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?

Intellegent design would be of course a "GOD" or some power that was behind the sitting in place all things for creation. ** over simple I know,

So in this, you could develop a religion from this, but then a religion by its basic is a form of worship or honor of that god or creator.
So it takes man to move form that belief to a form of religion.

It depends on how you view ID.

Some people think the universe and it's laws were set up by a designer and left alone. Humans are just a happy result. :)

Some think the universe was set up by a designer, and that designer intended for us (humans) to be the result, so the designer guided the whole process from the start, or at lease set things up so it would happen this way.

Some people think the designer is the Christian god; this is why ID is often called "disguised creationism". These people think the universe was created by the Christian god and the time that follows falls in line with the wording of the bible.

So to me, the first two versions don't indicate a specific religion; one could believe in those forms of ID and not be religious. Neither of them requires worship, a doctrine or a belief in the afterlife. But the third form (obviously) means one must believe in the Christian god, which means ID is a part of that religion.

Yes, it is religion.

It depends on how you view ID.

Some people think the universe and it's laws were set up by a designer and left alone. Humans are just a happy result. :)

Some think the universe was set up by a designer, and that designer intended for us (humans) to be the end result, so the designer guided the whole process from the start, or at lease set things up so it would happen this way.

Some people think the designer is the Christian god; this is why ID is often called "disguised creationism". These people think the universe was created by the Christian god and the time that follows falls in line with the wording of the bible.

So to me, the first two versions don't indicate a specific religion; one could believe in those forms of ID and not be religious. Neither of them requires worship, a doctrine or a belief in the afterlife. But the third form (obviously) means one must believe in the Christian god, which means ID is a part of that religion.

I like that answer...

I think ID started as the latter version, based on a Christian god... kind of like a cushion to ease the friction between the Evolutionist and the Creationist. But, like all theories, offshoots develop and someone finally said, "well, why does it have to be God that is the designer?"

I think you're right, Iza. The history of ID indicates it was developed to appear less Christian-based and "more scientific" in order to get it into the schools. All this means is that instead of "god" they say "designer", but it's still Genesis in disguise. There's a really funny episode from The Simpsons about it, actually:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/intellegent-design-religion-207541.html

Kind of long, but worth it if you have a sense of humor. :)

No it is not a religion .It is a counterpoint to the teaching of Darwinism and evolution. It basically finds scientific evidence to refute evolution. It says that creation and life and the universe are too complex to have been a series of random events . I happen to agree .

With the amazing discoveries in molecular biology it is clear that even a single cell is a complex structure ,almost a universe in itself. It is difficult to believe that life then began with light shining on a primordial puddle .

The problem with ID is that it also is not science because there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that since there are flaws in evolutionary theory therefore the only possible explanation is intelligent design.

So how should it be addressed in education ? In my view teachers should acknowledge what ID correctly points out are flaws in the theories being taught . But they should not be teaching ID as an alternative.

So how should it be addressed in education ? In my view teachers should acknowledge what ID correctly points out are flaws in the theories being taught . But they should not be teaching ID as an alternative.

Tom, I'm hoping you might expand on this, because I'm a little unclear as to what you mean...

Are you saying when evolution and the big bang theory are being taught teachers should also teach there are "missing parts", such as the gaps in the fossil record, but not mention ID? Or that teachers should say, "Here are the flaws in this theory, which are answered in ID"?

I just want to understand your opinion.

To plug back into my own question: Intelligent design can mean many different things to different people. It takes theological doctrine to have religion, which is absent in ID. From that premise, I believe that the only people who should have any argument against ID being taught alongside evolution would be Atheists. No one else's ox would be gored. And, of course, those who believe in creation are presently seeing their ox being gored. Either way, someone will not like it, so does majority rule or minority rule in this case?

I don't think anyone has an issue with ID being taught as a religious elective. The issue lies in it being taught as science. Evolution does not care about the what created the first bit of life, it defines what happened afterward. Otherwise we would have to teach all other origin ideas such the Great Teapot in the sky, the Flying Spagetti Monster (blessed by his noodle), the Pink Unicorn, etc.

To plug back into my own question: Intelligent design can mean many different things to different people. It takes theological doctrine to have religion, which is absent in ID. From that premise, I believe that the only people who should have any argument against ID being taught alongside evolution would be Atheists. No one else's ox would be gored. And, of course, those who believe in creation are presently seeing their ox being gored. Either way, someone will not like it, so does majority rule or minority rule in this case?

Sorry, Gal, I didn't mean to threadjack with my follow up to tom!

But to get on to your post, the reason ID and Creationism aren't taught in science classes is because they aren't science. When you break either one of them down to the very core, you get "god did it". Maybe lesson plans for each of them could contain scientific elements (look how complex, etc), but the result is "god did it" or, "an intelligent designer did it." That sort of answer isn't science - it's not testable, it's not repeatable, it's not observable. If we allow that to be presented in a science class, we have to add "designer did it" to everything; photosynthesis, human biology, ocean currents, etc. Science classes are supposed to teach things that are scientific and provable; ID and Creationism are not provable (unless the designer appears and says, Hey, it was me, watch this!), they are speculation. Evolution is something we are still gathering evidence on. Some day it might become a scientific law, where we have every last piece of the puzzle, no questions asked. BUT, that still won't disprove the possibility of an intelligent designer - there is no way we can ever know for an absolute fact there was or was not a designer. Since it can't be proven or disproven it can't be science.

Now, if Creationism and ID were to be taught in elective courses, there's no problem. Maybe a religious studies course, or even an alternative science-type course which discusses similar supernatural ideas. I'd even have no problem with that - but as far as either being taught in the core science class which also discusses gravity, photosynthesis, ocean currents, archeology, animal biology, human biology, etc... it just doesn't fit the mold.

I don't object to the teaching of ID in a science class because I'm an atheist, I object to it because it isn't science. But the other part of the problem is that most of the people pushing for ID are pushing for the disguised-creationism ID I mentioned in my first post. It's not a push for "designer did it" it's a push for "Christian god did it". I hope you see the difference, and see how that does have a religious doctrine attached to it.

Are you saying when evolution and the big bang theory are being taught teachers should also teach there are "missing parts", such as the gaps in the fossil record, but not mention ID?

Correct .
These are theories ;not dogmatic fact and should be taught as such .





Or that teachers should say, "Here are the flaws in this theory, which are answered in ID"?


ID does not answer the questions in a scientific manner .At best it postulates an untestable hypothesis. So I would not have it taught in a science class.



It takes theological doctrine to have religion, which is absent in ID. From that premise, I believe that the only people who should have any argument against ID being taught alongside evolution would be Atheists.

But it is doctrinaire to conclude ID expalines the origins of life or the universe .It is also doctinaire if Evolution is taught as fact instead of theory.
I am one who thinks that ID or creationism is correct .But it is not science because as a hypothesis it is not testable . The problem has been that the current scientific theories are taught as fact . That is where the correction should be made .

The problem has been that the current scientific theories are taught as fact . That is where the correction should be made .

In scientific terminology a theory is actually better than a fact and a law. Facts and laws are dime a dozen a theory is something that gathers all the facts and laws together to offer an explanation.

For example
F = mg is a law but it is only a part of gravitational theory.

The reason you can never say a scientific theory has been proven is because that is a mathematical term.

I can't prove that chairs exist. I can take photos of chairs, weigh them , characterise them and then talk to carpenters, I can make a chair. I can study the molecular components of the chair. But I cannot prove they exist. It is merely a theory that chairs exist.

Basically half the time in these debates two different languages are being spoken. It is like me trying to argue that there is no line in the bible that says:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Matthew 7:120].


Because I am sitting with a Spanish copy of the bible (not being able to speak or translate Spanish). And then arguing that I cannot find that line in the bible.

I can answer the OPoriginal question along the same line as facts and theories. ID is only part of other religions and is not a religion itself. Like laws are parts of theories but are not theories themselves.

Then evolution and Darwinism are in fact not theories but hypothesis' because the obvious flaws and gaps make them far from "better than fact "

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

There's an awful lot about evolution that cannot be tested. When you retreat millions of years into the past, there is no way you can test anything. ID does indeed give an answer to many of the gaps in evolution THEORY. And when I was in science class many years ago, evolution was taught as fact, which cannot be backed up. I am offended when my grandchildren are taught ideas as fact without any mention of the countering ideas. The idea that Biblical accounts are fiction has been proven wrong many times, but evolutionists never give up, do you? My original statement that ID has no particular deity, no doctrine, no church/synagogue/mosque, etc. proves it to be non-religious, or if you will not accept that, non-sectarian. Without ID there are simply NO answers to many pertinent questions, and there will likely never be any if we have to rely on the imaginations of men.

Evolution has been tested and continues to be tested. Every time a new genome is sequenced you are testing evolution. The predictions made by evolutionary theory have continuously been proven correct by palaeontology, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, I could go on. Doesn't it seem a tad coincidental that all these separate tests of evolution come together with a cohesive argument.

The countering ideas are not taught because they fail to conform to the scientific method. As soon as they do they will be taught. Intelligent design and creationist are philosophies not science.

Thanks for clearing that up, Tom; that's what I figured you meant.


There's an awful lot about evolution that cannot be tested. When you retreat millions of years into the past, there is no way you can test anything. ID does indeed give an answer to many of the gaps in evolution THEORY. And when I was in science class many years ago, evolution was taught as fact, which cannot be backed up. I am offended when my grandchildren are taught ideas as fact without any mention of the countering ideas. The idea that Biblical accounts are fiction has been proven wrong many times, but evolutionists never give up, do you? My original statement that ID has no particular deity, no doctrine, no church/synagogue/mosque, etc., proves it to be non-religious, or if you will not accept that, non-sectarian. Without ID there are simply NO answers to many pertinent questions, and there will likely never be any if we have to rely on the imaginations of men.

ID gives an answer to the gaps in evolution, but tell me, how would you prove ID is right? How do you prove "designer did it"? You can't. You actually, literally, physically, can't. Evolution, on the other hand, can be proven through fossil records; we just haven't found them all yet. But it can actually be proven. ID and Creationism can't be proven. You can't prove "god" or "designer" in a lab; no matter what science ever comes up with, it will not disprove "god" or "designer" either. I really think that's key; proving evolution, or teaching evolution, doesn't disprove the existence of god. But "god" or "designer" don't belong in a science class. Let the school teach evolution, then when your grandkids get home, tell them the designer of your choice is behind it - it's possible to believe in both. Or, advocate for an alternative course, as I suggested in my other post.

The problem is also that in your post, you mention "biblical accounts" which means (I assume) you think ID should be taught as "Christian god did it", right? That's a big problem. There is less evidence that "Christian god did it" than there is that "designer did it". Your statement also associates a doctrine, a deity, and a church with ID, which proves it (at least your version) to be religious.

I'm asking you honestly, not trying to pick a fight, or be a jerk, but honestly - how would you prove ID? How do you prove there is a designer? How do you test it? Repeat it? If you can't do those things, it's not science. That's not an insult, really, I hope you don't take it that way. ID is not science because it can't be proven or disproven. I also ask you to think of the definition of science - what is science? What makes something scientific? What elements must it have to make it science and not philosophy? Does ID meet those requirements?

The fundamental difference between ID (not creationism disguised ID) and evolution is ID says an intelligent force is guiding everything, or set everything up. Evolution makes no claim on an intelligent force; it doesn't discount it, or require it. You can have it both ways; you can say we crawled out of the primordial ooze and evolved into humans as we are today AND STILL believe in a designer.

Evolution makes no claim on an intelligent force; it doesn't discount it, or require it. You can have it both ways; you can say we crawled out of the primordial ooze and evolved into humans as we are today AND STILL believe in a designer.

Bingo... there is no inherent conflict in the two positions

Evolution has been tested and continues to be tested. Every time a new genome is sequenced you are testing evolution. The predictions made by evolutionary theory have continuously been proven correct by palaeontology, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, I could go on. Doesn't it seem a tad coincidental that all these separate tests of evolution come together with a cohesive argument.

The countering ideas are not taught because they fail to conform to the scientific method. As soon as they do they will be taught. Intelligent design and creationist are philosophies not science.


"That sort of answer isn't science - it's not testable, it's not repeatable"


Just on the basis of moleclar biology alone how can you say that observed scientific fact

for example:

- clotting cascade
- dna tanscription to protein translation
- the krebs cycle


proves evolution?


Is their some lab some where that has repeated the "evolution" of these processes?



THINK about dna, all the enzymes, nucleotides, the cell the nucleus - all the factors that have to go into replication and translation. Tie that in with ribosomes, mrna, trna, amino acids [ left handed only ] that act in a coordinated manner to form just one polypeptide that has to undergo post translational editing. These are the facts.


How does random chance, natural selection [ how can you know or reproduce primordial conditions?], and genetic mutations explain this? Remember you have to have the whole process and parts in the proper place in order for gene duplication, crossover, mutations to take place.

Is evolution that is the religion. Faith in the unseen.

This may surprise you, but I see no conflict between true science and the Biblical account. What I continue to find objectionable is the teaching of scientific theory as fact. I doubt that you can say it isn't happening.

There's something else that this touches, although it might be more approriate in the philosophy thread. But since the two meet here, I'll present it.

Science, at best, has only a few answers as to the "how" of human life, and makes no pretense of addressing the "why". Now, don't blow this off! It is important. Human life MUST have meaning or it becomes unbearable for most people. I doubt that there are Atheists who have not chosen something to give meaning to their lives. I submit to you that it is impossible to have civilization without a real meaning for life. Now consider this. A bright child is taught that there is no creator/designer/authority for their life. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions once they depart this life. They may know for a fact that they personally are a biological accident. What conclusion will that bright child come to if they believe this? They will conclude that life is a drag and not worth the effort, because that is the logical end of that belief. I am convinced this is the reason that intelligent students decide to kill themselves, sometimes taking as many of their classmates with them as possible. After all, life is just a bad joke, right?

You are asking how this fits in. Right now Mr. Newdow is doing everything he can to erase the very idea of God (any god) from the public life of this country. Schools, government, everything. If he is successful this country will suffer everything that the Communist countries have gone through. Failures, all. Don't take the foundation out from under the coming generations.

This may suprise you, but I see no conflict between true science and the Biblical account. What I continue to find objectionable is the teaching of scientific theory as fact. I doubt that you can say it isn't happening.

You're not listening. A scientific theory is better, i.e. more pertaining to the real world, than a single fact.

This may suprise you, but I see no conflict between true science and the Biblical account.
No, it doesn't surprise me at all. If your interpretation of the Bible is the standard for determining what qualifies as "TRUE" science, it's easy to avoid the conflict.

What I continue to find objectionable is the teaching of scientific theory as fact.
In scientific practice and terminology, fact and theory are not conflicting opposites, they are complimentary. The role of theory is to provide a coherent explanation that accounts for all observable facts, i.e. experimental results, observations and measurements. The accumulation of facts that a theory can't explain and harmonize with previously known facts is what leads to extensions, refinements, and reformulations of the theory. So the teaching of science has to convey the proper role and function of both facts (observations) and theories (explanations).

T Now consider this. A bright child is taught that there is no creator/designer/authority for their life. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions once they depart this life. They may know for a fact that they personally are a biological accident. What conclusion will that bright child come to if they believe this?

Great slippery slope you have going there!

When I was a child, I read the bible, got taught things from it and went to Sunday school. I also read encyclopaedias and learnt about dinosaurs (I used to know all the names). And basically by the age of seven I had put two and two together and worked it all out. I remember a Eureka moment in the bath when I realised as much as I wanted to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and God it didn't make it real.

And then I realised there was no authority in my life I could do what I wanted! I turned to drugs and alcohol to fill the giant gap in my life and killed my brother in a fit of rage. Oh wait... I didn't. Because no one needs God for morality or direction. It comes for within. I take responsibility for my own actions.

Inthebox the clotting cascade is a fantastic example of how evolution can not only explain a complex process but also be used to test it. You test evolution by making predictions based on it and seeing if they are correct this article summarises this.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

It also demonstrates how something that appears irreducibly complex can exist in function parts that are later assemble or built upon. I hope you take the time to read it.

Of course the clotting cascade in itself does not prove evolution (also I did mention before proof is a mathematical concept so defunct for this argument anyway) but the numerous other process that contribute with it are what makes it a scientific fact.

Now consider this. A bright child is taught that there is no creator/designer/authority for their life. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions once they depart this life. They may know for a fact that they personally are a biological accident. What conclusion will that bright child come to if they believe this? They will conclude that life is a drag and not worth the effort, because that is the logical end of that belief. I am convinced this is the reason that intelligent students decide to kill themselves, sometimes taking as many of their classmates with them as possible. After all, life is just a bad joke, right?I agree with templelane. You seem confused or lost without a god but that's a personal issue with yourself, it's certainly not the case with others. I'm raising two great kids who don't read the bible or even know about a god and they are thriving. Why? Because they have great parents who teach them how to live with others and how to respect themselves. To further add to your failed argument, less intelligent and religious people commit suicide and kill others and classmates as well. Though in Canada we see much less of that than in *religious* US.

Science, at best, has only a few answers as to the "how" of human life, and makes no pretense of addressing the "why". Now, don't blow this off! It is important. Human life MUST have meaning or it becomes unbearable for most people. I doubt that there are Atheists who have not chosen something to give meaning to their lives. I submit to you that it is impossible to have civilization without a real meaning for life. Now consider this. A bright child is taught that there is no creator/designer/authority for their life. There is no absolute right and wrong, there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions once they depart this life. They may know for a fact that they personally are a biological accident. What conclusion will that bright child come to if they believe this? They will conclude that life is a drag and not worth the effort, because that is the logical end of that belief. I am convinced this is the reason that intelligent students decide to kill themselves, sometimes taking as many of their classmates with them as possible. After all, life is just a bad joke, right?

You're right, this is getting a bit into philosophy, but since you changed the subject and it's your thread, I think it's OK!

Science, in general, does not attempt to answer the "why"; that's what philosophy is for. I'm not saying this isn't important, I'm just saying it's not a part of science - lots of things aren't a part of science. As others have said, belief in god is not a requirement for morals. Maybe for some it is (there have been people who have admitted were it not for their belief in god, they'd have no problem murdering their neighbor), but to say those without religion aren't accountable is false. True, atheists don't have someone accounting for their actions after they die, but they must account for their actions every single day of their life. I used this example in another thread, so if you read it, sorry, but I think it fits here too. Say you drive drunk, get into an accident, and kill someone. You feel horrible because you took an innocent life and made a stupid decision. You pray, and seek forgiveness from god; eventually, you feel you have repented and you are "good with god" again. You have someone to shoulder the guilt with you. Now put me in that situation - I have no one to share the guilt with. If I want to feel forgiven, I have to seek forgiveness from the family of the person I killed, likely, not an easy task. So maybe I'm not held accountable for my actions after I die, but I'm held accountable for them ever single day of my life - and the only people who can relieve my guilt are the ones I've wronged. That's where I get my morals from.

So really, I disagree with your situation with the child raised without god. A child raised with god is just as likely to be a bad person as a child raised without. It's the parenting - and from your hypothetical situation, you are implying atheists have no moral code. We do, it just doesn't come from a 2,000 year old book. I also disagree that "life is a drag" and suicide is the logical conclusion to the belief - If anything, atheists probably value life more because this is the only chance we get. Remember, once I die, that's it, game over. No pearly gates, no reunion with my loved ones, nothing. I never want to die - there's nothing in death to look forward to.


You are asking how this fits in. Right now Mr. Newdow is doing everything he can to erase the very idea of God (any god) from the public life of this country. Schools, government, everything. If he is successful this country will suffer everything that the Communist countries have gone through. Failures, all. Don't take the foundation out from under the coming generations.

Public life should be secular in this country, at least as far as the government is concerned. Religion is for home, private school and church; not public school and government buildings. This is to provide equality to everyone. I disagree that we will fall like Communist countries have if we become more secular; atheism isn't what killed those societies, it was greed and corruption. And please don't try telling me Christian politicians are more moral than non-Christian politicians... History (and recent news) would prove you wrong! :)

The foundation of religion doesn't have to be taken from upcoming generations; religion can be taught at home, in private schools, and in churches. None of those places should be stifled when wanting to send their message, unless they are getting involved in politics. I'm not saying "let's send religion underground"; I'm saying keep it where it belongs - out of my government. Build churches, put ads on TV, put up Christmas trees, have a parade, build private schools, go door to door (please pass my house!), do all of that. But don't inject your theology in my government.

Great slippery slope you have going there!

When I was a child, I read the bible, got taught things from it and went to Sunday school. I also read encyclopaedias and learnt about dinosaurs (I used to know all the names). And basically by the age of seven I had put two and two together and worked it all out. I remember a Eureka moment in the bath when I realised as much as I wanted to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and God it didn't make it real.

And then I realised there was no authority in my life I could do what I wanted! I turned to drugs and alcohol to fill the giant gap in my life and killed my brother in a fit of rage. Oh wait... I didn't. Because no one needs God for morality or direction. It comes for within. I take responsibility for my own actions.

Inthebox the clotting cascade is a fantastic example of how evolution can not only explain a complex process but also be used to test it. You test evolution by making predictions based on it and seeing if they are correct this article summarises this.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

It also demonstrates how something that appears irreducibly complex can exist in function parts that are later assemble or built upon. I hope you take the time to read it.

Of course the clotting cascade in itself does not prove evolution (also I did mention before proof is a mathematical concept so defunct for this argument anyway) but the numerous other process that contribute with it are what makes it a scientific fact.


"That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence"

Great wording but

Not a SCIENTIFIC experiment that can be reproduced or tested. No

Hypothesis - = evolution and that is it
Methods
Data
Discussion



An exposition on the clotting cascade that is already known, but does not offer
1] what specific mutations led to humanity's.
which gene's were duplicated and when
2] what were the exact natural selection factors?




The best Evolutionary science can do is a retrospective study - those are inherently biased.
Now in the medical field the best trials are prospective randomized double blind. An impossibility with evoultion because the pat answers are always the same phrases,. millions of years, gene mutation, gene duplication etc... when you look backwards / retrospectively it is impossible to control for unknows and confounding factors like oxygen levels or sunlight exposure or temperature etc... - no one can go back and say with absolute certainty that billions of years ago - these were the conditions, these were the subjects and this is what happened.




I am not saying that ID should be taught in public schools, but the inherent flaws and limitations of evolution should be taught. That is true science.

"That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence"

Great wording but

Not a SCIENTIFIC experiment that can be reproduced or tested. No

Hypothesis - = evolution and that is it
Methods
Data
Discussion



An exposition on the clotting cascade that is already known, but does not offer
1] what specific mutations led to humanity's.
which gene's were duplicated and when
2] what were the exact natural selection factors?




The best Evolutionary science can do is a retrospective study - those are inherently biased.
Now in the medical field the best trials are prospective randomized double blind. An impossibility with evoultion because the pat answers are always the same phrases,.... millions of years, gene mutation, gene duplication etc...when you look backwards / retrospectively it is impossible to control for unknows and confounding factors like oxygen levels or sunlight exposure or temperature etc... - no one can go back and say with absolute certainty that billions of years ago - these were the conditions, these were the subjects and this is what happened.




I am not saying that ID should be taught in public schools, but the inherent flaws and limitations of evolution should be taught. That is true science.

1. put some bacteria in a petri dish (you could put in some selection mechanism, like antibiotics or something)
2. wait ~ 24 hours.
3. observe how the bacteria have evolved.

Voilà. Evolution. Reproducible, testable.

Okay


1] how did the bacteria get there in the first place?

2] Are not scientists INTELLIGENTLY manipulating reactants and conditions, natural selection if you may, to get results?

3] Bacteria have evolved what? Or is it that they have adapted.
Did that bacteria develop into another bacterial species? Or developed a liver or heart
Or brain? Or should we wait billions of years to see if a fish or dinosaur or
Human "evolves?"

Intelligent design points to an Almighty Creator of this whole universe, who is infalliable and whose design is precise and perfect, He also created us , so we must have a purpose, which is to worship our creator. It would be unfair for GOD TO CRAETE US BUT NOT TELL US WHAT DO WITH THIS LIFE and how to live it TO PLEASE hIM.

He has given us an instruction manual, via His chosen people who are role models for us to emulate and these are the prophets, starting from ADAM, through to jesus and the final prophet Muhammed PEACE BE UPON THEM ALL. The final revelation given to the wHole of mankind is the holy Quran, which remains unchange to this very day after 1400 years because ALMIGHTY GOD tells us in the quran that He has revealed it and He will safeguard it hIMSELF

Almighty God says in the quran in chapter 41, verse 53:

Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” [from the Qur'aan chapter 2, verse 30]

There you have the big bang theory explained by Almnighty God Himself in the quran 1,400 years ago, for which scientists were given the nobel peace prize in the 1970's

Okay


1] how did the bacteria get there in the first place?

2] Are not scientists INTELLIGENTLY manipulating reactants and conditions, natural selection if you may, to get results?

3] Bacteria have evolved what? Or is it that they have adapted.
Did that bacteria develop into another bacterial species? or developed a liver or heart
or brain? Or should we wait billions of years to see if a a fish or dinosaur or
human "evolves?"

1] this is not a fault of evolution, evolution describes how life changes from one form to another.

2] Sure, but intelligence is not necessary. Humans throw a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve, or the wind blows a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve. When we study evolution, sure we have to be the intelligence in place, but we simulate things that could happen unintelligently.

3]Speciation has been scientifically observed many times. Adaptation = evolution, except maybe in very intelligent, long lived species which can adapt to a different environment in their own lifetime, why do you think there's a difference?

Adaptation = evolution? I though it was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.




Dang, I want to fly but I have not been able to "evolve" my own wings. Ohh some INTELLIGENT humans have DESIGNED the airplane.



So throwing rocks in pool of water make creatures "evolve" - okay - I'm going out now and throwing rocks in a pool of water - hope I don't have to wait too long.

I can remember some years ago a news article where scientists sprayed some chemical soup over warm rocks, and, voilà! After a rather lengthy period there were tiny squirming things in the soup, and the claim was made that they had produced life just like evolution theory said. There was a problem though. The squirmers couldn't reproduce! And it took a lot of intelligence to produce what they got, and God knows how many of our tax dollars! What foolishness!

Adaption = evolution? I though it was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.

You wouldn't call that adaptation?


Dang, I want to fly but I have not been able to "evolve" my own wings. Ohh some INTELLIGENT humans have DESIGNED the airplane.

You don't need wings, though.


So throwing rocks in pool of water make creatures "evolve" - okay - I'm going out now and throwing rocks in a pool of water - hope I don't have to wait too long.

Now you're being silly, do you really not understand what I was trying to say in regard to this?

and the claim was made that they had produced life just like evolution theory said

I find that hard to believe, evolution says nothing about producing life from non life.

1] this is not a fault of evolution, evolution describes how life changes from one form to another.

2] Sure, but intelligence is not necessary. Humans throw a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve, or the wind blows a rock into a pool of water that dissolves and changes the chemical make up and causes creatures to evolve. When we study evolution, sure we have to be the intelligence in place, but we simulate things that could happen unintelligently.

3]Speciation has been scientifically observed many times. Adaptation = evolution, except maybe in very intelligent, long lived species which can adapt to a different environment in their own lifetime, why do you think there's a difference?


Adaptation = evolution? I though it was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.

You are correct, I worded this wrong.

It should be :

I thought evolution was natural selection acting on genetic mutations to give a reproductive advantage to a group within a population.


I disagree with your second [2] point.

It attributes all of humanity's INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED accomplishments to evolution.

All adaptation is NOT evolution.

For example

1] Phones, today's multifunction cell phone is NOT evolution from the jumbo wall mounted rotary dialed corded version I grew up with.

2] Automotive. Hybrid engine's are an adaptation by humans using their Intelligence to adapt to rising gas prices. Remember diesel engines in the late 70s and early 80s?

3] Christianity - from Roman Catholicism to non-denominational to anti-organized religion.
This adaptation not evolution.

4] Computers - from 256 mhz to terabyte - again INTELLIGENCE - not evolution.

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?
Of course "Intelligent Design" along with "Creationism" is all about religion. For Intelligent Design you MUST have a designer and for Creationism you MUST have a creator.
It's a no-brainer. As much as the religionists attempt to tapdance away from the subject when you ask them to put a name on the creator or designer it still boils down to being God. And the proponents of this belief wish to teach it in public schools as fact. NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!

Of course "Intelligent Design" along with "Creationism" is all about religion. For Intelligent Design you MUST have a designer and for Creationism you MUST have a creator.
It's a no-brainer. As much as the religionists attempt to tapdance away from the subject when you ask them to put a name on the creator or designer it still boils down to being God. And the proponents of this belief wish to teach it in public schools as fact. NOT WITH MY TAX DOLLARS!!

Your belief in evolution is just as much a religion as is mine, and I object to MY TAX DOLLARS being spent to teach it exclusively in the classroom. Evolutionists keep saying that their assumptions can be duplicated or shown in the lab, which is nonsense. Some aspects of the assumptions may be shown, but the overall theory has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese, and is swallowed without any doubts by gullible people. Evolution has precious few answers to the "how" and none at all about the "why". Doesn't that disturb you at all?

Evolution has precious few answers to the "how" and none at all about the "why". Doesn't that disturb you at all?

The "how" is the business of science, which is taught in public schools.

The "why" is the business of religion, which is NOT taught in public schools.

Your belief in evolution is just as much a religion as is mine, and I object to MY TAX DOLLARS being spent to teach it exclusively in the classroom. Evolutionists keep saying that their assumptions can be duplicated or shown in the lab, which is nonsense. Some aspects of the assumptions may be shown, but the overall theory has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese, and is swallowed without any doubts by gullible people. Evolution has precious few answers to the "how" and none at all about the "why". Doesn't that disturb you at all?

I think that you thinking that there needs to be a "why" is a far bigger "assumption". The need to ask why is a human insecurity, nothing more.

Your belief in evolution is just as much a religion as is mine, and I object to MY TAX DOLLARS being spent to teach it exclusively in the classroom. Evolutionists keep saying that their assumptions can be duplicated or shown in the lab, which is nonsense. Some aspects of the assumptions may be shown, but the overall theory has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese, and is swallowed without any doubts by gullible people. Evolution has precious few answers to the "how" and none at all about the "why". Doesn't that disturb you at all?
Ahhh Gal! Then you wish to teach religion in the class room. You religionlists make me smile. Not being able to prove, as fact, ANY of religions claims, ie; show me a Designer or a Creator, a little miricle, (walk on water) would be nice. Failing to do that leaves you with nothing left to do but attempt to discredit science. By the way, if "intelligent Design/ Creationism " would be taught in school, what would your answer be when some kid asks, "Who's the Designer? What's the Creators name?"
You would take science back thousand years if you could and teach religion as fact. You can tapdance, all you want, around the word,"RELIGION" but when it all boils down to the nitty-gritty that's all you have, belief and faith. And, my friend, belief and faith can NEVER be knowledge. And if it comes down to following "belief and faith" I opt for "reason and logic". And for the sake of our children, let us hope the law-makers don't bow down for the religious right and allow religion to be injected into our public school system as factual as science .

Has anyone else noticed that, in the original question, the word "intelligent" is misspelled? :)

Has anyone else noticed that, in the original question, the word "intelligent" is misspelled? :)

Nitpicker! You never made a typo?

OK all you proponents of the evolution theory religion. Please explain a few simple things, like the bee hive, ant den, the woodpecker's specialized skull structrue.

And if you think humans don't need a "why" you remind me of (name forgotten) who said that if he had a lever long enough and someplace to stand, he could move the Earth. You hove no place to stand. No starting point, no goal, and no way to get there. But you do have great faith in your religion.

OK all you proponents of the evolution theory religion. Please explain a few simple things, like the bee hive, ant den, the woodpecker's specialized skull structrue. Why should we? They're part of the evolutionary process also. Now since you're making noises like a fundamentalist please explain why the earth isn't over 5000 years old? Because the Bible told you so? Gee! I( looked all over the Bible for reference to a dinosaur. I'm still looking. I realize you people would just love it if the Christian Religion ruled the civilized world. Hey! That's already happened. There was once a time when the Christian religion did, indeed, rule over the civilized world. History will always refer to that time asThe Dark Ages
and again as time passed and Religions grasp on humanity lessened history called that era The Age of Enlightenment.. There have been more wars fought in the name of religion then were ever fought over territory.
You Christians are really amusing, do you know that? When you run out of other religions to make war on you wage war on yourselves. Just look at the Protestant and Catholic conflict that's been going on for years in Ireland and only recently has been settled.
Yeah! You guys have a great track record behind you.

And if you think humans don't need a "why" you remind me of (name forgotten) who said that if he had a lever long enough and someplace to stand, he could move the Earth. You hove no place to stand. No starting point, no goal, and no way to get there. But you do have great faith in your religion.

I didn't say that humans don't need a why. I said that they do. -_-

Ahhh Gal! Then you wish to teach religion in the class room. You religionlists make me smile. Not being able to proove, as fact, ANY of religions claims, ie; show me a Designer or a Creator, a little miricle, (walk on water) would be nice. Failing to do that leaves you with nothing left to do but attempt to discredit science. By the way, if "intelligent Design/ Creationism " would be taught in school, what would your answer be when some kid asks, "Who's the Designer? What's the Creators name?"
You would take science back thousand years if you could and teach religion as fact. You can tapdance, all you want, around the word,"RELIGION" but when it all boils down to the nitty-gritty that's all you have, belief and faith. And, my friend, belief and faith can NEVER be knowledge. And if it comes down to following "belief and faith" I opt for "reason and logic". And for the sake of our children, let us hope the law-makers don't bow down for the religious right and allow religion to be injected into our public school system as factual as science .

You make some interesting statements. I do not believe that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, as the Bible makes no such claim. I, personally, have seen a few miracles, no walking on water, but healings. As to the "dark ages", wasn't that when the Druids pretty much ran things in Europe? Don't try to blame Christians for that! You, and several others need to do some serious research instead of parroting Atheist mantras. Lew Wallace was an Atheist and governor of the (then) territory of Arizona. He decided that he would write a scholarly book to discredit the Bible, and began his research. The more he studied, the less certain he became that he was right. Finally, he accepted Jesus Christ as his LORD. Now, do you know what book Lew Wallace became famous for writing?

You're funny Gal.
As to the "dark ages", wasn't that when the Druids pretty much ran things in Europe? Great job of rewriting history, but no cigar for you. The Christian Religion held sway in theDARK AGES followed by the Protestant Reformation and THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT In which science challenged church doctrine that the sun revolved around the Earth among other things. You stick to faith and belief and I'll continue to place my trust in reason and logic. Let me repeat. You Christians are really amusing, do you know that? When you run out of other religions to make war on you wage war on yourselves. Just look at the Protestant and Catholic conflict that's been going on for years in Ireland and only recently has been settled.
Yeah! You guys have a great track record behind you and if you can't walk on water or whack a stone and get MD-20 out of it you haven't convinved me in spite of all your proselytizing .

Speedball


You should understand this.

Evolution is taught in taxpayor supported public schools.
Kids are taught that from one single cell all life came from that. Fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal and so on to humans. A theory that cannot be scientifically proven because they can never scientifically reproduce this.

Breed a monkey all you want - it does not become human.

This is the "DARK AGES" -- thinking a porta potty is going to somehow over time spontaneously mutate into a working toilet system in a house with all the necessary inputs, drains, and added plumbing. The average cell is several orders more complex.


This is "ENLIGHTENMENT"
Advancing from that same porta potty and INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNING a plumbing system to include today's toilet. Surely you can understand that?


Now - do you want kids taught they are the products of random mutations and natural selection whose only goal is survival at any cost? Or do you want them to be taught ACTUAL SCIENCE. The design of the eye, or a wing or bat echolocation or genetic mutations that cause diseases such as sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, huntington's chorea etc...

Kids are taught that from one single cell all life came from that.


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




Fish to amphibian to reptile to mamal and so on to humans. A theory that cannot be scientifically proven because they can never scientifically reproduce this.


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.



Breed a monkey all you want - it does not become human.

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



This is the "DARK AGES" -- thinking a porta potty is going to somehow over time spontaneously mutate into a working toilet system in a house with all the necessary inputs, drains, and added plumbing. The average cell is several orders more complex.


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



Or do you want them to be taught ACTUAL SCIENCE. The design of the eye, or a wing or bat echolocation or genetic mutations that cause diseases such as sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, huntington's chorea etc....

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

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

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...

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.

"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. :eek:


"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? :confused:


"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. :p


"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 through evolutionary assumptions first? It is heresy to think otherwise :p

-------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.

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.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biology/evolution-faqs-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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sickle_cell_distribution.jpg)
Image:Malaria distribution.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Malaria_distribution.jpg)

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.

It is unfair to students to deny them the right to hear both sides of this continuing argument.

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.

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.

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.

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 ([email protected])
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 ([email protected])
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. :confused:


SPACE.com -- Primitive Alien Life May Exist, Stephen Hawking Says (http://www.space.com/news/080421-hawking-aliens-space.html)

"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.

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

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

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 ourselves? 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...

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!

Just for fun -- how could ID or Creationism be presented in a public school science class so no one becomes offended or confused?

I doubt you can present anything that has to do with the starting of our universe without offending someone.

Evolution : upsets those who follow ID or creation
ID : upsets those who follow evolution or creation
Creation: upsets everyone who follows ID and evolution, plus then you
Have the issue of whose creation do you use ( what religion)

I am not sure in public school you can do any one method without offending someone, So perhaps all should be touched on at least in ideas that are accepted by others.

Just for fun -- how could ID or Creationism be presented in a public school science class so no one becomes offended or confused?

It would need scientific evidence, and, for good measure, at least a hundred peer reviewed papers on the subject in well-established scientific journals. This means it should be able to make predictions, which we can then design an experiment to verify that prediction.

At the moment, ID presents none of these things, which is why it is not suitable for the science class. Because it is not science.
It doesn't upset "us" at all, chuck, it just has no place in a science classroom, because it is religion.

I doubt you can present anything that has to do with the starting of our universe without offending someone.

Good thing that evolution has nothing to do with the starting of our universe, then.

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!

I understand your objection, Gal, but you didn't answer my questions. What does teaching "creator did it" get us? Unless we define a specific creator, it means nothing. Would you creationists stop complaining if, on the first day of school the science teacher said, "We're going to study science in this class, but you should know, it is possible, though not proven, that it could all have been done by an intelligent creator. Now, moving on, let's talk about photosynthesis..."

Good thing that evolution has nothing to do with the starting of our universe, then.

It doesn't have anything to do with the STARTING of our universe.

It doesn't have anything to do with the STARTING of our universe.

Well, the first 9 billion years.

Well, the first 9 billion years.

Nope. What STARTED the process of evolution? (and yes, it is a process, not the start of anything)

Where did that first spark of life come from?

Nope. What STARTED the process of evolution? (and yes, it is a process, not the start of anything)

Where did that first spark of life come from?

Life could not get far in space, there are many hypotheses about this, and the vast majority of them require a terrestrial setting, whether it be due to a lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc. Since the Earth only formed 4.5 billion years ago, evolution is irrelevant for the first 9 billion years unless we find some evidence for an extraterrestrial form of life, at least from evolution on Earth's point of view.

Life could not get far in space, there are many hypotheses about this, and the vast majority of them require a terrestrial setting, whether it be due to a lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc. Since the Earth only formed 4.5 billion years ago, evolution is irrelevant for the first 9 billion years unless we find some evidence for an extraterrestrial form of life, at least from evolution on Earth's point of view.

During the past billions of years, when has a "lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc." or other agent spontaneously created life a second time?

Nope. What STARTED the process of evolution? (and yes, it is a process, not the start of anything)

Where did that first spark of life come from?

Doesn't matter the theory of evolution doesn't mention where the first spark of life comes from. It only deals with the first replicating cell on. Just as the theory of gravity doesn't explain where gravity comes from. The theory of gravity is still a good theory so is evolution.

I don't understand why every time evolution is brought up certain people on this board bring up other scientific theories at the same time that have nothing to do with evolution. If you want to attack evolution at least understand the theory before you do. Many of the people have had the same question answered for them many times but then go on to post that same question again in a different question. While I understand that most of the people that do that aren't going to learn anything. Please at least come up with new question so we aren't answering the same ones over again or post the answer that you got earlier and say why that's not what your were looking for.

“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today”
~Isaac Asimov

Just adding my two cents...


I did study evolution in school under the subject biology,it was just another sub-heading a part of many.
I remember we used to have one of those soft spoken, a well mannered, wonderful lady who taught us biology lessons.
If I remember right,she was a firmbeliever of the Christian faith.

She taught us evolution among all the other sub heading I haven't mentioned here.
I do not remember it being highlighted more than the other topics,nor do I remember her mentioning Creationism during the evolution topic.

What I do remember is whenever we studied any part or information on living organisms,cell structure, etc,she would always say something like, how wonderfully created each of them are... or something like -Beautiful creation or how intricately designed is this.. etc.
Being a muslim I was always in awe of everything taught in my bio class,as each seems an explanation of how the natural world I live in works from inside out.
I always used to admire her faith and how she explained things.

By not highlighting anything more than what the syllabus required,she did not go into detail in the topic of evolution.
In that way,the different students of different faiths did not have any problems nor do I remember any parents or students objecting to it.
It was just another lesson and we needed to know enough to answer a test paper :).

And during my school years and till now, if "Intelligent Design" is mentioned, in my heart I always believe it to mean the Almighty.

Doesn't matter the theory of evolution doesn't mention where the first spark of life comes from. It only deals with the first replicating cell on. Just as the theory of gravity doesn't explain where gravity comes from. The theory of gravity is still a good theory so is evolution.

I don't understand why every time evolution is brought up certain people on this board bring up other scientific theories at the same time that have nothing to do with evolution. If you want to attack evolution at least understand the theory before you do. Many of the people have had the same question answered for them many times but then go on to post that same question again in a different question. While I understand that most of the people that do that aren't going to learn anything. Please at least come up with new question so we aren't answering the same ones over again or post the answer that you got earlier and say why thats not what your were looking for.

“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today”
~Isaac Asimov

I wasn't attacking you but just making sure everyone understands that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. The one-time, first-time creation of life has never been replicated. Scientists et al. have always used existing life to create life.

Evolution is a whole 'nother ballgame.

During the past billions of years, when has a "lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc." or other agent spontaneously created life a second time?

The current hypothesizes are either the conditions on earth aren't right for forming life anymore or since there is already life on earth the chemicals aren't allowed enough time to "cook" before some other life form uses those chemical compounds for themselves. We don't teach those hypothesizes though because they don't have much evidence behind them yet but neither of those hypothesizes have anything to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. Even if we found proof that God himself came down and formed the first cell it would still not invalidate the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution doesn't deal with that theory.

During the past billions of years, when has a "lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc." or other agent spontaneously created life a second time?

I don't know, how would you find it and distinguish it from life from the first bolt etc.

I wasn't attacking you but just making sure everyone understands that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. The one-time, first-time creation of life has never been replicated. Scientists et al. have always used existing life to create life.

Evolution is a whole 'nother ballgame.

I know you weren't attacking me, I was speaking about people that disagree with the theory of evolution perhaps attack was the wrong word. Sorry.

I don't know, how would you find it and distinguish it from life from the first bolt etc.?

Through a controlled experiment that doesn't contain pre-existing life in its elements?

Through a controlled experiment that doesn't contain pre-existing life in its elements?

Using what? It's not clear what the Earth was made of at that time, we don't know what the mechanism was, and we're not entirely sure how long it took.

If it took a few hundred million years over the whole of the Earth to make one self-replicating molecule, what are the chances of us doing it in a box on a desk?

Wondergirl absence of proof is not proof of absence.

You might want to use that quote against a hard line atheist one day. However it also operates the other way with abinogenisis.

Just because it is not clear how evolution started it doesn't mean this topples the multitude of evidence that it did happen, and continues to do so.

You can even say god started it if you want. Hence why you don't have to be an atheist to know evolution is a fact.

I always thought for a theist isn't evolution a more glorious process for a deity to create than just designing everything. I mean things are designed all the time, you get very few things that have been set up to build themselves. But that is just a random philosophical tangent.

Wondergirl absence of proof is not proof of absence.

You might want to use that quote against a hard line atheist one day. However it also operates the other way with abinogenisis.

Just because it is not clear how evolution started it doesn't mean this topples the multitude of evidence that it did happen, and continues to do so.

You can even say god started it if you want. Hence why you don't have to be an atheist to know evolution is a fact.

I always thought for a theist isn't evolution a more glorious process for a deity to create than just designing everything. I mean things are designed all the time, you get very few things that have been set up to build themselves. But that is just a random philosophical tangent.

I have no problem with God using evolution to form the world. I'm not against you, but just asking questions.

I understand your objection, Gal, but you didn't answer my questions. What does teaching "creator did it" get us? Unless we define a specific creator, it means nothing. Would you creationists stop complaining if, on the first day of school the science teacher said, "We're going to study science in this class, but you should know, it is possible, though not proven, that it could all have been done by an intelligent creator. Now, moving on, let's talk about photosynthesis..."

I don't think it would be necessary to attempt to identify any creator/designer in the science class. Your suggestion about a disclaimer would be a good policy. The student is at least not prejudiced against creationism by the teacher. Do you really think something like this would fly with Newdow and associates? I kind of doubt it.

Life could not get far in space, there are many hypotheses about this, and the vast majority of them require a terrestrial setting, whether it be due to a lightning bolt, ocean foam, clay, radioactivity, sulphates etc. Since the Earth only formed 4.5 billion years ago, evolution is irrelevant for the first 9 billion years unless we find some evidence for an extraterrestrial form of life, at least from evolution on Earth's point of view.

Now here is an interesting statement! Evolution requires more time than the evolutionists allow from the beginning of Earth. If life here came from from some extraterrestrial life form, how can it be that we have not been able to locate any despite many years now of efforts to do so?

Actually, I subscribe to that extraterrestrial theory, only I call Him God/Jehovah/Almighty. Agreement at last!!

Now here is an interesting statement! Evolution requires more time than the evolutionists allow from the beginning of Earth. If life here came from from some extraterrestrial life form, how can it be that we have not been able to locate any despite many years now of efforts to do so?

Actually, I subscribe to that extraterrestrial theory, only I call Him God/Jehovah/Almighty. Agreement at last!!!

I think you win the "interesting statement" game. I don't see any evidence for evolution needing longer than it took, could you present that evidence for me?

Then you go on to say that there is no evidence for life coming from extraterrestrial beginnings, followed by saying that you subscribe to that!

By the way, you still haven't answered Jill's question.

I don't think it would be necessary to attempt to identify any creator/designer in the science class. Your suggestion about a disclaimer would be a good policy. The student is at least not prejudiced against creationism by the teacher. Do you really think something like this would fly with Newdow and associates? I kind of doubt it.

The noted word is the problem with your argument - you aren't arguing for ID; you're arguing for creationism. That's religion, and it does not belong in a science class. Unless in the right setting, it doesn't belong in a public school at all.

And that, Gal, is why ID isn't taught in school and never will be - you don't want ID, you want creationism. You can't even distinguish between the two on a silly thread on the interwebs, how do you expect it to be done properly in a school setting?

I think I did answer Jill's question. As to contacting life elsewhere in the universe, I meant by scientific means. I am in contact with intelligent life somewhere out there, but not by means of radio waves. And true, I fail to see any difference between creationism and intelligent design. Does that make you happy? The fact is that the ET that I communicate with invented quantum mechanics, among other things. We communicate by mental telepathy.
We can play with words, but the bottom line remains the same. You do not want students to have access to anything other than your perceived truth, not in ANY public school setting. I think we owe all the available information to them, and am not ashamed to say so. Why won't you admit your intolerance to any concept that disagrees with you?

[QUOTE=Capuchin]I think you win the "interesting statement" game. I don't see any evidence for evolution needing longer than it took, could you present that evidence for me?

You are the one who presented the 9 billion and 4.5 billion year figures. I just took your word for it.

You are the one who presented the 9 billion and 4.5 billion year figures. I just took your word for it.
I think you must have misunderstood me at some point, then.

And true, I fail to see any difference between creationism and intelligent design. Does that make you happy?

It does, because now you've admitted your intent. You don't want ID taught, you want the bible taught. Bible study is not science - keep it out of the science classroom and keep it in church. This is the problem with the people pushing for ID being taught in schools - you don't want ID, you want creationism, you want the story of Genesis. Time and time again the courts have ruled you can't teach the bible in public schools; stop trying to disguise it by calling it science and slipping it in where it doesn't belong. It's dishonest.


We can play with words, but the bottom line remains the same. You do not want students to have access to anything other than your perceived truth, not in ANY public school setting. I think we owe all the available information to them, and am not ashamed to say so. Why won't you admit your intolerance to any concept that disagrees with you?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I want students taught science. I've asked time and time again for someone, anyone, to define science and tell me how ID fits into that definition. It doesn't fit, because it isn't science. That's not an insult, really. I know you think it is, but it isn't. I do think we own children all the information available to them, but it should be appropriate for the subject. I would have NO PROBLEM with ID and creationism being taught in a public school in a Philosophy class, or a Social Sciences class, or a Religious Studies class. But neither of those "theories" belongs in the same class that talks about the table of elements. I'm not intolerant, and I don't oppose ID being taught because I don't agree with it, I oppose it being taught in a science class because it's not science. Would you oppose evolution and the big bang theory being taught at vacation bible school? You might say you don't... but I bet you would.

OK, Jill. You, at least do not agree with the Newdows of the world. You will have to admit that they would not agree with your take on this, that is, teaching creationism/id in some class at school.

I still think your basic premise is wrong. Those who deny any creator/designer are a tiny minority in the world. Most people see a complex universe ordered by definite laws and recognize that there is supreme intelligence behind it. There is nothing religious about this acknowledgement. Religion begins at this point as man attempts to understand and make contact with the creator. How can you say that recognition equals religion? That makes no sense to me.

OK, Jill. You, at least do not agree with the Newdows of the world. You will have to admit that they would not agree with your take on this, that is, teaching creationism/id in some class at school.

Probably not, but there are nuts on both sides of the fence. As long as it's not taught in a bible-study manner and it's not in a science class, I'll (probably) give it the green light. I think if more people learned about different religions we'd see a lot less hate and misunderstanding in this world. But don't preach it in school, and keep it out of the science classes.


I still think your basic premise is wrong. Those who deny any creator/designer are a tiny minority in the world. Most people see a complex universe ordered by definite laws and recognize that there is supreme intelligence behind it. There is nothing religious about this acknowledgement. Religion begins at this point as man attempts to understand and make contact with the creator. How can you say that recognition equals religion? That makes no sense to me.

So majority should win? Seems to me that history dictates that's not always a safe way to go, especially if it means suppressing the rights of others... but OK. So more people in this world acknowledge a creator than don't; so what? "God" in any form, by any definition, isn't science. "God" cannot be proven in a lab. "God" cannot be disproven in a lab. That's why "god" doesn't belong in a science class. Recognition of a being doesn't equal religion - identifying that being as the Christian god, or the Hindu god, or the whatever-god makes it religion. And what you and the other pushers of ID in schools want is YOUR idea of creation taught, but let's call it "Intelligent Design" instead of "Creationsim". Sorry, but that doesn't work - Genesis is Genesis, and it's religion - nothing secular about it, and DAMN SURE nothing scientific about it.

Most evolutionists here may start from a cell, not knowing how it came about. Is that taught in school? I post these links to PHDs in the sciences and they have no clear idea about how things came to be, but in grade school, evolution is taught as established fact. There is no discussion about limitations, flaws, gaps, in this theory. That is unscientific and amounts to a religion.

As to why is a Creator important?

That is metaphysical / philosophical. What really does evoultion teach my children?
- survival of the fittest - that is ultimately selfish. How does caring for the sick or elderly
The defenseless or the weak come into cultural play?
- genetic endowment is what matters
- we are no better than animals [ though at times I believe animals, especially dogs,
Behave better ]
- where does kindness, alturism, love, selflessness come into the picture with evolution?
- the idea that in evolutionary "science" there can be no dissent, no questioning of the
Established order.


Now, I understand and agree that no particular religion should be taught in school, but do evolutionists even allow for a God or Creator? In the case of my 3,5,6th grade children - no, since evolution contradicts the Biblical account.



To each his own, but I do not want my children taught unscientifically, and not to know that according to the Bible, that there is a Creator that loves them, that died for them, that gives them ultimate purpose, that grants them eternal life, that wants them to love and serve others.

There is no discussion about limitations, flaws, gaps, in this theory. That is unscientific and amounts to a religion.

If there is not, there should be. In order to get a full education, students should be told the evidence we have, and the evidence we don't have. I agree with you there. I disagree that it amounts to a religon (though it's funny you just admitted religoin doesn't talk about limitations, flaws, gaps, etc... ), but I think that's another discussion.


That is metaphysical / philosophical. What really does evoultion teach my children?
- survival of the fittest - that is ultimately selfish. How does caring for the sick or elderly
The defenseless or the weak come into cultural play?

Survival of the fittest goes much larger than caring for the sick - not to mention that those deeds are done from a social standpoint. Just because biologically it might be better to take all the people in the world who have incurable, trasmittable diseases and drop them on an island where they can't get to (infect) anyone, doesn't mean that's what biology is teaching, or what society accepts. Biology doesn't teach social situations or ethics, that's the job of society and parents. I was never taught in biology "save youself if you are fit and screw anyone and everyone else". That's a very narrow-minded and dark way to look at survival of the fittest.


- genetic endowment is what matters

Care to elaborate on that a bit? We are taught that certain traits attract mates over other traits, but again, I was never taught to hold one's traits against them, or that they are "less" than me because I'm "better".


- we are no better than animals [ though at times I believe animals, especially dogs, behave better

From a purely biological standpoint, we aren't. You're talking about a social, moral and ethical standpoint, which again, biology doesn't teach. Humans are animals; we have animalistic behaviors, it's true. Now, I'm not sure if you have an underlying motive for this point, but the fact is, we are animals, so students should be taugh that.


- where does kindness, alturism, love, selflessness come into the picture with evolution?

Those traits can be found in the animal kingdom as well; they aren't unique to humans. Even the "evils" of human behavior can be found in the animal kingdom - just the other day I saw an article about a seal raping a penguin. No, I'm not kidding.


- the idea that in evolutionary "science" there can be no dissent, no questioning of the established order.

Again, I was never taught not to question, I was just taught, "This is evolution." What people believe outside of the classroom is there own business. You make it sound like bio teachers everywhere are stading on a box above the students screaming, "NO! THIS IS THE ONLY WAY IT IS!!! YOUR PARENTS AND PREACHERS ARE WRONG!!!!" If that's happening in your child's school, I suggest you get them out of there...


Now, I understand and agree that no particular religion should be taught in school, but do evolutionists even allow for a God or Creator? In the case of my 3,5,6th grade children - no, since evolution contradicts the Biblical account.

Now there's an interesting statement... you understand and agree no religion should be taught in school, but then you go on to comment how evolution contradicts the bible... sounds like you want creationism taught in school... which is religion...

But, as said many, many, many times before, evolution does not make a claim on the existence or non-existence of a god. You can believe in both. Now, it gets difficult to believe in creationism and evolution, but to believe in evolution and science does NOT mean you have to be an atheist.

I suggest you teach your kids at home the story of creation, and tell them they will learn something else in school, because at school, we have to be secular. Tell them, "Christians believe it happend this way.... and non-Christians believe it happened that way. We know we're right because Jesus says so." Don't rely on the school to give your kids bible study.


To each his own, but I do not want my children taught unscientifically, and not to know that according to the Bible, that there is a Creator that loves them, that died for them, that gives them ultimate purpose, that grants them eternal life, that wants them to love and serve others.

Why do your kids teachers have to tell them these things? Why can't you do this at home? At church? Why can't you reserve an hour a day to sit with your kids and tell them abut this wonderful creator and all the things he has done? Why would you want a teacher, who might not have the same views and interpretations as you teach them something you hold so valuable? If I were a teacher, would you want me teaching your kids about your god? :D Didn't think so! :D

Survival of the fittest also doesn't always mean survival of the fittest individual. One of the reasons humans are so successful is because we took survival of the fittest to the group mentality. We found that by grouping together and caring for each other we increased everyone survival. If I bring you food when your sick, your much more likely to bring me food when I'm sick. This is what has made human generally good to each other. This is what gives us our morality. A lone human in the forest is easy prey but a village has a much greater chance at surviving and if you want to live in the village you have to be good. So it is in your best interest to be moral.

Morality tests have been done on people with radically different beliefs where they answer a situation.

For example Eric walks into a casualty department, why can't Dr Utilitarian kill him and give his organs to save five of his patents(they all magically match him) waiting for transplants? That way only one person dies but five people live.

Most people say it is immoral to kill Eric even if it does save the other five people, regardless of their spiritual or lack thereof beliefs. We all have the same internal moral compass that is not relative to our religions.

Evolution or in fact any other scientific theory has no bearing on somebody's intrinsic morality, and as much as some people believe otherwise nor does the Torah, the Bible, Qu'ran or any other holy book or teachings.

There is no science in Genesis? There are facts. Do you know that I know from Genesis that there was an inhabited world before Gen. 1? Followed by a long period when Earth was covered by water? That Earth did not have high mountains before Noah's day? That the continents separated shortly after Noah's flood? Remember it is in fairly recent times that scientists came to the knowledge that the continents were originally one piece. That man's body is composed of materials found in clay? This is not a complete list, just what comes to mind at the moment. There are several scientific/historical facts here that fit perfectly with fossil records.

I didn't say Genesis doesn't contain science, I said it's not science. Lots of books contain science (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, crime novels), but it doesn't mean they are science.

I didn't say Genesis doesn't contain science, I said it's not science. Lots of books contain science (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, crime novels), but it doesn't mean they are science.
I notice that you name fiction. Do you deny the accuracy of what I stated? If you cannot address those statements, then your argument is flawed. Oh, yeah, what does the fossil record show for the appearance of "modern man"? Isn't it about 5 or 6 thousand years?

Well, since you asked... I do deny the accuracy of what you stated. It appears you subscribe to the "bible is the literal truth" and "earth is 6,000 years old" concepts; since you think continental drift started during Noah's time, not 200 million years ago... and since you think the entire earth was flooded, despite the lack of evidence to support that idea.

So yes, the books I name are fiction. I don't see a problem in the comparison.

PS - not all crime novels are fiction. Still doesn't make them science books.

Well, since you asked... I do deny the accuracy of what you stated. It appears you subscribe to the "bible is the literal truth" and "earth is 6,000 years old" concepts;

READ my lips! I have said before that I DO NOT believe that Earth is 6,000 years old. Nowhere does the Bible say any such thing.

since you think continental drift started during Noah's time, not 200 million years ago...

Every major geological event that I have ever heard of was sudden and drastic. What reason would you have to think that the break up of the continent was gradual? Isn't it more reasonable to think that it happened suddenly, and that the drift now observed is only residual, that the drift slowed rather quickly? You certainly can't prove me wrong here.

and since you think the entire earth was flooded, despite the lack of evidence to support that idea.

Isn't there a gap in the fossil record? That would be accounted for by a long period of time when the dry land was covered by water.

So yes, the books I name are fiction. I don't see a problem in the comparison.

PS - not all crime novels are fiction. Still doesn't make them science books.

The only 6,000 tear period is that calculated back to Adam, and that fits with the fossil record for "modern man".

I still don't think that refusal to consider ALL facts should be the norm in schools.

It's not about considering all the facts, it's about what is considered science and what isn't. There is nothing scientific about saying "god said let there be light, and there was light" or "designer did it". Those statements don't fit in with the scientific method at all. Beyond that, the people pushing for ID are unable to separate ID from creationism - even you can't do it on a silly board on the intertubes. You can't teach creationism in schools - it's religion, plain and simple.

Plus, ID/Creationism can't ever be proven, unless the designer decides to make a personal appearance on the 5:00 news and say, "Hey! Check me out, and check out what I can do!". The scientific theories and laws taught in school are provable - god/designer isn't provable.

I keep saying it, and you keep ignoring it, or keep thinking it's an insult - ID isn't science, it doesn't belong in a science class, no matter what. Honestly, it's not an insult. ID doesn't fit the very definition, the very basic criteria to be science. Right or wrong, it still isn't science. Creationism is religion, it doesn't belong in a public school (when taught as fact).

Why do your kids teachers have to tell them these things? Why can't you do this at home? At church? Why can't you reserve an hour a day to sit with your kids and tell them abut this wonderful creator and all the things he has done? Why would you want a teacher, who might not have the same views and interpretations as you teach them something you hold so valuable? If I were a teacher, would you want me teaching your kids about your god? :D Didn't think so! :D[/QUOTE]


I actually do spend time with the kids - at church, at home, on the way dropping them off at school or pickiing them up when I can, Coaching [ badly I admit ] their basketball team, at the supper table, taking them on trips [ NY, FLA, and all the places in between], making sure their homework is done [ and there seems to be a lot more than I was their age ], signing off on assignments etc..

The other day while taking my 3rd grade son to school, he mentioned that birds came from dinosaurs. I asked him where dinosaurs came from, and he said amphibians, and we went down the line to fish, according to his responses. That was what he was taught.

At that point I asked where fish came from - he said rocks.

I asked him how? Why are current rocks not just becoming fish etc..


This is the type of stuff that is taught as fact in school. It only takes some simple questions
And reasoning to know that evolution is not fact.


Then, [as I have always told my children] I told him that God created him, loves him, cherishes him, gives him eternal life, makes it possible for him to do great things with his life. It is in the Bible.

At that point I asked where fish came from - he said rocks. ...
This is the type of stuff that is taught as fact in school. Confront the teacher/school, there is a problem there obviously.

What would you say if I told you that the local church sermon here preached violence towards gays?

Um I know that I really have no idea about this ID thing my daughter is only in 1st grade. But I did have a response for inthebox.

When I went into my Freshman year my science teacher told us that next week we were going to learn about the BIG BANG. I immediately told him that I did not want to participate because I did not believe in the big bang theory. He got angry and sent me to the office. I told them what happened and they called my parents. My parents backed me up and said they refuse for me to take that part of the class also. This went all the way to the school board. Where I won. I got study hall for a week! So I just wanted to let everyone know there is still a choice. If you don't want you kids learning about it, tell the school. They can't make you go against your beliefs.

PS I am so glad I got on this website! I learn SO much stuff it's unbelievable!!

NK:



I would tell you that is wrong!

Unbelievable. I am truly sorry that they claim to be Christ followers.


The sermon should be


Galatians 5:4... [niv] The only thing that counts is faith expressed as love.

1 John 4... We love because He first loved us.

Um I know that I really have no idea about this ID thing my daughter is only in 1st grade. But I did have a response for inthebox.

When I went into my Freshman year my science teacher told us that next week we were going to learn about the BIG BANG. I immediately told him that I did not want to participate because I did not believe in the big bang theory. He got angry and sent me to the office. I told them what happened and they called my parents. My parents backed me up and said they refuse for me to take that part of the class also. This went all the way to the school board. Where I won. I got study hall for a week!! So I just wanted to let everyone know their is still a choice. If you don't want you kids learning about it, tell the school. They can't make you go against your beliefs.

PS I am so glad I got on this website!! I learn SO much stuff it's unbelievable!!!!


Welcome.

My wife was taught similar things in College 100 level bio courses. You have to repeat these things on the test in order to get a good grade.

inthebox,
That's the simili I was making. Your child's teacher is wrong and he/she in no way reflects the curriculum that science teacher's use.

Wow. Okay well maybe it only works in elem and high school. But I guess I was thinking keep your kids from learning that way of thinking until they are old enough to know the difference and establish their own beliefs. Thanks for the info though!

Wow. Okay well maybe it only works in elem and high school. But I guess I was thinking keep your kids from learning that way of thinking until they are old enough to know the difference and establish their own beliefs. Thanks for the info though!Actually the same can be said for religion can't it?

The part about old enough to know the difference and establish their own beliefs? Yes. I tell my daughter what I believe. And when she asks me if it is real or the truth I ask her if she believes it's real. She says yes or no. If she wants answers to questions I answer them and show her where or how I got those answers. But I stress to her that it is about belief and faith. It's up to her if she wants to believe and have faith in it or choose her own way. (as of now, she believes with me. We'll see when she is a teen if that stays the same! )

Well done!

Here is some insight to my daughters way of thinking (7 years old)
"Mommy, I think Santa and Easter bunny aren't real. I think big people made them up to make bad kids be good so they will get presents. But the tooth fairy HAS to be real. Because you don't have to be good for the tooth fairy to show up you have to lose a tooth, and that happens if you are good or bad."

So maybe I should let her learn about this ID thing in school. She may have some powerful insight for the teacher!!

By the way when should I be expecting her to come home with all those questions and new knowledge anyway... 3rd grade or so?

I have a 7 year old daughter as well. There is no talk of religion in our house because there is no need for it. My kids have great morals instilled by their parents :). If later she wants to learn about religion she is of course free to do so. I'm OK for her to learn all about science since it is based of man's observation of nature.

From that premise, I believe that the only people who should have any argument against ID being taught alongside evolution would be Atheists. No one else's ox would be gored. And, of course, those who believe in creation are presently seeing their ox being gored. Either way, someone will not like it, so does majority rule or minority rule in this case?Hello again, Galvesgton:

Even if I wasn't an atheist, my scientific "ox would be gored" by your proposal. Even WITH it's gaps, or because of them, evolution is science - ID is religion.

I don't know why you think evolution is a done deal. It ain't. That's what's so coooooool about it. We're LEARNING it, AS we are teaching it. Look, when I was a kid, they taught me that the land mass was fixed. They were wrong. Shortly after I graduated, they discovered plate tectonics. That means the continents move.

Should they NOT have taught what they knew at the time in science class?? No, of course not. They should have (and fortunately they did) taught what they knew. That's what we're doing now with evolution. I don't think there's ANY science teacher ANY where in the world that doesn't teach, that the theory of evolution is itself evolving.

As a matter of fact, it would be MY opinion, that we know 10% about evolution and where we came from. Maybe we'll never find out for sure. I certainly hope we do, and I think we will. The quest for the truth is certainly exciting - unbelievably exciting. I relish each new discovery, and they're happening every day. What a wonderful time to be alive.

But, back to your question. Since ID is religion and NOT science, it really would violate MY First Amendment rights to be free from a state sponsored religion if it were taught in school. That's what would be happening if state employed teachers taught religion.

But, there's good news for you. The other great thing about the First Amendment, is that it allows YOU to teach anything you want in your church and you can even call it science it you want to. Nobody is going to do anything about it.

So, even if (as I've said before), I was the ONLY citizen in this entire country who objected to religion being taught in public school, I, as a minority of ONE, have the Constitutional right to STOP it.

excon

As a matter of fact, it would be MY opinion, that we know 10% about evolution and where we came from. Maybe we'll never find out for sure. I certainly hope we do, and I think we will. The quest for the truth is certainly exciting - unbelievably exciting. I relish each new discovery, and they're happening every day. What a wonderful time to be alive.
I agree. Here's a thread I started sometime ago that has a pretty good discussion of some of what's new in genetics and evolutionary theory, if you're interested. Genetics-Developmental Biology-Evolutionary theory (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biology/how-have-genetics-developmental-biology-influenced-evolutionary-theory-170614.html)

Here's a great blog by a biologist: 2008 May - Olivia Judson - Evolution - Opinion - New York Times Blog (http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/)

Science from the opinion section of the NYT?


Come on.

* RNA is different fromm DNA because the former is usually single vs double stranded.

Is that the only difference?

How about R = ribo.. D = Deoxyribo.. or In RNA uracil pairs with adenine. In DNA thymidine pairs with adenine.

The science is there to describe genetics, but mentioning evolution adds no information.

A better way of describing DNA trascription, translation etc... is to marvel at the DESIGN of it.

Truly what goes on in the cell is more complex than what goes on in any man made manufacturing factories.


* Retroviruses.


To believe this is to believe that viruses added to the genetic information present to develop humans and other species? Purely by chance and luck because the majority of gene mutations that medicine finds in humans lead to diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, huntington's, CML, higher risk for breast or colon cancer, or higher risks for alzheimer's

Science from the opinion section of the NYT?


Come on.
Well, yes, actually. Olivia Judson is a qualified practicing biologist who also is able to write clearly for a general audience. If you aren't interested in what she has to say, don't read it.

The science is there to describe genetics, but mentioning evolution adds no information.
If you are suggesting that there is no relationship between genetics and evolution, you are displaying your ignorance of both.

Science is an observation of fact.

Does genetics need to be taught with an evolutionary assumption?

No. You can teach cell biology and inheritance and genetics without an evolutionary assumption.

You can teach of gene transfer and molecular biological lab techniques, but WHO is doing these experiments?

Scientists, using their INTELLIGENCE. Not evolution.


Now take this blog about HIV vs SIV


ERV: How a 'just so' story turns into just 'so?'-- HIV and the failures of Intelligent Design (http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-just-so-story-turns-into-just-so.html)

Dr Behe has stated that HIV mutates at an astounding rate as do most viruses. Hiv, despite its mutation rate stays HIV. It has not become a herpes virus or another type of virus. Same with influenza.

In this blog note the wording: [hang in there because it is decidedly more complex than the opinion page of the NYT ] :o

"new gene/protein in HIV-1 called 'Vpu'. To quickly summarize, Vpu first emerged in chimpanzees version of HIV, SIV. [ Which does not cause clinically significnt disease in chimps ] After chimpanzees transmitted SIV to humans [HOW? Was this observed?], Vpu ACQUIRED new properties to deal with the environment of a new host. AS TIME PROGRESSED, HIV-1 split into multiple subtypes [ HOW? ], and the Vpus of different subtypes STARTED TO EVOLVE different characteristics as well. Thus SIVcpz Vpu, HIVSubtype B Vpu, and HIVSubtype C Vpu are GENETICALLY AND BIOCHEMICALLY DISTINCT PROTEINS."

Notice all the evolutionary assumptions. From there they go on to more details colored by evolutionary bias.

These are the same type of assumptions that Rev Wright makes about the US government [ not evolution ] as the cause of AIDS. ;)

Let me ask a stupid question what makes a species, a species and not just a variation within a different species? What is the concrete set in stone that says this is a species? Is it say if they are 97% the same call them the same species or do they need to be closer than that?

The definition of species is set by scientists.

Equating similarity/homology to evolutionary relationship is fallacious.

If one is to use, retrospectively, degree of similarity to prove evolutionary relationships, then your tractor trailer is "evolutionarily" related to a Honda Civic. They both have wheels, seats, steering wheels, IC engines, a transmission, a metal body, a/c, etc... the difference is we know that both these vehicles were DESIGNED by humans. We are not assuming that 4 wheels "evolved" into 18, or one, through mutations, "evolved" a turbo diesal engine and the other a gas/electric hybrid engine.

I know the difference between types of cars and trucks, there isn't much variation within them a civic is a civic they never show up with the occasional 5th or 6th wheel because they are designed. (http://weirdpicturearchive.com/pics/6leggedcow.php). I want to know what make a species a particular species or kind. What stops the mutations from continuing until you have a new species?

Also about viruses of course the aids virus is still the aids virus. I wouldn't expect it to change in only 20 or so years. Evolution takes thousands of years and of course eviromental pressure. Although what was it before it was the aids virus it's only been around for the last what 30 maybe 40 years? Are viruses even alive? I seem to remember in science class that it was kind of a debated subject. My information on that may be old though.

Don't even get me started about Michael behe.

Hi, michealb the difference between species is that they cannot interbreed to produce viable offspring.

When two populations diverge their genomes can also diverge because of genetic drift or the founding animals not containing all the population genetic diversity possible add into that environmental pressures (to have long tails or something) and the two populations gradually change. This is the basics of speciation, eventually if you tried to mate two individuals from these populations you won't be able too, or you can but produce a sterile hybrid- this means they have become different species.

Apparently there is some contention about the definition of a species (real scientific controversy) but the breeding thing is the most generally accepted I have found.

I hope this helps michealb :)

And Inthebox stop using things that cannot reproduce to prove the fallacy if evolution- it makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.

I have to thank you for that very interesting blog summarizing a recent scientific breakthrough- very exciting! I have no idea how it abets your argument but it is an absolute gem. Such elegant research.

Templelane,

Thanks, I guess I should be more clear. The point I was trying to make was where is the clear dividing line between species that makes it impossible to for one of them to vary to the point that they would be considered two difference species because for creationism or ID to be correct there would have to be a barrier that prevent small gradual changes from making a new species. The other point was that humans and animals are closer than most people realize and while a human and a mouse might seem to be far apart they share 97% of the same gene coding.

Templelane:


This is from the link I provided:


"Well, it had to overcome something in human cells. There was something about human cells that were different from chimpanzee cells that HIV-1 needed to EVOLVE around. Whats that something? Um... something. BUT THATS WHAT HAPPENED! Thats why Vpu forms a viroporin!


Notice the WORDING.


It betrays evolutionary ASSUMPTIONS. This is not scientific.


Now say, like the Reverend Wright, I assumed the US government created HIV, the wording would be:


"Well, the US government had to overcome something in human cells. There was something about human cells that were different from chimpanzee cells that HIV-1 needed to adapt to. What's that something? Um... something. But that's what happened! That's why the US government developed Vpu which forms a viroporin!



Now if this were a scientific experiment with results where is the methods sections?
Where are the lab results? Where is the statistical analysis and discussion of potential weaknesses, and confounding factors of this scientific experiment.


Have they isolated an HIV from people, say in the 1800s, in which this HIV does not have VPU? And now they have a 1990s version of HIV that has VPU?


All the article did was compare SIV VPU to HIV VPU. They even say the are genetically and biochemically distinct. Yet they pass it off as "evolution."

Michaelb:


What's The Difference Between A Human And A Fruit Fly? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512172904.htm)


"Professor Stumpf adds: "Understanding the human genome definitely does not go far enough to explain what makes us different from more simple creatures. Our study indicates that protein interactions could hold one of the keys to unraveling how one organism is differentiated from another."


Amazing isn't it. Where DNA and genetic information comes from, scientists don't know. Now they are discovering ERVs in the once called "junk Dna." Add to the complexity, the protein interactions.

It's not about considering all the facts, it's about what is considered science and what isn't. There is nothing scientific about saying "god said let there be light, and there was light" or "designer did it". Those statements don't fit in with the scientific method at all. Beyond that, the people pushing for ID are unable to separate ID from creationism - even you can't do it on a silly board on the intertubes. You can't teach creationism in schools - it's religion, plain and simple.

Plus, ID/Creationism can't ever be proven, unless the designer decides to make a personal appearance on the 5:00 news and say, "Hey! Check me out, and check out what I can do!". The scientific theories and laws taught in school are provable - god/designer isn't provable.

I keep saying it, and you keep ignoring it, or keep thinking it's an insult - ID isn't science, it doesn't belong in a science class, no matter what. Honestly, it's not an insult. ID doesn't fit the very definition, the very basic criteria to be science. Right or wrong, it still isn't science. Creationism is religion, it doesn't belong in a public school (when taught as fact).

Belief in the theory of evolution is a religion. And just to show how much hypocrisy is involved in dedicated evolutionists (no personal reference to you) when they have posted in these threads that they have no problem if creation is taught in some class other than science, consider this. In Texas, some schools will offer Bible studies as literature and history, as an ELECTIVE, and already some are screaming about it. The last time I looked, study of evolution was NOT an elective.

Belief in the theory of evolution is a religion.
No, it is not, and scientists don't "believe in" it any more than they "believe in" the theory of general relativity or quantum mechanics. Scientific theories are always being used and tested and extended and revised and applied in new ways. When experimental results or measurements and observations of phenomena are repeatedly found to be inconsistent with some aspect of existing theory, it is revised and new experiments and measurements are devised to test whether the new formulation provides a more consistent and comprehensive explanation than the old one did. This process of testing and revision is ongoing and never-ending. It is an entirely different sort of endeavor than religious belief. Your insistence that they are the same demonstrates how little you understand about how science is actually done, and what the role and function of theory is in scientific practice. Such arguments may be convincing to your fellow religionists, but to working scientists, they are simply absurd.

Amazing isn't it. Where DNA and genetic information comes from, scientists don't know. Now they are discovering ERVs in the once called "junk Dna." Add to the complexity, the protein interactions.

Complexity doesn't prove design though. Snowflakes are extremely complex looking but snowflakes forming doesn't clash with a particular religious faith. If evolution didn't clash with faith there would be no issue with it. Which is why ID is religion not science.

We could make the same argument that your making about evolution about our theories of gravity. I mean we don't know where the first cell comes from and we don't know where gravity comes from. We don't have all of the middle fossils and planes fly despite gravity. So using this logic evolution and gravity must be faulty theories.

[
Plus, ID/Creationism can't ever be proven, unless the designer decides to make a personal appearance on the 5:00 news and say, "Hey! Check me out, and check out what I can do!". The scientific theories and laws taught in school are provable - god/designer isn't provable.

We are pretty far from my original point, BUT:
What you just said, He did in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Eyewitnesses left a record for succeeding generations. You just refuse to accept the record.

You cannot prove that man is the product of evolution. It is a, shall we say, quantum leap from showing mutation of microscopic cells to production of man or any other animal.
You keep talking about laborotories. Take some raw materials and make us a man! Too hard? Okay, make us an earthworm.

Talk about circular reasoning. When pressed to answer difficult questions about how something came to be, the answer comes back, "we don't have to explain it, it's evolution".

If evolution is not a religion, then the BELIEF in it as an answer to ourselves and everything around us IS a religion. See how zealously it is defended, and what great faith is expressed that evolution will one day provide the answers that we seek? And like any other religion it refuses to admit that any other religion has any merit.

Complexity doesn't prove design though. Snowflakes are extremely complex looking but snowflakes forming doesn't clash with a particular religious faith. If evolution didn't clash with faith there would be no issue with it. Which is why ID is religion not science.

We could make the same argument that your making about evolution about our theories of gravity. I mean we don't know where the first cell comes from and we don't know where gravity comes from. We don't have all of the middle fossils and planes fly despite gravity. So using this logic evolution and gravity must be faulty theories.




Complexity orders of magnitude more than Darwin could ever think possible makes evolution less likely. Francis Crick of DNA double helix fame, an atheist, can't explain DNA - He, like Dawkins, try to explain it in the even more unprovable theory of panspermia. How did ETI get their "intelligence" then becomes the question.




Planes fly because of acceleration and lift. It is reproducible - lift that is. All you have to do is while driving down the road at say more than 40 mph stick your arm out, bend your elbow out 90 degrees, wrist straight and point your fingers in the direction of travel.
To get lift bend your wrist back/ fingers pointing higher.

Every invention, technological advance, in humanity is by intelligence and design.

The internet was not formed by the chance happening of crossed cable wires. An automobile is not a random collection of metal, plastics, rubber, and composites. Today's cellphone with camera, video, email, mp3, address book etc. is designed on purpose. It was not the spontaneous melding of rotary phone, TV, radio etc...

I'm showing my age: :)


Remember when you had to open cartons of OJ or milk. Spread the end of one side then press inward and hope that a spout opens up? Someone got tired of prying the spout open raggedly and decided to put a hole with a screw cap on the top instead. Intelligence and by design.

Remember taping pieces of paper notes up on a wall or on the fridge, someone got the bright idea to put glue on one side of that paper and that became "post it notes" / 3M - again intelligence and design.

It is even more complex in nature. Dolphin sonar, bat echolation. Evolution cannot reproduce the development of a single eye let alone 2 to provide depth perception. Then when you cosider a "primitive" fly's compound eye compared to ours...

These are the obvious visible examples we can see and relate to, but try taking graduate level neurophysiology, or biochemistry and you will be even more amazed. :D

When pressed to answer difficult questions about how something came to be, the answer comes back, "we don't have to explain it, it's evolution".
On the contrary, it's the creationist who refuses to provide an explanation. "God made it that way" is not an explanation, it's a statement of religious faith.

A biologist would never say "we don't have to explain it". Biological science is all about finding better explanations of how life works. Evolutionary theory has proved to be a very powerful tool for developing and refining those explanations. Still, it is only a tool, not an article of faith, and it has been and continues to be refined, revised, and improved.

I'm showing my age: :)
You're showing far more than that, I'm afraid. By simply repeating your same arguments, even after their fallacies have been pointed out, you're showing an inability or unwillingness to engage in constructive debate and discussion.

I am sorry, the issue here is that one that will not accept creation though design ( that was the theme of the question some 14 pages ago) have no real proof or idea how it could have happened. How one cell first even started life, and how that one cell changed the DNA to become trees, animals, fish, birds and all the billions of variations of those.

Why 1000's of types of grass, and not just one that worked best in one area, way 1000's of types of tress, esp some that have often no useful purpose. Why all the variations of fish at the same depth levels.

And when that cell first became that first rabbit after a million years, was it a male rabbit or a female and where did the other rabbits come from to make other ones ** OK not rabbits but get the idea.

The simple fact is that an idea of it all just happened, has to be much more silly than an idea that there is some control factor over it, that developed things in some order.

Reading the supporting ideas of DNA no, honestly inthebox makes a lot more sense to someone who wants to see it.

The simple fact is that an idea of it all just happened, has to be much more silly than an idea that there is some control factor over it, that developed things in some order.
If you think that evolutionary theory says nothing more than "it all just happened", you need to study it in a lot more depth and detail. Of course things developed "in some order". The interplay between planetary conditions and living organisms is wonderfully complex and ongoing. The changing physical environment is the "control factor" that sets the terms of "success" for living organisms at any point in time.

Personally, I don't mind if people use god as the "explanation" for everything we don't yet understand. But it does annoy me when they continue to insist on using him for that purpose even after perfectly good scientific explanations are available.

To me, the real mystery is why living organisms want so desperately to survive. If you want to say that it's god that makes them do it, I'm OK with that.

We are pretty far from my original point, BUT:
What you just said, He did in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Eyewitnesses left a record for succeeding generations. You just refuse to accept the record.

It is far from the original point, but there have been hundreds of people since Jesus who claim to be the son of god, or claim to speak to god and "know things", or even claim to be god. Jesus was not god, so he doesn't fit my example of GOD appearing on the 5:00 news. Any loon at this point in time can make the news and say they are god, or the son of god, or a messenger from god, etc (Jim Jones claimed to be Jesus reincarnated, for example). So it's not that I refuse to accept the record, I refuse to accept the messenger because I don't trust it. But that's another topic! If you want to go further with this, PM me or start a new thread, I don't want this one closed because we get off topic. :)


You cannot prove that man is the product of evolution. It is a, shall we say, quantum leap from showing mutation of microscopic cells to production of man or any other animal.
You keep talking about laborotories. Take some raw materials and make us a man! Too hard? Okay, make us an earthworm.

It is a quantum leap from microscopic cells to man or earthworm. Give me a few billion years and I'll give you a man. That's what you need to understand, it's not an overnight thing.


Talk about circular reasoning. When pressed to answer difficult questions about how something came to be, the answer comes back, "we don't have to explain it, it's evolution".

Sorry, but you're wrong here. As OG said, scientists don't say "we don't have to explain it"; they explain it, you refuse to accept the explanation (which is fine). Sometimes science will say "we don't know yet", but that doesn't mean "we aren't working on figuring it out" or "we won't ever know that". And theists use the argument you state all the time; "It's too complex, god did it. We don't understand how this could happen, god did it. Something bad happend, it was god's will. Something good happened, god did it." There's no credit for the individual, no accountability, no thought involved in saying "god did it"


If evolution is not a religion, then the BELIEF in it as an answer to ourselves and everything around us IS a religion. See how zealously it is defended, and what great faith is expressed that evolution will one day provide the answers that we seek? And like any other religion it refuses to admit that any other religion has any merit.

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm not defending evolution, I'm defending the scientific method and what belongs in a science class. I don't care if you ever accept evolution as fact, and I don't care if you children and grandchildren and so on never accept it as fact. I just want you and everyone else to recognize what is science and what is not science. If you studied evolution a little more, you might understand it's claims, which might help you understand why it's being taught and why it is, in fact, science. That might also help you understand why ID and Creationism are not science. You might not ever believe it, but that doesn't mean you can't understand it.

The reason we say evolution will provide the answers we seek in time is because that's what science does. I'm not saying ID doesn't have merit, I'm saying it's not science, so it doesn't belong in a science class. I'm also saying those of you who push for ID being taught are disguising creationism which you know is religion and you know doesn't belong in a public school. And if you don't know that, you need to spend more time in a government class.


Belief in the theory of evolution is a religion. And just to show how much hypocrisy is involved in dedicated evolutionists (no personal reference to you) when they have posted in these threads that they have no problem if creation is taught in some class other than science, consider this. In Texas, some schools will offer Bible studies as literature and history, as an ELECTIVE, and already some are screaming about it. The last time I looked, study of evolution was NOT an elective.

I have no problem with teaching the bible as an elective in schools depending on how it's done. I imagine most of the people you say are screaming about it probably object to the method of how it's being taught (granted, some will scream about it just because it's the bible). If the bible is studied in school as a historical document and the impact of it on modern and past societies is discussed, I have no problem with that. If, however, it's taught as fact (like church bible study) and no other religious texts are allowed to be taught, we have a problem. And no, evolution isn't an elective because it's not a class. Are you saying you want science or biology to be an elective now? Sorry kids, you don't get to learn about the human digestive system, because this class also mentions evolution. Come on...

inthebox the problem with your examples is you are talking about material things. Of course milk cartons with screw caps are intelligence by design, a milk carton is a thing, and it's not a biological or organic thing. Your examples prove nothing for or against evolution or ID.

Hello:

Ever since the beginning of time, there's what the priests/shaman/witch doctors/believers say, and there's what science said...

Somewhere between then and now, the believers accepted some science as fact. Clearly, you don't believe the sun is God, and you don't believe the earth is the center of the universe. Do you?

If you don't, why not?? It WAS heresy to claim the earth revolved around the sun... Just as I think you're saying evolution is heresy... How long is it going to take you to get it this time? Or is THIS where you make your last stand?

excon

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm not defending evolution, I'm defending the scientific method and what belongs in a science class. I don't care if you ever accept evolution as fact, and I don't care if you children and grandchildren and so on never accept it as fact. I just want you and everyone else to recognize what is science and what is not science.
This is a vitally important point, and one that I wholeheartedly second. The really important question is not about particular historical facts, i.e. "How did life begin on this planet, and how has it changed over time?"

The real issue is how do you decide whether your explanation for something you observe about the physical world is "good enough", or whether it needs improving. IF you decide it needs improving, the scientific method is the right tool for the job. If not, you don't need it yet. Science education at its best teaches the method, not just the current state of knowledge, which changes daily. For people who are completely satisfied with all their explanations, a career in science is probably not the best choice.

This is a vitally important point, and one that I wholeheartedly second. The really important question is not about particular historical facts, i.e., "How did life begin on this planet, and how has it changed over time?"

The real issue is how do you decide whether your explanation for something you observe about the physical world is "good enough", or whether it needs improving. IF you decide it needs improving, the scientific method is the right tool for the job. If not, you don't need it yet. Science education at its best teaches the method, not just the current state of knowledge, which changes daily. For people who are completely satisfied with all their explanations, a career in science is probably not the best choice.

Good! You emphasize "method" and that's fine. Unfortunately, that is NOT what is happening in science classes across this country. Theory is being taught as FACT and is granted priority to the exclusion of anything else.

My original point is that intelligent design/creationism is no more religion than is evolution theory.

As I read the various posts favoring evolution, I see that much is made of the idea that evolution can be proved by scientific research, but the only thing that can be truthfully said is that scientists have been able to modify/alter certain cells. We now have the knowledge to meddle with genomes, but that is only dealing with what is already in existence. Creationism is criticized because it cannot be duplicated in the laboratory, but the fact remains that most of what is believed about evolution cannot be duplicated either.

Science is observing what is. Scientific theory can be whatever man's mind chooses to believe about the facts observed, and varies from scientist to scientist, and from time to time.

In a previous post I challenged anyone to make an earthworm. Let's take that to a more basic level. In spite of the billions of dollars and the lifetimes of research, man has never made even a single cell (plant or animal) that can reproduce. What is missing is that factor called life. We all know what it is, and yet we cannot explain or duplicate it. We see life all around us, so it is a scientific observation that life exists. What experiment can science do to duplicate it or even verify it, for that matter? It simply is. Science has absolutely no answer or explanation for it, and yet it would be un-scientific to deny it. It is belief to say that life accidentally happened. Belief is an integral component of religion

Evolution theory is sound and based on fact. Why you can't see that or refuse to accept it, I can't tell you. I do know that regardless of how many times something has been explained the only people that don't understand it are the people with extreme religious bias. That right there has to tell you something. I challenge you to find one person without a religious agenda to say that evolution isn't a sound theory. This is the earth is the center of the universe argument of the 21th centaury. The church will eventually say that evolution is god's plan and everyone will be happy again but until then we have some dark ages to go through hopefully it won't be to long though.

On your remark about making an earthworm. We aren't there yet, we are still working on making bacteria (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.html) but just because we can't do something yet doesn't mean it's impossible.

Theory is being taught as FACT and is granted priority to the exclusion of anything else.

Oh for cryin' out loud... for the millionth time:

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.)"

Definition of Scientific Theory (http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html)

There's a cartoon at the top of the page. Maybe it will help you understand.

The church will eventually say that evolution is god's plan and everyone will be happy again


Funny you should say that but the current Pope and the Vatican already accepts evolution.

I also understand that most creationists are protestant not Catholic so this information has no bearing.

inthebox the problem with your examples is you are talking about material things. Of course milk cartons with screw caps are intelligence by design, a milk carton is a thing, and it's not a biological or organic thing. Your examples prove nothing for or against evolution or ID.


Isn't it the purpose of those who deny a creator, to reduce everything to a concrete, provable experiment.

If that is the case, then using those same material arguments to prove INTELLIGENCE in everything humans DESIGN from pyramids to computer chips is a valid argument.

It is the purpose of materialism and evolution to prove everything in concrete, provable terms, otherwise they don't believe it. Well look all around and the evidence favors ID.

And it is science that also provides evidence of a Creator.
It is science that questions the validity of evolution.

The secular propaganda that belief and God and scientific endeavor and achievement are mutually exclusive is bovine manure. There is the parable of the talents, God wants us to use our God given abilities, and that does include math, physics, enineering, biology etc.

From the link:


"It is a FACT is that fossil skulls have been found that are INTERMEDIATE IN APPEARANCE between humans and modern apes. It is a FACT that fossils have been found that are clearly INTERMEDIATE IN APPEARANCE between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts MAY be interpreted in DIFFERENT ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. "

Does the phrase "intermediate in appearance" PROVE evolution? Is that a scientific method? Do evolutionists allow for a difference of interpretation of the facts? Or are they the only ones claiming that the fossil record, what little there is of it, only proves evolution and are unwilling to acknowledge that those same facts may be interpreted as evidence of a creator who created different things?

Intelligent design a is more reasonable alternative to the hoax that a big explosion from "no where" magically created birds, trees, flowers, humans etc.

Does the phrase "intermediate in appearance" PROVE evolution? Is that a scientific method? Do evolutionists allow for a difference of interpretation of the facts?

No, yes, and if they are within reason yes.

If the only evidence for evolution was the fossil record then you would be on to something but when you combine the fossil records with all of the other evidence you only get one reasonable outcome, evolution.

Sassyt,

We are talking about intelligent design and evolution. The big bang theory is a completely different topic and is not taught even in a biology class. I really suggest you speak with your biology professor about these things I'm sure he can set you straight in an afternoon.

Hello again, sassy:

In the olden days, you'd burn people for doing their "magic". I guess some things NEVER change...

I did, however, think the dark ages were over.

excon

[QUOTE=michealb]No, yes, and if they are within reason yes.

If the only evidence for evolution was the fossil record then you would be on to something but when you combine the fossil records with all of the other evidence you only get one reasonable outcome, evolution.

If you are talking about DNA , the question is what does dna say for evolution? Nothing.
If anything it makes a strong case for an intelligent designer who created a marvelously complex, efficient ‘information system’ for encoding life. Because evolutionist have seen that fossil record does nothing for their theory, they are desperate to find other ways to resuscitate their dying theory.
Similarly in DNA just shows a common creator. If God created animals,humans and plants that are going to inhabit the same environment, is it not logical that he would create them with similar matter?
It is not enough to explain how DNA might have gathered into strands by random chance; you must also explain the machinery to interpret DNA. In other words, it’s not enough to explain how random letters could eventually fall into the order S-E-E-T-H-E-D-O-G-B-A-R-K. These letters still don’t mean anything unless you have a pre-existing language system for interpreting those letters! ‘See the dog BARK’ has meaning, but only to a modern English-speaker.


Sassyt,

We are talking about intelligent design and evolution. The big bang theory is a completely different topic and is not taught even in a biology class. I really suggest you speak with your biology professor about these things I'm sure he can set you straight in an afternoon

lol... Evolutionists want to start with a "warm little soup pond" someplace on Earth but before we stand on the bank of a mythical little pond to discuss man's origins, i insist on knowing where you suppose that soup came from. Most evolutionists believe the big bang is what started it all. Where the big bang came from, they don't know. Mmm... Science? :rolleyes:

Hello again, sassy:

In the olden days, you'd burn people for doing their "magic". I guess some things NEVER change.....

I did, however, think the dark ages were over.

excon

What are you talking about here?

Hello again, sassy:

You use terms like "magic" and "myth" to explain your understanding of science. At one time in history, called the dark ages, Christians burned people who did "magic" (science).
I hate to tell you this, but those beliefs are out of date - waaaaaay out of date.

However, given your understanding of science and history, I'm not surprised you turn to the bible.

excon

[QUOTE=excon]Hello again, sassy:

You use terms like "magic" and "myth" to explain your understanding of science. At one time in history, called the dark ages, Christians burned people who did "magic" (science).

Hello excon, I hate to be the one to break this to you but the Universe coming into being through a magical explosion that came from "no where" and subsequently created a mythical (vegie) soup where a one cell creature crawled out of it and magically morphed into every living thing we see today, is not science.

Sassy, I suggest you then ignore all of the scientific theories on gravity then because we don't know where gravity come from. In fact ignore all science since we don't have a 100% exact model of how everything came into being and live as people did when the bible was written. No electricity because while we know how electricity is formed we don't know exactly where the original energy for it came from. See how silly that is.

Also hypothesizes and theories are part of science. The problems that you all seem to be having is understanding what is required for something to be a scientific theory and what that means.

Sassy are you getting your bio degree at a religious college or a main stream college?

Isn't it the purpose of those who deny a creator, to reduce everything to a concrete, provable experiment.

I suppose... but shouldn't the experiment be relavent? A milk carton has no will to live, it's a lousy example.


If that is the case, then using those same material arguments to prove INTELLIGENCE in everything humans DESIGN from pyramids to computer chips is a valid argument.

I see... so... "Everything we use was created by man. Man is intelligent. Man was created by intelligence" Too bad you're talking about things which aren't alive. So, no, not a valid argument.


It is the purpose of materialism and evolution to prove everything in concrete, provable terms, otherwise they don't believe it. Well look all around and the evidence favors ID.

Except your argument doesn't prove anything. I say look around and the evidence favors evolution.


And it is science that also provides evidence of a Creator.
It is science that questions the validity of evolution.

I don't know where science provides evidence of a creator; since science doesn't say, "Woah! This is complex! It must be created by some supernatural, unprovable being!"

And of course science questions the validity of evolution - it's the job of science to ask questions.


The secular propaganda that belief and God and scientific endeavor and achievement are mutually exclusive is bovine manure. There is the parable of the talents, God wants us to use our God given abilities, and that does include math, physics, enineering, biology etc.

I don't know where you get the idea belief in science and belief in god are mutally exclusive... bovine manure indeed. Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, gravity, photosynthesis, etc make no claim for or againat god whatsoever. You can have it both ways.


From the link:


"It is a FACT is that fossil skulls have been found that are INTERMEDIATE IN APPEARANCE between humans and modern apes. It is a FACT that fossils have been found that are clearly INTERMEDIATE IN APPEARANCE between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts MAY be interpreted in DIFFERENT ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. "

Does the phrase "intermediate in appearance" PROVE evolution? Is that a scientific method? Do evolutionists allow for a difference of interpretation of the facts? Or are they the only ones claiming that the fossil record, what little there is of it, only proves evolution and are unwilling to acknowledge that those same facts may be interpreted as evidence of a creator who created different things?

First of all, the quote you've taken is explaining what a "fact" is, it is not claiming those items alone prove evolution. I don't appreciate you taking something from my link and taking it out of context. It's deceptive and rude.

"Intermediate in appearance" shows there is supporting evidence for evolution. Again, it makes no claim for or against "god". "God" or "creator" is not provable. Ever. Not in a lab. Science can never 100% disprove god. Even if we found every fossil of every species leading through evolution from a single celled organism all the way to me sitting here at my desk today, "god" or "creator" isn't disproven. The literal translation of the bible is, ID is, but "god" or "creator" isn't.

And anyone is welcome to interpret the facts however they want, but if they want their ideas to be considered by the scientific community, they need to publish them and allow them to be peer reviewed and subjected to scrutiny. ID-ers don't do this. Maybe it's because they know their argument won't hold up to scientific review (because it isn't science), I don't know, but they leave that step out and then demand their "theory" be taught in science classes. Now that's bovine manure!

PS: The fossil record isn't small.

Ooh ooh I just wanted to throw this in because my fiancé and I talke about this all the time!!

Okay... if the "bible" is a "true" story about where everyone came from and how we were all created isn't it kind of strange that "man" wrote the bible and that each "version" of the bible is written and taught however is pleases each "religion". I have come to think of religion and churches kind of like a government. You know the gov has rules. The bible has rules. The gov wants your money. Churches want your money. The gov can violate all of their own rules. Pastors, preachers etc. can break all of their own rules.

OH and the king james bible says that we were all created from GOD. And that he made Adam and Eve and then they just I guess had a lot of kids. But how did dinosaurs get here, because the bible never talks about them... but science has proved their existence...

Anyway... just wanted to get that in there. I have been following this hot topic and I am learning a lot. But will admit I am still a little confused..

Hello excon, i hate to be the one to break this to you but the Universe coming into being through a magical explosion that came from "no where" and subsequently created a mythical (vegie) soup where a one cell creature crawled out of it and magically morphed into every living thing we see today, is not science.
No, it is not science, it's your caricature of what you think evolutionary theory says. It shows that you understand neither the theory of cosmogenesis, nor the theory of evolution, nor the science of physics, nor the science of geology, nor the science of biology, nor the role of theory in every kind of science whatsoever.

If I thought that your description of what science says was at all accurate, I'd reject it too. Rejecting a wild concoction of misconceptions is a great first step. The next step whould be to get to work on correcting those misconceptions.

[QUOTE=ordinaryguy]No, it is not science, it's your caricature of what you think evolutionary theory says.

Precisely.. :D


It shows that you understand neither the theory of cosmogenesis, nor the theory of evolution, nor the science of physics, nor the science of geology, nor the science of biology, nor the role of theory in every kind of science whatsoever.

The big bang theory is not science niether is the theory that all living things evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a soup. You don't need to have an education past third grade to know that human and fruit flies sharing a common ancestor is a fairy tale.


If I thought that your description of what science says was at all accurate, I'd reject it too. Rejecting a wild concoction of misconceptions is a great first step. The next step whould be to get to work on correcting those misconceptions

Its not science though... lol

[QUOTE=achampio21]

OH and the king james bible says that we were all created from GOD. And that he made Adam and Eve and then they just I guess had a lot of kids. But how did dinosaurs get here, because the bible never talks about them... but science has proved their existence...

The bible does talk about Dinosaurs. God created Dinosaurs.

Job 40:15-24 describes a large animal that resembles what would be a dinosaur like a Brachiosaurus

Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1 all describe a large sea animal that does not resemble any animal we know today. Its description fits that of a dinosaur.

The big bang theory is not science niether is the theory that all living things evolved from a one cell creature that crawled out of a soup. you dont need to have an education past third grade to know that human and fruit flies sharing a common ancestor is a fairy tale.

Its not science though...lol
You are clearly not qualified to judge what is, and what is not science.

Let's see if I can get all of this information straight.

Most of you die hard evolutionists have been forced to admit to the possibility of a god. It's just you believe that he used evolution to accomplish the job.

You don't want him mentioned in the classroom, ANY classroom.

In spite of your claims of observing facts, you observe the fact of LIFE but refuse to pursue any investigation that might support the claim of a creator. Why is that? Isn't that just a tad intellectually dishonest?

You obviously believe in evolution, then deny that you have any beliefs, or at least some of you do.

I offered examples of scientific statements from Genesis, but it did not impress anyone. Why not?

My conclusion? If you accept the idea that there is a creator, then you must somehow make some effort to know about him, and that scares you. If that were not so, you would not mind teaching id/creationism as a counterpoint theory to evolution. Sure, call it theory. That would be better for the students than censorship of anything that might contradict evolution.

Let's see if I can get all of this information straight.
Nope, not even close.

Most of you die hard evolutionists have been forced to admit to the possibility of a god. It's just you believe that he used evolution to accomplish the job.Whether there is or isn't a god has no particular bearing on the study of how life works. The evidence that life has existed on this planet for a very long time, and that simple life forms have been here much longer than more complex forms is incontrovertible and overwhelming. Evolutionary theory is a tool that biologists use to develop and improve their explanations of how living things change in response to the changes in their environment. It's not an article of religious faith or a tenet of religious belief. Whether God "used evolution" is a religious and theological question, not a scientific one.


You don't want him mentioned in the classroom, ANY classroom.It's OK in religion or philosophy classrooms, it just isn't science.


In spite of your claims of observing facts, you observe the fact of LIFE but refuse to pursue any investigation that might support the claim of a creator. Why is that?Biologists don't "refuse to pursue" such investigations, they just aren't interested because "the claim of a creator" is a religious question, not a scientific one, and it doesn't lead to any testable hypotheses. If you can design an experiment that uses the scientific method to test the hypothesis that there is a creator, by all means, carry it out and publish the result.


You obviously believe in evolution, then deny that you have any beliefs, or at least some of you do.Again, evolutionary theory is not "something to believe in", it is just a tool scientists use, because it works for the task at hand--figuring out how living things interact and change over time.

I offered examples of scientific statements from Genesis, but it did not impress anyone. Why not?Because the Bible is a religious book, not a science text. The fact that it contains some statements about the physical world that have been demonstrated scientifically does not turn it into a science book.


My conclusion? If you accept the idea that there is a creator, then you must somehow make some effort to know about him, and that scares you.No, it's not the least bit scary. The effort to know about god is a spiritual quest, not a scientific study.

If that were not so, you would not mind teaching id/creationism as a counterpoint theory to evolution.As jillianleab has explained many times, the problem is that creationism is religion, not science, and therefore does not belong in a scientific curriculum.

Let's see if I can get all of this information straight.
Good idea lets see what you have.


Most of you die hard evolutionists have been forced to admit to the possibility of a god. It's just you believe that he used evolution to accomplish the job.
Yes, most athiests admit that there could be a god, we just find that without evidence it's highly unlikely. What has been said in this thread is that evolution doesn't mean you have to be an atheist too. It's not athiests saying we believe that god used evolution to make man.


You don't want him mentioned in the classroom, ANY classroom.
We don't want him mentioned in a science class and we think it's a good idea that everyone teach their own religion in their own time. Instead of using government funds to sponsor a state religion.



In spite of your claims of observing facts, you observe the fact of LIFE but refuse to pursue any investigation that might support the claim of a creator. Why is that? Isn't that just a tad intellectually dishonest?
Science has been looking for god since the beginning. Science hasn't found him yet. If you have an experiment that proves god get it peer reviewed so we all can do it.


You obviously believe in evolution, then deny that you have any beliefs, or at least some of you do.
Regarding something as true because it fits facts and experiments is different than a religious belief because if there was any evidence that disproved evolution it would be abandoned.


I offered examples of scientific statements from Genesis, but it did not impress anyone. Why not?
I think Jillian has already said why this isn't impressive.


My conclusion? If you accept the idea that there is a creator, then you must somehow make some effort to know about him, and that scares you. If that were not so, you would not mind teaching id/creationism as a counterpoint theory to evolution. Sure, call it theory. That would be better for the students than censorship of anything that might contradict evolution.
You seem to have twisted everything everyone said in this thread to fit your own sense of what it's going on. I suggest you reread what is being said because you completely missed what was said.

[QUOTE]

The bible does talk about Dinosaurs. God created Dinosaurs.

Job 40:15-24 describes a large animal that resembles what would be a dinosaur like a Brachiosaurus

Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1 all describe a large sea animal that does not resemble any animal we know today. Its description fits that of a dinosaur.


Job 40:15-24 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Okay so science has shown that dinosaurs were huge beasts. Yet the bible states that this creature could lay in the shade of the trees and the willows (which are quite small) could compass (surround) him about. Doesn't sound very big to me. I'm thinking this passage is talking about an elephant at best.

15His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

And this passage is from JOB 41. What dinosaur breathed fire. Sounds like a dragon is being described here. No proof of those yet.

Psalm 104:25-26 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
25So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
26There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.

And this passage doesn't say anything about dinosaurs. It could actually be talking about giant squid as great beasts (by the way giant squid have been proven by science)

Isaiah 27:1 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
Isaiah 27
1In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Again talks about a dragon. Not about a dinosaur.
So where does it say GOD created dinosaurs?

oh and there's this too:
Leviathan
A transliterated Hebrew word (livyathan), meaning "twisted," "coiled." In Job 3:8, Revised Version, and marg. Of Authorized Version, it denotes the dragon which, according to Eastern tradition, is an enemy of light; in 41:1 the crocodile is meant; in Ps. 104:26 it "denotes any large animal that moves by writhing or wriggling the body, the whale, the monsters of the deep." This word is also used figuratively for a cruel enemy, as some think "the Egyptian host, crushed by the divine power, and cast on the shores of the Red Sea" (Ps. 74:14). As used in Isa. 27:1, "leviathan the piercing [R.V. 'swift'] serpent, even leviathan that crooked [R.V. marg. 'winding'] serpent," the word may probably denote the two empires, the Assyrian and the Babylonian.

[B]or:
Leviathan
(jointed monster) occurs five times in the text of the Authorized Version, and once in the margin of (Job 3:8) where the text has "mourning." In the Hebrew Bible the word livyathan, which is, with the foregoing exception, always left untranslated in the Authorized Version, is found only in the following passages: (Job 3:8; 41:1; Psalms 74:14; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1) In the margin of (Job 3:8) and text of (Job 41:1) the crocodile is most clearly the animal denoted by the Hebrew word. (Psalms 74:14) also clearly points to this same saurian. The context of (Psalms 104:26) seems to show that in this passage the name represents some animal of the whale tribe, which is common in the Mediterranean; but it is somewhat uncertain what animal is denoted in (Isaiah 27:1) As the term leviathan is evidently used in no limited sense, it is not improbable that the "leviathan the piercing serpent," or "leviathan the crooked serpent," may denote some species of the great rock-snakes which are common in south and west Africa.

I was just thinking...
And have come to the conclusion that the revealed books/scriptures -Torah,Bible,Quran does not mention dinosaurs or evolution because it is not really that important when it comes to faith.
Revealed scriptures were guidelines to follow in the light of the guidance of the Almighty.To be among the pious,the good doers, we do not actually need to know how the world began but that however it began it is the Almighty who is capable of creating life.

And learning science need not be a loss of faith but a gain in faith that science explores things we are unable to spend the time or money to research.The Almighty time and again reminds us to look at the created world and marvel at the signs of His creation.

When my child/children learn science in school,they would already know that all creation came from the Almighty and unto Him is our return.

And learning science need not be a loss of faith
If only this were more widely appreciated, there would be a lot fewer arguments. Combining a strictly literal interpretation of scriptures with major misconceptions about scientific theory and practice leads to most of the contentious disputation that occurs, both here and elsewhere.

I do agree to a point. I believe that there is a higher being. A God, Creator whatever you want to call Him. But I also believe that man has taken that and used it to make money and to control people. I believe that religion is a state of mind and belief. But churches and the "leaders" of those faiths at times use peoples beliefs to get what they want= money and power. I have been to several different churches from southern baptist to protestant, to methodist. And I have looked into many others. And I have found that too many of them take the "bible" and twist it's meaning to fit their own needs.

The "bible" was not around when life began (now you have to buy them). Churches were not around when life began ( they want you to give them your money and yet most of the pastors bills are included in the churches bills and they somehow drive nicer cars than most of the church members). A marriage license was not around when life began (yeah, that cost money too) and quite honestly when you read the bible A LOT of the things that the government and society deem to be wrong where going on in the time of Jesus and the first days of life on earth.

So, with that said my opinion is that anyone and everyone can believe whatever way they want. Be it that when our body dies we go into the ground and bugs eat us and that's it to when we die we come back as a chipmunk, to when we die we go to "Heaven" and sing praises. But I will not allow a man who is not God, or Jesus tell me what I should do with my money that I work for or tell me what it is that I am doing wrong in my life when he himself may be going home to rape his daughter. I will pray in the sanctuary of my own home much like Adam and Eve prayed in the garden of Eden (butt naked if I might add) and I will believe how I want to believe.

But I raise question to the "bible" simply because man wrote it and in my lifetime I have come to learn that you cannot trust anyone but yourself and God if you believe in Him. And I have read most all of the bible and I think that man has twisted it over the centuries to fit whatever lifestyle they wanted it to fit at that point in time and to this very day man twists it's meanings to fit whatever he wants at the time. But that is my opinion.

I am really fascinated by the whole conversation on this topic because I have never heard of ID until now. And I just really enjoy learning about anything and everything I don't know anythiing about!