Intelligent design taught in schools

[Nicholas1024]

Dude, just because they can assume physical forms doesn't mean they were meant to be physical. God had appeared in physical forms several times (such as a burning bush), yet you say he was meant to nonphysical.

You obviously didn't read the stuff in parentheses, did you? Read it again and answer the question within.

And....



There is no official book for greek mythology. However, it's irrelevant

Irrelevant? The time between something happening and being written down is a big deal. Can you remember something that happened 20 years ago as well as you can remember something from yesterday? By your logic, "I claim Alexander was an alien. Since the time gap doesn't matter, this account should be just as credible as the real ones from way back when."

How do we know the people who wrote the bible aren't lying

Because they died for their beliefs. Thousands of first century Christians died for their faith. Do you really think they'd do that for a lie?

I now apply that to the bible. get@me.

Oh, we only have 4 seperate accounts corroborated by other historical sources, not to mention the people that wrote those accounts died for their beliefs.

See above.

Josephus, Tacitus, Talmud, QED.

Like what? Your new testament thread didn't convince me at all.

You: "Because jesus filled out all of the prophecies he was supposed to do in the OT, god exits"

You again: "Because the span of events-time written of the bible is much shorter than the documentation of alexander the great, god exists"

Could you twist my argument any more? The first one is accurate, but you took it out of context (where the context is, you know, the evidence behind the miracles). As for the second one...

Me: "Because the time gap between the events and the writing of the bible is much shorter than the documentation most historical sources, the new testament reflects the events as they happened."

"Treat others the way you want to be treated"

If you're going to troll me, don't expect me to give you complements.

Also, answer my law of conservation of energy point

God, being omnipotent, has an infinite pool of energy to draw from. He used this energy to create the universe. Now I apply the argument to you. If there is no God, where did the energy from the universe come from?

*snip*
I'm the one with double standards? You always give the Bible the most favorable interpretation, but you are nitpicking the Greek Gods instead of giving them a favorable interpretation as well. The Gods could be both physical and non physical, the Titans might be the same, they could have fought in both the physical and nonphysical realms, Mount Olympus might be on a different plane of existence, the Gods might be hiding Mount Olympus from us,
etc.

Are you finished making stuff up yet? Stuff should be taken to be literal unless clearly intended to be symbolic. Is there ANY evidence in greek mythology that Mount Olympus or any of that stuff ISN'T physical?

As for the writers, they have been lost in time (I mean, come on it's been thousands of years here). I'm pretty sure that our modern knowledge comes from multiple sources though. And why would anyone make this up? It's clear also that ancient Greeks believed in their Gods as well.

Your point? The Bible was 2000 years (and some parts are much older) ago, and we know the authors of almost every book of it. Also, "pretty sure" doesn't cut it. Sources or it didn't happen. As for why people would make it up, there were people who were famous for telling those sorts of stories. Fame and fortune for making up stuff sounds like a good idea to me. And I didn't ask it if they believed it, I asked if they would face certain death for it. Remember, the first century Christians would have KNOWN if Christianity was a lie and died for it anyway. Your greeks can't match that.

Also I'm on the wikipedia page for the Tower of Babel, and there is a quote from the Bible there that says that God "came down", which implies that he came from up (ie the sky), and also that he is physical and not omnipresent.

...
I can't believe you accused me of nitpicking earlier. This just defies all reason. Think of it as him forming a physical manifestation down near the tower of babel.

Also do you think the Tower of Babel happened literally, and that that is the reason that people speak different languages?

Yeah.

 

[freeman123]

Dre.
Any relationship between two beings will have a particular structure. For example, suppose that red and black were the only things that existed. How would they relate to each other? Would on half be red, and the other half black? Would there be random patches of red and random patches of black? Would the two colours be blended together to make one colour?

You see, the relationship between the two colours has a specific form, meaning that there must be a third principle which unifies them. That's why you can't have co-exitsing beings as the first cause. Even have co-existing things as the first cause means that they must be beings, because they're relational, and if the first cause is a being, then it shares traits with the contingent beings it actuates in the future, which makes no sense, because then it would have a contingent nature too.

I don't see why there would have to be a third thing that unifies them. That's another baseless assertion. I also don't see how this is an argument as to why it's impossible for two gods to co-exist. Even if I were to grant you that they would have to be relational, why would that make them unable to co-exist? That doesn't make any sense.

Dre.
That’s not building an argument of the original premise that you can’t have co-existing self-necessary beings, that’s explaining how I concluded the original premise of the impossibility of self-necessary being co-existing.

Okay, well based on that explanation, I don't agree that you're justified in concluding that two self-necessary beings couldn't possibly co-exist.

Dre.
Pantheism and atheism are different.

I didn't say that they weren't. I said that atheists at least believe that the Pantheist god exists; we just don't believe that it's a god. I was saying that, if he just thinks the universe is God, then are only disagreement is that we have different names for the universe. If he thinks that the universe has other characteristics, like that it's alive or intelligent, then we disagree on more.

Dre.
Looking at my above post, do you acknowledge now that I don't just make baseless assumptions?

No, because I still don't follow how you concluded that there could only possibly be one god.

Dre.
Happy birthday by the way lol.

Thankyou

 

[ballin4life]

God can't really make money, since money is the root of all evil (absence of God) and God is good.

Money is not the root of all evil. In fact, money is the source of a whole lot of good in the world. Without money we wouldn't have been able to have technological and economic advances. Humans would be stuck in the stone age if we had to barter for everything.

And plenty of people do evil things for non monetary reasons. Religion, for example, is a common "justification" for wars, violence etc.

You obviously didn't read the stuff in parentheses, did you? Read it again and answer the question within.


Irrelevant? The time between something happening and being written down is a big deal. Can you remember something that happened 20 years ago as well as you can remember something from yesterday? By your logic, "I claim Alexander was an alien. Since the time gap doesn't matter, this account should be just as credible as the real ones from way back when."


Because they died for their beliefs. Thousands of first century Christians died for their faith. Do you really think they'd do that for a lie?


Oh, we only have 4 seperate accounts corroborated by other historical sources, not to mention the people that wrote those accounts died for their beliefs.


Josephus, Tacitus, Talmud, QED.


Could you twist my argument any more? The first one is accurate, but you took it out of context (where the context is, you know, the evidence behind the miracles). As for the second one...

Me: "Because the time gap between the events and the writing of the bible is much shorter than the documentation most historical sources, the new testament reflects the events as they happened."


If you're going to troll me, don't expect me to give you complements.


God, being omnipotent, has an infinite pool of energy to draw from. He used this energy to create the universe. Now I apply the argument to you. If there is no God, where did the energy from the universe come from?



Are you finished making stuff up yet? Stuff should be taken to be literal unless clearly intended to be symbolic. Is there ANY evidence in greek mythology that Mount Olympus or any of that stuff ISN'T physical?


Your point? The Bible was 2000 years (and some parts are much older) ago, and we know the authors of almost every book of it. Also, "pretty sure" doesn't cut it. Sources or it didn't happen. As for why people would make it up, there were people who were famous for telling those sorts of stories. Fame and fortune for making up stuff sounds like a good idea to me. And I didn't ask it if they believed it, I asked if they would face certain death for it. Remember, the first century Christians would have KNOWN if Christianity was a lie and died for it anyway. Your greeks can't match that.


...
I can't believe you accused me of nitpicking earlier. This just defies all reason. Think of it as him forming a physical manifestation down near the tower of babel.


Yeah.

Ok, in case I'm being a little too misleading, I don't actually believe in the Greek Gods (duh). I'm just trying to point out that you are biased, as you treat the bible differently than you do Greek mythology. You want to claim that everything in Greek mythology should be taken literally, yet anything in the Bible that doesn't make sense should be interpreted favorably (Jesus seeing the whole world from a mountaintop, God being nonphysical but for some reason decides to form a physical manifestation that has to come "down" from heaven, Heaven being nonphysical etc).

How about Islam, or Buddhist teachings? Why don't you believe those? There are accounts of miracles, right?

 

[Nicholas1024]

Money is not the root of all evil. In fact, money is the source of a whole lot of good in the world. Without money we wouldn't have been able to have technological and economic advances. Humans would be stuck in the stone age if we had to barter for everything.

And plenty of people do evil things for non monetary reasons. Religion, for example, is a common "justification" for wars, violence etc.

Just wanted to point this out, but there's some major misunderstanding going on here. The quote is "The love of money is the root of all evil." Money by itself is in no way evil, without it our society couldn't survive. The love of money, on the other hand, is evil.

Ok, in case I'm being a little too misleading, I don't actually believe in the Greek Gods (duh). I'm just trying to point out that you are biased, as you treat the bible differently than you do Greek mythology. You want to claim that everything in Greek mythology should be taken literally, yet anything in the Bible that doesn't make sense should be interpreted favorably (Jesus seeing the whole world from a mountaintop, God being nonphysical but for some reason decides to form a physical manifestation that has to come "down" from heaven, Heaven being nonphysical etc).

How about Islam, or Buddhist teachings? Why don't you believe those? There are accounts of miracles, right?

There isn't the same type of evidence behind them. Before I'd consider believing any of those, I'd need some hard and fast evidence as to why those miracles shouldn't be taken as stories. I've posted time and time again my evidence behind the new testament, but what kind of evidence is behind those?

 

[ballin4life]

The love of money isn't really evil by itself. I mean plenty of people do great things for society because they want to make money from it. And it's still certainly not ALL evil.

 

[_Keno_]

Because they died for their beliefs. Thousands of first century Christians died for their faith. Do you really think they'd do that for a lie?.

If you are referring to the twelves disciples deaths, it hasnt even been proven that they existed. Earlier you posted an article of how they died, but it never gave sources, and you've cited theirs deaths as evidence many times.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see why there would have to be a third thing that unifies them. That's another baseless assertion. I also don't see how this is an argument as to why it's impossible for two gods to co-exist. Even if I were to grant you that they would have to be relational, why would that make them unable to co-exist? That doesn't make any sense.


Okay, well based on that explanation, I don't agree that you're justified in concluding that two self-necessary beings couldn't possibly co-exist.

This is what I've been talking about. You don't explain why it is basless. You need to provide a refutation for the point.

I didn't say that they weren't. I said that atheists at least believe that the Pantheist god exists; we just don't believe that it's a god. I was saying that, if he just thinks the universe is God, then are only disagreement is that we have different names for the universe. If he thinks that the universe has other characteristics, like that it's alive or intelligent, then we disagree on more.

Atheists don't believe in an pantheistic God, and just not call him that. Pantheism still permits divinty, atheism doesnt. Secondly, pantheism is restricted to assuming that the universe is eternal, because God must be, whereas atheists can argue that the world began at some point.

No, because I still don't follow how you concluded that there could only possibly be one god.

That doesn't make them baseless that just makes the arguments flawed (in your eyes). My argument is obviously far more complex than just the one discussion on the relationality of self-necessary beings, and I've explained other points in the past too, you just dismissed them as baseless without providing any reason for doing so.


This refers back to my discussion on the impossiblity of self-necessary beings co-existing. You need to explain what the logic is faulty, not just say that it's faulty.

Honestly, how am I supposed to reply to you if you don't refute my points? Am I just supposed to repeat the point? Or am I just suppsoed to say "OK, I guess I lose the debate then"?

 

[1048576]

Honestly, how am I supposed to reply to you if you don't refute my points? Am I just supposed to repeat the point? Or am I just suppsoed to say "OK, I guess I lose the debate then"?

That right there is religion in a nutshell. Nobody has to refute your points. You have to prove/provide evidence for them. You need to give your God more credence than unicorns, basically. I can sit here and say unicorns exist, and you can't demonstrate that they don't, but that's not good enough. The null hypothesis is the default position for precisely this reason.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

That right there is religion in a nutshell. Nobody has to refute your points. You have to prove/provide evidence for them. You need to give your God more credence than unicorns, basically. I can sit here and say unicorns exist, and you can't demonstrate that they don't, but that's not good enough. The null hypothesis is the default position for precisely this reason.

I thought we agreed a couple of months ago that the null hypothesis is misconstrued as its mathematical requirement to account for a population of n > 30 is not implemented when it comes to religious context. Also a sigma value isn't accounted for in relation to a number of other variables, therefore making it impossible to actually establish the hypothesis from its respected mathematical basis.

 

[Dre89]

That right there is religion in a nutshell. Nobody has to refute your points. You have to prove/provide evidence for them. You need to give your God more credence than unicorns, basically. I can sit here and say unicorns exist, and you can't demonstrate that they don't, but that's not good enough. The null hypothesis is the default position for precisely this reason.

I am providing evidence. If he doesn't accept it, he needs to show why it's unacceptable. If he doesn't, then he's not showing why atheism is logical.

So you're basically saying that no matter how good the theist argument is, the atheist just has to say it's bad, without explaining why, and they win the debate?

 

[Deleted member]

I'd hate to be mini-modding, but this thread has taken a turn which makes me a very sad panda (I throw in a joke, but it's true).

If you want to debate the existence of god, then make a thread about that.

If you want to debate whether or not the bible is correct, there already is a thread for that.

The debate of whether or not intelligent design should be taught in schools has very little to do with whether or not you can prove to another person here that god exists, so don't try to claim that this debate is relevant to intelligent design in schools.

If 100% of the people here believe intelligent design, that doesn't affect whether or not it should be taught in schools, the same goes the other way around.

 

[rvkevin]

Extending on what Puu said, can someone summarize the points in favor of the position that Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution in science classes?

 

[1048576]

I thought we agreed a couple of months ago that the null hypothesis is misconstrued as its mathematical requirement to account for a population of n > 30 is not implemented when it comes to religious context. Also a sigma value isn't accounted for in relation to a number of other variables, therefore making it impossible to actually establish the hypothesis from its respected mathematical basis.

Yeah, I'm obviously not using the statistical definition. Semantics bore me. If you want me to call it (the default truth value of not making any claims) the fluffy wigglesworth, I will. Just so we both know what I'm trying to say.

And Dre, no, no I'm not saying that. Could you design an experiment with at least one outcome that would prove your God false?

If you take the logical approach, someone can always disagree with your major premise, and then you just have to agree to disagree. The way to "win" is to make your premise agreeable to undecided observers.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not getting into this again, science isn't the only thing that concludes truths.

He still needs justification for saying my premises are false.

 

[ballin4life]

No, you need justification for your premises being true.

Also can you give an example of something other than science concluding truths? (I would argue that science doesn't conclude truth at all, and that the only truth is mathematics/logic, but I'm curious what you think).

 

[Dre89]

The fact we concluded that science is good wasn't concluded by science.

That our perception correlates to reality.

Morals.

The list goes on.

 

[ballin4life]

1) I'd argue that we haven't concluded that our perception correlates to reality, but it depends on what exactly you mean.

2) Morals are not truths ... I'm not sure what you're saying here.

3) One might argue that we concluded that science is good through science. I mean, this comes down to the problem of induction (science is basically just inductive reasoning). We believe in inductive reasoning because it's always worked before.

Could you perhaps lay out exactly how we concluded these things?

 

[Dre89]

1) I'd argue that we haven't concluded that our perception correlates to reality, but it depends on what exactly you mean.

When you see a table, do you believe that a table is really there?

2) Morals are not truths ... I'm not sure what you're saying here.

That is a massive assumption that needs justification. Even if you argue that there are no morals, that in itself is a moral truth.

Regardless, none of this is concluded by science.

3) One might argue that we concluded that science is good through science. I mean, this comes down to the problem of induction (science is basically just inductive reasoning). We believe in inductive reasoning because it's always worked before.

If we assume science is inductive reasoning, then using inductive reasoning to show that inducitive reasoning is good is ciruclar.


By that logic, we can use the Bible to prove the Bible is true.

Could you perhaps lay out exactly how we concluded these things?

This will explain it-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

 

[ballin4life]

1) Yes I believe that a table is there, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

2) I'm still not sure what you're saying about morals. Can you define morals, and say what moral truths there are?

3) Yes it is circular reasoning. That's why I don't think science is truth.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I don't know where my keys are. Does that mean that I can't assert that they aren't on the moon?

Depends. I keep my Galactic Federation Star Ship on the moon. I usually keep the keys on Alpha 5 guarded by a renowned Stalartarian mercenary.

 

[_Keno_]

Science is not "good", it is only a process to gain information. What information we get and how we use it may be considered "good" or "bad", science itself is neither good nor bad. Science has never concluded to be good by anyone or anything.

Dre., can you explain how some morals are truths? And how moral truths exist? I see no obvious reason to assume that morals can be truths, so show us that they are.

 

[freeman123]

Sorry that I haven't responded in a while. I haven't had a lot of time to get on the computer lately. I don't have much time right now. I just wanted to respond to something real quick.

Dre.
This is what I've been talking about. You don't explain why it is basless. You need to provide a refutation for the point.

The reason why I say that they're baseless assertions is because they're unproven claims. For example, you said that if two things co-exist they have to be relational, and so they need a third thing to exist in order to see how the other two are relational. That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, then wouldn't there have to be a fourth thing to see how the third thing is relational to the first two, and so on and so on.... By that logic, an infinite number of things would have to exist at all times, or there could never be more than one thing.

Also, your reason why red and black are relational to each other seemed to be that some things are red and some things are black. That doesn't explain how the two are relational.

 

[Dre89]

Cheap Peach- You're missing the point. I'm not going to forumlate an entire argument for morals here, but I don't need to. Even if you conclude that there are no morals, that itself is a moral truth. The point is, whether you believe that morals exist or not, your conclusion was not concluded with science.

Sorry that I haven't responded in a while. I haven't had a lot of time to get on the computer lately. I don't have much time right now. I just wanted to respond to something real quick.


The reason why I say that they're baseless assertions is because they're unproven claims. For example, you said that if two things co-exist they have to be relational, and so they need a third thing to exist in order to see how the other two are relational. That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, then wouldn't there have to be a fourth thing to see how the third thing is relational to the first two, and so on and so on.... By that logic, an infinite number of things would have to exist at all times, or there could never be more than one thing.

You just showed exactly why the first cause must be unified. The infinite regress is exactly why you can't have co-existing self-necessary beings, because then an infinite regress entails. All you have done is strengthened my point. That's exactly why the first cause must be unified, or singular, because there is no relationship that necessitates another co-existing principle.

Also, your reason why red and black are relational to each other seemed to be that some things are red and some things are black. That doesn't explain how the two are relational.

No, again you're misunderstanding the anology. In the anology, nothing exists except redness and balckness. Red and black things do not exist, because things don't exist. Blackness and redness can relate in a number of ways, it could be half red and half balck, blotches of each, a blend of the two colours etc.

What this shows is that the relationship has a specific form, which means there must be a specific principle in existence which allows for this specific form of relationship. Of course, there then must be another principle which epxlains the unity of the first three things, entailing an infinite regress.

I don't have baseless assertions, that would mean I have no premises for my conclusion, but I did, you just think they're bad. That's a flawed argument, not baseless assertions.

While I disagree with what you have said, and I still think you misunderstand the point, you're at least attempting to use logic now to refute my points. Had you done this the entire time, without the Dawkins crap, I would have recommended you for the DH in the Jedi Council by now.

 

[_Keno_]

Cheap Peach- You're missing the point. I'm not going to formulate an entire argument for morals here, but I don't need to. Even if you conclude that there are no morals, that itself is a moral truth. The point is, whether you believe that morals exist or not, your conclusion was not concluded with science.

Ugh, you are the one missing the point. You said that:

The fact we concluded that science is good wasn't concluded by science.

My response was that science was never concluded by anything to be either good or bad. You and ballastics are incorrect in thinking this.
Science is nothing more than a means to acquire information (with logic and mathematics being the other two ways). There are no premises or reasonings needed to conclude that certain processes of finding information (science) can find information, its just a fact.

People have asked this a few times already, but can you define what you call a "moral truth"? Your definition seems to be different from what I'm used to. I cant really respond to anything without knowing exactly what you mean.

 

[ballin4life]

Can you explain why this only applies to Gods? Why aren't there an infinite number of things because of the existence of me and my chair? There is still a relationship between me and my chair.

Also, suppose there exists God1 and God2. Can you give an example of what a relationship between them might be, and why that constitutes another entity that then has its own relationship to each?

 

[Dre89]

You don't need an infinite number of principles for the relationship between you and your chair because you have a God, God unites being, God is the principle, but because God is unified or singular, and there are no other co-existing self necessary beings, there is no extra principle needed to explain God.

Cheap Peach- I don't understand why you're asking about moral truths, it's not related to anything.

With regards to your opinion on science, I'll post a link answering it next time I'm on the computer, though I already posted it another thread.

 

[_Keno_]

The fact we concluded that science is good wasn't concluded by science....
Morals.

Cheap Peach- You're missing the point. I'm not going to forumlate an entire argument for morals here, but I don't need to. Even if you conclude that there are no morals, that itself is a moral truth. The point is, whether you believe that morals exist or not, your conclusion was not concluded with science.

Cheap Peach- I don't understand why you're asking about moral truths, it's not related to anything.

I dont understand why you keep using words like "moral" and "moral truths" if it has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Dre89]

The point is morals truths, whether we believe objective mroals exist are not, are conclusions we make that not based on science whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether you think morals are true or not, whatever conclusion you make about mroals, it was done outside of science.

Morals were brought up because I was showing that we accept many things to be true that we don't apply science for.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Dre, can you show me an example of something that has been proven without science?

 

[Dre89]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

 

[_Keno_]

The point is moral truths, whether we believe objective morals exist are not, are conclusions we make that not based on science whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether you think morals are true or not, whatever conclusion you make about morals, it was done outside of science.

Morals were brought up because I was showing that we accept many things to be true that we don't apply science for.

Ah, I see what you mean now. However, I do not see the relevance. Neither science nor morality give truths.

And conclusions about morality, at least I think so, can very well be made using science. I've actually been thinking about making a thread for this since I joined the proving grounds.

 

[Dre89]

The only conclusions science can give about morality are conclusions of descriptive ethics (that is, what people in general think about ethics, as opposed to normative ethics, which is what people should think about ethics). Even then, that's more sociology than science.

Then there's the argument that humans just evolved morality for the purpose of social bonds and to sustain communities. Problem is it's actually a philosophical argument, people just mistake it for a scientific argument simply because the majority of people who apply it are scientists.

 

[Photos]

intelliegent design in this case is not religious, and, as a largely accepted theory of how the universe began, should be taught alongside other theories of the begining of the universe.

 

[Ganonsburg]

No, intelligent design should not be taught in schools in a science course. Science classes are meant to discuss science, not disputed theories. At best, the disputed theories can be a mention at the end of the book for those students who would like to do some reading and research on their own.

However, when I say that science classes are meant to discuss science, what do I mean? I mean, they should discuss science (systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation), the scientific process, applications of this knowledge in the real world, and such topics as that.

Now, the problem here is that science comes from observation. So no ID, because we couldn't observe it and the ideas in ID are ones of faith (which, in and of itself is not an issue, because people are entitled to their beliefs...but faith is a belief or trust that is independent of physical proof, whereas science is dependent on proof). However, this also means that biological molecules-to-man evolution can not be taught as well.

Before I go on, it is important to notice what I said there. Biological molecules-to-man evolution (macro-evolution). I'm talking about humans being descendants of monkey-like animals, who were descendants of something else, etc. If you define evolution as gradual changes in organisms over time, then I am not arguing with you.

Now, if you define evolution as any change in an organism's DNA, then yes, it has been shown to happen and be true. The process of natural selection, by which organisms that survive have desirable aspects that enabled them to survive, and because they survived they are able to pass on those aspects to their offspring. This process does show differences in DNA from generation to generation because undesirable traits are weeded out little by little. I would not personally call it evolution, and as such when I use the word evolution it will not be in reference to natural selection.

However, in molecules-to-man evolution, what is being discussed are the changes that may or may not have happened in the past. What these evolutionists do is they look at what exists now, and they look at fossils, and they try to fill in the blanks. So what they are doing is trying to reconstruct a history. This history was not observed, and can not be replicated through experimentation (see above paragraph before saying anything about natural selection).

What does this mean? It means that molecules-to-man evolution should not be taught as a science, for it is not a science by any means. It is one attempt of many to explain the origins of the universe. Like the other explanations, it can not be "proven," experimented on, replicated in a lab, or observed.

Instead, what should be taught in classes are such things that can be observed, such as micro-evolution or the aforementioned natural selection. Scientists can and do breed a variety of animals, from fish to flies to dogs and so on. Their findings show that animals change in their genetic material over time, but their findings do not show new species being made. Only variations of existing species, such as fish growing larger, squirrels changing color, or flies growing extra appendages (useless copies of already existing body parts).

 

[Violence]

While I agree with you, Ganonsburg, that ID should not be taught in schools, I find it a bit necessary to argue with a few of your points.

First off, from what I understand, there are several points of contention with the biological model of the origin, and diversity of life.

The first one is abiogenesis, in which molecules in a primordial Earth came together to make more complex molecules, which then came together to make the first cells.

The next is macroevolution, how those cells developed into different types of single-celled organisms, then became multicellular organisms, then became diverse multicellular organisms that populated the planet.

Next after that would be speciation, or how the organisms that populated the planet diversified even further into a multitude of species.

And finally microevolution, or the change of gene frequencies within a population.


Microevolution and speciation are both quite well documented, while macroevolution and abiogenesis are not.

However, the driving principle for macroevolution is the same as that of microevolution and speciation.



I like to use the analogy of general relativity, and how there are many parts of its theory that we cannot observe, nor test, but because it is built upon the logical application of existing, supported theory, we accept it as science.

In the same way, because we can observe and test things in present day, we can affirm the theory of evolution and its driving principles, and thus use them to describe the full diversity of life. This application is not without support, however, as it is also supported by not only the fossil record, but also supported by the similarities and differences in the genome from species to species, genus to genus, family to family, order to order, class to class, and so on.

And because there is overwhelming support in its favor to the point that the biological scientific community cannot find fault with its overall governing principles(but still do argue on small specifics of individual cases, as is the case with most sciences), it is deemed a scientific theory, the theory of Evolution, which is why it is taught in schools. We have a working explanation for the diversity of life.



Abiogenesis, the origin of life, a completely different beast which is much more heavily argued over, to the point where there is no current standard model for the explanation of it. The principles of Abiogenesis are completely different from those of Evolution, we cannot apply principles of Evolution here. That is why Abiogenesis is not as established, that is why we know so much less about it, and that's also why a mechanism of Abiogenesis is not taught in schools.

 

[GwJ]

Here's simply my thoughts:

Science class is for science

Theology class is for religion



Who's to say we can't have both? However what we DON'T see is Science integrated into theology class, why should we get theology integrated in science class?

 

[Ganonsburg]

While I agree with you, Ganonsburg, that ID should not be taught in schools, I find it a bit necessary to argue with a few of your points.

That's good, but the bigger point was that we should only teach science in our science classes. Please re-read the definition of science, and take special note on the observation and experimentation part of the definition. Those are two of the biggest points, and macroevolution simply does not satisfy that definition.

Microevolution and speciation are both quite well documented, while macroevolution and abiogenesis are not.

However, the driving principle for macroevolution is the same as that of microevolution and speciation.

I like to use the analogy of general relativity, and how there are many parts of its theory that we cannot observe, nor test, but because it is built upon the logical application of existing, supported theory, we accept it as science.

In the same way, because we can observe and test things in present day, we can affirm the theory of evolution and its driving principles, and thus use them to describe the full diversity of life. This application is not without support, however, as it is also supported by not only the fossil record, but also supported by the similarities and differences in the genome from species to species, genus to genus, family to family, order to order, class to class, and so on.

Could you provide examples of those things we cannot observe nor test? As far as I know, general relativity has been tested extensively over the past century. While there are things we can not see directly or measure directly, we can use principles we already have established to measure the unseeable. For example, the Michelson-Morley experiment. They were trying to measure something (ether/aether) that scientists claimed permeated space without impeding the motion of everything in it, yet was still "more rigid than steel" to allow light to travel along it. Yet, knowing the properties of waves that were properly established in classical mechanics, they were able to show that no such thing as ether exists.

This is hugely different than the case with microevolution, speciation, and macroevolution. Macroevolution, while it derives itself from microevolution and speciation, cannot be shown in labs because macroevolution, by definition, needs long periods of time. Because there are no records from earlier to compare and see how microevolution and speciation summed up to be macroevolution over time, it is really impossible to say much about it scientifically. The bottom line is that macroevolution is unobservable in any way, which is not scientific.

Furthermore, simply because there is a fossil record and similarity between all kinds of organisms does not only support macroevolution. Biblical Creation Scientists will argue that the fossil record is evidence of a global flood, and that the similarity between organisms are evidence to a common creator. My point isn't to argue Creation vs. Evolution, but to point out that those two pieces of evidence can be interpreted differently and by no means point conclusively to any one theory (at this point in time).

And because there is overwhelming support in its favor to the point that the biological scientific community cannot find fault with its overall governing principles(but still do argue on small specifics of individual cases, as is the case with most sciences), it is deemed a scientific theory, the theory of Evolution, which is why it is taught in schools. We have a working explanation for the diversity of life.

Yet support by the scientific community does not translate into it being any more observable.

 

[Violence]

It's true that a fact is often something observably, and testably true, however, a fact is also a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.

I'm not much of a physicist, so please forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't believe we have test or observed length contraction, though it is part of special relativity.

I'd like to note, first off, that the two explanations you gave for the fossil record and the genetic map of animal species both use supernatural means to explain natural phenomena(the former because we have no documentation of what happened to all the water after the flood, and the latter because it involves a supernatural designer).

Science does not use supernatural means to explain natural phenomena, because that has no predictive power and undermines the purpose of science. However, if you can come up with another naturalistic theory that explains the existence of those two things I mentioned, then I believe you would be able to make a case. Other scientists have done exactly that in the past, but the fundamental principle of descent through modification has stood unchanged.



And I would like to stress that you cannot dismiss macroevolution without dismissing speciation and microevolution. They operate on the same, exact driving principles, and they are all a part of the theory of Evolution. If you dismiss one, you dismiss all of it.


It is like the theory of Gravity. We can observe and test how less massive object fall toward more massive objects, and we can observe smaller object revolving around the earth.

Now, we have the Sun. We know that there is relative movement between the Sun and the Earth, we see the Sun rise and fall every day.

Because we understand the underlying principles of gravity, we can conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun.

However, a modern geocentrist would of course beg to differ, saying that the evidence for the Earth revolving around the sun instead supports the theory that the major celestial bodies in the universe orbit the Earth, including the Sun.

We know his theory violates the fundamental, testable laws that have to explain how gravity works, we don't have to go out into space and observe the Earth revolving around the sun in order to be able to declare a heliocentric solar system as fact.



Just as we are able to make measurements and obtain evidence without having to actually go out into space and watch the Earth travel around the Sun, we can make measurements and obtain evidence without actually having to travel back in time and watch evolution occur.


It's the same with our own solar system's formation. We have theory on how that happened, but that isn't any less factual than things that we can observe and test either, even though we can't go back and test it. It's because of the underlying principles that we already know very well, and supporting evidence that we've found.


EDIT: Oops, forgot one last point.

In the scientific community, it is very rare that you can prove that something is true.

A scientific theory is an idea that has withstood the scrutiny of many opposing arguments, ideas, and, most importantly, evidence. It is no small matter to have the support of the entire scientific community behind you. When something does have that support, it is usually quite robust.

Though I don't mean to make an appeal to authority, it just bothered me that you took it so lightly.

 

[Photos]

No, intelligent design should not be taught in schools in a science course. Science classes are meant to discuss science, not disputed theories. At best, the disputed theories can be a mention at the end of the book for those students who would like to do some reading and research on their own.

very quickly, i'd like to say Intelligent design is not, as some say, a religion, or part of religion, it is in fact a theory. this means that as a largely accepted theory, like the theory of evolution, ID should be taught as well. Not as a "Accept Jesus into your heart" or "Believe in Buddha" type of thing, simply as a theory. just like how evolution should be taught, as a theory.

Science as it advances, is comprised more and more of theories. thus science class is already comprised of theories being taught to students. why should ID be treated differently?

 

[GwJ]

Intelligent Design is a religious notion though. The only reason we have the theory is because religious texts have told us so.