Political DiscussionA place to hold political debates and general discussion. Please remember to always respect the opinions of other members and above all else, be civil.
Dunno if this is on another thread already but I didnt see it.
What do people think? Should ID be taught as a science topic?
Personally, I don't. Its not science at all and offers no scientific evidence.
If they decide to teach it as science then teach the creation stories of other religions as well.
Fvck no. Although they are not mutually exclusive, it further shows the Judeo-Christian influence that is being pushed into schools. If you want your kids to learn it, then send them to a private school or church camp. Public schools, although tolerant of various religions, should not be in and of themselves teaching religious idealogy. Although classes on religions that teach about all/most religions would explain the development of different religions and their teachings, they should not be "converting" children, but allowing them to see the various religions for what they are and decide for themselves.
Its not science at all and offers no scientific evidence.
If they decide to teach it as science then teach the creation stories of other religions as well.
Intelligent design offers no scientific evidence? Don't be foolish, do your research. The theory of evolution proposes that the array of species found on earth is due to evolutionary processes and offers scientific findings to prove it, and the intelligent design theory holds that the array of species on earth is due to an intelligent creator, and offers scientific findings to prove it. For instance - irreducibly complex biological systems and the constraints that are imposed upon natural selection because of them. The law of entropy. You are biased without justification. Get some knowledge.
And to address robbclark1's statements - Intelligent Design does not advocate any religion above another, it is not a Christian, Judeo-Christian, Bhuddist, Taoist, or any other religious study. However it does seem that some advocates of evolution have taken evolution as their "religion" - and they are disgusted at the fact that they should be forced to allow the opposing theory of intelligent design to be taught in their classrooms. The same people who years ago found it appalling that they could not teach evolution are now excluding other theories from the classroom, and it is hypocritical and preposterous. Don't scream "tolerance" and then not have the decency to show any.
Personally, I am a follower of Christ and therefore I hold to the intelligent design theory. I have not, however, closed my mind and refused to look at the information given by evolutionary theorists, as most evolutionary theorists have closed their minds against my beliefs. I personally believe that microevolution is obviously possible, but do not see the truth in macroevolution that others do.
Evolution isn't based on science either. If Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm or Satanism are considered religions, then Athiesm must be too. Why would schools be teaching Athiesm in the form of Evolution?
I say simply teach the facts. Show Evolution, but show all the cracks in evolution too. Or better yet, stick to science (evolution is not science, as it is not part of the scientific method, UPON WHICH SCIENCE IS BASED). Teach what we know, and leave human beginnings to the realm of philosophy and theology.
Evolution isn't based on science either. If Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm or Satanism are considered religions, then Athiesm must be too. Why would schools be teaching Athiesm in the form of Evolution?
I say simply teach the facts. Show Evolution, but show all the cracks in evolution too. Or better yet, stick to science (evolution is not science, as it is not part of the scientific method, UPON WHICH SCIENCE IS BASED). Teach what we know, and leave human beginnings to the realm of philosophy and theology.
Ask ANY scientist if evolution is science and 98% of them will say it is. That, my friend, makes it science.
You want people to teach that evolution isn't perfect and there might be other answers? I have no problem with that; but, don't put non-science in my science class. Remember that 2% that thought evolution wasn't science, those are the ones that think ID is. That makes it non-science.
BTW, evolution can be proven by the scientific method, just in a smaller scale.
If 98% of people said I was a millionaire, I still wouldn't be one. But I'm not arguing that evolution isn't a science. However, your statement that 98% of scientists say evolution is a science so the other 2% must be the ones that say ID is - is completely illogical. It is very possible to believe that two opposing viewpoints are scientific, but that only one is true. I believe evolution and ID are both sciences, and I know of many others that do as well.
Also, evolution CAN be proven on a "smaller scale" as you say - microevolution. We use judgements every day to try to predict it, for instance the next strain of flu shots you'll be getting this season will try to combat the "next strain" of flu virus. However there are fundamental differences between microevolution and macroevolution, so by stating that "evolution" can be proven is not true. If it was there would be no debate.
If 98% of people said I was a millionaire, I still wouldn't be one. But I'm not arguing that evolution isn't a science. However, your statement that 98% of scientists say evolution is a science so the other 2% must be the ones that say ID is - is completely illogical. It is very possible to believe that two opposing viewpoints are scientific, but that only one is true. I believe evolution and ID are both sciences, and I know of many others that do as well.
Also, evolution CAN be proven on a "smaller scale" as you say - microevolution. We use judgements every day to try to predict it, for instance the next strain of flu shots you'll be getting this season will try to combat the "next strain" of flu virus. However there are fundamental differences between microevolution and macroevolution, so by stating that "evolution" can be proven is not true. If it was there would be no debate.
Well, I put those numbers up to make a point. If you go to court and they bring up 100 experts (let's say bankers and economists for this example) and 98 of them say you're a millionare and two say you aren't, the court is going to rule that you are a millionare based on expert testimony offered under direct or cross examinations.
Evolution is science because it's a scientific theory. It has been offered up for examination and can be proven. Just because we haven't been able to turn a wolf into a whale doesn't mean that evolution can't be proved. BTW, whales are believed to have evolved or decended from wolves. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1283186
If you bring atheist scientists up, they will say that evolution is true. If you bring up scientists that believe in God, most will say that many many aspects of evolution are false. Even many atheist scientists will agree that evolution has more holes than a leaky sieve.
The *FACT* is that evolution cannot be proven by the scientific method, UPON WHICH SCIENCE IS BASED. Science tries to prove it because science has found many answers for many problems. It can turn lead into gold, it can find vaccines for smallpox, it can find out what causes colon cancer. But it cannot find out what the earth was like 5 billion years ago. It cannot repeat that experiment, it's not based on the scientific method. Evolution is a theory based on speculation about speculation about speculation about speculation. That's pretty shakey ground to me. The problems really arise when "scientists" look at speculation (like turning ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen and water into some amino acids with a spark) like they are facts (aka that the earths atmosphere consisted of those basic building blocks without any oxygen which would wipe out the reaction in the first place). Then they build upon that. It makes a shakey foundation for the upper levels of it upon which the "scientists" are now working on.
Macro-Evolution cannot be proven in the least. Inherited characteristics are not passed on via the genetic code! A giraffe that stretches it's neck to get to the higher leaves doesn't mean that it's babies will have longer necks! Not even a hundred or thousand or MILLION years down the road.
Evolution and the Bible are not mutually exclusive. I have known hardcore Christian Ph.D.s that still believe in evolution. As long as you take the Bible to mean that God had a specific design and the design IS evolution, then they can exist together.
I don't want to get into the science vs. religion debate. Science relies on a different belief system (empirical) as compared to religion (faith). Neither will "win" because both are stong.
Zap, just because we don't understand the process, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The actions of many drugs, psychological disorders, and physical disorders are still unknown, but that doesn't mean there is a "supernatural" reason for them. It also does not mean there is a natural reason either. Either way, I know you won't budge on your opinion.
With current ways of categorizing, macro-evolution can be proven if we just keep up with records and changes and many other things. In fact, you can see that humans are changing...we are losing our wisdom teeth, our appedices, and our coxyc bones. Some inherited characteristics are inherited. There is a simple case of a white moth who lived near a coal factory. Because the trees started to covered in soot, it had to figure out a way to blend in. Eventually, a new strain of moth was created that was black. Also, how do you explain bacterial resistence to antibiotics or HIV mutations?
Evolution isn't based on science either. If Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm or Satanism are considered religions, then Athiesm must be too. Why would schools be teaching Athiesm in the form of Evolution?
I say simply teach the facts. Show Evolution, but show all the cracks in evolution too. Or better yet, stick to science (evolution is not science, as it is not part of the scientific method, UPON WHICH SCIENCE IS BASED). Teach what we know, and leave human beginnings to the realm of philosophy and theology.
I completely agree with your secong point. However, Evolution is NOT Atheism. They can exist together.
There is a simple case of a white moth who lived near a coal factory. Because the trees started to covered in soot, it had to figure out a way to blend in. Eventually, a new strain of moth was created that was black. Also, how do you explain bacterial resistence to antibiotics or HIV mutations?
HA. I was waiting for someone to bring this up.
First off, HIV mutations. That's micro-evolution. It's on a cellular or sub-cellular level. Macro-evolution is different, on a much greater level, on a species-wide level.
Now, on to the moths. That's a great example of NATURAL SELECTION, not Evolution. What you don't apparently understand is that there were black moths before, and black moths after. No moths evolved. It's simple that the black moths multiplied quicker than the whites because they were better able to blend in. After the cleanup, the white moths were able to blend in better again, and they were able to multiply, and the blacks went back to being less-numerous.
I think that's funny that some people have the misconception that the moths evolved. It's simple natural selection. And yes, that can be considered a part of evolution, however it's something we're able to see very clearly, it's proven. But no mutations happened in these cases.
Once again, it's IMPORTANT to note that NO MOTHS EVOLVED. Both black and white moths were around before, during and after the industrial revolution. It's natural selection that was involved in this. No moths mutated or changed. Simple breeding habits and favorable circumstances.
Macro-Evolution cannot be proven in the least. Inherited characteristics are not passed on via the genetic code! A giraffe that stretches it's neck to get to the higher leaves doesn't mean that it's babies will have longer necks! Not even a hundred or thousand or MILLION years down the road.
You're 100% right. Acquired heredity has been proven to be false. However, that is because a giraffe stretching his neck does not alter his genetic composition. However, if a giraffe has a longer neck because his genes alter, that giraffe's genes are more likely to be passed because he can eat the leaves other giraffes cannot. That is how evolution happens: those that have the genetic composition that gives them an advantage over others will have a higher opportunity to pass on their traits thus we have evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
If you bring atheist scientists up, they will say that evolution is true. If you bring up scientists that believe in God, most will say that many many aspects of evolution are false. Even many atheist scientists will agree that evolution has more holes than a leaky sieve.
As you might remember, I went to Catholic school for 12 years. I was taught evolution by my science-teaching nuns. Does that shock you? It shouldn't because evolution, in no way, shape, or form, denies the power or existence of God. I was taught that God created the building blocks from which everything formed. He also masterminded the plan for how it would happen. So, indirectly, God is the overseer of evolution. But the nuns never denied that small genetic changes (mutations) lead to big physical changes and to the extiction of some species and the formation of new ones based on the old ones with just a few changes that helped them achieve some sort of advantage over it's competitors.
This has nothing to do with Atheism or with those who believe in God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZapThyCat
The *FACT* is that evolution cannot be proven by the scientific method, UPON WHICH SCIENCE IS BASED. Science tries to prove it because science has found many answers for many problems. It can turn lead into gold, it can find vaccines for smallpox, it can find out what causes colon cancer. But it cannot find out what the earth was like 5 billion years ago. It cannot repeat that experiment, it's not based on the scientific method. Evolution is a theory based on speculation about speculation about speculation about speculation. That's pretty shakey ground to me. The problems really arise when "scientists" look at speculation (like turning ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen and water into some amino acids with a spark) like they are facts (aka that the earths atmosphere consisted of those basic building blocks without any oxygen which would wipe out the reaction in the first place). Then they build upon that. It makes a shakey foundation for the upper levels of it upon which the "scientists" are now working on.
Evolution can be proved. What cannot be proved (yet) is how they claim life started. We are talking Originism here, and not evolution. Evolution is concerned with where today's species came from, not from where life begun.
BTW, I say that evolution can be proven because we can now monitor genes and see how one small mutation (the changing of an Adenine/Thymine bond for one of Cytosine/Guanine, for example) makes a huge difference in a species.
You're right. I was confusing natural selection with evolution. Please refer to my and silverdevil's point about evolution and religion not being mutually exclusive.
You're 100% right. Acquired heredity has been proven to be false. However, that is because a giraffe stretching his neck does not alter his genetic composition. However, if a giraffe has a longer neck because his genes alter, that giraffe's genes are more likely to be passed because he can eat the leaves other giraffes cannot. That is how evolution happens: those that have the genetic composition that gives them an advantage over others will have a higher opportunity to pass on their traits thus we have evolution.
BTW, I say that evolution can be proven because we can now monitor genes and see how one small mutation (the changing of an Adenine/Thymine bond for one of Cytosine/Guanine, for example) makes a huge difference in a species.
Have you ever seen a "good" mutation? No. Sure, in DareDevil, or Spiderman, or the Simpsons, a "good" mutation can take place and let someone grow another eye, have superpowers, or whatever, but in reality, there has never been a good mutation take place that allowed a species to adapt to it's environment better. Outside of microevolution (of course).
So, if mutations are invariably bad, and the only way for a species to evolve is for it to mutate (because inherited characteristics are not passed down), then how does someone evolve? It's possible that 1 out of 100 mutations can be good, but no one has ever witnessed one. Fruit Flies have been bred for dozens of years, and we've seen... millions of generations...? And not one good mutation has been witnessed.
I'm sure you've heard it before, but it's called the second law of themodynamics. Things don't get better, they get worse. Evolution states that man will get better and better until the "super man" has been bred and all the inferior ones will die out. Or all the hundreds of dog breeds will disappear and there will just be one dog breed that is perfect. However this flies in the face of common logic. Humans aren't getting better, they are getting worse.
As long as they're all labeled as THEORIES of evolution, intelligent design, etc, who cares? It's no different than having a theology class that teaches, "___ is what the ________ believe whereas ____ is what the ________ believe."
Presenting ideas doesn't mean that we're indoctrinating these kids to believe those ideas.
