Teaching Intelligent Design Found Unconstitutional

[Justice 0]

To chaosrage: While 'theory' doesn't mean guess, the 'Big Bang' Theory is little more than an educated hypothesis to how the Universe started. Not that it doesn't have far more educated basing than creationism, but to be completely honest, it is no more right than anything else. Just more justified.

 

And I'm guessing what Cena's Writer is saying is that 'God' was the one who initiated the forces to create the Bang. So how 'bout ya back off there?

[Brett Favre 0]

Fair enough.

 

I'll leave my beliefs aside with this one, and change my opinion on the matter at hand.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Cena's Writer

[Special K 0]

Because you can't find evidence for or disprove God's involvement. Therefore, it's a belief and should not be taught in science class. If anyone's been taught the Big Bang theory without some big-time reservations, and evidence for and against it, they're in a shitty class. I've never had a class that taught that it is known that there was a big bang.

[chaosrage 0]

To chaosrage: While 'theory' doesn't mean guess, the 'Big Bang' Theory is little more than an educated hypothesis to how the Universe started. Not that it doesn't have far more educated basing than creationism, but to be completely honest, it is no more right than anything else. Just more justified.

 

There's no short supply of evidence to support the Big Bang. There are mounds and mounds of evidence for it. It has made predictions that have been verified. In what way is it an educated hypothesis?

 

And I'm guessing what Cena's Writer is saying is that 'God' was the one who initiated the forces to create the Bang. So how 'bout ya back off there?

 

And there's nothing wrong with thinking that. The problem is when people call it obvious and want it taught in schools.

[EricMM 0]

While I'm no expert on the Big Bang theory, my only qualms for it is that nothing comes from nothingness. There must have been something before.

 

But if it's only an explaination of the physics of the universe, that it occasionally gets so big that it crashes in upon itself and re-expands, I suppose that's reasonable, becauase unless I'm wrong there is evidence that it is expanding.

[Justice 0]

To chaosrage: While 'theory' doesn't mean guess, the 'Big Bang' Theory is little more than an educated hypothesis to how the Universe started. Not that it doesn't have far more educated basing than creationism, but to be completely honest, it is no more right than anything else. Just more justified.

 

There's no short supply of evidence to support the Big Bang. There are mounds and mounds of evidence for it. It has made predictions that have been verified. In what way is it an educated hypothesis?

 

In that you still have, as EricMM put it, nothingness from nothingness. It still missing the ignition. I have no problems believing that it could be that way, but again, it is still missing everything coming before the bang.

 

I suppose it's not as much an educated hypothesis as it is describing the birth of the universe without giving a reason why. That make more sense?

 

And I'm guessing what Cena's Writer is saying is that 'God' was the one who initiated the forces to create the Bang. So how 'bout ya back off there?

 

And there's nothing wrong with thinking that. The problem is when people call it obvious and want it taught in schools.

 

No disagreement. Though it seemed you were attacking the idea a bit more, but I understand a little more what you are coming from.

Edited December 28, 2005 by Justice

[The Ill One 0]

That'll always be the downfall of the Big Bang theory is what came beforehand and it's trigger. A lot of cosmologists say that we can't determine what was before it. Or that the Big Bang isn't meant to unlock all the mysteries but simply explain what we've observed. That it's beyond the "scope of science." That sounds like a great way to duck underneath the question but if you believed in the Big Bang and their theories then it makes some sense. If the Big Bang also created time, as we know it, then how could we measure what happened beforehand? Our logical "time" thinking doesn't apply because the time we know of didn't exist before the Big Bang. But at the same time it's always possible to ask "what happened before that?" So some cosmologists became hell-bent on a theory of what may of happened beforehand and churned out some interesting theories. Like Nothingness wasn't nothing, which sounds like a contradiction, and even this "nothing" was unstable. Even that began to decay and boil together in spacetime "bubbles." Through the chaos of quantum fluctations that lead up to the Big Bang it made the energy beforehand bumpy. Then a small ripple triggered a "Big Bang" effect and due to its "bumpy" energy it wasn't distributed evenly, which created everything. Or another thought is that beforehand was a state of multi-dimensions, fields, and having quantum fluctations that fell into place for the Big Bang. There's not only some evidence supporting the Big Bang but a lot of other theories to cover what happened beforehand or even better alternatives than I.D. to teach.

 

But still our best answer is we don't know, we can't really "know" for sure. We can only measure out the background radiation for an idea of the "age" but that can only go so far as to the Big Bang.

 

That whole ramble right there, sorry for that too because I'm not very skilled at explaining things, is why I support teaching the Big Bang theory. There's so much evidence with a few holes that have alternative theories that may explain it- classes could skim or get really deep into the topic where options are presented. Meanwhile Intelligent Design just seems like a flop because it says an "intelligent agent" incited and was an intervention. Plus it's not even recognized as true science because it can't be expiremented, doesn't predict or create a hypothesis. Putting my personal beliefs aside it just seems like Intelligent Design is (and this will sound condescending) inferior to other theories taught.

 

Edit: A couple edits for coherency. Oh and for sources, a brief browse with google and clicking on some different sites will cover all of this.

Edited December 28, 2005 by InsanityMan

[Vigo 0]

Something I've been curious about. Is there a religious explanation as to what came before God?

[The Ill One 0]

I have an Uncle who's a priest and he just stared when I asked him that.

 

"God is God... he's infinite and all-powerful, he never had a creation." I've never heard any Christian religion explain any beforehand because there was God, nothing, and then there was the Creation.

 

That seems even more far-fetched, to me, than some of the theories of the primordial period. Also seems like a really easy to squirm your way out of a tough question.

[SuperJerk 0]

While I'm no expert on the Big Bang theory, my only qualms for it is that nothing comes from nothingness. There must have been something before.

My understanding of the Big Bang theory is that the universe came from a super-compressed piece of matter that exploded and expanded into the universe see have today. There is strong evidence to support the Big Bang since the expansion of the universe is a measurable phenomena.

 

The Big Bang theory makes no attempt to explain where the piece of matter came from. I believe string theory attempts to explain that part.

 

If you want to be religious about it, you could say that God put the super-compressed piece of matter in the center of the universe and blew it up. Then once the universe was in place, he engineered evolution.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Aside from quantum mechanics, the Big Bang Theory is possibly the most well-supported theory in physics. To compare it with intelligent design and call it an "educated guess" is insulting. The theory rests on essentially three main points, each of which has been tested experimentally and been able to predict results:

 

1. the cosmic microwave background radiation

2. the expansion of the universe (Hubble redshift)

3. the abundance of the light elements

 

Steady-state theories and the like have basically disappeared as they have been unable to explain these facts without resorting to absurdities (such as violating the law of the conservatiion of mass-energy).

[Guest JMA]

I wonder if the "intelligent design" proponents would object to the deist belief being taught in schools (i.e. God created the universe, set it in motion, and then ceased having anything to do with it). I already know the answer to this question, of course, but I'd like to see their reaction to it.

[Special K 0]

As to what came before the Big Bang? There's the reason we have philosophy classes, really. We don't know if time is finite, infinite or cyclical. We don't know if our universe will burn out, become an entropic universe, or if this has happened an infinite number of times before.

[Brett Favre 0]

Something I've been curious about. Is there a religious explanation as to what came before God?

 

God was always here. It's hard to see that really, but that's how incredible God is.

[Special K 0]

He has no beginning he has no end./

But I like him most when he's shared with a friend!

[Vigo 0]

Something I've been curious about. Is there a religious explanation as to what came before God?

 

God was always here. It's hard to see that really, but that's how incredible God is.

 

See I don't buy that response because usually the main argument for the religious people when it comes to something like the Big Bang is that it couldn't have happened out of nothing. You put that same argument against God and you get God is incredible and that's just that. It's just a convenient response that requires no further thinking sort of how like in the old days when an earthquake happened the people believed that God did it. Nowadays we know that it's all about the plates. Today we still do it but it's at a larger scale. We don't know where we came from or how everything started so the convenient response is God did it and lets leave it at that.

[Brett Favre 0]

The difference is, you can see the plates. It's not the same case with what happened in the beginning. You can't see the beginning. Anyway, it's a belief man. I believe God exists. I'm not telling you to believe it, but you shouldn't tell me to prove it. It's my belief.

Edited December 29, 2005 by Cena's Writer

[The Ill One 0]

That's fair enough and I can respect that. But we do have some really interesting evidence that vaguely lets us "see the beginning" (not like footage but the background radiation, gases found on the outer rims, first stunted galaxies).

[Special K 0]

The difference is, you can see the plates. It's not the same case with what happened in the beginning. You can't see the beginning. Anyway, it's a belief man. I believe God exists. I'm not telling you to believe it, but you shouldn't tell me to prove it. It's my belief.

 

Absolutely. It shouldn't be taught in science class, though. No one's taking anyone's right to believe what they want.

[SuperJerk 0]

I believe God exists. I'm not telling you to believe it...

 

So does this mean you're against intelligent design being taught in schools?

[Brett Favre 0]

Yeah, I changed my opinion.

[chaosrage 0]

Yeah, I changed my opinion.

 

Way to take all the fun out of this thread.

[Brett Favre 0]

Was I the only one with that opinion? My bad.

[Damaramu 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?

 

Maybe they were as perfect as a human could be but the generations of inbreeding created what we have now? Yeah I got nothing.