Intelligent design taught in schools

[BOB SAGET!]

Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class along with evolution? For those who don't know, Intelligent design is certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. In other words, a creator or God is mastermind behind the universe.

Should this be taught in science class? I believe it shouldn't but what are your thoughts...

 

[1048576]

Just teach the FSM theory and reincarnation and anything else that randomly pops into a child-like mind as well.

See where I'm going?
If it's falsifiable but not yet proven false, you may teach it in science class. Simple rule of thumb

 

[Dre89]

Depends what its foundation is.

If it's purely theological, then no, it should only be taught in schools of that religion.

If it is concluded from a scientific or philosophical strain of thought, it should be taught in those classes respectively.

 

[abhishekh]

No in science, yes in philosophy.

I personally feel that there should be no religious education, and ethics or philosophy+logic instead be made compulsory in schools up until a certain level.

Evolution should be taught in science, but feel free to show where the holes are etc. :/

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Absolutely not. Creationism is a religious establishment that has absolutely no basis in science. It is all based around ancient religious texts, with no true evidence for its existence. Every piece of falsifiable evidence presented in support of creationism has been quickly disproven, and when the only evidence remaining for a theory is unfalsifiable, then it's no longer scientific. We might as well teach alchemy.

Non-scientific subjects should not be taught as science.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Non-scientific subjects should not be taught as science.

This.

As for teaching it on a religious like class setting, I don't see that possible with all the cutbacks to education happening (notwithstanding Race to the Top).

 

[Bookworm]

But creationism, or at least certain individual creationists, do in fact have their origins in science. Certain astrophysicists have argued that one miniscule tweak of our universe would render life and complexity impossible. In fact, there have been scientists who have converted to Christianity base don what they have dicovered through science.

I'm not necessarily saying creationism is true, just that it does have scientific origins (along with theological), therefore to exclude it from science classes would perhaps be a bias.

 

[vVv Rapture]

But creationism, or at least certain individual creationists, do in fact have their origins in science. Certain astrophysicists have argued that one miniscule tweak of our universe would render life and complexity impossible. In fact, there have been scientists who have converted to Christianity base don what they have dicovered through science.

I'm not necessarily saying creationism is true, just that it does have scientific origins (along with theological), therefore to exclude it from science classes would perhaps be a bias.

That, in no way shape or form, made any sense.

Where in "a miniscule tweak in our universe would have rendered life and complexity impossible" made you believe that it has anything to do with religion? In fact, none of that post says anything about creationism being based in science.

And, the fact remains that it doesn't. It's purely religious to the point that it disregards many scientific findings and discoveries.

Intelligent Design, however, could be a different case. But, still, it's almost like adding the religious part "just because" or "to balance it out". Fact is, the scientific parts of the discussion have their proof and their solid theories to back it up. The Bible is not a valid source of information and never has been.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

I wanna debate against someone who's for Inetelligent desgin.............

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I wanna debate against someone who's for Inetelligent desgin.............

They are not only few and far between, but most of them are idiots.

 

[1048576]

Intelligent Design and Creationism are different. The former says evolution is God's doing, which is an unfalsifiable claim. The latter says evolution isn't real, which is a demonstrably false claim.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Intelligent Design and Creationism are different. The former says evolution is God's doing, which is an unfalsifiable claim. The latter says evolution isn't real, which is a demonstrably false claim.

This is 100% false.

I see your statement and raise you one Wedge Document. This demonstrably shows ID==Creationism.

 

[1048576]

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

It explicitly says it's not the same as Creationism and its not incompatible with evolution.

 

[spookyskeptic]

BOB SAGET!, I'm a firm believer in intelligent design. In fact, there's several clues in the Bible that can be interpreted as supporting, at least, the idea that the universe is billions of years old (as opposed to being fairly new, as some Christians believe) and, to a lesser extent, the theory of evolution. That said, there's no way to teach intelligent design in school without introducing religious doctrine in some form. With that in mind, intelligent design cannot be taught in science class. However, I think most people would support (or, at least, not object to) some manner of "further reading" lists that would provide resources on more spiritually-tinged topics.

Teaching anything religious in schools outside of an elective class that was designed to teach religious concepts should be automatically off the table.

 

[Reaver197]

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

It explicitly says it's not the same as Creationism and its not incompatible with evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22

Intelligent designers have generally tried to spin away from being technically the same as creationism, but "intelligent design" was invented to simply replace "creation science" after it was ruled unconstitutional to teach creationism in science classrooms. Despite all the distance intelligent designers' try to put between explicit creationism, and the scientific-sounding jargon they come up with to dress it in, intelligent design is historically and in practicality one in the same as creationism.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BOB SAGET!, I'm a firm believer in intelligent design. In fact, there's several clues in the Bible that can be interpreted as supporting, at least, the idea that the universe is billions of years old (as opposed to being fairly new, as some Christians believe) and, to a lesser extent, the theory of evolution. That said, there's no way to teach intelligent design in school without introducing religious doctrine in some form. With that in mind, intelligent design cannot be taught in science class. However, I think most people would support (or, at least, not object to) some manner of "further reading" lists that would provide resources on more spiritually-tinged topics.

Teaching anything religious in schools outside of an elective class that was designed to teach religious concepts should be automatically off the table.

1. The truth demands no belief.
2. The bible... Who the **** cares about the bible any more? On scientific terms? **** the bible man.

 

[blazedaces]

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

It explicitly says it's not the same as Creationism and its not incompatible with evolution.

In the future please don't try your hardest to find THE MOST BIASED SOURCE on a subject when looking for information on it...

1. The truth demands no belief.
2. The bible... Who the **** cares about the bible any more? On scientific terms? **** the bible man.

Seriously man, chill out. This is extremely disrespectful to any and all Christians (I'm not Christian). It wouldn't be acceptable to say in public, and it isn't acceptable to say it here...

-blazed

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Sorry, bad post. What I meant to say is "You are presupposing the accuracy of the bible with this statement, something that cannot fairly be assumed".

 

[1048576]

What's a better source than what the intelligent design folks feel they're trying to say.

I don't care about what you or I want to call ID. I care about the beliefs of someone who claims to be an advocate of ID.

But this is all semantics. Would you feel better if we called God-guided evolution potatoes and ID Creationism? Fine. In that case, ID sux dude. Potatoes are not as bad.
What, exactly are folks trying to allow schools to teach? That God made evolution / natural selection did not make evolution, or that evolution is false?

 

[BOB SAGET!]

I believe in a God, so I guess you can say I believe in Intelligent design. Should it be taught as science.....no way!

Actually Intelligent Design is a good way to teach children the difference between good science and non science:

Evolution- Good science like this changes. It starts with observation, then moves to hypothesis, testing, and debate.

Intelligent design- Non science like this is rigid. It starts with works of fiction, then leads to asserting, insisting, and twisting fact.

Whether or not Intelliigent Design is proof to you for a God, or if it sounds ****ing crazy. It doesn't matter... It's simply not science.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

It explicitly says it's not the same as Creationism and its not incompatible with evolution.

*Facepalms*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22

Intelligent designers have generally tried to spin away from being technically the same as creationism, but "intelligent design" was invented to simply replace "creation science" after it was ruled unconstitutional to teach creationism in science classrooms. Despite all the distance intelligent designers' try to put between explicit creationism, and the scientific-sounding jargon they come up with to dress it in, intelligent design is historically and in practicality one in the same as creationism.

This. You know, not doing basic research on a topic means this: Debating, you're doing it wrong.

What's a better source than what the intelligent design folks feel they're trying to say.

I don't care about what you or I want to call ID. I care about the beliefs of someone who claims to be an advocate of ID.

But this is all semantics. Would you feel better if we called God-guided evolution potatoes and ID Creationism? Fine. In that case, ID sux dude. Potatoes are not as bad.
What, exactly are folks trying to allow schools to teach? That God made evolution / natural selection did not make evolution, or that evolution is false?

But the ID proponents keep switching the goalposts everytime they lose:

1. In the PA case, the Discovery Institute immediately runs away from the case @ the slightest hint of the School board losing (which they did by the way.)
2. After a massive set of losses in court trying to push ID (look @ the link above again. Seriously.), the shift is to "teach the controversy!" Though amongst pretty much any biologist (and most likely any other scientist) to note, most will not deny this fact: Evolution has occurred, evolution is occurring, and evolution will continue to occur. Yet, for example, they cherry pick 100 people and post in a paper that "100 SCINTIZTS DNT BAYLEVE EVILUTION," yet the number of people that actually study biology on that list that are not ID cheerleaders...none. Watch this and get educated.
3. If this fails, ID supporters continually point to things in Biology that have been laid to rest (Haeckel's embryos, anyone ) almost a century ago and say that this is recent science.

If that isn't disingenuous, I don't know what is.

And to answer your last question, neither. They're just trying to put creationism back on the curriculum, which is not science.

 

[1048576]

Its disingenuous to funnel all ID proponents into one ignorant microcosm, like this Discovery Institute.

Also, Creationism necessitates that evolution is false. Have you been reading my posts? It's sort of like we're talking through each other.

 

[spookyskeptic]

I think the problem with the subject is terminology. 1048576 is right. It's all semantics. I don't believe in creationsim. In fact, I think Genesis is a total load. My idea of intelligent design is that, rather than a series of random events and chemical reactions leading to life and it's subsequent evolution, I think God or some other outside actor caused it. I think God, but my husband thinks it's little grey men from Zeta Reticuli. Neither of those necessarily exclude natural selection. Creationism and natural selection are incompatible, but ID and natural selection are not. Either way, some other intelligence designed life on this planet, in our view. Neither of those can be substantiated in any way that's meaningful to scientific education, so it's out of the question for the classroom.

Of course, none of this really has much to do with the actual topic, which was "Should intelligent design be taught in schools?" The answer, again, is a resounding "No." Despite the phraseology, Budget's point is valid and dead-on. The Bible means nothing to science. Only science should be taught in a science class.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Its disingenuous to funnel all ID proponents into one ignorant microcosm, like this Discovery Institute.

Also, Creationism necessitates that evolution is false. Have you been reading my posts? It's sort of like we're talking through each other.

Umm, you're wrong again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Development_of_its_modern_form

Now, before someone runs in and says that I'm quote mining, I'm not. I have done my research on this and know of all the precursors (Aquinas, Paley, &c.) I did take a class on philosophy and evolution (though I won't flaunt--*gets shot*.)

For argument's sake, let's take ID on the sense of it's modern form. That started around 25 years ago with some publications in the Foundation of Thought and Ethics, with Charles B. Thaxton authoring. Saying that Thaxton isn't a part of the Discovery Institute is like saying Mountain Dew doesn't use High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is false.

Inb4limitedtimeclassicedition.

However, I know that not all ID proponents would be on the DI bandwagon, but finding arguments that support their case without reverting to that the DI says--chances of that are slim and none. But I'm waiting to see if you have any.

*Waits*

Also, ID is essentially Creationism hid in another guise. It's been proven in the courts time and again. Kitzmiller v. Dover homes, read it sometime. ID just goes about saying Evolution is false in a much slower way, sorta similar to the way that glass windows will eventually start to lose it's form if you leave it alone for a long period of time. Hence my link to the wedge document.

I think the problem with the subject is terminology. 1048576 is right. It's all semantics. I don't believe in creationsim. In fact, I think Genesis is a total load. My idea of intelligent design is that, rather than a series of random events and chemical reactions leading to life and it's subsequent evolution, I think God or some other outside actor caused it. I think God, but my husband thinks it's little grey men from Zeta Reticuli. Neither of those necessarily exclude natural selection. Creationism and natural selection are incompatible, but ID and natural selection are not. Either way, some other intelligence designed life on this planet, in our view. Neither of those can be substantiated in any way that's meaningful to scientific education, so it's out of the question for the classroom.

Of course, none of this really has much to do with the actual topic, which was "Should intelligent design be taught in schools?" The answer, again, is a resounding "No." Despite the phraseology, Budget's point is valid and dead-on. The Bible means nothing to science. Only science should be taught in a science class.

This raises the question about what made the God, then who made that God, &c.

However, I won't start that fight, as it is beyond the scope of this thread.

I do agree with your last sentence though.

 

[1048576]

How can you agree with ss, but disagree with me. We're saying the same thing. He's claiming ID to be the exact same thing I've claimed it to be. IE not a synonym of cretonism.

(Only I don't think ID/potatoes is valid either.)

Riddle me this: what's the correct term for a belief that God, not natural selection, caused evolution to occur?

 

[thegreatkazoo]

How can you agree with ss, but disagree with me? We're saying the same thing. She's claiming ID to be the exact same thing I've claimed it to be, viz. not a synonym of creationism.

(Only I don't think ID/potatoes is valid either.)

Riddle me this: What's the correct term for a belief that God, not natural selection, caused evolution to occur?

Fixed for the grammar Nazis, but not really.

Try to limit typos and errors on your debating as a general rule of thumb. I just saw these when I read your point once.

I agreed with Spooky on the point that only science should be taught in a science classroom. Read the post again, I stated that explicitly.

For your question: I guess hitherto DI's creation it would be Intelligent Design. But that word has been so shamed and misused, I wouldn't recommend you use it (notwithstanding that it has no solid scientific backing, let alone any.)

However, I do feel the answer would be creationism. If natural selection didn't cause the diversity of life, an intelligent agent did (your words paraphrased on the last sentence.) If that's the case, who created the agent, and the agent who made that agent. I think you can tell this gets a little circular.

So you know, creationism is not limited to "God made the Earth in seven days." There are a good number of scientists (though it probably is not a majority), that believe God used evolution as the game plan of life in the universe, but I digress...

 

[1048576]

You silly goofball. Read the first reply to this thread. I hold that same position about science in science class.

The cretonism thing was a pun... albeit a pretty bad one.

So you want Creationism to have two different meanings? I'm confused.
As far as the whole who created the creator thing, I'm guessing religious folks assign special properties to God that differentiate him from a general "first cause."

 

[eschemat]

The whole premise of ID is that God is real. For us to teach ID in a perfectly factual matter, we have to prove in some way that some sort of god exists.

That's the debate tl;dr.

 

[professor mgw]

This is only going to turn into a "if god exist" thread.

Anyways, I don't think it should be taught in school, not because i think its wrong (I think its right actually) but because it isn't a topic that has been "proven false or true".

On that note I also think that evolution shouldn't be teached either, there is still much debate about it and it hasn't been proven as completely true. Also just a point, I'm in the 10th grade and they bring up evolution a lot. I've noticed that WHAT THEY TEACH is not evolution, but adaptation and mutation.

Also another note about myself: I belive in adaptation, not evolution. Why? Look at the darwin finches. They were still birds, they just adapted accordingly and at the end had different shape beaks. Same species in the end.

 

[GoldShadow]

professor mgw, I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. Moreover, there's no debate as to whether or not it happened. It did. It absolutely has been 'proven completely true.' The only uncertainties lie in certain very specific mechanisms regarding the process (not unlike the Big Bang... ie, we know it happened, but there are still some questions to be answered about the exact mechanisms that caused it).

 

[professor mgw]

professor mgw, I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what evolution is. Moreover, there's no debate as to whether or not it happened. It did. It absolutely has been 'proven completely true.' The only uncertainties lie in certain very specific mechanisms regarding the process (not unlike the Big Bang... ie, we know it happened, but there are still some questions to be answered about the exact mechanisms that caused it).

I didn't say what evolution was, I said what they teach in school is not evolution, it is adaptation, and a lot of the arguements I've seen on these threads only support adaptation and mutation, NOT evolution. But any this isn't a argument over wither evolution is real or not, so imah just drop this.

Back to the thread: I think this is a topic that should be left up to the student, If one idea is going to be taught, so should the other.

 

[GoldShadow]

I didn't say what evolution was, I said what they teach in school is not evolution, it is adaptation, and a lot of the arguements I've seen on these threads only support adaptation and mutation, NOT evolution.

Then, like I said, you don't understand evolution.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Note: I think Intelligent Design is a load of rubbish, but for the fun of it, I'll argue that it should be taught in schools. And all I'm saying here is entirely wrong, so it should be easy to tear apart.

Devil's Advocate Mode Time:

Intelligent Design is in no way religious. It states that an intelligent entity has designed some parts of life. It doesn't say what that entity is, it could be anything, Aliens, Time Travelers etc. It is a new scientific hypothesis that attempts to answer the question of how life evolved.

It's even supported by evidence. Irreducible complexity is where a certain structure is found in nature that cannot be broken down into smaller parts and still retain a function. Plenty of these cases have been found, the human immune system, and the bacterial flagellum are both examples of this. If you take one part out of either, they both become useless. How could these structures have evolved? They couldn't!

And after that, how can evolution create new information in the gene pool? Random mutations are damaging and are always detrimental. How can random mutations produce new coherent information.

Another interesting thing is, that genetic code is in fact a code, and codes can't form in nature, the only codes we know are the ones we produce. Languages, maps, symbols are all codes, and they're all man-made; created by an intelligent force. If DNA is a code, and all codes are produce by an intelligent force, then DNA must have been created by an intelligent force.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I didn't say what evolution was, I said what they teach in school is not evolution, it is adaptation, and a lot of the arguements I've seen on these threads only support adaptation and mutation, NOT evolution.

*facepalms*

Back to the thread: I think this is a topic that should be left up to the student, If one idea is going to be taught, so should the other.

....what? Your sentences clash here, with your first sentence saying it should be decided by a student, yet your second sentence is supporting forcing people to study ID.

@bob Jane

Those arguments left me speechless...

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Note: I think Intelligent Design is a load of rubbish, but for the fun of it, I'll argue that it should be taught in schools. And all I'm saying here is entirely wrong, so it should be easy to tear apart.

Devil's Advocate Mode Time:

Intelligent Design is in no way religious. It states that an intelligent entity has designed some parts of life. It doesn't say what that entity is, it could be anything, Aliens, Time Travelers etc. It is a new scientific hypothesis that attempts to answer the question of how life evolved.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/aa.htm Yes, there are people who have that position too, but I do not see them in the front line of this debate.

It's even supported by evidence. Irreducible complexity is where a certain structure is found in nature that cannot be broken down into smaller parts and still retain a function. Plenty of these cases have been found, the human immune system, and the bacterial flagellum are both examples of this. If you take one part out of either, they both become useless. How could these structures have evolved? They couldn't!

Problem with this logic is this, who created the creator? Another creator? If so what created that creator?

And after that, how can evolution create new information in the gene pool? Random mutations are damaging and are always detrimental. How can random mutations produce new coherent information.

The information is not always coherent and as a result you get a bad mutation. Bad mutations are a lot more frequent than good ones.

Another interesting thing is, that genetic code is in fact a code, and codes can't form in nature, the only codes we know are the ones we produce. Languages, maps, symbols are all codes, and they're all man-made; created by an intelligent force.

If DNA is a code, and all codes are produce by an intelligent force, then DNA must have been created by an intelligent force.

Mabey this is just me, but this argument sounds a lot like this. If I am wrong please explain why.

 

[gm jack]

It's even supported by evidence. Irreducible complexity is where a certain structure is found in nature that cannot be broken down into smaller parts and still retain a function. Plenty of these cases have been found, the human immune system, and the bacterial flagellum are both examples of this. If you take one part out of either, they both become useless. How could these structures have evolved? They couldn't!

Well, the flagellum are likely to have developed from ATPase similar to those found in mitochondria, as rotating mechanisms are very rare in nature.

The problem is that you are assuming irreducible complexity based on the current form. At an earlier stage of evolution., various systems may have not been necessary, and just a useful extra. However, as evolution has progresses, the systems already in place become utilised by other systems, making them more vital for life.

For example, the nervous system could just be used to rapidly transmit a signal in response to a single stimulus when it would be beneficial to react faster than chemical means. However, as nervous system develops, it becomes an indispensable part of the species. However, if it had never been developed, life would still exist, but it would be different based on the different past developments.

Irreducible complexity is only so if the rest of the organism stays as it is and is not taken back in the evolutionary tree as well.

And after that, how can evolution create new information in the gene pool? Random mutations are damaging and are always detrimental. How can random mutations produce new coherent information.

If you type a random series of letters (perfectly random, with each having a 1 in 26 chance of appearing every time), you would not be surprised if there are a few two letter words in there, possibly a three letter word.

If you do that for millions upon millions of letters, you are forming so many combinations that there may be a few simple sentences in there. Now, if you change any random letter to any other random letter, chances are, it probably won't affect any of the words that you can find. Occasionally, it will disrupt words that you had in the string of letters. However, very rarely, it will make a change that either changes the words in the letter, or indeed creates new ones.

I hope the analogies to genetics are fairly clear. Yes, most mutations do nothing, and most that do something are bad. However, if you do it enough times, a few will work out to be beneficial, wither by beneficially changing current information or being the "last piece of a puzzle" in a start or stop codon, allowing new codes to be transcribed.

Another interesting thing is, that genetic code is in fact a code, and codes can't form in nature, the only codes we know are the ones we produce. Languages, maps, symbols are all codes, and they're all man-made; created by an intelligent force. If DNA is a code, and all codes are produce by an intelligent force, then DNA must have been created by an intelligent force.

Well, wouldn't the genetic code be a code in nature? You can't remove all examples before saying that there are no cards. Be know that the other codes were created by an intelligent force, as we have records or other evidence that we did so. You can't extrapolate from human culture to biology.

 

[1048576]

Just because a scientific model is wrong, doesn't mean the religious model is right. Scientific models change all the time when new evidence is introduced. That's kind of how science works.

Although in this case you still have to clear the science-is-right hurdle.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Those arguments left me speechless...

In a good or bad way?

http://www.world-mysteries.com/aa.htm Yes, there are people who have that position too, but I do not see them in the front line of this debate.

So? That doesn't mean the hypothesis is religious. Football matches are attended by the religious, does that mean they're religious events?

Problem with this logic is this, who created the creator? Another creator? If so what created that creator?

We don't know, the creator could be infinitely old, he could be anything...

The information is not always coherent and as a result you get a bad mutation. Bad mutations are a lot more frequent than good ones.

But the mutations don't produce any new information. You can't do that without intelligence. Computers don't program themselves.

Mabey this is just me, but this argument sounds a lot like this. If I am wrong please explain why.

Well done, you've snapped that argument right in half

It's not a proof by example, it's an observation. The thing is all codes have been produced by an intelligent force, so it's reasonable to say that the genetic code was.

Well, the flagellum are likely to have developed from ATPase similar to those found in mitochondria, as rotating mechanisms are very rare in nature.

Yeah, that means that the designer designed the mechanism to work in that way. I need to see a step by step explanation of how it evolved.

The problem is that you are assuming irreducible complexity based on the current form. At an earlier stage of evolution., various systems may have not been necessary, and just a useful extra. However, as evolution has progresses, the systems already in place become utilised by other systems, making them more vital for life.

But we've never seen these earlier lifeforms evolve into the later ones. Where's the evidence? And how is a structure like the eye or the ear supposed to form by accident, it's so complex, I mean look at it. If you alter the ossicles only slightly, they don't work! If you mess around with the retina, then hey presto, you don't have an eye!

Irreducible complexity is only so if the rest of the organism stays as it is and is not taken back in the evolutionary tree as well.

See my above paragraph.

If you type a random series of letters (perfectly random, with each having a 1 in 26 chance of appearing every time), you would not be surprised if there are a few two letter words in there, possibly a three letter word.

If you do that for millions upon millions of letters, you are forming so many combinations that there may be a few simple sentences in there. Now, if you change any random letter to any other random letter, chances are, it probably won't affect any of the words that you can find. Occasionally, it will disrupt words that you had in the string of letters. However, very rarely, it will make a change that either changes the words in the letter, or indeed creates new ones.

I hope the analogies to genetics are fairly clear. Yes, most mutations do nothing, and most that do something are bad. However, if you do it enough times, a few will work out to be beneficial, wither by beneficially changing current information or being the "last piece of a puzzle" in a start or stop codon, allowing new codes to be transcribed.

Yeah, sure you'll get a few sentences or two, but not much, not enough to code an organism. When we look at an organism we see order, all your providing is chaos. I don't see how order can arise out of chaos.

Well, wouldn't the genetic code be a code in nature? You can't remove all examples before saying that there are no cards. Be know that the other codes were created by an intelligent force, as we have records or other evidence that we did so. You can't extrapolate from human culture to biology.

Provide me an example of a code occurring in nature. C'mon! It's a challenge.

Just because a scientific model is wrong, doesn't mean the religious model is right. Scientific models change all the time when new evidence is introduced. That's kind of how science works.

ID is not religious, how many times do I have to keep saying this!

 

[Dre89]

Spooky why did you mention that you think Genesis is rubbish? What does that have to do with anything?

And guys, stop with the "who created God?" argument. The cosmological argument arose because of this very problem of a contingent being the first cause. God clearly isn't a contingent being existing in time and space, so the question doesn't apply. That's the whole point of the cosmological argument, that only something self necessary outside of time and space can be the first cause.

 

[blazedaces]

Edit: Ignore this one please...