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.
Well you need to calm down then.
Again, I was answering the poll question. Please read those. The basis of topic for this conversation that we are having was "Would you teach ID & Evolution, Just Evolution, or just ID" That's the question I was answering in the post you quoted.
Ok, you think they should teach both, but you're not using them to answer the Big Questions you think you are answering.
You wrote.
"The universe had a beginning, and there are theorists and scientists who support many different possibilities as to it's origin and how it has progressed over the years but basically the two most popular theories come down to intelligent design and evolution."
The universe's beginning and the creation of the planets are not what we are talking about here. That is not where ID and evolution differ. Evolution does not deal with the beginning of the universe, so you can't apply the theory there. No one know how the entire universe was created. That's a job for an astrophysicist or perhaps a philosopher.
The question we are answering is: How the heck did all these living things get here and how do we get new ones? All scientists and most rational non-scientists would say "Evolution by Natural Selection explains how we got all these cool species!" whereas a creationist=IDer would say "God put them here"
I was taught about evolution in junior high school science classes and just took it for granted that it was still part of the curriculum, but after reading your post, I did a bit of research and found this...
Evidently, you were not mistaken about your kid's science classes and it was not up to you, but I am really surprised that it has gotten to this level.
So yes, there is a dumbing down and I think it is shameful that the people that choose for their children to remain ignorant in the sciences are a drag on the rest of the population.
The study shows that they're still teaching natural selection though. They're shying away from speciation, which is really where the IDs go nuts. But yes, they're still teaching evolution, even if its not the full story.
Of course I do but like I said in an earlier post, how we were created wasn't even taught. My kids were taught how things work. They were taught biology and how to dissect and identify the different body parts...they were taught chemistry and how different chemicals mix. How we were created never even came into the mix and it shouldn't because that is not science.
It certainly is science...Facts derived from the theory of evolution are some of the most important discoveries in the modern world. Evolution has given us major advances in medicine, agriculture, and many other technologies. Actionbioscience | Evolution's Importance to Society
I never said that both can't co-exist. I personally am of the belief that science is a way of proving creation. I believe evolution is real, but to what extent, I don't know. No one does. Let's face facts, they call it a missing link for a reason. What I said was that when we accept that the universe had a beginning we either have to ask ourselves if it was created or that it just happened?
As far as creating a dichotomy talk to the OP, not me, look back at our options in this poll. Do you believe IT should be taught along with evolution, instead of evolution, or not at all. You'll forgive me for giving my opinion on the direct question that was asked and not taking the typical CD route of going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic, I hope.
You say: "Let's face facts. They call it a missing link for a reason" That's a very loaded statement.
What 'facts'? Who is 'they' and what is 'it' and what is the 'reason'?
The fact that you use the popular term 'missing link' (often thrown around by Creationists who don't understand what evolution is), tells me that you yourself don't know very much about evolution. Why would you assume that just because you personally don't know much about evolution, that "no one" does?
Try looking up the term "transitional fossils" for a start.
Edited to add: I'm not trying to insult you, just asking you to challenge yourself more and not assume that because you might not know something, that no-one else does.
Of course you can. I went to catholic schools and biology had nothing to do with evolution.
So did I, but a Catholic school is not a public school.
ID is not science...It is nothing more than disguised creationism...
The Wedge Document is a publication of the Discovery Institute which outlines their goal to bring the "controversy" over "evolution" versus "intelligent design" into the public arena, in a way politically contrived to get less informed members of the public to side with the idea of "teach both sides" (one side being science, the other religion). It is the smoking gun that demonstrates that "intelligent design" is "creationism" in a thin disguise.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
What I find hilarious it all this discussion is that 3 blocks from my home is a museum which bills itself as the creation science museum. For fun and giggles I went in there one day. They actually had a display which suggested man and dinosaurs lived together.
I think the first step a species takes to become 'god-like', you know potentially 'all-powerful', is for it to kill off their initial concepts of a creator.
The only problem comes when you realize this you also come across the quandry: If we have reached a technological plateau where we no longer need faith in imaginary supernatural parental figures, how many other species have already done the same and explored our little corner of the galaxy with their divine-seeming selves?
In essence, is the creator myth simply a story made up by control freaks or the well-intentioned passed down for millenia in various cultures in various ways or was it simply originally a tale of people with an overwhelmingly advanced technological progress who visited and shaped what we were and what we are?
This is not a question of faith and not at all a condemnation of science. It is an inquiry and an honest one.
This is obviously the consensus opinion .... but you know that old saying ... if everyone is thinking the same thing, somebody isn't thinking?
The reality is, intelligent design and creationism are two distinctly separate theories, with the latter being purely religion based, while the former, not so much. True, there is a certain common thread in that creation does necessarily insinuate intelligent design, unless one believes the creator is an idiot. But intelligent design does not require a deity/creator in the sense of a God or all powerful being as that designer, even though there is an obvious overlap from the creationist side.
That said, I would directly challenge your claim about evolution being science based, and I'd allow you 15 minutes to draw a crowd to witness my thorough dismantling of your argument. Contrary to the nonstop propaganda promoted and regurgitated for decades which insists that Darwinian theory is scientifically proven and beyond debate, the truth is, the deal breaking problems with Darwinian Evolution are too numerous to adequately discuss in brief passages, and decade to decade, those problems have not diminished, but have collected into a pile the size of My Everest, growing larger as time passes. And truthfully, I think Darwin himself would have to concede the points of fact that really render his theories false. That the evolution fraudsters have altered the theory many times in response to difficult challenges rather than provide evidence that defeats those challenges is very telling.
Here, we have page after page of people laughing out loud ... such a silly thing to even question Evolution ... this is the common theme among a majority who have been so indoctrinated with Darwinian nonsense, that the lie told often enough has become the undebatable truth. And the belief has become so ingrained and dogmatic, I see little distinction between Fundamental Darwinists and Fundamental Islamists. Darwinian theory has literally become a religion unto itself, and it's followers no less aghast at the blasphemy in questioning Darwin's theory, than a Muslim is should someone blaspheme Allah.
If you are committed to teaching science, and to you, the only science that is real science is provable and testable, you'd be eliminating about 80% of modern scientific theory that exists today, and you'd most certainly have to include Darwinian theory in the jettisoned 80%, because Darwinian Evolution is not provable and has certainly not been tested .... it is pure speculation, and nothing more. When I go into the elements that are so problematic about Darwinian theory, I am immediately confronted with "you do not understand the theory". How convenient ... I don't understand ... I'm just confused. No, I am not at all confused about Darwin's theory, as I have a decent enough grasp of the English language to read his writings and that is where my understanding of the theory comes from .. not from the reformed and tweaked versions of the original which are also too numerous to list. The fact is, even evolutionists cannot agree on evolution theory because of this constant "evolution" (pun intended) of the theory first outlined by Darwin. And the major problem with Darwin's theory is the complete absence of even a tiny shred of evidence supporting speciation, which is absolutely, positively the central core of Darwinian Evolution theory. What we have today is is a version of Darwinian Theory that wants to claim that adaptation and variation, which are both very observable and provable somehow automatically proves speciation and therefore serves as evidence of speciation, when nothing could be further from the truth. Truth is, the entire common ancestor for all species really requires one to ignore their rational and logical mind to accept such nonsense for a nanosecond.
What Darwin was not privy to due to the lack of technology of the time, we modern folks are not so hampered. We now know of the existence and complexity of DNA, and the structured and highly sophisticated nature of the genetic code, as well as the mind boggling complexity of an organic. self replicating cell for which this complex DNA storage device contains all of the instructions for that cell to function and replicate. Since Darwin's theory relies on genetic mutation and natural selection as it's primary mechanism of action, one must first have a replicating cell and the genes to mutate to provide for that selection process. So ... where did this complex organic data storage device called DNA originate, and perhaps even a better question is, how did this complex code originate? Since the code represents the instructions for the construction of the cell, it seems logical that the instructions must have come first. There are only two choices ... either this DNA and complex code sprung into existence by accident, in a very purposeless random mixing of inert elements ... or, as the complexity of the structure and code insists ... it was designed for the very purpose it serves. That it displays all of the characteristics of design with purpose, renders the idea that it sprang into existence by random accident not only extremely unscientific, but outright preposterous. To believe such a thing is akin to believing that Mt Rushmore is a product of natural rock erosion, rather than the work of a sculptor. It's really that outlandish. Now I have no idea how DNA came to be, or who or what might have created-designed it ... but I'm pretty darned certain it wasn't created by random mixing of elements for eons. To believe that, one would similarly have to believe that if you left enough 3 year olds banging away on computer keyboards, they would eventually type out the entire Microsoft operating system and Microsoft's entire line of office products .. all by random accident. That is hardly scientific.
Science is based on observation, first and foremost, which then goes on to attempt to define and explain the observation ... rationally and according to our most current scientific understandings. One of the most basic elements of scientific observation is to first determine whether a thing is natural or artificial .... looking for certain familiar characteristics which tells us whether this thing displays the characteristics of design with purpose, i.e. man made, or constructed by other creatures not human, such as a bird's nest, or a Beaver's dam, or a Bee's hive. It would of course be grossly idiotic to look upon a bird's nest, and insist it to be a natural tangle of sticks and leaves which were woven together by wind. Yet, that is precisely the contention of evolutionists, even though the living cell and DNA are infinitely more complex than a freaking bird's nest or even a Rolex Watch, which no one should be ignorant enough to believe was a natural formation of metals pressed together under high pressure. Yet, this is the "science" you are teaching your students when you push this absurdity called Darwinian Evolution and his book, "Origin of the Species". It has nothing remotely to do with science, and is pure hogwash, not unlike teaching them about that grandfatherly figure with the flowing white beard who floats atop the clouds with a quiver of lightening bolts ready to deliver to anyone behaving badly. At least in the latter event, we know there exists clouds.
Funny .. that's not far from what genetic scientists have claimed about the majority (about 90%) of DNA not being needed and labeled "junk DNA" simply because they didn't understand what it was there for, or what purpose it served. I've always found that to be typical of the general arrogance of modern material science, and why mainstream science is more apt to be the destroyer of knowledge as it is the discoverer of new knowledge.
You seem like a genuine, thoughtful person, and so I want to make clear that I'm being antagonistic to the theory of evolution and not to you personally. That said, I think I can explain this recoil from science by these religious students, as they probably disagree with the science of evolution largely along the same lines that I have illustrated. But given the vitriolic attack on religion by the majority of evolutionists, it shouldn't be a mystery as to why they would reject such "science". Really ... you can set your watch to it ... the moment anyone challenges a single element of evolution theory, or dares even question one point, the evolutionist seems compelled to respond with juvenile attacks and insults, often consisting of a lot of hot air bout sky gods and fantasy an mythology, rather than actually addressing the point raised in a calm and logical manner. That's not science either ... that is dogma wrapped in hostility.
And to be clear, I don't think you are stupid .... you seem very intelligent to me. But very intelligent people can be convinced to believe some pretty idiotic things. It's a mystery of the mind, and the way the conscious and subconscious processes work .... the subconscious mind does not evaluate and measure and judge information like the conscious mind does, which is why hypnotists can implant such thoughts that his subject is a chicken, in which the subject will proceed to waddle around the room, bobbing his head and flapping his arms and clucking. This is the mechanism of "accepted beliefs" which need not be truthful or even rational for the human mind to accept as fact, and act accordingly. This is the only explanation possible for why otherwise intelligent , rational people would believe Darwinian Evolution had anything to do with science, and how such outlandish ideas as postulated by Darwin ever gained traction, let alone become this universal lie believed by most. Darwinian Evolution could very well be the most irrational and idiotic idea ever accepted by the human mind as truth.
You are among the the extreme minority in this accommodation of religion and evolution, while the majority of evolutionists reject any thought that there is more than the eyes can see, even though science has indeed proven many times that we humans are capable of detecting with our senses only a fraction of what is really there.
I think the first step a species takes to become 'god-like', you know potentially 'all-powerful', is for it to kill off their initial concepts of a creator.
The only problem comes when you realize this you also come across the quandry: If we have reached a technological plateau where we no longer need faith in imaginary supernatural parental figures, how many other species have already done the same and explored our little corner of the galaxy with their divine-seeming selves?
In essence, is the creator myth simply a story made up by control freaks or the well-intentioned passed down for millenia in various cultures in various ways or was it simply originally a tale of people with an overwhelmingly advanced technological progress who visited and shaped what we were and what we are?
This is not a question of faith and not at all a condemnation of science. It is an inquiry and an honest one.
As in "Chariot of The Gods?"
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.
Contrary to the nonstop propaganda promoted and regurgitated for decades which insists that Darwinian theory is scientifically proven and beyond debate, the truth is, the deal breaking problems with Darwinian Evolution are too numerous to adequately discuss in brief passages, and decade to decade, those problems have not diminished, but have collected into a pile the size of My Everest, growing larger as time passes. And truthfully, I think Darwin himself would have to concede the points of fact that really render his theories false. That the evolution fraudsters have altered the theory many times in response to difficult challenges rather than provide evidence that defeats those challenges is very telling. 
No, I am not at all confused about Darwin's theory, as I have a decent enough grasp of the English language to read his writings and that is where my understanding of the theory comes from .. not from the reformed and tweaked versions of the original which are also too numerous to list. The fact is, even evolutionists cannot agree on evolution theory because of this constant "evolution" (pun intended) of the theory first outlined by Darwin. And the major problem with Darwin's theory is the complete absence of even a tiny shred of evidence supporting speciation, which is absolutely, positively the central core of Darwinian Evolution theory. What we have today is is a version of Darwinian Theory that wants to claim that adaptation and variation, which are both very observable and provable somehow automatically proves speciation and therefore serves as evidence of speciation, when nothing could be further from the truth. Truth is, the entire common ancestor for all species really requires one to ignore their rational and logical mind to accept such nonsense for a nanosecond.
