Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Personally, I find it appalling that Darwinism is accepted as a standard to be taught in schools while if the concept of Intelligent Design is even brought up the teacher/professor/scientist/whoever faces a very good chance of loosing their credibility and even their job. Lets see what others think...

I find the movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed to be a fascinating movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWbTCeF_o8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDIwm_1bAEU

Oh, and this trailer is epic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKAMuQWld6g

BTW, religious prosecution will not be tolerated. And this is not a debate about which is true, you won't be able to prove either side... though that always seems to be the result of these debates. Lets see if we can keep it clean this time.

While I disagree with Darwinism being taught as fact in schools, I also disagree with taking anything coming out of Ben Stein's mouth seriously.

While there is evidence behind Darwinian Evolution (not proof) I see none behind the idea of an intelligent creator. Those who believe in intelligent design are making a blind assumption, based on lack of evidence for other routes of thinking, that there must be a creator.

Don't try to tell me that those who believe in a god are being persecuted, when I just had to sit through a public prayer at the PRESIDENTIAL inauguration.

Honestly, thre is no way to actually prove either

I think that NEITHER should be exclusively taught in schools. I believe a nuetral standpoint should be taken where both sides are explained in brief.

I agree with Seath. I think that macro evolution and creationism should both be introduced and briefly explained. Since the scientific approach to either relies primarily on micro evolution (aka natural selection), I think that can still be taught as fact.

Macro evolution: life began as simple organisms and over an extended period of time, natural selection lead to more complex organisms.

Creationism: A higher being created life and a series of simple and complex organisms, and over a period of time shorter than that of macro evolution, through natural selection, simply organisms mutated into different simple organisms, and complex organisms mutated into different complex organisms.

So, rather than writing a research paper about macro evolution exclusively, you could write a paper about either, pointing out the scientific pros and cons of whichever one you choose.

Since I'm in the middle on this issue, I'm just gonna sit this one out.

ReconToaster wrote:While I disagree with Darwinism being taught as fact in schools, I also disagree with taking anything coming out of Ben Stein's mouth seriously.

You say that for all creation speakers...

ReconToaster wrote:While there is evidence behind Darwinian Evolution (not proof) I see none behind the idea of an intelligent creator. Those who believe in intelligent design are making a blind assumption, based on lack of evidence for other routes of thinking, that there must be a creator.

The problem with this idea is that Darwinism does not explain how life came to be, just what happened after that.
You don't think there is any evidence for ID? Look around you, every species is similar. It may still seem far fetched, but no more than "nothing exploded into everything and a perfect ecosystem was created that then produced the perfect combination of elements and energy that then created life" (big bang) or "life was seeded on Earth" (aliens). You know... it's amazing how many people subscribe to the big bang when it's so unrealistic.

ReconToaster wrote:Don't try to tell me that those who believe in a god are being persecuted, when I just had to sit through a public prayer at the PRESIDENTIAL inauguration.

The education system rejects the idea of ID as even being plausible. While they aren't persecuting religion, they are violating the ability to express it, which then hinders the ability to look at all possibilities.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Honestly, thre is no way to actually prove either

Which is why we aren't going to go over that.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:I think that NEITHER should be exclusively taught in schools. I believe a nuetral standpoint should be taken where both sides are explained in brief.

I like this idea, but it sadly isn't happening...

Rotaretilbo wrote:I agree with Seath. I think that macro evolution and creationism should both be introduced and briefly explained. Since the scientific approach to either relies primarily on micro evolution (aka natural selection), I think that can still be taught as fact.

You don't even have to teach creationism, just ID. Creationism relies on religion, while ID just means that there was a common creator.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Macro evolution: life began as simple organisms and over an extended period of time, natural selection lead to more complex organisms.

Creationism: A higher being created life and a series of simple and complex organisms, and over a period of time shorter than that of macro evolution, through natural selection, simply organisms mutated into different simple organisms, and complex organisms mutated into different complex organisms.

So, rather than writing a research paper about macro evolution exclusively, you could write a paper about either, pointing out the scientific pros and cons of whichever one you choose.

I like this, but sadly...

The problem with this idea is that Darwinism does not explain how life came to be, just what happened after that.
You don't think there is any evidence for ID? Look around you, every species is similar. It may still seem far fetched, but no more than "nothing exploded into everything and a perfect ecosystem was created that then produced the perfect combination of elements and energy that then created life" (big bang) or "life was seeded on Earth" (aliens). You know... it's amazing how many people subscribe to the big bang when it's so unrealistic.

It's not like the "big bang" got it right on first try. There are trillions of planets out there. It's not all that spectacular that ONE of them got it right.

The thing about the big bang theory (yes, theory) is that there is evidence for it. Saying that everything looks similar only points to the fact that we all developed in similar ecosystems and under similar Earth characteristics. Saying that there is an intelligent designer is quite a jump.

We can see through special telescopes that there is "red shift" moving outward from a central point. All this means is that everything is expanding outward, and therefore may have originated from an explosion. That is evidence.

Its so hard to believe that it took billions of years for everything on earth to become what it is today, but you believe all this happened in only 7 days?


Intellegent design is just for the religous people who don't have the stones to argue so they compromise

Oh well Darwanism actually makes sense...........BUT GOD DID IT!!!!!!

Lord Pheonix wrote:Its so hard to believe that it took billions of years for everything on earth to become what it is today, but you believe all this happened in only 7 days?


Intellegent design is just for the religous people who don't have the stones to argue so they compromise

Oh well Darwanism actually makes sense...........BUT GOD DID IT!!!!!!

Okay LP, if you're (allegedly) ReconToaster, then why not just post as him in this thread and not back "yourself" up with your own account?

I know that what you said wasn't true btw.

Keep it to the subject pie

ReconToaster wrote:It's not like the "big bang" got it right on first try. There are trillions of planets out there. It's not all that spectacular that ONE of them got it right.

With the odds less than one-in-a-google-plex... I think so.

ReconToaster wrote:The thing about the big bang theory (yes, theory) is that there is evidence for it. Saying that everything looks similar only points to the fact that we all developed in similar ecosystems and under similar Earth characteristics. Saying that there is an intelligent designer is quite a jump.

You want evidence? Jesus is evidence. You can claim that all of his miracles are fake, but then I can claim that all of your evidence is common coincidence.

ReconToaster wrote:We can see through special telescopes that there is "red shift" moving outward from a central point. All this means is that everything is expanding outward, and therefore may have originated from an explosion. That is evidence.

Then tell me, why do some planet spin backwards? Why are all of the larger planets perfectly round? I think this is more of an explanation for a common creator than an explosion.

And one more thing, how did all of the matter everywhere fit into such a small place? And why did it do that? How did it get there?

Lord Pheonix wrote:Its so hard to believe that it took billions of years for everything on earth to become what it is today, but you believe all this happened in only 7 days?

And you believe in a theory that doesn't even tell you how life started. Full of holes.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Intellegent design is just for the religous people who don't have the stones to argue so they compromise

You do realize that I started this debate... right?

Lord Pheonix wrote:Keep it to the subject pie

You just got OWNED.... OWNED OWNED OWNED!

I haven't seen anything except micro-evolution taught in school.

so realistically, teaching darwinism in schools is perfectly acceptable, as i've never seen anyone teach macro-evolution which is where the real debate lies.

Civ wrote:And you believe in a theory that doesn't even tell you how life started. Full of holes.

Evolution was never intended to explain how life began, it was put in place to attempt to explain how life progressed. The only people claiming to know how life began are those of religion, and they base their idea on books, not scientific findings.

The fact that we cannot yet explain the origins of life does not mean that Creationism/Intelligent Designs MUST BE TRUE.

Civ wrote:Then tell me, why do some planet spin backwards? Why are all of the larger planets perfectly round? I think this is more of an explanation for a common creator than an explosion.

Venus only spins backwards relative to us. I don't see the correlation between this and the big bang. Planets are round because their own mass and gravitation causes them to compact into spherical shapes. There's nothing magical about it Civ. They are far from perfect as well. Earth, for instance, bulges at its poles.

Civ wrote:And one more thing, how did all of the matter everywhere fit into such a small place? And why did it do that? How did it get there?

Look into Matter-Antimatter reactions. The question of how it got there is something I cannot answer, but I'm not going to jump to the conclusion of there being a god.

Civ wrote:You want evidence? Jesus is evidence. You can claim that all of his miracles are fake, but then I can claim that all of your evidence is common coincidence.

I thought this wasn't about religion Civ. Thing is, in order to use submit "Jesus" as evidence, you must first find evidence that he ever existed in the first place. The only historians of the time to reference Jesus have either been proven a false source, or have simply referred to a "Christus" or "anointed one." I'm not saying the guy never existed, but you'd think someone with such a strong following would have gathered a bit of attention.


The thing about science is that it questions itself. No real scientist would ever present a theory (Macro Evolution, Big bang) as absolute fact. Religious organizations on the other hand close their gates and dismiss any argument that does not translate well to their beliefs.

You can't ridicule science for not having an absolute answer to the origins of life, as the ID assumption is no more than a cop-out, an evasion of the scientific method.

I think we should just abolish schools and have every able bodied child conscripted into the military.

Invalids can be left to die.

ALL HAIL THE NEW AMERICAN EMPIRE!!





on a more serious note

I don't think either should be taught in public schools (although if there had to be a choice I'd choose creationism)
since I don't believe in brainwashing people.

CivBase wrote:

Lord Pheonix wrote:quot;]Its so hard to believe that it took billions of years for everything on earth to become what it is today, but you believe all this happened in only 7 days?

And you believe in a theory that doesn't even tell you how life started. Full of holes.

How is that full of holes?


Im not saying how the shit started but how it evolved AFTERWARDS

Thats another theory all together as this is EVOLUTION, not how it began. If it was it would be God Vs Big Bang, not DESIGN VS DARWANISM you stupid twat.



I don't see how your theory explains how we figured out how to make automobiles

ITS FULL OF HOLES!!!

Alright, a few things.

First, red shift hardly proves that nothing just exploded for no reason. Christians don't exclusively believe that the big bang never happened, but simply that it didn't happen all on its own without any help. You see, the big bang assumes that something has existed for an infinite amount of time prior to now. However, for something to have just always been is not scientific. Now, Christianity believes that God always has been, and since God is a supernatural being not constrained by the normal rules of science, this is ok. The problem with science vs religion on the origin of the universe is that both need something to have simply always existed, but one cannot believe that something has always existed.

Now then, I'm surprised to see arguments about how Jesus never existed. Because last I checked, the myriad of Jewish, Roman, Christian, and other historians who mention Jesus in their writing isn't something you can just ignore. It's not quite, but almost as absurd as claims that the holocaust never happened, or that Jews never controlled the land of Israel before the 1940's. If every single Bible were to be burned and purged from everyone's memory, we could pretty much reconstruct the entire Bible from both religious and secular historical documents. I'm pretty sure that, miracles all aside, Jesus was at the very least an actual man who actually existed, was actually executed for heresy and stirring up the people, and whose body actually disappeared under mysterious circumstances.

Now then, back to macro evolution vs creationism. You see, the problem is that while there is some evidence of macro evolution, there are also things that seem odd, like the fossil record going from practically blank to quite full in what we call the Cambrian Explosion. Science's explanation: snow ball earth. Quite frankly, I don't believe that slightly elevated levels of oxygen in the atmosphere would cause life to just suddenly come out of no where in mass numbers. So, if you are looking for evidence, but not proof, here's a little evidence for creationism. It isn't the best, but then, I'm doing this off the top of my head rather than spending time researching the scientific pros and cons of creationism, mainly due to laziness.

Also, on the origin of life, I believe that macro evolution does go over it, though I'm not quite clear on what exactly it suggests on how exactly life got here. Really, the main differences between macro evolution and creationism are intelligent design, age of the Earth, and mutation vs addition of genetic complexity. I would even go as far as to say that, as a creationist, I believe that natural selection can progress to a point where the mutant species can no longer give birth to fertile offspring with the initial species, creating a new species. However, these two species are of the same complexity level. So the main problem creationists run into with evolution is the advancement of species, rather than the mutation of species.

What is important, however, is that most everyone here, aside from NT, was taught macro evolution in high school, and was taught it as absolute fact. I've heard that in college, evolution is approached with a grain of salt and treated as theory, but at the high school level, teachers seem to be very adamant about it being fact. That is where I take issue. I don't mind it being taught in school, but at the very least, I want it to be part of the curriculum that it is made clear that evolution is not fact, that science is never fact because the very goal of science itself is to disprove itself and achieve a higher understanding of something, and that there is no such thing as fact or perfection in science.

yup, pretty much, rot lol

It's weird that I live in California and i get the most realistic, impartial education I've ever heard of, despite the fact people seem to think California teaches all kids that gays are cool and god doesn't exist.

My Highshcool barely even covered it, and when we did our teacher rushed through it because she didn't want to get into this kinda shit lol



She taught the way the school said, but did a VERY brief review of the other sides cause she wanted to teach it fair.

Rot wrote:First, red shift hardly proves that nothing just exploded for no reason.

But it tells us that everything in the Universe is moving outward from a central point which, last time I checked, is frequently to result of an explosion.

Rot wrote:God is a supernatural being not constrained by the normal rules of science, this is ok.

Sounds to me like a BIG fucking cop-out. Can't figure out how the universe began? Lets throw in a magical being, void of all scientific jurisdiction, capable of doing ANYTHING. You've got a real sound theory there rot.

Rot wrote:Now then, I'm surprised to see arguments about how Jesus never existed.

The point I was getting at is that while science is based off of tangible evidence that is available to us today, the only evidence for intelligent design that Civ can seem to muster up is a 2,000 year old guy for whom the extent of his existence is debatable.

Rot wrote:What is important, however, is that most everyone here, aside from NT, was taught macro evolution in high school, and was taught it as absolute fact.

Put me on the list with NT. Only Micro evolution is taught as absolute fact in most schools...

Rot wrote:science is never fact because the very goal of science itself is to disprove itself and achieve a higher understanding of something

Great, so we can stop basing arguments for god off of disproving scientific theory?

RT, don't get mad just because you cant disprove the idea f there being a god.

How do you know god didn't cause the big bang? Last I checked, something like that could hav e drastic effect on time, and could turn seven billion or seven trillion years into seven days in some cases.

lol

Im just saying, you can't actually prove that god doesn't exist(or does for that matter) so you cant go around and teach "there is no such thing as ID, only evolution" in schools.

but its SCIENCE class. They teach stuff and theorize, not just say "God did it" and move on.

Im saying they should briefly touch on both.
In classes today its not "This is a theory" its "This is the fact"

looka t your average textbook and thats about what it says

Well i sated many times both are intertwined since i belive god (or whatever you want to call him) that he put the bacterira and other germs in this universe and helped push them along to become what they have today.

Seath wrote:RT, don't get mad just because you cant disprove the idea f there being a god.

I'm not trying to disprove the possibility of there being a god, I'm trying to refute Intelligent Design as a logical conclusion given today's evidence. Lack of evidence is not evidence for the existence of a god.

So you are basically saying that there is no god
what if everything was designed by god to happen as it has? what if god altered all the variables to make everything happen as it has?