kid. I'm sure u are way older than me...
but I know shes 16. and I am older.


3) My spelling is for the computer. I dont spell like this for school!
It's faster, and better.


4) Actully, there are other people out there who believe what I believe. And they know more about it than I do.
I mean as comparing myself to her, and I guess u now. Cause have entered this...
But I'm sure that I know more about it than ya'll do.


5) The Bible backs me up. Try reading it. It wouldnt Kill you!
I know for a fact that it's right. I wasnt lied to. and I've written papers on other religions, and the Bible backs me up. and has proven people wrong.



6) it feels like I'm getting a bad rep. and dont get christians wrong.
right now I'm ticked and tired, but I never give up.
Christians try to serve God, and do his will. We spen hours knocking on peoples doors, witnessing.
And go to church many times.
Btw, I'm not Catholic. Being Catholic is not christian. Theres many diffrent belifes there.



7) I dont think u own the forum...
If I wanted to I would witness on here. But I'm smarter than that. :)
I know when it is the right time to witness.
And nows not the time. If I did witness to you, trust me it wouldnt be on here.



btw, I wanna make friends on here. so if I get into fights with any of ya'll. I would rather put friendship over that. :)
I just thought that I would say that. :):animeswea:catgirl:[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]She? The mother's cat?

Seriously. There's no point in arguing because you don't want to see past yourself. Keep it up - and we'll see where it gets you along here. Because we're not all Christian and we're not all under the illusion that we're above those who do not believe. Also, some of the very statements you've made show you don't know more about religion than 'us all'.

I'll respect your beliefs but I don't think I'm under any obligation to condole you're attitude.

Back to the topic and away from the dungeon - I just watched a documentary on evolution. What does everyone think to apes showing some form of morals (I can pull up the evidence if you like)? That kind of links them to mankind, somewhat.[/size]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Anime_girl5']6) it feels like I'm getting a bad rep. and dont get christians wrong.
right now I'm ticked and tired, but I never give up.
Christians try to serve God, and do his will. W[B]e spen hours knocking on peoples doors, witnessing.[/B]
And go to church many times.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]So... much... wasted... time...[/font]

[Rachmaninoff]

If you guys want to get further into the stuff Anime_girl5 brought up, take it to pm's please. That's starting to derail the thread a bit. Anyway...[quote]Back to the topic and away from the dungeon - I just watched a documentary on evolution. What does everyone think to apes showing some form of morals (I can pull up the evidence if you like)? That kind of links them to mankind, somewhat.[/quote]I'd be interested in seeing what you're talking about Vicky. I can't remember if I've seen or read anything on that or not.

[Mr. Blonde]

Okay unfortunately I'm back in this thread again, but I've already smashed my computer and brought in a new one so I'm fine now. So here it goes, Anime girl.. where to begin...

The bible doesn't prove anything. It's a single view on the world. We must rely on multiple views for a fair and balanced outlook of the world. The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors (who often contradict one another). The Bible is a compilation of 66 separate books, divided into two primary divisions: the Old Testament and the New Testament (which denounces much of the Old Testament). Look past what you've been spoon fed your entire life and look at facts. How reliable would you consider this book (Which despite its irregularities claims to be the voice of a single God) if you weren't religious? And you might say you have to factor in human error, which is exactly my point.

And how the bible was collected also deminishes its valildity. A council was assembled that went from city to city around the Mesopotamia collecting these stories along their travels. They actually held open auditions for people to showcase their tales. Think of it like American Idol BC. Now these stories had been floating around these areas for hundreds of years now but mostly through oral dictation (story tellers). Multiple people had multiple versions of these stories. Whichever version they considered best showed the 'word of God' was included. They doesn't sound too reliable to me. Others were left out, banned from the bible. And what more is that the church slaps a nice little seal on the bible and says, "Don't look at those other books, if this book is changed you're damned." Well... basically.

So most Christians believe those other books (Gospel of Mary Magdalen and the Gospel of Judas, among the many) are blasphamis and don't regard them as the word of God. Wouldn't reading these books give you a better understanding into the life of Jesus Christ? Now I'm not damning religion in this post, all I'm doing is saying that the bible can hardly be considered to be proof of anything.

And our relation to primates?

"Comparisons of DNA show that our closest living relatives are the ape species of Africa, and studies by geneticists show that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to gorillas. However, it must be stressed that humans did not evolve from living chimpanzees. Rather, our species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change. Both of our species have since undergone 5 to 8 million years of evolution after this split of the two lineages. Using the fossil record, scientists attempt to reconstruct the evolution from this common ancestor through the series of early human species to today's modern human species."

Science.

[B]4 Kings 2:23-24[/B]
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Basically one day Elijah was making the long walk to Bethel, when he is attacked by a roving band of children who tease him about this baldness. But Elijah was having none of this, turns round and curses them in the name of the Lord, and instantly two female bears emerge from a nearby wood and maul all 42 children to death.

Bible.


I know that last one is an extreme example, but it again questions the validity of this document, which Catholics will say you must believe in, in its entirety.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Vicky'][SIZE=1]Back to the topic and away from the dungeon - I just watched a documentary on evolution. What does everyone think to apes showing some form of morals (I can pull up the evidence if you like)? That kind of links them to mankind, somewhat.[/size][/QUOTE]

I'd be very interested. :)

I remember seeing an episode of NOVA about primate intelligence, but that's different from morals.

[Vicky]

[size=1]Unfortunately, the documentary I watched I forgot to record (I was planning on doing so to use it as a reference). Which makes me point seem really... shrewd.

Going off what I remember, a zoologist (he was also some kind of primate expert if I recall) recited how that when two monkeys had a fight and one went away, another monkey would go over to them and, on occasions, even put their arm around them. There were also points he discussed where the monkeys displayed general concern and compassion for one another - not as strongly as a human I suppose - that can be seen in a zoo. Arguably this can be penned as simple animal behavior, but the recorded images shown had some intriguing implications.

I'm determined to find it. However, there's a lot of videos on youtube relating to primate social structure and primates using tools - which isn't evident in any other animal so far as I'm aware.

I'll do some digging for you folks anyways.

[B]EDIT: I found the documentary it's in - the Genius of Charles Darwin, Part Two. I'll do some more digging to find the actual clip on youtube or something.[/b][/size]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Vicky'][size=1]Unfortunately, the documentary I watched I forgot to record (I was planning on doing so to use it as a reference). Which makes me point seem really... shrewd.

Going off what I remember, a zoologist (he was also some kind of primate expert if I recall) recited how that when two monkeys had a fight and one went away, another monkey would go over to them and, on occasions, even put their arm around them. There were also points he discussed where the monkeys displayed general concern and compassion for one another - not as strongly as a human I suppose - that can be seen in a zoo. Arguably this can be penned as simple animal behavior, but the recorded images shown had some intriguing implications.

I'm determined to find it. However, there's a lot of videos on youtube relating to primate social structure and primates using tools - which isn't evident in any other animal so far as I'm aware.

I'll do some digging for you folks anyways.

[B]EDIT: I found the documentary it's in - the Genius of Charles Darwin, Part Two. I'll do some more digging to find the actual clip on youtube or something.[/b][/size][/QUOTE]

Interesting stuff. I remember seeing a documentary about a group of chimpanzees in the congo that uses sex to barder for goods and services. For an example if one chimpanzee wanted a certain fruit that another had they would trade sex for the fruit, or if one chimp wanted to use another's tool for lets say extracting termites from a mound that would offer sex as a trade. They do say it's the oldest profession. Is this where it started for humans?

[outlawstar69]

Something I'm curious about, here:

When did the messy argument begin where you had to take sides, between those who advocated science, and those who advocated religion? I suppose it goes beyond ID vs Evolution*, but haven't there a few (long) period of time when places of religious study, and places of scientific research went hand in hand?

In so far as the thread's topic goes, I would consider myself to be religious, but also a man of science - growing up, I never saw them as mutually exclusive. So long as [I]something[/I] is driving the urge to learn, I'm all for it. Be it the desire to simply Know the answers because of curiosity or the furthering of the Scientific Process, or in reverence to how a universe like ours could have been created by an omnipotent being (I think it's pretty cool, anyway), and seeking to understand that.

*fixed

[Vicky]

[quote name='outlawstar69']Something I'm curious about, here:

When did the messy argument begin where you had to take sides, between those who advocated science, and those who advocated religion? I suppose it goes beyond ID vs Creationism, but haven't there a few (long) period of time when places of religious study, and places of scientific research went hand in hand?

[/QUOTE]

[size=1]Of course - you know, like Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." It's quite possibly for an opposing theory to strengthen the religious theory with a bit of imagination and creativity behind it. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't like to see it that way - it's black or white, never acknowledging there's a mode of grey in between.

Then again people go on that this kind of thinking makes me too open minded =/ Better than a closed book, eh?[/size]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='outlawstar69']Something I'm curious about, here:

When did the messy argument begin where you had to take sides, between those who advocated science, and those who advocated religion? I suppose it goes beyond ID vs Creationism, but haven't there a few (long) period of time when places of religious study, and places of scientific research went hand in hand?

In so far as the thread's topic goes, I would consider myself to be religious, but also a man of science - growing up, I never saw them as mutually exclusive. So long as [I]something[/I] is driving the urge to learn, I'm all for it. Be it the desire to simply Know the answers because of curiosity or the furthering of the Scientific Process, or in reverence to how a universe like ours could have been created by an omnipotent being (I think it's pretty cool, anyway), and seeking to understand that.[/QUOTE]

Well, to point out something I think you made a little mistake in stating (whether it was an accident or not): Intelligent Design [I]is[/I] creationism, just repackaged to try and sell as science. It concedes that evolution [I]may[/I] happen, but that everything is still too complex to require anything other than an omniscient designer.

Intelligent Design makes claims for the supernatural, which is not a part of science, and therefore disqualifies it from being taught as science. At best, you could teach it in a theology class.

[Mr. Blonde]

As stated Evolution does not disprove religion. It simply puts into question the Bible's version of creation. So while it may disprove certain biblical stories it does not destroy faith. Religion though the ages has been renewed by the acceptance of new and controversial ideas and just as a species must evolve or it will die, so must religion and our ideas surrounding it.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Wow, the amount of givens and differing definitions in this thread are astounding. If I am to accomplish anything here, I'm going to have to start from scratch. First, the definition I will use:


Evolution: The gradual progression of species to change throughout time.

Is this exclusive to atheism? No.
Does this exclude any particular religion? No
Does this exclude intelligent design? No

Abiogenesis: The theory that all life started out as a strand of code that was created out of free-floating chemicals.

Is this theory exclusive to Atheism? No
Does this exclude any particular religion? Yes
Does this exclude intelligent design? No

The Big Bang: The theory that the universe originated from a single point in an explosion like manner.

Is this theory exclusive to Atheism? No
Does this exclude any particular religion? Yes
Does this exclude intelligent design? No

Absolute Naturalism: The philosophy that all things in the universe operate and exist under their power alone, never need or requiring an outside source.

Is this theory exclusive to Atheism? Yes
Does this exclude any particular religion? Yes
Does this exclude intelligent design? Yes

Humanism: The belief that all of the information in the universe can be observed, discovered, and/or divined by humans.

Is this theory exclusive to Atheism? No
Does this exclude any particular religion? Yes
Does this exclude intelligent design? No

Nihilism: The belief that the reality is strictly subjective, unprovable, or non-existent.

Is this theory exclusive to Atheism? No
Does this exclude any particular religion? Yes
Does this exclude intelligent design? No

Secularism: A system of philosophy that rejects all forms of faith and religion.

Is this theory exclusive to Atheism? Yes
Does this exclude any particular religion? Yes
Does this exclude intelligent design? Yes.



O.K. That is enough definitions for now. I will now state my thought on the matter:

Intelligent design, though philosophically and in reality is a very big question to ask and is a matter of incredible importance in the universe, is unable to be proven or disproven scientifically (much like many of the other things people consider "scientific". More on that later).

The reason why it cannot be proven or disproven is due to the inability to come up with an absolute definition for what a designer is, and what constitutes a designer. The majority of the ID movement bases their ideas off of the following theories:

#1: That the design reflects the designer in some manner.
#2: That humans are designed
#3: Therefore, the designer reflects humanity in some form.
#4: Therefore, the designer will reflect human standards for human designs.

A very reasonable proof, if the initial condition were actually provable for a divine entity. It isn't, which is why the entire system begins to fall apart. Now, it is also impossible to disprove, for any matter in which you say "An intelligent designer would have done this instead of that!" Begs the question on multiple philosophies, and also tries to disprove a fiction character instead of any real characters. It puts God in a Box, in short.

This is true on countless standards of what will constitute a divine creator. Even for Christianity and all of it's requirements on behaviors, it remains almost impossible to disprove, because any disprove immediately stems from a lack of understanding on the issue. A lot of the disproofs for Christianity aren't actually logical steps or conclusions, but rather some kid complaining that God didn't give him what he wanted, or that God should abide by that kid's standard of morals and not another.

Same thing with various forms of Paganism and Buddhism. The proof is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, so the situation ultimately remains a choice. This will be reinforced in the third section.

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

Should ID be taught in school? Yes. Should it be taught in science class? Yes. And here is why:

The fundamentals of secular humanism (aka standard atheism. Not including pagan atheism here) commit a hypocritical argument from ignorance towards their own claims, residing on certain philosophies admittedly because they have simply willed it so. These philosophies are naturalism, humanism, and uniformity. Each of which, are unprovable, because each one must decide that the initial conditions are true in order to prove that the initial conditions are true. When confronted, it is stated that it is better to assume the inexistance of the outside forces (begs the question) because it makes things simpler. This, of course, is an argument for ignorance.

It is also the standard for all atheistic sciences. To claim the superiority of naturalism and humanism, or to deny the presence of other arguments creates the "church of secularism"; a concept that has been understood for hundreds of years yet is willingly ignored by many of the masses today. Indeed, humanism and naturalism stand on no firmer ground than the majority of serious religions.

But it is a point of incredibly great importance in life, so if you are to teach one (which is the foundations of the majority of sciences), then you to teach the other to be fair. Or, you are to teach neither, and only briefly mention them in the beginning of science classes to show that there is no favor.

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


Now, I know what I am going to hear, because I have heard it in nearly every single debate I've had on this matter: "Secular Humanism is better because it goes off of evidence, while religions believe in things without evidence". I have found this to be hypocritical, and impossible. Let me explain why with a question:

If religion really believes things without evidence, then why it is someone doesn't believe ak;luhqew;rjll;k and qo;ihoaeur excreted qhpoiqjm;ewpiur in qpklhewroiqwejr for all Marklar to enjoy? After all, it is a belief without evidence, so millions should be persuaded by it. Shouldn't they?

The answer is no, they would not. I also asked another question, which helped me come to this conclusion: "How is it that someone could believe in Buddha without ever acknowledging, thinking, considering, or even being exposed to the idea?". One of those questions about how someone can meticulously craft a series of systems, ideas, and ethics out of nowhere for no reason, and have other people believe it out of nowhere for no reason at all.

It is very easy to come to the conclusion that the given "belief without evidence" is incorrect. Indeed, when it seems like many people are stepping out of faith, they are actually applying unconsciously several principles like the law of averages, eventual occurrence through time, unknown factors being present influencing an outcome, and personal development through determination and choice. Each of these principles are, get this, observed.

Though the idea of a complete Tabula Rasa is incorrect, it has many facets to it that are correct. For instance, the belief in the constant pull of gravity is supported by the evidence: a personal history with gravity maintaining a constant pull. This creates the belief that things remain constant comes from the observation of gravity being constant. Really, though, it is an argument from ignorance.

This is how anyone comes to a conclusion about anything. There is only one thing for your eyes to see, for your ears to hear, and for your skin to feel, and that is reality. Everything that is done on by people is a direct reaction of the observed nature of the universe. The simplest natures like gravity, interaction of masses, constant identity, color differentiation, language, those are ideas that we get from the universe, and then we support those ideas with the very same evidence that we came up with them from. It is circular reasoning, the entire idea system that we have about the universe.

A bit of a vicious circle: evidence creates belief, belief creates evidence. The paradigm that one sees the world through is what defines what constitutes as evidence to the individual. An unexpected result from an experiment might be taken as a disproof of the notion being tested, or it would be attributed to random factors that were not taken into consideration. In order to convince someone to change their opinion, the evidence must be submittable in the paradigm it is trying to change. Otherwise, it will just be rejected by some means (whether straw-man, ad hominem, or some other effect).

The ideas that most religions have about the world are a series of conjectures about the universe around them. I usually just refer to them as "beliefs", because of the negative connotation that so many people have attached to "religion" obscures my point. The reasons for having each of these beliefs differs, but each one can only be inspired by one thing: The tangible universe around them.

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']

Should ID be taught in school? Yes. Should it be taught in science class? Yes. And here is why:

The fundamentals of secular humanism (aka standard atheism. Not including pagan atheism here) commit a hypocritical argument from ignorance towards their own claims, residing on certain philosophies admittedly because they have simply willed it so. These philosophies are naturalism, humanism, and uniformity. Each of which, are unprovable, because each one must decide that the initial conditions are true in order to prove that the initial conditions are true. When confronted, it is stated that it is better to assume the inexistance of the outside forces (begs the question) because it makes things simpler. This, of course, is an argument for ignorance.

It is also the standard for all atheistic sciences. To claim the superiority of naturalism and humanism, or to deny the presence of other arguments creates the "church of secularism"; a concept that has been understood for hundreds of years yet is willingly ignored by many of the masses today. Indeed, humanism and naturalism stand on no firmer ground than the majority of serious religions.

But it is a point of incredibly great importance in life, so if you are to teach one (which is the foundations of the majority of sciences), then you to teach the other to be fair. Or, you are to teach neither, and only briefly mention them in the beginning of science classes to show that there is no favor.
[/QUOTE]

This is clearly an argument more engineered for a philosophy class, not a science class. You've matriculated yourself as a fine philosophy connoisseur but it does little to help your case. The fact remains that one still holds its beliefs in faith and the other in science. I.D has it's place in a history or philosophy class, not in science class.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Should ID be taught in school? Yes. Should it be taught in science class? Yes. And here is why:

The fundamentals of secular humanism (aka standard atheism. Not including pagan atheism here) commit a hypocritical argument from ignorance towards their own claims, residing on certain philosophies admittedly because they have simply willed it so. These philosophies are naturalism, humanism, and uniformity. Each of which, are unprovable, because each one must decide that the initial conditions are true in order to prove that the initial conditions are true. When confronted, it is stated that it is better to assume the inexistance of the outside forces (begs the question) because it makes things simpler. This, of course, is an argument for ignorance.

It is also the standard for all atheistic sciences. To claim the superiority of naturalism and humanism, or to deny the presence of other arguments creates the "church of secularism"; a concept that has been understood for hundreds of years yet is willingly ignored by many of the masses today. Indeed, humanism and naturalism stand on no firmer ground than the majority of serious religions.

But it is a point of incredibly great importance in life, so if you are to teach one (which is the foundations of the majority of sciences), then you to teach the other to be fair. Or, you are to teach neither, and only briefly mention them in the beginning of science classes to show that there is no favor.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. It is not scientific in any way. It makes claims for the supernatural, which has nothing to do with science.

Besides, there is nothing to teach except the bare idea that "Things are too complex, therefore there must be some grand designer." There have been no critical, scientific studies within the Intelligent Design community. There have been no major papers that have been published in scientific journals and peer reviewed. The scientific community has not embraced this idea, for the reasons I have stated. Even the ID proponents admit they don't have anything yet that backs up their claims.

If you propose the theory that there is an intelligent designer, you cannot go beyond that assumption. There is nothing tangible to test. Scientific experimentation cannot be applied. This is where religion encroaches, because then you simply have to accept on faith the idea of a designer.

I humbly suggest you, and everyone, read a couple of articles I have saved on this subject:

[URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=823295"][U]This article answers 15 oft asked creationist/ID questions with scientific answers.[/U][/URL]

[URL="http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html"][U]This one has short essays by several ID proponents, each one followed by a scientific essay in response.[/U][/URL]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']This is clearly an argument more engineered for a philosophy class, not a science class. You've matriculated yourself as a fine philosophy connoisseur but it does little to help your case. The fact remains that one still holds its beliefs in faith and the other in science. I.D has it's place in a history or philosophy class, not in science class.[/QUOTE]

I have seen various ID scientists who want their theories to be as accurate and testable as possible, holding very little to faith. They usually argue the initial step in the proof, and through that have no problem developing various theories with defined evidence to back up the claim.

Absolute naturalism cannot be proven either, so to claim it is scientific is also incorrect. You either have to teach both in a science class, or neither. The reason why it should be taught in science class is because science requires a fundamental given about uniformity and constants in the universe, and that fundamental given can only be philosophical.


[quote name='TimeChaser']I disagree. It is not scientific in any way. It makes claims for the supernatural, which has nothing to do with science.[/quote]

And thus, you instantly repeat the error of assuming naturalism [i]a priori[/i] and arguing only from that stance. Your entire post will continue being a proof of my statements. I don't know whether this is news to you, but if there is a designer, then he is "naturally" there. The question is whether or not he is naturally there.

[quote name='TimeChaser']Besides, there is nothing to teach except the bare idea that "Things are too complex, therefore there must be some grand designer." There have been no critical, scientific studies within the Intelligent Design community. There have been no major papers that have been published in scientific journals and peer reviewed. The scientific community has not embraced this idea, for the reasons I have stated. Even the ID proponents admit they don't have anything yet that backs up their claims.[/quote]

This is the pot calling the kettle black, and then saying that the kettle can't be correct because it doesn't have enough credo, or enough people do not agree with it.

[quote name='TimeChaser']If you propose the theory that there is an intelligent designer, you cannot go beyond that assumption. There is nothing tangible to test. Scientific experimentation cannot be applied. This is where religion encroaches, because then you simply have to accept on faith the idea of a designer. [/quote]

Exactly. So, both are either included in science, or are not included in science. The reason why it should be taught in science class is because science requires a fundamental given about uniformity and constants in the universe, and that fundamental given can only be philosophical. Without this given, the entire system falls apart.

[Mr. Blonde]

Metaphysical Naturalism is more of an athiest's view than Naturalism itself. Naturalism states "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature." Philosophy and science do have a link to one another. But Naturalism requires that theories and hypothesis' are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events, while branches of Naturalism do extend into philosophy where I.D should be studied and discussed. You're incorporating philosophy and science and insinuating that all science is up for debate, by that standard why would we even bother with science class, but rather just expand philosophy. The fact is some things are considered to be scentific and other philosophical. The line may be thin, but there is a line. And there are clear reasons for that line.

[TimeChaser]

[B]In response to Crimson Spider:[/B]

Too much to copy in a reply, so I'll just start fresh.

Science deals with what we can see and measure in nature, from the infinitely large to the atomically small. No matter how hard you look outside (space) or inside (atoms and particles), you do not find any clear evidence for a designer. That is why the idea of a designer is "supernatural" in that it is beyond the natural and in the realm of what science cannot touch. Then you're getting into theology.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Metaphysical Naturalism is more of an athiest's view than Naturalism itself. Naturalism states "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature." Philosophy and science do have a link to one another. But Naturalism requires that theories and hypothesis' are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events, while branches of Naturalism do extend into philosophy where I.D should be studied and discussed. You're incorporating philosophy and science and insinuating that all science is up for debate, by that standard why would we even bother with science class, but rather just expand philosophy. The fact is some things are considered to be scentific and other philosophical. The line may be thin, but there is a line. And there are clear reasons for that line.[/QUOTE]

Intelligent Design has a level of naturalism to it as well. It assumes that the laws in the universe are made, and everything can be tested from there. There is no operable difference in sciences between atheistic science and naturalistic science, so both can be taught just fine.


[quote name='TimeChaser'][B]In response to Crimson Spider:[/B]

Too much to copy in a reply, so I'll just start fresh.

Science deals with what we can see and measure in nature, from the infinitely large to the atomically small. No matter how hard you look outside (space) or inside (atoms and particles), you do not find any clear evidence for a designer. That is why the idea of a designer is "supernatural" in that it is beyond the natural and in the realm of what science cannot touch. Then you're getting into theology.[/QUOTE]

Evidence of a designer is open to interpretation.

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Evidence of a designer is open to interpretation.[/QUOTE]

The way I have heard Intelligent Design proposed, the mere fact that we have eyes, a complex organ, is evidence for a designer's existence (to name one example). All they do is say "The eye is too complex," and leave it at that. There is no study undertaken to find out how the eye might have come about.

To illustrate my example, I remember clearly what was said about this in a TV program on evolution. The ancient forerunner to the eye was simply a light sensitive depression, a pit eye as it's called. It was shown how over time, a pit eye can change step by step into other forms of eyes, until it it reaches the eyeball we have today.

This was something science, working within the framework of evolution, did. Nobody in the Intelligent Design field ever bothered to consider this.

[Mr. Blonde]

"The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."

That's all. There is no more.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

I remember that specific explanation. That was Richard Dawkin's explanation for the origin of the eye.

BTW, experiment proving this?

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']I remember that specific explanation. That was Richard Dawkin's explanation for the origin of the eye.

BTW, experiment proving this?[/QUOTE]

It wasn't just Dawkins' explanation. It is the view among all scientists that that is how eyes evolved.

And the proof is in the fossil record. We can see the differences in eye structure as you go up through the fossils.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed]Crimson Spider[/COLOR]:

It surprises me?no, it astounds me that your arguments are as vapid as they have been so far. From what I've read of you, you do nothing to actually prove any of your own arguments, and yet you seem to feel secure in refuting the points of others with variations on the statement "no, you're wrong" and then stopping there, providing no examples and no proofs beyond long-winded exercises in wordplay. What do you think this tactic can accomplish?

[quote name='TimeChaser']And the proof is in the fossil record. We can see the differences in eye structure as you go up through the fossils.[/quote]
Given your heretofore sound arguments, I'm rather surprised you decided to bring up the fossil record. It is my understanding that most scientists who support Evolution no longer look to the fossil record for evidence because of the sheer number of discrepancies and inconsistencies within it.

But I'd like to set that aside, because you kind of ignored my earlier comment regarding genetics. What I'd like you to explain for me is how macroevolution functions, and how it is testable. Microevolution is quite obviously undeniable; I mean, how else could species survive sweeping changes in their environment? What I am unclear on is how the jump occurs genetically that causes one species to become another. The concept to me implies a data gain, and I was under the impression that reproduction involved a data [I]loss[/I].[/FONT]

[TimeChaser]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
Given your heretofore sound arguments, I'm rather surprised you decided to bring up the fossil record. It is my understanding that most scientists who support Evolution no longer look to the fossil record for evidence because of the sheer number of discrepancies and inconsistencies within it.

But I'd like to set that aside, because you kind of ignored my earlier comment regarding genetics. What I'd like you to explain for me is how macroevolution functions, and how it is testable. Microevolution is quite obviously undeniable; I mean, how else could species survive sweeping changes in their environment? What I am unclear on is how the jump occurs genetically that causes one species to become another. The concept to me implies a data gain, and I was under the impression that reproduction involved a data [I]loss[/I].[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Where does your understanding come from though, if I might ask? I ask, simply because many people who find evolution and science threatening tend to misrepresent what scientists have actually said, either by intentional obfuscation or taking statements out of context. I don't question you, but I question what your source of information is.

I use the fossil record, because at times it has produced amazing results that do show evolution in action. The most recent example that is clearest in my mind is of Tiktaalik ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktalik"]LINK[/URL]). It was discovered in 2004 and is an important link between fish and the development of amphibians.

Sadly, I'm no genetic expert, so I can only go by what I have seen on science programs and read in books. It isn't merely genetic mutations that lead one species to change into another, it has a lot to do with the environment.

A mutation occurs in a population, and if that mutation creates a new feature in the animal that gives it an advantage, then it will do better and pass that new mutation on to it's offspring. Here's where the environment comes in: remember that the Earth is never static. When continents drift, landmasses pull apart, two groups of the same species can become isolated from each other. Each group could then go on to develop their own adaptations to their new environments, and over time they have become so dissimilar that they are no longer biologically compatible.

That is how (at least in one way) one species can change into two.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='TimeChaser']Where does your understanding come from though, if I might ask? I don't question you, but I question what your source of information is.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]I honestly can't remember anymore. I literally just forgot. >_< Soon as I can find it without any googling.....

Also, I'd like to make sure you realize that I'm not sure what about Evolution or science there is to 'fear'. Science is legitimate; it is the [I]process[/I] of finding answers, not the answers themselves. Science works, and has worked ever since its initial conception. Evolution, on the other hand, should not be feared because it is not an actual threat. It is a theory, comprised of inference and deduction based on observed and/or tested data.

What [I]concerns[/I] me about Evolution is the large degree of extrapolation I see. By observing factual changes within a species, it is then put forward that, over a large, almost unfathomable degree of time it is then put forward that it is possible for one to start with no genetic data and end up with our current level of sophistication? Speaking to your example with the eye, there are assumptions in both courts. On the one hand, you have the Creationist assuming that God made the eye complete and intact and just as it is now, and different in every species. On the other hand, you have the Evolutionist assuming that the eye was produced due to natural causes, and that its progression can be traced through the various species. Either court can support their assumption with evidence that they find, but in both cases one must have started with an assumption.

[QUOTE][I]I use the fossil record, because at times it has produced amazing results that do show evolution in action. The most recent example that is clearest in my mind is of Tiktaalik ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktalik"]LINK[/URL]). It was discovered in 2004 and is an important link between fish and the development of amphibians.[/I][/QUOTE]
You say "is" and I read "can", because unfortunately the assertion can neither be proven nor disproven. Not saying you're wrong, just that I question the method at which scientists arrived at their conclusion, and why they are so confident claiming their conclusion to be fact and not supposition.

[QUOTE][I]Sadly, I'm no genetic expert, so I can only go by what I have seen on science programs and read in books. It isn't merely genetic mutations that lead one species to change into another, it has a lot to do with the environment. [/I][/QUOTE]
This I understand readily; the best example being the peppered moth. However, it is this next bit that concerns me on the genetic portion:

[QUOTE][I]Here's where the environment comes in: remember that the Earth is never static. When continents drift, landmasses pull apart, two groups of the same species can become isolated from each other. Each group could then go on to develop their own adaptations to their new environments, and over time they have become so dissimilar that they are no longer biologically compatible. [/I][/QUOTE]
And so we have black bears, brown bears, polar bears, Asiatic bears, and pandas, but what I see here is that these are all [I]bears[/I]. I am not clear on the method in which the bear becomes the walrus (both are pinnipeds and closely related) or in which the walrus becomes the bear....or how either originated from a common ancestor. I am confused in [I]how [/I]the information is altered. Not the 'if'.

In less words, I do not have a problem with genetic alteration [I]or[/I] mutation. What I have a problem with is [I]addition[/I]. If I am to assume that a genetic mutation can be the addition of a complete new piece of information that dictates fur be grown instead of skin or legs instead of flippers [I]and[/I] is beneficial, then I must also assume that Down Syndrome is possibly the next step in human evolution.

(At present, it seems that that possibility is doubtful, since the presence of the extra material in the 21st chromosome is currently understood to be detrimental to normal function; but I'm not basing any refute on that doubt. I merely bring it up as the only current example of genetic addition-mutation with which I am familiar.)[/FONT]