Interesting that I keep seeing these same arguments crop up across multiple websites. On the side of "exposing" Expelled is a decent siteWWW Link.

I do have a degree in molecular biology as well an MD, and took courses in evolution, as well as doing years of basic science lab work. Like any other scientific endeavor, "evolution" is a vastly more subspecialized and complex field of study than most people realize. In fact, the more educated people get in an area, the more likely they are to recognize how much they still do not know. Try not to equate this with "they don't know anything."

Go looking in real scientific literature, and you will find unimaginably huge reams of evidence supporting evolution, though I'd be surprised if you could really understand even 1% of this. Don't take this as condescention, I'm in the same boat. Nor would I expect them to pass my Internal Medicine board exam, or me to score well on an exam in astrophysics. Science is based on:

1. Generating a testable hypothesis.
2. Testing it (gathering data).
3. PEER REVIEW (having others with similar background look at your assertions/test protocols to see if they hold water).
4. Reproducibility (if they did it, do I get the same results repeating the work)
5. Revising a theory based on new data.

Look where the scientific method has gotten us in the last couple of hundred years compared to all prior human history in terms of our capabilities. Now if only human nature could catch up.

I think from my standpoint, the important thing for our educational system is to focus on teaching critical thinking, and keep science and philosophy and/or religion in their proper context. For my part, ID has by comparison not generated even a grain of sand of "evidence" to put up against the beach of sand grains generated by real scientific evidence.

On a side note, an interesting "skeptical" site for medicine is quackwatch.org, its got some thought provoking or "eye opening" articles.

I believe that both evolution and creationism, along with any other theory of how things are, should be the kids choice. Some might wish to learn creationism. Others evolution. Others their own religions type.

There's extremely strong evidence that the theories of evolution exists; animals change to suit their environment. The environment changes over time. To get more of their environment, they need to become better. Sometimes getting better requires making new parts. Sometimes these parts don't work, than it's survival of the fittest.

Maybe god made everything on earth, perhaps he even decided to make the earth older than it seems and include some fossils.

The point of learning evolution is learning how things evolve to suit their environment. Not how things were made.

*shrug* you're not contributing. Furthermore, you need more research. Come back when you've looked into it a bit more.

What do you suppose I should research? If you mean the Christian death god, then I already have.

I'm still shocked how much religion deludes people, be it Scientology, Mormonism, Christianity, Islam or what have you.

Ooh, debate.

Preface: I have the whole Christian thing going, and when it comes to Biblical interpretation I'm fairly literalist.

That's not the point of the post, though--the point is that though it takes a lot of looking past certain things to think that biological life Does Not Change. It does. The sticking point for me with a naturalistic theory of the world stems from other things. Consider, say, a St. Bernard and a chihuahua (thank you forum spellchecker). It seems plausible to me that in time they may not be able to interbreed (I expect it'd be pretty awkward even now). It's possible that at this point they may be labeled different species. I won't dispute that here, because it's largely immaterial to my point.

Way I see it is that there is no gain of information in genetics. In fact, it seems to me that there's a loss--the chihuahua doesn't have the ability to express the traits large, furry, and predisposed-to-carrying-kegs-of-brandy, and the St. Bernard does not tend toward hairless and ratlike (this is a simplified view; there are concerns like dominant and recessive traits, and that things are rarely simply on or off--but I feel the point is still much the same). Selection of certain traits necessarily means that other traits vanish.

What it comes down to, I guess, is the argument from entropy. Things tend toward disorder, and I don't think it can be denied that the way life works is a fairly orderly thing. The only energy added to the system of Earth is not orderly energy, and disordered energy doesn't seem to me to do any good for decreasing entropy: there's a stack of laundry on my floor. I could either put organized energy into doing a load of laundry, or I could shine a light at it until it catches on fire.

I may be completely off, though. I'll discuss as long as people keep it civil.

No, I don't think you have.
But I don't think we're going to have a resolution to our little argument here. You go ahead saying what you want, and I'll go ahead saying what I want. How about that?

Actually to be technical the examples you raised are not "proof" they are observational Evidences supporting the theory of Evolution.

The problem is that the Theory of evolution can't actually be proven using the scientific method in its purest form... that is proposing a hypothesis, and then conducting an experiment to test that hypothesis, and drawing conclutions at to the validity of your hypothesis.

you can't quite do that... so your left with the somewhat inferior method of making intellegent observations and drawing conclutions instead. Global Warming, String Theory, and a whole pile of other currently relevent discussions have similar issues which is why they are contraversial. But the contraversy and discussion is good for the scientific community but sometimes the public needs a little perspective.

Does this invalidate the theory of evoltion? no but neither does it provide definitive proof of it's accuracy either... thats why its a Theory and not a scientific Law. Evolution still has quite a few bugs to work out as it conficts with a few other proven scientific principles in chemistry, physics and Thermodynamcis. but it still is a very useful tool as a basis for further study. Unfortunately Science teachers often forget that Evolution is only a theory and teach it as fact.

Does ID belong in a school curriculum? not in science class, cause it's not based on science.. but in social studies or some other similar class if it brings value to the curriculum I don't see an issue.

Who said God didn't snap his fingers and the Universe came forth and it all just happened? Why does he have to directly intervene if he created it all from the start?

I always think people undercut God's omnipotence when they say that evolution is false. Who is to say that he didn't put forth the proper laws of physics, matter, etc when the Universe was first created that would eventually result in the creation of life through evolution?

Of course if you are a Biblical literalist then there isn't much hope for you.

Ummm Mormonism and Christianity are the same thing... but this is off topic...

The major problem with evolution as taught in public schools, K-12, is that it completely denies God's existence and thus our inherent value to Him as His creation which implies that He does care for our well being, desires a relationship with us, and has expectations regarding our morals, values and views toward ourselves and others.

I see nothing wrong with acknowledging GOD as the Designer, telling the previous 5 generations of children they are not the creation of God but the result of impersonal, dispassionate, random chance has had such wonderful results. Because we deny God as creator, we have no greater worth than what our fellow human being decides is appropriate.
Instead of looking at nature as being created by GOD for us as a gift, we see it as something to be abused and consumed. Instead of looking at other human beings as created in GOD's image and required to treat each other as beloved by GOD, we easily tally up their value to us and our appetites; we rationalize dehumanizing others when it suits us.
We worship nature instead of the creator of it, we worship ourselves instead of He who created us, we abort babies calling them products of conception instead of calling them sacred human lives like God sees them, and even in our churches see apostasy (falling away) because we don't acknowledge GOD as inspiration for the old and new testament (see problems in USA Episcopal Church, Anglican Church of Canada for examples of heresy -some orthodox diocese have left in response) and thus rejected all that the bible tells us of how to live and God's love for us.

So, please, I hope Intelligent Design is taught simply because it will acknowledge a Designer, refute that we are the supreme intelligence, and stop proselytizing our youth into secular humanism. Christians likewise should not entirely oppose evolution -just because the scientist can't see GOD doesn't mean GOD doesn't exist or that GOD hasn't used evolution to carry out His work of creation. The first verses of Genesis tell us that GOD did it, just doesn't say HOW He did it.

Good Luck.

Windexglow hey got more on the peanat butter.... "Disproves Evolu
tion" hehe  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uga3L8MzUU&feature=related

A scientific theory is pretty much as good as what most people term "law". The word "theory", when used in the scientific community, describes something that is believed to be 99%+ true (ie the THEORY of relativity, the THEORY of quantum mechanics). The media and most people who aren't scientists tend to take the word theory and run with it and its modern, everyday meaning.

All I'm saying, is that if we start teaching ID in schools, our universities will fall next. I can already imagine the world laughing at America even more.

That is a good point, but could I ask:
What is Intelligent Design? Is it simply, only and purely the idea that behind the development of everything there is an intelligent being, or guiding force?
In that case, why does it need to be AGAINST evolution? In fact, why is it even scientific? Because (if indeed this is what ID is) then all it is a religious idea. Nothing wrong with that at all - but would you teach theology in the science class? Would you demonstrate the power of Almighty Great Jehovah in an experiment? I'm a Christian, but I wouldn't. Why? Because it's off-topic; it's actually irrelevant.

However, if we take that ID isn't the simple idea of a guiding force, and has a scientific basis, then we should ask: is it enough to negate evolution completely, simply on the basis of order? Why can't we modify evolution to include this order? On the religious side of things, is it too much to say that if God created the world, he would have created the universal laws such that he wouldn't have to break them to get anything done? To assume that the presence of a Creator God means breaking the laws of the universe is erroneous, because God created those same laws.

Does that include discrimination of the abominable homosexuals?



You must admit though that this whole intelligent design garbage is an almost uniquely American phenomenon.

Great! Why aren't there more of you around?

the universities fell first which is why the education system is in the state it's in and the public schools start teaching kindergarteners about mastubation, homosexual lifestyles, give them condoms in 7-8 grade so they can experiment with whatever feels good until they figure out what sexual orientation they are, then wonder why there are so many teen mothers, students with sexually transmitted diseases, and so many students acting in immoral/crimal ways in high school.

Yup, Godless creation eduction has worked wonders.


and yes, homosexual and heterosexual fornication are equally sinful according to the bible regardless of what liberal, heretical theologians, laity and priests say.

Don't be a fool. If you can't contribute anything of worth than keep your trap shut.

I'm an American, I'm a white male, and I'm atheistic, however if someone wants to be religious on their own time I'm fine with that. It's when tax money might be spent supporting fairy tales because some people believe belief equals proof that I become angry. We Americans seem to have a problem teaching people the difference between logic and fables I'll admit, however most people across the world are religious. Christianity certainly wasn't invented here, nor do Americans have a patent on idiocy, as your statement aptly proves.

I admit that it's irrelevant. Obviously I don't think it's garbage - I'm just saying it's not scientific. If ID only teaches that there is a guiding force, then every Christian, Jew, Muslim etc. believes in ID, theologically. I think we agree ID shouldn't be taught in science class, but I don't think it's garbage.



It's not discrimination. All people were created equal before God, and they will all be judged equally. Homosexuals are abominable in that thievery is abominable, in that lying is abominable, in that every other sin is abominable. The difference between the Christian point of view and yours is that we consider homosexuality a sin, and you don't.
In other words, homosexuals are sinners just like you and me. They have just as much right to Christ's saving grace as you and me.

No a theory means that there is no evidence fundamentaly contradicting the supposition of the theory... but that there is not enough evidence to definitavly call it "fact" either... to use your example the current theories on quantum mechanics still can't prove the existance of the fundamental particle needed to validate the theory.... they can demonstrate that it SHOULD exist using models and Mathmatics but they can't PROVE that it exists... (CERN is hoping to do that in the next year or so)

there is no 99% true or any %age true... all a theory means is that it is generally accepted by the scientific community as the common basis of assumptions to used for future development and study...

but your right... the media and public generaly incorrectly assume Theory to be fact, and as such the meaning of theory has been altered in meaning. However the scientific community, (at leaset the competant part) still accepts the true definition.

Okay, SemazRalan, you're nuts. Anyone who thinks evolution is "random" or believes that nature can have no implicit beauty (or capitalizes GOD all THE TIME) isn't worth arguing with. Anyway.

FlyingNinja: you're almost correct. A theory is a means to an end, the fact is the end itself. Gravity is a fact - we know it exists. The theory of gravity is that it works through the distortions of space-time left by massed objects. It's not a 100% theory by any means - we're still trying to integrate it with quantum mechanics. But just because the theory isn't perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught or is invalid. Until there is an alternative theory that supercedes with appropriate evidence, throwing out what we have isn't the way science works.

Creationism is not, for obvious reasons.

The point is that evolution is both a theory and a fact. We can observe that there's a bunch of different species, and we can point out how they arose. "God of the gaps" does not work because gaps are what science looks for to make theories better, whereas Joe Public believes it's evidence of the underpinning theory being incorrect.



This is incorrect. Evolutionary theory predicts a number of things. For example, whales are really, really related to hippos. We validated this through molecular testing (DNA analysis) and lo and behold, later found fossils that linked the two orders. Evolutionary science makes tons of hypotheses. We can also observe evolution at work on the laboratory, as well as the moth example presented earlier. Evolution is not that slow of a process, really.

The only problem is that many of the modern technologies of our century are based off of things like quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. Technically, nothing can ever be proven 100% true. Newtons Laws aren't facts either, because there is nothing to say that there isn't a Universe out there where those Laws don't apply. But as far as the scientific community goes:

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

What about my post was foolish? Of course other people around the world believe in their silly myths superstitions too but the "Oh, Americans..." comment was specifically because this silly movie is American made and the the ID movement mostly is as well.

Being an atheist yourself, other than the above I can only assume that you disagree with my tone.

Yes but you can't actually observe Hippo's and whales developing from same ancestor, which was my point... there is no DIRECT experimental evidence possible which will always be the weakness with evolutionary theory. We can't actually build a time machine to go back and actually observe the first instance of random amino acids combining to create the first DNA molecule. It is possible to experimentally recreate small examples such as the moths and labratory creations of Amino Acids to support the hypothesis of how Evolution worked but those experiments ironicly support ID as all such experiments designed with a specific end in mind and therefore the results were not random or selective as evlolution proposes but were intellegently designed to occur...

(I should point out here now that I don't subscribe to ID as generally proposed but I actually think Evolution is closer to the truth, As an engineer I just get annoyed when I see scientific principles misrepresented to make a point)

[quote]The major problem with evolution as taught in public schools, K-12, is that it completely denies God's existence and thus our inherent value to Him as His creation which implies that He does care for our well being, desires a relationship with us, and has expectations regarding our morals, values and views toward ourselves and others.I see nothing wrong with acknowledging GOD as the Designer, telling the previous 5 generations of children they are not the creation of God but the result of impersonal, dispassionate, random chance has had such wonderful results. [quote]

Religious teaching has no more moral results than simply teaching people to respect eachother. Christian society is far from the least violent. For that you would want to look to isolated rural cultures (typically on islands) where there is very little violence regardless of their religion.

I have no issues with people believing whatever they want, on their OWN time. When they teach religion in public schools, they they are favoring the religion those teachings are based off of in schools over others not taught. What if I would prefer Buddhism based teachings or Muslim teachings, or Atheist teachings for my children? Freedom of religion means that you can not teach religious beliefs in a government supported system. Public schools.

This isn't preventing you from doing it on your time. However you've no right to teach a belief in a school. Intelligent design is a belief, not a science, it's argument against evolution is that the fossil record is incomplete. Of course it's incomplete, most dead animals are eaten or rot before they can become fossils. The fossils record we have is very compelling, very thorough, and has very few missing links by and large. We've Neanderthal, we've Lucy. Find me physical proof of Intelligent Design. There's absolutely none, it's a house of cards, a circular argument. It says there must be an Intelligent Designer (God), because we don't have enough fossil evidence. That's not a logical argument, it's like saying "The Moon must be made of Cheese because we havn't sampled it's entire surface."