Evolution

[a31pguy]

'Evolution is only a theory, not a fact'

I understand your position - but differ on supporting adding this statement.

The question comes down to what is the definition of a theory. A theory in science is different from the common usage.

That's why a lot of scientists object to this statement. Because if a student has been studying science and has learned the definitions of a scientific theory - the student shouldn't need this clarifying statement.

I would be more supportive of requirements for a course of study on a balanced intro to philosophy, religeon, and ethics. A course of study which introduces students to the ethnic and cultural world we live in which contains many people of diverse backgrounds and puts this discussion where it should be - against the background of the multitudes of religeous and philosohical views.

[GomJabbar]

The question comes down to what is the definition of a theory. A theory in science is different from the common usage.

That's why a lot of scientists object to this statement. Because if a student has been studying science and has learned the definitions of a scientific theory - the student shouldn't need this clarifying statement.

While the above should be true, it really depends upon how the information is presented in the textbook. If the author presents the basis of 'Evolutionary Theory' as established fact with only the details to be fleshed out with time, then even though it is called a theory, the word theory has little meaning in the premise. And if the author himself/herself believes in their heart that there is no doubt that Evolution is indisputable, that belief will likely show up in the writing. A cursory science class student may be awed by the labcoats and tend to believe whatever is presented. Hence the need for the caveat.

[egibbs]

In an earlier post, it was suggested that we "test" for the existence of the "intelligent designer" "By realizing that the complexity of living things cannot be explained through random events or Natural Selection alone."

Unfortunately, "realizing that the complexity...." isn't a test for the existence of god. It's faith in god.

Maybe there is a test we can do....

Suppose we take a culture of bacterium with no drug resistance. We divide it in three, and label the cultures A, B, and C.

Now culture A is the control. We do nothing to it, but keep it in the same environment as B and C.

Culture B gets small but steadily increasing doses of a drug known to kill this particular bacterium. We start off below the lethal dose, and slowly raise the level above the lethal dose.

Culture C gets surrounded by a group of saintly and devout people, who have all led exemplary lives. They pray constantly that culture C be granted drug resistance by God, and further, that culture B not be granted drug resistance by God.

Now let's form some hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 is that organisms evolve to adapt to changes in their environment. Hypothesis A predicts that Culture B will develop a level of drug resistance, while cultures A and C will experience only random mutations.

Hypothesis 2 is that evolution of new characteristics is impossible without the intervention of God. Now getting God to intervene the way we want might be problematic, but the Bible tells us that God answers prayer. At the very least, we should hope that God would not deliberately do exactly the opposite of what his devoted followers are praying for, so Hypothesis B predicts that culture B will NOT develop any level of drug resistance, and cultures A and C MAY develop drug resistance, if God feels like it.

There is no doubt in my mind as to how this experiment would turn out - is there really any in yours?

Ed Gibbs

[dsvochak]

"...the real question that we're debating here is not 'Why are we here', but rather 'How did we get here (or come to be)'"

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

The debate began as a question "...if evolution is a theory, then what facts conflict with this "theory"?" It's "evolved" into something else.

The question we're really debating here is: what, in the United States of America in 2005, is the appropriate method of dealing with an idea (or technology) that is offensive to my personal belief system?

When I was a kid back in the wonderful 1950's, this was really easy to deal with. If you thought evolution was incomplete or wrong, or "just a theory", you taught, in the privacy of your own home or in a religious gathering, the "truth" (or at least your version of it). In general, you didn't force in public education, alternative explanations.

Consider for a moment, the Amish. I think it's safe to say that no one reading this believes, as a matter of religion, that being connected to and/or using electricity, is against the word of god. This is a zero-sum situation. Either we're right about using electricity or they are. It's not possible for both sides to be correct.

So what do we do about it? To quote the esteemed Mr. Morrow: "...believe as you wish, but please do not hold a gun to my head and force me to believe as you do." In the US, in 2005, the Amish can believe anything they want about using electricity.

I always start thinking about the Amish when discussions like this come up. For some religious reasons, which I admit are unclear to me, the Amish concluded that technology up to about 1850 was religiously acceptable. Other Christian religions, clearly don't generally have a problem with technology.

Some ideas and aspects of technology, on the other hand, can be a problem. Stem cell research, abortion and evolution appear to be the current hot-button issues. At the rate scientific knowledge expands, there will be others, like cloning, for example. (There probably should be a 'Moore's law" for the expansion of scientific knowledge).

A question: Is there a right of privacy, (grossly stated "Is there a right to be left alone unless there is a compelling government interest") in the Constitution? Griswold v Conn. says there is. Roe v. Wade says the right to privacy extends, in most cases, to a woman's right to seek and obtain an abortion.

Is an abortion mandatory? Clearly, the answer is no. So what's the problem? I think the clear answer is "I believe life begins at conception and abortion is therefore murder". Again, to quote Mr. Morrow: "...believe as you wish, but please do not hold a gun to my head and force me to believe as you do.". I have to infer that women who have gotten, or seriously considered, abortions do not believe "...life begins at conception and abortion is murder.". Like the Amish and electricity, in the US in 2005, they can believe anything they want.

So back to the question: what, in the United States of America in 2005, is the appropriate method of dealing with an idea (or technology) that is offensive to my personal belief system?

I think we can learn a lot from the Amish.

Electricity (evolution, abortion, fill in the blank) is bad. Not a problem. Don't connect to the power grid.

Evolution is wrong? Not a problem. Home school your kid.

Think abortion is murder? Not a problem. Don't get one and pray for all the murders out there.

PS: I left this part out. I want to commend eveyone who's participated here for their courtesy and civility. I've seen a lot of court room arguments over trivial issues that have degenerated to levels approaching fisticuffs. It's nice to see a hot topic discussed in a rational and civilized fashion.

[a31pguy]

well we are superior thinking creatures - being Thinkpad owners after all.

[GomJabbar]

Evolution is wrong? Not a problem. Home school your kid.

Just as we see in the political arena these days, compromise is out. My way or the highway. One side can't abide the ideas of the other. Only natural I suppose. Afraid of giving up a little power because you might lose the whole shebang.

I can understand the fear of religion. So many crimes have been done, and are being done in the name of religion. I fear religion myself. This includes much of the so-called Christian religion. The control that the religious right is trying to exert in everyones life these days is making ones that aren't part of this religion very defensive. We certainly don't want to revert to the days of the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. Neither do we want to revert to the time of the Puritan's with the witchhunts and so on. Suicide bombers? Who can figure?

However I say; if evolution can stand the scrutiny of serious debate, then let us debate it. Let's not let the religious right take control (over the debate), and let's not let the evolution purists take control (over the debate). As long as evolution is a theory, ruling out discussion of one branch of that theory is not helpful, but is close-minded.

Also, let us not forget that for scientists to continue on and get funding (wages), they need to get published. It is not unheard of for data to be fixed to policy as the saying goes, so that there will be something to published. Remember Piltdown Man? There is an incentive (money and recognition) to throw out data that doesn't agree with a theory, and pursue or manufacture data that agrees with a prescribed notion. That's not to say that there are not many reputable scientists out there, however we need to view what we read regarding these things with a degree of caution.

There are so many things related to the idea of evolution that we need to consider the whole and not just dwell on one aspect of it. There is the fossil record, archaeological dating, molecular biology (including cell structure), diversity of life, and other things that probably don't come to mind just at the moment.

[GomJabbar]

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 21, 2005; Page A03

No Easy Victory Ensues in Legal Battle Over Evolution

[beeblebrox]

Just to add into this discussion...
... today I read a very interesting article about migrating birds from mid Europe. Usually all migrating birds used to gather in fall and start migrating together in large numbers towards the south, e.g. Spain, Africa, Oriantal.

Enviromentalists, together with biologists have, however, discovered that some portions of birds have started to migrate north west to England, instead south as usual.

They found out that, due to climate warming, many birds have found a shorter and healthier stay in England for the winter. They could also return faster in spring and avoid the thousands of kilometers of exhausting travel. So they are stronger and mate earlier.

The scientists then found out that, because more population portions stay together, they start to change their behavior and physical shape. They grew larger, had a different "song" and start having different colors. It was discovered that because they stay together during migration, their changes are re-enforced by themselvers, a typical virtuous cycle.

All that happened just within the last 8 years. Now biologists are trying the mark certain birds to figure out where exactly they travel and how they mate. Some of the "new birds" were vastly different to their relatives of the exact same origin. Common theory is that this is "evolution at work, just in condensed time". Biologists have figured out that within only 10-20 years there will be a sub-species with very different genetics within the same origin.

BTW: There is no "bible". Those who rely on the bible, rely on a book that has been collected by stories of many people across several centuries, translated and re-translated many times between different languages.

The fact is, the bible is as authentic as the collection of fairy tales from the brothers Grimm, who also collected century old stories and wrote a book.

The bible is in its majority based on Paulus, an aggressive and angry man, woman hater and dogmatist. Anyone who is really interested in the origins of todays bible should do his scientific research about original findings in the caves of palestine and israel. The truth seems to be very different (to what the church has taught us)

The bible, as we know today is more or less worthless, much like is astrology that also cites star constellations that were only present in the 16th century.

[GomJabbar]

The bible is in its majority based on Paulus, an aggressive and angry man, woman hater and dogmatist.

A statement written by someone who doesn't know the Bible.

Out of the 66 books of the Bible, the Apostle Paul wrote 14. In the Bible that I have, the 66 books in total (without anything else) comprise 1480 pages. Of these, 98 of those pages were written by Paul. Moses wrote over 3 times as much.

As far as being an angry man and a hater, I suggest reading 1 Corinthians chapter 13 (written by Paul) on the subject of Love.

[dsvochak]

"Evolution is wrong? Not a problem. Home school your kid." Perhaps not as delicately phrased as it should have been, but the response is interesting.

I've reread what I wrote. I don't believe I either wrote, or implied, that "...compromise is out" and it's "...my way or the highway" or that discussion shouldn't take place. [If I'm missing something here, please feel free to correct me]. What I was trying to point out was that, during my lifetime, as technology advances, the question of where and how theses debates occur has become an important consideration.

GomJabbar refers us to Michael Powell's article in the Washington Post. Interesting in a lot of ways. I wonder how the school board feels about the description of Dover as "...a farm town in central Pennsylvania that is half-evolved into a suburb." [emphasis added]

A quote: "Last year, [the Dover] school board voted to require that high school biology teachers read to students a short statement casting doubt on Darwin's theory of evolution and offering intelligent design as an alternative theory."

If this statement is correct, it appears that the Dover requirement goes significantly beyond the previously noted Cobb County Ga disclaimer found to have violated the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. It would also appear to contradict the assertion that "AFAIK Intelligent Design is not being taught as a theory or otherwise in any public school science class." [GomJabbar in a previous post]. (Unless, of course, the plaintiffs in the Dover case obtained a temporary restraining order or injunction prohibiting the statement during the pendency of the litigation.)

A quote from a post here on 10/19: "I agree that your worries have legitimacy. Yet, you say: "believe as you wish, but please do not hold a gun to my head and force me to believe as you do.." I see the 'Evolutionists' doing this already. They strongly object if a disclaimer is put in a textbook stating that . Many of them also refuse to take part in public discussions on the subject. Clamming up is usually a sign that your arguement is weak. "

Well, no.

The article referenced indicates that "The evolution disclaimers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." and goes on to state: "Six parents sued to remove the stickers saying the disclaimers violated the principle of the separation of church and state. A federal judge in January agreed and ordered the stickers removed.".

I don't see anything in the above that supports the assertion that, by objecting to the referenced disclaimer "Evolutionists" are forcing anyone to believe anything. It appears that the plaintiffs merely argued that "... the disclaimers violated the principle of the separation of church and state" and the judge agreed.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on ones belief system), "Secular Humanism" (an apparently outdated term, but one chosen here purposefully for it's inflammatory nature) is part and parcel of the American system of government. "God" is not mentioned in the constitution, and religion is mentioned only twice (in Article VI, where, in reference to the oaths taken by public officials it states "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" and again in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."). Both references to religion appear as limitations on governmental authority.

The United States of America decided, in 1791, that government should neither "establish" nor "prohibit the free exercise" of religion. [A somewhat relevant aside. A "judicial activist" can be defined as "a judge who decides a case opposite of the way I wanted it to go". A "strict constructionist" can be defined as "a judge who decided the way I wanted it to go."]. So what is the meaning of "establishment of religion"? According to the judge, the Cobb County disclaimer is "establishment of religion". [Another aside, the issue of how "Congress" in the First Amendment encompasses the Cobb County school board won't be discussed. Suffice it to say that, under the court's interpretations "Congress" means "government"].

We can debate forever whether, in the particular Cobb County case, the ruling is correct. What can't be argued is whether the first amendment prohibits Congress from making a law "respecting the establishment of religion" because, under the plain meaning of the words, it does.

"Last year, [the Dover] school board voted to require that high school biology teachers read to students a short statement casting doubt on Darwin's theory of evolution and offering intelligent design as an alternative theory."

Assume the quote correctly states the school board's position.

Another quote from Michael Powell's article "...few scientists support the intelligent design theory, which holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand of an intelligent creator." Assume the quote correctly states the core principle of the intelligent design theory.

You don't have to be a lawyer to see that there's a conflict between the Dover school board's requirement and the first amendment.

But read the rest of the first amendment "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You can believe evolution is a crock. You can believe in the FSM. You can believe that life is a happy series of accidents. You can believe that you have the right to try to convince others of what you believe.

But, until the First Amendment is repealed or amended, or 214 years of court decisions are overturned, in the United States, you don't have the right to use a governmental institution (i.e. public school) to foster belief in an "intelligent designer" or "intelligent creator". You can go door to door like the LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses, but you can't use the public school system. You may not like it, but (in the immortal words of George Carlin when asked what he thought about the Supreme Court's ruling in the "Seven words you can't say on the radio" case) "That's their opinion."

[GomJabbar]

All I have to say regarding the last post is..........

While you may feel that speaking about the possiblity of an Intelligent Designer of a of a Creator is the establishing of a religion in a public school.

IE: "Last year, [the Dover] school board voted to require that high school biology teachers read to students a short statement casting doubt on Darwin's theory of evolution and offering intelligent design as an alternative theory."

I say the teaching of evolution (as it is taught today) is already teaching a religion of atheism. In my book, atheism is a religion too. Of course any atheist will disagree, as it does not suit their purpose.

[AlphaKilo470]

I've been resisting the urge to join the debate for so long now. Well, now that I've given in, heres my viewpoint on this argument.

I think evolution in schools should be a domestic community issue, not a widespread national issue as not everyone will think alike. I think evolution in schools should be upheld or brought down in a specicfic school board depending on the thougths of the citezens and students in that given community which has been called to question.

This would most likely be the most fluid and accepted compromise to the deabate on evolution in schools because the debate on any bigger levels will ultimately becme a stalemate.

[dsvochak]

1. "While you may feel that speaking about the possiblity of an Intelligent Designer of a of a Creator is the establishing of a religion in a public school...." Read my post very carefully and please point out where I indicated that I felt any such thing. I think my post only, albeit in very short and cursory fashion, points out what the United States Supreme Court, Appellate courts and District Courts have ruled the First Amendment requires.

2. The quote "IE: "Last year, [the Dover] school board voted to require that high school biology teachers read to students a short statement casting doubt on Darwin's theory of evolution and offering intelligent design as an alternative theory." isn't an expression of anything I believe. As my post noted it's a quote from the article by Michael Powell to which GomJabbar first referenced.

3. "I say the teaching of evolution (as it is taught today) is already teaching a religion of atheism. In my book, atheism is a religion too. Of course any atheist will disagree, as it does not suit their purpose." Unfortunately, the courts of the United States have also thus far disagreed. Like George Carlin said "That's their opinion". You and I may not, or may not, like it, but until changed, we're stuck with it.

AlphaKilo470, thank you. At least you've offered a suggested answer to what I see as the real question. Now, how do we get what you propose to meet constitutional muster?

[AlphaKilo470]

Well, personally, I don't think my given proposal or anything else regarding this topic, evolution, should even be expected to meet anything within the constitution as neither, evulution nor creationism nor any other theory is written within the constitution.

However, I do believe my proposal does fall very well within terms of the Freedom of Speech ammendment of the constituion.

[GomJabbar]

1. "While you may feel that speaking about the possiblity of an Intelligent Designer of a of a Creator is the establishing of a religion in a public school...." That seemed to be the theme of your post to me. Sorry if I misconstrued your intent. I didn't think you were just playing the 'Devil's Advocate' so-to-speak, but rather were advocating your own opinions on this issue.

2. I was not trying to say that you believed this quote, but rather I was using it as an example of what I thought you meant by 'establishing' a religion in the classroom. I knew this was a quote from the WP article, not from you.

3. Yes, the courts have thus far disagreed with my viewpoint. What else is new? I seem to be the 'Lone Ranger' in a lot of ways, not the least of which is my opinion on this thread!

[GomJabbar]

And the beat goes on........

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE REAL SCIENCE OPTION?

Looking at Googles main news page today, there were featured a number of articles on this debate. 54 stories were listed, but many were repeats in different papers.

Some of the headlines: (My favorite above)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Intelligent design' debate: confusion vs. suppression
Cornell President Condemns Teaching Intelligent Design as Science
Scientists condemn 'intelligent design'
Ban design theory in class: scientists
'Intelligent Design' Scorned
Don't teach design theory: scientists
Intelligent design not science: experts
Intelligent design, evolution at odds
Does intelligent design need evidence for proof?
Scientists Agree 'Intelligent Design' Not Science
Will science lose to 'intelligent design'?
Thousands of Scientists Sign Petition Opposing the Teaching of Intelligent Design as Science
Scientists attack 'intelligent design'
Intelligent design theory under fire

EDIT: Plenty of arguments from both sides. Here is something else I just read. It is an Op/Ed piece that represents my position well. 'Intelligent design' plaintiffs are over-reacting

However, it seems that if Dover's intelligent design statement violates the U.S. Constitution through inferences to the existence of an intelligent designer, then official acknowledgments of our nation's Declaration of Independence, preambled by references to the ''Laws of Nature and of Nature's God'' and to people being ''endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,'' should be a constitutional outrage by comparison.

In my view, the plaintiffs in the Dover case look a whole lot like the prosecutors in the ''monkey'' trial of Tennessee v. Scopes back in 1925. Dover's plaintiffs, like the Scopes prosecutors, represent a traditionalistic community gripped with irrational fears in realizing the unquestioned reign of their valued beliefs is threatened by an invasion of questioning intellect. In both cases, traditionalistic educators, both then and now, show an obsession with teaching their students what to think, while spurning a duty to teach them how to think. In either case, it's a disservice.

[dsvochak]

The President is on record as supporting AlphaKilo's position. That is "I think evolution in schools should be a domestic community issue, not a widespread national issue as not everyone will think alike. I think evolution in schools should be upheld or brought down in a specicfic school board depending on the thougths of the citezens and students in that given community which has been called to question."

A hypothetical. Assume Skokie. IL as it existed about 25 years ago--that is, an overwhelmingly Jewish community with a significant percentage of holocaust survivors and their descendants. Assume that "...evolution in schools should be upheld or brought down in a specicfic school board depending on the thougths of the citezens and students in that given community..." is okay. Assume that the Skokie Public School Board, unanimously Jewish, votes to teach their version of "intelligent design" using the Torah as a text.

Would that be allowable? Why or why not? Please limit your answers to 50 words or less.

A toughie isn't it? It's why I brought up the Amish a few days ago and why I was harsh when I wrote "Evolution is wrong? Not a problem. Home school your kid.".

In 1787 we decided to adopt the Constitution as a framework for conducting our government. Since then, the framework as been adjusted 27 times by amendments. On the whole, it's worked out pretty well. AlphaKilo's right "... neither, evulution nor creationism nor any other theory is written within the constitution.".

But just what does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." mean? [And remember, read "Congress" to say "Governmental Body" including "Public School District"]

Does it mean you can decide to teach intelligent design along with evolution. Does it mean you can decide to only teach intelligent design? Does it mean you can teach intelligent design using the bible, and if so, what version of the bible: King James? NIV? LDS? Or can you only teach intelligent design if you refer students to "Of Pandas and People"? Or can Skokie decide to use the Torah? Or [fill in the blank as your heart desires]?

Where is the line? And how do we decide? And what do we do about the people who believe something else?

We're living in a society with a governmental framework that contains very few specifics and a lot of general principles that have to be applied to specific situations. It's not likely that the framers of the constitution had an idea in mind about stem cells or cloning or a lot of things yet to be imagined. So how is it possible to say that there's a "strict constructionist" or "originialist" view of how one deals with such issues.

[Kyocera]

It seems like religion, in whatever form is becoming more and more to the forefront of society. 15 or 20 years ago religion was seemingly a transparent thing. Not much TV time, not so much any more. Religion and all it encompasses is a major part of the news and everything that goes along with that, bad and good publicity. The Catholic priests being sued, many more open displays of religious belief in schools, politicians saying that religious organizations should take up the slack for welfare. Here in North Carolina there are entities wanting religious equal time (prayer) in the schools, a Christian Club should be allowed if there is a Gay and Lesbian Youth Club, using the koran instead of the bible to swear in court, etc. (Please don’t consider I am comparing the two) as an example. While religion rises up to reclaim dominance in society there will be more theories, more old arguments redesigned and put forth in new formats. There has always been the assertion from religious followers that we are created by a maker, a father, what’s new about ID? Nothing from what I can tell. A maker, a creator who was very intelligent now appears to have designed us rather than created us.
This is only the tip of the iceburg, it will play itself out again in time because as has been throughout human history people get angry and rise up against that which they feel is oppresive. In the past this has happened, religion of all types seems to thrive on having people believe something that is not proven, but is based on a fantasy, as it was stated in a previous post.

I assert that if you want to believe a superhuman smart guy or gal designed us than have at it. It is good to have a creative mind and a critical thinking process, that being said I don’t understand how anyone can seriously believe that. It has been stated that how can anyone believe we are the product of a series of random events? Random is really relative, to say that the formation of the universe (which is not finshed yet) is a random event is really only to view it in terms of a human event. We are a collateral effect, not a cause.

[AlphaKilo470]

A hypothetical. Assume Skokie. IL as it existed about 25 years ago--that is, an overwhelmingly Jewish community with a significant percentage of holocaust survivors and their descendants. Assume that "...evolution in schools should be upheld or brought down in a specicfic school board depending on the thougths of the citezens and students in that given community..." is okay. Assume that the Skokie Public School Board, unanimously Jewish, votes to teach their version of "intelligent design" using the Torah as a text.

Would that be allowable? Why or why not? Please limit your answers to 50 words or less.

My viewpoints were only on teaching evolution in our public schools. As for religion, I think that's something the government needs to keep their noses out of completely. The problem with "Separation of Church and State" (aside from not actually being a written law or ammendment) is that it does nothing at all to separate anything, it does the opposite by allowing people to sue for any hint in the slightest form of christianity. I think that as far as any shape or form of religion goes, the schools should avoid teaching except when appropriate (one example could be that in some history classes an understanding of the different religions would prove most beneficial in understanding many past events) and when a kid chooses to exhibit any religious custom, he should be allowed to do so freely without any interference from a governing party. The only place I would draw a solid line is on imposing and blatantly pushing a specific religion on someone and trying to manipulate a students mindset but so far, the only manipulation and brainwashing I've seen happening in public shcools is the government seemingly allowing every religion but christianity to be shown in public in any way while doing everything they can to bar christianity and using an excuse such as "we don't want to offend" in order to cover themselves.

Now personally, with all of this aside, I still hold with my original viewpoints that evolution should be a domestic community issue and not a widespread national one. While I personally don't mind the Evolution Theory being taught because of the fact that it is a scientific theory recognized by most scientists and for that deserves at least a small mention as a given theory in debate, I also acknowledge that not everyone out there is going to have the same thought pattern and mentality as myself.

If these descisions of this sort where personal beliefs holds a major sphere of influence were regarded as small community issues, not widespread national issues, we would still have some folks complaining as not everyone can be satisfied at once, we will see a much larger majority of people who are happy and satisfied. In essence, don't tell me how to mow my lawn and I won't tell you how to mow yours. We can exchange tips and ideas but my method, as long as it's not blatantly imposing on anyone else, is my business and mine only.

[GomJabbar]

There has always been the assertion from religious followers that we are created by a maker, a father, what’s new about ID? Nothing from what I can tell. A maker, a creator who was very intelligent now appears to have designed us rather than created us.

My take on this is that some years ago (even today) there was a group of people that believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. That each day of creation mentioned in the Bible book of Genesis was 24 hours long. This group was dubbed Creationist. Since they believed each day of creation was 24 hours long (there were only 6 days of creation), this left no option for believing in evolution at all.

As the evidence for evolution began mounting, and especially evidence that the age of the earth had to be much longer than 6000-7000 years, many became uncomfortable with this literal interpretation of the Bible. [It is possible to believe the Bible, but understand that portions of it are figurative and not literal.] They still believed that all creation came to be through the power and direction of an all powerful Creator or God, but they couldn't discount the other scientific evidence either. To separate themselves from the Creationists, they began promoting the idea of Intelligent Design. While the Intelligent Design adherents try to not specify who or what the designer might be, it is generally considered that they believe in the God of the Bible

So what's new about Intelligent Design is that it can accept evolution as taking place, just not that evolution is only guided by Natural Selection. It requires an intelligence to account for all the complexity and diversity of life we see today. This is particularly true in regards to the creation of life.

[AlphaKilo470]

Another thing worth mentioning, for whatever it may be worth for either side of this argument, is that the Bible was not originally written in English, it had to be translated and as demonstrated by the differences in the many different English translations (examples being the NAS, NIV, Aplified, KJV, CEV, etcetera), things will change and in many cases gain, lose or take on new meaning in the translation. What may have meant one thing in the original Hebrew text might not mean anything similar when read in the translated English text.

I have a good friend who's currently translating the Bible from Greek to English (I wish I had that kind of free time) and when I talked to him, he pointed out many differences and details that were not always caught in other translations and I do have to say it was rather intriguing.

With this stated, I think it's important to acknowledge yet another take on all of these issues and note the possible and apparent differences and meanings.

[egibbs]

So what's new about Intelligent Design is that it can accept evolution as taking place, just not that evolution is only guided by Natural Selection. It requires an intelligence to account for all the complexity and diversity of life we see today. This is particularly true in regards to the creation of life.

This is touching on something that has been nagging at the back of my mind....

I'm no expert on ID, but as I understand it the premise is that creatures do transition from one form to another over time, jiust as in evolution. If you put a creature in a new environment and come back in a thousand year, both ID and evolution predict that the creature will have changed to adapt to it's environment. Where the dispute come in is whether the changes were the result of random mutations and natural selection, or if they were guided by the hand of God.

So we have two theories that both predict essentially the same outcome. In that situation we use Ocam's razor and select the simplest explanation.

Seems to me that the one that doesn't require an invisible bearded guy with super powers wins.

Unless you have a deep, personal belief in the existence of the bearded guy - which would be religion, which has no place being taught in school.

Ed Gibbs

[DaveO]

This is touching on something that has been nagging at the back of my mind....

I'm no expert on ID, but as I understand it the premise is that creatures do transition from one form to another over time, jiust as in evolution. If you put a creature in a new environment and come back in a thousand year, both ID and evolution predict that the creature will have changed to adapt to it's environment. Where the dispute come in is whether the changes were the result of random mutations and natural selection, or if they were guided by the hand of God.

So we have two theories that both predict essentially the same outcome. In that situation we use Ocam's razor and select the simplest explanation.

Seems to me that the one that doesn't require an invisible bearded guy with super powers wins.

Unless you have a deep, personal belief in the existence of the bearded guy - which would be religion, which has no place being taught in school.

Ed Gibbs

This link below has a concise answer .....
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... waters.asp

[doppelfish]

The truth seems to be very different

The Truth[TM] is that the universe was created by the famous FSM.

... much like is astrology that also cites star constellations that were only present in the 16th century.

What's so unscientific about it? .. Oh, ok ...

cheers,
-- fish (not yet touched by His Noodly Appendage)

[GomJabbar]

This link below has a concise answer .....
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... waters.asp

Good link DaveO. I don't know the religion of the author, and likely do not share his religeous beliefs in total, however the thrust of his argument regarding the necessity to add information (to the genetic code) to account for evolution as we see it, makes a lot of sense.

The only way that would not be the case is if the entire genetic code was a complete encyclopedia as it were, with different pieces pulled out depending on the living thing's necessity for being. This would require some sort of super organism at the outset of creation containing all the genes necessary for all living things. What's the likelyhood of that? Would a Ginkgo tree have the genes for an electric eel or a human being? These genes only being turned off?

All you evolution purists - how do you get a wealth of useful information out of chaos? If you took a supercomputer to randomly piece ones and zeros together, how much useful code would emerge? Would any of it be useful at all? Could you ever end up with Windows XP? The genetic code is not unlike computer code (1's and 0's) in that it is comprised of an all important sequence of a very few elements (5 nucleobases: C,G,A,T,& U). Even though the elements are few, look at the complex outcome in the diversity of life.

So, which supercomputer is working on the genetic code?

[doppelfish]

Edit: Grr, doppelposting happening. See below.

[doppelfish]

... regarding the necessity to add information (to the genetic code) to account for evolution as we see it, makes a lot of sense.

If Your timeframe is limited to seven, err, six days, that makes a lot of sense. After all, the world may be younger than we think.

However, comparing some human's attempt at active horse breeding - a human-"controlled" process of inbreeding where selection criteria like "oooh, nice!" always trump "can live in its niche in nature" - which has been going on for a few years to a millenium-long history of natural selection is somewhat, shall we say, daring. Only because the author of the story cannot imagine such a long time span doesn't mean it can't be true. (Not that I could imagine what only a thousand years are like ... but I can't walk around the earth along the equator, so earth must be flat).
Then again, I don't see how the wolf has the genetic material that is needed to produce such atrocities as the Poodle or the Chihuahua[1]. Do the human breeders design some new genes every now and then?

curious,
-- fish

[1] No offense to dog lovers intended. It's just that the difference is somewhat startling.

[GomJabbar]

... regarding the necessity to add information (to the genetic code) to account for evolution as we see it, makes a lot of sense.

If Your timeframe is limited to seven, err, six days, that makes a lot of sense. After all, the world may be younger than we think.

FYI, I don't subscribe to the 6 (literal 24 hour) days of creation belief. If you had been following this thread from the beginning, you would realize this. In fact, the believers in Intelligent Design do not believe the world was created in less than a week. They realize this process took much longer.

[doppelfish]

In fact, the believers in Intelligent Design do not take the 6 days of creation as being literal.

It is interesting to see that ID proponents deviate from the only source of ... well, ID. My point was that the article's author argues that "if I can't imagine it, it cannot be possible, and therefore there must be a higher being which makes everything possible that we think is impossible".

cheers,
-- fish

[GomJabbar]

In fact, the believers in Intelligent Design do not take the 6 days of creation as being literal.

It is interesting to see that ID proponents deviate from the only source of ... well, ID.

As I wrote earlier in this thread:

We have the Bible to guide us, but we only understand it partially. The Bible speaks of the 6 days of creation, and some people take this literally. Others read this, and it is enough for them to discount the Bible as fantasy. Science 'proves' (with some certainty) that this could not be the case. But there is a third understanding of this. For instance we say: "In Aristotle's day..........". This day is not 24 hours long. Likewise the reasonable understanding of this is that each creative day was not 24 hours long. It is interesting to note that the basic order of the appearance of the things created (in the Bible) agrees with the timeline that science has come up with, even though this was written centuries ago.

I include this now.......

Was all physical creation accomplished in just six days sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years?

The facts disagree with such a conclusion: (1) Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. (2) End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.