Biology Forum Evolution evolution debate

17 voices
63 replies
  • Author
    Posts
    • #13177
      mothermary
      Participant

      I think that the teaching of intelligent design is addition to evolution is wrong. Evolution has stood the test of time. Intelligent design is just a huge cover for creationism. Has anyone ever read pandas and people?

    • #99193
      Darby
      Participant

      You seem to be contradicting yourself.

      Which I guess is standard for starting this type of discussion.

    • #99202
      mothermary
      Participant

      contradicting? Im just trying to get some feed back on how people feel about the subject of intelligent design vs evolution. How is that contradicting?

    • #99217
      robsabba
      Participant
      quote mothermary:

      contradicting? Im just trying to get some feed back on how people feel about the subject of intelligent design vs evolution. How is that contradicting?

      I think the way you worded the first sentence of the O.P. can be misleading. I think you meant that teaching Intelligent Design in addition to evolution is wrong…. correct?

    • #99226
      mothermary
      Participant

      yes, thank you. How do you feel about the subject?

    • #99236
      bitsian003
      Participant

      intelligent design as i see it… scientifically says that GOD exists…. i dont think it should be encouraged… i feel that we are trying to cover up our inability to answer everything……

    • #99261
      Darby
      Participant

      Yeah, on a second read it was the typo that threw me.

    • #99330
      mothermary
      Participant

      I completly agree with you bitsian. Thank you for your feedback.

    • #99331
      bitsian003
      Participant

      Though i don’t say that the whole "UNIVERSE" is created by SOME intelligent design… i do say that there is possibility that life on earth MAY be the result of some intelligent design…. All we can do is to guess…. FACT is that we can never find out how we came into existence… But everything does not have a possible explanation… Our obsession for answers to everything can be understood by the attempt kierkegaard logical explanation of GOD…

      My point is… that intelligent design cannot be accepted or rejected…. it’s not a scientific theory…. a scientific theory CAN be tested for proof… intelligent design… cannot be tested.. and thus can never be proved… it’s just a philosophy … which you are at liberty to believe or not…..

    • #99348
      Darby
      Participant

      Of course, if virtually identical life forms to Earth’s were found on other planets, that MIGHT support ID…who knew that Star Trek was religious ideology?

    • #99349
      bitsian003
      Participant

      do they have to be identical?????

    • #99350
      mothermary
      Participant

      Well I do agree that ID could be a possibility. My point is that because its not a scientific theory, it has no place in the education system. These thoughts of intelligent design are meant for places of faith or in your own home. Scientific explanations are the only thing that should be taught in class.

    • #99352
      bitsian003
      Participant

      i’m totally with you on this…..
      are they out of their minds???? how can they do that???? and they say indians are stupid…. 😑

    • #99353
      bitsian003
      Participant

      i’m sorry for the late reply… i woke up an hour ago… and dozed off on my laptop… very good morning to u… [If u happen to be from east 8)]…

    • #99354
      mothermary
      Participant

      yet people will keep fighting for it just like in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case.

    • #99355
      bitsian003
      Participant

      hmmm….

    • #99356
      bitsian003
      Participant

      teaching that at schools would be like "ok students some damn thing created us… so all that u study is junk… let’s take day off"

      but i think court has ordereed that ID should no longer be teached at any AMERICAN school…?? didn’t they stop that yet????

    • #99364
      skeptic
      Participant

      Intelligent Design is a religious theory, and should be taught as part of Religious Studies. If people try to include it in Science, that is a lie, and religious people are not supposed to tell lies.

      And no, intelligent design is not possible. The sheer weight of empirical evidence for evolution is simply too great. The probability of the whole concept being wrong is vanishingly small. Some ID people try to present it as ‘guided evolution’. That is rather harder to refute, but if true, would not require natural selection as a mechanism. And the evidence is strongly in favour of natural selection.

    • #99396
      mothermary
      Participant

      I myself only believe in evolution, because of the pure proof of it. I on the other hand have no right nor do you to tell someone that there is no creator. That is there right to believe, we have no right to tell them there wrong just like they shouldn’t be putting down evolution. My whole point is that it shouldn’t be taught in schools.

    • #99397
      mothermary
      Participant

      yes they ruled against that. The fight on the other hand is still raging on. While i was looking at books on evolution in the library i opened the book and found a pamplet saying that i was sinning for looking at evolution from evidencebible.com. I couldn’t believe that someone would go to the library find these books and paste something like this inside. If i want to read about evolution I shouldn’t have creationism shoved in my face.

    • #99398
      Jillo725
      Participant

      I think that evolution should be taught but I do not believe that evolution proves God doesn’t exist.

      People who are religious are simply afraid of someone proving them wrong, and that makes them angry. Just like if a scientist was proven wrong when he believes himself completely.

      Religion is based on faith. Therefore, nothing should be able to sway religious people from their beliefs. I do not think that people are "stupid" because they are afraid of what they don’t understand. Evolution should be explained in complete detail to everyone, so that everyone can see the validity in the theory and how it doesn’t pertain to God’s existence.

    • #99399
      skeptic
      Participant

      The reality of evolution does not, in fact, prove there is no creator. There is no reason why some deity may not have created the universe, or even created life. However, the evidence strongly indicates that life, once it exists, changed by evolution through natural selection. The origin of the universe and abiogenesis are totally different issues, and evolution’s reality is not relevent to that separate discussion.

    • #99400
      Jillo725
      Participant
      quote skeptic:

      The reality of evolution does not, in fact, prove there is no creator. There is no reason why some deity may not have created the universe, or even created life. However, the evidence strongly indicates that life, once it exists, changed by evolution through natural selection. The origin of the universe and abiogenesis are totally different issues, and evolution’s reality is not relevent to that separate discussion.

      agreed!!!

    • #99408
      bitsian003
      Participant

      "The reality of evolution does not, in fact, prove there is no creator."
      yup!!!
      intelligent design talks of creation not evolution for evolution to occur, initially there has to be creation… ID is totally different from evolution….
      this debate goes nowhere…. b’cuz none of us can provide proofs for what we believe… when we talk about nature we cannot perfectly define what nature is.. we may say rules… but how did the rules come into existence…. then again some 1 may say the rules or by God… how can he prove that???

      Science is what we believe it to be… there are people who believe supernatural… Both are the same… the first kind don’t care about why it[science] is the way it is..they use it for benefit. the second care about only the past[about source]. and leaves the rest…. these two sects will keep fighting for the rest of eternity…

    • #99409
      skeptic
      Participant

      bitsian

      Are you suggesting that belief in science is the same as belief in the supernatural?

      If so, I will certainly strongly disagree.

    • #99410
      bitsian003
      Participant

      not exactly… but yeah more or the less it’s the same….

    • #99411
      skeptic
      Participant

      Science is most definitely NOT the same as the supernatural – not even more or less. In fact, they are almost diametric opposites.

      The most important aspect of science is testing. A good scientist is obsessed with testing, testing and then testing again. Scientific ideas are tested. Scientific discoveries are tested. Scientific test methods are tested. And then re-tested, and re-re-tested.

      This is, of course, to make sure that scientific models are robust. An untested idea cannot make a good model. For example : super-string theory in physics is untested. In spite of the time and effort many physicists put into it, this theory will remain speculation, rather than a good scientific model. Only when testing can be done, is the science acceptable.

      By contrast, people who look into the supernatural rarely carry out anything approaching proper testing. We get excuses like : "Oh well, it won’t work because those testers with their equipment are spoiling the ambience." In fact, when proper testing does happen, the supernatural tends to disappear.

      In science, ideas are used to make novel and testable predictions, which are tested. The testing is done with the aim of disproving wrong ideas. The success of this process means that scientific garbage is eliminated. That process is essential before science can make progress.

      In matters supernatural, the lack of testing prevents the garbage being eliminated, meaning that what is left is totally suspect.

    • #99412
      mothermary
      Participant

      I do not agree with you on this bitsian. Supernatural is based on belief, science is based upon proof. I do think that even if you are religous and don’t agree with evolution on your own personal beliefs, you should still be taught about the highly accepted scientific theory of evolution. The fact is there is truth in evolution, if you don’t believe it than your faith belongs in your own home or church. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS!

    • #99423
      bitsian003
      Participant

      @mothermary
      firstly i’m not religious… secondly to be a scientist is my dream.. by saying thatbelief in science is in a way same as belief in god i meant….

      can you tell me what exactly science is?? how it came into existence… how the rules are made??? Universe follows rules.. We don’t know when these came into existence but we studied them… because we follow them too… God on the other hand is explanation on how these rules are made….

      how do u distinguish between natural and supernatural???? if spirits are supernatural how then have we developed occult science???? do spirits have logical scientific explanation???? there are many things that cannot be explained scientifically…

      science is contemporary… it changes with time… what is right at one time… is wrong at the other.. it is never complete though you test it now…

      for example when Aristotle the great said that heavier objects fall on ground earlier than lighter objects people believed it to be true b’cuz they tested it…[didn’t they?]…
      but galelio showed 1000s of years later that aristotle was wrong… now people believe galelio [discard the concept of air-resistance]….

      people of Aristotle believed him because he showed them science they can see. to them what they believed was true science.. But after galelio we came to know the fact. and now we believe him. what i want to say is that science is evolving just as anything else. The theory or anything else you know is true only for now. We cannot be sure that it doesn’t change. What we know now explains what we have observed so far.. When we see something else we need something new to accommodate that too… you are believing something that is true ONLY for now.. though we don’t know how long that "NOW" is…
      i never said believing in science is same as believing in GOD… i said it’s kind-of similar to that…

    • #99424
      Jillo725
      Participant

      To me, science proves the existence of God. I am awed the same way about the blessings God gives me as I am understanding the cellular pathways and molecular operations of the body. I even believe that God allowed me the opportunity to learn these things because it causes me so much joy.

      I think that the gift of reason and scientific thought was a gift given to few by God, in the hopes that Man will see Him in the world. Understanding the complexities of God’s "creation" (forgive me use of the word, I’m not a poet), should be used to bring Man knowledge of the world around him, and to help Man take care of one another.

      I think saying that you have to believe in one or the other is limiting yourself.

    • #99426
      skeptic
      Participant

      bitsian

      Science is not some system of belief. Science is a method of gaining knowledge, plus the knowledge so gained. That is : the scientific method, and the knowledge from the scientific method when it is properly used.

      The reason we use this approach is because it has proved from experience to be the very best method ever tried in human history.

      To say : "I believe in science" in the same way you say "I believe in God" is to use the idea of belief incorrectly. You can say that you accept that the scientific method is the best method so far of gaining knowledge, and that you are happy with the reliability of the knowledge so gained.

      What is science? Or more accurately : What is the scientific method? We cannot answer this simply, and it would take an encyclopedia to detail the scientific method, because it is a collection of all the methods that have been found, over the past 400 years or so, to work the best, in accurately gaining knowledge.

      What I can tell you though, is the core of science. Science, I said before, is about testing. In fact, the key word is empirical. This means ‘real world’. That is, based on experiment and observation of the real world. This is opposed to that ‘knowledge’ that is gained from subjective experience. Religious people will often say something like "I believe in God, because I can feel him in my heart." That kind of data is the opposite of empirical, because it does not come from the real world. Therefore, that form of ‘evidence’ is opposite to scientific.

      Carl Sagan said : "The core of science is prediction."
      By that, he meant that scientists use ideas to form predictions that can be tested. If you have a wonderful new idea to explain something, and you want to go about it scientifically, the next thing you do is to come up with a testable prediction, based on that wonderful new idea.

      For example : imagine you see a rainbow, and you think it was caused by a giant painting rings in the air with multicoloured paint (I know you are not that silly. It is just an example), then the next step is a testable prediction. You may say :" if that idea is true, then I predict there will be paint splashes under the rainbow." You can test that by looking for the paint splashes.

      Another great modern thinker, Dr. Carl Popper said that science is about falsification. That means that, when you test those ideas, you set out to prove them wrong, if they are wrong. That approach works very well to get rid of incorrect thinking in science.

      The first thing to do in science is to eliminate what is wrong. Until you do that, you cannot build on what you know is true, and build up the massive collection of correct knowledge that forms the basis of modern science.

      At the end, science is about testing. The testing is empirical, and objective, and requires a testable prediction from new ideas, with the intention of proving wrong any idea that is wrong.

    • #99427
      mothermary
      Participant

      I see you guys have taken my topic about the teaching of ID in schools to more of a philosophical view of what science is. Take your view of science, would ID fit in there somewhere? Why or why not?

    • #99428
      skeptic
      Participant

      mothermary

      ID is not science. It is religion. Therefore, if taught, it should be taught as part of Religious Studies.

      Evolution is science. It is not religion. Therefore evolution should be taught as part of Science.

    • #99429
      mothermary
      Participant

      skeptic
      Thank you for helping me get back on track I will be using this for a class. How do you feel about schools requiring teachers to read a two paragraph speech about how evolution is just a theory and that Id is an alternative theory? I personally feel thats wrong and think we should keep seperation of church and state. Some people will say just because its only a theory that we need to give alternatives. Well what about the theory of relativity, plate tectonics, and the atomic theory? I don’t see people doubting them.

    • #99430
      skeptic
      Participant

      Mothermary

      Yes. I agree with you on that. Keep science and religion separate.

    • #99431
      bitsian003
      Participant

      @skeptic
      did you reply to MY post????
      that doesn’t look like you are arguing.. you are lecturing… arguments should go on by taking the points from your opponent and countering them… you don’t look like you are doing that….

      you are getting me wrong….. firstly, i never said belief in science is EXACTLY the same as belief in God. I said it is kind of…. then coming to your point of testing.. i gave you the example of Aristotle and Galileo. Can you justify that from your point of view?

      you may test a theory in the real world as you know. But the inevitable truth is that you don’t the world yet. like theory of gravitation by newton.. when it was first proposed did They ever talk about where it holds and where it doesn’t? For many years he is blindly believed to be true. Till theory of relativity. now what happened to the BELIEF of people who were "Newtonian"? you believe a theory to be true, based on experimental results: AGREED. but those experiments are restricted to what we’ve explored till date… when we explore new things our old theory no longer holds we need something new so we make another one which fits into the facts… now what happened to your earlier theory? the theory which gave you correct results earlier and made you believe in it is no longer correct….

      science is BELIEF. Belief IN what you see.
      God is BELIEF. Belief FOR what you see.

      The second cannot be tested because God is believed to be the source from where science has come. It’s JUST a belief with no experiments to be conducted upon. and by the way can you actually test and show me the BIG BANG theory? cuz i want to see the universe exploding… there are limitations to everything. God is the limitation of the question "WHERE THE HELL DID THIS ALL START?".

      please try to argue from the point i’ve explained. don’t give me another long lecture on what science is… cuz i’ve literally typed the same post twice and i don’t want to do this a third time….
      may i know your profession..??? just wanted to know…
      am an undergraduate in Biological sciences.

      @mother mary
      there is no point in discussing ID here. All people here are scientific. to discuss ID you need both sides[religious and scientific]. Find such Forum where you find both sides.

    • #99432
      skeptic
      Participant

      bitsian

      I interpreted your word ‘belief’ in much the way I interpret the idea of religious faith. If I was wrong, then I am sorry.

      Aristotle and Galileo? They are somewhat different. Aristotle was a ancient Greek, who was strongly influenced by the philosophical ideas of the time. He carried out excellent observational work in zoology, but was not a true scientist by today’s definitions. For example : he believed in the power of logic as a means of determining the nature of the natural world. Today we would be extremely sceptical of that! Aristotle’s lasting influence was a brake on improving scientific knowledge, since anything that conflicted with what he wrote was automatically regarded as wrong.

      Galileo has been described as the first scientist in the modern sense. He used empirical testing to check his hypotheses, which is the modern way. Galileo boosted modern science by showing the way to use experimentation and empiricism.

      Your comments on God suggest to me that you follow the philosophy of God of the Gaps. That is, you invoke God as the explanation when there is a gap in scientific knowledge. What you perhaps fail to realise is that there is no requirement for scientists to explain absolutely everything. What caused the Big Bang? I do not know, and nor does anyone else. It does not matter since we continue to grow our understanding, and sometime in the future we may be able to answer that question. In the mean time I accept there is a gap.

      If I misinterpret your stance, then let me apologise in advance.

    • #99476
      bitsian003
      Participant

      no need to apologise i’m glad that you at last understood what i want to say…
      i’m sorry for the late reply…

      quote :

      there is no requirement for scientists to explain absolutely everything.

      do you think so???
      what about kierkegaard logical explanation of God???

      quote :

      It does not matter since we continue to grow our understanding, and sometime in the future we may be able to answer that question. In the mean time I accept there is a gap.

      Gap always existed and will continue to exist… we don’t even know how huge that gap is… as you said lets hope that we fill the gap πŸ˜€

      btw please go through my post ‘CREATION’, i’ve tried to explain creation in a different context… all i want to do is to discuss the possibility of what i’ve said… please post your comment and let’s continue our discussion over there…. πŸ™‚

    • #99480
      skeptic
      Participant

      Kierkegaard’s view?

      "SΓΈren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in God, rather one should have faith in God even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. God is beyond reason.

      Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist."

      Which really is no reason to believe. Personally, I am fixated on empirical and objective evidence. Faith means nothing to me. If the evidence aint there, I aint a believin’ it!

      On the other hand, I have no reason to disbelieve the existence of a deity. Until better data is available, I am sitting on the fence.

    • #99483
      Pachomius
      Participant

      God of the gaps, is that supposed to be absurd for God to be when science has gaps which science today cannot fill up?

      Take the Big Bang, the question is what caused the Big Bang, scientists say they don’t know, not yet.

      I say that God caused the Big Bang, so God is the filling in the gap which scientists experience when they cannot answer the question what caused the Big Bang.

      What exactly do scientists who are atheists mean when they say that they do not know what caused the Big Bang?

      I am sure they mean that they do not know what mathematically justifiable agency and gounded on — to use their favorite concept — empirical evidence can be the immediate cause of the Big Bang.

      When I say that God caused the Big Bang I mean that in the big picture of things that have a beginning — and since Big Bang is the beginning of the material universe which scientists claim to have evidence empirical at that for its existence ( which again its existence is a material kind of existence ), I mean in the big picture of all existence that is not self-caused or is not God, God is the cause of the Big Bang.

      For the Big Bang having a beginning and is the beginning of the material or empirical universe of the scientists cannot be otherwise than a thing caused by another thing, which other thing ultimately is God as creator of everything in the last explanation of everything, that does have a beginning, specially the material or physical or empirical universe that is the scope of examination of scientists, who are into empirical examination of everything that is accessible by empirical evidence and also through mathematical computation and calculation and speculation.

      So, God is the God of the gaps because scientists do not know how to fill the gaps with an immediate empirically grounded causal agency.

      But the way some people use that God of the gaps term, it shows that they don’t know the nature and limitation of science on the one hand, and the concept of God as maker of everything on the other, in the big picture of existence of things that do have a beginning.

      You will say that there are things that have no beginning but have always existed and are always existing.

      Okay, give me an example, and I will tell you that it is God the maker of everything.

      Pachomius

    • #99490
      skeptic
      Participant

      Pachomius

      You used the example of the Big Bang, and that is usually the example religious people use. I am not a believer, but I cannot prove you wrong, because the ’cause’ of the Big Bang is indeed one of the gaps in science.

      That gap does not bother me, or convince me of a deity. After all, there are lots of gaps in scientific knowledge, and one more really means nothing.

      A better argument from your view point is the ‘privileged universe’ concept. We know that, at least six physical constants have a value that falls into a narrow band that permits life. Why is this? Scientists know no reason why these physical constants have their specific value. For all we know, they might have any value. Yet their actual value appears ‘designed’ to allow life, and hence human life. That is a much better argument for the existence of a creator deity than the silly ‘God of the Gaps’ argument.

      There is, however, an alternative explanation. The Anthropic Principle. This rather depends on there being many universes, which is still unproven. Super-string theory (also unproven) predicts a total of E500 universes. The Anthropic Principle says that, out of all those universes, every possible value of all physical constants may be found. Humans are in our specific universe simply because it is the only one where we could survive.

      So you have a choice in two explanations for the ‘privileged universe’ concept. Either you believe in a creator deity, or you believe in the multiverse.

      Personally, I am sitting on the fence until better data is available.

    • #99898
      Pachomius
      Participant

      You cannot or will not accept God to have created the Big Bang and hence the material universe.

      That is an attitude, it is not a cognitive position.

      Before the Big Bang there was no material universe, wherefore the material universe was made by something or someone not any part of the material universe.

      I call that God, and define God therefore as the maker of everything which has a beginning.

      That atheist scientists do not want to know (which is to acknowledge, recognize, admit) that there has got to be some maker of the material universe, which is God maker of everything that has a beginning, that is an attitude but not a logically cognitive position.

      Theist scientists have the logical cognitive inference from the existence of the material universe, which has a beginning before which beginning there was no material universe, the inference which dictates the logical as I said cognitive conclusion that there has got to be God, and wherefore God is proven to exist from the fact that the material universe does have a beginning.

      Pachomius

    • #99905
      skeptic
      Participant

      Pachomius

      I have not said you are wrong. I have just said there are several possible explanations. I do not know if there is a creator deity or not. Both are possible.

      This is not an attitude. Attitudes are for the religious who believe without evidence – an approach known as ‘faith’. I look purely at the evidence. If the evidence points to a clear conclusion, I am happy to adopt that. If the evidence is equivocal, I am happy to sit on the fence until there is better data and a more clear cut conclusion.

      Whether the Big Bang was caused by a creator deity or some natural process remains unclear, since there is insufficient data to draw a clear cut conclusion. If you wish to rely on your faith and say it was due to a deity, then I am happy for you to do so. For me, I will wait.

    • #103118
      iam
      Participant

      Ok if it is true that there is a "god" then why are there millions of us now when we started out with two as some believe to be called adam and eve? Christianity looks down on the reproduction within a family. So why wouold there be millions of us now if this is all purely disgusting in "his" eyes as you say? Think of the facts before you decide to say something in response. Science and religion are in no way, shape, or form, similar.

    • #103119
      iam
      Participant
      quote Jillo725:

      I think that evolution should be taught but I do not believe that evolution proves God doesn’t exist.

      People who are religious are simply afraid of someone proving them wrong, and that makes them angry. Just like if a scientist was proven wrong when he believes himself completely.

      Religion is based on faith. Therefore, nothing should be able to sway religious people from their beliefs. I do not think that people are “stupid” because they are afraid of what they don’t understand. Evolution should be explained in complete detail to everyone, so that everyone can see the validity in the theory and how it doesn’t pertain to God’s existence.

      This is true religion, be it real or not, should not be frowned upon like cannibalism is. If a person wants to believe it then let them. It is not against my thoughts(since i am atheist) to say that I too beleive that "the creator" is something people turn to to find safety or reassurance (sp?) they are afraid and do not want to be condemmed to what seems to them to be a prison life. That is my thought of why religion is created though.

    • #103138
      BDDVM
      Participant

      But intelligent design is a scientific theory. It’s just not a very good one.
      As I understand it intelligent design states that there is evidence of an intelligent designer in the wonderful world around us. (If you find a functioning wristwatch laying on the ground you can assume it was built by someone).Unfortunately this is a testable hypothesis. There should be intelligence in all the designs. Therefore if even one design proves to be unintelligent then the hypothesis fails.
      As a member of the healthcare world I can asure you there are plenty of examples of slipshod design that no intelligent (let alone omniscient) designer would produce.
      A couple quick examples.
      The human lower back, dumb idea that evolution stuck us with.
      The path of air into the lungs crosses the path of food into the stomache. Again, a stupid setup that makes sense from our evolutionary history.
      As long as we are intelligently designing. Why can’t I photosynthesize? It sure would be handy instead of all that farming.
      I’m sure you can think of your own examples.

    • #103149
      kmo9000
      Participant

      So your saying that if I am religious I cannot be a scientist? Many great scientists were religious and many of them believed in a god.

      Intelligent design is just as valid as the theory of evolution, and when you get right down to it scientists workign on either theory do not know what started the process.

      Since we all live in time, everything we experience has a beginning and an end, logically it makes sense that whatever started the process has to have not had a beginning and an end. Whatever started "time" has to have existed outside of time. The only other option is to say that the universe simply always existed, and personally I don’t know how I can logically justify a universe without a beginning.

      The bottom line is we don’t know, so why are you discrediting other people’s theories on the rash assumption that they are trying to prove the existence of god?

    • #103151
      BDDVM
      Participant

      Of course you can be a scientist. If you ignore the evidence against intelligent design because you have prejudices that you can’t get past then you will just be a lousy scientist. The theory is discredited because it doesn’t explain anything or predict anything useful.
      Quite a few people have trouble with the predictition concept.
      An example of evolutionary prediction. A few years ago a group realised that some important fossils were missing from the record. Noone had found good fish/ amphibian transition fossils. Where to look? Well we know about when it happened and had a good guess it would have been in a flat river delta /swamp type environment. Check the geologic maps for the right sediments at the right age and head for the Canadian Arctic.
      The bones were waiting for them when they got there.
      Where would you look for this fossil using the intelligent design theory?

    • #103243
      Rap
      Participant

      I think intellegent design should be taught alongside evolution in schools, but I would not be in favor of giving it equal time. The reason I say this is simply because the schools should not only teach evolution, but teach the controversy surrounding it. If you teach evolution and explicitly reject ID, then you are teaching students to accept teachings based on the teacher’s or the educational system’s authority, not on rational thought. I do not believe that every whacko theory should be taught beside evolution, but the fact that there are a large number of people who believe in ID is reason enough to teach it. If students are taught HOW to think, then WHAT they think will follow. You don’t teach students HOW to think by teaching them WHAT to think.

    • #103305
      dichremy
      Participant

      Supernatural is based on belief, science is based upon proof.

    • #103319
      Darby
      Participant

      No, science is based on testable premises and accumulated evidence. If you think there’s proof in there, you don’t understand the process.

    • #103997
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      @ dichremy Science has lots of evidence for creation, people just tend to disregard it.
      I think you meant that the evolutionary model, has proof, but even there you are wrong.
      Evolution has not been proved, it merely has what people call evidence in its favor. Also by belief, I think you mean faith, which is true we have faith in God. As I have said many times before, if you go back to the beginnings of both of our viewpoints, you will have either an eternal intelligent Designer (God) or eternal matter. It takes more faith to believe in eternal matter, than an Intelligent Designer.

      @ Darby, Creation also has testable premises and accumulated evidence, as I have shown already in some of my other posts.
      Good Night and God Bless

    • #104293
      BDDVM
      Participant

      Creation/ Intelligent design theory also has evidence against it. An intelligent designer would be expected to make intelligent (if not infallible) designs. A few quick examples of unintelligent designs
      (which have good evolutionary explainations BTW.)
      What nitwhit decided to have the paths for air into the lungs cross the path for food and water into the stomache? Serious choking hazard.
      Surely someone with a few minutes of thought could design a lumbar spine (lower back) that works better than the one we have.
      Cancer? Birth defects? Viral diseases? I’m thinking class action suit to force a recall.
      If you want to call your faith science, then you have to play by the science rules. Even one unintelligent design falsifies your theory. Just as a single example of anything that couldn’t have evolved would falsify Evolution.

    • #104297
      NathanKAPOW
      Participant

      When it comes to teaching intelligent design, kids should be taught it as a point of view, not as if it was a fact. Its a brain wash process. If you got two seperate groups of children (i do realise this is unethical) and teach one group about intelligent design based on god and another based on harry potter, they will then debate with each other stating how God created us or if Harry Potter casted a spell and created modern day humans.

      I do believe they should be taught both points of view, intelligent design and the science of evolution. Its then up to them to decide which side they take. Being told from a young age what you "have" to believe in (based on no substantial evidence aka PROOF) is just depriving a childs ability to fully use their brains potential by narrowing their scope of reason.

      I was a dedicated Christian at a young age, went to church all the time, did my communion etc. Why did i do all that? because its what we were told to do at school. We had to pray before meals etc. As i grew older and realised everything i had been told was based on a book of chinese whispers and not fact i finally accepted that yes even i fell for it as a child.

      Im not saying those who believ in creationism are dumb etc, if they live their lives and 100% enjoy living it that way then i am happy for them. No one should be going round preaching though, and FACT is the basis upon which children should be taught.

    • #104298
      Zenithar66
      Participant
      quote BDDVM:

      Creation/ Intelligent design theory also has evidence against it. An intelligent designer would be expected to make intelligent (if not infallible) designs. A few quick examples of unintelligent designs
      (which have good evolutionary explainations BTW.)
      What nitwhit decided to have the paths for air into the lungs cross the path for food and water into the stomache? Serious choking hazard.
      Surely someone with a few minutes of thought could design a lumbar spine (lower back) that works better than the one we have.
      Cancer? Birth defects? Viral diseases? I’m thinking class action suit to force a recall.
      If you want to call your faith science, then you have to play by the science rules. Even one unintelligent design falsifies your theory. Just as a single example of anything that couldn’t have evolved would falsify Evolution.

      First off, you are assuming that the designer is perfect and therefore would not make any mistakes.

      In regards to your points on the lower back, there are 2 main problems..

      1. How do you explain those living to very old ages in perfect health?

      2. The back works perfectly for its intended purpose and, like everythign on earth, is subject to decay when not maintained.

      Now moving onto the points about cancer and birth defects, again we cannot assume to know what a designer(if there is one) has in store for his creations. Not to mention that cancer is a modern phenomenon brought about by our deteriorating dietary habits and general pollution levels on earth, food additives and GMO proven carcinogenic.

      If there is a designer, we clearly dont know its motives and therefore cannot assume to pick out "problems" with that design, meanwhile skipping over the astonishing design we do find in nature. For instance your choking problem is mostly mitigated by the gullet clsing off the breathing tube, very convieniant you left that out, that is a life saving design and choking is 99,9 percent lack of concentration…

    • #104302
      JackBean
      Participant

      First of all, GMO has not been proved carcinogenic πŸ™„ otherwise it would not been approved πŸ™„
      Second, cancer is not a modern phenomenon, it is just more seen, as people are able to live longer in average.

      Your explanation with the closing of the breathing tube is a nice example of how evolution fixes it’s previous mistakes. If there was any designer, wouldn’t it be easier not to cross the two tubes and not use any closing?

    • #104311
      Zenithar66
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      First of all, GMO has not been proved carcinogenic πŸ™„ otherwise it would not been approved πŸ™„
      Second, cancer is not a modern phenomenon, it is just more seen, as people are able to live longer in average.

      Your explanation with the closing of the breathing tube is a nice example of how evolution fixes it’s previous mistakes. If there was any designer, wouldn’t it be easier not to cross the two tubes and not use any closing?

      okay, since your so sure, show me the proof that no GMOs have been proven carcinogenic..Since I can prove that there indeed are carcinogens in our food.

      you say cancer is not a modern phenomenon, yet, from my research it is indeed one. I certainly dont think that is is more seen because we live longer, rather becuase we eat foods that are deprived of all organic minerals bar a few and destroyed by cancer causing agents that give longer shelf lives as well as lots of money to big corporations.
      Funny how you say we live longer, yet the medical industry killed more people in 2010 then anythign else, including traffic accidents.
      I advise you to research the medical indrustry and the GMO saga, especially aspartame and flouride and you may just get a shock at what you’ve been drinking and who knows its poison yet keeps it in the water and soft drinks etc.

      you are simply presuming evolution fixed its previous mistake, when infact you cannot but take that on faith, you see, threre can be no mistakes to an unguided process. only results that are neutral.We have a nose for a reason, and thats to breath through, the reason it has all of the hairs and mucosa along with intolerable twists and turns is to clean the air we breath. Those who breath through the mouth and choke are simply breathing incorrectly. The fact that the epiglotus closes to prevent choking is an amazign fact in and of itself and suggesting it would be easier one way is not something we can assume to know, since we dont know the identifty of this would be designe or the kind of trade offs needed to design a hman body..

    • #104323
      JackBean
      Participant

      the proof, that GMOs are not carcinogenis is, that they are used. If you have any proof of otherwise, show it.

      You’re wrong, there are also bad mutations, if they are not deletirous, they can be fixed. Or if they are corrected…

    • #104326
      Zenithar66
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      the proof, that GMOs are not carcinogenis is, that they are used. If you have any proof of otherwise, show it.

      You’re wrong, there are also bad mutations, if they are not deletirous, they can be fixed. Or if they are corrected…

      before I present evidence(although i would have thougth you would have checked it out), Please explain to me how the fact that they are used is the proof that they are not carcinogence, GMO’s I mean, this is a wild unsubsantiated and patenlty false conclusion. Everybody knows flouride is carcinogence and it is used as rat poison, why do you think 98 percent of europe dont use it?
      I advise you to read the flouride decption book as well as to some research.

      There are many documented cases of governments exposign their citizens to dangerous or deadly chemicals for the sake of experiments, so flouride in the water is non suprise to those who have researched unfortunate but very real phenomenon.
      Aspartame is an even more shocking story, give me a while to pull up some links and notes and I hope you will take a look!

      Oh and your right there are bad mutations, but how does this prove me wrong?

    • #104333
      JackBean
      Participant

      if the GMOs are used, they had to pass lots of tests, before they are approved.

      quote Zenithar66:

      threre can be no mistakes to an unguided process. only results that are neutral.

      that proofs you wrong, because during the ages there can be bad mutations, which need to be fixed by other random mutations and if they are not corrected enough quickly, they will be lost.

      So, you believe, that the Earth and everything alive were created some time ago (obviously more than 6000 years ago) and since that time they didn’t change at all?

    • #104334
      Zenithar66
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      if the GMOs are used, they had to pass lots of tests, before they are approved.

      quote Zenithar66:

      threre can be no mistakes to an unguided process. only results that are neutral.

      “that proofs you wrong, because during the ages there can be bad mutations, which need to be fixed by other random mutations and if they are not corrected enough quickly, they will be lost.”

      sorry, but you are not getting me, you saying a mutation is bad is your opinion, in a blind unguided proccess, there is no good or bad mutations, becuase there is no purpose or plan for those percived bad ones to destroy, and by saying they “need” to be fixed simply tells me you dont understand evolution. There is no “need” for any particular mutation, do some research on the subject.

      So, you believe, that the Earth and everything alive were created some time ago (obviously more than 6000 years ago) and since that time they didn’t change at all?

      I have no idea how th earth or organisms came to be and dont pretend to, what i will say is i hold no theological convictions whatsoever. Of course creatures change over time, what are you trying to get at?

    • #104335
      JackBean
      Participant

      From what you wrote on this site, I understood, that you are for inteligent designer.
      If not, I don’t know, what are we talking about then πŸ˜†

    • #104341
      Zenithar66
      Participant
      quote JackBean:

      From what you wrote on this site, I understood, that you are for inteligent designer.
      If not, I don’t know, what are we talking about then πŸ˜†

      I thought this sight was scientific? you are making so many presumptions, I am not in any way associated with the intellegent design movement, I find alot of it intersting and convining, but I form my own opinions for my own research.
      I have come to the very sckeptical of alot of claims about evolutions mechanisms. that is all, I love science and knowledge.
      I feel alot of people just accept things at face value without doing there own research on the subject..

    • #105492
      dryan
      Participant

      reply to mothermary,

      I am not advocating ID teaching in schools at this time, but I wanted to reply to your reference to pandas and people. This is the often cited argument against ID that basically assumes there is no intelligent designer because 1. some designs in biology are inefficient, wasteful and/or not very well designed (ei redundancy of the larynx nerve in giraffes). To the people that feel ID is valid, this argument just doesn’t hold water…its a poor argument because is begins in incorrect assumptions. I will give a rudimentary analogy of what I mean and please read it in its entirety before making your judgement. Here goes: Lets say you find a pair of shoes on the sidewalk and can infer that it was made by someone with intelligence (intelligent designer) because its design (wasn’t the result of years of erosion, rain, wind, etc). OK, now lets assume that you put the shoes on and walk around in them but you notice some flaws….there is too big of an arch for your foot which causes you a lot of pain, the sole of the shoe on your R foot is bigger than the sole in your left so that you walk gimply….as a darwinist would you conclude that the shoe is not designed by an intelligent designer because it is flawed…no, which brings me to my first point and flawed assumption of darwinists…intelligent design DOES NOT mean perfect design.
      Now for point number 2: Lets say you happen to meet the intelligent designer of the shoe in which you ask "why you made such a poorly designed shoe?" He/she answers that he/she is a Podiatrist and made the shoe for a patient with abnormally high arches and a leg length discrepancy…Ahhh, so the shoe was designed well. The main point and difference is here is that when you know the motivation and intent of the designer…only then can you make an assumption about the purpose/quality of the design which brings me to my second point and second flawed assumption of darwinists….you cannot conclude that a design is flawed unless you know the intent/motivation of the designer…so to make this point, someone arguing against ID assumes that they know the mind and motivations of God. How is that? To further substantiate this flawed assumption, think about yourself. You grew up in a competitive society in which you studied, practiced and applied yourself to perfection for what??? to get a good job make good money, get a promotion, recognition and success…so you are motivated to do the best you possibly can….tell me, (assume you believe in God), what motivates God to make a flawless creation…peer pressure?Money? The point is, nobody can know what the designer had in mind when he designed…maybe the panda was designed exactly how he(God) wanted to design it. It is ridiculous (to me) to assume that you can know what the designer had in mind when he created something. So when Dawkins says "unintelligent design" he has to assume that intelligence means perfection (which it does not) and that he knows the mind and motivation of God (which he cannot).

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Members