Discussion in 'Serious' started by acrimonious, 9 Feb 2005.
Who do want poked then ?
I'm glad that another of these threads came up, because in the last one I didn't get the right point across before it as closed.
OK then. (takes a deep breath and steps back to arm's length of the banning stick)
First off, I am a firm believer of Intelligent Design. I think that it's great that this is being taught in schools. I also think that school children (me included) should hear a balanced argument.
In my school we are taught that evolution is truth. This may be some people's opinion. and I repect that, but let me remind you that it's full title is the theory of evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a theory is only considered law when it is proved beyond doubt that it is true. This has not been proved for evolution. Therefore, it is still a theory. Intelligent Design is also a theory. There is evidence to back it up, just as there is some "evidence" for evolution. By this token, shouldn't it be taught along with evolution?
I could tell you that you're all wrong and blast you with facts, but I'm not going to, as I would recieve a ban, and it is not in my nature to do that. Besides, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and they are also entitled to hear both sides of an argument.
Mods, if this is inappropriate, please remove/edit accordingly.
I think the type of evidence differs between the theories. The "evidence" for Intelligent Design is inherently subjective, the only physical evidence you could ever find was some sort of amusing message written on the insides of a racoon or something, in a similar style to the "you shouldn't be looking at this" message on that canyon level of Duke Nukem 3D . Because of this, I'd say intelligent design is more a matter of faith than a developed scientific theory. Darwinism, whilst also relying on some subjective evidence does have "hard"/factual "evidence" such as DNA, etc.
I agree Darwinism shouldn't be taught as fact, when I was in secondary school, which isn't that long ago they presented some alternative suggestions such as the inheritance theory and explained why Darwinism is more plausable. I think this is the right way to go. I do disagree with Intelligent Design being put forward as a theory in a science class, but by all means not in a religious education class.
*I just had a revelation/connection*
Intelligent design might not refer to an entity, but a condition. it just might be intertwined with darwinism (which i beleive in) too. the more "inteligent" traits in an organism eventually become the norm. wouldn't it stand to reason that a trait that gave an organism and advantage over it's peers of surviving to mating age would eventually make that trait common?
Actually, I hate to burst your bubble (and the bubbles of so many other people), but nowhere in the Constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" come up. The exact wording is "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
The first sentence is what we're talking about. And the first sentence states that the government (specifically Congress) shall make no laws regarding religion, or favoring one religious belief over the other. That's all it says, plain and simple. People have so over-thought and manipulated what it means. It says nothing about a separation of church and state, aside from the fact that Congress is to remain silent on any matters pertaining to such. Also, notice how it says "...or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." This means that whether you go to public or private school, you have the right to practice and follow your particular faith beliefs.
This also means that it is unconstitutional to pass any law that would do something such as remove the word "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Students are in no way required to say the Pledge, but it is illegal for Congress to pass any law requiring it's removal or editing.
i think its fine that they're teaching it, as long as they're not teaching it as a fact. this has been stated in this thread, but relegion is an individual thing. if they were taking a class specifically on one relegion volunteerily, it would be different.
personally, i believe in evolution. human beings have had many millions of years to evolve to our current state. every couple of generations, a child with some advantage was born. this made him more likely to survive than the rest. we are so perfectly 'designed' because we've had so long to evolve. almost all, if not all, organisms alive today are pretty well designed. and that would mean a lot of organisms for the designer to design. and what about those with disabilities? (if you are offended by this, pm me and i will remove it)
when i was learning darwinism in school, my teacher spent a class talking about how it was a theory and not a fact. he basically said that anybody could keep their beliefs but he was teaching darwinism so we would at least know about it. the problem is that many kids forget about this and accept what their teachers say as a fact, as it should be.
the theory of intelligent design sounds a lot like relegion to me. although there is no way for anyone to know, it is against all science that there is some intelligent being that has been designing anything. the favored scientific theory regarding this is evolution. the favored christian belief is creationism. intellgent design sounds like creationism, only on a more personal level. i simply dont understand that this could be seen as science. after all, relegion and science are opposites to most.
mods, please edit/delete this comment as appropriate, as i meant no harm by it and am simply stating my opinion.
edit: oh yeah- posting at 0:00 (no i didnt plan that)
How about this. Name one case in the modern world where information has been added naturally to DNA to cause a mutation.
Every mutation you say nowadays is caused by the loss of information. Things like extra fingers etc. are caused by a piece of DNA being executed twice.
Mutations where a section of DNA is put 2 or 3 times into the overall sequence (a "duplication replication") is quite common, after the aditional material is in the sequence other forms of mutation can quite easilly take place such as inversion, translocation or insertion etc, in/on/around that peice of DNA to form an added, completely different peice of the overall sequence.
Evolution is something that takes billions of years, it's unsuprising that in our relativley miniscule 100 years-or-so time frame that we haven't seen it in action.
Actually, it has been seen in action. You just have to look at fast-replicating, short-living species. A recent comparison of an Alpine plant with its 300-year-old ancestor (preserved in a botanic museum) revealed certain optimalistions in its structure...
Anyway, Double_C (and others here), don't fret about banning for stating your opinion, even if it disagrees with other peoples'. You speak eloquently, underpin your arguments and don't rant or insult people so you're cool with me. Even though I do not believe in Intelligent Design.
This goes for others too. You don't have to agree with each other, or with any of the views of the Mods. Just don't get personal, don't insult people and don't talk crap. Apart from that, it's all good.
The way I understand it, Intelligent Design and Evolution point at the same evidence base but simply interpret it differently. In my opinion, if schools want to teach it as an alternative theory, they can go for it as long as the argument is kept balanced. May the best explanation win, and all that. However for every argument brought up by Intelligent Design, an equally plausible explanation has been offered by Evolutionism (even more so, actually, because it does not rely on a Deus ex Machina for explanation but explains things in terms of common logical and physical processes).
A problem in this whole debate is that people often think they understand the Evolutionist argument, while in fact they do not. This is obvious in that it is also referred to as Darwinism. It is not simply Darwinism (although it has it's roots in its logical principles); it has moved beyond that. Other stuff is at play; Darwin knew nothing about DNA or the mechanisms of heredity (although, arguably, he could have as Gregor Mendel had sent him a paper on his experiments --good ol' Charles simply never read it). He knew nothing about chaos theory or non-linear dynamics. He knew nothing of re-iteration or Critical Dependence on Initial Conditions and all that. A lot of people still don't and that is why they point at stuff and go: "Oh, hey, but that must have been designed by someone. I mean, stuff like that just doesn't come about by coincidence". Well, thing is that coincidence isn't as random as you'd think. Chaos, if you step back far enough and tilt your head at the right angle while looking at it, so to speak, has structure, pattern and shape.
Whenever people argue about evolution and intelligent design, I think of the Matrix
Both of these theories are just that - theories. They should be taught in schools as the government, which is elected by and therefore representing the people, sees fit. So basically, the people choose what will be taught in the schools. Now if these people in Dover want to change that, change the government. However, no matter what they decide to teach, the important thing is, as others have said, that they are taught as theories, and nothing more.
That's exactly what was being said in a video I saw a while ago. The guy (Ken Ham) was saying that everyone looks at the same evidence but puts different "glasses" on. You have on your Evolution specs, which try to fit millions of years into everything, and I have on my Intelligent Design specs, which fit a young earth and everything being God-made into everything. Do you see what I'm saying?
If my science professor taught me Intelligent Design I would have laughed in his face, but thats just me. Evolution is backed up by some facts while Intelligent Design is backed up by a few books written by different men over several decades. Personally i never bought into the whole religion thing, i believe in God, just not that he created everything, makes no sense.
Religion is the opium of the masses.
In the UK, hedgehogs 'developed' the ability to run in under 25 years. As they were slow, they were constantly killed by cars. Over the generations hedgehogs with slightly longer back legs survived more frequently and now almost the entire population is capable of a quick run. I don't have the details but I do know that it was the first observed evolutionary step observed by man under scientific scrutiny
One example I can give about info being added/changed inorder to make a species more suited to its environment is colourblindness.
Normal deuteranomalous (red-green) colourblindness is far too prevelent in the population for it not to have a usefull purpose. Infact even though colourblind people cannot decern some colours they are very good at defeating camoflage. So it is a usefull trait in some circumstances. Evolution IMHO is correct because of the huge time scales involved. If colourblindness can be "made" in one generation think what can happen in millions of generations. And remember most mutations that in the end are usefull usually have pointless origins.
It's an intriguing possibility. Most animals have limited colour sight compared to humans, because they have better smell so colour vision (to judge e.g. whether fruit is ripe, or meat is starting to go off) is not such a necessity.
However I think the prevalence of colour blindness is simply due to the fact that it doesn't get filtered out of the population. This is because although it does not give us a selective advantage, it doesn't give us a selective disadvantage either, so there's no pressure to get rid. For the same reason we still have hairs that stand on end, even though --in the absence of a furry coat-- this does not have any useful function anymore.
By the way, interesting post Scotty 6435!
36th post an no one has tried to start a flame war good job everybody.
(to be fair though, my internet has been messed up lately )
It doesn't come up specifically, but has been clerified as a "Wall of Seperation" between churcha and state. Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:
"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."
During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.
Now, in-so-far as practicing within a public school, it can in fact be done, but can NOT by sponsored by any teacher, school official or organization affiliated with the school since the school itself and it's employees if funded and payed by the state. The school as a government organization nor any teacher or staff member can organize any religious activity. If they do, this will breach the US Constitution and will open themselves up for prosecution. Having said this, a private school which does not receive any money from the state can include religious activities as it's funding comes directly from the private sector. This is how catholic schools can be in existance.
Mutations, in the sense of a sport, aren't central to Darwinism. Evolution just needs a combination of parent genes that give an advantage to the offspring and make it more likely for them to reproduce and reinforce that trait. Unsuccessful ones won't get to reproduce and die out. Over the millennia you get various successful models filling niches, specialising in how and what they're equipped to eat, size, colour, etc.
A simple example is a moth that adapted to dirty industrialised areas by developing into a darker colour - harder for birds to spot and eat, odds on it having baby moths with a dark mate are improved so the %dark increases every generation. Otherwise identical light moths are still going strong in rural areas.
Man's done it too, breeding pedigree dogs to conform to his wishes - the Golden Retriever is a very recent example and the breeding programme (by Lord Tweedsmuir) well documented. Plus a host of plants for food or pleasure.
Intelligent Design, also known as Creationism, is not a theory. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. That means if another theory came along that better explained the natural phenomena, it would replace the existing one. However, Creationists believe their idea is inherently correct and give no opportunity for it to be disproven.
Secondly, Creationism offers no predictive qualities. Subscribing to this idea offers an exlplanation of the here and now, but whenever you look to the future, the answer is "gee, we're all so complicated, how could I possibly know the plan."
Why do people act like evolution needs this counterbalance in order for people to get the "full scope" of information. Why don't we offer alternative accounts of history? There are groups out there that claim the Holocaust never happened. Why do we always learn that it did happen? To me, both are just as ridiculous.
It always amazes me that people single out evolution as this hot topic, due to either fear or ignorance. If you look at the scientific definition of evolution, it's indisputable.
Evolution is the net change in alleles in a population over time. There. That's it. From that definition, we see speciation, natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, bottleneck effect, founders effect...all of which are proven.
We use principles of evolution to make our flu vaccines, to develop cancer fighting drugs, to drill for oil, and to fight HIV/AIDS amongst other things.
I don't think Creationism has any business next to evolution, which is legitimately used in the scientific community. For everyone who is defending creationism, please cite a journal article from a peer edited scientific journal and I would love to read it.
Perhaps because there are people who were THERE that can provide the evidence, as well as mountains of forensic and archaeological data. What next? Hiroshima, Nagasaki just a hoax?
Separate names with a comma.