Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Uh, a lot of the what the article says does contradict things that are *facts*. Hence it's wrong and misleading, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Opinions are only valid to the extent that they are informed, and it is clear to me that whoever wrote this article is woefully ignorant of evolution and many other things. It is one thing to not believe in evolution because you know how it actually works and don't agree, another one is to disagree with it without even knowing what it's actually about. The latter is just stupid on so many levels.

And how exactly does science promote communism anyway? Science is descriptive. It says how things are, not how they should be. I don't know how you got that idea at all.

What kind of creationism would you teach them?

How is teaching evolution to anyone "preaching"? It's a basic scientific fact, it deserves to be taught in schools as such.

I'm not against mentioning or talking about creationism in school, I just don't like it when it's treated as science because it isn't and i think both of us know this.

Also, evolution does not promote "godlessness". Last I checked God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, it'd just depend on your definition of what a "God" is. The judeo-christian creationist conception of God is not the only in existence.

You can learn about that in places like church anyway, that's where you're supposed to go to learn about God.

I don't know about you but all the biology teachers i've met and heard of said no such thing.

It seems likely to me that, as Reflection said, you misunderstood what she said.

This isn't really relevant anyway, my point was that the theory of evolution does not say that it is true and the article tries to promote it as such, which relates to how i said it was propaganda.

Microevolution (changes on a small scale) has already been proven. We've seen changes in DNA, how natural selection works, we've seen species become extinct, etc.

What we haven't been around to witness is macroevolution (changes on a large scale), because it takes an extremely long time to happen. It's just microevolution accumulated over a long period of time.

I get the point you're trying to make here, but again, I refer to erosion. We know that erosion is real. We just haven't seen mountains erode. Do you think erosion is fake?

Uh, do you even know how the scientific method works?

Science is all about admitting it's wrong or that it doesn't know when contradictory facts or lack of evidence pop up, it's constantly trying to improve itself so it can come closer and closer to the truth.

You could argue that science uses faith to a degree, but it's an entirely different kind of faith then the one required for believing in things like god.

If you want to go by the general definition of "theory" then your statement holds some truth, but if we're to go by the definition that's more appropriate in this context, "hypothesis" would be more accurate.

Even if the "theory" of evolution was completely wrong, that species do change and adapt over time wouldn't be any less true, it'd just mean that we don't have the right explanation as to why and how it happens.

There are different theories explaining how gravity works, but that apples fall down from trees is correct regardless of which one is right.

 

yes it is Reflection. but, isn't the talk of evolution and intelligent design the same also?

 

I feel sorry for anybody who believes this. So I'll just say this: LIES!!!

There is no such thing in the U.S. Constitution that says separation of church and state. So if you believe that separation of church and state is true, you really gotta learn.

 

So what's the First Amendment about then?

 

Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion.

People misread the Constitution. There is no separation of church and state. Actually, there are two things in the First Ammendment about religion.

1. The freedom to practice religion in anyway you choose.

2. The government has no national religion.

That does not mean that church and state is to be separated. Only that the government will not support any specific religion.

 

And by teaching creationism in schools, you would be supporting christianity (since let's face it, that's the kind most people want to have taught). That's fine if it happens in a private school, but if it's public, it's the govermnents', so this very well applies.

If you truly wanted to be fair

a) you would have to teach you would have to teach all kinds of creationism and ideas for the origin of the universe, but there are so many that it isn't really feasible.

b) Teach no creationism.

 

No, because organisms and creatures are here already. Then you can try to explain them.

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof." - wikipedia.

You can't assume something and continue your argument for said thing as proof, it's retarded, a flawed logic.

 

No, no no no no. Teaching Creationism at school does not support Christianity.

The definition of Creationism:

So clearly based off that definition, teaching Creationism does not support Christianity. People just think that it would because Christianity is a popular religion.

And it is not fair if you teach no Creationism. By not teaching a certain thing, you are only showing one side. So, it's not fair.

 

then how is it that my logic is flawed, yet everything else said here is not? do I claim my theory to be perfect? of course not. but it is something that I say in contrast to this discussion. sure, I may not be right. my theory may be flawed. but so is yours. and everyone elses. everyone here is assuming that they are right. but if what you say is true, then no one is right. everyone is flawed. because the purpose of evolution or creationism itself is flawed

 

I missed this earlier but:

Uh, what the hell are you talking about? Genes mutating isn't dependent on humankind whatsoever, genes naturally mutate by themselves.

That's what church is for.

Tell me something: why don't creationists advocate equal time for evolutionary theory in church services? According to your logic this should be the case.

And again, I'm not against mentioning creationism in schools, I am simply against it being taught as science in science classes and treated as being equal with evolution because that's not what it is.

 

You're overcomplicating it and avoiding the point. >_>
Not to mention spamming that "well even if i'm not right, neither are you" circular logic again.

 

No, it's not.

Because church is for the worshipping of whatever higher power you believe in. And when I say teach, I talk about teaching in school.

I never said teach Creationism as Science. Just teaching it in school.

As for another bit, I was trying to remember this certain principle about uncertaninty. A previous member on this site used it in debates. But since I can't think of the name for sure (I believe it's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) I provided a link to a previous debate. That member I mentioned, Mike, actually explained things quite well that could prove somebody's point here.

Truth and Provability Debate

 

A church is where a religious community is represented. This is everything about that religion, from the actual worship to the practice and teaching of its principles. I don't know any church that would deny you knowledge should you walk in and ask for a bible and some opinions. I thought you guys didn't want to be forced to be taught something godless? What about kids who don't want to be taught something of god?

Children can only be taught as much as their parents will allow them to, they belong completely to the parents' decisions. Nothing is stopping them from sending them to a private school or church that does not belong to the state and won't violate that separation.

Well...seeing as this is the debates forum, I'm gonna trust Socrates' debating principles on this one, that circular logic is flawed. Cause well, he's Socrates. :/

 

I meant more of the main thing they do. Yes, they do what you said. I just didn't think of it.

Who ever said they have to be taught about God? Having Creationism in school would be an optional class, just as Science is an optional class at a certain level.

Not true. Children can be taught more then their parents allow them to. The parent just doesn't have to find out. And money could be something that stops them from being sent to a provate school.

And in that last sentence of yours, what separation? Separation of church and state? It doesn't exsist.

 

Actually,the seperation of church and state is used many times by the United States Supreme court and also in other countries.In the U.S. Constitiution it isnt stated,freedom of religon and and country having no official religon are saying almost the exact same thing.

As for evolution and ID,I myself believe they are both right based on my own loose interpretation of the Catholic faith.Also,unless finding out which is right will allow us to change how we do things drasticly,I dont see how it matters too much.Just another reason for people to argue if you ask me.

 

But point is, there is no actual law in America saying that church and state are to not be separated. So people shouldn't think it truly exists.

 

Yes,but until the Supreme Court says other wise,it is basically law.They have that much power.Plus it has been around so long that it would be hard to make people not think it exists

 

teaching science in schools, promoting godlessness (and yes, it is godlessness because there is no God equation in science that they teach in schools), and manipulating the minds of the youth is very communist. Hell, thats what the NAZIS WANTED DUMNBASS! They were all about science. So much of science is VERY communist, but not all of it is. The basic of view of wanting to know what the world is about is fine, but the degree that some evil, sick, and twisted individuals take it to is unhuman.

As for creatonism, I think there should be like an elective class that goes through all 5 of the mager religions. Screw the seperation of church and state, like Desert Warrior points out, that isn't REAL! Its all about knowledge, knowing everything thats out there. School shouldn't be biast. Thats why I really like my Chemistry teacher, because he isn;t biast at all.

u make no sense.
Its all about knowledge, you closed minded biggot, its not "feasible" at ALL! If we taught the 5 main religions in schools, along with science, then everyone knows whats out there, and everyone is smarter at the end of the day.
It doesn't mean you have to bow to Allah, its all about LEARNING!!! You want everyone to be smart, right? Lets open people's minds, show the youth EVERYTHING, that way they can decide at the end of the day what they believe.
Seperation of church and state isn't a law, it comes from an old speech by Thomas Jefferson. That was his opinion, its not a law!!

So don't tell me whats fair, and whats not fair. Right now, YOU ARE WINNING. Its unfair for us, because science is the only things taught in schools that applies to this debate.

THANK YOU

mutation is cause by the corription of man, it isn't apart of nature. Nature is given a certain order by god, a way it must always be. Mutation is caused by chaos in the order, men trying to play god, men trying sick and twisted methods to learn something that can be learned in other ways.
Mutation IS MAN MADE.


Heres something to think about Trisection.
Look at the clock, and what do you see?
Do you wan't to know what that thing really is?
Its a religious symbol that surrounds us, the clock is our true life and death. Time sees everything.
Time is something that can not be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelt. Yet it exists. And evolution is based on the principale of time's manipulation of matter, isn't it?
So, what is the clock to you?
If you don't get anything of what I just said, you are closed minded, and you my friend have nothingmore to say for anyone to learn here.

 

What's being neglected here is: Science is itself a religion.


This post will either have you nodding your head, or ready to flame me...in either case, I ask you to bear with me. Closed-mindedness begins with refusing to listen. If you genuinely consider my words and disagree, that's fine...but if you assume I'm a buffoon from the get-go, then you're being exactly that.


What is a religion, but an organized body of knowledge, or 'beliefs' which some large group of people believe in, with no proof? In addition, it will naively believe it is the correct set of beliefs...and hence set out to destroy all other religions (which is precisely what a large number of scientists attempt to do). No, I'm not saying all scientists do this, nor am I saying all religious do this...instead, I'm saying neither one should do this, but they both do. In my opinion, Science is the religion which has the largest number of ignorant followers (ignorant in the sense of not really understanding the religion in question). Most people overestimate the power and authority science has over our universe. We must not forget that science itself may be improved upon, and reworked someday in its entirety.

What even well-educated scientists neglect to realize, is that science is a tool humans created and use to make measurements of what we perceive. It's certainly the best guess we have at the present time (it's not like I can suggest better) but it is subject to one, very fundamental flaw:

Provability.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, in science is provable (I can go into more detail if necessary, but hopefully this is enough). It's all based on how humans designed this tool to make measurements and 'keep score' in this life. This shouldn't shock you, since, after all, nothing in religion is provable. That's what faith is. Permit me to demonstrate:

There are hundreds, billions of examples in which science requires faith. Take this simple one:

Do you believe in the atom? Naturally, most people do. Do you believe in the current model of the atom? Do you believe it is here to stay, or do you believe it will some day be improved upon?

Either you believe we're presently correct, or you believe we're presently incorrect...this is a belief without proof, and hence requires faith. (I have an abundance of examples like this one, if it's not convincing enough)


In the words of the great Stephen Hawking: Who cares if it's true, as long as it makes accurate predictions? (There are many things science is currently studying which have no current physical evidence...the easy examples are found all over particle physics). Simply because something scientific does not fit into someone's religious criteria does not mean they should reject the science...the science may indeed be accurate and useful. Likewise, something religious lacking scientific evidence should not be so easily rejected either, particularly when the supernatural does not lie within the realm of science. Does a biologist ever discredit physics? Or a physicist, do they ever discredit biology? Absolutely not, since it is not their expertise...even though there are many times a discovery in physics will prompt a biologist to investigate and discredit an idea in biology. Why then, do science and religion argue so? Keeping with this theme, then at best, a scientific discovery should make us question our religious beliefs, not revoke them.

The only reason one may accurately reject a belief (be it scientific or religious) is because of gut feelings quite frankly. Some people cringe at the thought of us being created by some higher authority which governs our lives, and thus reject the idea of an all knowing God. Naturally, others reject the idea that human beings, including our loved ones, came from feces-flinging monkeys (and before anyone gets on my case about this...I know that we 'both came from a common ancestor. Think about it...that means we came from something stupider than poo flinging monkeys, since they were 'inferior' and died out. It doesn't discredit my point). Both are perfectly valid decisions, despite what someone else may think.

Science is a tool we use to 'guess' at what will happen, in this life. Other religions are tools we use to 'guess' what will happen in the next. They should not belittle each other, because neither one knows anything about the other.

The genesis of life has everything to do with evolution...don't fall victim to semantics now! A chemist does not study physics (on a deep level) but does that mean very deep, abstract physics ideas are not fundamental to chemistry?

Sure, people who claim to study evolution don't attempt to explain the genesis of life, but that's because, admittedly, scientists know nothing about it...when really, this is the most important step. Consider this deliberately silly example:

Suppose I'm building a giant card tower. If I have available cards, I know precisely how to stack them (ie. how things progressed, 'evolution' by your definition).

Then big question then...do I actually have a deck of cards in my hands? The ability to build a card tower does not mean I have the resources...Perhaps I'm holding an apple, and can't build a deck of cards...in this case, since I know the card tower was built, I can only assume someone else, a highly-skilled card tower building guy, built the tower. Did he build it the precise way I would have? I'll never know...

So do I have the deck of cards, or am I S.O.L.? The million dollar, seemingly unanswerable biology question.

Thus, evolution without that first step is complete garbage...contrary to what evolutionists want you to think. It's identical to the mathematical principle of induction. You must prove one step needs to the next (like 'evolution'), but it's equally important to prove your base case, your starting point.


EDIT: P.S. If anyone is wondering where I've been, I wrote a book (which I don't want to publish until I work out all the kinks) and got a degree in the mean time.

 

I really don't know why they hate being created by a perfect god who loves us. Science & christianity are two different things & I really don't find science a religion. Science always said that Earth was created when some meteor or whatever hitted something & something about how the moon was created. Science cannot compete with christianity for different reasons. WHat's the reason is, I'll never know. Science says that we was cavemen milleniums ago. God says that we was still his people milleniums ago & that he created us from the dirt & breathed us life. Science says we was born from monkeys & started to evolve. So many infos.