Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools

[Sci Fi Fan]

If you support this, please justify the teaching of religious beliefs in Science classrooms.

[Liberty]

Please justify the teaching of Evolution as quantifiable fact. Shouldn't science explore all possibilities? Where is the application of the scientific method in testing the hypothesis of evolution?

[Sci Fi Fan]

Originally Posted by Liberty

Please justify the teaching of Evolution as quantifiable fact.

Because it is. There is are mountains of evidence supporting Evolutionary theory; fossil records, linked genetics, related vestigal organs, etc.

Shouldn't science explore all possibilities?

Yes. It has explored a literal interpretation of Genesis, and it has dismissed it.

By this logic, we should teach every possible origin of life, regardless of how unsupportable by factual evidence, in Science classrooms. Why not teach ancient Greek creation theory? Why not teach that giant monkeys created man using seventeen bananas?

Oh, right, because none of these have large followings. Which is the problem here: people don't understand that Science is not a matter of popular opinion, and it is not a matter of faith or of wanting something to be true.

Where is the application of the scientific method in testing the hypothesis of evolution?

Where is the application of the scientific method in testing the hypothesis of intelligent design?

(mind you, evolution is not a hypothesis. It is an accepted Scientific Theory.)

[Liberty]

Because it is.

Woooo.....I guess that settles that.

There is are mountains of evidence supporting Evolutionary theory; fossil records, linked genetics, related vestigal organs, etc.

There are a lot of holes in the theory as well. Lets take fossils for example. If evolution occurred slowly over millions of year, why don't the fossils show the minute changes that had to have occurred during that time rather than jump from one major change to another? It is more logical that fossils do more to disprove evolution than support it.

Seems to me that when you consider the incalculable odd of inorganic material morphing into organic material by cosmic accident, defying the 2nd Law of Thermo Dynamics and eventually become the extremely complex creatures that we are, it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than in a divine Creator. If anything, the theory of evolution exist for one purpose -- to give atheists something to believe in.

Yes. It has explored a literal interpretation of Genesis, and it has dismissed it.

Actually, there are thousands of scientists with a Masters Degree or higher who support creationism. Even Francis Bacon who developed the Scientific Method was a creationist. Are you going to argue that he wasn't a real scientist?

Which is the problem here: people don't understand that Science is not a matter of popular opinion, and it is not a matter of faith or of wanting something to be true.

It would be nice if that were to actually happen. We wouldn't be wasting so much money and effort on the global warming nonsense.

Where is the application of the scientific method in testing the hypothesis of intelligent design?

You realize you just put ID on par with evolution. Congrats.

(mind you, evolution is not a hypothesis. It is an accepted Scientific Theory.)

Consensus is not science. Do you not know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Here, let me help you....

A hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to explain something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis.

So, a person might make an observation and immediately form a hypothesis about why something happens the way it does. He or she then tests the hypothesis and eventually develops a theory. A hypothesis can be right or wrong, but a theory is supposed to be true based upon the scientific method. So, when a hypothesis has been verified to be true, it becomes a theory.

Please provide the "tests" devised to "prove" evolution.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Originally Posted by historycat

Science is not perfect! it merely serves to investigate, and explain the natural world, and its interworkings with humans. Its findings are not written in stone by any means. Evolution is a theory, and has never been proven fact. Creationism is a theory, and has never been proven fact. I have accepted Intelligent design because looking at the natural world, and all the creatures in it, and how close to perfect it is, there is no way it all just happened by accident!

Gravity is a theory, and has never been a proven fact. A round Earth is a theory, and has never been a proven fact. You are confusing the scientific definition of theory with the layman's use of the word. Creationism is not a theory. It's a hypothesis supported by people who don't understand that science is logic based, not faith based.

Originally Posted by Liberty

Woooo.....I guess that settles that.

There are a lot of holes in the theory as well. Lets take fossils for example. If evolution occurred slowly over millions of year, why don't the fossils show the minute changes that had to have occurred during that time rather than jump from one major change to another? It is more logical that fossils do more to disprove evolution than support it.

We do have plenty of transitional fossils. Every fossil is transitional, and in every fossil you witness "minute changes". Clearly, what you desire is a coherent string of every minute change from specie to another. You see, the thing about "minute" changes, is that to accumulate into a significant modification, you need lots of these. That's why evolution is so slow. In order to string together this ridiculous burden of proof, one would require millions of fossils all conveniently of the same species going down the same evolutionary path. We don't have the resources or technology to do this.

Seems to me that when you consider the incalculable odd of inorganic material morphing into organic material by cosmic accident, defying the 2nd Law of Thermo Dynamics and eventually become the extremely complex creatures that we are, it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than in a divine Creator. If anything, the theory of evolution exist for one purpose -- to give atheists something to believe in.

Everyone with even the slightest understanding of basic scientific principles is laughing their *** of at you at this very moment.

You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It refers to closed systems. Life is not a closed system, you draw energy from your surroundings all the time.

Actually, there are thousands of scientists with a Masters Degree or higher who support creationism. Even Francis Bacon who developed the Scientific Method was a creationist. Are you going to argue that he wasn't a real scientist?

I like how you appeal to alleged statistics of "thousands" of scientists who support creationism, ignoring the millions who do not.

It would be nice if that were to actually happen. We wouldn't be wasting so much money and effort on the global warming nonsense.

Your analogy works, but it's flipped. Plenty of people have every reason to not believe global warming is real. What motive is there to twist facts to support a pessimistic model of the Earth's future that would require us to make enormous sacrifices in production and money to combat?

And don't give me any bull**** on Al Gore. I don't give a **** about Al Gore, I care about the ninety seven percent of climatologists (people, who, unlike you, are actually paid to do this stuff) who say you're wrong. Where are their golden mansions and sports cars for participating in the cover up?

You realize you just put ID on par with evolution. Congrats.

You don't understand how a reductio ad absurdum works, do you?

I put ID to the same level of analysis as evolution. You cleverly dodged applying the scientific method to it, because it won't stand up. Congrats.

Consensus is not science.

At some point, everything from man's perspective must be "consensus based". For example, that gravitational theory is taught in public science schools is a result of an overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter. This is not to say that the scientific community can never be wrong, but disproving tested theories involve real scientists (not you) actually running experimentation and observations to do so.

Do you not know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Here, let me help you....

Anyone who thinks that Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics has no credibility to lecture anyone on any science, ever.

[historycat]

Science is not perfect! it merely serves to investigate, and explain the natural world, and its interworkings with humans. Its findings are not written in stone by any means. Evolution is a theory, and has never been proven fact. Creationism is a theory, and has never been proven fact. I have accepted Intelligent design because looking at the natural world, and all the creatures in it, and how close to perfect it is, there is no way it all just happened by accident!
Photosynthesis, the Crebs cycle, the way the Oceans create our weather, the food chain, with Humans on top, the seasons, and Animals breeding at seasonal intervals, and the way a preditor hunts and culls the weakest of the pack are just a few examples of this fine tuned precision in nature that is no accident.

[Liberty]

We do have plenty of transitional fossils. Every fossil is transitional, and in every fossil you witness "minute changes". Clearly, what you desire is a coherent string of every minute change from specie to another. You see, the thing about "minute" changes, is that to accumulate into a significant modification, you need lots of these. That's why evolution is so slow. In order to string together this ridiculous burden of proof, one would require millions of fossils all conveniently of the same species going down the same evolutionary path. We don't have the resources or technology to do this.

I'd be happy with 50 fossils showing the clear transition of man. The problem is that their isn't. It was "scientists" who gave us the Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man and Orce man. There simply isn't enough transitional fossils to satisfy the Scientific Method. You're taking evolution on faith.

Everyone with even the slightest understanding of basic scientific principles is laughing their *** of at you at this very moment.

Well, let them. And for the record, I minored in biochemistry. I have a pretty decent understanding of scientific principles. Its because of that I question the arguments defending evolution. Too much is taken on faith and not actual hard science.

You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It refers to closed systems. Life is not a closed system, you draw energy from your surroundings all the time.

Obviously, your understanding of the 2nd Law is simplistic.

Actually our solar system is pretty much a closed system. But there is more to it than that. As a "sci fi fan", lets see if you recognize this quote....

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.”

And your argument that we don't live in a closed system is flawed. Our solar system is pretty much a closed system as it gets. People like you will claim it isn't because of the energy the sun generates. The problem is that energy increases entropy, not decrease it.

Now about those laughing scientists, lets listen to what Dr. John Ross of Harvard has to say.....

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” ~Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40.

So if the 2nd law is universal as all scientific laws must be, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, apparently violating the 2nd law?

I like how you appeal to alleged statistics of "thousands" of scientists who support creationism, ignoring the millions who do not.

Then by this argument, you're wrong about the existence of God since only 2.4% of the world's population are atheists.

Your analogy works, but it's flipped. Plenty of people have every reason to not believe global warming is real. What motive is there to twist facts to support a pessimistic model of the Earth's future that would require us to make enormous sacrifices in production and money to combat?

Easy. Follow the money.

And don't give me any bull**** on Al Gore. I don't give a **** about Al Gore, I care about the ninety seven percent of climatologists (people, who, unlike you, are actually paid to do this stuff) who say you're wrong. Where are their golden mansions and sports cars for participating in the cover up?

You mean 97% of 3147 "published" climatologists who were surveyed. One problem with your argument. Already there are well over 30,000 American scientists alone, over 9000 of whom had PhD's, who say there is no convincing evidence that global warming is man-made and the CO2 is not as harmful as its made out to be.

You don't understand how a reductio ad absurdum works, do you?

Actually, I understand it quite well. You're just not very good at it.

I put ID to the same level of analysis as evolution. You cleverly dodged applying the scientific method to it, because it won't stand up. Congrats.

Of course ID won't stand up to SM. The problem is that neither does evolution. Yet, one you insist is science and the other is not. The problem is that they both require faith.

At some point, everything from man's perspective must be "consensus based".

Not true.

For example, that gravitational theory is taught in public science schools is a result of an overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter. This is not to say that the scientific community can never be wrong, but disproving tested theories involve real scientists (not you) actually running experimentation and observations to do so.

Superfluous. Consensus belongs in the realm of politics, not science.

Anyone who thinks that Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics has no credibility to lecture anyone on any science, ever.

So, Isaac Asimov and college level chemistry text books has no credibility to a sci fi fan. Interesting.

.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Originally Posted by Liberty

I'd be happy with 50 fossils showing the clear transition of man. The problem is that their isn't. It was "scientists" who gave us the Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Java man and Orce man. There simply isn't enough transitional fossils to satisfy the Scientific Method. You're taking evolution on faith.

Actually, we have a fairly linear development of the homo genus, all the way to modern homo sapiens. That is, we possess fossil evidence of every species along this path of evolutionary development, and even DNA linkage. Clearly, this isn't what you desire; you desire a ridiculously convulted quantity of fossils ranging from the first Habilis to me.

Well, let them. And for the record, I minored in biochemistry. I have a pretty decent understanding of scientific principles. Its because of that I question the arguments defending evolution. Too much is taken on faith and not actual hard science.

Uh huh. You minored in biochemistry, yet you think that evolution violates thermodynamics.

Obviously, your understanding of the 2nd Law is simplistic.

Actually our solar system is pretty much a closed system.

Our solar system is irrelevant here. You are arguing that the transition from inorganic material to the first living creatures violates thermodynamics. Said inorganic material certainly is not a closed system, given that it is on the Earth's surface and is affected by the sun, external objects, wind currents, etc.


How is the solar system irrelevant at all? Is the entropy of the star system decreasing as a result of the advent of life? No, it certainly is not.

(obviously, you're under the impression that greater complexion = less entropy)


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

In fact, your entropy decreases when you die. Does this prove that death is a supernatural phenomena?

But there is more to it than that. As a "sci fi fan", lets see if you recognize this quote....

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.”


And your argument that we don't live in a closed system is flawed. Our solar system is pretty much a closed system as it gets. People like you will claim it isn't because of the energy the sun generates. The problem is that energy increases entropy, not decrease it.

Irrelevant. Our solar system is not transforming into organic life. A specific quantity of inorganic matter did. Now, prove that entropy of life decreased without an equal increase in entropy in its surroundings.

Additionally, you are hilariously mistaking Asimov's analogy as literal. In reality, more complex objects typically possess more entropy than less complex objects! "disorder" isn't being used in the typical connotation of the word.

The very fact that you grew from a fertilized egg is a disproof of your ridiculous notion that greater entropy = less complexity.

Now about those laughing scientists, lets listen to what Dr. John Ross of Harvard has to say.....

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” ~Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40.

So if the 2nd law is universal as all scientific laws must be, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, apparently violating the 2nd law?

Because it doesn't. Establish that entropy within the solar system decreases as a result of the evolutionary process.

Heck, establish that the entropy within the previously inorganic life decreases either.

Then by this argument, you're wrong about the existence of God since only 2.4% of the world's population are atheists.

Given that 99% of the world's population are not qualified to speak on the matter, your statistic doesn't work out. (BTW, I'm fairly certain that your number is horribly outdated).

Easy. Follow the money.

I have. Hired corporate bull****ters make a hell of a lot more money than the pro-global warming climatologists.

You mean 97% of 3147 "published" climatologists who were surveyed. One problem with your argument. Already there are well over 30,000 American scientists alone, over 9000 of whom had PhD's, who say there is no convincing evidence that global warming is man-made and the CO2 is not as harmful as its made out to be.

30,000 out of how many? I love how you throw out seemingly large numbers and conveniently fail to establish context.

Of course ID won't stand up to SM. The problem is that neither does evolution. Yet, one you insist is science and the other is not. The problem is that they both require faith.

OK then, so what theory do you propose should be taught in science classrooms as an alternative?

Not true.

This isn't specific to science. It's an inescapable byproduct of society. Even math must ultimately be consensus based.

Superfluous. Consensus belongs in the realm of politics, not science.

Yet you were the one to originally bring up consensus studies. Funny, eh?

So, Isaac Asimov and college level chemistry text books has no credibility to a sci fi fan. Interesting.

You're hilarious. Asimov was an atheist.

[historycat]

WWOW! Gravity is a theory, and we prove it is also a proven fact every day, also a round earth is also a proven fact, the NASA photos of earth from space, we can see Earth is round. ..wait NASA oh i meant russian photos, there is no more NASA! my mistake!

[Sci Fi Fan]

Originally Posted by historycat

WWOW! Gravity is a theory, and we prove it is also a proven fact every day, also a round earth is also a proven fact, the NASA photos of earth from space, we can see Earth is round. ..wait NASA oh i meant russian photos, there is no more NASA! my mistake!

There are no "proven facts" in science.

My point is, that Evolution being "just a theory" is a highly ignorant talking point when you consider the fact that Julius Caesar existing is "just a theory"; theories are not guesses, but rather highly developed models supported with heavy amounts of evidence.

The same cannot be said for creationism.