Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

by **CivBase** on Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:34 pm

Personally, I find it appalling that Darwinism is accepted as a standard to be taught in schools while if the concept of Intelligent Design is even brought up the teacher/professor/scientist/whoever faces a very good chance of loosing their credibility and even their job. Lets see what others think...

I find the movie EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed to be a fascinating movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWbTCeF_o8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDIwm_1bAEU

Oh, and this trailer is epic Very Happy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKAMuQWld6g

BTW, religious prosecution will not be tolerated. And this is not a debate about which is true, you won't be able to prove either side... though that always seems to be the result of these debates. Lets see if we can keep it clean this time.

by ReconToaster on Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:17 pm

While I disagree with Darwinism being taught as fact in schools, I also disagree with taking anything coming out of Ben Stein's mouth seriously.

While there is evidence behind Darwinian Evolution (not proof) I see none behind the idea of an intelligent creator. Those who believe in intelligent design are making a blind assumption, based on lack of evidence for other routes of thinking, that there must be a creator.

Don't try to tell me that those who believe in a god are being persecuted, when I just had to sit through a public prayer at the PRESIDENTIAL inauguration.

by **Kasrkin Seath** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:18 am

Honestly, thre is no way to actually prove either

I think that NEITHER should be exclusively taught in schools. I believe a nuetral standpoint should be taken where both sides are explained in brief.

by **Rotaretilbo** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:07 am

I agree with Seath. I think that macro evolution and creationism should both be introduced and briefly explained. Since the scientific approach to either relies primarily on micro evolution (aka natural selection), I think that can still be taught as fact.

Macro evolution: life began as simple organisms and over an extended period of time, natural selection lead to more complex organisms.

Creationism: A higher being created life and a series of simple and complex organisms, and over a period of time shorter than that of macro evolution, through natural selection, simply organisms mutated into different simple organisms, and complex organisms mutated into different complex organisms.

So, rather than writing a research paper about macro evolution exclusively, you could write a paper about either, pointing out the scientific pros and cons of whichever one you choose.

by PiEdude on Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:06 am

Since I'm in the middle on this issue, I'm just gonna sit this one out.

by **CivBase** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:12 am

ReconToaster wrote:While I disagree with Darwinism being taught as fact in schools, I also disagree with taking anything coming out of Ben Stein's mouth seriously.

You say that for all creation speakers...

ReconToaster wrote:While there is evidence behind Darwinian Evolution (not proof) I see none behind the idea of an intelligent creator. Those who believe in intelligent design are making a blind assumption, based on lack of evidence for other routes of thinking, that there must be a creator.

The problem with this idea is that Darwinism does not explain how life came to be, just what happened after that.
You don't think there is any evidence for ID? Look around you, every species is similar. It may still seem far fetched, but no more than "nothing exploded into everything and a perfect ecosystem was created that then produced the perfect combination of elements and energy that then created life" (big bang) or "life was seeded on Earth" (aliens). You know... it's amazing how many people subscribe to the big bang when it's so unrealistic.

ReconToaster wrote:Don't try to tell me that those who believe in a god are being persecuted, when I just had to sit through a public prayer at the PRESIDENTIAL inauguration.

The education system rejects the idea of ID as even being plausible. While they aren't persecuting religion, they are violating the ability to express it, which then hinders the ability to look at all possibilities.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Honestly, thre is no way to actually prove either

Which is why we aren't going to go over that.

Kasrkin Seath wrote:I think that NEITHER should be exclusively taught in schools. I believe a nuetral standpoint should be taken where both sides are explained in brief.

I like this idea, but it sadly isn't happening...

Rotaretilbo wrote:I agree with Seath. I think that macro evolution and creationism should both be introduced and briefly explained. Since the scientific approach to either relies primarily on micro evolution (aka natural selection), I think that can still be taught as fact.

You don't even have to teach creationism, just ID. Creationism relies on religion, while ID just means that there was a common creator.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Macro evolution: life began as simple organisms and over an extended period of time, natural selection lead to more complex organisms.

Creationism: A higher being created life and a series of simple and complex organisms, and over a period of time shorter than that of macro evolution, through natural selection, simply organisms mutated into different simple organisms, and complex organisms mutated into different complex organisms.

So, rather than writing a research paper about macro evolution exclusively, you could write a paper about either, pointing out the scientific pros and cons of whichever one you choose.

I like this, but sadly...

by ReconToaster on Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:29 am

The problem with this idea is that Darwinism does not explain how life came to be, just what happened after that.
You don't think there is any evidence for ID? Look around you, every species is similar. It may still seem far fetched, but no more than "nothing exploded into everything and a perfect ecosystem was created that then produced the perfect combination of elements and energy that then created life" (big bang) or "life was seeded on Earth" (aliens). You know... it's amazing how many people subscribe to the big bang when it's so unrealistic.

It's not like the "big bang" got it right on first try. There are trillions of planets out there. It's not all that spectacular that ONE of them got it right.

The thing about the big bang theory (yes, theory) is that there is evidence for it. Saying that everything looks similar only points to the fact that we all developed in similar ecosystems and under similar Earth characteristics. Saying that there is an intelligent designer is quite a jump.

We can see through special telescopes that there is "red shift" moving outward from a central point. All this means is that everything is expanding outward, and therefore may have originated from an explosion. That is evidence.

by **Lord Pheonix** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:44 am

Its so hard to believe that it took billions of years for everything on earth to become what it is today, but you believe all this happened in only 7 days?

Intellegent design is just for the religous people who don't have the stones to argue so they compromise

Oh well Darwanism actually makes sense...........BUT GOD DID IT!!!!!!

by PiEdude on Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:46 am

Lord Pheonix wrote:Its so hard to believe that it took billions of years for everything on earth to become what it is today, but you believe all this happened in only 7 days?

Intellegent design is just for the religous people who don't have the stones to argue so they compromise

Oh well Darwanism actually makes sense...........BUT GOD DID IT!!!!!!

Okay LP, if you're (allegedly) ReconToaster, then why not just post as him in this thread and not back "yourself" up with your own account?

I know that what you said wasn't true btw.

by **Lord Pheonix** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:51 am

Keep it to the subject pie

by **CivBase** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:00 am

ReconToaster wrote:It's not like the "big bang" got it right on first try. There are trillions of planets out there. It's not all that spectacular that ONE of them got it right.

With the odds less than one-in-a-google-plex... I think so.

ReconToaster wrote:The thing about the big bang theory (yes, theory) is that there is evidence for it. Saying that everything looks similar only points to the fact that we all developed in similar ecosystems and under similar Earth characteristics. Saying that there is an intelligent designer is quite a jump.

You want evidence? Jesus is evidence. You can claim that all of his miracles are fake, but then I can claim that all of your evidence is common coincidence.

ReconToaster wrote:We can see through special telescopes that there is "red shift" moving outward from a central point. All this means is that everything is expanding outward, and therefore may have originated from an explosion. That is evidence.

Then tell me, why do some planet spin backwards? Why are all of the larger planets perfectly round? I think this is more of an explanation for a common creator than an explosion.

And one more thing, how did all of the matter everywhere fit into such a small place? And why did it do that? How did it get there?

Lord Pheonix wrote:Its so hard to believe that it took billions of years for everything on earth to become what it is today, but you believe all this happened in only 7 days?

And you believe in a theory that doesn't even tell you how life started. Full of holes.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Intellegent design is just for the religous people who don't have the stones to argue so they compromise

You do realize that I started this debate... right?

Lord Pheonix wrote:Keep it to the subject pie

You just got OWNED.... OWNED OWNED OWNED!

by KristallNacht on Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:55 am

I haven't seen anything except micro-evolution taught in school.

so realistically, teaching darwinism in schools is perfectly acceptable, as i've never seen anyone teach macro-evolution which is where the real debate lies.

by ReconToaster on Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:57 am

Civ wrote:And you believe in a theory that doesn't even tell you how life started. Full of holes.

Evolution was never intended to explain how life began, it was put in place to attempt to explain how life progressed. The only people claiming to know how life began are those of religion, and they base their idea on books, not scientific findings.

The fact that we cannot yet explain the origins of life does not mean that Creationism/Intelligent Designs MUST BE TRUE.

Civ wrote:Then tell me, why do some planet spin backwards? Why are all of the larger planets perfectly round? I think this is more of an explanation for a common creator than an explosion.

Venus only spins backwards relative to us. I don't see the correlation between this and the big bang. Planets are round because their own mass and gravitation causes them to compact into spherical shapes. There's nothing magical about it Civ. They are far from perfect as well. Earth, for instance, bulges at its poles.

Civ wrote:And one more thing, how did all of the matter everywhere fit into such a small place? And why did it do that? How did it get there?

Look into Matter-Antimatter reactions. The question of how it got there is something I cannot answer, but I'm not going to jump to the conclusion of there being a god.

Civ wrote:You want evidence? Jesus is evidence. You can claim that all of his miracles are fake, but then I can claim that all of your evidence is common coincidence.

I thought this wasn't about religion Civ. Thing is, in order to use submit "Jesus" as evidence, you must first find evidence that he ever existed in the first place. The only historians of the time to reference Jesus have either been proven a false source, or have simply referred to a "Christus" or "anointed one." I'm not saying the guy never existed, but you'd think someone with such a strong following would have gathered a bit of attention.

The thing about science is that it questions itself. No real scientist would ever present a theory (Macro Evolution, Big bang) as absolute fact. Religious organizations on the other hand close their gates and dismiss any argument that does not translate well to their beliefs.

You can't ridicule science for not having an absolute answer to the origins of life, as the ID assumption is no more than a cop-out, an evasion of the scientific method.

by **BBJynne** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:05 am

I think we should just abolish schools and have every able bodied child conscripted into the military.

Invalids can be left to die.

ALL HAIL THE NEW AMERICAN EMPIRE!!

on a more serious note

I don't think either should be taught in public schools (although if there had to be a choice I'd choose creationism)
since I don't believe in brainwashing people.

by **Lord Pheonix** on Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:27 am

CivBase wrote:
Lord Pheonix wrote:quot;]Its so hard to believe that it took billions of years for everything on earth to become what it is today, but you believe all this happened in only 7 days?

And you believe in a theory that doesn't even tell you how life started. Full of holes.

How is that full of holes?

Im not saying how the shit started but how it evolved AFTERWARDS

Thats another theory all together as this is EVOLUTION, not how it began. If it was it would be God Vs Big Bang, not DESIGN VS DARWANISM you stupid twat.

I don't see how your theory explains how we figured out how to make automobiles

ITS FULL OF HOLES!!!

Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Re: Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools