Double Exposure, Inc.
  • December 01, 2020, 06:27:32 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science  (Read 8650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« on: December 04, 2008, 06:04:47 PM »

Sigh this board is starting to remind me why I find the fact critical thinking isn't taught in elementary school extremely annoying.  Creationims, or as people trying to give it scientic credibility call it Inteligent Design, is a religious belief and in no proper sense of the word a scientific theory.  Evolution on the other hand is a scientific principle that currently fits the evidenct found in nature.  Lets consider for starters the origin of each idea.

Charles Darwin went on an expidetion to the Galapogos Islands.  While their he observed various species and differences between species.  Based on these observations he began to formulate an explanation of the origin of life as we know it.  IDers found the theory of evolution in contradiction of the book of Genesis and sought out to disprove it.

The formuation of a scientific theory is based on observation and testing not religious texts.  Thats how we arrived at gravity, evolution, and every other theory accepted by mainstream science.   Their is a psuedoscienitific fringe that relies on religious belief that goes under a variety of names (creationism, inteligent design, flat earth) but even a basic understanding of what a scientific theory is can easily disprove this.

For starters a scientific theory needs evidence.   Evolution has it, its not perfect but it exists.  Creationism mostly spends its time disproving evolution.  This is in fact a complete waste of time scientificly speaking.  If science rejected evolution tommorrow creationism would not take its place.  Let me give an example.  I propose that Lucky is a mammal, but Lucky isn't a dog.  Does it logically follow that Lucky must be a cat?  Why must creationism be the one turth if evolution is wrong?  What about the Hindu idea that pretty much every thing has always existed and will continue to exist.  A universe with out beginning and with out end.  Or any of the countless other religions found on the face of the earth.  Why is the Christian version of creation automaticly elevated to the status of science? 

Theories also need to be testable and the tests have to be reproducable.  We know from many sources that you can alter a species over time till the end result is considerably different then the original.  Care for an example?  Canis Lupus Familiaris, aka the dog.  Once upon a time dogs were in fact wolves, but humans bread them for selected traits and eventually produced what we now know as the dog.  It took a very long time admitedly but it did happen.  Creationism on the other hand is impossible to test, or reproduce.  It states that God (or some equally unprovable being) created the universe all at once.  Creation doesn't continue and is beyond the ability of man.  As such we can't verify it.  We can verify that species change over time (even most creationists will cop to that) and members best suited to the enviroment tned to survive.  The change between species is admitedl beyond the scope of a human life time but we have yet to find a compelling reason to believe it doesn't occur.  Their is no arbitrary stopping point where the species ceases to change.

Also and heres a big one a scientific theory must be falsifiable.  It must be at least theoreticaly possible to prove it wrong.  This is absollutely true of evolution.  If species never change in any way then evolution must be wrong.  Any one able please provide a scenario to disprove inteligent design? 

A good theory predicts observed phenomenon.  If Creationism was right we'd expect a great deal of commonality with in broad species groups.  Yet theirs huge diversity even when you get as specific as anglo saxon human male.   Hair color, eye color, height, weight, inteligence, presense of any number of genetic disorders.  Evolution accounts for this perfectly.  Creation usually seems to have to cop out to either admitting some evolution occurs or assuming God (or ET which ever inteligent designer you want) likes variety.

For that matter good theories are capable of change.  Yes Darwin's original ideas have evolved into some thing greater as our understanding of science increases.  You can not reasonably expect Darwin to know every single detail of modern genetics for example given that the science was barely in its infancy in his day.  Scientists should by defenition be willing and able to change and adapt their ideas based on new information.  Religion and philosophy deal in the absolutes, but in science any theory, or law is open to debate including evolution. 

For that matter can any one offer evidence inteligent design is correct?  Lets lay down a few ground rules though:
1) Take it as assumed evolution is wrong
2) Take it as assumed the earth is 6,000 years old (or 600,000 or any other age you wish to insert here)
3) Take it as assumed that every event outside of the first few chapters of Genesis that deal with creation reffered to in the bible is 100% accurate as told.
4) Avoid logical fallacies:  I don't care if Darwin was a closet homosexual who hated every one who wasn't white.  I don't care what role evolution played in the holocaust (and lets face it thats thin ice because it opens the discusion to what role Christianity played in the Crusades, slavery, the Inquisition, and the Witch hunts).  These are all ad hominim abusive and not a logical arguement.  Also I'm not interested in the oppinions of a scientific minority.  First of all its an appeal to authority which is in and of itself shaky.  Second and worse its an appeal to authority that is not representitive of the pervailing oppinions.  The oppinions of philosophers and theologians is even more suspect as it qualifies as an appeal to false authority (biologists shouldn't claim expertise on religion (cough Dawkins sputter) but pastors shouldn't claim expertise on biology).  If you need clarification on the basics of logical thinking please consult your local library or the internet.

With in those parameters can you offer evidence that an inteligent being created life on the planet earth deliberately?  If you can then you have some basis for calling Inteligent Design a theory.  Otherwise its religion.  That doesn't mean you're not entitled to believe in it, or that you aren't entitled to tell your children its the one true way (freedom of religion is protected under the first ammendment) but it does mean that its science or has any place in biology class.

As for my own beliefs?  I'm one of a number of Christians who believe in evolution as the means by which God created the universe.  I beleive this both based on the scientific evidence to support evolution and the words of scripture itself.  If the days of creation are taken in a broader scope then 6 literal days (and no the one day is as a thousand years is an example), and consider the logic that God as an all powerful eternal being exists outside of time as humans can even begin to comprehend it, its really not that hard to believe the two.  Now I will be the first to admit this is a matter of religious belief not scientific fact but then I don't want to see my opinion taught as science in any school on the face of the earth.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2008, 11:43:20 AM »

I'm unclear on both what this ads to the prior discussion, and why it warranted a new thread.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2008, 02:23:48 PM »

Sigh this board is starting to remind me why I find the fact critical thinking isn't taught in elementary school extremely annoying.  Creationims, or as people trying to give it scientic credibility call it Inteligent Design, is a religious belief and in no proper sense of the word a scientific theory.  Evolution on the other hand is a scientific principle that currently fits the evidence found in nature.  Lets consider for starters the origin of each idea.
OK lets start with this. Evolution is a flawed theory that many people label to be scientifically accurate, when it is far from it. There are observable things to it but not the connecting data which would prove one animal eveolving from another. Many scientific theories have been proposed to try to back this flawed theory, but it is far from perfect.

Charles Darwin went on an expidetion to the Galapogos Islands.  While their he observed various species and differences between species.  Based on these observations he began to formulate an explanation of the origin of life as we know it.  IDers found the theory of evolution in contradiction of the book of Genesis and sought out to disprove it.
Charles Darwin went on an expedition and found stuff he could not explain and came up with a theory. Many of his suppositions have been proven wrong. He supposed that many organs were left over from when we were Monkeys. He also supposed that black people are on a lower evolutionary scale than we are. Do you believe this? The main reason that Evolution has been propped up for so many years is because scientists have no other theory other than God created, and they sure as heck will not belive that. As a result they continue to prop up a flawed theory.

The formuation of a scientific theory is based on observation and testing not religious texts.  Thats how we arrived at gravity, evolution, and every other theory accepted by mainstream science.   Their is a psuedoscienitific fringe that relies on religious belief that goes under a variety of names (creationism, inteligent design, flat earth) but even a basic understanding of what a scientific theory is can easily disprove this.
The evolutionary model has been lifted up as practically a religion by many scientists. They make up theories and try to make science fit around their theory. If you try to disprove it you are ridiculed and labelled a fringe group, or a religious group. The evidence does not point to evolution. It points to something else. I simply would like to see someone look on it objectively.

For starters a scientific theory needs evidence.   Evolution has it, its not perfect but it exists.  Creationism mostly spends its time disproving evolution.  This is in fact a complete waste of time scientificly speaking.  If science rejected evolution tommorrow creationism would not take its place.  Let me give an example.  I propose that Lucky is a mammal, but Lucky isn't a dog.  Does it logically follow that Lucky must be a cat?  Why must creationism be the one turth if evolution is wrong?  What about the Hindu idea that pretty much every thing has always existed and will continue to exist.  A universe with out beginning and with out end.  Or any of the countless other religions found on the face of the earth.  Why is the Christian version of creation automaticly elevated to the status of science? 
The reason for trying to disprove evolution is that many scientist take it as fact and not as the deeply flawed theory it is. If science would simply go back and observe the data and look objectively, they would find many questions, not answers. Many scientist who have tried to definitively prove evolution and end all the questions have become very discouraged and in that theory and began to explore other options. Many of them came to Christ through that. It is not the natural transition, however many who have gone into it with an open mind have found enough evidence to say Creation is at least a viable possibility.

Theories also need to be testable and the tests have to be reproducable.  We know from many sources that you can alter a species over time till the end result is considerably different then the original.  Care for an example?  Canis Lupus Familiaris, aka the dog.  Once upon a time dogs were in fact wolves, but humans bread them for selected traits and eventually produced what we now know as the dog.  It took a very long time admitedly but it did happen.  Creationism on the other hand is impossible to test, or reproduce.  It states that God (or some equally unprovable being) created the universe all at once.  Creation doesn't continue and is beyond the ability of man.  As such we can't verify it.  We can verify that species change over time (even most creationists will cop to that) and members best suited to the enviroment tned to survive.  The change between species is admitedl beyond the scope of a human life time but we have yet to find a compelling reason to believe it doesn't occur.  Their is no arbitrary stopping point where the species ceases to change.
Ok, there is no debate about adaptability within species. Genetics have shown a great deal of variation within species. However, there has never been shown any record of, nor any tests showing the change from one species to another. Never has it been shown that a Genome can be added to a Genetic code to allow something to move from one species to another. Adaptability does not prove evolution of species. When scientists are able to reproduce this, then perhapsthey will have something. They will not do it because it can't be done. Just like life can not be produced from nothing. The fact that this change between species can't be proven has not stopped evolutionists from believing it, and calling it science. Sounds like they have faith.

Also and heres a big one a scientific theory must be falsifiable.  It must be at least theoreticaly possible to prove it wrong.  This is absollutely true of evolution.  If species never change in any way then evolution must be wrong.  Any one able please provide a scenario to disprove inteligent design? 

A good theory predicts observed phenomenon.  If Creationism was right we'd expect a great deal of commonality with in broad species groups.  Yet theirs huge diversity even when you get as specific as anglo saxon human male.   Hair color, eye color, height, weight, inteligence, presense of any number of genetic disorders.  Evolution accounts for this perfectly.  Creation usually seems to have to cop out to either admitting some evolution occurs or assuming God (or ET which ever inteligent designer you want) likes variety.
It is the sign of a great God that he allows his creations to adapt to their environments. God knew his creations would need to do this since he created the world and knew there would be vastly different climates and such. There really is nothing that is a problem here. As far as proving ID wrong, it is a matter of proving there is no God. This is as difficult as proving Evolution wrong because evolutionists set the scientific scales. Every way we have of determining the age of the Earth is based on the calibrations that say it must be millions of years old. The fossil record is based the same way. Point blank it comes down to what you believe to be your starting points. How do you define your constants. What is your starting reference point. For instance, Red shift observations would show different things dependant on where you believe we are situated within the Universe. If you believe we are near the center, it shows the Universe to be comparatively young, if you believe we are at a point far away from the center, it shows the Universe to be millions of years old. Either way it is impossible to prove with what we have now.

For that matter good theories are capable of change.  Yes Darwin's original ideas have evolved into some thing greater as our understanding of science increases.  You can not reasonably expect Darwin to know every single detail of modern genetics for example given that the science was barely in its infancy in his day.  Scientists should by defenition be willing and able to change and adapt their ideas based on new information.  Religion and philosophy deal in the absolutes, but in science any theory, or law is open to debate including evolution. 
Or you can say that when there are many flaws, perhaps it is bad theory, and look for an alternative. If there is no God as many scientist believe, then perhaps there is another way we came about. Science will not explore this for fear of being ridiculed. They can not prove evolution because many parts of it make sense, they can not believe in Creation, because they would have to acknowledge a creator, and they can't come up with anything else that makes sense, so they continue to prop up evolution and hope that someday, someone will figure out the problems and all will make sense.

For that matter can any one offer evidence inteligent design is correct?  Lets lay down a few ground rules though:
1) Take it as assumed evolution is wrong
2) Take it as assumed the earth is 6,000 years old (or 600,000 or any other age you wish to insert here)
3) Take it as assumed that every event outside of the first few chapters of Genesis that deal with creation reffered to in the bible is 100% accurate as told.
4) Avoid logical fallacies:  I don't care if Darwin was a closet homosexual who hated every one who wasn't white.  I don't care what role evolution played in the holocaust (and lets face it thats thin ice because it opens the discusion to what role Christianity played in the Crusades, slavery, the Inquisition, and the Witch hunts).  These are all ad hominim abusive and not a logical arguement.  Also I'm not interested in the oppinions of a scientific minority.  First of all its an appeal to authority which is in and of itself shaky.  Second and worse its an appeal to authority that is not representitive of the pervailing oppinions.  The oppinions of philosophers and theologians is even more suspect as it qualifies as an appeal to false authority (biologists shouldn't claim expertise on religion (cough Dawkins sputter) but pastors shouldn't claim expertise on biology).  If you need clarification on the basics of logical thinking please consult your local library or the internet.

With in those parameters can you offer evidence that an inteligent being created life on the planet earth deliberately?  If you can then you have some basis for calling Inteligent Design a theory.  Otherwise its religion.  That doesn't mean you're not entitled to believe in it, or that you aren't entitled to tell your children its the one true way (freedom of religion is protected under the first ammendment) but it does mean that its science or has any place in biology class.
By this definition, the Big Bang can not truely be taught since noone can recreate or truely measure it. It is only a theory that explains some data. Macroevolution also can't be taught because noone has ever been able to recreate or show how one species evolves into another. Both should be defined as Religions by your definition. If science consists only of what we can observe conclusively then alot of what we call science would be religion. If I remember correctly the prevailing science of different times in history has been wrong. The world is not flat, the universe does not revolve around the Earth, Man produced Global warming scares which directly followed Ice Age scares are not going to flood the Earth by next year, etc.

As for my own beliefs?  I'm one of a number of Christians who believe in evolution as the means by which God created the universe.  I beleive this both based on the scientific evidence to support evolution and the words of scripture itself.  If the days of creation are taken in a broader scope then 6 literal days (and no the one day is as a thousand years is an example), and consider the logic that God as an all powerful eternal being exists outside of time as humans can even begin to comprehend it, its really not that hard to believe the two.  Now I will be the first to admit this is a matter of religious belief not scientific fact but then I don't want to see my opinion taught as science in any school on the face of the earth.
So what you are saying, is you belive in Intelligent Design. That is part of Intelligent Design as a theory. I am not proposing teaching God in the classroom. I simply believe that: 1) It should not be ridiculed as some fringe belief. 2) It should be mentioned that many believe in it as an alternative and if you are curious about it, how you can learn about it. 3) That Evolution is just a theory and has many flaws, and maybe even detail some of these flaws.
The problem is that schools teach it as fact and many children never learn that there is another school of thought. So people go through life ignorant, and believing there is some flawless theory for how they got here. Debate sparks interest and makes people study. All I ask is that people at least look into it without stupidly calling evolution a fact. That was how my original thread got started.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2008, 11:31:26 AM by Frigemall »
Logged

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2008, 07:26:26 AM »

Quote
black people are on a lower evolutionary scale than we are. Do you believe this?

Well if you look at the 'out of africa' therey.  Caucasions developed paler skin in the colder climates where as orignally the dark pigmantation was to deal with the hot sun of africa.  Just sayin.
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2008, 11:35:45 AM »

Well if you look at the 'out of africa' therey.  Caucasions developed paler skin in the colder climates where as orignally the dark pigmantation was to deal with the hot sun of africa.  Just sayin.

Higher / lower carries certain connotative baggage that makes it a poor choice for such a discussion. You could discuss certain adaptations in the sense earlier/later, to better effect.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2008, 11:42:42 AM »

Well if you look at the 'out of africa' therey.  Caucasions developed paler skin in the colder climates where as orignally the dark pigmantation was to deal with the hot sun of africa.  Just sayin.
Charles Darwin was a racist, as many in his time were. Part of his theory was that Blacks were somewhat lesser than whites and this justified slavery. Saying Blacks were just above apes. I believe this to be patently rediculous. If this part of his theory is hogwash, how much more of it is?
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2008, 01:03:49 PM »

Charles Darwin was a racist, as many in his time were. Part of his theory was that Blacks were somewhat lesser than whites and this justified slavery. Saying Blacks were just above apes. I believe this to be patently rediculous. If this part of his theory is hogwash, how much more of it is?

Come on now, that's pretty weak (also straying into that territory you say you're against - arguing to the man rather than the idea).

The theory, the operable part, is the observed variety of lifeforms on earth arose through adaptation and speciation from a common initial form, through the process of natural selection (in this case "natural" was intended to differentiate from directed selection, a common practice throughout the ages among those who raise plants and animals for a living). Incorrect applications of the theory do not undermine the theory, per se.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Socket

  • More Metal Than You
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 930
  • BITE MY SHINY METAL @$$!
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2008, 01:07:20 PM »

All humans are just slightly different apes; we just have shinier tools.

If you want to invalidate a theory, do it on the facts applicable to the theory and not on the judgementalism of the theorist.  Tesla had some pretty crackpot ideas, does that invalidate everything he did?  Picasso cheated on every woman he ever got close to.  Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) was a child pornographer (by today's standards) and drug addict.

Much like Lucas said: higher/lower carries connotative baggage.  A snake is no less evolved than a bird which is no less evolved than a human, etc.  Adaptations emerged and then some were bred into higher populations which can impact behavioral and geographic considerations.  Things change over time which seems to be a recurring theme in this universe.  The laws that bind the universe together don't seem to, but we lack the necessary tools to discover such knowledge.
Logged
[img width= height=]http://pics.spidermouse.us/sig.php[/img]

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2008, 08:51:19 AM »

I am by far not trying to invalidate the theory by showing the theorists character flaws. I simply raised the question. The flaws in the theory stand seperate and are glaring enough with attacking them because of Charles Darwin. I simply pointed out that perhaps he came to some of his conclusions because he wanted to prove a point that was flawed, and made some biased observations. These alone could not possibly invalidate the theory on it's own merits. There are plenty of other valid scientific justifications for that. I am currently reading a very good book on this subject written by Lee Strobel called 'The Case for Creationism'. There is a website that has excepts from this book, but I can not cut and paste from them easily to place the data here. I will try to scan some of the book pages with some of the science in the book.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2008, 08:54:27 AM by Frigemall »
Logged

Bulova

  • Paul Birnbaum. The one and only. (Aren't you lucky?)
  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2008, 10:14:08 AM »

This whole Evolution/Intelligent Design (Creationism) argument has appeared to ignore a basic fact:

Evolution theory, as a science, in actuality, does explain observable phenomena. As the understanding of such phenomena matures, portions of Evolution theory that become disproved are discarded (a process that does not invalidate the entire basis of the theory by any means, according to the scientific method) and/or replaced with refinements that more fit the observable and reproducible data. And Evolution Theory remains the best of the best that scores of great scientific minds have been able to come up with to do so.

This is not because scientists hold Evolution Theory up as if it were some sort of religion, but because it *is* the most complete theory that explains the observable data.

All of the arguments for "Intelligent Design" (which seems to throw a new coat of paint on old Creationist propaganda) attack not the foundation of Evolution theory, but the perceived "holes." This is akin to proposing that there cannot be a GUT in physics, because scientists can't explain why, when trying to combine Quantum Theory (which works on most all microscopic scales) and Relativity (which works on most all macroscopic scales) the equations collapse into nonsense. And even so, it hasn't altered the fact that Quantum Theory and Relativity are the best things out there to describe the phenomena each of them do, individually; or that physicists know that by themselves they are, in fact, incomplete.

It has already been shown that Intelligent Design proponents are using religious arguments to promote their position, and that it falls outside the realm of a scientific pursuit. It has also been stipulated that any person can believe what s/he wishes; in particular, in the US, religious belief is protected. But the bottom line is: Don't pass off your religion as a science. Until you can prove God, that test guarantees failure.

I will respect your religion, but not anyone's attempt to "scientificate" it.
Logged
President Bartlet: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Do you know why?

Will Bailey: Because that's the only thing that ever has.

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2008, 10:22:43 AM »

I will respect your religion, but not anyone's attempt to "scientificate" it.

And I won't respect either, but as for the rest - quite right. That is the important thing to keep in mind.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2008, 06:12:56 PM »

Frigemeral your completely missing the entire point of the post.  In fact you validated my point nicely by calling evolution a flawed THEORY.   To simply sum up my point.  Evolution is a theory base on evidence (flawed evidence or not doesn't mean its not a theory).  Creationism (or inteligent design if you insist) is an entirely religious idea and not a theory.  their is no scientific evidence that supports it.  Telling me that Evolution is wrong doesn't make you right it makes evolution wrong.  Whhy should religion be taught as science?  Also why your religion?  WHy not The Flying Spaghetti Monster theory?  Or how about my personal favorite the blue snufflefugus theory.  This theory says that a blue snufflefugus sneezed and that sneeze caused the universe.  Those dots in the sky are nto actually stars they are mucus left over from the sneeze.  The reason every thing is moving away from a central point is the force of the sneeze.  Sure theirs no evidence what so ever but the fact is your religious belief doesn't have evidence.  If it does the entire scientific community would be happy to listen.  So far all you've done is tell me why mainstream science is wrong you've made no effort to tell me why your right.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2008, 08:29:15 PM »

Okay...Heres my opinion take it or leave it...The main reason why Intelligent Design isnt in schools is this....Its dumb...Straight up dumb...I mean the only evidence is one fiction book that is kindof a poor read to begin with.  Really...You get to have tax free buidings for your book club and everything....Do you need the schools too?....The main thing in religion is faith....And thats it....No reasearch has been put into its theroy...It was all written and people beleaved it...It glorified the slave metality of anchent times so it was accepted.  Honestly...I dont care how much you like your invisable friend....I dont think that you should be teaching what he told you to children...That is all.

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."
- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
« Last Edit: December 12, 2008, 07:16:08 AM by Fox McCloud »
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2008, 08:48:50 AM »

Okay...Heres my opinion take it or leave it...
OK thanks, I will leave it.
   You all seem to be missing the point of what I am trying to say. I do not ask that Creationism, ID, or the Blue Snufalufagus Theory be taught in school. The only thing I ask, is that 1) Evolution be taught as it is, a flawed scientific theory, not scientific fact. 2) That there are alternatives and allow the students to look those alternatives up if they are curious about them. 3)That ID be treated with at least a modicum of respect as the prevailing theory for many years within this world. Even if it is mearly mentioned in passing. No mention of God need be made.
   Scientist have made some observations that they have interpreted as meaning certain things. Many are leaps of logic are made. The assumption, because it is the prevailing theory, however flawed, makes it easy for people to try to take the data they obtain and try to explain it while fitting within the guidelines of 'what they know'. If you take the 'givens' as being different, the same data can be interpreted to show vastly different things. It is a matter of context. Scientist have been using this means for years. Both side of the arguement do so. They use the same observable techniques and interpret them depenting on what they consider to be the 'givens'. Both theories start with something unknowable. Evolution with a mysterious Big bang, where every thing suddenly exploded out and the energy became matter. They never explain where this force came from, so they take a guess. Creationist believe that the observable energy that started the universe came from God. Whatever the theory of where this energy came from, it is unprovable, so by your arguement neither should be taught. From there everything else can be observed and calculated using scientific means.
Logged

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2008, 10:50:38 AM »

Quote
1) Evolution be taught as it is, a flawed scientific theory, not scientific fact.

It is stated in school sciance class that all sciances are just theories and observations.

Quote
That there are alternatives and allow the students to look those alternatives up if they are curious about them.

Ever heard of the internet?  And when was the last time you heard of a sunday school who teaches creationism offering any alternitives or even allowing questioning of what was taught.

Quote
3) That ID be treated with at least a modicum of respect as the prevailing theory for many years within this world.

Yeah....But no....The worlds flat theory was accepted for a long time.  Earth is the center of everything was another theory that is debunkt.  Just cause its been around for a long time does NOT make it scientific fact.  Or any less dumb.

Okay you seem to also be putting alot of emphasas on the word 'theory' here.  Well yes.  Its a sciantific theory.  ID isnt sciantific fact...Or even a theory...Sciantificly it fails...hard.  Its an idea that is based on absolutely no proof or observations.   

Also about evolution being a 'deeply flawed theory' name a couple of these flaws that make it compleately unbelevable.  Oh and those flaws can have NOTHING to do with charles darwin.  Beleave it or not there are later resarchers that have refined the theory after Darwin so I dont understand how people are getting hung up on him personally.
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up