• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

oracle25 said:
I always find it amazing how people who don't believe in evolution have a better grasp of it than those that do (tests of students have actually shown this).

Interesting claim. What tests are you refering to?

oracle25 said:
Evolution is not that hard to understand (or laugh at).

You're right, it is not that hard to understand. It is a theory about how genetics change over time.

oracle25 said:
As the theory goes, some time when the earth was new, in some "worm little pond" (or primordial soup, but thats essentially the same thing) somehow through chemicals coming together combined with lightning it sparked the first life.

Based on your first statement, I guess this means that you believe in evolution because you are demonstrating a lack of a basic understanding of the theory of evolution. Evolution is about the changes in genetics over time, not the origin of life.

oracle25 said:
After that through mutations and natural selection

This is where evolution starts, when there is life with DNA that can change. Not the origin of life itself.

oracle25 said:
(both of which are not capable of making this work)

Care to prove that with anything other than an argument from incredulity?

Speciation has been observed. Culex molestus speciated from Culex pipiens in the London Underground within the last 150 years or so.

oracle25 said:
the organism branched out and became new organisms; which branched out and became new organisms; which branched out and became new organisms, etc, etc, etc. And than some time a few thousand years ago a species of ape branched off and became monkeys and humans.

Well, except for the timeframe, this is almost an accurate accounting of evolution.

oracle25 said:
It's a nice story, but as one so eloquently put it "evolution is a fairy tail for grown-ups"

Funny, I can think of no other "fairy tale" that has so much supporting evidence. Fairy tales have about the same amount of evidentiary support that ID has, none.
 
I'm watching the State of the Union Address, and the President just said we need to better teach our students in math and science, so they can be more competitive in the world. Didn't say anything about ID (as if that would make anyone more competitive anywhere). I think he's on the right track now.

Wait! Now he's talking about defeating AIDS, and that has ID in it, do you think he means... No. Whew! He's talking about HIV-AIDS. Close one.

Unrelatedly, I sure am glad he talked about alternative fuels, petroleum is our poison.
 
I personally would like to see Zecharia Sitchen's theories on the origins of life taught in school.

We were genetically engineered by an extra terrestrial race called the Annunaki, the Annunaki created us as a slave race to mine for gold.

The Annunaki came from a planet called Niburu that once every 12,500 years orbits near the Earth, Niburu is destined to return one day soon infact in circles it is expected to return in the next few years.

Wouldn't that be more exciting for our children, than boring old Darwinism??
 
Mickyjaystoned said:
I personally would like to see Zecharia Sitchen's theories on the origins of life taught in school.

We were genetically engineered by an extra terrestrial race called the Annunaki, the Annunaki created us as a slave race to mine for gold.

The Annunaki came from a planet called Niburu that once every 12,500 years orbits near the Earth, Niburu is destined to return one day soon infact in circles it is expected to return in the next few years.

Wouldn't that be more exciting for our children, than boring old Darwinism??


don't you think we'd have noticed such a planetary body by know?

I like my theory, we are some Jr high school aliens Science Fair project. The fair is over and we are sitting in his closet. . . .
 
tecoyah said:
Forum Rules only.....you may begin.

Well...as it seems Oracle is far too busy at church to take the time out for this fun little excersize....and because I have a relatively good Idea of the mentality involved here....I'm just gonna play both sides:

oracle25: Evolutian cant explane where life camed from, and anyone who thinks we came from monkeys is an idiot.God made everything ona counta he felt like it, and he put all those fossils and stuff in the ground to test us.



tecoyah: Evolution is not meant to explain the onset of life on this planet, as it defines the changes in said life, after it had already begun. Though Theories have been considered in the scientific community, concerning how life originated.....it has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. No one claims Homo Sapien came from Apes, but rather long ago there was a common ancestor....which is actually inevitable if you think about it.

oracle25:yer Goin' to Hell

tecoyah:
Yup
 
Mickyjaystoned said:
I don't think any theory on the origins of the human race can be taught as undeniable fact, all we can do is teach about the few theories, their main spokespeople and how these people came to accept the theories as fact.
I hope you are not getting confused about what a SCIENTIFIC Theory is, or somehow seeing that as the equivalent of a "regular" theory, a speculation.


So by allmeans educate students about the Intelligent Design theory, but allow them to question the theory and develop arguments to discredit and/or support the theory, as with the theory of evolution.
It sure seems like you suggest teaching this pure speculation along with a Scientific Theory? Forgive me for asking, but do you know anything at all about the Scientific Method?

Neither theory is undeniably fact and should be taught as such if it is to be taught at all.
And the claim of ID is not even remotely in the same class as the Scientific Theory of Evolution. It seems to me like you really don't know what the Scientific Method is, and that therefore you have no idea what it means when something is a Scientific Theory?
 
Mickyjaystoned said:
I personally would like to see Zecharia Sitchen's theories on the origins of life taught in school.

We were genetically engineered by an extra terrestrial race called the Annunaki, the Annunaki created us as a slave race to mine for gold.

The Annunaki came from a planet called Niburu that once every 12,500 years orbits near the Earth, Niburu is destined to return one day soon infact in circles it is expected to return in the next few years.

Wouldn't that be more exciting for our children, than boring old Darwinism??
But then, evolution is STILL not about the origin of life, so your post is nonsense.

And, BTW, there is no such thing as "Darwinism," unless you are an adherer solely to the original hypothesis that Darwin proposed 150 or so years ago. It certainly is NOT the current Scientific Theory of Evolution.
 
tecoyah said:
Well...as it seems Oracle is far too busy at church to take the time out for this fun little excersize....and because I have a relatively good Idea of the mentality involved here....I'm just gonna play both sides:

Sorry, too busy having a life.

tecoyah: Evolution is not meant to explain the onset of life on this planet, as it defines the changes in said life, after it had already begun. Though Theories have been considered in the scientific community, concerning how life originated.....it has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. No one claims Homo Sapien came from Apes, but rather long ago there was a common ancestor....which is actually inevitable if you think about it.

Thats all fine and dandy, but unless you can explain how life came about through natural processes evolution is irrelevant.

I don't believe I ever stated that evolutionists believe that Homo Sapiens evolved from apes, perhaps the imaginary version of me you cooked up said it.

oracle25:yer Goin' to Hell

I like the farmer talk, even though I live up north.
 
oracle25 said:
Sorry, too busy having a life.
Lame evasionist excuse, particularily after agreement.

oracle25 said:
Thats all fine and dandy, but unless you can explain how life came about through natural processes evolution is irrelevant.
Complete proof that you do not know what evolution is about, otherwise another very lame attempt to switch the topic.
Origin of Speices - that's evolution, has nothing to do with the Origin of Life.
 
jfuh said:
Lame evasionist excuse, particularily after agreement.

I guess sarcastic remarks don't register with you.

Complete proof that you do not know what evolution is about, otherwise another very lame attempt to switch the topic.
Origin of Speices - that's evolution, has nothing to do with the Origin of Life.

Complete proof that you are incapable of understanding the most basic forms of logic. If you cannot explain how life arose, then there is no point in even trying to discuss how it developed.

P.S. Sense when did this become your debate?
 
oracle25 said:
I guess sarcastic remarks don't register with you.



Complete proof that you are incapable of understanding the most basic forms of logic. If you cannot explain how life arose, then there is no point in even trying to discuss how it developed.

P.S. Sense when did this become your debate?

That's nonsense. That's like saying, "Well, we're not sure about the Big Bang, so any physical law that tries to explain something after that is just bullshit." Evolution starts when life already exists - it is a fundamental assumption of the theory and you cannot criticize Evolution on the basis that it does not describe the origin of life, because it doesn't try to explain the origin of life.

To extend your logic to your own argument, Intelligent Design is a worthless hypothesis because it does not explain how the intelligent designer came to be.
 
Engimo said:
That's nonsense. That's like saying, "Well, we're not sure about the Big Bang, so any physical law that tries to explain something after that is just bullshit."

That's not exactly the same thing. Anything we observe about the big bang is based on observational science, evolution is not.

Evolution starts when life already exists - it is a fundamental assumption of the theory and you cannot criticize Evolution on the basis that it does not describe the origin of life, because it doesn't try to explain the origin of life.

We are discussing creationism vs. atheistic evolution. We must first establish origins, this is the first topic in any debate of this nature.

To extend your logic to your own argument, Intelligent Design is a worthless hypothesis because it does not explain how the intelligent designer came to be.

First, I am not an ID'er I am a creationist. The creator I know did not have a beginning. he exists outside the laws of physics (which he created).
 
oracle25 said:
We are discussing creationism vs. atheistic evolution.

Evolution is athiestic? So no Christians see it as a proper scientific theory? And if they do, do you maintain they are not really Christians?

Another question, does God promote ignorance?

Anyway, give it up guy. I don't know what you did during class, but some people paid attention:

jfuh
Darwinian evolutoin is about the Origin of Species, in that all living life on earth today has a common ancestor. What you have explained of the "worm little pond" (which is not the same as premoidal soup) is not evolution, that's the origin of life.

mrfungus420
This is where evolution starts, when there is life with DNA that can change. Not the origin of life itself

tecoyah
Evolution is not meant to explain the onset of life on this planet, as it defines the changes in said life, after it had already begun.

steen
But then, evolution is STILL not about the origin of life, so your post is nonsense.

engimo
Evolution starts when life already exists - it is a fundamental assumption of the theory and you cannot criticize Evolution on the basis that it does not describe the origin of life, because it doesn't try to explain the origin of life.

galenrox
Evolution is changes in DNA (either random or through sexual intercourse) GENERATIONALLY, the good surviving and the bad eliminated through natural selection.
 
oracle25 said:
That's not exactly the same thing. Anything we observe about the big bang is based on observational science, evolution is not.

What? You have no idea what you are talking about.



First, I am not an ID'er I am a creationist. The creator I know did not have a beginning. he exists outside the laws of physics (which he created).

Which is unfalsifiable and is, by definition, a nonscientific claim.
 
oracle25 said:
That's not exactly the same thing. Anything we observe about the big bang is based on observational science, evolution is not.
Creationism is based on observation? How is evolution not observational science. I challenge you for one single shred of credible evidence to back up your claim.


oracle25 said:
We are discussing creationism vs. atheistic evolution. We must first establish origins, this is the first topic in any debate of this nature.
ARe we? Look at the thread topic.


oracle25 said:
First, I am not an ID'er I am a creationist. The creator I know did not have a beginning. he exists outside the laws of physics (which he created).
Your creater exists outside of the laws of physics yet exists within the laws of morality. HOw do you justify it is a he? How do you know your creator did not have a begining.
Face it oracle, you're arguments are not based on science at all but instead based religious dogma.
 
oracle: you still haven't answered to one question. How could evolution be completely wrong, if top biologists and medical researchers in the world claim and prove that it was integral in their studies. Furthermore, without evolution, we'd have very little understanding of many well-respected fields, including population dynamics, ecology, taxonomy, molecular biology, etc.

First of all, what is ur explanation of all this? Secondly, if creationism is a valid alternative, how is it productive in the fields i have listed....ohhh some intelligent designer created us... wow that tells me alot about molecular biology and genetics...
 
Source:

Even the Vatican doesn't want it taught in schools or as a science. I have speculations as to why, but that really becomes moot when even the Vatican says our passion is misplaced and misguided.



By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion.

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

The ID movement sometimes presents Catholicism, the world's largest Christian denomination, as an ally in its campaign. While the Church is socially conservative, it has a long theological tradition that rejects fundamentalist creationism.

"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the demand it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," said the article in the Tuesday edition of the newspaper.

Evolution represents "the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth" and the debate in the United States was "polluted by political positions", wrote Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at Italy's Bologna University.

"So the decision by the Pennsylvania judge seems correct."

EVOLUTION CONFUSION

Confusion about the Catholic view of evolution arose last year when both the newly elected Pope Benedict and his former student, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, said humans were part of an intelligent project designed by God.

An article by Schoenborn in the New York Times in July seemed to signal a Church shift toward intelligent design because it played down a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul that evolution was "more than a hypothesis".

This triggered a wave of "Vatican rejects Darwin" headlines and attacks from scientists, Catholics among them, who argued that had been proved man evolved from lower beings.

Schoenborn later made it clear the Church accepted evolution as solid science but objected to the way some Darwinists concluded that it proved God did not exist and could "explain everything from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony".

The Church, which has never rejected evolution, teaches that God created the world and the natural laws by which life developed. Even its best-known dissident, Swiss theologian Hans Kueng, echoed this in a recent book in Germany.

Schoenborn said he spoke up because he shared Benedict's concern, stated just before his election last April, that a "dictatorship of relativism" was trying to deny God's existence.

TENET OF FAITH

Pennsylvania Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design was a version of creationism, the belief that God made the world in six days as told in the Bible, and thus could not be taught without violating a ban on teaching religion in public schools.

It was not science, despite claims by its backers, he said.

This literal reading of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is a tenet of faith for evangelical Protestants, a group that has become politically influential in the United States.

Many U.S. Catholics may agree with evangelicals politically, but the Church does not share their theology on this point. Intelligent design has few supporters outside the United States.

While not an official document, the article in L'Osservatore Romano had to be vetted in advance to reflect Vatican thinking.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute -- the main think tank of the ID movement -- said on its website that reading the Osservatore article that way amounted to an attempt "to put words in the Vatican's mouth".
 
jfuh said:
Creationism is based on observation? How is evolution not observational science.

I never said that the theory of creationism is based on observational science. That is, it is speaking about the past, which we cannot observe. The difference between that and the big bang (which, incidentally, I do not accept) is that you can observe the universe and draw conclusions (right or wrong) from what you see.



ARe we? Look at the thread topic.

I think it's been established we are discussing creation vs. evolution at the present.



Your creater exists outside of the laws of physics yet exists within the laws of morality.

Yes. The laws of morality are reflections of himself (his personality). This really isn't a very good argument.

HOw do you justify it is a he? How do you know your creator did not have a begining.

He tells us both these things.

Face it oracle, you're arguments are not based on science at all but instead based religious dogma.

I never claimed that particular argument was based on science. However, all my arguments that are meant to be based on science, are.
 
nkgupta80 said:
oracle: you still haven't answered to one question. How could evolution be completely wrong, if top biologists and medical researchers in the world claim and prove that it was integral in their studies.

Actually, most don't. Take this quote from a professor of chemistry at Penn State university:

"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of the genomes; research on medication and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries, and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss....

From my conversations with leading researchers it had become clear that modern experimental biology gains it's strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology." - Dr. Philip Skell

Furthermore, without evolution, we'd have very little understanding of many well-respected fields, including population dynamics, ecology, taxonomy, molecular biology, etc.

This is not true.

First of all, what is ur explanation of all this? Secondly, if creationism is a valid alternative, how is it productive in the fields i have listed....

I have already stated that these fields do not help evolution, neither do they really help creationism. Modern science has little to do with the past.

ohhh some intelligent designer created us... wow that tells me alot about molecular biology and genetics...

It should, it's the only valid explanation for such things.
 
Honestly, I say we give up. There is no amount of evidence that we could provide that would vindicate Evolution as a valid theory in oracle's eyes. He is beyond reasoning with and is blinded by a dogmatic adherence to an illogical world-view. It's honestly not worth the time.
 
Alastor said:
Even the Vatican doesn't want it taught in schools or as a science. I have speculations as to why, but that really becomes moot when even the Vatican says our passion is misplaced and misguided.

Very misguided. 'Faith, Hope, and Charity-the greatest of these being Charity.' (Paraphrased)

How does relentlessly attempting to force one's religion on others compare to time spent helping those who need it? How does continually trying to break American law benefit anybody? And how does teaching a captive audience one's religion seem proper to some?

This is also a control issue, some think their religion is the only path, and foisting it on others helps them. Anybody who wants control over us, and acquires power, becomes very dangerous.
 
Well, Oracle, I think you can quote 70 and 70 more researches and scientists, but you would not convince the Darwinists quoting each other (tryreading’s post and enigmo’s post: …I say WE give up…) This is power of WE.
You cannot discuss implementing ID in schools. Before prescribing a cure you should have researched the condition of the patient (schools). You should have asked yourself how did it happen that Darwinists gained such control and ability to suppress any questions just by quoting each other.
How did Darwin’s fantasies gain such spread and power, while Mendel’s genetics, which appeared almost at the same time, was practically unknown. It has never been found a trace of species in the process of evolution, but only the end results – the missing links were imagined by Darwin, a good scientist, whose input in classification of species must not be underappreciated. When Darwin was still alive, Mendel showed that adaptation to environment was a fantasy. No experiments could prove Darwin, while Mendel always had a predicted result.. It was not so long ago when laws of math and thermodynamics (discovered quite long ago) came into play to say that substance could not organize itself in the way Darwin claimed it could. Of course, real scientists had been too busy with discovering real laws rather than paying attention to fiction theories around. Genetics was running on background while Darwin was reining, and he is still reining.
You should have asked yourself – why and how did it happen? Before breaking you forehead at the wall called WE, THE DARWINISTS, you should have looked for weak spots.
 
justone said:
Well, Oracle, I think you can quote 70 and 70 more researches and scientists, but you would not convince the Darwinists quoting each other (tryreading’s post and enigmo’s post: …I say WE give up…) This is power of WE.
You cannot discuss implementing ID in schools. Before prescribing a cure you should have researched the condition of the patient (schools). You should have asked yourself how did it happen that Darwinists gained such control and ability to suppress any questions just by quoting each other.
How did Darwin’s fantasies gain such spread and power, while Mendel’s genetics, which appeared almost at the same time, was practically unknown. It has never been found a trace of species in the process of evolution, but only the end results – the missing links were imagined by Darwin, a good scientist, whose input in classification of species must not be underappreciated. When Darwin was still alive, Mendel showed that adaptation to environment was a fantasy. No experiments could prove Darwin, while Mendel always had a predicted result.. It was not so long ago when laws of math and thermodynamics (discovered quite long ago) came into play to say that substance could not organize itself in the way Darwin claimed it could. Of course, real scientists had been too busy with discovering real laws rather than paying attention to fiction theories around. Genetics was running on background while Darwin was reining, and he is still reining.
You should have asked yourself – why and how did it happen? Before breaking you forehead at the wall called WE, THE DARWINISTS, you should have looked for weak spots.

This is a mischaracterization of everything that science stands for. Science is not based on dogma, it relentlessly seeks to come closer to describing the truth. Believe me, if even a single piece of evidence existed that disproved Evolution, either the theory would be thrown out or revised to be consistent with the evidence. No such evidence has been found. The only people that are opposed to Evolution are those that are willfully ignorant of the facts in order to protect their religio-centric world-view. It's not worth arguing with those that will never be convinced. For the past century scientists have consistently been accruing mountains of data that overwhelmingly support Evolution - it seems that no amount of proof will ever be enough for people like you and oracle.
 
Engimo said:
Honestly, I say we give up. There is no amount of evidence that we could provide that would vindicate Evolution as a valid theory in oracle's eyes. He is beyond reasoning with and is blinded by a dogmatic adherence to an illogical world-view. It's honestly not worth the time.
Well, that's the reason I put him on ignore long ago. When someone willfully lie, there is no point in dealing with them.

And reading here has been much more pleasant after I stopped giving the dishonest creationist a forum for his lies.
 
justone said:
Well, Oracle, I think you can quote 70 and 70 more researches and scientists, but you would not convince the Darwinists quoting each other (tryreading’s post and enigmo’s post: …I say WE give up…) This is power of WE.
You cannot discuss implementing ID in schools. Before prescribing a cure you should have researched the condition of the patient (schools). You should have asked yourself how did it happen that Darwinists gained such control and ability to suppress any questions just by quoting each other.
How did Darwin’s fantasies gain such spread and power, while Mendel’s genetics, which appeared almost at the same time, was practically unknown. It has never been found a trace of species in the process of evolution, but only the end results – the missing links were imagined by Darwin, a good scientist, whose input in classification of species must not be underappreciated. When Darwin was still alive, Mendel showed that adaptation to environment was a fantasy. No experiments could prove Darwin, while Mendel always had a predicted result.. It was not so long ago when laws of math and thermodynamics (discovered quite long ago) came into play to say that substance could not organize itself in the way Darwin claimed it could. Of course, real scientists had been too busy with discovering real laws rather than paying attention to fiction theories around. Genetics was running on background while Darwin was reining, and he is still reining.
You should have asked yourself – why and how did it happen? Before breaking you forehead at the wall called WE, THE DARWINISTS, you should have looked for weak spots.

I have never been a Darwinist, people like you invented the word.

I think you are afraid of the theory of evolution, oracle is too. The fear is it contradicts your version of a particular religion. I have assumed you are a Christian, maybe I'm wrong, but if you are and this theory shakes your beliefs, your faith is very weak.
 
Back
Top Bottom