Evolution gets slammed

[Eziekial]

Why should one discredit the other? Isn't science suppost to be neutral on religion? Can't religious types simply say "God made it that way" to pretty much every imaginable scenario we create through "science"? Just teach it as an unproven hypothesis and leave it at that.

[Lyion]

Why should one discredit the other? Isn't science suppost to be neutral on religion? Can't religious types simply say "God made it that way" to pretty much every imaginable scenario we create through "science"? Just teach it as an unproven hypothesis and leave it at that.

Except the basis of science is working through the scientific method, even for something as nebulous as evolution.

What you are recommending is theology, not science.

However, stating parts of evolution are wholly speculative should not be an issue, and isn't to anyone without an agenda, as well as discussions about things we do not understand.

[Rust]

However, stating parts of evolution are wholly speculative should not be an issue, and isn't to anyone without an agenda, as well as discussions about things we do not understand.

The problem with this scenario is that the people pushing for 'balanced treatment' or 'teachnig all the facts' are pushing creationism, rebranded for the new century as 'Intelligent Design'.

ID isn't science - it doesn't explain anomalous data, it doesn't make predictions, it is useless. Its backers are the same people who tried to get 'Equal Time' for Scientific Creationism a decade ago. ID claims 'science can't explain how X evolved, so obviously (God) did it'.

Except so far they've been unable to actually point to anything to support their arguments. All they try to do, just like Creationists always do, is attack evolution. If it was actually science, they'd be off looking for data. They're not - they're the same old whore in a new dress.

You'll notice there's no controversy about ID *within* biology - it's only at the level where science education is controlled by those with little or no science background (local schools!) where they manage to get a bunch of fundies elected to put God back into science, like they did in Kansas. If you look at the history here, the last time they tried this, the voters kicked the fundies out, but the last election they got back in, and yup, here they go again shoving God back into science class.

In the mean time, recognize the whore for what she is, and stop claiming that ID is somehow scientific because simply it's the old Watchmaker argument for God's existance. Argument from lack of imagination, or ignorance - "I can't understand how this could happen, so there can't be an explaination other than God did it"

--R.

[Gidan]

The biggest problem I can see with this would isn;t saying that evolution is a theory, we all know it is. Its giving non scientists free reign in determining what the "holes" are and filling them in with what they want. It may not happen everywhere but I gaurantee some teacher will fill in the massive holes has he sees it with creation becasue he "knows" thats the truth and evolution is not.

Evolution shoudl be taught as a theory, just as all science is theory. Everything should be taught in science as, from what scientits have leared and discoved X is teh best explination. No one is asking for evolution to be taught as fact becaseu we all know its not "fact", we want it taughts has the best scientific explination for what we see in the world today and not to have what you or tehy consider gaps filled in with relious beliefs. Religion has no place in a science class what so ever.

[Eziekial]

I can assure you that High School science teachers portray evolution as a more than just a theory.

[Gidan]

far to many people think science is fact and dont realize its all theory

[Lyion]

ID isn't Christian anymore than Evolution is Atheistic, even though supporters on both sides might line up and voice their good <and not so good> opinions.

“Despite intelligent design’s clear linkage, both methodologically and in content, with existing sciences that sift the effects of intelligence from undirected natural forces, critics of intelligent design often label it a form of creationism. Not only is this label misleading, but in academic and scientific circles it has become a term of abuse to censor ideas before they can be fairly discussed.” -- William Dembski

Likewise, this is true

“If design theory is to make a contribution to science, it must be worth pursuing on the basis of its own merits, not as an exercise in Christian 'cultural renewal,' the weight of which it cannot bear. And the reason it cannot bear this weight is that the technical work of design theory neither entails nor is entailed by a broadly theistic conception of the world, even though it does add some interesting wrinkles to a discussion of the relationship between science and religion.” –- Bruce Gordon

[Rust]

far to many people think science is fact and dont realize its all theory

Evolution *is* a fact. It's been observed. So is gravity a *fact*. It's been observed too.

A *theory* is an attempt to explain these facts, and link them. So yes, there's a theory of evolution, a theory of gravity, a theory of thermodynamics. But just because there's a 'theory of gravity' doesn't mean gravity isn't a *fact*. Likewise, evolution is factual. We've seen populations evolve, we've seen species arise. How are these not facts?

See the problem with simple words like 'fact' and 'theory'? And you want people who think the world was created 10,000 years ago making decisions about science? If it was up to people like them we'd still burn you for claiming the earth went around the sun.

--R.

[Gidan]

Creation is just a subset of ID and probably the most widly accepted one.

[Lyion]

Funny, I could've swore there was a difference between Theories and Laws.

Gravity is a fact but we do not understand everything about it, and there is still a lot of ignorance about it. It's easy to drop a stone and see it fall. Even then, there are things we do not understand regarding it. We know from a high level it's there, but we do not know the why.

Evolution is a big tent, and more inferred. Certain portions of it are fact, but what is put in the breadth of it is not necessarily true, which is why there are so many competing ideas. Certain things that were pushed as facts have been proven to be completely false, read homology. The simple thing is its a great guess with good evidence but still a theory with a lot of work to be done.

Gidan, ID is about proving design, just like Evolution is about proving we came from random mutations. While it may be creationists support this, they are different things. Neither is fact, despite what some may say, although ID has the steeper climb. If science can prove design, would you still ignore it because it is against your belief structure?

[Rust]

ID isn't Christian anymore than Evolution is Atheistic, even though supporters on both sides might line up and voice their good <and not so good> opinions.

Try again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Among themselves, the ID movement freely admit it's all about God. They just lie about it to the public. But it really only works on ignorant people.

--R.

[Rust]

Funny, I could've swore there was a difference between Theories and Laws.

Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs.

--R.

[Lyion]

One more time, then I'll quit repeating this despite your lack of comprehension.

Intelligent Design is about detecting design - as a method, it does not require postulating God. The fact that a lot of people who believe in God support Intelligent Design does not mean Intelligent Design is based on their beliefs, anymore than the fact a lot of atheists believe in different types of evolution.

Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs.

Hey, I'm not the one comparing a Theory with more changes than Britneys looks to a Newtonian Law.

Your irrationality and lack of civility does not make you the missing link, sorry.

[Rust]

One more time, then I'll quit repeating this despite your lack of comprehension.

Intelligent Design is about detecting design - as a method, it does not require postulating God. The fact that a lot of people who believe in God support Intelligent Design does not mean Intelligent Design is based on their beliefs, anymore than the fact a lot of atheists believe in different types of evolution.

Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs.

Hey, I'm not the one comparing a Theory with more changes than Britneys looks to a Newtonian Law.

Your irrationality and lack of civility does not make you the missing link, sorry.

We've known that Newtonian physics were in some degree inaccurate for a century now. This guy Einstein came up with a model that fit the data better, starting in 1905. It's called 'Relativity' and it pointed out errors in Newton's model.

Maybe you can try for another analogy? And you could toss in some blatant misquotes, I know you like to do that.

I mean, didn't you take science in college beyond the 'Physics for Dummies' first year class? Newton had no 'theory of gravitation'; he didn't explain how gravity was caused - he just described it mathematically. You're the one who mentioned 'laws', not me. You have this really whacked out understanding of basic science and how it works, man.

--R.

[Lyion]

The theory of relativity, which I'm certain you completely understand, and will explain to our boys and girls here why it is not used in engineering, answered a lot of questions but did not nullify Newtons findings.

Newtons MATHEMATICAL equations in regards to Gravity were sound. The simple point most 8 year olds would have gotten is a sound mathematical explanation is a bit stronger than an ever morphing biological science inferred Theory with more holes than one of your rebuttal posts.

Perhaps you could actually read a thread, and not have Donnel, Ugz and five others repeat the same thing over and over with you completely ignoring the main point to tangent on some bizarre parroting of some other forum, like you are currently doing. None of your posts make any sense given the previous ones. Do you bother to read?

Given your supposed vast array of knowledge, peer review books, and mastery of relativity, reading comprehension should be a simple endeavor for you to undertake, or perhaps not.

[alezrik]

well, sense they are going to be teaching various methods of how we got here/developed I hope they teach our kids we were grown like vegetables for a cosmic alien space god.

[Gidan]

Intelligent Design is about detecting design - as a method, it does not require postulating God. The fact that a lot of people who believe in God support Intelligent Design does not mean Intelligent Design is based on their beliefs, anymore than the fact a lot of atheists believe in different types of evolution.

You can not look at or attempt to prove Intelligen Design as a science. It doesn't work now, it will never work. It is NOT science.

ID attempts to say that everything is as it is based on the design of some intelligence. Teh chiritian belief of creation fits into that theory. God as an intelligence designed the world. No matter how much chiristians may try and distance themselves from ID, they still believe in it. Teaching creation is teaching a specific set case of ID. While it doesn't neecessaraly speak of it in general term rather it does in very specific terms its still ID.

[Lyion]

You can not look at or attempt to prove Intelligen Design as a science. It doesn't work now, it will never work. It is NOT science.

ID attempts to say that everything is as it is based on the design of some intelligence. Teh chiritian belief of creation fits into that theory. God as an intelligence designed the world. No matter how much chiristians may try and distance themselves from ID, they still believe in it. Teaching creation is teaching a specific set case of ID. While it doesn't neecessaraly speak of it in general term rather it does in very specific terms its still ID.

Why doesn't it work as science? Because it isn't naturalistic? That's a pretty piss poor box to put something in, especially if a group is working for proof and using the scientific method.

I agree right now ID is weak as science. But that doesn't change the fact ID is an attempt to scientifically prove and discuss design versus random mutation. You can say it's bad science, or that it is not comparable with evolution and have a case, but it still is something that is being discussed as such.

[Eziekial]

Don't you have to have "Proof" in order to prove something is fact? Like conduct experiments with controls and such and get consistant observed results?

[Rust]

Don't you have to have "Proof" in order to prove something is fact? Like conduct experiments with controls and such and get consistant observed results?

ID is the theory they want to teach in science class before they actually have any evidence to support it.

That's because the people pushing it are lying about it being non-secular. See the Wedge Strategy link I posted - they admit it freely when they think nobody 'un-Christian' is around. Lyion's 'dream' version of ID he keeps babbling about is about as relevant to the actual controversy as the color of the sky last Tuesday in Timbuktu.

--R.

[Lyion]

Don't you have to have "Proof" in order to prove something is fact? Like conduct experiments with controls and such and get consistant observed results?

Proof is in mathematics first and foremost. Math doesn't lie, although it can be misconstrued.

When there isn't the mathematical support, then scientists works with the scientific method via testing and retesting to create a hypothesis and therefore a theory. When a theory hits a battery of success the scientific community accepts it, even though it can be superseded or refuted by a better explanation in the future, such as relativity and gravitation.

[Rust]

The theory of relativity, which I'm certain you completely understand, and will explain to our boys and girls here why it is not used in engineering, answered a lot of questions but did not nullify Newtons findings.

You really love bringing up wierd irrelevancies like 'engineering', an d 'laws' that nobody else mentions. As it happens, my undergraduate degree in engineering had a required course in Relativity (PHY280F), which I duly passed.

Newtons MATHEMATICAL equations in regards to Gravity were sound. The simple point most 8 year olds would have gotten is a sound mathematical explanation is a bit stronger than an ever morphing biological science inferred Theory with more holes than one of your rebuttal posts.

Well, since you're the genius who managed to cite a spoof page full of 'these are false arguments' as being a crushing defeat for evolution, I don't know exactly how any rational persion whould credit you with anything but pushing your religious viewpoint once again, since you've repeatedly demonstrated you don't actually understand what you're discussing.

But by all means, keep making your wierd claims about science. At least as a Catholic you're on solid grounds making claims about Teleology. Just keep it in your theology class.

And finally, I didn't bring up Newton, or his GM1M2/r^2 equation, I said 'gravity is a fact. there is also a theory of gravity' which was about modern theories, not Newton's inverse-square law. Evidently your science education stopped somewhere in the 18th Century?

--R.

[Lyion]

Gravity is mathematically proveable. Evolution is not. I said it in small letters so even your lack of reading comprehension should be able to discern my meaning. But no, as predicted you went on some bizarre tangent induced no doubt by too many late night coffees while you are in a froth reduced rage about the evils of faith.

Oh, and you also failed to explain why relativity isn't used in engineering. Care to try, chief? Your vast experience and college courses should make that simple, yet, although that might be tougher to google!

If you weren't cluelessly rambling while no doubt exercising your mass wiki and google powers without bothering to read my posts you would've seen my point is fairly simple and common sensicle. Of course, one must have common sense to see others perspectives, which I question if you have.

Except the basis of science is working through the scientific method, even for something as nebulous as evolution.

What you are recommending is theology, not science.

However, stating parts of evolution are wholly speculative should not be an issue, and isn't to anyone without an agenda, as well as discussions about things we do not understand.

Again, for someone with so many degrees, you really show a complete lack of comprehension. Perhaps a few more humanities classes?

[Rust]

Gravity is mathematically proveable.

Right there, you showed you don't understand science. Game over.

--R.

[Lyion]

How typical. You are made a fool by your strange tangents and lack of reading in this thread, so you go Ad Hominem.

Game really over.