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.
If the answer is yes, then you conceive the notion of Intelligent Design in the same way in which most of the human race does - as a religious concept.
So-called Intelligent Design does not have to be taught in the way most people conceive it. Given the shadowy, clunky, porous, coarse language of the theory of evolution (if anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, read some text on the subject see if the language doesn't strike you that way), the standard for didactics on that theory is rather weak.
It is entirely possible to present a purely objective, scientific presentation of so-called Intelligent Design, focusing on the irreductible complexity of biological systems and how such observations and analysis might present a challenge to Evolution. As much as people have the incapacity to grasp this, it is entirely possible for it to be presented in a classroom without it being religion centered. The problem is, most young people have been so brainwashed in the polarities God vs Evolution that keeping religion out of it -and out of the classroom where religion does not belong -would be a great challenge.
It's entirely possible to waste time in a science class teaching bunkum. But would we do that?
How can you not know that Michael Behe and his 'irreducible complexity' hypothesis has already been disproven?
Why would we present something that has been proven false? Other than as an example of the non-critical thinking induced by religious beliefs?
Bible teaches Adam came from dirt.. guess what.. everything created on earth come from the ground..
Liberals and those who think intelligent design could not be fact would rather rely on man's discovery even though they keep changing what the believe to be fact. Fact is , man doesn't know much.
Look at the absurd analogy Jaymax made. Comparing the "observation" of evolution to watching a bacterial infection propagate. Sure, the premise is the same but you can see binary fission in real time. In regards to natural selection, you'd have to observe a species in the same environment and hope you don't die 800 times over to observe one single phenotypic variation..and there is a highly probable chance you couldn't observe them without cutting them open among other things...
"Absurd analogy"?
I don't know why I bother giving you links to information when you never bother to read it. More strawman nonsense instead of reading the information.
Lenski's work is 25 years of observable evidence of evolution. Over 50,000 generations of e-coli under different environments showing many phenotypic variations and adaptations to the the different environments. Are you saying that this is not observable evolution? If so, what the heck do you think evolution is? A crocoduck?
How is Lenski's work an 'analogy' and how is it 'absurd'?
To avoid engaging in "if-by-whiskey"....no, ID's absolutely do not have to believe in a "designer". A CREATIONIST does...but again, an Agnostic can be an ID'er.
Perhaps you need to clarify what exactly do YOU mean by Intelligent Design?
I don't know why I bother giving you links to information when you never bother to read it. More strawman nonsense instead of reading the information.
Lenski's work is 25 years of observable evidence of evolution. Over 50,000 generations of e-coli under different environments showing many phenotypic variations and adaptations to the the different environments. Are you saying that this is not observable evolution? If so, what the heck do you think evolution is? A crocoduck?
How is Lenski's work an 'analogy' and how is it 'absurd'?
I'm saying it's much EASIER for one to observe 50,000 generations of e.coli...in a controlled setting at that...as opposed to observing....5 generations of humans...or 20 generations of tigers etc. etc.
In a nutshell, it's very easy to observe microevolution...macroevoltuion? Not so much.
That was my point in regards to Jaymaxs "infection analogy"
In todays world of advanced archiving capabilities? Yes..we can document every and anything witb visual evidence pretty much. But we also live in a world where anything can be doctored.
I didn't MAKE an 'infection analogy".
That's the problem with you not reading information and just focusing on making smart-arse insults- you continually get it wrong and make a fool of yourself.
He's getting into conspiracy theory territory -In other words, his home territory.
So humans evolve...but technology doesn't? Interesting.
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.
