d0om on 12/3/2006 at 13:05
Well yes, when there are compeating theories which both explain the empircal data they should both be taught, and they are in nearly all cases.
Intelligent design does NOT explain any empirical data. How does it explain why Dophins and Whales breathe air, despite living in the sea where everything else has gills?
How does it explain why most enzymes use Fe2+ ions, rather than Fe3+ to do catalytic activity despite Fe3+ being much more available now due to the increased oxygen concentration?
How does a 6,000 year old earth explain how we find oil depoists under rocks which are millions of years old? Thats how we find the oil which you burn in your car!
Evolution explains EVERYTHING WE SEE IN THE WORLD AROUND US
ID explains nothing.
Do you see why its not something to be discussed in a science lesson?
Now if you want to say "God created the universe in such a way that evolution would happen and humans would be born on Earth as he is omnscient" then thats fine. Thats the creationism that makes logical sense.
Any attempt to claim the world is only 6,000 years old is simply absurd. How would we be so successful at mining the Eart's natural resources which require an understanding of geology and billions of years of rock movments if the Earth wasn't billions of years old?
Now you could say "God made the world so it looks exactly the same as if the universe was billions of years old and life evolved for billions of years." But that is EXACTLY THE SAME as saying that it WAS created billions of years ago, as both ideas give exactly the same predictions about everything.
Myoldnamebroke on 12/3/2006 at 13:11
Quote Posted by Tintin
Oh no, you can't present two options to teach in school! We must brainwash the students with Evolution! Can't let there actually be a choice between Evolution and Intelligent Design!:rolleyes: Isn't science all about evaluating all options and from that identifying what is fact and what is theory?
Otherwise its just indoctrinating the students to the Evolution mindset. Sure you may not believe in Intelligent Design, but at least presenting both ideas lets students choose for themselves.:thumb:
You can't invoke what SCIENCE is supposed to be as a reason to present ID alongside evolution because ID ISN'T SCIENCE.
Also, there are lots of other things SCIENCE takes as accepted and it'd be dumb to present and 'let people choose'. Gravity: physics, or a GIANT INVISIBLE PUPPET MASTER CONTROLLING OUR ACTIONS? Clearly, present both and let students decide! Or not. Let science teach science and RS or whatever teach theories about the why.
Convict on 12/3/2006 at 13:19
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Not at all. I could give you so much evidence, it would make your brain hurt. But you're not really interested in evidence that supports the theory of evolution. What you want is to be able to pick holes in what is admittedly a less-than-watertight body of evidence for the origins of life on Earth, just to suit your own agenda.
I call your bluff and ask for what species (pl) preceded the platypus. Evidence plz.
LittleK I looked up the horses one and it is interesting but it seems to be the case of only seeing distinct species showing stasis in the fossil record (from the little I read, plz correct me if I'm wrong).
However, you can't necessarily draw the conclusion that because the insulin in pigs is the same? as the insulin in humans that we must have descended from the same evolutionary ancestor. It's a bit like (ie comparison coming) you've seen an association and made it into a causal relationship.
d0om if you can't answer God did it to "Intelligent design does NOT explain any empirical data. How does it explain why Dophins and Whales breathe air, despite living in the sea where everything else has gills?" then you state that theism is incompatible with science (since you say that God cannot interfere with the world). Therefore you are in effect saying that Christianity is incompatible with science. Which is not what people were saying before.
Nicker on 12/3/2006 at 13:28
Quote Posted by Tintin
Oh no, you can't present two options to teach in school! We must brainwash the students with Evolution! Can't let there actually be a choice between Evolution and Intelligent Design!:rolleyes: Isn't science all about evaluating all options and from that identifying what is fact and what is theory?
Otherwise its just indoctrinating the students to the Evolution mindset. Sure you may not believe in Intelligent Design, but at least presenting both ideas lets students choose for themselves.:thumb:
We don't do gymnastics in english class. We don't have spelling bees in math class. We don't play music in phys-ed. Why the hell would we teach fairy tales in science class?
Please return to page one of this thread and start reading there. Your questions and objections have already been addressed many times over. In case you are too lazy, I will summarise: ID is not science and never will be. The end.
Convict on 12/3/2006 at 13:32
If ID was made compatible with the available empirical data, then would it be acceptable to teach ID on an equal basis to evolution?
N'Al on 12/3/2006 at 13:43
Jeez, Convict (and Tintin), it's really not that hard to understand:
Religious belief is only incompatible if and when it is used as a substitute to science*. Which, in the case of ID (a religious belief) and evolution (a scientific fact), it is. If it's used as an add-on to science, i.e. "The Big Man Upstairs started everything off, then it proceeded with the science of the Big Bang, evolution, etc. afterwards", it isn't. If you want to believe that God is the reason why everything's happening the way it is, that's fine, just let the explanation of what, how, and when to the scientists - they simply do it better since they base their theories on logic and common sense (ideas that are verifiable), and not just mere belief.
* To clarify: this does not have to be the case, but in the example of ID and evolution, it is.
Tintin on 12/3/2006 at 13:49
God and Science aren't opposing each other. But if the science is Evolution it isn't symonious with God's teachings. And what happened to the Theory of Evolution? These days its being presented as Fact and in case you didn't know it we Christians are just as pissed that we've 'brainwashed' to believe Evolution in our curicullium as you guys are in believeing Intelligent Design is 'brainwashing' students. Forgive me if I actually believe life has a purpose.:eek:
I know many of you have frustrations and anger with Religion, even many Christian do. But religion is man's traditions and dodgy theology from a misunderstanding from reading God's Word. I don't think the anger etc is directed at God, Jesus, and the Spirit, but at Religion. Whereas God and everything about him is a loving relationship in adopting us to participate in his love.
The more that scientists uncover about the world, the more evidence there is that points to a Creator and Intelligent Design and disproves Evolution.
N'Al on 12/3/2006 at 13:55
Quote Posted by Tintin
God and Science aren't opposing each other. But if the science is Evolution it isn't symonious with God's teachings. And what happened to the Theory of Evolution? These days its being presented as Fact and in case you didn't know it we Christians are just as pissed that we've 'brainwashed' to believe Evolution in our curicullium as you guys are in believeing Intelligent Design is 'brainwashing' students. Forgive me if I actually believe life has a purpose.:eek:
Accepting Evolution does not imply that life has no purpose.
Quote Posted by Tintin
The more that scientists uncover about the world, the more evidence there is that points to a Creator and Intelligent Design and disproves Evolution.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
d0om on 12/3/2006 at 14:05
Science has never tried to disprove God. It simply shows why things happen and allows you to predict what will happen in the future.
Evolution does not imply there isn't a God, or that God didn't create the universe. It just says some things about HOW God did it. (if it was made by a God.)
Bear in mind that the Bible was written by people who presumably ad a vision of some kind?
Now would God give them a billion year long vision about how Humans arose? Of course not. They would get a speeded up version. And if in your vision you saw fish and then land animals, would you write down "then the decendants of the fish evolved into frogs" or would you write "then God created frogs"?. Surely from what is written in Genesis you can pass no judgment on whether people evolved or God directly created them: How would the visions have been differnet?
Science does not attempt to contradict religion. Some reglious nutters try to contradict science when its conclusions upset them.
jay pettitt on 12/3/2006 at 14:10
Quote Posted by Convict
If ID was made compatible with the available empirical data, then would it be acceptable to teach ID on an equal basis to evolution?
No, I don't think it would be appropriate to teach I.D. on the same footing as Darwinian Evolution.
* Evolution is a remarkably robust theory that is backed up with 150 years worth of research, science and data.
* I.D. isn't.
There is no observable or testable evidence to support I.D. - Irreduceable Complexity is contentious for starters. There are no known examples of irreduceable complexity for seconds. There is nothing else supporting I.D. other than conjecture.
By all means keep producing hypothesis and keep testing them. When you've found something be sure to let us know. If there's significant evidence to support I.D. it will no doubt become accepted and maybe find it's way onto the school curriculum along with my floating apple.
Unless you're suggesting that empirical should be redifined to include conjecture...
