Americans United Threaten School Over Intelligent Design
Posted on January 9, 2006
I’m not the best debater on the whole intelligent design vs. Evolution stuff, but from what I do understand from past debates, the latest threat from the secularist seems to be pushing the bar further.
I remember many on the left arguing that it did not belong in a Science class. They said that they would have no problem if it were in a philosphy class, or as an elective comparative religion.
Well, here we have an elective philosphy class teaching it right along side evolution and they still can’t stand to have their theory challenged. They want this theory taught like religion, and no academic debate allowed on it!
Please don’t start the secular talking points about theocracy. There were no kids rushing to the water fountains being baptized, and no kids had any kind of religious conversions. The name that secularist dread so much, “Jesus”, wasn’t even mentioned. The seperation of Church and State does not apply here.
In fact the week’s only unpleasant note was the letter received by El Tejon Unified School District Superintendent John Wight from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the organization which, along with the Pennsylvania ACLU, won the court decision against the teaching of intelligent design in Dover, Pa. public schools.
“Pull the intelligent design class at Frazier Mountain High School,” was the letter’s ominous message, “or we file an injunction.”
Whoa. No introductory fact-checking? No “hey, let’s talk about this?” Just “pull it or else.”
This is not the first time the El Tejon district has been threatened with court action in regard to its decision to include the controversial theory in its curriculum, but there’s no denying this latest bark has some bite.
Wight says the district has nothing to fear. An educator who apparently believes students should be encouraged to discuss and debate existing theories, Wight says the school’s philosophy class covers components of the intelligent design theory, introductory philosophy, Darwin’s theory of evolution and the origins of life according to Greek mythology.
Wight responded to Americans United, informing it the district will not pull the class and sent along a copy of the school’s curriculum for good measure. Reports of a pro-religious, anti-evolution curriculum, he says, are greatly exaggerated.
“Yeah, big time,” Wight says. “We’re not advocating religion at all. This is an overview class where we expect students to come up with their own interpretations and own ideas and write their own convictions.”
But such freedom does not sit well with the less tolerant among the pro-evolution crowd, who cringe at the very idea that intelligent design should share the floor in any classroom, be it science, philosophy or otherwise, with Darwin’s theory of evolution
. Source
Very well said. I can see both sides of this issue, and I don’t see any reason why the far left have a problem with our children in school having a healthy debate over it.
» Filed Under Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
62 Responses to “Americans United Threaten School Over Intelligent Design”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Sounds like an interesting class to me - Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Greek philosophy’s origin of life theories. If Americans United will just butt out those kids will actually learn some important critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, Darwinism is slowly becoming synonymous with fascism.
ID is not worth teaching, lets teach all about the fsm instead. It makes as much sense and would be lots more fun.
Some facts the ID proponents want to avoid:
* Every major scientific association in the US that has expressed an opinion in this debate has done so supporting Evolutionary Theory over ID
* There is no science in ID. all it does is point out peceived weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory, and point to (admittedly) complex areas and say “its too complicated - God did it.
In the above example I use God in preference to ‘designer’ for valid reasons. If there was a designer - who designed him or her? (Obviously he could not have evolved…) Do now you have a designer for our designer.
You can follow the chain of designers back as far as you want to go, but it has to end somewhere.
And you’re left with 2 choices - either a being that evolved intelligence without external interference, or one that sprang fully formed into existence from nothing.
So the argument seems to me to come down to a choice in what to believe in: The spontaneous generation of self replicating molecules, and the power of the evolutionary process to eventually produce living organisms (almost said ‘creature there…).
Or you can choose to believe in the spontaneous generation of a fully formed being with an intelligence that equals or surpasses ours.
I know which one I find easier to swallow.
OK….so ID is out but greek mythology regarding the origins of life is in……got it.
–posted by Where’s the science?:
“And you’re left with 2 choices - either a being that evolved intelligence without external interference, or one that sprang fully formed into existence from nothing…I know which one I find easier to swallow.”
Carry that to it’s logical extension and you’ve just shot the Big Bang right in the keister. Validating that argument necessitates identifying ID as Biblical creationism, which it is not…
Has anybody actually seen the text of the AU’s letter? The ‘quotes’ above seem most un-lawyerlike. Is it a case of ‘chinese whispers’ distorting the original message out of all proportion?
Kender, there are many holes in the Darwin’s Theory, but I won’t get into them here. It’s not a science class. But, suffice to say, there is a reason that Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution is still a theory and not called fact. It has NOT been proven to be true.
In that sence, Darwin is just as “unproven” and controversial as ID. What? Because one purports to be science and the other based on faith, we have to take science based on faith? Really, people like the Atheists and the ACLU, etc. are holding onto and believing in Evolution as if it was a religion. They believe that it’s right, true, and has no faults or holes, and should NOT be taught as a theory but fact, and should not be taught along with any other theories or beliefs. They’re just as guilty of “violating” separation of church and state as those who support ID. They are attempting to convert our youth from religious believers into atheists with complete reckless disregard for truth and objectivity.
I’m all for having a debate about the origin of life, but let’s have an honest one. Let’s get both sides together and talk about both of them honestly. Let’s not let these special interest groups dismiss one side of the argument completely and then claim victory. Let’s teach both sides and let the kids make an educated choice based on the facts on the ground; not based on what the other side is hiding.
Now, I’ve taken Constitutional Law, and I remember a case like this coming before the Supreme Court, and that is why I don’t really understand what’s happening here. I might get my facts wrong since it was a while ago, but I remember that there was a case where a school was not allowing Evolution to be taught and just taught Creationism (as it was called before ID came along). Other schools were doing vice versa. The case came before the Supreme Court, and it was decided that all views had to be taught in order to ensure that separation church and state was ensured and that the Lemon Test would be passed. Basically, they ruled that either all views were taught or none were.
So, where did this all come from?
-OC
Interesting. I had a nice, coherent post highlighting the reasons why ID doesn’t merit consideration as a science topic, and one of you sniveling mouth-breathers deleted it. Good deal. Having proven that you can’t handle facts, you just guaranteed yourself a steady stream of pestering. (Jay got one thing right - he’s “not the best debater on the whole intelligent design vs. Evolution stuff” - but this applies to everything he addresses and is therefore redundant.)
“…there are many holes in the Darwin’s Theory, but I won’t get into them here.”
Because there are none.
“Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution is still a theory and not called fact”
You need to learn the definition of a scientific theory. All of you addled troglodytes also need to learn that evolution and origins are entirely different topics in science, and that “Where did all of this come from?” is not a question evolutionary biology seeks to address. Finally, you need to let go of the laughable idea that evolution is a “religion” (just because you can’t shove your Jesusy foolishness into science class doesn’t make that which supplnated it a religious movement). But you might start with basic biology, which might keep all of you from embarrassing yourselves as you shuffle through your pointless, undereducated lives walking into walls and hopefully not reproducing.
Olah:
Scientific theories NEVER become ‘facts’. They CANNOT be proved, only DISPROVED.
Additionally, Evolution is considered to be a ‘fact’ as well as a ‘theory’, to quote eminent Evolutionary Biologist Ken Miller’s testimony in the Cobb case:
“Q. [By Mr. Manely] Does your text teach that evolution is a theory and not a fact?
A. [Dr. Ken Miller] That’s a difficult question to answer, and the reason for that has to do not with our textbook but with the use of language. In English we often use the word “evolution” to mean two entirely different things. The first way in which we mean it is to describe what happened in the past. The scientific community really is of one mind that evolution took place, that we are descended with modifications from earlier organisms and so is everything else on this planet. This is supported by a host of facts, including the fossil record, including biogeography, and even our own genetics and our own physiology. So the notion that this descent with modification took place, namely that life in the past was different from life in the present and that the life of the past evolved or changed into the life of the present, that’s as much of a fact as anything else we know in science.
How this took place, that’s the respect in which evolution is also a theory. So when we speak of evolutionary theory, what we’re talking about are the mechanisms that drove this change. And there’s considerable — there’s considerable disagreement and considerable scientific work as to the relative merits of geographical isolation, what’s known as ecological isolation, sexual selection, natural selection, physiological selection, and so forth. So in a way it would be really nice if we could invent two distinct words so that we could make clear when we’re talking about evolution, namely the facts of natural history, and evolution, the process. But in that respect it’s quite proper, as we do in our book, to speak of evolutionary theory, talking about the mechanisms of change and the relative importance of various elements of it, and also the fact of evolutionary change.
THE COURT [Judge Cooper]: So evolution is both, then, fact and theory?
THE WITNESS: I think it is fair to say that evolution is certainly a theory, but it is also a fact, in that it is a fact of natural history that evolution took place.
THE COURT: Thank you.”
Also, it is not just the ACLU and Atheists, it is 54 scientific organisations, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Center for Science Education, the National Congress of Science Education, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the National Science Teachers Association, and the academies of science in many states. Additionally, most major Christian denominations have no problem with Evolution either.
>>>Someone above wrote: * There is no science in ID. all it does is point out peceived weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory, and point to (admittedly) complex areas and say “its too complicated - God did it.
This fallacy is frequently brought up by those who are ignorant of Intelligent Design theory. I suspect that these people only read what supports their own view. For a couple of articles that refute this spurious notion I recommend:
http://creationevidence.blogspot.com/2005/09/evidence-for-design.html
http://creationevidence.blogspot.com/2005/12/carl-sagans-ordered-universe.html
>>>The same person wrote: “In the above example I use God in preference to ‘designer’ for valid reasons. If there was a designer - who designed him or her? (Obviously he could not have evolved…) Do now you have a designer for our designer.”
The designer is God. God is eternal, He is outside of time and He is the creator of time, space, matter and energy. Though this is a statement of faith, what evolutionists have is a statement of utter nonsense. For a naturalistic cause to the universe is simply “nothing”. To believe that is not scientific or respectable it is utter foolishness.
Jim Bendewald
I’m not sure that “philosphy” class is the best place for ID OR evolution. Now if the teacher wants to use them to illustrate how certain arguments are made, that’s all well and good.
The way the course is explained it’s pretty harmless, I’d say. Teaching ID along with the origins of life according to the Greeks as well as Darwin sounds like a good way to compare the way people think.
No harm…no foul.
Whether or not ID should be considered science is mute in this debate since the class was philosphy.
Where’s My Haldol? Learn to read.
The seperation of Church and State does not apply here.
It doesn’t apply, period.
It only exists in the warped minds of the ACLU and those supporting its socialist agenda.
RWR
Jim Bendewald:
The first URL you list is to your own tirade against Methodological Naturalism, and thus against Science itself. How can this be evidence that there is science in ID?
The second is nothing but your rambling assertion that distills down to “order cannot exist without God”. An assertion you fail to substantiate.
Your problem is that you seem to equate ’science’ to ‘truth in every conceivable form’. This is incorrect. Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Everything else is not science, even if it is true. It may be true that a Shakespearean sonnet is beautiful, but its beauty is not scientific.
Who designed the designer?
What does it matter?
If scientists are able to create life in a laboratory (and some think we’re close) then such life is by definition Intelligently Designed.
But by your ID is just “turtles all the way down” arguement such intelligently designed life cannot exist. Will they just *poof* out of existance as logically impossible?
If scientist are able to create intelligent life, are they to be allowed the ability to seek the truth about their own creation in ID or should they only be allowed to search for the wrong answer because the right one is unscientific?
All this debate is moot. If the Constitution would hold rank like its supposed to, public education wouldn’t exist, and parents could decide for themselves whether they want their kids to learn Creation or evolution.
Where’s My Haldol: Evolution and Origin are not different subjects. You can’t have evolution without Origins because evolution needs the world to be billions of years old to work. Since scientists have not adequatley explained why apes are not still evolving into humans, it is explained away that it takes millions of years.
Where’s My Haldol: Now I’ll address your idiotic notion that evolution is not a matter of faith. Read the dictionary. Faith: Believing without seeing. Have we observed evolution? No.
“Jesusy foolishness”
As opposed to the foolishness that states the universe was created out of nothing? The foolishness that states there was a big explosion out of nothing, even though science teaches us that nothing can’t explode? Hmmm. Jesus did exist, by the way. There were witnesses, historical records and census, and so on. Not sure where the foolishness comes in. No one has observed actual evolution, and all the “evidence” to support it can be refuted by any third-grader with common sense.
To Those Like Where’s My Haldol: I realize this comment will be ignored, but I thought I’d say that sarcasm does not win a debate, nor does it prove a point. Where’s My Haldol seems to think that sarcasm and insults can compensate for not having anything really intelligent to say, nor any facts that can be proven. It is simply a sign of impotent frustration, and one that I enjoy. Nothing better than a spluttering atheist lib. But I thought I’d let others know that if they want to disagree and be taken seriously, than they’d better have better arguments than simply insulting Jesus. Especially when the alternative is more ridiculous than Marxism.
I’m misrepresenting? Really?
What your saying is, the same thing as saying a scientist creates a laser, therefore light is intelligently designed.
This is completely off the mark. I’m not claiming that the light is intelligently designed I’m not even claiming that all lasers were intelligently designed, just the one frikkin’ laser.
There are natural occurances of things that shoot projectiles under pressure, does that mean that firearms are a natural occurance or were they intelligently designed?
I’m not claiming all life is intelligently designed, just that one instance of it.
Or are your saying scientists could never actively create life?
Do you have some evidence for this? Or does it just not jive with your *beliefs*.
I’m asking a “what if” scenario where scientist are able to actively create life. What then?
Jim Bendewald, you wrote:
“The designer is God.”
That’s pretty funny considering the lengths the Discovery Institute and other ID illuminati have gone to in order to assure everyone ID isn’t a religious movement. Where’s your evidence for God as the designer and how does it stack up against the evolution literature?
Jay, if you’re going to write things like “Whether or not ID should be considered science is mute” I suggest you not tell others to learn to read. You admit to being ignorant about ID and evolution, so wy not do everyone a service and shut up about it.
apostle, please don’t attempt to write anything remotely related to science ever again. Anyone who writes “Since scientists have not adequatley explained why apes are not still evolving into humans, it is explained away that it takes millions of years” is irredeemably lost in so many ways it really isn’t funny. The people who run this place have little grasp on science matters and clearly never took any course work after high school, but you’re operating at a grade-school level at best.
All this debate is moot. If the Constitution would hold rank like its supposed to, public education wouldn’t exist, and parents could decide for themselves whether they want their kids to learn Creation or evolution.”
At least you spelled “moot” correctly. The rest of what you say marks you as moronic. Maybe public education should be scrapped, but as things stand it does exist, and therefore it is incumbent upon science teachers to teach science. Students who come from thumb-sucking families who would rather cuddle up to creation myths are absolutely free to reject what they’re taught in biology class, so there’s no conflict afoot here. The Constitution gives people the right to be as stupid as they please and even to broadcast their stupid ideas all over the place, as this blog and its cadre of regular commenters demonstrate nicely.
“Where’s My Haldol: Now I’ll address your idiotic notion that evolution is not a matter of faith. Read the dictionary. Faith: Believing without seeing. Have we observed evolution? No.”
You are shiningly, pathetically ignorant. Microbial resistance has been directly observed in the laboratory and constitutes evolution. All dogs are descended from wolves (and can still mate with them); artificial selection has produced breeds that vary wildly in appearance and other ways in a very short time, but the genetic grist upon which selective breeding acts is exactly the same as that engendering natural selection in the wild.
You’re hopelessly in over your head and I believe you know it. It’s frustrating to confront people who not only oppose your beliefs but can shatter them to smithereens because they’re three times as smart as you are. [edited] up and learn or go slink into your godzo corner with the other thumb-suckers.
>>> Hrafn wrote: “The first URL you list is to your own tirade against Methodological Naturalism, and thus against Science itself. How can this be evidence that there is science in ID?”
You appear to be intentionally misrepresenting the nature and content of the article–is that truth for you? The article is in no way a tirade and it does not dismiss methodological naturalism. The article logically demonstrates that information is quite complex and all known sources come from an author. DNA is the most compact source of information known. The information argument infers the existence of God as the author. There can be no material source for information, eg., DNA, because information is a massless quantity! Information is on the radio and TV. It has no mass. Therefore the evidence overwhelmingly points to creation.
http://creationevidence.blogspot.com/2005/09/evidence-for-design.html
Theory = lies
The evil defenders of Darwin are really all a bunch of athiests, unlike our fine friends at the Discovery Institute. If Darwinists are supposed to be so smart, why don’t they own http://www.evolutionnews.org ? It’s because the Discovery Institute is smarter than y’all and they be soldiers of God, not a bunch of abortion giving athiests.
I also recomend that people take a hard look at gravity. It’s another lie-theory put forth by the athiests. Anybody can see that god created gravity so we won’t fly into space. It’s obvious. What other reason would it be that way for?
Idiots!
“DNA is the most compact source of information known. The information argument infers the existence of God as the author.”
Well, that’s *also* funny, because 97% of DNA isn’t even translated. That’s right — it’s silent, serving no apparent purpose in the genome. Wouldn’t an intelligent god have been more parsimonious than this?
You are the perfect example of someone who waded into your first exposure to evolution already programmed to believe in skygods and since that time has pursued “evidence” aimed at justifying this unsupportable and preconceived conclusion. Unfortunately for the reasonable folks of the world, there are lots of y’all out there and y’all love makin’ noises about that pusky ev’lushun biz’ness that cramps yer creationist style. A-yuk, a-yuk.
From all the ranting, raving and finger pointing that the supporters of evolution only teaching so very quickly revert to, it would seem to a person somewhat unconvinced of the correctness of either camp that evolution has all the attributes of religion, at least in the virulence of their defense when even the slightest of a challenge is made.
Now if everyone wants to drop the insults and actually READ and understand the arguements of both sides, we might just get somewhere.
A question before I go running to the bomb shelter to avoid the attacks of both sides: Isn’t a theory the result of a hypothesis that has been proved to be substantially correct by having the conditions and results replicated? Then how can either id OR evolution ever move past the unproved hypothesis?
It is always interesting to observe how such vitriolic and personal comments and attacks humans can visit upon each other on matters which do not matter. In life, we find that often the journey is both more interesting and sometimes, even more important than the destination. Neither side can be rock solid about its conclusions, because both sides depend on something neither side can accept in its opposition–faith. If we view science as the search for the absolute truth, which usually eludes, it must at least admit other possibilities, no matter how seemingly unreasonable by human standards. Conversely, those of us who believe in an intelligent design, must admit that the tendering of intelligence would be pointless if the designer simply laid the plan out with no reason for investigation. If such minds as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Descarte, and Einstein, and even Darwin, struggled to no final avail, why do think now we have the answer. Ironically, I accept an evolutionary process as totally acceptable in an intelligently designed order and in answer to the naysayers who question flaws in the design, I pose the question. How do you know they are flaws, since you don’t know what the overall design is? In the meantime, keep thinking, all of you, think with the goal of bringing us together, not tearing each other limb from limb, in our comfortable rooms with our comfortable computers, while millions of others are in misery. And for those of who are lacking faith in God, I have enough faith to cover your lack, and so I wish blessings on all. And to all a good night. I don’t believe in hiding behind initials. Mike Russell
So let me use it in reverse. Since we can create occurrences of projectiles firing under pressure does that in turn mean that all occurrence of such in nature must be designed?
No, and I never claimed otherwise. But I also don’t claim that no occurrences of projectiles firing under pressure must have evolved naturally. But this seems to be your position on life. And to your comment about mimicing nature… that a firearm mimics what can be a natural process does not make the gun “not-designed”. And next, what makes you so sure that any and all life created would be through evolutionary methods? What makes non-evolutionary methods impossible?
It’s really simple. The choice that all life is Evolutionary or that all life is Designed is a false dichotomy.
Some life may have evolved and some life may have been designed. Some life my have been designed by evolved life. ID, as a theory does not discount this position.
If humans are successful in creating life through non-evolutionary methods then that life is designed. (I would argue that even if it mimics natural processes that since it is forced to occur in a controlled environment it still qualifies, but that’s a differenct arguement)
It is completely irrelevent whether or not humans evolved or were created.
As someone who believes in both, I don’t see why the kids can’t have these fun exercizing debates in a philosphy class.
Evolutionist, can we not agree that as much as you guys love to debate this…that you would also like this debate to happen in a school classroom?
“From all the ranting, raving and finger pointing that the supporters of evolution only teaching so very quickly revert to, it would seem to a person somewhat unconvinced of the correctness of either camp that evolution has all the attributes of religion, at least in the virulence of their defense when even the slightest of a challenge is made.”
George o. already explained this well, but his comment seems to have disappeared. This whole “must have a blog of your own to comment” is the most bizarre means I’ve ever seen of trying to keep dissenting input at bay — in most realms, ideas are analyzed on their merits, not on the online habits of their originators — but whatever.
Walter, biologists aren’t apt to run around screaming about evolution out of the blue to people who don’t care. Their passion is strictly reactionary — they’re tired of challenges rooted in bald-faced lies and religious dogma (not that these are distinct. Judge Jones from the Dover case is a conserrvative Bush appointee and even he saw fit to call the defendants’ claims what they were — “breathtakingly inane,” among other things.
Imagine that someone walked up to you and said that your wife or mother was a whore. This is presumably untrue, but if the accusations kept up you’d eventually be bound to make some noise resisting them. This would in no way imply a “religious fervor” on your part regarding your wife’s or mother’s sexual habits, now, would it? Same deal with science. Legitimate challenges are fine and are what keep various disciplines thriving. But the ID crap is nothing more than a programmed effort to dispel facts that are inconvenient to the faithful. If you don’t believe me, read their mission statement:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
The ID people say flat out that their aim is to “defeat scientific materialism” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.” It doesn’t get much more straightforward than that, now, does it, folks?
Problem is, they have no theory of their own to challenge evolution, and they never will. ID creationism is as much of a waste of classroom time as is ordinary creationism. Maybe those with little interest or background in science can’t appreciate this, but there it is.
Where’s my Haldol?,
“noises about that pusky ev’lushun biz’ness that cramps yer creationist style. A-yuk, a-yuk.”
“At least you spelled “moot” correctly. The rest of what you say marks you as moronic.”
“Students who come from thumb-sucking families”
“The Constitution gives people the right to be as stupid as they please and even to broadcast their stupid ideas all over the place, as this blog and its cadre of regular commenters demonstrate nicely.”
“You are shiningly, pathetically ignorant. ”
“You’re hopelessly in over your head and I believe you know it. It’s frustrating to confront people who not only oppose your beliefs but can shatter them to smithereens because they’re three times as smart as you are. [edited] up and learn or go slink into your godzo corner with the other thumb-suckers.”
“You admit to being ignorant about ID and evolution, so wy not do everyone a service and shut up about it.”
“…and one of you sniveling mouth-breathers deleted it. Good deal. Having proven that you can’t handle facts, you just guaranteed yourself a steady stream of pestering. (Jay got one thing right - he’s “not the best debater on the whole intelligent design vs. Evolution stuff” - but this applies to everything he addresses and is therefore redundant.)”
“All of you addled troglodytes also need to learn …”
“which might keep all of you from embarrassing yourselves as you shuffle through your pointless, undereducated lives walking into walls and hopefully not reproducing.”
…….
You are not the host nor a member of this site!
You are an arrogant, elitist, disrespectful, obnoxious, uninvited guest.
That being said, IF you will ( I say WILL, because you have already demonstrated that you CAN)conduct yourself with some modicum of respect for the site host, members and visitors, your comments will remain. IF you refuse, your comments will be deleted and you will be blacklisted!
You do not control this site nor will you dictate how this site conducts its forum!
Where’s My Haldol: Instead of sarcasm and insults, why don’t you attempt to prove what no scientist has done yet? Trying to irritate people doesn’t validate your idiotic remarks.
“reject what they’re taught in biology class.”
Which is good, because its all garbage.
“You are shiningly, pathetically ignorant.”
This was in response to my quoting the dictionary. I guess Webster is ignorant too? The rest of the paragraph you vomited out of stupidity, and did nothing to prove evolution. Once again, instead of making your case, you simply call me names. Keep it up, because I’m studying the mentally retarded for a grade. I don’t think you’re as irredeemable as my colleagues.
“because they are three times as smart as you.”
Yeah, prove it. Show me your degree in science, show me a physical specimen of the Geologic Column, (you know, that thing all evolution is based on?) show me concrete proof that humans evolved from apes, tell me how nothing can explode, (which would refute traditional sciences’ claim that something has to be there to explode) Once again: sarcasm doesn’t win your argument. Do some research and come back later. Or at least explain to me why belief in a “sky-god” is anymore ridiculous than believing that NOTHING EXPLODED and created life out of nowhere.
Another tip: telling people you have won the argument doesn’t make it true!
Just got home from work. I cannot comment here from work now since the moderator calls my comments spam.
I made replies to the post after mine
from Masked Menace onwards. But I left the copies at work… either way since it seems my rational and sourced materials are being censored here I’ll retire from this thread. quick note. Menace I actually agree with your last post responding to mine. And Michael E Russell I fully agree with yours as well. Since both these posts are kept above the mundane and held in the realm of philosophy I have nothing to correct. I’m glad to read them since I usually have parrots and trained ponies to argue with (metaphor).
“…why don’t you attempt to prove what no scientist has done yet?”
Which is what?
” ‘reject what they’re taught in biology class’ … Which is good, because its all garbage.”
If you think the entire body of biological science is garbage (a remarkably brave and whimsical claim; I assume you’ve never visited a physician, received a vaccine, or taken a drug), why should I waste time trying to convince you of anything scientific?
“I guess Webster is ignorant too?”
No, you are. The dictionary gives a correct definition of faith, but faith doesn’t enter into evolution or any other valid science. That you are unaware that evolutionary biology rests in observation, data, reproducibility and hypothesis formation and testing just like any other discipline is your problem, not biology’s.
“The rest of the paragraph you vomited out of stupidity, and did nothing to prove evolution.”
It’s not up to me to “prove” what is manifestly true, and again, I’m not going to sit here and offer biology lessons to someone who thinks science is akin to witchcraft and creation is the shiznit. By the way, why is it that creationists are constantly demanding evidence for evolution(which is readily available) when they can’t produce a lick of it for creation other than an ancient novel? Do you think this joke of a double standard eludes the awake and the alert?
“Once again, instead of making your case, you simply call me names. Keep it up, because I’m studying the mentally retarded for a grade. I don’t think you’re as irredeemable as my colleagues.”
Good deal. In complaining that I have produced no evidence and been a name-caller, you call me names without supporting your position (that evolution is B.S.).
“Show me your degree in science”
I have a physics degree and several years of grad school in the health sciences. But what difference would this make to a guy who thinks science is worthless? (Still shaking my head at that one.)
“…show me a physical specimen of the Geologic Column, (you know, that thing all evolution is based on?)”
I see — now all of evolution is based on the “Geologic Column”? What happened to molecular genetics, embryology, HOX genes, phylogeny and more? You really don’t know how much you don’t know.
“…show me concrete proof that humans evolved from apes”
No one says they did (except you). We evolved from a common ancestor about 6 or 7 million years ago, though.
“tell me how nothing can explode, (which would refute traditional sciences’ claim that something has to be there to explode)”
I think your head has exploded. This makes zero sense.
“Once again: sarcasm doesn’t win your argument. Do some research and come back later. Or at least explain to me why belief in a ’sky-god’ is anymore ridiculous than believing that NOTHING EXPLODED and created life out of nowhere.”
This is just word salad. And once again, cosmology and evolution and not even vaguely related. Finally, my argument, such as it is, stands on its own merit. The sarcasm is my personal touch.
“Another tip: telling people you have won the argument doesn’t make it true!”
See above. And read a book for once.
“You are an arrogant, elitist, disrespectful, obnoxious, uninvited guest.”
Perhaps, but this is a publically viewable blog with posts that some might find ill-informed, disrespectful, and obnoxious. I’m not a supporter of the ACLU, but you should be prepared to admit that much of what is posted here about that august organization is hastily assembled, erroneous, and hysterical.
You notice that I take little interest in the ACLU-specific stuff, but the scientific stuff I can’t let pass. Jay admits he doesn’t follow evolution very closely, so if I make corrections to his claims (and he’s not nearly as far out in left field as is apostle and some of the other nutty commenters), it should not come as a surprise.
I’ll play nice, and I appreciate that you see me as capable of doing so, but something tells me I’ll eventually get the boot anyway if I don’t toe the party line.
Time to update my new blog!
Haldol
I have never had post deleted like this before. How censored and close-minded this blod must be. Haldol I’m sure you’ll be the next one gone. And I’m sure this post will be up for only a few minutes before it disapearrs along with the rest of mine.
No wonder you want to stop the ACLU. must hate that whole first amendment thing huh?
I’ve been recently thinking of starting a blod specifically to speak on DRM and the path it is leading to (eg. Sony rootkits) but now I think I’ll split it with a critical view of ID and ID supporting blogs.
“I have a physics degree”
Meaning you don’t really work for a living.
“Faith doesn’t enter into evolution or any other valid science.”
Which would make evolution a fact, not a theory. Since actual scientists still call it a theory, it is not fact. It can’t be both at the same time genius. Btw, I said SHOW me your degree.
“It is not up to me to “prove” what is manifestly true”
Yes it is. You are making claims that require proof. You are not stating something as an opinion, you are stating it as fact. Since the scientists who actually work in this field haven’t done that, I fail to see how you can. You can’t, which is why you dodge the challenge with this:
“can’t produce a lick of it for Creation except an ancient novel?”
*Buzzer sound* Wrong. Christians like me state what we BELIEVE, and present it from a perspective of belief. You are the one who claims to be so much smarter so put your money where your mouth is. That is why you hear Christians demand proof for your stupid little theory that world is billions of years old.
“This is just word salad.”
No, its the Big Bang Theory. Billions of years ago there was nothing. Then, all the dirt in the universe (even though there was nothing) collected together and compacted to the size of a period on the page of a book. It spun and spun and finally exploded. TaDa! We have life! Yeah, you science boys really wow us with that crap.
George: Speaking of the First Amendment, you must really like Thomas Paine, (one of our forefathers, who helped pen the Constitution) a man in love with science. But its funny, even though he wasn’t a Christian he thought it best to teach science as a theology, since it could only explain what is observable, and that too much rests on what is assumed. Just like everyone else who signed the Constitution, Christian or no. And its spelled b-l-o-g. Not blod.
Where’s My Haldol: I’ll leave it alone now. You have done your best to get the attention I guess you never got in high school, and still can’t get now as a physist. We know the story. No one takes you seriously or pays attention to you, so browse the internet and look for people whom you can mouth off too to relieve your hurt feelings at having no purpose in life. Yes, I know you’ll just trash and smear every aspect of Christianity, but we’ll pray for you anyway that you find a girlfriend, and get a real job that does more than just make kids feel like biological accidents. And once again, telling everyone you’re smarter and cheering “I won!” doesn’t cut it in the real world. You’re pathetic.
Oh, I don’t work as a physicist (not “physist”). And trust me, I do fine. But securing such a degree is an intellectual task so far beyond the reach of people like you that my pointing out my credentials is relevant — and hey, you asked.
“Which would make evolution a fact, not a theory. Since actual scientists still call it a theory, it is not fact. It can’t be both at the same time genius.”
*Sign*…I just love it when raving, rambling idiots impugn the intelligence of others. And loboinok and others, you cannot possibly object to my pointing out how stupid this apostle character is. He’s doing exactly the same thing, except that he’s so utterly confused that all he can do is sputter.
Try this, tough guy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
That will slam the door on your mistaken notions of a binary fact-theory system, so to speak.
“Christians like me state what we BELIEVE, and present it from a perspective of belief.”
No kidding. However, your (or anyone’s) beliefs plus $1.35 might buy you a small coffee at Starbucks. In the real world, we look beyond childish beliefs in an earnest search for the truth. Often, these truths lead away from people’s concepts of skygods. This upsets the faithful, and so they respond as you have here — angrily, mostly unintelligibly, and with a supreme lack of the kind of background required to even enter into a discussion touching on scientific principles.
Your description of the Big Bang theory (which has nothing to do with evolution) is so off-base that I am almost in tears. Sir, you are either 13 years old or senile; I honestly can’t envision an in-between.
Now go ahead and call me pathetic again. I’m sure that and yer goddies will make it aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall better.
My description of the Big Bang Theory, by the way, came from a Holt Science text book. (You know, what they use in public school?) Your lack of understanding of your own argument has me in tears.
“In the real world, we look beyond childish beliefs”
Then you live on another planet, because in the real world, we address the arguments people pose to us, not dodge it with more insults. The argument stands. Read again and prove your ridiculous statements.
I just looked at your source, and I’m not surprised that you think citing a website that simply states evolution is a fact without giving any proof makes your ridiculous claims true. Sounds kind of like some of your posts. Here I can do it too genius:
Try real science.
But I know. Its not real science unless it agrees with you. I’ll say again, like I do in all my responses to you: claiming victory is not the same as achieving it.
Not that this is sufficient to persuade a nutcase, but TalkOrigins.org does not merely make truth claims. Every article on that site cites references and peer review is paramount. But naturally you’re more wed to your creation site, which, of course, does exactly that which you claim to abhor - makes utterly unsupportable (and in fact laughably ignorant) claims. If I didn’t know better I’d think that the same folks who publish “The Onion” produced that heap of garbage.
It would do you well to understand that this isn’t about “winning” and “losing.” Those concepts have no meaning here; my claims are supported by evidence, yours by Jesusnutter vitriol and a titanic failure to maintain a semblance of a grasp on reality. I repeat — anyone that claims that all of mainstream science is worthless has simply thrown in his hand and admitted he hasn’t a clue or anything valuable to contribute to a discussion centering on science or science education. I feel somewhat sorry for you, but moreover hope that you’ve kept your gametes to yourself.
Hey, I stumbled across a press release from Americans United. It reads, in part:
“The ‘Philosophy of Design’ course description, which was given to students and their families in early December, stated that it would ‘take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy is not rock solid…. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.’”
Here’s a link to the syllabus:
http://www.mountainenterprise.com/IntelDesignSyl/Syllabus-051229.html
Obviously the teacher intends to offer a pro-creationist perspective. It doesn’t matter whether this is philosophy class or biology class; this is verboten — and stupid — no matter what.
So all we have here is just another attempt at sneaking creationism into public-school curricula. Nice try, El Tajon, but this is illegal — as it bloody well ought to be.
Never claimed all mainstream science is worthless. Insults don’t work, so we resort to putting words in each others mouths? For your information, yes I believe God created everything you see, and I still haven’t heard how that is more intelligent than believing it exploded out of nothing. But I don’t write all of evolution off. (Which evolution though? Micro? Macro?)I’ve heard interesting debate between creation scientists on whether or not the 7 days of creation are literal 24 hour days or something else. You may have found it interesting.
I haven’t made up my mind. But I don’t make blanket statements (other than my remarks about biology class) stating I have it all figured out, than proceed to insult everyone that believes otherwise. You claim evolution is a fact and you can’t prove it. You demand proof that God created the earth and I can’t prove it. The difference is I know my belief is a belief. Your delusional enough to think you’ve somehow proven something.
“Physical and chemical evidence will be presented…”
Except it wasn’t. At least not enough to prove anything. Carbon dating has been proven false. I see I’m a nutcase though because I take the word of scientists who went to the same schools and got the same degrees as you, just didn’t ignore all the facts. Very objective of you.
“but this is illegal-as it bloody well ought to be.”
By that you must mean public school. Since it violates the Constitution, which clearly outlines the powers, limits, and responsibilities of our government. This debate is one (if not the biggest) reason our founding fathers objected to government funded education.
I stated above I haven’t made up my mind. Why? I don’t work for a living either. I’m working on a Pastoral degree. I’ve been required to listen physicists, meta-physicists, evolutionists, naturalists, Hindu-atheists, (that was strange) and so on. None of them are able to refute Creation nor prove evolution. If you can than kudos to you for being the first to do so. I expect to see you on the news soon. (Though you may want to get a grasp on your own science. Someone with a degree like yours that obviously doesn’t know the Big Bang Theory disturbs me)
I guess if you did look at my source, it slammed the door on you so hard you decided not to bring it up. But that’s right, even though scientists with the same degree say otherwise, you’re right, they’re wrong.
But anyway, I wanted to call your attention to a small matter you refused to address before: How did nothing explode billions of years ago, if science teaches us that SOMETHING has to be there to explode?
Hrafn, to say that there are no holes in Darwin’s theory is to show that you really don’t understand and have never learned what his theory is. To automatically use perfunctory and degredating comments against people with another point of view only shows your ignorance.
Theory is what is extrapilated from data. It is only truth as derived from that specific point of time. Theories from any given data can change over time, and what is considered true now can change later. As a double biology/psychology major and MA student now, I now exactly what a theory is. And, there have been theories that have become laws. I don’t know what you’re talking about there. You want to play semantics, that’s fine. But, be ready to play harder than just reading MoveOn.org and some on-line sources.
Science can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. Therefore, even IF Darwin’s theory was fact, it doesn’t disprove the concept of ID. Nor, does it disprove some other theories that are out there. That is why it is detrimental and harmful to teach one theory and not consider others, or use a meager interpretation of the Constitution to prevent debate or other views.
Your arrogance on the subject is extremely of how little you actually know about it. If you want to know more about evolution, the problems with it, why the Big Bang Theory does NOT contradict the BIble, etc I can give you some great scholarly sources. Until then, maybe you should learn a few lessons from the Bible… like humility, respect for others, and how harmful words can be when they’re not used carefully and with utter disregard for how their meaning will effect others.
As with religion, you have a right to have a differing view-point on certain things. But, don’t think you can bully and force your view-points onto me and other people. Your name-calling helps no-one, and it’s an extremely immature way to conduct a debate and intellectual conversation. Thanks for discrediting your entire argument with your childish antics.
-OC
Well, apostle, I’m going to have to let this one go. If you think that “carbon dating has been proven false,” I really can’t help you. Ditto the idea that “all the dirt in the universe (even though there was nothing) collected together and compacted to the size of a period on the page of a book” relates in any way to the Big Bang (maybe you’re confusing Genesis, which does mention dirt, with physicists’ notions of origins, which do not).
“How did nothing explode billions of years ago, if science teaches us that SOMETHING has to be there to explode?”
This statement contains a few false and misleading premises, but anyway, it’s telling that you ignored my topical posts (such as the one about the AU press release) and continue harping on cosmological concerns with no bearing on evolution (or ID creationism). Good luck with your degree; I hope it brings you the kind of satisfaction and sense of wonder one can achieve through objective study of the natural world.
——————
“Science can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. Therefore, even IF Darwin’s theory was fact, it doesn’t disprove the concept of ID.”
Do you really consider this logic? ID fails on its own merits, not in relation to anything else. It proposes and attempts to explain nothing. You might as well have written, “You can’t prove winged pink elephants aren’t orbiting Mars; therefore they must be.” It is not detrimental to avoid teaching a theory that isn’t, regardless of what your religious implications compel you to spout. (If you believe that ID is a real theory, explain its major components here.) And don’t call people arrogant for speaking the truth when it is you and others demanding the teaching of a non-theory on faith-only grounds who are arrogant. Try again.
I don’t demand teaching ID in schools. You can now show me in any of my posts where I made that argument.
“carbon dating has been proven false.”
If you pick and choose which facts to ignore and which to argue, then there is no help for you. And once again, you have no concept of the Big Bang Theory. Science books say one thing and you say another but we’re supposed to believe you because your sarcastic and the science book isn’t. Brilliant.
No, I didn’t ignore your post. You ignored mine. Because you can’t disprove it.
I think you need to get your facts straight. The class is called Philosophy of Design, but it really isn’t. Here is the course description:”the class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy is not rock solid. The class will discuss intelligent design as an alternative response to evolution. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions.”
Show me the philisophy? This is parading as a science class being taught by a special education teacher that usually does phys ed and agro-business courses. What makes her qualified as a teacher of ID, the fact she is also the wife of a fundamentalist Christian minister.
I see no philosophy, I see no true comparative analysis. The course may have philosophy in it’s name, but that is just another smokescreen. It was sold to the school board as a way to explore cultural phenomena, including history, religion or creation myths. But based on the course discription it is an attempt to introduce a scientific theory already defeated in court, a way of casting doubt on a evolutionary theory, and a way of promoting a Christian belief on students.
I say ID needs to go back to the lab if it wants to be taken seriously as science. Failing that it belongs in a theology or philosophy class taught by a qualified theologeon or philosophy professor who can deal with the subject in an academic manner.
“Science books say one thing and you say another”
Okay, apostle. Please give me the name of the science book that mentions dirt being part of the Big Bang. I suspect it’s published by the same kind of people who think that humans at one time saddled up dinosaurs and rode them around like horses. My physics professors would be intrigued. Also, let’s have a look at your sources “proving” that radioisotope dating is unreliable. This, too, would represent a breakthrough in the physical sciences.
It’s amazing that you can sling around such fairy-tale nonsense and then claim that the burden of proof lies with others. I suspect that the operators of thhis blog are quietly wishing you would shut up and stop embarrassing yourself, given that you’re ostensibly aligned with their nominal position.
Oh, one last thing. Obviously, the idea that this course in California is anything but a means of cramming the teaching special creationism into public school courses (illegal since Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987; doesn’t matter that it’s couched as “philosophy” either) has been overturned by a close examination of the syllabus and a review of the teacher’s credentials. I hope everyone realizes by now that Jay’s initial post was not well researched, and that there is no place for this kind of “class” except in private schools, where people pay for the privilege of becoming even dumber.
Where’s my Holdon?, it really seems that you didn’t read what I wrote. You just picked and chose a random sentence without reading what I wrote. First of all, scientists have put forth the concept that science doesn’t prove that something does not exist, not me. You try to make an analogy that puts forth a errogrious and baseless ad hoc hypothesis.
I never said that because Darwin’s theory cannot disprove ID, even if it were considered to be true, therefore ID was true. I said that because it doesn’t prove certain other theories to be untrue, you can’t automatically discount them. Darwin’s theory is not the end all and be all of evolution and the origin of life and man. So, don’t put words into my mouth.
I am not going to try to prove ID’s merit to you because you’ve obviously made up your mind on whatever grounds. Regardless, that wasn’t the point of what I wrote. I wasn’t trying to prove or disprove ID’s merit. What I was saying is that Darwin’s theory is not fact and should not be taught alone as if it were proven to be beyond the shadow of a doubt to be true. I said that it is detrimental to teach one theory and not “others”. I did not single out ID as being the necessary theory to be taught. Under Supreme Court precedent, this idea has already been set. And, when this matter comes before the Supreme Court again, I suspect that unless there is overwhlemingly proof to the contrary, precedent will be upheld.
Also, my beliefs in G-d is not just faith based and your arrogance and spit in the face of religion with no basis in reality is telling of where your opinion comes from. Whether ID is the best alternative theory to teach is not the point.
It is you who should try again. Those who understand and have studied religion and have studied science understand that there is no disagreement between the two and that they coexist in perfect harmony. Of course, that might be hard for you understand since you seem to spit on people of religion. If you want me to start teaching a science class, I will, but don’t put words in my mouth and say that I said something that I did not.
-OC
My worry is what damage this type of debate on ID vrs. Evolution can do to scientific thought and experimentation in this country. At a time when other nations are turning out better educated students, we are deliberately shooting ourselves in the foot by force-feeding twaddle as science. How can anything be proven or disproven when you reach a point in the argument where you can no longer proceed because “It has to be that way!” The Wright Brothers would have never attempted to fly; man wouldn’t have walked on the moon; germs and bacteria wouldn’t be understood to the point of curing disease and preventing death; and scientists like Galileo and Copernicus would be condemned for attempting to seek the truth. What are we teaching our children? Truth is a matter of opinion? Science theory only has to be explored to the degree in which you want it explored? Having faith isn’t misplaced, but having faith in junk science is a disservice to us all.
I can see the future now: “Mr. School Board member, Gravity is just a theory and therefore unproven. Students should learn about competing theories such as my theory called ‘Negative Pressure’. You can even buy copies of my textbook titled ‘Of Vacuums and Increasing Reverse Air Flow!’ Natural occurring vacuums are pretty complex, so there is a connection to an Intelligent Designer (wink, wink) but not necessarily God!”
“Errogrious”? What the heck is that?
Trust me, I read what you wrote. I’m not sure you did, though.
“I am not going to try to prove ID’s merit to you because you’ve obviously made up your mind on whatever grounds.”
No, please do. That was my whole point; if ID has merits, spell them out. Don’t try to put it in the context of evolution — if ID can stand on its own and is not merely proposed as a foil to “Darwinism” (which it is; read the Wedge Document I linked above), its relationship to shouldn’t matter.
“What I was saying is that Darwin’s theory is not fact and should not be taught alone as if it were proven to be beyond the shadow of a doubt to be true.”
Wrong. Evolution, as I have patiently explained to apostle, is both a fact and a theory. Natural selection and descent with modification have been established so solidly that to call these concepts anything other than facts is short-sighted.
You won’t accept this, but that being the case, you had better have a reasonable substitute - and not surprisingly no one does. ID is not a theory. I’ll repeat that as often as I need to, and the fact that no one contradicts this statement by offering the (nonexistent) theory of ID only proves me right, again and again.
“Those who understand and have studied religion and have studied science understand that there is no disagreement between the two and that they coexist in perfect harmony.”
Sure, the Book of Genesis is wholly compatible with modern archaeology, paleontology, geology and evolutionary biology. Now pinch yourself and wake up.
Once again, it’s the dogmatic stealth-goddist who claims it’s the other guy whose mind is wrongly made up in advance. Friend, were there a good reason to believe in traditional gods I would. Who wouldn’t want eternal life in Heaven were this possible through the simple power of belief? However, I cannot legitimately stoop to such silliness even if I wished to.
Reading the Dover trial transcripts and Judge Jones final judgement was certainly educational. One telling point was that Professor Behe, and the other ID proponents who testified, stated that in order for ID to be accepted as science, the basic definition of science would have to be expanded to include super-natural forces (again they refrained from pointing out God). Well it follows to me that if super-natural forces are included in science then in one swoop you can legitimize Astrology, Alchemy, Phrenology (head bumps), Palmistry and a host of scientific-sounding concepts.
So along with my “Negative Pressure” theory, which is a fancy way of saying “There is no Gravity, the Earth Sucks,” we can substitute Astrology for Astronomy, Alchemy for Chemistry, and Phrenology for Psychiatry.
The ONLY way to avoid this is to keep science based on actual observation, experimentation, and study and anything that brings in the supernatural cannot intrude on that domain. The rule should be prove it first and then we can see about bringing it into the science classroom. You don’t have to prove it to the degree a court of law reuires, but prove it to the point of real evidence, formal experimentation, peer review of your work, and not leaving it to Faith to determine scientific proof.
The bottom line is that, with ID proponents in Dover having failed miserably in their attempts to shove their horsepuckey into science classes, people are now trying not-so-slyly to pull the same crap with philosophy classes. Not surprising; as stupid as ID proponents are, they’re also implacable. For a realistic view of what’s afoot here:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/philosophers_are_you_furious_yet/
“Give me the name of the science book”
Holt Science like I said before. The kind used in public schools. Duh.
“Also, lets have a look at your sources “proving” radioisotope dating is unreliable.”
Sure. I can do online sourcing the same as you. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
Then try this, my favorite. Pay attention to the names. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm
“people pay for the privelage of becoming even dumber.”
Like paying for an education in physics. Btw genius, Christian schools are not the only private schools. You just insulted quite a bit of your colleagues.
“I think you need to get your facts straight.”
No, I believe you do. Though I do not advocate ID taught in public school, your assumption that supernatural forces cannot be discussed in science show how ignorant you and your buddy are. Especially since supernatural constitutes what can’t be scientifically explained, and so far science has not been able to explain the earth’s origin. Unless you’ll now tell me the Big Bany Theory is both theory and fact as well as evolution, a ridiculous concept that does violence to rational thought and the English language.
“Evolution, as I have patiently explained to apostle, is both a fact and a theory.”
Once again, you are full of crap. Not to mention your ridiculous claim that natural selection and descent with modification have been solidly established. But I guess if you say so that makes it true. I don’t know how much research you’ve done, but a simple google can tell you how many scientists (Christian and no) think evolution is garbage. Here’s a start: http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/
“ID is not a theory.”
You’re right. It, like evolution, should be taught in private school. That way parents can decide if they want their kids to learn the truth, or if they want them to believe they are biological accidents.
“were there a good reason to believe in traditional gods, I would.”
Back to the biological accident issue. You rant and rave about the lack of intelligence in believing in God, yet YOUR substitution is to say that life exploded into existence out of nowhere for no reason. Even if teh Big Bang Theory were true it doesn’t disprove God (BANG! He did it) and does nothing to tell us how or why. In your fantasy world, there is no cause, simply effect. There had to be a begininng. Science is incapable of explaining or proving this, and you know that. The belief that life is a big accident out of nowhere takes more faith than any religion I’ve researched.
“Truth is a matter of opinion?”
Which is what I’d have to believe to believe evolution. Especially since for every religious denomination out there, there are twice as many scientific theories in and out of evolution, and so many scientists squabble over it fact cannot be separated from opinion. Where’s My Haldol knows, I’m sure as a physicist, just how much (non-Creationist) theory is slung around concerning evolution, fact or fiction, micro or macro, blah blah blah. If he denies that than he’s proven himself a liar.
“the definition of science would have to be expanded…”
And why not? The definition of marriage was. (sarcastic joke not directed at anyone)
“Gravity is just a theory and therefore unproven.”
If gravity were a theory, this would be so. But since its called the LAW of gravity, this sarcastic scenario you have illustrated makes no sense. Scientists, as in people who study science and don’t just play scientist on the internet, refer to evolution as a theory. Gravity is a law. There’s the difference.
“How can anything be proven or disproven when you reach a point in the argument where you can no longer proceed because “It has to be that way!” The Wright Brothers would have never attempted to fly; man wouldn’t have walked on the moon; germs and bacteria wouldn’t be understood to the point of curing disease and preventing death; and scientists like Galileo and Copernicus would be condemned for attempting to seek the truth.”
There is one thing I have noticed in all the accomplishments listed from the comment above by Ted Herrlit…They were all championed by *gasp* CREATIONISTS!!!
“The Wright Brothers would have never attempted to fly”
The Wright Brothers achieved flight after studying the DESIGN in birds.
“man wouldn’t have walked on the moon”
Man would not have walked on the moon were it not for rocketry, and one cannot really discuss rocket science without the name ‘Wernher von Braun’ coming up. Von Braun was a Christian and a creationist!
“germs and bacteria wouldn’t be understood to the point of curing disease and preventing death”
The scientist who “contributed more to the saving of human lives than any other scientist” and has been labeled the “greatest biologist of all time” is none other than Louis Pasteur…also a Christian and Creationist.
Galileo and Copernicus also believed God created the universe.
These plus many, many more scientific breakthroughs were done mostly by creationists, many of them Christians. And evolutionists have the gall to say that creationists are detrimental to science? Creationists INVENTED science. The word science simply means “knowledge,” and that knowledge is gained by “observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” It is only recently in the last 150 years(long after science had developed) that evolutionists have redefined science to mean natural explanations for natural phenomena. With a definition like that, God and anything supernatural is ruled out a priori. That’s the real reason evolutionists say creation isn’t science…it doesn’t fit their definition.
You can learn the history of science and the link the founders’ faith had with their achievements at http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm
Oh, and Haldol, the Edwards v. Aguillard case in 1987 did NOT make it illegal to teach creationism. It simply said that you cannot require that creationism be taught. The idea that it has been illegal is just something the ACLU and their ilk want you to believe.
I hope I’ve cleared some things up. Thanks.
Mike, you haven’t cleared up anything. Your misunderstanding of the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, along with your identifying a bunch of 17th- and 18th-century scientists as creationists (so? And would they be this dumb today?) and your complaint that creationism isn’t rightfully identified as science (my sides are splitting! Stop it!) establish that you’re a shimmering ignoramus, as is apostle, who appears more and more asea with each tortured post — perhaps he really does believe that the Holt textbook he mentions describes the Big Bang as involving flying dirt and that life is deemed to have “exploded out of nowhere.” Oh, and linking to Answers in Genesis? The site that claims that a variable speed of light accounts for the fact that we can see the light from stars 10,000 light-years away even though the universe is only 6,000 years old? That’s rich!
The post that started this mess was made by someone who, as usual, hadn’t researched what he was writing about and so was unaware that the “philosophy” course under fire was advocating for young-earth creationism and other garbage — which is indeed against the law. What some of you don’t get is that there’s a difference between teaching *about* ID and other myths (legal) and teaching ID per se (not legal). But those of you too ham-headed to understand or even investigate superficially the science underlying evolution aren’t going to be swayed by facts — it’s never happened before and it won’t start now.
I notice that you’ve given up your blatantly biased online sourcing, and now are reduced to your whole post being insults. I must be winning.
I’ve debated real physicists and meta-physicists and naturalists before. They were not as dumb as you, and I’ll never believe that any college would give you a degree. You’re just another idiot that browses the web and mouths off for fun, instead of letting the grown-ups talk like you should.
That’s okay. Let it all out now. I can imagine how much it hurts to be you, with your steadfast refusal to join the 20th and 21st centuries or even the 19th, your certainty that carbon dating is worthless, that modern biology is a crock, that evolutionists (who aren’t concerned with origins anyway) claim that life exploded randomly from nothing, that Answers in Genesis contains facts (the name doesn’t suggest pre-formed conclusions to you? Nahhhhhh!) and that physicists propose that the Big Bang involved dirt flying every which way
And, debating metaphysicists! Why, how fun. And how useful!
I’ll say one thing for you. You are so thoroughly out to lunch that you clearly have no concept of your own innumerable cognitive deficits. You really do believe that you’re correct despite what you say being invalidated by 99.99% of scientists the world over. Because of this, you’re protected to some degree against cognitive dissonance and the discomfort it brings. You’re basically a bag of reflexes with a Bible, a bad attitude, and a keyboard. Congratulations.
Thanks for proving my point.
Apostle preached: “If gravity were a theory, this would be so. But since its called the LAW of gravity, this sarcastic scenario you have illustrated makes no sense. Scientists, as in people who study science and don’t just play scientist on the internet, refer to evolution as a theory. Gravity is a law. There’s the difference.”
Apostle, apostle, apostle, just what planet do you live on? Gravity hasn’t been referred to as a Law since Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced Newton’s “Law” of gravity. Any current reference to gravity being a Law certainly isn’t being done in scientific circles.
That should also explain why science works and pet concepts like Intelligent Design don’t. Proof, experimentation, and observation are tools that can cause one theory to be replaced by a better one. This has happened many times and to many scientific theories. They are called theories because very few things ever reach the level of proof to be considered constants or laws. Think of science as Evolution in Action!
Among recent theories explaining gravity include:
– Brans-Dicke theory of gravity
– Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity
– In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), Mordehai Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton’s Second Law of motion for small accelerations.
Come on Apostle, keep pitching them slow balls, they are so easy to hit out of the park.
“This whole battle simply does not excite me.”
And this is why you are buying your cars from Japan & China. America is falling behind the rest of the world in science & technology so far that we may never catch up. Especially when we revert to a 2000 year text book.
Interesting that once my position was clear. my posts from my oroginal email addy were being rejected as SPAM.
I don’t want to get sucked in to this whole debate,but I would like to point out some things. First off the Bilble states that the things that are seen are made from the things that are unseen. This is an amazing statement to be made almost 2,000 years ago. Wheres my haldol gives an example of evolution with wolves, coyotes and dogs. This is not evolution, interbreeding between similiar species happens all the time. No one can deny that adaptation exists, this sort of change can take place in a few short years to thousands of years. Evolution on the other hand, the actual changing of one species into another is impossible no matter how much time elapses. God said let the earth bring forth the living creature according to it’s kind… each according to its kind. And it was so. Gen: 1:24
As for carbon dating, it will show the earth to be billions of years old in the same way that if a doctor were to examine Adam and Eve the day after they were created, he would conclude that he was looking at a couple who would presumably be in their late teens to early twenties, even though they have only been around for one day. As for all the hype over how intelligent someone is with their degrees, the Bible clearly states. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 1 Cor:18-19 I would like to say to Mr. Haldol that even though you have hardened your heart towards God, he still loves you so much that he gave his only son to die in your place on the cross, so that you can have eternal life with him in heaven if you so chose. Thank you for your time and GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
Tim,
I know you don’t want to drag us into a debate but I will say that IF everything is in place to follow God’s plan and the Earth appears to be billions of years old because God made it that way — then who are we to disagree with God’s plan. Obviously God had a reason to make the world and the Universe appear the way it does. Doesn’t it follow that we should continue our investigations, since they lead where God wills? Denying his plan and refusing the recognize the ’science’ which is attempting to explain things seems more against that plan. So with that argument you are making, ID still fails to live up to its billing. Either God wants us to investigate or we should shut our eyes and not examine the wonders of the univese.
Hmmmmmm eyes open or mind shut, Sorry Tim I’ll allow God to chew me out at the pearly gates rather than allowing some ‘apostle’ with obviously a singular point of view use crummy arguments to force me to think things even most Christians, including several Popes, have denied to be true. ID still does not belong in a science classroom no matter how many times proponents lie and mislead (Dover School Board and the teacher in California for example) in order to control the thinking processes of students.