Judge bans teaching intelligent design

Just finds Pennsylvania school district teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional.

The story "Judge bans teaching intelligent design" published December 20, 2005 at 10:33 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[lancebergstrom]

THANK GOD! ;-)

Long live the search for truth.

[Sculptor of Rhythm]

Uh... right.

What I find most amusing, watching this kind of debate, is that the most closed-minded think it makes them look scholarly to mask their closed-mindedness behind a pretenses like "the search for truth."

I won't defend the basis for teaching "intelligent design" -- that isn't the point of my comment. It seems to me that the point is as follows:

Whether or not you choose to accept Darwinism and its related theories as the ultimate explanation for... well... everything... You *must* accept the gaps and holes -- and to some extent, suspension of scientific belief -- required to believe this way. I'm not bashing Darwinism; I'm saying that it, like anything, requires a "leap of faith" to buy into.

And to summarilly denounce people for believing something different, on the sole basis that theirs requires a "leap of faith" as well ... We've come to love throwing the word "hypocrite" around, but perhaps we're starting to lose track of what it means, hmm?

Setting aside, for the moment, the zealous goals behind "Christian conservatives'" support for teaching "scientific alternatives," let's consider this for a moment: The insant a scientist decides that something he believe is right, beyond all challenge, just because "everyone knows it's right" ... Is the instant he ceases being a scientist.

Are Darwinists so afraid of a REAL search for truth -- that is, letting people CONSIDER alternatives to the believes they've chose for themselves -- that they must keep any outside-the-box thought off of school grounds, now?

How dare we let our future generations think for themselves.

[TeraHorine]

LET ME BREAK THIS DOWN FOR THE INGNORANT

I am a junior in high school and after reading these posts I felt obligated to show everyone what's REALLY going on...
Should public high schools teach the study of the theory of intelligent design? YES~ As controversial an issue as this you can hardly teach one topic without the other! The educational process should be taught objectively and should not exclude a theory. Intelligent Design (ID) is in short, an inference based upon scientific methods applied to astronomical data, not a religion theory of origins. As Darwin said "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." If we exclude the theory of ID students will be brought up uninformed of what other options are out there. It's not the job of schools to try and influence any student towards a specific belief. The real job of public school systems is to inform its students in every way possible. As for the supreme court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Dover- it was an activist court case and it violated the American public's view and rights to be taught ID. Teaching ID does not violate the establishment clause (or for those of you who STILL don't get it that means the first amendment when speaking on religion) nor does it violate the freedom of religion because government action happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. Dover v. Penn also violated and went against legislative intent. Let me state the WORDS OF THE SENATE: "It is the sense of the Senate that: (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religion claims that are made in the name of science; (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding this subject." There OUR PRESIDENT, OUR SENATE, and THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS think it should be taught! Let them do it! Let me leave you with something to ponder. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Can you PROVE the answer? I know I can't, and to try to do this you must look at BOTH SIDES of the issue, not just ONE. Teach ID and Evolution and show the STUDENTS what options are out there.

[Mark Morrill]

Excellent!

I know of people who believe that the world is less then 10,000
years old. To them, I'm sure they see the machinations of dark
forces at work here. Perhaps even evidence of the end of the world.
Echos of elsewhere.

There is a role for the flavors of creationism but it isn't in the
science classroom.

http://mutantjedi.blogspot.com/2005/11/evolution.html

[NickBarcia]

Good news!

Religious teaching belongs in the home. Those of us that are atheists are tired of religious people trying to jam it down our throats. We will keep our anti-religion comments to ourselves and you should keep your pro-religion comments to yourself as well.

You ARE religious

You are an atheist? You must have more faith than I do. Take a
whole lot of it to look at anything in the universe and say there isn't
a God. Or just a whole lot of stupidity to not realize that if any
aspect of the intricate balance of our earth in the solar system
where different we wouldn't exist, or to look at the structure and
make-up of a simple cell and say that it just happened to come
into existence. Did the Golden Gate Bridge just come into
existence? No it had an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! Atheist? Try
ignorant.

[nedmorlef]

atheism/human secularism

is what's being taught and that's a religion. neutral is teaching all theories.allowing the student to make up their own mind. teaching one or the other is one sided.
when the constitution was written most everyone was some denomination of christianity. the idea was that no one version of christianity could be forced on any american because, we were running from the iron fisted european catholicism. not the modern day idea of separation of church and state.that infamous and abused line was taken out of context by the atheist/human secularist.
it's unfortunate that americans have't been able to see the decline in our freedoms and western civilizaion as a whole since this ideology permeated gov't.
if you track the loss of freedom in america it coinsides with taking prayer out of school,abortion and the total removal and denial of the God of the bible from gov't and the general public.
the bible rings true once more when it says [II Cor 3:17]"where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty".

Good News?

There are many people that are tired of the atheists trying to jam
their views down our throats. You have a right to believe as you do
but so does the pro-religion!

[unigamer69]

If you really would keep your anti-religious comments to yourself...

...then, AFAIK, you wouldn't be an atheist, you would be an agnostic.

Don't quote me on it - you're welcome to enlighten me if I'm in error.

Theology (or the lack of it) is not my strongpoint. Computers are; at least in theory, they operate by concrete logical rules.

Of course, this goes out the window when you get the blue screen. :D

[Stez]

It's plainly written...

... that church and state are to be separate.

My personal beliefs don't play into this. The only thing that's important is that the Constitution is upheld and the vision of our forefathers is validated.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

So, take "In God We Trust" off our money and "under God" out of the pledge while we're at it. Those items were placed there in the 1950s out of fear of Communism. Publicly vowing your service to an Almighty was one good indicator that you weren't a witch. Uh, I mean, a Communist. Sorry, harkened back to yet another dark, sectarian moment in our history.

These things seem to come around like clockwork for us, don't they?

[Techno Guy]

RE: It's plainly written

You have been sadly misinformed. If you have any knowledge of public discourse by those who wrote the Constitution, you will know that they never intended any of the things you call for. The only way you come to the conclusions you have is by recasting the original intent of those writers in some grotesque mold. It is akin to rewriting the rules of the game while a play is in motion, but with consequences of far greater importance. Yes, many people of this day attempt to do this, but they are simply wrong.

[timSkoch]

Ummm, it's actually not...

Has anyone here actually READ the constitution? The 'Establishment Clause' (which people commonly reffered to as 'Seperation of Church and State') merely states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This judge ruled that it is _unconstitutional_ to teach intelligent design in a classroom? Why? Is that 'establish[ing] [a] religion'? I think not. I think rather that it has become hip and trendy for judges (and people in general) to find interesting, shocking, and suprising new ways to interperet old laws. This seems to me a perverted interpretetion. It is merely teaching another theory, nothing more. True, it is a theory which has close ties to many mainstream religions, but does that make it establishing a state religion? No.

[NWMoss]

Hate to tell you...

I'm not inclined to take sides in this debate, so I hate to bust your bubble Stephanie - however "In God We Trust" was put on our coinage much earlier, in 1864, and was not placed on our coins "out of fear of Communism." Please check your facts in the future before screaming conspiracy and looking foolish.
For all interested, I looked up the history and found a nice article on it located on the US Treasuries web site:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

[Techno Guy]

Unconstitutional?

Folks, take a step back. Regardless of whether you consider "intelligent design" to be eternally enlightened or just pure bunk, how many of you truly believe, as Judge Jones ruled, that it would be _unconstitutional_ to teach "intelligent design" in a public school classroom?

This one man casts both intelligent design and evolution as self-evident oxymorons in one simple ruling. It's time to look for a third alternative.

[Mister C]

Think about that for a minute

There is a substantial reason for keeping religion out of the classroom. When reality is controlled by dogma it always turns out badly. Be it fundamentalist Christianity or Scientology the result is the same, truth takes a back seat to ideology. Just look how well it has worked with foreign policy.

Whether you want to agree with it or not, evolution is a fact. Natural Selection is the theory that explains evolution, in the same way Einstein's general theory explains gravity. There is not a single shred of evidence to show that species just pop into existence. What is debated is just how natural selection works.

Unfortunately, too many people have no idea what a scientific theory is, much less how it is arrived at. To be a theory it must be a validated hypothesis. A hypothesis in NOT a guess. A true hypothesis must satisfy three criteria. It must take into account ALL available data. It must explain all the observed phenomena. And it must make predictions that are testable and verifiable. Darwin's theory does this, the others do not.

Nothing in Biology makes any sense without evolution. Religious dogma explains nothing. No one ever built a 747, programmed a computer, or cured a disease with dogma, it is science that does that. And that is why science belongs in schools not fairy tales. Plain and simple.

[jesdog]

Unconstitutional

Aapparently the voters of the PA school district agreed with the court and by exercising their democratic franchise (the ballot box) all but one of the school members who arrogantly imposed their will over the people's in that district have been fired at the ballot box.

.... and it wasn't just one judge who framed the opinion. There were a host of lawyers (who preumably HAVE read the constitution and read constitutional law) who argued the pros and cons of the case. This was not an arbitrary act of one judicial officer imposing his will ... the could be no decision if there wasn't a case presented, and in this case it was presented by 11 plaintiffs.

[Get_Bent]

Here's why it's unconstitutional

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


The public school system is run on government funds. By teaching "intelligent design", the school system (and by extension, the local / state / federal government) would be endorsing a thinly disguised tenet of Christianity. Since not everyone is a Christian, this act would infringe on _their_ religious beliefs. Because of this, teaching religion is a public school is illegal.

Public schools should be neutral as far as any religion is concerned. If you want religious teaching, then enroll in a private school run by a church / synagogue / mosque / temple / whatever.

[timSkoch]

Re: Here's why it's unconstitutional...

"By teaching 'intelligent design', the school system (and by extension, the local / state / federal government) would be endorsing a thinly disguised tenet of Christianity."

I have yet to see why this conversation keeps getting slanted towards a "Christian adgenda". The topic at hand is _intelligent design_, NOT creation of the world in seven days by Jesus Christ. MOST world religions hold a belief of an intelligent design of the world/universe. So why does the topic of Christianity keep entering the debate? Aren't muslims and hindis much more widespread, by ORDERS of MAGNITUDE? This issue keeps getting touted as an attack by Christianity on solid, hard-proved facts, and that is simply not the case.

"Since not everyone is a Christian, this act would infringe on _their_ religious beliefs. Because of this, teaching religion is a public school is illegal."

Okay, so the logic here is this: Person A does not believe in ID. Person B teaches it in public schools. Person A's religious rights are impinged upon. Correct?
Then doesn't this same logic apply backwards? (I.e. Person B doesn't believe in evolution. Person A teaches it in public schools. Person B's religious rights ousted.) I've heard this argument before, and if taken seriously the only logical conclusion is that we should teach NOTHING in classrooms. Everyone knows that this is unreasonable, so why do people keep bringing this argument up?

[pkelley1138]

I'm wrong. Lets teach ID...

and while we're at it, let's not unfairly exclude other alternative
theories. If the test of what an acceptable alternative is, is that
it's simply "plausible", then I've got another one to battle over:

"An alien race, billions of years old, has frequently visited our
planet. They have brought all the extra flora and fauna that they
don't have room for, with them from their home planet and left
it here to thrive. This would explain gaps in the fossil record,
since they may not have dumped ALL their species here." IT'S
PLAUSIBLE!

Here's another, "I did it!"

I'm sure everyone can think of a plausible theory. Don't worry,
you don't have to prove anything, or predict anything, or show
any evidence. And we certainly won't persecute you by excluding
your theory from the classroom. Have Fun! You can invoke
things like elves, or witchcraft, or that we are all inside a
computer program, whatever you want!

Boy, science class is gonna take a really long time to get thru.

[timSkoch]

That was a very unintelligent comment

This comment is sarcastic and contributes nothing to an otherwise mature discussion on the topic.

[erniebass]

Teach how to think intelligently

Every theory, law or hypothesis in science has gaps and holes including the law of gravity, the theory of light, relativity, the origin of the cosmos, and on and on. Science continues to try to fill these holes and gaps by building on existing knowledge or considering alternatives to existing knowledge. Because real science does the latter should one then indiscriminately study or explore in equal measure every alternative theory that comes along and is the public classroom the place to do that? Or should the reasearch or study be undertaken somewhere else more suited for objective exploration? Such as research institutes.
There are many people who believe the earth is flat and that the sun rotates around the earth. And these are very strongly held beliefs by perfectly normal and rational people. Should one consider teaching those alternatives in public high schools, calling them alternative "flat earth theory" and "rotation of sun around the earth" theory. And go on to teach the kids that all things on earth are no more than 6000 years old because millions of people believe that.
What is lacking in our schools are courses on how to think intelligently.

Then stop teaching fallacies as well

Evolution has NO scientific backing. Yes you read right it has
NONE. If you want to keep Intelligent design out of school than
stop teaching fallacies as well. Darwin himself renounces his
theories because there is no proof. Takes a whole lot of faith to
look at anything in the universe and say there isn't a God. Or
just a whole lot of stupidity to not realize that if any aspect of
the intricate balance of our earth in the solar system where
different we wouldn't exist, or to look at the structure and
make-up of a simple cell and say that it just happened to come
into existence. Did the Golden Gate Bridge just come into
existence? No it had an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! You wouldn't be
an atheist if you didn't believe in God, just plain ignorant.

[Mister C]

Duh!

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!

[Thirdape]

Point of fact

Darwin renounced his theories because he had an ulrta religious wife and familly. He was also extremely religious himself and only published his theories because he found out other people were following the same line of thought and might beat him out in publishing.
Also, ID does not belong in school's because it's whole basis is poking holes in other theories. In order for something to be a scientific theory it has to be able to stand on it's own.

[Mister C]

Apparently

You have never had a class in Biochemistry or you would realize just how ineffective biological systems truly are.

Take the human body for example. 60% of adults suffer from back problems primarily due to our upright posture. We have skin that is paper thin. We can be outrun by a kitten and pound for pound we are one of the weakest of creatures. That sure does not sound like an intelligent design to me.

The entire biological cycle depends on a plants ability to use just 2 wavelengths of light (640 and 680 nm). A small fraction of the energy available. Intelligent design? Really!

The entire argument comes down to outcome. If that is determined before hand then a specific outcome requires intervention, if not it doesn't.

Example. If I told you that I could do something that the odds against doing were 5.7 times 10 to the 16 th power against you would be rightly skeptical. So I shuffle a deck of cards and flip over the first 10. The chance of me doing that again in that order is 5.7 times 10 to the 16 th power against. But I just did it. Improbable yes, impossible, no.

There is a infinite number of possible outcomes, we just have this one. Without help from anyone or anything. It just turned out that way. The guide is only needed if the result is predetermined and looking at biological systems that is surly not the case.

[CJMorris]

Please!

There is ample evidence for evolution, including evidence for the evolution of the universe itself. This intelligent design stuff is some wierd, unsupported idea dreamt up by religious fanantics who want to impose their view of the world on everyone else.

[t3ndril]

No scientific backing?

The funny thing about this comment is that if you wrote it back
in 1859 when Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" you
would have been right. Darwin's arguments were largely based
on observations correlated with a strong logical argument.
Unfortunately for your post in 2005, is that EVERY single
scientific advance that pertains to evolution, things like
microbiology, genetics, neuroscience, anthropology, even
linguistics, has only built more support for the theory in in fact
filled in many many details that Darwin suggested.

The success of his theory is one of the most astonishing in all of
science, even moreso than Einstein's theories.

What I don't understand about people who make points like
yours, is that, strictly speaking, evolution says nothing about the
existence of God. It only offers a model of how organisms on
earth came to have their current form. It happens to be a model
that does not require intervention by intelligence of any kind.
But that does not mean that God doesn't exist.

[oohkumar]

Words of Jesus are what counts

All the rest is just a distraction. There's nothing worse than "Christian Nerds" screaming Intelligent Design in a typically unintelligent way.

Jesus taught us how to live on earth, the rest is just detail. ID just gives Christians a bad name and puts off intelligent people of faith from taking the words of Jesus seriously.

Go to Church, pray and be a good human being and leave science to the scientists.

[booboo1243]

Evolution a Waste

I took a night school course a few years ago and when it came
down to the last two sections there was only time enough for
one. One was Evolution and the other Ecology. Guess which one
got left out? Ecology!!

Evolution, as far as I'm concerned, is a useless outdated bedtime
story that serves no purpose in the classroom exept to cause
division and derisive comments among dissagreeing students.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing evolutionists talk about things
that happened a million years ago as if they had witnessed the
events themselves. Ban evolution from public schools and we
can end this tired debate once and for all!

[Mister C]

Unfortunately

Absolutely nothing in Biology makes any sense without evolution. You can't see atoms either but it is the scientific understanding of them that makes the technological world work. For that matter how do you know that Christ even existed if you were not there to see him?

[jdbwar07]

No, you're wrong.

No it isn't. With all due respect, thinking like this is part of the problem. Face it, so what if you took a nigh school class on evolution, you're not an expert.

"I took a night school course a few years ago and when it came down to the last two sections there was only time enough for one.."

And you think you know so much more than a P.hD biologist. I don't care if some laywer, right-wing politician, or televangelist says the evidence points to God creating the world in seven days. It doesn't mean they're as qualified as someone who's spent their entire professional lives to studying the evidence.

This type of anti-intellectualism and disdain for experts is part of the problem in America.

[CJMorris]

Praise the Lord

Sometimes courts actually make sensible decisions.

[Diamondback42]

Funny

Your comment was so great. In so few words you hit the nail on the head and said so much and in so many areas. Perfect.

[t8]

Hypocritical

Evolution is also a belief system that one must believe by faith. It is a theory and still is.
Evolution should also be banned as it is religious too. The God of Evolution is mother nature and she created all within the laws of the universe.

Even though mother nature is not a conscious entity as many an evolutionist would say, it is given the responsibility of creating all things. First off that means that nothing did a better job with camera technology than man. (Human eye vs a camera). However, if mother nature has a conscience, then it is just another god.

But any sensible person would know that design constitutes a designer. It's really simple and logical. The designer is seperate to his own creation, just as a web designer is seperate to his website.

BTW this post was made by an artificial intelligent mind that evolved by itself in cyberspace. Of course this statement is nuts because it is obvious that either a real person wrote this or a program written by a real person wrote this. But to say there is no designer in real space is also just as silly. In fact given real spaces complexity compared to cyberspace it is even nuttier to think that there wasn't a mind at work.

"The fool has said in his hear there is no God."
It seems there is no shortage of fools.

In the end, those who push such ignorance do so at their own peril.

[jdbwar07]

nonsense

"In the end, those who push such ignorance do so at their own peril."
So I guess you're saying people who don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible as you do are going to burn in hell.

[Mister C]

A huge difference

In science changes are made when the facts contradict the theory. With religion, there is nothing that could be said or evidence presented that would change their minds. Religion's entire world view and position in it is dependent on believing in dogma. Science thrives on change and controversy religion abhors it.

[Bill Dautrive]

Really sad

The theory of evolution requires NO FAITH.

It can be observed, ID can not.

It is so sad that education has dropped so far. So many people have no clue about what a scientific theory is and how it becomes a theory.

Hint: It did not come about from writings in a book that was wriiten long after the events described and rewritten hundreds, if not thousands of times.

Here is a question for you. When Cain was banished from killing Able, he eventually found a city.

Now the $64,000 question is:

Where did those people come from?

Personally I do not see evolution and the big bang theory as a contridiction to God. I belive in God, but realize that the Bible is not to be taken literally and even God is constrained by the laws of physics. Although those laws are not likely exactly as we understand them.

The point is that evolution does not prove, nor does it disprove in the existance of a god. All this silly, uneducated bickering is pointless and only serves as a means to divide and control. Very much like O'Reillys' retarded claims that a war of christmas exists. That is just more division, so the hateful, religious right can gain more power.

ID has no business in a science classroom. Student should be learning about the scientific discipline and not learning about unproven assertions that even the bible does not support. Keep ID in churches and religious classes.

[jgilligan1]

The Facts of Life

With respects to the various contributors, I feel some points are not emphasized quite as they should be.

1. Genetic evolution is a fact ? the scientific community and public at large accept the neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (T/E) to explain the observed facts for the following reasons.

The T/E is accepted because it fits and explains the observable facts, experiments conducted and data collected BETTER than any other theory that has been presented in the last 160 years. There have been three other scientifically based theories presented during this timeframe all of which were either incorporated into or made obsolete by the T/E because those that failed , did not more effectively explain observed facts.

Abbot J. Gregor Mendel through extensive experimentation showed how inheritance works, although the mathematical and statistical underpinnings of inheritance were not fully understood until the 1920?s his extensive work with peas showed experimentally the laws of inheritance and proved through experiment that traits could be predictably passed from parent to child to grand-child etc, and that traits could be dominant or recessive etc. These are simple experiments, which children can perform. Based on the these laws of inheritance, one can conduct biological experiments and/or computer based mathematical simulations with predictable results consistent with the T/E.

As mentioned above the theory fits the facts that have been observed specifically, microbiological evolution, speciation and sub-speciation and other items are among the naturally observed phenomenon. One needs look no further than the current problem of MRSA organisms and the nearly critical situation faced by our medical professionals because many of the common infectious organisms have EVOLVED resistance to our chemical drug treatments.

Since the discovery of DNA and subsequently how DNA works to replicate and guide cell functioning mankind has been able to ?see? the results of evolution in action by virtue of genetic sequencing ? if evolution didn?t work via the DNA molecule we would be unable to perform genetic identifications or determine any form of hereditary analysis ? hence another physical proof of evolution which is generally accepted by virtually every court on the planet.

80 years ago a limit existed because statistics was not sophisticated enough to fully analyze and describe the results collected by Abbot Mendel. A current limitation of human understanding is exact prediction for multiple characteristics ? which as such is not possible without a more complete understanding of dynamic systems analysis/chaos theory ? this is not a fault of T/E but a limit imposed by the limits of our knowledge of mathematics. (see Wolfram ?A New Kind of Science?) for a more extensive discussion of this branch of mathematics and it?s implications for the T/E.

2. Intelligent Design is NOT a theory and as such should not be taught in a basic science classroom as a valid theory or alternative or some such. Properly speaking it is a hypothesis or conjecture. A hypothesis is something assumed to be true for the purpose of investigation. To be a theory it would need to fit into the basic criteria accepted as the basic scientific principle.

How to make a theory in (almost) 4 easy steps
a. A hypothesis is an idea that you would like to test i.e.; ?That there is an intelligence controlling how organisms evolve.?
b. Design experiments to test your hypothesis
c. Collect and analyze data
d. Draw conclusions from your experiments - do your results support your hypothesis?
i. No ? Revise/Reject hypothesis
ii. Yes ? Congratulations you have a theory.
iii. Repeat as necessary, Conduct further experiments to more conclusively validate your new theory.

Having read extensively on the subject, Professor Behe and others posit a simple argument ? that there are various biological processes ? i.e.; parasympathetic endocrine/lymphatic reactions, the development of the flagellum etc, which ?defy? current evolutionary theory and are ?irreducibly complex? and could not have evolved by selection over time consistent with the T/E. However, Professor Behe specifically fails to mention that there exist organisms with intermediary structures and organisms, which have variant forms of these structures (with specific regard to the flagellum).

Professor Behe, et al, however, because of the popular prominence of these particulars ensure that some group or individual scientist(s) will explicitly investigate these points of contention and find the salient disproof of the ID conjecture?s primary claim.

To be perfectly fair; were there to be an experimentally testable intelligent design theory it would be one of, if not the most important scientific discovery ? proving at a minimum that some super intelligent life form has existed in the past and was responsible for at least starting or being involved in part of the evolutionary process of life on the Earth.
At most it would in fact be proof of G_d.

It is my personal supposition that G_d would not want to be provable since that would remove the primary tenant of freedom of choice.

[pkelley1138]

Just a suggestion

It's quite obvious that the many intelligent and well-formed posts describing Evolution and Natural Selection in this forum, have absolutely no effect on the proponents of ID.

Arguing against the ID folks is a waste of time and only helps to legitimize their views as worthy of debate.

If scientific arguments, facts, and evidence had any impact or held any weight in their minds, they would not be arguing for ID in the first place.

Perhaps our energies would be better spent supporting the various groups defending scientific teaching and battling against the inroads ID'ers are making in our local school districts.

Let's leave this thread to the ranters and ravers.

Hop on over to:

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/

for more intelligent discussion.

[mgreere]

Yes...

Why do people with strong religious beliefs seem so logically-
challenged?

Perhaps they have an innate deficit in reasoning.

It's hard to think of a more plausible explanation for their
stubborness in the face of (what appears to many people to be)
obvious and cogent arguments against their stances.

Obviously, if they accurately interpreted the arguments, they
would have retreated to mere faith a long time ago. Frankly,
that's as it should be, as religion relies on mere faith by
definition.

But instead, they find arguments based on logic to be attacks.
When, typically, the aim of the "attacker" is simply to make the
logical flaws inherent in their stance manifest.

Bottom line, if you're religious and do not want to appear stupid,
don't argue when all you're working with is material from
religious sources. We want debate. We just want it to be logical!

[booboo1243]

Hey!

Don't forget to take your marbles.

[Diamondback42]

Sad

Yes, sad but true. I have found very few "religious" people that can have a logical and reasoned discussion that may challenge their "faith". It hurts my mind that so much fact and so much commone sense can be so ignored by so many. We are doomed as a species.

[Thomas, David]

Dark Ages ... Is It A State of Being?

Is there a gene in human beings that trigger stupidity on a social
level, every few years?

[Steven N]

We were probably designed that way

Not very intelligent if you ask me... :-)

[Bill Dautrive]

Really sad

The theory of evolution requires NO FAITH.

It can be observed, ID can not.

It is so sad that education has dropped so far. So many people have no clue about what a scientific theory is and how it becomes a theory.

Hint: It did not come about from writings in a book that was wriiten long after the events described and rewritten hundreds, if not thousands of times.

Here is a question for you. When Cain was banished from killing Able, he eventually found a city.

Now the $64,000 question is:

Where did those people come from?

Personally I do not see evolution and the big bang theory as a contridiction to God. I belive in God, but realize that the Bible is not to be taken literally and even God is constrained by the laws of physics. Although those laws are not likely exactly as we understand them.

The point is that evolution does not prove, nor does it disprove in the existance of a god. All this silly, uneducated bickering is pointless and only serves as a means to divide and control. Very much like O'Reillys' retarded claims that a war on christmas exists. That is just more division, so the hateful, religious right can gain more power.

There is a reason the founders made a point of seperating church and state, they knew first hand what evils start by giving religion power in government and have been proven correct since. Name one country built on religion that has worked and not turned into an opprossive, war-torn mess.

ID has no business in a science classroom. Students should be learning about the scientific discipline and not learning about unproven assertions that even the bible does not support. Keep ID in churches and religious classes.

If you need more validity, even universities that are owned or funded by religious organizations teach evolution in their biology classes.

[newcreation]

why is that people only want evolution as a fact?

i thought scientific reason should have competing theories,or schools only want one way of thinking.
isnt that close minded?

[alegr]

There is no 'fact'

"Evolution is a theory, not fact".

There is no "fact" in science. There are "observations" and "experiments", that lead to "hypotheses" turned to "theories" to: a) explain these observations and experiments; b) predict new observations and the outcome of further experiments.

Neither there are "laws" in scence. What used to be called "law" (for example, Newton's mechanics) happened to be just a boundary case of more universal theory (relativity).
Euclidian geometry is just a boundary case of larger familes of possible geometries. Its main axiom (two lines can cross in one point only) doesn't hold in presence of gravity, sorry, although for all earthly purposes it's OK.

So the geometry is not "fact", just a "theory" and the geometry textbooks better get the stickers in Kansas!

[Earl Benser]

Alternate scientific theories are fine.....

But ID, Creationism, Alien seeding and other concepts are not
science. Religion? Maybe. Philosophy? Maybe. Myth? Maybe. But not
science. And for the most part, most theists are perfectly happy
with evolution. There are only a relatively small group of people,
usually under a fundamentalist banner, whose mind set does not
let them see the world as it really is. That's not a problem as long
as such people don't try to tell everyone else what science is,

[mgreere]

You missed the boat

Don't be misled into thinking scientists don't revel in alternative
theories. They do. But when an explanation becomes superbly
reliable, they carefully drop alternatives when it makes sense to,
as they should.

For evolultion, all of the alternatives were dropped a long time
ago.

Pushing the notion that evolution has alternatives, let alone one
that is obviously creationism reborn and is not a theory in the
proper sense, just shows the breathtaking, willful ignorance and
deceitful agenda of the ID community.

Perhaps people still believe the Sun still sleeps in a tent. Hey, the
Bible says so.

The "fact" that God "designed" the internal elements of our eyes
bass-ackward is especially humorous. People touting the superb
machinery of the human eye overlook its most obvious "design
flaw." Photoreceptors don't sit on the surface of the eyes
interior, where they'd be directly in the line of incoming
photons. Oh no, they are instead buried behind several layers of
cells. This brilliant design necessitates a rather large whole in
the field of vision to allow axons to leave the eyeball.

When "God designed our brains," I assume he expected us to use
them.

[just_some_guy]

Is it really about Evolution vs. Creationism?

For many years, Man believed that lightning was the direct result of an Intelligent Being hurling thunderbolts from the sky. Over time, Man discovered that the phenomenon was the result of electrons discharging through an ionized atmosphere. We create and harness this fact today, in the form of eletricity.

Does the discovery of electricity disprove the existence of the Intelligent Being? Does it prove that such a being cannot exist? No.

Does the discovery prove that such a being must exist? No.

All the discovery proves, to me, is that we should not have accepted the original theory without proof. Electricity might have been harnessed centuries earlier.

If Evolution is proven to be incorrect, does that mean Creationism must necessarily be correct? No.

The real debate seems to be about Creationism versus the quest for knowledge.

Is Man's current knowledge of the Universe as extensive as it will ever be? Is it at all possible that Man might know more tomorrow than today about how things work? Or, should Man just accept that our understanding has reached its limits, thereby acknowledging that the unexplainable must necessarily be the direct result of an Intelligent Being?

I find it depressing, and also highly unrealistic, to think we might have reached the limits of the scientifically explainable. If Evolution is proven to be false, I think that would be great - that's progress!

Is Evolution correct? Is Creationism correct? Either way, I think we should all be brave enough to say, "I don't know." We should set aside our egos and admit to our own ignorance. I know I don't have all the answers, but I would like to learn.

[mgreere]

??

Well, you can set aside your own ignorance, but evolution will
not be proven false. It's something as acceptable as gravity.

You thinking that there is actually room for a open question here
scares me.

No one wants to suppress ideas. But when something is such an
obviously good explanation, I'd like to think people would stop
dwelling on far-fetched alternatives.

Those limits you speak of will be hit a lot sooner if we stop
relying on common sense to guide our collection of knowledge.

[Earl Benser]

But we do know....

,,, at least, anyone who chooses to use his brains as more than a
hat rack would know. Evolution is real. And if you want to ascribe
evolution to some deity as its means for creation, go for it. Just
don't try to peddle the current pitches for the seven day slam dunk
or the ID fogbank. Those are not answers to anything.

[Leonard Miller]

Tagging along

I agree. I don't think the argument is about evolution or
creationism. It's about both camps feeling incredibly insecure in
themselves. The so-called Christian Coalition is afraid that if
evolution is taught, their belief in God will somehow fall apart.
On the flip side, secularists are afraid that if any other viewpoint
is brought up, they might somehow get tricked into believing in
something. Ironically, the camp that preaches the spread of
knowledge wants to restrict it in this case, while the one often
cited as close minded doesn't want to do away with evolution,
they just want to add on to what's taught. In either case, both
camps assume that they're own supporters are stupid and can't
make a decision on their own.

Just the fact that it's such a big issue should make it worth
teaching. Afterall, isn't learning all about asking questions? And
the big question for current events right now is: What's all this
ruckus over intelligent design vs evolution? Explain that one to
me teacher. I'm sorry, Johnny, I'm not allowed to discuss current
events anymore....

[Bob Brinkman]

Why the problem?

You don't teach History or Civics in Science class, why the hell would you try and teach theology or philosphy in it? Through ID in the class where it belongs and be done with it.

[Bob Brinkman]

and while you are at it

put me back in English class. ^throw

[just_some_guy]

Wisdom

I agree.

Although, kids don't appreciate an increase in learning opportunities - they'd balk at the extra reading assignments. ;)

[unigamer69]

Intelligent Design is an idea, a philosophy...

...but NOT a theory, or even a hypothesis. In order for it to have the latter title, there must be a way to test it, to try to disprove it.

A scientific hypothesis, or even a theory, can never be proven... it can only cause enough tests to disprove it to fail, that it's generally accepted to be true. It could be disproven at some later date, however, given an advance in other knowledge, new ideas, new technological methods, etc.

Since ID (as I understand it) involves supernatural elements, it precludes that.

In order for ID to gain the former title... well, it'd have to be tested as the latter many times, with failures to disprove on each try. Good luck...

I'm not trying to poo-poo their philosophy - but it's just that, a philosophy. I only object to the use of the word "theory" - as it seems to be used in the scientific sense (rather than the colloquial sense) in their arguments.