Intelligent design or evolution

I don't know if you've checked out the other fine threads on this subject...but here's my take on it.

Used to be, a teacher used to teach what he thought was the most pertinent, important and up to date material.

Now the students are demanding curriculum changes...the world turned upside down in my opinion.

We - people - like to find explanations for everything, and what we cant explain we give a name, as in; naturemakes things grow
But if we look at it from a bigger distance you could say Faith, Belief, God, ID (Intelligent Design) are just like that too. Words we made for trying to explain that what we can't explain.

Re: Intelligent design or evolution


William of Occam wrote: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda."--Causes are not to be multiplied. This is the "Occam's Razor" so often mangled when restated. It is the most cogent argument against creation.

I cannot for the life of me see what the hell Panzade is on about here. The Dover, Pa. school board field included several "stealth" evangelical candidates in the previous election, and they engineered this entire ID brouhaha once they got in. Students had nothing to do with it. Perhaps he can enlighten us to examples of students pushing for ID elsewhere. If that is the case, i'd suggest they were put up to it by their parents, or other adults within religious organizations.

The Supremes prohibited teaching "creationism." ID is an attempt at an end-run around that decision. It appears likely to fail.

to me it looks like the ID and God, are basically the same. they both created the world, control it and make its destiny.. The only difference I can come up to at the moment is that the ID has no churches..

ID is the backdoor approach to crerationism. Same song and dance just retitled

Doesn't ID contain evolution?

Anyhoo, pick your believes, whatever makes you happy will be just fine. Just as long as we allow others to have their believes as well.

No, ID doesn't contain evolution. ID supportes are against evoultion in every variety.

Really? I always thought ID supporters stated that evolution itself was designed by some designer.

However, you're probably right. ID supporters are probably 'against evolution in every variety', that's why they're at least a thousand years behind ... :wink:

.
Incorrect. Supporters of ID certainly agree that evolution is possible, I can't see why evolution and ID can't live in harmony. Both ARE possible to have been a part in the creation/existence of this universe. It is possible that "God" created the universe and had so that we would adapt to our environments over time. Albeit this sounds unlikely, but it also sounds unlikely that any form of existence (i.e. - us) could have became from nothingness, non-existence. We'll never ever know folks, we'll never know.

ID is not science. It's not empirical, and that's why it shouldn't be taught in science classes.

It has no substantial evidence for it. It's like saying that it is possible for a pink elephant from another realm to create us, and then teach it to a science class.

Re: Intelligent design or evolution


Heheh, yeh, it probably would

They can, where science ends religon begins.

Students may not yet have formed there believes. We want our newcomers to world to be intelligent and to advance our world and fix its problems. We dont want to teach them mumbo jumbo crap.

People who believe ID should just go away and believe it in silence.

ok evolution in it's entirety i believed to be flawed. Now there are two forms of evolution one i believe is true beyond all doubt and the other is retarded.



Microevolution- Short term evolution "adaptation" if you please acquired through survival of the fittest (which now mostly applies to the animal world since the development of currency)

Macroevolution- Long term evolution, single celled organism "evolved" into a human and millions of other species of plants and animals.


Okay so the christians that have a problem have it with the latter of the evolutions. Whether we (i'll say we as i do live in the bible belt lol) disbelieve evolution because of a brainwashing preacher, the believe that god created man or (as i do) that evolution is a lame excuse at an alternative to god we believe that evolution should be stressed as a theory in school.

Long term evolution basically says that life was created through natural process and organisms spawned from a single celled organism. Long term evolution depends non harmful mutations so the evolving organisms may survive to carry on their trait.

Ok so im not going to ruin the fact that it is extremely hard to have a non harmful mutation i'll let you find those figures for yourself and i'd be impressed if a non christian enthusiast would post that figure to show no objectivity. But let's say that a few organisms have a non harmful mutation and they somehow find other organisms with the same sort of mutation and they evolve together..... but what when did Asexual organisms decide to by heterosexual? (that always boggles my mind) and evolve through that into mammals, reptiles and birds etc.

So for macroevolution which is being taught in most schools we teenagers and children (i'm 16 so i know i just had biology) are being taught that through natural selection organisms evolve into more complex beings.

Now what i see is wrong with this is that we can't even create life and we are intellegiant beings. We can duplicate life (some of the most intellegiant people in the world can) but we still can't "create" life yet we're supposed to believe natural process can?

Evolution also implies that time orders and organizes things but really isn't that saying that a tornado flying through a junkyard will create an airplane?

Ok so if macroevolution has all of this evolving for millions of years then we'd have billions if not trillions of specimans who are halfway one organism and half another. so we'd have reptiles without wings and without scales.... ya that'd work well..... lol (evolutionists are starting to claim that reptiles turned into birds)

Ok so that makes no sense to me either that there are hardly any lifeforms that are mid way into another organism and though there are a few that look like they are morphing there are not near as many as there should be.

Ok im done with this evolution recap, sounds like an excuse. There is some viable evidence for macroevolution but to teach it in schools with no other avenue of a beggining to me is wrong. I have no problem with teaching evolution as a theory but we MUST point out it's flaws as well.



And then teaching creationism in school is kind of funny to me. Cause really most creationism is anti evolution so i think if we just add the faults of evolution to the teaching agenda then everyone will be a lot happier.

There are some creationism arguments like how the big bang had to start from somewhere IE- god for the universe isn't eternal so it had to have a beggining. (btw all of these arguements that god had to start somewhere, the supernatural created the natural, the supernatural had no begining. There you happy?)


I've come across some amazing athiest's who know an incredible amount and have been supported by ignorant christians. My thought on them is i'd rather be ignorant and right then arrogant and wrong But anywho i have been unable to beat some athiests but they've also been far more intellectual then I and much older. Yet after any and every arguement i've never denounced christianity and have only prayed for knowledge.

Anywho only viable arguements should be mentioned as the rest waste time.


Sources:
www.carm.org
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest"

and uhh i feel really bad but there is more i just can't remember them lol

Hi Presto,

Welcome to A2K.



No, the tornado in a junkyard thing is a bogus argument based on a core misunderstanding of the premise of natural selection.

if that is your only response to my entire post then i believe you have more to worry about then my analogy lol



Btw if you would may you correct my analogy and enlighten us? I dislike rebuttles then are supported with cause i said so....


And though i forgot many of my sources the book i pulled much of the information from was a fond supporter of quoting columbia university and about 30-50 periodicals all with extensive background in his/her respective fields.

Sorry, I don't have much time right now. But I see that you've cut/pasted the same post into another thread, so maybe that will generate some good replies for you.

Also, don't worry about providing sources, I don't see anything in your post which hasn't been floated by the creationist web sites before.

Maybe you could focus on one particular area of evolution which you don't understand so that we can provide clear explanations. As it stands, you've listed so many misconceptions that I barely know where to start.

Best Regards,

Um prestochange, would you care to make your posts smaller. Very few people have the time or inclination to read posts that big. Mine has to be big as well now.

This is not evidence against evolution, it is evidence against your understanding of evolution.

Just because you are or have something doesnt mean you can create that something. We do not even fully understand the brain, and we certainly cant make one. The world has 5 billion years to work it out, count them, 5 billion. This is not an arguement sufficient to support evolution, but does give it headroom.

No time for sources, so ill use logic:
In evolution there are steps. In an aeroplane being assembled by a tornado the tornado does not tend to leave any of the plane which it has contructed intact. Therefore it would not assemble step by step. I.e. planes are not tornado resistant etc.
The analogy therefore does not accurately model evolution (that should have been obvious).

Thats everso misguided, I agree with rosbourne. I just read you are 16 so this may explain your naivety. You should just learn the theorys in your school as a matter of interest, and if you better understand them you can debate against them better. You dont have to believe they are actually the case. Bit like when I had religon as a subject at school. Id imagine US teachers get sick to death of outspoken ID/creationist students.
Evolutionists are not just starting to claim at all. It has always been hypothesized that certain dinosaurs were feathered.
We would not have trillions of species at all. Most species have come and gone (species are still becoming extinct today). Some species are better than others, and the "rubbish" "old" species get eaten. As an example there are no living intermediates between apes and humans right? There are however many fossils of such intermediates that have been found.

HOWEVER. If you are teaching a subject like evolution, which is INCOMPLETE, you should point this out.

Hey Presto wrote-



And so say all of us.

i appreciate the reply race driver.


And what you've answered was proffessional and appropriate.

Though overall i still disagree with you and next time will probably take out my analogies since they're just so awful and harped on most.

But i am glad you agree that the faults in teaching it without it's faults