ID and the like VS. Evolution. (1 Viewer)

[The Mark]

IMO, the current trial about ID, and all the past trials we have seen or read about, would have been avoided if the schools taught nothing except the facts and let the children's parents teach them the conclusions they want them to make.

 

[robin]

IMO, the current trial about ID, and all the past trials we have seen or read about, would have been avoided if the schools taught nothing except the facts and let the children's parents teach them the conclusions they want them to make.

What is ID ?
Evolution is a fact. It occurs.

 

[Kandahar]

IMO, the current trial about ID, and all the past trials we have seen or read about, would have been avoided if the schools taught nothing except the facts and let the children's parents teach them the conclusions they want them to make.

"Schools should teach Evolution" and "Schools should teach only the facts and let kids and their parents make their own conclusions" are essentially the same poll options.

In most parts of the country, schools ARE teaching the facts and letting children's parents teach them their interpretations, yet we are having these controversies anyway. It is the places like Kansas and Ohio where the religious zealots have infiltrated school boards that are polluting their curriculum with non-factual material in science classes.

 

[Vandeervecken]

The idea that somehow ID and evolution on are par is laughable. Evolution is a theory, in fact the only working theory out there. ID is nothing more than an hypothesis lacking any evidence whatsoever. It is Biblical creationism in drag. Big news, when you put a pig in a dress, it remains a pig.

 

[The Mark]

Hmm. I suppose my point of view was that both Evolution and it's opposite were theories. Therefore, they should not be taught as fact. Of course, I may be uninformed about the exact situation currently, but it appears that some parents didn't like their kids being told of the opposing view of universe origin.

It seemed to me that if schools taught only the established facts, then the parents couldn't complain. What seems to have happend in the recent case, however, is that a school tried to teach both sides of the issue, which made some parents mad.

Now, I know that some of you believe that Evolution is the only valid theory, and some believe that some "ID" or the like is behind it all.

Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they prove their theory.

Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they disprove the other sides theory.

In my view, however, schools should have no text books that mention either evolution or some other theory. The text book should present ONLY the facts, with no mention of theories. Or at the very least, a separate book that presents all sides of the issue. It would seem that this would allow the children and their parents to sit down and have a discussion about it, so each child would have the view his parents wanted. Thus, there would be no court battles about it.

Meh. That might not make sense, but it's what I was thinking, so here it is.

Tear it apart and jump on it if you like.

 

[tecoyah]

This one is a "No Brainer"....literally...heh

 

[The Mark]

The idea that somehow ID and evolution on are par is laughable. Evolution is a theory, in fact the only working theory out there. ID is nothing more than an hypothesis lacking any evidence whatsoever. It is Biblical creationism in drag. Big news, when you put a pig in a dress, it remains a pig.

I've come into contact with various forms of communication media that presented facts that (they said) partially proved that their was some ID or the like.

In my mind, one of three things are possible.
1. Evolution is the correct theory.
2. Creationism, ID, or something like it is the correct theory.
3. Some other theory, not yet presented by anyone, that encompasses all of this things or presents a whole new outlook on it.....Or some combination of that.

And actually, a pig in a dress would look worse than just a plain pig. lol.:rofl

 

[Kandahar]

Hmm. I suppose my point of view was that both Evolution and it's opposite were theories. Therefore, they should not be taught as fact. Of course, I may be uninformed about the exact situation currently, but it appears that some parents didn't like their kids being told of the opposing view of universe origin.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it's the closest thing to a fact there is (gravity and relativity are also theories). Intelligent design is not a theory, is based on pseudoscience, and makes no testable predictions. Teaching both or teaching neither implies that there is some kind of scientific controversy, when there is not. Evolution is accepted by nearly all scientists, while intelligent design has simply been forced into some science curricula by religious extremists with no scientific background.

It seemed to me that if schools taught only the established facts, then the parents couldn't complain.

Evolution IS an established fact.

Now, I know that some of you believe that Evolution is the only valid theory, and some believe that some "ID" or the like is behind it all.

Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they prove their theory.

Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they disprove the other sides theory.

That just requires ignoring the evidence. Evolution is a fact, period. Nearly all scientists agree on this. If there was a legitimate controversy, one would expect the scientific community to be more evenly split on the issue.

In my view, however, schools should have no text books that mention either evolution or some other theory. The text book should present ONLY the facts, with no mention of theories.

Since science is almost nothing except theories, the science books would be blank.

Or at the very least, a separate book that presents all sides of the issue. It would seem that this would allow the children and their parents to sit down and have a discussion about it, so each child would have the view his parents wanted. Thus, there would be no court battles about it.

There are NOT multiples "sides of the issue," at least from a scientific perspective. Just because a loud, obnoxious group of people with no understanding of science want to bully their unscientific beliefs into the science books, doesn't mean that there are multiple sides of the issue that honest scientists disagree on. Nearly ALL scientists accept evolution.

If we taught "both sides" of the evolution/ID issue, we may as well also teach both sides of the astronomy/astrology, chemistry/alchemy, physics/magic, and Big Bang/universe-is-resting-on-a-giant-turtles-back controversies.

 

[Diogenes]

Hmm. I suppose my point of view was that both Evolution and it's opposite were theories. Therefore, they should not be taught as fact. Of course, I may be uninformed about the exact situation currently, but it appears that some parents didn't like their kids being told of the opposing view of universe origin.

Personally, I don't see that there is necessarily a conflict between evolution and ID. Evolution only addresses the question of how the world we know came to be, and completely ignores the question of why it happened.

Suppose you accept the current theory of the origin of the universe: the void; the Big Bang; stars coalescing from the dust; other dust coalescing into planets; the planets cool; volcanic gases erupt and the rain falls; life begins to occur in the oceans; some ocean life moves onto the land; and so on. Suppose further that you were to go back in time some 4000 years and try to explain this to a shepherd on a hilltop. Suppose also that the shepherd is intelligent and articulate, but is illiterate, has no mathematics beyond counting, and has never been more than ten miles from where he was born.

Question: how does the shepherd explain your theory to his family and friends? I suggest that the story would come out looking very much like Genesis.

Now turn the question around and ask also, since the nineteenth century naturalists were raised on Genesis, did their early training influence how they interpreted their observations?

 

[Tashah]

Evolution is considered a valid science and is therefore taught as part of the science syllabus. Intelligent Design on the other hand, is regarded as a pseudoscience (ie. astrology, perpetual motion, clairvoyance etc). Teaching ID in schools amounts to nothing more than antagonizing valid science with a religious/philosophical pseudocscience. Another problem would be a blitzkrieg of lawsuits against school boards, as other pseudosciences such as pyramidology and dianetics would demand an equal alternative-education status.

 

[MrFungus420]

Hmm. I suppose my point of view was that both Evolution and it's opposite were theories. Therefore, they should not be taught as fact. Of course, I may be uninformed about the exact situation currently, but it appears that some parents didn't like their kids being told of the opposing view of universe origin.

In order for something to be theory, then there must be evidence that supports it. The best that I've ever seen from those who advocate Intelligent Design is trying to point out possible flaws in evolution. They have never put forth anything resembling evidence that supports ID.

It seemed to me that if schools taught only the established facts, then the parents couldn't complain. What seems to have happend in the recent case, however, is that a school tried to teach both sides of the issue, which made some parents mad.

That's because there really aren't two sides to the issue. There is evolution, which is a theory and has evidence to support it, and there is ID, which only has any validity if you follow a monotheistic religion with a creation story that parallels that seen in Genesis in the Bible.

Now, I know that some of you believe that Evolution is the only valid theory, and some believe that some "ID" or the like is behind it all.

Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they prove their theory.

Nope, there is no evidence that I've been shown that supports ID. Only attempts to use possible flaws in evolution to say that since they found something that they think is wrong about evolution, the entirety of evolution is wrong, therefore, ID is right.

Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they disprove the other sides theory.

Again, you don't quite seem to understand. Evolution doesn't try to disprove ID. All that evolution tries to do is to fit the observed facts. It's just trying to establish an explanation. ID, on the other hand, seems to be soley concerned with disproving evolution, instead of trying to prove itself.

In my view, however, schools should have no text books that mention either evolution or some other theory. The text book should present ONLY the facts, with no mention of theories. Or at the very least, a separate book that presents all sides of the issue. It would seem that this would allow the children and their parents to sit down and have a discussion about it, so each child would have the view his parents wanted. Thus, there would be no court battles about it.

Meh. That might not make sense, but it's what I was thinking, so here it is.

Tear it apart and jump on it if you like.

The problem that seems to come into play most is the misunderstanding of what a theory actually is.

This is the best summation of the difference between theory and law that I've found (from http://wilstar.com/theories.htm):

"In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole."

 

[MrFungus420]

Personally, I don't see that there is necessarily a conflict between evolution and ID. Evolution only addresses the question of how the world we know came to be, and completely ignores the question of why it happened.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, the Earth, or even life. Evolution deals with the change of genetics over time.

Why does there have to be a reason? You assume that there must be one, so there must be an explanation of that reason. The reason doesn't need to be one that ives our lives meaning. The why can be nothing more than the point that conditions were right.

Think of it this way, if you trip, why do you fall? Because of gravity, not because some intelligent force made you fall.

Suppose you accept the current theory of the origin of the universe: the void; the Big Bang; stars coalescing from the dust; other dust coalescing into planets; the planets cool; volcanic gases erupt and the rain falls; life begins to occur in the oceans; some ocean life moves onto the land; and so on.

Ok...

Suppose further that you were to go back in time some 4000 years and try to explain this to a shepherd on a hilltop.

Now, here is where you make the jump. You are making the assumption that someone tried to explain what they had done.

Suppose also that the shepherd is intelligent and articulate, but is illiterate, has no mathematics beyond counting, and has never been more than ten miles from where he was born.

Question: how does the shepherd explain your theory to his family and friends? I suggest that the story would come out looking very much like Genesis.

Why would he want to bother with such a ridiculous story, anyway? It obviously would have nothing to do with his life.

Now turn the question around and ask also, since the nineteenth century naturalists were raised on Genesis, did their early training influence how they interpreted their observations?

Making it even more amazing that they, Darwin in particular, could even begin to think of an idea like evolution. Something that fits what was seen, but went against all teaching at the time.

 

[Diogenes]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, the Earth, or even life. Evolution deals with the change of genetics over time.

Agreed, evolution has nothing to do with why, only the mechanics of how. Even so, it is a theory with problems that have not been addressed.

Why does there have to be a reason? You assume that there must be one, so there must be an explanation of that reason. The reason doesn't need to be one that ives our lives meaning. The why can be nothing more than the point that conditions were right.

I assume nothing, but I do not begrudge those who do seek a reason.

Think of it this way, if you trip, why do you fall? Because of gravity, not because some intelligent force made you fall.

Good analogy to evolution, because it did not address the question of why you tripped.

Now, here is where you make the jump. You are making the assumption that someone tried to explain what they had done.

No, I merely propose a hypothesis, like the theory of evolution itself. If the story were repeated in a form much like Genesis, then there is no essential conflict between biblical and "scientific" accounts except for the timeline.

Why would he want to bother with such a ridiculous story, anyway? It obviously would have nothing to do with his life.

Humans have always wondered why the world is as it is. For example, why do you concern yourself with evolution?

Making it even more amazing that they, Darwin in particular, could even begin to think of an idea like evolution. Something that fits what was seen, but went against all teaching at the time.

The point is that evolution does NOT conflict with the teachings of the time, except for the timeline.

 

[Dogger807]

Why do proponents of id and creationism always start their arguments by misdefining theory? Do they think people are too stupid to catch on to this?

The arguments are always." I see this flaw in the established theories and offer up this have baked reason why it's flawed. Since there is this flaw the whole theory must be wrong and my point of view is right without the benefit of supporting evidence." That's all they do , every time. The words change but the pattern is always there.

They have no support for their conjecture except supposed flaws in science. Nothing for their "theories" (and I use the term very loosesly.) to stand on by themselves.

 

[DeeJayH]

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means it's the closest thing to a fact there is (gravity and relativity are also theories). Intelligent design is not a theory, is based on pseudoscience, and makes no testable predictions. Teaching both or teaching neither implies that there is some kind of scientific controversy, when there is not. Evolution is accepted by nearly all scientists, while intelligent design has simply been forced into some science curricula by religious extremists with no scientific background..

and the Scientific Community has never been wrong :roll:
Neither theories on the origin of the universe are based on fact
therefor neither should be taught in school
you want to teach evolution which can be proven, be my guest
keep your religion/atheism out of my kids classroom
school is not meant to indoctrinate my kid into a religion or lack there of

 

[nkgupta80]

Agreed, evolution has nothing to do with why, only the mechanics of how. Even so, it is a theory with problems that have not been addressed.

evolution explains why up to a point, just like all science. Nothing in science can explain the existence of matter and energy, why it is here. Nothing can explain why the universe is here. What it can explain is how it works. The rest is up to philosophy. But to say that we must teach ID because evolution doesn't explain why is bogus..

 

[DeeJayH]

Why do proponents of id and creationism always start their arguments by misdefining theory? Do they think people are too stupid to catch on to this?

The arguments are always." I see this flaw in the established theories and offer up this have baked reason why it's flawed. Since there is this flaw the whole theory must be wrong and my point of view is right without the benefit of supporting evidence." That's all they do , every time. The words change but the pattern is always there.

They have no support for their conjecture except supposed flaws in science. Nothing for their "theories" (and I use the term very loosesly.) to stand on by themselves.

nothing but the stories passed down from generation to generation for 1000's of years since God informed his people how they came to be
you will come to find that enough people on this earth have a hard time knowing they were created accidentally by their parents (condom broke) but than to lump on top of it, the fact that humanities entire existence is but a Universal accident as well
a double oops
you are meaningless and have no reason
you are nothing but a random occurence

where are all the other accidents in the universe, why, so far, are we the only intelligent life forms anywhere?

 

[Kandahar]

and the Scientific Community has never been wrong :roll:

Well, certainly a lot less frequently than the religious community. :roll:
If that's your attitude, why bother teaching any science at all? Why single evolution out?

Neither theories on the origin of the universe are based on fact

Evolution makes testable hypotheses and fits the preponderance of the evidence better than any other explanation. It is the foundation for modern biology and pharmacology, and is accepted by nearly all scientists. Intelligent design offers NOTHING that can even be tested, and therefore is not scientific.

Just because you don't WANT to believe it doesn't mean that evolution is wrong.

therefor neither should be taught in school
you want to teach evolution which can be proven, be my guest
keep your religion/atheism out of my kids classroom
school is not meant to indoctrinate my kid into a religion or lack there of

Please show me any biology book that is widely used in public schools that makes the claim that there is no god, and evolution disproves the possibility of a god. You won't find one. Stop making **** up. It is YOU who is forcing your religion on everyone else by denying them access to valuable scientific information.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Hmm. I suppose my point of view was that both Evolution and it's opposite were theories. Therefore, they should not be taught as fact. Of course, I may be uninformed about the exact situation currently, but it appears that some parents didn't like their kids being told of the opposing view of universe origin.

Sorry but your point of view would not be valid. In science you start with a hypothesis. If you are able to offer substantial and credible evidence that it is factual it moves into the realm of theory. If you can prove it 100% it then becomes a scientific law. ID aka Creationism has no valid nor credible evidence to back it up. It remains nothing more than one of millions of silly hypothesis's out there.

Evolution is taught as a theory. Many highly superstitious people get really upset when facts are taught to the children they are trying to program. Much as monkeys will throw their dung at what they do not understand the deeply religious tend to do the same. They burn the witches, invade the nations, and repress the science as long as they can but when you read history facts will win out in the end.

It seemed to me that if schools taught only the established facts, then the parents couldn't complain. What seems to have happend in the recent case, however, is that a school tried to teach both sides of the issue, which made some parents mad.

You cannot teach science without dealing with theory. Most of what we use daily is based on theory not law. How do you discus celestial mechanics without referring to gravity, which is all a theory so far. You may as well try and teach reading and writing but not allow verbs and nouns. The important thing is to label fact as fact, theory as theory, and hypothesis as hypothesis.

Now, I know that some of you believe that Evolution is the only valid theory, and some believe that some "ID" or the like is behind it all.

Evolution has a great deal of evidence to back its claims up. ID has none at all.

Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they prove their theory.

No, neither side can claim such proof. If they had it then it would be accepted scientific law. Do not confuse strong evidence with ironclad proof. In fact ID does not even have any demonstrable evidence at all to back it up.

Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they disprove the other sides theory.

Evolution doesn't bother to disprove ID as the burden of proof is always upon the claimant in nay hypothesis. As ID has yet to bring any credible evidence to the table there is nothing to disprove. Is god a large all powerful blueberry muffin orbiting the planet Saturn because you have not disproved it to be?

In my view, however, schools should have no text books that mention either evolution or some other theory. The text book should present ONLY the facts, with no mention of theories. Or at the very least, a separate book that presents all sides of the issue. It would seem that this would allow the children and their parents to sit down and have a discussion about it, so each child would have the view his parents wanted. Thus, there would be no court battles about it.

Meh. That might not make sense, but it's what I was thinking, so here it is.

Tear it apart and jump on it if you like.

So we should leave a huge segment of science entirely out of all text books to placate the superstitious?

 

[Diogenes]

evolution explains why up to a point, just like all science. Nothing in science can explain the existence of matter and energy, why it is here. Nothing can explain why the universe is here. What it can explain is how it works. The rest is up to philosophy. But to say that we must teach ID because evolution doesn't explain why is bogus..

Agreed that ID would be out of place in schools because it is all a matter of individual belief and there is no evidence one way or another. Agreed also that there is certainly evidence of incremental evolution on a very low level, where various bacterial and virus infections mutate to become resistant to medication.

On the other hand it's quite a leap to talk about birds evolving from dinosaurs, or similar claims of one species evolving incrementally from another. When you look at the paleontology record of the horse, for instance, all the way from the five-toed Eohippus to the modern horse, what you see is a series of dots separated by millions of years. It may be tempting to assume a gradual change in connecting the dots, but it is only an assumption. Earth In Upheaval explored a number of the anomalies in the theory of evolution, and makes interesting reading. (The book was also protested vigorously by the evolution establishment, who threatened not to buy any textbooks from any publisher who dared to print it.) Catastrophic evolution, happening over a generation or two of massive species die-out, has an equally convincing evidentiary basis (i.e., none) as incremental evolution.

One should always beware of making brash leaps of assumption. The fundamental assumption of astrology, for instance, is that events on earth can be predicted by watching the stars. This is true, and to prove the assertion you need only ask how you set your watch, or ask when next Easter will be celebrated. However, the leap from the basic truth of astrology to your daily horoscope in the newspaper is hardly rational.

 

[Kandahar]

When you look at the paleontology record of the horse, for instance, all the way from the five-toed Eohippus to the modern horse, what you see is a series of dots separated by millions of years. It may be tempting to assume a gradual change in connecting the dots, but it is only an assumption. Earth In Upheaval explored a number of the anomalies in the theory of evolution, and makes interesting reading. (The book was also protested vigorously by the evolution establishment, who threatened not to buy any textbooks from any publisher who dared to print it.) Catastrophic evolution, happening over a generation or two of massive species die-out, has an equally convincing evidentiary basis (i.e., none) as incremental evolution.

Right you are. In fact, the length of time it takes one species to evolve from another is one of the legitimate controversies of evolution (as opposed to, say, ID, which is not a legitimate controversy). I think it would probably take longer than just one or two generations, simply because that would involve a mass near-extinction of certain species for which there is no evidence. However, the idea that species rapidly evolved over hundreds of years (rather than tens of thousands of years) is absolutely valid and does have some supporting evidence.

I think it may vary from species to species. The horses you mentioned may very well have changed radically over a very few generations, while other species (homo sapiens) seem to have evolved more gradually.

 

[CollectiveConvergence]

There are considerable differences that ought to be considered in this debate. First and foremost we must consider the scientific method. Evolutionary theories have been tried and tested by time and intense scrutiny using the scientific method as a tool for dissection.

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
The fundamental difference with Intelligent Design hypotheses, is that they have taken an already ascribed notion of existence and tried to manipulate empirical evidence to prove it. That is a far cry from using prediction and correlation to try to disprove your findings that were extrapolated from purely empirical evidence.

So while I don’t believe a true scientist can say anything is completely factual, one can say that evolution is as close to scientific fact as we can arrive to.

 

[Diogenes]

The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Steps 3 and 4 have never been taken in evolution, at least above the bacterial and viral level. It is still a theory, and it will take more than wishful thinking to make it scientific.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Steps 3 and 4 have never been taken in evolution, at least above the bacterial and viral level. It is still a theory, and it will take more than wishful thinking to make it scientific.

Actually every new hybred plant made in fact does that.

 

[Diogenes]

Actually every new hybred plant made in fact does that.

Hybrid plants are still only examples of evolution on a micro level. Corn is still corn, even if one variety is more resistant to certain diseases than another. Do you have any examples where one species has evolved into another (and distinct) species?