It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida to be next battleground for Intelligent Design?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
This Senator is correct, and the is no proof of the big bang evolution theory. The students need to hear both sides and make the decision themselves. You have to teach both sides of this.


This is the post that really struck me.

People talk about 'two sides', as if both have merit, when in fact they don't.

This is science versus pseudoscience, the reasonable versus the unreasonable, reality versus wishful thinking...

I've studied ID/Creationism, and it isn't science in any sence of the word. It does not use the scientific method, does not have supporting evidence, isn't based on biology etc.



Sorry if you don't like it, but this isn't your choice, its the students to decide what to believe.


No, that's where you are wrong. Children should not be subjected to any and all crackpot ideas out there. Few people understand the scientific method, even less can correctly explain evolution. Children(or indeed most people) are not equipped to decide anything in a debate between evolution/Creationism.

This means that it comes down to indoctrination on either side, and religion is so much better than science at that, and they get to start at birth. Science cannot even hope to counter that.




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by aaa2500
 
I am amazed that evolution and intelligent design are considered mutually exclusive by most people. Any reasonable person with an education should conclude that they actually go hand in hand.

Evolution is undeniable. Right? Likewise, in my opinion, many biological systems are so irreducibly complex, that to deny intelligent design is to be illogical.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
then I believe we should have teachers present evidence that the Holocaust never happened, the value of pi is 3,

Sorry, mate. I have to disagree here.

The exact value of pi is not 3 and it never will be.

Read why pi is not 3 here...

Teaching topics with subjective answers may provide an opportunity to discuss alternate viewpoints. However, teaching students false facts about proven properties for numbers is wrong.

Talk about missing the point BIG TIME! When the penny drops you are going to feel a little embarrased even in the privacy of your home.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by aaa2500
 
I am amazed that evolution and intelligent design are considered mutually exclusive by most people. Any reasonable person with an education should conclude that they actually go hand in hand.

Evolution is undeniable. Right? Likewise, in my opinion, many biological systems are so irreducibly complex, that to deny intelligent design is to be illogical.



Thank You ! anonymous ........ finally someone with some sense

I feel if I were to deny ID that it would be doing an injustice to whom or whatever started it all



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Let's make eeryone happy, cause that's what we do in our wsy hippie days that we are in now with our pc crap and what not.

Let's teach creationism in school as well. Now, all you christians out there that want it taught will get it taught. Guess what? We are not only gonna teach your creation story, we ar gonna teach everyones. Oh no, that will take too long. now we will call it a religion studies class which is an elective and not a science class. You want your theory placed in a clasroom? Fine, you gotta accept everyon elses to the point that we spend all year teaching religion and now your kid can't go to college cause they haven't had any science courses.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by EliteLegends

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by aaa2500
 
I am amazed that evolution and intelligent design are considered mutually exclusive by most people. Any reasonable person with an education should conclude that they actually go hand in hand.

Evolution is undeniable. Right? Likewise, in my opinion, many biological systems are so irreducibly complex, that to deny intelligent design is to be illogical.



Thank You ! anonymous ........ finally someone with some sense

I feel if I were to deny ID that it would be doing an injustice to whom or whatever started it all


That's the only thing that you can come up with? The argument that things are to complex to come about on their own has really been debunked an awful lot. You see creationists/IDer's think that the first life looked like a modern cell. They even did an experiment where they took one cell, placed it in a sterile test tube, punctured that cell and said that if it didn't all come back together then it had to have been created. The rather large flaw in this experiment is that the first cells did not look like modern cells.

Take a cheek cell. Over the years it has developed complex chemistry and even gathered a parasite (mitochondria) which originally was not part of the cell. If you as an Ider think that this is what the first cells would have looked like then you really need to go and study abiogenesis and evolution some more.

Then there is the dover trial which dealt with other arguments to do with irreducible complexity. Here is a video.

www.youtube.com...

If you are an IDer then you should look at both sides of the evidence and watch that video. I doubt many of you will though because like most IDers you avoid the opposite argument whilst insisting that evolutionists must study the opposite side.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Don't forget also, that Behe, the man who came up with the term and idea of irreducible complexity himself said : (readthrough about 3/4 of the way )


Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially.[71][72] They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.[73] Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof".[74] Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large".[75]


Irreduciblie complexity in the ID article of wiki

"Does not add up to a logical proof"

Seems that gets left out of the convo quite a bit.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by aaa2500
 
I am amazed that evolution and intelligent design are considered mutually exclusive by most people. Any reasonable person with an education should conclude that they actually go hand in hand.

Evolution is undeniable. Right? Likewise, in my opinion, many biological systems are so irreducibly complex, that to deny intelligent design is to be illogical.


The "irreducible complexity" part of this argument has already been addressed; I'm going to talk about the exclusivity.

Evolution is not incompatible with the idea that there is an intelligent Creator who designed the universe and its processes, including directing evolution.

It is incompatible with Intelligent Design, the pseudoscientific structure cobbled together by people who are threatened by the idea that humanity as we are now may not be the apex and end goal of creation.

Intelligent Design, the theory, could be taught in a religion class or a philosophy class, along with such things as idealism (that there is no objective world – all is determined through our interaction with it).

Evolution through natural selection, the process through which biological organisms change and adapt to new environments, has been proven to happen on a small scale in countless experiments (fruitflies, moths, Galapagos birds, etc. etc. etc.). In a slightly different form it has been demonstrated in microorganisms like bacteria, which can trade genes among each other as well as relying on mutation for differences.

It is entirely (logically) possible that all of that only exists in my head, or that I only exist in someone else's dream, or that we're all hooked up to life support systems and being fed that input through a computer-generated Matrix.

It is also entirely (logically) possible that an Intelligent Creator is responsible for it all.

But those are philosophical positions, not scientific ones. If creation is down to an Intelligent Creator, one of the things He did was to provide patterns of evolutionary development that are of immense usefulness in biology and medicine – and there is no reason not to point them out to our kids.

Unless of course you think that your belief system will crumble under the slightest questioning.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by aaa2500
 
I am amazed that evolution and intelligent design are considered mutually exclusive by most people. Any reasonable person with an education should conclude that they actually go hand in hand.


No. Evolution is science, ID is religion maquarading as science.



Evolution is undeniable. Right? Likewise, in my opinion, many biological systems are so irreducibly complex, that to deny intelligent design is to be illogical.


Evolution is not undeniable(nothing in science is!), but it is the best explanation we have at this point, based on evidence, experimentation and imperical testing.



I feel if I were to deny ID that it would be doing an injustice to whom or whatever started it all


That's because you start with the answer and derive the question from that, whereas science starts with a question and derives the answer from that. Your answer will always fit all questions because that is what you want.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
The thought of an intelligent creator does not upset or offend me in any way ...... wish i could say the same for some people

As I said before I personally think they work aside one another but not in the way everyone is making it out to be ..... religion is religion and should stay in the church , I never once said that I was worshiping or Idolizing a single creator , I was just offering my viewpoint on what I think to be too complicated to be random but people are going to show me youtube vids and tell me how my opinion is wrong.

What I apparently did not know is that somehow ID=religion

I just assumed intelligent design meant somebody really smart somewhere started the planet/universe ....... I don't for one second think we are the end all of creation nor have I ever but somehow everyone still finds a way to slowly twist my words to fit their position

Cant understand why everyone gets so
about a simple discussion ...... just because everyone doesn't share your point of view means they are automatically wrong , not everything in this world can have proof unfortunately ..... at least not through my eyes



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by EliteLegends
The thought of an intelligent creator does not upset or offend me in any way ...... wish i could say the same for some people

As I said before I personally think they work aside one another but not in the way everyone is making it out to be ..... religion is religion and should stay in the church , I never once said that I was worshiping or Idolizing a single creator , I was just offering my viewpoint on what I think to be too complicated to be random but people are going to show me youtube vids and tell me how my opinion is wrong.

What I apparently did not know is that somehow ID=religion

I just assumed intelligent design meant somebody really smart somewhere started the planet/universe ....... I don't for one second think we are the end all of creation nor have I ever but somehow everyone still finds a way to slowly twist my words to fit their position

Cant understand why everyone gets so
about a simple discussion ...... just because everyone doesn't share your point of view means they are automatically wrong , not everything in this world can have proof unfortunately ..... at least not through my eyes



Intelligent Design in it's current form is a Trojan Horse to get Christian Creationism taught as hard science in public schools. I wouldn't care if it were being taught in a Philosophy class or Religion class, but it has no factual basis to be taught in a SCIENCE class. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest an Intelligent Creation, God, came in and did it all.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
I believe we should have teachers present evidence that... the value of pi is 3



Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
You missed the point entirely of what I was saying. I was saying that forcing Biology teachers to teach Intelligent Design would be the same as forcing math teachers to say Pi is equal to 3. Just as there is no basis for Pi equaling 3, Intelligent Design has no basis in a Science classroom.


Things aren't always as they seem.

Although I understand where you were going with your analogy, the analogy you used regarding Pi couldn't have been more appropriate. I've been trying to stay out of evolution/ID debates but would like to point something out really fast.

It is true Pi is most accurately rounded to 3.14 but it can also be rounded to 3.

The question:


I have been challenged to prove that the value of Pi cannot be rounded down to 3.0. I balked at this, thinking that it is obvious that it would make all calculations needing Pi incorrect, but I can find nothing that would say that this is improper.


Segments from the answer:


Any number can be rounded to any precision you want; you can round pi to the nearest ten if you want, and you'll get zero. Rounding it to the nearest unit, giving 3, makes perfectly good sense if that is what you want to do.

The real question is, what is lost if you round pi down to 3? You're reducing its value by .14/3.14 = 4.5%, so any calculations you make will have that much error; but for many purposes that would be perfectly acceptable.

Whenever we work with pi we are rounding it to some number of digits, so all such calculations are incorrect. The only issue is how much accuracy we need for a particular application.


DR. MATH

This is a very interesting comparison to this discussion. Of course, nobody is saying Pi = 3 but they are saying it can be rounded to 3. Likewise, the ID movement is not saying intelligent design is the way it happened but it could have been.

Just wanted to share since I found that amusing. Things aren't always so black and white.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Well apparently the Vatican doesn't think too much of ID

Vatican Buries the Hatchet with Charles Darwin


A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Oh, and I forgot:


Creationism remains powerful in the US, however, notably among Protestants, and its followers object to evolution being taught in state schools.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Why can't we get with the program here people?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
This is a very interesting comparison to this discussion. Of course, nobody is saying Pi = 3 but they are saying it can be rounded to 3. Likewise, the ID movement is not saying intelligent design is the way it happened but it could have been.

Just wanted to share since I found that amusing. Things aren't always so black and white.


Well ashleyD is the Iders can provide evidence then i'll believe them but they have so far not done so. In fact when they have tried presenting arguments they have been utterly destroyed and embarrassingly so. Just go and look up the dover trial. I'm sure someone like you has already viewed it but if you view it and cannot see the flaws in creationism/ID then you are blinkered and nothing will be enough to convince you of the baseless foundation of ID.

Look i'm an atheist but hey i can hypothetically accept that there is a god and that god invented evolution. I have no issue with this. I don't believe in god of course but i can honestly accept anyone who believes in both. However to discredit the wonder of the world, the beauty of evolution with baseless arguments is just completely unfair, dishonest and unscientific.

A good theory should be able to supply evidence and predict future discoveries. In fact it could be argued that the predictions of a theory are more of a testament to it's validity than the original test results. Recently some biologists predicted the exact sediment layer and area a transitional fossil should be found in. They dug in the area and discovered that fossil, with the predicted evolutionary changes.

That should prove evolution and geological timelines beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I wish i could provide this article but i didn't bookmark it and now i can't find it. If anyone here saw the same thing please post it. It was in several online journals but i can't get a handle on it. It involved scientists digging in an ancient river bed for fossils that transitioned from water to land.

Sorry i can't find it i spent nearly an hour looking. Definitely a lesson for me in bookmarking good articles.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Yes, I've heard all that before and don't want to get into it. We've discussed the science behind ID a million times on here and it goes way beyond the 'debunked' flagellum and things of that ilk. And of course certain aspects of evolution utilizing the SM. It's all been done before and yes, I know about Dover.

Instead of hashing out this burned out topic once again, I wanted to instead focus on the underlying reasoning of the Pi analogy. I'm sure my point was pretty clear. It would be so nice if people just thought through it for half a second instead of spouting off the same pre-programmed rebuttals against ID.

[edit on 2/11/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Pre programmed? Wow because the study i read was only out last week. I guess you creationists can only stick to bad analogies rather than recent findings. The Pi argueent isn't that great in my opinion and that is why i didn't address it because i think it has flaws. I prefer debating the actual topic rather than analogies or similes. The article i am talking about came out roughly a week ago, maybe two weeks at most.

It was a predication, based upon evolutionary theory that panned out and therefore deserves discussion and merit. I am lamenting the fact i didn't bookmark the damn thing and hoping someone here on ATs can supply the article in question.

The pi argument is flawed and has nothing to do with evolution, therefore it doesn't deserve discussion in this context.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Your logic is flawed, my friend. You are sitting there talking about a study found verifying evolutionary predictions. Good job. But I ask, 'And?' By preprogrammed rebuttals I mean instead of discussing the issue, you resort to flawed logic by pointing out the validity of evolution without taking a moment to consider how ID does not necessary contradict evolution nor does it mean evolution will no longer be taught.

By you mentioning the article you are basically implying ID is ridiculous because evolution has evidence backing it up when many believe they are exclusive to each other. So, yes. Nice study. And? Like I said, it's not black and white and doesn't necessarily fit instead our perimeter-set box.

From the article:


require teachers who teach evolution to also discuss the idea of intelligent design.


You may have a point if they were trying to completely kick evolution out of education. However, since they are not, you and the recent study really have no point to this discussion.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I will say this, science is still in it's infancy and to promote just one idea revolving around that nature of our origins is in my opinion close minded and damaging to impressionable minds. No ideas should be thrown out in my opinion because we are no where close to find out the true nature of the universe.

With that said I don't agree that religion should be taught in science based courses, there should be a fine line and we must be very careful not to throw out any idea.


[edit on 11-2-2009 by oconnection]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Your logic is flawed, my friend. You are sitting there talking about a study found verifying evolutionary predictions. Good job. But I ask, 'And?' By preprogrammed rebuttals I mean instead of discussing the issue, you resort to flawed logic by pointing out the validity of evolution without taking a moment to consider how ID does not necessary contradict evolution nor does it mean evolution will no longer be taught.

By you mentioning the article you are basically implying ID is ridiculous because evolution has evidence backing it up when many believe they are exclusive to each other. So, yes. Nice study. And? Like I said, it's not black and white and doesn't necessarily fit instead our perimeter-set box.


Maybe you missed my earlier replies where i stated that evolution and creation dont have to be exclusive and that maybe god invented evolution.


Originally posted by AshleyD
From the article:


require teachers who teach evolution to also discuss the idea of intelligent design.


You may have a point if they were trying to completely kick evolution out of education. However, since they are not, you and the recent study really have no point to this discussion.


Actually if you take that stance my study has a very prominent place in this discussion. You see if you adopt the stance that they are on different sides then you cannot teach ID in a science classroom as all studies are against it. If during an evolution class however a biology teacher simply stated evolution as a fact but also stated it could have been invented by god, then i'm quite happy.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join