• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Intelligent Design" Debunked

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From Slate.com:

Eight families are suing to stop a Pennsylvania school district from teaching children "intelligent design," a theory that suggests a higher intelligence was necessary to create the world. The school district intends to present both evolution and ID as theories. Sunday's Washington Post featured the case as evidence of an antievolution "counteroffensive" by school boards around the country. One plaintiff told the Post that ID was "theocratic." But two years ago, when liberals thought ID was taking over Ohio, Slate's William Saletan debunked ID, exposing it as "a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science."
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
Quite interesting. Thanks for starting the post.

Why can't the poor schools just make the disclaimer before teaching anything to "Please consult your parent or court ordered guardian for advice on your actual beliefs." Maybe make the kids sign a waiver. Might solve all the controversy.
 

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
Since this is a debate forum, I'd like to point out that the article devalues creationism as a worthwhile theory to teach based on lack of scientific evidence - obviously. Then it points out that ID is an empty theory because you can't prove it so it mustn't be taught either because it can't be backed up with science. It ends with discussing how Darwinism, natural selection can be taught because it passes the testing phase - it makes predictions you can test. Nevermind that I laugh out loud that sexual aggression and polygamy are the two examples it uses - silly liberals always itching to bring up sex in schools. How about language and skin color? Or would that be too controversial?

Darwinian theory makes predictions that can be tested. It predicts that the average difference in size between males and females will correspond to the degree of polygamy in a species, and that in species in which females can reproduce more often than males, females will be more sexually assertive and less discriminating about their sex partners than males will be. These predictions turn out to be true. Darwin claimed that humans had descended from apes. If fossils unearthed since his death had exhibited no such connection, his theory would have been discredited.

Interestingly, I just watched a National Geographic show about "What determines humanity?". They discussed the various traits of two ape-like species and early homo-sapien. The first "Guy" was the first species to walk upright. The second "Gal" "Lucy" was creative enough to harness fire and make tools. Oddly though, the scientists did not claim that each of these species were descended from one another and the NG scientist did not acknowledge them as part of humanity. He didn't even acknowledge the earliest homo-sapiens as part of humanity. Apparently, the show went on to say, only after a huge volcanic event knocked off the early homo-sapiens down to where only a few of the best and brightest survived - were those our descendants and characteristic of humanity.

So how do all these different ape fossils which scientists don't deem as our descendants play into natural selection? Or do we have to have all the exact answers of how one set of fossils the scientist deem one species evolve into another into another until you get you and I? It seems even science isn't providing all the answers. Would the author of this almost three year old article then suggest that evolution is empty because the fossilized answers we are looking for have succumbed to the billions of years on the Earth and can never be truly known? Probably not.

And, if anyone cares. I wholeheartedly disagree when the scientists not crediting the species mentioned with their humanity. I think it is foolish to presume that they weren't just a previous version of us in someway and necessary to our current state of evolution. Isn't it incredibly haughty to think that we are the final version of humanity? I can just see humans 10,000 years from now finding our fossils and saying "They were almost human...but not quite."
 
Last edited:

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We are of course completly human. As the homo sapiens were completly human. We are human at whatever stage. It makes sense to think that in the coming years, if we do not destroy ourselves before, we shall evolve into an entirely new level of humanity. Horses have not always been at the same level of development we see today. But still they have been horses. Small genetic changes occur to make the beings we know today. But still a horse is a horse weather now or twenty thousand years ago. Of course if a horse is no longer a horse then it is not. That in mind we must think that there is some genetic barrier which, when crossed, means the developmet of a new spiecies. Saying so, a horse is a horse unless it is a mule. A human is a human unless it is a botswonian chimp.

I guess then i agree with you in the scientific thinking that we are not the elightened version of a chimp. The scientist who says the we are the perfected version of a human must be christian for that amazingly creationist assumption.
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I must say that the last time i was attending a poor school (which happened to not be that long ago) i was given a stack of forms that stated the equivelent of "we are not responsible for anything that happens to your kid so please don't sue us."
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
I don't get why people continue to attack creationism and intelligent design simply on the basis that they are religious in nature. The fact that humans can alter species themselves doesn't discredit the hypothesis that God can alter species, too.

It's getting old, and what gets me is that the arguments against intelligent design and creationism exist as character assassinations. They often focus more on discrediting the people than the evidence.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
bryanf said:
...the hypothesis that God can alter species, too.
If the "hypothesis" is that God can alter species, then evolution is the way he does that. But I thought "creationism" was the "theory" that God created all species at once, which is why evolution contradicts it. You've repeatedly stated that "creationism" is a theory, but you've never properly articulated it, and here you seem to be contradicting yourself. What is the theory of "creationism" exactly?

bryanf said:
It's getting old, and what gets me is that the arguments against intelligent design and creationism exist as character assassinations. They often focus more on discrediting the people than the evidence.
I agree that this debate is old, and should have been settled long ago, but there are still people today on a futile crusade to discredit evolution and thrust their religious beliefs where it doesn't belong. The world has moved on, and these Christians need to do the same.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
bryanf said:
I don't get why people continue to attack creationism and intelligent design simply on the basis that they are religious in nature. The fact that humans can alter species themselves doesn't discredit the hypothesis that God can alter species, too.

It's getting old, and what gets me is that the arguments against intelligent design and creationism exist as character assassinations. They often focus more on discrediting the people than the evidence.
I don't understand most of your post. Are you saying that creationism is not based on religious beliefs?

Also- most of the focus I've seen on the arguments against creationism are based on lack of evidence. Not on attacking anyone.
 

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Creationism should definetly be taught in school. The only reason that it gets this much attention is because Christians might be afraid that people might not believe in their imaginery friend any more. If they lose power they'll lose money. True scientific evidence and theorys are more important to a public school than going along with your religion.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
From Slate.com:

Eight families are suing to stop a Pennsylvania school district from teaching children "intelligent design," a theory that suggests a higher intelligence was necessary to create the world. The school district intends to present both evolution and ID as theories. Sunday's Washington Post featured the case as evidence of an antievolution "counteroffensive" by school boards around the country. One plaintiff told the Post that ID was "theocratic." But two years ago, when liberals thought ID was taking over Ohio, Slate's William Saletan debunked ID, exposing it as "a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science."
The dictionary definition of 'debunk' is: "to expose the sham or falseness of".

All else aside, in his article, William Saletan debunked nothing; he exposed nothing; he simply denied everything.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
If schools were private, this wouldn't be an issue....
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
If schools were private, this wouldn't be an issue....
We do have private schools, and Christians who want to shield their children from enlightenment and modernity can send them there. But for those who can't afford private schools, there is a publicly funded system that guarantees an education to anyone regardless of socio-economic level, because an educated, informed populace is essential to a healthy democracy and thus benefits everyone.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
We do have private schools, and Christians who want to shield their children from enlightenment and modernity can send them there. But for those who can't afford private schools, there is a publicly funded system that guarantees an education to anyone regardless of socio-economic level, because an educated, informed populace is essential to a healthy democracy and thus benefits everyone.
There are two competing theories, neither of which have been shown to be more than theories.

Why can't the two theories be presented publicly, in parallel, noting the variances?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
The dictionary definition of 'debunk' is: "to expose the sham or falseness of".

All else aside, in his article, William Saletan debunked nothing; he exposed nothing; he simply denied everything.
Weak: adj. - lacking force; feeble.
Rebuttal: n. - evidence or argument that rebuts.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Originally Posted by Fantasea
The dictionary definition of 'debunk' is: "to expose the sham or falseness of".

All else aside, in his article, William Saletan debunked nothing; he exposed nothing; he simply denied everything.


argexpat said:
Weak: adj. - lacking force; feeble.
Rebuttal: n. - evidence or argument that rebuts.
Is this response intended for my post? If so, I don't see the connection.

If, on the other hand, it is and you are attempting to convey the idea that you believe he has presented some factual evidence to support his negative opinion, kindly cite it.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
There are two competing theories, neither of which have been shown to be more than theories.
Please see my post "The 'Theory' of Evolution vs. 'Creationism'" in which I went 15 brutal rounds with Bryanf on this issue. I believe we covered every possible argument pro and con in detail (and quite eloquently I might add). If there's a point you feel was not made, please post a reply and I'd be happy to respond.

Fantasea said:
Why can't the two theories be presented publicly, in parallel, noting the variances?
Again, we covered this in detail in the above-referenced post, but the short answer is that "creationism" is mythology, and evolution is science. It's comparing Adam's apples and oranges.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
The dictionary definition of 'debunk' is: "to expose the sham or falseness of".

All else aside, in his article, William Saletan debunked nothing; he exposed nothing; he simply denied everything.




Is this response intended for my post? If so, I don't see the connection.
Yes.

Fantasea said:
If, on the other hand, it is and you are attempting to convey the idea that you believe he has presented some factual evidence to support his negative opinion, kindly cite it.
On the contrary, the burden of proof is on creationists; it is they who must provide the evidence.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
QUOTE]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
There are two competing theories, neither of which have been shown to be more than theories.



Please see my post "The 'Theory' of Evolution vs. 'Creationism'" in which I went 15 brutal rounds with Bryanf on this issue. I believe we covered every possible argument pro and con in detail (and quite eloquently I might add). If there's a point you feel was not made, please post a reply and I'd be happy to respond.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Why can't the two theories be presented publicly, in parallel, noting the variances?



Again, we covered this in detail in the above-referenced post, but the short answer is that "creationism" is mythology, and evolution is science. It's comparing Adam's apples and oranges.

-----------------------------------------------------------------​


I read your first post in the series to which you referred and which I have excerpted below. In it, I find that you are advocating exactly what I suggested -- teach both theories.



"Saying evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory. While technically true, the evidence for it is so great as to render it fact. That life evolves over time is an undeniable, observable fact. How that process works is where the debate lies. There are competing theories---such as “punctuated equilibrium’---to explain how evolution unfolds. But insisting that evolution is a theory is silly pedantry. And it gives ammunition to the anti-intellectual forces of ignorance who agitate for teaching “creationism” along side evolution, thus establishing a bogus comity with it.

“Creationism” could be taught in school---in a mythology class along with all the other creation myths: Hindu, Greek, Muslim, Buddhist, Navajo, et al. But it has absolutely no place in a science class."
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Teaching evolution in school, however, is theory if they tell you that all the different stages (homo habilus, homo erectus, neanderthal, etc.) are interlinking to form a chain. Without specific evidence that flows gradually from one stage to another, they cannot claim it is fact.

But thats beside the point. :D

Schools should be private anyways. That would also allow them to teach based on their opinions of creationism/evolution.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
I read your first post in the series to which you referred and which I have excerpted below. In it, I find that you are advocating exactly what I suggested -- teach both theories.

“Creationism” could be taught in school---in a mythology class along with all the other creation myths: Hindu, Greek, Muslim, Buddhist, Navajo, et al. But it has absolutely no place in a science class."
Not exactly. I said creationism, if taught at all, could be taught in a mythology class, because it's mythology, not scienctific theory, which is why it has no place in a science class. Please don't tell me you believe creationism is a theory.

Darn, and here I thought we were actually going to agree on something...
 
Last edited:

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
Teaching evolution in school, however, is theory if they tell you that all the different stages (homo habilus, homo erectus, neanderthal, etc.) are interlinking to form a chain. Without specific evidence that flows gradually from one stage to another, they cannot claim it is fact.
The full title of Darwin's "theory" is "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection." Evolution is a fact, and natural selection is Darwin's theory to explain that fact. And, BTW, that's all a theory has to do to be valid, is explain, better than any other theory, the facts. Can "creationism" claim this?

Again, this is all covered in detail in my debate with Bryanf.
 
Last edited:

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
To you it may seem like fact, but I am still waiting for some more proof.

Everyone should be entitled to believe as they choose.

None of this would be an issue if schools were private like they should be. :D
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
argexpat said:
Not exactly. I said creationism, if taught at all, could be taught in a mythology class, because it's mythology, not scienctific theory, which is why it has no place in a science class. Please don't tell me you believe creationism is a theory.

Darn, and here I thought we were actually going to agree on something...
When I read the Merrian-Webster's definition of the word, I don't mind having the theory of evolution taught alongside the theory of creationism, or higher intelligence -- or vice versa. Teaching them in the same class or in different classes is of no consequence. If someone comes up with another theory on the subject, add that one to the mix, as well.

Note the fuzziness.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances; often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
 
J

Jufarius87

why must the government be cowardly about this issue? i would like to see public education abolished (because we will eventually come to a point where it is unneeded) but its job is to unbiasly educate to do this all major view points religous and non religous should be taught as theory

or the other (better) option would be to stick to the facts and not teach about things that we as a united country cannot agree on and leave the tough question like or our maker is to the parents of america
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Jufarius87 said:
why must the government be cowardly about this issue? i would like to see public education abolished
WOOHOO! :D
 
Top Bottom