I think they can teach problems with evolution and there are many scientists who do question certain portions of evolution. I agree with you whole heartedly on this. But Evolution and ID are not both theories. Only one of the two has undergone testing, and the scientific method. That theory is Evolution. ID has never undergone the repeated testing necessary to become a scientific theory. Scientific theory is different than just formulating some ideas and saying those ideas make a theory. There are a criteria of tests that MUST be passed in order for something to be an actual scientific theory. Intelligent design hasn't even started. Other theories that are scientific theories that have gone through the same process of testing are the theory of gravity, germ theory(which explains that germs transmit illnesses, and the list goes on. Testing theories and finding holes in them is part of the scientific process. I don't think there is anything wrong with showing various viewpoints on evolution including some who question it, in a classroom setting. I do think there is a problem with teaching non-scientific theories as theories in a science classroom, whether that theory is ID or anything else.
That is outstanding! You have no idea what you are talking about, yet (as usual), you keep on talking. "Evolution quacks" continually question and challenge a variety of evolutionary theory on a daily basis. Countless genome studies (for example) are underway in an attempt to narrow down and better define or to lead to new discoveries (yes, DNA evolution is observable and being monitored as we write). Seriously, you need to learn more about how the scientific community works. Not in high school, but in universities and public/private labs accross the world.
rimbaud -- i'll keep going on about something i don't know about. (frankly, your criticism of rhester is unfair because none of us have the foggiest clue exactly HOW all this happened). but here's my problem with evolution, at its core. how in the hell do inanimate acids/liquids/whatevers turn into living organisms?? i've never seen unliving things turn into living things. it's beyond man's observation. yet it's EXACTLY what evolution postulates...actually...it's what evolution ignores. and then we start delving further and further into the cell...and oops!!! turns out the smallest, "first" organism is more complex than we could have possibly ever imagined. uh, oh. now what? what happens to simplicity moving to complexity?? where'd it go??? Turns out we have the equivalent of a computer in each one of our cells...that communicates with DNA..that replicates an encoded message. Turns out, just a teaspoon of DNA could hold all the precise structures of all proteins in every creature every and still have room for all the infomation in every book published. Turns out, if you stretched out all the DNA in each cell, it would stretch 6 feet long. Oops. And I am supposed to believe...just believe...that all of this just sorta popped together out of the blue from random chemicals? With no trigger? I don't know if that's science...or philosophy...or whatever. But evolution has some inherent leaps of faith that don't seem much greater than my own in belief in a Creator. I would also point out that ID folks aren't drawing conclusions from one field of study. It's not just coming from microbiolgists and those studying the origin of life. They're also coming from cosmology and physics, as well.
I agree with you actually. Our philosophy matches. But I have a different understanding of a couple of things: 1. gravity is not a theory, a law of physics 2. germs transmit illness is not a theory, an observable conclusion. 3. Has evolution been scientifically tested? I am not aware of any testing that has established evolution as a theory of 'origins'. None with respect to origins. For example there are no missing links anywhere. Which by itself destroys evolution as science for me. I am not as smart as most but I do understand that if evolution is fact then billions and trillions of transitional species, organisms and evolutionary links are missing. If evolution is going to be considered science this must be explained to me. Evolution is considered science because scientists have taken it as a premise and worked backword to validate the premise. Darwin had no proof of evolution. Scientists have been working for the past 150 years to build the case for it. Darwin took micro evolution which is incremental change within species and extrapolated it to mean natural selection is the mechanism for Macro Evolution. Which it is not. I am not opposed to keeping creation out of the science class, as long as Macro Evolution is not religiously defended as verifiable scientific fact, which it isn't. Science has built a case of reason against religion and the vehicle of Evolution is their weapon of choice. I don't mind religion being rejected in the classroom as long as science does its diligence to verifiably and scientifically prove evolution. (the evidence fails scientific testing except as a hypothesis) My whole problem and point is that many scientists who are legitamate and brilliant in their fields recognize that Macro Evolution is faulty but because of the religious fear the scientific community refuses any criticism and insists on the educators continuing to teach evolution as 'absolute' truth without the proper respect for critique that has come about in recent years due to improved knowledge and technology. Any Evolutionist can convincingly debunk ID, and any ID scientist can shoot holes in Macro Evolution. The fact that there are two sides in this new debate means little. Especially considering that mainstream science is not open to any criticism on this one subject. Both of these statements can't be true- 1. Mankind evolved from nothing. 2. God created mankind. I don't mind believing in creation for purely religious reasons. And I don't expect it to be taught in a science class nor do I expect you to believe as I do. I do mind being told the only absolute truth concerning origins is answer #1 without reasonable, proveable, observable, tested, scientific evidence. (That should insult all of our intelligence.) Give me trillions of transitional evidences for Macro Evolution or prove to me that evolution stopped before any record of transition was left or give me another explanation that is observable, tested and proven. Evolution is the science of inorganic and organic development through randomness in constant transition over large time periods. At any slice in time the theory demands we find significant large scale transition. THERE IS NO TRANSITION observable anywhere. Please think about this.
so don't teach it as a theory. it's really not even an alternative to evolution, in and of itself. it just points to some trouble spots of the theory of evolution. none of those "trouble spots" were ever taught to me. it was taught as gospel...complete with a priesthood. that's the way it's presented. this is not my pet issue. frankly, i don't really care. God is who he is. this isn't life-changing stuff. those are my pet issues. but i do understand the frustration of those who are met with scoffing for daring to question the holy theory of evolution. just as i understand the frustration of those who are scoffed at for daring to question God.
Scientists are constantly testing the theory of evolution and it's many facets. It is NOT a sacred theory and is constantly being refined, changed and tested. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe (Big Bang) or the creation of life (abiogenesis). Evolution deals with speciation and variation found among life that we have observed. How is design and complexity measured? What observations have been made on these? Where are the articles in scientific journals? 1) The 'No theories please.' statement shows ignorance of what a scientific theory is. 2) 'Something from nothing' is not relevant to the issue of evolution. 3) As far as 'something coming from nothing,' I think virtual particles in Quantum mechanics qualifies.
I love how this administration is always coming up with new monikers for the same old things: "Global Warming" is now "Climate Change" "Creationism" is now "Intelligent Design" I've heard they are working on the new monikers for "treason", "lying", and "torture".
There is a place for it to be taught and it is taught there already. Sunday School, church, religious educational institutions, theology classes, comparative religion classes, philosophy classes, and homes are the appropriate places to teach ID. It is not science and should not be taught in science class.
Scientifically speaking Gravity and Germ theory are both theories. Yes they are also observable. A scientific theory has to meet that criteria. It doesn't rise to the level of scientific theory unless it is observable and has already been tested. There are numerous missing links. The Pteradactol, the PTEROSAURS, the QUETZALCOATLUS, Thalassonectes, the Hadrosaur, and many more are all transitional links with existing fossils showing that they did exist.
Why should ID be taught as Science? From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Main Entry: scientific method Function: noun : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. If ID could satisfy these criteria, then let it be taught as a science subject.
School is for academic success in life. Teaching evolution exposes students to biology and it interests some while others may be apathetic or bored. But teaching ID does not prepare them for anything in their career, unless they do philosophy.
If we can see the formation of stars, planets, etc. and we can see life, we can clearly see that the formation of life is something just as natural. Life may have been transported to Earth, it may have formed in space, who knows? Until we can prove otherwise, evolution is the best we have. But there is no supernatural spirit causing these things to happen. Get over it.
This is so hard to debate because I do not know as much as most of you do. But I am willing. 1. Could you give me an example of a scientific test of the theory of evolution that does not assume evolution? 2. What do you mean by 'creation of the universe' and 'creation of life'. 3. If evolution has not correlation to the origin of the universe (and life) why is it correlated in school textbooks? 4. Complexity and design are measured by observing DNA structure and sequence, protein synthesis, and cell functions on the short list. I will provide articles if you will be patient. 5. You ignored the transition question. Theory is based upon a set of scientifically proven hypothesis that yield verifiable principles. The verifiable principles are used to develop theory which demonstrate their correlation. With regard to the theory of evolution some of the principles claimed to be scientifically verifiable are: 1. Age of the universe 2. Transition of inorganic to organic to life 3. Precise synthesis through random occurance. 4. Chemical and energy conditions in the universe 1 billion years ago. 5. Genetic transition between species. 6. Synthesis of proteins under random uncontrolled conditions 7. First DNA strand Now that list came right off the top of my head. And I know I am not a scientist, very well educated on the subject, so no need to remind me. But it would help if you could make a case for these principles beyond assumptions or something that even evolutionary scientists are in dispute. How did virtual particles come to exist?
What other scientific theories are Christians sooooo concerned about? What is it about this theory that they become so "involved" in Science? What is in it for them? Why are they such scientific purists all of the sudden (over this one issue)? Does it stand out to anyone else?
I am a Christian believer in evolution. You call evolution 'the best we have.' That statement in itself seems to say it isn't perfect or at least that there is unknown. If there is unknown, how can you be so dogmatic in saying what is and isn't causing it? You may not believe there is anything supernatural causing it, but that doesn't automatically make it so. I'm not saying that it is what is causing it either. But I am saying that in a discussion like this the kind of dogma you are espousing doesn't seem to have a place.
I think your criticism of rimbaud's criticism of rhester is unfair. You said evolution is taught like gospel and rhester says evolution is viewed as "sacred" by quacks. You guys can't seem to grasp the concept of theory. As it has been pointed out rimbaud, evolution is constantly tested and studied. Do you ever sit around and try to find ways to prove or disprove the existence of God? You have accepted his/her/it's existence as being true, that's faith my friend. Then you say "so don't teach it as a theory." Uh, isn't the point of this argument that people want ID taught in science classes? If people are going to push for ID, please give us some experiments we can use to test it. Oh, yeah, you can't. ID isn't science, it's faith. You look at the human nervous system and go "oh, that sh*t is too complicated, somebody or something created it." Also, if something or someone intelligent is designing life, why are there flaws and waste like, I don't know, the human appendix? Oh, and people, please stop sticking the Big Bang and Evolution together and making it one theory, they are two different theories that explain two different things. Finally, I think it's silly of you, rhester, to post a list of like a 100 or 200 scientists and say, see, it's valid because they all believe it. Math is a science, tell me what percent of the scientific community believes in ID. I bet if I posted a list of scientists who don't believe it, I would crash Clutch's server and that would suck for everybody.
