Evolution vs Intelligent Design; Education of Origins [Archive]

scarletwillow

12-23-2005, 02:02 AM

A few days ago, a Pennsylvania court became the first in the nation to ban the teaching of intelligent design.

In case you haven't been following, critics of evolution are now touting the teaching of intelligent design; the idea that a higher power (read, God) is responsible for many of the aspects of life that present now that we can't understand.

Of course, the US Constitution provides that creationism cannot be taught in school; yet, intelligent design is touted as a secular idea (pardon my French, but anyone who believes or supports that is retarded) and hence should be taught.

Opponents of evolution also say and believe other many things. I'll answer those too.

Accusation: Darwin's evolution is dead.
Answer: That is true. That's why we've stopped teaching Darwin's evolution nearly half a century ago, and replaced it with modern synthesis, an update of Darwin's ideas, modern genetics, geology, and other fields.

Accusation: Man evolved from monkeys.
Answer: No, we evolved from a common ancestor.

Accusation: Why don't we see evolution happening today?
Answer: Evolution is the change in gene frequences of a population over a period of time (usually long). But anyways, if you DO want direct examples of evolution, look no further than post-pesticide pest re-emergence and changing strains of bacteria in hospitals.

Accusation: Evolution is highly flawed.
Answer: No it's not. I dare you to find me flaws; for every *legitimate* flaw you give me, I will give you two flaws with Intelligent Design.

Accusation: Evolution is a theory. Intelligent Design is a theory. Why not teach both?
Answer: Gravity is also a theory. A theory is an unproveable, falsifiable explanation upheld by a body of facts and a large amount of evidence. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent Design is a BELIEF, not a theory.

Accusation: Intelligent Design is upheld by many respected scientists.
Answer: Respected by themselves and their friends. ID's proponents are no-namers who are outsiders to the scientific community and are laughed upon by REAL scientists.

Knowing all this, do you think the teaching of Intelligent Design should be legal, DESPITE that it's a CLEAR coverup for creationism? How about we teach evolution, and say God is the mechanism of evolution, in Sunday school? Eh? Eh?

KendoTiger

12-23-2005, 07:30 AM

I believe that evolution (in its present form) is the closest thing to what happened as we have.

That said, when looking at the complexity of the functions of DNA, and the interworkings between species, it is hard to say that the process of evolution is not due (at least in part/started?) to a higher power.

*shrugs*

[edit]

Getting back to topic, I believe it should not be legal, simply because Intelligent Design (in its present form) is a belief, not a theory.

scarletwillow

12-24-2005, 08:54 AM

Well, for everyone that says, "it's too complex to be a coincidence", I tell them the chances, then I ask them to consider that Earth is only one out of a countless number of stars.

Maybe if life wasn't a coincidence, all other plants would have life too.

But yeah.
There's more evidence for directed panspermia (Crick of Watson and Crick's theory that life was transferred from meteorites foreign to earth) than Intelligent Design.

junnleenfaah

12-25-2005, 06:45 AM

scarletwillow

12-25-2005, 06:51 AM

hmm.. i havent heard of this. so basically.. Intelligent Design is a secular form of christianity? or of some sort? if so, it should be banned. because even though i'm speaking as a christian, rules are rules. stick to them.
but correct me if i'm wrong (=

Girl, you live in Texas and you never heard of intelligent design? =P

ID is a coverup for creationism, simple as that.
It provides no mechanism for speciation.

Teaching ID is like saying "evolution is junk; we have a lot of species in this world because some creator *coughGodcough* did it".

junnleenfaah

12-26-2005, 01:19 AM

Girl, you live in Texas and you never heard of intelligent design? =P
ID is a coverup for creationism, simple as that.
It provides no mechanism for speciation.
Teaching ID is like saying "evolution is junk; we have a lot of species in this world because some creator *coughGodcough* did it".

ahha, myy bad. hmm.. well this intelligent design thing. now that i know a little more about it, i dont think it should be legal. unless we're slowly turning back into the old english monarchy days. haha kidding.

scarletwillow

12-26-2005, 06:44 AM

American social structure is an entirely different issue.
But no, in many ways, the American upper class (no, I'm not talking about Bill Gates and Michael Jackson) is just as strict as England's.

Never underestimate the power cultural elites have on American values. A Du Pont can do whatever the fuck he wants. Just cuz he's a Du Pont.

lattae

01-08-2006, 01:45 PM

ID should not be part of science education unless it satisfy all the "requirements" of being a "scientific theory". It's simple as that. It cannot be "proven", it cannot be used to "predict"...

Evolution on the other hand satisfy the "requirements" of being a theory of science. It should be accepted as a theory of science.

I guess someone has to remind those people who firmly believe in ID that science is but a human endeavor to explain the phenomenons around us. Just as the human intelligence is limited, science is limited in the same way. Unlike something like religion, science is a "see and you believe" thing, it doesn't require faith. That said, as all theories of science are, evolution may not be universally agreed on, and it can be disputed. (afterall, newtonian laws are absolute until einstein came along and threw all of that out of the window)

I don't understand why there's always this need to pull religion into everything. I am a christian, and I firmly believe in the existence of God and the bible's explanation of creation. That said, I don't see the need to prove creationism. I can live with Evolution being a theory of science. (I just don't happen to agree with it cos I find too many loop holes in it.)

judes

01-08-2006, 10:19 PM

i don't think religion or anything related to religion (i.e. creationism, or in the cover up of 'intelligent design') should be taught in public schools. if parents want to enroll their children in christian schools, then fine, they have their own schoolboard to deal with these things.

but to a) expect that your intelligent design credits transfer to other university courses who have also another standard base of knowledge that they expect students to know and where students from bible colleges are lacking, then they have every right to not accept the credits.
b) demand that intelligent design be taught in schools when there should be a clear distinction between science as taught in schools than a religion class, is wrong.

i also think that evolution should be taught in schools as a THEORY and not as something proven absolutely. it should be explained earlier on in a child's life that evolution is the best explanation we have for how we came to be on earth, and to challenge the child to think creatively and to find their own explanation for the origin of life on earth.

soybeast

01-12-2006, 02:36 AM

I don't know the scientific foundations on which ID stands but it seems from all the response it's gotten that it's highly flawed and most likely unteachable (without it coming off as religious babble).

I do have a theory/belief on life's origins though.

It's perfectly reasonable that current organisms evolved from other organisms. How is the gap in complexity between say humans to say a worm bridged? I don't know but I think it requires a leap of faith. All of you have probably heard or know the odds of the chances of us evolving from some lesser organism said before. If I recall correctly it was something similiar to winning the lottery. Now people have won the lottery of course, but how does most everyone else approach it? Well probably in belief that they'll never win it. I'm only using this to sorta quantify how much of a leap of faith it is to say we've evolved from lesser organisms.

But if this sort of leap can be taken, then it's also perfectly reasonable to take a leap of faith and believe some sort of intervention in say a higher power brought about man.

My belief is that all life was created, and from there on evolved to what it is today. Now what was created first I don't know, but that's my belief and I believe it's just as reasonable as everyone else's explanation on it.

Zhaohe

01-13-2006, 08:38 AM

Haven't heard of this Intelligent Design here, but evolution has been proven, I think it should be taught. Until this intelligent design can be proven, I really don't want to hear about it.

lattae

01-13-2006, 03:05 PM

Haven't heard of this Intelligent Design here, but evolution has been proven, I think it should be taught. Until this intelligent design can be proven, I really don't want to hear about it.
Technically, evolution hasn't be "proven" in the way people think it explains the origin of life. It is to my opinion at best a theory to explain how different species came about. I don't we can prove "evolution", it's just a deductive sort of theory that scientists got from looking at fossils, certain species of animals etc...

Zhaohe

01-13-2006, 11:28 PM

Thanks for correction, well... I find it much easier to believe in evolution.. it seems quite evident with all the findings.

scarletwillow

01-14-2006, 08:43 AM

Lattae is right.

I was watching a comedy show last night, but overheard a very good argument.

The speaker, a harsh critic of ID, was asked how he didn't know God just put all these fossils and evidence of evolution on the Earth to make us think that.

The critic, himself a Christian, rebuffed simply that he doesn't believe that God would be deceptive.

lattae

01-14-2006, 02:39 PM

Well... evolution theory is but some human conception, and it is limited to limited to human intelligence, culture and experience. Maybe one day when better theories come up, it will all be overthrown.

Some will argue that fossils can be explained by the great flood described in the bible. (you know the noah's ark story?) I shall not argue from the "bible" perspective, instead I'll just poke some holes in the scientific "dating" of fossils. I'd think it is possible that those fossils are not as old as we think they are. I mean, we use carbon dating? Carbon dating draws some relationship between C14 and time, but it's mere extrapolation. Maybe it doesn't go the way we expect it to be. Then evolution can be derailed already...

scarletwillow

01-14-2006, 05:14 PM

Extrapolation as it may be, it is all backed by experimentation and observation.

Carbon dating, by the way, is often cited as a liability for evolution because of its inaccuracy over a longer period of time. Of course, that's why we use heavier metals for fossil dating, not carbon.

Of course, if you argue against evolution, you're also saying that all those fossils, all those billions of species that existed before us, are God's *mistakes*.

In addition, if you will recall, the Bible is a collective work, written over spans of centuries and collected and edited by the Catholic Church. It is by no means even a perfect collection of Christian belief.

soybeast

01-14-2006, 09:26 PM

Of course, if you argue against evolution, you're also saying that all those fossils, all those billions of species that existed before us, are God's *mistakes*.

You're basing that off the presumption that some of these theories are true. Let me remind everyone that no matter how much evidence is backing a theory, it does not make it fool proof.

There are very very few absolutes in life. Approach everything with skepticism. Don't allow yourself to be blinded with what you think are absolutes. You'll only prevent yourself from finding the truth. And well, I think everyone has his/her own truth to find.

scarletwillow

01-14-2006, 11:12 PM

If you would like to believe truth is relative, that's fine. I'm not viewing truth as a human construction, but as a universal constant.

With that out of the way, if you want to argue that truth is is not fool proof, then let me say that general truth is whatever has the most evidence behind it.

And in this case, evolution rules.

After all, gravity is a theory.

amdawn

01-15-2006, 07:01 AM

scientists don't put up a theory if they don't have a long series of reputable supportable data that support it and deem it as correct.

even the theory of relativity is a theory even though scientists, physicists rely on it heavily to further their research in other fields. so far, they always come back and indicate that without einstein's theory, many of today's technology would not progress as much if we didn't presume that this much is true.

scientists are not letting go of the evolutionary theory easily because it permitted them to explain things that we unexplainable before. however, it doesn't mean they won't run into stuff that may overturn it and or which the theory did not clarify.

there will be no full reveal of the truth but this theory is enough to stoke enough ideas of where man originated from. there is no final answer per se because the questions is always out there after another answer is made.

scarletwillow

01-15-2006, 07:12 AM

Well put.

I'd like to add there's no plausible, respected evidence *against* evolution at this point (find some if you can).

midori

01-15-2006, 08:03 AM

scarletwillow

01-15-2006, 08:26 AM

No plausible repected evidence?

How about life can't come from non-life? I think that's scientific enough. There are many loopholes that can be found in the evolution theory, as well as the ID suggestion. I don't believe in either because there's too many flaws.

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Honestly, have you taken a higher level biology course?

The life-from-life idea is sooooooooooooooo old. I suggest you look into a simple definition of life. In case you're too lazy, let me lay it out for you.

Life is a obligatory, combinatory, emergent property of matter.

It is a PROPERTY.

In addition, scientists have already proved that natural events can synthesize compounds essential to life like amino acids. Obviously fish, or even bacteria didn't pop out from nowhere. There are several great books written on this subject, go read them.

Find me a loophole in evolution theory. Go on, go on.

lattae

01-15-2006, 03:02 PM

Even with heavy metals dating technology, things are not absolutes. Unless we have an experiment that run through millions of years to prove that the trends are as we predicted, I still stand by the fact that the extrapolation is not absolute.

In addition, scientists have already proved that natural events can synthesize compounds essential to life like amino acids. Obviously fish, or even bacteria didn't pop out from nowhere. There are several great books written on this subject, go read them.
But what are the odds that these compounds essential to live came together against the laws of entropy to for some meaniful organism. Known "life forms" consist at least a polypeptide and RNA. Even viruses are not quite considered "organisms"
I've never read those great books, so tell me in summary what they say :worry:

KendoTiger

01-15-2006, 03:28 PM

I believe that so far, the most that has been proven in "those great books", are as follows:

In a natural environment (free of externals), with the presence of the correct basic elements, as well as energy (in the form of ultraviolet radiation), various amino acids form. Lack of oxygen in the atmosphere (in sufficient quantities), also allowed for amino acid creation, as there wasn't a corrosive atmosphere (to amino acids). The exact concentration of elements within the atmosphere has not be ascertained, although there is a good guess of the main components.

The ability for this to occur (as it IS the basis for creation of polypeptides and RNA) is incredibly small, yet IS possible.

Anyways, could you please tell me exactly how the second law of thermodynamics applies to your argument? I'm a little confused about how exactly you are using it...

scarletwillow

01-15-2006, 06:32 PM

I think what she means by against entropy is that how "ordered" particles came to be from unordered particles. The simple answer to that is the forces of the universe =P

I haven't read these books for a long time, and as you can obviously tell, I forgot the titles. But one book in particular had outlined the genesis of the simplest living matter from nothing.

To give a taste;

In our ancient ocean, lightning synthesizes several particles, one type which we'll call A. Another will be B, and so on.
A's chemical properties ascertain that upon contact with B, B will be destroyed. Furthermore, in contact with other particles, it's able to synthesize itself. That's more or less the simplest example; extrapolate that to prions (mad cow disease) if you want a more complex example.

In a sense, from what we know, DNA and RNA fit that profile. They are the basis for offspring; therefor, they must be the first "living" matter to have been able to survive.

Anyhow, indeed it is possible. And being possible is all a theory needs.

soybeast

01-16-2006, 12:56 AM

Do any of you believe in people having souls? I'd hate to think of life as simply a coincidence. Makes life trivial, no?

scarletwillow

01-16-2006, 01:22 AM

Well, it IS trivial.
I'd like to believe in souls, but I don't.

KendoTiger

01-16-2006, 01:50 AM

What I never understood ~ every organism lives to reproduce, every action we take is related to increasing our ability to reproduce. Now, why aren't there any zombie movies that focus on this? Rather than just "the need to feed"...well, I guess it would just become a porno, neh? :/

This is amazingly trivial if you think about it ~ I guess things like "culture" are what separate us. Maybe if we could do something great in relation to the universe - other than exterminating ourselves before we see anything beyond our skies. Still, if humanity exists as a virus, then it's hilarious to think that self-destruction would actually be a way of helping out the universe. Still, it's hard not to believe that the universe really doesn't care. Neither does the earth. It will survive us no matter what we do ~ it might change, but it will continue. If only we were that perminant :/ God, I just went into another "God" debate >_>

If you really care about my opinion on souls ~ just check the "existance of god" thread.

scarletwillow

01-16-2006, 04:25 AM

I refuse to go into that hellhole of a thread again =P

Every organism lives to reproduce because that's the only goal; without it, we won't exist. Nothing else is required.

There is no universal good or bad if you look at it in a secular view. The only reason we designate good and bad is so we can get through life with the least pain as possible.

lattae

01-16-2006, 03:13 PM

well... higher entrophy or randomness is always favoured in the universe. It's probaby why the universe is expanding. amino acids will not voluntarily come together and form long chain compounds.

correct me if I interpret this all so wrongly.

I don't really want to bring in the arguements of "god" I think that's not quite fair in the arguement of science.

kendo tiger I'd argue that it's an impossibility because it's not just a single amino acid that makes up an organism. You need way too many concidences to make up your possibility. It's almost like leaving powdered carbon on your table and waiting for it to turn into 10 carat diamond someday. What are your odds?

KendoTiger

01-16-2006, 04:23 PM

Depends on geothermal and gravitational variables - and if you're on a fault line, and your home is engulfed into a volcano, the chance of it occuring is pretty high.

Side not ~ apparently, using gamma radiation, some astronomers (astrologists?) are now making a case that the universe does not expand at a constant rate. Hmm ~

Anyways ~ if the universe prefered randomness (2nd law thermodynamics), then what's to say that in a universal perspective, our planet didn't have that infinitely small probability of it coming together? It's like flipping a coin ~ it's either heads, or it's tails. But there is still that chance of it landing on it's side. Imagine flipping the coin a billion billion times ~ and I bet you it will land on it's side ten times in a row.

scarletwillow

01-16-2006, 11:44 PM

well... higher entrophy or randomness is always favoured in the universe. It's probaby why the universe is expanding. amino acids will not voluntarily come together and form long chain compounds.

Well, that's where lightning comes in =P
Lightning is hypothesized to be the "synthesizing agent".

And the beauty of the simplest biological elements is that they don't take energy to come together; they simple react when in contact with one another.

lattae

01-17-2006, 05:17 AM

Depends on geothermal and gravitational variables - and if you're on a fault line, and your home is engulfed into a volcano, the chance of it occuring is pretty high.
Yeah... and so we should go diamond digging around the pacific ring of fire? :dry:
Even if you are engulfed, there's not 100% chance of diamond formation okay...

Well, so lightning has to occur at the right time at the right place for nth time before the polypeptide chains to form? Not even to mention the 3-D folding etc which makes them useful...

Okay... I just believe that the chances for 1 reaction are as low as someone striking lottery. Having a long chain "polymer" is like someone striking lottery 100times in the row.

If I may argue, I doubt the stability of the products to last till the next right lightning strike. :worry:

scarletwillow

01-17-2006, 05:25 AM

Yeah... and so we should go diamond digging around the pacific ring of fire? :dry:
Even if you are engulfed, there's not 100% chance of diamond formation okay...
Well, so lightning has to occur at the right time at the right place for nth time before the polypeptide chains to form? Not even to mention the 3-D folding etc which makes them useful...
Okay... I just believe that the chances for 1 reaction are as low as someone striking lottery. Having a long chain "polymer" is like someone striking lottery 100times in the row.
If I may argue, I doubt the stability of the products to last till the next right lightning strike. :worry:

Well, that's the beauty of things.
They've already reproduced the lightning effect many times in a laboratory (Stanley Miller's experiment and its derivatives).

You have to keep in mind, quite possibly the first proteins were extremely simple and didn't require the sort of complex folding they do now.

You also have to remember that no matter how small the chances, the Earth has been here for millions of years.

The first life, or even the first steps of life, will unfortunately never been known for sure simply because time has wiped them out. Even the fossil record cannot capture whatever soft-bodied creatures may have inhabited this world. Hell, there could've been a super-race of jellyfish people we would never know about =P