Benjamin Franklin Posted May 5, 2005 Posted May 5, 2005 Come on science lovers: tell me how important it is to teach evolution- a theory so full holes that it's like swiss cheese that you couldn't fit it through the eye of a needle. Intelligent Design is the only way to explain the complexity of the world. Thankfully, it's finally getting its day in the schools. This is a great day for American children and for the future of scientific debate in the US- with an acknowledgement that so-called "scientific" theories take a back seat to the higher power. ID in Kanas
slothrop Posted May 5, 2005 Posted May 5, 2005 Come one science lovers: tell me how important it is to teach evolution- a theory so full holes that it's like swiss cheese that you couldn't fit it through the eye of a needle. Intelligent Design is the only way to explain the complexity of the world. Thankfully, it's finally getting its day in the schools. This is a great day for American children and for the future of scientific debate in the US- with an acknowledgement that so-called "scientific" theories take a back seat to the higher power. ID in Kanas 329365[/snapback] Georgie? George? Is that you? I told you that you should not be posting on website messege boards after you became president.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 5, 2005 Posted May 5, 2005 Come one science lovers: tell me how important it is to teach evolution- a theory so full holes that it's like swiss cheese that you couldn't fit it through the eye of a needle. Intelligent Design is the only way to explain the complexity of the world. Thankfully, it's finally getting its day in the schools. This is a great day for American children and for the future of scientific debate in the US- with an acknowledgement that so-called "scientific" theories take a back seat to the higher power. ID in Kanas 329365[/snapback] Did you know "The Da Vinci Code" is a non-fiction work, too?
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 5, 2005 Author Posted May 5, 2005 Did you know "The Da Vinci Code" is a non-fiction work, too? 329383[/snapback] Debating ID with a monkey is like shooting ducks on the head of a pin. Different argument, but the Davinci Code's own author says that it's based on fact. Therefore it is allegedly "non-fiction." But since so much of the "fact" is made up, maybe it should be fiction. QED.
Johnny Coli Posted May 5, 2005 Posted May 5, 2005 I was wondering when someone was going to get around to posting this. There was a Nature article on this that came out last week. Nature 434, 1062-1065 (28 April 2005) No one is saying the Theory of Evolution doesn't have holes in it. Most theories do. That's why they are "theories" and not "laws". But real science tries to fill those holes with testable hypotheses and experimentation, not just passing them off as the "divine hand of God" or some other crap.
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 5, 2005 Author Posted May 5, 2005 I was wondering when someone was going to get around to posting this. There was a Nature article on this that came out last week. Nature 434, 1062-1065 (28 April 2005) No one is saying the Theory of Evolution doesn't have holes in it. Most theories do. That's why they are "theories" and not "laws". But real science tries to fill those holes with testable hypotheses and experimentation, not just passing them off as the "divine hand of God" or some other crap. 329411[/snapback] Typical of you "science" guys to say that god is crap, when in fact, if you are truly seeking the truth, be it scientific or spiritual, the only answer is god. And this debate is not about religion in schools. ID is just another theory- an alternative to evilution. Since evolution doesn't have all the answers (as even you admit!) and you are skeptical of ID, then why not just consider that ID is an alternate theory. It deserves as much credence as your theories. Isn't this the foundation of scientific debate? I thought this is what made you guys happy- hashing out scientific theories.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 5, 2005 Posted May 5, 2005 I was wondering when someone was going to get around to posting this. There was a Nature article on this that came out last week. Nature 434, 1062-1065 (28 April 2005) No one is saying the Theory of Evolution doesn't have holes in it. Most theories do. That's why they are "theories" and not "laws". But real science tries to fill those holes with testable hypotheses and experimentation, not just passing them off as the "divine hand of God" or some other crap. 329411[/snapback] Every theory has holes. Most "laws" are actually theories with holes (e.g. Newton's Law of Gravity). The mark of a theory is simple: it explains the universe to some degree. A good theory explains it well (e.g. Newtonian gravity). A better theory enhances a good theory without replacing it (e.g. Relativity). A bad theory doesn't explain anything (e.g. "Masses attract because God makes them"). In that respect, evolution is a pretty damned goot theory...much better than anything I've seen come out of "ID".
blzrul Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 I think there's room for both theories. Even if all life as we know it evolved from one cell of primordial slime, where did the slime come from? It was created somehow...it came from somewhere. Whether it was "intelligent design" that created the slime and the roadmap for evolution, who knows. But what they're doing in Kansas has nothing to do with alternative theories. It has everything to do with the insecurity and intolerance and disdain for science of a handful of extremists.
beausox Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 Einstein claimed God would not make junk and so posited a unified theory that still is holding up. Chesterton remarked that an atheist has a hard course because he has to believe in EVERYTHING being possible. Pascal's binary mind concluded that either God and Heaven and stuff is true or it is not. If "off" it matters not but if "on" it matters for eternity; thus, the safe bet is "on". Food for thought.
Terry Tate Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 ...it's like swiss cheese that you couldn't fit it through the eye of a needle. ...is like shooting ducks on the head of a pin. Somewhere is an English teacher who would like to use you as an example, like a loose cannon stepping up to the plate and grabbing the bull by the horns, who just kisses simile and metaphor away down the drain. Your winged posts are the Led Zeppelin of TSW. PS I have no comment on the actual topic of this thread. Like the sound of a tree clapping one hand.
sweet baboo Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 PS I have no comment on the actual topic of this thread. Like the sound of a tree clapping one hand. 329798[/snapback] nor do I...I'm not even sure what to make of this mess of a thread
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 Einstein claimed God would not make junk and so posited a unified theory that still is holding up. Chesterton remarked that an atheist has a hard course because he has to believe in EVERYTHING being possible. Pascal's binary mind concluded that either God and Heaven and stuff is true or it is not. If "off" it matters not but if "on" it matters for eternity; thus, the safe bet is "on". Food for thought. 329784[/snapback] Thus proving you know little about Einstein, Chesterton, or Pascal.
Cripes Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 Einstein claimed God would not make junk and so posited a unified theory that still is holding up. Chesterton remarked that an atheist has a hard course because he has to believe in EVERYTHING being possible. Pascal's binary mind concluded that either God and Heaven and stuff is true or it is not. If "off" it matters not but if "on" it matters for eternity; thus, the safe bet is "on". Food for thought. 329784[/snapback] Holding up? Einstein never strapped it on. "All my attempts, however, to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this [new type of] knowledge failed completely...It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under [me]...." For the record: No unified theory -- Newtonian, Einsteinesque, subatomic or string -- has ever been locked down.
Johnny Coli Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 I think there's room for both theories. 329759[/snapback] Not in the discipline of Science there isn't. ID is no more of a scientific theory than "magic" is. If people want to believe in ID, awesome. Belief in a higher power is fine. Whatever helps them get through life. But it is not science.
beausox Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 Holding up? Einstein never strapped it on. "All my attempts, however, to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this [new type of] knowledge failed completely...It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under [me]...." For the record: No unified theory -- Newtonian, Einsteinesque, subatomic or string -- has ever been locked down. 329849[/snapback] Precisely. That is why they are called theories. Einstein did not posit his "theory" as anything more than just that - an explanation of how the universe operates based on underlying supposition, to wit, that God created a universe in which there was order. While the discussion is fun i recall my Philosophy of Science prof remarking that " Science can never explain Why and Theology can never answer how
beausox Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 Thus proving you know little about Einstein, Chesterton, or Pascal. 329843[/snapback] Wow. You are sure a fierce debater. That riposte was carefully constructed. I am helpless. You have at once disproven my statement with inescapable argument and placed yourself in an intellectual pantheon. I only continue so that your wisdom will somehow edify me. Thank you for showing an interest in me.
BuckeyeBill Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 Come one science lovers: tell me how important it is to teach evolution- a theory so full holes that it's like swiss cheese that you couldn't fit it through the eye of a needle. Intelligent Design is the only way to explain the complexity of the world. Thankfully, it's finally getting its day in the schools. This is a great day for American children and for the future of scientific debate in the US- with an acknowledgement that so-called "scientific" theories take a back seat to the higher power. ID in Kanas 329365[/snapback] Don't forget to not let ignorance be your achilles heal. I truly believe in God, who created the Heavens and the Earth according to the Genesis passage... I believe that as strongly as anyone can believe anything. But I also teach science, I teach evolution. The theory that things change over time is not to contrary to the Bible (which I try to read everyday). Do you think that Noah brought every single type or breed of cat in the world on his ark? No, I think he probably brought one type of cat... and through evolution over the past thousands of years, all the cat species developed. Evolution is a very well substantiated theory, and many parts I agree with strongly. The fact that God exists does not disprove evolution, and the fact that things change over time does not disprove the existence of God. Microevolution is well supported, I agree with it. Macroevolution... the theory that goo all of a sudden became bacteria which all of a sudden became a fish... which all of a sudden became a monkey... which all of a sudden became a man. I don't agree with that. No evidence to support it. But if you study evolution, it has a lot more to it than just the previous paragraph... which I do not believe in. Be informed, you are on the winning side of this debate, but be informed as well.
BuckeyeBill Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 No one is saying the Theory of Evolution doesn't have holes in it. Most theories do. 329411[/snapback] Be definition, if a theory has a hole in it... something that disproves it, then it can't be a theory. It is only a hypothesis. I don't respect saying that the existence of God is "crap". That's rude and ignorant.
Benjamin Franklin Posted May 6, 2005 Author Posted May 6, 2005 I think there's room for both theories. Even if all life as we know it evolved from one cell of primordial slime, where did the slime come from? It was created somehow...it came from somewhere. Whether it was "intelligent design" that created the slime and the roadmap for evolution, who knows. But what they're doing in Kansas has nothing to do with alternative theories. It has everything to do with the insecurity and intolerance and disdain for science of a handful of extremists. 329759[/snapback] There can't be both room for both theories and not room for them. ID belongs in the classroom, and is a viable option for children to consider- especially those that do not buy evolution.
BuckeyeBill Posted May 6, 2005 Posted May 6, 2005 Isn't this the foundation of scientific debate? 329421[/snapback] No... the foundation of science is investigating every possibility to answer a question. It's not debate, it's empirical. Just because someone can argue strongly their viewpoint does NOT change the facts; does not mean they are right. A good scientist will not bring bias into his research, does not bring bias into his conclusions... and therefore it can NOT be a debate. The only people who make it a debate are NOT scientists. Scientists can not say something... anything is fact. It is just well supported with data. If you ever hear somebody say that ______ is scientific fact, tell them that in science there are NO FACTS. There is just well supported hypotheses, theories, and laws.
Recommended Posts