More fodder for the ID-Evolution debate

[Mickey]

EVOLUTION is to be taught only in a SCIENCE class.

 

ID is to be taught only in a PHILOSOPHY class.

 

That is, until the ID believers can:

 

1. Develop large bodies of scholarly scientific work that provide evidence for ID

 

AND

 

2. Develop large bodies of scholarly scientific work that provide evidence against evolution

 

AND

 

3. Have these bodies of scholarly scientific work endure a rigorous examination by the scientific community thereafter.

 

But this is all JMHO, though. And I have to add that I find the arrogance of some people in this thread like CTM and Jonny Coli a little bit annoying. While it's fun sometimes to make fun of people with lesser intellects - just like it's fun sometimes to make fun of retards and the handicapped and ugly people - keep in mind that you can always find people of greater intellects than yourself. Those accomplished enough in their careers and/or fields of science should not have this much time to lecture the masses of commoners that frequent TBD.

 

In some posts in this thread (and others), I've detected hints of strong atheistic beliefs. Whether or not they've been made with tongue in cheek, keep in mind that atheists cannot stand on any intellectual higher ground than the religious ID'ers since they're only applying the same unscientific thought process to come to their beliefs.

 

Until God can be scientifically proven to NOT exist (impossible, IMO), atheists have no greater authority on any debate outside that of philosophy.

404098[/snapback]

So....all that can't be proven not to exist exists? Hmmm....I think if your reasoning above is accurate, than those who believe that an actual tooth fairy exists who can't be seen are on the same intellectual ground as those who do not believe in the existence of a tooth fairy.

 

I think that a person who "believes" that a thing does not exist based on the utter lack of objective evidence of its existence is probably on firmer ground than one who believes in the existence of a thing which leaves no objective trace of its existence. By objective trace I am excluding the "I see God in the twinkle of a child's eye, in the beauty of the desert and in the love of a friend" kind of thing. That doesn't mean that the "non-believers" are ultimately right but I think it does mean that maybe they are on, from an intellectual standpoint, much firmer ground the "believers."

[Mickey]

With very few exceptions, historically and today, atheists toss away their venom when they age and face their own mortality and proceed to embrace God, often citing that that they will be forgiven at last, rejecting in their life-long utterances against any concept of judgement - an inconvenient concept, they felt, that tried to make them feel bad about their hurts upon others. There was some big science or philosophy mucky-muck just a few months ago that did just that -a late repentance.

 

When they lie in their death bed, they universally squeal words like "you are the believer! You have to forgive me!", and hope to make others guilty. No sale. Their last egotism.

 

They are in for a surprise.

404113[/snapback]

When did you become such an expert in atheists and their beliefs as they age? Care to link to the source of the wealth of information supporting your assertions about what all atheists, "with very few exceptions, historically" do when they age? I can't wait to see the factual support for your declaration that atheists "universally" say this or that on their death bed.

 

 

Even if your bald assertions, which are likely more the product of your own imaginings rather than actual facts, were true, would that prove that God must exist or that atheists, after being so indoctrinated for so many years by fevered believers tend to finally give in as their body and mind weakens towards death?

 

My own research shows that, with very few exceptions, historically and today, true believers tend to universally make up lies and attack anyone who dares to disagree with them because they find the very idea that all their ceremony and pomp might be about as valid as the worship of coconuts by certain primitive tribes to be so frightening that they must immediately silence all dissent. Pity that the day where you could just stone the heretics of the world have gone by the by, eh?

[blzrul]

Our paper published a letter from an active service military man who summed it up perfectly: he asked why do we feel the need to teach not one, or the other - but why teach either?

 

Reading through many of the posts on this board I am fairly certain that "intelligent design" is a fallacy.

 

And besides - someone or something or some being had to create the first microbe or whatever it was that evolved... so there's room for both.

 

And that's about all the time I think the topic is worth. How ridiculous it is that Christian fundies are so afraid of science...they deny the very miracle of our being that they purport to promote.

[Johnny Coli]

EVOLUTION is to be taught only in a SCIENCE class.

 

ID is to be taught only in a PHILOSOPHY class.

 

That is, until the ID believers can:

 

1. Develop large bodies of scholarly scientific work that provide evidence for ID

 

AND

 

2. Develop large bodies of scholarly scientific work that provide evidence against evolution

 

AND

 

3. Have these bodies of scholarly scientific work endure a rigorous examination by the scientific community thereafter.

 

But this is all JMHO, though. And I have to add that I find the arrogance of some people in this thread like CTM and Jonny Coli a little bit annoying. While it's fun sometimes to make fun of people with lesser intellects - just like it's fun sometimes to make fun of retards and the handicapped and ugly people - keep in mind that you can always find people of greater intellects than yourself. Those accomplished enough in their careers and/or fields of science should not have this much time to lecture the masses of commoners that frequent TBD.

 

In some posts in this thread (and others), I've detected hints of strong atheistic beliefs. Whether or not they've been made with tongue in cheek, keep in mind that atheists cannot stand on any intellectual higher ground than the religious ID'ers since they're only applying the same unscientific thought process to come to their beliefs.

 

Until God can be scientifically proven to NOT exist (impossible, IMO), atheists have no greater authority on any debate outside that of philosophy.

404098[/snapback]

I'll apologize if I offended you with my first post. I was being glib out of frustration.

 

That being said, where the hell is it written that all scientists are atheists? What seems to distiguish the scientists from the ID fanatics is that they are able to seperate science from their faith. WE DO NOT WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RELIGION. But, we do want to keep religion out of science class. Of that, I think we agree. Pondering and looking for the evidence of god is philosophy and theology, and does not belong in any discussion of the Life Sciences.

 

I taught Genetics as a grad student. A lot of the students could barely put a coherent sentence together when they started my class. We have enough problems with education today without mucking it up with religion.

 

As for the shot about those of us being accomplished in our fields, yet still finding the time to post every once and a while on a messageboard...eat me.

[Ghost of BiB]

I taught Genetics as a grad student. A lot of the students could barely put a coherent sentence together when they started my class. We have enough problems with education today without mucking it up with religion.

 

And then they graduate and some help form national policy.

 

Isn't this fun?

[HoyaBill]

As a practicing Catholic I have to weigh in on this debate:

 

I love the "God of Gaps" theory. Once upon a time, we didn't know what lightning was - so we assigned causality to God. In fact, God was used to explain everything that science couldn't. If you showed a caveman a TV roday, you know what they would say? "It's a miracle!" Slowly but surely as scientific accumen has decreased the "It was God" explanation has slowly shriveled to a few small gaps here and there. Eventually, it'll all be science.

 

Maybe evolution is incorrect (I don't think so) but shouldn't it be replaced with science?

 

Man, it is such anathema to think in a science class we would tell kids: "I don't know, God did it." At least we'll save money on experiments, right? We won't need any more beekers!

 

 

 

"Daddy, how did we get men to the moon?" "I don't know, Jimmy, God did it."

 

I still can't believe this is even a debate.

[erynthered]

.

 

As for the shot about those of us being accomplished in our fields, yet still finding the time to post every once and a while on a messageboard...eat me. 

404286[/snapback]

 

 

(golf clap.....golf clap)

 

 

 

Though eating you would mean you're a broad? Gross, ecoli....

[Ghost of BiB]

(golf clap.....golf clap)

Though eating you would mean you're a broad? Gross, ecoli....

404293[/snapback]

 

I thought getting rid of bush was proposed by the fag in the other thread. Am I getting confused again?

[erynthered]

I thought getting rid of bush was proposed by the fag in the other thread. Am I getting confused again?

404304[/snapback]

 

 

Na, you're on spot.

 

We're due for a call, soon I hope.

[Ghost of BiB]

Has anyone considered the idea at all (going back to my "arrogant" remark) that as intelligent as we seem to think we are (after all, this is the species who gave the world Carrot Top and American Idol, not to mention Being Bobby Brown, and that's just TV) that maybe there just are some things that aren't going to get explained? Better yet, maybe don't need to be? A higher power is not necessarily a grey bearded guy sitting on a thrown surrounded by clouds. Who knows what that might be? I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and neither is anyone else.

 

How many millions of individual processes go on every single second, in perfect synergy and harmony, for any of us to type one post on this board? Look at all the posts devoted to Hunter Kelly, to the point of arguments, when one little tiny thing goes wrong in that process?

 

What ever happened to the wonder, and the faith, and maybe a little humility. There is always religion affiliated with faith - and that is the entire crux of this problem. You have the man invented science in competition with man invented religion.

 

Key point. Man invented.

 

Just because we have a lot of technology, and a lot of people have graduated from man made schools and done man made experiments and gotten man made results does not mean we know everything.

 

I don't know what that higher power is. But, to deny the idea of it's existance means I'm the pinacle of power. If that is true, and I'm the highest power available in this universe...

 

We're seriously screwed.

[Johnny Coli]

Has anyone considered the idea at all (going back to my "arrogant" remark) that  as intelligent as we seem to think we are (after all, this is the species who gave the world Carrot Top and American Idol, not to mention Being Bobby Brown, and that's just TV) that maybe there just are some things that aren't going to get explained? Better yet, maybe don't need to be? A higher power is not necessarily a grey bearded guy sitting on a thrown surrounded by clouds. Who knows what that might be? I'm not smart enough to figure it out, and neither is anyone else.

 

How many millions of individual processes go on every single second, in perfect synergy and harmony, for any of us to type one post on this board? Look at all the posts devoted to Hunter Kelly, to the point of arguments, when one little tiny thing goes wrong in that process?

 

What ever happened to the wonder, and the faith, and maybe a little humility. There is always religion affiliated with faith - and that is the entire crux of this problem. You have the man invented science in competition with man invented religion.

 

Key point. Man invented.

 

Just because we have a lot of technology, and a lot of people have graduated from man made schools and done man made experiments and gotten man made results does not mean we know everything.

 

I don't know what that higher power is. But, to deny the idea of it's existance means I'm the pinacle of power. If that is true, and I'm the highest power available in this universe...

 

We're seriously screwed.

404314[/snapback]

Striving to seek a scientific explanation for the unexplained does not deny the existence of a higher power. Man is who he is because he can ask those questions...because he seeks to find a scientific answer for that which he does not understand.

[OGTEleven]

For you, the FSM author is an idiot.  For me, he's a clever guy pointing out that scientifically, his "beliefs" are as credible to teach in a science classroom setting as ID.  I come from a religious background and was not offended.  I understand it's a touchy subject for some, but I also think God gave us a good sense of humor.  Those drawings are priceless.

 

Your second point doesn't really defend the teaching of ID.  It defends God-neutral teaching, which I think is fine and should probably be fought for.  Pro- or anti- religious teachings in the classroom are problematic and should be strictly avoided.  If you've raised your kids right, they will make their own decisions based on what you've taught them and what they've learned about the world.  Forcing anything else is detrimental, IMHO.

404238[/snapback]

Point 1: You're wrong. He's a caustic idiot who thinks he's funny. He is just veiling his hate for religious people in a rant against ID. The individual rant target (ID being taught) is a valid one. The undertones cannot be mistaken. Give me any topic and I could write something "funny" like that. So could anyone. Big friggin deal. Let's be clear also that I'm not offended by his writing. i just think (check that, KNOW) it is stupid.

 

Point 2: I'm not defending the teaching of ID. I'm saying that it is being advocated out of defense, not offense. The best scenario is to remove the anti-God overtones to today's education (whether intended or not). I don't see why this would be fought, but it is fought, thus the irrational defense mechanism developed. I don't think presenting the ideas of God vs. no-God are that objectionable really (at the right age), but to know that teaching evolution is producing atheism, although it shouldn't, and to do nothing about it is either folly or malicious.

[erynthered]

Striving to seek a scientific explanation for the unexplained does not deny the existence of a higher power.  Man is who he is because he can ask those questions...because he seeks to find a scientific answer for that which he does not understand.

404325[/snapback]

 

 

Did you cut and paste that?

[Johnny Coli]

Did you cut and paste that?

404335[/snapback]

Nope...Liberal Arts education.

 

All I'm trying to say is that there is a scientific process for answering questions about the natural world. ID does not follow that process, therefore ID should not be included in a science class.

[erynthered]

 

therefore ID should not be included in a science class.

404337[/snapback]

 

 

This may scare you, but I agree with you.

[Ghost of BiB]

Striving to seek a scientific explanation for the unexplained does not deny the existence of a higher power.  Man is who he is because he can ask those questions...because he seeks to find a scientific answer for that which he does not understand.

404325[/snapback]

 

And so continues the enigma. Maybe we were meant to understand a little at a time. Maybe no one besides us cares. Ever also consider that there might be a force that doesn't? The truth is, whatever questions that are answered through science (Disclaimer for those black and white amongst us...I know it's hard to get out of the box..., but I'm all for answering the questions of our time through the means we have) inevitably lead to more questions, more grants, more research, more answers to the problems at hand.

 

I personally have no problem with that. Were it not for that we'd still be dying of the plague on a regular basis.

 

At the same time, it does become a game. Also, a game with serious social-economic impact. Have those that are firm die hard believers in evolution taken into account that their manipulation of life skewers the process? Yes, we have the technology and the medicine to keep people alive long past the point they shouldn't be. Once again, pick a Hunter thread. We also have the power to usurp the rights of one species (let's forget humanity) to possibly artificially further the cause of another. Why introduce wolves back to an ecosystem they have been eradicated from? If this is natural selection, than we are part of the process. But, we are not doing it biologically - the entire premise is based on evolving to meet the demands. We aren't doing that. We are conciously shaping. Big difference between Australapothecus and us. Sorry for my spelling, I didn't look it up.

[Johnny Coli]

I'm not defending the teaching of ID.  I'm saying that it is being advocated out of defense, not offense. 

404334[/snapback]

I dissagree. Evolution and the Scientific Method are clearly under assault here.

 

I don't think presenting the ideas of God vs. no-God are that objectionable really

 

As long as it is done in a philosophy class, and not taught as "science".

 

but to know that teaching evolution is producing atheism, although it shouldn't, and to do nothing about it is either folly or malicious.

 

How exactly is teaching evolution fostering atheism? There were atheists before Darwin, there are atheists now.

[Johnny Coli]

And so continues the enigma. Maybe we were meant to understand a little at a time. Maybe no one besides us cares. Ever also consider that there might be a force that doesn't? The truth is, whatever questions that are answered through science (Disclaimer for those black and white amongst us...I know it's hard to get out of the box..., but I'm all for answering the questions of our time through the means we have) inevitably lead to more questions, more grants, more research, more answers to the problems at hand.

404345[/snapback]

Good science leads to answers , but usually leads to more complex questions, as well. That's what makes it fun. Plus, research is my job, so if all the questions got answered I'd have to go back to being a cook.

 

At the same time, it does become a game. Also, a game with serious social-economic impact. Have those that are firm die hard believers in evolution taken into account that their manipulation of life skewers the process? Yes, we have the technology and the medicine to keep people alive long past the point they shouldn't be. Once again, pick a Hunter thread. We also have the power to usurp the rights of one species (let's forget humanity) to possibly artificially further the cause of another. Why introduce wolves back to an ecosystem they have been eradicated from? If this is natural selection, than we are part of the process. But, we are not doing it biologically - the entire premise is based on evolving to meet the demands. We aren't doing that. We are conciously shaping. Big difference between Australapothecus and us. Sorry for my spelling, I didn't look it up.

 

I do not dissagree with your premise that we have the knowledge to affect change. But we also have the technology to right some wrongs, as well.

 

However, getting back to the point of this thread. What it all boils down to, and this is clearly my opinion, is that this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and science, and everything about getting religion back into public schools.

[Typical TBD Guy]

I'll apologize if I offended you with my first post.  I was being glib out of frustration. 

 

That being said, where the hell is it written that all scientists are atheists?  What seems to distiguish the scientists from the ID fanatics is that they are able to seperate science from their faith.  WE DO NOT WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RELIGION.  But, we do want to keep religion out of science class.  Of that, I think we agree.  Pondering and looking for the evidence of god is philosophy and theology, and does not belong in any discussion of the Life Sciences.

 

I taught Genetics as a grad student.  A lot of the students could barely put a coherent sentence together when they started my class.  We have enough problems with education today without mucking it up with religion.

 

As for the shot about those of us being accomplished in our fields, yet still finding the time to post every once and a while on a messageboard...eat me. 

404286[/snapback]

 

Nah, your post didn't offend me at all. I was just in one of my argumentative moods this afternoon, and I figured you were just being glib out of frustration. I think we are 100% in agreement on this evolution/ID in schools issue, as well as on religion in general (I'm an agnostic who believes in the strict separation of church and state, and I suspect you're the same?).

 

As far as your scientific production, I don't know you and can't comment on that. But personally, I see nothing wrong with putting Bills talk ahead of science...

[finknottle]

One has to wonder though, if we evolved from monkeys and apes, why are there still monkeys and apes?

403677[/snapback]

 

One of the commonest misconceptions about natural selection and evolution is that it is directional.

 

Each new generation of a species introduces variations. The vast majority of changes disappear within a generation or two, but some of these variations help the members better fit certain ecological niches, and those members thrive and potentially pass the change on to their descendents. The point is that the ability to fill new niches does not negate the viability of the old niche.

 

Think of a car company. It has a bunch of models, broadly defined by the basic parts and production line that produces it. Every year it tinkers his way and that with each model - some turn out better, some turn out worse, and some are so bad that they bring about the end of that model line! But every once in a while the item seems so different - like the SUV, say - that they have effectively wandered into a new niche where an entire new line will flourish. But that does not mean the end of the market for the ancestral lines, 4 door sedans or whatever.

 

So maybe once upon a time a bunch of chimps, born with a bit more brains and an easier gait, discovered they could make a living on the ground hunting. The ones that stayed in the trees couldn't care less, they would do fine following their own future in the trees.