The case for Intelligent DesignFollow

They want acknowledgement of the specific belief they hold.

After all, if it's wrong then they're a bunch of jackasses for believing it. Since they couldn't possibly be a bunch of jackasses, they must insist that schoolchildren be taught the same things they themselves believe.

There's faith based groups that disbelieve any facet of science. However, science class isn't the place to discuss what faith based organizations believe. Intelligent Design/Creationism by its very nature is untestable and therefore defies the basic foundations of science: to learn about the world via experimentation. Pointing out flaws in the evolutionary model is fine, giving pseudo-scientific theories of "a magic being must have made it happen 'cause we don't have a better answer" is regression.

Let me preface this by again stating that I am not personally a man of faith in the traditional sense. While I have deeply held beliefs about religion, God, and their collective treatment by peope throughout history, I am fully aware, and understanding of, that my beliefs are my own and shouldn't be imposed on others. That being said...

I do have a problem with the education community in this country sticking hard and fast to the idea that simply because no better "theory" exists to explain genesis the theory of evolution must be taught as unassailable. The amount of resistance to the introduction of other theories suggests that their is an underlying knowledge of the incompleteness of, and often serious incongruities in, the theory of evolution. Any responsible instruction in the area must include an allusion to other theories. It must, at the very least, point out that evolution is not the sole accepted theory in existence.

Of course, the intelligent design camp must also allow for the idea that in the face of prevailing evidence, you can not simply lose the theory of evolution in the dusts of library back shelves. They must take in to account the mountains of supporting data to the evolutionary model.

What really irks me at a personal level is the idea promoted among so many in the religious community that a literal translation of Genesis must be applied to the Creation story. It is dangerous in an Islamic Terrorist sort of way for Christian leaders, who believe in an all powerful God, to suggest that if the Bible says 6 days, it has to have been 6 days. By those statements, they try to place outside the realm of possibility the idea that an all powerful God might be capable of doing things they don't understand.

It'd be easier to comment if one could see/hear/read "the statement" in question before beginning the punditry, because presentation is everything, but...



Well, I think that's the problem. It sounds as though the kids in the class are being forced to sit through a statement where Intelligent Design is presented and explained as being a scientific theory (or at least the equivalent in validity), in a science class, where supposedly they are going to learn about science.

Since it's a science class, allowing any material that isn't based on science or at least scientific theory is inappropriate. Even if the intention is not to indoctrinate (and I can't imagine why the ID people would be pushing to get their agenda into the classroom if the intention WEREN'T indoctrination) there's simply no way it's acceptable to present a non-scientific theory as an alternative to a scientific theory in a class where kids comprised of all religious backgrounds are supposed to be learning about science.

I don't think there would be much complaint if someone wanted to present Intelligent Design as a segment in a philosophy course called "Theories on the Origins of the World" or if it were to be included in a comparative religions course. But these are ninth graders, and while some of them are plenty capable of understanding that the ID presentation was not actually "science" in their science class, again depending on how the information is presented, I think most of them would walk away with an idea that the school is saying that ID is as scientifically valid a theory as evolution.



If you're giving it the same weight and validity as a scientific theory in a class where kids are supposed to be learning science then yes, it really is promoting the doctrine. But, again, a lot of it has to do with how the information is couched. If it's preceded by a big bold disclaimer "THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS ONE" then it's not so much as a problem. But isn't the beef of the ID people that their theory IS as valid as any current scientific theory on evolution, and if that is the case, would they, in fact, put that disclaimer on there?

What experiments are done to prove that the fossil record is accurate? Similarities in bone structure and differing geological placement merely suggest evolution, they do not provide indisputable evidence of it.

As opposed to the Darwinian model which comes out and says in the front page "We have no idea how life got here because we can't test any of our theories of how it might have happened.", right?

Lots.

Believe me on that, I could go into into the details but I would drone on in a way that would make Gbaji entertaining.

First you use dating methods to put it in a sequence.

Then you throw it over to people that specialize in bone structure. They compare it to what else is out there and see how it differs and is the same. They can tell its sex, age, and about a dozen other things. You can see certain features that emerge and are passed.

Then you look at the material culture associated with the dig, see how it links up with what you know about what comes before and after. Like the jump from Oldawan industry to Acheulian when it comes to Habilus and Erectus/Ergaster.

It is important that there is a great deal of debate in the community about lines of descent. Obviously its not the unilineal chart you remember from biology texts but rather a tree with dead ends and branches. There is a lot of arguments such as were Neanderthals a seperate group or were they a step in the human chain or did they interbreed and mix with humans.


Of course it is all much more indepth and complicated than that with much more science to it but believe me it isnt just a bunch of anthro geeks patting each other on the back and giving hi fives about finds. There is some intense competition going on as to theories with everyone doing there best to debunk and discredit the others and prove there own.

the biggest problem with religion is man.

we try to create God in our own immage. in other words, we can understand evolution takes a long time. we understand what a day is as it relates to creating the world in "7" days.

then we try to define our surroundings based solely on what "we" as in man, inderstand and deem possible.

we try to create God in our own immage. we try to define our selves and our surroundings based on what "we", as in man, can understand.

why are creation and evolution not compatable? time. the time line just doesnt fit.

what is time to a being that has always been, and will always be? time would have no meaning. there is no need to measure what has no limits. no way to measure what has no limits.

how would such a being explain a series of events in a manner "we", who measure everything, might understand? what unit of measure would a being that has no need for measure use to explain a series of events to someone who cannot perceive anything that cannot be measured?

why give us parables to deliver a message?

we were given what we needed in order to understand. we were given the message in the only manner that would have meaning to us. a message based on examples of our own behavior, and a creation based on a series of events that can be measureed.

7 days.

what is seven days to a being who has always been? to a being who can stop the world from turning for an instant or an eternity?

by creating adam from the earth in a day, couldnt it just as easiley be a situation where the DNA for adam was implanted in the earth of the world and eventually formed man? and couldnt that day adam was created just as easiley be a week, year, million years?

i am not trying to say what happened, all i am trying to point out is there is the possibility that evolution and ceration are very much compatable. and the only reason we are having this debate, these wars, this prejudice and discrimination amoung ourselves and other religions and other people who do not believe as we do.....is man trying to create God in his own immage. man trying to define his surroindings and envoroment based solely on what he can percieve at any given time. what he WANTS to perceive.

i am perfect. therefore, my religion is the only religion. and differnaces in my religion and other religions mean they are evil, because this is how "i" understand my enviroment, and i am perfect, therefor they must be wrong.

i perceive 7 days means seven 24 hour periods. a week. period. therfore ceration cannot possibly be compatable with evoltion because i cannot understand how it could be. and i am perfect.

welcome to the idiocy of man.

Congrats, Shadow, you just made a long-*** post that had pretty much nothing to do with the situation actually being discussed.

Question:
If those that believe in ID want to have a powerful argument, why don't they just claim that evolution is a hypothesis and not a theory.

By deffinition, a theory is something that has so much evidence supporting it, it is safe to assume the theory as truth. Wouldn't renaming it as a hypothesis be the greatest stab to it's credability?


psst moe... You can argue against darwin's findings all you want. Modern evolutionist theory has grown and adapted with new technology and information.

You just look like a stupid cnut arguing about something that is only used for historical learning. Not like that is any different from any other time.

Darwin's "Natural Selection" theory is NOT evolution it's merely one theory of how evolution does what it does. There are others.

We are a mixture of DNA from other individuls. We have parents that we undeniably recieve physical traits from, we have kids that we give those traits too. We mix and match our physiology with others.....evolution is pretty indisputable.

Of course there was that one instance of a baby presumably being born without an egg and a sperm..........immaculate conception - how dull.

Congrats, Shadow, you just made a long-*** post that had pretty much nothing to do with the situation actually being discussed.
-----------------------------------------------------

my post is exactly why this situation is a situation to begine with.

exactly why groups of lawyers are being used to push something down the throats of every one else.

i am perfect. therfore i will make sure the rest of you learn what i believe to be true.

welcome to the world of religious zelotry. a world dominated by flawed beings trying to create God in their own immage. welcome to George Bush, Osame Bin Laudin, Saddam Hussin, Adolph Hitler, Mousilini, Gangus Kahn.

the world trying to create a world where he can be God.

Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Capitolism. a mans utopia based on a particular man being God. now lets force the rest of the world to learn and appreciate what "i" perceice to be perfection. myself. because i am perfect. a world where "i" am God.

God wants us to be free to CHOOSE to follow him. not be forced to march at his side.

there is no choice when you limit what can be learned by our young based solely on MANS utopia. no choice when you elminate science, other religions, other cultures, other ideas, other concepts.

only blind obediance. the conservative rights utopia, a world where you learn what you are told to learn, beleive to be right what you are told to be right, interpet Gods will how you are told to interpet Gods will.

how exactly are we differant from the taliban or al-queda? in the last 15 years we have butchered close to 500,000 muslims in the middle east, so dont give me that "because we dont kill civilians to push our idealogy on others" crap.

the lunacy of man. 2000 years and we are still a bunch of idiots.

The letter sent to parents by the Dover School Board. It says they aren't going to teach it. It's a brief statement that says that Darwin's theories are not fact, and that other views exist such as ones expressed in this book, etc. I still fail to see where it 'legitimizes' religion. What does that mean? That you should refuse to acknowledge that other explanations exist?
The letter also states that students may be excused while it is read, if the parent would like them to be. It seems that this is simply acknowledging the other side of the coin.
Even if you don't believe in intelligent design, isn't it only scholarly and scientific to acknowledge other theories even if you are only doing so to debunk them?



Edited, Mon Oct 17 12:30:59 2005 by Atomicflea