I noticed that a Humanist in another thread made a statement that led me to believe that he did not equate "intelligent design" with religion. This is a subject that probably should get more serious & widespread discussion than it does. What do you think?

Galveston1

Man WAS created perfect. He chose to rebel, put himself down, and thereby endowed us with imperfect bodies. This is just as provable as yor assumptions are.

inthebox

"No they aren't the theory of evolution does not mention this once."


------- what about darwin's "tree of life" - we all came from some common ancestor right?



"You do not need to prove it in this way for it to be an accepted theory. Just because you don't understand the supporting evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. The earth rotating around the sun has never been replicated in the lab."

----- you do not need to prove!!!! - so like religion you expect to accept this on faith? How scientific.


"That is a ridiculous straw man argument showing your ignorance of the subject and nothing more."

-- so when evolution cannot answer this question, personally attack the questioner?


"Last time I checked toilets were not capable of reproduction. This is complete logical fallacy not a plausible argument."

--- This was addressed to a plumbing expert. So who is responsible for the elegant design observed in nature? I guess your smarter than Crick.


"In order for them to truly underst and ACTUAL SCIENCE they need to understand evolution."


------ ahhh Darwinian ideology.... Why does one need to "understand evolution" to understand science? Is it because everything has to be seen through a darwinian perspective and thru evolutionary assumptions first? It is heresy to think otherwise

-------Funny thing is how can evolution explain something like renal physiology when evolution itself has no explanation. Next time you get a chance to speak to a nephrologist ask them if they can understand renal physiology without evolution? Same with a neurosurgeon, do they have to pass a evolution science board exam in order to do their job?




"Sickle cell anaemia confers a survival advantage against malaria. Funny how it only exists in population who have had extensive exposure to malaria."




------------Interesting that Malaria is an international infection, but the "advantage" of having sickle cell anemia is not international. Oh by the way, the next time you see a person in sickle cell crisis, comfort them with your "knowledge" that they have a survival advantage for malaria.




"Cystic Fibrosis is another perfect example of natural selection in humans. It confers a selective advantage to those infected by cholera. Funny how it only occurs in populations challenged by cholera."

------- Cholera has a worldwide distribution. so why don't other exposed populations have high rates of CF?




"Your hypothesis is that God just designed those with genetic diseases faulty. Way to go God!
Wait a minute isn't he supposed to be perfect and have designed us in his image..."


------per Galveston. Yes we humans are INTELLIGENT, just like our Creator. Witness the technological advances in the last 30 years alone.

templelane

No it shows we came from one population of common ancestors. The phylogenic trees do no indicate there is only on of each creature. Check out the FAQ that asking set up, because it will help clear up a lot of these myths.
http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biology...qs-211250.html

The second part you misquoted me; I said we don't need to prove it in the way you describe. Not that we didn't need to prove it at all -it has been tested numerous times over the last 150 years.

I didn't personally attack you, I attacked your argument. I wasn't calling you a straw man, that is just the name of an argument you set up for yourself to knock down. Which is exactly what you did.

So I point out the obvious flaws in your argument and because it wasn't addressed to me it's invalid?

I don't know any renal surgeons but I'll ask the neurosurgen. I can also ask an oncologist- or is that cheating?

As for sickle cell check these maps out.
Image:Sickle cell distribution.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Image:Malaria distribution.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galveston1

My initial objection still stands. It is unfair to students to deny them the right to hear both sides of this continuing argument. Evolution is full of holes, which we are told may be cleared up with further information. Maybe that information will never arrive. Creationism/intelligent design answers problems that evolution can't. The objection that a teacher cannot mention the name of the creator/designer is invalid, teacher doesn't need to, as that is the job of the parent or pastor. What the STUDENT deserves is access to ALL the information on the subject, not just that part that you may BELIEVE. The evolutionist's stance in this is intolerant.

Theory should not be confused with observation.

Capuchin

What continuing argument? In science classrooms, we should teach what scientists study, and in this area that is overwhelmingly the theory of evolution. There is no continuing argument in science about this, because intelligent design is not science.

Also it is not anywhere near as full of holes as you believe.

jillianleab

ID still isn't science, and the way the people who want it in the classroom to be taught, it's Genesis. That's religion, and religion doesn't belong in ANY classroom of a public school.

It's not about being intolerant - it's about putting science in a science class. We don't teach geography in math, do we? No, because geography isn't math. Do you need math skills to understand geography? Sure - if we're talking about distances and topography, but that still doesn't make geography math.

And it's not about belief, it's about evidence. ID is about belief - there's no evidence pointing to a creator/designer; only that people believe that's the only way possible.

inthebox

38-06-O. An Inconvenient Truth: Molecular Evidence for
an Early Emergence of Animals Long Before the
Cambrian Explosion in the Fossil Record
Blair Hedges (sbh1@psu.edu)
Pennsylvania State University, Department of Biology, USA

Yet, ironically,we still have a relatively POOR UNDERSTANDING of the early history
of life on our own planet. Even more pertinent to searches for complex
life in the cosmos is the fact that WE DON'T KNOW when our own complex
life—for example, animals—emerged and diversified. Was it
closer to 500 million years ago OR a billion years ago? [ quite a large gap, don't you think?] ..... But despite years of study using molecular clocks, there is still NO WIDELY ACCEPTED RESOLUTION OF THIS QUESTION. .... THIS RESULT IS INCONVENIENT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION FOR SUCH LONG GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. Explanations have been proposed for the gaps but there has been resistance
to embrace them in large part because of the perceived LACK OF AGREEMENT among molecular estimates. Now, these explanations require renewed consideration.



- From the recent Astrobiology conference.

25-02-O. How Many Hard Steps in Our Evolution?
Brandon Carter (brandon.carter@obspm.fr)
Laboratoire de l’Univers et de ses Theories, Observatoire de Paris-
Meudon, France

"This means that some of the essential steps in the evolution process leading to the ultimate emergence of intelligent life would have been hard, in the sense of being
against the odds in the available time, ...... It was originally estimated
that only one or two of the essential evolutionary steps had to have
been hard in this sense, but it has become apparent that this figure may
need upward revision...... It will be shown that the fossil record provides tentative evidence in favor of a six step scenario"

Can't explain 2 steps, yet expect evolution to have all the answers when as much as 6 critical unexplained steps now postulated.?


SPACE.com -- Primitive Alien Life May Exist, Stephen Hawking Says

"intelligent life as we know it is exceedingly rare." - Stephen Hawkins


What an understatement.


It looks like the science hardly supports evolution - coming from evolution scientists themselves.

Capuchin

i don't see evidence for that from what you've posted, all I see is evidence of our understanding progressing.

jillianleab

So, inthebox (or anyone, really), I'm curious - if we say "creator did it"; what would that mean? What would that get us? What would it change? Do you think we should say, "creator did it" and stop investigating the history of our planet and our selves? Stop looking into how we got here and became who we are today?

I don't understand the benefit of saying "creator did it" unless you define the creator who did it... Or is that what you want to do? To say, "Christian god did it, just like in the bible"?

I'm honestly curious, I don't understand your opposition to evolution, since it makes no claim for or against a creator...

Galveston1

Jillian, my objection is that evolution is taught exclusively. And don't talk about the science classroom as though it is the only place that creation/id is prohibited. Look at the efforts of Mr. Newdow, and others who OBVIOUSLY want to rid this country of any mention of any deity. The only times that creationists have been able to present their side is after successful court battles, and it shouldn't be that way. You say there is no evidence of a creator? Just look in the mirror!