Intelligent design

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
AT is the most liberal place ever.

If this comment is directed at me, know that I'm a political moderate

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: ArtVandalay

Originally posted by: JohnCU
AT is the most liberal place ever.

If this comment is directed at me, know that I'm a political moderate

It was but I agree with you about the person in charge. :thumbsup:

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: JohnCU
AT is the most liberal place ever.

What an irrelevant and pointless comment.

It wasn't irrelevant or pointless, someone just mentioned how the fundies have their hero in office.

 

[GasX]

There is nothing scientific about ID. If it is to be taught in school, it should be in a sociology class.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

its pretty evident no intelligence went into the creation of some people

 

[BurnItDwn]

"Intelligent Design" is not scientific. It is a religious viewpoint.
Do I believe in it, nope, my only faith is in the lack of any "inteligent creator"
Should it be taught in schools ... Public schools, Absolutely not, religious schools can teach it in religion class if they would like, but NOT IN SCIENCE CLASS, AND THEY SHOULD ALL TEACH EVOLUTION. Sorry for yelling.

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I don't care whether or not you think it is a P&N issue, this thread has already turned into a religion/intelligent design bashing thread. The fact is, neither macro evolution nor intelligent design can be proven or tested. Why bother even having these threads since all they ever do is just make people mad without ever changing anybodies opinion. :roll:

I bothered making this thread because once in awhile people who actually know something about the topic like GeneValgene come and post something interesting and others occassionally share a unique opinion that's worth at least hearing with an open mind. Your post, however, contributes absolutely nothing.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I don't care whether or not you think it is a P&N issue, this thread has already turned into a religion/intelligent design bashing thread. The fact is, neither macro evolution nor intelligent design can be proven or tested. Why bother even having these threads since all they ever do is just make people mad without ever changing anybodies opinion. :roll:

I bothered making this thread because once in awhile people who actually know something about the topic like GeneValgene come and post something interesting and others occassionally share a unique opinion that's worth at least hearing with an open mind. Your post, however, contributes absolutely nothing.

Thats the whole problem though. Nobody here has an open mind.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Neither should be taught.

Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.

It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I don't care whether or not you think it is a P&N issue, this thread has already turned into a religion/intelligent design bashing thread. The fact is, neither macro evolution nor intelligent design can be proven or tested. Why bother even having these threads since all they ever do is just make people mad without ever changing anybodies opinion. :roll:

I bothered making this thread because once in awhile people who actually know something about the topic like GeneValgene come and post something interesting and others occassionally share a unique opinion that's worth at least hearing with an open mind. Your post, however, contributes absolutely nothing.

Indeed, I learned something new, that's worth something.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.

Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.

It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.

Not saying that I disagree with you, but what do you propose be taught about human origins, nothing?

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I don't care whether or not you think it is a P&N issue, this thread has already turned into a religion/intelligent design bashing thread. The fact is, neither macro evolution nor intelligent design can be proven or tested. Why bother even having these threads since all they ever do is just make people mad without ever changing anybodies opinion. :roll:

I bothered making this thread because once in awhile people who actually know something about the topic like GeneValgene come and post something interesting and others occassionally share a unique opinion that's worth at least hearing with an open mind. Your post, however, contributes absolutely nothing.

Thats the whole problem though. Nobody here has an open mind.

Well I'd like to think that on some issues at least I have an open mind, whether others do or not. I may not believe in intelligent design, but there are some elements to it that might make it a science, or at least a curiosity. Before ruling it out I'd rather make an informed judgement, and although it takes a lot more than a post on AT to make me informed I thought it might be a good place for discussion.

I guess this forum hasn't been a good place for discussion lately.

 

[necine]

Valid
No
Yes

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.

Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.

It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.

Not saying that I disagree with you, but what do you propose be taught about human origins, nothing?

I can't speak for him, but my answer to that would be scientific theory. It's theorized that early conditions on our planet led to the creation of very simple life forms. Lab tests have synthesized bits of proteins and DNA by simulating this environment.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I don't care whether or not you think it is a P&N issue, this thread has already turned into a religion/intelligent design bashing thread. The fact is, neither macro evolution nor intelligent design can be proven or tested. Why bother even having these threads since all they ever do is just make people mad without ever changing anybodies opinion. :roll:

I bothered making this thread because once in awhile people who actually know something about the topic like GeneValgene come and post something interesting and others occassionally share a unique opinion that's worth at least hearing with an open mind. Your post, however, contributes absolutely nothing.

Thats the whole problem though. Nobody here has an open mind.

Well I'd like to think that on some issues at least I have an open mind, whether others do or not. I may not believe in intelligent design, but there are some elements to it that might make it a science, or at least a curiosity. Before ruling it out I'd rather make an informed judgement, and although it takes a lot more than a post on AT to make me informed I thought it might be a good place for discussion.

I guess this forum hasn't been a good place for discussion lately.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to thread crap, I just get disgusted because threads like this seem to turn into a hate-fest with comments thrown out without any thought. I would love it (and would actively participate) if people wouldn't get so offensive about "their" beliefs.

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.

Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.

It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.

I think not teaching either is just foolish. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. The US is already behind the rest of the world as far as science education goes, and without teaching evolution we would be taking steps backwards for educating doctors and research scientists that create both pharmacueticals and commercial products. Learning and understanding evolution is critical for these professions.

 

[akubi]

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: JohnCU
The environment does not adapt to allow it's inhabitants to survive, the inhabitants adapt to the environment. Survival of the fittest.

Things are the way they are because that's how we evolved.

survival of the fittest isn't necessarily a sufficient explanation for macro evolution. evidence points to macro evolution often occurring in 'bursts' in a short amount of time. this theory is often referred to as punctuated equilibrium, bursts of change followed by long periods of little or no change- this better describes the evidence than a purely gradual darwinian natural selection. a proponent of this idea is stephen jay gould of harvard, who is one of the most prominent biologists in the world today (and also a staunch critic of intelligent design). here's an article from gould Evolution of Life on Earth

however, i wouldn't say all of intelligent design is all crock. i woudl suggest william dembski's The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) . he is a mathematician who has a phd from u of chicago, and has done post doc at MIT and princeton - he's one of the leading voices in the intelligent design movement.

please do not smear MIT's good name with your crock of bs. he did not study at MIT (yes, I know you said post doc, but that means nothing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski

his educational background seems to indicate that he is just one of the many math phd's who simply could not compete with the real geniuses in the field; so he took one of the many cop outs and got another degree in philosophy and theology ( :roll: ). now he's trying to make a living by publishing horsesh!t and trying to justify it with pseudoscience.

 

[0roo0roo]

based on the logic of intelligent design where everything must have a designer, THERE MUST BE AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER FOR THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!! freakin dead end logic. god...if anythings proof of evolution stupid creationists are. an intelligent god wouldn't make such stupid creatures.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.

Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.

It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.

Not saying that I disagree with you, but what do you propose be taught about human origins, nothing?

Nothing. It's irrelevent as far as an education is concerned. Recorded history goes back like 5,000 years. As far as anybody can be factually concerned for the purpose of learning history, science, literature, philosphy, or any other topic, THAT is our origin.

I do, however, given the state of the world, think a religeon class should be a requirement in high school and that evolution and atheism should be considered a religeon and taught along side Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. If all kids learned about all the different religeons it would help them immensely in making their own educated decisions and in understanding other people's.

I'm sure this makes me a radical fundamentalist somehow so flame away.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I don't care whether or not you think it is a P&N issue, this thread has already turned into a religion/intelligent design bashing thread. The fact is, neither macro evolution nor intelligent design can be proven or tested. Why bother even having these threads since all they ever do is just make people mad without ever changing anybodies opinion. :roll:

It's not bashing, by and large. It's just stating an obvious fact. ID isn't a scientific theory. It doesn't matter how much you like it, or want to believe it, or how many other people like it or want to believe it. It doesn't matter what a beautiful sentiment it is - or what an ugly sentiment evolution is at heart. It's not science. You can't observe it, you can't verify it with repeatable experiments, and you can't use what you've learned to predict future results. It has no business being taught as science in our schools.

And just in case you're wondering, I do believe that a higher power created all this, and that it's here for a reason. Of course, since I don't believe in the literal reading of Genesis, what I think doesn't matter to the people pushing ID.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: ArtVandalay

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.

Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.

It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.

Not saying that I disagree with you, but what do you propose be taught about human origins, nothing?

I can't speak for him, but my answer to that would be scientific theory. It's theorized that early conditions on our planet led to the creation of very simple life forms. Lab tests have synthesized bits of proteins and DNA by simulating this environment.

Uh...evolution is a scientific theory.

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: akubi

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: JohnCU
The environment does not adapt to allow it's inhabitants to survive, the inhabitants adapt to the environment. Survival of the fittest.

Things are the way they are because that's how we evolved.

survival of the fittest isn't necessarily a sufficient explanation for macro evolution. evidence points to macro evolution often occurring in 'bursts' in a short amount of time. this theory is often referred to as punctuated equilibrium, bursts of change followed by long periods of little or no change- this better describes the evidence than a purely gradual darwinian natural selection. a proponent of this idea is stephen jay gould of harvard, who is one of the most prominent biologists in the world today (and also a staunch critic of intelligent design). here's an article from gould Evolution of Life on Earth

however, i wouldn't say all of intelligent design is all crock. i woudl suggest william dembski's The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) . he is a mathematician who has a phd from u of chicago, and has done post doc at MIT and princeton - he's one of the leading voices in the intelligent design movement.

please do not smear MIT's good name with your crock of bs. he did not study at MIT (yes, I know you said post doc, but that means nothing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski

his educational background seems to indicate that he is just one of the many math phd's who simply could not compete with the real geniuses in the field; so he took one of the many cop outs and got another degree in philosophy and theology ( :roll: ). now he's trying to make a living by publishing horsesh!t and trying to justify it with pseudoscience.

Wow. That's crazy that guy claims he's a scientist and never published any peer reviewed work supporting intelligent design. BOO... According to Wikipedia, a Baylor University commitee looking into the legitamacy of Dembski's research center didn't really like it, but said, "research on the logical structure of mathematical arguments for intelligent design have a legitimate claim to a place in the current discussions of the relations of religion and science." Seems to me that would give some sort of number estimate to how likely it is that there is a god. Interesting concept, it would be nice if the man did some real work in this field. Though it is an incredibly comprehensive statistical study, it would be great to see this kind research actually being done.

Honestly, those who claim that humanity is too complex to have ever risen from a single cell is talking with absolutely no support for this claim. There is no way to know exactly what is "too complex" without some sort of combination of math and biology to get a statistical analysis along those lines. I personally think that given the large amount of time biologists assign to the evolution of new species, or the extreme amount of stress that causes faster bursts of evolution, anything is possible.

 

[imported_ArtVandalay]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: ArtVandalay

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.

Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.

It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.

Not saying that I disagree with you, but what do you propose be taught about human origins, nothing?

I can't speak for him, but my answer to that would be scientific theory. It's theorized that early conditions on our planet led to the creation of very simple life forms. Lab tests have synthesized bits of proteins and DNA by simulating this environment.

Uh...evolution is a scientific theory.

Evolution explains changes to life, not its beginnings. DB asked "what do you propose be taught about human origins"

Edit: on second read, his question could be taken either way. I first interpreted it as "what do you propose be taught about the origins of life"

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.

Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.

It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.

without teaching evolution we would be taking steps backwards for educating doctors and research scientists that create both pharmacueticals and commercial products. Learning and understanding evolution is critical for these professions.

How? Keeping in mind we are discussing macro-evolution and not micro-evolution, I'd like to know how supposing that we evolved from a single-celled organism aids in the develoment of Gell-Coated Maximum Relief Tylenol Cold or helps me learn about photosynthesis.

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Neither should be taught.

Most of the people who believe in evolution haven't put any thought into it.....they were just bullied into believing it by teachers who made them feel like fools for questioning it. Same with creationism and some Sunday school teacher.

It just so happens that more people go to school than church and, hence, the disparity in this poll.

without teaching evolution we would be taking steps backwards for educating doctors and research scientists that create both pharmacueticals and commercial products. Learning and understanding evolution is critical for these professions.

How? Keeping in mind we are discussing macro-evolution and not micro-evolution, I'd like to know how supposing that we evolved from a single-celled organism aids in the develoment of Gell-Coated Maximum Relief Tylenol Cold or helps me learn about photosynthesis.

The whole theory is that we share something in common with every living thing. Studying different species down the evolutionary chain (model organisms) has led to breakthroughs in knowledge of not just how a representative species such as E. coli bacteria or Drosophila behave, but also how human developement behaves as well. Without the theory of evolution and the assumption that certain aspects of life are common to all species but also can be modified with evolution, we would know far less about both medicine and the natural world.