More Intelligent Design

[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Cycle: quick, look @ the re-edit. Might clarify.

You've seen a lot of me at daggers drawn, and you've seen me enjoying food and drink. These two have always been around, along with other goodies. It should not cause "character shock" if another facet of a character should from time to time emerge.

Not the Arnie-Connery type I'd imagined at all then? (Sigh) What is a man to do...??

[Amnesiac42]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Send a buch of teens out into the real world with no knowlege of science and steeped in philosophy?
Well, that will give us a shot at beating out Pakistan in the 7-11 clerk dominance race.

ok, let me reiterate. i'm not suggesting that we ignor science and teach children strictly on philosophy. wow, my brain shut off. i really don't how to explain this. well, i can say that we can stop teaching kids that the real world begins after high school, and that they're already in it. we shouldn't be placing them in these narrow modes of thought, like sending you're kid to school and saying "now remember, if you're teacher talks about evolution, cover your ears because it's not true" rather it should be "here are two theories, what do YOU think about them?". which really isn't done until college, and by that time students are already drilled to memorize thing instead of conceptualizing them. like, a girl in my english 102 class the other day said "this poem is stupid, it doesn't mean anything" so the teacher explained it to her that there are many ways of interpreting it and looking at it, and there are many ideas that one can draw from these perspectives. but she was so focused on looking for some direct meaning in the poem, she couldn't see how it meant something that wasn't right there in front of her face. and she's not stupid, but no one probably taught her poetry like that before.

it's like in math, i'm horrible at math. they give you rules to solve problems, but never explain how they work conceptually. not that it's difficult to understand, but why teach math if you're only going to make kids memorize a bunch of rules for operation when they have no idea what they're really doing? or care?

i guess i should also say that i don't think creationism should ever be taught in place of anything scientific, just to clarify. what you guys are feeding back to me makes sense and i agree. i'm pretty bad at making my point most of the time.

so i'm surious to know, (and i'm not being a smart ass, i really want to know) what evidence is there for evolution? they shouldn't teach it as truth if they don't know for sure. and that's my big problem, that we teach kids things are true and they don't question it, so when something comes up that challenges this (like how people think god made man out of dirt and women from a rib) they freak out. it's better, in my opinion, to just say "here's everything we know about THIS, tell me what you think" it's dangerous to base an entire tree of thought from a fallible axiom, like in my opinion, creationism as a truth of science. there are so many ways to deny it as truth, it's almost useless to spell it out to the proponents of it. plus we shouldn't be imposing religion on people in public places anyway, i think. spitituality is a personal thing, no one's going to take it away or tell you that you are wrong unless to force them to.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

so i'm surious to know, (and i'm not being a smart ass, i really want to know) what evidence is there for evolution?

The principles of evolution are even found in children born with what we call deformities. One need only go back through fossils to see the progression of life as species 'deformed' to become other species. In that chain are the so called 'missing links'. But even DNA analysis demonstrates massive identical strains between man and other 'so called' lower level mammals.

To have a theory, first one must demonstrate the theory is consistent with other known facts and theories. To take that theory to fact is what we are all taught even in junior high school science. There must be a consistent theory AND (second) there must be experimental evidence. As additional evidence continues to demonstrate the concept of evolution, the concept becomes a more complete fact. Remember, much evidence of evolution (like most science) has only been discovered in the last hundred years. But already there is much evidence that supports the theory.

Meanwhile Intelligence Design is only speculation. Intelligence Design does not even have sufficient information to be called a theory. Does it have any supporting evidence? No. None. Is it consistent with other existing science facts and theories? No. In fact the concept of Intelligent Design often contradicts well established science principles. But then show me. Show me where Intelligent Design meets the criteria as taught in junior high school science? It does not. It does not even meet the criteria to be a theory.

Intelligent Design (ID) is similar to a Rush Limbaugh decree. Somehow we just know it must exist because someone all powerful told us to believe it. We need not know why nor have any supporting evidence. Somehow that is sufficient to call it a science. ID does not even meet the criteria necessary to be a theory.

ID is based upon an interpretation of an early science book called the bible. Mankind has since used what was learned from the bible and other good books - then moved on. Mankind disposed of parables that were clearly erroneous.

But you tell me. If Adam and Eve had Cain and Able, then how did Cain and Able have children? Spontaneous reproduction? Inbreeding? As even Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor notes, "The Gospel should be read spiritually, but with critical intelligence." "What the church insists on is the spiritual message of the Bible, not its literal truth."

What worked from the bible, then mankind carried forward to develop new ways of thinking, proving, learning, and therefore advancing mankind. The bible was an early attempt at establishing order. To base ID on a strict biblical interpretation when the bible has so many errors, well, that again makes ID only speculation.

Therein lies a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science has long since move forward - established better criteria - defined a difference between a fact, theory, hypothesis, and speculation. Science says we have so many more of god's laws to learn. But the teachings behind Intelligent Design says we already know all god's laws. How myopic - as well as bad science.

The concepts of evolution pioneered by Darwin are regularly demonstrated in fossils, DNA, biochemistry, and other scientific principles. ID is based only upon spiritual speculation which is sometimes in direct contradiction to science. After all, biblical interpretation also insisted that the earth was flat and that the sun went around the earth. This too was proven from scriptures - and then recanted when scientific principles prove those speculations as false. That's right - speculations.

If ID had any scientific basis, then spontaneous reproduction is also a valid theory. Spontaneous reproduction has as much basis in fact as Intelligent Design. Neither meets the criteria as even taught in junior high school science.

But look. If your religion believes Intelligent Design, then good. Do as my religion did. We went to religion class after school to learn about religious beliefs. Concepts based upon religious speculations have no place in science, math and public school. Those parts of the bible that were accurate are already taught in and as science and math. I resent speculations being taught as science when Intelligent Design clearly violates principles upon which science and math are based. The word is 'clearly'. But then show me. Using principals of science as taught in junior high school, show me how ID meets that criteria. It should be easy given that ID has been taught for well over 2000 years. Show me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

snip~~ well, i can say that we can stop teaching kids that the real world begins after high school, and that they're already in it.

High school it the real world? Not even close, neither is college in most cases.

we shouldn't be placing them in these narrow modes of thought, like sending you're kid to school and saying "now remember, if you're teacher talks about evolution, cover your ears because it's not true" rather it should be "here are two theories, what do YOU think about them?".

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.**

it's like in math, i'm horrible at math. they give you rules to solve problems, but never explain how they work conceptually. not that it's difficult to understand, but why teach math if you're only going to make kids memorize a bunch of rules for operation when they have no idea what they're really doing? or care?

I show you a wrench. I show you how to put it on a nut and move it counterclockwise to loosen the nut and clockwise to tighten the nut. That’s all you need to use the tool. You don’t have to know who invented the tool, what steel alloy it’s made of or how much it cost. None of those things matter when you have a nut to turn.
Math rules are tools. If you are that into the concept behind them, become a math major. When you are trying to solve a problem, pass an exam in physics or straighten out your budget, the concepts behind the tool are the last thing your mind, you’re just grateful for any tool that works.

i guess i should also say that i don't think creationism should ever be taught in place of anything scientific, just to clarify.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how the flora and fauna changed over the millennia to what we see today, it’s strictly Biology.
It has nothing to do with other sciences like Geology, Astronomy, Chemistry or Physics.
It takes years of study to learn just the rudiments of evolution.
ID takes 3 minutes to cover in its entirety. Are you going to schedule an entire year, semester or even a class to cover a 3 minute lesson?

so i'm surious to know, (and i'm not being a smart ass, i really want to know) what evidence is there for evolution?

**It took thousands of scientists hundreds of years to slowly put the theory of evolution together and you want me to explain it to you here?

so they shouldn't teach it as truth if they don't know for sure. and that's my big problem, that we teach kids things are true and they don't question it, so when something comes up that challenges this (like how people think god made man out of dirt and women from a rib) they freak out.

They were being told this long before they ever were taught any science.

it's better, in my opinion, to just say "here's everything we know about THIS, tell me what you think"

First of all it would take the rest of your life to just explain "everything we know about THIS", and you still wouldn't be in a position to pass judgement because you're not a trained scientist.

it's dangerous to base an entire tree of thought from a fallible axiom, like in my opinion, creationism as a truth of science. there are so many ways to deny it as truth, it's almost useless to spell it out to the proponents of it. plus we shouldn't be imposing religion on people in public places anyway, i think. spitituality is a personal thing, no one's going to take it away or tell you that you are wrong unless to force them to.

First, find out what you're talking about and stop throwing around terms you don't understand. It you want to make a decision learn the terms and the facts behind them. Don't try to boil it down to choice between two 3 minute statements.

[Amnesiac42]

well, you don't have to be a jerk about it. i don't come here to argue, just to share information. i understand expectly what i'm saying. sorry that you don't. and i don't say you don't because you're stupid, i mean that judging by your reply im really think either i didn't do very good job of making myself clear or you missed my point. who said i waned to make a decision?

so, i'm done with this thread, but just in case anyone has the wrong idea about anything i said:

1. i think ID is bunk because it's a mask for creationism
2. why do people trust in science over religion? (this does NOT mean i distrust science, it's just a question, because both are trying to explain reality. myself, i'm partial to science, because, well, probably for the same reasons anyone else is, it's examination is founded more objectively than myth or religion but, just look at the question, not the one asking it, will you?)
3. i think education should be more objective and just provide information, like how the news doesn't give you the news, they give it to you with their opinions...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

2. why do people trust in science over religion? (this does NOT mean i distrust science, it's just a question, because both are trying to explain reality.

Because science has a by-product, technology, that proves its method to be sound. Whether or not you strust the scientific method, technology works for you. If you don't believe in religion, it does nothing.

3. i think education should be more objective and just provide information, like how the news doesn't give you the news, they give it to you with their opinions...

Exactly. Science is information, and religion is opinion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

well, you don't have to be a jerk about it. i don't come here to argue, just to share information. i understand expectly what i'm saying. sorry that you don't. and i don't say you don't because you're stupid, i mean that judging by your reply im really think either i didn't do very good job of making myself clear or you missed my point. who said i waned to make a decision?

Forget science, ID and evolution. Take remedial English for spelling and punctuation if you want to make your opinions known. :p

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

*sigh*

Don't look now but...

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.


His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

[OnyxCougar]

these are the same people who think that birth control is bad, that missionary position is the only "acceptable way" to have sex, and that if you enjoy sex, you're sinning. Oh yeah, and you can buy your way to heaven.

Yeah, like I'm going to listen to them.

Genesis is not meant to be a scientific treatise.

A clear reading of the hebrew text gives clear, unambiguous understanding of what the book is saying. The book says HaShem (God) made the universe, sun, moon, stars, earth, all plants, animals and men and women, in six literal, 24 hour days. (It says "yom" and "yom" preceded by a number always, with no exeptions, means a 24 hour day)

From timelines in the bible that can be historically validated outside of the book itself, this happened about 6,000 years ago.

That is what the book says. I don't care what the ID people think or the Catholics think, or anyone else thinks. That is what the book says. Learn the Hebrew and read it. You'll find out that that is what the book says. You'll notice Jews don't have a problem with all this ID/evolution crap because most of the can read Hebrew and read the text for themselves. The book says days. The book says that HaShem breathed life into the man.

Now whether you believe that or not is your opinion. But the fact remains that the book says what it says. It does NOT say that God created the universe over "billions of years" or "periods of time" ago, and that he let events happen making minor adjustments here and there until man evolved from a primordial soup.

And MY opinion is that if you read the book of Genesis (within which there are NOT allegories or parables) literally (as it was intended), it is perfectly clear what the book is saying.

Again, your agreement with the book itself is strictly a matter of opinion. But the book says what it says, I don't care how Cardinal whats his nuts wants to capitulate and compromise to make the Catholics feel more "hip" and "with it". Because that's all he's doing. The whole ID movement is compromising as well. I'll say it again. Either you believe the Genesis account, or you believe in evolution. There is no middle ground, because the text of the book allows no middle ground. It's just not there. I'm sorry, ID people. Read the freaking book.

And as a side note, people like the ID people and this Cardinal do more to hurt Christians than help them. I lump them in the same category as Bush and Robertson. I am proud to say I'm not a Christian like they are a Christian. IMO, they aren't Christian at all.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

You'll notice Jews don't have a problem with all this ID/evolution crap because most of the can read Hebrew and read the text for themselves.

Actually I've noticed a dearth of opinions on creationism from the jews.

Why don't you cite something for us since you seem to be so tuned in on the issue?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

these are the same people who think that birth control is bad, that missionary position is the only "acceptable way" to have sex, and that if you enjoy sex, you're sinning.

I guess if God created a finished man and woman instead of kids, he wasn't big on paediaphilia either.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Actually I've noticed a dearth of opinions on creationism from the jews.

Why don't you cite something for us since you seem to be so tuned in on the issue?

Since you have "noticed a dearth of opinions on creationism from the Jews", why don't YOU cite it?

[Troubleshooter]

It's kind of hard to quantify a negative don't you think?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Since you have "noticed a dearth of opinions on creationism from the Jews", why don't YOU cite it?

Did you do a quick check on what "dearth" means?

[warch]

Yea!
The voters of Dover, Pa just voted out every single sitting republican school board member wanting to insert ID into the science curriculum. Clean sweep. ID belongs in a discussion of comparative religions. Not in science class.