Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in class

Pennsylvania science teachers will not be forced to advocate
"intelligent design" after a judge ruled that that the theory is
really religion in disguise.

In his decision, Judge John Jones systematically dismantled the
arguments of the proponents of intelligent design.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8493

I fail to see how teaching kids that censorship as a result of fear of the unknown is a step in the right direction. Especially as it relates to science. Science is supposed to be an objective pursuit of truth. Biased censorship therefore undermines science.

The reason that intelligent design is not called creationism, and does not reference the word "God" is because it was not theorized by theologians or by christians, but by scientists, many of whom are atheist or agnostic.

The facts are that intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive theories, but are erroneously presented as such by fanatical fundies on both sides of a ridiculous and biased debate. There is no "dualism" except in the minds of those who seek to "be right", instead of seeking the truth. If you took the fear and ego out of this ridiculous debate, you would actually have a presentation of scientific discovery. I mean, if unbiased scientific discovery and reporting shows the work of an intelligent design, then that's what it shows.

And call it what you will, as if it's about the stupid label you place on it. Label it what you will, the facts speak for themselves. I'm sure that some would say that alien life forms created us, or are the designers.

Or how about this? Let's present the facts, and let the people make up their own minds as to what or to whom to attribute them to or what they want to call it?

Fact is that evolution is a theory in regards to creation...Darwin's theory is just that...a theory...it's not proven any more so than intelligent design. It is therefore being "singled out", not by proponents of intelligent design, but by it's own proponents.

Supernatural = unknown. Which I could have sworn that the discovery of the unknown was what science was supposed to be all about. Science proves that there is no such thing as a supernatural...only what we have yet to discover and/or understand.

How do we know what the right direction is? I for one, being a product of the public school system, feel deceived by the system today in hindsight. I was brought up in high school to believe that the origin of life on Earth resulted from evolution. I bought into it for years, until I questioned it, and found crucial missing evidences and questions that still need to be answered. A conclusion that evolution is responsible for all life on the planet is immature. We need more conclusive evidence. I for one, had I had the choice given what I know now, would have been better off in life if I had not been taught evolution resulting in life is fact.

Here is a recent example of a child in high school facing this issue. Like me, they were taught that evolution is responsible for life as fact, but they rightly question that conclusion. I wish I would have at the young age, they bring up a good question. If energy is eternal, how could life have an origin?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50971

How do we know that this is the right direction? What is the right direction? Things we teach kids in high school ought to be fact. Teach evolution...okay, that is observably fact, but not as the device of the origin of life. So, Darwin's theory of the origin of species is unproved and should not be taught without also teaching other theories of the origin of species. Darwin's theory and creationism do not belong in school.

I was brought up in high school to believe that the origin of life on Earth resulted from evolution. I bought into it for years, until I questioned it, and found crucial missing evidences and questions that still need to be answered.

Just filling in the blanks with "Because God said so" is no answer, either. ID was religious instruction disguised as science. It should not be taught in a science class. It belongs more appropriately in a critical thinking class or such. It should be elective, not mandatory.

But please, why has the theory of evolution had such a negative impact on your life?

I fail to see how teaching kids that censorship as a result of fear of the unknown is a step in the right direction. Especially as it relates to science. Science is supposed to be an objective pursuit of truth. Biased censorship therefore undermines science.


But there is the thing.. ID is not science, and thus that's why I state it as a step in the right direction for not having it taught in science class. In honesty Lori, you have to understand that not teaching ID in science class is about as biased as not teaching evolution in church.

Would you care to explain the difference?

What I'm saying is that teaching Darwinism is just as biased as teaching ID. They are both theories, and if you're going to justify teaching one, then the same justification can be used to teach them all.

My position actually, is to not teach biased theories at all, and to forget the labels altogether. To present scientific facts, and let the students decide for themselves what they would like to attribute them to if anything. The youth of today are not as dumb as their parents are trying to make them out to be. The youth of today are not as dumb as their parents. And while their parents are busy arguing about Darwinism and creationism and evolution and ID and Christmas trees and holiday trees, the youth of today are going to rise up and change the world. Thank God for these idiots who have set an example of what we don't want to be when we grow up. Now it's time for a revolution.

What I'm saying is that teaching Darwinism is just as biased as teaching ID. They are both theories, and if you're going to justify teaching one, then the same justification can be used to teach them all.
No, no, no, oh, no, no, no, no, no. ID is not a theory. It cannot be tested, and is thus not even a hypothesis. It is religious bull-fucking-shit.
Evolution, however, can be tested, and is a thoery. It is 'only a theory' because there is nothing higher than 'theory' in science, because everything is subject to change.

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in class

Pennsylvania science teachers will not be forced to advocate
"intelligent design" after a judge ruled that that the theory is
really religion in disguise.

In his decision, Judge John Jones systematically dismantled the
arguments of the proponents of intelligent design.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8493

The next hurricaine or natural disaster that hits the US will be because American citizens have deserted God...

Lori,
The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

ID has 1 and 2, but not 3 or 4, therefore it is not science. Case closed, go back to church.

Lori: You say that I.D. should be taught because science is after truth, and that like evolution is is just a theory. This is where you are wrong. Evolution can be observed by using scientific methods. It doesn't matter how much you try to observe intelligent design, you can't find a crumb of evidence.

It is not science, and the simple reason for that is people have came up with the idea of God and said "OK, How can we make this scientific?".

Let me give you an example: String theory is almost completely theory, and hasn't got any scientific evidence at all, yet at least it can be predicted by physics and mathematics, so it is worth teaching in hope of finding that scientific evidence. What good is teaching I.D. if you can teach it for eternity and never have any hope of finding that proof?

I would not have a real problem with ID being taught in science class. It would only take one sentence. "Hey kids, state law requires me to suggest that maybe God did it...(pause for laughter)...anyway, on to the finches of Galapagos...".

The brain "tends to search for and hold onto the most rewarding view of events, much as it does of objects," -www.edge.org. It is much more rewarding to attribute death to God's will, and to see in disasters hints of the hand of God.

"We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology." - http://www.edge.org/

Just filling in the blanks with "Because God said so" is no answer, either. ID was religious instruction disguised as science. It should not be taught in a science class. It belongs more appropriately in a critical thinking class or such. It should be elective, not mandatory.

But please, why has the theory of evolution had such a negative impact on your life?

It has had a negative impact because I believed it to be absolute, verifiable truth as responsible for the origins of life. I was in awe that there was controversy to something I had believed to be fact. It's quite like finding out the Earth is round when you've been told by your teachers (whom you respect and revere) that the Earth is flat.

Furthermore, this logic and reason has had a negative effect on my belief in God. It has impeded my Christian walk, and therefore not given me a fair shake to believe what I would like to believe. It drew me away and made it impossible to believe in God. Ignorance is bliss, I would rather have been told of Darwin's theory later in life. Teach evolution, but keep the theories of the origins of life for college or extracurricular material, and allow everyone the freedom to believe what they wish. I thank God that God saved me and came to me because through it all, I had hope.

Just filling in the blanks with "Because God said so" is no answer, either. ID was religious instruction disguised as science. It should not be taught in a science class. It belongs more appropriately in a critical thinking class or such. It should be elective, not mandatory.

But please, why has the theory of evolution had such a negative impact on your life?

It has had a negative impact because I believed it to be absolute, verifiable truth as responsible for the origins of life. I was in awe that there was controversy to something I had believed to be fact. It's quite like finding out the Earth is round when you've been told by your teachers (whom you respect and revere) that the Earth is flat.

Furthermore, this logic and reason has had a negative effect on my belief in God. It has impeded my Christian walk, and therefore not given me a fair shake to believe what I would like to believe. It drew me away and made it impossible to believe in God. Ignorance is bliss, I would rather have been told of Darwin's theory later in life. Teach evolution, but keep the theories of the origins of life for college or extracurricular material, and allow everyone the freedom to believe what they wish. I thank God that God saved me and came to me because through it all, I had hope. I gave him a shot and he came through for me so many times that I cannot deny him anymore.

when it comes to schoolbooks and id/evolution they should state the truth.
and "the truth" is science can not prove life arose naturally period.
and "the truth" also is some people (some of them scientists) claim that the human condition can not be explained by evolution.

in my opinion natural processes got us here. if there was/is a force other than naturally occuring ones what the hell is it? whats its nature? the soul/spirit doesn't get it. it has to be something that science can get their hands around.

and for you people that say "in truth there is no truth" you are confusing the issue.

jayleew,
It has had a negative impact because I believed it to be absolute, verifiable truth as responsible for the origins of life.
That is one of the largest misconceptions of evolution. I don't know what school you went to, but don't blame evolution. Evolution is NOT the origin of life, it is the origin of SPECIES. Nowhere have I seen evolution state how life came to be on this Earth.

I was in awe that there was controversy to something I had believed to be fact. It's quite like finding out the Earth is round when you've been told by your teachers (whom you respect and revere) that the Earth is flat.
There are said to be two parts of evolution: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution IS a proven fact, believe it or not. Macro-evolution is what you guys may say "theory." Something is wrong with your school is all.

Furthermore, this logic and reason has had a negative effect on my belief in God. It has impeded my Christian walk, and therefore not given me a fair shake to believe what I would like to believe. It drew me away and made it impossible to believe in God.
Can be said about the kid who was raised Christian and then shown evolution. Anyhow, evolution is usually not taught in elementary school (if you were, then you had a funked up school, maybe you should have sued them), evolution is taught in high school biology classes, and perhaps even in middle school. By that time, you had the ability to think fully for yourself and take things to what seem right to you, and not as a naive child who takes whatever is told (such as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy).

Ignorance is bliss, I would rather have been told of Darwin's theory later in life. Teach evolution, but keep the theories of the origins of life for college or extracurricular material, and allow everyone the freedom to believe what they wish.
Again, I'd like to emphasize BAD SCHOOL and evolution is NOT the origin of LIFE.

I thank God that God saved me and came to me because through it all, I had hope.
Good for you. Stay out of jail and have a Merry Christmas.

In conclusion, evolution is not the theory for origin of life, it is the origin of species. And your school should have taught evolution late in middle school or in high school, if you felt it to have been forced upon you, then it seems you are just easily manipulated at that age (no offense). However, if you were taught it in elementary school, then it is not evolution's fault, it is the school's.


[Renrue]

P.S. I have NOT stated anything about proving a faith wrong, I am simply and merely stating the facts.

Evolution within a species is observable and is fact. But you can not conduct an experiment that would prove or support Darwin's theory, or essentially, that man evolved from some primordial slime. You observe evolution, you assume orgin of species.

And as far as ID goes...You observe a building, you assume an architect. You observe a bridge, you assume an engineer. You observe art, you assume an artist. It's very reasonable, based upon what we know from observation and from science.

Can I just make a request right now - Nobody get into a debate with another middle aged female Christian about evidence of macro-evolution. I don't think we can take another Jan Ardena type debate :D

Lori: You say that I.D. should be taught because science is after truth, and that like evolution is is just a theory. This is where you are wrong. Evolution can be observed by using scientific methods. It doesn't matter how much you try to observe intelligent design, you can't find a crumb of evidence.

It is not science, and the simple reason for that is people have came up with the idea of God and said "OK, How can we make this scientific?".

Let me give you an example: String theory is almost completely theory, and hasn't got any scientific evidence at all, yet at least it can be predicted by physics and mathematics, so it is worth teaching in hope of finding that scientific evidence. What good is teaching I.D. if you can teach it for eternity and never have any hope of finding that proof?

I did not say that id should be taught. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite really. And I suggested that if darwinism is allowed to be taught, then other reputable competing theories should be as well. Wait, I didn't say that right because they're actually not competing theories...they're not mutually exclusive. The real problem is that people view them as such, because the issue lies not in the observable facts, but in the assumptions and agendas surrounding them. So I say, present the fact, and leave the assumptions and agendas up to the individuals.

Oh, and just so you know...strings are good, and circles are bad.

I have proof...I know God. Can't bring Him to school for show and tell though, and He's too big to put into a test tube. We've been teaching Darwinism in schools for decades now, and that hasn't ever been proven, soooo. I'm simply suggesting some consistency.

Can I just make a request right now - Nobody get into a debate with another middle aged female Christian about evidence of macro-evolution. I don't think we can take another Jan Ardena type debate :D


So you know of an experiment that has proven Darwin's theory? Are you the only one? Well, by all means, share...Mr. Bigot.

There are many experiments that support evolutionary theory. It has gone beyond Darwin, BTW. There is even an experiment in speciation where a new species of fruitfly was the result.

I fail to see how teaching kids that censorship as a result of fear of the unknown is a step in the right direction. Especially as it relates to science. Science is supposed to be an objective pursuit of truth. Biased censorship therefore undermines science.

Censorship? It isn't about teaching 'censorship,' it's about not putting religious cult nonsense in a science class so that kids can actually get an education.

Fact is that evolution is a theory in regards to creation...Darwin's theory is just that...a theory...it's not proven any more so than intelligent design.

Evolution is a theory. Its also a fact -it really happened. You can close your eyes, but that doesn't mean that the sun isn't still shining. And it isn't "Darwin's theory," its the current theory of modern science. It is testable and has been tested. With regard to "proof," it has been far more proven than any creation myth.

Supernatural = unknown.

That's where you are wrong and obviously ignorant. Supernatural means beyond nature. In otherwords, forces that have nothing to do with nature. To date, nothing "supernatural" has been demonstrated to be true. There is no magic, there are no alien abductions, witchcraft is superstition and so is creation mythology. That the god of Abraham created the Earth in 6 days is no more valid than Marduk splitting Tiamat into the heavens and earth.

What I'm saying is that teaching Darwinism is just as biased as teaching ID. They are both theories, and if you're going to justify teaching one, then the same justification can be used to teach them all.

Comments that continue to betray your ignorance on the subject. Allow me to educate you somewhat: First, "Darwinism" is a label used by the religious zealots who oppose science. Science uses the term "science" and even "evolution." Darwin pioneered the idea of natural selection, but there is sufficiently more evidence and research since his time that it would be simply ignorant to refer to evolution as "Darwinism." Second, ID (assuming you mean 'intelligent' design) is not a theory. It has produced nothing that can be testable and has made no predictions that have been verified. At best, it is a very weak hypothesis -a speculation that does not hold water. Third, science should be taught with regard to what is currently known and testable and should have no regard for the hopes and wishes of religious cults even if that religious cult happens to be the majority.

So you know of an experiment that has proven Darwin's theory? Are you the only one? Well, by all means, share...

If he won't, I will. Richard Leakey and his wife went to Africa to look for early hominids because of the work of Darwin and others who postulated that man has a common ancestory with the great apes (as it turns out, we are among the great apes). Since the great apes are present in Africa, the Leakeys predicted it would be there that they would find fossil evidence for early hominids. Tim White has since unearthed the earliest hominid fossil known in modern Sudan, which dates to between 150,000 - 200,000 years ago.

Indeed, Darwin and others postulated that fossil evidence in strata would become increasingly simple the deeper the stratum -this has been demonstrated time and time again without fail. Never has it shown to be otherwise. The two examples I offer are anthropological/geological. I can give more of the same, and even biological examples, but I've a feeling it wouldn't matter. Once the believer gets a notion in their head, there isn't a piece of evidence in the world that would shake their belief.

But here's what I find amazing: that Christians aren't greatly offended by the blasphemy of the creationists that back this 'intelligent' design speculation. Who are they, after all, to assume that their God is so finite that It couldn't have put into motion the mechanisms for natural evolution or even a 'big bang' from the very beginning? Is their god so limited that It could only create in 6 days? That it could not give rise to a universe exactly as science has discovered so far? In this regard, Christianity is self-defeating, and if there is a god, it certainly isn't theirs.

Listen, I'm not arguing validity of any theory here. I'm simply saying that this whole debate is fear-based. It's all about who is right and who is wrong, and who's personal agenda is spoon-fed down whose kids throats. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with what people learn. It has to do with people attaching their egos to a theory.

american public schools recieve money from the government. that ALONE disqualifies them as a valid source of religious teaching. anything else would be a violation of the civil rights of the students.
case closed.

Listen, I'm not arguing validity of any theory here. That's not what the quotes in my post above suggest, but regardless of what you think you're arguing about, I'm saying -as are many others- that pseudoscience does not deserve to be taught as an alternative to science. That would mean that it is okay to teach to youngsters that 'zero point energy' is valid and proven; or that 'cold fusion' is; or that 'esp' really works.

That's not what the quotes in my post above suggest, but regardless of what you think you're arguing about, I'm saying -as are many others- that pseudoscience does not deserve to be taught as an alternative to science. That would mean that it is okay to teach to youngsters that 'zero point energy' is valid and proven; or that 'cold fusion' is; or that 'esp' really works.

Agreed. That is the danger of teaching the Darwin's origin of species, as well as ID. When science can create life from chemicals, then Darwin's theory has ground to stand on. It is a theory that is based on evolutionary fact. We know species evolve and life adapts, but that does not prove that life adapted into new species. Similarities in bone structure or anything, is not proof. It is speculation without a billion year study. The problem with scientists, is that they assume just because they observe things in a measurable scale, that it must be true when drawn to scale of the problem.

Darwin's theory of the origin of species is just as likely as aliens dropping different variations of life at different times of Earth's development in such a manner as to create the exact evolutionary tree as what we have today. We just don't know because we haven't been around for a billion years. Sure, we don't have evidence of aliens, so they don't exist. So, how does that make the theory of the origin of species a fact? The only way it is fact is if science observes the origin of species.

Like it or not, athiests are in the minority in the world. That doesn't make them wrong, but that doesn't mean the minority is always right either...usually it is the opposite. If there was sufficient proof that all species are the result of evolutionary changes, any objective mind must agree. Here we are in debate, so there must not be sufficient proof. Cover ups? Zealots? Sure, theists have a stake in the matter, but so do atheists. The person who answers this question will control the world.

So, we basically have the minority walking all over the majority and teaching our children beliefs that we don't believe. The minority says we can't teach ID, but can teach Darwin. Teach evolution and life's ability to adapt, anything else is psuedoscience at this point. All this science is only a few hundred years old, and we arrogantly rave that we know what happened a billion years ago. Poppycock!

Besides, if science proves that the origin of species is fact, they still have the creation of life. Not, cells....but, self-adapting, reproducing life, from chemicals. Good luck.

I'm tempted to say you're stupid as hell, but I'll refrain. You've done nothing but spout pure ignorance in that post, however. Science doesn't teach "Darwin's theory of the origin of species." It teaches evolution. Modern understanding of evolution. What we know about evolution today far surpasses what Darwin understood in the 19th century. Sure, science classes give introduction to Darwin, just as they give introduction to Pasteur, Galileo, Newton, etc with regard to the fields they pioneered.

The problem that creation nutters have with evolution is fundamental: they're afraid that it will disprove their superstitions and beliefs. You comment that "atheists are minorities in the world." Who cares? This isn't about atheists dominating the world. Its about teaching what we really know about how life came to be.

You go on and on about how the minority doesn't want to teach 'intelligent' design, but want's to teach Darwin. Pure ignorance. Possibly stupidity. Science wants to teach science. Darwin will get taught as a historical figure, but it is the current understanding of evolution that will get taught when the question arises of how did the wooley mammouth find its way to North America. It originated from the Asian continent and not the European one as evidenced by DNA sequencing.

It is evolutionary theory that will explain the origin of New World monkeys, which indicates that Platyrrhines originated from Africa due to the cranial and sub-cranial morphologies present in fossil remains that match those of African species in the same era.

Its evolutionary theory that demonstrates the progression of hominid species from Australopithicines to Homo erectus to H. sapiens.

All of the data uncovered from the fossil and DNA records avail to date has born out the hypothesis of gradual changes over time.

Other explanations, supernatural ones, simply aren't testable and the myths of creation among the many human societies are not testable. They are therefore discarded from science and left to their respective religions.

Evolution is a fact. It really happened. Deal with it. Scienctific theory isn't something that is voted on. It either has evidence or it doesn't. The 'scientific establishment' isn't out to dominate religion. It really could not give a rat's ass about religion as long as it doesn't try to subject itself on science and education.

Listen, I'm not arguing validity of any theory here. I'm simply saying that this whole debate is fear-based. It's all about who is right and who is wrong, and who's personal agenda is spoon-fed down whose kids throats. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with what people learn. It has to do with people attaching their egos to a theory.
I think it's more about the ego of religious people that are jealous that science explains more than their religion does. The list of things that religion is an authority on is shrinking, and has been ever since Galileo.

i am a believer in intelligent design, but i believe that it INCLUDES evolution and everything we know from centuries of study. the problem i have is when folks completely ignore the laws of the universe. the law of conservation of mass says specifically that "no matter or energy can ever be created or destroyed."

science says this, so i ask "where does this energy and matter come from?"

I'm tempted to say you're stupid as hell, but I'll refrain. You've done nothing but spout pure ignorance in that post, however. Science doesn't teach "Darwin's theory of the origin of species." It teaches evolution. Modern understanding of evolution. What we know about evolution today far surpasses what Darwin understood in the 19th century. Sure, science classes give introduction to Darwin, just as they give introduction to Pasteur, Galileo, Newton, etc with regard to the fields they pioneered.

I'm talking about biology class teaching Darwin's theory, not science. Yes, we know more about evolution. Evolution is not what I question. It is Darwin's theory that evolution is the device that created all species of life that I question.


The problem that creation nutters have with evolution is fundamental: they're afraid that it will disprove their superstitions and beliefs. You comment that "atheists are minorities in the world." Who cares? This isn't about atheists dominating the world. Its about teaching what we really know about how life came to be.


Sure, they do have a stake. I'm sure there are those who are theists afraid, just like i'm sure there are atheists who are afraid that Darwin's theory of the origin of species is false. Both sides have a stake in the question, but today there is no answers and only debate and controversy. We don't know how life came to be, we can only speculate that evolution played a part because we have evidence. But, we lack evidence of the process. It is like seeing water in two forms and saying that the cold temperature froze the water without first taking measurements. It is a premature conclusion to say that all species are the result of evolutionary changes.


You go on and on about how the minority doesn't want to teach 'intelligent' design, but want's to teach Darwin. Pure ignorance. Possibly stupidity. Science wants to teach science. Darwin will get taught as a historical figure, but it is the current understanding of evolution that will get taught when the question arises of how did the wooley mammouth find its way to North America. It originated from the Asian continent and not the European one as evidenced by DNA sequencing.


Walked, aliens, boats, continental shift, stowed, etc. No one was around, no one can say for sure.


It is evolutionary theory that will explain the origin of New World monkeys, which indicates that Platyrrhines originated from Africa due to the cranial and sub-cranial morphologies present in fossil remains that match those of African species in the same era.


So you are saying that the New World monkeys are evolved from a common ancestor. Micro evolution is observed. Macro evolution cannot be, we only have fossils. The evolutionary tree could have resulted from a combination of both microevolutionary changes and the introduction of new species by a designer. If not, why not? Why is it necessary that nature is responsible for macro changes? What proof says that it is the only solution? The only proof is if it is simulated without the aid of external influences, which would take a billion years. Good luck.


Its evolutionary theory that demonstrates the progression of hominid species from Australopithicines to Homo erectus to H. sapiens.


Looks like a human, so it must be a human, eh? Besides, that still does not disprove an external entity from performing these macro changes. You are speculating.


Other explanations, supernatural ones, simply aren't testable and the myths of creation among the many human societies are not testable. They are therefore discarded from science and left to their respective religions.


Good. Science would not be science if it did not discard all speculation, including a biased view that all species are the result from evolutionary changes.


Evolution is a fact. It really happened. Deal with it. Scienctific theory isn't something that is voted on. It either has evidence or it doesn't. The 'scientific establishment' isn't out to dominate religion. It really could not give a rat's ass about religion as long as it doesn't try to subject itself on science and education.

Yes, it is a fact. But just because we can predict the weather pattern, doesn't mean it will rain. The hypothesis must be tested, and it can't, so we are left with having faith that evolution is the means of all species of life because of the lack of any other evidence.

SkinWalker, we have evidence of evolution. We have fossils which look like all species have a common ancestor. We can draw a tree that connects the dots. Does that mean that, in fact, each species was the result of naturally occuring evoltuionary changes? No, that's speculation without observing the process. Yes, we can draw the conclusion that it naturally occured because of the evidence. Does that make it true? Well, it's the most probable solution that science has to offer, but it is still unproven.

i am a believer in intelligent design, but i believe that it INCLUDES evolution and everything we know from centuries of study. the problem i have is when folks completely ignore the laws of the universe. the law of conservation of mass says specifically that "no matter or energy can ever be created or destroyed."

science says this, so i ask "where does this energy and matter come from?"

Well, matter can be converted to energy by destroying it with anti-protons. Only energy is conserved. But, I agree with you. Energy did come from somewhere, it did not always exist. If it did, we would not be alone in the universe. I'm not saying we are alone, but we lack any other evidence to suggest that we are not alone, so an infinite number of possibilities has an equal chance of being true. Also, I'd like to see science perform a project genesis of sorts. Create evolutionary life from chemicals and I would definitely take a second look at the existence of God. Unfortunately, that would take a billion years, at least, to observe the process and I don't have the time to wait.

Both sides have a stake in the question, but today there is no answers and only debate and controversy. We don't know how life came to be, we can only speculate that evolution played a part because we have evidence. But, we lack evidence of the process.

The only debate and controversy comes from fundies who hold genesis in higher regard to that of the work carried out by hundreds of years of research by some of the worlds smartest people.

Looks like a human, so it must be a human, eh? Besides, that still does not disprove an external entity from performing these macro changes. You are speculating.

Note the progression, from the older more hunched over Hominid, and funnily enough, over time, begins to get taller, and walk more upright. As the years pass, becoming more and more human. Wether or not you call it 'human', it is quite clearly "evolution". But you are correct in a way, that it may well be a law of nature which was programmed by some sort of intelligence, if you want to believe in that sort of thing... there is no proof either way, but proof of evolution.

Yes, it is a fact. But just because we can predict the weather pattern, doesn't mean it will rain. The hypothesis must be tested, and it can't, so we are left with having faith that evolution is the means of all species of life because of the lack of any other evidence.

Correct. We lack any evidence of any other theories including intelligent design. Therefor evolution is how it happened, until we find evidence of anything else.

SkinWalker, we have evidence of evolution. We have fossils which look like all species have a common ancestor. We can draw a tree that connects the dots. Does that mean that, in fact, each species was the result of naturally occuring evoltuionary changes? No, that's speculation without observing the process. Yes, we can draw the conclusion that it naturally occured because of the evidence. Does that make it true? Well, it's the most probable solution that science has to offer, but it is still unproven.

I think you might even understand this now. You must understand that genetics, biology, chemistry, physics, geology etc are studied by millions of really smart people. Amongst all those lines of science and all those people who study it, there is very little controversey. So the only controversey comes from those who say "God did it". I'm sure many scientists are even open-minded to the possability that "God did it" and I'm sure they would persue any evidence of it if it so existed.

In fact many scientists do think "God did it" and persue science as a way to understand his means, many of those embrace all the facts and evidence of bilology and evolution.

I'm talking about biology class teaching Darwin's theory, not science. Yes, we know more about evolution. Evolution is not what I question. It is Darwin's theory that evolution is the device that created all species of life that I question.

Science classes teach biology, geology, physics, chemistry, etc. When the subject of evolution arises, it isn't "Darwin's theory" that gets taught, it is the current understandings of evolution. Darwin gets made out to be the bad guy by anti-science nutjobs that need one, but evolution that is taught in science classes today goes far and beyond what Darwin understood. He pinned the foundations for natural selection, but this is but one of the evolutionary forces. The rhetoric of anti-science nutters doesn't hold up here.


...but today there is no answers and only debate and controversy. We don't know how life came to be, we can only speculate that evolution played a part because we have evidence. But, we lack evidence of the process.

Thats where you are completely wrong. We have a preponderance of evidence from many fields of science which all converge on a common idea: that life on this planet evolved over millions of years due to gradual changes over time as species adapted to take advantage of their environments. The evidence is there. Anti-science nutters simply refuse to look at it.

It is a premature conclusion to say that all species are the result of evolutionary changes.

Not when the evidence is there to support the conclusion. Not when predictions that were made based on available evidence actually resulted in those discoveries that were consistent with the predictions.

Walked, aliens, boats, continental shift, stowed, etc. No one was around, no one can say for sure.

Bullshit. That's a cop-out response. The forensic evidence of species migration and continental drift are conclusive. One doesn't need to have been present to be able to use the evidence available to piece together what happened. Unless the laws of physics were different several millions of years ago, we have a very good understanding of what happened millions of years ago with regard to stratagraphic deposition, continental drift, tectonic activity, climate, etc. Just because you lack the education in the subject doesn't mean that others do. Its beginning to look like it isn't an argument between theists and atheists at all: its a conflict between the educated and the un-educated. It would appear that the under-educated fear that others will become smarter than they.

Micro evolution is observed. Macro evolution cannot be, we only have fossils.

Poppycock. More evidence of your lack of education. If you persist in debating evolution, you really should educate yourself. Macro/micro -evolution are creationist rhetoric. Its either evolution or it isn't. Evolution is easily observed in the fossil record. Just because you are't educated enough to see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

The evolutionary tree could have resulted from a combination of both microevolutionary changes and the introduction of new species by a designer. If not, why not?

It may have. There just isn't any evidence to support that speculation. There is, however, a preponderance of evidence that supports the fact of evolution. Miniature pink elephants might exist in my refridgerator when the door is shut, disappearing the second it is opened. Its possible, but there is no evidence to support that either.

Why is it necessary that nature is responsible for macro changes? What proof says that it is the only solution? The only proof is if it is simulated without the aid of external influences, which would take a billion years. Good luck.

More superstitious, belief influenced poppycock. Fundamentalist, anti-science types like to use the word "proof" when it comes to science because it becomes a strawman argument for them. They wouldn't dare use such jargon in their religious studies, not in any meaningful way. The evidence is there. Is it the only solution to say that life on this planet is the result of gradual changes over time? It would appear so. No other explanation has provided any testable results or offered any verifiable predictions. Only the ignorant, undereducated, and the theistic fanatics maintain that the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists demonstrating the veracity of evolutionary theory isn't there. As demonstrated by your posts.

Looks like a human, so it must be a human, eh? Besides, that still does not disprove an external entity from performing these macro changes. You are speculating.

More evidence of your overwhelming ignorance, under-education, or theistic indoctrination. I didn't say 'human,' I said 'hominid.' Why introduce an "external entity" when one does not appear to be needed? I don't discount that some deity may have created the universe. But I don't see the evidence that one has nor do I see the evidence that one is needed.

The theory of evolution has been proven. Far and beyond what is needed to say that it is factual, that it really happened. Its a shame that there are those that refuse to educate themselves or tear themselves away from the indoctrinations of theistic fanatics. Evolution in no way threatens religion or religious beliefs. I'm an atheist, but even I don't discount entirely the possibility of some deity that created the universe. If some deity does exist, then surely Its power is infinite enough that it could have put into motion the events exactly as science has thus far described. A religion threatened by the discoveries of science is a weak religion, indeed. And one not worthy to be followed.

Also, I'd like to see science perform a project genesis of sorts. Create evolutionary life from chemicals and I would definitely take a second look at the existence of God.

Now that's a shame. You don't deserve whatever religion you belong to if such an experiment would cause you to question the existence of your god. Who are you to second-guess or assume that god's limitations or boundaries? What if that god made the universe able to create life in such a manner?

Bullshit. That's a cop-out response. The forensic evidence of species migration and continental drift are conclusive. One doesn't need to have been present to be able to use the evidence available to piece together what happened. Unless the laws of physics were different several millions of years ago, we have a very good understanding of what happened millions of years ago with regard to stratagraphic deposition, continental drift, tectonic activity, climate, etc. Just because you lack the education in the subject doesn't mean that others do. Its beginning to look like it isn't an argument between theists and atheists at all: its a conflict between the educated and the un-educated. It would appear that the under-educated fear that others will become smarter than they.


Under-educated fear that others will become smarter than they? What does that have to do with anything we are talking about. You are muddling the issue.

You overvalue education. Knowledge is useless without perception. You should learn to be more skeptical, and you will learn how the smartest man becomes the dumbest.

Back to the issue...so you are saying that if you see a cup of water, and two minutes later a cup of ice, it is safe to say that the temperature of the water dropped and froze? That is what we have. We don't have what caused the formation of the ice. Are we to believe that it just got cold on its own?


Poppycock. More evidence of your lack of education. If you persist in debating evolution, you really should educate yourself. Macro/micro -evolution are creationist rhetoric. Its either evolution or it isn't. Evolution is easily observed in the fossil record. Just because you are't educated enough to see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

If you had an ounce of perception, you would read my posts with more thought instead of hastily writing a response. Show some respect, because i'm not even debating evolution. All along, i'm saying evolution is a fact because we have evidence. That is not in question. Life evolves, but was that the cause of speciation? We don't have the conclusive data. Sure, we have data to speculate with and logically, it is the only solution so it is safe to assume, scientifically. But, the theory is still untested because we can't test it. So, we are left we choosing faith in science or something else.


The theory of evolution has been proven. Far and beyond what is needed to say that it is factual, that it really happened. Its a shame that there are those that refuse to educate themselves or tear themselves away from the indoctrinations of theistic fanatics. Evolution in no way threatens religion or religious beliefs. I'm an atheist, but even I don't discount entirely the possibility of some deity that created the universe. If some deity does exist, then surely Its power is infinite enough that it could have put into motion the events exactly as science has thus far described. A religion threatened by the discoveries of science is a weak religion, indeed. And one not worthy to be followed.

Very well. That is all I am contesting. So, if what we agree on above is true and energy is constant and always was, then we are not alone in the universe because if it happened once here, it surely happened out there long ago.

But, since we lack evidence of life on other planets just like we do a god, does that mean that energy and matter was at one point non-existent? Or is it better to assume that life is on other planets?

Now that's a shame. You don't deserve whatever religion you belong to if such an experiment would cause you to question the existence of your god. Who are you to second-guess or assume that god's limitations or boundaries? What if that god made the universe able to create life in such a manner?

I'm sorry, i'm a natural born skeptic, it's the way I was made. Besides, my God has been questioned countless times in the Bible by characters which are called righteous. All of them questioned God.

Also, I'd like to see science perform a project genesis of sorts. Create evolutionary life from chemicals and I would definitely take a second look at the existence of God. Unfortunately, that would take a billion years, at least, to observe the process and I don't have the time to wait
I have read this is the subject of current experimentation. It would not necessarily take a billion years.

I have read this is the subject of current experimentation. It would not necessarily take a billion years.

It would take an undertermined amount of time for life first to be created, then for it to evolve into a higher, more complex, lifeform. That is what I would like to see before I second guess my experience of God.

I don't understand why this would make any difference in your experience of God. I think a pantheistic viewpoint could include evolution. God Himself must have evolved from a less complex form.

So you know of an experiment that has proven Darwin's theory? Are you the only one? Well, by all means, share...Mr. Bigot.Laymen: Scientists 'see new species born' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm)
Scientific: Early events in speciation: Polymorphism for hybrid male sterility in Drosophila (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/24/9009)

Well I guess that answered that. Evolution can be used to predict speciation and is useful for explaining the processes that underlie macroevolution.

It has had a negative impact because I believed it to be absolute, verifiable truth as responsible for the origins of life.That was your intellect – you should have continued to heed it.

Just kidding :)

Beleive however makes you feel good about your life. It doesn't matter at all if you believe in evolution. Think to yourself: "So what?" If going to the Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Temple/Shrine makes you happy then continue do that.

I was in awe that there was controversy to something I had believed to be fact.All scientists agree that evolution occurs, it’s the mechanisms of evolution that are controversial.

Also, note that evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) is a process that occurs from one generation of living things to the next.

Perhaps you are thinking about Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)? The origin of life.

Well that’s easy: In the beginning were the kami (gods, mana, occult force). Two of these primeval kami or deities were Izanagi (male-who-invites) and Izanami (female who-invites). After giving birth to the land of Japan they produced many other kami. Izanami died after giving birth to the kami of fire. Izanagi journeyed to Hades to find her. Finding her decayed body crawling with maggots he fled in horror back to the land of the living. To purify himself he entered a body of water and when he washed his left eye there came into existence the Sun Goddess, the Great Kami Amaterasu; and when he washed his right eye Tsukiyom the Moon Kami, emerged. After years of struggle the Japanese people were waring against each other and the Sun Goddess sent her grandson, Ninigi, to become the first emperor of Japan. Shinto is unique among the religions of the world in representing the Supreme Being as feminine in gender.

As a gaijin jayleew, your origin is from a gaijin Kami, a patriarchal God that hates women, but ironically also hates gays, - he's the Middle Eastern tetragrammaton YHWH also known as YHWH-the-closet-boy. YHWH formed a naked MAN out of earth ("adama"), and set him in the Garden of Eden, to watch over it while YHWH watched over him. Adam is allowed prance around and eat of all the fruit within it, except that of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." YHWH then brings all the animals to Adam, to serve as company for him. Adam gives names to all the animals, but finds no comfort in his loneliness. God then puts him into a deep sleep, takes a rib from his side, and from it forms a woman (called later "Eve"), to be a companion. Eve is convinced by another of Gods creatures - a talking serpent *giggle* to eat of the forbidden fruit, which is kind of funny as Eve didn’t know the disobedience was bad or wrong or evil (as back in those pre-fruit days these concepts were unknown), but nevertheless takes the fall and is blamed for cursing mankind. Eve later meets a Kami visiting from Japan. This Kami slices and dices YHWA (Samurai style) and together with Eve they ride a winged unicorn to Mars where Eve gives birth to an invisible race of beings called the Zoorgburg (they can take visible form – such as on the show Futurama). The Zoorburg are what directs evolution here on Earth…. …. and this is how you jayleew came to be.

Michael .... very nice.

I don't understand why this would make any difference in your experience of God. I think a pantheistic viewpoint could include evolution. God Himself must have evolved from a less complex form.

God doesn't evolve. He's already perfect. Only bodies evolve. Visible things. Not the causes. The existence. Life. The self.

What I'm saying is that teaching Darwinism is just as biased as teaching ID. They are both theories, and if you're going to justify teaching one, then the same justification can be used to teach them all..

the key difference here is that evolution is a scientific theory and intelligent design is not. there are sets of rigorous test by which a scientific theory is lent its validity and title as a theory. intelligent design is a half-baked scheme to teach religion as science.

teaching evolution in a science class is only possiblebecause evolution as a phenomenon is observable and has repeatable demonstrable results. these results and conclusions are acheived through the use of the scientific method.

intelligent design is just an idea. there is no way to test it or to observe it or any element of it.

so theyre not really as close as you think they are. one is science and the other isnt. you dont teach 18th century english literature in biology class, you dont do phys ed in earth science class. why? because they arent science. intelligent design is just like that, not scientific, so thats why you dont teach it in a science class. it has nothing to do with fear on the part of science, but would seem to have everything to do with a fear among religious folks that science undermines their ability to believe in god. instead of admitting that belief in god is improbable, unproveable and ridiculous, they instead try to devise a method by which religion can become scientific. its transparent and ill-conceived.

c7ityi -

God doesn't evolve. That implies stagnation.

He's already perfect. Something stagnant can't be perfect.

Only bodies evolve. Everything is in a state of change, why would God be different?

Visible things.How would you know that invisible things don't change if you can't see them?

Not the causes.Why not?

The existence. Of what?

Life.All life is in a state of change.

The self. Every self is in a state of change.

Kat

Something stagnant can't be perfect.

You have a different definition of perfection than me.

Everything is in a state of change, why would God be different?

Because he is nothing.

How would you know that invisible things don't change if you can't see them?

When I said invisible things, I don't mean invisible to human eyes, I mean completely invisible: nothingness.

Why not?

Because they exist in the presence where everything is invisible and non-existent.

Of what?

Existence.

All life is in a state of change.

Only the visible bodies which life uses.

Every self is in a state of change.

By self I don't mean person.

C7ityi –

You have a different definition of perfection than me.Such is the nature of communication.

Because he is nothing.Nothing means nothing so nothing more need be said.

When I said invisible things, I don't mean invisible to human eyes, I mean completely invisible: nothingness.Something is either invisible or it is not. If you mean nothing then say nothing. Do not expect to be understood when you persist in being deliberately obscure.

Because they exist in the presence where everything is invisible and non-existent.A cause is a cause and causes can change. They cannot exist where everything is non existent since they exist which negates the state of non-existence.

Existence.What does it mean to answer a question with the question?

Only the visible bodies which life uses.There is nothing else.

By self I don't mean person.Self is that which has awareness and all persons qualify. There are many self’s. We know of no other.

Kat

Laymen: Scientists 'see new species born' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm)
Scientific: Early events in speciation: Polymorphism for hybrid male sterility in Drosophila (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/24/9009)


1. These sites make their conclusions based on the premise that speciation occurs. That is what is still being debated. Keep in mind that evolution and speciation are related, but two different things. We can speculate from evidence of evolution, that speciation occurs, but thus far, we have no experiments that have reproduced the results, precisely.

2. The first site is not proof of anything, the site is very careful at making any hasty statements or conclusions like you have. Assuming speciation does occur, biologists have not concluded that a new species has been created because the fly is assumed to be on the verge of speciation.
Well I guess that answered that. Evolution can be used to predict speciation and is useful for explaining the processes that underlie macroevolution.

A cause is a cause and causes can change. They cannot exist where everything is non existent since they exist which negates the state of non-existence.

No one has ever seen a cause. Every effect must have a cause. The only thing that doesn't need a cause is nothingness. "Something" can't cause anything, since every "something" needs a cause in order to be.

Katazia, what are you trying to do? Do you think you can defeat me? I am GOD, you can't be more powerful than I am. Are you trying to say that YOU are also GOD?

Evolution within a species is observable and is fact. But you can not conduct an experiment that would prove or support Darwin's theory, or essentially, that man evolved from some primordial slime.

Darwin's theory has been remodeled considerably since his days. Basically it turned from 'survival of the fittest' to 'survival of the most adaptable'. Regardless, to say that the present theory of evolution cannot be supported or proven is an opinion and very likely one that does not correspond to truth. In labs, early earth conditions are being simulated and amino acids + protective sheaths are resultant. More and more is being discovered concerning larger changes in the fossil record. Speciation has been replicated.
Basically, give it time and people will figure it out.


And as far as ID goes...You observe a building, you assume an architect. You observe a bridge, you assume an engineer. You observe art, you assume an artist. It's very reasonable, based upon what we know from observation and from science.

ID says:

1) People create 'things' and are 'intelligent'
2) Reality is a 'thing' that people did not create
3) Therefore some other 'intelligent' entity created reality

There is nothing reasonable about it nor does it classify as a theory and there is ZERO evidence to support the 'assumption'.

C7ityi –

No one has ever seen a cause.Don’t be silly, of course they have. I cause you to look foolish and many people have seen me.

Every effect must have a cause.OK.

The only thing that doesn't need a cause is nothingness.So either your previous statement is false or “nothingness isn’t an effect”. But that can’t be true either. Nothingness is an effect since it is the result of the absence of something. For example if something is removed then nothingness is the effect. Hence nothingness is caused.

"Something" can't cause anything, since every "something" needs a cause in order to be.But every cause is something which suggests an infinite cycle of cause and effect. You are perhaps confusing the concept of something new being created but there is no indication that anything new has ever been created from nothing. What we see in physics is a continual ever-changing morphing of that which already exists, with no creations or destructions.

Katazia, what are you trying to do? Do you think you can defeat me? I am GOD, you can't be more powerful than I am. Are you trying to say that YOU are also GOD?If you are a god then so am I. But in this competition of who can be the most idiotic then I have no problem losing to you.

Kat

The light of science has enlightened people enough to stop believing in religious fairytales and gods sitting on clouds. They can no longer believe in their naive ideas about God because they know better. But non-belief happens only if the process was not finished. When we develop further, we will once again have faith, but then, we will call no longer call IT God.

There are two types of religious people. The primitive ones with little knowledge, who don't have mind's to think on their own, and the enlightened ones with vast knowledge, who understand that they don't understand everything. Those who are between these two have become blinded because they believe they know everything already, and they're too much in love with themselves to see the truth.

Their suffering and loneliness will awaken them.

Don’t be silly, of course they have. I cause you to look foolish and many people have seen me.

You cause electrical impulses to go between your brain and your hands, and make me look foolish. Where are you? Where is the power which initiates your will?

Many people have seen your body and some people have seen your person, but is there even a single one who has seen YOU?

The Bible says: No man has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. Jesus said: those who have seen ME have seen the Father also.

In Exodus it says that "you cannot see MY face; for man shall not see ME and live." God can never be found in this world because he has no complementary half in which he could be compared to, so that he would become visible.

God can only be you.

But every cause is something which suggests an infinite cycle of cause and effect. You are perhaps confusing the concept of something new being created but there is no indication that anything new has ever been created from nothing.

If the effect is present, the cause is present. The universe is caused into being in the presence. It can be likened to a TV signal. We created the universe and the bodies as tools for ourselves to express ourselves.

Does the bible say not to use drugs ? ;)