It's Official: Kansas is screwed

[Duo_Maxwell]

TOPEKA, Kan. - Revisiting a topic that exposed Kansas to nationwide ridicule six years ago, the state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics of the proposed language charged that it was an attempt to inject creationism into public schools in violation of the separation between church and state.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_sc/evolution_debate

I thought the dark ages ended a long time ago.

[rjamortega]

Technically though, can't the belief that a superior intelligence exists and creates be a seperate matter from the organization of a church body?

[faithfulservant]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_sc/evolution_debate

I thought the dark ages ended a long time ago.
Why shouldn't ID be presented as a theory? Are you so narrow-minded that anything that falls outside of your preconceptions should not be taught? Tsk, tsk,tsk... you're violating your tolerance-based belief system.

[JoeR]

I don't have a problem with ID being presented as a theory, especially since you could cover it in a day.

[towski]

Sure ID can be presented as a theory. Establish a curriculum with a class called ID Theory. Until the base postulate of ID isn't "faith", however, I don't think it should be taught in Science class.

[rjamortega]

Why shouldn't ID be presented as a theory? Are you so narrow-minded that anything that falls outside of your preconceptions should not be taught? Tsk, tsk,tsk... you're violating your tolerance-based belief system.
Exactly. Let me put it this way, Duo... I can believe it is possible that a god had a hand in either direct creation or evolution without feeling like I have to tremble in fear of him, or it, and not have to turn my life over to the Pope, Fallwell or them dingbats on tv. I can believe in God and not feel convicted to turning the nation over to the Religious Right (whoever they are).

It's a theory and so is evolution at the beginning stages as it's taught. What's the big deal. Unless you're afraid all the little radical religious kids are going to disrupt class by scaring the hell out of the little secular kids. :rolleyes:

[Duo_Maxwell]

You can cover ID in 10 seconds.

The 'theory' of intelligent design states that if something cannot be explained, Goddidit.

That is why I made the dark ages reference.

The reason why I am aganist it because ID is a science free story that has no evidence whatsoever and should not be taught as a valid theory next to a theory that actually has evidence and has been tested.

A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. ID references God or a higher supernatural being, that by all means is anti-scientific. Science is the study of the natural world. How the hell can you have a idea in science that revolves around a supernatural being?

Come back when you understand what science is.

Both of you should know you are on shaky ground when it comes to this kind of stuff.

[Sauniere]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_sc/evolution_debate

I thought the dark ages ended a long time ago.

I've said it often here, "ID is a Load of Crap" that should be talked about in theology class, church, or home, but not in science classes... #$%&@!!!!!

[The_Penguin]

Why shouldn't ID be presented as a theory? Are you so narrow-minded that anything that falls outside of your preconceptions should not be taught? Tsk, tsk,tsk... you're violating your tolerance-based belief system.
The difference between ID as a theory and the theory of evolution is that the theory of evolution is something that can be tested and argued for by scientific evidence. It can be supported by facts that we already know about biology, physics and chemistry. ID is simply a belief... and other than blind faith, has no basis that supports it...

If I wanted to argue for the theory of evolution, I'd cite evidence alligators and crocodiles. We have found fossils of these animals dating back millions of years ago. Based on the remains of those fossils we can see that the bones of the animals changed over time. That change can be explained that the animal adapted to the differing environments that it lives in.

As for the evidence supporting ID, such as if something is very complex (or too complex to explain) then it must have been done by a larger being, that's completely absurd. Humans have made things that are very complex and intricate (the Linux kernel for example) without a higher being. So if a human could make something very complex, doesn't it sort of nullify the point of a higher being based on that argument? Meaning that a greater power is unnecessary in the making of a device/system that is so advanced?

Also, history shows that ID is pure bubly-gook. In colonial America, when people used to make beer, sometimes the tops of the beer barrels would pop off. No one at the time realized that this was caused by an imbalance of yeast and other things. Some people simply blamed it on witches (this was near Salem by the way.) I mean heck, if you can't explain it rationally, blame it on something spiritual. But science does not work that way and to teach something like that as science is irresponsible and down right wrong. I could go on and on about points in history where people resorted to the spiritual when there were scientific explanations for things.

[NiteGuy]

Exactly. Let me put it this way, Duo... I can believe it is possible that a god had a hand in either direct creation or evolution without feeling like I have to tremble in fear of him, or it, and not have to turn my life over to the Pope, Fallwell or them dingbats on tv. I can believe in God and not feel convicted to turning the nation over to the Religious Right (whoever they are).

It's a theory and so is evolution at the beginning stages as it's taught. What's the big deal. Unless you're afraid all the little radical religious kids are going to disrupt class by scaring the hell out of the little secular kids. :rolleyes:

Except, rj, you're misconstruing the layman's version of the word theory with the scientific definition. We covered that in the thread "Evolution is no more proven than creationism" listed on the same page as this thread. If you haven't already, you really should read through it.

You can cover ID in 10 seconds.

The reason why I am aganist it because ID is a science free story that has no evidence whatsoever and should not be taught as a valid theory next to a theory that actually has evidence and has been tested.

A theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. ID references God or a higher supernatural being, that by all means is anti-scientific. Science is the study of the natural world. How the hell can you have a idea in science that revolves around a supernatural being?

Duo has this exactly right. Religion is not science. Period. There is no way to test for God in a laboratory, or anywhere else.

Are they going to teach Islam too? It's just as credible as any Christian myth. What about Hinduism? Or Scientology? Or Wicca? They are all just as valid, are they not?

If the Christian theory of the ascendancy of man ends up getting taught as science in Kansas schools, then we should make sure that every creation myth get's equal time. Every single one of them.

Though I imagine that the religious right would really throw a fit if little Johnny or Mary came home spouting theories of creation or whatever from the perspective of the Hindus or the Wiccans.

See, rj, that's why schools need a comparative religions class. Then they can argue all of these things to their hearts content. But it's just plain asinine to pretend that any of it is science, and push aside physics and biology, and biochemistry to teach this stuff.

And kansas will find this out, in pretty short order, I think. When they are unable in a couple of years to start placing students into major universities around the country (outside of Bob Jones, that is), because no one wants to have to teach the remedial basics of science over dogma all over again, maybe then they'll realize what a mistake they've made. But somehow, I doubt it. They'll just keep blaming it all on those Goddamned liberal colleges, and push for even more religious myth in the schools.

[Duo_Maxwell]

If the Christian theory of the ascendancy of man ends up getting taught as science in Kansas schools, then we should make sure that every creation myth get's equal time. Every single one of them.

That would be awesome. I would totally support that, especially the Norse Mythology. God I love those crazy massive battle with giants, orgers and serpent at the end of time.


And kansas will find this out, in pretty short order, I think. When they are unable in a couple of years to start placing students into major universities around the country (outside of Bob Jones, that is), because no one wants to have to teach the remedial basics of science over dogma all over again, maybe then they'll realize what a mistake they've made. But somehow, I doubt it.

Agreed. If anything, this will spread further into the South until many of the public universities see their science departments essentially fall apart and many if not all of the good science and medical degrees will come from private schools such as Tulane and Embry Aeronautical (I heard it took relatively little damage, I got a few friends there).

But then again, I know someone on a local schoolboard in Kansas and they more or less say the boards do what they want and ignore the guidelines from the DOE there.

Only time will tell.

[The_Penguin]

That would be awesome. I would totally support that, especially the Norse Mythology. God I love those crazy massive battle with giants, orgers and serpent at the end of time.
I'll admit I'm partial to Greek mythology and the characters that did battle there. Try God of War (available on PS2.)
Agreed. If anything, this will spread further into the South until many of the public universities see their science departments essentially fall apart and many if not all of the good science and medical degrees will come from private schools such as Tulane and Embry Aeronautical (I heard it took relatively little damage, I got a few friends there).

But then again, I know someone on a local schoolboard in Kansas and they more or less say the boards do what they want and ignore the guidelines from the DOE there.

Only time will tell.
Too late.
-snip-

Alas, for Kansas's educational reputation, the damage may be done. "We've heard anecdotally that our students are getting much more scrutiny at places like medical schools. I get calls from teachers in other states who say things like 'You rubes!'" Williamson says. "But this is happening across the country. It's not just Kansas anymore."
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/806ffb24a5f27010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/8.html

[Duo_Maxwell]

I'll admit I'm partial to Greek mythology and the characters that did battle there. Try God of War (available on PS2.)

urgh. I don't like platforms. Still though, that would be awesome. Today is Ancient Greek and Persian creation stories! Tomorrow is Norse and Eastern European creation stories! On friday we're going to have african aninism! Beats dissecting things if you ask me.


Too late.

It will be a sad day in America when we get basic technology from Eastern Europe. It's bad enough that Japan has some of the coolest, advanced technology 6 to 12 months before we are even allowed to buy it.

[The_Penguin]

urgh. I don't like platforms. Still though, that would be awesome. Today is Ancient Greek and Persian creation stories! Tomorrow is Norse and Eastern European creation stories! On friday we're going to have african aninism! Beats dissecting things if you ask me.
What platforms? In the game? What's wrong with them?
It will be a sad day in America when we get basic technology from Eastern Europe. It's bad enough that Japan has some of the coolest, advanced technology 6 to 12 months before we are even allowed to buy it.
And we develop some of the latest medicines. Japan has some kewl gadgets, but this country (out of the entire world) stands the best chance in developing cures for some of our deadliest diseases.

I don't mind people who believe in ID, just don't teach it in science classes as if it actually has some weight to it.

[Duo_Maxwell]

What platforms? In the game? What's wrong with them?

I don't like controllers, and the fact that your machine, except for the harddrives are hard to upgrade, if not impossible. Second, the games themselves are virtually impossible to change as well. Example: many starwars battlefront platform players are still using the 12 stock maps. There are at least 100 custom PC maps out there that are absolute fanatastic plus around 300 decent to crappy ones as well, it got so bad during the release of the Jabba's Palace that on Lucasart's forum pc users were talking about maps that the xbox and ps2 players thought they were speaking a different langauge.

My rig (computer) is far more powerful then any platform out there. And it is harder to steal games. :flowers:


And we develop some of the latest medicines. Japan has some kewl gadgets, but this country (out of the entire world) stands the best chance in developing cures for some of our deadliest diseases.

True, the pharm industry is still very much a leader, but that might change. Still, we need to do something. I heard that the CIA and FBI was actually having some of their agents start writting TV show scripts about what they do to influence the next generation to get into science. That's pretty desperate if you ask me.


I don't mind people who believe in ID, just don't teach it in science classes as if it actually has some weight to it.

As soon as ID brings some evidence, it should be taught, same goes for creation. Until then, leave science to the natural world.

Holy Crap

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

Updated Ap (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate)

Hey, guess what, I want to rewrite the definition of science as well!

The Invisible Pink Unicorn was the cause of everything and since science is the study of the supernatural world, I am right!

I'm taking Kansas off my list of successful states.

[The_Penguin]

I don't like controllers, and the fact that your machine, except for the harddrives are hard to upgrade, if not impossible. Second, the games themselves are virtually impossible to change as well. Example: many starwars battlefront platform players are still using the 12 stock maps. There are at least 100 custom PC maps out there that are absolute fanatastic plus around 300 decent to crappy ones as well, it got so bad during the release of the Jabba's Palace that on Lucasart's forum pc users were talking about maps that the xbox and ps2 players thought they were speaking a different langauge.
On the platform you don't have to deal with drivers like you do on a PC.
My rig (computer) is far more powerful then any platform out there. And it is harder to steal games. :flowers:
DON'T DO THAT!!! You're screwing programmers (yes, I am a programmer) that work god knows how long to make those games.
True, the pharm industry is still very much a leader, but that might change. Still, we need to do something. I heard that the CIA and FBI was actually having some of their agents start writting TV show scripts about what they do to influence the next generation to get into science. That's pretty desperate if you ask me.
Alot of things could change. Japan has its fair share of social problems, that could impact their R&D quite a bit and with Europe's scientific community in the crapper, we face little competition. Not to say that we should sit idly by. As long as we have a competitive economy, we'll be ok.
As soon as ID brings some evidence, it should be taught, same goes for creation. Until then, leave science to the natural world.
If and when that evidence comes, call me.

[rjamortega]

Except, rj, you're misconstruing the layman's version of the word theory with the scientific definition. We covered that in the thread "Evolution is no more proven than creationism" listed on the same page as this thread. If you haven't already, you really should read through it.



Duo has this exactly right. Religion is not science. Period. There is no way to test for God in a laboratory, or anywhere else.

Are they going to teach Islam too? It's just as credible as any Christian myth. What about Hinduism? Or Scientology? Or Wicca? They are all just as valid, are they not?

If the Christian theory of the ascendancy of man ends up getting taught as science in Kansas schools, then we should make sure that every creation myth get's equal time. Every single one of them.

Though I imagine that the religious right would really throw a fit if little Johnny or Mary came home spouting theories of creation or whatever from the perspective of the Hindus or the Wiccans.

See, rj, that's why schools need a comparative religions class. Then they can argue all of these things to their hearts content. But it's just plain asinine to pretend that any of it is science, and push aside physics and biology, and biochemistry to teach this stuff.

And kansas will find this out, in pretty short order, I think. When they are unable in a couple of years to start placing students into major universities around the country (outside of Bob Jones, that is), because no one wants to have to teach the remedial basics of science over dogma all over again, maybe then they'll realize what a mistake they've made. But somehow, I doubt it. They'll just keep blaming it all on those Goddamned liberal colleges, and push for even more religious myth in the schools.
Yeah, well I hope you realize I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. But I didn't imagine this new curriculum was going to call for teaching the actual religion. I'd think it would be mentioned in a few pages. Maybe giving alternative thought like God set the elements in place that would lead to evolution or the big bang. But they would still have to spend plenty of time on physical science.

Eh, who cares. Not me. :shrug: :D

[dittohead not!]

Are the theory of evolution and the idea of intelligent design somehow mutually exclusive? If so, how?

[Duo_Maxwell]

On the platform you don't have to deal with drivers like you do on a PC.

I got nerd friends who can look stuff up for me if can't find it. It's worth the trouble.


DON'T DO THAT!!! You're screwing programmers (yes, I am a programmer) that work god knows how long to make those games.

$50 for a game dude? You got to be kidding me. I'll pay max $35. I'm now getting into the phase of buying older games such as Republic Commando off ebay for $10 with shipping.


Alot of things could change. Japan has its fair share of social problems, that could impact their R&D quite a bit and with Europe's scientific community in the crapper, we face little competition. Not to say that we should sit idly by. As long as we have a competitive economy, we'll be ok.

Hopefully. And as long as people like Dobson and Robertson don't get into office, we won't be assured to be screwed.


If and when that evidence comes, call me.

I don't think we'll have the technology when that happens. You know, it's hard to call someone when you're in oblivion.

[Craig]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_sc/evolution_debate

I thought the dark ages ended a long time ago.

No wonder Plato thought that democracies, including democratic republics, are the worst form of government save for a tyrant. Sometimes, it really is best to go to the expert, rather than relying on the common opinion.

[Craig]

Are the theory of evolution and the idea of intelligent design somehow mutually exclusive? If so, how?

Yes. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html

[Craig]

You really need to read the article to understand fully what Mr. Spitzer is talking about and to see specific examples, but the conclusion of the discussion is poignantly relevent to the debate about teaching Intelligent Design in schools.

Conclusions

The facts I have listed above all point to one conclusion, and they are only the tip of the iceberg—there are many, many instances of trickery and misleading arguments which I haven't discussed in this document. Johnson's repeated attempts to stereotype evolutionists as atheists despite the fact that he has every reason to know otherwise; the way in which he has quoted evolutionary biologists out of context to give impressions which are not true to their views; the omission of vast amounts of evidence; the numerous examples of rhetorical sleight-of-hand and inflammatory rhetoric; his refusal to correct his work even when errors have been pointed out to him by reviewers; his refusal to follow the norms of intellectual inquiry-all of these patterns suggest that his intention is not to present an honest, accurate picture to his audience. They suggest, instead, that he is a lawyer playing the lawyer's game. I am not the first person to reach this conclusion about Johnson. For example, philosopher of science Michael Ruse (who initially found that he agreed with Johnson on certain philosophical issues) found himself regretting his trust in Johnson after Johnson misused statements made by Ruse at an American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium in 1993. Ruse wrote that Johnson's abuses broke him "from my complacent dream that perhaps we had moved on from the early crude days, where science was so clearly being attacked by people who had no genuine interest in finding the truth." Ruse added bluntly: "Johnson's response showed that his concern was not at all in scholarly debate. He merely wanted to take shots, simply to win at any cost." (Ruse's comments are used by Johnson—abused, Ruse might say—in the Epilogue to the second edition of Darwin on Trial.)


I would liken Darwin on Trial to a different ancient and infamous group. Jesus denounced the Pharisees for their hypocrisy: they observed formal rituals on the outside, but in their hearts they were corrupt. A "whitewashed tomb" is an excellent description of Johnson's arguments and the "intelligent design" movement which is founded on them. They are painstaking about appearing scientific, lavishing effort on their public relations and trying to dazzle their audience with large, intellectual-sounding words. But inside, both morally and intellectually, the movement founded by Phillip Johnson and Darwin on Trial is dead. And it is the exact opposite of education. Those who support it should ask themselves what sort of science can be built on such a thorough disregard for accuracy. Whether or not biological life as we see it today took shape through evolutionary processes, the "intelligent design" movement founded on Darwin on Trial is doomed to failure, because it abandoned at the outset the respect for truth which is fundamental to any science.

Johnson is a very good lawyer. But science doesn't need lawyers; instead, it needs witnesses willing to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." In my opinion, a comparison between Johnson's words and his sources show that his approach is ethically bankrupt. What is even more disturbing is the fact that Darwin on Trial, even according to many proponents of "intelligent design", is perhaps the best that the movement has to offer. As one "intelligent design" creationist put it publicly: "Philip Johnson is the Godfather of all this [intelligent design]. He made the point first and best." These are the people who are trying to dictate what our children learn in the public schools-and this book, with all of its inaccurate and deceptive statements, is one of the books which they would like to see in the classroom.

Johnson fits perfectly a quote applied to the last generation of creationists: "Scientific creationism is an intolerable assault on education not merely because it is the antithesis of reason, but because it is opposed to the very foundation of true education: intellectual honesty. Surely education should teach the courage to weigh evidence and draw conclusions dispassionately, and to recognize their consequences, however hard or distasteful. Scientific creationism teaches, instead, the standards of the Madison Avenue marketplace: how to further your aims by guile, seductive catch phrases, selective quotation of evidence. ...[S]cientific creationism teaches by its tactics more than by its words: truth is not the object of brave and honest search. Truth is whatever you can convince people it is. But to accede to these standards in education is to teach dishonesty and cowardice."[20]

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html

[Duo_Maxwell]

No wonder Plato thought that democracies, including democratic republics, are the worst form of government save for a tyrant. Sometimes, it really is best to go to the expert, rather than relying on the common opinion.

Ah yes, Trashymacus (lol), Glaucon, polemarchus, the other names escape me, it has been a while since I read the Republic.

[eugene40]

urgh. I don't like platforms. Still though, that would be awesome. Today is Ancient Greek and Persian creation stories! Tomorrow is Norse and Eastern European creation stories! On friday we're going to have african aninism! Beats dissecting things if you ask me.
Well when you think about it... Why do you really need to know how the world actually works :rolleyes: . These kids are going to get to college and be smacked around by their profs... personally I can't wait till they go over all of the native america creation stories and myths those are fun and confusing all at the same time.

It will be a sad day in America when we get basic technology from Eastern Europe. It's bad enough that Japan has some of the coolest, advanced technology 6 to 12 months before we are even allowed to buy it.
Well, it serves us right. The entire science community should have shown up and squashed any opposition. But they didn't and now look what they did.

[lawman]

For those who ask whether ID can't be seen as a theory that stands on its own independent of any religious agenda, you need to familiarize yourself with the "Wedge Document" (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html), the leaked memorandum that exposes the real agenda of ID's chief advocates.

As for politicians of any stripe (much less a half-dozen isolated school board members) having the temerity to think they can "rewrite the definition of science"... well, that's just beyond words. They deserve every bit of the scorn that will undoubtedly fall on them.

Oh, and let's not forget the last sentence of the article: "In August, President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution." :mad:

[mataj]

Why shouldn't ID be presented as a theory?Because it's not.

Are you so narrow-minded that anything that falls outside of your preconceptions should not be taught? Tsk, tsk,tsk... you're violating your tolerance-based belief system.Point of view does not change the facts. Science is not a politics.



BTW: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

[meloakey]

How do I begin? Well I am very glad I graduated from Newton High before this happened. I think it is correct to open up the belief that the universe started by a higher power, but not in school. And if it is to be in school, let it be in a history course. One that teaches the history of a majority of religions. Religion is where alot of history comes from.

I am sad to say I was born and raised in Kansas. Well, no I am not. The schools are far better then many in the country. Kansas schools, both public and private have some of the highest standards in the nation. Ivy league colleges are seeing that people in the midwest to be more intelligent mixed with high qualities of common sense, then once thought. Is Kansas screwed? Far from it. Does it make Kansas a laughing stock? Yes but this is far from the first time and won't be the last.

Kansas has made history by being the first state to do some very historical things.
In 1910, the state instituted a system of workers compensation
among the first states to permit women's sufferage
banned the concept of separate but equal
establish prohibition
1st drag car races (sorry I know it isn't political and isn't intelligent but it is a first)
council-manager government was adopted by many larger Kansas cities in the years following World War I while many American cities were being run by political machines or organized crime

Being a former graduate from Kansas, it was an issue we have dealt with. For many of us, we don't have a problem with learning evolution as long as it is taught as a theory and taught has been proven.

If because the board of education changes something about evolution makes Kansas screwed, then sorry that makes everyone screwed as well. The students in Kansas learn physical science, biology, chemistry and physics just like the rest of the nation. Infact Kansas is probably among the leaders in science because of what the schools do allow. I doubt I would find a school in New York City where they could dissect a frog, be able to see a cows brain, without seeing both in a book. Be able to take a trip to see the Apollo 13 command module, 2nd largest collection of US space artifacts in the world, largest collection of Russian space artifacts outside of Moscow, SR-71 Blackbird, the Liberty Bell 7 capsule from Mercury 4, authentic Redstone and Titan II launch vehicles used in the Mercury and Gemini programs. Which schools across Kansas take trips annually to give students the opportunity to learn about a type of science.

Just because evolution is changing doesn't condemn the whole science program of a Kansas school or the chances of a student getting into a good college, if it does then all US schools are condemned. Because Kansas still holds high standards on education, what is required in a science portion. And if looking at the whole science area, evolution holds but a small part of it.

[mataj]

Just because evolution is changing doesn't condemn the whole science program of a Kansas school It pretty much does, I'm afraid. ID violates one of the basic principles of science (making empirically verifiable predictions). To make the things worse, it's "ad ignorantiam" fallacy. It promotes ignorance, because it's reasoning is based on it.

If you let something like ID into your school system, you obviously forgot about what the scientific method is supposed to be.

[meloakey]

It pretty much does, I'm afraid. ID violates one of the basic principles of science (making empirically verifiable predictions). To make the things worse, it's "ad ignorantiam" fallacy. It promotes ignorance, because it's reasoning is based on it.

If you let something like ID into your school system, you obviously forgot about what the scientific method is supposed to be.

Do you think just because my school system is allowing another theory to be taught, we are condemned? Students are far more intelligent then what you think. Just because the school is allowing this doesn't mean a student doesn't know what evolution is. What about all the other areas of science that don't involve evolution?

Also did you read all I wrote? Instead of worrying about Kansas' debate over how to phrase the words of evolution, people across the nation should be worrying about the standard of education their schools are teaching. Kansas still has a higher standard for education then most states.

There will be a close watch on what developes in the schools because of this. Just because another theory is introduced into the schools doesn't mean it will be bible school in class. Science teacher choose what they wish to teach in the class as long as they follow a guideline. And as I recall the guideline states that evolution is up to the teacher to decide whether he or she will teach it. And I am pretty sure that if you are a science teacher you understand the meaning of science.

[mataj]

Do you think just because my school system is allowing another theory to be taught, we are condemned?You are condemned, becaue Ad Ignorantiam fallacy is taught, not because another theory is taught.

Students are far more intelligent then what you think.Intelligence has nothing to do with this.

Just because the school is allowing this doesn't mean a student doesn't know what evolution is. What about all the other areas of science that don't involve evolution? The issue is scientific method. Details about evolution, fossiles & proteins are inessential here.

Also did you read all I wrote? Instead of worrying about Kansas' debate over how to phrase the words of evolution, people across the nation should be worrying about the standard of education their schools are teaching. Kansas still has a higher standard for education then most states.Your high education standard can only be to your detriment, if your schools promote ignorance.

And I am pretty sure that if you are a science teacher you understand the meaning of science.Who cares about some mystic meaning of science, if it's basic principles are violated?

[faithfulservant]

I don't have a problem with ID being presented as a theory, especially since you could cover it in a day.
One day to cover all of the incredibly well designed facets of creation that we can't explain using any known science? Wow! You must be able to talk REALLY fast.

[faithfulservant]

Sure ID can be presented as a theory. Establish a curriculum with a class called ID Theory. Until the base postulate of ID isn't "faith", however, I don't think it should be taught in Science class.
By the same token then, evolution can't be considered science. It's a 100% faith-based concept; no science behind it, just unproven theories.

[faithfulservant]

I've said it often here, "ID is a Load of Crap" that should be talked about in theology class, church, or home, but not in science classes... #$%&@!!!!!
OK, please show me the scientific research project where life was created from non-life. Let's get right down to the initial impetus of life. Show me, using accepted scientific methodology, how life began. Until you can do this, ID is just as scientific as evolution is.

[serenity]

Are they going to teach Islam too? It's just as credible as any Christian myth. What about Hinduism? Or Scientology? Or Wicca? They are all just as valid, are they not?


Exactly. And this is why, when ID advocates say it isn't really about religion, they are being disingenuous.

ID advocates ALWAYS say that life is possibly the result of A higher being, A intelligent designer, A creator.

Singular.

Tjhey ARE talking monotheism--only one of the "theories" of religious creation. And since they're presumably all or mostly Christians, it's not hard to detect which religion they're talking about.

[::Major_Baker::]

By the same token then, evolution can't be considered science. It's a 100% faith-based concept; no science behind it, just unproven theories.
Wrong.
they are theories based on emprical evidence and observation, and most importantly the scientific method.
Let me define that for you, or better yet, let Webster's do it:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

See, data collection, observation, etc.
The only data the ID idea has collected are words from the bible.

[faithfulservant]

The difference between ID as a theory and the theory of evolution is that the theory of evolution is something that can be tested and argued for by scientific evidence. It can be supported by facts that we already know about biology, physics and chemistry. ID is simply a belief... and other than blind faith, has no basis that supports it...

If I wanted to argue for the theory of evolution, I'd cite evidence alligators and crocodiles. We have found fossils of these animals dating back millions of years ago. Based on the remains of those fossils we can see that the bones of the animals changed over time. That change can be explained that the animal adapted to the differing environments that it lives in.

As for the evidence supporting ID, such as if something is very complex (or too complex to explain) then it must have been done by a larger being, that's completely absurd. Humans have made things that are very complex and intricate (the Linux kernel for example) without a higher being. So if a human could make something very complex, doesn't it sort of nullify the point of a higher being based on that argument? Meaning that a greater power is unnecessary in the making of a device/system that is so advanced?

Also, history shows that ID is pure bubly-gook. In colonial America, when people used to make beer, sometimes the tops of the beer barrels would pop off. No one at the time realized that this was caused by an imbalance of yeast and other things. Some people simply blamed it on witches (this was near Salem by the way.) I mean heck, if you can't explain it rationally, blame it on something spiritual. But science does not work that way and to teach something like that as science is irresponsible and down right wrong. I could go on and on about points in history where people resorted to the spiritual when there were scientific explanations for things.
It's not the complexity of the universe, but rather the interoperabilty. The amazing synergy that exists. At the basic cellular level there are so many interconnected processes going on that if any one of them stops, the body cannot convert sugar to energy. ALL of these processes had to come into play at the same time in order for the first cell to be able to function. The synergy REQUIRED for life is incredible. You assume that it just happened one day with no direction, no guidance, no plan or purpose. All of the molecules just happened to be in the right place at the right time and just happened to all connect together in exactly the right way and then somehow have the genetic program built in to do something that had never been done before - multiply. And you accuse me of having blind faith.

[serenity]

You assume that it just happened one day with no direction, no guidance, no plan or purpose.

Very few people "assume" any such thing. And no one--NO ONE--makes the claim that evolutionary science has given us all the answers. In fact, no one has all the answers to anything, at all, whatsoever, in any way or within any endeavor.

Why should the theory of evolution be different.

But it is an attempt, mostly an honest one, to understand part of the world, and life itself.

Religion is this too. But science and religion are two separate things.

You'e saying complexity, and issues of "inoperability" somehow PROVE the existnce of a higher power, and that should be taught alongside evolution in schools--in other words, teach our children that there is no separation between reason and faith, between science and blind belief. But that would be something of a lie, you see.

By all means, introduce ID--in philosophy class, where it belongs (and then watch the philosophers shred it apart, too, incidentally...but at least it wouldn't be interfering with children's education, as you're advocating).

[faithfulservant]

It pretty much does, I'm afraid. ID violates one of the basic principles of science (making empirically verifiable predictions). To make the things worse, it's "ad ignorantiam" fallacy. It promotes ignorance, because it's reasoning is based on it.
BUt that is exactly what evolution does. It frames all evidence within the structure of evolution, never considering any other possibility. It's a conclusion first and the evidence is interpretted to fit it. For example - It was brought up that we can see the changes that occurred to certain species of animals by examining the fossil record. The theory is that these species changed over time to become what they are today. A palentologist sees two fossils from 1,000,000 years apart and since they are different, while being similar in many ways, applies the theory of evolution to assume that one came from another. If an evolutionists was to dig up a panther skeleton and a lion skeleton from 500,000 years apart, he would assume that one evolved from the other because he is framing his interpretation within his theory. The reality would be that they were two different species that may or may not have co-existed, the fossil record is far too spotty to tell.[/quote]

If you let something like ID into your school system, you obviously forgot about what the scientific method is supposed to be.
Show me a peer-reviewed scientific study where evolution has occured under laboratory conditions with control groups and proven repeatability where a new species has been created. The best they've been able to do is force a change in the gene structure of one species of housefly to where it was visibly different from it's parent, but still able to reproduce with the parent line (a new species would not be able to reporduce with the parent line).
If you exclude ID based on the lack of scientific method based proof, then evolution falls by the way as well.

[::Major_Baker::]

show me eveidence of data collection for ID.
This is an interesting article....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8739804/

[faithfulservant]

Very few people "assume" any such thing. And no one--NO ONE--makes the claim that evolutionary science has given us all the answers. In fact, no one has all the answers to anything, at all, whatsoever, in any way or within any endeavor.

Why should the theory of evolution be different.

But it is an attempt, mostly an honest one, to understand part of the world, and life itself.

Religion is this too. But science and religion are two separate things.

You'e saying complexity, and issues of "inoperability" somehow PROVE the existnce of a higher power, and that should be taught alongside evolution in schools--in other words, teach our children that there is no separation between reason and faith, between science and blind belief. But that would be something of a lie, you see.

By all means, introduce ID--in philosophy class, where it belongs (and then watch the philosophers shred it apart, too, incidentally...but at least it wouldn't be interfering with children's education, as you're advocating).Study the statistics required for evolution to occur. You run out of zeros in very short order when you consider the minute possibility of life ever happening much less evolving into the myriad of species we have on this planet. Species that are interdependent on each other for survival. I figured out long before I became a Christian that evolution was a crock. The numbers simply do not add up. The facts do not add up. Evolution is nothing more than an unproven theory that stands on very shaky ground when examined from a statistical standpoint. It's science is highly flawed in so many areas that it amazes me that people could accept by any other means than unreasoning faith. With ID there is a reasoned faith. One that looks at the complexity, the interoperability, the synergy of the universe and cannot come to any other conclusion than there has to be a Designer. This universe simply works too well to have happened by chance.

[serenity]

With ID there is a reasoned faith. One that looks at the complexity, the interoperability, the synergy of the universe and cannot come to any other conclusion than there has to be a Designer. This universe simply works too well to have happened by chance.

One more time (hopefully the last): NO ONE is saying that evolution is giving us all the answers.

No one.

Only you, and other ID proponents, are claiming to have the answers--and your "reason" is based entirely--100%--on the "evidence" that the complexity is too amazing to "possibly" be anything other than from a creator.

That's not "evidence" at all, of course.

But most importantly, as response to your post, I reiterate: YOU are the ONLY one who is claiming to have all the answers.

Not the evolutionists. You.

[Scaryclouds]

Show me empirical evidence of how the universe was created that did not violate the law of: matter can not be created nor destroied. Show me evidence like faithful said as to how life was first created. Then accuse me of blind faith, until then you are just as blind as I.

[::Major_Baker::]

Study the statistics required for evolution to occur. You run out of zeros in very short order when you consider the minute possibility of life ever happening much less evolving into the myriad of species we have on this planet. Species that are interdependent on each other for survival. I figured out long before I became a Christian that evolution was a crock. The numbers simply do not add up. The facts do not add up. Evolution is nothing more than an unproven theory that stands on very shaky ground when examined from a statistical standpoint. It's science is highly flawed in so many areas that it amazes me that people could accept by any other means than unreasoning faith. With ID there is a reasoned faith. One that looks at the complexity, the interoperability, the synergy of the universe and cannot come to any other conclusion than there has to be a Designer. This universe simply works too well to have happened by chance.
Show us some statistics then, FS.
You are telling us everything, but showin us nothing.
All theories are unproven. That is why they are called theories.
We simply take the one that actually has some SCIENCE behind it, and choose which one is more believable.

Show us this science that is highly flawed? Let's do this!
Because right now you have nothing.
What numbers do not add up?
Show us.

[faithfulservant]

show me eveidence of data collection for ID.
This is an interesting article....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8739804/
Read a science book, study statistics, maintain at least a nominal level of objectivity and you'll see vast amounts of evidence of ID. Natural science is full of evidence of ID, evolutionists choose to interpret it in such a way as to support their theory w/o considering alternatives (VERY bad scientific discipline, BTW).

Your article states that the mice evolved, but then admits that the increased food supply may have something to do with it. If the mice had evolved into a new species then they wouldn't be able to breed back to their parent line. In order to prove evolution you would have to take a sample population and re-introduce it back to it's original environment and see if it retains it's size or returns back to it's original size.
A good comparison is my neighbor's beagle. The dog topped out at 47 lbs and it's not fat. The vet's office said that it's the biggest beagle they had ever seen. It's not a new species of beagle, it's a beagle that was fed LOTS of really good food when it was a puppy and was a larger size to begin with. According to your article, Brody would be a new species of beagle (canis beagulus gigantus).

[faithfulservant]

Show us some statistics then, FS.
You are telling us everything, but showin us nothing.
All theories are unproven. That is why they are called theories.
We simply take the one that actually has some SCIENCE behind it, and choose which one is more believable.

Show us this science that is highly flawed? Let's do this!
Because right now you have nothing.
What numbers do not add up?
Show us.
I'll get back to you at lunch (time to start breaking programs and ruining programmers days). While you're waiting, find me a peer-reviewed scientific study where a new species has been created under controlled conditions, with repeatability.

[Craig]

BUt that is exactly what evolution does. It frames all evidence within the structure of evolution, never considering any other possibility. It's a conclusion first and the evidence is interpretted to fit it. For example - It was brought up that we can see the changes that occurred to certain species of animals by examining the fossil record. The theory is that these species changed over time to become what they are today. A palentologist sees two fossils from 1,000,000 years apart and since they are different, while being similar in many ways, applies the theory of evolution to assume that one came from another. If an evolutionists was to dig up a panther skeleton and a lion skeleton from 500,000 years apart, he would assume that one evolved from the other because he is framing his interpretation within his theory. The reality would be that they were two different species that may or may not have co-existed, the fossil record is far too spotty to tell.

Your ignorance of science is utterly appalling. Even worse, your partial understanding is seductive to those who simply don't know any better and may be impressed by your views. It is clear that you do not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. As noted in the article I just posted:

"Futuyma notes that Darwin's theory originally drew its support from fields as diverse as 'comparative anatomy, embryology, behavior, geographic variation, the geographic distribution of species, the study of rudimentary organs, atavistic variations ('throwbacks'), and the geological record to show how all of biology provides testimony that species have descended with modification from common ancestors.'"

In other words, the theory was a product of a whole number of particulars that lead to it's postulation, scientific induction if you will, which is the exact opposite of evolution being used as a "framework" from which we must fit other facts as you claim. Furthermore, calling the "fossil record too spotty" is utterly disingenuous:

"I spent less than an hour checking these claims before finding one source[15] which lists over three hundred and fifty fossil species or groups of species which are considered to be transitionals within the mammals. Furthermore, the author of this source was careful to note that this list was nowhere near complete. Primitive primate-like fossils are known and species-to-species transitions are known within the primates; an early fossil bat is known, with appropriately primitive characters; transitional fossils for bears are extremely clear; transitionals for seals and cats are known; there is a whole chain of fossil genera leading up to whales; there is a transitional sequence for cattle as well as for pigs (not to mention very good transitional records for voles, mice, elephants, and ruminants)."

Show me a peer-reviewed scientific study where evolution has occured under laboratory conditions with control groups and proven repeatability where a new species has been created. The best they've been able to do is force a change in the gene structure of one species of housefly to where it was visibly different from it's parent, but still able to reproduce with the parent line (a new species would not be able to reporduce with the parent line).
If you exclude ID based on the lack of scientific method based proof, then evolution falls by the way as well.

No, evolution does not fall by the way side. Again, you fundamentally misunderstand evolution. Presupposing for the moment that such a thing has not occurred in the laboratory, (even though such changes have been observed in the field, which has much higher ecological validity than a tightly controlled evolutionary experiment), since I'm not sure about the current state of research, this isn't sufficient to discredit evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is a composite of theories, which means that one factor is not sufficient to destroy it. Moreover, there are numerous aspects of the theory which are not up for debate, such as the fact of microevolution. I challenge you to find a peer reviewed scientific article which can illustrate otherwise. But again, that I even have to discuss this is evidence of the fact that you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html

[Craig]

Read a science book, study statistics, maintain at least a nominal level of objectivity and you'll see vast amounts of evidence of ID. Natural science is full of evidence of ID, evolutionists choose to interpret it in such a way as to support their theory w/o considering alternatives (VERY bad scientific discipline, BTW).


Intelligent Design is founded on lies, distortions, misrepresentations, and utter intellectual dishonesty. This has been covered in my article above. It is rotten to the core. Not only that, but your ignorance is again exposed when you assert scientists are doing "bad science" in regards to evolutionary theory- biologists are constantly testing and trying to falsify hypothesis about aspects of evolution.

We've already tested whether evolution is fundamentally flawed. Time and time again, the results have been consistent- no, it is not fundamentally flawed. And believe it or not, we've moved on, because after enough tests, we know that evolution is factual. Every single person in the intelligent design or creationist movement, including the scientists who assert that evolutionary theory is fundamentally wrong, misrepresents, distorts, lies, and misunderstands not only the theory of evolution but the particulars that lead them to assert the falsity of evolution. Every single person without fail. Why on earth should anyone in the scientific discipline, much less anyone in academic disciplines, take these claims seriously?

[sub_zer0]

We've already tested whether evolution is fundamentally flawed. Time and time again, the results have been consistent- no, it is not fundamentally flawed. And believe it or not, we've moved on, because after enough tests, we know that evolution is factual. Every single person in the intelligent design or creationist movement, including the scientists who assert that evolutionary theory is fundamentally wrong, misrepresents, distorts, lies, and misunderstands not only the theory of evolution but the particulars that lead them to assert the falsity of evolution. Every single person without fail. Why on earth should anyone in the scientific discipline, much less anyone in academic disciplines, take these claims seriously?

Evolution has been taught, over and over again, for a century that it is more fact than theory. When the school system, the edutcation of your child, deliberately puts on the blinders to another way the world began, is wrong. All views, especially with something as controversial as this should be taken into consideration and given fair amount of time to be introduced to the students.

Forget about seperation of church and state. You don't need to name the Intelligent Designer although you can give them clues as to where they could learn more about Him. The Bible could be one of them. But of course, anything that even remotely has to do with God or the Bible or something of that nature, is thrown out of the schools, as well as the students view.

[mataj]

BUt that is exactly what evolution does. It frames all evidence within the structure of evolution, never considering any other possibility. .This is exactly how science is supposed to work. It connects the facts, the dots in the simplest possible manner. Then it goes searching for more dots, and does not consider any other option until one of the newly discovered dots falls out of the line. Only then is so far existing way of connecting the dots discarded.

Principle ID violates is not about evidence, about proving, but about disproving. Valid scientific theory must make predictions, which can be empirically tested & verified. IOW, it must be possible to empirically disprove it. Classic darwinian evolution theory predicts, among others, that all fossiles will be found in corresponding geological layers. One single funny fossile in a funny place could bring it down, but it didn't. ID, on the other hand, makes no such predictions. There is no way it could be disproved. It's therefore not a valid scientific theory.


If you exclude ID based on the lack of scientific method based proof, then evolution falls by the way as well.I'm not excluding ID because of lack of empirical proof, but because ID doesn't need empirical proof in the first place.

Moreover, ID couldnt exist independently, without evolution theory, because it's "proven" by the vacancy between the dots evolution theory connects- by the fossiles not yet found, life not yet created in the lab, mutation not yet observed, and so on. Without evolution theory, ID wouldnt exist. There would be no need, nor use for it.

[Craig]

Evolution has been taught, over and over again, for a century that it is more fact than theory. When the school system, the edutcation of your child, deliberately puts on the blinders to another way the world began, is wrong. All views, especially with something as controversial as this should be taken into consideration and given fair amount of time to be introduced to the students.

No waffling, or beating around the bush, just a straight yes or no answer: Should students be taught the possibility of the earth being flat? Because that essentially is the sort of epistemological approach to scientific theory you are taking. I want a straight, unqualified yes or no, and I will not be satisfied until I am given it.

Edit: Nevermind, you don't have to give a straight yes or no, because I am employing a logically unsound technique, and as tempting as it might be to use it, the fact that I am consciously aware of its unsoundness means that I cannot expect someone to answer it.
Forget about seperation of church and state. You don't need to name the Intelligent Designer although you can give them clues as to where they could learn more about Him. The Bible could be one of them. But of course, anything that even remotely has to do with God or the Bible or something of that nature, is thrown out of the schools, as well as the students view.

As many other people have expressed, there is nothing wrong with God being in schools in the context of a comparitive religion course. God need not be pushed out of the way, provided that the course be optional. But what you're asking for is the equivalent of stating that Descartes' account of physics should be taught alongside as an alternative to the modern understanding of physics. This is not a matter of the idea of God being wrong, it's a matter that the fundamental so-called "scientific" part of intelligent design is so intellectually rotten that the entire non-scientific theory of ID must be thrown out too.

[Craig]

Sub Zer0, I also find it disturbing that you think it's appropriate to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative theory when it has been pointed out that it involves lies, distortions, etc.

[green lantern]

Sub Zer0, I also find it disturbing that you think it's appropriate to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative theory when it has been pointed out that it involves lies, distortions, etc. please explain what you consider to be "lies and distortions" . i see no problem with teaching them side by side.

[towski]

Well, at least common sense still reigns in Pennsylvania...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9973228/

Dover voters oust intelligent design supporters

DOVER, Pa. - Voters came down hard Tuesday on school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

The election unfolded amid a landmark federal trial involving the Dover public schools and the question of whether intelligent design promotes the Bible’s view of creation. Eight Dover families sued, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Dover’s school board adopted a policy in October 2004 that requires ninth-graders to hear a prepared statement about intelligent design before learning about evolution in biology class.

Eight of the nine school board members were up for election Tuesday. They were challenged by a slate of Democrats who argued that science class was not the appropriate forum for teaching intelligent design.

“My kids believe in God. I believe in God. But I don’t think it belongs in the science curriculum the way the school district is presenting it,” said Jill Reiter, 41, a bank teller who joined a group of high school students waving signs supporting the challengers Tuesday.

:clap:

[green lantern]

Well, at least common sense still reigns in Pennsylvania...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9973228/



:clap:where is the harm in reading a statement???? where???

[JD3]

where is the harm in reading a statement???? where???

It's not science. And pretending it is is more harmful than allowing same sex marriage. ;)

[Craig]

So that it doesn't appear to the other members of the forum that I'm dodging your question, please read the PM I sent you on this topic Green Lantern.

[towski]

where is the harm in reading a statement???? where???


It's science class, GL. ID is not science. Create a comparative religion class, or even an ID elective.

[Bad Penny]

I would imagine you would have no issues reading a statement that said that homsexuality is an alternate and exceptable lifestyle in some circles of society? After all, it's just a statement.

The point is, in my opinion, religious concepts (as well as other myths and superstitions) should not be presented in a class based on facts and physics. Save that for the creative writing class. It has no place in science. Period.

[green lantern]

It's not science. And pretending it is is more harmful than allowing same sex marriage. ;)
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Craig]

where is the harm in reading a statement???? where???

Might I add that by even reading a statement, even acknowledging Intelligent Design, tacitly implies that it is a legitemate alternative- otherwise, why bother reading the statement in the first place? And since this is patently false, for the aforementioned reasons, I reject even reading a statement about it which in some way presents it as an alternative.

[green lantern]

Might I add that by even reading a statement, even acknowledging Intelligent Design, tacitly implies that it is a legitemate alternative- otherwise, why bother reading the statement in the first place? And since this is patently false, for the aforementioned reasons, I reject even reading a statement about it which in some way presents it as an alternative. that it is "patently false" is your opinion...your "theory" ...can evolution be proven, 100%, no doubt, no questions, no ifs ands or buts?

[towski]

that it is "patently false" is your opinion...your "theory" ...can evolution be proven, 100%, no doubt, no questions, no ifs ands or buts?

No, it can't. That's what makes it "science" class. Because in "science" class, the students are taught what a "theory" is, and the steps that go into proving, disproving, and revising that "theory". In ID, that doesn't happen.

[Strel]

please explain what you consider to be "lies and distortions" . i see no problem with teaching them side by side.

Even if one of them is demonstrably NOT science and a pile of crap?

[Craig]

that it is "patently false" is your opinion...your "theory" ...can evolution be proven, 100%, no doubt, no questions, no ifs ands or buts?

It's not my opinion GL. Look at just how bad the scholarship is for Intelligent Design. The entire theory rests upon lies, distortions, and misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, both in terms of why evolution is wrong, and in terms of why Intelliget Design is right. Keep reading the article!

Yes, the fact of evolution can be proven 100%. The entirety of its theory and mechanisms, however, is still evolving, just as other scientific disciplines that are not so controversial, like chemistry and physics, are still evolving.

[green lantern]

No, it can't. That's what makes it "science" class. Because in "science" class, the students are taught what a "theory" is, and the steps that go into proving, disproving, and revising that "theory". In ID, that doesn't happen. so, what harm is there in presenting ID as a theory alongside evolution?? keyword being present it as a theory

[Strel]

that it is "patently false" is your opinion...your "theory" ...can evolution be proven, 100%, no doubt, no questions, no ifs ands or buts?

In order: yes, no doubts, there will always be questions about the details, and anyone that thinks that it isn't a fact either doesn't want to believe it, or simply does not understand it.

[Duo_Maxwell]

One day to cover all of the incredibly well designed facets of creation that we can't explain using any known science? Wow! You must be able to talk REALLY fast.

Do you even know what science is?

It is disturbing the lack of science knowledge shown by some here.

Study the statistics required for evolution to occur

Stop using fraud. One one hundred sided die will take a while to achieve a set of data. 1 million one hundred sides dies will take a instant to do the same

Creationists rely upon the very same notions as those of anti-gay: fallacies, lies and fabrications.

green lantern: do you know what science is?

How can a theory that relies upon a supernatural being be included in the study of the natural world?

Christ sakes, you people are talking as if the enlightment and scientific revolution NEVER occured.

[green lantern]

Even if one of them is demonstrably NOT science and a pile of crap? again, opinion

[Strel]

so, what harm is there in presenting ID as a theory alongside evolution?? keyword being present it as a theory


Because it does not qualify as a "theory" in scientific parlance. No falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested. Without that, it is simply not science.

[Strel]

again, opinion


Much, much more fact than opinion. ID has been thoroughly discredited. It's supporters pretend not to notice.

[JD3]

I am working on a theory about the new emerging affirmation society. It was bad enough that news has become not about accuracy, but about affirming what people believe. Now we have distorted science from discovery to affirmming our belief systems. I don't see good coming from this.

[Duo_Maxwell]

again, opinion

Explain to me GL, how the **** a theory can be scientific when it references a supernatural being and has absolutely no evidence for its claims?

It is quite clear a number of people here have no idea what science is.

I recall a time when the phrase was 'better living through chemistry' I recall a time when people used reason, evidence and testing to prove their claims. I recall a time when people turned to proof less dieties to explain what they could not.

Apparently we just forsook the past 200 years of scientific progression to embrace the dark ages.

[towski]

so, what harm is there in presenting ID as a theory alongside evolution?? keyword being present it as a theory

Because it isn't a theory, GL. Believers in ID say that ID is a fact. Has the "Theory of ID" been subject to the scientific method? Have it's tenets been tested, and retested? Has it's basic hypothesis ever been changed to allow for new evidence? Of course not. It's not science, it's a belief system. It doesn't belong in science class.

[green lantern]

Explain to me GL, how the **** a theory can be scientific when it references a supernatural being and has absolutely no evidence for its claims?

It is quite clear a number of people here have no idea what science is.

I recall a time when the phrase was 'better living through chemistry' I recall a time when people used reason, evidence and testing to prove their claims. I recall a time when people turned to proof less dieties to explain what they could not.

Apparently we just forsook the past 200 years of scientific progression to embrace the dark ages. keep posting in a condescending tone and continue to be ignored.

[Strel]

Evolution has been taught, over and over again, for a century that it is more fact than theory.

Because, despite whatever brainwashing you may have undergone at your local church, evolution IS a fact. It is also a theory. The theory predicts certain outcomes for experiments, it predicts the finding of this or that missing fossil, it makes statements that can be checked against the facts.

And when that is done, what is found? That evolution did occur, is occurring, and will continue to occur on this planet. FACT. The "theory" part is explaining exactly how it all happens.

On the other hand, we have Creation and ID (and yes, they are the same). No means to test. No experiments that can be conducted. No facts that can be checked against the "theory" (actually, baseless hypothesis). It is not science, and it has no place in science class.

What is it? Thinly veiled religion. And (God Bless America) we have a law in this country that says you can't use the organs of the State to shove religion down other people's kids' throats. So get used to it: this is an argument that you cannot, and will not, ever be able to win, because neither the law nor the facts are on your side.

[green lantern]

Because it isn't a theory, GL. Believers in ID say that ID is a fact. Has the "Theory of ID" been subject to the scientific method? Have it's tenets been tested, and retested? Has it's basic hypothesis ever been changed to allow for new evidence? Of course not. It's not science, it's a belief system. It doesn't belong in science class.
and believers in evolution claim it as "fact"....so both have their partisans, both are beliefs, and neither and be proven conclusively.

[Strel]

and believers in evolution claim it as "fact"....so both have their partisans, both are beliefs, and neither and be proven conclusively.


On slight problem there. Evolution has been proven as a fact.

A little detail you may want to check out sometime.

[Craig]

so, what harm is there in presenting ID as a theory alongside evolution?? keyword being present it as a theory

For the same two reasons as before: a) Because it's not a scientific theory, and it's extremely misleading to treat it as such and b) Because presenting it tacitly legitemates it as an alternative to evolution, when this is not the case, again for reasons cited in the article.

As I said in another post, are you going to also argue that we need to teach Cartesian physics? It is an alternative to modern day physics, even though it too is not good science, positing that physics must rest upon metaphysics. I reject Cartesian physics for the same reason I reject Intelligent Design: it's bad science. That having been said, I now must apologize to Descartes for the comparison, because at least he was trying to advance the state of science, rather trying to overthrow it because it was inconsistent with religious dogma. Rene, I'm sorry.

[towski]

and believers in evolution claim it as "fact"....so both have their partisans, both are beliefs, and neither and be proven conclusively.


Odd. I've never once heard it called fact. It's called the theory of evolution. It's been, and is still being, researched, amended, and added to, as all scientific theories are. Parts of it are even being disproven. What are the chances of a creationist allowing part of his belief to be disproven?

Sorry, GL, but I have no problem with ID being taught as part of a comparative religion class. But until it is subject to the rules of science, it has no place in science class.

[Duo_Maxwell]

keep posting in a condescending tone and continue to be ignored.

Keep ignoring hard questions and no one will consider your posts worth anything.

Btw, thank you for admitting you do not know what science is.

Here's a little lesson: Science is the study of the natural world.

A idea that revolves around a supernatural being cannot be scientific.

Answer me this: Does supernatural = natural? :lol:

The difference between evolution and ID is that evolution has evidence, has been tested and conforms to the scientific method set down more then two hundred years ago. ID has no evidence, no testing, and is by all means anti-scientific method.

I will cease with the conscending tone when you start posting substance and start answering questions.

Until then....

[Main Entry: mock·ery
Pronunciation: 'mä-k(&-)rE, 'mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -er·ies
1 : insulting or contemptuous action or speech : DERISION
2 : a subject of laughter, derision, or sport
3 a : a counterfeit appearance : IMITATION b : an insincere, contemptible, or impertinent imitation <makes a mockery of justice>
4 : something ridiculously or impudently unsuitable [/quote]

Shortly after will come:

Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: 'sa-"tIr
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough -- more at SAD
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

[green lantern]

On slight problem there. Evolution has been proven as a fact.

A little detail you may want to check out sometime. unless it has been proven 100%, no doubts, since i graduated from school 16yrs ago, it is still a THEORY.

[Craig]

and believers in evolution claim it as "fact"....so both have their partisans, both are beliefs, and neither and be proven conclusively.

Green Lantern, if you're going to play this game, then throw out every bit of scientific knowlege we have, because evolution has been proven as conclusively as any other scientific theory; if evolution is unreliable, you've got to throw out everything else with it as equally unreliable.

Read this, and if you have a problem with it, bring up something from the article to this discussion. If you simply disagree with it and maintain your present assumptions, or (even worse), if you don't read the article at all, I'm not going to bother trying to discuss further.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Duo_Maxwell]

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Story: a fictional narrative shorter than a novel; specifically : SHORT STORY b : the intrigue or plot of a narrative or dramatic work

I'm sure you can figure out the difference.

I await the answer to Craig's post.

This is gonna be fun.

[Craig]

unless it has been proven 100%, no doubts, since i graduated from school 16yrs ago, it is still a THEORY.

Green Lantern, Einstein's Theory of Relativity was not 100% proven at the time you graduated, and probably will never be, (assuming it is not superceded by something else), so you've set a standard that is impossible for any scientific theory to fulfill, much less evolution.

[Strel]

keep posting in a condescending tone and continue to be ignored.


He's flippin' right, GL. It is hard to be polite when people are so hard-headed.


You and a lot of other people would realize the truth if you took the time to read up on it a bit. It is as plain as the sky is blue to many of us that have taken such time that ID and "creation science" (oxymoron) are bunk.

http://www.talkorigins.org

If the ID people had a clue how hopelessly outgunned they are, they wouldn't bother. But of course they have a much more powqerful force on their side: widespread scientific ignorance, which, if they get their way, will only become more widespread.

[Strel]

unless it has been proven 100%, no doubts, since i graduated from school 16yrs ago, it is still a THEORY.


The "theory" is a different thing that the fact of it. It is both a fact and a theory.

Honestly I don't know how many times we have had this discussion on WS and the same people still refuse to understand that it can be both a theory and a fact.

Don't make me go through the Theory of Gravity example again. I already see that someone has used the Relativity example (which, BTW, is ALSO A FACT AND A THEORY) - just like gravity.

Feeling lighter yet?

[mataj]

that it is "patently false" is your opinion...your "theory" ...can evolution be proven, 100%, no doubt, no questions, no ifs ands or buts?No, definitely not. No fact is ever proven 100%. If it's proven 100%, no doubt, no questions, no ifs ands or buts, it's no science, but religion.

There are always measurement errors and uncertainity. Billions of people ascertained the fact, that objects fall when dropped, but there is still miniscule, one in a enough-illion chance, that we all made a mistake.

Doubts, questions, ifs, and buts are the very foundation of science. If you need a certainity, turn to religion- or ID, for that matter.

[Duo_Maxwell]

unless it has been proven 100%, no doubts, since i graduated from school 16yrs ago, it is still a THEORY.

Under such logic everything is in doubt. Nothing can proven 100%, a skeptical view eliminates that rather quickly. You don't know that the world simply is a figment of another's imagination and everything in its in in fact false. Under your logic, the ground that you walk on, the coffee that you drink, your education cannot be proven to exist. Obviously that relates to this subject by ridiculing the standard for which you attack evolution. If something must be 100% proven to be taken seriously, nothing can be taken seriously

That means gravity theory under your logic must be rejected.
That means every business model under your logic must be rejected.
That means every scientific field under your logic must be rejected.
That means every appliance you own under your logic must be rejected.
That means every economic model under your logic must be rejected.
That means your very own existance your logic must be rejected.
That means every religion under your logic must be rejected.
That means faith under your logic must be rejected.
That means a belief in God under your logic must be rejected.



Hey Guys, should I commence with the If I can't explain ____________ Goddidit?

ID's premise is asking for itself to be mocked ruthlessly.

[green lantern]

The "theory" is a different thing that the fact of it. It is both a fact and a theory.

Honestly I don't know how many times we have had this discussion on WS and the same people still refuse to understand that it can be both a theory and a fact.

Don't make me go through the Theory of Gravity example again. I already see that someone has used the Relativity example (which, BTW, is ALSO A FACT AND A THEORY) - just like gravity.

Feeling lighter yet? after coming back from the bathroom, yes, yes i do as a matter of fact. :eek: :D :lol:

[Bad Penny]

Can you imagine the flack a teacher would get from the religious right if they stood before the class and said "One theory, which can't be proven, is that an invisible god in the sky, huffed and puffed and created the world in seven days and then rubbed some dirt together and created humankind. Now, that is just theory, so don't take it as fact."

Originally Posted by green lantern
keep posting in a condescending tone and continue to be ignored.

LALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. LALALALALALALALALALALA :lol: :lol: :lol:

(Sorry, couldn't resist.) :sorry:

[Craig]

Under such logic everything is in doubt. Nothing can proven 100%, a skeptical view eliminates that rather quickly. You don't know that the world simply is a figment of another's imagination and everything in its in in fact false. Under your logic, the ground that you walk on, the coffee that you drink, your education cannot be proven to exist. Obviously that relates to this subject by ridiculing the standard for which you attack evolution. If something must be 100% proven to be taken seriously, nothing can be taken seriously

That means gravity theory under your logic must be rejected.
That means every business model under your logic must be rejected.
That means every scientific field under your logic must be rejected.
That means every appliance you own under your logic must be rejected.
That means every economic model under your logic must be rejected.
That means your very own existance your logic must be rejected.
That means every religion under your logic must be rejected.
That means faith under your logic must be rejected.
That means a belief in God under your logic must be rejected.



Hey Guys, should I commence with the If I can't explain ____________ Goddidit?

ID's premise is asking for itself to be mocked ruthlessly.

Well Duo, at least one's own existence can't be rejected- Cogito Ergo Sum. ;)

[Bad Penny]

after coming back from the bathroom, yes, yes i do as a matter of fact. :eek: :D :lol:

I don't care wut y'all say, that thar wuz funny. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[green lantern]

I don't care wut y'all say, that thar wuz funny. :lol: :lol: :lol: thankyou, thankyou, shows once a day, monday thru friday, twice on saturday :D

[Duo_Maxwell]

Well Duo, at least one's own existence can't be rejected- Cogito Ergo Sum. ;)

That my friend is a entirely different thread.

Let's be honest: This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with teaching one religion as fact.

If the ID supporters actually cared about competitive creation ideas, they would be supporting the inclusion of all of them. But they are not, in fact they are aganist such activities.

This is nothing more then backdoor creation.

Still ignoring comments that blow holes the size of Mars in your claims doesn't make you look good.

It is nice though to have a opposition that just lays down and takes in in the ribs.

[Riddley]

I know that it is Pennsylvania but it is some hope:

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4417560.stm)
Eight school board members in Pennsylvania who supported an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution lost their seats to evolution supporters

[Craig]

This is just hearsay, and though I believe it is true, I must acknowledge it as such: apparently, someone in the education system of Kansas remarked that because of this decision, not only is Kansas the laughing stock of America, it's also the laughing stock of the world.

[Art of War]

I just love these threads. Seeing the same people getting trounced by the same arguments just doesn't seem to get old to me......I am highly amused.

[mataj]

Under such logic everything is in doubt. Nothing can proven 100%, a skeptical view eliminates that rather quickly. You don't know that the world simply is a figment of another's imagination and everything in its in in fact false. Under your logic, the ground that you walk on, the coffee that you drink, your education cannot be proven to exist. Obviously that relates to this subject by ridiculing the standard for which you attack evolution. If something must be 100% proven to be taken seriously, nothing can be taken seriously

That means gravity theory under your logic must be rejected.
That means every business model under your logic must be rejected.
That means every scientific field under your logic must be rejected.
That means every appliance you own under your logic must be rejected.
That means every economic model under your logic must be rejected.
That means your very own existance your logic must be rejected.
That means every religion under your logic must be rejected.
That means faith under your logic must be rejected.
That means a belief in God under your logic must be rejected.



Hey Guys, should I commence with the If I can't explain ____________ Goddidit?

ID's premise is asking for itself to be mocked ruthlessly.On the contrary. In this sad, uncertain world of ours, there is one thing, that is 100% sure: ID. It can be proven 100%, no buts and ifs, even without doing any actual proving.

[mataj]

I just love these threads. Seeing the same people getting trounced by the same arguments just doesn't seem to get old to me......I am highly amused.It's not as innocent as it seems. ID is actually attack on science, on scientific method. Bad for ability to wage war.

[lawman]

Y'know, I think mockery and satire may be wasted here. I honestly think those of us who know what we are talking about are just talking over the heads of posters like faithfulservant, GL, and others. We're assuming a level of comprehension they just don't bring to the table.

They don't understand the difference between cosmology (origin of the universe), abiogenesis (origin of life), and evolution (development of life, with variation over time).

They don't understand the difference between facts (evidence), theories (tested explanations for facts), hypotheses (as-yet-untested explanations), and faith-based stories (explanations that can't be tested).

They don't understand the difference between random mathematical chance acting in a vacuum (an abstraction), and cumulative change due to selection pressures (what happens in nature).

They don't understand the difference between direct observation (a rarity in science) and circumstantial evidence (which carries a lot more weight than courtroom dramas may lead one to believe).

They don't understand the logical requirement that a competing "theory" must stand on its own to earn scholarly recognition, regardless of whether the currently dominant theory is sound or not.

No one who understood these things would pretend to the embarrassing level of ignorance on display here. The trouble is, it appears to be willful ignorance. They're coming to a battle of wits unarmed, and when we (in particular lately, Craig -- kudos for your superhuman patience!) try to offer them a choice of weapons, they cheerfully refuse to accept.

The result in this thread is self-evident. But it's the result in our culture -- what this sort of thinking leads to -- that's really unsettling. (Although things like the PEnnsylvania election results are at least some small encouragement.)

[Duo_Maxwell]

On the contrary. In this sad, uncertain world of ours, there is one thing, that is 100% sure: ID. It can be proven 100%, no buts and ifs, even without doing any actual proving.

Of course, after all the Invisible Pink Unicorn and her army of invisible flying monkeys lead by the Grand Marshal, The Giant Spagetti Monster decked out in Pirate Regalia declared it so.

[JD3]

Y'know, I think mockery and satire may be wasted here. I honestly think those of us who know what we are talking about are just talking over the heads of posters like faithfulservant, GL, and others. We're assuming a level of comprehension they just don't bring to the table.

They don't understand the difference between cosmology (origin of the universe), abiogenesis (origin of life), and evolution (development of life, with variation over time).

They don't understand the difference between facts (evidence), theories (tested explanations for facts), hypotheses (as-yet-untested explanations), and faith-based stories (explanations that can't be tested).

They don't understand the difference between random mathematical chance acting in a vacuum (an abstraction), and cumulative change due to selection pressures (what happens in nature).

They don't understand the difference between direct observation (a rarity in science) and circumstantial evidence (which carries a lot more weight than courtroom dramas may lead one to believe).

They don't understand the logical requirement that a competing "theory" must stand on its own to earn scholarly recognition, regardless of whether the currently dominant theory is sound or not.

No one who understood these things would pretend to the embarrassing level of ignorance on display here. The trouble is, it appears to be willful ignorance. They're coming to a battle of wits unarmed, and when we (in particular lately, Craig -- kudos for your superhuman patience!) try to offer them a choice of weapons, they cheerfully refuse to accept.

The result in this thread is self-evident. But it's the result in our culture -- what this sort of thinking leads to -- that's really unsettling. (Although things like the PEnnsylvania election results are at least some small encouragement.)

I am convinced this result is the need to have all aspects of life affirm what we believe. Doubt cannot be accepted. Uncertainty muct be made certain.

Of course, I could be wrong. ;)

[::Major_Baker::]

Well, faitfulservant, while I was gone, my counterparts took the intitiative to explain things about evolution quite completely, better than I could have done.

thanks guys.

[Craig]

No one who understood these things would pretend to the embarrassing level of ignorance on display here. The trouble is, it appears to be willful ignorance. They're coming to a battle of wits unarmed, and when we (in particular lately, Craig -- kudos for your superhuman patience!) try to offer them a choice of weapons, they cheerfully refuse to accept.


Thanks for the acknowledgement lawman, though in truth, my patience has been wearing thin. There's only so many times in rapid succession that one can face a slightly different way of phrasing the same argument before one gets frusterated and feels that people either don't understand or disregard parts of your post. If for whatever reason, someone doesn't understand what I've said, I'd much rather that they ask me what it means, rather than disregarding it as unimportant and then asking the same question I've already responded to earlier.

You have nicely summarized the areas of misunderstanding/willful ignorance. As the supporters of evolutionary theory have already covered everything listed there, (with the exception of the direct versus "circumstantial- which I don't think is the best word for it- evidence), I don't think there's much more to be said for the current questions or problems raised.

[mataj]

Of course, after all the Invisible Pink Unicorn and her army of invisible flying monkeys lead by the Grand Marshal, The Giant Spagetti Monster decked out in Pirate Regalia declared it so.Awww, C'mon, you're thinking too scientifically. Have faith, man, listen to your Heart! If you have faith, there is no need for expensive lab equipment, particle accelerators, space probes, and I don't know what else. All you need to do is to believe, and everything will prove itself to you by itself.

:devil:

[NiteGuy]

so, what harm is there in presenting ID as a theory alongside evolution?? keyword being present it as a theory

Because, GL, you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "theory", as it applies to scientific studies. Here's what I had to say about that, and why ID cannot be held to be a scientific theory, in another thread on this forum:

In layman’s terms, such as your own, if something is said to be a "theory," they usually take it to mean that it is a mere guess, or is unproved, or even lacking in credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory means that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

So, in scientific terms, a hypothosis is your basic guess on how something works, based upon a single, or very limited amount of observation. A hypothosis may be upgraded to a theory, or even a law, if all of the observations and predictions based upon that hypothosis are proven in multiple, verifiable and falsifiable experimentation.

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by varied groups of researchers. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

Some scientific laws include the law of gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains generally unchanged. A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory.

All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

So, yes, contrary to your assertions, a scientific theory, as defined by science, and in a large context, is indeed a fact. That's why it is presented as such.


The theory (keep in mind!) of evolution asserts that:
"(1) the beings now living have descended from different beings which lived in the past;
(2) the evolutionary changes were more or less gradual, so that if we could assemble all the individuals which have ever inhabited the Earth, a fairly continuous array of forms would emerge;
(3) the changes were predominantly divergent, so that the ancestors of the now living forms were on the whole less different from each other than these forms themselves are;
(4) all these changes have arisen from causes which now continue to be in operation, and which therefore can be studied experimentally."

And all of this, contrary to your assertions, and quotes listed against such are true. All the large trends in the history of evolution are clearly exhibited in the fossil record. The “missing links” are not missing. There are some gaps, but they are being filled in from year to year. In just the last ten years, two important finds stitch together the transition from the first fishes, to the amphibians, to the ancestral reptiles. The continuity of this fossil record, even with the gaps it presently possesses, offers convincing evidence that by a succession of improvements over millions of years, humans did in fact arise from simpler and less intelligent animals.

For instance, nearly every important bone in the human body can be traced back to the skeletons of the first fishes. You can trace the evolution of the 28 bones that form the dome of the skull, bone by bone, from the first fishes that left the water, through the amphibians, the reptiles, the tree-apes, and finally humans. It is an impressive demonstration of the continuity of the record.
The proof of man’s animal origins may be circumstantial, but its cumulative impact is simply overwhelming. All of the evolutionary changes are associated with changes in the environment – mostly climate – and they are clearly adaptive; that is, the changes that appeared made populations better able to survive under the new conditions.

Of course, most creationist teachers won't tell you about this. Whether through ignorance, or outright deception, they will not tell you how complete the evolutionary record really is.

So, again, since ID cannot even be tested to be proven or disproven, since they have no record to verify or falsify, and since they continually misrepresent the factual nature of evolution, either by omission, or by outright lies, why should it be granted the same status as a scientific theory in a science class?

[green lantern]

Y'know, I think mockery and satire may be wasted here. I honestly think those of us who know what we are talking about are just talking over the heads of posters like faithfulservant, GL, and others. We're assuming a level of comprehension they just don't bring to the table.

They don't understand the difference between cosmology (origin of the universe), abiogenesis (origin of life), and evolution (development of life, with variation over time).

They don't understand the difference between facts (evidence), theories (tested explanations for facts), hypotheses (as-yet-untested explanations), and faith-based stories (explanations that can't be tested).

They don't understand the difference between random mathematical chance acting in a vacuum (an abstraction), and cumulative change due to selection pressures (what happens in nature).

They don't understand the difference between direct observation (a rarity in science) and circumstantial evidence (which carries a lot more weight than courtroom dramas may lead one to believe).

They don't understand the logical requirement that a competing "theory" must stand on its own to earn scholarly recognition, regardless of whether the currently dominant theory is sound or not.

No one who understood these things would pretend to the embarrassing level of ignorance on display here. The trouble is, it appears to be willful ignorance. They're coming to a battle of wits unarmed, and when we (in particular lately, Craig -- kudos for your superhuman patience!) try to offer them a choice of weapons, they cheerfully refuse to accept.

The result in this thread is self-evident. But it's the result in our culture -- what this sort of thinking leads to -- that's really unsettling. (Although things like the PEnnsylvania election results are at least some small encouragement.)
so.....several of us have a comprehension problem because we dont see things your way... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Craig]

so.....several of us have a comprehension problem because we dont see things your way... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well Green Lantern, when we give you definitions for the key terms to the debate, such as "hypothesis" and "theory", and when we give evidence as to how evolution is consistent with these definitions (see my discussion on at the top of page 4 as to how evolution fits this model), then I really don't know what you expect us to say.

[green lantern]

Well Green Lantern, when we give you definitions for the key terms to the debate, such as "hypothesis" and "theory", and when we give evidence as to how evolution is consistent with these definitions (see my discussion on at the top of page 4 as to how evolution fits this model), then I really don't know what you expect us to say.
quite frankly craig, i expected better of you.

[Void Image]

Wow, I can't believe this. Just stumbled across this thread for the first time..I think I'm going to puke...

Let's hope this STAYS in kansas. What the hell happened to seperation between church and state?!? If I had children, I would in no way want them being taught ID as if it were a valid scientific theory. I hope we see some striking, angry mobs, and even worse..angry mothers.

How many times does this have to be repeated on this forum? INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY! IT ISN'T. NO WAY, NO HOW. For f*** sake you are answering a question with a question.

Teacher: Yes, today I present the theory of intelligent design. Get your notes ready..here it comes. God created the universe. Alright, good job. The final will be tomorrow, make sure you study.

Student: But who created God?

Teacher: BLASPHEMER! DETENTION!


This is just another step towards a full blown theocracy. Nothing wrong with that, they were pretty popular in Europe a long time ago. We had a name for that time..what was it? Oh yeah, the Dark Ages. My problem with this is that they aren't presenting a theory. They are presenting a theory right beside evolution, as if they were both feasible! This is ridiculous..and above that unconstitutional. Keep religion where it belongs..a church..your home..anywhere but a PUBLIC SCHOOL. Children are there to LEARN, not learn about magic apples and talking snakes and other NONSENSE. If you want to cram idiocy into your child's head, then by all means go ahead and reduce his chances of reproducing, for the sake of the gene pool. Don't force this crap into the rest of our children though..once Bush and his radical conservative right is finished here, we'll have a lot to clean up afterward.

[Craig]

quite frankly craig, i expected better of you.

Sorry to disappoint, but I can only re-post essentially the same explanation and responses so many times before I find myself wondering why people refuse to acknowledge or even the debate the definitions provided, or otherwise illustrate how they are problematic.

[mataj]

so.....several of us have a comprehension problem because we dont see things your way... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:quite frankly craig, i expected better of you.I went through your posts on this thread. You were responding only to the slighthly exaggerated claims (ID&gay marriage), to the one line statements that looked like opinions, and such.

On the other hand, you were consistently ignoring arguments proving that ID is not a scientific theory.

Moreover, you used derogatory terms like "believers in evolution", ignored the arguments on account of how they were presented, resorted to bathroom jokes, demanded 100% proof for a scientific theory, and so on.

I think you are not exactly in a position to play "offended majesty" or "defender of intellectual honesty" roles after all this.

[green lantern]

I went through your posts on this thread. You were responding only to the slighthly exaggerated claims (ID&gay marriage), to the one line statements that looked like opinions, and such.

On the other hand, you were consistently ignoring arguments proving that ID is not a scientific theory.

Moreover, you used derogatory terms like "believers in evolution", ignored the arguments on account of how they were presented, resorted to bathroom jokes, demanded 100% proof for a scientific theory, and so on.

I think you are not exactly in a position to play "offended majesty" or "defender of intellectual honesty" roles after all this.
believers in evolution is a derogatory term eh?? ya gotta be kiddin' me...and i made a bathroom joke...BIG DEAL!!!! OH MY GOD!! GET A FRICKIN' SENSE OF HUMOR!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mataj]

believers in evolution is a derogatory term eh??Hardly in real life, but in ultra sanitized place like WS it certainly is.

Evolution is scientific theory, and as such, it's supposed to be verified, not believed into. To belive into evolution is like believing into washing machine repair manual or something like this. To call someone "believer in evolution" is therefore almost like calling him an idiot.

ya gotta be kiddin' me...and i made a bathroom joke...BIG DEAL!!!! OH MY GOD!! GET A FRICKIN' SENSE OF HUMOR!!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:OK. I won't make a big deal of bathroom jokes, as I usually don't. And you don't make a big deal of people noticing that you pretend that you don't understand certain basic concepts.

Deal? :flowers:

[NiteGuy]

quite frankly craig, i expected better of you.

And quite frankly, GL we've expected better of you. As Craig notes, you've completely ignored any post of real substance, mine (#106) being the just the latest. Are you ever going to respond to a post like this in any kind of thoughtful way, or should we just assume that you can't refute what's been posted and move on?

[mataj]

And quite frankly, GL we've expected better of you. As Craig notes, you've completely ignored any post of real substance, mine (#106) being the just the latest. Are you ever going to respond to a post like this in any kind of thoughtful way, or should we just assume that you can't refute what's been posted and move on?BTW, you can make link to previous posts by copying/pasting the link under post number, like this

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=635015#post635015

With the ammount of GL's ignoring of the posts he has no prefabricated counte