Intelligent Design

[Schnazz]

However, still, do not teach ID, at least in science. It is not a scientific theory. If you want it taught, put it in a theology class or a religion class.

I'm not so much for teaching it as I am for adding the disclaimer that evolution is not the be all and end all. Such a disclaimer is well within the realm of a science class. I wouldn't go as far as teaching creationism as that certainly has more to do with theology. The case I mentioned at the beginning that is being carried out is about a disclaimer in science books asserting that evolution is "a theory, not a fact." By all interpretations, this is true, but strangely, people don't want to acknowledge it.

Here's the passage that's supposed to be read:

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin ... With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

That seriously undermines science. Should we also read that the theory of relativity is a theory, and that students should keep an open mind?

[Schnazz]

There's a difference between those two perspectives though. The first perspective is based in science, the other is based in religion. If you want to apply the latter argument, it could be applied to most episodes of the X-Files. Should we teach that in classrooms as well? Or even further, it's me! I'm the one responsible for the gaps in fossils and how life got on earth. I did it, yep, it's me. I would like it taught in all class rooms that Schnazz put life on earth. There's just as much evidence of that as there is of ID, a smidge more actually, since I'm here claiming it.

Again, it's a matter of interpretation. You can't say that science doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer (for the time being, it does), so to avoid taking a stance on whether it does or doens't, the realm of the conversation is shifted to religion.

I don't understand what you were trying to say with the latter points... Could you clarify?

Naw, science does point, strongly, towards evolution, not ID.

The point of my latter statements was that following the same logic as ID, you could argue those other two situations are possible.

[MaxFly]

Here's the passage that's supposed to be read:

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin ... With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."

That seriously undermines science. Should we also read that the theory of relativity is a theory, and that students should keep an open mind?

The only thing I would change in what you have posted is "explanation." In reference to science, I would refer to ID as an idea, but aside from that, the statement is fine. There is absolutely nothing factually wrong with that statement nor does it undermine science in any way.

If the facts of past finding are presented, present them as facts. If there are other aspects that lack evidence, present them as theory. There is a reason why the Theory of Evolution is referred to as the Theory of Evolution.

In kind, the theory of relativity is generally taught as a theory. For example when you set one object in rapid motion and another is kept stationary, time relative to the object in rapid motion unfolds just a tad slower that for stationary object. This has been tested. However, scientists are not certain exactly why this is so though there are theories. There are no proven equations as of yet establishing how time and speed relate in the theory of special relativity. Science openly admits that not everything on this subject is clear though the subject is 90-100 years old. As a result, yes, students should keep an open mind in light of future developments in the theory.

However, it is again important to note that the term "theory" is solidly associated with special and general relativity. Evolution doesn't enjoy that burden in the classroom.

Naw, science does point, strongly, towards evolution, not ID.

The point of my latter statements was that following the same logic as ID, you could argue those other two situations are possible.

Lol, so to clarify further, are you saying that science doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer? Yes or No?

To your second point... while there isn't evidence refuting intelligent design, there is evidence refuting the fact that you are the one responsible. I'm not sure where you are leading with this, lol, but feel free to continue...

[Schnazz]

To your second point... while there isn't evidence refuting intelligent design, there is evidence refuting the fact that you are the one responsible. I'm not sure where you are leading with this, lol, but feel free to continue...

What evidence do you have refuting the fact that I am the one responsible? It must be incorrect, because I am the one responsible! :lolsign:

[MaxFly]

To your second point... while there isn't evidence refuting intelligent design, there is evidence refuting the fact that you are the one responsible. I'm not sure where you are leading with this, lol, but feel free to continue...

What evidence do you have refuting the fact that I am the one responsible? It must be incorrect, because I am the one responsible! :lolsign:

Lol... I'm not even going to get into this.

[Schnazz]

Excellent.... Evolution and intelligent design are both out, Schnazzyism is in!

[Hero1]

its schnazzy schnazzy ! Yo his name is Pepper

and he's responsible? :sick:

[MaxFly]

its schnazzy schnazzy ! Yo his name is Pepper

and he's responsible? :sick:

:rofl:

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse...

[Schnazz]

Lol, so to clarify further, are you saying that science doesn't point to the possibility of an intelligent designer? Yes or No?

You're getting very Clintonesque with your word choice: "point to the possibility." What exactly do you mean by that? I am saying that there is a mountain of scientific evidence for evolution. I am also saying there is no scientific evidence for an intelligent designer.

[MaxFly]

You're getting very Clintonesque with your word choice: "point to the possibility." What exactly do you mean by that? I am saying that there is a mountain of scientific evidence for evolution. I am also saying there is no scientific evidence for an intelligent designer.

Well it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Lol.

But really, when we refer to the origin of life, we're talking about what possibly happened. Formation of amino acids or nucleic acids from early earth chemical reactions... we have no evidence of life originating in the ways science thinks it could have come to be... We're taking about possibilities. When we refer to hydrothermal vents, we have no evidence that this is how life came to be... We only have the possibility... 'Posibility' isn't such a bad thing... many of our theories are based on it. There is no evidence proving how life originated... but there are things that point to our current theories as "posibilities."

When I say that science points to the possibility of an intelligent designer, I'm attempting to word the statement in the most accurate yet simple way possible. When science says that current evidence points to the possibility of original life starting first with the formation of amino acids, it is seeking to do the same.

Incidentally, there is also quite a bit of evidence contradicting our current model of evolution.

[Schnazz]

But really, when we refer to the origin of life, we're talking about what possibly happened. Formation of amino acids or nucleic acids from early earth chemical reactions... we have no evidence of life originating in the ways science thinks it could have come to be... We're taking about possibilities. When we refer to hydrothermal vents, we have no evidence that this is how life came to be... We only have the possibility... 'Posibility' isn't such a bad thing... many of our theories are based on it. There is no evidence proving how life originated... but there are things that point to our current theories as "posibilities."

When I say that science points to the possibility of an intelligent designer, I'm attempting to word the statement in the most accurate yet simple way possible. When science says that current evidence points to the possibility of original life starting first with the formation of amino acids, it is seeking to do the same.

Incidentally, there is also quite a bit of evidence contradicting our current model of evolution.

The difference is that there's experiments that show that certain evolutionary methods are possible, there's no experiments that show that the ID method is possible.

What is the "quite a bit of evidence" that contradicts evolution?

[MaxFly]

The difference is that there's experiments that show that certain evolutionary methods are possible, there's no experiments that show that the ID method is possible.

What is the "quite a bit of evidence" that contradicts evolution?

And at the same time, theories that are discounted as impossibilities have had experiments showing them to be so.

ID is in sort of a gray area. There's evidence pointing to the possibility, but there is no forseeable way to carry out experiments to prove it or disprove it... This is not unique in science. We still don't have ways to test some of Einstein's more advanced and nuanced theories of general relativity, and there is no indication that we will have a way in the future. Scientists are only hoping that with time, we will have the advanced methods that would be needed for such an experiment. That doesn't stop us from referring to general relativity.

Well in referring to our current model, there is the precambrian debacle and other fossil evidence such as that of birds showing contradictions... You have the whole origin of life issue making it very difficult for life to begin in the ways we think it did. Inconsistensies and contradictions in radiometric dating, even using the same method and samples repeatedly...

Lets put it like this... If evolution were fact as of right now... science wound't be arguing that ID is not scientific. It would be arguing that evolution is fact and that ID is false and has been proven so... no such luck for evolution though...

[Hero1]

Friday, November 18, 2005 · Last updated 6:09 p.m. PT

Vatican official refutes intelligent design

By NICOLE WINFIELD

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

VATICAN CITY -- The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" - whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism - a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/110..._Evolution.html

[Lerkot]

The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

Amen to that.

[Schnazz]

Is Intelligent Design only being supported in the US? It seems like other countries are all on the evolution band wagon...