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.
Ok, so you don't teach it in a science class. So far this whole thread has been religion vs. science. You are correct that religious belief is not a science, so offer it in a different venue such as in a human development course. However, where is the problem of teaching both without trying to discredit one or the other?
It is and always has been offered in different venues...houses of worship and as far back as I can remember, kids in school were excused early on specific days to attend religious instruction classes. I would not appreciate any child in my family being taught what I and others consider a fairy tale as a major subject taking on the same signifigance in a public school as science class does. Religious and Creationism teachings has it's place and it is not in the public school classroom. Greek Mythology was taught, but considered and taught as "myth". Creatioinists want this subject taught as factual.
That was actually from the Discovery Institute so I would suggest contacting them for their definition. They only consider it a challenge to the Theory of Evolution, not an alternate. Just sayin'. What observation would falsify ID?
Perhaps you may want to simply visit the Discovery Institute's website, and do a bit of reading, because I'm not the one who is confused here. If you do, what you will not find is them dismissing themselves as not a "bonafide" scientific theory .. they in fact cite numerous scientific papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and numerous credentialed and legitimate scientists, affiliated with prominent universities as supporting intelligent design theory. That tells me that they'd probably say yes if asked if ID theory is a legitimate scientific theory.
Fact is, they crush the inane suggestions and arguments so often presented by neo-darwinists who claim the ID has no scientific backing, with published evidence of scientific backing.
For example:
"Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:
1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition."
Oh yes .. and let me add ... it is rather telling of the mindset of neo-Darwinists who reject any challenge as unscientific, even in the face of scientists actually offering the challenge. Well, that's no problem at all ... just claim that those challengers aren't real scientists, and their theory isn't a real theory.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 03-13-2013 at 03:11 PM..
Perhaps you may want to simply visit the Discovery Institute's website, and do a bit of reading, because I'm not the one who is confused here. If you do, what you will not find is them dismissing themselves as not a "bonafide" scientific theory .. they in fact cite numerous scientific papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and numerous credentialed and legitimate scientists, affiliated with prominent universities as supporting intelligent design theory. That tells me that they'd probably say yes if asked if ID theory is a legitimate scientific theory.
Fact is, they crush the inane suggestions and arguments so often presented by neo-darwinists who claim the ID has no scientific backing, with published evidence of scientific backing.
For example:
"Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:
1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition."
Perhaps you may want to simply visit the Discovery Institute's website, and do a bit of reading, because I'm not the one who is confused here. If you do, what you will not find is them dismissing themselves as not a "bonafide" scientific theory .. they in fact cite numerous scientific papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and numerous credentialed and legitimate scientists, affiliated with prominent universities as supporting intelligent design theory. That tells me that they'd probably say yes if asked if ID theory is a legitimate scientific theory.
Fact is, they crush the inane suggestions and arguments so often presented by neo-darwinists who claim the ID has no scientific backing, with published evidence of scientific backing.
For example:
"Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
This article by Dr. Joseph Kuhn of the Department of Surgery at Baylor University Medical Center appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. It poses a number of challenges to both chemical and biological evolution, including:
1. Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2. Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3. Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition."
These are challenges. Not a Scientific Theory. BTW proceedings are not a peer reviewed journal.
I don't believe I am confused. Challenges are not the same thing as a Scientific Theory. Do you know Michael Medved? Michael is a Fellow at the Discovery Institute. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post in which Medved is asked about a variety of issues, most of them political, with just a short exchange on ID. Here is the relevant portion, in full.
Quote:
JP:Speaking of your desire for this kind of particularity, you are a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute that studies and believes in Intelligent Design. How do you, as an Orthodox Jew, reconcile with this kind of generality - with the view of their being a hierarchy with a chief "designer" - while believing in and praying to a very specific God?
MM: The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else. The question is not whether it replaces evolution, but whether it replaces God. No, you see, Intelligent Design doesn't tell you what is true; it tells you what is not true. It tells you that it cannot be that this whole process was random.
This is actually quite interesting. What is happening is that a religious interviewer is expressing concern that ID is a challenge to God as the designer. This puts ID creationists in a tough position. In order to sound "sciency", they pretend that ID is not about God and say that the designer could be anything intelligent (God, gods, aliens). This is not science, and it is also not very good theology, as the interviewer indicates. As a result, ID creationists usually say one thing in debates (we can't know who the designer is) and another in speeches to religious groups (obviously, the designer is God).
The thing is, there already are qualified people who constantly challenge evolutionary explanations. They are known as evolutionary biologists. They argue, and trash each other's papers as peer reviewers, and force one another to present more convincing data on even the smallest issues. The outside commentary by ID creationists -- if indeed they are offering no testable alternatives (which they aren't) -- is not useful. Evolutionary biology will continue to study how complex features arise without creationists' challenges because it is the job of science to explain such things. And they will do it in the field, in the lab, and in the peer-reviewed literature.
George Gilder, interviewed in the Boston Globe, July 27, 2005.
Quote:
"'I'm not pushing to have [ID] taught as an 'alternative' to Darwin, and neither are they," he says in response to one question about Discovery's agenda. ''What's being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there's a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content."
Paul Nelson, interviewed in Touchstone vol 17, July/August, 2004.
Quote:
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity”—but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
Phillip Johnson, quoted in Berkeley Science Review, Spring 2006.
Quote:
"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
These are major players for the Discovery Institute. I am not aware of any changes to this. Now, what observation can you conceive of that would falsify ID?
Dr Kuhn installs lap-bands in fat people. He's not exactly a scientist of the theory of evolution.
...and then there is this...
I was alerted to creationist article published in the Proceedings of the Baylor University Medical Center via Why Evolution Is True. The author of the paper is Joseph Kuhn, MD who claims that “…surgeons are uniquely capable of gathering information, making observations, and reaching conclusions about scientific discoveries.” For the most part it is your standard ID mumbo jumbo and has been ably dissected elsewhere. One part, however, caught my eye:
"Evolution" is unproven and therefore it remains a theory, and a ridiculous one at that! It shouldn't be taught as fact. It should have scant mention, and should be presented only as a theory.
It has become a tool of the left which is used to ridicule and discredit Christianity and Judaism for the single purpose of promoting atheism.
Evolution is a "theory" in name only; there is such voluminous evidence of evolution, both past and continuing, that denying it proves one's scientific ignorance and (in this case) religious lunacy, and is emblematic of the sad state of the U.S. educational system compared to other countries.
From DNA to radiocarbon dating to the fossil record to natural selection, the proof of evolution stands as certain and strong as proof of Einstein's theory of relativity. To not teach evolution as part of a secondary education should be criminal ... along the same line as advocating that your child not be vaccinated against childhood disease. Both "non-belief" systems are rooted in ignorance and fear.
Evolution neither promotes atheism nor ridicules religion; religion does enough on its own to earn the heaps of ridicule it deserves. If you fail to accept that this is a secular country governed by a constitutional document, then you're free to do your children a disservice and teach them "creationism" via home-schooling. But don't claim that evolution is "unproven" because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-25-2013 at 03:53 PM..
Reason: rude
Nothing about evolution implies that a moth will become a rat or a lizard.
It can tell us about common ancestors, though. Organisms are organized taxonomically based on similar structure, similar embryonic development, and similar DNA, RNA, or amino acid sequences of proteins. That tells us how closely related they are.
The moth, the rat, and the lizard all had a common ancestor about 581 million years ago.
Given enough time, a moth of today might evolve into something similar to a rat or a lizard.
Preposterous .... unless you can also explain why evolution stopped? Or did you not know that it stopped? If indeed Darwinian Theory regarding "speciation" was actually true, then we would surely see evidence emerging in real time ... right now ... this very moment. Since this process of speciation is ongoing and ever at work, one would naturally expect to see the end cycle of that transitional process unfold today. But we don't. So, either the theory is all wet, or it stopped at some point, which would explain why we don't see these new species popping up all over the world. And we don't see it. What we see, when a new species is discovered, is that it has been around for a long time, but was only now discovered to exist.
Sorry, but your site does not validate scientifically the position of evolution. It is simply a site that attempts to state that science supports such. That is, it is an opinion based site based on the culmination of the evidence to establish that the science supports such, as if to say that science was a means of a title to which one seeks approval rather than an evidential process of verification, validation, and replication through rigorous controls. /shrug
Fact is, they crush the inane suggestions and arguments so often presented by neo-darwinists who claim that ID has no scientific backing, with published evidence of scientific backing.
"Intelligent design" is rejected by 90% of scientists. It's a joke. Please. LOL. It's not even a joke. It's pathetic.
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.
