Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its not a scientifically theory, so has no place being taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. So, would it be part of religious education class?
Perhaps there needs to be clarity:
Hahaha .... yes, we do need a little clarity here ... and the first place to start is the blatantly absurd claim that ID is not a scientific theory. The video I posted were scientists supporting intelligent design .... not theologians.
We also need to point out that it is the "evolutionists" who constantly associate ID with religion ... not those within the ID theory group. And though one could argue that ID poses certain religious implications, most of those arguments again come from evolutionists, while the ID scientists decry such associations.
The facts are ... evolution theory has far more in common with religion than does ID theory, and is every bit a "religion" unto itself. It's based on theories which are counter intuitive ... totally intolerant to competing argument ... and relies heavily on dogma. A better description of religion would be hard to find ... yet also defines evolution quite accurately.
So, let's be clear ... ID scientists consider themselves and their theories to be scientifically based, and present strong scientific arguments against the more "faith based" theory of evolution, who's proponents are every bit as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist religious fanatic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattos_12
Scientific theory:
Hypothesis + how well explains observable evidence + mechanism
So, the question comes:
What is the ID mechanism?
Has ID ever been observed?
Is there any observable evidence that any interference with evolution has ever occurred?
The answer to these questions is non, and no and no, thus what you have there is still a 'hypothesis' which is as good or bad as any other randomly generated hypothesis. So, 'elves did it', just as valid. 'Apples have formed an alliance with cats, forming capples, which wish to raise humans to serve them' equally valid.
Asking a question and then providing the answer yourself is not discourse or debate ... it's dogma ... thanks for providing us such clarity. Now, I will answer the questions from BOTH SIDES of the argument, HONESTLY and without the rhetoric.
What is the Mechanism = the mechanism driving life, according to mainstream science is DNA. The most complex code known to exist, which is stored by the most sophisticated data storage mechanism known to exist.
How was DNA formed, and where did the code instructions contained in DNA come from:
Evolutionist - DNA (retroactive explanation, as DNA hadn't been discovered when Darwin formed his theory) but like everything else, it must have formed randomly, out of amino acids that joined to create proteins which then joined to create DNA just as the natural process of joining to create single cell organisms. Where did these amino acids and proteins get there instructions? Evolutionists can't say .. unknown.
Intelligent Design - ID cannot explain the existence of DNA either. Due to it's complexity both in language and storage mechanism, and it's ability to self replicate ... ID suggests that it cannot be explained by means of random or natural processes because of that complexity, and no example of random-natural processes has ever been observed to produce such sophisticated organization. The most reasonable hypothesis is therefore to consider it non-random. That's the true scientific method ... and quite valid ... if you cannot determine what something is ... you can begin the process of elimination by determining what something is not. And by any reasonable measure, DNA appears to contain very specific, intelligent design characteristics, of a level of sophistication that modern science cannot reproduce, even in the laboratory.
So the conclusion ... Evolution - DNA appears out of thin air in a random mixing of chemical components. Intelligent Design - DNA exhibits in great detail all of the qualities of purposeful design, with organizational structure unlikely to be accidental or random chance.
Has ID ever been observed
Evolutionists - No. Never.
Intelligent Design - Yes, inside every human cell, a complex, sophisticated, well organized system is in operation which could be characterized as a self contained, microscopic factory. Many examples of the biological processes conducted by microscopic "machines" are constantly working to construct, maintain and repair cells. Bacteria demonstrates the classic features of intelligent design too ...such as the "flagellum motor" used by certain bacteria for propulsion:
This motor is constructed from proteins which form the various components of the motor ... some 40 separate parts which must be manufactured, and then must be assembled in precise order for the motor to function.
To the casual observer who isn't steeped in dogmatic ideological self delusion ... this motor exhibits every reasonable aspect of a mechanism that was "designed" to perform it's intended function, and unlikely to occur by the random mixing of amino acids or protein strands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattos_12
The question isn't is ID right or wrong, but can it be judged as part of the scientific process. Which it can't. So can it be taught as competition to evolution? No, it can't.
Wrong question. The question isn't whether ID is right or wrong ... the question is, could the complex nature of such things as DNA and Flagellum Motors construct themselves without detailed instructions, and be nothing more than the natural mixing of amino acids which only appear to have designed features?
And the answer depends on just how honest .. or how blindly ignorant and self delusional a person is who answers that question.
Hahaha .... yes, we do need a little clarity here ... and the first place to start is the blatantly absurd claim that ID is not a scientific theory. The video I posted were scientists supporting intelligent design .... not theologians.
And you are a jeweler supporting intelligent design. That doesn't make ID an engagement ring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
We also need to point out that it is the "evolutionists" who constantly associate ID with religion.
Of course. Why would you expect otherwise? Did you not read "The Wedge Strategy?"
ID deliberately conceals its religious purpose. Its "founder" is explicit on that issue. So it's up to the real scientists to expose the charade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Bacteria demonstrates the classic features of intelligent design too ...such as the "flagellum motor" used by certain bacteria for propulsion.
I was going to type in some replies to the creationist slowly thinning crowd, but I see HistorianDude is not only holding the scientific fort, but has pretty much burnt creationist badly constructed hut to the ground. Well done.
Religions generally advance creationism, but we didn't know the Universe was 13.75 billion years old and all matter, energy, space and time came into being in a single event and at one place until the last century.
Now I'll ask the question again.
Do you have an explanation as to why this may have happened such that a creative force independent of time, space, matter and energy would be ruled out?
Sounds like now you're asking me to explain what science is. "Now" you seem to "know" that the universe is 13.75 billion years old... How do you know, if not for science? Think about it, and the explanation would be right in front of you.
But, if your question is about big bang, why do you assume that to be true? Once you understand what science entails (as opposed to what most religions do... I say most because some religions don't bother with trivial matters of creation, just philosophies on living and sharing), you just might gather that the beauty of science is the evolution of knowledge. It stems from logic and critical thinking. The kind of thinking that hasn't stopped scientists to stop with Big Bang, crawl under a rock and hand everybody a copy of their findings on the subject. Take the M-theory for example. How would you summarize your understanding of it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2
EVER WONDER WHY THIS TOPIC IS NOT ON THE RELIGION BOARDS??
I would prefer it in Science versus Religion thread, but then I see that this topic fits the paradigm of "controversies" and religion too has been dragged into politics since the beginning of time.
Some folks complain that we're falling behind other industrialized nations in science education. Then they say we need to teach creationist nonsense as if it's science.
If these people have their way, we're doomed.
Self-explanatory, but well worth repeating. We're doomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are as faulty as your logic here ... I think the Noah's Ark business of literal interpretation of religious parable is as absurd as your side's opinion ... and I don't think that citing what Ark people believe is some legtimate endorsement of your side's nonsense.
Secondly, your claim that "speciation" has been observed as exclusively involving mutation and natural selection is COMPLETE NONSENSE too, on a couple of levels ...
(etc etc)
Finally, hybridization/interbreeding is genetic recombination, blending and adding additional DNA information. This holds no similarity to genetic mutation, which is a subtraction or damage to DNA information that has NEVER been proven evolutionary.
Well, obviosuly you don't know what you are talking about, technically speaking. You just glom on to the convenient bits, and ignore the rest. I doubt it's even worth trying to correct you. Let's just briefly say: you seem to want to try on that sad ploy of denying that any speciation exists, or when it so obviously does, you just reduce it to "adaptation".
Permanent, DNA-recorded changes due to the mechanisms of mutation are evolutionary in outcome. They may even be lethal; most are, but when wwe try things out a multi-wuintgrillion times over, the occasional positive change will take hold if it benefits the survival of that organism. Simple, huh?
BTW, it's not anything like a tornado over a junkyard creating a 747; that's just dumb by definition. Why? Because there's no obvious advantage to chance organization within such chaos, while DNA mutations in that simple system will affect survivability, and are dutifully recorded for subsequent generations' on-site testing. Not so in a transient tornado; how would the chaos inside a tornado recognize that the metal in a main engine bearing needs to be more heat tolerant? That only comes through highly focused research that in and of itself is not logical but rather "driven" to a predicted and necessary endpoint. You can't see the difference?
If the mutations within the comparatively simple DNA system (only 4 molecular types within it, after all) result in a significantly differentiated organism, one that utilizes it's environmental niche differently, it's immediately effective as an improvement, no matter how incremental. BTW #2: Evolution does NOT inherently man big ol' obvious Cat-Turns -Into-Dog-Overnight type changes that anti-Evolutionists demand. Adaptations can be just to the length of guard hairs on the animal's back.
Ande this, through these accumulative micro-changes, we become a differentiated tribe, then a race, then a sub-species, and eventually, when it becomes reproductively isolated, a species. There's not a good gall-durned thing you can do to change that definition, much as you'd like to, for reasons of Convenience or Denial.
I'll briefly comment on two of the following poster's supposedly salient but in fact incorrect points:
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
This biased approach is why evolution, as embraced by the public school system, is in fact the state endorsed religion of Atheism dressed up as science.
I am of the opinion that something caused the Big Bang (first cause). Whatever caused it to happen would seem to exist independently of time and space, and is by definition our Creator.
Can you address the question of first cause without sinning against your faith that no creator can possibly exists?
Answers: their's no attempt to dress anything up. The OP's question is about the teaching of Creatioinism in the schools. As one of the mot agrerssive atheists you might ever hope to meet, as well as one with more than enough scientific education to wrestle all your points to th ground in less than a match time, I'll just say I'm absolutely for teaching Creationism, but just not in Science class. Why? Because it's easily proved to not be science per se. Simple, huh? And not arguable.
But I'd really like to see a Comparative Religion class. Are you for or against that, or do you want only Christianty taught there?
BTW #3: I'd also want some of the Creationist's ideas of an Insta-PoofyGenesis to coincide to the section in biology on abiogenesis, and then the Creationists' account of Noah's Ark and the Fabulous Biblical Instant 6 day Creation Event of all the then-known species (according to the bible, there were only 1700 species on the entire planet at that time....3500 animals on that Ark, in pairs! ) to coincide with a cogent logical scientific presentation in science class on a brief summary of everything we now know about Evolution, including the latest irrefutable in-lab proofs of speciation. [Warning no changes in definitions allowed!]
That way, our logical & inquisitive student body could make timely comparisons and make their own minds up, and not just end up parroting the ideas of science or religion.. Objections? .
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
I do not particularly care what your religious beliefs are. I merely point out (again) that even creationists call bull sh*t on your claim. So you're kind of hanging out there on your own with the absurd falsehood that speciation has never been observed and does not occur.
But this much we do know. We know what a species is. And we have seen new species arise from older species in both the laboratory and the field.
What exactly do you understand "species" means? You appear quite confused.
That said, you are simply and factually in error. Speciation has been observed which involved no hybridization or cross breeding whatsoever.
Quite right, HD. when corneerd by proven speciation, the next tactic is to change the definition of "species". Apparently there is no speciation, we're the exact same species as a pond scum bacteria or a toad. We're just "temporarily micro-adapted!" Yah gotta luv transparently obtuse thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastwesteastagain
Seriously asking, is this why folks who believe in creationism think it should be taught as science instead of religion? Because they believe evolution as taught in schools is promoting atheism?
Apparently. Amusing, eh? Fact is, they are terrified of logical clear-headed thinking getting a foothold, and thus of losing their influence on their once-innocent children to the Satanic idea of critical thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
The issue of evolution has never really been 'science' (junk science at that, as recognized throughout most of the scientific community).
The real issue is ACCOUNTABILITY! -- As long as man remains randomly evolved from swamp gas (or whatever), he has no accountability to anyone or thing higher than himself. In other words, man can be his own 'god.'
But, if one acknowledges the truth of God's creation as revealed in God's Word, then man, as a created being ... must also acknowledge his own accountability to his creator and God.
The 'science' of evolution never really answers man's questions regarding the 'source of life' ... or resolves man's inborn desire and search for God's truth. That's because God created man as a being who will only find peace and satisfaction of the inborn desires of his heart ... from God!
Q: why do you need to have this question answered? There's no need.
So many mis-interpreted definitions and mis-information. It boggles the educated mind. sigh.
Yes, inside every human cell, a complex, sophisticated, well organized system is in operation which could be characterized as a self contained, microscopic factory. Many examples of the biological processes conducted by microscopic "machines" are constantly working to construct, maintain and repair cells. Bacteria demonstrates the classic features of intelligent design too ...such as the "flagellum motor" used by certain bacteria for propulsion:
This motor is constructed from proteins which form the various components of the motor ... some 40 separate parts which must be manufactured, and then must be assembled in precise order for the motor to function.
To the casual observer who isn't steeped in dogmatic ideological self delusion ... this motor exhibits every reasonable aspect of a mechanism that was "designed" to perform it's intended function, and unlikely to occur by the random mixing of amino acids or protein strands.
Nature is amazing isn't it...
Maybe it was space aliens that designed life on Earth? I've seen more evidence of the possibility of extraterrestrial life than I have of God's existence...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My Twitter-like responses....
) to coincide with a cogent logical scientific presentation in science class on a brief summary of everything we now know about Evolution, including the latest irrefutable in-lab proofs of speciation. [Warning no changes in definitions allowed!]