First Creationism, Then Darwinism, Now... ID?

[Guest DrTom]

I found this in a Slate article earlier today.  Unfortunately, this might happen to the Ohio science curriculum, but I'm hoping it remains confined there.

 

Unintelligible Redesign

This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

ByWilliam Saletan

Posted Wednesday, February 13, 2002, at 10:48 AM PT

 

According to scientists, teachers, and civil libertarians, the Taliban has invaded Ohio. Creationists have devised a theory called "Intelligent Design" (ID) and are trying to get Ohio's Board of Education to make sure it's taught alongside Darwinism. Unlike creationism, ID accepts that the Earth is billions of years old and that species evolve through natural selection. It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom. Liberals call ID a menace that will sneak religion into public schools. They're exactly wrong. ID is a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science.

 

Creationism used to be assertive and powerful. Darwinism wasn't allowed in schools. As Darwin gained the upper hand, conservatives fought to preserve creationism alongside evolution. They lost the war on both fronts. Courts struck down the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it mixed church and state. Meanwhile, scientific evidence discredited the belief that the Earth was created in six days and was only 6,000 years old. Like the Taliban, creationists were washed up. Their only hope was to flee to the mountains, shave their beards, change their clothes, and come back as something else.

 

What they've come back as is the Intelligent Design movement. Gone are the falsifiable claims of a six-day creation and a 6,000-year-old Earth. Gone is the God of the Bible. In their place, ID enthusiasts speak of questions, mysteries, and possibilities. As to whether God, the Force, or ET created us, ID is agnostic. "We simply ask the question as to whether something can form naturally or if there must have been something more, a designer," Robert Lattimer, an ID proponent in Ohio, told the Columbus Dispatch. "Our main contention is that [evolution-focused curriculum] standards are purely naturalistic and leave no room for the possibility that part of nature can be designed."

 

This soft-headed agnosticism matches the soft-headed arguments for including it in the curriculum. They're the same arguments leftists have made for ebonics. According to ID proponents, the committee in charge of Ohio's science curriculum is too "homogenous" and lacks "diversity." It marginalizes alternative "points of view" to which students should be "exposed." A conservative state senator says some people "think differently, and all those ideas should be explored." A conservative member of the state education board says Ohioans deserve a science curriculum "they can all be comfortable with."

 

Behind these pleas for diversity is the kind of educational relativism conservatives normally despise. "Biological evolution, like creationism and design, cannot be proved to be either true or false," writes one ID enthusiast in Ohio. Since evolution is an "unproven theory," says another, "belief in it is just as much an act of faith as is belief in creationism or in the theory of intelligent design."

 

The response of liberals, teachers, and scientists has been hysterical. They accuse the ID movement of peddling "intolerance," fronting for the Christian right, and trying "to force a narrow religious ideology into our schools." If Ohio lets ID into its curriculum, they prophesy, the state will become an "international laughingstock," triggering a corporate exodus, a decline in property values, and the collapse of Ohio's standard of living. They refuse to acknowledge a difference between ID and creationism. "This is just a new paint job on the same old Edsel," says an Ohio University physiologist.

 

The analogy is completely inside out. Creationists haven't repainted their Edsel. They've taken out the engine and the transmission. Without distinctive, measurable claims such as the six-day creation, the 6,000-year-old Earth, and other literal interpretations of the Bible, creationism no longer materially contradicts evolution. The reason not to teach intelligent design isn't that it's full of lies or dogma. The reason is that it's empty.

 

Advocates of ID do offer interesting criticisms of Darwin's theory of evolution. They argue that natural selection doesn't account for the rise and fall of species, that many biological mechanisms wouldn't make organisms more fit to survive unless those mechanisms appeared all at once, and that the combinations necessary to create life are so complex that it would be statistically impossible to generate them by chance. My colleague Bob Wright answered these criticisms in Slate last year. I don't know whether they stand up to his rebuttal or not. But I do know this: They don't add up to a theory.

A theory isn't just a bunch of criticisms, even if they're valid. A theory ties things together. It explains and predicts.

 

Intelligent design does neither. It doesn't explain why part of our history seems intelligently designed and part of it doesn't. Why are our feet and our back muscles poorly designed for walking? Why are we afflicted by lethal viruses? Why have so many females died in childbirth? ID doesn't explain these things. It just shrugs at them. "Design theory seeks to show, based on scientific evidence, that some features of living things may be designed by a mind or some form of intelligence," says one ID proponent. Some? May? Some? What kind of theory is that?

 

As Wright explains, Darwinian theory makes predictions that can be tested. It predicts that the average difference in size between males and females will correspond to the degree of polygamy in a species, and that in species in which females can reproduce more often than males, females will be more sexually assertive and less discriminating about their sex partners than males will be. These predictions turn out to be true. Darwin claimed that humans had descended from apes. If fossils unearthed since his death had exhibited no such connection, his theory would have been discredited. What empirical predictions does ID make that, if proven untrue, would discredit the theory?

 

John Calvert, the country's principal exponent of ID, answered that question in a treatise he presented to the Ohio board. Calvert described the "methods" by which scientists can "detect" design in nature.

 

"In summary, if a highly improbable pattern of events or object exhibits purpose, structure or function and can not be reasonably and rationally explained by the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry or some other regularity or law, then it is reasonable to infer that the pattern was designed. — the product of a mind."

 

That, in a nutshell, is ID. It offers no predictions, scope modifiers, or experimental methods of its own. It's a default answer, a shrug, consisting entirely of problems in Darwinism. Those problems should be taught in school, but there's no reason to call them intelligent design. Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means nothing. This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

<<A conservative state senator says some people "think differently, and all those ideas should be explored.">>

 

-That's the most intelligent thing a conservative has said since Eisenhower...

 

In any case, I'm all for Darwinism myself (although it truly is just a theory), but from a purely metaphysical standpoint, it's very hard for simple human minds like ours to truly decipher what in nature is and isn't ordered. It's just one of those mysteries that science can help reveal.  As for this ID business, it scares me and it just proves my point about liberals that they can be just as intolerant as conservatives.  Censoring anyone's ideas is wrong, no matter how antique or disagreeable they are.  This is America, right?  We do pride ourselves on our democratic values that hold open arms to all ideas in a chance to better understand ourselves?  That is what this country was supposedly built on?  Or are we finally too set in our ways that we cannot tolerate any opposing opinions to our own viewpoint and ways of life?......

[Guest Anteater]

Seems to me like Saletan hit the nail head-on. It's a process that is completely normal in "normal science," to use Kuhn's terms. Every theory/scientific work has problems with it, pieces of the puzzle to fit in, to fill out the edges of knowledge, define what is the "edge." And that seems to be exactly what this is. Sure, these ignorant yahoos in Ohio may present wear their inherent bias on their sleave (everyone who practices science does); I could care less. But they are becoming  part of the "normal science" process, offering criticism, though I've yet to hear anything resembling a rational answer to these critiques, which is key to Kuhn's next sequence, "revolutionary science." (Sorry, DrTom, if I'm covering ground I'm sure you already know.)

 

What does bother me is the fact that these people are pulling the same trick that happened in Tennessee in 1924, and in Kansas and Louisiana in later years -- attempting to limit and subject knowledge under the State. I think it's a legacy of the Scopes trial that never fully got resolved, an aspect of free speech of both parties. Sure you can not listen in class to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, or skip astronomy class so you can embrace Ptolemy. But you can't force your willful ignorance onto a public classroom. The knowledge is their, the "evidence" is their, for evolution, for a helio-centric system, for DNA replication. I suppose that if you wish to disavow that, feel free to do so --OUTSIDE of the classroom, in a church (or apparently in the Ohio legislature), with the rest of your ignorant bedfellows.

 

There is an element to not just the evolution of species, but the universe (cosmos?) as a whole that can impart a feeling of awe and humbleness to people (Sagan's position). Science, as a whole, seems to be a way of accessing this emotion, one that may be associated with some facets of religions. Make of it what you will. It may even lead someone to ideas of "progressivism" or "directionality." Again, make of it what you will. Those matters, though, are an area of the philosophy of science and science itself; I cannot see why they need to be incorporated within a high-school science cirriculum.

[Guest Anteater]

In any case, I'm all for Darwinism myself (although it truly is just a theory) -- Frank Zappa Mask

 

What isn't a theory? Scientific knowledge, all of it, began as theory, and can still be considered theory. It is an approximation of reality, carrying a set of base assumptions and predictions about the "reality" around it, which it helps create. Once proposed, others measure the theory against their own "data" and "evidence" and subsequently judge the theory. This happened for Darwin, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Heisenberg, Lavoisier -- their work had to be measured and decideded upon. Some aspects of the theory may come up short of "reality," and scientists then propose ways to amend or correct things (Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, Kepler did it Copernicus, Einstein to Newton). Eventually enough holes may emerge in a theory to create crisis, leading to revolutionary science and the replacement of a paradigm (Thank you, T. Kuhn).

 

Perhaps you have heard of the helio-centric theory -- crazy notion that the earth moves and whatnot. When it first gradually emerged, that theory raised more of a ruckus that Darwin/Wallace's work ever thought about. But now, that theory's taken for granted, and called "fact," whatever that may be. It just happens that we live in a time that is witnessing the filling in of Darwin's theory, with it's accompanying criticisms. It's normal science.

 

This isn't a censoring of ideas in the classroom; its the forceful demands of a powerful group to let it's particular dogma be expressed and taught, regardless of how un-factual they may be. Perhaps you should call the Flat-Earth Society along with Deluge Scientists, along with some who hold Velikovsky in high regard. America democracy is about open debate and ideas, but not when they make a mockery of our science cirruculum and disregard the past 150 years of almost every work of genetics and biology.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

<<What isn't a theory? Scientific knowledge, all of it, began as theory, and can still be considered theory. It is an approximation of reality, carrying a set of base assumptions and predictions about the "reality" around it, which it helps create.>>

 

-Hey, that's all fine and well, but who are you, and who is anybody to say that a conception of "reality" is false or not worth anybody's time. If all scientific knowledge is still a theory (your words), then how can anyone say what is real and what is not? If we could really prove what is behind reality, then things would be different, but we can't at this point in space and time, and we are left with huge voids in our understanding that we replace with concepts like God.  People create their own subjective views of reality.  That is a fact.  That is quite possible THE fact behind this universe.  Things start going wrong when people start forcing single opinions on each other when no one knows for sure.  Like I said, Darwinism is a hell of a theory that can be physically applied, but to persecute those who still believe in Creationism (a perfectly innocent theory in its original idea, in that simply the universe was consciously created) is wrong.  It is their choice to believe in what they will.  At the same time, when they try to force their opinion on others, they must also understand and respect the multitude of choices we as humans face in figuring out what's what.

 

<<This isn't a censoring of ideas in the classroom; its the forceful demands of a powerful group to let it's particular dogma be expressed and taught, regardless of how un-factual they may be. Perhaps you should call the Flat-Earth Society along with Deluge Scientists, along with some who hold Velikovsky in high regard. America democracy is about open debate and ideas, but not when they make a mockery of our science cirruculum and disregard the past 150 years of almost every work of genetics and biology.>>

 

-This is very much a censoring of ideas, and if you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.  The people behind the ID do not want to impose their ideals on everyone, they simply want to have their ideas as part of the choices on the curriculum.  I see nothing wrong with that, and if you simply do not want their views expressed simply because they do not fit int your cozy little view of the universe, then you are guilty of supporting this censorship.  It's hard for our American democracy to be about open debate and ideas when everyone is so intolerant of anything that is different or isn't proper...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

In any case, I'm all for Darwinism myself (although it truly is just a theory) -- Frank Zappa Mask>>

 

Wow, the arch-conservative agreeing with the Mumia supporter. Odd, huh?

 

<<What isn't a theory? Scientific knowledge, all of it, began as theory, and can still be considered theory. It is an approximation of reality, carrying a set of base assumptions and predictions about the "reality" around it, which it helps create. Once proposed, others measure the theory against their own "data" and "evidence" and subsequently judge the theory. This happened for Darwin, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein, Heisenberg, Lavoisier -- their work had to be measured and decideded upon. Some aspects of the theory may come up short of "reality," and scientists then propose ways to amend or correct things (Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, Kepler did it Copernicus, Einstein to Newton). Eventually enough holes may emerge in a theory to create crisis, leading to revolutionary science and the replacement of a paradigm (Thank you, T. Kuhn).

 

Perhaps you have heard of the helio-centric theory -- crazy notion that the earth moves and whatnot. When it first gradually emerged, that theory raised more of a ruckus that Darwin/Wallace's work ever thought about. But now, that theory's taken for granted, and called "fact," whatever that may be. It just happens that we live in a time that is witnessing the filling in of Darwin's theory, with it's accompanying criticisms. It's normal science.

 

This isn't a censoring of ideas in the classroom; its the forceful demands of a powerful group to let it's particular dogma be expressed and taught, regardless of how un-factual they may be.>>

 

How unfactual are the ID group?

 

They aren't saying that Darwinism is inherently incorrect---they simply seem to be stating that there are holes in the theory (and, since we can never actually PROVE Darwinism, it'll remain only a theory), they are proposing an alternative theory.

 

Last time I checked, that activity is vital for science.

 

They are doing nothing different than Darwin himself did when he first stated his thesis.

 

<<Perhaps you should call the Flat-Earth Society along with Deluge Scientists, along with some who hold Velikovsky in high regard. America democracy is about open debate and ideas, but not when they make a mockery of our science cirruculum and disregard the past 150 years of almost every work of genetics and biology. >>

 

What mockery are they making?

 

They're simply stating that (and I agree with them) the world is just far too orderly for it to be the act of random chance.

 

If they are THAT inaccurate, why not allow them to present their case for it to be shot down?

 

It seems that Darwinists are becoming as intolerant of opposing viewpoints as creationists once were.

                          -=Mike

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Mike, I'm going to stop this thread and hand you a plaque commerating the first moment we've ever agreed upon an issue 100 %

[Guest DrTom]

"They aren't saying that Darwinism is inherently incorrect---they simply seem to be stating that there are holes in the theory (and, since we can never actually PROVE Darwinism, it'll remain only a theory), they are proposing an alternative theory."

 

That's all well and good, Mike, but the problem is, that's not all they're doing.  Their theory has become an agenda they want to push on the school system, and that makes it a political issue.  Let them test their theory a little more, then let them present their case for inclusion in the curriculum, not at the expense of anything else, but alongside it.  

 

Besides, their theory doesn't sound like it says very much.  "Uh, there was a design at some point... and a designer, since nothing is that random."  It sounds almost nihilistic in its emptiness, and while it doesn't profess a belief in nothing, it doesn't do anything to say why we should believe in anything.

[Guest DrTom]

"<<A conservative state senator says some people "think differently, and all those ideas should be explored.">>

 

-That's the most intelligent thing a conservative has said since Eisenhower..."

 

That's one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said, regardless of their political affiliation.  Different ideas are all well and good for round-table discussions, but "ideas" don't belong in a school curriculum until they have some meat on thieir bones.  Darwinism, despite a few holes and flaws, does explain a lot, and has stood up pretty well to time.  Considering a new idea just because it's a new idea is one of the most irresponsible things a school administration can do.

[Guest Anteater]

Perhaps you cannot know for sure what is "real" and not, but, that under the pain of solipism, the assumption that a physical universe lies at "the root of reality" is fundamentally true. I think that it follows from that thought that every scientific theory is selected based upon how well it conforms to the facet of "reality" that scientists are most interested in (in today's case, the debate over description/explanation).

 

In the modern scientific paradigm, the questions that Creationism poses are not fundamental concerns. It's "vital to science" to probe out the holes and limits of theories. But when that is done, something else needs to be proposed in it's place (if they were doing that, maybe I could agree with a change in science cirriculum). As it is, it looks like they have become folded into the normal science of the paradigm, questioning when it falters, but thats it. But the concerns they bring, of god and creators and self-percieved "order," are not questions of science today, but philosophy and theology. Helio-centricism and phlogiston are theories as well; I think we should present them in Astronomy and Chemistry classses to represent holes in the present theories. (Perhaps we should, historically; but that is not the way science operates)

 

When Darwin, in 1859, wrote On the Origin of Species, he was bringing together a vast amount of work and scientific opinion that had been present for nearly 75 years; many in science had already accepted Lamarckian Evolution. I do not see a large, scientifically respected collection of works that would argue for Creationism's incorporation into the schools.

 

The thing is, the Creationists lost this battle with evolutionary scientists, and science as a whole, a while ago. Now they attempt to sway fellow-minded politicians, thereby bypassing the paradigm selection process (which they could not go through), and then writing it off as science.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

"<<A conservative state senator says some people "think differently, and all those ideas should be explored.">>

 

-That's the most intelligent thing a conservative has said since Eisenhower..."

 

<<That's one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said, regardless of their political affiliation.  Different ideas are all well and good for round-table discussions, but "ideas" don't belong in a school curriculum until they have some meat on thieir bones.  Darwinism, despite a few holes and flaws, does explain a lot, and has stood up pretty well to time.>>

 

However, it's also been basically impossible for anybody to actually state that Darwinism DOES have some problems.

 

I know when I was in school, Darwinism was taught as unquestioned, undeniable FACT---something it is not.

 

Am I saying it's false? No---but Darwinism does have some serious holes that it really can't explain away.

 

Why has natural selection apparently stopped? Why has nothing ever happened in history to cause it to "stop" before?

 

<< Considering a new idea just because it's a new idea is one of the most irresponsible things a school administration can do. >>

 

But refusing to accept that there are different ideas out there is equally as irresponsible.

 

I've always felt that creationism and Darwinism go hand-in-hand (after all, how long is a day to God?). ID seems to recognize that possibility.

                                 -=Mike

[Guest El Hijo Del Lunatic]

Here's the inherent difference between a theory like ID and a theory like Darwinism:  When Darwin sailed to the Galapagos back in the 1860's, he didn't go there with the intention of proving the theory of evolution.  He went there to study the plants and animals there.  Ho collected data, information on the various species of the island, and, from the years of data he collected, he formed his theories on natural selection and evolution.  That's how science works.  When Copernicus first theorized that the Earth orbited the sun, he wasn't doing it to piss off the Catholic church - he did it because by studying the stars and planets, the data he collected pointed to that conclusion.

 

ID is NOT science, however.  ID, it seems, starts with a conclusion (there is some guiding force that makes the laws of the universe, be it Allah, Jesus Christ, Vishnu, Martians, or some guy named Jake) and works its way backwards, fitting in every piece of data it can.  That's not how science is done, and not how it should be done.  Look, I can "theorize" that the universe is a giant bush, cut to look like an elephant, sitting in the front lawn of some infinitely larger being's home plane of existence.  And I can form-fit some facts to that theory, too:  scientists observe, after all, that the universe seems to be slowly expanding, or "growing", much like a tree.  That doesn't mean they should teach "Swartz's Theory of Topiarial Growth" in schools, though.

 

I also want to point out that nowhere in the Theory of Evolution does it state that "there is no God".

[Guest KoR Fungus]

I'm totally with DrTom on this.  I have nothing wrong with teaching multiple viewpoints if both viewpoints have a good deal of proven scientific validity.  ID has no scientific validity and can't have any scientific validity, because it isn't asserting anything.  It's just taking all the flaws of Darwinism and saying that ID is the answer to all those flaws.  That's just terrible science.  It can't be proven, it can't be disproven, it's just a catch all answer that doesn't teach anybody anything.

 

On top of that, the whole thing just seems like a quick fix, a way for creationists to still advance their views without being looked upon as illogical idiots.  Pure creationism, using the Bible as the answer to everything, wasn't "getting over" anymore, so they tried out ID as their new gimmick.  That's fine, anyone is free to theorize all they want, but every new theory shouldn't be introduced into a school's curriculum.  I could sit down and in my spare time just make up some theory about how the world came to be, are you (Frank Zappa) saying that it's okay for me to teach that to my students as a reasonable alternative to evolution?  After all, who can say what's real and what's not, right?

 

Evolution is a theory that has been researched for many years, with tons of scientific data supporting it.  Until ID can make a similar claim, I think evolution should be the theory taught in schools (with its flaws pointed out, of course).  As much as everyone is entitled to their own little realities, schools also have an obligation to teach things that have some sort of established validity.

[Guest Anteater]

<<However, it's also been basically impossible for anybody to actually state that Darwinism DOES have some problems.

 

I know when I was in school, Darwinism was taught as unquestioned, undeniable FACT---something it is not.

 

Am I saying it's false? No---but Darwinism does have some serious holes that it really can't explain away.>>

 

 

The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis does a lot to describe and fill in the problems of Darwin's original work. Genetics, mutation, DNA; all that helps to better explain the original theory. And while I'll agree their are problems still with it, I'd like to hear something substantial.

 

<<Why has natural selection apparently stopped? Why has nothing ever happened in history to cause it to "stop" before?>>

 

These two "problems of evolution" aren't even problems; I doubt you could even consider them valid questions. Natural selection still occurs; gene frequencies change over time, thats the basic definition of evolution today. It hasn't stopped; where do you see that happening? Homo sapiens continue to evolve; witness the existence and changing nature of genetic antimalarials, like sickle-cell anemia, in the prescence of malaria. Across the whole of the old world, almost every population that faces this problem has independently evolved some sort of basic defense against malaria. Thats definitely a change in gene frequency over time. That's just one example of natural selection that hasn't stopped. It hasn't taken place in one generation, so you can sit and watch it unfold before you. It happens over thousands and millions of years, with slow changes and adaptations.

 

These two "questions" are indicative of the type of critiquing that modern Creationists seem to do. They are just empty complaints, thrown out with a basic understanding of natural selection or the bare bones of Darwin.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<However, it's also been basically impossible for anybody to actually state that Darwinism DOES have some problems.

 

I know when I was in school, Darwinism was taught as unquestioned, undeniable FACT---something it is not.

 

Am I saying it's false? No---but Darwinism does have some serious holes that it really can't explain away.>>

 

The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis does a lot to describe and fill in the problems of Darwin's original work. Genetics, mutation, DNA; all that helps to better explain the original theory. And while I'll agree their are problems still with it, I'd like to hear something substantial.

 

<<Why has natural selection apparently stopped? Why has nothing ever happened in history to cause it to "stop" before?>>

 

<<These two "problems of evolution" aren't even problems; I doubt you could even consider them valid questions.>>

 

Not valid questions?

 

Why do monkeys exist? If humanity is the superior form, why do monkeys even exist?

 

And where is cro-magnon man? It's evolutionally superior to monkeys/chimps/whatever---so why are they gone?

 

Logically, under natural selection, species hould ALWAYS be "advancing"---but such advances seem to have stopped over the past few thousand years.

 

<<Natural selection still occurs; gene frequencies change over time, thats the basic definition of evolution today. It hasn't stopped; where do you see that happening? Homo sapiens continue to evolve; witness the existence and changing nature of genetic antimalarials, like sickle-cell anemia, in the prescence of malaria. Across the whole of the old world, almost every population that faces this problem has independently evolved some sort of basic defense against malaria. Thats definitely a change in gene frequency over time. That's just one example of natural selection that hasn't stopped. It hasn't taken place in one generation, so you can sit and watch it unfold before you. It happens over thousands and millions of years, with slow changes and adaptations.

 

These two "questions" are indicative of the type of critiquing that modern Creationists seem to do. They are just empty complaints, thrown out with a basic understanding of natural selection or the bare bones of Darwin.>>

 

Again, if natural selection still occurs, where are all of the "missing links" in mankind's evolution?

                              -=Mike

[Guest Anteater]

<<Not valid questions?

 

Why do monkeys exist? If humanity is the superior form, why do monkeys even exist?

 

And where is cro-magnon man? It's evolutionally superior to monkeys/chimps/whatever---so why are they gone?

 

Logically, under natural selection, species hould ALWAYS be "advancing"---but such advances seem to have stopped over the past few thousand years.>>

 

Mike, c'mon man. "Superior?" "Why do monkeys exist?"

 

Monkeys, in all their varied forms, still exist because they have adapted to their niche, and able to continue to do so. That's just basic biology. Does Creationism want to burn that down too? Their evolutionary fitness for the environment they have adapted to is well enough to ensure survival. Monkey's have adapted certain skeletal and physiological structures that allow them to do quite well within that environment, just like homo sapiens continue to evolve to theirs.

 

Natural selection doesn't seperate species based on "superiority." Mutations occur within a species, and if that mutation allows for a greater evolutionary fitness, that group of animal's genes are passed on, maybe becoming a different species, depending on other factors like geographical seperation. Animals may be better adapted for environments, sure, but is that "superior?" Thats just the same problem of logical and historical positivism that I thought guys like Kuhn and Koestler attempted to solve.

 

And species are continously changing. Cro-magnon didn't go anywhere, Cro-Magnon was a modern homo sapien. It's still around, genetically speaking. Evolution just doesn't happen in a "few thousand years." Both Darwin and Wallace's great intellectual leap was to take Lyell's notion of uniformatarianism (infinitely small changes over a huge length of time) and apply it to the emergence of species. Sorry that it can't happen in front of your eyes within your lifetime, Mike. If it could, I doubt we would be having this conversation. The genetic frequencies of populations (which is what evolution is all about) still change today due to mutation, the environment, and gene flow. Take the prescence of genetic anti-malarials that exist in African-Americans. Those genes were selected because, while they can cause sickle-cell anemia, they also allow people to live in very close proximity to malaria. So what happens to ex-slaves in America, who don't need to worry about malaria anymore? Those genes (which are only about 10,000 years old anyway, which is really recent) become eliminated in the population because all it does is cause sickle-cell anemia, which can kill you very quickly, and it's not needed for protection in the population's present environment. Meanwhile, that same population's ancestry, back in Africa, who they left only 200 or 300 years ago, still have that same gene. That is basic natural selection/evolution. What about the growth of drug resistant bacteria, of virus evolution? Thats all natural selection, too.

 

Again, these are just critiques thrown out by Creationists who don't even understand the basic nature or facts of natural selection or Darwin.

[Guest Vyce]

You want to know why I hate our public school system?

 

Because in Kansas, at one particular high school, around two dozen students blatantly plagiarized a biology project (using online texts), and when the teacher found out about it, she failed the lot of them.

 

Then the dumbfuck parents of these kids stepped in.  "Oh, my kid couldn't have done THAT".  They yelled and screamed, and guess what?

 

The kids got their passing grades back.  See, children, cheaters always win.  The teacher has since resigned, and the high school is in serious trouble as half of the other teachers are threatening to walk in disgust with the school board's decision.

 

Serious ethics violations like this occur all the time in our schools, but it's not even the worst of our problems.  We have countless public schools that are underfunded, that are using outdated texts because it's all they can afford, that deal with violence and general apathy on a daily basis....we have all of these problems and more, and what are we still debating, DECADES later?

 

Evolution vs. Creationism (or a form of it).

 

I'm sick of it all.  I want the REAL problems of our school system addressed.

 

To the creationists - go read the Bible, and think happy thoughts about the Darwinists burning in hell.

 

To the Darwinists - go read something by Joseph Campbell (something good, where he talks about science eliminating the need for religion & myth), and pat yourself on the back over your own intellectual superiority.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Not to be flippant, but if the creationists only would just let it go and go read the Bible and merrily ponder the eternal anguish of Darwinists, I'm pretty sure most Darwinists would be all too happy to smugly pat themselves on the back.

 

But it's the Creationists that are trying to force their religious dogma onto the public school system, and the Darwinists are pretty much stuck in the position of trying to prevent that from happening.

 

Anyway, I agree with you.  Schools have a lot worse problems that need to be addressed.  Unfortunately some people seem more concerned that a story written thousands of years ago is presented as a viable alternative to the best understanding of things according to our current scientific knowledge.

[Guest Vyce]

I place the blame equally, actually.

 

Otherwise, this turns into just a slam on one of the two positions.  "Oh, things would be better if only those Darwinists would allow us Creationists to present our alternative theories!"  or "Oh, things would be better if only those Creationists would give up their storybook fantasies and let us teach our science!"

 

I'm not interested in that shit.  I don't care which side really has "The Truth".

 

I just want the REAL problems to be addressed.  And way I see it, it takes two people to argue, so I place the blame on both groups.

[Guest BookerTman]

I place the blame equally, actually.

 

Otherwise, this turns into just a slam on one of the two positions.  "Oh, things would be better if only those Darwinists would allow us Creationists to present our alternative theories!"  or "Oh, things would be better if only those Creationists would give up their storybook fantasies and let us teach our science!"

 

I'm not interested in that shit.  I don't care which side really has "The Truth".

 

I just want the REAL problems to be addressed.  And way I see it, it takes two people to argue, so I place the blame on both groups.

I hear ya, but as long as people are interested in how the universe came into existence, this battle will rage on.

[Guest the Goon]

I say fine, let em put "intelligent design" in schools. teach em all pretty well equally. the more ideas out there, the better. it may be more confusing but it will make people use their own brain, and maybe make them a much more critical thinker, and thats a trait everyone should be picking up.

[Guest Anteater]

<<I say fine, let em put "intelligent design" in schools. teach em all pretty well equally. the more ideas out there, the better. it may be more confusing but it will make people use their own brain, and maybe make them a much more critical thinker, and thats a trait everyone should be picking up.>>

 

That's just absolutely ridiculous. It's  not like we are debating forms of government, or tax reform. This is a matter that can at least tried to be measured "objectively," and is at the least quantifiable. Just because an "idea is out there" doesn't mean it should be taught. Or maybe it should, I'd like to see a Helio-centric universe, deluge geology, phlogiston theory, Aristoltle's chain of being and theory of matter, intrisic biological racism and eugenics taught "pretty well equally." I'm sure you wouldn't mind, man. "The more ideas out there, the better," right?

[Guest KoR Fungus]

That's just absolutely ridiculous. It's  not like we are debating forms of government, or tax reform. This is a matter that can at least tried to be measured "objectively," and is at the least quantifiable. Just because an "idea is out there" doesn't mean it should be taught. Or maybe it should, I'd like to see a Helio-centric universe, deluge geology, phlogiston theory, Aristoltle's chain of being and theory of matter, intrisic biological racism and eugenics taught "pretty well equally." I'm sure you wouldn't mind, man. "The more ideas out there, the better," right?

 

Hehe, agreed.  Some things, like ID, belong in a philosophy class where everyone can discuss their neat little ideas for how the universe came into being.  Other things, like Darwinism, that actually are backed up by objective evidence, deserve to be taught in science classes.

 

I just can't understand how some of you think that all viewpoints, regardless of how absurd, deserve equal amounts of discussion time in schools.  Does this go beyond creationism?  Should we spend as much time teaching kids about how all things are created out of the principle elements of water, fire, wind and earth as we spend teaching them about atoms to encourage diverse viewpoints?  Some ideas have scientific validity, other don't.  The ones that don't shouldn't be taught in schools, or else school just turns into a big twelve year long philosophy class.

[Guest Dangerous J]

The response of liberals, teachers, and scientists has been hysterical. They accuse the ID movement of peddling "intolerance," fronting for the Christian right, and trying "to force a narrow religious ideology into our schools." If Ohio lets ID into its curriculum, they prophesy, the state will become an "international laughingstock," triggering a corporate exodus, a decline in property values, and the collapse of Ohio's standard of living. They refuse to acknowledge a difference between ID and creationism. "This is just a new paint job on the same old Edsel," says an Ohio University physiologist.

 

This really isn't an arguement over competing theories. The first sentence in that quote shows what this case is really all about. The public school system in this country has been controlled by the left for the last 30+ years. They're afraid that even minor moves made by the right will weaken that control. And any attempts to break free of our nations thought gulags are met with prejudice.

[Guest the Goon]

We were taught the chain of being in school.

 

We weren't taught it as fact, neither were we taught evolution or creationism as fact.  I don't see a problem with teaching anything, so long as you teach it as a 'theory'. We also took a quick look at craniology, the Apollo Space Program hoax theory, etc.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

To say this should be taught in schools is ridiculous. I could probably spend a day and come up with a perfectly good "theory" of evolution to counter Darwinism, does that mean my theory should also be taught? Arguments about design belong in university philosophy classes (where I have had many interesting discussions about them), not in high school science classes. I can say "weird things in the universe happen because some all-powerful being wants them to", does that mean my idea should be taught in physics alongside quantum mechanics?

[Guest Crazy Dan]

I think that to allow ID to be automatically taught in schools, without having scientific facts to back it up, is just plain stupid, IMO.  Now if this theory of Id has more backing to it, then of course it should be considered for being taught in our schools.  Yeah Darwism does hve holes in it, but I do believe that it has way more scientific facts backing it, then ID does, hence the reason it is taught in our schools.

[Guest J*ingus]

Well, you could make a case through chaos mathematics and how lots of things in the universe seem to not be random, but still there's very little reason why it should be taught in biology class.  Holes or not, evolution is still the only major theory which is completely based on impartial scientific observation.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Chaos theory is one of the most difficult and obscure branches of mathematics, and there are only a few people in the world that completely understand it since it's far removed from the mainstream. Somehow I don't think that would work in a high school class . It would be like teaching algebraic geometry in one of the mathematics classes.

[Guest Ripper]

Maybe I am misuderstanding the whole Intellegent Design thing, it is simply saying believe what you want, but in the end, someone or something is the designer of it all.  Its like, if you believe man evolved from monkeys, fine, they are saying that a intellegent being created the monkey.  I really don't see why somany people got so bent out of shape over it.

 

But here is the thing I don't get and hopefully someone can explain it to me.  Why would monkeys evolve in to humans.  It doesn't  fit the layout of it(at least the one that has been presented to me.) Monkeys are built the way that they are for a reason.  It supports their surroundings.  They must climb to get their food from trees.  Ok fine.  So why would they evolved to a species that isn't equiped for it.  If the primates of that time were plant eaters, they needed to be built the way they were to get the foods high in the trees.  If they were meat eaters, they needed to be built that way for more speed and more strength to kill prey, so why would the evolve into a species that is less equiped for that too.  For some reason, primates were suppose to have evolved into a species that would be more likely to become extinct.  If not for technology, man would be ill-equiped to survive.  Maybe I am missing something about the theory(I'm sure I am).  

 

I also know there have been remains found of fossils found that resemble man as he is today which are older than alot of the primate/man type that have been found, sugesting that they could actually be another species completly and not man.  Granted, it hasn't happen nearly as much as the discoveries that support mans evolution, but it does put a hole in the evolution of man from monkey is the absolute end all answer.  

 

I believe in evolution but don't believe that man and monkey derived from the same species, and don't believe that I am ignorant for thinking so...but what do I know...