God's 'Intelligent Design' in Classroom? Why Not?

[B. Max]

Evolution is not fact. The fact so far is your attack of those who don't buy into the fraud.

The earth is not round. The earth does not travel around the sun. These are arguments of equal calibre to your assertion that evolution is a fraud (a fraud, it should be pointed out, that is being perpetuated through generations, with thousands of scientists colluding to keep the truth, whatever that is, from us).

I find it telling that you attack evolution, but offer no evidence of your own (I already demolished your "no transitional species" attack), nor presented any alternatives.

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.rae.org/collapse.html

No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

No the reason for that is because there is no new evidence and all old theories have been discredited.

http://www.rae.org/collapse.html

[Black Dog]

Hmmm. Let's ee. Behe's fundamental premise (that complex systems cannot evolve) has been proven false (his examples or irreducably complex systems, such as bacterial flaggellum and blood clotting have been shown to be reduciably complex. Basically, irreducibility has been thoroughly debunked as a property that would invalidate evolution (as was discussed elsewhere).

I'm not about to wade through the mathamatician Berlinski's bloated prose, but it looks like he's just trotting out the same canards the anti-evolution movement has been trying for ages. One trip to talkorigins.org would suffice to banish him. On elast thing: I would again like to point out the fact that Behe, Belrinski, Dembreski et al have never attempted to put their "findings" through the process of peer review and duplication. The fact is, these people are charlatans preying on the gulible and ignorant (for crying out loud, Belrinski's last book was a defence of astrology!)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

Evolution is not fact. The fact so far is your attack of those who don't buy into the fraud.

B. Max is either flame posting or retarded. Normally, I do not say things like this, but I wouldn't waste too much more time attempting conversion to the logical side of life.

[Guest eureka]

The earth is not round. The earth does not travel around the sun.

Finally you have it! Now just stop trying to baffle BM with science and logic.

[B. Max]

Dear Black Dog,

Evolution is not fact. The fact so far is your attack of those who don't buy into the fraud.

B. Max is either flame posting or retarded. Normally, I do not say things like this, but I wouldn't waste too much more time attempting conversion to the logical side of life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No i've been posing the questions that evolutionists can't answer. Questions that if they can't be answered totally discredit the theory of evolution. Of course the typical answer when leftist dogma, and this case what is at the root of the atheist religion is questioned, is you're retarded. Like i said before, such has never given us any reason to believe they didn't climb down out of the trees, and further begs the question did they climb down to soon.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear mirror,

If 'Intelligent Design' is taught in school, it should only be in Religious Studies or perhaps Philosophy. To claim 'A big magic fairy did it' is not science. If ID schooling is going to cost the loss of logic and common sense, it can't be correct. There is ample evidence of evolution, not one shred for ID. Irreducible complexity is only held by those with no grasp of what an epoch is.

[Black Dog]

No i've been posing the questions that evolutionists can't answer. Questions that if they can't be answered totally discredit the theory of evolution.

Your premise is horsesh*t. Let's revisit it.

The problem is there would have to have been to many accidents and not only can they not explain the beginning of human or animal life, on top of all that there is the problem of all plant life. Where did the first seed come from.

The validity of evolution does not depend on knowing how the first life began. So your argument falls flat right out of the gate. Even if an alien from the planet Zoltrex planted the first amino acid in the primordial ooze, that does not discount the fact that all life since has evolved from that point, through processes like mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Like i said before, such has never given us any reason to believe they didn't climb down out of the trees, and further begs the question did they climb down to soon.

Apparently, some life forms never got out of the ooze.

[Melanie_]

Black Dog, he's not going to listen to reason. Just smile, nod your head, and move on.

[B. Max]

The validity of evolution does not depend on knowing how the first life began. So your argument falls flat right out of the gate. Even if an alien from the planet Zoltrex planted the first amino acid in the primordial ooze, that does not discount the fact that all life since has evolved from that point, through processes like mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Oh i think it does, even you have to keep bringing somebody into it to get it started. Which is what intelligent claims. Perhaps you could explain to the class the order of evolution.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog, he's not going to listen to reason. Just smile, nod your head, and move on.

Right. Jolly good, then.

[B. Max]

Black Dog, he's not going to listen to reason. Just smile, nod your head, and move on.

Right. Jolly good, then.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These proceedings are now closed."

[newbie]

Thank you.

[GostHacked]

How about this...

Throw ID to the scientitst. Let them debunk it.

Throw evolution at the um IDealists. Let them debunk it.

Results will be on the 11 Oclock news.

Or just wait till the end of this week when Jon Stewart tells us what the real deal is.

Evolution will never be 100% proven unless we invent time travel to go back and see what exactly happened. This in turn could also prove ID. Evolution as a theory is evolving itself. What we know becomes greater as time goes on. ID would have been able to design our bad traits out of us. Like the urge to fight and kill each other. That to me proves a failure of intelligence in the design. Maybe ID will evolve itself to prove that it is right, which in turn ...

There are years... wait decades scientific studies that support evolution. Also, the pile of evidence out there does not prove evolution is 100%. There are NO scientific studies proving ID. If there are please feel free to link them here. Also I find the lack of evidence supporting ID disturbing.

So I say we have one final battle to the death. Bring all your evidence that you can find supporting (and disproving) each side. I for one will wait for the great Spagettii Monster who will one day save us all.

[newbie]

There are NO scientific studies proving ID. If there are please feel free to link them here.  Also I find the lack of evidence supporting ID disturbing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They can't GostHacked, everytime they run into a contradiction in their own Holy book, they resort to one of many elusive claims: Oh, we aren't supposed to know everything, or God works in mysterious ways, or that part is not to be taken literal, or, or, or... I think you get my drift. And just recently one of their "outs" got uncovered. The archaeology as of late disproves many of the claims of the Old Testatment. Read The Bible Unearthed. Very enlightening. And there just isn't ANY secular references to Adam, Moses, the Red Sea parting, the Exodus, and even Jesus. All they have is their sole book against the world. Sad actually.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear newbie,

Very enlightening. And there just isn't ANY secular references to Adam, Moses, the Red Sea parting, the Exodus, and even Jesus. All they have is their sole book against the world. Sad actually.

Not entirely accutate, for there are some few references to some events, such as 'the great flood', that actually pre-date the bible. The problem is, religion ran the world for millenia, and became the 'sole record keepers' of history. Not entirely, but certainly the vast majority.

[newbie]

I didn't list the flood as it was in Gilgamesh that predates the Bible. I'm talking about the key figures and events in Judeo-Christian religion. A lot of the Christians will refer to Flavius Josephus re Jesus. But as he indicates, Jesus was a popular name back "in the day."

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear newbie,

There aren't many secular references, I have to admit. Interesting to note, though, that the 'bible' (at least the first books of the OT, that Jews, Catholics and Muslims all believe in) was written by some of the Diaspora Jews while 'on the road'...

[cybercoma]

edited for jumping the gun

[cybercoma]

There is not a debate, scientists generally accept evolution as being valid.

Theists want to believe in intelligent design and base it on faith, instead of the scientific method which involves experimentation and open debate.

F*** the facts apparently...

Let's teach kids that 2 + 2 = 5.

[cybercoma]

Dear Black Dog,

Evolution is not fact. The fact so far is your attack of those who don't buy into the fraud.

B. Max is either flame posting or retarded. Normally, I do not say things like this, but I wouldn't waste too much more time attempting conversion to the logical side of life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No i've been posing the questions that evolutionists can't answer. Questions that if they can't be answered totally discredit the theory of evolution. Of course the typical answer when leftist dogma, and this case what is at the root of the atheist religion is questioned, is you're retarded. Like i said before, such has never given us any reason to believe they didn't climb down out of the trees, and further begs the question did they climb down to soon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does every question for evolution have to be answered, yet every question for Intelligent Design does not have to have an answer?

[cybercoma]

B.Max, do yourself a favour and read through www.talkorigins.org

[Black Dog]

Or this: Intelligent design is not a theory

Contrary to the claims of some of our political leaders, intelligent design is not an alternative theory to evolution. It's a belief, and maybe - on a really good day - a hypothesis. But it is not a theory.

To become a scientific theory, a hypothesis has to be developed into principles that not only explain what we see around us, but make specific predictions that differentiate it from other explanations. It's not enough to simply sound like a reasonable alternative; a theory has to take a stand and risk being proven wrong. A philosopher named Karl Popper observed that a theory is only a theory when it is "falsifiable."

Intelligent design can't be falsified because it doesn't as yet predict anything that we can go out and check. And that, quite simply, is why intelligent design shouldn't appear in textbooks next to evolution as a scientific explanation of the fossil and genetic record of life on earth.

[moderateamericain]

i consider myself cynical of religion.

the question you have to ask yourself is

"Their are thousands of religions out there that say they are right. So which one is?"

Now if you wanna read a compelling book that is fact based is "The case for Christ" by lee stroblel? i think his name is. its 12 or so inverviews with biblical scholoars. he ask some very pointed questions, and they give some fairly good answers. The reason i bring this up is because if you are borderline or find yourself questioning your beliefs this is a good fact base book about christianity.

[GostHacked]

i consider myself cynical of religion. 

the question you have to ask yourself is

"Their are thousands of religions out there that say they are right.  So which one is?"

Now if you wanna read a compelling book that is fact based is "The case for Christ" by lee stroblel?  i think his name is.  its 12 or so inverviews with biblical scholoars.  he ask some very pointed questions, and they give some fairly good answers.  The reason i bring this up is because if you are borderline or find yourself questioning your beliefs this is a good fact base book about christianity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is a good Q. What religion is represented most by the people who are pushing ID?

Christianity?

Catholicism?

Islam?

Jewish?

The Pastafarians of the Church of his Noodley Appendage?

http://www.venganza.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

FSM needs to be discussed more. It is about as valid as ID.

Find the answer to my Q. What religion is represented most by IDers.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear GostHacked,

Here is a good Q. What religion is represented most by the people who are pushing ID?

That is a terrible question. For Islam, it is not even a question, neither for the Jews.

Christianity?

Catholicism?

They 'founded' the country, but are probably the most secular. They are also the ones 'most pushing ID', albeit back to the forefront.

FSM needs to be discussed more. It is about as valid as ID.

It is a joke, man. Not even a good one. Although, any discussion it foments can be a good thing.