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.
[3]
Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious [including anti-religious] assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?
We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality.
Intelligent Design is a scientific disagreement with the claim of evolutionary theory that natural phenomena are not designed. ID claims that natural laws and chance alone are not adequate to explain all natural phenomena.
[4]
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
It is the educational philosophy of the Cobb County School District to provide a broad base curriculum; therefore, the Cobb School District believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the
species.
The purpose of this policy is to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion, and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion.
The fact that fossil records are open to all kinds of interpretations, raises doubt on the reliability of even the whole science of paleoanthropology which is mostly under disposition of the evolutionists. Pilbeam described how subjective the evolutionists were while interpreting the fossils and how they held certain prejudices and expectations:
In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have changed somewhat as a scientist. I am aware of the prevalence of implicit assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data� I am more somber than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us."
The full statement signed by the biologists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, Dr. Richard von Sternberg a biologist at the Smithsonian Institution and the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information, and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list of biologists also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others.
[5]
They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)--that selection must act on what already exists.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
[4] In a nationwide poll conducted by Zogby International, 78% of the people wanted intelligent design to be taught in the classroom
[2]
...one can now find a nucleus of genuine creationists on almost every college and university faculty in the country. They tend to be quiet about it or, if vocal, usually [are] persecuted for it, but they are there! Such a condition would have been unheard of 40 years ago, when I was almost alone as a creationist faculty member in the secular university world, so far as I could determine.
When I read the topic of the debate, I wasn't very happy. Personally, I have a strong opinion in this debate and it was difficult to stay objective. I must not be in favour of the side I personally agree with, but I must also be careful not to correct for that too much by ruling against the side I agree with, simply because I agree with it. I have tried my best to stay as objective as possible and I hope that the participants of this debate will trust me on this.
Both participants debated well, with structured posts and good use of sources. However, I found the arguments lacking sometimes. Jamuhn went a bit too far in saying that evolution has never been observed. Of course, this is not true (source). ShadowXIX, however, did not really use good arguments until his last post. The unfalsifiability of creationism should have been brought up much earlier in the debate.
In the end, I have to declare Jamuhn winner of the debate. not because I agree with him, but because he made the best case and ShadowXIX could have defended his side of the debate better.
Fantastic reading! Both duelists came well armed for this fight. So far, this was the toughtest choice, but I have picked ShadowXIX, for structure, research, and pursuasiveness.
An excellent debate by both! I enjoyed reading this one. In the beginning, Jamuhn was making a great argument and pretty much had me, although he was taking the side against my own beliefs. However, the discussion shifted too much towards ID and away from creationism. In my opinion, ShadowXIX maintained a more consistent flow and focus; and therefore a better argument.
Great read, excellent debate from both participants. Whilst Jamuhn seemed to have researched alot more and certainly argued his corner well, I felt that Shadow was the better debater and proved to me that Creationism is not a science.
Jamuhn made a good point about Creationism being able to be taught in Private schools, but the title topic was "schools" so it applies to all unfortunately.
Shadow didn't seem to consider Jamuhn's point that 1) there is objective creationism and 2) both theories haven't been proven. While it is true that creationism can never be proven, it's components, as Jam highlight, such as macroevolution, are tantalizing and scientifically useful.
By recasting and giving validity to Intelligent Design, Jam allowed me to believe that both perspectives could be, and most importantly should be taught. I found Jam more convincing as a debater than Shadow. Although, kudos and cookies for Shadow; he did a great job and I hope to see him around again.
This debate certainly causes one to ponder. Both debators efforts are recognized, and each provided many good points. Thanks to both for a spirited round which I did enjoy judging.
First off, great job on this debate. Top notch work you two. My vote has to go to ShadowXIX though. The arguments seemed much more convincing and provided more evidence to support the case.
This was certainly a tough yet enjoyable debate to decide, and one I certainly would have entertained the notion that the two debators continue to present their sides. Both did an excellent job presenting their respective sides and arguments, but I found that ShadowXIX arguments to be more persuasive and founded.
A very tough and intelligent debate. Jamuhn comes out strong and defines the terms of the debate. I believe that Shadow would have done a better job is he/she had defined his/her terms as decidedly - early on. If “religous” creationism was at stake... Shadow should have made this point early on instead of turning to it when it was difficult to defend against the intelligent design argument. Also, Shadow spent entirely too much time defending evolutional theory - instead of debating the real issue, which was if both of these “theories” should be taught in public school. I think Jamuhn took the debate in his closing statement. Excellent use of sources, quotes, and research to defend his position. And, Jamuhn stayed true to the debate topic and decidedly closed his statement with why creationism should be taught in schools (both public and private). The debate goes to Jamuhn.
Whoo! This one was a doozy! I think that I'm going to have to go with Jamuhn on this one, though. I think his arguments were more solid, and I just thought it was absolutely cute when he said dogma, talking about hardcore evolutionists
One other thing that I would like to point out is that Shadow spent a little bit too much time going after the chicken bones, when there were hocks to be had in other areas. I don't think that wasting an entire post trying to illustrate that creationism and intelligent design are different (which he didn't prove explicitly) was exactly a good idea. Sorry, mate.
This was a tough one. I felt it all hinged on whether creationism, or ID, was a science or a philosophy. I feel that the best arguement was put forth by Jamuhn. He proved a stronger arguement for it as a science rather than a theological philosophy.