Intellegent Design?

[Mooseman]

Having said all that, Mooseman pointed out that the supposition of a creator does not rule out the posibility of evolution. evan rejects this by saying that evolution cannot create life, but doesn't account for how life started, nor does he take into account the fact that if the building blocks of life were put into motion by a creator who understood the science behind them, then the "theories" become compatible after all...

Eric,
That was put very well. Thank you.

To Evan:
In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted what is now called the "Miller-Urey Experiment." They attempted to recreate the atmosphere of the early earth (methane, ammonia, and hydrogen), placed the gasses in a glass vessel along with water to simulate the oceans. They used electrical sparks to simulate lightning discharges. At the time, scientists had estimated that the chances of molecules like amino acids forming was so remote as to be impossible. The experiment was a success. About 12% of the carbon had formed organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Amino acids are not forms of life. However, the experiment proved that simple base elements can spontaneously generate amino acids.

So the science is possible, but no one ever said that there isn't some grand design behind it all, if there is, it seems that the scientists are the ones discovering that design.
Remember, science only tries to answer the question: How did we get here, not Why are we here.

 

[evan d]

Having said all that, Mooseman pointed out that the supposition of a creator does not rule out the posibility of evolution. evan rejects this by saying that evolution cannot create life, but doesn't account for how life started, nor does he take into account the fact that if the building blocks of life were put into motion by a creator who understood the science behind them, then the "theories" become compatible after all...

Frankly, I don't have to, because evolution as a theory has nothing to do with the creation of life, but rather what happens when you have such life. It simply states that if given life, and a may to make changes, and that the changes can last onto other generations, that the better form of the life be more likely to survive and pass down its more successful genetics.

Don't compare apples to oranges.

"nor does he take into account the fact that if the building blocks of life were put into motion by a creator who understood the science behind them, then the "theories" become compatible after all..."

Fact?

 

[Istanbul]

Rejecting either theory is an exercise in willful ignorance. Teach both to the kids, let them decide for themselves what they believe.

 

[Oversoul]

Rejecting either theory is an exercise in willful ignorance. Teach both to the kids, let them decide for themselves what they believe.

In that case, where is the sense in stopping at only two theories?

 

[Spiderman]

You mean there's others, like "aliens put us here" and/or something else?

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Rejecting either theory is an exercise in willful ignorance. Teach both to the kids, let them decide for themselves what they believe.

While it may be true that rejecting the I.D. hypothesis is such an exercise, that doesn't seem like a very good reason to teach it to kids as though it was science.

As for letting the kids decide what they believe, there's no problem with that, as long as they're getting good information. But trying to teach I.D. as though it was a science is not giving kids good information.

Believing in intelligent design (as I did, though the term had not yet been coined when I was in middle & high school) does not invalidate anything I was taught about evolution. I had no trouble at all synthesizing what I was learning in school with what I had been taught in church -- though I did at one point formulate a very amusing "Adam and Eve as apes" scenario that neither my mother nor my church teachers found at all amusing...then again my church elders told me that fossil evidence was actually placed by God to test our faith, so...*shrug.*

In that case, where is the sense in stopping at only two theories?

Indeed.

To be fair to both I.D. and evolutionary theory, we should be required to teach a number of variant explanations for the development of life.

I'm sure the Church of Scientology would really like to have their theory of human origins taught in schools (though I'm not sure who would be expected to pony up the dough for it; they charge plenty for that information).

We could make The Case for Female Orgasm (the intellent designer is a chick?) required reading. And Chariots of the Gods* and The Intelligent Universe (alien designers?).

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. This could make life sciences much more interesting, and serve to demonstrate the use of the scientific method. Most kids of average or better intelligence will draw appropriate conclusions, and even the less-apt pupils will learn some valuable critical thinking skills.

Then again, the Trojans thought that big Greek horse was a pretty cool gift...

*(Which suggests a scenario of alien intelligences "seeding" our species over eons to guide its development into a higher life form, providing much more reliable-- seriously! --evidence than I.D. does.)

 

[Oversoul]

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. This could make life sciences much more interesting, and serve to demonstrate the use of the scientific method. Most kids of average or better intelligence will draw appropriate conclusions, and even the less-apt pupils will learn some valuable critical thinking skills.

An intriguing prospect on multiple levels...

 

[evan d]

This could be useful if they are sat down and they basicly have a clean and fair debate about these subjects, just as we are doing here. It would teach many things like rhethoric and descion making.

 

[Istanbul]

Teach evolution as science.
Teach faith as, well, faith.
Make the distinction, but do offer both.

 

[DÛke]

In essence, science demands our faith in science, and faith - having its own practicality of sorts - is scientific. From the outset, the distinction maybe clear; from an inward perspective, their purposes, their consequences, and their uses...are one and the same.

 

[Gizmo]

Evolution is as well-proven as gravity, and far better understood.

Religion is mankind's greatest sin and should be banned from formal education and treated as child abuse if the parents choose to brainwash their kids with that ****.

 

[DÛke]

I would have guessed that you of all people here would be a little more open to extreme possibilities...

 

[Gizmo]

Religion is the product of human imagination filling the gaps in our ignorance. It's a pathetic remnant of our past that has managed to cling to life because of it's parastic existence off of humanity's goodwill.

Evolution is as much in doubt as 1+1=2.

 

[evan d]

Religion is the product of human imagination filling the gaps in our ignorance. It's a pathetic remnant of our past that has managed to cling to life because of it's parastic existence off of humanity's goodwill.

Evolution is as much in doubt as 1+1=2.

I would have made similiar statements, but I didn't out of respect.

I think my generation is far less religious, becuase we can see reality.

Don't use contraceptives or birth control? Is the church only want to have more people ot give them money?

I view religions as I do a casinos from a economic outlook. They both do not create a product, but only siphon away money.

As I beleive I said before, I think that religion was a way to control people for thier own better without government. The ten commandments is a good example of such.

I also would like to state that if a child isn't started young with religion they are unlikely to believe in such things. The same is true for the tooth fairy, santa, and Infernal Spawn of the Infernal Spawn of Evil.

 

[DÛke]

<Note to self> I guess I have more work to do on this Earth than I first had fathomed.

evan d:

I think my generation is far less religious, because we can see reality.

I am dying to know, really. Would you please enlighten me in regards to this "reality" which your generation is a first-hand witness of?

evan d:

I also would like to state that if a child isn't started young with religion they are unlikely to believe in such things. The same is true for the tooth fairy, santa, and Infernal Spawn of the Infernal Spawn of Evil.

My parents are die-hard atheists. They're not even spiritual. They denounce God, Islam, Christianity, and all forms of "spiritual enlightenment." And yet I have always been a little more open to extreme possibilities, a little more "spiritual" - if you're willing to forgive the term. Not only "spiritual," but I have began dedicating my life to studies in psychology and philosophy, and have written at length in regards to these very subjects which we are discussing here. I have also grew up here in the U.S., in a culture which is mostly devoid of serious spiritual contemplation other than the oh so "lighthearted" belief in Christianity or the despicable "new age" movements that flood corners of the streets as if they were prostitutes. And yet, here I am - more so a "believer" than anything else. Would you mind shedding some reality on this ignorance of mine? I am curious.

And Gizmo. I can't agree more. Religion is a product of imagination, an "old science" if you will, which is, by all means, outdated in the light of modern knowledge. That said, I'm curious what you think about the possibility of God, an "intelligent designer," apart from this or that religion. So would you mind sharing?

 

[DarthFerret]

I would like to point out one thing, even though I disagree with most of what y'all have been saying, although I do respect your opinions.

If you do believe (and i don't know if you do or not) that there is some incarnation of evil, then by scientific reasoning alone, would that not mean that a balancing incarnation of good does exist.

Also, if you are basing your reasons of atheism or agnosticism on one single religious practice (ie the catholic church banning birth control) isn't that a little bit on the extreem side? Plus, as i pointed out before, most religions base their beliefs on faith, and faith cannot be proven, therefore, how can that be an extreem form of reasoning because there is no "proof" of reality. If there was proof of the reality of a religious being, wouldn't that shoot the religion in the foot because the "faith" would be lost.

I realize this is a bit confusing, but we are discussing abstract theories in general. And, as for proof and reality, there is no proven "link" in the evolutionary line connecting apes/simmians/etc with humans. So isn't belief in evolution a little bit based on faith as well?

Just some points to ponder.

 

[Oversoul]

Evolution is as well-proven as gravity, and far better understood.

Absurd. Gravity may not be understood very well, but it has been demonstrated countless times.

Evolution does have evidence, but not so much evidence as gravity, which is observable for virtually anyone...

If you do believe (and i don't know if you do or not) that there is some incarnation of evil, then by scientific reasoning alone, would that not mean that a balancing incarnation of good does exist.

No, it would not. On exactly what "scientific reasoning" are you basing such a precept?

 

[Istanbul]

See, this is why I'm a die-hard agnostic. I don't know if there's a God, and if there is, I doubt we can properly understand it. Maybe we did just all show up, *poof*. Maybe we evolved. I can't say for sure...and neither can anyone else. That's why I think we should present options - couched as what they are, science, faith, or what-have-you - and let the individuals make their own decisions. Isn't that the most important thing we can learn anyway: how to make up our minds for ourselves?

 

[Gizmo]

Absurd. Gravity may not be understood very well, but it has been demonstrated countless times.

Evolution does have evidence, but not so much evidence as gravity, which is observable for virtually anyone...

Actually not absurd.

Evolution is harnessed now, we can experiment on it more rapidly and more completely than gravity. You say gravity is understood and yet fundamentally it isnt because there's two competing theories that explain part of it but cannot both be true (thats the whole search for a 'Unified Field Theory' business you may have heard about). At the same time Evolution is provable in a laboratory, experiments on Fruit Flies allowing generations of evolution to be tested and evaluated in laboratory conditions. Evolution is proven by things such as pigeons changing colour to adapt to urban surrounding, the Africanised Bees, GM crops, pedigree pets...

Evolution is fact, our best theories of Gravity are supposition.

 

[Nightstalkers]

Personally, I'm Agnostic because I find no real reason for people to keep blaming God for creating everything that is created in the universe, and I find that there is insufficient evidence to either discredit the existence of god, or prove him to be real. It's not indecision either, it's simply the fact that insufficient evidence has been proposed on either side.

As for the "intelligent design" theory, I find that a lot of people say that "god did it" just to have an answer other than "just because."

Student: Why is the Earth round?
Teacher A: God did it.
Teacher B: Actually, all matter has a specific attraction to one another through one force or another; be it magnetism or what not. This attraction is usually known as gravity. Now as more and more objects start to clump together they come from all directions and basically pile up in a circular formation. You only see things spread out on the ground because gravity is forcing things down and it's spreading out across the surface of whatever you are "clumping" them up on. Gravity is then the cause of the earth being round.

Student: That was a long explanation... I like your answer better, Teacher A.