Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught Tue Aug 2, 7:05 AM ET


WASHINGTON -

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

ADVERTISEMENT

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.

On other topics during the group interview, the president:

_Refused to discuss the investigation into whether political aide Karl Rove or any other White House official leaked a

CIA officer's identity, but he stood behind Rove. "Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said.

_Said he did not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about his views on

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

_Said he hopes to work with Congress to pass an immigration reform bill this fall, including provisions for guest workers and enhanced security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Bush spoke with reporters from the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Austin American-Statesman.

If you're Christian and you want your kids to learn the "theory" (and I use that word loosely) of intelligent design, then send their asses to Sunday school, but leave that shit out of the public curriculum. I could care less about the religious aspect; I just want the kids taught properly. In my opinion, I'm happier using science as a base for learning than I would be postulating that some sky ferry created everything we know in 7 days.

oh ok!:D

Originally posted by Tapeworm
During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

......"both theories"........

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Bush, like so many other religionists, evidently cannot distinguish between a scientific theory (such as evolution) and superstitious conjecture (such as the notion that a supernatural entity is responsible for creating the universe and everything in it).

___________________________

"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance.....logic can be happily tossed out the window." -----Stephen King
......

Great then how about a 'Comparitive Religions' class? Oh whats that? Christians don't want that either...

i would much rather have my children taught truth or at least theories that can be backed up with evidence; not some conjured up story that has no scientific backing.

The ignorance of fundamentalist christians never ceases to amaze me.

I've never heard of intelligent design before this. It sounds like all you have to do is teach typical evolution and then say "some people think a higher power may have guided this along". I don't see the potential trauma that may befall athiests.

I'm always surprised that the believers are portrayed as the gullible, weak and closed minded ones and yet the athiests and ambivalents quake with fear that they may be exposed to something they don't agree with.

Does anyone here know anyone that was converted to a legitimate religion in an underhanded way?

The point is that its pure stupidity to compare creationism with evolution. One has tons of supporting facts, the other is from an old book. Might as well teach kids theres a theory about a hidden land called "middle earth" filled with magic...

Yeah the chickenshit athiest founding fathers screwed all those christians...right on the money brooks...

Originally posted by Brooks
I've never heard of intelligent design before this. It sounds like all you have to do is teach typical evolution and then say "some people think a higher power may have guided this along". I don't see the potential trauma that may befall athiests.

I don't care if the athiests receive trauma, I care whether or not my kids are being taught science or some sort of BS pseudo-theories. Intelligent design shouldn't be taught because its a crap theory.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I don't care if the athiests receive trauma,

Well...I care because I don't wish to be the recipient of any trauma...

I care whether or not my kids are being taught science or some sort of BS pseudo-theories. Intelligent design shouldn't be taught because its a crap theory.

I absolutely believe Intelligent Design should be discussed in every science classroom in America. It's an excellent example of bad science.

If you study anything about autism, there was a doctor named Bruno Bettelheim who blamed the mother. He turns out to be wrong, but it should still be known and not forgotten. Not to mention lobotomies, blood letting, flat earth, geocentric universe, etc.... All debunked, but still important to acknowledge. What's the harm in knowing about these things?

Other people's beliefs don't threaten anyone secure in their own.

Originally posted by Brooks
If you study anything about autism, there was a doctor named Bruno Bettelheim who blamed the mother. He turns out to be wrong, but it should still be known and not forgotten. Not to mention lobotomies, blood letting, flat earth, geocentric universe, etc.... All debunked, but still important to acknowledge.

Acknowledge??........fine. No problem

But should we present nonsensical and unscientific things like blood letting and flat earth ---as being valid ideas--- to America's schoolchildren???

No.

Originally posted by Brooks
What's the harm in knowing about these things?......Other people's beliefs don't threaten anyone secure in their own.

When you indoctrinate a nation's children to believe ---deeply and devoutly-- in superstition and invisible men-in-the-sky, you do a great disservice, and HARM, to the continuing advancement of the nation and it's people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at
the center of American culture is monotheism. From a barbaric
Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament,three anti-human
religions have evolved---Judaism,Christianity and Islam. These are
the sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal---God is the
omnipotent father---hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in
those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male
delegates.

The sky-god is a jealous god,of course. He requires
total obedience from everyone on Earth, as he is in place not just
for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him
must be converted or killed for their own good.
Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can
truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal
nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth.
One God, one King, one master in the factory, one father-leader in
the family at home."____Gore Vidal

Originally posted by Brooks
If you study anything about autism, there was a doctor named Bruno Bettelheim who blamed the mother. He turns out to be wrong, but it should still be known and not forgotten. Not to mention lobotomies, blood letting, flat earth, geocentric universe, etc.... All debunked, but still important to acknowledge. What's the harm in knowing about these things?

Other people's beliefs don't threaten anyone secure in their own.

You're right. They should not be forgotten. These are lessons that we learned from. That is not the case here. This theory of intelligent design is ment to stand on par with evolution sans any evidence supporting it. Sadly, this act simply panders to a voting block without any regard for the quality of true education for america's children.

Originally posted by Tapeworm
This theory of intelligent design is ment to stand on par with evolution sans any evidence supporting it.

If that's the way it's being taught, then you're right.

Here is an article that you might find interesting. From what I have read, Michael Behe is one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design. If this theory is taught on par with evolution, then the very definition of science will have changed.
The Evolutionist response is what I find most interesting because it is based on more than just casual observation.


Intelligent Design position statement
The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity
Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
By Michael J. Behe
Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown.
Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level?
How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications.
Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.
Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.

Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.
Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system.
Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.
Molecular machines are designed.


Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.

Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design.
I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.




Evolution response to Michael J. Behe
The Flaw in the Mousetrap
Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test.
By Kenneth R. Miller
Michael J. Behe fails to provide biochemical evidence for intelligent design.


To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe's own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. Since "natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working," there is no way that Darwinian mechanisms could have fashioned the complex systems found in living cells. And if such systems could not have evolved, they must have been designed. That is the totality of the biochemical "evidence" for intelligent design.
Parts of a supposedly irreducibly complex machine may have different, but still useful, functions.

Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions.

Evolution produces complex biochemical machines.
Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe's essay will do just fine.

Natural selection favors an organism's parts for different functions.
He writes that in the absence of "almost any" of its parts, the bacterial flagellum "does not work." But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection.

The blood clotting system is an example of evolution.
The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.
Working researchers see evolution in subcellular systems.



And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms "suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place." Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems -- they see evolution.
Behe's points are philosophical, not scientific.


If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons -- because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.

I dont see why ID should not be taught alongside evolution. Afterall evolution has never been proven if it was then it would be scientific law. The amount of jumps taken in natural selection are not seen and have never been seen.

I would like all evolutionists to prove evolution WITHOUT using evolution.

Well if they do introduce Intelligent Design, then they need to teach a third which is a combination of evolution with the guidance of an Intelligent Being...

And that will be a spring board for something else...:rolleyes:

Us middle guys always get left out... :D

Evolution can be taught with one extra sentence stating that some people believe the process was influenced by a higher power, period. There's the entire explanation of intelligent design.

No harm, no forced conversions, not even anything particularly religious.

Problem is, there is no room for any compromise with the segment of this country that fancy themselves the more open minded.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Well...I care because I don't wish to be the recipient of any trauma...

Oh come on, a little trauma never hurt anyone.

Originally posted by Brooks


Problem is, there is no room for any compromise with the segment of this country that fancy themselves the more open minded.

I think its because we see bringing creatism into the curriculum about as useful as teaching (as mentioned earlier) the Lord of the Rings. Its a group of ideals formed from the perspective of one Book.

I doubt very much that these classes would be "teaching" creatism as much as "preaching" it. The teachers would all be Christians to whom in their own mind "need" to preach the good word to all. I think we would see a large number of schools and colleges turning a blind eye to the fact that these teachers would use the class as a way to try and convert as many kids as they can.

Originally posted by Brooks
Evolution can be taught with one extra sentence stating that some people believe the process was influenced by a higher power, period. There's the entire explanation of intelligent design.

No harm, no forced conversions, not even anything particularly religious.

Problem is, there is no room for any compromise with the segment of this country that fancy themselves the more open minded.
Brilliant post, Brooks, as usual. That's a damn good point.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
I dont see why ID should not be taught alongside evolution. Afterall evolution has never been proven if it was then it would be scientific law. The amount of jumps taken in natural selection are not seen and have never been seen.

I would like all evolutionists to prove evolution WITHOUT using evolution. damn con-man, great post !!!

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
I think its because we see bringing creatism into the curriculum about as useful as teaching (as mentioned earlier) the Lord of the Rings. Its a group of ideals formed from the perspective of one Book.

I doubt very much that these classes would be "teaching" creatism as much as "preaching" it. The teachers would all be Christians to whom in their own mind "need" to preach the good word to all. I think we would see a large number of schools and colleges turning a blind eye to the fact that these teachers would use the class as a way to try and convert as many kids as they can. good post man ! good points. i believe in christ, but christians are self-righteous , and to be honest none of us will know the truth until we die, at which point we couldnt tell anyone ! its kind of like the saying about falling from very high places. people say that you go unconscious, i say, who lived to tell ? believing is an individual thing, that is the way god wants it. its a free will thing not to be forced down anyone's throat !

by the way, hey tapeworm....STFU !:D

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
I think its because we see bringing creatism into the curriculum about as useful as teaching (as mentioned earlier) the Lord of the Rings. Its a group of ideals formed from the perspective of one Book.

The more I learn the happier it makes me. I think we're all more interesting and more well rounded by learning as much as we can.

Throughout my public school career I learned about Greek, Norse, Roman mythology and a little about the Druids. I swear there are no statues of Poseidon, Thor, Hermes or Stonehenge anywhere on my property.

Originally posted by Brooks
Evolution can be taught with one extra sentence stating that some people believe the process was influenced by a higher power, period. There's the entire explanation of intelligent design.

No harm, no forced conversions, not even anything particularly religious.

Problem is, there is no room for any compromise with the segment of this country that fancy themselves the more open minded.

No Brooks, not the way Bush would see it. That is not Intelligent Design. Fundamentalists do not believe we evolved. They believe in the seven day limit and many Christians have a huge problem with that. I have a huge problem with that. There is no seven day limit and therein lies the problem. Christianity itself is fractured. There are many different levels to belief.

I would not want my child taught that some higher power did a wand act and we magically appeared.

Others would have a huge problem with my approach which would be we eveolved but with the knowledge and guidance of a higher power.

And would people screw off with the sky-fairy thing. It has been used until I practically puke just reading it. Use your imagination for "god's"sake...come up with something new to piss us off.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
And would people screw off with the sky-fairy thing. It has been used until I practically puke just reading it. Use your imagination for "god's"sake...come up with something new to piss us off.

Magical cloud gnome
The big cheese in the sky
What's his name
The idiot on the throne upstairs
The evil, hatefull rath filled invisable man
sky wizard
sky pilot
magical mystery man
faux magician
he who fucks virgins while they sleep

and my favorite.....Lone gnome on the throne

Originally posted by Echo2
Magical cloud gnome
The big cheese in the sky
What's his name
The idiot on the throne upstairs
The evil, hatefull rath filled invisable man
sky wizard
sky pilot
magical mystery man
faux magician
he who fucks virgins while they sleep

and my favorite.....Lone gnome on the throne

Thank you to echo "bows" now guys you have an abundannt bullshit list to pick from...

Or you could just be rational instead of trying to be reactionary...nah...that would be too much to ask for...

There is nothing rational about believeing in some entity in the sky that created everything, demands to be honored and threatens to burn you in hell if you don't. There is no logic or rational behind christianity. It is all superstition.

Originally posted by Echo2
There is nothing rational about believeing in some entity in the sky that created everything, demands to be honored and threatens to burn you in hell if you don't. There is no logic or rational behind christianity. It is all superstition.

Yes echo we all know your stance and that is not what I was referring to but since the reference went over your head or you decided to ignore the actual post and just answer your own little version I will leave well enough alone!

I am very sory that you can dish it out but can't take it.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
I would not want my child taught that some higher power did a wand act and we magically appeared.


No, but what if they were taught that SOME PEOPLE believe that some higher power, yada yada yada. I didn't don a yarmulke just because a teacher told me about Moses.

Originally posted by Echo2
I am very sory that you can dish it out but can't take it.

Echo, I don't think that's what it is. No one minds disagreement, but some phrases are just meant to annoy and it's more snotty than enlightening. There's just no point.

What's your big victory, if someone's feelings are hurt?

Originally posted by Brooks
No, but what if they were taught that SOME PEOPLE believe that some higher power, yada yada yada. I didn't don a yarmulke just because a teacher told me about Moses.

I guess there's potential there with your approach... I would just rather keep it clean though, go the scientific route and give my kid instruction at home as to what I believe, and what others believe and teach respect for other's belief system.

yea but the scientific theory of why we're here can't be proven either...

so what makes that one better than any other?

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
I dont see why ID should not be taught alongside evolution. Afterall evolution has never been proven if it was then it would be scientific law. The amount of jumps taken in natural selection are not seen and have never been seen.

I would like all evolutionists to prove evolution WITHOUT using evolution.

Evolution has been proven and it is scientific law. It's called natural selection, not The Law of Evolution. Evolution has been tracked at a micro level and fossils provide evidence of evolution at the macro-level.

ID shouldn't be taught only because there isn't any proof to back it up. Teaching ID in schools is like me teaching children about the fairy kingdom thriving in Fairy Land. There's no proof of any such kingdom and there's no proof Fairy Land exists. Perhaps if there were hard, unquestionable evidence to support the existence of an intelligent, higher being, I'd be okay with it. But if such evidence existed, I'm sure we'd have a lot less problems with religion in general, in the first place.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
The amount of jumps taken in natural selection are not seen and have never been seen.

I would like all evolutionists to prove evolution WITHOUT using evolution.

What "jumps" don't we see today and what hasn't been seen? You're using a computer, aren't you? Part of evolution is the adaptation of tools to manipulate our surroundings. Evolution isn't just about growing an eyeball or walking upright.

Sickle cell anemia is proof of evolution and it exists still today. People who suffer from sickle cell anemia are often sick due to issues with their blood cells. However, people who are carriers for the sickle cell gene are generally immune to malaria. The body adapting to an outside danger by changing is physiology is evolution. And this change still persists today.

... I'm not sure what you mean by proving evolution without evolution. That's kind of like saying "prove there is a God without using God or faith." Could you expand on your comment?

Originally posted by Embyr
Evolution has been proven and it is scientific law. It's called natural selection, not The Law of Evolution. Evolution has been tracked at a micro level and fossils provide evidence of evolution at the macro-level.


that is total BS.... natural selection is about the progression OF A SPECIES.... not changing lizards into apes....

its like the whole darwin thing with the bird beaks.... the longer beaked birds survived.... but you didnt see birds turning into apes did you?

The truth is.... there IS no explanation yet on why we are here... science is JUST as much fact as the biblical explanation, if you put it in black and white.

quote:Originally posted by ~Sal~ -----"
I would not want my child taught that some higher power did a wand act and we magically appeared."

Originally posted by Brooks
No, but what if they were taught that SOME PEOPLE believe that some higher power, yada yada yada.

But WHY do America's schoolchildren need to taught a class on it?!?!?

I would wager that every child in this country above the age of eight is already WELL aware that most people believe in a "higher power".........(unfortunately, we are not teaching children in the public schoolsthat those sets of beliefs are based entirely on superstition, and NOT on science.)

"SOME PEOPLE" believe the goddamned Earth is flat.

"SOME PEOPLE" believe astrological signs rule our destiny.

"SOME PEOPLE" believe that leprechauns truly exist.

But do we need a class in the Public schools to teach schoolchildren of every fantasy of every "believer" in the world?!??????.......I say no.

Schoolchildren --as is the case with ANY sentient being-- would be best served by being schooled in scientific rationalism and critical thinking.

Originally posted by Decka
that is total BS.... natural selection is about the progression OF A SPECIES.... not changing lizards into apes....

its like the whole darwin thing with the bird beaks.... the longer beaked birds survived.... but you didnt see birds turning into apes did you?

The truth is.... there IS no explanation yet on why we are here... science is JUST as much fact as the biblical explanation, if you put it in black and white.

Scientists believe that all life on earth shared a common ancestor about 700 million years ago. Considering there are millions of species which constitute all of the lifeforms on earth today, I have to say that there's been a definite progression of a species -- don't you think?

Your example of Darwin's finches is an example of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is easily documented and has been observed countless times by scientists. Your example about the progression of a species is macro-evolution, which cannot be documented firsthand because the process takes hundreds of years. Macro-evolution is best observed by looking back at the fossil period and examining the relationships between animal species living today to the relationships between animals that are dead now, but resemble today's animals. (This is comparitive studies.)

If you're asking WHY we are here ... I think you're asking a philosophical question: why do humans exist? Hard science doesn't answer philosophical questions -- that's what a person's belief and faith is supposed to do. As a result, it is my belief that humans are alive simply as a product of the natural creation of life and die as a result of the natural end of life. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Decka
science is JUST as much fact as the biblical explanation, if you put it in black and white.

A fact is something that can be proven time and time again after countless experimentation -- there's black and white for you. Natural selection has been proven, it is a scientific fact. Like Freethinker noted before, some people "evidently cannot distinguish between a scientific theory (such as evolution) and superstitious conjecture (such as the notion that a supernatural entity is responsible for creating the universe and everything in it)." There is a difference.

If anything significant in the Bible can be proven as a scientific fact, I'm sure there wouldn't be so much controversy over the validity of the Bible and its truthfulness.

Originally posted by Decka
that is total BS.... natural selection is about the progression OF A SPECIES.... not changing lizards into apes....

its like the whole darwin thing with the bird beaks.... the longer beaked birds survived.... but you didnt see birds turning into apes did you?
You really don't understand the definitions of evolution and natural selection, do you? We evolved from single-celled organisms into humans over a couple billion years, becoming numerous different species along the way. As for birds turning into apes...they might. It would take a long, long, LONG time to do so, and there would have to be a reason for bird forms to be not favored and more ape-ish birds to be favored (unlikely, as apes are larger, and larger things don't fly as well as smaller things), but it is possible.

Woah borg, don't confuse them by trying to explain that! We should first explain what a scientific theory and then what a law is.

Theory - An accepted collection of ideas, explanations, and testable hypotheses
describing a broad, important set of phenomena. The acceptance arises
from repeated successful testing of a theory’s many hypotheses. Examples
are Einstein’s theory of relativity, quantum theory, atomic theory, and
evolutionary theory. Unlike the common American usage of the word
“theory,” its scientific usage implies no disrespect. Historically, the word
“law” has come into use for some theories, such as Newton’s laws of
motion and gravity. Every theory has limits to its applicability. For example,
evolutionary theory does not explain the origin of life (only its subsequent
development), and Newton‘s laws of motion and gravity are only low-speed
approximations to the more modern and more complete Einstein’s theory
of relativity. Growth of scientific knowledge often occurs at the boundary of applicability of a theory.
(from a K-8 info-thingamabob by the way).

Law - "See Theory".


Mocking aside. A law is basically just a very short, very concise mathematical description of a very specific minute part of nature. A theory incorporates laws and more added math and observations to attempt to explain a bigger grasp of the universe. I wonder how freaked out you'd people would be if you levied your requirements of evolutionary science to other theories. Like the atomic theory.

Originally posted by Freethinker
But WHY do America's schoolchildren need to taught a class on it?!?!?

"SOME PEOPLE" believe the goddamned Earth is flat.

"SOME PEOPLE" believe astrological signs rule our destiny.

"SOME PEOPLE" believe that leprechauns truly exist.

But do we need a class in the Public schools to teach schoolchildren of every fantasy of every "believer" in the world?!??????.......I say no.

Schoolchildren --as is the case with ANY sentient being-- would be best served by being schooled in scientific rationalism and critical thinking.

Do you think you're a better person and more well rounded for having learned about other culture's mythology and religions? Did you consider Jupiter your god when it was over? That's my whole point.

Are you harmed by knowing that some people think the earth is flat? Or that some people believe in Astrology.

You're all acting as though adding a small paragraph to the teaching of evolution is the end of the world.

Not me, Im arguing at the fact that the concept of an intellegent designer will be taught as a christian concept. If it was merely an open like discussion showing all the current religions that reference an Intellegent designer, without being biased to any of them, then Id be comfortable with it.

This is simply a Christian tactic to get more kids into Christianity and i think everyone knows that.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Not me, Im arguing at the fact that the concept of an intellegent designer will be taught as a christian concept. If it was merely an open like discussion showing all the current religions that reference an Intellegent designer, without being biased to any of them, then Id be comfortable with it.

This is simply a Christian tactic to get more kids into Christianity and i think everyone knows that.

Exactly. On the nose. Intelligent Design is merely Biblical creationism in a different wrapper.

Originally posted by Brooks
Do you think you're a better person and more well rounded for having learned about other culture's mythology and religions?

Yes, absolutely. With NO qualifications.

Originally posted by Brooks
Did you consider Jupiter your god when it was over? That's my whole point.

No, i did not.

One BIG reason that i did not was that the story of Jupiter.....and Zeus....and Icarus....and Posiedon....and EVERY other god you'd care to mention were presented to us as schoolchildren as being pure myth.

No teacher EVER made the SLIGHTEST indication to us that they personally believed Jupiter and Zeus and all the other so-called **gods of Roman and Greek mythology** to be REAL gods.

Quite the opposite, in fact. It was presented with the underlying emphasis and mindset------- "Look at how irrational the the Romans and Greeks were to believe in such fantastic "gods"!!"

The case with the school teachers presenting their vew of the Christian god to us was COMPLETELY different.

THAT god was presented to us ---in the view of the teachers standing in front of us-- as not ONLY being a "real" god.........it was made VERY obvious to us that in the teacher's view the Christian "god" was THE ONLY god.

THAT is the difference in all of this.

Originally posted by Brooks
Are you harmed by knowing that some people think the earth is flat? Or that some people believe in Astrology.?

No. I personally did not suffer the slightest harm from it.....but only because I readily perceived that ALL of the supposed "gods" I was being taught about were simply the way that extremely ignorant and superstitious people of long ago had concocted as a way of explaining ---regardless of how preposterous and irrational the *explanation* was-- the existence of the cold, uncaring world that surrounded them.




Originally posted by Brooks
You're all acting as though adding a small paragraph to the teaching of evolution is the end of the world.

IF the Public school system in America was presenting ALL supernatural entities and mythological, omnipotent beings to America's schoolchildren as being equally fanciful and preposterous and as being equally refuted by scientific evidence, we would have no argument.

But that is not the case.

One supernatural entity in particular is being presented ---whether or not the instruction is overt or whether America's schoolteacher's own opinions and beliefs are coming thru to the students-- to the public schooolchildren as being the ONE "real" god.

First off, I accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium. It makes sense and so far it works. Keep in mind however, just because something makes sense, doesn't mean it will always turn out to be true.

Second, Intelligent Design is not creationism. It does not accept the 7 day idea with adam and eve and all that. It merely states that organisms like human are far to complex and convoluted in order to have merely evolve randomly. Rather, some superintelligent being layed out blueprints for life enabling the construction of these fantastically advanced creatures.

One example ID cites is how complex protein systems are. Hemoglobin is one of the most complex protein structures in the human body, and all of the proteins are so interconnected, that one change in one protein renders the whole thing useless.

ID does have some foundation to it. Now evolution has a lot more, but it's not the ONLY theory to be considered. What harm ever came from an open mind? The way i see it, we only run into trouble once we start limiting ourselves to only one line of vision.

Just my 3 cents.

The question is whether something that is little more than speculation at this point should be taught in a SCIENCE class. Forgive me if my memory fails me on this, but I don't remember learning anything about extraterrestrial life or time travel in high school.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
First off, I accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium. It makes sense and so far it works. Keep in mind however, just because something makes sense, doesn't mean it will always turn out to be true.

Second, Intelligent Design is not creationism. It does not accept the 7 day idea with adam and eve and all that. It merely states that organisms like human are far to complex and convoluted in order to have merely evolve randomly. Rather, some superintelligent being layed out blueprints for life enabling the construction of these fantastically advanced creatures.

One example ID cites is how complex protein systems are. Hemoglobin is one of the most complex protein structures in the human body, and all of the proteins are so interconnected, that one change in one protein renders the whole thing useless.

ID does have some foundation to it. Now evolution has a lot more, but it's not the ONLY theory to be considered. What harm ever came from an open mind? The way i see it, we only run into trouble once we start limiting ourselves to only one line of vision.

Just my 3 cents.

Punctuated equilibrium, and natural selection do a good job of explaining how all the diversity of life evolved from the first cell. Our theory of evolution does a poor job of explaining how that first cell came to exist. There are speculations on that, but nothing approaching a conclusive explanation. It is something we don't know yet.

I have one problem with intelligent design. How did the super intelligent creatures come to exist? This merely moves the problem of how life originated back one step, a needless complication in my opinion. I think life probably did originate here independent of intelligent intervention, but I don't think we know enough yet to explain how.

Originally posted by Freethinker
No. I personally did not suffer the slightest harm from it.....but only because I readily perceived that ALL of the supposed "gods" I was being taught about were simply the way that extremely ignorant and superstitious people of long ago had concocted as a way of explaining ---regardless of how preposterous and irrational the *explanation* was-- the existence of the cold, uncaring world that surrounded them.

Oh no, of course you wouldn't suffer a conversion. You're just the protector of the ignorant. This is the most arrogant thing you've ever said. How 'bout you assume there may be other people out there who are as sophisticated as you. It is possible you know.

The theme of the play "Inherit the Wind" wasn't about whether evolution was real or not. It was about the fear of certain knowledge vs. the right to learn. Which side represents you in this disagreement?

I personally don't care whether it is taught or not, but this fear is beyond me. I learned on this thread that the teachers will be christian and they will teach it in a religious way.

Is that prescience or the ol' slippery slope?

Originally posted by Brooks
I learned on this thread that the teachers will be christian and they will teach it in a religious way.

Are you deliberatly ignoring the point...

The teachers will be christian and they will teach it in a Christian way. Thats whats wrong.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
Second, Intelligent Design is not creationism. It does not accept the 7 day idea with adam and eve and all that. It merely states that organisms like human are far to complex and convoluted in order to have merely evolve randomly. Rather, some superintelligent being layed out blueprints for life enabling the construction of these fantastically advanced creatures.

I'll accept that ID may not be identical to the creation story in the Bible, but it's still creationism with a different name.


ID does have some foundation to it. Now evolution has a lot more, but it's not the ONLY theory to be considered. What harm ever came from an open mind? The way i see it, we only run into trouble once we start limiting ourselves to only one line of vision.


I have no problem with keeping an open mind, but unscientific ideas should not be taught as science.

Originally posted by Brooks
Oh no, of course you wouldn't suffer a conversion. You're just the protector of the ignorant. This is the most arrogant thing you've ever said. How 'bout you assume there may be other people out there who are as sophisticated as you. It is possible you know.
A very good point, Brooks.

Jesus, FT, you just have a way about you that oozes an appalling sense of superiority sided with an over-inflated sense of self-worth. Is it intentional, or do you simply wake up every morning a Grade-A tosser, who chants the mantra, "I'm better, I'm smarter, and gosh darn it, I'm gonna prove it if I have to sound off like a self-affected cock with every response I'm forced to dish out to people with less horsepower than I have"???

Just curious...
Originally posted by Brooks
The theme of the play "Inherit the Wind" wasn't about whether evolution was real or not. It was about the fear of certain knowledge vs. the right to learn. Which side represents you in this disagreement?
Care to answer that, FT?
Originally posted by Brooks
Is that prescience or the ol' slippery slope?
Excellent question!

I think the point has been missed here to a certain extent. I would consider ID a valid theory if it could be proven scientifically that it was absolutely, irrefutably impossible that something as complex as an eyeball could have evolved, even over billions of years, by genetic mutation and adaptation to the ever changing environment. From all of the evidence found so far, this does not appear to be the case. Evolution is based on scientific hypotheses and the testing of those hypotheses lending to further refinement and even rejection if warranted. ID has no such high standards. In fact, it can be easily argued that ID rejects the scientific method for fear of being proven wrong. Once accepted, no further exploration is needed. Through ignorance, ID explains everything. All the while explaining nothing at all by simply accepting just what we see at face value.

ID is NOT being proposed as a supplemental sentence or two, carelessly tacked on simply as an alternate to The Theory of Evolution as some here would suggest. It is meant to be taught as valid and equal counter to evolutionary theory based on religious beliefs that are never to be challenged, tested or explored. The President of the United States, the most powerful nation that this planet has ever seen, has thrown his support to this nonsense as a bone to his base of support without regard to the possible consequences with regard to the standards of validity of the scientific community. That is the travesty.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Are you deliberatly ignoring the point...

The teachers will be christian and they will teach it in a Christian way. Thats whats wrong.

I don't understand this. What do you think we would do with all our Jewish teachers?, Muslim? Hindu? Will they all be fired?

Honestly, I'm not arguing here, I just don't understand what you mean.