Teaching Intelligent Design Found Unconstitutional

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

I honestly don't see how anyone can say that the idea that the entire human race is the result of brothers and sisters having babies together 6000 years ago is somehow more credible than species changing slowly over time into new species.

 

WELL IT'S IN THE BIBLE. CAN'T YOU SEE IT'S ALL RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE. you can clearly see... I mean, it's all there. really.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

You're all missing my point. I'm saying that at some point on the evolutionary ladder, there had to have been one neanderthal that was fully developed into homosapien that was male (Adam), and one that was female (Eve). I'm not saying "fuck evolution," because I believe in it fully, but to say that Evolution and Genesis can't co-exist is just admitting you don't know how to compromise.

 

Again, please note I did not say that we started off with man and woman. I said we evolved into man and woman, but somewhere in time there was only fully-evolved man (Adam), and one fully-evolved (woman), and the rest came along eventually. That's how I rationalize it, anyway.

 

Oh, and from which year of science would you like my grade to be? Freshman Oceanography was a C+, sophomore Biology was an A-, and junior Chemistry was an A.

Edited December 24, 2005 by Corey_Lazarus

[snuffbox 0]

Why can only one man/women evolve fully at one time...youre really losing me with that assumption...

[Golgo 13 0]

Because it doesn't work that way.

[snuffbox 0]

Care to explain that to me? Or is rhetoric explanation enough...

[chaosrage 0]

You're all missing my point. I'm saying that at some point on the evolutionary ladder, there had to have been one neanderthal that was fully developed into homosapien that was male (Adam), and one that was female (Eve). I'm not saying "fuck evolution," because I believe in it fully, but to say that Evolution and Genesis can't co-exist is just admitting you don't know how to compromise.

 

Again, please note I did not say that we started off with man and woman. I said we evolved into man and woman, but somewhere in time there was only fully-evolved man (Adam), and one fully-evolved (woman), and the rest came along eventually. That's how I rationalize it, anyway.

 

Oh, and from which year of science would you like my grade to be? Freshman Oceanography was a C+, sophomore Biology was an A-, and junior Chemistry was an A.

Evolution works on populations, not individuals. I find it hard to believe that you could have made an A in biology without hearing that sentence.

[Golgo 13 0]

chaosrage basically has it right. That's why it doesn't work in the way Corey described.

 

Did you know we didn't really evolve from Neanderthals either? Or at least that's the theory, due to DNA studies showing that they were too different from us and didn't contribute genetically to modern humans, and that despite possible breeding between Neanderthal and Cro Magnon, the offspring were probably unable to reproduce and it was a dead end. So rather than the Neanderthal being an ancestor, it's simply a cousin on a divergent line.

[RepoMan 0]

How would Adam and Eve's offspring sidestep the whole incest thing? Wouldn't we all be a bunch of genetic freaks if we descended from just two humans?

Cases of genetic defects as a result of incest are vastly exagerated to help reenforce the socail taboo against it and usually have to develop after generation of inbreeding.

[SuperJerk 0]

How would Adam and Eve's offspring sidestep the whole incest thing? Wouldn't we all be a bunch of genetic freaks if we descended from just two humans?

Cases of genetic defects as a result of incest are vastly exagerated to help reenforce the socail taboo against it and usually have to develop after generation of inbreeding.

Did you mean "generations of inbreeding" or "a generation of inbreeding"?

 

Although the entire human race being descendants of 2 people would certainly qualify as either "generations of inbreeding" or "a generation of inbreeding", so your point is moot.

[Vyce 0]

Don't give Corey too much shit, he's absolutely right in his (albeit somewhat awkward) assertion that evolution and intelligent design can co-exist. There are plenty of theological schools of thought that accept evolution AND a belief in a creator God at the same time. Some particular theories follow along with his point three, that the 'days' in the creation of Genesis were actually geological ages rather than actual 24-hour periods.

 

This is the same old futile argument again. Science doesn't refute religion, religion doesn't refute science. Both can and should exist harmoniously with one another.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

This is the same old futile argument again. Science doesn't refute religion, religion doesn't refute science. Both can and should exist harmoniously with one another.

 

Jonah getting swallowed by a whale? The whole ark thing?

 

Surely you can understand why the first one is ridiculous. Ask AoO about the second one.

[chaosrage 0]

Don't give Corey too much shit, he's absolutely right in his (albeit somewhat awkward) assertion that evolution and intelligent design can co-exist. There are plenty of theological schools of thought that accept evolution AND a belief in a creator God at the same time. Some particular theories follow along with his point three, that the 'days' in the creation of Genesis were actually geological ages rather than actual 24-hour periods.

 

This is the same old futile argument again. Science doesn't refute religion, religion doesn't refute science. Both can and should exist harmoniously with one another.

Science doesn't refute religion if you don't take any of Genesis literally. Then again, if you just view everything in Lord of the Rings as a huge metaphor, it can and should exist harmoniously with science too I guess.

[RepoMan 0]

How would Adam and Eve's offspring sidestep the whole incest thing? Wouldn't we all be a bunch of genetic freaks if we descended from just two humans?

Cases of genetic defects as a result of incest are vastly exagerated to help reenforce the socail taboo against it and usually have to develop after generation of inbreeding.

Did you mean "generations of inbreeding" or "a generation of inbreeding"?

 

Although the entire human race being descendants of 2 people would certainly qualify as either "generations of inbreeding" or "a generation of inbreeding", so your point is moot.

I ment to say generations.

 

The sort of thing I was talking about happened sometimes in Royal families that hade a limited amount of pepole w/ Royal blood they could breed with. This ussually ment genetic diseases would be passed on, not physical deformities.

[SuperJerk 0]

How would Adam and Eve's offspring sidestep the whole incest thing? Wouldn't we all be a bunch of genetic freaks if we descended from just two humans?

Cases of genetic defects as a result of incest are vastly exagerated to help reenforce the socail taboo against it and usually have to develop after generation of inbreeding.

Did you mean "generations of inbreeding" or "a generation of inbreeding"?

 

Although the entire human race being descendants of 2 people would certainly qualify as either "generations of inbreeding" or "a generation of inbreeding", so your point is moot.

I ment to say generations.

 

The sort of thing I was talking about happened sometimes in Royal families that hade a limited amount of pepole w/ Royal blood they could breed with. This ussually ment genetic diseases would be passed on, not physical deformities.

 

So....if we were all descendants of brothers and sisters how on Earth did the human grace survive more than a few generations?

[Brett Favre 0]

I don't see the problem with teaching intelligent design. I mean, it's obvious that there's a higher power who started it all.

[EricMM 0]

To be fair, for something to be obvious, there has to be SOME SORT of evidence of it.

 

Please, point out this obvious evidence...

[chaosrage 0]

I don't see the problem with teaching intelligent design. I mean, it's obvious that there's a higher power who started it all.

 

I'm assuming this is really funny sarcasm, but... it's hard to tell sometimes.

[SuperJerk 0]

I don't see the problem with teaching intelligent design. I mean, it's obvious that there's a higher power who started it all.

 

I'd like to know what a curriculum or test over intelligent design would look like. It seems to me like it would only have one question, and that one question would probably be true or false.

[Vyce 0]

I don't see the problem with teaching intelligent design. I mean, it's obvious that there's a higher power who started it all.

 

I'd like to know what a curriculum or test over intelligent design would look like. It seems to me like it would only have one question, and that one question would probably be true or false.

 

Here's my question about intelligent design - does it just cover judeo-christian creationist beliefs? Or is it a more broad study of different creation myths / beliefs to analyze whether an intelligent creative force is possible?

 

Jonah getting swallowed by a whale? The whole ark thing?

 

Surely you can understand why the first one is ridiculous. Ask AoO about the second one.

 

Not every particular theory about evolution is considered the gospel truth, no pun intended; many scientists / researchers possess disagreements about the exact process of evolution, either in the macro or micro sense.

 

Same with religion. Not all theological perspectives operate under the strict belief that every single word of the Bible (or the Torah or the Koran, etc.) is the LITERAL gospel truth. Besides, you know what I mean. You can believe in evolution AND believe in God. It's not all or nothing. One doesn't cancel the other out. It's not, "Oh, I believe in evolution, so I can't possibly believe that God exists, because then I'd HAVE to belief in creationism if I did." And vice versa. That's what the I.D. folks aren't getting, the fact that evolution exists doesn't automatically mean that everything they believe in regarding God is worthless.

[Brett Favre 0]

Something had to start it all, it's just the way it is. The big bang is just a theory, just like everything else; so how can I be wrong?

[Special K 0]

How can you be wrong? Easily. How can you be proven wrong? You can't. That's why God shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

 

SO: what would your class look like? Would every question have the answer "because God(s) did it"? That would be a very easy class. One that Corey Lazurus could get an A in.

[chaosrage 0]

Something had to start it all, it's just the way it is. The big bang is just a theory, just like everything else; so how can I be wrong?

 

wow, you were serious. thanks for letting us know that you have no idea what the word theory means.

[Brett Favre 0]

Theory...theory...

 

So theory means fact now?

Edited December 27, 2005 by Cena's Writer

[Vigo 0]

Theories are fun. I can say I created the world and who could say I'm wrong.

[SuperJerk 0]

I don't see the problem with teaching intelligent design. I mean, it's obvious that there's a higher power who started it all.

 

I'd like to know what a curriculum or test over intelligent design would look like. It seems to me like it would only have one question, and that one question would probably be true or false.

 

Here's my question about intelligent design - does it just cover judeo-christian creationist beliefs? Or is it a more broad study of different creation myths / beliefs to analyze whether an intelligent creative force is possible?

That's the problem. No ID advocate has ever put forward exactly what it was they think should be taught. They simply complain evolution gets taught unchallenged, but never really explain what the ID theory encompasses or what factual information can be taught along side their theory to support it.

 

9/10 of the time, ID advocates use the Bible to support their views, rather than alternate theories which can be supported with measurable evidence. If ID advocates want to be taken seriously, people pushing it really need to offer something to support their theory than criticisms of evolution. So far, ID is a theory which relies on negative proof rather than offering something instead.

[Special K 0]

Theories are fun. I can say I created the world and who could say I'm wrong.

 

That's what makes it NOT a theory. A theory can be disproven. Claiming that you're a god is not a theory, it cannot be disproven. Unless you mean theory in the colloquial sense of the word, which is missing the ENTIRE POINT. This is a SCIENCE class taught with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Which has been around for quite a lot longer than you and I, and will exist long after you and I are gone. Idiot.

 

Mr. Jerk, in the above post.

 

Well put.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Special K

[Vigo 0]

Theories are fun. I can say I created the world and who could say I'm wrong.

 

That's what makes it NOT a theory. A theory can be disproven. Claiming that you're a god is not a theory, it cannot be disproven. Unless you mean theory in the colloquial sense of the word, which is missing the ENTIRE POINT. This is a SCIENCE class taught with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Which has been around for quite a lot longer than you and I, and will exist long after you and I are gone. Idiot.

 

Mr. Jerk, in the above post.

 

Well put.

 

I was referring to Cena Writer's post.

[Special K 0]

Oops, my bad. Sarcasm, the bane of written language.

 

 

Ok, so to Cena's Writer. The Big Bang is a theory, and it has not been proven, because theories are never proven. It has some supporting evidence. It has not yet been disproven.

 

God could have caused the Big Bang. God could have started the universe in motion yesterday and we simply popped into existence, memories fully formed.

 

These are beliefs not theories if the ID people maybe actually postulated a disprovable theory, it could have a place in the classroom.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with beliefs. I personally have had quite an interest in all the religions of the world, and philosophy. You can interject science into philosophy and reconcile the two, but in order for us to efficiently progress in the realms of the sciences, beliefs should be kept completely separate, since they cannot be disproven, there can be no progress.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Special K

[chaosrage 0]

Theory...theory...

 

So theory means fact now?

 

A better way to define it would be an explanation of facts. Saying the phrase "Just a theory" is one of the most ignorant things you can say in regards to science. Because theory is as far as it gets. No matter how much evidence and how many facts supported something, it would still be a theory.

 

Here's Stephen J Gould on it.

 

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

 

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

 

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

 

The use of "theory" to mean "guess" is a flag of creationist bullshit.

[snuffbox 0]

You people need to start watching more Bill o Reily or develop an affection for FIRE! real quick...