Intelligent Design

[MaxFly]

I disagree, ID has no place in schools. Evolution is a scientifically sound theory with a lot of evidence supporting it. Intelligent Design doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory, let alone a sound one. It's purely a cover for religious beliefs. As such, it should be preached in churches, not in taught schools. While I don't like the idea that churches preach anti-scientific notions (especially since, in the US, they get special tax breaks that means my taxes are higher, which in effect means that I'm helping to pay for churches), I strongly believe in religous freedom, so I have to take the bad with the good.

I strongly disagree. The problem here is that many people associate intelligent design with religion or religious beliefs largely because various religions teach some variation of intelligent design, and as a result, people are quick to dismiss any teaching purported by religious groups as having nothing to do with science. This is a false mindset since science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The truth is that a large number of scientists have arrived at intelligent design outside of any religious influence, chiefly on their observations of life processes and order. Many experiments have been carried out and while there may be a number of theories, many of them have been proven wrong or lack any evidence at all and are still being taught. Again, that is to say that many scientists have adopted the idea of intelligent design outside of any religious teachings based soley on their observations and their studies. As a result, the debate has gone beyond religion as these scientists claim that science supports the theory of an intelligent designer.

Also, macro evolution is not necessarily sound. If you question any scientist at length about macro evolution, they will admit that there is a great deal of evidence refuting it and that there were countless conditions in a supposed young earth that make many of the claims of macro evolution impossible. However, macro evolution is taught almost as fact in many schools even though there is not nearly enough evidence to support its viability.

Also Schnazz, I can confidentally say that churches are not the reason your taxes are higher and that you are not paying for churches.

[Hero1]

wheres the scientific evidence for these scientists who have arrived at intelligent design tho.. wheres the proof? if you dont have the evidence to back up your theory..its just that a theory.. i'm gonna reposition myself here.. I dont think intelligent design should be "taught" I think it should be discussed. You dont teach children beliefs you need to let the person grow up and find that themselves. Now if this scientist cant sphysically show me this god or higher power before me then it cant be stated as fact... :hmm:

[Schnazz]

I strongly disagree. The problem here is that many people associate intelligent design with religion or religious beliefs largely because various religions teach some variation of intelligent design, and as a result, people are quick to dismiss any teaching purported by religious groups as having nothing to do with science. This is a false mindset since science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Intelligent design has nothing to do with science, it has everything to do with religion.

The truth is that a large number of scientists have arrived at intelligent design outside of any religious influence, chiefly on their observations of life processes and order. Many experiments have been carried out and while there may be a number of theories, many of them have been proven wrong or lack any evidence at all and are still being taught. Again, that is to say that many scientists have adopted the idea of intelligent design outside of any religious teachings based soley on their observations and their studies. As a result, the debate has gone beyond religion as these scientists claim that science supports the theory of an intelligent designer.

Show me some sound scientific evidence for intelligent design. Show me reputable scientists who study evolution that claim that intelligent design is scientifically sound. Show me ANY strong evidence for intelligent design. Show me this large number of non-religious scientists that have arrived at intelligent design, scientists that are in the appropriate fields. (I don't care what a physicist has to say on the matter) Show me theories that "lack any evidence at all and are still being taught." The support for this is from scientists not in the appropriate field or studies carried out 50+ years ago. How do you quantify this "large number of scientists"? How many? What percentage of scientists? What are their fields of study? Are they respected in their field? Has their work been published? Has it been successfully peer-reviewed? There are decades of scientific evidence supporting evolution, it takes more than a spare botinist to overturn it.

Also, macro evolution is not necessarily sound. If you question any scientist at length about macro evolution, they will admit that there is a great deal of evidence refuting it and that there were countless conditions in a supposed young earth that make many of the claims of macro evolution impossible. However, macro evolution is taught almost as fact in many schools even though there is not nearly enough evidence to support its viability.

"any scientist" "will admit that there is a great deal of evidence refuting" ? No, not at all correct. There are still mysteries, such as there are still mysteries on how light works. But a great deal of evidence flat refuting it? No. "not nearly enough evidence to support its viability." ? Again, not true. Are you claiming that the "young earth" theory is proven? There's significant evidence against that. The current estimate of the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Carbon dating, potasium dating, and uranium dating are proven effective methods for dating objects and along with other methods, such as glacier analysis, have show a very clear timeline of evolution. Reliably dated fossils exist throught history that show a clear change in life over time. Macro evolution is very visable even in the past 500-1000 years. Through selective breeding, dogs have diversified greatly over time. There is much, much, much more evidence supporting evolution.

Also Schnazz, I can confidentally say that churches are not the reason your taxes are higher and that you are not paying for churches.

Ah, ok, I see, if you're confident then it must be so. However, ministers are afforded extra housing allowences and tax breaks on their income. Property tax is lighter (or non existant) for chuches then for individuals. You can give money to a church (to buy it whatever) and receive a tax break. Etc... All this means is that churches pay less taxes then the would if they where a different type of orginization or those laws weren't in place. However, the government still needs to collect the same amount of tax, so if the churches pay less, then everyone (myself included) have to pay more.

[Hero1]

here we go :paperbag: i'll catch yall on page 20 :paparazziupinthespot:

[Schnazz]

here we go :paperbag: i'll catch yall on page 20 :paparazziupinthespot:

:lolsign: :lolsign: :lolsign:

[WesSyde]

thank you guys for the definition

i don't think ID should be taught in Public Schools, perhaps in other religious private schools it could be tho. the problem is that Science has nothing to do with religion. while i believe ID probably did happen, i don't think it has any place in a Science classroom next to Darwin's theory of Evolution. my Biology teacher last year taught me so many times that a theory is something that can be proven, i wouldn't even call ID a theory right now cuz i don't think they can prove very well things that happened from a higher power. bottom line is that Science has to do with facts and scientific things, not religion and the authority of higher powers.

[Lerkot]

If we had ID in our school I would drop out in protest.

Why?

Since I'm strictly negative to people trying to get me into something thats totally bullcrap.. all my other school subjects are logic in some way, and I want it to keep it that way.

[cristigolo]

i feel you lerk

[MaxFly]

Intelligent design has nothing to do with science, it has everything to do with religion.

This isn't true. Again, as I stated earlier, though most religions acknowledge some form of intelligent design or more accurately, creationism, the theory of intelligent design is not soley limited to religious groups or institutions. The number of persons in the science community that acknowledge that intelligent design is a viable theory is growing, and this growth has nothing to do with religion.

Show me some sound scientific evidence for intelligent design. Show me reputable scientists who study evolution that claim that intelligent design is scientifically sound. Show me ANY strong evidence for intelligent design. Show me this large number of non-religious scientists that have arrived at intelligent design, scientists that are in the appropriate fields. (I don't care what a physicist has to say on the matter) Show me theories that "lack any evidence at all and are still being taught." The support for this is from scientists not in the appropriate field or studies carried out 50+ years ago. How do you quantify this "large number of scientists"? How many? What percentage of scientists? What are their fields of study? Are they respected in their field? Has their work been published? Has it been successfully peer-reviewed? There are decades of scientific evidence supporting evolution, it takes more than a spare botinist to overturn it.

You asked a lot of questions. I'll focus on a few.

Show me theories that "lack any evidence at all and are still being taught."

Russian biochemist Alex oparin theorized in 1924 that complex molecular arrangements and the functions of living matter evoled from simpler molecules that preexisted on the early earth. A few years later, a British biologist named J. B. S. Haldane theorized that ultraviolet light acted on the earth's primitive atmosphere and caused sugars and amino acids to concentrate in the oceans, and this formed the primordial soup that is believed life emerged from. Nobel Prize winner Harold Urey also suggested that the early earth's atmosphere would have made it favorable for organic compounds to emerge. Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago, actually performed an experiment to ascertain whether the theory is true. In his experiment, he recreated the atmosphere of the primitive earth and shot electricity through it to simulate the effects of lightning. In the course of the experiment, he was able to make amino acids, a basic building block of life. The science community and evolutionists embraced this as proof that life could arise by itself on earth.

This was taught and is still taught in schools as evidence that evolution took place.

What you will likely never hear in school is that the experiment was invalidated. Miller used ammonia, methane and hydrogen in his experiment to recreate the atmosphere of a primitive earth, however the deck was stacked. He wanted to get a chemical reaction that was favorable, so he proposed that the earth's atmosphere was rich in these gasses.

In 1980, NASA scientists showed that the primitive earth never had methane, ammonia or hydrogen that would amount to anything. They showed that the earth was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. It is impossible to get the same experimental results as Stanley got with that mixture. There have been recent experiments to confirm this.

Also, a lot of evidence for macro evolution is based on the fossil record and it is taught widescale that the fossil record firmly supports macro evolution. What you won't hear is that the fossil record also refutes macro evolution. Macro evolution is supposed to take place very slowly over millions of years but scientists have found that there was an explosion in the fossil record during the precambrian period. This means that there was an explosion of diverse life at that period on earth. This isn't supposed to happen in macro evolution. In fact, it's supposed to be impossible. However, it is still taught that the fossil record firmly supports evolution even though there is this and other huge inconsistensies and evidence against evolution.

The support for this is from scientists not in the appropriate field or studies carried out 50+ years ago.

Here are a few scientists who support the theory of some level of intelligent design. All are respected in their fields as all have carried out exemplary research or have contributed to their respective fields. Many have had their work published in peer review journals and in other forms.

biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University

microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho

Walter Bradley, PH.D at Texas A&M University

chemist Charles B. Thaxton

biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco

emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University

mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University

quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia

Also, there are a number of fields that may seem incompatible with the life sciences, but surprisingly have a great deal to do with them. Most fields of scientific study have some relation to the life sciences. While organic chemistry seems to play a more important role than mathematics in the life sciences, mathematics is important in studying the bonds and structures of DNA and RNA, or the bonds and structures of amino acids in forming proteins for example. Until you fully understand what a scientist is studying or how he or she is approaching something, it would be premature to call their field inappropriate in the study of living things. Your statement concerning physicists is an example. Physics in its most simple definition is the basic study matter and energy. If a physicist is studying how primitive earth radiation would affect evolution or mutation, it's an appropriate field. It depends on what they are studying moreso their field is.

"any scientist" "will admit that there is a great deal of evidence refuting" ? No, not at all correct. There are still mysteries, such as there are still mysteries on how light works. But a great deal of evidence flat refuting it? No. "not nearly enough evidence to support its viability." ? Again, not true. Are you claiming that the "young earth" theory is proven? There's significant evidence against that. The current estimate of the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Carbon dating, potasium dating, and uranium dating are proven effective methods for dating objects and along with other methods, such as glacier analysis, have show a very clear timeline of evolution. Reliably dated fossils exist throught history that show a clear change in life over time. Macro evolution is very visable even in the past 500-1000 years. Through selective breeding, dogs have diversified greatly over time. There is much, much, much more evidence supporting evolution.

Everything that you said is not correct is actually true. I gave you two examples earlier. You really have to press some scientists if you want to get them to admit that there is evidence contradictory to macro evolution. If you bring up one of the examples I gave earlier, scientists will admit that these are major contradictions to macro evolution.

Incidentally, just because the earth may be between 4.1 - 4.8 billion year old doesn't prove or even provide evidence that macro evolution took place. In fact, the scientific version of intelligent design doesn't rule out an older earth. You are referring to religious and biblical accounts of the earth.

Also, there have been proven issues with radioactive dating. I'm not saying this to refute the process, but radioactive dating isn't as accurate and definitive as one might think. It dating is carried out in general by relating ratios of radioactive and non radioactive elements in a material, and determining by the half life of that radioactive element the age of a given material. The problem is that scientists are dating materials with current known ratios in our present world as they are unable to determine the ratios that would have existed millions of years ago. We would have to believe that the ratios that exist in our present world are exactly the same as those that existed millions of years ago.

Also, selective breeding is not macro evolution. Many make that mistake. Breeding is micro evolution. No widescale changes are taking place. Remember, macro evolution is supposed to take place over milions of years, not hundreds.

Ah, ok, I see, if you're confident then it must be so. However, ministers are afforded extra housing allowences and tax breaks on their income. Property tax is lighter (or non existant) for chuches then for individuals. You can give money to a church (to buy it whatever) and receive a tax break. Etc... All this means is that churches pay less taxes then the would if they where a different type of orginization or those laws weren't in place. However, the government still needs to collect the same amount of tax, so if the churches pay less, then everyone (myself included) have to pay more.

Churches in general are non profit organizations. Non profits aren't generally taxed because there is no profit revenue. Taxation is a concept that applies to entities that produce wealth. Because churches consume wealth rather than produce it, taxation is not applied to them. If you were to tax churches, you would also have to tax educational, medical, charitable, and welfare organizations. Now taxing educational and medical organizations would instantly raise your taxes, but as it is now, would you also say that you pay for charities?

Concerning the govenment needing to collect the same amount of taxes... it's a little more complicated than that. One can easily argue that the money churches collect and use for charitable purposes (after school programs, counseling, soup kitchens) offsets the money they don't pay in taxes, which in turn leaves your tax burden as is.

If we had ID in our school I would drop out in protest.

Why?

Since I'm strictly negative to people trying to get me into something thats totally bullcrap.. all my other school subjects are logic in some way, and I want it to keep it that way.

You think scientists are being illogical when they propose intelligent design?

I think the thing is that a lot of people look at it as strictly religious in nature when it really isn't solely about religion anymore. There is a scientific side to the argument; mainly that life processes are too complex and too ordered to have arisen by chance, especially when conditions were not predisposed to produce life. It's not a scientific theory I would describe as illogical.

Edited October 20, 2005 by MaxFly

[Hero1]

I think the thing is that a lot of people look at it as strictly religious in nature when it really isn't solely about religion anymore. There is a scientific side to the argument; mainly that life processes are too complex and too ordered to have arisen by chance, especially when conditions were not predisposed to produce life. It's not a scientific theory I would describe as illogical.

See I don't think people are going to accept that as a scientific theory. We cant understand life its too complex therefore God exists.. its like God is beyond imagination, we cant imagine God. Therefore God exists. The argument in intelligent design is of a spiritual nature, not a scientific one.. just because certain scientists believe it doesn't make it any more important than someone on the street, because there is no proof..

[WesSyde]

I think the thing is that a lot of people look at it as strictly religious in nature when it really isn't solely about religion anymore. There is a scientific side to the argument; mainly that life processes are too complex and too ordered to have arisen by chance, especially when conditions were not predisposed to produce life. It's not a scientific theory I would describe as illogical.

See I don't think people are going to accept that as a scientific theory. We cant understand life its too complex therefore God exists.. its like God is beyond imagination, we cant imagine God. Therefore God exists. The argument in intelligent design is of a spiritual nature, not a scientific one.. just because certain scientists believe it doesn't make it any more important than someone on the street, because there is no proof..

:word: God isn't scientific, therefore i don't think this topic has a place in a science classroom

[Cozmo D]

I think the thing is that a lot of people look at it as strictly religious in nature when it really isn't solely about religion anymore. There is a scientific side to the argument; mainly that life processes are too complex and too ordered to have arisen by chance, especially when conditions were not predisposed to produce life. It's not a scientific theory I would describe as illogical.

See I don't think people are going to accept that as a scientific theory. We cant understand life its too complex therefore God exists.. its like God is beyond imagination, we cant imagine God. Therefore God exists. The argument in intelligent design is of a spiritual nature, not a scientific one.. just because certain scientists believe it doesn't make it any more important than someone on the street, because there is no proof..

Perhaps the mistake that many here are making is ascribing ID to a traditional religious idea of God. You all seem to be hung up on some old white bearded dude hopping from cloud to cloud. I think that most of us can agree that this idea is based on many parts myth and man's own imagination. IMHO, the best way to look at ID is to not make assumptions, but instead examine the myriad amounts of scientific evidence that seems to point to some sort of intelligent manipulation involved in the creation and existence of life. This is indeed science.

[MaxFly]

See I don't think people are going to accept that as a scientific theory. We cant understand life its too complex therefore God exists.. its like God is beyond imagination, we cant imagine God. Therefore God exists. The argument in intelligent design is of a spiritual nature, not a scientific one.. just because certain scientists believe it doesn't make it any more important than someone on the street, because there is no proof..

I think that's the main hinderance to the theory; a lot of people will accept it as religious and discount the scientific overtones. But really, the debate isn't that we can't understand it because it's too complex, so it must be God's handiwork. It's more that life is far too complex to have evolved by chance, even in the most ideal of situations. That's the crux of the scientific intelligent design theory.

Imagine this. The basic building blocks of living things are amino acid molecules and DNA. So lets say an amino acid came into existence on primitive earth. There are about 120 types of amino acids, but only 20 are found in living things. All proteins in living things are made up of upwards of 100 amino acid molecules from the 20 variations. The chance that the amino acid molecules would bond in the proper order to form a viable protein with a proper structure by chance would be astounding. It would be even more astounding if the same protein was formed twice, or three times, or 4 times... To get a protein of significance, it would likely have to take place hunderds of times... all by chance... If someone wants to do the math...

The only other option then would be that DNA, which holds the information to code proteins, had to come first. But there's a problem here too... Nucleic acids which compose DNA are highly reactive with other molecules and compounds that would have existed on a primitive earth, and would have been more likely to react with these other molecules than to form DNA by chance. Also, DNA needs proteins to both make copies of itself and to make more proteins...

I said all that to say this; the idea of an intelligent designer or God doesn't have to be soley religious. Many people think that a belief in God is faith inspite of science. That's not the case. I'm not saying that it's more important because some scientists believe it. I'm saying that the idea of an intelligent designer doesn't have to be contrary to science.

[MaxFly]

:word: God isn't scientific, therefore i don't think this topic has a place in a science classroom

I'm not saying that creationism should be taught, but I do think that at the very least, it should be acknowledged that there are other theories and that evolution is very very far from conclusive. Evolution is being taught as fact right now even though scientists acknowledge that it is only a theory. What's more, only things consistent with evolution are presented, and even things that have been refuted are still taught as true.

As for God not being scientific... I don't think he can be constrained by science, but if one were to believe that he is responsible for creation, why wouldn't it be possible for us to see his hand in design. Why wouldn't it be possible for us to see intelligence behind creation.

Edited October 21, 2005 by MaxFly

[Hero1]

I'm not saying intelligent design is religious.. I'm saying its not scientific.. its an answer to a question that cannot be answered.. its filling in the gaps to make the person feel comfortable in the world.. It helps explain the unexplainable.. I'd like to think the creation of life and existence can't be explained.. it's too easy for me :whew: are we seeing the intelligence behind creation or are we just seeing the intelligince of creation.. its a bit of reaching for me..