What are your views on Inteligent design versus evolution? Should government get involved? :confused:

I could care less. Either way we are here. There are many more topics and issues that should be occupying our time. The government would be better off dealing with all the people still homeless from Katrina and bringing our service men and women safely home from Iraq.

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

BTW, it's intelligent

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

Well excuuuuuuuuuse me!

Youse is excused

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

What is intelligent design?

Catfish: intelligent design is the belief that a Supreme being created the universe. Enter intelligent design on your brouser for a lengthy definition.

Personally, I don't think so. We are not the only galaxy or universe. Questioning who this supreme being might be, to create such a vast universe is really, in my opinion, not the question. I would like to think the question is, "What" created this universe. Is intelligent design verses evolution a religious debate? How should or would the government be involved with either scenario?

.

They say, "When you teach your children, teach them well, cuz someday they're gonna be running things."

Boy. So many questions.

First, what makes me dizzy here is that I agree with Nell. This is something to celebrate this Winter Solstice Season.

Second, even though the thread is not specifically about the Dover, PA case, in that case the proponents carefully left a supreme being out of it in order to reduce the possibility of their proposal being billed as "religious." That failed and the republican judge appointed by Bush (Judge John E. Jones, 3rd) found that so-called ID is not science.

Third, it is not the government's role to interject and promote religious views. They have enough to do intruding into deciding on who should marry who and what library books you are reading. Don't they have enough to do what with being busy planting phony news stories, spying on Americans, and rounding up people for transportation to third party countries for torture? (Would intelligent design have designed that practice?)

By the way, The Freedom From Religion Foundation is now selling Tee-Shirts with a picture of Bush on the front and saying, "Best Evidence Against Intelligent Design."

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah

Personally, Abraham, I don't think the government has the right to decide what our children are taught in schools.
But, after all the years of even us, as children, being forced to listen to the scientific concept of what creation is in our schools, and now having most of the theory of evolution proven wrong, the school system has to offer more than a wrong theory. I also believe that the t-shirt is silly. I like President Bush, and even though I haven't agreed with all his decisions, I can see why he has made some of them. In today's society we are constantly looking for the quick fix, President Bush is working for the future.

How so? This is the first I have heard of such a thing. By what and how is it proven wrong? And I am a faithful recipient of the "Acts and Facts" from the Institute for Creation Research (they call themselves "Creation Evangelists). And they have demonstrated no such thing, and the case in Pennsylvania failed to do so in the eyes of the law as well as in the eyes of the scientific community last week. Science is open ended and does not make claims of certainty. Scientific theories historically can be superceded by theories with greater explanatory ability and greater corroboration with known facts. So-called intelligent design does not even come up to the standard of Scientific Hypothesis let alone theory. Why pick the worst and most fallacie-ridden proposal as the creationists desire to do?

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah

Now Abraham, surely we've agreed on someting in the past. It's not like agreeing with me is the worst thing that could happen to you

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

Marty, when I was in school a bzillion years ago, before Abraham was born (our Abraham, not the O.T. one) we were taught that evolution was a theory. We were also taught that some people believed literally in the Bible and that the world and everything in it was created by God. No one forced us to listen to either theory, after all we were in school to learn. Being that it was before Ms O'Hare kicked religion out of the public schools our teachers were allowed no one got upset over both possibilities being explained. Even then it didn't matter to me because we were here and that's all that mattered, there were far more important issues to be concerned about.

I'm not aware the theory of evolution has been disproved.

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

Huh,

I would have thought that such a critical flaw in the Theory of Evolution would have been MAJOR news. I haven't seen it on any major news channel or anywhere else.

Could you please provide a little more information.

I just love that science has never denied the existence of a higher power and yet religion constantly denies science...

Admit it Nell, you probably knew the old time Abraham personally.

I went to a catholic grade school so I was "taught" creation only. See how well that worked.

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah

I find this discussion both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. Why? Well becuase we are entering into a realm of anti-science and pro-religous dogma.

I too was taught that Darwin's evolution of the species was a theory. However, the ID people are teaching thier program as "truth", and herein lies the fundimental (pardon the pun) differences.

Science allows for discovery, questioning, and testing of theory whereas ID calls for an unquestioning belief -- "we have all the answers, so there really is no need for further questions." Seems awfully simplistic to me.

I respect those that believe ID as opposed to Darwinian evolution. Well, ok, I kinda really don't seeing as to me they fall in the same catagory as the flat earther's and those same people that swear that the apollo missions were filmed in hollywood.

Now before you come over to lynch me, suffice it to say that I believe science does indeed believe in a higher power. I don't believe science wants to reduce the structure of existance in order to disprove the existance of God (by whatever name you may call this). I believe that science is a fundamental quest for understanding.

ID is just too pat for me.

As for teaching it in the schools as opposed to traditional biology, wow! It is a cake and eat it too type of thing. Folks want no prayer in school, yet they are clamoring for us to "Teach God" in biology class? Hmm...

Well that is enough of my cogitation for today... I am beginning to talk myself in circles.

_________________
*** The opinions expressed herein are uniquely MY OWN and should not be construed as an endorsement of any sort by my employers or of any professional associations to which I hold membership. I can dig myself into holes just fine without their help, thank you very much***

I will do some research to back up my statement, I was going to send a copy of the findings to this message board, but as there wasn't anything being spoken of with it, I didn't bother.
There was a big article in one of the Science Report Magazines last Spring and it was huge news to them, about how the theory of the single cell was proven incorrect, and that due to this finding the evolution theory - of man evolving from apes was proven wrong - as this is the basis for the whole theory, and also the black hole theory was proven impossible too and that was by Roger Penrose (on of the fouding fathers of this theory) - these findings weren't done by any religious cult, but actual equations by the same scientists that had flouted them for years.
Since I don't have any faith in the evolution theory, I haven't kept up with all the news on these latest findings. I do know that the recent findings are the reason that they are now thinking of allowing ID into the teachings of Science.
I do know that in the carbon dating a lot of Darwin's theory was also proven impossible, but I'm not sure how, as I don't really understand this particular topic - but then again, lately (I think it was last June), the carbon dating was found to be incorrect also. Give me some time and I will try to find the articles.
Nurse Nell, when I was in grade school (just about the time of good old Moses), we had just the evolution theory, and no other concepts were allowed. We weren't even allowed to put in our personal views of God as Creator. But our Science teacher was pretty crafty in trying to put it into our little minds that this was a correct theory, and so many fell for it. I asked to be removed from this part of the teaching, but wasn't allowed and so took a failing grade in Science because I refused to go.
As children, we were never told that Science was just a theory of why things happened like they did, but were told that men had come to this conclusion and so it was so. I'm glad that my parents would sit and discuss this with me, and that they gave me a solid foundation in Christ. As an adult, I understand so much better how God was the Creator and that His Word can't be argued that easily in my heart.
There is so much more to Science than all the Creation theories and I don't see why schools can't just get rid of all teachings and allow parents to consel their children in the matter.

Interesting Abraham. My kids went to Catholic grade schools and 2 went to Catholic high schools. They were all taught both evolution and creation. I went to a Catholic college and evolution was taught there too. Most Catholics I know believe in evolution or at least think it's more plausible than the account in the O.T.
But then most of us are the dreaded cafeteria Catholics. My own opinion is who cares, it doesn't change anything in the here and now.

As for knowing the real Abraham, let's just keep quiet.

_________________
Nell

More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer. If you smoke, quit. If you don't, don't start.

Friends never lets friends drive drunk.

I think why this always comes to a religous discussion is that if there is no evolution theory, then folks are left asking themselves "How did we come about, how was the universe formed", and so on. It then comes down to two major religons: Islam or Christianity.
The creativity theory can't be used in Hinduism, as this religon is proven unfaithful by astromony and can't even in it's basic beliefs answer how the universe came into origin.
Budism proves itself that it can't be related into the Creation theory by it's beliefs in nirvana.
Then there is the Islam belief that God talked to Mohammad, who even acknowledged was never sure whether he actually heard from God or not, was suicidal, built a following based partly on military conquest, married a nine year old girl, amongst other things.
Then we have the Christainity theory that believes God as the Creator, the Bible has 40 different authors who's writings span over a 1500 year period. They accurately foretell the birth of Christ, his death, and his resurection, not to mention the historical accuracy of the teachings of this book. As to the changing of the words of Scriptures over the centuries, this is impossible, as the tasks have been done in painstaking work. Plus the findings of the Dead Sea scrolls have proven the accuracy. Since God wrote the Bible thru man's hands, it can't be changed enough to make it's teachings - and what God wants us to know as His truths - unrelaible. Since folks are born with a natural curiosity as to the hows and wherefors, everyone wants an answer to these questions of creation. So, we can take scientific study which is man given, or the Scriptures which are God given.
Oh, and sorry for all my spelling errors, I type too fast and forget to proofread sometimes.

Excellent posts, Marty! And a belated Merry Christmas to you.

Aristotle uses a "prime mover" or a concept in which the stuff of the universe already existed. Hinduism and Buddhism can also fit in with that concept. Science too in most theories accepts that the stuff of the universe always existed in some form: matter, energy, unknown stuff, etc. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam also accept preexisting stuff that always existed. In their version the preexistng stuff is the god. So "creation" is in that sense not even believed by Christians, that is they do not talk about who created their god only the time and form of the stuff the god produced.

As for Marty's hopes for the reliability of the bible, I suggest reading it carefully. The contradictions and errors have become a lifetime vocation for some writers. In day one (Gen. 1:3) the god creates light. Yet in day three it is first that the source of the light is created (Gen. 1:1-18). How is this explained. And so it goes for ll00 pages or 2200 in the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Type in biblical errancy or biblical contradictions in your computer search engine if you like. I recommend that people give the bible a good critical reading. A good companion read in such study would be a history of western civilization.

Don't worry Nell, age is good for some things. I find that I sleep much better and in contrast to high school I can knock out a 500 word essay in a few minutes versus the agony in a beginning composition class.

Yes as Nells says it means little in the immediacy of the moment but in the reading of that history of western civilization you will note that christians killed each other over much less.

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah

"All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves" Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar's More Difficulties

"The evidence of Geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the terms of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation" Geologist, Joseph Le Conte

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."


Charles Robert Darwin,
The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 1st edition reprint. Avenel Books

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils). In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed."


Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Mentioned in one of his regular columns in Natural History Magazine (1977) and also in The Panda's Thumb

"different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated -- we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- We have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins' time" Dr. David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Field Museum Natural History Bulletin

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" Dr. David B. Kitts, Paleontologist

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M. Stanley

"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.
On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."


Bowler, 'Evolution: The History of an Idea', 1984

Gould was a confirmed evolutionist until the end and his theory of punctuated equlibrium that is often misquoted by creationists is merely a small snippet from his own insight into the mechanisms of evolution, not a disavowel of evolution. The other comments refer not to any problem with the scientific theory of evolution but he tracking record of actual bones and fossilized remains.

There is no fossil record at all for gods, angels, supernatural beings, etc. In fact no evidence.

The letter to the editor below appeared in the Vilas County paper yesterday and testifies to the scutiny involved in a scientific theory.
******************

Beware 'junk science' accusations

Dear Editor:

Possibly the major contribution of science to our civilization is “empirical self-correction.” In other words, science incorporates procedures whereby errors are corrected and our understandings increasingly correspond to observations of the natural world.

One of these procedures is peer review — a paper submitted for publication is examined and criticized, usually anonymously, by other scientists working in the same field. (It is absolutely not fun to expose one's work to detailed examination by peers who usually strive to point out errors, both large and small.)

Perhaps even more critical is replication. If an unexpected or important finding is published, scientists in other settings attempt to repeat the experiment and results. While errors are sometimes published — for example, cold fusion or perpetual motion — they seldom persist.

Junk science is a label often employed by people who are unwilling to wait for completion of the self-correction process or who oppose scientific findings based on political or economic goals inconsistent with those findings. Frequently, the goal of people who assert that a finding is junk science is to sow doubt about anything labeled science, to make science less credible to citizens.

During the 1960s, cigarette manufacturers strenuously criticized data indicating that lung cancer is related to smoking. Had the phrase junk science been invented, cigarette manufacturers would undoubtedly have used it to attack studies that demonstrated the cancer-smoking relationship.

Similar attacks were generated by the publication of Rachel Carson's book “Silent Spring.” Currently, people who publish data suggesting that global warming is partly due to “greenhouse gas” emissions are attacked by the automobile and oil industries for publishing junk science.

Lessons: first, learn what science really does and how it works; second, when you read the phrase “junk science,” consider what agenda the writers are promoting, what interests they represent.

Don Parker
Professor emeritus
Seattle, Wash., and
Eagle River
12/27/2005

_________________
"Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other." -Baha'u'llah