Intellegent Design?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Mooseman, Jun 22, 2005.

  1. EricBess Active Member

    I'm merely using the word Istanbul used... But my point is that I consider "The theory of evolution" to be a viewpoint, just as Judeo-Christian is (the one Istanbul mentions). I suppose there are many "viewpoints" of "Intelligent Design"...
  2. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    I think "the theory of evolution" is not a viewpoint. It is a theory. "Judeo-Christian" is not a viewpoint. I don't even think it's a noun...
  3. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    It IS a viewpoint, by those who believe in it as the best explanation for "intelligent design". Just because it's a theory doesn't mean it excludes being a "viewpoint".
  4. Istanbul Sucker MCs call me sire.

    Oversoul - You're correct. Judeo-Christian isn't a noun, it's an adjective.

    Evolution is a theory based on science. So let's teach it in science class.
    Creationism (or your-favorite-religious-concept-here) is a theory based on faith. So let's teach it in, uh, faith class.

    But no fair just teaching Judeo-Christian beliefs when it comes to faith and calling it a day. That's really unfair to Muslims, Mormons, Hindu, and all the other religions. Or, to put it another way...

    I don't favor teaching faith in science.
    But if we do, we need to teach ALL faiths.
  5. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    I do think that science classes should sometimes teach more alternative theories (not that they never do, but it depends on the instructor). In science, we have a tool for determining which theories deserve more focus: the scientific method. When it comes to faith, I can think of no such tool.

    As soon as you accept faith as an alternative to science, pretty much everything is equally valid (similar to what Istanbul points out).
  6. EricBess Active Member

    I find this very humorous Istanbul...I guess a lot of it depends on what you mean by "science", but for sake of argument, I'm going to be safe and just say that is it "learning of men" based on observation and study.

    The reason I find that so humorous is because so much of "religion" now days seems to just be the same thing, ideas of man. Men thinking that just because they are educated, they have no need for spiritual guidance because their own ideas are "superior".

    Anyway, that's actually a whole different discussion. I guess my only real concern with what you have said is that evolution is "...based on science..." my argument from the beginning is that most of the time evolution is taught, it is taught as if it were scientific fact. I would rather have it not taught at all if the people teaching it cannot make it clear that it is just a theory.

    I guess what it really comes down to is that fact that in all of this discussion, little has been said about what specific branch of science we are referring to. When I think of science, I typically think of hard sciences, such as physics and chemistry. Where do we classify the theory of evolution?

    If we are talking about biology, then we certainly have some evidence that certain species of animals have changed over time. Religion has no place in a biology class and evolution has limited place.

    I think the problem we get into is that most people here are assuming that when we are talking about "evolution", it is implied that we are talking about "evolution of man" and in that case, I think it is important that it is not taught without making sure it is clear that we realistically know very little and most of what is being talked about is speculation and that there are other opinions. Avoid specifics if you like, but don't ignore that they exist.

    BTW, it always seems to me that people talk about religion and science as if they are at odds with each other. I have come to realize personally that any Supreme Creator is still bound by scientific principles, i.e. laws of nature. The biggest difference is that what we call "science" if often that limited part of the laws of nature that we understand (or at least thing we do).
  7. evan d New Member

    IF the discussion is of the theory fo evolution, it should be of the theory. Not the discussion of evolution as it pertains to humans. We all have seen the effect of the concept of evolution. We can teach evolution to anyone as a concept, even die-hard _________s. As a theory it can fail for humans, but as a concept it will win. We all have seen decks go throu changes as they fit what is best for thierr enviroment, just as animals do.
  8. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    True. But how much place evolution has in a biology class is dependent on what you categorize as evolution. Speciation should have very limited place, as it is (at best) a mostly unobservable phenomenon. The adaptation of organisms is different from this, but it seems to be treated by biology teachers as a negligible difference, if that. Really, the distinction should be more important, since one has applications that can be measured in experiments, whereas the other is speculation and reasoning.
  9. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

  10. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

  11. evan d New Member

    Unfortunetely that news article cannot be true. For it to be true, bush would have to have the ability to have a thought. There in lies the inherent untruethfulness.
  12. Killer Joe Active Member

    You're kidding, right? Karl Rove will give Bush an opinion soon!
  13. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    There's a follow-up article today but it's from the New York Times News Service which I believe you need to subscribe to to get...
  14. EricBess Active Member

    But the first line of this addresses the point I've been trying to make
    (emphasis added)

    If we are teaching evolution in conjunction with the creation of life, then IMO, Intelligent Design is no more speculation then the theory of evolution itself. Present both views or back off both views.
  15. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    But those are not equally valid options. Backing off both (and teaching about the creation of life altogether) is the only sensible option here...
  16. Oversoul The Tentacled One

  17. evan d New Member

    Could some one tell me where evolution fails as a theory? Maybe at 15 I haven't been taught its failures? PM or Post. I would like to know how it fails.
  18. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Theories don't have goals. So I'm not sure what you mean by "failing."
  19. evan d New Member

    I meant for those who think that evolution is just a theory, where does it not be true? Why is there the need for ID or creationism. What does Evolution not have? Where is it incorrect.

    Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over millions of years

    The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

    Idiots of the world at harvard fighting over a missed argument.

    On one hand, what happens with life after it excists.

    On the other, how life was started.

    As an argument, they are not two trains on one track about to collide, but rather two trains on different tracks. Creation and Evolution do not disprove the other.
  20. EricBess Active Member

    The fact that any group would be willing to pay $1 Million dollars annually to "research" this...

    Seems to me that this basically disproves the theory of evolution in the first place :D Either that or intelligence has never been a survival trait.

    And tell exactly are you going to measure the success of your investment 5 years from now after having invested $5Million? By the size of the houses of the researchers?

Share This Page