Intelligent Design (1 Viewer)

[JustMyPOV]

Well, we've seen this occur over and over again throughout history. A new (or old) theory is brought up and all the scientists gather and automatically debunk the work because it doesn't jive with what they think they know.

I'm not suggesting that I believe or disbelieve the theory of intelligent design, but what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with exposing children to whatever different theories there are about where we came from. To work hard to silence a theory because you don't agree with it is ridiculous. Places of learning should be open to new ideas, not shun them because they don't agree with the current belief system.

One of the problems with schools in general is that they don't encourage the kids to really think. They simply have kids memorize and regurgitate data and then hope that they can retain most of it. Why not instead present various theories, discuss them, and let the kids actually think about it?

To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?

 

[McWilliamson]

I'm a Junior in High School, and I have no interest in learning what anyone thinks about the beginning of the world. I do not want to discuss religion or things that have more depth than sin(x) or the chemical formula for Hydrochloric Acid with those I'm forced to go to school with. Call me a cynic.

 

[steen]

Well, we've seen this occur over and over again throughout history. A new (or old) theory is brought up and all the scientists gather and automatically debunk the work because it doesn't jive with what they think they know.

Do we? We really see this over and over again? Could you please give several examples of this so we know what you mean?

I'm not suggesting that I believe or disbelieve the theory of intelligent design,

Just a moment here. We are talking about science here, right? In Science, a "Theory," a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is a very specific thing. It is the end result of the exploration of a subject through the application of the Scientific Method. Until it has been all the way through the Scientific Method, it is not a Scientific Theory at all. You knew this, right?

Now, the idea of ID has been voiced, but so far we have not seen any actual scientific research on it. That means that it is not even at the FIRST step of the Scientific Method, that of formulating a hypothesis, and thus certainly not at the end of the process where it qualifies as a Scientific Theory.

So your claim here doesn't really fit reality.

but what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with exposing children to whatever different theories there are about where we came from.

"Where we come from"? What do you mean? Do you at all know what the Scientific Theory of Evolution is?

And what is this idea of ours about having any kind of belief presented as a valid Scientific Theory? Does that mean that the Flat-Earthers should have their "theory" presented in Science Class to be sure we expose children to different theories?

And as for theories of where we come from, the Pacific Northwest Indians have a belief regarding the raven plucking humans out of a shell on the beach. I guess THAT is a theory and thus should be taught, right? And what about the one about the world resting on the shell of a turtle? Or the one from the old Greek myths about the Gods? Should Zeus be presented as just another "theory"?

You seem to be bordering on suggesting something completely impossible.

I feel that the current system, that of presenting what actually has scientific evidence, that is the ideal for Science Class. But maybe that's just me? Maybe you find that stupid?

To work hard to silence a theory because you don't agree with it is ridiculous.

How is it "silencing" to ask for actual evidence before inflicting faith on kids? That seems a bizarre claim that you are expressing here.

Places of learning should be open to new ideas, not shun them because they don't agree with the current belief system.

yes, such as 2+2=5. Well, it COULD be. It's a new idea, after all.

One of the problems with schools in general is that they don't encourage the kids to really think.

So you say, insulting numerous school kinds who have to think A LOT in school. But I can agree that we need to teach more Science in school, so that should make the kids think more. After all, we end up with kids graduating with no clue about what the Scientific Theory of Evolution actually is, and carry about misconceptions that makes them laughingstocks when they open their mouth about it, per the bizarre and silly misconceptions they are shown to hold.

They simply have kids memorize and regurgitate data and then hope that they can retain most of it. Why not instead present various theories, discuss them, and let the kids actually think about it?

Really? You think this is what happens in Science Class? When were you last in a Science Class?

To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?

Ah, but ID is not even relevant itself. After all, an idea based on "I just can't IMAGINE it happened any other way" is not rally relevant to anybody other than those who hold such unsubstantiated, unproven faith. No evidence, no data, no predictive ability. It doesn't meet any requirement for being science in even the slightest way. It is right up there with the raven helping the people out of the clamshell.

So why do you want such wishful thinking misrepresented as science?

 

[Iriemon]

Well, we've seen this occur over and over again throughout history. A new (or old) theory is brought up and all the scientists gather and automatically debunk the work because it doesn't jive with what they think they know.

I'm not suggesting that I believe or disbelieve the theory of intelligent design, but what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with exposing children to whatever different theories there are about where we came from. To work hard to silence a theory because you don't agree with it is ridiculous. Places of learning should be open to new ideas, not shun them because they don't agree with the current belief system.

One of the problems with schools in general is that they don't encourage the kids to really think. They simply have kids memorize and regurgitate data and then hope that they can retain most of it. Why not instead present various theories, discuss them, and let the kids actually think about it?

To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?

That tends to happen when you bring up supernatual explanations for natural phenonema. Science deals with natural explanation for natural phenonema. You can't compare apples and oranges.

 

[Dogger807]

Well, we've seen this occur over and over again throughout history. A new (or old) theory is brought up and all the scientists gather and automatically debunk the work because it doesn't jive with what they think they know.

I'm not suggesting that I believe or disbelieve the theory of intelligent design, but what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with exposing children to whatever different theories there are about where we came from. To work hard to silence a theory because you don't agree with it is ridiculous. Places of learning should be open to new ideas, not shun them because they don't agree with the current belief system.

One of the problems with schools in general is that they don't encourage the kids to really think. They simply have kids memorize and regurgitate data and then hope that they can retain most of it. Why not instead present various theories, discuss them, and let the kids actually think about it?

To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?

Fundies trying to get their religious views to be as reputable as science by calling their views science???? If you can't explain how something happened it must have been god???? A half cooked dead end "theory" given the same weight as a tried and tested scientific theory??????

Come on, are you an idiot or do you think the rest of us are? ID is not a misunderstood minority....it's a religious cop out masqueraiding as a scientific hypothesis. It has no right to the title theory in the same manner evolution does even if it were scientific.

 

[tecoyah]

To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?

Key Words.....Relevant...and.... Theories


ID seems to be Neither....it is not in any way a theory, rather a Hypothesis. As Data is accumulated to back up this hypothesis it can graduate into theory.

This is where relevance comes into play, If we were to teach Hypothesis in public schools, there would be no time for anything else as the are unlimited Hypothesis to teach. This is one of the reasons for the labels science has created to evaluate Ideas within its database, ie: Idea/Hypothesis/Theory/Law....with theory used to create Laws of Nature.

To teach ID alongside Evolution is to place religion in the science class....which is a very bad direction to go. When the time comes that there is Data to create a theory from ID....we should revisit the subject, but not until then.

 

[Shoey]

I'm a Junior in High School, and I have no interest in learning what anyone thinks about the beginning of the world. I do not want to discuss religion or things that have more depth than sin(x) or the chemical formula for Hydrochloric Acid with those I'm forced to go to school with. Call me a cynic.

If you leave out Darwins approach as to where man originated from I'm OK with that. After all these years evolutionists cannot scientifically proove where man originated from.

 

[steen]

Key Words.....Relevant...and.... Theories

ID seems to be Neither....it is not in any way a theory, rather a Hypothesis. As Data is accumulated to back up this hypothesis it can graduate into theory.

I must almost disagree with it even being a hypothesis. For this to be true, it would have to be falsifiable etc:
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
In a cause and effect relationship, what you observe is the effect, and hypotheses are possible causes. A generalization based on inductive reasoning is not a hypothesis. An hypothesis is not an observation, rather, a tentative explanation for the observation. For example, I might observe the effect that my throat is sore. Then I might form hypotheses as to the cause of that sore throat, including a bacterial infection, a viral infection, or screaming too much at a ball game.
Hypotheses reflect past experience with similar questions (“educated propositions” about cause) and the work of others. Hypotheses are based on previous knowledge, facts, and general principles. Your answer to the question of what caused the observed effect will be based on your previous knowledge of what causes similar effects in similar situations. For example, I know that colds are contagious, I don’t know anyone with a cold, I was at the ball game yesterday, and I was doing a lot of yelling while I was there, so I think that caused my sore throat.
Multiple hypotheses should be proposed whenever possible. One should think of alternative causes that could explain the observation (the correct one may not even be one that was thought of!) For example, maybe somebody sitting near me at the ball game had a sore throat and passed it on to me.
Hypotheses should be testable by experimentation and deductive reasoning. For example, throat culture and other tests yielded no signs of a bacterial or viral infection, I have no fever or other signs/symptoms, and the doctor says my vocal cords are “swollen” in a way that would indicate overuse.
Hypotheses can be proven wrong/incorrect, but can never be proven or confirmed with absolute certainty. It is impossible to test all given conditions, and someone with more knowledge, sometime in the future, may find a condition under which the hypothesis does not hold true.

So ID is not even ahypothesis, it is wishful thi nking, it is faith, it is "Changes couldn't happen through Evolution because I can't imagine/want that"

This, of course, is not science buut rather is wishful thinking; thus is not a hypothesis.

 

[Iriemon]

If you leave out Darwins approach as to where man originated from I'm OK with that. After all these years evolutionists cannot scientifically proove where man originated from.

Evolution, whether it is "proved" or not, is a widely accepted theory as a natural explanation for how species evolved.

If not evolution, what other natural theory do you propose to explain how life is like it is, and the dinosaur bones?

 

[steen]

If you leave out Darwins approach as to where man originated from I'm OK with that.

Well, Darwin’s writings were 150 years ago. That would be like relying on the Wright Brothers in doing Space Shuttle design. So are you objecting to modern scientific evidence? And what is this focus exclusively on "man"? Are you saying that all other Evolution is OK, but you won't accept that "man" evolved? That would be an asinine claim.

After all these years evolutionists cannot scientifically proove where man originated from.

We can show a lot about it. Look in the other tread. Certainly, your talking about "Lucy" shows that you are rather clueless about the current science.

 

[Shoey]

Evolution, whether it is "proved" or not, is a widely accepted theory as a natural explanation for how species evolved.

If not evolution, what other natural theory do you propose to explain how life is like it is, and the dinosaur bones?

You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.

 

[Shoey]

Well, Darwin’s writings were 150 years ago. That would be like relying on the Wright Brothers in doing Space Shuttle design. So are you objecting to modern scientific evidence? And what is this focus exclusively on "man"? Are you saying that all other Evolution is OK, but you won't accept that "man" evolved? That would be an asinine claim.
We can show a lot about it. Look in the other tread. Certainly, your talking about "Lucy" shows that you are rather clueless about the current science.

When(if ever) are you going to provide scientific proof where man originated from???
Your "Mayberry" shows keep me in stitches.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Evolution, whether it is "proved" or not, is a widely accepted theory as a natural explanation for how species evolved.

If not evolution, what other natural theory do you propose to explain how life is like it is, and the dinosaur bones?

You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.

That a natural explanation of how we got here? I have read Genesis -- it talks about the supernatural.

 

[steen]

You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.

Ah, but there is no natural explanation there, in Genesis which still is not a Science textbook, but merely a "why" for the relevance of God's message.

 

[steen]

When(if ever) are you going to provide scientific proof where man originated from???

The moment you actually explain what you mean in a way that makes sense. What do you mean with "man"? What do you mean with "originate"?

Your "Mayberry" shows keep me in stitches.

And your display of ignorance leaves me assured that you and your family will never threaten mine in the competition for good education and good jobs in the real world. Willfull ignorance of creationists is great for the rest of us in that sense.

 

[Mikkel]

You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.

Ok, now prove that that is actually the word of god, and wasn't written by some crazy dude in 2000 B.C.

Darwin and subsequent scientists have documented evidence that continues to support the theory of evolution. You're clinging on to an old book. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in your faith, but I am saying that if you think science should accept words written in a book thousands of years ago with no evidence supporting what is written, you have a very warped understanding of the scientific process.

This isn't about science debunking creationism. Scientists don't have to prove evolution to show it is a well supported and valid theory. This is about keeping creationism from becoming a science. By definition, faith does not belong in the realm of science.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

To sum up, I suggest that intelligent design should be taught in the schools along with any other relevant theories that exist. What do you think?

What theory? No evidence = No theory.

Do we? We really see this over and over again? Could you please give several examples of this so we know what you mean?

Yes, there are several threads about the this same subject.

That tends to happen when you bring up supernatual explanations for natural phenonema. Science deals with natural explanation for natural phenonema. You can't compare apples and oranges.

But comparing apples in terms of oranges... apples simply have no supporting evidence

After all these years evolutionists cannot scientifically proove where man originated from.

No one can. Creationist or Evolutionist.

You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.

What gives?

When(if ever) are you going to provide scientific proof where man originated from???

What is your scientific proof for the Bible, or creation, or the origin of man?

For the love of Moses tell me!

 

[Iriemon]

What theory? No evidence = No theory.

No evidence, how did dinosaur bones get there? Let's even include the supernatural (religion) in our discussion. If we are going to include the supernatural in our discussion of how our natural world is, then

If God did make dinosaurs, why did He do it? 1) For practice (He's an evolutionist himself)? 2) For fun (those T-rex vs. Triceratops battles were cool to watch for a while)? 3) For man to ponder and think maybe he evolved because God doesn't want too many believers (heaven is getting overcrowded)?

If God didn't make dinosaurs, then why did God make dinosaur bones? 1) Because he knew man would invent cars and need oil? 3) Dinosaurs are fun for little boys to make believe about? 3) For man to ponder and think maybe he evolved because God doesn't want too many believers (heaven is getting overcrowded)?

Or is it just ... one of those mysteries man was not meant to know?

Teacher: OK class, today we are going to study dinosaurs. We know dinosaurs were created by God. And that is all there is to it because there is no evidence to believe anything else.

Johnny: Why did God make dinosaurs only to have them all die out?

Teacher: We are not meant to know that. Next question?

 

[Mikkel]

As a side note:

Science often comes up with theories that contradict each other and are both accepted as valid. For instance, Einstein's theory of a space-time continuum and relativity contradicts many other theories that physicists apply everyday to the real world, but it is still an accepted theory because there is evidence to support it.

My point is that the theory of evolution may sculpt a different picture of early earth than the 'theory' of intelligent design. Evolution cannot debunk creationism, nor can creationism debunk evolution. They are potentially compatible theories. The reason intelligent design shouldn't be tought in the classroom is because it isn't grounded in science, and therefore cannot be qualified as an accepted scientific theory.

 

[Iriemon]

As a side note:

Science often comes up with theories that contradict each other and are both accepted as valid. For instance, Einstein's theory of a space-time continuum and relativity contradicts many other theories that physicists apply everyday to the real world, but it is still an accepted theory because there is evidence to support it.

My point is that the theory of evolution may sculpt a different picture of early earth than the 'theory' of intelligent design. Evolution cannot debunk creationism, nor can creationism debunk evolution. They are potentially compatible theories. The reason intelligent design shouldn't be tought in the classroom is because it isn't grounded in science, and therefore cannot be qualified as an accepted scientific theory.

Evolution and creationism are completely incompatible. One is an attempt to explain by natural causes natural phenonema. The other is uses the supernatural to explain natural pheonema. The former we call sciene. The latter we call religion. How can you compare them?

 

[Mikkel]

I would say to you that the majority of christians in the country, who don't believe that god really created the world in seven days, but do believe He exists would agree with me that evolution could easily be a part of God's plan.

Again, I am against ID being taught in the classroom because it isn't science, but there is nothing in the theory of evolution that disproves the existence of God.

I, personally, do not believe in God and am a strong advocate of the Theory of Evolution, but I by no means take the beliefs of others, that God created the Universe, as a threat to my beliefs or the theory of evolution.

I take it as a threat to my beliefs on 2 occasions.
1) When they try to disprove Evolution as a well supported scientific theory because of their beliefs, and
2) When they try to pass off their beliefs as Science.

On the other hand, I would never say that the theory of evolution disproves the existence of God. In that sense, they are compatible.

 

[steen]

My point is that the theory of evolution may sculpt a different picture of early earth than the 'theory' of intelligent design. Evolution cannot debunk creationism, nor can creationism debunk evolution. They are potentially compatible theories.

I think you are getting things mixed up here. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY (meaning it was explored through the Scientific Method. ID and creationism are claims that the science is wrong, nothign else. Creation is not the same as Creationism. Creation in its allegorical form is compatible with Evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, is a process of deception, misdirection and outright lies. That is not compatible with anything.

The reason intelligent design shouldn't be tought in the classroom is because it isn't grounded in science, and therefore cannot be qualified as an accepted scientific theory.

Agreed. It goes beyond that, though, to the point of actually not having any evidence, being made up purely of wild speculation.

 

[goligoth]

Theoretical science is how we advance as a technological race. If no theories were ever taught then everyone would be ignorant to most of physics and lots of other sciences. Science of today is very simply the best guess of today. We keep on believing that the theory is fact until it is proven not true and a substitue guess is put in place then we shift our ideas to accomodate this new fact. If theories weren't taught then Ben Franklin's experiments wouldn't have contributed in any way!! I would be hammering out my homework on a giant piece of slate that I had found in my back yard!! As much as I enjoy slate I hesitate to think about what my backpack would weigh with a five page paper in it. :afraid:

 

[MrFungus420]

You can find the answers in the book of Genesis. God is the creator of all things and that includes human life and Dinosaurs.

Only a valid line of reasoning if you believe that the Bible is true. In other words, it is nothing more than a religious story with no evidence other than the book in which it appears.

Using the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning, nothing else.

And show me where in the Bible it says anything about "dinosaurs".

 

[Shoey]

Only a valid line of reasoning if you believe that the Bible is true. In other words, it is nothing more than a religious story with no evidence other than the book in which it appears.

Using the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning, nothing else.

And show me where in the Bible it says anything about "dinosaurs".

You won't find the word dinosaurs in the bible, just like you won't find many names of other animals in the Bible. The Bible clearly says God created all the animals and that is proof enough for me. Darnuts theory of evolution is a fairy tale as well(origin of man), and no evolutionists can provide 100% solid scientific proof where man originated from. By the way, the #1 selling book of all time is the Bible my friend. :lol: