Creationists at it again in schools

[ElHombre]

After the example of a town losing a lawsuit and costing taxpayers a hefty chunk of change, you might think that school boards across the country wouldn't even give the time of day to creationists anymore.

You'd be wrong (http://www.richmond.com/education/output.aspx?Article_ID=4707910&Vertical_ID=127&tier=1&position=5).


That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.

At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be. [EH: Because every single one of the proposed alternative hypothoses hasn't been able to prove itself as good an explanation as the Theory of Evolution. You don't see Engineering courses proposing alternatives to round wheels, do you? How about all those alternative hypothoses to a round Earth?]

Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism. [EH: This is the Dover, PA lawsuit from a while back. It cost the Dover residents a lot of money.]

In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."

Dear residents of Chesterfield, VA: Get ready to be on the losing end of a lawsuit. It cost the folks in Dover over a million dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Settlement_of_the_legal_fees). Y'all might be paying twice that:


Richard Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United, said of the trial's cost, "Any board thinking of trying to do what the Dover board did is going to have to look for a bill in excess of $2 million," and "I think $2 million is a lot to explain to taxpayers for a lawsuit that should never be fought."

[LaoSexMachine]

Isn't freedom of religion also freedom FROM religion? Some people.

[Hollis]

Isn't freedom of religion also freedom FROM religion? Some people.

No,

Freedom from religion means the governmental protection form any religion or religious symbols or religious action. It is not the same as the protection from the government institutionalizing a specific religion for the people.

Freedom of religion means to the right to pursue or not pursue any religion with out governmental interference.

[Durandal]

No,

Freedom from religion means the governmental protection form any religion or religious symbols or religious action. It is not the same as the protection from the government institutionalizing a specific religion for the people.

Freedom of religion means to the right to pursue or not pursue any religion with out governmental interference.

I think, considering that most of our founding fathers were deists I might argue this Hollis.

I think, reading their notes, letters, and essays that the intention was to do both.

Freedom of and freedom from.

[Roanoke]

Dern creationists!

I have a nifty idea. How about we... not talk about origins in school? Maybe we could leave that up to parents and students to decide for themselves? Maybe we could teach them actual facts instead? Perhaps? Maybe?

[LaoSexMachine]

No,

Freedom from religion means the governmental protection form any religion or religious symbols or religious action. It is not the same as the protection from the government institutionalizing a specific religion for the people.

Freedom of religion means to the right to pursue or not pursue any religion with out governmental interference.

I have nothing against people practicing their religion but when they try to force others to believe what they believe in this case of creationism in a public school then it's a problem for me. If we do that then why not Hindu or Islam?

[Ratamacue]

Dern creationists!

I have a nifty idea. How about we... not talk about origins in school? Maybe we could leave that up to parents and students to decide for themselves? Maybe we could teach them actual facts instead? Perhaps? Maybe?Sorry, but that kind of thinking is simply too logical.

[ElHombre]

I have a nifty idea. How about we... not talk about origins in school? Maybe we could leave that up to parents and students to decide for themselves? Maybe we could teach them actual facts instead? Perhaps? Maybe?

That's what is supposed to be taught in schools. Facts. Unfortunately, a certain segment of the population doesn't like what some of those facts are* and want to confuse kids with their balderdash about 'intelligent design'.

*Ever wonder why religious folk (especially Christians here in the US) get their underwear tied up in a knot over evolution? I mean, for a religion that is supposed to have humility as a moral, you'd think that they'd be able to handle with maturity knowing that all life on Earth is descended from... well, pond scum. :lol:

[Riot5]

I agree with Roanoke, let the parents teach their kids what they want them to know. I don't want a teacher telling my (future) kids his/her viewpoint on ID or Evolution. Just teach facts.

[amazing kg3]

Religion doesnt belong in schools let alone public. Im very stern on my opinion, as i see it more as a tool of war than abringer of good deeds.

Dont want to turn this thread into a religious debate, thats just my opinion.

[11 Bravo]

While I do agree that using religion ( any religion ) as a tool for teaching whatever brand of creationism they believe , I also have a major problem with the crackpot anthropoligistas whom declare man came from monkey.... which cannot be proven as their "science - aka religion" is so flawed .
Read into the actual bones and how they were classified , and by whom. You will find that assumptions rule and big name anthropologisitas POV's seemingly count as gospel irregardless of their baseless theories.

[Hollis]

Durandel, Freedom of Religion does both. Freedom from religion is a prohibition against religion, very very different.

Ezekiel, I agree with you, the problem is that religion and philosophy is the same, different class of "world view" but the same. Any of the view on the origins of life is all theoretical, Means a guess not a fact. To promote one theory over another is the same as choosing a philosophy/religion over another.

Let say to promote the Atheist view of origins of life is just as problematic as promoting, let say, a Baptist. Evolution is a theory, nothing more at this time. The argument that "religious" people are using is almost similar to the one the Atheist used to expel prayer from schools. Technically atheistism is a religion = philosophy. Atheist is also under freedom of religion and has the same rights to enjoy their "faith/philosophy" with out the intervention of government. If a Baptist can not have a school sponsor prayers, then a Atheist can not have a school promote their religious agenda too.

It seems like we are playing with words, but often we have different words meaning the same thing. Religion and Philosophy are the bases of a person's "world view". As far as the government goes one is not any more sacre than the other.

There are also other factors, such as historical significance.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

While I do agree that using religion ( any religion ) as a tool for teaching whatever brand of creationism they believe , I also have a major problem with the crackpot anthropoligistas whom declare man came from monkey.... which cannot be proven as their "science - aka religion" is so flawed .
Read into the actual bones and how they were classified , and by whom. You will find that assumptions rule and big name anthropologisitas POV's seemingly count as gospel irregardless of their baseless theories.

You're kidding right?
How do you account for the FACT that the human genome is 99% chimpanzee
:roll:

I see IQs are still dropping over there.

[Bulletproof]

While I do agree that using religion ( any religion ) as a tool for teaching whatever brand of creationism they believe , I also have a major problem with the crackpot anthropoligistas whom declare man came from monkey.... which cannot be proven as their "science - aka religion" is so flawed .
Read into the actual bones and how they were classified , and by whom. You will find that assumptions rule and big name anthropologisitas POV's seemingly count as gospel irregardless of their baseless theories.

I think you shouldn't skip your biology classes...

[martinexsquaddie]

How do you account for the FACT that the human genome is 99% chimpanzee

where do you think they get US marines from :)

[roland]

Those debate are ridiculous and have more to do with Middle East than a Western country.

If there is a theory that had to face big stress test from the start but survived all of them it is evolution.
For example the date of the fossiles have been determined by 3 different metodes: radioactivity and not only with Carbon 14, the layer on the soil where the pieces are found, fossile DNA.
Evolution is a scientific consensus, that doesn't prevent scientists to be good believers.
The audience given to creationist bigots in the States is amazing. You should not let those extremists pollute the brain of your childrens at school. Sunday or after school time is enough for them to brainwash there childs. Keep school time free of those crap.

[phoebus]

In our schools, in Hellas, students have collective prayer (Orthodox Christian) every single morning prior to entering the classroom; plus there are icons of Jesus and Holy Mary above our blackboards, in every single classroom.

Yet students are still being taught the scientific theory of Evolution in Biology classes and nobody gets annoyed. Also in Religion classes, it's stressed that Science is totaly seperate from Religion and that's the way we keep it down here.

Maybe it's time to end this debate in USA, because there isn't really a debate (!), at least in most "culturaly evolved" countries. :)


PS: All public & private schools nation-wide, use the same certified textbooks (including Biology), edited and printed solely by State Authority. These are distributed for free to the ~85% of the students which follow the free and state-sponsored Public Education System.

[Russian_dude]

A theism = without a belief in a theistic god.

Atheism is no more a religion/belief/philosophy then vaccum is a gas.

[roland]

In our schools, in Hellas, students have collective prayer (Orthodox Christian) every single morning prior to entering the classroom; plus there are icons of Jesus and Holy Mary above our blackboards, in every single classroom.

Yet students are still being taught the scientific theory of Evolution in Biology classes and nobody gets annoyed. Also in Religion classes, it's stressed that Science is totaly seperate from Religion and that's the way we keep it down here.

Maybe it's time to end this debate in USA, because there isn't really a debate (!), at least in most "culturaly evolved" countries. :)


yeah the scientific approach comes from antic Greece, had been revived with the enlightement and is the core of the Western civilisation. It's what made us rich, free and powerfull.
[/quote]


A theism = without a belief in a theistic god.

Atheism is no more a religion/belief/philosophy then vaccum is a gas.

This has nothing to do with atheism. One can perfectly be a true believer and at the same time admit that religion have nothing to do in science.

[annihilation]

No,

Freedom from religion means the governmental protection form any religion or religious symbols or religious action. It is not the same as the protection from the government institutionalizing a specific religion for the people.

Freedom of religion means to the right to pursue or not pursue any religion with out governmental interference.


It really should be the other way around.....

[11 Bravo]

You're kidding right?
How do you account for the FACT that the human genome is 99% chimpanzee
:roll:

I see IQs are still dropping over there.



Speak for yourself wanker.
The FACTS are that no absolute link of any kind has EVER been found that links humans as coming from ape/chimp. "Scientists can play with old bones and do. Problem is they use very flawed methods in identifying and classifying these bones as direct human ancestors, basically it's their opinions and not absolute scientific fact. That they cannot explain anomolous modern homosapien remains in instances of discovery in millions of years old strata , speaks volumes. You see it throws their version(s) into disarry.
I suggest for starters go get this book if you have an open mind and not a closed chimpanzee thought process :
Forbidden Archeology By Michael Cremo & Richard Thompson ISBN 0-89213-294-9.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Speak for yourself wanker.
The FACTS are that no absolute link of any kind has EVER been found that links humans as coming from ape/chimp. "Scientists can play with old bones and do. Problem is they use very flawed methods in identifying and classifying these bones as direct human ancestors, basically it's their opinions and not absolute scientific fact. That they cannot explain anomolous modern homosapien remains in instances of discovery in millions of years old strata , speaks volumes. You see it throws their version(s) into disarry.
I suggest for starters go get this book if you have an open mind and not a closed chimpanzee thought process :
Forbidden Archeology By Michael Cremo & Richard Thompson ISBN 0-89213-294-9.

I might take your arguments seriously if you learned how to spell and use English grammar and punctuation.
I think you are probably living proof that we did indeed evolve from chimps but I guess some of us have evolved more than others eh Cletus. :)

[Hollis]

How do you account for the FACT that the human genome is 99% chimpanzee

where do you think they get US marines from :)


That is a National secret, Now your in for it buddy. No grog ration for you mate.

[Hollis]

It really should be the other way around.....

IMHO, a "free" society walks a tight rope between two abyss, anarchy and totalitarianism.

Part of the problem is the on going war of domination between parts of the religious community and the non-religious community. Rather than promoting tolerance they promote and cause intolerance. Maybe freedom puts to much free time at some people's disposal.

[kamaz]

i cant believe that in this day and age, America is arguing over this nonsense. We are the laughing stock of the world.


anyone who took even foundational biology will understand and recognize the process of evolution in all carbon-based life forms.

the world is not 5,000 years old for fcks sake. unbelievable.

[annihilation]

IMHO, a "free" society walks a tight rope between two abyss, anarchy and totalitarianism.

Part of the problem is the on going war of domination between parts of the religious community and the non-religious community. Rather than promoting tolerance they promote and cause intolerance. Maybe freedom puts to much free time at some people's disposal.

Maybe they need to get real jobs lol.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I just can't understand why these godless commie pinko fag evolutionists don't believe that cowboys rode dinosaurs.

[ElHombre]

I just can't understand why these godless commie pinko fag evolutionists don't believe that cowboys rode dinosaurs.

You mean like this? (taken from that creationist museum. No, I didn't go there)

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9584/totalcrapfh1.th.jpg (http://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?image=totalcrapfh1.jpg)

[kamaz]

Speak for yourself wanker.
The FACTS are that no absolute link of any kind has EVER been found that links humans as coming from ape/chimp. "Scientists can play with old bones and do. Problem is they use very flawed methods in identifying and classifying these bones as direct human ancestors, basically it's their opinions and not absolute scientific fact. That they cannot explain anomolous modern homosapien remains in instances of discovery in millions of years old strata , speaks volumes. You see it throws their version(s) into disarry.
I suggest for starters go get this book if you have an open mind and not a closed chimpanzee thought process :
Forbidden Archeology By Michael Cremo & Richard Thompson ISBN 0-89213-294-9.


one of the dumbest, if not the dumbest posts i have ever read.

did you go to school man? or do you get your scientific truthiness from your local parish? jesus this is sad.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You mean like this? (taken from that creationist museum. No, I didn't go there)

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/9584/totalcrapfh1.th.jpg (http://img260.imageshack.us/my.php?image=totalcrapfh1.jpg)

That's right the existence of that photo is all the facts we need to tell us that evolution is a godless commie pinko lesbian conspiracy.

[IraGlacialis]

In our schools, in Hellas, students have collective prayer (Orthodox Christian) every single morning prior to entering the classroom; plus there are icons of Jesus and Holy Mary above our blackboards, in every single classroom.
Well most of the calls for intellegent design is coming from evangelical Protestants, not Christians as a whole.

Even if it is not true, the thing about evolution is that it can be put through all the trials of the scientific method. Intelligent design/creationism can't.
Besides, the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment should prevent intellegent design from coming in public (private schools can do whatever they want) class rooms since it, no matter what the proponents say, is religous/spiritual-based.

Personally, I believe in both evolution and creationism, but I don't think creationism should be in the biology classrooom; a philosophy class maybe.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

A theism = without a belief in a theistic god.

Atheism is no more a religion/belief/philosophy then vaccum is a gas.

Well I don't believe that's true. Atheism is unquestionably a philosophy. The larger question is - is atheism a religion. One could easily argue that it is.

Religion is a set of beliefs dealing with the cause, nature, and purpose of our reality - which may or may not involve a god or gods.
We are here in this reality
If someone in this reality believes the cause, nature, and purpose of this reality does not involve a god or gods, their religion is atheism.

[ElHombre]

SThe FACTS are that no absolute link of any kind has EVER been found that links humans as coming from ape/chimp.

Did you miss the part where Stab noted that human and chimpanzee DNA is 99% identical? That means that both species diverged from a single species a few million years ago. You might also want to ask about why folks have to get a flu shot every year (hint: because the viruses that give you the flu keep evolving to better resist medicines. The ones that can't go... what's that word? Oh, yeah. Extict).

Back on topic: Seriously, folks. Keep a close eye on your local school boards. Attempts like this keep happening and will end up costing taxpayers (that's you) a ton of cash. I'd reckon that money could be spent on better things than proving that creationists are a bunch of ignorant fools.

[Hollis]

Well I don't believe that's true. Atheism is unquestionably a philosophy. The larger question is - is atheism a religion. One could easily argue that it is.

Religion is a set of beliefs dealing with the cause, nature, and purpose of our reality - which may or may not involve a god or gods.
We are here in this reality
If someone in this reality believes the cause, nature, and purpose of this reality does not involve a god or gods, their religion is atheism.

According to my Profs in Philosophy and Anthropology, it's all the same. We are just bantering over names. Similiar to Potato or plum de terre.

Thanks for the summation, well said.

Actually there is alot of humor in all of this. The "religion" people are using the same arguement the "anti-religion" people successfully used. So, turn-about is fair play. rofl

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Did you miss the part where Stab noted that human and chimpanzee DNA is 99% identical?

I don't think he is intellectually equipped to make that link Elhombre.

Or maybe he is 'the missing link' :)

[SineJustitia]

Why do Creationists take Genesis literally? And why do they consider it atheist to view Genesis as a methaphor?

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

Nope, that's not a drug crazed, liberal leftie commie pinko who said that. It was in fact Augistine of Hippo, better known as SAINT Augustine, one of the most important figures in the development of Christianity, who figured it out as early as 408 AD, in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19.

Hey, don't take my word on dismissing Creationism. But on religious matters, I would take the word of a Saint over the word of one Brendan Nelson.

[kamaz]

Has any self-avowed "Creationist" ever even read the "Origin of the Species"?? seriously?


anyone who makes the claim that there is no scientific basis that links human beings to chimps and other mammals is an ignorant fool who is also intellectually lazy and incompetent. I'd like to hear arguments against evolution by 'creationists' who actually read Darwin and understand his argument, not by couch potatos who draw their 'knowledge' on the subject thru religious internet sites.

[RS_Leo1A5]

The problem with creationism:
Every valid scientific theory must be falsifiable (meaning it must be so well-documented that it can be checked and possibly proven wrong - and every serious scientist accepts that he could be proven wrong!).
Creationism is based on an un-checkable core belief - that there is a creator - and thus is un-falsifiable as said creator's existence can (today) be neither proven nor unproven. Plus, creationists vehemently deny even the possibility that they could be wrong.
Creationism is therefor not a valid theory by scientific standards. And any discussion with creationists is useless as they don't actually discuss but preach.

[Hollis]

The problem with creationism:
Every valid scientific theory must be falsifiable (meaning it must be so well-documented that it can be checked and possibly proven wrong - and every serious scientist accepts that he could be proven wrong!).
Creationism is based on an un-checkable core belief - that there is a creator - and thus is un-falsifiable as said creator's existence can (today) be neither proven nor unproven. Plus, creationists vehemently deny even the possibility that they could be wrong.
Creationism is therefor not a valid theory by scientific standards. And any discussion with creationists is useless as they don't actually discuss but preach.


RS, I don't agree with you. I think your missing several points. One that is part of this thread, it Does not matter what a person belief is (with some tiny exceptions) they are free to believe as they wish.

Also you are generalizing or basically creating a straw man argument on what a creationists is. I would probably guess they are as varied proportionately as much as, let say, atheists.

Regardless how relevant you feel a theory is, it is NOT a fact. A theory that is 99% substantiated in still not a fact and could be proven 100% wrong depending on how future events unfold.

To accept a theory as fact takes "faith" no different in the faith it takes to accept creationism as fact. The inability in not being able to "prove" something does not mean that is false.

Also as there are multiple creationist models out there, there are multiple evolutionary models out there. The discussion is boiled down to, "whose faith is more correct?", Is the faith in evolution being correct any more valid than someone else's faith that little green men made humans or ??. Even highly unlikely ideas could be eventually proven to be fact.

[Hollis]

Has any self-avowed "Creationist" ever even read the "Origin of the Species"?? seriously?


anyone who makes the claim that there is no scientific basis that links human beings to chimps and other mammals is an ignorant fool who is also intellectually lazy and incompetent. I'd like to hear arguments against evolution by 'creationists' who actually read Darwin and understand his argument, not by couch potatos who draw their 'knowledge' on the subject thru religious internet sites.


I would ask you, have you read, "origins of the species" by Darwin?

[kamaz]

I would ask you, have you read, "origins of the species" by Darwin?

yes I have, including other evolution-related books by Eccione and Sagan.

[Hollis]

yes I have, including other evolution-related books by Eccione and Sagan.


Then you know the focus of the book was mainly on how species evolved (natural selection). Not actually the start of all. I many ways, there are two aspects of evolution, the beginning of all life and the adaptation/change of species over time.


What Darwin is proposing is not necessary in conflict with some of the views on creation.

If I am rusty, It has been about 40 years sense I have read it.

I have never been excited about Sagan. It all points out there are a lot of unanswered question out there.

[kamaz]

Then you know the focus of the book was mainly on how species evolved (natural selection). Not actually the start of all. I many ways, there are two aspects of evolution, the beginning of all life and the adaptation/change of species over time.


What Darwin is proposing is not necessary in conflict with some of the views on creation.

If I am rusty, It has been about 40 years sense I have read it.

I have never been excited about Sagan. It all points out there are a lot of unanswered question out there.

creationism believes that the world was created in 7 days, that Earth is 5,000 years old and that dinosaur fossils are merely 'tests' planted by the devil to test our faith. You seem like an intelligent guy, do you actually take this seriously?

[amazing kg3]

i find what religion does far to convienent.

Challenge it, you go to hell

dont does what it tells you to you go to hell

dont follow commandments written by higher authorities, you go to hell.

See a trend?

[Hollis]

creationism believes that the world was created in 7 days, that Earth is 5,000 years old and that dinosaur fossils are merely 'tests' planted by the devil to test our faith. You seem like an intelligent guy, do you actually take this seriously?


That are some creationist. They have a very strict interpretation of the Bible. I think they are a tiny minority of the "creationist's" views out there. Just like there are multiple variations of the "start" of it all, like Big Bang, Primordial swamp, etc.

[kamaz]

That are some creationist. They have a very strict interpretation of the Bible. I think they are a vast minority about the "creationist's" views out there. Just like there are multiple variations of the "start" of it all, like Big Bang, Primordial swamp, etc.

but do you not agree that at the core, creationism can never be disproven nor proven, that is its fallacy. It simply isnt a scientific theory.

[Hollis]

i find what religion does far to convienent.

Challenge it, you go to hell

dont does what it tells you to you go to hell

dont follow commandments written by higher authorities, you go to hell.

See a trend?


Not all religions have a hell...

edited to add, the only way someone tells me, I am going to hell" will bother me, if I believed in such of place. Same with flat earth people, I am not going to fall off the end of the earth either.

[Hollis]

but do you not agree that at the core, creationism can never be disproven nor proven, that is its fallacy. It simply isnt a scientific theory.


LOL a theory can not be proven or disproved either. That is why it is called a theory. Science has been wrong on more than one occasion.

[kamaz]

LOL a theory can not be proven or disproved either. That is why it is called a theory. Science has been wrong on more than one occasion.

scientific theories are there to be proven or disproven. I have a theory that water will turn to gas if heated with enough kinetic energy, my theory can be proven and disproven.

[Hollis]

scientific theories are there to be proven or disproven. I have a theory that water will turn to gas if heated with enough kinetic energy, my theory can be proven and disproven.


You don't get it, if it can be proven it is no longer a theory.

If it can be disproven it is no longer a theory.

Aspects of evolution can not be proven or disproven, therefore it is still a theory.

[phoebus]

There's a significant difference between scientific theory and religiously perpetrated pseudo science (aka kindergarden fairytales suitable for dogmatists).

© Welcome to 2007

[2Sheds_Jackson]

creationism believes that the world was created in 7 days, that Earth is 5,000 years old and that dinosaur fossils are merely 'tests' planted by the devil to test our faith.

You're taking a very narrow view of creationism. One can make this argument as foolish or as serious as one wants. To think that the only type of "creation" possible is the rather silly 5000 year/cowboys riding dinosaur one is a huge shortcut. A damn handy one I'll grant you, but it's not the whole story. Ultimately, "creationism" is any mechanism that created the universe by any method other than by pure chance.

It's possible to use nothing but accepted science to march back 14 billion years to the start of our perceived 4-D reality. Then what? Science tells us that objects at rest stay at rest, and that things don't just happen. Even if we could somehow figure out the "how", we're left with the "why?" Even if our collective individual realities are only scripted in software and rendered at the quantum level - we're still left with the same question.

I'll admit that it's a bit frustrating that it always seems to be the kooks who press these issues. Today's reactionary politics ensures that anybody within their gravity well is sucked to the bottom as if they had an anchor around their neck.

[hauptman]

It's always funny to see people think they can argue about a topic and then fail to use correct terms.

Some of you should consider reading up what a "scientific theory" is.
If you try to argue about topics then USE THE CORRECT TERMS.
"It's only a theory" proves that just haven't understood what "theory" means in scientific context.

[dacanadianbomb]

I had a discussion about ID/creationism with a former physics professor.
He was a staunch opponent to the clumping of ID with creationism.
He was adamant that ID itself was a valid scientific theory,whereas creationism was just nonsense.
Yet I must point out,that this thread, cant do without the mentioning of one of the greatest churches of all time

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster


Beware of his noodly appendage!

[Durandal]

I would ask you, have you read, "origins of the species" by Darwin?

I have.

I have also read the Bible.

Just saying is all...

[Kippari]

Still the intelligent design should not be taught in schools, by the simple fact, there's absolutely no evidence of god/creator ever existing. Instead, one can easily see how bacteria evolves when it meets up resistance in other life forms. ID is not only any scientific, but only a belief about something with no backround support. I will eat my hat if anyone can point any reasonable evidence that there's a designer who planned all this. I'm willing to admit that all existence could have been started by a beign be it corporeal or incorporeal, but there's no proof about it. Naming it god without evidence is simply wrong tho.:)

[Ratamacue]

I had a discussion about ID/creationism with a former physics professor.
He was a staunch opponent to the clumping of ID with creationism.
He was adamant that ID itself was a valid scientific theory,whereas creationism was just nonsense.
Yet I must point out,that this thread, cant do without the mentioning of one of the greatest churches of all timeI'm surprised that a professor would make such a mistake. Intelligent design, because it refers to the supernatural (God/creation), is inherently non-falsifiable, and thus is out of the realm of science. To give you an example of how I was taught that, when we were discussing the Big Bang in an astronomy course I took last semester, we learned nothing of what's called Planck time (from "zero time" to 10^-43 seconds afterwards) because it's impossible to know what occurred then--in other words, non-falsifiable and not able to be studied in science.

The problem that alot of people seem to have is that they believe science and God to be mutually exclusive. The sooner people realize that they're not, the sooner we can get back to the way things should be: science being taught in school, with religion left to religious schools, church, and most important, the household.

[hauptman]

You don't get it, if it can be proven it is no longer a theory.

If it can be disproven it is no longer a theory.

Aspects of evolution can not be proven or disproven, therefore it is still a theory.

No, not really.

It depends really how we define our term "theory". We cannot just say that this term is intuitive because this would lead to problems, as we can see in the Creationist debate.
It is now useful to split up the term "theory" in several types of "theory", each one with specific characteristics.
But before we have to say what a theory is and what not: A theory is an extract from the real world to describe phenomens. Every theory consists of two parts: A descriptive part ("describing the phenomen") and a derivated part ("why is the phenomen caused?"). EVERY theory claims that it can be proven through observation. Such observations can prove or disprove a theory(= empiricism). A theory also fulfills formal requirements.
After all a theory is only "official" a theory if it can be empirical proven.
Now we need some formal requirements:
- logical consistent
- quantifiable
- uniqueness in the interpretation of the declarations and their correlation to phenomena
- falsifiable
On the other hand we have hypothesis. A hypothesis has not been emipircal proven yet but it is consistent.

And at last we have a speculation. A speculation is not consistent and is just an assumption about something how something might be. It is very unclear und not formal.

Well, you can fill hundreds of books with this problem. The definition of the term "theory" is very complicated and certainly not intuitive or trivial and I don't assume that this short post is a complete reference on that topic.
But a statement like "The evolution is only a theory therefor we cannot say if it's true or not" is just false. I don't say anything about if the evolution is true/false but the sentence is just formally incorrect. And in such a complicated topic we need to be formally correct to have a productive argument. :)


I'm surprised that a professor would make such a mistake. Intelligent design, because it refers to the supernatural (God/creation), is inherently non-falsifiable, and thus is out of the realm of science. To give you an example of how I was taught that, when we were discussing the Big Bang in an astronomy course I took last semester, we learned nothing of what's called Planck time (from "zero time" to 10^-43 seconds afterwards) because it's impossible to know what occurred then--in other words, non-falsifiable and not able to be studied in science.

The problem that alot of people seem to have is that they believe science and God to be mutually exclusive. The sooner people realize that they're not, the sooner we can get back to the way things should be: science being taught in school, with religion left to religious schools, church, and most important, the household.

And another thing is that the physcial rules as we know them know have started with the Big Bang. Therefore Physics can't say ANYTHING about the time before the Big Bang because before the Big Bang they just didn't exist.

[Firetxmi]

That are some creationist. They have a very strict interpretation of the Bible. I think they are a tiny minority of the "creationist's" views out there.

Who is to decide then who learns which version of Creationism? What are some of the other variations of Creationism?

[ElHombre]

The sooner people realize that they're not, the sooner we can get back to the way things should be: science being taught in school, with religion left to religious schools, church, and most important, the household.

Which is the way I would love to see it. Unfortunately, we've got far too many folks who get religiously insecure when confronted with scienctific facts. Their repeated attempts to blur the lines are costing us all.

[Hollis]

Hauptman, just because of a convention by "scientists" does not make it any more or less.


You look at the elements. They are the same.

I am a "religious cleric", you are a "scientist" based on the best information we "Believe" to be true we postulate a opinion/theory. Why should yours be any more sacred than mine under law?

Also look at the "softer" sciences, in Psychology it gets pretty iffy form a mathematician point of view.

Theories in science can be use to fill in gaps of our understanding to keep science moving. They are corrected, modified, deleted as more is know. If science waited for a theory to be proven/disproved science would move very slowly.

A simple example. NaOH in a aqueous media. In the fall term we wrote it as "NaOH (aq)", that was considered correct. In the spring the fol owing year, that was no longer the case. NaOH in a aqueous media was now, "Na+(aq) + OH-(aq)". The early theory on NaOH in a aqueous media sufficed, when it was determined that NaOH was never isolated in as "NaOH" in a aqueous media it was changed by convention. Theories are not always accepted in the scientific communities. By convention they can be ignored. In time as we know more will either demonstrate those decission to be correct or false.

Then as we explore religious studies, what is the difference. Based on the best information, a religious scholar may postulate a theory.

One aspect is that materialism can not at this point in time qualify or quantify the metaphysical. That does not mean the metaphyiscal does not exist. It just demonstrates the limits of materialism.

Maybe one day we might have the means to quantify and qualify the metaphysical. Just as in materialism certain methods to measure physical events did not exist at one time.

[11 Bravo]

one of the dumbest, if not the dumbest posts i have ever read.

did you go to school man? or do you get your scientific truthiness from your local parish? jesus this is sad.

Boy did I ever go to school... what about you ?. I am likely the least religious person you would come across. At the same token I don't march to the tune of the anthropolgist nazis out there that declare we are of ape kin.
Stuff that in your sombrero and have a snooty wine with ex stabb guy.
READ alot and often.... you'll see the religious view is alot of old human histroy stories passed down , and you will also see the "scientists" have their own defacto religion they push.
When the alleged missing friggn link(s) are proof positive call me...otherwise stay under the rocks.

[Durandal]

Boy did I ever go to school... what about you ?. I am likely the least religious person you would come across. At the same token I don't march to the tune of the anthropolgist nazis out there that declare we are of ape kin.
Stuff that in your sombrero and have a snooty wine with ex stabb guy.
READ alot and often.... you'll see the religious view is alot of old human histroy stories passed down , and you will also see the "scientists" have their own defacto religion they push.
When the alleged missing friggn link(s) are proof positive call me...otherwise stay under the rocks.

I think your mistake is to assume that any person who disagrees with you is somehow pushing an agenda.

I do not care what you the origin of human kind is. What I care about is that my tax dollars are not going to support a science class that claims we formed by the hands of god out of clay or that because we have not figured out ALL the answers that obviously a higher being had a hand in doing what ever we cannot understand...not unlike some unintelligent tribesman from (oops) 7000 years ago, who thought the earth was flat and sacrificing a goat got rain.

Most scientists are at least deists and believe in a higher power and most of those go well beyond that, so I am not too sure what this agenda is that you keep crying about.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Boy did I ever go to school... .

And I bet it was a very 'speshul' skool wasn't it rofl

[hauptman]

Hauptman, just because of a convention by "scientists" does not make it any more or less.

Yes, it's only a convention. But if a scientist writes a book about the "theory of evolution" and then someone says that this is only a theory, he should consider that this book was written by a scientist thus using scientific terms.

And if we don't define conventions we have no common speaking level.


I am a "religious cleric", you are a "scientist" based on the best information we "Believe" to be true we postulate a opinion/theory. Why should yours be any more sacred than mine under law?

Religion makes a absoluteness claim. Science not.
We don't know if the gravity really exists but we have a theory that explains the phenomena ("things are falling down") and what is caused. From this we can derive other theories. But everything has to consistent.
Science tries to describe(!) the world we're in without any religious ground.

This applies to evolution. We don't know if evolution is caused by a God. Maybe God did create all the animals just like the evolution said (here we come to the problem of interpreting the Bible. Can it be interpreted strict and word by word? Should it be?) and now the evolution just describes this.



Theories in science can be use to fill in gaps of our understanding to keep science moving. They are corrected, modified, deleted as more is know. If science waited for a theory to be proven/disproved science would move very slowly.

Within a science a theory can be proven/disproven. That's why we have the 4 natural laws/forces (gravity, electromagnetic interaction, strong interaction and weak interaction) and from these forces we derive all other theories and to these forces the theories are consistent and proven.
But we don't know if these forces really exist and where they come from. It's irrelevant because they describe the world pretty good (empirical proven)


A simple example. NaOH in a aqueous media. In the fall term we wrote it as "NaOH (aq)", that was considered correct. In the spring the fol owing year, that was no longer the case. NaOH in a aqueous media was now, "Na+(aq) + OH-(aq)". The early theory on NaOH in a aqueous media sufficed, when it was determined that NaOH was never isolated in as "NaOH" in a aqueous media it was changed by convention. Theories are not always accepted in the scientific communities. By convention they can be ignored. In time as we know more will either demonstrate those decission to be correct or false.


And this a great difference to religion. In the Catholic church the Pope has the papal infallibility. Teaching on faith or morals are preserved from the possibility of error if the Pope postulates them.

[shocker1]

During my early school years religious beliefs and school existed side by side. We learned the modern scientific explanations and theory's of the mechanics of our world. No laws prohibiting religious expression or any laws forcing "young earth" nonsense. During my time in school things were taught without telling someone their belief in God/whatever is incompatible with your proper education. Why did this change? Why do those who disbelieve in the existence of God want to snuff out all public recognition? Why are narrow minded idiotic Christians now forcing young earth nonsense on us?

That said I see four sides to this issue. Some of you fall into the first and last categories. No better than the nonsense in the thread topic. 1. Those who do not accept a God and feel some need to discredit/put down all believers sending them behind closed doors out of public view. 2. Those who do not believe in God but accept that others do and avoids childish, lame brain insults while standing up for modern reason. 3. Those who believe in God and want a modern education. 4. Then those who think we arrived several thousand years ago on a whim by an eternal God and that this is the only truth. There by condensing science into a few biblical pages, ignoring the command to learn.

I can fit it all into my world view and hope all knowledge is taught with no laws limiting any human ideas religious or secular. I also do not want any form of state sanctioned religious indoctrination.

What happened to social studies class? We learned about all cultures and beliefs in that class. It has been awhile since then has this changed?

[Durandal]

shocker, I am sure social studies has changed. I am not too sure about how this is relevant though.

That said, and completely off topic, I think the most important classes these days are the math and science courses AND civics type classes.

[IraGlacialis]

That said I see four sides to this issue. Some of you fall into the first and last categories. No better than the nonsense in the thread topic. 1. Those who do not accept a God and feel some need to discredit/put down all believers sending them behind closed doors out of public view. 2. Those who do not believe in God but accept that others do and avoids childish, lame brain insults while standing up for modern reason. 3. Those who believe in God and want a modern education. 4. Then those who think we arrived several thousand years ago on a whim by an eternal God and that this is the only truth. There by condensing science into a few biblical pages, ignoring the command to learn.
I have been called a backwards idiot many of #1 and a heretic by many of #2 for believing that God created first life and guided most of the major evolutionary steps (fish-amphibians-reptiles-dinosaurs-birds (or reptiles-therapsids-mammals)), but that most of the evolutionary steps happened by natural selection. I know, strange idea.


I can fit it all into my world view and hope all knowledge is taught with no laws limiting any human ideas religious or secular. I also do not want any form of state sanctioned religious indoctrination.
The thing is, you can't do that these days in a public school setting without someone getting offended.

It would be amusing that if archeologists are going around in Qumran, and they find a scroll with a whole bunch of physics equations, an evolutionary tree/timeline (spanning milions of years), and a map of the Milky Way galaxy, with a little note along these lines, "Congratulations, you have found the unabidged version of Genesis. Now shut up about it."- YHWH.

[Maktab]

The way I see it, on omniscient God wouldn’t need to constantly guide evolution, because that would imply that he makes mistakes. Our religions tend to perceive God in human terms, so most people can believe a concept that says God designed animals, put them on Earth to see how things worked out and then destroyed them.

But if God really is omniscient, then he is outside of both time and space and thus knows everything that ever happened in the past and everything that ever could happen in the future. He would have no need to put, say, the dinosaurs on Earth to see how things would work because he would already know ahead of time what would happen. There’s a contradiction here, God can either be omniscient or he can make mistakes.

Yet if you think about it, a God that is not bound by the constraints of time or matter would have been able to set everything in motion billions of years ago in such a way that intervention would not have been necessary. He could have created the conditions leading to the Big Bang and launched it on its way knowing full well that it would lead, billions of years later, to us. In this case God’s genius is not in the *design* of creatures on earth, but in the universal laws that permitted evolution to create such fantastic forms of life.

As for Adam and Eve, I think that story can be better explained as the introduction of human consciousness. God doesn’t have any shape or form, so if, as the Bible says, Adam and Eve were created in God’s image it might mean God’s spiritual image. The moment, essentially, when what had previously been dumb apes suddenly became self-aware, with a soul as it were.

At least, that’s my suggestion for moving forward and finding some common ground between religion and science. Evolution is a fact, the evidence supporting it is overwhelming, so religions need to re-examine the way they perceive God to fit in with it. What’s more, I don’t think this will harm religion, since nobody’s faith in God suffered after Galileo proved the Earth wasn’t the centre of the universe.

[20070627]

Reminds me of a funny joke about evolution...

two scientists go to talk to God and say that they could make humans out of dirt too. they lean over to pick some up and God says: 'No, no, you make and use your own dirt.'

martinexsquaddie (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=677): haha real funny
"where do you think they get US marines from "

[Hollis]

And this a great difference to religion. In the Catholic church the Pope has the papal infallibility. Teaching on faith or morals are preserved from the possibility of error if the Pope postulates them.


I agree basically with what you are saying. Put I have met scientist who felt they had the same as "Papal infallibility"

I am not discussing the merits of religion nor theories per se, each have their own. This thread is about the creationist using the same basic legal arguments that was applied to remove certain aspects of religion from schools and elsewhere. That I think is comical and ironic.

It still is a matter of taking one class of thinking and setting it aside as being "infallible" or "needed" or ?? that is the argument. A person can say the Pope is, or another person can say the "scientist" is... it is all the same elements.

I find the people who have a abundant of faith are those who tend to be very anti-religion. Where the Catholics have created their own "God" or a atheist creates theirs, or a scientist it is all the same. One person's "God" maybe more empirical than another, it does not give them authority over others.

[shocker1]

The thing is, you can't do that these days in a public school setting without someone getting offended.

It would be amusing that if archeologists are going around in Qumran, and they find a scroll with a whole bunch of physics equations, an evolutionary tree/timeline (spanning milions of years), and a map of the Milky Way galaxy, with a little note along these lines, "Congratulations, you have found the unabidged version of Genesis. Now shut up about it."- YHWH.
Thats the catch now a days then. There is a new right that you should not be offended even if it means offending someone who is offending you.


shocker, I am sure social studies has changed. I am not too sure about how this is relevant though.
It is relevant because where once there was no problem suddenly became one because somebody might give credit to their God.
"Oh no that idiot thinks a God made us, can't he see the similarity of the primordial soup to the snot in his nose.:roll:"

I am more worried about a country acting like a deer in the headlights over Paris Hilton but thinks the social order will crash because heaven forbid somebody might mention a higher power is responsible for the universe.

[martinexsquaddie]

to be fair the new testament does not mention Australia at all or england (shock horror) does that mean we don't exsist?
or are the writers more interested in the message of how people treat other people and god etc ?
I want to go to the creationism muesum my kids would love to ride on dinosaours :)

[martinexsquaddie]

I think the way real to deal with the id types is "so could allah have created the world then? "
retire and watch them foam at the mouth :)
its a fundamentalist protestant idea that goes a long with the rapture (dreamt up by a drunk Englishman that one )
its not really science

[IraGlacialis]

to be fair the new testament does not mention Australia at all or england (shock horror) does that mean we don't exsist?
Well England was the refuse left over after the Creation and Australia was created during God's hangover after at the celestial keger party. That's why they aren't mentioned. p-)


I think the way real to deal with the id types is "so could allah have created the world then? "
retire and watch them foam at the mouth :-)
Well, when you think about it, Allah is just the Arabic name for the Father (Arab Christians call Him by that name). So it would make sense.
But most of the id types don't know that, so yeah, it would be spectacle watching them foam at the mouth.

[Freedom-Fries]

but do you not agree that at the core, creationism can never be disproven nor proven, that is its fallacy. It simply isnt a scientific theory. what did you think of the museum ?

[SweNationalGuard]

I can not remember the last time I had this much fun reading a topic on an internet forum. My tummy actually aches right now. :D

I just hope that man soon reaches a new evolutionary level so the ID jackasses no longer spawns..

[urbanassualt]

I find it embarrassing to be a U.S. citizen when I read articles or hear of situations such as this. America is one of the most educationally superior countries in the world... but we still have to deal with these Religious Nutcases forcing their agenda into public education?

I do not want my children to be spoon-fed alternative theories of how the universe came to be. If I, for some strange reason, want to teach them that the world was created by an infinite mass of exploding strawberry jelly I have every right to - just not within the public school system.

Enough is enough, I say. Keep religion out of public education. Keep facts in public education. Repeat until statement sounds credible.

[urbanassualt]

I am a "religious cleric", you are a "scientist" based on the best information we "Believe" to be true we postulate a opinion/theory. Why should yours be any more sacred than mine under law?

[...]

Theories in science can be use to fill in gaps of our understanding to keep science moving. They are corrected, modified, deleted as more is know. If science waited for a theory to be proven/disproved science would move very slowly.

[...]

Then as we explore religious studies, what is the difference. Based on the best information, a religious scholar may postulate a theory.

One aspect is that materialism can not at this point in time qualify or quantify the metaphysical. That does not mean the metaphyiscal does not exist. It just demonstrates the limits of materialism.

Maybe one day we might have the means to quantify and qualify the metaphysical. Just as in materialism certain methods to measure physical events did not exist at one time.

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with your statement.

Yes, it is true that science can not explain all aspects of our known universe. How this universe came to be, how the Earth came to be, and how humans came to be cannot be proven within the constraints of modern science.

You say that "based on the best information, a religious scholar may postulate a theory." True, a religious scholar may postulate a theory. That scholar has the distinct freedom to spread this theory to as many people who wish to hear it. Similarly, a scientific scholar may postulate a theory. That scholar, as well, has the ability to spread that theory to as many people who wish to hear it. But it is here that we reach a conundrum. What to do we do about public schools? The public school is an area where the youth of this country have the distinct pleasure of learning. This is news to no one. But just what do these youth learn? This becomes news to everyone.

An individual with an agenda or theory would want to spread this agenda or theory into the realm of the public school system. Millions of young Americans wait in this system to soak up whatever information is supplied to them.

The question is: What information will be supplied to these people?

Now to my opinion: Religion is a theory based upon faith. Science is constructed from theory based upon reasoning. Because religion is based upon faith does not make its theories any less of a possibility than those of science. What does make the theories of religion different is that they require the individual to believe in faith in order to believe in said theory.

To present a student (within the public school system) with a theory that relies upon the faith of a specific religion to comprehend is unconstitutional. Religion must always be separated from government. Religion must always be absent from the teachings and theories of a public school. These government-funded public institutions must rely upon the theories of reasoning rather than the theories of faith.

[dunkin]

You might get mad, but . . .

Religion has every right to get involved in government/state. The constitution does not call for separation of "church and state", but "state and church."

What you might ask is this guy talking about? Let’s do an analogy. A man’s wife was shopping, she saw something she would like to buy so she sent a text message to him saying “necklace for sale $2000, should I buy.” The man sent a message back “No price to high,” so she bought it. What the man meant to say was “No, price to high.” Big difference with a comma.

What the constitution says is that the "state" has no right to interfere with your chosen belief, and yes if you are an atheist you have a belief, you believe there is no God.

But. . .

Your chosen belief has every right to get involved in the state, you are a part of it and your voice should be heard. If you don't then you’re not doing you job!

Now on the subject at hand . . .

Should creation or evolution be taught in schools. No, I don't think either should be, because there is so much debate about it, and neither side can prove they are right. Can we prove that matter has three states (solid, liquid, gas) yes, teach it. Can we teach what Shakespeare was thinking when he wrote Hamlet (NO), teach the play and let the studies decide what they think was going on, have them make their own decision about it.

WOW what a wonderful thought, let the students do some thinking, but that might be to much to handle, a generation of thinkers.

[amazing kg3]

WOW what a wonderful thought, let the students do some thinking, but that might be to much to handle, a generation of thinkers.

Young kids just dont think, they learn.

Teaching a set religion to them at such an early stage isnt right. Theres a difference between that and say having a religious teaching class that discuss what religion is, different religions and stuff in say middle school or higher. Hell thats what we did, i learned about the Koran and all that jazz.

So what is the discussion here? Teaching religion like the bible and creationism as a way of life or talking about region in general, as a class and a form of history?

[Jobu]

Kids are forced to watch Al Gore's religious propaganda, why not add creationism to the curriculum as well?

[Hollis]

Urbanassualt. This could be similar to the argument, what is the difference between art and ****ography.

So far there is not a "legal" definition that fully separate the two. ergo, **** is art. The Legalization of **** came about because of this paradox.

Back to the thread, I still find it humorous that the "religious" community is using the same argument that the "atheist" community used to push their agenda.

It creates a conundrum in society, should "theory" be taught in schools, especially in K -12 grades. Theories are important in science if they off a reasonable tool to advance the knowledge of science. The problem with that is, it's value is based on argumentation that is given. We need to keep in mind Logic does not apply to determining whether a argument is factual or not, just does the conclusion follow the argument. This brings us back to where we are now, should one person theory be used over another?

Maybe part of the solution is to be definitive about teaching what a theory is, or more important what it is NOT.

[Dasein]

Yes, it is true that science can not explain all aspects of our known universe. How this universe came to be, how the Earth came to be, and how humans came to be cannot be proven within the constraints of modern science.

All of those things can be proven within the boundries of the scientific method. We may currently lack the ability to test certain theories, but the scientific metohd does not preclude conducting those tests. You are confusing the current limitations of scientific knowledge with the absolute limits of scientific knowledge.

We have a fairly good idea of how planets form, for example, and as we observe more and more solar systems with greater degrees of precision, we increase our understanding of planetary formation. As we explore our own solar system, we gain more and more knowledge of how it specifically came about, and from these observations, we can formulate fairly good theory of planetary formation, falsifiable through observation of various other solar systems in different stages of formation. Of course, it is highly probably that there will be multiple means of solar system formation, due to the varius types of stars and other variables, so we may have multiple theories of planetary formation.

In this debate, people seem to be misusing the term 'theory', a least as it applies to discussions of science. A theory is a set of conjectures which explains observed phenomena, and is capable of making prdictions about future events and is falsifiable through observation or experimentation.

Theories are not absolute, nor are theories subordinate to fact - rather, theories explain facts. Thus, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of the facts we have observed.

[Dasein]

It creates a conundrum in society, should "theory" be taught in schools, especially in K -12 grades.

Science is virtually all theory. However, if you understand what a scientific theory is, this is hardly an issue. For example, it would be virtually impossible to teach physics without teaching Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, as those theories explain observed phenomena like an apple falling from a tree.

[Durandal]

This is more or less directed at dunkin...

In a public school (the State) a religion cannot be forced upon you. If the school wants to have a comparative theology class, that's fine, "Intelligent Design" can find a niche there.

What a public school cannot do is tell a student to not wear a crucifix, a headscarf, or pray at lunch time.

I think anyone that TRULY spends some time reading about the founding fathers mindset and their faith one will find that they were very much Deist intellectuals...and liberals, though in the classical sense.

The were children of the 30 Years War and the English Civil War and understood how faith can wreck a society.

The founding fathers while not wanting to limit a person's personal faith ("I thank God" for example) did not want a "Church of the United States" or a State ban against, say, Calvanists.

Limiting the first and allow the second and third were steps towards a society that they just came from and were trying to prevent from happening in the new United States.

In the end, teaching evolution (not a faith, but a scientific theory) in a biology (science) class infringes on nothing and "intelligent design," which is NOT a scientific theory, has no place in a science class.

[Hollis]

In the end, teaching evolution (not a faith, but a scientific theory) in a biology (science) class infringes on nothing and "intelligent design," which is NOT a scientific theory, has no place in a science class.


There are scientists that accept/faith in ID. Again the problem is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If it was teaching, let's say creation from a religious canon, then your right. The laws or entropy and extropy seems to point to sometime more than a random happening. A friend from a long time ago, who was a atheist, felt there was more to design that just a coincidence. A thing left alone does not be come more complex, Ie; primordial singles cells over time becoming a dinosaur.

One could argue that ID is a scientific theory. That is just the point. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quack likes a duck, it is no pigeon. Just because a issue is not based on materialistic facts at the time, does not make it unscientific.

Again it is like **** Vs Art. Legally they are the same. If one can not adequately define a difference it is the same. The state can not say a religious theory is not a theory, by trying to exclude it but saying it is not scientific enough. find one scientific argument that is the same as the religious one, then you have to accept the religious theory as teachable. My understanding, ID is a not biblical discussion, though it's roots maybe in the Bible, it is shaped as a scientific theory.

[Dasein]

Again it is like **** Vs Art. Legally they are the same. If one can not adequately define a difference it is the same. The state can not say a religious theory is not a theory, by trying to exclude it but saying it is not scientific enough. find one scientific argument that is the same as the religious one, then you have to accept the religious theory as teachable. My understanding, ID is a not biblical discussion, though it's roots maybe in the Bible, it is shaped as a scientific theory.

If ID wants to be accepted as a scientific theory, let's put it to the test - what evidence is there in support of ID, either experimental or observed in natural phenomena?

How would ID be falsified? What evidence or experiment would contradict it?

What predictions can be made by ID theory?

[Xaito]

http://youtube.com/watch/v/t7I73DNguRI

[IraGlacialis]

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/fsm_1.jpg

[Durandal]

One could argue that ID is a scientific theory. That is just the point.

Its not a scientific theory. Not too sure how more simple it can be.

[ElHombre]

One could argue that ID is a scientific theory.

Let's get something straight. ID is no more than a failed hypothosis. It was proposed as an explanation for changes in species over time. It was put to scientific testing and was shown not to be able to explain it anywhere near as well as Darwin's Theory of Evolution. A good reason it failed can be summed up by this cartoon...

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/6091/miraclebl0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

There are other theories in science. Take Newton's Theory of Gravity. Now, since it is just a theory, ID supporters won't mind standing under a 10-ton weight while I cut the rope holding it up....

[Hollis]

Its not a scientific theory. Not too sure how more simple it can be.


The question then is, How does the law differentiate between the Theory of ID or the theory of evolution.

Don't say because of "science". The criterion has to be specific in nature. The attributes will define it. I think your missing the point.

Example: What is the difference in philosophy and religion. NONE. We can arbitratively assign a difference but we could not demonstrate a difference.

read this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science if a person can study religion with the same bases as the Sciences mentioned, then you can not exclude those religious theory because of the name "religion". The difference must be demonstrable not arbitrative.

[Ratamacue]

The question then is, How does the law differentiate between the Theory of ID or the theory of evolution.Find evidence---real, tangible, quantifiable evidence--that God or some other universal creator exists and you can present it as science. Until then, ID stays with faith and religion.

[Lt.Havoc]

Well, as stated many times here, the problem with ID is, that there must be a supernatural being that watches over us, but that cant be proven, I mean, how to prove the existans of God? The main gag in this is, that in the bilbe stands, that after the flood, God never wanted to influence life on earth, ecpseically the humans. That means, Religon dosent need to prove there is a god, then God simple dosnt want anything to do with us!

That said, why would a supernature being just stand and watch and do nothing? By this time, he would have seen that your concept isnt perfect and dosent works, he would either alter it, or destory it, to create something new to replace it.

But wait, isnt that what Evolution does? Evolution is a process, that spands over billion of years and could be seen as mutation. At some point in history, something influnced the evolution. The Bacterias became more adapt, grew, got a diffrent shape etc. The process is on-going, even if it dosent seems like that.

Thing is, that there is the slow evolution, that goes over a long time span, and the evolution jump.

I dont this ID belongs into a modern school, then the concept of god seems a bit awarked. At least it dosent belong into a biology class. In germany, we also had a Religon class, but that was rplaced long ago with something we call "Morals and Norms".

There we discuss all the aspects of life and the diffrent religions and all those philosophically aspects that come from it. This class is also meant to teach the understanding of other religions and how to life with eacother etc. Even so, there is no talk about a ID. Here in germany, the ID hypothesis is not though in schools and there is no one here in the church who would put that forward and rule science out totally.

Even certain Fathers and Monks here say, that there is no proof of god at all. I talked to a pastor once and he told me, he also doent belive in god as a being like us, but more then a force you can belive in and that comes from us. He also found it absurd that some people belive that a overnatural being created the universe, he said it is more a force that created it.

I think all those creastionists will be very dumb looking wehn Alien life is suddenly found (or it found us), then that would mean, God created Aliens too. I would ask me how these creastionists would react if they see some other intilligent lifeforms beisdes us, mabe even humanoid and fyling through space. I could image that ta similar discussion is would be held somewhere in space, where some alines discuss life and where it came from.

[martinexsquaddie]

if you can find an atheist thats into intelligent design then I guess its a scientific theory otherwise its stays out of biology textbooks simple

[Maktab]

ID is not a scientific theory. It's merely the practice of looking at contentious areas within evolutionary theory or areas in which available evidence is minimal and saying: "See, God did it!"

As such, it places the theory ahead of the facts, which is ironically the very thing ID advocates keep accusing real scientists of doing. Yet real scientific theories, like evolution, are attempts to explain existing facts and make predictions based on them. Because of this, they can be scientifically disproven by the existence of any facts (or observed events) which do not fit them. If we were to observe something that evolution simply couldn't explain, it would be discarded and scientists would scramble to find a replacement. It has yet to happen though.

The simple fact is that Intelligent Design is a theory of the gaps. Its proponents insert God into the gaps that modern science is still working to fill. To put this into perspective, imagine if you will a typical murder scene in CSI: There's a dead guy on the carpet with a stabbing wound in his chest, but the investigators still haven't found the murder weapon. The ID proponent is the guy in the corner saying: "Well it's pretty clear God did it."

Ultimately, the key difference between intelligent design and real scientific theories is that the latter grow stronger with the discovery of new evidence while ID grows weaker from the same. That alone should tell you all you need to know.

[Durandal]

The question then is, How does the law differentiate between the Theory of ID or the theory of evolution.

That is easy:

"U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it 'cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents', and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

And Hollis, again, Intelligent Design is NOT a theory.

This pretty much sums up the issues involved on the legal end of things, but I think we should discuss it a bit more.

When we can agree on terms used then we can have a discussion about this.

Hollis, you and I see to eye to eye a great many things and have had a great deal of discussions, not necessarily agreeing with each other, but certainly respecting each other.

I am not too sure how this discussion will go.

That said, we need to agree on terms.

We need to agree, specifically, that SCIENTIFIC Theory (which is what we are discussing at this point in this thread) means the same to you an me.

I propose something simple:

Essential criteria
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions about things not yet observed. The relevance, and specificity of those predictions determine how (potentially) useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions which are not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is inapplicable.
In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis. That is, it:
• is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, and
• is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.
Non-essential criteria
Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if it:
• is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
• is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test.

If you wish to use a different, more complex definition of Scientific Theory, then we can and shall.

Also, we are not talking about the definition of a theory (lowercase "t" common usage) or a mathematical theory.

[name already taken]

read this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science if a person can study religion with the same bases as the Sciences mentioned, then you can not exclude those religious theory because of the name "religion". The difference must be demonstrable not arbitrative.
Studying religion on a scientific basis is not endorsing its teachings.

It rather implies comparing religions between each other and to analyze religions' influence on the development of other philosophical systems, legal systems, social and political systems.

It also implies to use various external philosophical systems to study religions.

Never is it to validate religions' teachings, because it would then not be scientific anymore.

Very different from what religions themselves do.

[Hollis]

Find evidence---real, tangible, quantifiable evidence--that God or some other universal creator exists and you can present it as science. Until then, ID stays with faith and religion.


I am not arguing in favor of ID. But if any theory has what you are asking in the above, it would not be a theory.

[name already taken]

I am not arguing in favor of ID. But if any theory has what you are asking in the above, it would not be a theory.
And we would not need any theory.

[Ratamacue]

I am not arguing in favor of ID. But if any theory has what you are asking in the above, it would not be a theory.Hollis, with all due respect man, it's clear that you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory as they're defined within science (i.e. not in everyday usage). You should probably get on top of that before you try to debate this subject.

[Hollis]

Durandel, read the criteria that just posted. Also, to mention again I am not arguing for ID.


First who is "GOD" or what is it?

The Native Americans Sioux, it is Tanka, a undefined Power, similar to manna. They referred to the white mans god as Wakana Tanka basically more powerful power.

Ok we have power, power is known we know power is appears in many forms, it is never destroyed, E = MC sq. It takes energy to raise the state of something, under entropy, things go to their lowest energy state.

One COULD argue ID is power that is able to control itself. The bases is on known scientific laws and facts. I guess one could also argue Alien intervention caused life to form on earth. When viewing plausibility, there is noway to quantify plausibility, it is subjective then. A religious "theory" is subjective. Makes both the same. Why should your subjectively have more weight than mine? That we could argue.


Example arguing about "alien" life form or studying them, is it a religion or a science. Would we say any scientific study of extraterrestrials is a religion.

I think what boggles people, is that they are hung up on their own meaning of "god" and religion and fail to see the similarities. This is what the ID proponents are arguing.

No different than a Atheist denying that their "belief" is a belief or a religion. Dialectic materialism is similar to scientific method, but is a Atheist's rational of the world. I happen to think there is a lot of merit in dialectical materialism. One also needs to know that materialism has limitations. If current scientific method did not have natural limitations, these discussions would be easier. We have effect, but we are unable to actually determine cause.

[Hollis]

Hollis, with all due respect man, it's clear that you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory as they're defined within science (i.e. not in everyday usage). You should probably get on top of that before you try to debate this subject.

"In common usage, people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laity) often use the word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammar) theory to signify a conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture), an opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion), or a speculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation). In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact); in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) descriptions of reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality). True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)."

"Empirical hypotheses that experimenters have repeatedly verified may become sufficiently dependable that, at some point in time, they become considered as "proven". Some people may succumb to the temptation to term such hypotheses "laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_nature)", but they would do so mistakenly, since by definition a hypothesis explains and a law describes (for example, a law can state: "Matter can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in form"). More accurately, one could refer to repeatedly verified hypotheses simply as "adequately verified", or as "dependable"."

[name already taken]

"In common usage, people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laity) often use the word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammar) theory to signify a conjecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture), an opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion), or a speculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation). In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact); in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth) descriptions of reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality). True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)."

"Empirical hypotheses that experimenters have repeatedly verified may become sufficiently dependable that, at some point in time, they become considered as "proven". Some people may succumb to the temptation to term such hypotheses "laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_nature)", but they would do so mistakenly, since by definition a hypothesis explains and a law describes (for example, a law can state: "Matter can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in form"). More accurately, one could refer to repeatedly verified hypotheses simply as "adequately verified", or as "dependable"."
But not in science. In modern science, all those terms are codified and this codification has already been under developement for 3 centuries.

[name already taken]

Durandel, read the criteria that just posted. Also, to mention again I am not arguing for ID.


First who is "GOD" or what is it?

The Native Americans Sioux, it is Tanka, a undefined Power, similar to manna. They referred to the white mans god as Wakana Tanka basically more powerful power.

Ok we have power, power is known we know power is appears in many forms, it is never destroyed, E = MC sq. It takes energy to raise the state of something, under entropy, things go to their lowest energy state.

One COULD argue ID is power that is able to control itself. The bases is on known scientific laws and facts. I guess one could also argue Alien intervention caused life to form on earth. When viewing plausibility, there is noway to quantify plausibility, it is subjective then. A religious "theory" is subjective. Makes both the same. Why should your subjectively have more weight than mine? That we could argue.


Example arguing about "alien" life form or studying them, is it a religion or a science. Would we say any scientific study of extraterrestrials is a religion.

I think what boggles people, is that they are hung up on their own meaning of "god" and religion and fail to see the similarities. This is what the ID proponents are arguing.

No different than a Atheist denying that their "belief" is a belief or a religion. Dialectic materialism is similar to scientific method, but is a Atheist's rational of the world. I happen to think there is a lot of merit in dialectical materialism. One also needs to know that materialism has limitations. If current scientific method did not have natural limitations, these discussions would be easier. We have effect, but we are unable to actually determine cause.
God is a creation of mankind.

Since humans have far more brain power than they need to immediately survive, unlike most animals, they have to use this excess mind power positively.

Otherwise this non stop working mind would create imaginary monsters to frighten them. Like the ones the ancient Greeks put in their pantheon. To take this example.

So humans created a God who takes care of them and loves them.

This God probably originates during childhood while young children cannot believe how much their parents know everything, and how well they care for them.

Furthermore, this excess mind power doesn't come from a miracle but from natural selection during the last ice age.

A very brutal process.

So, if there is someone we should worship, it would be our own ancestors who had the immense courage to survive through the last ice age.

[maloryII]

So if evolutionary biologists study, well, evolutionary biology, what do intelligent designologists study?

Do they go off into their labs to sniff out the intelligent designer?
I wouldn't want to fund that grant! rofl

[martinexsquaddie]

http://www.defconamerica.org/creationmuseum/
10 reasons why id types are full of poo

[name already taken]

So if evolutionary biologists study, well, evolutionary biology, what do intelligent designologists study?

Do they go off into their labs to sniff out the intelligent designer?
I wouldn't want to fund that grant! rofl
Creationists look at the evolution and try to stick a figure of authority behind it.

[Durandal]

Durandel, read the criteria that just posted. Also, to mention again I am not arguing for ID.

Never said you were.

My point is this:

Who is doing the creating (alien life, God, gods, the black obelisk from 2001, or J.R. Tolkein, L. Ron Hubbard) is irrelevant.

It is NOT a "scientific theory" and is not an equal to OTHER theories and thus should not be considered.

If one is skeptical of the THEORY of evolution purely on the reasoning that it is a theory and not law or fact (since a "law" is not written ini stone either) then one must also be as, if not more, skeptical, by arguments of science and logic, of "intelligent" design.

Lastly, and this is simply a poke at the hot heads...

The Souix ain't trying to get ID added into the class room. A bunch of ignorant fundamentalist Christians are. I.D. for all the "logic" some might ignorantly or falsely place behind it is still nothing but an attempt by some loons to get fundamentalism added into our society.

[Hollis]

Never said you were.

My point is this:

Who is doing the creating (alien life, God, gods, the black obelisk from 2001, or J.R. Tolkein, L. Ron Hubbard) is irrelevant.

It is NOT a "scientific theory" and is not an equal to OTHER theories and thus should not be considered.

If one is skeptical of the THEORY of evolution purely on the reasoning that it is a theory and not law or fact (since a "law" is not written ini stone either) then one must also be as, if not more, skeptical, by arguments of science and logic, of "intelligent" design.

Lastly, and this is simply a poke at the hot heads...

The Souix ain't trying to get ID added into the class room. A bunch of ignorant fundamentalist Christians are. I.D. for all the "logic" some might ignorantly or falsely place behind it is still nothing but an attempt by some loons to get fundamentalism added into our society.

Durandel, Let me try to demonstrate:

You say, " is not an equal to OTHER"

No how do you prove that? If you can not quantify the difference and the difference is subjective, then it won't work.

Again look at Art VS ****. NY recently had to pay a Artist some money for damages because the artist was arrested do their "ART"..... The difference can not be subjective or arbritrative. (**** entertainer)

There are scientists that "believe" in a higher power. Labeling a theory as being not a theory because it "eludes to" or even states some sort of involvement of a "higher power" is not sufficient.

Same with restricting a Philosophy as not being a philosophy because of religious over tones can not be done.

Again what is humorous about all of this is that the ID proponents are using the law in the same way **** people used it to legalize ****, Atheists used it to "restrict" religious involvement in schools.


The law can not accept subjectivity as a measurement. One reason is that our society is linear in thinking, close is not close enought. It is either, or. There has to be a definitive border/separation that is not arbitrary nor subjective.

I can say I know the difference between Art and ****, but I can not definitively describe that difference in a legal manner that would separate **** for art.

A hoax is not a hoax (universal life church) if it fulfills the criteria as being non-hoax. ULC meets the needs of being a religion, but was formed to circumvent some laws at the time using religion as the vehicle to do so.

So what we will see, if the ID argument works. If they can demonstrate there is no legal difference to their theory or, as you mention, to a scientific theory.

[Dasein]

First, you are harping on the difference between art and ****, but more accurately, **** is a subset of erotic artwork, which is in turn a subset of general art. There's no either/or distinction.


There are scientists that "believe" in a higher power. Labeling a theory as being not a theory because it "eludes to" or even states some sort of involvement of a "higher power" is not sufficient.

ID is not a scientific theory because it doesn't meet the qualifications for a scientific theory, specifically:

1. Experimental or observed evidence.
2. Falsifiability.
3. Predictive Ability.

What evidence specifically supports ID?
What experiment or evidence would falsify ID?
What predictions can and have been made based on ID?

If you can answer those questions, then we can talk about ID as a scientific theory.

[name already taken]

Durandel, Let me try to demonstrate:

You say, " is not an equal to OTHER"

No how do you prove that? If you can not quantify the difference and the difference is subjective, then it won't work.

Again look at Art VS ****. NY recently had to pay a Artist some money for damages because the artist was arrested do their "ART"..... The difference can not be subjective or arbritrative. (**** entertainer)

There are scientists that "believe" in a higher power. Labeling a theory as being not a theory because it "eludes to" or even states some sort of involvement of a "higher power" is not sufficient.

Same with restricting a Philosophy as not being a philosophy because of religious over tones can not be done.

Again what is humorous about all of this is that the ID proponents are using the law in the same way **** people used it to legalize ****, Atheists used it to "restrict" religious involvement in schools.


The law can not accept subjectivity as a measurement. One reason is that our society is linear in thinking, close is not close enought. It is either, or. There has to be a definitive border/separation that is not arbitrary nor subjective.

I can say I know the difference between Art and ****, but I can not definitively describe that difference in a legal manner that would separate **** for art.

A hoax is not a hoax (universal life church) if it fulfills the criteria as being non-hoax. ULC meets the needs of being a religion, but was formed to circumvent some laws at the time using religion as the vehicle to do so.

So what we will see, if the ID argument works. If they can demonstrate there is no legal difference to their theory or, as you mention, to a scientific theory.
Creationists look at evolution and try to stick an authority behind it.

While, if there really was an authority behind evolution, there would be no need for evolution.

As about what is subjective, art critics have no difficulty to find out what is art work and what is imitation and copy of given art work.

Using this line of tought, creationism is an imitation of scientific work, used to hide a figure authority behind all things. And turning science's future into the politics of praising this great figure of authority instead of pursuing scientific research per se.

[Durandal]

Hollis...what the heck man!?

Seriously, why, on this one issue do we seem to be speaking in different languages?

There is NO interpretation. There are a fair number of guidelines that determine a "scientific theory".

Just because some bible thumping soccer mom with a high-school education interprets it another way does not mean its subjective.

The VERY guidelines that make evolution a THEORY make I.D. an OPINION.

Especially when it comes to the LAW.

Which, ultimately are the two things that make this whole thing so cut and dry.

Legal precedence.
The definition of a scientific theory.

[ElHombre]

Again what is humorous about all of this is that the ID proponents are using the law in the same way **** people used it to legalize ****, Atheists used it to "restrict" religious involvement in schools.

There is one crucial difference...

ID proponents don't have a legal leg to stand on. Quite a bit of that is due to their demand that their pet hypothosis be taken seriously, yet deserving of special treatment in order to avoid the rigors of scientific testing.

BTW, I'm still waiting for ID supporters to test out Newton's Theory of Gravity. Preferably off a cliff*.

*Which would then make them eligible for a Darwin Award. Lo, the irony.

[haze99]

Again, in order to accept creation, you have to believe there is a creator. (God) That He created the known universe and life as we know it. That He has communicated with us His intent and reason for our existence.
If not, then yet you may come up with all sorts of ideas on how we all got here. Single cell organism, UFO seeding or Aliens from a parallel dimension.
If Darwin and his theory are correct, then there is no moral basis for anything and for you to question/debate it is futile!
So it should come as no surprise to you that the education system is failing and that the society as a whole is in decline.

[Jobu]

Creationists look at the evolution and try to stick a figure of authority behind it.

It's actually a pretty reasonable thing to do. Personally, I don't think it's necessary but I'm not about to object to them believing what they want to believe as long as it's not hurting anyone else.

Just consider the facts of our universe (what we know of it so far). The existence of the main forces and their strengths allows life to exist in our universe. Had they been different forces or even the same forces at different strengths, matter would not exist as we know it. Is our universe like this by chance or was it made that way? Are there an infinite number of universes out there which have different strengths of forces, different combinations, etc? We simply have no idea. I'm going with the infinite number of universes theory and believing that we're just one of the lucky ones. It makes more sense than a creator who made it this way specifically but I can't prove or disprove either explanation. Neither can the ID believers. Ain't life grand?

[Lt.Havoc]

Again, in order to accept creation, you have to believe there is a creator. (God) That He created the known universe and life as we know it. That He has communicated with us His intent and reason for our existence.
If not, then yet you may come up with all sorts of ideas on how we all got here. Single cell organism, UFO seeding or Aliens from a parallel dimension.
If Darwin and his theory are correct, then there is no moral basis for anything and for you to question/debate it is futile!
So it should come as no surprise to you that the education system is failing and that the society as a whole is in decline.

What do you mean? Do you mean, that the theroy of Darwin (Survival of the Fittest) is leading us into the darkness of ignorance and decay? The Educational system is not failling because of a single theroy, its failling due to politics and the fact it dosent evloved, but thats another story.

The UFO idea is danm old as well, but there is no proof for that too. I mean, really Scienetology belives in Xenu blowing people up with H-Bombs and body Thetans and all that stuff. Yes, its absurd and total strange, but does it sound more believable if there is a great guy with a lon beard sitting in heaven that created the earth and life for only 5000 years ago?

I dont think so. I think a school is no place for such things. We all want that our kids grow up open minded and well educated, so I dont think its good to teach them about ID and such things. Kids should later choose for themselfs if they want to belive in god or not. Teaching Darwins Evolution Theory in class dosent mean they wont belive in god later on.

Many people are christians, belive in god and to the curch every sunday, even if they leanred Drawins Theroy at school and dont necessarily belive in ID.

[name already taken]

It's actually a pretty reasonable thing to do. Personally, I don't think it's necessary but I'm not about to object to them believing what they want to believe as long as it's not hurting anyone else.

Just consider the facts of our universe (what we know of it so far). The existence of the main forces and their strengths allows life to exist in our universe. Had they been different forces or even the same forces at different strengths, matter would not exist as we know it. Is our universe like this by chance or was it made that way? Are there an infinite number of universes out there which have different strengths of forces, different combinations, etc? We simply have no idea. I'm going with the infinite number of universes theory and believing that we're just one of the lucky ones. It makes more sense than a creator who made it this way specifically but I can't prove or disprove either explanation. Neither can the ID believers. Ain't life grand?
Having a creator is just a way to pass the responsibility of using our mind to make ourselves an idea about these matters to someone else who doesn't exist.

All these questions are concepts created by humans and not by God. Passing the poursuit of a solution to others we don't see is just letting the chance to someone to control everybody by claiming he had the solution from God or even that he is God himself and has the solution for that matter.

Let someone else answer your philosophical questioning and you're just letting that particular someone control you.

And, I don't know if you noticed yet, all those God's message promoters rarely do keep this message for themselves. On the contrary they try to convince as many people as possible to think their way.

Well, that's not exactly "believing what they want to believe as long as it's not hurting anyone else."

[martinexsquaddie]

only really have a problem with Christianity when it tries to get into biology lessons.
what next ID ballistics's tables :)?

[Masai]

many people dont know there is 11 commandments..

11. Thy shalt keep thy religon to thyself...

[martinexsquaddie]

no thats thou shalt not get caught
applicable to theft
manufacture of explosives
possession of illegal automatic weapons
border violations etc etc