I don’t think we should completely discount Intelligent design just because it is often used by Christians to try to sidestep teaching evolution. Perhaps intelligent design is a reasonable theory and it perhaps can shed some light on the questions that evolution leaves, like how did life on earth first begin? was it planted here by alien species, if so where and how did their life begin? Answering these questions is just as important as asking the questions which first led Darwin to his theory of evolution, merely discounting an idea because those who support it are not scientifically rigorous.

For an analytically rigorous philosophical look at the subject of ID look at this website:

bradleymonton.com

High School Biology ‘King James Version’ Ha ha, fantastic!

Nate, the problem with placing intelligent design in textbooks is not that it is supported by Christians, but that it is inherently unscientific. It fails to follow the scientific method, and is completely “unfalsifiable” which is the cornerstone of science. Science generally takes a hypothesis tests it with the aim of disproving it, not proving it.

Intelligent design takes a conclusion, i.e. God created us, and then looks for evidence to prove that conclusion, not to disprove it.

well played Jason, ty ty

The fascinating part of this debate is that the theory of evolution, as it is constructed today, is fundamentally flawed. Ask a scientist–and not a science writer or spokesman, but a real lab scientist–evolution is just the best idea they’ve got for now. But it cannot stand on its own.

Replacing intelligent design with evolution is like explaining one of those Easter-pink-colored chicks genetically. Yeah, the chicken originated genetically, but at some point you have to accept that someone put dye in the embryo.

To compare gods work to putting chemicals in an egg is retarded. What came first, pink chicken eggs or salmonella? If there is a god, we are f*cked, christians and nonchristians alike. Also, if you want to teach intelligent design in schools, why not teach every other religious theory in existence? It’s only fair to ensure a quality education. Only morons really have to think about this issue

gwjohnson, how many scientists have you posed this question to? And how exactly did you phrase it?

@gwjohnson

I think Richard Dawkins is a real, live scientist who would disagree with that assessment.

Trying to defend religion with science, or vice versa, is like saying two plus two equals ice cream. For fucks sake.

Love the cartoons.
Yes, as a religious person I’m quite confounded at times. Truth can only be one. The religious / spiritual / God idea can only work by pointing to the ‘Unknowable’ aspects towards which we are all striving to ‘Know’. What is proven true cannot be said to be untrue by that framework. What is proven false cannot be said to be true by the same framework.
Scientists need to keep educating the masses to the concept of the ‘weight of evidence’, and how to conduct skeptical enquiry.
Schools should focus on this skill training as much as trying to provide ‘facts’ to students. Science teachers also should have to be competent in training critical thinking and analysis skills. Then intelligent design elements can be used in lesson plans in the appropriate way.

So, can one of you religious folks explain to me where the dinosaur fits in to Gods plan and where the Bible explains about this? Or was it Satan who put the bones here to just throw us off? Come on, seriously I’d like to know! As for evolution and creationism, Jason hits the nail on the head here. Thanks Jason!

In my line of work (Finance), there is something we call “Creative Accounting” – an elegant term to talk about “cooking the books” without committing outright fraud, but staying in, or rather, on the boundaries of accounting rules and regulations. But “Creative Accounting” has always the task of concealing the actual financial situation and of misleading those reading the Financial Statements. Now substitute in the above Biology’s vocabulary for Finance’s, and you arrive at Creationism and Intelligent Design.

There is no reason why science and religion should be put against each other. Science is just the way man has found to figure out God’s work.
And, it’s not christians in general who have a problem with evolutio, it’s mostly fundamentalist protestants. Of course, those are the most abundant in the US. Most catholics are ok with the idea of evolution.

You realize that arguing with a religious person is like arguing with a rock, it doesn’t matter what you say or what facts you show them, they’re not going to budge. Talking to somebody who has been brainwashed from childhood and completely blinded by faith is like talking to a retarded child, not a child, a retarded child.

@jesus ate an apple: Oh wow thanks for that wonderful insight into my mind…try formulating an actual argument next time.

@Jason: True, the bulk of intelligent design arguments are based on unscientific methodology but that does not necessarily detract from their potential educational value. No, I’m not a creationist, hear me out. First of all please realise 99% of what is taught in any pre-degree level science lesson is inherently falsified. In some way or another it is “toned down”, what a certain Terry Pratchett aptly refers to as “science becoming lies for children”. The core concepts are correct however the reasons are often entirely made up. You have no idea how many times in my short life already I have heard “forget what you’ve been taught so far it was all wrong”.
However the educational benefits of teaching scientific theory this way far outweigh the negatives. Try teaching a 12 year old that light is both a particle AND a wave (something I’m sure in itself is a further “lie for children” I’ll be finding out further down the line) and they’ll just stare blankly. Tell them light is a waveform and therefore spreads out like ripples through a slit and they understand some basic physics that allows them to then evolve their knowledge over time until duality itself is understood.

Understanding that most high school science therefore isnt actually science at all but appropriate lies intelligent design suddenly does harbour a potential for educational values. If for no other reason I feel intelligent design should be taught to show the issues with evolution. I have never been taught ID at school so have no real way of knowing just what content is included and I in no way endorse the teaching of “biblical” theory. However, rather than merely teaching everyone that fossils can be carbon dated using C13 levels to determine a fossil timeline thus proving Darwin correct (pretty much my entire high school evolution education summed up) point out that knowing initial carbon levels is tricky at best, that carbon dating cannot be used on true fossils (as we think of them) as it is far too unreliable that far back due to half life timings and discuss the merits of other isotope dating systems that can produce wildly different results due to a severe lack of initial data and suddenly your teaching kids to be skeptical – a key resource for the scientific method and community.
Show them the body mass: nasal cavity dilemma of certain large dinosaurs and point out that this could suggest a higher oxygen level of early Terran atmospheres that would severely screw with radio-isotope dating techniques but would also explain away some anomalies.

In ID’s race to try and out-compete the much more sound argument of evolution it has highlighted some really interesting questions about natural selection and the fossil timeline we all take for granted. ID teaching in schools, if approached properly, could further the actual scientific education of pupils and lead to a far less “standards compliant” scientific community of the future that could actually begin to really knock the dust off the theory of evolution and aid it progress a little faster.

Thats why I support ID in schools. Let Adam and Eve stay firmly in Religious Studies classes but bring forward some of the more interesting ID discoveries and help prep future generations for a world where the media, the politicians and even the scientists all have their own agendas and should be approached with healthy skepticism not open arms.

You could also say that arguing with an evolutionist is like arguing with a rock as well! There is no SOLID evidence for evolution, it is all assumptions. The theory of evolution is so crazy I am surprised SO MANY intelligent people are brain-washed into believing it. The evidence for intelligent design is all around us! I am in (highschool) Biology right now, studying cells. There is no way these complex cells could have evolved by random chance!
If evolution is true, then:
-Why aren’t we still evolving?
-Where are the transitional fossils?
-Why did the theory of evolution just recently (1800s) become popular?
-Why is there so much evidence for a creator?!??

Please enlighten the poor blinded, brainwashed, retarded child!

Talking to a Christian is like talking to a rock, just like talking to a evolutionist is like talking to a rock. People are going to believe what they belive. There is an aspect of science called phylosophy. There is a term called epistomolgy “How do you really know what you know.” Some give credence to the scientist, others to a minister. The problem isn’t with the evolution, there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. One was proven the other has not. The problem comes in teaching a “Fact” instead of a “Theory” which is what it is. There are just as many holes in evolution as what you say is in Christianity, Muslim, Whatever. I don’t believe in calling it intelligent design (That is just a disguise) just call it what it is creationism.

@livvyjane:
1) We are still evolving, but just as slowly before. It took thousands of years for the human race to get to where we are now. You can’t just suddenly expect to have you kid to grow wings!
2) Transitional fossils are everywhere! Havn’t you seen pictures of human skulls lined up, from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapien to Homo Sapien Sapien! You can see how the forehead slowly becomes more vertical and upright.
3) Until recently, there were no efficient methods of traveling around the world and gathering data efficiently in a lifetime. Also, science was persecuted by the church and money was limited.
4) Evidence for a creator? Where? I don’t see any…
Hope I have enlightened the poor, blinded, brainwashed child!
And really, what makes Christianity better than Hinu? I would much rather study the Buddhist’s Intelligent Design!
quote from some famous person: “I like your Christ. I do not like you Christians. You Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

“Why is there so much evidence for a creator?!??”

What evidence? Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn, Tedd Haggard, Oral Roberts, Jim & Tammy Baker, Tony Alamo, Joe Barron, Todd Bentley…the list just keeps growing! Just tell me where to go for this evidence! I’ll convert today! Come on, evidence my a#$! Evidence doesn’t come from a fairytale book, fairytales do!

Why aren’t we still evolving?

WE ARE STILL EVOLVING! Look at the changes that we humans have gone through in the part 200-years.

“Where are the transitional fossils?”

These so-called gaps in the fossil record are caused by the fact that conditions have to be perfect for things to fossilize – they have the die in the right environment. Enough have been discovered in different aged layers of rock to create a really good timeline, which goes a lot further back than Adam and Eve. BTW, The July 2007 issue of Newsweek had a segment on “Tiktaalik Roseae”, the latest fossil discovered in the Canadian artic that clearly shows a transitional form from fish to land animal. Check out this link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325203453.htm and this one http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

“The evidence for intelligent design is all around us”

Where! What evidence? Enlighten me and the others here!

Some people need religion—some people don’t. Calling people brainwashed or arguing for the end of religion—evangelical atheism—is no different than evangelical Protestants shoving their agenda down people’s throats. Certainly, some people are brainwashed not by religion but by those preaching the word (those that cherry-pick doctrine, spin religion, or insert their own prejudices into what they preach).

Creationism, intelligent design, and the like SHOULDN’T BE TAUGHT in science class, because science and religion don’t mix, (and because ID is made up and continues to be repackaged and asserted). Furthermore, religion shouldn’t be taught in public schools, not only because it’s unconstitutional but also because not everyone is religious or not everyone is Christian or Muslim, since some folks practice other religions or none at all. Some folks are atheist, some folks aren’t. No problem. Let people be.

As a scientist, I believe in something greater, because I WANT TO not because I’m brainwashed. It’s my free choice. However, I also believe in evolution and that science and religion shouldn’t be mixed. Furthermore, I also believe Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or whoever can practice their religions as long as they aren’t hurting anyone. However, the individuals who want to impose their religion are hurting our children by delegitimizing science and ideas such as evolution. There is nothing wrong with progress.

I wouldn’t call someone brainwashed just because they are religious. Saying all religion is bad or religious people are brainwashed is a sweeping generalization, a fallacy, or illogical, and narrow-minded—just like the other side making their illogical and ridiculous claims.

Let’s try to be open-minded and not fall into the culture war trap.

The quote noted by Skeptic is by Ghandi, from a 1934 book. I daresay that Mr. Ghandi is quite profound.

I am a Christian, yet find myself challenged constantly to see the Christian values in many who also call themselves Christian.

I am utterly against the teaching of Creationism in school, it violates the contitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state. Period.

There is proof supporting the theory of evolution, to ignore it is to be ignorant. There is proof that human beings continue to evolve today, to ignore that is to be uninformed.

As with any theory that seeks to explain something as complex as the development of life on Earth, there are seeming inconsistencies. That does not necessarily refute the theory.

There are particle behaviors that do not fit with generally accepted theories of physics, that does not mean those theories are wrong. It may simply mean that we do not yet understand how those behaviors fit with the theory.

And so with evolution. Could we perhaps agree that there is strong scientific evidence supporting evolution and that, until proven otherwise, it should be taught as the scientific theory upon which the development of life is based?

Could we also agree that a good education includes teaching the skills of skepicism and critical inquiry? That alternative theories and beliefs could also be taught to students who elect to take such a course? That believing something different is not wrong, but a personal choice and a personal right?

Religion should not be taught in a science class, I agree with that. But, that doesn’t mean it should be withheld. Kids should know what oppositions exists, if not, it’s just as bad as presenting Creationism without explaining science. With a historical context, it actually might make more sense how we arrived to scientific evidence.

Lastly, we should really stop being so sensitive about religion. People get angry or dismiss it too quickly. Many religions make up our society. Understanding them and listening is part of living in a country of all kinds of ethnicities and races.

@ Jerry Greer
I used to date a man who didn’t believe in dinosaurs and thought that since dragons were in the bible that’s what the bones were from

Every time he would visit I would be watching Dinosaurplanet on animal planet & watch him squirm. Never date a Unitarian if you don’t have a sense of humor!

Intelligent Design belongs in the world religions class, not biology. If someone comes up with a piece of god in a test tube then we can talk.

1. There are enough religious people who can reconcile science with their religion. I am mostly familiar with Jews, who “show” how many scientific phenomena are there in the Bible (Old Testament). It is obviously anachronistic, but many religious people do not oppose science.
When it comes to evolution, they just point to “Days” not being our days, and then it works for them.

2. There are two issues conflated in the original post: Pointing out weaknesses in the theory of Evolution and supporting the theory of Intelligent Design/The Creationist Agenda.
Sadly, many of those who want the former also seek the second, but it does not follow in a conceptual manner, what we’d call “analytic”.
Ask any scientist, or anyone engaging in the Philosophy of Science, and they will be the first to talk about the core issues and problems within the scientific method and each particular scientific theory. We still use them because each is the best we have, but they still have issues.
One could argue that you would want to teach the children that each theory is not positive and beyond reproach, so we’ll have a better chance at finding a better scientific theory in the future.

The enemies of science are using a tool to tear down a specific theory and replace it with theirs, do not make this a reason to retreat from something that is a core component of science.

I rather like the one about the creationist who goes to the doctor. After examining the patient the doc writes up his notes and says. OK I’m going to prescribe this medication, but I must tell it won’t work’. ‘Huh’ say’s the patient ‘why not’?
‘Well’ says the doctor, ‘since these drugs were developed the virus has evolved into a more virulent strain…

Kids should be taught the limitations of our knowledge, since they’re the ones tasked with advancing it. I think a lot of scientists stick their heads in the sand regarding the holes in their own beliefs just as often as so-called religious people do.

That’s not to say religion should be taught in schools, but that children should understand the difference between theory and fact. Some degree of stress should be placed on the unknowns of science, and not just the knowns.

Still, I can see how ID, as a concept, could be beneficial, since it allows religious people to rectify their spiritual and scientific beliefs, and serve some usefulness to science as a whole. But I think it’s fairly pointless to teach something that most intelligent people could deduce on their own.

I agree with Gnome and L-Roy.

Looking at some of the other comments on the post, I’m seeing both religious AND non religious people act so cocky and closed minded (not to mention plain mean!). We’re all hypocrites from time to time, I guess… but take a LOOK at yourself.

There are very smart people on both sides of the argument, and very dull people on both sides of the argument. However, we could all benefit from opening up our minds a bit, hmm?

I think that evolution is the most beautiful thing ever. To think that we have evolved from single celled organisms to where we are today shows us that there is more than meets the eye. There must be a greater force or forces at work. When the moon and the sun come into alignment to form a corona I see more than just an eclipse- I see serendipity.

I hate religion because it is the root of so much evil, and it so easily used to manipulate stupid people. I also cannot deny that there is a greater being other than humans… I just don’t want to talk about it in school.

Not only does it violate the separation of church and state that my personal ancestors fought for, it insults people of different religions other than Christianity. I guess it is predictable that a bunch of Europeans would migrate here from Europe, (fleeing the persecutions of their religions) and then attempt to persecute other religions or non-religions.

But alas- my time is limited here and I know I will get nowhere when it comes to educating stubborn retards who swear their religion is the only way to heaven. What if all religions are wrong, because man’s interpretation is wrong? Athiest’s could be wrong too- (but at least they follow the scientific method) we could all be wrong! Just think about it for a second you arrogant people!

In all of what gnorthern gnome wrote and his explanation with what is wrong with how science is taught, he never once said what intelligent design could acually offer. The answer is nothing, intelligent design is has no scientific backing.

Please explain to me how teaching intelligent design in school is breaking down the walls of separation of church and state. Evolution has a lot of loop holes that cannot be proven and technically is still a theory since it cannot be proven.

The same thing goes for creation or intelligent design rather. They are both theories and cannot be proven. What happens when we have too prominent theories? We teach both so students can decide for themselves.

1. You don’t really “prove” theories, you strengthen them. You keep using them so long they haven’t been found false. According to some (Popper), it’s all about “Falsifiability”.

2. While they are both “theories”, they do not have an equal standing. That’s what the second caricature mocks; they are not on equal standing, both in terms of how much evidence supports them and how useful they are to life/furthering our knowledge. We don’t let the “students decide”, same as we don’t let them decide on many other things such as using drugs, changing the government to a monarchy, and so on.

I think that despite the errors that may be made in Darwin’s theory, it is a reasonable explanation. Science is all about providing evidence for theories (that’s why in some science papers the words “conditionally accept” are used), therefore, if an idea that has more evidence is developed, Darwin’s theory is outdated. As both a Christian and a biological researcher, I still disagree with the teaching of creationism in public schools. If there is supposed to be the division of church and religion, an idea purely based on something that is faith-based and without palpable evidence (for a student to hang on to) should not be taught.

“The same thing goes for creation or intelligent design rather. They are both theories and cannot be proven.” – firedward.

Then don’t teach anything that can’t be proven. This is ridiculous but I guess we can’t teach plate tectonics or anything that has to do with the (theory?) that the earth is older than 7000 years. So much for future Volcanologists or Geologists telling us when there will be an eruption or earthquake. God will warn us instead!

You can’t preach in school. End of story.

I notice that several people commenting have asserted that ID does not employ the scientific method. This is not true. For anyone who is willing to listen to what ID folks actually say and do, see my post on this exact topic.

http://toughquestionsanswered.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/do-intelligent-design-theorists-really-use-the-scientific-method/

Oh, here we go… The “it’s still just a theory” crap. Gravity is a theory, too, you know. Anyone pulling this out of their posteriors belies their level of scientific knowledge. Guy Shalev has already given one property of a scientific theory, that being falsifiability. A theory also explains a set of relevant facts, explains new data as it is acquired, generates hypotheses to be tested. It is not – repeat, NOT – a wild guess. In this sense, natural selection is a fully-fledged scientific theory.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, has none of these qualities. No one is doing any research in ID. It is simply sexed-up creationism, a ‘just-so’ story. It is the very antithesis of scientific.

This is not closed mindedness. Looking at the mass of evidence for the fact of evolution (data from such disparate fields as paleontology, comparative morphology, cladistics, molecular biology, embryology, evolutionary development,… which point to evolution having happened), it is not closed minded to conclude that evolution happened. To give equal time to ID, an idea (it isn’t even a hypothesis) without supporting data, greatly overstates its relative weight. Like all other bad ideas, it was long ago discarded as it should. We do not keep ideas around just to support a crumbling world view in an exercise in bias confirmation. To all the evolution deniers out there: pull your collective heads out of the sand and have the guts to face facts and deal with it. Evolution happened.

Nor is there any controversy within the scientific community. Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The so-called controversy is nothing more than a marketing ploy as dishonest (actually, more so) than that produced by the tobacco industry.

And for those who think that science and religion can be compatible, I leave the words of evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne (to whose view I whole-heartedly endorse): “… the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.”

@ryan:

In all of what gnorthern gnome wrote and his explanation with what is wrong with how science is taught, he never once said what intelligent design could actually offer. The answer is nothing, intelligent design is has no scientific backing.

I’m sad that this is how you concluded your thoughts from my post. That is not what I said, I even gave examples of what ID “doctrine” has done to further critical analysis of the theory of evolution. I won’t cite them again, please read above, or use Google.
I am not a creationist, nor an ID advocate. I love evolution, I find it both romantic and incredibly intelligent. However what I was taught in school was far from the truth; I was taught that evolution was fact. It is not. It is theory, a damn good theory, but theory non-the-less. Through their unending desire to defeat this theory ID scientists (yes that term is valid, many key ID authors are well versed in scientific methodology, to claim that the thesis is to be disregarded because the majority of supporters have little to no understanding of it would be to also disregard evolution) have brought about quite a few interesting revelations that have pushed the boundaries of evolutionary science. Had it not been for ID scientists much of what we know about saurian feather structures would never have been discovered; ID’s claims led both camps to study fossils such as Archaeopteryx far closer than would otherwise have been the case.

In a similar fashion teaching the shortcomings of evolutionary theory in high school science classes, using ID scientific data, would be of great benefit to the scientific education of the worlds students. It would help develop critical analytic skills and instil a sense of questioning that would maybe lead to a wiser species in general. I would re-iterate that the teaching of Genesis or similar in science classes would be an abomination but the teaching of radio-isotope dating anomalies would not. ID tries to take it too far but its scientific value is often completely ignored.

Wow- I learned alot from the last two posts. I am sorry to say however, that there is a third theory out there, which also needs to be taught in schools. You can rewad more about it HERE – http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Bill Prat, I followed your link, please follow mine to learn more about a third theory of creationism.
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I mean intelligent design (oops)

Yes, one of the chief properties of a theory (some would say the chief one) is its usefulness.

And of course, how it helps students.

There’s a reason we do not teach real skepticism* at school, it is neither useful nor helpful to most students. What is taught (ok, it’s not, but what should be taught) is critical thinking.

In fact, even if we are taught to accept theories these days, it is important to remember that the story told to students is often one of critical thinking; Galileo, Darwin, and other luminaries who had gone against what was the common doctrine of their times.

* Outside world; other minds; logic and maths. Descartes and Hume.

P.S. Shamelesslyatheist, the theory ofGravity still is a theoretical consruct. Of course, saying that gravity didn’t exist before Newton discovered(created) it, is ridiculous. But the theory of gravity did not.

These ID people are ingenious in finding an argument that supports their cause. It holds no merit, when you really look at the details, but that is besides the point. The point is that they can do whatever they want and soon we will be living in the middle ages all over again. Forget Galileo and Copernicus, and the progress made by critical thinkers throughout the past millennium. When you allow ID supporters to decide what is taught to everyone, you let them take control of our destiny. Soon we will be fighting a holy war against all non-believers Muslims and Jews. If you question their logic they will silence you – so take my advice SILENCE THEM! xxxxx them in their stupid heads before it is too late!

Don’t quote me on that. LOL

I think both sides are fundamentalists, rigidly holding to their individual dogma, and neither is correct.

Yes, the patterns that can be observed in nature – such as fractals, for example – are highly complex, and highly ordered, so it is a reasonable theory to inquire as to whether there is a sophisticated intelligence beyond human that has set these patterns in motion. Is it personal? Well, it certainly isn’t a big white bearded man in the sky, which is just an extension of a child’s desire for a father figure – not the best idea out there. Perhaps this is arising from humanity’s stunned feeling that it is completely alone in the universe, without any guidance. Every animal on the planet relies on an elder of its species to guide its development – it troubles humans a great deal to be in this apparent conundrum of floating around on a unique ball in space without any interaction with intelligent others.

However, please consider the fact that institutionalized scientific western education is as much a form of brainwashing as biblical religion is. The attitude of most university-educated scientists at the B.S. level is arrogant and close-minded, ridiculing any theories that question the text-book fodder they were fed in rote classes.

Being willing to consider ALL the information available to us, not just what is popularly acceptable within our particular “club” or social strata, makes for much better science and philosophy. For example, reading ancient religious texts with an attitude of curiosity for the purpose of asking what might be in there that could be relevant, without taking it literally or as unquestionable truth; or considering scientific theories as just that – theories that have not yet been replaced by better ones, not as fundamentalist ideas that dare not be questioned lest one be an idiot or a fanatic.

“P.S. Shamelesslyatheist, the theory ofGravity still is a theoretical consruct. Of course, saying that gravity didn’t exist before Newton discovered(created) it, is ridiculous. But the theory of gravity did not.”

This was my whole point. Mind you, Newton didn’t provide a theory of gravity. Rather, he supplied the laws of motion. Not the same thing. A theory of gravity remains elusive. We understand natural selection to a far greater extent. However, gravity the fact lies in empirical observation, as does evolution the fact. The point is that empirical observation (gravitational attraction, progression of species in the fossil record), which we regard as factual, is separate from explanatory theory (theory of gravity, natural selection). This is a point lost on many.

The sum total of evidence presented by IDiots amounts to disingenuous misrepresentations of evolution. To date, there is not one shred of evidence provided by the Disco Institute which can be considered evidence in support. This is not a dichotomy and no research in ID is even postulated, let alone done. This is what Michael Behe had to say when asked why he does no research on the subject: “I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors.” A bizarre thing to say.

William Dembski, with his thoroughly-debunked pseudomathematics, claims using mathematical modeling that evolution is impossible. But that would mean that all data obtained in support of evolution is wrong. Which is more likely – observed phenomena (and a great deal) being incorrect, or Dembski’s models? The truth is that IDiots are not using the scientific method, despite the claim made by Bill Pratt above. If they were, Dembski would go back to his model in the full realization that it does not represent reality and either modify it or trash it.

If evolution is the correct process, then who do you think initiated the evolutionary process?

@dcmatozzi: There are a number of theories as to how life on THIS planet formed but seeing as scientists have managed to spontaneously form key components for life in test tubes it most likely occurred after many millions of years of slow, chemical reactions.
There needs not be any “who”. That’s the beauty of it. Now “when” is a far more intriguing answer.

Sorry for the double-comment, but:

@rob: your theory is perplexing unless approached in context as a take on human psychology. Congratulations. Now where was the point? You directly referenced my own post. I am well aware of the religion of Pastafarianism. However I am also well aware, and I quote:

I would re-iterate that the teaching of Genesis or similar in science classes would be an abomination…

That’s what I said. Now explain how your post is a rebuttal to that as I am slightly confused?

@interesting (if that is your real name ): very nicely summed up. Rob, take note.

Hmm… I find myself one on the fence. I do believe in a creative/destructive force. I also believe in evolution as this process. Things are created and destroyed, and the plants, animals, etc. change and adapt to that creation and destruction. The things that can’t change with it, die out. Those that can evolve do so.

I also do not believe that intelligent design should be taught in science. It is not science, however, I have no problem with it being a social science elective… As Long As… there is more than the Christian Version of Intelligent Design. Everybody in this world has an idea of where we came from, and where we might be going too. If you want the Genesis story taught in a social studies class, fine, but you should also teach the Buddhist, Hindi, etc. creation stories as well.

“If evolution is the correct process, then who do you think initiated the evolutionary process?”

No one.

Bwahahaha, Science is not even mentioned in the Constitution!!!! Church and State are far different from Church and Science.

p.s.

What if Science and Church eventually come to the same answer? Is it such a big deal? Discuss amongst yourselves.

I was raised in a Baptist church when I was a kid because it was close by. I can always recognize those who were taught religion by a fundamentalist church because they all talk the same way: “I believe that Jesus Christ is my own personal saviour…” ver batim with any of them you talk to.
While I was eventually baptised at age 12, my pre-baptism religious instruction taught by the pastor never really answered any of my questions. I was a “bad” Baptist because I had trouble “turning the other cheek with bullies” and giving up dancing and movies, which I still love. I gravitated to a different, kinder, less “frightening” church later on.
My basic religious beliefs never wavered, however, even after I became a science major in college. On a trip to England I learned that King James tried very hard to pick the best “version” of the Bible out of literally thousands of different versions around at that time. He could have been wrong — but it was good that we were all at least talking about the same thing. We have no way of knowing if the translations from several languages was accurate or if it was meant to be history or allegory or both.
I have no problem thinking God created the world in six days — it’s just that nobody really knows how long a “day” is to God. It could be “eons” to us mere mortals — just like a 24-hour human day is a “lifetime” to a mayfly. I don’t find it odd that God might have given us and all the other lifeforms of the earth the ability to adapt to an everchanging world –that’s simply what the theory of evolution is.
Those traits that some creatures were born with that caused them to die young, be more susceptible to disease, be too picky about the food they eat, or have difficulty finding mates and bringing forth young–obviously these could not be passed along as easily and eventually died out.
Those traits that some animals were born with that made them more resistent to disease, more able to find food, to live longer, and bring forth more young — they were naturally the ones that were passed along to more future generations.
Adaptation is really what evolution is about. Why were elephants’ skeletons found on islands always smaller than their mainland counterparts? An intelligent person might think it was because the larger elephants could not find enough food to sustain themselves and only smaller individuals who needed less food survived and reproduced.
Natural selection? Yes–often females of a species (in general) might be courted by many males, but they usually select the strongest, or most healthy, or most clever males — males who can somehow better insure survival of the young. The healthiest, strongest, or cleverest females also better insure survival of their offspring. Why does this seem so hard to understand?
There is also “natural deviations.” In people, red hair is an example of such a trait. It is these natural deviations that allowed people to develop so many dog and cat breeds from only a few basic types. Nature comes up with something brand new from time to time. Perhaps this is part of God’s plan, too.
As far as the “Intelligent Design” theory — it is “backward” because it takes something in nature that is successful–discounting all the zillions that are unsuccessful–and say it must have been “designed by God” because it works so well! That’s like saying my size 5 1/2 shoes fits by “intelligent design”–it discounts the fact that I had to try on a lot of other sizes before I found one that fit.
Not all Christians have a problem with evolution–and most of the fundamentalists I’ve talked to have never actually read any books about evolution and are often afraid to because they’re obviously written by a “devil”! It’s strange, however, that so many fundamentalist Christians have no trouble watching TV, talking on cellphones, taking life-saving medications, having xrays for doctors to see inside their bodies, using their microwave ovens, or using the science of chemistry to make soil more productive or the science of “selective breeding” to increase milk production in cows or increase meat production in hogs, etc. Where do they think these things came from?
They seem to want to believe in some “miracle” that God just said “make it so” and something appeared. Frankly, that’s not too intelligent.
And if the fundamentalist Christian churches continue undermining the sciences taught in our schools, we will get farther and farther behind the rest of the world until we’re no better than Afghanistan under the fundamentalist Islamics called the Taliban.
I don’t have to believe in some kind of fairy tale “miracles” to understand what Jesus Christ was trying to teach us about how to live our day-to-day lives: loving our neighbors, telling the truth, honoring our parents, the value of prayer, etc. That’s why I didn’t study those things in science class. They’re based on a philosophy which teaches us right from wrong. It is being in touch with our souls and a God who brings us each day — without our needing to understand why the sun rises in the east. There are many other religions and philosophies that teach many of these same values — that’s why I try to respect people’s beliefs. I studied the philosophy of my religion in Sunday School and church. I also learned about them by example from my parents.
The fundamentalist Christians think they have a monopoly on religion and nobody else should think any differently than they do.
I love to study science to satisfy my curiosity and to do my job. I enjoy doing puzzles and exploring for the same reason. I need my religion, however, for the same reason I need art or music. It’s sort of like knowing the biochemical reason a man and woman are attracted to each other, yet needing to enjoy the romance of it! All are necessary for harmony in life.

Did it ever occur to those from both camps that you might both be wrong?
Not only might the creationists be wrong with their story of faith, but it might also be possible that the evolutionist involved just as heavily in their little “science” of faith.
As an intelligent, questioning, human being, I see nothing in either camps story to convince me they the story of creation.

see ya
ET – Just Thinking
http://tariksport.com/ET-just-thinking/philosophy/creationism-vs-evolution-the-3rd-argument

@ livvyjane

- Why are you so afraid of accepting evolution? Is it because you will (surely) be kicked out of your fellow-believers community?

- Why will you have a recent flu-vaccin, but won’t take a flu-vaccin that is made against flu-viruses of 20 years ago?

- Do you know the word hypocrisy?

Your going to die alone. There is no afterlife – its just a creative way of avoiding reality. Now get over it! Make the best of the life you have!

In his book, Six Easy Pieces(1), Dr. Richard P. Feynman, the Nobel Prize winning physicist tells us that, “The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific ‘truth’. But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations — to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess.”

(1) Six Easy Pieces, Richard P. Feynman. Perseus Books. Chapter 1. Page 2.

Now to Evolution — the question at hand.

Evolution is ‘only’ a Theory.

When engaged in conversation by someone arguing for ‘Intelligent Design’ or ‘Creationism’, I respond thusly [it's better aloud, with appropriate emphasis, than it is on paper -- but, it works on paper]:

Evolution is ‘only’ a Theory.

Some people will tell you that a theory, “… is just somebody’s idea of what ‘might happen”.

Well, Evolution is ‘only’ a Theory.

The dictionary says that a theory is, “the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another”.

So, Evolution is ‘only’ a Theory.
Evolution is ‘only’ “the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another”. That means Evolution is ‘only’ a discussion of the existing empirical evidence.

Anyone who has difficulty understanding that concept is welcome to discuss it further with me. I suggest to them that we continue the discussion at the ’so-called’ Trinity Site in New Mexico. I choose that location because I know that some of the same people who say that, “Evolution is ‘only’ a Theory” (that Evolution is just somebody’s idea of what ‘might’ happen) actually believe that if you bring together, in a small dense enough mass, some so-called ‘enriched’ Uranium, it will spontaneously explode. They even have a name for this ‘Theoretical’ idea. The name they have for it is a ’so-called’ “Atomic Bomb”.

However, we all know that Relativity is also ‘only’ a Theory. It’s just somebody’s idea of what ‘might’ happen.

Relativity is ‘only’ a Theory — just like Evolution. “It’s just somebody’s idea of what ‘might’ happen — just like a ’so-called’ “Atomic Bomb”.

Evolution is an observable fact, so it’s possible to observe evolution. How we attempt to explain observations are called theories. Evolution is both theory and fact.

Gravity is an observable fact, explained by theories and is represented mathematically, thus as law.

Creationism, intelligent design, and their kin shouldn’t be taught with science, because they are not science.

I think that science will prove that humans being were created.

Seriously I don’t have time for this. Sorry I didn’t read all of your post Northern Gnome. I am sure it makes sense to someone. How about this, lets make it simple. Simplicity is the, well I don’t know exactly but it lasts longer and is understood better. I have a screaming baby pastafarian in the background so I will have to cut it short. Short and simple. Evolution is awesome. I will not shoot you in the head, I will not need to.

I like to read about world religion. Egyptian, Sumerian, Hebrew, and Islamic cultures all share common roots. This fascinates me- because I love the evolution of religion.

The evolution of religion is the evolution of man. During the neolithic age (around 10,000 B.C.E.) we found a lot of time on our hands because we invented agriculture. So we began to write language, draw more than a cave drawing here and there, play music, and invent myths and religion.

Then, civilizations rose and fell. Mostly because of religion. You see, religion causes war – and it excludes different people and cultures and therefore draws a line in the sand. It has kept us from achieving peace and unity. The Romans converted to Christianity and divided their empire. The Egyptians warred with each other over Akhenaten’s strange new sun god, which spelled the beginning of the end.

Religions are a great excuse to start a war! Look at the Norman conquest of England. The pope issues a decree or whatever saying that the people of England needed to be converted to Catholicism – hiding the fact that the Normans really just wanted England.

Look at modern times. Osama Bin Laden issues a Fatwa against America for religious reasons.

Do I need to go on?

Eventually people will learn (after thousands of years) that religion is counter productive to our survival as a species. Until then religious people must die off fighting each other while the rest of us survive to breed the next generations.

The truth.

-By the way pirates rule!

@Rob: we agree on quite a few things. First, evolution is awesome. I love it. Second, pirates do indeed rule, ninjas suck my ***. Third, religion has caused many wars; personally I would have thrown in the Crusades and Spains invasion of S.America but still the point is valid. Not too sure about Bin Laden using religion as an excuse, last time I read a transcript of his press releases he seems to use culture to a far greater extent but I’m sure he’s an intelligent man so will use religion to some degree as well.

Unfortunately I think you’ll find religion is also productive to our survival as a species. It allows us to cling to half-truths and fantasy that make us feel good. Old-school religions are showing a decline in the West but they’re rapidly being replaced by other belief structures: paranormal “investigation” and spiritual “dabbling” are both increasing rapidly and for many science has become the revered deity with people like Dawkins, Darwin, Hawking and Einstein as strange pseudo-prophets elevated to sainthood-like levels of status. Still this eres on the side of tangential discussion.

People and their interpretations or agenda cause wars and not necessarily religion. If all religion were to disappear tomorrow, I’m sure there would still be wars.

Yes. I’ve written a piece just a couple of weeks ago about Agenda, and how once you have one you stop listening to the other.

I am not going to link to it because I used Gaza/Israel as an example and I don’t need trolls.

Yea- I thought about Spain’s Conquistadors after the fact… and I can’t believe I didn’t think of the Crusades- good point.

I just don’t want religion to stand in the way of scientific research. When they banned stem cell research I was greatly offended. If we even compromise a little to ID in our curriculum, it just encourages them to take the next step. The IDiots will overrun our schools, libraries, government buildings etc. with propaganda and evangelical speeches. They must be kept in their Churches.

I am understanding though, some people have no fascination with history or science – yet are very spiritual. This tends to make them confuse things. My wife is a prime example- but her spiritual side makes her stronger and I value that. I am a skeptic but have had some spiritual things happen to me in my life, I am pretty sure. I always seem to get a warning reminder in my head to call someone before they die. So if I call you out of the blue… just kidding, well not really. I could never prove it beyond a reasonable doubt so maybe I am full of ****.

Just because science cannot explain everything, does not mean that magical thought should be a replacement for what science cannot completely explain.

To those who say ID is science- show me some evidence that explains your theory. I mean real evidence not how you thought that the world was beautiful and thus hypothesizing that an intelligent being created it.

Yes there would still be wars without religion. Like the war in Iraq. They couldn’t use religion as an excuse to invade so they found some other bull****.

@anonymous

“People and their interpretations or agenda cause wars and not necessarily religion. If all religion were to disappear tomorrow, I’m sure there would still be wars.” No bet. Irrationality would not disappear, maybe not ever. However, religion is a legitimizer of irrationality – it actually encourages it.

@Rob

Good thoughts that I totally agree with. The problem with IDiots giving evidence for their theory is that it always seems to begin with “well, evolution can’t explain X.” as if it supports their viewpoint, and invariably turns out that the answer to how natural selection produced X is already in the literature. Good examples are the bacterium flagellum and the blood clotting cascade. These two are well understood in terms of their evolution.

Here’s my theory: We live then we die.
Evolution:
The Pro- has physical “evidence”
The Con- Has many missing links to modern species

ID:
The Pro- It “proves” (or explains, rather) how modern species got here
The Con- No physical evidence

The Con For Both Evolution AND ID: No one has lived long enough to prove these theories

I have suggested Gravitation Force Theory of Evolution. According to this theory Gravitation Force is the main cause of mutation in genetic characters which is the cause of orgin of species and even life itself.

Yoga (Application) which was based on the control of the body physically and implied that a perfect control over the body and the senses led to knowledge of the ultimate reality. A detailed anatomical knowledge of the human body was necessary to the advancement of yoga and therefore those practising yoga had to keep in touch with medical knowledge. (Romila Thapar, A History of India, volume one).

I suggest : Mind and brain are two distinct things. Brain is anatomical entity whereas mind is functional entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system (ANS). It is claimed that mind can be brought under conscious control through the practice of meditation. But how? ANS is largely under hypothalamic control which is situated very close to optic chiasma (sixth chakra or ajna chakra). Protracted practice of concentration to meditate at this region brings functions of ANS say mind under one’s conscious control.

ANS is further divided into parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS). On the basis of these facts I have discovered a mathematical relationship for spiritual quotient (S.Q.). Spiritual Quotient can be expressed mathematically as the ratio of Parasympathetic dominance to Sympathetic dominance. PSNS dominates during meditative calm and SNS dominates during stress. In this formula we assign numerical values to the physiological parameters activated or suppressed during autonomic mobilization and put in the formula to describe the state of mind of an individual and also infer his/her level of consciousness.

Meditation is the art of looking within and science of doing nothing. We don’t use anything in meditation. We just try to concentrate to meditate at some point in human anatomy known as ‘chakra’ in Indian System of Yoga. The current of mind is flowing outward through the senses and unconsciously. The mind comes at rest gradually through regular practice of meditation. Then comes self realization and enlightenment. Protracted practice of meditation under qualified guidance will help to manage all sort of psychological problems.

Emotional Quotient can also be expressed mathematically as the product of I.Q. and Wisdom Factor. E.Q. stands for Emotional Quotient. An intelligent person may not be wise. But a wise man will always be intelligent. An intelligent person having certain level of positive emotions can be said as wise. An intelligent person lacking wisdom will turn autocrat. A wise man will always be a democrat who respects others existence.

Some may raise doubt that how could be the Wisdom quantified? The answer is simple -if Mental Age of I.Q. can be quantified then Wisdom can also be quantified, of course, comparatively with more efforts. Wilhelm Stern had given the formula of I.Q.. It is, Mental Age/ Chronological Age x 100. Spiritual Quotient (S.Q.) leverages both E.Q. and I.Q.

Radha Soami Faith is a branch of Religion of Saints like Kabir, Nanak, Paltu, and others. Soamiji Maharaj is the founder of this Faith. You may call It like New Wine in Old Bottle.

Maslow has given Hierarchy of Needs. At the top of it is need for self-actualization or self-realization.

In our society we should learn To Live and Let Live and help to satisfy others need. When the lower order needs, physiological and sociological both, are satisfied then only a person think to satisfy need for self-realization in true sense. Else he/she may spend all his/her life to satisfy at the most the need for self-expression instead of self-realization.

It is, therefore, the duty of every responsible person, at the least, of our society to give serious thought over it.

For the satisfaction of need for self-realization i.e. establishment of harmony of individual consciousness with that of universal consciousness we need following three things:

1. Mater or Guru (A Self-Realized Soul)
2. Secret of Levels of Universal Consciousness
3. Method for traversing the path.

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

If my understanding of ID is correct, it makes no implication that the world is merely thousands of years old, nor that evolution doesn’t exist. You guys are clearly confusing it with full-on creationism.

Granted, the biggest advocates for teaching ID in schools are thinly disguised religious fundamentalists, but you’re allowing your perceptions of an idea to be tainted by a political agenda. ID exists only in the gaps that science cannot explain adequately.

The standard scientific explanations behind questions like “how did inert, lifeless elements become living, reproducing organisms?” and “what caused the universe to form?” strike me as far more ridiculous than the idea that some sort of creator set things in motion. “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” That’s not to say that scientists should just give up trying to understand these things, simply say “must be magic” and call it a day, but I don’t see how people who understand so little about certain aspects of reality can be so sure of themselves.

Of course, I’m likely confusing my own beliefs with those of ID to an extent, but whatever…

^Damn, dude. You totally won this argument.

What is unscientific about recognizing that for certain lifeforms there are required specific components that all must be present in order for it to function, like the flagella on certain bacterium? If you remove one of the parts of the protein mechanism the entire thing ceases to work. The implication is that given the selecting nature of…nature…the flagellum couldn’t have come about gradually because remedial steps wouldn’t be beneficial but a hindrance.

The dishonesty of supposed science is that it makes presumptions about origins that cannot be tested any more than a creationists presumptions. The debate of origins is firmly set in the philosophical arena, and not testable science.

Sure you can guess, and maybe have a somewhat educated guess, but to claim to know for certain how the earth began is dishonest. In that light, both camps employ measures of faith in their beliefs.

Faith is the substance of religion.

Religion doesn’t belong in the classroom.

Don’t teach either one, just explain how stuff works now.

If a kid asks how we got here, the teacher should direct them to sex-ed. If the kid still has questions, the publicly funded teacher shouldn’t say anything, because once that teacher offers an explanation to any of the fundamental questions of life, they move into the realm of religion.

Considering tolerance and understanding, evangelical atheism is just as bad as evangelical Christianity. Reminds me of a quote by Clint Eastwood, “Extremism is so easy. You’ve got your position, and that’s it. It doesn’t take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.”

But certainly science and religion shouldn’t be mixed, and intelligent design isn’t science. Yes, it’s an alternative, but it’s a very poor alternative.

Isn’t Intelligent Design an Agnostic point of view? hmmm… that would make these comments irrelevant and false.. wow sucks there bub.

Book recommendation for you guys: ‘Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution’ by Denis Lamoureux – it’s not a fundie book, it basically shows how Science and Religion can fit, without the ID nonsense, as this guy believes in an intelligent designer, but doesn’t believe in the ID Theory as spouted by Michael Behe and being pushed into the school system. This guy has a phd in Theology (specifically Genesis 1-11), a phd in Evolutionary Biology (specifically oral biology), and a phd in dentistry. He believes God created via Evolution. I took his class one semester at my university (which is a secular university – University of Alberta), and it was a fantastic course. Fantastic book too.

Oh yeah – keep ID out of schools! Seriously!

Religion is a story and nothing more the fact that there may be a god to me could be true but all religions are stories. Take native peoples (any country) they probably have a creation story it wont be anything like any other religion it may have a creator it may not but humans NEED to have answers it’s in our nature and if we cant find an answer well we may just make something up to satisfy our needs. Slowly through the generations this story becomes a truth that has been manufactured by man you could call religion a product of evolution actually because a story has evolved over a period of time to become a truth in the mind of those who believe.
No one knows !!!! NO ONE!!! I cant emphasize this enough.

Science is the best shot at having an actual answer!! Religion hinders our effort as a human race to find THE ANSWER it is not an answer it already has the answer. how are we as a collective going to realize our true nature if we are happy with what we have in place already if science stopped and religion was accepted and we all followed we would get absolutely nowhere in understanding how we came about.

I do believe in evolution as a process because it happens cold hard fact!!! think about mutating bacteria. And if you can’t think about it google it and have a read. Bacterias generational life cycle is hundreds of times faster that our own and it has clearly demonstrated evolution through generational mutations why do we now have bacteria that is resistant to medication?
this dose not mean we came about by way of evolution but the facts a heavily staked in it’s favor.
Science is constantly gathering knowledge building up evidence all the time.

There maybe a god but we haven’t had a story yet that’s been true just speculation.

I’m happy for intelligent design to be taught in schools it wouldn’t take long all you would have to do is say:

“Class we are going to move on to science class now.
Ok before we start I just have to mention that what I am about to teach you could have all been
started by a god or superior being but no one knows the true origins just keep that In mind.
Ok now we have that out of the way heres what we know for a fact…….”

I went to a catholic school from when I was 5 till I turned 18, part of my education was based on religious theory, my family is religious and I used to go to church until I woke up and looked around for myself.

Religion is a story.

“Book recommendation for you guys: ‘Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution’ by Denis Lamoureux – it’s not a fundie book, it basically shows how Science and Religion can fit, without the ID nonsense, as this guy believes in an intelligent designer, but doesn’t believe in the ID Theory as spouted by Michael Behe and being pushed into the school system. This guy has a phd in Theology (specifically Genesis 1-11), a phd in Evolutionary Biology (specifically oral biology), and a phd in dentistry. He believes God created via Evolution. I took his class one semester at my university (which is a secular university – University of Alberta), and it was a fantastic course. Fantastic book too.

Oh yeah – keep ID out of schools! Seriously!”

your talking about ID. Micro evolution exist. been seen in nature. MACRO-evolution does not. Has not been seen in nature. Now to say keep ID out but put Creation in is strange. On a personal note i guess. Believe there is a God and he did all he said (or was said about) and then state that He didnt do those things at all?! err…? conflicting. Your professor has either not fully accepted Creation or not fully accepted Evolution (in a Atheistic view). So that would come to the conclusion that he doesnt really know and you followed him blindly as sheep.

Listen. this is ID veeeeery simple. That life was designed. not randomly put together. Is God mentioned in that equation? no. It up to the individual to decide. (for example the Christian religion is a personal RELATIONSHIP with God, not going to church from 5 to 18 or going to catholic school.) So it boils down to a personal level when it comes to an actual creator. But being designed can be tangible and studied as a collective view.
To all: Please stop mixing Creationism with I.D.
Evolution: Atheistic (no God)
Intelligent Design: Agnostic (Not knowing God exist or not)
Creationism: Theist (God)

DOES NO ONE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE OF MICRO EVOLUTION AND MACRO EVOLUTION?! Wow.. amazing the stupidity

Isn’t intelligent design simply the idea that evolution was guided in a sense? I can sort of see how that makes sense considering the complexity of life on earth, its kinda difficult to think that this all sort of happened on its own, but I guess that’s just because I’m used to humans doing things themselves. I don’t think intelligent design should be taught in public schools since there is a ban on religion there. At the same time though I find all the comics that went along with the article rather offensive though. I hardly think the idea of intelligent design is the same as teaching alchemy as an equivalent to chemistry and the like.

@Jesus ate an apple

“You realize that arguing with a religious person is like arguing with a rock, it doesn’t matter what you say or what facts you show them, they’re not going to budge. Talking to somebody who has been brainwashed from childhood and completely blinded by faith is like talking to a retarded child, not a child, a retarded child.”

Was this posted by a retarded child?

@Matt

the fact that i was brought up catholic was the point i was trying to get across, that i had a view of both sides of the argument.

and the difference between micro and macro is negligible its all economics

if you would like another example of evolution in everyday life just look at how we breed dogs through selection.

Matt – You’re conflating evolution with atheism. Perhaps I followed the prof like a sheep, fair enough, but I believed before I’d even heard of the class that the theory of evolution is correct, and I believe in God, and that God created using the process of Evolution…so I am a Creationist in that sense. Not an atheist. Is it a contradiction? Only if you allow the conflations to continue. Could it be possible perhaps that God ‘loaded the dice’ in the evolutionary process a bit, by defining boundaries and limits to these ‘random processes’?

To add to that, I guess you could say that I believe in Intelligent Design, but not the ID Theory that they’re trying to push in schools as an ‘alternative’ to evolution. Evolution is such an incredibly complex process that perhaps the process itself could be created by a Designer. But then, perhaps it is an entirely Godless process. That’s where it comes down to faith, and I can assure you I’m not an agnostic, either. Can I scientifically prove God created through evolution? No, and as such I wouldn’t present this viewpoint in a high school Science class, the same as I would not teach the popular ID Theory (and for the record, I am pursuing an Education degree right now to teach high school biology, and I know this topic will likely be broached in my classroom, as it has with my old high school biology teachers, and all my classmates’ biology teachers).

Macroevolution has occurred, but is difficult to observe in a human lifespan – these processes take millions of years, so of course it doesn’t look like it would exist in our perspectives. Macroevolution is beautifully illustrated in recently found transitional fossils like the Tikaalik fossil found in Northern Canada (land-water transitional animal) or Odontochelys semitestacea, a turtle transitional form with an incomplete dorsal carapace.

Macroevolution: Species evolving into a different species. Not Microevolution. Species evolving within the same species. Your applying the one concept to the whole picture. Like seeing the first page of a book being blank and assuming the whole book is blank.

I’m not arguing that God exist or not. I’m arguing if life was designed or not. For example the 250 link gene base count that ‘randomly’ (from bottom up problem solving method) was put together to for the simplest form of life. 4 bases. 250 links. randomly put together made that? without knowing the end product or the purpose? That points to a design to me.

To an answer the question of who is the designer is up to the person. You can say aliens did it but then you would have even less evidence than that of a Creationist.
And yes Evolution (macro) is an Athiestic point of view. It states there is no God and random order is the point of origin.

Look people, you are making it sooooo complicated.

Whatever science cannot prove- does does not get included in the curriculum.

Science cannot “prove” ID.

Science can prove certain aspects of evolution.

end of story.

“250 links. randomly put together made that?”

Yes, millions of years of “randomly putting” made that.

The reason why nobody knows.

If you want to find out, take a huge hit of LSD and think about it really hard, but don’t tell my kid “Why” OR “How” other than what is proven scientific fact.

If I want to tell him/her it was god, then that is my job not yours.

The fact is, we don’t know how we came to be. Science, religion, it doesn’t matter which you subscribe to, you can’t prove either put all this here (the universe that is). So I don’t know why it’s so hard for either side to consider the alternative.

I mean, why couldn’t we have been created by a power we can not understand, then we evolved as necessary by our surroundings?

And the fact is, it doesn’t matter what you subscribe to, does it? Except to be “right” that is… Just enjoy the fact that we’re here, and let the scientists spend their time try to figure it out…

Would be funny tho some day if while studying the deep dark recesses of some black hole a hundred billion light years away, there sits an old guy fiddling with a new planet at his work bench. Then when he realizes he’s been discovered he runs for a fig leaf…

peace

The thing is, the ID Theory as presented in this article, with its idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ is a nice idea, but it exists in the realm of metaphysics – you can’t reduce it to a simpler form, therefore a Designer must have created it. The idea that evolution is a creation of God is a metaphysical jump as well, and even the idea that evolution proves there is no God is a metaphysical jump as well. These are metaphysical jumps well beyond the scope of the science classroom.

“The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to Heaven, not how Heaven goes” – Galileo

This quote sums up my personal position on God and Evolution nicely, even though Galileo is talking about astronomy..

@Rob
1) “Yes, millions of years of “randomly putting” made that.”

How is adding time to an equation solve it? This book is blank but if we wait thousands/million years it will have words in it. randomly. by itself.

Time doesn’t answer the question it just puts it in the unknown.
Better way to say that would be “Millions of years of “randomly putting” made that. maybe…”

doesn’t answer the question

2) Who said we are telling your kid its God that created it? It’s designed… didn’t answer who designed. that up to your kid to answer that (not you) and maybe answer it for yourself.

@tzugidan
You state a good point. I personally spent 20 years of my life as hardcore evolutionist and found it answering my questions. So i studied. researched. digged until i found answers. Found I.D. takes less faith (imagine that!?)

And @Mel
Bam. you hit it. one big point for me in my search. still takes faith either way.

What the heck are you talking about? I don’t need faith to understand that evolution is real. It is a scientific fact. Is this the Southern Bible blog or something?

Evolution is not a book. It is not “like a book” your allegory is retarded. DNA and books have nothing in common. If you are trying to say that DNA is somehow written and that time cannot do that, it shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. I refuse to debate someone who falls on the same old crutch- “well it couldn’t have just happened”. It did happen- read about it. Science proves that it happened.

Strange that you can twist things so easily to rouse up equally ignorant people. Truth is you are just refusing to evolve. You will be phased out, and TIME WILL do that.

I agree it is up to my kid to answer that, but explaining who has the right to teach religion to children: that would be the parents, NOT the state. Personally I don’t think anyone has the right to teach religion but I am just a radical and I probably worship Satan.

ID is religion. If it is not religion then it is not proven scientific fact anyways, and should not be taught until you can prove it.

“What the heck are you talking about? I don’t need faith to understand that evolution is real. It is a scientific fact. Is this the Southern Bible blog or something?”

Perhaps ‘faith’ is not the right word…basically taking what we have as evidence (or non-evidence, if you will), whether it be the Bible or fossil evidence or the complexity of living organisms and showing how this proves or disproves the existence of a Designer is a metaphysical jump. It’s not ‘Southern Bible’ stuff. Some would call it faith, I suppose, but proof/disproof of a deity is a metaphysical jump no matter what part of the spectrum you fall under in this debate.

science is science and religion is delusional bullshit…

see SUSAN BLACKMORE’S TED talk about memes and “temes”
the replicators that convey information and allow evolution

Southern Bible stuff? so only the south backwards rednecks cant grasp the concept of your elitist omniscient society? I’m bud but i don’t live in your make believe world. I’m born and raised in the south and two degrees kinda blows your stereotype out of the water.

How it feel to be taken out of context and bashed? Hmmm… wait you just did that.

And Mel’s right. Evolution does not have all the answers and it does take “faith” (for absence of a better word) to answer the questions it can not.

And please dont use a word to define the same word! You should know that being a educated “doctor”

LOL

I’m bud?
How it feel?

I don’t know what to say, I was born and raised in the south as well. I guess I should feel ashamed after reading your post.

First of all I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you can try again.

Second I disagree with the faith argument as before. It does not take faith for me to know that I am breathing air, or sitting in a chair – it takes knowledge.

I might have faith in my friends, or faith in a concept that is not proven. Evolution is a proven fact, and so – like my chair, does not take faith to believe in.

If evolution is NOT a proven fact, then please stop taking that flu vaccine. Scientists are constantly making new vaccines because they believe that the virus is evolving. If evolution does not exist then you should not get sick.

To note, “External World” does require some faith, or if you buy into some anti-skeptic arguments.

I think that _knowing_ you are breathing air or sitting in a chair is entirely non-trivial. It takes knowledge to know, but that’s tautological and says nothing, what does it take to have knowledge?

Mind, it doesn’t really affect this discussion, where we begin from the assumption of external world, its validity, and that of the sensory input. But don’t act as if it’s trivial.

Yes, very true. I have to have faith in my own senses, in order to know about the outside world.

Now what does that have to do with anything?

Maybe instead of teaching science in class we should teach “faith in all things through sensory input”…

then we can argue all day about which sensory input we have the most faith in.

I know which input I had the most faith in when I was in school. LOL.

Happy Darwin Day everybody!

Rob – I didn’t say that evolution is not a fact. I think it is, actually. It is a brilliant explanation of how life evolved to fit the surrounding environment via natural selection and genetic mutations, often resulting in speciation (oh yes, I’m not just talking about ‘microevolution’ here). I see the evidence proving the theory of evolution all the time around me and in my classes. A plant-animal interactions class that I’m taking has some wonderful discussions about how animals/plants have evolved to defend themselves against the other and/or tolerate the defences the other produces. Evolutionary biology was another great class too, except for the fact that it was at 8am (an aside and a wonderfully cheeky idea would be that the early risers were the ‘fittest’ students in this class via academic ‘natural selection’, hehe).

I personally don’t think Adam was created from dirt and Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Really, I don’t even believe Adam and Eve, as individual persons, even existed either. I believe the theory of evolution is correct, and we evolved from a common ancestor shared with other primates. Reading this, you could fairly conclude that I am an atheist. HOWEVER, here’s the rub – I believe the important part about the Creation as stated in the Bible is simply that God created (and that the rest is simply ‘ancient science’ as understood by the writers, inspired by the Holy Spirit), and this is the message that the Bible is trying to convey. Where my faith lies with Evolution, is that I believe that this theory does not prove or disprove the existence of a deity at all (and again, I will say it over and over again that I believe evolution is a fact).

The point I’m trying to make here is the element of ‘faith’ here comes into play as to whether or not you believe that evolution disproves the existence of God, as this is not a question that evolution explicitly answers, nor is it meant to. This is simply a theory with plenty of scientific backing on how species evolved and continue to evolve accordingly. God/No God is a metaphysical jump. This applies to the Bible too, even if you don’t want to hear it – atheists view it as a work of fiction (and a good teaching book for morals – I know an atheist who reads it all the time for this purpose!), others view it as proof of God. This is where the metaphysical jump, the leap of faith comes in.

Again with ID theory as presented by groups like Answers in Genesis – it mixes the physical with the metaphysical (irreducible complexity proves there is a Designer). My job as a future science teacher is to teach the physical (the observed mechanisms of evolution and the accompanying theory), not the metaphysical (that there is a Designer behind it all). That is a deeply personal leap of faith that shouldn’t be taught in a science classroom, and as such, I am deeply opposed to teaching ID theory, whether it be the Answers in Genesis/Michael Behe presentation, or even my own personal views (God created via the process of evolution, perhaps by putting parameters in place and/or loading the dice).

Well that’s good to know Mel. You seem very reasonable, and I salute your passion for writing. I personally see a spirituality in evolution myself, but I hate religion. I feel closer to a spiritual existence when I am in the wilderness, or feeling the tide rise as I surf through the morning.

I feel so far from that when I am in a church listening to a man tell me what political party to join in order to get to heaven. I have read the bible more than most Christians I know combined, and I have found it to contain terrible things such as the destruction of Jericho, which amounts to genocide.

The old testament contains very terrible things that the new testament tries to excuse and explain in Galatians. Most ignorant people do not know this, and so they read the old testament verbatim. Nothing so confusing could ever be a gift to mankind.

Wow. Look at the insults you cant receive for stating your opinion. Here are some sites for you to look at, if you would like.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
These people know MUCH more than I do… Much more.

@frankyvanherreweghe
~I’m am not afraid of accepting evolution, I am just totally convinced it isn’t the way the earth was formed. As for being rejected, I highly doubt that. You must not know many religious people because many of them believe in evolution. It’s what they have learned and been taught as kids. Sadly, that is one of the reasons so many people lose their christian faith- they can’t put evolution and The Bible together.
~I really am not catching your thought with that flu stuff…
~And yes, I know what hypocrisy is……..

Here’s an essay I wrote for comp last year (I was 14) for your enjoyment…

Evidence of Design
February 14, 2008
Composition 10

This paper will argue that there is strong evidence for a Creator of this earth. Some state that there is not evidence of an ordered design to this world. There are many controversial worldviews on this topic, but the author will express why she personally believes there is an ordered design in this world.
To begin with, the author believes in God. In His Word, the Bible- the book of Genesis- it tells of how God created the world, and mankind, in seven days. Some Christians claim God could have used evolution, but there is no record of that in the Bible.
The author wishes to express that this is not just a ‘the Bible says so’ faith. There are also many examples of design in the world around us. This paper will present a few simple examples of design. This paper will not probe deeply into the amazing scientific nature of the arguments, but only touch the surface.
The Fibonacci Numbers are a great proof of design. The Fibonacci Sequence (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8…), is the sum of the two previous numbers (2+3=5, 3+5=8…). These numbers are found in seed patterns on sunflowers and other flowers, pinecones, spiral snail and sea shells, animal horns, and all throughout nature. If there was no designer for this universe, how would these patterns exist? It is highly improbable that they just chanced to come out of evolution or the Big Bang.
There are also snowflakes. These tiny crystals are all hexagonal, need temperatures of 5o F to grow, and are all different. They have precise hexagonal patterns, and are beautifully made. Each ice molecule is a ‘V’ shape and held together by Hydrogen Bonds. These tiny flakes are so intricately designed it makes you wonder how they ever could have been a random chance process millions of years ago.
As for evolution, there is a lack of transitional fossils. The fossils of the
Neanderthal have been shown to be regular men, possibly with rickets or arthritis. One supposed Neanderthal man was found next to chain mail armor, placing him in the time of the middle ages. The anatomy differences between the “Neanderthals” and humans (though they are the same) are believed to be generated from a harsher climate and isolated, rigorous living. So where are all these evolved apes needed to complete the evolution of man?
According to evolution, flowers and plants evolved 140 million years later than bees did. How did the bees survive those millions of years without angiosperms (flowering plants)? Did the bees evolve the capability to pollinate flowers before there were any flowers to pollinate?
These are only a few examples out of many. We are surrounded by design in nature. There is a great deal of evidence for creation in our world. The author hopes that this paper will start you thinking and questioning the theory of Evolution.

So now we jump from Intelligent Design of Life to Earth Creationism. Oh boy.

Also, this teleological approach already assumes a design. Who said bees are there to pollinate flowers? Bees do their thing, and flowers happen to be pollinated.

Also, 140 million years before, and that too was a long time before now, and bees’ cycles are faster than our own. Plenty of time for bees to change their nature.

* Only using author’s words. Didn’t see much need for “research” on common-sensical issues.

@livvyjane – “It’s what they have learned and been taught as kids. Sadly, that is one of the reasons so many people lose their christian faith- they can’t put evolution and The Bible together.”

That’s because many of those people get stuffed into a false dichotomy by popular press, some churches, and people/organizations like Answers in Genesis and Richard Dawkins. This false dichotomy is fuelled by conflations such as ‘Believe in a creator=must believe in 6 day creation’ or ‘Believe evolution=atheist’ and you must believe one or the other. I got trapped in this not too long ago, as I had this long-standing idea that perhaps maybe God may have created through evolution, but was bombarded by soundbites and media from the extreme ends of this spectrum, making me feel like I was nuts and had to choose a side. If anything, it was the people at Answers in Genesis telling me that my university biology classes were nothing but lies lies lies! that made me nearly lose my faith, if you can believe it. I managed to pick it up again with a prof who went on this same life journey (although it took him much longer and 3 Phd’s), whose message was that we are all hurt by these false dichotomies, and that religion and science can be compatible (if you want them to be) in that they just ask different questions about the same topics – science asks the physical questions, religion the metaphysical questions.

@Rob – Thanks for the complement! I would have to agree with you in a way – myself, I feel closer to God in the middle of the wilderness than I ever have in a church. Whenever I hike up a mountain and look across the horizon, the feeling that overwhelms me is something that cannot be replicated FOR ME in an actual church setting.

I capitalized ‘for me’ by the way, because I do realize there are some who say that church is the only way you can get spiritual fulfillment and perhaps get closer to God. Personally for my own spiritual needs, I can’t find any better way than a mountain hike

@livvyjane:
Knowing now that you ‘are not catching my thought with that flu stuff’ makes me believe (and therefore the truth and nothing but the truth, right?) that you, indeed, do not understand the principles of evolution. So, I rest my case…

@Guy Shalev “Also, 140 million years before, and that too was a long time before now, and bees’ cycles are faster than our own. Plenty of time for bees to change their nature.”

How do you know the 140 million years ago the cycle was faster? That’s assuming that there was life 140 million years ago. How do you know what you are saying is true?

What about the Fibonacci numbers? To me, that seems very unlikely that such an amazing sequence could pop out of the big bang.

I still want to know how the flowers survived all those years…

@frankyvanherreweghe
No, I don’t understand all the principles of evolution. School, sports, and friends occupy my time, so I really don’t have the time to take an extra class at the local college to learn about all of it…
Ok, I googled your flu-vaccin… skimmed some articles… From what I understand, the virus is mutating, the bird flu… all that. Wouldn’t that be micro-evolution? Not macro-evolution, which is the real question here?

Please explain.

@livvyjane

you misinterpreted the quotation you made there dear.
a bees life cycle is much much faster than a humans is was the point that was being made. faster life cycle = more generations = faster genetic change

um we for a fact that there was life 140 million years ago and that fact is as cold and hard as it gets.

wheres your gods leftover creation juice to prove your point?

please understand before posting

Fibonacci numbers: this is a VERY simple sequence not complicated at all a child could recognize it.

and your last comment well it truly shows a great lack of understanding.

Call me Guy.

Livvyjane, I will show you how you undermine your own argument. Regardless of one’s argument, one must observe some laws in discourse.

You say “According to evolution… 140 millions years before”, first, it doesn’t say 140 millions years /ago/, but prior to flowers, so much longer. Second, if you will argue from the stance of Evolution (it is usually held for one to argue from within the theory one wishes to debunk and show how it contradicts itself or leads to false conclusions), then you can’t take it back and go “But it’s not true” once we show how it is not a problem from within the realm of evolution.

Furthermore, how did flowers survive? By your own words, when the flowers came, there already were bees. As for how the bees survived, which is what I think you meant. Bees do not need the pollen. The pollen hitch-hikes on them. What do the bees do with the pollen? And even if you did mean about the pollinating plants, some of them do rely on wind to do their pollination, it’s less efficient, but they can survive.

As for the mathematical nature of snow-flakes. Terry Pratchett in one of his “Science of Discworld” books with two scientists presents an amusing tale. For life to exist very specific things and rules need to apply in our universe. The assumption that this means the universe is planned in a teleological manner (for a purpose) is mixing cause andf effect. It wasn’t done this way so we could be here; we couldn’t be here and ask the questions if it didn’t happen to be this way.
Further, look at the way certain elements connect. It is always the same. Does this mean it’s planned? No, it means that if they didn’t connect this way, they wouldn’t have existed. Likewise, it’s not that someone formed the rules of nature in order for snowflakes to occur, but potentially that without the rules being as they are, they wouldn’t occur in the manner that they are.

Cause and effect, not effect and cause.

If you want, read Galileo’s letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (fair warning – kind of a heavy reading):

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html

Now read that again, but substitute the evolution controversy for heliocentricity. You will fall out your chair when you see the crazy similarities.

Faith didn’t crash with Galileo and Copernicus’ discoveries, so why should it crash with the theory of evolution?

Mel, you make an excellent point.

Once again you have strengthened our argument.

My wife is a Christian, and Darwin’s wife was too- a very pious one at that. What I am trying to say is that I am not trying to destroy faith in god. Why would I want to do that? I could never do that. We are simply trying to preserve science in it’s purest form.

I am sure no-one will read the letter though.

Yeah I know, worth a try though ) More people really should read the letter before they delve into how teaching evolution will ruin everything ;o)

Science is suppose to be proven wrong so don’t give me that science has wholes in it yeah and they say it does sometimes “i don’t know” is the best answer but for religion they seem to be 100% correct that is the key difference science changes, religion does not

“key difference science changes, religion does not”

Religion evolves too, you know. When you look at the amount of different religions, and sects of religions, and so on, and try to chart this, it suspiciously looks like a cladogram

Yes Mel- Noah is in the Koran – so Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a common ancestor. LOL.

anyways, did anyone see Nova the other night? It was about a board of education that required a statement be read in science class saying that Darwin’s theory is just a theory (their fav. argument) and that their are gaps in that theory. The teachers filed a lawsuit and won because records showed that ID was originally Creationism, and then was changed to ID by lawyers. Basically they found records showing typos which used creationism and ID intermingled in one word. The judge had to move his family due to death threats.

That is so very Christian of them. Kill the infidels, right? LOL. You have to see it. watch – the closing arguments. chapter 10.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III: Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of intelligent design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis, grounded in religion, into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the intelligent design policy.

NARRATOR: Citing what he called the “breathtaking inanity” of the school board’s decision, he found that several members had lied “to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy.”

JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III: The crushing weight of the evidence indicates that the board set out to get creationism into science classrooms, and intelligent design was simply the vehicle that they utilized to do that.

NARRATOR: Jones recommended to the U.S. Attorney that he investigate bringing perjury charges against Buckingham and Bonsell for lying under oath. And “the overwhelming evidence at trial,” he said, “established that intelligent design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”

JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III: In an era where we’re trying to cure cancer, where we’re trying to prevent pandemics, where were trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students makes very little sense to me. You know, garbage in garbage out. And it doesn’t benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries.

If you religious people are so sure about what happened let it go don’t use your energy to fight use your energy to love and help don’t fight or argue for you all know the truth. let science take its course for it will find the truth and we will all be free it may be the same truth, my bets on another horse tho.

“Yes Mel- Noah is in the Koran – so Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a common ancestor. LOL.”

Hehe…yes, Mesopotamian Great Flood stories

Great Nova bit there, by the way!

How about if we can teach evolution in church, then see if they like it

ID is not a recipe for muffins. It does not result in a batch of muffins.
ID is not a chicken. It doesn’t lay any eggs, cluck and such.
ID is not music, you can’t write it down as sheet music and play it at the piano.
ID IS NOT SCIENCE, IT DOES NOT MAKE PREDICTIONS , IS NOT TESTABLE, AND IS NOT FALSIFIABLE.

CASE CLOSED.

If people think intelligent design is a real science and that god created the world and the bible can explain everything, then why is it that everything we have today was created by science and people. Bible/god did not create computers, the space shuttle, the telephone, penicilin, electricity, the automobile, the flushing toilet, concrete, high rise buildings, organ transplants, the list goes on.

Everything creationists take for granted was created by men and science. If you think the bible is the answer then make something based purely on bible teaching and see how far that goes. See what new medicines will be made, see what new advances will be made. Take a look at what happened in the dark ages to see what will happen if intelligent design is taught in schools. Another 1000 years wasted.

Now that is fact.