Print

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

[Cheeetar]

I have no problem with evolution (or the teaching of it). However, in my mind, using it as a story for the creation of life is no different than a religon and should not be overly supported in a public schooling system. Basicly, I'd be more than happy if I had recieved a disclaimer that said "Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory." As opposed to what seemed awfully like 'Evolution explains everything!!"

Gravity is a theory, not a fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation
So are germs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
For gravity, look down to the title of the first section.

[Jude]

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

No because it's just creationism repackaged. As in, "ID" textbooks are just old creation science textbooks where they did a find and replace for "intelligent design"
See Kenneth Miller (a devout Catholic who's also an evolutionary scientist and fervent crusader against intelligent design) for more

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

Of course. The evidence is so overwhelming that all thinking people can't help but realize that evolution is real. This is a dumb question.

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

Both. There are theories of evolution, regarding some of the details that we aren't sure of exactly how it works, but then there's the fact that life arose through evolution.

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

Religious. All it does is look for gaps in our knowledge in order to try and wedge creationism in. Any approach like that will necessarily become more and more ridiculous as the gaps it exploits are closed. Not to mention it offers nothing new to science, makes no empirical predictions, explains nothing, etc.

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

Of course. It's science.

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

Of course not. That's tantamount to state funding of religious teaching.

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

Of course not. First of all, it violates the first amendment. Second, you make science look bad by giving dumb crypto-creationist ideas the same status as it.

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

Of course it is and many people do. Like, for example, the Pope.

Also, fact: Everyone who believes evolution is "just a theory" and not a good explanation of how life as we know it emerged, does not in fact understand evolution...or is doing the equivalent of putting their hands over their ears and going "lalalalalalalla". And I do mean everyone.

[Zai]

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

No. It's always (at least the stuff I'm familiar with) been about faith.

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

Yes, for reasons already stated.

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

Scientific theory. So fact, I suppose.

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

I'm not exactly sure what this means. I suppose religious way of thinking, but I suppose I use it as a scientific way of thinking.

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

Yes. It's got a good deal of evidence, which is more than most religions can say.

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

No. If it doesn't have proof, why would they force children to learn it? If you want church beliefs to be taught in schools, go to a private school. However, having this as an elective class would be perfectly fine. But if you're going to teach intelligent design, you'd really have to teach all the different versions of it.

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

They can be, I suppose. But I wouldn't really say it would be ideal.

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

Yes. I do. Simple as that.

[penguinofhonor]

I think what about a dozen other people have said, so I think I'll just point this out, although someone else may have already:

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.

No. This is irrelevant. If you create a bacteria in your basement, that does not affect whether the bacteria in the rest of the world evolved.
As we create more life forms, we will know where they come from and Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism will not apply to them because of that.

[deadlycairn]

The problem is, if people aren't educated about anything other than evolution in schools, it leads to misunderstanding and ostracisation of those who do believe in alternative theories (we know what kids are like)

[Cheeetar]

The problem is, if people aren't educated about anything other than evolution in schools, it leads to misunderstanding and ostracisation of those who do believe in alternative theories (we know what kids are like)

You honestly believe that will happen?
Edit: I don't mean to be hostile, I just say that I do not think that will happen. At all.

[inaluct]

The problem is, if people aren't educated about anything other than evolution in schools, it leads to misunderstanding and ostracisation of those who do believe in alternative theories (we know what kids are like)

You honestly believe that will happen?
Edit: I don't mean to be hostile, I just say that I do not think that will happen. At all.

I'm going to back Cheeetar up on this one.

[Cthulhu]

The problem is, if people aren't educated about anything other than evolution in schools, it leads to misunderstanding and ostracisation of those who do believe in alternative theories (we know what kids are like)

You honestly believe that will happen?
Edit: I don't mean to be hostile, I just say that I do not think that will happen. At all.

I believe in hard science, so I pretty much agree whit most things said here except that religious nutcase Electronic Phantom.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I don't know what ID specifically refers to (what I'm thinking might actually be creationism, but I never read about it either), but I think it isn't unreasonable to think the real world has had its share of both. While you can't deny that life changes over time to accomodate its surroundings and better utilize them, you also can't rule out some form of additional tampering by whatever in the past. It could be a freak timetravel accident for all we know.

Macroevolution WAS a fact. Before organized society came about, survival of the fittest and inbreeding permutations made sure that all randomly mutated variants had a go at survival, and could reproduce if they were successful. Now it's completely dead - anything abnormal in either our own genus or that of any known animals is usually quickly disposed of - either intentionally or as a result of research. (like that Harpooned game: "Research results show a significant decrease of whale populations in this area. We must kill more whales to determine the cause of the decrease.")

[Jude]

The problem is, if people aren't educated about anything other than evolution in schools, it leads to misunderstanding and ostracisation of those who do believe in alternative theories (we know what kids are like)

That's terrible reasoning


Let's teach kids that sex isn't really real, just so the kids who aren't getting laid won't be ostracized

[Ignoro]

No. This is irrelevant. If you create a bacteria in your basement, that does not affect whether the bacteria in the rest of the world evolved.
As we create more life forms, we will know where they come from and Evolution and Intelligent Design/Creationism will not apply to them because of that.

Both Evolution and ID won't apply? What?

I was getting at that ID isn't all religious prattle. There is real merit to it. No, it does not affect how life came here. What we do here is scientific proof it can be done on other worlds.

The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

Our planet alone does not constitute the entire universe.

EDIT:

I think what about a dozen other people have said, so I think I'll just point this out, although someone else may have already:

I'm not finding it, sorry. Can you point out where?

[Jude]

I was getting at that ID isn't all religious prattle. There is real merit to it.

What merit would that be

It sure doesn't contribute anything to science, that's for sure, and it does a worse job of explaining complex life than any theory of evolution does

[Deathworks]

Hello!

I do not intend to argue but rather simply answer the questionaire.

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

Nope, not scientific in my book. It uses premises which are actually incompatible with a purely scientific worldview, so it can not be part of the scientific paradigm. While it may be a valid religious theory, it can not be valid in something it has no part of.

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

Yes, I consider it a valid scientific theory. It has been created based on observation and improved following scientific methodology.

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

It is a theory as it describes how nature probably works. I do believe that it describes the reality quite well and probably hits more or less right on target, but it is still a human projection.

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

As I said before, it is a religious way of thinking and completely incompatible with a genuine scientific approach. I need to explain that I consider both religion and science to be basically belief systems: Both have at their core assumptions you can not prove as these assumptions are the very basis for any proof/argument in that belief system and their nature is too fundamental to allow you to argue beyond them (you can argue within a belief system you don't believe in, but you can't argue without any believes at all). In other words, just as religion can't proof that it is true, neither can science proof its own veracity. It can only show its consistancy with itself and the reality we perceive, but that is it.

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

I am in favor of the scientific agenda, not only because it is my own, but also since it has the least involvement in the religious violence that is the hallmark of especially the Judeo religions Christianity, Jewish, and Islam.

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

Not at the same level as Evolution. As a religious claim, yes, but not as part of biology or science classes. First of all, as I said above, it is not science at its core, so it does not belong there. Secondly, public schools are representations of the state. A democratic state cannot afford to be religious in itself and I personally consider democracy to be the best we can get. If the public schools represent the state, they should not promote one religion as it would clearly violate the neutrality of the democratic state which is at the core for a peaceful co-existance.

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

Oh, I hadn't read this when I answered 6. Please refer to my explanation there. Basically, they are too different beasts and do not belong together.

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

That is a tricky question. If you insist on evolution to remain scientific, it is not possible as you would be trying to combine two belief-systems which are probably at their core completely incompatible. However, if you disregard the scientific nature of evolution as it is now, I guess you could come up with a belief system including both divine entities and a concept of evolutionary development.

Deathworks

[chaoticag]

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?

No, there was no supporting evidence that this theory has been based on, and I doubt there is any supporting evidence that supports this theory that is not better explained by the theory of evolution. There is no empiracally valid evidence to point to the existence of the intelligent being that is suppose to be behind this.

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

Yes, it is supported by evidence, especially in microscopic level where you could catch a cold every year, because even though it is a mutation, it is also evolution because there has been a change that allows the population to prosper. There is also the dinosaurs and their similarities to birds, and the changes in the bird population's beak size in finches in South America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

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

Theory, out of stuborness to follow scientific convention as evolution takes longer than records have been around, and the inner mechanics of it is pretty much hidden. I do however see this as the best way to explain life on the planet.

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

See 1. I don't see it as scientific at all.

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

Yes it should. It is a valid theory, and to not teach it is closed minded idiocy. It has an overwhelming amount of evidence behind it.

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

No, there first needs to be evidence of the intelligent being in question that cannot be explained away. Evolution has random mutaion, but what does intelligent design have? What about people born with disabilities? What is intelligent behind that?

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

No, see 6. It needs more convincing evidence.

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

Yes, Buddah is techinically a divine being, so is Amaterasu. Islam might have a chance, but I'm not too sure about Christianity and Judaisim might have trouble

[penguinofhonor]

I think what about a dozen other people have said, so I think I'll just point this out, although someone else may have already:

I'm not finding it, sorry. Can you point out where?

Find what? I posted that because I wasn't sure whether someone had replied to your post yet. Hence the phrase "may have". But apparently nobody did.