| 05 May 2006 12:45 am |
Regular Rep: 0  Joined: 05 Feb 2006 Posts: 108 OFFLINE | Yo, huzzah, my internet finally starts working again, and i finally rememeber my username and password. But enough of that, here goes.
Do you think that intelligent design should be taught in our schools? Now, if you dont know, intelligent design is herolded not as creationism, but as a scientific theory that states that not everything on earth can be explained by random occurances, hence there must be a creator. So, should this be taught in science classes alongside evolution as scientific theory, or should i remain out of our schools?
---
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich” -Napoleon
 | |
 | | 05 May 2006 01:02 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 0 Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 1,149 OFFLINE | Sure. Let them teach it, it’s better than evolution. I think some schools already teach it. But I also think that Creation should be taught also, since both Evolution and Creation are theories, they should be given equal chances. Because Evolution has no proof for itself, and is still a THEORY. But don’t you think that Intelligent Design is kind of like Creation but kind of hidden and called different so that people don’t start arguing? But yes, Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Because all the absurdity of random processes and chance in evolution is just too much!
---
“Dying men have said, “I am sorry I have been an atheist, an infidel, an agnostic, a skeptic, or a sinner”; but no man ever said with his last breath, “I am sorry I have lived a Christian life." “The wages of sin is death- quit before payday.“ | | | 05 May 2006 07:53 am |
myst7426 Guest | “Even at the graduate level the understanding of science cannot be taken for granted” (Okimoto). Perhaps a misunderstanding of science within America’s public school systems is partially responsible, which I think is the case. One way to further destroy a student’s understanding of science would be to insert Intelligent Design into the curriculum.
Intelligent Design should not be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution in the biology classroom. Separation of church and state is currently keeping religion out of the public school system, but I do not think the religious implications should be the reason to not teach Intelligent Design (ID) as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. In my opinion, in doing so, the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) will step up their crusade after losing the court battle with anti-liberal diatribes instead of revising their argument or perhaps dropping it. ID needs to be shown why, scientifically, it fails and should be kept out of the biology class. In short, it is an argument full of flaws which cannot possibly provide an accurate and reliable conclusion and should not be taught as an alternative to a solid scientific theory. Alongside the “science” of ID is a philosophical diatribe of evolution and the immorality it supposedly brought to our modern society, which is incorrect and irrelevant. Also, there is clearly a religious motivation behind Intelligent Design. Teaching Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution is the equivalent of teaching alchemy as an alternative to chemistry or astrology as an alternative to astronomy.
Science is the pursuit of truth or knowledge of our natural world. It uses a methodical system with a strict system of researching and testing in order to avoid mistakes, also called the scientific method or “the systematic collection and classification of data and, usually, the formulation and testing of hypotheses based on the data” (“Scientific Method”). Much of the knowledge we have of the natural world has been discovered by using the scientific method. The scientific method has been applied to the Theory of Evolution and the hypothesis of Intelligent Design by many of our modern-day scientists. For a concept to be considered scientific, it must meet the following qualifications: consistent, parsimonious, useful, empirically testable and falsifiable, based upon multiple observations, correctable and dynamic, progressive, and provisional. Ideally, a concept should meet most or all. Of the above qualifications, Intelligent Design does not qualify as consistent, parsimonious, testable and falsifiable, corrective, dynamic, tentative, or progressive (“Intelligent Design”).
The definition of a hypothesis is this: “a supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts; esp. in the sciences, a provisional supposition from which to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at” (“Hypothesis”). After such a critical analysis, Intelligent Design remains a hypothesis, and the Theory of Evolution retains its position in biology as a theory – an explanation with evidence to support it.
Intelligent Design is an argument which proposes certain biological structures are the product of a designer and evidence of design can be detected through scientific research alone (“Intelligent Design”). Intelligent Design proponents are not theistic evolutionists, who accept macroevolution while also believing in God and creationism. In actuality, the difference between macroevolution and microevolution is time. The same mechanisms are at work. A micro evolutionary change occurs below the species level, whereas a macro evolutionary change occurs at or above the species level. Essentially, a macro evolutionary change is the summation of many micro evolutionary changes. It is not a single change that results in the offspring of an organism which is a different species than the parent. Macroevolution is a description of changes that resulted from many generations. By comparing the first generation with a later generation, the later can be classified as a different species than the first. William Dembski, one of the leaders of the IDM, defines themselves as “no friends of theistic evolution” (qtd. in Pennock, Intelligent 648). Dembski’s specified complexity hypothesis and Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity hypothesis are the two main concepts used to support Intelligent Design.
Irreducible complexity hypothesizes that a designed structure could not be the product of evolution because if it were to be “devolved,” it would lose its function as defined by Michael Behe, one the leading proponents of ID. Behe focuses his study on microbiological structures with regards to irreducible complexity and agrees with microevolution. Essentially, microbiological structures were created with all the present-day components because if one were to attempt to remove a single piece of it, it would no longer be functional (Behe). Therefore, evolution could not be responsible because devolution is not possible. The problem with this hypothesis is that it cannot be tested. Behe gives examples of human mechanical creations such as a mousetrap to support his hypothesis. But mechanical devices are not biological structures. To show that a complex structure in its present state loses its function if one piece is removed does not show it did not evolve. Behe is arguing from ignorance rather than from positive evidence (Pigliucci).
Dr. Kenneth Miller responds to Behe by arguing that the pieces of the mousetrap still retain individual functions and usefulness if a piece is removed. The function of the mousetrap as a whole is lost when one piece is removed, but the individual pieces still retain some function. Behe uses bacterial flagellum as an example of a living organism to support irreducible complexity. Miller responds by pointing out that the bacterial flagellum has been observed performing other functions, such as injecting poisons, when only part of its structure is present and it cannot perform its original function. Behe states that it should be useless if it is irreducibly complex, but it is not. Miller also uses the human blood clotting system as a second example to refute irreducible complexity. The proteins are actually modified versions from the digestive system (Miller). In his essay, Miller shows that seemingly irreducible structures have other functions, which a living organism will use to its advantage, when torn apart into their separate structures. What Behe fails to recognize is that individual pieces of an irreducible complex system is made up of a set of parts with their own functions, and those functions exist independently of the function of the system. Miller also shows where a particular irreducible structure originated from. “In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons - because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence” (Miller).
Behe cannot prove evolution is not responsible for irreducibly complex structures such as the bacteria flagellum because a negative claim cannot be proven. The burden of proof is on Behe to prove irreducibly complex structures exists. All he has is a concept that rejects evolution and proposes irreducible complexity wins by default. Only one instance of evolution being responsible for a supposed irreducibly complex structure is all that is needed to disprove irreducible complexity. Miller has done so with bacteria flagellum and blood clotting cells as well as pointed out a flaw in the logic of irreducible complexity.
A cornerstone of the Intelligent Design hypothesis is the notion of “specified complexity.” Dembski argues an object can be recognized as the product of a designer if it meets the two following criteria: complexity and specification (Dembski, Detecting). Dembski uses forensics, archaeology, anthropology, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) as examples of other scientific studies that detect design. These scientific studies use similar criterion to classify design as Dembski does. One flaw in Dembski’s argument is the lack of a reference or prior information of living organisms that are designed. SETI uses humans as a reference for detecting design or artificiality in space. Does Dembski have a living organism as evidence that is known to have been designed? ID cannot possibly determine design without a reference. All scientific studies mentioned above involved in design detection use examples of known design in order to differentiate the designed from the non-designed (Pennock, “Mystery”). They essentially use comparisons between known design and known non-design, or works of nature. Since there are no living organisms that are known to be designed, inference of design cannot be made.
The three categories, for which Dembski ascribes events, living organisms, or any object conceivable can be put into, are regular, random, and design (Pigliucci). The Explanatory Filter, a method using mathematics which Dembski, who holds a Ph. D. in Mathematics, created to determine which category an event belongs in, contains multiple flaws; far too many to be discussed here and far too complex to briefly summarize. Its flaws are presented in the essay “How Not to Detect Design” by Fitelson, Stephens, and Sober. Dembski’s Explanatory Filter is an eliminative process to determine which category an event belongs to. Logically, for an eliminative process to be valid, all possibilities must be accounted for. Only when all possibilities are eliminated can one conclude the remaining option is the correct one (Pennock, “Mystery”). Three problems with the conclusion based on probability are: 1) how did Dembski come up with the numbers, 2) Dembski attributes the creation of the universe, Earth, and life as so improbable that it practically never happens. However, Dembski only rolls the dice once. Given an infinite amount of time, the any event will happen no matter how improbable it is 3) Dembski accounts for the Big Bang, the creation of the Earth, and the origin of Life into one probability equation. However, if ID is arguing against evolution, the Big Bang and the formation of the Earth are completely irrelevant and thus their probabilities need not be considered.
The problem with Dembski’s Design category is that natural selection also fulfills the criterion of specified complexity. But Dembski acknowledges only one kind of design – intelligent. By not including natural selection as a possibility, there cannot be unintentional unintelligent design in the natural world (Pigliucci). I doubt many people would disagree that living organisms are complex. Also, I doubt many people would disagree that living organisms are specified or “meaning that they are not random assemblages of organic compounds, but are clearly formed in a way that enhances their chances of surviving and reproducing in a changing and complex environment” (Pigliucci), which is design, but not necessarily by an intelligent entity. Thus intelligent design and natural selection both fulfill the specified complexity criterion. Therefore, a method to detect design by an intelligent agent from design by natural means is impossible (Pigliucci). Meanwhile, natural selection actually has evidence to support it. It’s only logical to conclude that natural selection has a stronger case.
Another flaw Pigliucci points out in the Intelligent Design hypothesis is poorly designed organisms. One example is the human appendix, which has no function. One would conclude if something is designed, it would be designed to the best of one’s ability. Humans strive for perfectionism in their creations because there is no point in designing faulty objects. Intelligent Design does not have an answer to this question. However, the Theory of Evolution can be applied and a possible explanation can be generated (Pigliucci).
Even if an intelligent designer is responsible for the creation of life, Intelligent Design does not have scientific evidence to support itself. It does not matter how much a scientist believes his hypothesis is true. He must provide evidence to support it or it will not be accepted into science. The hypothesis of Intelligent Design contains many more flaws than above described. “As many critics point out, they typically find too much that is wrong with Intelligent Design Creationism writings to cover in any given article” (Pennock, Intelligent XI). To insert Intelligent Design into biology would undermine science, the scientific method, and the Theory of Evolution. There is no point in teaching false science to students. They will learn nothing from Intelligent Design, except for the idea that living organisms are designed. Intelligent Design does not offer an explanation of how living organisms were designed. It does not offer an explanation of why living organisms were designed. It cannot answer the questions evolution can nor does it have any predictive powers. Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution loses its credibility because a flawed alternative concept is being presented.
The Intelligent Design Movement is using a marketing strategy to promote their argument in an unusual way. They insist their concept is based solely on science. In fact, ID is based on religion, not science. Dembski states quite clearly the presupposition behind his rejection of evolutionary theory: “as Christians, we know naturalism is false” (qtd. in Forrest). The IDM purposely took their claims straight to the public instead of publishing them in a peer-review journal, where other scientists could examine their claim, which is a standard procedure (“Intelligent Design”). Scientists could not critique the Intelligent Design hypothesis until after articles had been placed in every Christian Fundamentalist newsletter across the country. Intelligent Design proponents also market books to the public and travel around the country giving speeches. What is the reason? Perhaps they knew from the start that their hypothesis would be refuted? A way around the scientific community is to market their hypothesis to the public – a Christian public. Why market ID to the public? In general, the public is uneducated in science and evolution. It is much easier to convince a person if he cannot see the flaws in the argument.
Part of the problem is the media. What the IDM and the mainstream media figures tend to do is to oversimplify the Theory of Evolution to the point of not retaining any accuracy. By defining evolution as a series of random events that gives rise to new species, two thirds of the definition is left out. Take Pat Robertson for example. Although he is not directly affiliated with William Dembski, Michael Behe, or other ID proponents, he endorses ID and denounced evolution on his television show, website, and in his books. Robertson’s comment regarding evolution suggests he has a poor understanding of evolution to even accurately present basic concepts of the Theory of Evolution to his audience. When Robertson’s fans read or hear this, they are receiving multiple misconceptions about evolution. His fan base is quite large, and unless this group obtains some information from an appropriate source, they are walking around with false notions in their heads. Unfortunately, people with no credentials in biology are the ones being recognized in the media, which is a contributing factor to Intelligent Design’s popularity. The professionals are the people who should be getting the attention of the American public, not the amateurs.
Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution has been reviewed by many people, including the Roman Catholic Church. “Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin’s theory of evolution were ‘perfectly compatible’ if the Bible were read correctly” (Penner). Poupard furthermore acknowledges that “the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science” (qtd. in Penner). The Theory of Evolution does not speculate on the origin of life but only speculates on the origin of species, which are two separate concepts. Thus, Genesis and evolution are compatible.
After being rejected by the scientific community, the Intelligent Design Movement is seeking the approval of the American public. The problem is, most of the Intelligent Design audience is predisposed to agree with an intelligent design concept. The public is not adequately informed on the science to give approval. I think the public’s approval is not based on the evidence presented to them. I think their support is based on the shared religious beliefs with the presenters. Dembski says in his book, Intelligent Design; The Brigdge Between Science and Theology, this: “the conceptual soundings of the [intelligent design] theory can in the end only be located in Christ” (210). This statement shows that Intelligent Design is clearly motivated by religious beliefs, and those beliefs are used to gain approval. Apparently, Miller, Pigliucci, Pennock, and Cardinal Poupond do not accept Intelligent Design as science because they do not have a very good relationship with Christ. This is very unscientific. Dr. Miller happens to believe in a divine intelligence though and agrees with the philosophical aspect of Intelligent Design, just not the scientific aspect (Miller). The public may support ID, but their support is irrelevant because their support is not based on the scientific evidence, or lack of it, provided.
The Intelligent Design Movement has an agenda beyond their concept being recognized by the scientific community. “Dembski regards evolution as being an undesirable ideology being promoted by an atheistic liberal elite, rather than it being a factually based scientific theory” (“Dembski”). From what I interpreted, ID proponents see the theory of evolution as bad or “undesirable.” They are arguing that life created by random chance is a life without purpose. I think the foundation of ID is built upon this concept: purpose versus no purpose, and the science of ID is constructed around this. Equating evolution with purposelessness and design with purpose is an appeal to the emotions of the audience, which is irrelevant. Science tries to steer clear of subjective thoughts because they are unreliable and do not offer, in any way, support for or against a proposed concept. ID proponents continue to equate unpurposefulness as negative and degrading to the individual and to society as a whole. Robert T. Pennock, a critic of ID, describes their intention as “this new movement aims to overthrow not only Darwinian evolution, but also the supposedly dogmatic materialistis/naturalistic philosophy of the modern age that it believes has dethrowned Christian theism from its proper role of moral and intellectual authority” (Pennock, Intelligent IX). This notion is proposterous. Darwinian evolution did not create the immoral actions of modern society. They have existed since the dawn of civilization. Adultery, greed, war, political corruption, and murder were just as prevalent when Christianity held secular authority in Europe as they are today. Do the above few paragraphs have anything to do with science? No. Unfortunately, the IDM capitalizes on issues that are non-scientific in nature.
Intelligent Design fails logically, scientifically, has no positive evidence, and has no practical application. It is also religiously motivated. Any concept described as such, no matter what its subject matter, would never be accepted into science, much less as a valid alternative to an existing theory which has solid evidence. The subject matter of Intelligent Design is the cause of controversy and blind support by a large number of Americans. Analyzing Intelligent Design while keeping religious sentiment in check, I hope people of all education levels can see why the concept should not be taught as science, or as an alternative to an existing theory.
Works Cited
Behe, Michael. “The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity.” Natural History Apr. 2002. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html>.
Dembski, William. “Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences.” Natural History Apr. 2002. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html>.
Intelligent Design; The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Forrest, Barbara. “The Newest Evolution of Creationism.” Natural History Apr. 2002. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html>.
“Hypothesis.” Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford English Dictionary. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://dictionary.oed.com>.
“Intelligent Design.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia; The Free Encyclopedia. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design>.
Miller, Kenneth. “The Flaw in the Mousetrap?” Natural History Apr. 2002. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html>.
Penner, Martin. “Evolution in the Bible, Says Vatican.” News Limited. 7 Nov. 2005. 7 Dec. 2005. <http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html>.
Pennock, Robert T., ed. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.
Pennock, Robert T. “Mystery Science Theater.” Natural History Apr. 2002. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html>.
Pigliucci, Massimo. “Design Yes, Intelligent No.” Skeptical Inquirer Sept. 2001. 5 Dec. 2005. <http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html>.
“Scientific Method.” McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Online. Access Science. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://www.accessscience.com>.
“Dembski.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia; The Free Encyclopedia. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dembski>.
Okimoto, Ron. Online Posting. Feb. 2005. The Talk.Origins Archive. 30 Nov. 2005. <http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html>.
Author: Ryan Barton, 2005.
| | | 05 May 2006 07:56 am |
myst7426 Guest | Why does science limit itself to only a natural explanation for a natural event? Well, the answer is quite simple. A natural explanation is the only possible explanation that can be investigated. We humans, and our five senses and brain exist in the natural world. Our methods and tools of measurement exist in the natural world. Any evidence, for or against and proposed explanation, exists in the natural world. Some people, such as creationists would like to invoke a supernatural explanation accounting for natural events. Why should we not do this? How does a supernatural explanation help us better understand the world around us? Well, one of the biggest factors of whether a concept is “good” is if the explanation is applicable and predictive. Take the theory of gravity for example. The spinning of the earth on its axis is a natural explanation for the forces of gravity observed on the surface of the earth. This information helped NASA understand and predict gravitational forces on the surface of the moon. However, if a supernatural explanation is invoked for this or any natural event, a better understanding in not achieved and no predictive powers are possible. A supernatural explanation, despite its heart-warming feel, does not explain gravity nor does it have predictive powers.
Why are supernatural explanations unreliable? First, the explanation is only plausible if the individual who proposes it believes in a supernatural world or entity. The validity of the supernatural explanation is entirely subjective and based entirely on faith. Second, usually the explanation is derived from a religious text for which the event is mentioned in. This text is used as the support or evidence for the proposed explanation. The problem is, religious texts are creations of man and different texts exist in various religions. So, essentially, which text are we going to use to support the supernatural explanation? Third, the religious texts are highly metaphorical and are often interpreted contextually. However, the proponents of supernatural explanations tend to be literal interpreters. The point is this. Which interpretation of the religious text do we use? Interpretations are subjective and vary from person to person. If we use the Book of Genesis as a literal explanation for historical events, we must conclude that the world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, the earth is around ten thousand years olds, man was specially created, the first woman was created from the rib of a man, and a world wide flood destroyed all life except for the people and animals who lived in an ark for the duration of the storm. The evidence that exists in the natural world does not support any of these concepts. It is no wonder that many mainstream Christians adhere to a contextual interpretation of the Book of Genesis and support natural explanations generated by science. They would conclude that whether or not the events in Genesis actually took place is not important, but rather the messages the stories are trying to teach are what the reader is to take away. Therefore, a literal interpretation of a religious text is not good support for a supernatural explanation attributed for a natural event. In conclusion, it is not practical to investigate a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena because it does not help us better understand the world, and all supporting evidence is based on subjective beliefs that pale in comparison to tangible evidence of non-human in origin.
| | | 05 May 2006 08:17 am |
The Diabolical One... Rep: 2  Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 5,320 OFFLINE | Quakeless One wrote:
Yo, huzzah, my internet finally starts working again, and i finally rememeber my username and password. But enough of that, here goes.
Do you think that intelligent design should be taught in our schools? Now, if you dont know, intelligent design is herolded not as creationism, but as a scientific theory that states that not everything on earth can be explained by random occurances, hence there must be a creator. So, should this be taught in science classes alongside evolution as scientific theory, or should i remain out of our schools?
well first off crap that was a lot myst... I’ll get to reading it when I have more time...
and second in response to that question so what your saying is that since science cannot explain everything going on then there must be a creator... oh so since a theory cannot prove everything than the other idea must be true.... umm no....
---
fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Someone with a comment that has thought to it? Blasphemy!
| | | 05 May 2006 09:43 am |
lonnnliness Guest | Man school is just a massive brain washing camp to turn out good little citizens any way.
Lets all line up for office jobs or jobs in manufacturing.
Lets all be good little boys and girls.
Whatever teach its never gonna be as good as THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE. OR the JUNGLE LAW. TARZAN. AHHHHHH AHA HAHHA HHHAHHHHHHH. (That was supposed to be his call) Come on cheeta, lets go.
| | | 05 May 2006 09:57 am |
Regular Rep: 0Joined: 05 Feb 2006 Posts: 108 OFFLINE | Someone who cares.... wrote:
Sure. Let them teach it, it’s better than evolution. I think some schools already teach it. But I also think that Creation should be taught also, since both Evolution and Creation are theories, they should be given equal chances. Because Evolution has no proof for itself, and is still a THEORY. But don’t you think that Intelligent Design is kind of like Creation but kind of hidden and called different so that people don’t start arguing? But yes, Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Because all the absurdity of random processes and chance in evolution is just too much!
Strictly speaking intelligent design isn’t regarded as a “theory”, “because it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions and proposes no new hypotheses of its own.". Not my quote, but what the U.S. national academy of sciences has to say. Also, evolution is still regarded as a theory yes, but so is gravity.
To dark:
I didn’t advocate either theory in my first post sir, i merely gave the generally agreed upon definition of what intelligent design is, all be it that that definition seemed to make me seem in favor of it.
But i must applaud you in what you spoke of, it took me quite a while to understand that concept, if i may give an example for others.
If you and i are standing in a field, and we see an animal, you say it’s a dog, i say it’s a racoon. On closer inspection we see it isn’t a racoon, that doesn’t mean that it is a dog.
---
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich” -Napoleon
| | | 05 May 2006 11:32 am |
Wannabe Rep: 0 Joined: 18 Apr 2006 Posts: 53 OFFLINE | As long as the schools uses common sense, I’m cool if they teach Creation or evolution. (By commmon sense, I mean, people understand that nobody is trying to force their regilion or faith on people.)
---
Revolt againist the Dark Dragon! | | | 05 May 2006 01:42 pm |
The Diabolical One... Rep: 2Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 5,320 OFFLINE | Quakeless One wrote:
Someone who cares.... wrote:
Sure. Let them teach it, it’s better than evolution. I think some schools already teach it. But I also think that Creation should be taught also, since both Evolution and Creation are theories, they should be given equal chances. Because Evolution has no proof for itself, and is still a THEORY. But don’t you think that Intelligent Design is kind of like Creation but kind of hidden and called different so that people don’t start arguing? But yes, Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Because all the absurdity of random processes and chance in evolution is just too much!
Strictly speaking intelligent design isn’t regarded as a “theory”, “because it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions and proposes no new hypotheses of its own.". Not my quote, but what the U.S. national academy of sciences has to say. Also, evolution is still regarded as a theory yes, but so is gravity.
To dark:
I didn’t advocate either theory in my first post sir, i merely gave the generally agreed upon definition of what intelligent design is, all be it that that definition seemed to make me seem in favor of it.
But i must applaud you in what you spoke of, it took me quite a while to understand that concept, if i may give an example for others.
If you and i are standing in a field, and we see an animal, you say it’s a dog, i say it’s a racoon. On closer inspection we see it isn’t a racoon, that doesn’t mean that it is a dog.
yeah I know quakless I didn’t mean to sound like I was directing that at you... merely at that statement that you copied... so sorry if you got that impression...
---
fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Someone with a comment that has thought to it? Blasphemy!
| | | 06 May 2006 06:12 am |
myst7426 Guest | http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf
Dover v. Kitzmiller Memorandum Opinion
| | | 07 May 2006 01:47 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 1Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 2,116 OFFLINE | The problem with schools in America is that they were originally designed from a five hundred year old system and they teach things that were meant for the Industrial age. This is the information age, and schools aren’t cutting it. The schools here only help those with verbal/linguistic genius. There is no room for philosophical genius, financial genius, etc. And now people think their kids are hyperactive because they aren’t learning. The reason they aren’t learning is because school is full of a lot of things that have absolutely no value in the real world unless you choose to go into specific jobs. For instance, my aunt became a multimillionaire. I asked her if she ever used algebra to achieve that. Her answer was simple. “Nope, I have a calculator." There you have it.
---
The farther you question, the more they will hate you. | | | 07 May 2006 02:32 am |
wigglin cock Guest | intelligent design, my perky little asshole. i love to anally rape school teachers like your fatass mom
| | | 07 May 2006 06:12 pm |
chop his wiggling knob off Guest | You sad sad bastard you.
| | | 07 May 2006 06:26 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 6 Joined: 01 Oct 2005 Posts: 3,602 OFFLINE | ID is just creationism with dark rim glasses.
---
Dogbert said the deepest thing ever.
“It is all a part of the big illusion we perpetuate upon ourselves and which is in turn perpetuated upon us. When we believe we engage the illusion, when we stop believing we shatter the illusion and ourselves in the process because we are part of it." | | | 07 May 2006 10:59 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 1Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 2,116 OFFLINE | wigglin cock wrote:
intelligent design, my perky little asshole. i love to anally rape school teachers like your fatass mom
Please, don’t talk.
---
The farther you question, the more they will hate you. | | | 10 May 2006 03:21 pm |
myst7426 Guest | SWC, no argument?
| | | 11 May 2006 03:31 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 1Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 2,116 OFFLINE | Seriously, everyone is ignoring all the good topics and going to the stupid ones. Perhaps it’s a sign.
---
The farther you question, the more they will hate you. | | | 11 May 2006 04:03 pm |
GOOOGLE_QUEEN Guest | myst7426 wrote:
SWC, no argument?
Your always looking for an argument with SWC .
| | | 11 May 2006 04:04 pm |
myst7426 Guest | GOOOGLE_QUEEN wrote:
myst7426 wrote:
SWC, no argument?
Your always looking for an argument with SWC .
I posted a lengthy response. NO ONE has commented on it.
| | | 11 May 2006 04:04 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 1Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 2,116 OFFLINE | Yep
---
The farther you question, the more they will hate you. | |
|
Post Reply - Next Page |
Moderated by: Admins, Superusers |
»
Off-Topic
» Should intelligent design be taught in schools?
First 
