Thumbs Up

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Thumbs Up
President Bush is right about evolution and design.

By Peter Wood

Opposable thumbs: mighty useful. In fact, we anthropologists put the lowly opposable thumb near the top of physical characteristics that make humans human. Without fully opposable thumbs, we would wrench-less in a world without plumbers, soccer would be the only sport, and the Moonlight Sonata would have to be whistled. The manual dexterity that, when you think about it, makes civilization possible, owes quite a bit to our thumbs.




Well, of course, not just our thumbs. As handy as thumbs are, they are part of an engineered package of exquisitely fine-tuned brain-eye-hand coordination. We can, as a birthright, do myriad things with our hands that are beyond the reach of even the most ingenious chimpanzee. And a good case can be made that the rapidly expanding brain of human ancestors over the last million or so years came about as part of a feedback loop with manual dexterity. As our ancestors learned to make and rely on tools, the edge in the race for survival went to those who were better at it.

At an interview with some reporters from Texas on August 1, President Bush parried a question about whether schools should teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution by saying, "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." By itself, this seems a mild, even innocuous opinion. But that hardly tempered the reaction in the press. The New York Times picked up the story two days later, and we were off to another liberal media cage fight between Outraged Scientists and Unrelenting Creationists.

The Case for Modesty and Restraint
This battle is unnecessary and intellectually irresponsible. To a large degree it is staged by secular Left in effort to maintain its monopolistic control of education and its predominant influence in the sciences. But, in fact, evolution and intelligent design can coexist without the universe cracking asunder. All we need here is a little theoretical modesty and restraint.

A good place to start is to distinguish between the theory of evolution (without the capital E) and Evolution as a grand and, apart from a few rough edges, supposedly comprehensive account of speciation and genetic change. Small-e evolution is an intellectually robust theory that gives coherent order to a huge range of disparate facts. In contrast, capital E Evolution, is a bit illusory. Like a lot of scientific theories, on close inspection it is really a stitched-together fabric of hypotheses. Some of them are central and well-attested, while others are little more than guesswork. Some phenomena such as natural selection and genetic drift are on solid ground; but others like late Stephen Jay Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium," in which evolution proceeds in widely spaced bursts, are pretty speculative. Evolution (with the capital E) is today far from being a single comprehensive concept. Gould's last work, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, was an attempt to repair that situation with a brand-new synthesis. The jury is still out on whether he succeeded.

While I am a proponent of small-e evolution, I recognize that it doesn't provide satisfactory answers to some key questions. We don't have compelling answers to how life began on earth, whether the self-organizing stuff that we recognize as life depends on earth-like chemistry, or whether nature's profligate complexity is inevitable. Earth was home only to complacent bacterial mats from about 3.5 to 2.5 billion years ago. That's a run almost as long as Madonna's career, but it did eventually give way to more complex organisms that could thrive in the presence of oxygen.

We also don't have any really convincing explanation of why nature split so many organisms into two sexes.

And above all, evolutionary theory hits a wall in trying to explain what happened with the emergence of fully modern humans about 150,000 years ago. We have a tissue of tiny clues, some of the most intriguing of which come from genetics. The picture accepted by most (by no means all) anthropologists is that a tiny population of modern humans — no more than a few hundred — emerged in east Africa and eventually dispersed over the entire world.

What set these people off from our older ancestors, however, is crucial. It wasn't their thumbs, which, like most of their anatomy, were essentially the same as their immediate predecessors. Give or take some fine points of the cranium, we were human before we were human. But the version of humanity that appeared abruptly on the scene about 150,000 years ago had some strange new quality.

It may have been a mutation that gave rise to fully articulate language; or it could have been a leap in capacity for symbolic or abstract thought. These are the likeliest scientific guesses. The material facts are that the newly emerged form of human being was a prolific inventor. The stone tools made by his predecessors remained unchanged generation to generation for hundreds of thousands of years. An 800,000 year-old hand-ax looks identical to a 200,000 year-old hand-ax: and everyone used exactly the same tools. Intellectual property rights were not at issue. Then suddenly these new humans began to invent new tools and new ways of making tools at an unprecedented pace; different groups of them made different tools; and, before too much longer, began to trade group from group.

The Birth of Culture
We can give a name to what happened: with the biological emergence of modern humans came both the capacity for and the realization of "culture." Maybe geneticists will, at some point, isolate a gene or genes that make complex, symbol-based culture possible. Indeed, we already see some hints of this in the gene FOXP2, which affects our capacity to learn language and which mutated to its current form about 200,000 years ago.

But to speak of the beginning of culture and the emergence of our species by way of some genetic mutations from anatomically similar ancestors does little to explain the profound mystery of the event. Of course, if we are convinced in advance that genetic mutation is a random, material event, the results of which are sorted out by the struggle for survival, the immense mystery dissolves into happenstance blips in strands of East African DNA, c. 150,000-200,000 years ago.

But at that point, we have moved beyond scientific evolution to doctrinaire Evolution. The randomness of the mutation cannot be demonstrated or proved; it is simply an article of belief, no different in character from a belief that an intelligent Creator nudged the adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine bases of that DNA strand into the right order. Or that he took the clay of archaic homo sapiens and molded Adam in His own image.

At bottom the dispute between Evolutionists and Creationists always comes down to the question, "What is random?" This is the cage that Cardinal Christoph Schonborn rattled in his op-ed in the New York Times, July 7, where he wrote, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection — is not." Now the director of the Vatican Observatory, Father George Coyne, has published a rebuttal in British Catholic weekly, The Tablet, neatly asserting the opposite, and accusing the cardinal of having "darkened the waters" between the Church and science.

Whether the universe is truly random or whether apparent randomness is order-not-yet-apprehended seems pretty clearly a philosophical or theological debate. It will not be settled by the editors of the Boston Globe ("Unintelligent," editorial August 4), the vaporings of Rev. Barry Lynn from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or the numerous respectable scientists who have stepped forward to say, "Sure enough, the universe is random." How exactly would they know? It is not hard to suspect that beneath this ardent insistence on an unproven proposition lies simple irritation at having to share public space, including schools, with people who inexplicably continue to think that they live in a universe governed by an active God.

Middle Ground
Under the circumstances, I think the sensible middle ground lies just about where President Bush pointed. If students study biology in school, they need know a good bit about evolution with a small e. Beyond that, it wouldn't hurt them to know about Evolution, Creation (or "Intelligent Design") as well. I don't carry a brief for Michael Behe, the intelligent-design proponent at Lehigh University, or the movement that he has started. But I also don't think science is well served by elevating to the status of unquestionable truth the image of a material universe governed solely by random and otherwise inexplicable events. That's a worldview, not a scientific conclusion, and it has no better claim to our intellectual assent than views that postulate an underlying purpose, meaning, or destination for humanity.

Actually, a line of argument that depends on seeing events as random is in a rather worse position than one that postulates, even if it can't prove, underlying order. In science, what's random today is frequently modeled tomorrow. To base a theory of life on ever-more-emphatic repetition of the idea that, "No, it's random," is a bit like stamping your foot and saying, "It's so because I say it's so."

Ironically, the Creationists have come out of this recent round of controversy sounding far more open-minded than some of the scientists and the hard-core secularist advocates of Evolution-and-Nothing-But. If we had the equivalent of a Scopes trial today, I would wager Rev. Barry Lind would get to play the part of William Jennings Bryan, unwilling to think about what he is unwilling to think about.

Meanwhile, across the waters at Seoul National University, Hwang Woo-suk and his colleagues have created Snuppy, a cloned Afghan hound. Experts say the first cloning of a dog clears some technical hurdles for cloning the first human. If and when that occurs, I wonder whether cloned humans will be disposed to see themselves as products of natural selection or of intelligent design? Probably that's a false set of alternatives. Evolution and intelligent design will have both played a role.

— Peter Wood, provost of the King’s College in New York City, is author of Diversity: The Invention of A Concept.

I see no conflict between evolution and inteligent design.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh my god (no pun intended), not again. Get off it. There's no scientific basis for creationism, and it should be left in churches where inquiring people can go learn about it along with the rest of that OPTIONAL religious mumbo jumbo.

Did you even read the article. Again to secularists science is their religion. There is no PROOF to back Evolution only evolution.

[Alrowan]

Oh my god (no pun intended), not again. Get off it. There's no scientific basis for creationism, and it should be left in churches where inquiring people can go learn about it along with the rest of that OPTIONAL religious mumbo jumbo.

Teaching our kids crap like Creationism will only add to the quagmire that is our educational system.


and yet there is no real proof on evolution, just a bunch of theories and hypothoses. better to teach them the two camps, than just one that is as bad as the other when it comes to trying to prove anything in aristoltilian logic

[Steppe Merc]

Gah!
Why should school teach in creationism and intelligent design in Biology, which is where evolution is taught? It's just silly.

[Alrowan]

There is more than enough proof backing Evolution. There's more proof for Evolution than there is for Black Holes. Yet we accept Black Holes as fact, do we not? There is more proof for evolution than there is for the theory of "Anti-Matter" yet that is also accepted fact.

Evolution is fact. The Religious Right has been trying to discredit it for decades, in the same despicable fashion that the church tried to discred Galileio. Evolution exists as surely as the earth is round. The church is regularly proven wrong, and this is no exception.

It's such a god-awful simple concept. Natural Selection. The basis for natural selection is everywhere! The same way a small business evolves into a wall-mart is the same way a species can evolve. Natural Selection is not just a basic law of evolution, but of everything. It is applied to every single aspect of your daily life.

then i will naturally select that people who believe in what isnt proven and then discredit those who do just that are fools

i happen to know several biologists who all beleive evolution is just a theory and there isnt enough proof to credit it.

ah well, seems like the org is getting fuller and fuller of ignorant lefties

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

I would say "valid schools of thought". There are lots of schools of thought out there that are complete baloney.

[Petrus]

and yet there is no real proof on evolution, just a bunch of theories and hypothoses. better to teach them the two camps, than just one that is as bad as the other when it comes to trying to prove anything in aristoltilian logic

There is not just two camps, but a dozen of them, at least.

The theory of evolution is just a theory as you say, but creationism is considered by religious people as a fact, a truth that can not be discuted.

So you can understand the evolution theory, you can criticise it, you can correct it but you can only believe in creationism as it is only based upon faith.

To speak about the different camps concerned, you can notice that creationism is believed only by some persons following a religion linked to the bible and even in this case only some of them believe in creationism.

But the different religions issued from this book represent only a small part of all religious people among men.

So how can you afford not to speak about the induists beliefs concerning the origins of universe?

And what about the other religions followed by billions of men?

If you want to learn children a dogma that is presented by one religion, how can you afford not to present them all dogmas presented by all religions?

And after that how can you hope to make children believe in different stories, without criticising them because they are supposed facts and that are in no way compatible with each other?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The theory of evolution is just a theory as you say, but creationism is considered by religious people as a fact, a truth that can not be discuted.

I beg to differ. Just listen to many people here . They believe evolution is a fact not a theory. They belive it just as much as religous people believe in creationism. The difference is that many religous people admit that evolution is part of intelligent design while secularists say evolution alone is responsible. It is they who are closed minded.


f you want to learn children a dogma that is presented by one religion, how can you afford not to present them all dogmas presented by all religions?

Almost all these religions say the same thing. That god created man.


And after that how can you hope to make children believe in different stories, without criticising them because they are supposed facts and that are in no way compatible with each other?

But they are entirely compatible.

[Skomatth]

I beg to differ. Just listen to many people here . They believe evolution is a fact not a theory. They belive it just as much as religous people believe in creationism. The difference is that many religous people admit that evolution is part of intelligent design while secularists say evolution alone is responsible. It is they who are closed minded.

Part of the major problems surrounding the ID arguments is the confusion of disciplines. Scientists, when they try to use science to make philosophical claims (atheistic ones usually), anger the religious. ID proponents make similar errors when they use science to try to prove their theistic views. ID is just a fancy cosmological argument and should be left in its proper place: philosophy where it destroyed by Kant. Do you contend that ID is a scientific theory?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do you contend that ID is a scientific theory?

Not in the least its a religious theory. Does that make it any less acceptable than a scientific theory? A theory I might add that to me and many if not most other people makes more sense than Evolution.

[master of the puppets]

i agree, evolution is fact while religion is a mere hollow story to aquiest the devotion of the foolish peoples. your "Gods" may be real but only in youir mind, and one day he to will fizzle out as all his believers bite the dust, this is fact. mabey that god is real to them, just as zeus was real, and baal, and epona and all the other gods who now are mere powerless names.


Almost all these religions say the same thing. That god created man. bah man created god to fill in the holes in his own history but now as we find the true plugs to those holes the people who have growqn wealthy or reliant on these old plugs are not relenting in there belief.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

i agree, evolution is fact while religion is a mere hollow story to aquiest the devotion of the foolish peoples. your "Gods" may be real but only in youir mind, and one day he to will fizzle out as all his believers bite the dust, this is fact. mabey that god is real to them, just as zeus was real, and baal, and epona and all the other gods who now are mere powerless names.

Thanks for proving my point. ~;)

[master of the puppets]

:balloon3: :balloon: :afro: :tomato: :medievalcheers: :barrel: :rtwyes: :drummer: :jester: ~:cheers: ~:joker: :laugh4: :juggle2: your welcome, now lets have a 10,300 party w00t
:balloon2:

[Skomatth]

Does that make it any less acceptable than a scientific theory?

To a rationalist who prefers not to believe anything without evidence, science is superior to religion as a means for acquiring knowledge.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Evolution is not supernatural, and therefore belief in it can not be compared to religious belief.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

To a rationalist who prefers not to believe anything without evidence, science is superior to religion as a means for acquiring knowledge.

Again your proving my point. You believe that science is a better relgion. Theres a big difference between evidence and proof.


Evolution is not supernatural, and therefore belief in it can not be compared to religious belief.

The theory of Evolution is just that a theory. Its a belief system just like religion .

[Steppe Merc]

But it is a scientific theory, that has proof, and is accepted to be correct until a more accurate model is found. A scientific theory is more than just a belief, at least I'm nearly 100 percent sure.
In my school at least, the teacher said quite clearly it was a theory.

[master of the puppets]

Its a belief system just like religion .

but its a system which has sustained itself through the assaults of every conjecture and come out more flawless than before. we can come up with a thousand possibilities of how we arrived through science but with religion they are unwilling to allow there ideals to be moved in any way lest it break off into an entirly new religios party. religeon could easily be warped and people would still follow it. science you need something plausible.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But it is a scientific theory, that has proof, and is accepted to be correct until a more accurate model is found

The same can be said of religion. Infact it was siad in this very thread but used to discredit it.


A scientific theory is more than just a belief, at least I'm nearly 100 percent sure.

Its not a fact therefore it is a belief.


but its a system which has sustained itself through the assaults of every conjecture and come out more flawless than before

Has it? Then why are we arguing?

[sharrukin]

The theory of Evolution is just that a theory. Its a belief system just like religion .


but its a system which has sustained itself through the assaults of every conjecture and come out more flawless than before. we can come up with a thousand possibilities of how we arrived through science but with religion they are unwilling to allow there ideals to be moved in any way lest it break off into an entirly new religios party. religeon could easily be warped and people would still follow it. science you need something plausible.

Gawain is talking about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism.

Your talking about science vs religion.

Not the same thing.

[Ronin]

Again your proving my point. You believe that science is a better relgion. Theres a big difference between evidence and proof.
-----
The theory of Evolution is just that a theory. Its a belief system just like religion .

there is a diference between evidence and proof yes....

as for the diference between Evolution and creationism....evolution has one of those things(evidence) going for it....creationism has none of them...

so i fail to see how evolution is like a religion, there is a diference between evidence(despite not being absolute) and nothing at all. ~:)

[Alrowan]

To deny scientific theory is to deny everything you know about what you consider as fact. Without scientific theory, you know nothing. Scientific Theory is the method of coming to a factual conclusion. It's not bias, like Religion. It's a method of aquiring knowledge.

Evolution is not some kind of grand anti-religion scheme. It's a scientific theory. It's purpose is learning in a logical way where we came from.

no, to deny A scientific theory isnt much at all

to deny ARISTOTILIAN LOGIC is to deny a way of thinking

[KafirChobee]

Not long ago, I watched a program entitled "I was a teenage Darwinist" on EWTN (you know the Catholic Church tv network). It is a one man show (and by typing the title in a search engine you can find all sorts of supporting stuff for the teaching if Inventive Design - ID). The speaker (entertainer), Atty. Woody Cozad, starts off explaining how his parents forced him to believe in evolution. But that once he realized how Copernicus, Gallileo, and others were so wrong and the church so right about their "theories" and the real biblical scientific evidence - he realized that Darwin must have be wrong too. And on and on he goes with misleading "evidence", conjecture and the premise that ancient philosophers have been proven wrong (well, updated maybe, but not exactly wrong). He ignores any and everthing that might get in his way of telling the truth, and instead uses a demented reasoning skill (that only an attorney has) to promote his one sided affair with ID.

Intelligent Design, has nothing to do with intelligence. It is about the "Churches'" idea that Genisis is an accurate depiction of how we were created. It is, insain.

I someone asking a minister (in my bible school class) about the 7 days vs evolution. I always liked his response. He said (more or less) that the bible is an explanation by ancient man to explain things as they understood them and used allegories to poeticly explain them. That, a day to God might be a million, even a billion years, as time means nothing to a supremebeing. That it was not man's place to judge or take things literal in the bible, but to simply embrace it as guide line for how we live our lives - not as a scientific study of our creation.

For me, it is that simple. Taking things literal from the BOOK is a stretch of faith that may never have been intended - but, is now a popular means to demonstrate (for some) how absolute their faith is.

To do so, we must accept that The Sun was stopped in the sky for a battle to be won. That a man could live inside a whale (versus living within himself blindly). That a man could go without water or food for 40 days and nights (versus going with out the food of god - the man's belief - for that time).

Attempting to substitute ID with evolution is absurd, to teach it in our schools is a breach of church and state (it is taught in Sunday schools - leave it there), and to suppose that making it a "big E - little e "issue somehow justifies it absurd.

BTW, you can catch "I was a teenage Darwinist" again on EWTN, Sept. 3rd at 11:30 PM.

http://lobudget.com/mellifluent_info/2005/07/01/getting-intelligent-design-in-school/

[drone]

Evolution and intelligent design are compatible, as long as you don't take the Bible too literally. In the Bible, God created the world in 7 days. The number 7 has a whole lot of religious symbolism, and the Bible was written (and edited) by humans, not God. So let's stretch these 7 days out into 30 million years (or whatever the current estimate of Earth's age is).

Now during these "7 days", evolution occurs, and the animals, birds, trees, lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats etc. come into being, with humans showing up eventually. Who is to say that this process is not all part of God's will? Maybe God likes to tweak things, tries beta releases, and mixes things up to see what works best.

Scientists can be godless heathens, but maybe they are just uncovering God's design. The religious leaders get offended by this, because every discovery made by the godless heathen scientists reduces their power (which is the point of all organized religion, don't let anyone tell you otherwise). Maybe the scientists are just filling in and correcting the Bible's holes.

My biggest problem with ID, is that it seems like a very human-centric approach. It just reeks of the whole "Earth is the center of the universe" crap. Evolution at least looks into the developement of other species, and doesn't make the case that everything leads to the creation of homo sapiens.

Edit-> basically what KafirChobee said ~D

[rasoforos]

I m not touching this topic even with a ten meter stick...


...this is internal consumption 'ID' nonsence is good for your average republican but its all just propaganda that tries to become mainstream.

...To say that you cannot prove Evolution is like saying you cannot prove the earth is a sphere...and actually you cannot...someone who has been conditioned as a child to think that such a though is pure sin will reject all sorts of evidence and keep living in his own flat ( literally ) world.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Intelligent Design, has nothing to do with intelligence. It is about the "Churches'" idea that Genisis is an accurate depiction of how we were created. It is, insain.


No its not.


Attempting to substitute ID with evolution is absurd,

No one is saying that. Most christains today believe in both. They are not contrary to eachother.


and to suppose that making it a "big E - little e "issue somehow justifies it absurd.

Theres a huge difference between evolution and Evolution.

[Steppe Merc]

Drone, I think it's about 4.5 billion years (the age of the earth).

[Navaros]

I see no conflict between evolution and inteligent design.


unfortunately the conflict is there and it is very explicit even if not everyone sees it

evolution is just speculation with zero hard facts to back it up, therefore evolution should be banned from all schools

[Gawain of Orkeny]

evolution is just speculation with zero hard facts to back it up, therefore evolution should be banned from all schools

On Evvolution I agree with you but not on evolution. There are plenty of hard facts to support it.

[Navaros]

To deny scientific theory is to deny everything you know about what you consider as fact. Without scientific theory, you know nothing. Scientific Theory is the method of coming to a factual conclusion. It's not bias, like Religion. It's a method of aquiring knowledge.




if the quoted statement here is true, then it is especially ironic since evolution does not meet the standards of the scientific method and therefore can never even qualify as a scientific theory

[master of the puppets]

The idea of a god is compatible with the idea of a Big Bang, IMO.
i can easily say that there is evolution and confidently say that there is enough evidence to prove it but i say that there may, may be some great being that created the universe. cause i need some more evidence to show thew big bang.

[Steppe Merc]

Gawain, can you explain for a dumb ass like me the difference between Evolution and evolution? I had no idea what the hell the articale meant by that. I don't see a difference: everything today evolved from a more simple form.

[Don Corleone]

As someone who believes in Scientific Theory, and Logical Acquisition of knowledge, I can't discount the fact that there may be a god. Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence and all that. But I can discount the vast majority of organized religions. The idea of a god is compatible with the idea of a Big Bang, IMO. But there is nothing about god that can logically disprove evolution. Where is the criticism coming from? The churches. The churches who maintained that the world was flat. The churches who maintain that the entire world was flooded in 40 days and 40 nights. ect.

You can't disprove evolution. You also can't disprove god. But, unlike god, there is ample evidence of Evolution, and no evidence to disprove evolution.

Please. There are scientists who believe it is perfectly ethical to perform experiments on uniformed human subjects. Unless you want me to lump all scientists into that categorization, please do not lump all members of an organized church into this one. There are plenty of organized chuches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Anglican Communion, the Presbyterain Church USA, and a boatload of others that have official statements indicating that all evidence points to an evolution of life on earth over billions of years and that Genesis should be taken as a metaphor, not a documentary. Thank you.

[drone]

Drone, I think it's about 4.5 billion years (the age of the earth).I couldn't remember what the latest guess was, I finished Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" several months ago... ~D

[Petrus]

I beg to differ. Just listen to many people here . They believe evolution is a fact not a theory. They belive it just as much as religous people believe in creationism. The difference is that many religous people admit that evolution is part of intelligent design while secularists say evolution alone is responsible. It is they who are closed minded.



Almost all these religions say the same thing. That god created man.



But they are entirely compatible.

It is very possible for some persons to have the same kind of atitude concerning a scientific theory and a religious belief, but does this make the scientific theory equivalent to the religious belief?

What i do remember of school was not what you describe, it was the feeling to understand something and to understand it because it was coherent, not because it came from a teatcher.

What i do remember of catechism was he feeling of knowing something without understanding it and to know it because it was presented as a pure fact by adults to the child i was.

Learning children was is right and wrong is something necessary, in my opinion, but i think school shall be reserved to understanding how things work, not to learn an absolute truth which can only exist if the person that learns it is a believer.

Concerning the compatibility of the beliefs, are you sure about that?

I do not know much outside the different christian/jew/muslim beliefs but it seems to me that induism has a completely different view of the world and of it's origins.

[Don Corleone]

Don: I speak of the churches who refuse to accept evolution. Not the ones that have come to cope with it.

You're taking an extreme but rather small minority and presenting it as representative as the group at large. Please don't do that.

I started my studies at University in pre-med, lots of chemistry & biology. I moved over to Electrical Engineering, which requires a fair amount of physics & mathematics. Through it all, if anything, I became more convinced of a supreme being, not less. I do find it interesting that the secular humanists tend to spin evolution for their own purposes... for example, it's very rare outside of scholarly circles that you hear evolution described properly... that the process of evolutions is quantumized, not linear. Something causes 'life' to make a big step forward at discrete intervals in time. Essentially, the history of the earth is a long period of stasis punctuated with brief periods of incredibly rapid development.

[Don Corleone]

People who bastardize a fact for their own ends are no better than those who deny it, or seek to cover it up.

Wisely said. :bow:

[KafirChobee]

Not long ago, I watched a program entitled "I was a teenage Darwinist" on EWTN (you know the Catholic Church tv network). It is a one man show (and by typing the title in a search engine you can find all sorts of supporting stuff for the teaching if Inventive Design - ID). The speaker (entertainer), Atty. Woody Cozad, starts off explaining how his parents forced him to believe in evolution. But that once he realized how Copernicus, Gallileo, and others were so wrong and the church so right about their "theories" and the real biblical scientific evidence - he realized that Darwin must have be wrong too. And on and on he goes with misleading "evidence", conjecture and the premise that ancient philosophers have been proven wrong (well, updated maybe, but not exactly wrong). He ignores any and everthing that might get in his way of telling the truth, and instead uses a demented reasoning skill (that only an attorney has) to promote his one sided affair with ID.

Intelligent Design, has nothing to do with intelligence. It is about the "Churches'" idea that Genisis is an accurate depiction of how we were created. It is, misguided.

I recall, someone asking a minister (in my bible school class) about the 7 days vs evolution. I always liked his response. He said (more or less) that the bible is an explanation by ancient man to explain things as they understood them and used allegories to poeticly explain them. That, a day to God might be a million, even a billion years, as time means nothing to a supremebeing. That it was not man's place to judge or take things literal in the bible, but to simply embrace it as guide line for how we live our lives - not as a scientific study of our creation.

For me, it is that simple. Taking things literal from the BOOK is a stretch of faith that may never have been intended - but, is now a popular means to demonstrate (for some) how absolute their faith is.

To do so, we must accept that The Sun was stopped in the sky for a battle to be won. That a man could live inside a whale (versus living within himself blindly). That a man could go without water or food for 40 days and nights (versus going with out the food of god - the man's belief - for that time).

Attempting to substitute ID with evolution is absurd, to teach it in our schools is a breach of church and state (it is taught in Sunday schools - leave it there), and to suppose that making it a "big E - little e "issue somehow justifies it absurd.

BTW, you can catch "I was a teenage Darwinist" again on EWTN, Sept. 3rd at 11:30 PM.

http://lobudget.com/mellifluent_info/2005/07/01/getting-intelligent-design-in-school/

More support for ID - these are real, I swear it. Had you read my post above you could have found them yourself, btw. :

http://slate.com/id/2118320

and my absolute fave:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/10511/1051_01.asp

This is what you are arguing in favor of. ~D

[Navaros]

That's the biggest load of hooey i've heard in this thread yet. There are examples of Evolution at work within our own timeframe. It's proven.

Undoubtedly you know the story of the moths? Some industrial town or another in the 1800s, I think, started producing a ton of smoke and dust. In this environment, there was a species of moth that was white, but like any other species there were mutations. In this environment, all the white moths were easy for the birds to pick out and eat, but the ones that were born grey as a birth defect went on to survive. And since then the species has been grey.



regardless of everything you've said here, i'm sure you are familiar with the scientific method and how evolution fails to meet it's standards. i presume you've neglected that on purpose because there's nothing that can really be said to the contrary on that point.

as for your story: that is not an example of evolution. for evolution such as what would be required for man to turn into apes, it would require new genetic material to magically be added to the genetic makeup. but in reality, new genetic material is never added.

[KafirChobee]

Ooooops, it's:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

I love the teacher, it's just so true. Reminds me of my 1st-2nd-3rd grade one (small school). You do know what this means don't you? We are all going to hell - 'cept the true right-winger-religious coalition. And, I had no idea Jesus was God. Thought he was the son or something.

Also, that the world is only 6,000 years old and man lived with dinosaurs? Well, guess Hollywood got it right after all. ~D

[Ronin]

Gawain, can you explain for a dumb ass like me the difference between Evolution and evolution? I had no idea what the hell the articale meant by that. I don't see a difference: everything today evolved from a more simple form.


some people like to imagine that there is a magic diference between let´s say....creating a new bread of dog through selective breeding for example that they refer to as evolution and someting like man evolving from other primates, that they call Evolution...

what reason they have to pretend not to see that the 2 things are the same thing only in diferent timeframes.....who knows??? :bow:

[Steppe Merc]

as for your story: that is not an example of evolution. for evolution such as what would be required for man to turn into apes, it would require new genetic material to magically be added to the genetic makeup. but in reality, new genetic material is never added.
No. It would require mutations in the genetic material, which are continued and pass down because they are helpful in order to survive. Though why man would turn into apes, I don't quite understand...

Ronin, so it's mainly just an objection to the ape to human thing?

[sharrukin]

That man and animals evolved, seems clear.
The question is how?
There isn't really much evidence for the Darwinian theory of evolution.
Natural selection is also obvious but its role in evolution is a lot less clear.
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of any missing links.
There is also very little evidence for random evolutionary changes, and some serious questions as to how random mutations would give any life form an advantage.
What is the immediate payoff for random mutations that natural selection would otherwise eliminate?
These questions are being asked by some of the best minds in scientific circles.
Unfortunately there aren't very many 'Best Minds'!
So to suggest there is no question regarding the theory of evolution is false.

There seems to me to be a lot of similarities between religion and the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is NOT evolution or the scientific theory.
The Theory of Evolution is one thing.
Evolution itself is another.
The scientific theory is also separate.

There seems to be an obvious order to the universe.
Some claim that it only 'seems' that way.
To postulate that there exists some directing agent is not inconsistant with the facts as we know them.
This directing agent may very well be a natural phenomenon operating by a mechanism currently unknown, or a known mechanism operating in a currently unsuspected way.
There may come a time when our knowledge makes such a concept unsupportable or it may validate such a concept.
The question as to the existance of God is in fact separate even if some scientists, and some religious individuals do not wish to make it so.
The evidence in both cases is not religious, although it has serious implications to both.

We are not the shining jewel of all creation! There will be men in the future who look back and scoff at our ignorance. Our knowledge is not complete and there is more to be learned and to pound on a copy of the "Origin of Species" and say, no more knowledge is needed than what is in the 'good book' is the height of ignorance!

[sharrukin]

No. It would require mutations in the genetic material, which are continued and pass down because they are helpful in order to survive. Though why man would turn into apes, I don't quite understand...

Ronin, so it's mainly just an objection to the ape to human thing?

Evolution is a fact.
We do not know if the Darwinian theory is a fact.
There are other theories that may be closer to the truth.
ID, Darwinian, etc are just some of many different theories.

[Ronin]

Ronin, so it's mainly just an objection to the ape to human thing?

basically yeah.....mostly a way to protect their beliefs....since they can´t refute that evolution can happen in a controled situation they made up the point that in a long timeline the same biological rules don´t aply....don´t know who was the "genious" that first came up with it tough ~D

[Steppe Merc]

Well yeah, Origin of Species doesn't touch much in the way of human evolution, so in order to get the whole picutre you have to look at the later findings.

But about missing links, most scientists seem to think there weren't any, at least the idea that scientists used to have. There wasn't just one missing link between apes and man, especially since there were multiple branches and hominids living side by side in some cases.
There are unanswered questions, in particular about human evolution. Why did homo sapien and it's ancestors do better than the other hominids?
But that doesn't disprove it, just because there are holes.

[sharrukin]

There are unanswered questions, in particular about human evolution. Why did homo sapien and it's ancestors do better than the other hominids?
However, the evolution is better than nothing, and better than semi to not at all scientific religous ideas.

Yes, but if the "Theory of Evolution" becomes untouchable and unquestionable how do we ever ask such questions? I don't believe in silencing anyone in a scientific debate based on who they are.

I don't care if Bessie the Cow asks the question they should be answered. And if we cannot answer the question that is even better. Hard questions are good IMO, and students should be made to realize that there are huge gaps in our knowledge.

Very few are saying that evolution did not take place.
The question is how?

[Steppe Merc]

Yes, but if the "Theory of Evolution" becomes untouchable and unquestionable how do we ever ask such questions? I don't believe in silencing anyone in a scientific debate based on who they are.

I don't care if Bessie the Cow asks the question they should be answered. And if we cannot answer the question that is even better. Hard questions are good IMO, and students should be made to realize that there are huge gaps in our knowledge.

Very few are saying that evolution did not take place.
The question is how?
Oh. Well, yes, scientifically questioning it is certaintly good. I just am not sure how scientfic intelligent deisng is, that is all.

[Silver Rusher]

i agree, evolution is fact while religion is a mere hollow story to aquiest the devotion of the foolish peoples. your "Gods" may be real but only in youir mind, and one day he to will fizzle out as all his believers bite the dust, this is fact. mabey that god is real to them, just as zeus was real, and baal, and epona and all the other gods who now are mere powerless names.
Hits the nail right on the head here. Religion is like if some cartographer from europe in the early middle ages made a random map of east asia when nobody from europe had properly explored it, and said he was 100% certain it was absolutely correct, causing the people to use it in their everyday lives.

[sharrukin]

Oh. Well, yes, scientifically questioning it is certaintly good. I just am not sure how scientfic intelligent deisng is, that is all.

If we are honest it doesn't matter how scientific it is, or not.

It should be held to same the same standards that any scientific theory is held. If it fails then that will become obvious. You only empower a theory by refusing to give it a fair hearing. The Darwinian theory has NOT been held to the same standards of other theories and lacks any credible proof and yet is still held in high regard. This is not what should happen to the Intelligent Design theory or to Darwins theory. There shouldn't be any exceptions or sacred cows.

[Kanamori]

One describes how things came to be, and the other seeks to explain results that seem too complex. The "how" can be tested in a scientific environment, whereas the philosophical "why" cannot be. That is why ID does not belong in a Science class.

[Red Harvest]

One describes how things came to be, and the other seeks to explain results that seem too complex. The "how" can be tested in a scientific environment, whereas the philosophical "why" cannot be. That is why ID does not belong in a Science class.

Bingo, we have a winner!

Personally, I've never seen that Evolution is counter to basic creation stories. It is the "why" that differs. Teach the science in school about the mechanism as best we can understand it. Leave the big picture "why" to churches, family, etc. Either that or do we want to start requiring churches to give "equal time?"

It is interesting that folks are still trying to dispute evolution as if it was a very shaky theory. Therefore, all sorts of other truly unprovable religious theories are elevated to the same "scientific" level in their eyes..

[sharrukin]

It is interesting that folks are still trying to dispute evolution as if it was a very shaky theory.

I haven't seen a single post disputing evolution?
What is being disputed is the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Intelligent Design claims to be a theory of evolution so it can hardly be suggested that it disputes the reality of evolution.

[Papewaio]

An increase in frequency of one type of Flu over another is evolution.

[sharrukin]

An increase in frequency of one type of Flu over another is evolution.

Wouldn't that be natural selection?

[sharrukin]

Natural Selection is evolution.

A lot of scientists have their doubts.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by Kanamori
One describes how things came to be, and the other seeks to explain results that seem too complex. The "how" can be tested in a scientific environment, whereas the philosophical "why" cannot be. That is why ID does not belong in a Science class.

You couldnt be more wrong. Both seek to explain results that seem too complex. Thats the whole point. You are again making my point calling a theory fact. All ID is basicly saying is God made evolution. Its like saying ford cars came from the ford factory and Henry ford had nothing to do with it.

[Papewaio]

You can't test if there is or isn't a god or gods with science. So the why is best left to philosophy and religion classes. While the mechanics of theories and their testing left to science.

If it can be tested within the scientific framework, then teach it in a science class.

If it relies on something that is untestable then leave it to a religion class.

If it is a fuzzy area then make a new class like comparative belief systems.

[Papewaio]

Natural Selection is evolution.

Natural selection is a method of gene frequency change. Another is mutation of the gene itself.


In the modern synthesis, "evolution" means a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool. This change may be caused by a number of different mechanisms: natural selection, genetic drift or changes in population structure (gene flow).

[Tribesman]

All ID is basicly saying is God made evolution.
Gawain ; In that case teach it in religeous studies where it belongs .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain ; In that case teach it in religeous studies where it belongs .

Ok im all for classes on religous studies in school just like science. How about you? Great idea you have there. ~;)

[Steppe Merc]

Sure. Just as long as it covers Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Christanity, Zorarastisim, Norse Mythology, Greek and Roman pantheons, it's all good. ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sure. Just as long as it covers Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Christanity, Zorarastisim, Norse Mythology, Greek and Roman pantheons, it's all good.

Why of course. I was taught all these things in school. Did you know that the founding fathers and our governent at one time made religous teaching is schools even universtities mandatory. That it was thought to be unconstitutional not to.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Last I checked, they give you the cursory run of each major religion and it's history in school.

Yup that they did. But I suggest we learned much more about their relgous practices than you do today other than in those schools that stress these things. I used to love learning the Hanakah songs and the traditions behind them.


That's as far as it should go.

Again thats not what the founding fathers thought. Religion is still the best to way to teach morality. They wanted the fear of god to be in everyone.

[Steppe Merc]

Again thats not what the founding fathers thought. Religion is still the best to way to teach morality. They wanted the fear of god to be in everyone.
They might of thought that, but today that should no longer be mandatory.

However, I would enjoy a more full religon course that included highlights of the history of that religon. We practically learn nothing about anything other than America, at least in my school. And there oppitional history courses are all dumb, except for Art History (which I'm taking, and it's an AP class to boot!)

[Kanamori]

You are again making my point calling a theory fact.

If it were proven, it would be a law and, therefore, fact. However, it is not proven and, therefore, it is not fact.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We could debate that all day. What it comes down to is that schools are there to teach you the practical knowledge necesarry for every-day life. Math, Science, History, ect. It is not there to impose a sense or morality in you.

Again this is against what the founders and writers of our constitution believed. If we keep ignoring them and the constitution we are doomed. Weve already outlived the time alotted most democracies. They would abhor secuarlism as it is espoused today.

[Papewaio]

But at that point, we have moved beyond scientific evolution to doctrinaire Evolution. The randomness of the mutation cannot be demonstrated or proved; it is simply an article of belief, no different in character from a belief that an intelligent Creator nudged the adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine bases of that DNA strand into the right order. Or that he took the clay of archaic homo sapiens and molded Adam in His own image.

If it can be explained without the need of an external source why add it? Very important why add this particular creation story, why not that of an Australian Aboroginal Tribes (each tribe has a separate creation myth and to label another tribes one as theirs is an insult) or Hindu belief system

Mutation occurs all the time. Some of it is called cancer. It happens. We know some of the causes like UV light changing the bonds in the cells. Oxidation again causing issues etc.


But I also don't think science is well served by elevating to the status of unquestionable truth the image of a material universe governed solely by random and otherwise inexplicable events. That's a worldview, not a scientific conclusion, and it has no better claim to our intellectual assent than views that postulate an underlying purpose, meaning, or destination for humanity.

a) Science unlike the poor mathematicians version Anthropology doesn't deal in absolute truths. He is making a false assertion to push his own one forward... Strawmans arguement if I understand the meaning of that phrase.

b) The material universe is random at the quantum level. It is not a worldview, it is part of the science that has lead to solar cells, nuclear weapons, LEDs, semiconductors, computer chips etc

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And who are you to speak for them?

Now this is funny ~D Seems youve been taking lessons from Red Harvest. You ask me that question and then do the same thing yourself.


I think any one of them would take a long hard look at our government and say "What a bunch of dicks, let's start another revolution."

But I totally agree.


We could debate all day what they would and would not approve of.

Well we could try if you like. Care to start thread on the matter?

[bmolsson]

The theory of, evolution, creation and intelligent design all deserves respect and consideration. If they are the truth or not can be discussed.
With respect, objectivity and tolerance, we can move our knowledge forward.

[Ronin]

Again this is against what the founders and writers of our constitution believed. If we keep ignoring them and the constitution we are doomed. Weve already outlived the time alotted most democracies. They would abhor secuarlism as it is espoused today.


OT....but what the heck.

as i said before this is why it seems to me that it would be obvious for you guys to re-write your constitution.
a document, no matter or well it was written, loses it´s perspective after...let´s say 200 years and becomes outdated?.
wouldn´t it be better to write a new one than to keep bashing each others in the head debating what the founding fathers "meant" and what they "believed"?
not being coy here...just looking for an honest opinion.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Papes contributions hit the nail on the head:


If it can be tested within the scientific framework, then teach it in a science class.

If it relies on something that is untestable then leave it to a religion class.


To do otherwise is bad science AND bad religion.

Some additional points are worth noting:

Natural selection is NOT evolution. There is plenty of evidence for natural selection actually happening. Someone has already mention the white and black moths. The theory of evolution suggests that natural selection is responsible for the development of new sepcies. This was Darwins leap of imagination. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the fossil record showing life changing over time and becoming more complex, with new species appearing and others going extinct. It is elegant, simple, and it fits the evidence, which is why almost all biologists and paeleontoligists accept it.

It is also worth clarifying what scientists mean by "theory" and "law" because these terms have been bandied about in this thread.

Theory: In science: "A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data." (Wikipedia) (Paradigm - way of thinking). Some people suggest that the Theory of Evolution is not a valid theory because you can't make predictions about things that have already happened. I disagree, because you can predict, for example, the existance of missing evolutionary links and then see if fossils which match your predictions are found. In any case, I am not sure that the "predictions" bit is the key characteristic of a theory. The important part is the "explains much of the data we have".

Law: "a scientific generalization based on empirical observations" (Wikipedia again - a really useful resource!). Note it does not have to be "true" or "fact". Some laws, e.g. Ohm's law are only true in some situations, others are only approximately true and this only in certain circumastances (e.g Newtons 2nd Law of Motion - an excellent approximation at speeds much less than the speed of light)

[BDC]

If you teach ID, then you damn well teach alchemy and astrology (and the Great Spaghetti Monster too) in science as well.

[Ironside]

If you teach ID, then you damn well teach alchemy and astrology (and the Great Spaghetti Monster too) in science as well.

well alchemy is already teached, but is now known as chemistry. ~;)

[Ironside]

The difference between Alchemy and Chemistry is that one produces results, the other doesn't.

The basic issue in Alchemy is to mix different substances to get gold (probably silver too). Modern chemists knows that it's impossible to get gold in that way, but does instead mix different substances to get other substances.
Not that big difference. Chemistry is basically modern alchemy. And chemistry is then gaining the advantages of more research and better equipment.

BTW you can create gold today, but that's in physics ~D
And very expensive.

[Quietus]

Arguing that Intelligent Design and Evolution are the same meant arguing against the existence of god itself.

[Hurin_Rules]

Just so you all know:

King's College (where the guy who wrote the original article at the top of this thread is provost) is the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of academia. It has not gotten full accreditation yet (only temorary extensions, for five years, and even that was hotly debated). They appear to have two programs: philosophy/politics/economics, and business. Whether this 'anthropologist' actually teaches, much less does research, in anthropology is anyone's guess. Note the provost is not an academic position.

In short, his credentials are about as weak as they can possibly be. How about getting some academic heavyweights to weigh in on this? Oh right, none of them give any credence to so-called 'intelligent design'. Why? Because theories that are not testable, verifiable or falsifiable by the scientific method are not scientific theories.

[Roark]

Alchemy was an allegorical occult art concerning the metaphysics of consciousness. The creation of Au (Gold) was only a side product of the process of spiritual transformation which occurred within the Alchemist himself. Incidentally, the birth of chemistry was also a side-effect of this art.

I'm with Gawain and Drone (et al): Creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, and to think of them as such is myopic and a little bloodyminded.

As far as the week of creation in Genesis goes, the Aramaic word for "day" simply meant "period of time"...

[drone]

Are there any Hindus, Shintoists, or Buddhists here? I'm not very familiar with these religions, so I don't know how creation is dealt with for them. How can a state justify teaching ID/creationism if some of the students don't believe in a standard Judean/Christian/Islamic monotheistic religion? Or is this all part of a plan to lower the overall grade point averages of the Asian kids in our schools? ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How can a state justify teaching ID/creationism if some of the students don't believe in a standard Judean/Christian/Islamic monotheistic religion? Or is this all part of a plan to lower the overall grade point averages of the Asian kids in our schools?

The same way you justify teaching evolution to fundementalists who dont beleive in it.

[drone]

The same way you justify teaching evolution to fundementalists who dont beleive in it.
True, but at least evolution offends all of the religions, and doesn't discriminate. ~;)

Edit-> Are you saying that science is using a loophole around the whole "separation of church and state" thing?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

True, but at least evolution offends all of the religions, and doesn't discriminate

There were you go wrong. Many churchews and christains also believe in evo;ution. How many times must this be stated the two are not mutally uncompatible.

[Don Corleone]

True, but at least evolution offends all of the religions, and doesn't discriminate. ~;)

Edit-> Are you saying that science is using a loophole around the whole "separation of church and state" thing?

You'd be hard pressed a more devoted follower of Christ, or a more die-hard supporter of the theory of evolution, then my 5th grade teacher, Brother Louis DeMars. Please stop saying Christian=Bob Jones because there's a wide, wide, wide range of opinions.

[drone]

There were you go wrong. Many churchews and christains also believe in evo;ution. How many times must this be stated the two are not mutally uncompatible.I stated myself in an earlier post that they do not have to be mutually exclusive. By "offend" I mean "runs counter to the literal belief structure". People of all religions can believe both, but only if they are open-minded about it. But a Shintoist is probably going to have a problem with creationism/ID on their own.

[KafirChobee]

More support for ID - these are real, I swear it. Had you read my post above you could have found them yourself, btw. :

The arguement of:
http://slate.com/id/2118320

and my absolute fave:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

This is what you are arguing in favor of. ~D

Christianity, is an extention of all former mythologys. For the transformation of heathens into christians, the formers gods had first to be supplimented by taking their concepts of creation, etc and turning them into the new-think. i.e - Nearly all mythologys have a great flood, a battle raging between good and evil in their heaven (Valhalla, Olympus, etc), and all have a summation on how the world (and man) were created.

ID, is a simple attempt to put religion in the classroom. While there is nothing wrong (as others have pointed out) in teaching the philosophies of religions - it is wrong to focus on one or to attempt to demonstrate how their is only one "true" religion. That is what the Taliban did - correct? Are we to become the Christian reversion of the Taliban? Or, remain sain.
:balloon2:

[Xiahou]

Christianity, is an extention of all former mythologys. For the transformation of heathens into christians, the formers gods had first to be supplimented by taking their concepts of creation, etc and turning them into the new-think. i.e - Nearly all mythologys have a great flood, a battle raging between good and evil in their heaven (Valhalla, Olympus, etc), and all have a summation on how the world (and man) were created.Get out of town! You mean religions try to explain things like creation and good vs. evil? Clearly they've all copied off of each other- what other reason could there be for them all attempting to explain such things? :dizzy2:

[Steppe Merc]

Well all religons took ideas from ones before them, or are similar for varying reasons. Christianity isn't unique in the fact that it borrowed ideas from other religons.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Christianity, is an extention of all former mythologys. For the transformation of heathens into christians, the formers gods had first to be supplimented by taking their concepts of creation, etc and turning them into the new-think. i.e - Nearly all mythologys have a great flood, a battle raging between good and evil in their heaven (Valhalla, Olympus, etc), and all have a summation on how the world (and man) were created.

For once I have to agree with Kafir. If you stufy ancient religions you can see how much of the bible resembles it. But this dosnt mean that god is made up. Just like science used to believe different things and they call them theories religons have changed and its called theology. But if you look just like science its built on what we have found to work. The fact that most religions are basiclly the same reinforces for me the idea that there is a god not diminishes it.

Again this is what I believe the founding fathers wanted. They didnt really care what god you believed in but they wanted the fear of god to be among the people. Its wrong to teach a specific religion over another.

[Don Corleone]

Well all religons took ideas from ones before them, or are similar for varying reasons. Christianity isn't unique in the fact that it borrowed ideas from other religons.

You're absolutely right Steppe. It's amazing how much you know about us whacko Christians, no matter how hard we try to keep it secret. Why, just last week, my minister was working out the kinks in how to perform a human sacrafice atop a pyramid and dedicate the still beating heart to Quetzocuotal. Thank goodness she had that handy dandy 'How-to' guide left over from the Aztecs.

[Red Harvest]

The same way you justify teaching evolution to fundementalists who dont beleive in it.

And some of these same fundamentalists believe men have one less rib than women.

It has been the Creationists picking the fight. That was apparent to me when I was 14 and trying to sort all of this out in my head while still attending what other Christians called a "holy roller" church.

We don't need to be requiring the teaching of religion in science classes anymore than we need to be requiring churches to teach science.

[Del Arroyo]

Science requires testable, disprovable hypotheses, for which the existence of a god and his hand in the process of creation there are none.

Therefore, god and Intelligent Design do not belong in a science classroom. Doing so would fundamentally contradict a purpose to science education even more important than a familiarity with the theory of evolution-- and ability to think logically and understand the Scientific Process.

The beauty of the Scientific Process is that impartial and Scientific minds will always be able to, if not agree on the interpretation of data, at least have a common starting point from which to debate. ID in the classroom would be a serious erosion of this principle, and should not be allowed no matter how politicized this concept has become in the US.

DA

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The beauty of the Scientific Process is that impartial and Scientific minds will always be able to, if not agree on the interpretation of data, at least have a common starting point from which to debate.

So do religions. That no where near as disimilar as many think. We are clueless as of 99.99% of the universe nevermind what may lie beyond it. Science is also a faith based endeavor.

[Red Harvest]

So do religions. That no where near as disimilar as many think. We are clueless as of 99.99% of the universe nevermind what may lie beyond it. Science is also a faith based endeavor.

No, it is not. In science ideas, theories, and "laws" get tested. Even generally accepted ones are rejected when NEW information is received. That is not the case with religion. And there is little effort from within religion to actively challenge the basic precepts of the religion.

In any case religion is not science, and science is not religion. Keep 'em separate.

[Papewaio]

Mixing science and religion ends up with something akin to science fiction not science fact.

Scientology anyone?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, it is not. In science ideas, theories, and "laws" get tested.

Thewre tested by our rules. We dont know if these are correct we belive they are just like religous people do. Again you cant prove 99% of whats around us all we can do is give our best guess. Just like people science discovers that the more it knows the less it knows. At 21 I thought I knew everything. The older I get the more I realise I still have a lot to learn. Science goes by rules science makes up. I hardly call that proof.

[AntiochusIII]

Are there any Hindus, Shintoists, or Buddhists here? I'm not very familiar with these religions, so I don't know how creation is dealt with for them. How can a state justify teaching ID/creationism if some of the students don't believe in a standard Judean/Christian/Islamic monotheistic religion? Or is this all part of a plan to lower the overall grade point averages of the Asian kids in our schools? ~;)I may not consider myself a Buddhist anymore, but I do know quite something about them, and hope this will help: Hinduism, which is, in many ways, Buddhism's "predecessor", believe that the entire universe is created by "Brahman" (one of the three "most important" gods, and no, not trinity. He's the embodiment of creation, practically) and destroyed by "Shiva", the god that is the embodiment of destruction. Note, however, that Shiva is not viewed (at least by the majority of Hinduism, the religion has literally thousands of cults and doctrine differences among the cults) simply as evil. He's like a benevolent destroyer of evil kind of stuff. However, it is a circle of destruction and creation. The universe has been destroyed and recreated since..well..there is no since, to my limited knowledge about the religion. Even the gods are just, in fact, aspects of one mighty spirit that is...everything. An equivalent of god, but we (according to the religion) are not his servants, but part of Him.Therefore, the history of time according to Hinduism is not linear, but circular. Buddhism, this gets more complicated. The Buddha's original thoughts none could intrepet, but the religion that is Buddhism is clearly far more superstitious (well, the point of religion, that is) than what the Buddha, whom I (and many others) doubt ever wanted to "be a god," originally intended. However, in modern practices, Buddhist doctrine seems not to recognize any such "creation myth," but the common folk would just adhere to what the Hindus believe. This I speak, however, from the Theravada (so-called "traditional") side. The Mahayana side possess, according to my limited knowledge, their own creation myths, which varies from "cult" to "cult." Shinto could easily be considered as just another Mahayana sect, which simply means that the Buddhist "monks" would mix the doctrines of both what was Buddhism during the reign of king/emperor Asoka with local beliefs.

As a side note, my old country's (I'm in the US now...) teachers often promote Buddhism as a "scientific religion", which sounds cool and tolerant. But I doubt the legitimacy of such claims. However, note that the best that Buddhist scholars could speculate about the Buddha's original teachings (time changes things, you see) is that he did not concern himself with creation myths for his "religion."

I guess at least some Buddhists would have to support evolution, then, being the most plausible scientific theory out there, and that the Buddha, according to the rather unreliable older-than-bible doctrine, wants his followers to uphold reason. His last teachings (again, from the doctrine) seems to be something like "don't believe what is not proven enough."

[bmolsson]

Mixing science and religion ends up with something akin to science fiction not science fact.

Scientology anyone?

What about antropology then ?? ~;)

[Roark]

Well all religons took ideas from ones before them, or are similar for varying reasons. Christianity isn't unique in the fact that it borrowed ideas from other religons.

The archetype of the Hanged God features in some other religions (Odin impaled on Yggdrassil etc), but there are secular historians who refer to the crucifixion, so I doubt that the event was contructed to slot Christianity in with other faiths.

Maybe you could elaborate further on specific "borrowed" elements. I find that stuff really interesting.

[Del Arroyo]

So do religions. That no where near as disimilar as many think. We are clueless as of 99.99% of the universe nevermind what may lie beyond it. Science is also a faith based endeavor.

But it is a separate field with separate AND VERY USEFUL standards. This is what people need to realize. Prayer in school doesn't bother me one tiny bit, but intelligent design in biology?? Never. One of the challenges of biology class (if you have a good teacher) is to get into the guts of evolutionary theory and to try and understand the large parts which are very counterintuitive.

Intelligent design is a very simple, straightforward idea and if people are going to believe it then that's what they'll do regardless of whether or not it is given time in Biology class.

In fact, I don't even have a problem with ID being mentioned in a biology class, for instance "Well there are some things we don't yet know about evolution, AS WITH ALL theories, and as you may have heard IN THE NEWS recently, some people think it's God." I am not one of the people who thinks that religion and everything else must exist with a 10-foot thick 50-foot high wall between them-- for religion to come up in a science discussion (just as for science to come up in a religion discussion) is no problem, and indeed a GOOD THING, for religion is part of our world and that is what science is trying to explain (and vice versa).

But to pretend that Intelligent Design IS science, to confuse the two, even to (the horror!) give it EQUAL TIME in science class, is absolutely and unequivocally uncontionable and, God willing, will never happen in this country.

DA

EDIT: fast typing

[Del Arroyo]

And, Gawain, just to nitpick doctrine with you, the most current definition of science asserts that a scientific hypothesis must be DIS-provable. The nature of science is that nothing can ever be proven-- to say that something is 100% true is unscientific, technically. It is a system of logical guesses and methodical interpretations.

Whether or not you personally buy into a particular researcher's conclusions is, of course, a personal matter, and this is why scientists bicker all the time. But if creationists/intelligent designers wish to challenge evolutionary theory, the correct path is through research and publication in the scientific community-- not by cheating the system and cutting straight to the classroom.

Play fair or get out of the ballpark. And just because the most in the scientific community may be unreceptive to your ideas is NO EXCUSE. Unpopular scientific ideas are typically ridiculed for years before, if they are valid, they show their merit.

That's just the way science is.

DA

[Red Harvest]

Thewre tested by our rules. We dont know if these are correct we belive they are just like religous people do. Again you cant prove 99% of whats around us all we can do is give our best guess. Just like people science discovers that the more it knows the less it knows. At 21 I thought I knew everything. The older I get the more I realise I still have a lot to learn. Science goes by rules science makes up. I hardly call that proof.

That is an absolutely terrible defense. Since science is our way of evaluating the world around us in the absense of continual "divine revelation" you are rejecting the whole concept because it is imperfect? Even if that were reasonable, my response would be "SO???" It still doesn't make religion a substitute for science. That's called the Dark Ages.

Plus you missed the part about there not being absolute proof--instead, the "proven" portions are only considered that way as long as new information doesn't disprove them.

Put a fork in it, this bird is done.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That is an absolutely terrible defense. Since science is our way of evaluating the world around us in the absense of continual "divine revelation" you are rejecting the whole concept because it is imperfect?

Im not rejecting it at all. Arent secualrist just as guilty about religon? You reject it because its not perfect.

Heres one of the greatest scientists and theolgans.

Isaac Newton (http://www.historicist.com/newton/title.htm)

Many dont know that it was his religous stances that he hoped to be remebered for.

[Adrian II]

Evolution is fact.It's a scientific theory, not a fact. And it is the best scientific theory we have by far, incomparably better than intelligent design. Creationism is not even a theory, it is a myth presented in a way that makes it impossible to falsify and hence evaluate scientifically. Socially speaking, creationism is a competitor to evolution, scientifically speaking it it not.

It is this blatant indifference to the true status and meaning of science, parroted by Bush in his remark about 'competing schools', that is so damaging to the scientific community and, in the longer run, to American education.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's a scientific theory, not a fact. And it is the best scientific theory we have by far, incomparably better than intelligent design. Creationism is not even a theory, it is a myth presented in a way that makes it impossible to falsify and hence evaluate scientifically. Socially speaking, creationism is a competitor to evolution, scientifically speaking it it not.

This really cracks me up. This argument has been going on since there were scientists and religions. No one and I repeat no one has the slightest clue or proof as to which is correct. Again they are both faith based . One is faith in man and science and the other in god. As usual the real answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[Del Arroyo]

You are 100% incorrect, Gawain. The decision as to whether to believe in evolutionary theory or creationism is a personal one based on faith.

But the scientific method itself is impartial and, by its core tenets, can never prove anything or say it for sure. It is a useful process, the understanding of which is far more important in a student's science education quite frankly than a familiarity with any specific theory.

Presenting as scientific conjectures which are not backed by studies conducted using the scientific method pollutes this and is a sin. May God smite those who would seek to further poison our educational system, if it be His will.

DA

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But the scientific method itself is impartial and, by its core tenets, can never prove anything or say it for sure. It is a useful process, the understanding of which is far more important in a student's science education quite frankly than a familiarity with any specific theory.

You just addmitted it cant prove anything. It is indeed very useful for teaching logic and the scientific method. Its sort of like religion. Its self fufilling. There is not one person on these boards or anywhere on this planet that knows who is correct on this matter and I doubt there ever will be until the day we all dissappear.

[Del Arroyo]

Excellent, Gawain, looks like we've got an agreement! ~:grouphug:

We can let biology teachers present evolutionary theory, parents/pastors present intelligent design, and let the kids decide!

Do you have any objection to this?

DA

[Red Harvest]

Im not rejecting it at all. Arent secualrist just as guilty about religon? You reject it because its not perfect.

Heres one of the greatest scientists and theolgans.

Isaac Newton (http://www.historicist.com/newton/title.htm)

Many dont know that it was his religous stances that he hoped to be remebered for.

I already knew about Newton.

I haven't rejected religion (although I do reject much of the organized church.) I don't accept many fundamentalists demonstrably false views of it. I reconciled the two in my own mind at the age of 14. Religion is not science, nor is science religion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I haven't rejected religion (although I do reject much of the organized church.) I don't accept many fundamentalists demonstrably false views of it. I reconciled the two in my own mind at the age of 14. Religion is not science, nor is science religion.

For once I couldnt agree with you more. Their two opposite poles of the samething though. Like love and hate ~D

[AntiochusIII]

For once I couldnt agree with you more. Their two opposite poles of the samething though. Like love and hate ~DWhich one is hate?

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

[Adrian II]

It is a useful process, the understanding of which is far more important in a student's science education quite frankly than a familiarity with any specific theory.Hear hear. I find myself coming back to threads such as this in order to try and make this point, over and over again, because it is of the utmost importance for the future of our democracies that we recognise science for what it is: a main pillar of civilisation. Is it precisely that because science is not faith-based and truth does not, therefore, simply reside somewhere ' in the middle'. Without due regard and respect for science, no rational debate or meeting of minds is possible and modern existence loses a dimension that this world can not afford to lose.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is it precisely that because science is not faith-based and truth does not, therefore, simply reside somewhere ' in the middle'. Without due regard and respect for science, no rational debate or meeting of minds is possible and modern existence loses a dimension that this world can not afford to lose.

In other words science like religion cannot be advanced unless you believe in it.Without due regard and respect for religion, no rational debate or meeting of minds is possible and modern existence loses a dimension that this world can not afford to lose. ~;)


Which one is hate?

Both ~:)

[Adrian II]

In other words science like religion cannot be advanced unless you believe in it.No. I said 'respect science', not 'believe in science'. We don't need this kind of wordplay, Gawain.

In the past I have discussed (with Colovion and others) the fact that many people these days have 'faith' in science as if it constituted a system of revealed truth analogous to religious beliefs. I criticised that attitude because to me, the notion that science is going to 'set us free' is just as irrational as the belief that Jesus will set anyone free or that the earth has a natural history of only 8000 years.

[Del Arroyo]

Gawain, will you man up and answer the question? According to the answers you have given, it sounds as if you would agree that it is proper and good for biology teachers to present evolutionary theory, and for parents and pastors to present intelligent design, should it be their choice. Is this the case? Or will you not answer?

DA

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, will you man up and answer the question? According to the answers you have given, it sounds as if you would agree that it is proper and good for biology teachers to present evolutionary theory, and for parents and pastors to present intelligent design, should it be their choice. Is this the case? Or will you not answer?

Yes it is. However I feel both should present the fact that there are others who have a different notion and tell tem about it. Again I see absolutely no problem with both being right. Then again I also see no problem with both being wrong.

[AntiochusIII]

Yes it is. However I feel both should present the fact that there are others who have a different notion and tell tem about it. Again I see absolutely no problem with both being right. Then again I also see no problem with both being wrong.However, I presume that Creationism (no it is NOT intelligent! design. Whatever. It's a propaganda name and nothing more.) would be presented in such a way that students will not be able to disprove it by...oh the horror...scientific means?

If they have the guts to put in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with this so-called "ID" then perhaps the students will be able to see a larger prospective, as that presents the alternate way of looking into Creationism theories and how they work.

[Del Arroyo]

It's good to hear, then, that this issue is resolved and that we can count on your support, Gawain, in keeping Intelligent Design out of the Biology classroom. ~:cheers:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's good to hear, then, that this issue is resolved and that we can count on your support, Gawain, in keeping Intelligent Design out of the Biology classroom.
IM afraid not. What part of this did you miss?


However I feel both should present the fact that there are others who have a different notion and tell them about it

IMO simply telling them that some people attribute evloution as a creation of god would suffice however. I dont belive in teaching something thats based solely on a religious stance in science class. Samething in religous class if they teach creationism they should also be taught if not biology at least the fact that many if not most scientists contest creationism. You dont want to send them out into the world unarmed or naive. Again my solution is get the government out of the education bussiness.

I believe they teach biology at Notre Dame an have for quite sometime now. Again I see no conflict between the two only from people who are closed minded.