Fire burns without fuel, proof inside.

[{Delta}]

Keep intelligent design out of schools (editorial)
By The Jambar Editorial Board
Published: Thursday, September 29, 2005
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1

The monkeys are back in court.

Eight families from the Dover, Pa. school district are suing the district for undermining their children's education by forcing them to learn intelligent design alongside evolution in their high school biology courts.

This case will no doubt begin to garner heavy national attention, as politicians as high as President Bush have in the past weighed in on this topic.

The argument that the school district and others who support intelligent design being taught in classrooms make - that intelligent design and evolution are both acceptable theories of how man came to be - draws the ire of scientists and for good reason.

To scientists, intelligent design is not an acceptable theory for a basic scientific reason: it can't be tested. A Brown University biology professor who was the first witness called by the plaintiffs in the case makes a simple point. Science can't test intelligent design, whereas decades of testing have gone into the theory of evolution. Requiring students to learn both in science classes undermines the basic tenets of the subject students are supposed to be learning: science.

The scientific process requires a hypothesis and the testing of that hypothesis. Any hypothesis that can't be tested therefore cannot be scientific and has no place in a science classroom.

This argument is not anti-Christian. Calling it that belittles scientists and their work. It is pro-science. Evolution does not plainly state that there is no God and that the Bible is inherently false. It simply employs the scientific process, the major tenet of science.

Calling these two theories 'competing' or referring to them alongside one another is nonsensical. The scientific community embraces evolution as the best current theory and disregards intelligent design on the whole. These are not competing schools of thought. Evolution is the school of thought, whereas intelligent design holds all of the scientific weight of, as Bill Maher said, saying that babies come from storks.

According to an AP story, the school district's defense team said in its opening statement that the case was not about religion, but that rather, it was about the freedom of academic inquiry. To a degree, they're right.

The pursuit of intelligent design is about inquisitiveness and trying to find answers that are sometimes lacking in evolution itself. Considering intelligent design, based on the probability that randomness couldn't be completely accountable for the Earth as we now know it, does have a place in academia. But that place is in philosophy courses and not in science classrooms.

Until intelligent design becomes a testable, verifiable theory, it serves no high school students to have them learn it alongside evolution in a science classroom. Science classes should teach science, and the accepted scientific school of thought is evolution.

[Viper]

What I've been saying all along.

It's not anti-Christian and it has a place to be taught in a philosophy class.

The overwhelming majority of ID supporters are Christians who are using it as a means of adding religion into science. You don't teach English in math class.

[Mach]

Let's not rehash this again....I've already thoroughly debunked the points used to try to block the people's decision to have ID taught in schools.

[Viper]

Sorry Mach, but you haven't. All you have done tried to disprove Darwin, not prove ID (of which can't be done, hence it's lack of inclusion in science and inclusion in philosophy).

[Omega]

Then police forces across the U.S. need to stop utilizing the services of psychics in investigations.

Viper: Mach posted like 100 posts full of evidence for ID and against Evolution, I'd say he pretty much proved the point.

[{Delta}]

I happen to think it is an insult to say the the system built by God was insufficent to foster life without sparatic divinly intervention.

On another note, it is interesting to think about when we say we know somthing, it typically means someone told us we knew it. I suppose this can be applicable to either and any front given the time and cirumstance.

Then police forces across the U.S. need to stop utilizing the services of psychics in investigations.

You will have to clarify your intentions with that statement, but I agree with it. As far as I can tell, it was used in order to show that forces of authory use those whom use forces of mystism and ill-logic. We used that too I suppose, as the trucks were not transportable chemical factories, but justification enough to cause a war I suppose.

[Viper]

If ID can be proven, which means it can be sent through the scientific method, then I'll accept it 100%.

IF it can be poven then I want to see the 5 steps.

It's like testing an opinion, you can't.

[Ihsiin]

Both the theory of design and the theory of evolution are possibilities; it comes down to what you believe in the end.
However, the theory of evolution is a theory which is part of biology, while the theory of design isn’t.

[Omega]

Take Evolution through the 5 steps of the scientific method, Viper. You can't.

[{Delta}]

Evolution is not concerned with the ultiment truth. Science does not have an answer for the ultiment truth. What evolution does show is that thing change, things evolve, and we can physically see it. Is a great dane not a dog in light of a Scootish terrier? Is there a diffrent human term apply to an asian human versus an african person? they are all the same human, only diffrent in the lens of bigotry which s human created anyway.

Where do people go when they die? It is not important. What is important is now.

[Mach]

Let me reiterate something...
Not only did I disprove Accidental Evolution but I also provided compelling evidence for Intelligent Design the theory itself.

Furthermore I provided dozens of posts filled with legal, ethical, and logical arguments for the inclusion of the theory in our schools.

The legal argument alone completely destroys the attempt of the left to prevent ID from being taught alongside schools. There is no law that says the majority of the scientific community must accept a theory before it can be taught in schools. The public decides what they want taught in schools. Since it's not religious, ID does not violate anyone's rights and therefore if the public wants it, they should get it. The law doesnt hinge on the opinion on a few elitist scientists.

I've shown before that approx. 40% of scientists believe in some form of God being involved with the universe...that's a substantial number already. I dont count on ID getting a majority though because it'd go contrary to the nature of the professional 8-years educated scientist--they tend to think they're too smart for a God. And the scientific community has a few elite and powerful gatekeepers that can blockade the debate of ideas so well that ID may not get that 51%...So with that probable event, it is obvious that the people's will should be heard. There's nothing you can argue against that. Legally, there's not a thing.


Oh and btw, and please let us not get into a debate about this...I've got way too many things on my plate right now to teach a whole new slew of members about some scientific facts, logic, legality, etc on the debate for another 100 posts or so. But one food for thought, not for debate, some forms of evolution may have some scientific evidence that points to their possibility (as well as ID) however in the grand scheme of things mathematics and to a greater extent logic is on the side of a Creator. Just go outside and stare at the beauty of nature and just clear your mind. The logic is pretty much undeniable to some sort of creator. It's such a stretch argue otherwise.

[Viper]

Actually, Evolution is a theory because of scientific method. The evolution of a species can and has been tested ad naseum. The divine origination cannot be tested.

Remember now, Evolution doesn't mean big bang. That's seperate.

[Mach]

Actually, Evolution is a theory because of scientific method. The evolution of a species can and has been tested ad naseum. The divine origination cannot be tested.

Remember now, Evolution doesn't mean big bang. That's seperate.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...like I've said there are forms of evolution (it's really such a broad umbrella just like ID) that fit very comfortably in Intelligent Design's large umbrella. Of course, evolution, in some forms such as micro, fit in comfortably with even Creationism. However, there is also evidence against macro-evolution.

Going out of the realm of scientific realm of ID and Accidental Evolution and into the logical one for a second... One cannot argue that we have souls if one argues that humans came from a form of ape. And that is why I personally cannot embrace any form of evolution that teaches that. There are tenants in Evolution that have some ground though...but they fit snuggly into ID. And like I said, logic dictates a creator when an open-mind just stops, clears his mind, and observes the wonder of nature without trying to be defiant or hard-headed towards the obvious in an attempt to seem "intelligent".

[{Delta}]

Mach, your percentials are of no interest. This the same mentality of those whom hundreds of years ago said the sun works because the kingdom of heaven floated in the sky.

I did go outside, and I know the general rotation of the planets, the fusion and energy release in the sun, the curvature of space in time of gravational fields by looking in the sky. Give me your soap box and take this rock, for it is all you will ever concieve. It is is more than an insult to tell God his system is not perfect and require his patchwork. In this I state I do believe in a God, but science is a tool to understand our surounding. Evolution tells of life's story, but it does not tell of ultiment origin. In this, ID is creationism with a new wrapper.

I have already been to many a sunday school and sermon, but I find that you might have a bit of trouble in another classroom understanding the implications of general relativity and how it affects us. Or is it just another "Hand of God". Regardless, it does not matter, it still has a set of observable properties with whatever name you call it. The problem is that you state it as such without understanding the properties.


No one on either aside should post lenghly bubblings of anyone. Tell me what you know, and can prove.

[Omega]

Because when you don't believe in a Creator, you really have nothing else to believe in.

[Viper]

And that is why I personally cannot embrace any form of evolution that teaches that.
Therein lies one of ID's problems. This is one of the main issues of support that can't be tested. We can't test this even if we wanted to. Not only that but it's a religous element and that's where the issue in the science classroom hits. You keep saying ID is agnostic but you keep bring up religious elements. It can't be both.

Like I keep saying, I'd love to have this taugh in philosophy class. It simply relies on too much religious elements to be scientific.



All the data for ID is merely data against evolutionary theories. Granted, ID and Evolution can co-exist (which is how I perceive ID as plausible). But, if that's the case, it doesn't debunk evolution at all and in fact any debunking then would be evidence against ID (IF they co-exist....meaning God created the big bang himself).


Mach, you are correct in the legal standpoint. There are no core teachings that must be taught according to any government document. It's just a metter of like I said, you don't teach English in math class. ID is still a philosophy.

[{Delta}]

One cannot argue that we have souls if one argues that humans came from a form of ape. And that is why I personally cannot embrace any form of evolution that teaches that.

Why? Humans are a diffrent species, there is no problem other than a percived one for that arguement. Reguardless of common ancestory, I guess the soul would be more of a sum of what you do given an amount of intelligence and some direction. Eat from the tree and know right from wrong, I guess that would be a pre-req.

Or was eating from the tree the step at which man became man. I guess that if you take everything literal, except the possible downlooking towards homosexuals, justification of war, killing and what have you, then there will be problems.


Mach, you are correct in the legal standpoint. There are no core teachings that must be taught according to any government document. It's just a metter of like I said, you don't teach English in math class. ID is still a philosophy.

There is although an inherrant nudge that you do tell them there that 2+2 =4, unless of course you use very large values of two, in which it would be five. It is nice and all that we talk about relgion in a science room, but again it fall into the category of religion and philosopy.

[Mach]

Therein lies one of ID's problems. This is one of the main issues of support that can't be tested. We can't test this even if we wanted to. Not only that but it's a religous element and that's where the issue in the science classroom hits. You keep saying ID is agnostic but you keep bring up religious elements. It can't be both.

Like I keep saying, I'd love to have this taugh in philosophy class. It simply relies on too much religious elements to be scientific.



All the data for ID is merely data against evolutionary theories. Granted, ID and Evolution can co-exist (which is how I perceive ID as plausible). But, if that's the case, it doesn't debunk evolution at all and in fact any debunking then would be evidence against ID (IF they co-exist....meaning God created the big bang himself).


Mach, you are correct in the legal standpoint. There are no core teachings that must be taught according to any government document. It's just a metter of like I said, you don't teach English in math class. ID is still a philosophy.


Did you not read what I said? I hate wasting my time over and over restating the same basic things in these types of debates because people don't read carefully. I said "taking a step away from the scientific realm of ID and Accidental Evolution...." and then talked about my OWN personal beliefs of logic and so forth. Like I said logically the creator is the definitive answer. But anyways, I made it clear that the soul argument is not a tenant of Intelligent Design the theory being proposed for schools.

Forms of ID can't fit into Evolution. Forms of Evolution can fit into ID. Intelligent Design is not religious. I do not understand why you guys can't get a religious definition down pat...It requires no naming of the creator(s), it says nothing about worship, nothing about devotion, faith, etc...That's why it's supported by 100s of agnostics and deists as well as those that believe in God or Christianity.

Some forms of evolution may have some possibility of fitting in with Intelligent Design, but again Accidental Evolution...the idea that EVERYTHING happened by accident and chance is the biggest stretch of them all. Forms of micro-evolution directed by a designer(s) is much more plausible. Even so, there's also substantial evidence against the theories that mix designer and evolution together...not saying I agree or disagree with the particulars ones.

Anyways, this is really beating a dead horse...

The principle argument is a legal one. And seeing as that's a mute point: there is nothing wrong, from a legal standpoint, with teaching Intelligent Design in schools with Accidental Evolution, I see no reason to continue this thread... It really will go off on long debates about ID, Evolution, the Information theory, probability, legality, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc, etc, etc and it's beating a dead horse. If anyone wants to review over the last mega-debate we had on this please feel free to dig it up and read it. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.