- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,971
- Reaction score
- 12,365
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
What is ID ?The Mark said: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.
The Mark said: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.
Vandeervecken said: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 said: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.
The Mark said:It seemed to me that if schools taught only the established facts, then the parents couldn't complain.
The Mark said: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.
The Mark said: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.
The Mark said: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.
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.The Mark said: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.
The Mark said: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.
The Mark said: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.
The Mark said: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.
The Mark said:Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they disprove the other sides theory.
The Mark said: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.
Diogenes said: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.
Diogenes said: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.
Diogenes said:Suppose further that you were to go back in time some 4000 years and try to explain this to a shepherd on a hilltop.
Diogenes said: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.
Diogenes said: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?
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.MrFungus420 said: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.
I assume nothing, but I do not begrudge those who do seek a reason.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.
Good analogy to evolution, because it did not address the question of why you tripped.Think of it this way, if you trip, why do you fall? Because of gravity, not because some intelligent force made you fall.
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.Now, here is where you make the jump. You are making the assumption that someone tried to explain what they had done.
Humans have always wondered why the world is as it is. For example, why do you concern yourself with evolution?Why would he want to bother with such a ridiculous story, anyway? It obviously would have nothing to do with his life.
The point is that evolution does NOT conflict with the teachings of the time, except for the timeline.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.
Kandahar said: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..
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.
nothing but the stories passed down from generation to generation for 1000's of years since God informed his people how they came to bedogger807 said: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 said:and the Scientific Community has never been wrong :roll:
DeeJayH said:Neither theories on the origin of the universe are based on fact
DeeJayH said: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
The Mark said: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.
The Mark said: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.
The Mark said: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.
The Mark said:Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they prove their theory.
The Mark said:Both sides can look at certain facts and say that they disprove the other sides theory.
The Mark said: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.
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.nkgupta80 said: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..
Diogenes said: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.
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.CollectiveConvergence said: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.
Diogenes said: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.
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?Vandeervecken said:Actually every new hybred plant made in fact does that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?