When did it ever got thought like that?

Please, no straw man arguments. I need that straw for the animals.

To everyone who are debating here,

I highly recommend the following youtube videos:

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
Ken Miller is a biology professor at Brown University and wrote the high school text books "Biology" and "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution."
WWW Link

AronRa's "Foundation Falsehoods of Creationism" Series
WWW Link

ExtantDodo's Critical Analysis Videos
WWW Link

Thunderf00t's "Why we laugh at creationists"
WWW Link

To those who think Intelligent Design is not Creationism, Intelligent Design is just repackaged Creationism (the ID textbook Pandas and People simply cut out all mentions of God and replaced it with designer). They reuse the same arguments, the same ideas, etc. The only difference is in the name. It's all very underhanded and insidious. They simply want to get their ideas taught in schools as science by ignoring the entire process for which real science gets into the textbooks. Look up "Wedge Strategy."

If you revierw my post, i do not say that i cannot concieve of a way for new forms to arise or for small change over time to become a large change. I simply am stating that the current processes given by scientists are insufficient in explaining large scale macroevolution.

All those things the above poster listed as NOT having are correct. For microevolution.
It also absurd to suggest random mating. Anyone who has any knowledge of biology, and certainly human psychology, knows that mating is anything but random, but based on a variety of important facts.

Therefore all theories must be an appeal to authority fallacy for the 'common people', and the educated, for that is where we obtain our information from. Following that logic, all educated knowledge not found out by myself is an appeal to authority fallacy, regardless of its evidence.

Just because philosophers like nietzsche, spinoza, and descartes did not have 'proof' for their thought experiments didnt make them any less valid, and the theory is supported by many other physicists including Steven Hawkings. Science must be told, along with philosphy, and continue to suggest possibilites, or the human mind and soul is going to be locked into rigid views which will stop new important discoverys from happening.

I am not saying evolution is incorrect, only trying to persuade others to have a differing more open view on the subject. I agree based on biology, that evolution is an important process. But why restrict ourselves to a single explanation when we have such variety around us?

However, i have gone off track immensely and must now answer the question the thread actually asked.

Should we teach such arguements in schools? No, but it should be taught alongside philosopy as a intriguing and entirely possibly thought experiment and explanation.

In fact, i think that in the UK, in secondary schools, the Religious Education GCSE should be replaced by a more profound and stimulating Philosophy GCSE.

"I am not saying evolution is incorrect, only trying to persuade others to have a differing more open view on the subject. I agree based on biology, that evolution is an important process. But why restrict ourselves to a single explanation when we have such variety around us?"

Simply put, Evolution has been rigorously tested for over 150 years with a mountain of scientific evidence that Darwin could have never dreamed of in his time.

What would be the other explanations for the diversity of life?

The only other "answers" that I have seen are not scientific. They are either religious or philosophical. We cannot falsify the predictions made by an Intelligent Designer because the designer is inherently supernatural. Likewise, science cannot make a comment on the existence of a God because science does not deal with the supernatural.

The thing is, you can teach this as something other than science. But the movement for Intelligent Design is trying to get their ideas taught as science. And that is the problem many people find with Creationism/Intelligent Design.

Who said God had to make creatures as they were? Who said that billions of years ago, when the Universe was created via the Big Bang, that he set it all in motion with its precise outcome? Why must we undercut him to some "snap your fingers and here is an animal" method?

Meh. I'm catholic and I believe 100% in evolution. So does the catholic church...it's theistic evolution which basically says that evolution is entirely true but somewhere in the beginning of the Universe there had to be someone to set everything in motion with the ability to create the laws that govern our Universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#The_creation_history
For those of you interested. Science and faith shouldn't share a bed in my opinion, however. They are definitely separated entities.

Arguments over the Internet: MY SIDES BETTER BUT I DONT HAVE TO GIVE PROOF BECAUSE I HAVE A PHD IN IT.

Evolutionary theory is science- it's used in science and all major fields relating to biology. It's the principle theory behind modern genetics and instrumental in curing diseases and what not. There a -great deal- of unrefutable evidence, and it is accepted by scientists of every religion in the world.

Intelligent Design is not. Intelligent design is religion specific, that is Judeo/Islam/Christianity. It is part of the American dogma that international peoples find unappealing. Intelligent Design has no basis in practical application. Intelligent design is not truth or supported by credible scientific cultural-neutral sources- it is supported by credible religious sources.

Darwinist theory has plenty of holes. In fact it's given way to much more complex theories of evolution that actual scientists will learn in university. While it is a theory and certainly not gospel, it's very easy to grasp and serves as a stepping off point for higher biology. It's certainly reconcilable with other religious beliefs as long as you accept that the science of how things work is the work of a deity, and not some kind of magic.

Intelligent Design ultimately leads to God. Because it's full of logic errors. It could lead to the flying spaghetti monster- and this very fact that it leads to an implicit acceptance of the dominant culture's favorite deity- Yahweh, The Judeo/Christian/Islam God of Abraham, is why it should be kept very far away from schools.

Intelligent design ultimately leads to a philosophical conflict between the followers of one religion and another, or no religion at all. It's a terrible thing to expose children to. As far as principle goes, it's easy enough for parents and pastors to teach, and just isn't something kids -need- to know. They've been going on fine without it for thousands of years. It's just an attempt to move something that was formerly in the domain of the church- into the school.

I was taught both evolution and creationsim in public school (Newfoundland, Canada).

I think both should be taught as they are the two major theories out there right now to explain the diversity and fossil record.

Creationism may be more of a philosophical idea, but it directly competes with the evolution theory and I do not see a better setting to explain both (as both theories have a major following) then in the science class room at the same time. These ideas often clash and it's best for each side to fully understand the other rather then to develop wrong ideas about the other side that can lead to hostility.

As long as the strong points and major faults of each are explained then the children can decide from the evidence provided. Fear of exposing children to a idea where evidence is shown for and against belongs in a another age best left behind.

However if one is taught with a strong bias over the other then I do not believe creationsim should be taught along side evolution and should be placed in a separate class. Exposing children to ideas stated as fact and others portrayed as wrong without evidence or selective evidence can be damaging.

Until we either come up with hard evidence for evolution that can only be ignored through ignorance or we prove there is/isn't a god then this debate will keep raging on, we don't even know what gravity is yet (only it's effects).

I highly recommend you watch the Ken Miller versus Intelligent Design video on youtube.

I'll repost it again for convenience:
Ken Miller on ID

He shows hard evidence that only be ignored through ignorance.

Simple. No theory should be taught in scientific classes if not accepted by the scientific community. Evolution is. ID is not.

And to SemazRalan:


So is eating shrimp and working on the Sabbath. Yet there's never any heated debate about the abominators that indulge in sinful shrimp eating or however we should instate the death penalty for people working on the Sabbath.

Ok, maybe this is a slight derail, but I can't resist.



This type of thinking brings up some questions for reflection. Why do people make the assertion that there are two views, evolution vs their particular belief system, instead of evolution vs that vs every other culture's belief system? Does anyone else with a particular religious background find it highly convienent that they just happened to be born into the area/culture with the correct view of reality? And that everyone thinks "theirs" is the right one?

/aside/ I seem to recall a funny South Park where a bunch of "pious" folks end up in hell wondering why they didn't go to heaven despite their "correct" belief system. They then ask the devil, "Who was right?" He consults a list and says, "Uh, it was the Mormons." Queue collective sigh from the "damned." /end aside



Here's another interesting thought. If God set everything in motion, then stayed "hands off," is there any practical difference than if God didn't exist?

/end derail

This thread is rather stupid and pointless IMHO. Arguments should be argued with Facts. The only Facts I see here are the ones about the scientific method. Everything else is the same old shit believes. "You are wrong, I am right, now shut up you idiot."

If you talk about "science", accept what you can 'prove' with the scientific method, ignore the rest. It is as simple as that.

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
--THGTG

Are you people serious?

Intelligent Design is NOT a theory, it is a hypothesis. There is a REASON it is a hypothesis, and that is because it cannot be tested. When speaking of science the word "theory" is not used lightly (Theory of Gravity for example). The so called "theory" of intelligent design cannot be studied empirically (Through physical evidence) therefore it cannot, and will not ever be an actual "theory."

To say that this idea should be thought of as an actual theory would completely undermind the idea of science. The HYPOTHESIS of Intelligent Design does not belong anywhere in our public schools. If you would like to take a theology class in college, that's great, but don't say that children should have a hypothesis as part of their education. It would be just as bad as teaching them other outdated ideas, such as the earth being the center of the universe, or that the world is flat.

This IDEA cannot be studied, we cannot gather data on intelligent design, we cannot study it using empirical methods, and it can never be tested.
What any of this has to do with Sins...i have no clue.

Well, all of it had to come from something. And if I was omnipotent, I would just create it so that it worked the way I wanted it to from the beginning. That doesn't quite mean he is just sitting their twiddling his fingers though because God is outside of space and time since he created it all. So however that abstract concept works...

Very good lecture there.

Really I have to drop out of this debate, I do not believe in creationism and haven't studied evolution beyond high school education. But I still stand by this part of my statement.

To write a post explaining all that I believe would take up a lot of time and space that few would ever read. You may not agree and that is OK, but I think some of these things bear consideration.

Let me give a few bulleted points to part of this topic.

1. Both Creation and Evolution are a matter of faith. Neither side can fully prove its point without a measure of faith.
(e.g. Where did matter come from in the first place?)

Creation looks outside the material universe for answers while Evolution looks only a the material universe that is observable.

2. Evolution has some major problems that have been noted over the years even by prominent evolutionists.
(e.g. Darwin wrote, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -- The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 167.)

3. The problem of Irreducible Complexity. Here is one major issue regarding the problem evolutionists have with Blood Clotting. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm

4. Finally, to keep it short. I find it rather amazing that people would defend a theory that by it own admission defines life as random and purposeless. Evolution teaches that your life is meaningless and no matter what you do in life it has no ultimate point, purpose, or value.

A personal note: I personally believe that many people would rather believe in evolution and have no meaning in life (but they have to live as if there really is a meaning to their life) rather than believe that there is a creator.

Why? Because men are not accountable to meaningless forces, but if God is real then He is the creator and we are His creation and therefore accountable to Him as such.

There is a lot more that can be said, but I think that is enough for now.

The truth is, neither creation nor evolution can be scientifically proven to be true. Now, I believe in intelligent design, and what's more, I am a Christian. However, I can see that it is impossible to prove that God did create the universe. The best path of the schools would possibly be to teach nothing about the origin of the universe, since neither view can be proven true.

"Oh, Americans...

I wish you people would stop worshiping the evil death god of the Bible"

Yes because only Americans and all Americans believe in Christianity. I think this whole topic is just asking for a religion war.
Its best said like this. Evolution is still not proved. Too many holes. I don't think either should be taught until one of them is proven fact. This would solve everything and make everyone happy.

I am a biology student.

I do not see why Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools. It is a wonderful theory when explained correctly.

The theory of intelligent design states that everything around you is the way it is because some cosmic power wanted it to be that way. We cetainly cannot disprove it, and leaving a lot of religous assumptions out of the picture, the theory gains some credence.

I have studied evolution, and I can tell you that evolution and the premise of intelligent design do not conflict.

Evoltion describes the gradual change in allelic frequencies of a population. That means that all evolution claims is that populations change over time. That's it. That's the whole debacle.

Evolution can be seen in a single generation. If sugar suddenly becomes widely available where it was not before, then heart disease will become prevalent in that region. In response, people across a single generation will have faster, more wasteful metabolisms (a really big no-no in a resource limited environment). This can be observed and measured, and it has nothing to do with intelligent design.

Intelligent design refers to a theoretical solution to the causality delimma. Tracing the evolution of life back to its origin leaves you with existence, and existence has no explaination. What intelligent design asserts is that at the limit of causual recursion, there exists a force that willed existence to exist. Intelligent design proposes an explaination to the fundamental problem.

You should read the whole paragraph in the book.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. "

I think you are one of many to falsely believe that the theory of evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. It doesn't. It only tries to explain the how life evolved once created. A common misconception. The theory of how life came to be is called Abogenesis, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
And the theory of evolution has, like any other scientific theory, nothing to do with faith. Please take a look at the scientific method at wikipedia.



The theory of evolution has evolved quite a bit since the time of Darwin. That quote is 150 years old, and quite irrelevant to the discussion.




This is really a problem for ID. There is never one argument brought forward for that theory, only attempts to debunk the theory of evolution. Which is a theory i will keep believing in until disproved by the scientific community. The same way i keep believing in the theory of gravity/relativity/quantum physics and so on until disproved/expanded or replaced by a better theory, accepted by the same scientific community.



Like #1 this is based on the false assumption that the theory of evolution tries to explain why there is life. I fail to see why life would be meaningless just because it evolves? Evolution doesn't disprove any God, that's just propaganda. Again, read answer to #1.

What theleif said is right on the mark. Evolution only causes problems for people who are Biblical literalists but otherwise doesn't even cause a problem with God.

And there is SOOOO much evidence for evolution its ridiculous; it's not baseless and doesn't have massive holes. There are things we can't explain when it comes to GR but it is still a prettymuch 100% accepted theory. Remember the difference between the conversation word "theory" and a scientific "theory"...

Plus, in order for evolution to NOT occur, you need a population with identical genetics, no crossing over, entirely random mating, and absolutely no environmental pressures. IT HAS TO BE OCCURING! For those of you who understand the mechanics of evolution then you know why this is true. Evolution is not a vague mechanism, it is real, defined, and logical.

I am not going to get sucked into a tit-for-tat argument.

This is the one statement I agree with you on in your responses. Evolution does not nor can it disprove any God is correct.

Suffice it to say you have faith in evolution, I have faith in God.

Why are people even thinking this is in ANYWAY important? Do schools even do a good job at the basics? Well come on now, where are the quotes and charts saying that schools in the US or anywhere else are doing such a bang up job with what they have to teach that they can be force to teach this?

Education in the US is hampered by more BS and other whiz bang plans that result in little if any education, and yet you want this system to try to bring this to the children? Scan the papers EVERY day there is another teacher having sexual relations with students, but lets forget that, lets teach them this new thing that we need, it is a moral requirement! Give me a break! How about first you get the teachers to quit molesting the kids?

The time to change is now, fix the broken system so it can give the children the basics, then maybe then you can try to have this system teach morals and values. If you want to see evolution, look at No Child Left Behind. Let see the scores went up right, the children are learning more, on a global level there is parity right? Here is your issue, more BS and nothing for the children or the schools or teachers, just another group of words that sent me a nice glossy sheet and what did my kids get? Well what did they get? More money for science, math, or reading - NO. Better trained teachers - NO.

Come on people lets add more crap to this broken system, thats the fix. Adding this to the current system is trying to put lipstick on a dead pig.