Help...Creationism taught in school debate

[McCragge]

I have been lurking here for sometime trying to catch up on the massive amounts of forums, threads and posts. However, being this is my first post here, I thought I would ask the following:

Recently I got into a debate with an in-law over Creationism being taught in school. My arguement being "No" it is religion and in governtment funded and run schools, that is unconsitutional.

His arguement is that Creationism/Intelligent design is a science and should be taught as an alternate.

Now, I bring this up here on our boards because...well, hell this place is the mecca of debate and arguing. Plus he sent me this e-mail which I will post in it's entirety down below. But before I do that, I was hoping to get insights from you guys here on the matter as I am unsure were to start in this debate or to look up the facts or more importantly avoid the hidden land mines labeled as "science" but are infact religion disguised as science.

Here is the email in total:

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

I don't know how to make the links, well links, so they're just red.

Some people like to claim that paranormal phenomena and other wyrd experiences are "scientifically impossible".

Nothing is scientifically impossible.

True science is a process. A process of proposing and testing new and modified theories to fit new observations. The current state of science is simply the most effective set of theories we have come up with to date.

All scientific theories change over time. Sometimes it is small modifications, sometimes it is changes at extremes, sometimes it is a complete paradigm shift. The only thing we can say for sure about science is that our current theories are unlikely to be "right".

Science consists of observations and theories. There is no such thing as a "scientific fact". There is no such thing as a "scientific truth". There is no such thing as "scientifically impossible".

Good science is about making the theories fit the observations - not the other way round. Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo.

That's not science - that's religion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all things are scientifically proveable

Because of his massive body size and his tiny wings, scientists and physicists will tell you that it is structurally impossible, scientifically impossible, aerodynamically impossible, just plain out virtually impossible for a Bumble-Bee to lift off the ground and go airborne! SOMEBODY FORGOT TO TELL THIS TO THE BUMBLE BEE!
Not only can he fly, he can also hover like a helicopter!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

THEORIES OF EVOLUTION

Evolution in one sense, means growth or development--literally, unrolling or unfolding. It is difficult to give a clear definition that will apply to each of the various theories that are held. Theories differ vastly in the extent of their application, as held by their various advocates, resulting in great confusion of terms:

1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not created, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man."

2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all plants and animals, including man, are developed from certain original simple germs, was Lamarck a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded that God created matter--nothing more. He believed in spontaneous generation, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.

3. Darwin goes a step further and concedes there may have been a Creator of matter, and of one, or at most, a few germs, from which all vegetation and all animals came by evolution--all orders, classes, families, genera, species, and varieties. He differs from Lamarck, by allowing the creation of one germ, possibly a few more. He says in his "Origin of Species," "I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lesser number . Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from one prototype...All the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, may be descended from some one primordial form." Darwin, because of his great scholarship, fairness, and candor, won for his theory more favor than it inherently deserves. Darwin taught that, "The lower impulses of vegetable life pass, by insensible gradations, into the instinct of animals and the higher intelligence of man," without purpose or design. None of these three hypotheses can admit the creation of man.

4. Other evolutionists, believing in the evolution of both plants and animals, nevertheless refuse to believe in the evolution of man--the most baneful application of the whole theory. Even if there were convincing proof of the evolution of plants and animals from one germ, there is no real proof of the evolution of man. To prove this is the chief purpose of this book.

5. A fifth theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that al1 species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation. Evolution is used throughout this book in this latter sense, unless otherwise indicated by the context. God does not create by evolution, for it can only develop what already exists. This book is divided into three parts: In Part One, material evolution, especially the evolution of the human body, is disproved. In Part Two, the alleged proofs of evolution are examined and refuted. In Part Three, the evolution of the soul is shown to be impossible. There are in all fifty numbered arguments, including answers to the arguments of evolutionists.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

This site gives information about the decision process about intelligent design and what took place. The following passage is the summary of the article.

Summary

Local school boards and state education officials are frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy about the issue.160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.

The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.

+ + + + + + + + + +

All help and insights are greatly appreciated.

Thanks

McCragge

[Garrette]

Others with more scientific expertise will no doubt chime in and point you to specifics, but I'd start with these:

1. Evolution does not equal atheism and does not discuss the origin of life, the universe, or the earth. To insist it does demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of it.

2. If they think that Creationism or Intelligent Design is a science, ask them to present it. If it is a science, there will be more to it than saying "Evolution has problems." It will have its own theory, its own research (published and peer-reviewed) and its own predictions. What you will get is references to scientific-sounding diatribes without reference to research, theory, or prediction.

[I]Edited to add: It's also a gross misrepresentation of Edwards v. Aguillard. Try reading this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html).

[Hawk one]

About bumblebees and the apparent impossibility of them flying (http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_09_13_04.html)

Tell your friend that he should, if he's so knowledgeable about science, know what actually is happening in science instead of repeating an urban legend.

[SezMe]

That bumble story is actually a very good indication of how science works. At one time, based on the then current understanding of aerodynames and biology, it was recognized that bumble bees could not fly so scientists recognized that their "science" needed revision. And revise they did until bumble bee flight was comfortably brought into the fold of scientific understanding.

Now, ask your in-law thinks ID would react to contradictory information. Right - and there is your answer why ID is not science.

[Ossai]

Not all things are scientifically proveable

Because of his massive body size and his tiny wings, scientists and physicists will tell you that it is structurally impossible, scientifically impossible, aerodynamically impossible, just plain out virtually impossible for a Bumble-Bee to lift off the ground and go airborne! SOMEBODY FORGOT TO TELL THIS TO THE BUMBLE BEE!
Not only can he fly, he can also hover like a helicopter!
This is just pure ignorance. Start here
http://www.pass.maths.org.uk/issue17/news/bumble/index-gifd.html

It and quiet a few other things like, people use only 10% of their brain, never landed on the moon, etc are just ignorance repeated until people believe them without actually bothering to check for the facts.

Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. – I know you are reposting but – care to name any of the scientific evidence ID is based upon? :crickets

Briefly on the next part:
Damn but a bunch of straw men.
In Part One, material evolution, especially the evolution of the human body, is disproved. Must mean that god is a really lousy designer. From the little tow to the eye and everything in between.

In Part Two, the alleged proofs of evolution are examined and refuted. Considering that all modern western medicine starts with biology and the cornerstone of biology is evolution, it must come as quiet a surprise to all those doctors. It’s must be divine magic making insulin, developed because of evolution, effective for human use.

In Part Three, the evolution of the soul is shown to be impossible. Begging the question. First define soul.

Ossai

[Odin]

Which creationism should be taught?

I like the one involving giant cows and Ymir best.

"Nothing is scientifically impossible"

INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN.
You need evidence to show something is true. Without evidence ANYTHING imaginable has a possibility to be true including the IPU. Because of this it is assumed to not be true until there is evidence for it. Where is the evidence for creationism? There is plenty for evolution.


I think I remember the Bumble bee being covered before

this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47358&highlight=bumble)

[tdn]

There are so many problems here that it's hard to know where to start.

Originally posted by Garrette
2. If they think that Creationism or Intelligent Design is a science, ask them to present it. If it is a science, there will be more to it than saying "Evolution has problems."
Yep. If Creation "Science" were a true science, it would posit some positive theory rather than just trying to knock down a different theory. "Our imaginations cannot conceive of a universe without a creator, therefore there must be a creator" is not a theory, it's a wild guess.

On the bumblebee thing he is quite simply wrong. For a time scientists were puzzled about this, but they've since figured it out. Ain't science neat?!?

[Starrman]

Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo.

Ask your friend to find just one piece of evidence that conflicts with evolution, that would be a start.

Also ask them when the last time was that a scientific theory was ever shot down by anything other than more science. Science is designed to do exactly what your friend describes, it is a self fixing system.

Because of his massive body size and his tiny wings, scientists and physicists will tell you that it is structurally impossible, scientifically impossible, aerodynamically impossible, just plain out virtually impossible for a Bumble-Bee to lift off the ground and go airborne! SOMEBODY FORGOT TO TELL THIS TO THE BUMBLE BEE!

I'd like to see some kind of a cite for an real scientist who says it is impossible for a bee to fly.

The only thing we can say for sure about science is that our current theories are unlikely to be "right".

Odd that science has given us so many wonderous things, with it having no theories that are likely to be right. This is BS.

Ask your friend if all of the gizmos science has given us will just stop working the day we realize the theories we used to build them were wrong after all.

[Frinkiak7]

Since I've been welcomed so warmly, I thought I would welcome another new member with some words of advice as well.

Something to keep in mind is that a great number of quotations provided by Creationists/ID proponents, written by scientists and seemingly contradicting generally accepted scientific principles, are provided completely out of context. Always, always, always check primary references and source materials for the real story. In addition, real science has the virtue that theories can change when new evidence is presented. Often, ID'ers will use material that has been superceded by new evidence. The bumblebee argument that SezMe and Hawk refuted is a prime example.

If you want to try a new tactic with your in-law, ask him: "Okay then, let's teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution. Which version do we start with? Christian? Hindu? Shinto? Zoroastrian?" I doubt he will be open to the creation myths of other religions, no matter how much he wants to promote so-called "alternate theories".

[Ed]

Roger Ebert said it very elequantly

Surely moviegoers deserve the right to decide for themselves what movies to see? "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," according to the AP, "makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes." It says that if life could evolve under such extreme circumstances, it might help us understand evolution all over the planet.

This is not a controversial opinion. The overwhelming majority of all scientists everywhere in the world who have studied the subject would agree with it. Although discussion continues about the mechanics of evolution, there is no reputable doubt about the existence of DNA and the way in which it functions.

Yes, there is “creationist science,” an attempt to provide a scientific
footing for beliefs which should be a matter of faith. Creationists say
evolution is “only a theory,” and want equal time for their theories,
one of which is that God created the earth from scratch in six days,
and rested on the seventh.

Evolution is indeed a theory. Creationism is a belief, not a theory. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. It is not simply somebody's notion about something. The creationist belief cannot withstand such tests and challenges; it exists outside the world of science altogether.

There is no conflict between a belief in Darwinism and a belief in God as the creator of the universe. Many scientists have no trouble with the idea that God was the creator of all that is. In evolution, they think they see the elegant way by which he caused suns and planets to form, matter to interact, and life to come into being; that over some 4 billion years, the Earth and the creatures on it gradually evolved into the world we occupy today.

Fundamentalism denies this majestic idea and substitutes God as a magician who created everything more or less as it is now, all at once or very quickly. Dinosaur bones, geologic strata and carbon dating, by providing evidence that seems to contradict their beliefs, are a test of faith.

Now we have theaters, school systems and the media asked to give equal footing to a theory based on science and a belief based on faith. Creationists want it both ways. They want their ideas introduced into schools, but (if IMAX is right) they do not want evolution included in movies about volcanoes. If they are right and can prove it, what do they have to fear?

An industry has grown up around the "science" supporting the "argument for intelligent design." It refuses the possibility that evolution itself is the most elegant and plausible argument for those who wish to believe in intelligent design. If you are interested, you might want to go to www.talkorigins.org, where the errors of creationist science are patiently explained. And you might want to ask at your local IMAX theater why they allow a few of their customers to make decisions for all of the rest.


http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050328/COMMENTARY/503280301


Science, by it's nature changes. Science it, by it's nature mutable.

[Hawk one]

Responding once again to the OP:

Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html), courtesy of Talk Origins. (http://www.talkorigins.org). Each point on the list has a short rebuttal, with references to more detailed explanations. Just the sort of thing you need, I hope.

And be sure to send Mark Isaac a thanking email if you find it as useful as I have. ;)

[apoger]

The original post is a drive-by cut-n-paste of other peoples nonsense.

My best suggestion is to check out http://www.talkorigins.org/

[tdn]

Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo.
It never ceases to amaze me how much projection there is for the small-minded. Being wedded to an idea and refusing to consider conflicting data -- honestly, does that sound like science or does it sound like religion? Keep in mind that it was just a few years ago that the Catholic Church grudgingly accepted that Galileo might have been right. This is a glass house around which theists might not want to throw stones.

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder when Kansas is going to announce it's decision to teach creationism.

[bmillsap]

Originally posted by McCragge (when quoting email from in-law)
Good science is about making the theories fit the observations - not the other way round. Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo.

That's not science - that's religion.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this coming from someone arguing FOR ID/creation 'science.' Yep, that sure IS religion all right. Those creationists would NEVER dare to throw out any observations that conflicted with their 'theories.' :rolleyes:

[CurtC]

Originally posted by Frinkiak7
If you want to try a new tactic with your in-law, ask him: "Okay then, let's teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution. Which version do we start with? Christian? Hindu? Shinto? Zoroastrian?"No, this won't work - the ID movement is always careful to point out that they don't specify who the creator is (even though all the IDers are fundamentalist Christians).

I would keep my response as on-point and brief as I could. First, point out that the bumblebee story is an ubran legend. (http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/WKA/technik/bumblebee.html)

Next, tell him how there are no observations that are inconsistent with evolution, and challenge him to find one. And let him know that there is zero controversy in the field of biology, outside a thimblefull of kooks. You could count them on one hand. All capable biologists recoginze evolution as the central idea of their field, without which nothing would make sense.

Finally, point out that ID is not science - it makes no predictions, offers no explanations, explains nothing, and is not falsifiable. Since it's not science, it's either religion, or philosophy.

[thaiboxerken]

It's a tactic that creationists like to use, they try to call evolution a religion while saying their ideas are scientific. It's like the KKK calling the ACLU racist.

[Wolverine]

FWIW, the National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncseweb.org/) offers a number of resouces as well. It's gotten to the point where I check their site on a daily basis to keep abreast of ongoing creationist/ID chicanery.

[Morris Cod]

Need Ammo?

Like Reading?

Try "Telling Lies for God" (Ian Plimer)

It gets a little angry at times, but puts across some excellent points.

[ma1ic3]

Originally posted by McCragge
Some people like to claim that paranormal phenomena and other wyrd experiences are "scientifically impossible".

Nothing is scientifically impossible.

What about there being no god, is that scientifically impossible?

True science is a process. A process of proposing and testing new and modified theories to fit new observations. The current state of science is simply the most effective set of theories we have come up with to date.

Evolution is part of the current state of science, therefore, according to him, it is part of the "most effective set of theories we have come up with to date."

All scientific theories change over time. Sometimes it is small modifications, sometimes it is changes at extremes, sometimes it is a complete paradigm shift. The only thing we can say for sure about science is that our current theories are unlikely to be "right".

There is no unlikely. Current scientific theories, do in fact, fail to explain some things. This doesn't mean that the theory needs to be replaced with a theory that is "right". No one is going to just come up with a theory that explains everything perfectly. You have to work on the theory, you have to improve it.

Science consists of observations and theories. There is no such thing as a "scientific fact". There is no such thing as a "scientific truth". There is no such thing as "scientifically impossible".

Good science is about making the theories fit the observations - not the other way round. Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo.

Skeptics? Scientists make the theories, and they can be atheists, christians, jews, muslims, etc... Everyone is skeptical of the others belief.

That's not science - that's religion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not all things are scientifically proveable

Because of his massive body size and his tiny wings, scientists and physicists will tell you that it is structurally impossible, scientifically impossible, aerodynamically impossible, just plain out virtually impossible for a Bumble-Bee to lift off the ground and go airborne! SOMEBODY FORGOT TO TELL THIS TO THE BUMBLE BEE!
Not only can he fly, he can also hover like a helicopter!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

THEORIES OF EVOLUTION

Evolution in one sense, means growth or development--literally, unrolling or unfolding. It is difficult to give a clear definition that will apply to each of the various theories that are held. Theories differ vastly in the extent of their application, as held by their various advocates, resulting in great confusion of terms:

1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not created, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine. The existence of a Creator, is doubted or denied by extreme atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man."

That is as absurd as saying atheists glorify cats. They are our evolutionary cousins, nothing more.

His statement, "Only a mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine", is something to think about that. How did a theory that doesn't require a god get into mainstream science when believing in god is so popular?

2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all plants and animals, including man, are developed from certain original simple germs, was Lamarck a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded that God created matter--nothing more. He believed in spontaneous generation, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.

But he said: There is no such thing as a "scientific fact". There is no such thing as a "scientific truth". There is no such thing as "scientifically impossible".


Originally posted by McCragge
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test.

Clearly, which is why it is being put forward by a bunch of Christians. I see atheists and christians alike supporting evolution, but I only see christians supporting ID.

I think we should introduce ID into 1st grade science books like this:

Mr. Mouse can't figure out which one of the following are not a scientific theory. Can you help him?


BELIEF/THEORY BELIEVERS
Quantum Mechanics: Non-theists and theists.
General Relativity: Non-theists and theists.
Evolution: Non-theists and theists.
Intelligent Design: Theists.

[Gr8wight]

It's funny how one can take what is a pretty reasoned statement, and by twisting it only very slightly, a word here and there, come up with something so far from reasonable as to be laughable.

True science is a process. A process of proposing and testing new and modified theories to fit new observations. The current state of science is simply the most effective set of theories we have come up with to date.Yes, very true.


All scientific theories change over time. Sometimes it is small modifications, sometimes it is changes at extremes, sometimes it is a complete paradigm shift.Also true.


The only thing we can say for sure about science is that our current theories are unlikely to be "right".Here we find our first twist. While an evolutionary biologist might say it is impossible to know if our theories are completely right, they would most definitely not say that they are unlikely to be right. Current evolutionary science has such a hugh perponderance of evidence behind it that it would be extremely difficult to discount.


Science consists of observations and theories. There is no such thing as a "scientific fact". There is no such thing as a "scientific truth". There is no such thing as "scientifically impossible". Dramatic rhetoric, but OK.


Good science is about making the theories fit the observations - not the other way round.An outright lie. Good science is about finding out if the theories match the observations. It is not about making the theories match the observations. Deliberately misleading statement there.


Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo.That is a true statement as well. However, we were talking about science, not skepticism. Science is practised by scientists, not skeptics. While it is true that many, if not most, scientists are skeptics, not all skeptics are scientists. That was a very well crafted statement. The person who drafted that was a master in misdirection and misinformation. However, if you were to substitute the word 'scientists' in place of 'skeptics' in that sentence, it is no longer even remotely approaching a factual statement. A scientist considers it his job to look at and consider data that conflicts with his theories.


That's not science - that's religion.More dramatic, but in the final analysis, meaningless rhetoric.

[McCragge]

Wow, thank you guys for helping out. The information you provided me has been overwhelming and most useful.

And on top of that I get such a warm welcome to. While I am not new to being a skeptic or an atheists, I find myself alone in my views on things. So a lot of times I tend to have to back away from most debates since I don't usually have all the neccessary information to support my arguements. But thankfully I came across Penn & Tellers ******** show.

I don't know if anyone else has seen it, but I didn't even know about it until I went to Blockbuster and noticed it. When I picked it up I at first thought it was about showing how tricks are done, that sort of thing, but to my surprise it was something totally different. In any case, they did an interview with James Randi, which lead me here to this place. And I have to say, it is great to be among people who share similiar views for once.

I am not sure how interested you are in this, but since you helped me out, I am going to post here my response to the 'in-law' for you reviews.

+ + + + + + + + +

>>Some people like to claim that paranormal phenomena and other wyrd experiences are "scientifically impossible".
>>Nothing is scientifically impossible

Funny that you say here nothing is scientifically impossible, yet a few paragraphs down, you claim that the flight of a Bumble bee is indeed scientifically impossible. So which is it?

>>True science is a process. A process of proposing and testing new and modified theories to fit new observations. The current >>state of science is simply the most effective set of theories we have come up with to date.
>>All scientific theories change over time. Sometimes it is small modifications, sometimes it is changes at extremes, sometimes it >>is a complete paradigm shift. The only thing we can say for sure about science is that our current theories are unlikely to be >>"right".
>>Science consists of observations and theories. There is no such thing as a "scientific fact". There is no such thing as a >>"scientific truth". There is no such thing as "scientifically impossible".
>>Good science is about making the theories fit the observations - not the other way round.

An outright lie. Good science is about finding out if the theories match the observations. It is not about making the theories match the observations. Deliberately misleading statement there. -Gr8wight JREF Forums (http://forums.randi.org/)

>>Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts >>with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo.
>>That's not science - that's religion.

This is an excellent example of misdirection used a lot by the ID and Creationist to undermine science and push their own beliefs. First off, science is practiced by scientist and not skeptics. If you were to change it from skeptics to scientists you would see how blantanly wrong this statement is. And secondly, it is the job of scientists to question, consider and test data that conflicts with his theories, thus improving upon his theories and or correcting anything in his theory that may need correcting. (paraphrased from Gr8wight JREF forums (http://forums.randi.org/)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Not all things are scientifically proveable

I think I might be able to prove you wrong on this one

>>Because of his massive body size and his tiny wings, scientists and physicists will tell you that it is structurally impossible, >>scientifically impossible, aerodynamically impossible, just plain out virtually impossible for a Bumble-Bee to lift off the ground >>and go airborne! SOMEBODY FORGOT TO TELL THIS TO THE BUMBLE BEE!
>>Not only can he fly, he can also hover like a helicopter!

The following link makes clear that the Bumble Bee flying issue is nothing more then an urban legend. Here also follows a small sample of the text:

The answer is scaling. At the sizes of bee wings, the bumpy-looking wing cross section is actually a very efficient airfoil. The key is to recognize that at bee dimensions, Reynolds numbers are low! Many of the fluid dynamic assumptions students use in the study of airfoils do not hold up (since few airliners are built to bee dimensions, the assumptions are still fine for most of us aerocritters). Once you have a higher Cl airfoil, the L/D goes up and power requirements go down.

http://www.ilr.tu-berlin.de/WKA/technik/bumblebee.html

In case this link seems dubious to you, here is the same story, but this time from a NASA website

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/aero/wellman/bumblebee.html

So you see, the bumble bee is indeed scientifically possible, structurally possible, and aerodynamically possible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>THEORIES OF EVOLUTION
>>Evolution in one sense, means growth or development--literally, unrolling or unfolding. It is difficult to give a clear definition >>that will apply to each of the various theories that are held. Theories differ vastly in the extent of their application, as held by >>their various advocates, resulting in great confusion of terms:

What is confusing is the huge amount of Creationist Claims. Go here and see what I mean. It would appear none of the claims of the Creationists try to build or support their theories, rather they only attack and try to tear down scientific theories...don't you find that interesting?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

>>1. The atheists believe that there is no God. Hence, matter was not created, but was eternal, or came by chance. Only a >>mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine. The existence of a Creator, is >>doubted or denied by extreme atheistic evolutionists, who would dethrone God, "exalt the monkey, and degrade man."

Many, perhaps most, evolutionists are not atheists. If you take the claim seriously, you must claim that the following people are atheists, to give just a few examples:

* Sir Ronald Fisher -- the most distinguished theoretical biologist in the history of evolutionary thought. He was also a Christian (a member of the Church of England) and a conservative whose social views were somewhere to the right of Louis XIV.
* Pope John Paul II -- a social conservative.
* Pierre Teilhard de Chardin -- a paleontologist and priest who taught that God guided evolution.
* President Jimmy Carter -- a devout and active Southern Baptist.


More than 3,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

>>2. The first of modern scientific men to adopt the theory that all plants and animals, including man, are developed from certain >>original simple germs, was Lamarck a French naturalist, in 1809. He conceded that God created matter--nothing more. He >>believed in spontaneous generation, which scientific investigation has utterly disproved.

What Darwin gained from Lamarck regarding evolution was a view of branching change, although it is likely that he came to these views on his own, initially through his field observations during the voyage of the Beagle and reflections afterwards. Lamarck had created a climate in which such views were possible. In 1802, William Paley published his Natural Theology, which was an extended argument for the existence and activity of God from the evidence of design in the natural world, and similar views were argued in the Bridgewater Treatises (1833-1836) by a series of theologians and scientists. But the cat was out of the bag, and science became increasingly autonomous of theological constraints, moving to more naturalistic explanations. Lamarck's own explanations were clearly unsatisfactory, but the need to explain adaptation was largely created by Lamarck.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurstrans.html

>>3. Darwin goes a step further and concedes there may have been a Creator of matter, and of one, or at most, a few germs, >>from which all vegetation and all animals came by evolution--all orders, classes, families, genera, species, and varieties. He >>differs from Lamarck, by allowing the creation of one germ, possibly a few more. He says in his "Origin of Species," "I >>believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lesser number . >>Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from one >>prototype...All the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, may be descended from some one primordial form." >>Darwin, because of his great scholarship, fairness, and candor, won for his theory more favor than it inherently deserves. >>Darwin taught that, "The lower impulses of vegetable life pass, by insensible gradations, into the instinct of animals and the >>higher intelligence of man," without purpose or design. None of these three hypotheses can admit the creation of man.

I am not exactly sure what this means. And unfortunately I have yet to finish reading the entire "Origin of Species" to knowledabley debate this with you at this time. I will have to come back to it a bit later. But in the meantime. Here is a link to the Origin of Species. Perhaps we should both read it so that we both can discuss the issue.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

>>4. Other evolutionists, believing in the evolution of both plants and animals, nevertheless refuse to believe in the evolution of >>man--the most baneful application of the whole theory. Even if there were convincing proof of the evolution of plants and >>animals from one germ, there is no real proof of the evolution of man. To prove this is the chief purpose of this book.

Can you list which evolutionists refuse to believe in the evolution of man? This is no different then me saying that there are Creationist out there who refuse to believe in god. And on the same token, there is no proof, that god or any other supreme being created man. Oh and here is a bibliography to a crap load of books that would refute this statement.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/human_evolution.html

>>5. A fifth theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous >>stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and >>development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the >>Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which >>teaches that al1 species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or >>spontaneous generation. Evolution is used throughout this book in this latter sense, unless otherwise indicated by the context. >>God does not create by evolution, for it can only develop what already exists. This book is divided into three parts: In Part >>One, material evolution, especially the evolution of the human body, is disproved. In Part Two, the alleged proofs of >>evolution are examined and refuted. In Part Three, the evolution of the soul is shown to be impossible. There are in all fifty >>numbered arguments, including answers to the arguments of evolutionists.

Well this seems to be nothing more then the introduction to this mans book. There is a claim of fifty numbered arguments including answers to the arguments, well, lets hear them. I will debate each one in turn if you like.

However here is something I found that might relate to the first half of this statement:

2.4 Phylogenetic Species Concepts

There are several phylogenetic species definitions. All of them assert that classifications should reflect the best supported hypotheses of the phylogeny of the organisms. Baum (1992) describes two types of phylogenetic species concepts.

1. A species is the smallest cluster of organisms that possesses at least one diagnostic character. This character may be morphological, biochemical or molecular and must be fixed in reproductively cohesive units. It is important to realize that this reproductive continuity is not used in the same way as in the BSC. Phylogenetic species may be reproductive communities. Reproductively compatible individuals need not have the diagnostic character of a species. In this case, the individuals need not be conspecific.
2. A species must be monophyletic and share one or more derived character. There are two meanings to monophyletic (de Queiroz and Donoghue 1988, Nelson 1989). The first defines a monophyletic group as all the descendants of a common ancestor and the ancestor. The second defines a monophyletic group as a group of organisms that are more closely related to each other than to any other organisms. These distinctions are discussed in Baum 1992 and de Queiroz and Donoghue 1990.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
>>This site gives information about the decision process about intelligent design and what took place. The following passage is >>the summary of the article.

>>Summary

>>Local school boards and state education officials are frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding >>biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of >>any genuine scientific controversy about the issue.160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that they have the right to >>expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion >>demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative >>to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the >>theory of intelligent design.

In a private school or home teaching fine...but in public, government funded schools no. This is a religion and as such you must maintain the seperation of church and state as per the Constiution.

>>The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of >>alternatives to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly >>religious concerns. Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than religious assumptions, it clearly meets this >>test.

Show me the proof. I want to see the scientific evidence of design theory. You have yet to show any. In the meantime I have over filled this reply with tons and tons of scientific evidence, fact and theory to prove evolution is real.

"A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html



>>Including discussions of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of making education inclusive, rather >>than exclusionary. In addition, it provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for them as future >>scientists and citizens to resolve scientific controversies-by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.

I really suggest going to the above link and reading it in its entirety.

I look forward to your response on these matters.

McCragge


+ + + + + + + + +

Thanks again everyone

[Dr Adequate]

Welcome aboard, McCragge!All scientific theories change over time. Sometimes it is small modifications, sometimes it is changes at extremes, sometimes it is a complete paradigm shift. The only thing we can say for sure about science is that our current theories are unlikely to be "right". Therefore, alongside the germ theory of disease, we should also teach the miasma theory of disease, the demonic possession theory of disease, and the bad karma theory of disease, because tomorrow we might find out that germs don't cause disease. After all, "the only thing we can say for sure" about the germ theory of disease is that it is "unlikely to be "right"". Oh, but hold on, he only wants his made-up philosophy of science to apply to theories he doesn't like. We're free to use genuine scientific principles the rest of the time. Otherwise we'd slide back into the Dark Ages. Good science is about making the theories fit the observations - not the other way round. This is the very heart of woowoo thinking.

Good science is about having a theory which predicts the observations --- such as the theory of evolution. ID predicts nothing.Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo. This is a lie. As a skeptic, I would be grateful if your friend would show me every single scrap of evidence he has against the theory of evolution. I think we all would. Please invite him to do so.

The rubbish about bumblebees just shows how these people will swallow any gibberish without checking it or even pausing to wonder if it's likely.Local school boards and state education officials are frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy about the issue. And you'd think that they would know, and that anyone who says that there is genuine scientific controversy, when the National Academy of Science says there isn't, is lying throught their teeth.

As far as "teaching the controversy" goes, I myself would have no problem if the teacher said "... and some people think that the book of Genesis is literally true," and read the relevant passages. But this is not what creationists want taught. They produce "arguments" against evolution which turn out, on examination, to be rubbish. I recently had the pleasure of reading a tract "suitable for use in classrooms" written by a creationist who wished the "controversy" to be taught. Here's what I had to say about that (all errors are a selection of howlers from just the one tract "Evolution-101" by "Dr" J F Griggs):

Now Dr Griggs, like so many creationists, wishes that, in their usual cant phrase, schoolteachers should "teach both sides of the controversy".Violation of this policy after warning will subject the offending teacher to dismissal.

Only an evangelical evolutionist would need such a policy to bring him into compliance. A real scholar with intellectual honesty would honor the principles of academic freedom and religious liberty for students without a legal threat of dismissal. If a teacher is not willing to present both positive and negative evidence, he should find a new vocation.Well, we have seen what Dr Griggs considers "negative evidence". Now how is any science teacher to teach it? She must knowingly lie about science, or be sacked. Very well, let us suppose she has no integrity. But she is also to give "equal time" --- how very gracious --- to real science, and this is going to present problems. She can't tell them one day that scientists "cannot explain why two atoms of hydrogen (a gas) combined with one atom of oxygen (another gas) will result in water (a liquid) or why one atom of sodium (a poisonous metal) combined with one atom of chlorine (a poisonous gas) will produce common, non-poisonous table salt", and the next day explain both in chemistry class. She can't teach them the Law Of Cause And Effect one moment, and admit that there's no such thing the next. She can't teach them that a tautology is the same thing as a circular argument one day, and teach them logic the next. She can't tell them one minute that the Law Of Inertia says that "an object at rest or in motion will remain at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an outside force" and the next minute that they can leave the room. She can't tell them on Mondays that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and on Tuesdays that it was once "nearly infinite". She can't use the phrase "nearly infinite" today and teach them math tomorrow. She can't tell them one day how to use short-orbit comets to date the Universe, and the next day tell them about Enke's comet. She can't teach them one day that that the Second Law Of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution, and teach them the laws of thermodynamics the next. She can't say today that "No one disputes that dogs have descended from an original pair of dogs " and the next day dispute it. She can't teach them one day that "mutations... do not provide new traits to selected" and the next day tell them what a mutation is. She can't teach that the theory of evolution concerns "chance alone", and "survival of the fittest" this week, and the next week admit that it's all about natural selection and reproductive success. And above all, she can't tell them one day that she and her colleagues are lying to them as part of a vast atheist conspiracy "adamant that God must be excised from the public mind" and then expect to teach them anything else ever again.

[Dr Adequate]

The only thing we can say for sure about science is that our current theories are unlikely to be "right". It's fair-minded of him to use the first person plural. Apparently all that can be said for sure about the theory of intelligent design --- is that it's unlikely to be right. If it's the only sure thing we know about this theory, then it's the first thing children should be told about it.

Now you may be shocked by the idea of teachers going around telling children that there is probably no intelligent designer. Isn't this teaching atheism? Not a bit of it! We have been told time and time again by the proponents of ID themselves that intelligent design is not a religious idea, and that to speak of an intelligent designer is not to speak of God. No, no, it's strictly a scientific theory. That, indeed, is how we know that it's "unlikely to be "right"".

Or perhaps there's some wonderful, magical reason why his "philosophy of science" doesn't apply to his favorite "scientific" theory.

[Chimpy]

I caught this thread late:-) Two things. If you are in the States, it is ILLEGAL to teach creationism and ID. The cre-ID cases have been thrown out of court a million and one times.

Secondly, check out these web pages:
www.talkorigins.org
http://www.geocities.com/lflank Lenny's page, an EXCELLENT resource.

[DavoMan]

I'm not sure how much of a help I can be here - but you could hammer in Mr Shermer's points. Some of them are:

A) A 'god of the gaps' theory - ie whereever thes something we dont' know yet -that- is where the 'miracle' is.

B) Christian Creationism is only ONE religion, and there is lots of Creationisms. They all want to be the 'default' truth, just because the others arent 105% explained.

Good luck.

[Bob Klase]

I'm late getting to this thread, but a few thoughts:

The atheists believe that there is no God

And the others believe there is a god. Both are beliefs, neither is "science". This merely attempts to equate science and scientists with atheists- which is a false equation.

The only thing we can say for sure about science is that our current theories are unlikely to be "right".

And 'they' are trying so hard to include ID as "science". It's unlikely to be right.

Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo

Replace "skeptics" with "believers" and show how that statement is false. Do the IDer's consider data that conflicts? Would anything ever threaten their faith in their status quo?

Only a mere handful of the whole human race have ever yet believed such an untenable doctrine.

What bearing does the number of people who believe it have on whether or not it's true. If we're going to vote on the truth then Christians will lose to Islam (unless the many differect sects of Xian can all agree).

Added:

Just came across this at:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mreligio.html

Strangely enough, if you count it as religion, atheism is #2 at 1,782,809,000. Muslims come in a decent third at 1,126,325,000

So the 2nd largest "religious" grouping is "only a mere handful of the whole human race".

Ossai:

Begging the question. First define soul.

And second, after defining it, present the scientific evidence that it exists.

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by McCragge
Wow, thank you guys for helping out. The information you provided me has been overwhelming and most useful.

[...snip....]

Thanks again everyone

I think I can in this case speak on behalf of everyone when I'm saying "You're welcome." Also, might I say I find your reply in general to be a very good one. Other people who are more knowledgeable than me could probably find some better way of wording stuff, but it should do for now. I will of course expect updates on your discussion. ;)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by McCragge
Many, perhaps most, evolutionists are not atheists. If you take the claim seriously, you must claim that the following people are atheists, to give just a few examples. Perhaps you should add Theodosius Dobzhansky to your list: the devout Christian and eminent biologist who wrote Nothing In Biology Makes Sense Except In The Light Of Evolution (http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm). A short quote: "However offensive the notion may be to religious feeling and to reason, the antievolutionists must again accuse the Creator of cheating. They must insist that He deliberately arranged things exactly as if his method of creation was evolution, intentionally to mislead sincere seekers of truth."

Amusingly, in the tract of Dr Griggs I quoted above, having established to his own satisfaction that evolution is an atheist religion, blah blah blah, he then gives a list of eminent scientists who were Christians as though this meant that they didn't believe in evolution. On the list was, yes, you guessed it, good ol' Theodosius "Nothing In Biology Makes Sense Except In The Light Of Evolution" Dobzhansky.
:dl:

[Vim Razz]

(chuckle) (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19060)

[McCragge]

Hello everyone. Again, thank you for the wonderful help you have given me thus far. After I posted my reply to him, I thought you guys might be interested to see his reply back to me. And please...feel free to comment.

{{only communication of a personal nature has been edited everything else has been left intact}}

+ + + + + + + + +

I am definately impressed with the bee info. I hadn't been able to find anything explaining how a bee flies, but lots of things on how it is said to be impossible. As for this debate, I am arguing that ID should be allowed to be taught in schools. Whether it's taught as a philosophy or as a science doesn't concern me( they seem to support one another in my view) as long as it is taught in a responsible manner. I don't think any religion, or religious beliefs, should be forced on any one. I also believe that a lack of knowledge is nothing more than a form of brainwashing. If ID is not taught in school children will have no place to ask questions about it. They are forced to go to a church of their parents choosing and are brainwashed into believing that way. I think getting it out in the open may actually help obliterate the religious fanatics in this country. If the ID information is taught in a purely academic fashion then there is no need to fear it.

As for the different theories of evolution.. I just put that in there to show that there are many different beliefs, even in the scientific community.

My responses are in green below.


>>Unfortunately many skeptics are so wedded to their precious theories that they refuse to even consider data that conflicts with them. Nothing is allowed to threaten their faith in the comfortable status quo. That's not science - that's religion.

This is an excellent example of misdirection used a lot by the ID and Creationist to undermine science and push their own beliefs. First off, science is practiced by scientist and not skeptics. If you were to change it from skeptics to scientists you would see how blantanly wrong this statement is. And secondly, it is the job of scientists to question, consider and test data that conflicts with his theories, thus improving upon his theories and or correcting anything in his theory that may need correcting. (paraphrased from Gr8wight JREF forums (http://forums.randi.org/)

Well Scientists in general are skeptical about the claims of ID, if they weren't skeptical they wouldn't doubt anything and wouldn't bother looking for facts. They would just believe what they're told. A good scientist has to be skeptical to do his job. As for scientists being so wedded to their theories, well I can think of a good example. I was watching channel 10 and an archaeologist says, "We thought it was a petrified chimp until we altered ( he actually used the word altered) the hip bone and discovered it was an early form of man.". This man was so obsessed with being right that he forgot to be skeptical and failed to bother with science. So as you can see if you replace skeptic with scientist it doesn't really make a difference.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html


This is a statement responding to the question of whether or not ID is science.


The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. 1>Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is.
1> Would seem to me that this is simply meant to call people stupid...Intelligent design seems pretty self explanitory. Something intelligent designed something else. The above statement is like Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is.

A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). 2>Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense.

2>If Intelligent design were to prove design it would seem to mean a lot. We may not know who designed it, but it would at least send us on a path to finding out. It would also give us a better understanding of some things, but really who would know if it weren't allowed to be taught.

3>Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski's mathematically intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity can be determined after the fact, making "specification" a subjective concept. Dembski now talks of "apparent specified complexity" versus "actual specified complexity," of which only the latter indicates design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in principle (Elsberry n.d.).

3>ID may be subjective, but no more than any other theory. A theory by definition is 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity, which implies that spiders are intelligent. 4>One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. 5>But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition.
4>This whole paragraph is rather rediculous. I think that ID is claiming just that. That a "higher power" created beings making them what they are. Just because a "higher power" makes you intelligent doesn't mean that your not intelligent, it simply says that your intelligent and so-and-so made you that way.

5>This is just goofy...So if one claim is made you have to make other claims? So if Darwin says we came from monkeys then I might as well claim that monkeys came from outer space? The above statement is simply meant to confuse and belittle the claims of ID supporters.

6>The intelligent design movement is not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, who spearheaded and led the movement, said in so many words that it is about religion and philosophy, not science (Belz 1996).

6>Who cares what Phillip Johnson says. Philosophy is taught in school all the time anyway. Just because you call it something else doesn't mean its not worth teaching.

Philosophy.

1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ + + + + + + +

So there you have it. It seems like a lot of my questions as well as me asking for evidence and proof were glossed over. Ah well, it seems like a usual tactic. I am curious to hear everyone else's opinion on it though.

McCragge

[Ed]

It seems that your buddy is truely engaged in an intellectual quest.

You might ask him if all creation myths should by taught and given equal weight. If not, by what creiteria should any/all be excluded?

http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

You might also ask what differentiates science from supposition. As has been pointed out many times, science suggests hypotheses that are testable. If he can provide none for ID then it is simply not science.

Finally, ask him what evidence, specifically, would it take for him to change his views.

I find the idea that raising the issue has benefit. The creation myth site I posted has many suggestions for investigation, does he suggest that thay are all worthy of investigation?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by McCragge
1> Would seem to me that this is simply meant to call people stupid...Intelligent design seems pretty self explanitory. Something intelligent designed something else.


I have two responses:

1) How long should it take to teach this idea in school? You summed it up in one sentence, can anything be added to that claim that would help students understand the concept?

2) ID proponents sometimes point at the human eye and say that it is too complex to have evolved, therefore it was designed. But for every organ that IDers can point at as proof of intelligent design, skeptics can point at an organ as proof of unitelligent design. Those who have studied the human spine (and those over 40 who have used a human spine) cannot describe the designer as intelligent. The idea of running a central nervous system through a chain of hollow bones that are held in place by connective tissues and tiny muscles might be clever, but then using this slightly curved stack of bones as support for the entire body is not evidence of intelligence. The prostate gland also is evidence against intelligent design. Why run a urethra through a gland that will swell in over one-third of the men who reach a certain age?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I have two responses:

1) How long should it take to teach this idea in school? You summed it up in one sentence, can anything be added to that claim that would help students understand the concept?

2) ID proponents sometimes point at the human eye and say that it is too complex to have evolved, therefore it was designed. But for every organ that IDers can point at as proof of intelligent design, skeptics can point at an organ as proof of unitelligent design. Those who have studied the human spine (and those over 40 who have used a human spine) cannot describe the designer as intelligent. The idea of running a central nervous system through a chain of hollow bones that are held in place by connective tissues and tiny muscles might be clever, but then using this slightly curved stack of bones as support for the entire body is not evidence of intelligence. The prostate gland also is evidence against intelligent design. Why run a urethra through a gland that will swell in over one-third of the men who reach a certain age?

Why design a birth canal that is too small. But maybe it wasn't at one time.....hmmmmmmmmm. Or maybe it is right and just that women suffer during childbirth as punsihment for their having sex.

[Dr Adequate]

As for this debate, I am arguing that ID should be allowed to be taught in schools. Whether it's taught as a philosophy or as a science doesn't concern me( they seem to support one another in my view) as long as it is taught in a responsible manner. I don't think any religion, or religious beliefs, should be forced on any one. I also believe that a lack of knowledge is nothing more than a form of brainwashing. If ID is not taught in school children will have no place to ask questions about it. They are forced to go to a church of their parents choosing and are brainwashed into believing that way. I think getting it out in the open may actually help obliterate the religious fanatics in this country. If the ID information is taught in a purely academic fashion then there is no need to fear it. But what should be taught? Can he produce one piece of factual information which supports ID? If not, then it's no different from demanding that "pink unicorns" should be taught in schools. What should the children be taught about these pink unicorns? Facts? There are none. Fiction? But that is not education.As for the different theories of evolution.. I just put that in there to show that there are many different beliefs, even in the scientific community.This is obviously untrue. The scientific community only belives in one theory of evolution. This is why they talk about the theory of evolution, without ever qualifying it by saying which one they're talking about. This is because only one is taken seriously, and they all know which it is.Well Scientists in general are skeptical about the claims of ID, if they weren't skeptical they wouldn't doubt anything and wouldn't bother looking for facts. They would just believe what they're told. A good scientist has to be skeptical to do his job. As for scientists being so wedded to their theories, well I can think of a good example. I was watching channel 10 and an archaeologist says, "We thought it was a petrified chimp until we altered ( he actually used the word altered) the hip bone and discovered it was an early form of man.". This man was so obsessed with being right that he forgot to be skeptical and failed to bother with science. So as you can see if you replace skeptic with scientist it doesn't really make a difference. An unreferenced quotation out of context from memory off an unnamed TV show. I'm impressed by his high standard of evidence. I wonder if he could tell us some more about bumblebees.1> Would seem to me that this is simply meant to call people stupid...Intelligent design seems pretty self explanitory. Something intelligent designed something else. The above statement is like Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is. Well, if it's that simple, then he will have no trouble defining it and saying how we can recognise it... will he? Oh... yes... he... will.If Intelligent design were to prove design it would seem to mean a lot. We may not know who designed it, but it would at least send us on a path to finding out. It would also give us a better understanding of some things, but really who would know if it weren't allowed to be taught. Who would know? Well, the millions and millions of people who believe in intelligent design. How these people love to play the victim card! Yes, their ideas have been ruthlessly suppressed, as demonstrated by the fact that a majority of Americans share them.

I'm interested to hear which things ID would give us a better understanding of. "Some things" isn't very specific. By contrast, the theory of evolution allows us to understand the whole of biology, which is useful.3>ID may be subjective, but no more than any other theory. A theory by definition is 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>[/color] It should not be necessary to explain that when a word has several different meanings, the fact that one of those definitions applies does not mean that all the others do. For example, when people use the word "sack" they do not simultaneously mean "large bag" and "discharge someone from a job". In the same way, the fact that the theory of evolution is a theory according to definitions 3 and 6c above does not in any way go to prove that it is a theory in the sense of definitions 2 and 6b. It is not.4>This whole paragraph is rather rediculous. I think that ID is claiming just that. That a "higher power" created beings making them what they are. Just because a "higher power" makes you intelligent doesn't mean that your not intelligent, it simply says that your intelligent and so-and-so made you that way.

5>This is just goofy...So if one claim is made you have to make other claims? So if Darwin says we came from monkeys then I might as well claim that monkeys came from outer space? The above statement is simply meant to confuse and belittle the claims of ID supporters. None of that made any sense.6>Who cares what Phillip Johnson says. Who cares what the principal inventor of intelligent design says about intelligent design? That would be like reading Darwin to find out about Darwinism. Which, I'm guessing, he also hasn't done.Philosophy is taught in school all the time anyway. Just because you call it something else doesn't mean its not worth teaching.

1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher If he goes back to his dictionary a third time, he might like to look up the word "archaic".

Still, if he wants philosophy to be taught in schools, that's fine. Let's start 'em off with Hume's dialogues on natural religion, work our way through De Rerum Naturae... or maybe it's only certain special philosophies he wants taught.

[Ashles]

It appears that this guy is using the word "Philosophy" to mean any theory that anyone can come up with.
"a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought"
And making the usual ID proponent mistake of thinking that all theories have equal validity.

"My philosophy is to keep weight off by only eating McDonalds hamburgers and having regular colonic irrigation"

Sure, it's technically a philosophy, but I wouldn't rank it up there with evolution or recommend it be taught in schools.

This friend needs to learn that we really should be teaching things in school that have EVIDENCE towards them otherwise we would end up teching every single theory anyone ever came up with.
Invisible Pink Unicorns created and run everything. Should THAT theory be taught in schools? It's an alternative theory with exactly the same amount of evidence for it as ID.

I think this whole issue has got slightly caught up with nervousness about diversity and respecting others beliefs...
Fine, respect others beliefs, but only teach that which has evidence towards it. You aren't being rude or offensive by criticising someone's beliefs as having no evidence for them - merely pointing out facts.

People will be able to come up with unfounded beliefs all by themselves all through life so they don't need to be taught them.

[Dragon]

There's a good piece by Richard Dawkins in today's Times which is bang on topic -
Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2720-1619264,00.html) Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by McCragge
. If ID is not taught in school children will have no place to ask questions about it. They are forced to go to a church of their parents choosing and are brainwashed into believing that way. I think getting it out in the open may actually help obliterate the religious fanatics in this country. If the ID information is taught in a purely academic fashion then there is no need to fear it.



Wow. Does he believe that all churches brainwash children or only churches not of his particular denomination?

Are we really to believe his claim that bringing ID "out in the open may actually help obliterate the religious fanatics in this country"? Does he believe that?

[Ashles]

I love the final line:

Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

[Dr Adequate]

5>This is just goofy...So if one claim is made you have to make other claims? So if Darwin says we came from monkeys then I might as well claim that monkeys came from outer space? The above statement is simply meant to confuse and belittle the claims of ID supporters. I'm genuinely curious as to which statement he's distorting here. That pathetic bundle of straw is meant to be a man? Which man? None of the men I know have three heads --- unlike this puppet.

The claims of ID supporters are already confused. If pointing this out is "belittling" them --- then so be it.

[Dr Adequate]

As for scientists being so wedded to their theories, well I can think of a good example. I was watching channel 10 and an archaeologist says, "We thought it was a petrified chimp until we altered ( he actually used the word altered) the hip bone and discovered it was an early form of man." Er... this is actually an example of a scientist changing his mind.

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by Ashles
I love the final line:

Same! I just finished reading that piece (I buy the paper in the morning but don't get round to reading most of it till the evening!). And obviously this made me post the link and then I noticed it had been posted already. Argh. Shall I declare myself insane? Or perhaps a mind reader and so I qualify for the million dollars?:-)

[Eos of the Eons]

I love the final line in context:

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Yes, let's not actually learn about evolution so that the answers to an "ID proponent's" questions may be laid to rest and the "controversay" buried...let's just teach the kids a bunch of lies and all hail ID. Ignorance is easier.

[Anders W. Bonde]

McCragge,

Welcome aboard!

I think your in-law just got one letter wrong when he actually meant to write this:

"If the ID information is taught in a purely academic fashion then there is no need to hear it."

;)

ETA: BTW: Ask him this question: Who/what designed the 'designer'?

[Dr Adequate]

If ID is not taught in school children will have no place to ask questions about it. Well, this is an excellent point. Likewise, if racism isn't taught in schools, children will have no place to ask questions about it.

We should teach the controversy!After an article about me and my work had appeared in a local newspaper, I got a phone call from an extremely disputatious man, who called to tell me that I simply couldn't be right that whites and balcks shared a common descent from the same ancestor. I was startled, to say the least, since there is an irrefutable mass of evidence that all modern humans comprise a single species that, of necessity, must have had a common origin. I asked him what his training was. Had he ever studied human anatomy or seen any of the fossil evidence? No, he said, he was a small-town newspaper editor. But he {\it knew} I was wrong. I persisted for a moment, annoyed and yet fascinated by this phenomenon. Would he walk into an operating theater and tell a neurosurgeon what to do? I asked. Of course not, the editor replied indignantly; neurosurgeons had years of training in a highly specialized field. He couldn’t pretend to know anything about neurosurgery. Then why, I said, did he think he could tell me how to do my job? It had taken similar years of training and practice, and he hadn’t even bothered to acquaint himself with the popular literature on the subject, much less the technical literature. He spluttered that he had a perfect right to his opinion and that it was as good as mine. It was, I said, but not about matters of fact that could be verified, not if he wouldn’t base his conclusions on the evidence.

--- Alan Walker, The Wisdom Of Bones You can see that there's a controversy here over a scientific question. Some people --- namely all scientists --- think one thing, and some people --- namely ignorant bigots with no knowledge of or interest in science except to twist it and lie about it to suit their prejudices --- think another. Therefore, science teachers should be obliged to stand up in front of the class and teach pseudoscientific racist drivel about how black and white are two different species, while knowing perfectly well that they're talking rubbish. Intellectual integrity demands no less... apparently.

After all, if teachers don't teach this, children will have nowhere to ask questions about it, because it is only possible to ask questions about things that your teacher tells you are true.

And remember, the unity of the human race is a scientific theory, so the only thing we can say for sure about it is that it is unlikely to be right.

Or maybe McCragge's friend only wishes his reasoning to apply to his own favorite pseudoscience, and not to other people's.

[Dr Adequate]

RichardR posted this on SMM&T the other day. It's one of those pictures that says more than a thousand words.

http://www.re-discovery.org/per_table.gif

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
RichardR posted this on SMM&T the other day. It's one of those pictures that says more than a thousand words.


Please, tell me that this is a parody site. :(

[Jeff Corey]

It's on the back cover of the Skeptical Inquirer.
'Nuff said?

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert
Please, tell me that this is a parody site. :(

Of course it isn't. There are many chemicists that are indeed subscribing to that theory...


OK, just yanking your chain. Yes, it's a parody, designed for maximum satire over the whole ID issue. I mean, look at the bottom. "Kansas: As stupid as you think" should really be a dead give-away, eh? ;)

But in other instances, I must admit I've been fooled by parody sites as well. So all is good. :)

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Hawk one

OK, just yanking your chain. Yes, it's a parody, designed for maximum satire over the whole ID issue. I mean, look at the bottom. "Kansas: As stupid as you think" should really be a dead give-away, eh? ;)
I was being factious. ;)

One slight personal snag: "The reDiscovery Institute fosters integration of science education with traditional Judeo-Christian principles of free market, limited government, morality, faith, property, obedience and anti-intellectualism."

OK, mocking "morality... faith... obedience... and anti-intellectualism" I can get behind, but "free-market [sic]... limited government... and property?" I'm sorry, but I'm a libertarian (small-l), an atheist, and all for those latter three concepts. Believing in the smaller government and free markets doesn't make you anti-evolution any more than supporting evolution makes you a Marxist. Is the irony that they are playing into the "evolution-equals-atheism-which-equals-communism" straw-man of the JEEZ-us Freaks lost on the people who built this site?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Mark A. Siefert
I was being factious. ;)

One slight personal snag: "The reDiscovery Institute fosters integration of science education with traditional Judeo-Christian principles of free market, limited government, morality, faith, property, obedience and anti-intellectualism."

OK, mocking "morality... faith... obedience... and anti-intellectualism" I can get behind, but "free-market [sic]... limited government... and property?" I'm sorry, but I'm a libertarian (small-l), an atheist, and all for those latter three concepts. Believing in the smaller government and free markets doesn't make you anti-evolution any more than supporting evolution makes you a Marxist. Is the irony that they are playing into the "evolution-equals-atheism-which-equals-communism" straw-man of the JEEZ-us Freaks lost on the people who built this site? You're shooting the messenger. It is not the person writing the satire who lumped all these things together. It is the people being satirized.

You ask "Is the irony that they are playing into the "evolution-equals-atheism-which-equals-communism" straw-man of the JEEZ-us Freaks lost on the people who built this site? "

No. It is not. The irony, savour it well, is that they are playing on the "evolution-equals-atheism-which-equals-communism" straw-man of the JEEZ-us Freaks. By repeating it, but talking about chemistry instead of evolution. What part of "ha ha ha ha ha" did you not understand?

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, this was posted elsewhere already, but it's so fitting:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19060

[Hawk one]

Hey, Eos! It's already been posted here as well:
Originally posted by Vim Razz
(chuckle) (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19060)
This is when you're supposed to say "oops". :p

[Eos of the Eons]

Ha ha! Oooops!

[Mark A. Siefert]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You're shooting the messenger. It is not the person writing the satire who lumped all these things together. It is the people being satirized.

You ask "Is the irony that they are playing into the "evolution-equals-atheism-which-equals-communism" straw-man of the JEEZ-us Freaks lost on the people who built this site? "

No. It is not. The irony, savour it well, is that they are playing on the "evolution-equals-atheism-which-equals-communism" straw-man of the JEEZ-us Freaks. By repeating it, but talking about chemistry instead of evolution. What part of "ha ha ha ha ha" did you not understand?

I guess you have a point. I confess, I have this nasty tendency to read to much into things.

[McCragge]

Sorry for the delay in replying everyone, Real Life had me tied up. Anyway, I want to say thank you once again to everyone and your comments, they are invaluable. I try to list all my sources when I use them directly, if this offends any of you, please let me know and I will stop.

My response are in red.

+ + + + + +

As for this debate, I am arguing that ID should be allowed to be taught in schools. Whether it's taught as a philosophy or as a science doesn't concern me (they seem to support one another in my view) as long as it is taught in a responsible manner. I don't think any religion, or religious beliefs, should be forced on any one. I also believe that a lack of knowledge is nothing more than a form of brainwashing. If ID is not taught in school children will have no place to ask questions about it. They are forced to go to a church of their parents choosing and are brainwashed into believing that way. My wifes family is a good example of this. I think getting it out in the open may actually help obliterate the religious fanatics in this country. If the ID information is taught in a purely academic fashion then there is no need to fear it.

Ok then, let me ask you this? What should be taught exactly? Once again I ask, can you produce any factual proof of ID/creationism? If not, then how is it any different from teaching that monkies do indeed fly out of butts, or perhaps "Invisible Pink Unicorns (tm)" should also be legitimate subjects for teaching. Since there are no facts about ID, Butt flying monkies or "Invisible Pink Unicorns (tm)" how can we possibly educate people and children?

As for the different theories of evolution.. I just put that in there to show that there are many different beliefs, even in the scientific community.

"This is obviously untrue. The scientific community only belives in one theory of evolution. This is why they talk about the theory of evolution, without ever qualifying it by saying which one they're talking about. This is because only one is taken seriously, and they all know which it is." -Dr Adequate (JREF forums http://forums.randi.org/)


Well Scientists in general are skeptical about the claims of ID, if they weren't skeptical they wouldn't doubt anything and wouldn't bother looking for facts. They would just believe what they're told. A good scientist has to be skeptical to do his job. As for scientists being so wedded to their theories, well I can think of a good example. I was watching channel 10 with dad and an archaeologist says, "We thought it was a petrified chimp until we altered ( he actually used the word altered) the hip bone and discovered it was an early form of man.". This man was so obsessed with being right that he forgot to be skeptical and failed to bother with science. So as you can see if you replace skeptic with scientist it doesn't really make a difference.

Could you tell me the name of this show, or perhaps the scientists that allegedly said this? Also you have to understand you are taking an out of context quote from an unnamed source straight from memory. It will take a bit more then this I am afraid to convince me or win your arguement/debate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1> Would seem to me that this is simply meant to call people stupid...Intelligent design seems pretty self explanitory. Something intelligent designed something else. The above statement is like Bill Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is.

Intelligent Design = "Something intelligent designed something else" Well, you certainly defined it...now, prove it.

2>If Intelligent design were to prove design it would seem to mean a lot. We may not know who designed it, but it would at least send us on a path to finding out. It would also give us a better understanding of some things, but really who would know if it weren't allowed to be taught.

Well if you can prove ID, then certainly it should be allowed to be taught. But, which ID should be taught? The Catholics view of ID, or perhaps you thinks children should learn the Native American version of ID...of course which tribe of the Native Americans should we use...or wait, maybe we should use the Buddist version of ID...no no, better yet we should teach them that Aliens are the ones who transplanted humans here. Or are we to tell them that "Invisible Pink Unicorns (tm)" rule the universe and control all things behind?


3>ID may be subjective, but no more than any other theory. A theory by definition is 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


"It should not be necessary to explain that when a word has several different meanings, the fact that one of those definitions applies does not mean that all the others do. For example, when people use the word "sack" they do not simultaneously mean "large bag" and "discharge someone from a job". In the same way, the fact that the theory of evolution is a theory according to definitions 3 and 6c above does not in any way go to prove that it is a theory in the sense of definitions 2 and 6b. It is not." -Dr Adequate (JREF Forums http://forums.randi.org/)


4>This whole paragraph is rather rediculous. I think that ID is claiming just that. That a "higher power" created beings making them what they are. Just because a "higher power" makes you intelligent doesn't mean that your not intelligent, it simply says that your intelligent and so-and-so made you that way.

huh? I have no idea what you mean here.

5>This is just goofy...So if one claim is made you have to make other claims? So if Darwin says we came from monkeys then I might as well claim that monkeys came from outer space? The above statement is simply meant to confuse and belittle the claims of ID supporters.

You know it isn't like the claims of ID supporters isn't already confused in the first place. By telling you that is belittling, well, sorry but that is the way it is. And you can make any statement you like, but can you back it with any proof? Can you give me one piece of solid proof to ID? Any reason why we should teach ID as a science and not a theology or philosophy?

6>Who cares what Phillip Johnson says. Philosophy is taught in school all the time anyway. Just because you call it something else doesn't mean its not worth teaching.

Who cares what the inventor of Creationism/ID says? Would you believe him and fight for him if he had said that "Invisible Pink Unicorns (tm)" where the IDers? (and not to be racists, I am sure that any invisible unicorn of any color is just as capable as the pink ones) There is certainly the same amount of proof, which is to say none.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ + + + + +

I also want to thank everyone who welcomed me so politely to these forums.

McCragge

[Dr Adequate]

Your answer to point 6 isn't very clear.

But the bits where you quote me are beautifully lucid, I have to say.

* preens self *

[McCragge]

Thank you Dr Adequate LOL. I am glad you aren't offended that I quoted you or anyone else for that matter. I would also like to give thanks to whoever created the "Invisible Pink Unicorn (tm)" and allowing me to use it :)

And after a long wait, finally a reply. This time, the debate has totally taken a turn for the strange.

His responses as always are in green.

+ + + + + + + + + +

Ok then, let me ask you this? What should be taught exactly? Once again I ask, can you produce any factual proof of ID/creationism? If not, then how is it any different from teaching that monkies do indeed fly out of butts, or perhaps "Invisible Pink Unicorns (tm)" should also be legitimate subjects for teaching. Since there are no facts about ID, Butt flying monkies or "Invisible Pink Unicorns (tm)" how can we possibly educate people and children?

Well I can reverse this question and ask, can you produce any factual proof of darwins theory of evolution? (which is the evolution theory taught in schools). Is there any factual proof that even slightly suggests that we came from monkeys? The answer is no. There are hints of evidence that suggests that Darwins theory of evolution is possible, but hardly proof and nothing even suggesting the possibility that we came from slime but they teach it all the same. Therefore teaching "Darwinianism" is no different than teaching intelligent design. There are hints of evidence that could be used to support it, but no proof. If you can teach one unfounded theory then why not be allowed to show different points of view? If they want to teach that monkies fly out of butts then so be it. I don't know what your fascination with Invisible Pink Unicorns is, but it sounds as feacable as Darwins theory.

"Darwinism" is a world view that extends far beyond science into the realms of philosophy, religion, ethics, and even politics . The issue of Intelligent Design goes far beyond the scientific viability of ID arguments, and debates about Intelligent Design often shift quickly from a scientific to a philosophical context.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ID supporters generally hold that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations of phenomena, because excluding supernatural explanations unnecessarily limits the realm of possibilities, particularly where naturalistic explanations utterly fail to explain certain phenomena, while supernatural explanations provide a very simple and parsimonious explanation for the origin of the universe generally and life in particular. Secondly, they claim that the evidence strongly supports such explanations, as instances of so-called irreducible complexity and specified complexity may appear to make it highly unreasonable to believe that the full complexity and diversity of life came about solely through natural means. Finally, they hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and intelligent design in schools, because teaching only evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding the religious belief that God created life intact and unique, and that humans do not share common ancestry with the animals, while teaching both allows for a scientific basis for religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote a religious belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Irreducible complexity is a concept which considers that the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution by natural selection alone is incomplete or flawed, and that some additional mechanism is required to explain the origins of life.

Specified complexity is a concept developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. It is commonly presented as part of the critique of natural selection put forward by the intelligent design movement, with which Dembski is associated. The term "specified complexity" was originally coined by origin of life researcher Leslie Orgel, and later employed by physicist Paul Davies in a similar manner, to denote what distinguishes living things from non-living things"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguments for intelligent design can be broadly split into four categories:

* Assertions that the theories of naturalistic abiogenesis and macroevolution cannot fully account for the observed "irreducible complexity" and variety of organic life.
* Arguments in support of a "design inference": just as it is reasonable to infer that an "irreducibly complex", functional, and interdependent machine was deliberately designed—a wristwatch, for example, implies a watchmaker—so, it is argued, it is reasonable to infer that far more complex "biological machines" that show similar characteristics were also designed.
* Probability-based arguments that consider cosmological constants and other features of our universe that are "just right" for life, which conclude that a life-supporting universe is so exceedingly improbable that it cannot legitimately be explained by luck, and must instead be explained as a product of deliberate design. (See Fine-tuned universe)
* Arguments against philosophical naturalism, the assumption in science (and in intellectual life more generally) that any meaningful explanation describes (and is based upon) an empirically accessible material reality. Materialism of this sort rules out explanations that depend on factors located outside of observable nature, including most concepts of an active creator God. ID proponents argue that a priori exclusion of supernatural possibilities amounts to an ideological prejudice that obstructs the genuine search for truth.
* That support for evolution by the scientific community is exaggerated and outdated, therefore mandates an (education and scientific) environment that is proportionally more critical of evolution.

Intelligent Design is not and does not claim to be an alternative theory replacing mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, or speciation. All of these have been observed in laboratories and in the field; they are not theories but facts. For example, humans have themselves created many new species and have observed new species appearing in nature.

---------------------------------------------

I Wrote: As for the different theories of evolution.. I just put that in there to show that there are many different beliefs, even in the scientific community.

You Wrote:"This is obviously untrue. The scientific community only belives in one theory of evolution. This is why they talk about the theory of evolution, without ever qualifying it by saying which one they're talking about. This is because only one is taken seriously, and they all know which it is."

The scientific community doesn't only believe in one theory of evolution. (None have been proven and some are feasible). Darwins theory is still taught in grade schools and high schools while most scientists disregard it. In my Anthropology class they discussed more than one theory of evolution, and only Darwins theory in passing or for comparison to others. The belief that evolution is adaptation over a long period of time seemed to be most accepted.( I also agree with this belief). None were discussed in great detail as the class wasn't about the beginnings of man, but an introduction to Anthropology and Archeaology.

Well if you can prove ID, then certainly it should be allowed to be taught. But, which ID should be taught? The Catholics view of ID, or perhaps you thinks children should learn the Native American version of ID...of course which tribe of the Native Americans should we use...or wait, maybe we should use the Buddist version of ID...no no, better yet we should teach them that Aliens are the ones who transplanted humans here. Or are we to tell them that "Invisible Pink Unicorns (tm)" rule the universe and control all things behind?

Again, I can reverse this by saying that if you can prove Darwins theory of evolution then, and only then, should it be allowed to be taught. "Darwinianism" is taught in a light manner in public schools, it is NOT taught as scientific fact. They can only show some evidence to support it, but cannot teach it as fact because it is unprovable. I'm certain that the supporters of ID can show some evidence to support their theory and that it will be taught in the same manner as "Darwinianism".

You seem to be confusing the ID issue. It isn't a particular religious point of view, or even a religious point of view at all. It is just suggesting that there may be something more there than Darwins Theory. They are not proposing the injection of religious beliefs into the school systems. Therefore they aren't teaching a religious point of view. Again I don't know what this fascination is with Invisible pink unicorns, but maybe you should seek some help. Karynn's sister meets with therapists, maybe she could suggest one. I would have to see the curricula that is going to be taught before I could make a real decision about whether it should or shouldn't be taught. Then again I've seen what is taught about "Darwinianism" and agree with schools that it should not be taught as scientific fact but only a possibility.[/color

[COLOR=green]As for the show I watched on OPB, well I cannot remember the name of the scientist/anthropologist, but the show I do believe was NOVA. As you said though, I cannot back it up as I did not tape it. I can only offer a witness to the statements made in regards to the altering of a hip bone.

Who cares what the inventor of Creationism/ID says? Would you believe him and fight for him if he had said that "Invisible Pink Unicorns (tm)" where the IDers? (and not to be racists, I am sure that any invisible unicorn of any color is just as capable as the pink ones) There is certainly the same amount of proof, which is to say none.

The answer is No, I would not believe him if he had said that your beloved "invisible pink unicorns" (or any unicorns, invisible or not) were the intelligence behind the design, but I would not condemn him either. This is what makes up freedom in our current society, the ability to believe what you will. Just because others believe differently from me doesn't mean they are bad or even wrong. Maybe you and I are completely off base and it turns out that we are just a science experiment put on by the creatures that live at the center of the earth. Until this is proven as scientific fact I will not believe it. I will also not believe that we came from monkeys or slime. I don't believe in any particular God or any God for that matter, but I will not forbid the possibility as I have no proof one way or the other. Some people believe in luck or karma, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that either exist. Are these people bad or wrong? Should children be ignorant to the belief in luck? Have no idea what luck is? Should children be taught that the world is flat? Science suggested it for many many years. Does the earth revolve around the sun or visa-versa? A lack of knowledge, whether it's the knowledge of facts, theories, beliefs, or all three, is still a lack of knowledge and we all know that as ignorance. If people didn't make leaps here and there where would progress come from? We, as man, would still be afraid of falling off the edge of the earth or getting eaten by sea monsters.



It is being suggested that ID is taught without the elimination of "Darwinianism" but in conjunction with it as to show different ideas. There is no harm in this with the exception of more knowledge.


+ + + + + + + +

McCragge

[Hawk one]

I see he talks plenty about "no evidence", without of course going into any specifics. Standard creationist tactic. To save you some time searching, here's a TO (Talk Origins Link) that deals specifically with 29+ evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)


Also, some self-written responses:

"Darwinism" is a world view that extends far beyond science into the realms of philosophy, religion, ethics, and even politics

Complete lie. There isn't even any movement called Darwinism. The name is mostly used by anti-evolutionists, for several reasons. One reason is because they hope they can discredit evolutionists by discrediting Darwin himself (such as by making up les about him rejecting evolution on his deathbed).
And the theory of evolution is in itself no more about philosophy and religion and politics than the theory of gravity. However, the op