Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Joseph Miles]

Currently, I'm working on a project for my evolution class. It's pretty open ended, so long as it relates, in some way, to what we've done thus far in class. What I've decided to do, is go around to multiple forums, and see how each of the following questions are answered. I'd like to ask everyone to simply answer the questions, and not turn this thread into a debate over the questions, thank you, in advance, for your cooperation.

1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?

2 - Is evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?

3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?

4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?

5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.

6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.

7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.

8 - Is it possible to believe in a divine being, as well as Evolution?

Thanks for your time.

[Siquo]

I'll bite.

1. No, it is not. It is inconsistent with every other theory in science, and the premises are not scientific. It's not even wrong.
2. Yes, it is. It is the simplest explanation for observed phenomena, and can predict outcomes.
3. Theory. Facts are measurements, an explanation for measurements cannot be a fact (in science). At the very best it could become a law.
4. Religious. It is a way of coping with a paradigm-shift that is incompatible with your current worldview.
5. Yes, it is an important theory with many real-world implications.
6. Yes, it could, in religion-class, although creationism is more widely accepted in religion. Evolution should be taught in history and biology class and has no place in religion-class.
7. No. One is science, the other religion, they have nothing in common.
8. Yes. Although "believing" in evolution is very unscientific, there is no way to scientifically prove that there is no divine influence in evolution, and no way to scientifically prove that there is. Therefore God may exist, he/she/it may have created the universe ten seconds ago with everything in it, and the theory of evolution would still be valid.


(I know "religion-class" is more commonly called "bible-class", but I received and advocate a broader religious education beyond that one book)

[andrea]

1 - no. there are no facts that could make us think that intelligent design is true. it is mostly a belief

2 - evolution is a theory.it was born by watching nature, there are facts that make us think it is a good theory.

3 -theory. evolution is how we think that things happened. we haven't seen animals evolve into other animals in our lives. not a fact in my opinion

4 - because of the reasons i gave in number 1, i think it is not scientific. it is only a belief without facts

5 - of course it should. at the moment it is the best known scientific way to explain how animals became what they are now.

6 - in religion hour maybe. but nt as a scientific theory

7 - togheter? no. they are 2 different things.

8 - of course. i can't understand how some people think taht if a god exist he must have created the world as we see it now. if a god exist, couldn't he just have started the universe? for a divin being it should be possible to start the universe in such a way that it evolved i nwhat he wanted.
why couldn't evolution be one of god's tools? if you believe in god, then science for you would be something that study how god created the world, and how His world works.
in my opinion, it is totally possible to think evolution, big bang or any present or future scientific theory as well as in a divine being

[inaluct]

1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?

No. Intelligent Design is not based on evidence. There have not been studies done on it, and it does not even attempt to conform to the scientific method.

2 - Is evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?

Yes. Evolution is based on countless pieces of evidence, and it is a simple and easily understood theory.

3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?

I consider it a theory. It isn't some universal law, because it is changed and revised over time.

4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?

A religious way, of course. Intelligent Design was created as an alternative to evolution that would entail the participation of a creator god. It was constructed without evidence, with hopes that evidence would be found later. Scientific theories are constructed from evidence, not the other way around.

5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.

Yes. It is currently the most complete scientific explanation for the development of life on earth.

6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.

No. It is not a scientific theory, and it is religion-based. That whole separation of church and state thing applies here.

7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.

No. Intelligent Design should not be taught alongside a real theory.

8 - Is it possible to believe in a divine being, as well as Evolution?

Of course. Evolution says nothing about the existence of a divine being.

[Bromor Neckbeard]

1.  Absolutely not.  It is based on speculation rather than observed evidence, and makes no predictions.

2.  Yes.  Evolution is a cornerstone of biology and a critical part of most branches of medicine and science.

3.  I consider it both a theory AND a fact.  A theory is an explanation of a set of observations.  A fact is something that has definitely occurred.

4.  No.  The scientific way of thinking is to create conclusions based on observed facts.  ID lacks those observed facts and starts with the conclusions first.

5.  Yes.  It's a critical part of biology and medicine.  Teaching science without evolution is like teaching math without subtraction.

6.  It would be acceptable to teach ID in public schools as part of a "Philosophy" or "Comparative Religions" class, but not in anything science-related.

7.  No, they're not even remotely equivalent.

8.  Absolutely.  Many prominent supporters of evolution believe in a divine being with no problem.

[Vlynndar]

1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?

The way it is brought seems to have more thought behind it than 'the creator made it because it says so in this book'.

2 - Is evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?

It is a very plausible way of explaining how creatures came to be.

3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?

Personally, I take it as fact. One could still nitpick and say that it's a theory, but it's a damn good one.

4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?

As I said, it's slightly more scientific than simply assuming creation by a creator. I'd still say religious, because I find it hard to think of a non-religious way to find ID a better theory than evolution.

5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.

Yes, from my point of view, it's the most plausible theory explaining life, which should be taught alongside biology and geology.

6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.

Definitely not if it is taken as fact and with disregarding evolution. Rather along the lines of 'and in many religions, it is  believed that an upper being (or more) created everything'.

7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.

See the answer above.

8 - Is it possible to believe in a divine being, as well as Evolution?

I don't see why not, as that fits in the personal look on life of someone. I say it's perfectly acceptable to believe in someone who will answer your prayers and in evolution simultaneously.
If you mean belief in a divine being that excludes evolution (with the divine being being the intelligent designer), it would be harder. It would be tough in either community discarding an important aspect (hard to believe if you don't accept the being creating all, or hard in evolution if you accept the existance of a divine being). 'Course, that person might theorize evolution caused the divine being.

But personally, I don't see any trouble in believing what you want. Whether that is in the Great Green Arkleseizure or His Noodly Appendage or any other.

(Two things you might want to consider: I wrote this past bedtime (am not drunk, though ) and I avoided reading the replies you got to not let that subconciously influence me)

EDIT: About 3. Can't think of the right word now. With my answer I meant that I use the theory as it were true, assumptions... Theorem? Gah, can't remember. I most definitely don't mean that the theory of evolution is true and unchanging (as a fact would be). It's a theory, which is modified according to new insights.

[Tahin]

1 - No. It is based on ancient beliefs which some scientists have attempted to find "evidence" for. This is equivalent to looking for evidence that lightning is actually created by Zeus.

2 - Yes. Evidence has been observed in support of it. Similar to the origin of the Universe, it's not something we will ever observe exactly as it happened, but also like the origin of the universe, it can be observed in very small-scale/controlled circumnstances.

3 - Theory. As evolution has only ever been observed as "micro-evolution," as creationists like to refer to it, it cannot be proven in the standard sense. Its effects can be observed, which makes it a theory. Until we've observed the changes between generations in many species for several million years, there will be no "proving" evolution, despite it making the most sense based on what we have observed in the fossil record, current different species, etc.

4 - Religious. Do I really need to go into detail on this one? When it's something people learn in church and believe in because if they don't they'll go to Hell, it's a religious concept.

5 - Yes. To quote Bromor Neckbeard, "It's a critical part of biology and medicine." A doctor who doesn't believe in evolution could well prescribe a drug to a patient that his or her disease has long since evolved a resistance to. Of course, this doesn't usually happen because creationists have their "macro" and "micro" -evolution, for which I am somewhat thankful despite the fact that it makes it that much more difficult to argue with them, but giving anyone half scientific understanding and half religious mumbo-jumbo is a recipe for disaster.

6 - No. If people want to go to church and learn religious teaching, they may, but the populace at large should by no means be forced to. It's no different than if we taught Hinduism or Scientology as valid scientific theories in a science classroom. People would be pissed off because it's not something they agree with, and there is no evidence or proof in favor of it. Also, they'd have to pay money to learn Scientology, but that's a different topic altogether.

7 - No. Intelligent design is a "theory" devised from observations applied to a preexisting belief, whereas evolution is a theory devised from observations with no preexisting bias. People forget that Darwin was a Christian up until he realized the whole thing was bullshit. Also, Darwin was not, by far, the first to come up with a theory of evolution. He was just the first to realize how "natural selection" worked.

8 - Sure. No one's saying that God didn't create the universe, simply that it's unlikely that he made a man and then stole one of his ribs to make a woman, and then cast them out of some garden or something due to prior events regarding a snake. I really have no idea how the universe came to be; I myself am an atheist as I have yet to take enough drugs to experience God talking to me, but I don't rule out the possibility of a divine creator. Also, people need to believe in whatever makes them happy, as long as those beliefs don't include burning witches and persecuting gays and black people.

[Electronic Phantom]

>.>

I'll bite too, but this severly editted from its first form (which wasn't very nice, in retrospect).

Still, your questions are a little lopsided in favor of evolution... but that's understandable given the class you are taking.

Also.  Define which type of Evolution you are talking about.  As near as I can remember, there are three of them.  Only one of which is controversial.  I'm making the assumption that you are talking about macro-evolution: the change of one kind into another.

Currently, I'm working on a project for my evolution class. It's pretty open ended, so long as it relates, in some way, to what we've done thus far in class. What I've decided to do, is go around to multiple forums, and see how each of the following questions are answered. I'd like to ask everyone to simply answer the questions, and not turn this thread into a debate over the questions, thank you, in advance, for your cooperation.

1 - Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?

Depends on who you ask.  In my personal opinion, it is valid in that it attempts to supply an answer to the question: where do we come from.  Now the format and the reasoning (not to mention supporting information) might need a little work here and there, but so do many theories.

2 - Is Evolution a valid scientific theory? Why or why not?

Depends on who you ask.  See answer for #1.

3 - Do you consider evolution to be a theory, or a fact? Why?

I consider it to be a theory.  Mostly because it is impossible to prove evolution... or even Intelligent Design, for that matter.  There is a lot of information that could be bent or twisted either way (depending on the world view of the person looking at the information).

It is only macro-evolution that I consider to be a theory.  The other two forms I consider fact.

4 - Do you consider Intelligent Design a scientific way of thinking, or mainly a religious way of thinking? Why?

I consider Intelligent design to be a product of a combined religious and scientific worldview.  I'm hoping you didn't mean this as an 'either-or' question.  Even if you did, my answer remains the same: both.  The why of it is in the fact that I do not consider science and religion mutually exclusive.  Usually.  There are some cases where I will make the exception, but for the majority of the cases, that stands.

5 - Should evolution be taught in public schools? Explain.

Sure.  It's a major scientific theory about the origins of the world.  Something of that magnitude warrants teaching to the young of our world.  Provided of course, that it is not given precidence over any other theory.

6 - Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools? Explain.

Sure.  It's a major scientific theory about the origins of the world.  Something of that magnitude warrants teaching to the young of our world.  Provided of course, that it is not given precidence over any other theory.

7 - Should Intelligent Design and evolution both be taught alongside one another? Explain.

Yes.  They are, as I have experienced them being taught, mutually exclusive.  Teaching them side by side gives students a wider perspective and doesn't limit them to only one possible answer to the question: where did we come from?

8 - Is it possible to believe in God, as well as Evolution?

Fixed.

Sure.  It's done all the time.  There's no rule, written or unwritten, that requires any human to believe in a consistant manner.  Having consistant views sure helps, but it isn't a requirement.

Yeah.  Answers in red.

[edit] Here here for dissenting views!

-(e)EP

[Ignoro]

If you want something a little unorthodox for your paper.
I'm trying to give you something a little more fun here.

1)Not Yet. De-polarize your thinking.
People can do gene splicing in their basements nowadays (there's an article on amateur splicing).
When I design a unique bacteria that exists nowhere else in the known world, evolution cannot account for it. It and it's world (the petri dish), and all the matter it's made of were all artificially designed, placed, planned, and created by a (somewhat) intelligent being. The only theory on the existence of species that accounts for this involves intelligent design (and evolution as I'm too lazy to create the other 99% of it from scratch).
When artificially designed life forms become much more common, intelligent design or a very similar theory will be required.

You're all thinking of creationism. Intelligent design is not based on ancient beliefs either. Ancient beliefs are based on it, and creationism is a crudely simplified version of it.

If you don't think an intelligence spawning other intelligences (more than bacteria) is scientific, watch science grow cyborg brains capable of learning. It's happening here and now.

2) Evolution is valid. It has been studied scientifically for more than long enough.

3) Evolution is fact. Much solid evidence.

4) Intelligent design is currently majority religious thinking. Many religious groups push it and try to use science to explain their beliefs.

5) Evolution is staple biology. It belongs in schools.

6) Intelligent design does not belong in schools for a long while. Theoretical applications for advanced microbiology have no place in school until they are actually used to a degree.

7) Eventually when it is no longer future technology and is commonplace procedure, it will be taught side by side.

I recall there were at one point two theories on the origin of major geological formations. One said they were caused by huge events rapidly (IE meteors), and the other said that they were all formed by time (IE rivers eroding). After much pointless debate, they realized they're not mutually exclusive.
Life from chance and life from life are not mutually exclusive, and we've seen both.

8 ) Yes.

[deadlycairn]

Can't be bothered to fill out the whole form, just the parts I'm interested in - 5, 6 & 7. I feel that students should be taught the basic premise behind both theories, and can then choose if they wish to learn more (about either). That way both sides understand what the other is talking about, and you're not forcing people to believe what they don't want to.

[Dasleah]

Posting in a thread about to head downhill, rapidly.

Also, everyone - learn to distinguish between scientific theory and the general usage of the word theory. That distinction seems to throw most Creationist fanboys into a loop.

Edit: And as for my general response, I believe in science, in that it can be tested, experimented, and validated to a set of predictable, repeatable outcomes. Evolution does this. Intelligent Design does not. Therefore, teach evolution in science. Leave 'Intelligent' Design to theology classes, and even then, it doesn't fit in. It's a petty and shallow attempt for those few on the religious right to validate their own beliefs in an arena (the scientific community) that doesn't give two shits about what you believe in - only in what you can prove.

[Ignoro]

I believe in science, in that it can be tested, experimented, and validated to a set of predictable, repeatable outcomes.

Should I intelligently design some bacteria for you too? They come in designer colors you know. ;P

*runs away from lit fuse*

[Cthulhu]

You're all thinking of creationism. Intelligent design is not based on ancient beliefs either. Ancient beliefs are based on it, and creationism is a crudely simplified version of it.

Finally.  I wasn't going to say anything because I didn't want to participate in what can only lead to BEES, but someone finally pointed out what everyone seems to forget.  Even Dawkins has said that he's not opposed to the idea that an advanced civilization seeded life on this planet.

[Armok]

I believe in hard science, so I pretty much agree whit most things said here except that religious nutcase Electronic Phantom.
Ignoro I think is the one rising the most interesting point abaut improving your questions: do you mean intelligent design as in "all life on earth was created by a divine being" or as in "some life was/can be created by an intelligent being, for example a microbiologist".

[Strife26]

For the convience of debate, I define three types of 'Evolution'

Micro-Evolution (Natural Selection)- You pass traits down to your children. You are different from other people. If you die, you can't have children. People with good traits have more kids.

Macro-Evolution- Micro-Evolution will create new species, given time.

Darwin as a creation theory DARWIN IS GOD!!!!!!! (I had this debate in english already, and that was the opposing point). Becuase micro-evolution is provable in  real life (penicillian resistent bacteria for example), it explains the origin of life.


I don't mind the second, and the first is fact, however, the third is bullshit. I had some problems in my sophmore biology class, as it was clearly pro-evolution as a creation theory.
For example, we had a week-long activity based on the idea that embryos look similar. Based on the drawings of Hackel (I'm not sure if the name is right) who, according to the biology book, was later discredited when it was discovered that he blatantly modified his observations to support his ideas.


Call me an extremist, but from my own (Luthernish) prospective, religon is clearly being assulted by a non-sensical idea. You shouldn't blame me for being a bit defensive.

And then, darwin types will say: religons pursucuted scientists! They must be evil! You can't agrue!