Why Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools @ WebNV

Isaac said

Isaac [ guest ] — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:23:04 PST

So what you're saying is that there is no evidence for Intelligent Design, right. Well here is a interesting thing.... In the fossil record there is a layer of rock called the Cambrian Explosion. There are millions and millions of fossils deposited in this layer. and it has the material of a layer laid down my a flood. Now in the Bible it says that there was a enormous flood that covered the entire earth near the beggining of time. And the Cambrian Explosion is at the bottom of the fossil record. coincidence? I dont think so.

K. Miller said

K. Miller [ guest ] — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:42:10 PDT

Here's a nice little video that helps the evolutionist argument (as if it needs any more help): Go here and watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Or, check out the entire video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Jack said

Jack [ guest ] — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:17:47 PDT

You're both incorrect. The Archaeopteryx represented an evolutionary dead end. Archaeopteryx and most other early birds were a side line of avian evolution. This is probably why Ronald stated that the Archaeopteryx was "controversial" and why I won't go any farther into bird origins.

Also, Harold seems confused in some aspects on the theory of evolution; mainly about how it works. Evolution does not occur in a straight line toward a goal, like a ladder; rather, evolution is like a branching bush, with no predetermined goal.

I'll use Ronald's and Harold's feud about horses. Horse species were constantly branching off the "evolutionary tree" and evolving along various unrelated routes. There's no discernable "straight line" of horse evolution. Many horse species were usually present at the same time, with various numbers of toes, adapted to various different diets. In other words, horse evolution had no inherent direction. We only have the impression of straight-line evolution because only one genus happens to still be alive, which deceives some people into thinking that that one genus was somehow the "target" of all the evolution. Instead, that one genus is merely the last surviving branch of a once mighty and sprawling "bush".

Harold, again, please understand how evolution works. There absolutely can be a transitional animal that occurs after or during the same time as modern species.

Harold also talks about evolution going against 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when it doesn't. The fact is any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply.

1. a "program" (information, DNA) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy

The earth's living systems have both of these essential elements. Each living organism's DNA contains all the code (the "program" or "information") needed to direct the process of building (or "organizing") the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism's physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the 2nd law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component - their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun's energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we can see that living things do not in fact "violate" the 2nd law, nor are they excepted from or "irrelevant to" the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs (information, DNA) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the 2nd law's effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

Unfortunately, I'm out of time and cannot comment on any of the other points made by the commentors above.

Harold said

Harold [ guest ] — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:22:50 PDT

Ronald,

It was very unfortunate, but my lengthy and thorough response to your latest post was removed, or somehow lost. It was here for awhile, but disappeared.

I will not go into all of it again, as it required considerable time to write, so I will respond again with a very brief summary in 3 points.

First, as you say transitional fossils suggest evolution, but do not prove it. That would be quite correct, if they are in fact transitional fossils, for as you also state there is absolutely no way to prove that one is the descendant of the other. And in actaulity, they are not.

Second, one reason they are not, and cannot be, is because the fossil remains of both modern birds and modern equines have been since been unearthed in layers said to be older then archaeopteryx and Eohippus. It is not possible for there to be a transitional animal after the emergence of their modern descendants.

Third, it is absolutely essential that for any creature to evolve to a higher order of creature, new information of an incredibly complex nature must be added to already existing genetic code in DNA.

No known means of adding that information has ever yet been observed nor even adequately theorized, as the old theory of transition by means of mutation has been totally shot down and blown away by this one verifiable fact.

Mutations always result in a net loss of genetic information, and never result in any gain of information. It is actually illogical to even any longer speak of transitional fossils, when no known, or even theroized means of adding the absolutely necessary genetic information into an already functioning double-helix strand of DNA exists, so as to make possible for there to have been transitional creatures.

I do hope this post will remain.

Ronald said

Ronald [ guest ] — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:40:41 PDT

I posted this before just recently but it's now gone. Actually, a few of my comments have disappeared. Anyways, here's a quick recap:

Harold,

There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution.

Mention transitional fossils to a creationist and you will most likely get a dirty look. Transitional fossils are frequently misunderstood, and like macroevolution, creationists tend to redefine the term to suit their purposes. As explained above, transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate between other organisms. If the transitional fossil can be dated to a time between the organisms it is an intermediate to, it is strongly suggestive of an evolutionary relationship between the organisms.

Creationists will critique transitional fossils in a variety of ways. They might claim that a transitional fossil is not proof of an evolutionary relationship since you can't prove that it is, in fact, an ancestor of any later organism. They are right. We can't prove that. As has been explained, transitional fossils are suggestive of an evolutionary relationship - they are not proof of it. Once again we run into problems with creationists looking for proof when science deals rather with supporting evidence.

Without actually going back in time and watching the birth/hatching/etc. of each successive organism in an evolutionary chain, we can not "prove" that an evolutionary relationship exists. Even if you accept evolution, you can't be sure some organism is actually an ancestor of existing species - it might be a side-branch on the evolutionary tree that died out.

However, transitional fossils are just one more piece of evidence that is suggestive and supportive of evolution. Even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch, it still shows that creatures with intermediate characteristics existed, and this indicates the strong possibility that a similar organism could exist that is an ancestor of an existing species. When you consider that such transitionals fall into the phylogenetic tree well within the area you would expect them to, it is a nicely verified prediction of the general theory of evolution and further support for the theory.

Creationists will also sometimes state that a transitional fossil is not, in fact, a transitional. For example, with archaeopteryx, some have claimed that it is not a transitional between reptiles and birds and instead assert that it is a true bird. Unfortunately, this is another example of a creationist lie or distortion. If you look at the evidence it is clear that archaeopteryx has characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds do not posses. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. We can't say for sure it is actually an ancestor of modern birds, but as explained, that is not a significant issue.

In general, creationist arguments that transitionals are not real transitionals are based on their ignorance of what a transitional fossil is or simply on outright distortions of fact. It is not that there isn't room for debate on the nature or categorization of various fossils, because there is always room for debate. However, creationist debates are almost never informed debate and as such do not accomplish much.

Finally, creationists will sometimes belabor the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record. Even if we have a transitional fossil between two groups of organisms that is suggestive of an evolutionary relationship, creationists will demand intermediaries between the intermediaries. And, if those are found, creationists will want intermediaries between the new organisms. It's a no-win situation. Since creationists try to put forth the strawman that you need "absolute proof" of an evolutionary relationship to accept it, they insist that if we do not have a record of every single organism in the chain we can't say some organism is an ancestor of another.

This is a useless and spurious criticism. I have already shown how we cannot say for certain that any particular fossilized organism was definitively in the evolutionary history of any other organism. But that doesn't matter. The fossil record is still extraodinarily suggestive of evolution in general, and specific fossils are suggestive of evolutionary relationships between specific organisms. We can make very well informed, provisional conclusions (this is science) as to the evolutionary history of many organisms. And these conclusions are supported by the evidence; in many cases by both fossil and nonfossil evidence.

Harold said

Harold [ guest ] — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:33:27 PDT

Ronald made three points against ID in his first paragraph, to which I responded in my previous post. Ronald's last six paragraphs consisted of a fourth criticism of ID.

Prior to Ronald's second response, I had not heard of the Center for Science and Culture before. He says their strategy for countering evolution is two-fold: Challenge evolution's soundness as a scientific theory, then replace it with ID.

It reads like a very sound strategy to me... as I read it, I realized that was exactly what I have been doing here on this thread. If anyone with any sense at all should probably have been able to tell, I know something of science and of the evidence for creation and for ID, as well as some of the truly insurmountable faults with the evolution hypothesis.

Ronald says the CSC is using a campaign that revolves around the "scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory." To which I would ask... what else would they use? It's the only intellectually honest and viable campaign they could mount. I applaud them for it. It needs to be done. That's why I have posted here, as only one side was being presented, and with no evidence for it too, I might add.

I thought it very strange, however, when Ronald said that ID people and their ID supporting research does not get published in peer-reviewed scientific sources, as I knew that wasn't true.

My very first visit to the CSC site listed many individuals, the names of their articles, and where they had been published in scientifically peer-reviewed sources. Ronald, quoted some line from the National Center for Science Education as saying ID people do not pass peer-review and get published. That is just plain false. Go to the CSC site and see it for yourselves. I had no trouble finding a very lengthy list there.

Most interesting to me was Ronald's last paragraph, as there is the real issue, and it is a social, political and a religious one. Those who want only "materialist" answers for scientific questions, to justify their atheism and however they choose to live, absolutely cannot allow that there could possibly be a God that exists, who would, of course, ruin everything for them and ultimately judge them.

Fund raising documents don't get leaked, by the way. They're usually mass-mailed to like minded individuals to raise money, and their stated goal makes perfect sense... if evolution is not even a good hypothesis, and ID is true.

Let the truth prevail. Let scientific evidences be taught in the classrooms. Let facts guide your own opinion and thought processes. Do you really choose to be decieved and to believe a lie?

We have been taught that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is good science and factual. I've been asking that someone actually bring to this discussion even one documented, verifiable fact that truly supports it. Neither Dr. Cravatts, Nick, unbelievable, rack nor Ronald have done so. If I mistakenly overlooked one that has been posted here, I only ask that someone gently bring it to my attention, and I will admit my mistake.

I would like to reissue the Darwin challenge to all you "believers". Read Darwin, and note the very issues that he said in his own work would doom his hypothesis, then just examine the evidences that revolve around his own tests of viability.

If you have the courage, and good sense to let the facts lead you to wherever reason would take you, it will be the most eye-opening, life changing experience you will ever have.

Literally thousands of scientists from every field, almost all of whom were only taught evolution, and who also had to write and publish within the "orthodox" establishment, have walked away from that belief system when faced with the scientific evidences that destroy the Darwinian idol.

Many of these have had the courage of their convictions to write and publish the facts that demolish Darwin, and establish the legitimacy of ID and/or creationism. I have read between 40 and 50 titles on this subject in just the past 5 years alone, and these works were the sources of the material for my posts above.

I'm just a stockbroker who has always had an inquisitive mind, and been a voracious reader. I had been lied to all through school with pseudo-evidences that either weren't true to begin with, or were misinterpreted to support a false notion, that when properly interpreted, better supported the real source of the origin of the species... an Intelligent Designer.

Please, I've tried to present only that which I can support with documented scientific evidences, and asked you to support your belief, which is obviously the opposite of my own.

Why do you believe that there is no God? Do you think that Darwinism can justify your atheism? Are you willing to put the evidences for your faith to a scientific acid test? What are those evidences? Please share them with us here. If I have a sound alternative response for any such evidences from a creationist or ID perspective, then let's have some good clean debate about it, shall we?

The potential consequences of this kind of discussion are enormous, aren't they? They ask, and perhaps answer, whether there is or is not a God. Beyond that, it involves the idea of whether there will, or not, be a final judgment. It has everything to do with how we are going to think, speak and act, doesn't it?

Harold said

Harold [ guest ] — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:19:16 PDT

Ronald,

Thank you for writing back. It's too bad you don't wish to pursue the topic on this forum. I had been given to understand that this thread existed for this very purpose.

In any case, for your benefit, and for that of any others, I would like to respond to your criticism of ID. I think that you made 4 points, those being; the fossil record, adaptation, taxonomy and common descent, and the matter of the messenger of ID, that being the CSC, which I had never heard of before your post, but have since found them on-line, and for which I thank you. I am a reader of books, and not an avid user of the web.

First, you state that the, "fossil record shows a panorama of evolutionary change over the past billions of years." Noted paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould differs with that opinion. He has said, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design... has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution," as I have previously quoted. He is joined by Steven M. Stanley, who has written, "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition...."

It should be of keen interest to note that, in fact, the same types of gaps between kinds exist in the fossil record as in the Linnaean classification system for plants and animals in the present living world. The real problem all along has been in the fruitless search for fossils which span these gaps, and might give evidence of being transitional forms. Every such claimed fossil has been later demonstrated to not be any such transitional form at all... and there have been only a very few such claims at that. Either such transitional forms have never existed, they did not leave fossil evidence, or they have yet to be found.

The fact is, nearly every one of the Linnaean orders is found whole, without any intermediary transitional forms between them, commencing in that which has been labelled the Cambrian level. This has been referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion," and utterly defies any evolutionary explanation for how so much came into existence, so suddenly, at one time. It was not at all gradual.

George Gaylord Simpson put it this way, "It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual... transitional sequences."

From my reading, I have gleaned many more such quotes from noted experts in this field. In short, the fossil record does not support the evolution hypothesis, though the "lay people," if you will, are told this repeatedly in the schools.

Evolution would have us to believe Amphibians came from fishes. There are no transitional fossils. We are to believe that amphibians became reptiles. There are no transitional fossils. Reptiles supposedly became birds and mammals. There are no transitional fossils.

The origin of insects is completely blank. Where did they come from? The very same can be said for plants. One of the outstanding paleobotanists was C.A. Arnold, and he wrote, "For more than one hundred years, we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to present." Prof. E.J.H. Corner of the Botany Dept. of Cambridge Univ., and an evolutionist, has written, "I think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

I have barely begun to use all of the material I have amassed concerning the fossil record and evolution, but I can most assuredly say that the scientific body of evidence, of which I have been made aware of, says that the fossil record does not support evolution.

I previously asked, "What transitional phases have been observed, that would be between what lower species that then transitioned to a higher one, resulting in a vertical evolutionary rise?" You have answered that, "the fossil record shows a panorama of evolutionary change." From every resource I have ever examined, the answer to that question is actually, none. Not only is there no 'panorama,' to use your word, there is not even one known true transitional form yet to have been found in the 148 years since Darwin was published. He knew that problem already existed in his day... wrote of it in his book, but also wrote that he believed subsequent discoveries would bear his hypothesis out. It has not. It's a part of that Darwin challenge I wrote of above.

Second, you then make a point from adaptation as evidence of evolution. Let me be perfectly clear. All observed adaptation, whether in the field, or in the lab, has always been of a horizontal, not vertical type. The DNA stuff available for allowing a specie to adapt to its environment has always been latently present to assist a specie in its survival, and is only chosen by means of natural selection, and survival of the fittest, as a conservation principle to help that specie to adapt and survive. It has never been observed that such adaptation resulted in anything more than a variation of a kind, let alone some new and higher kind of lifeform.

Adaptation is actually an evidence of ID, as there is no known reason why the, not as of yet needed, genetic material would already be present within a life form, that could later be selected so as to make it possible for a lifeform to adapt to an environmental change when needed. Adaptation does not come about by mutation, and it does not come about by the addition of new genetic information being added to a lifeform's DNA strand. Adaptation is known to come about by the first use of previously latent or dormant DNA material that better equips that lifeform to survive in its new circumstances... it was already there to begin with, and is a powerful argument, not for evolution, but for ID.

The fact is, that in order for any lifeform to evolve to a new and higher order, it would need to add new DNA material of an incredibly complex nature, so as to affect the great morphological change that evolution requires, and claims happens. Since no new material is added, and it is not known how that any ever could be. The adaptation process is a conservation process for the preservation of an already existing specie, not the evoltionary process toward some new higher specie.

Since the discovery of genetics, and especially within just the past few decades, it is now known for certain, that adaptation cannot result in evolution to a higher form, but acts only as a means of preservation of an already existing form. Adaptation argues for ID, not evolution.

Third, you speak of common descent within nested hierarchies in taxonomics. If you do not know this already, common descent is merely an interpretation of the evidence, based upon the observed commonalities seen between the structures, organs and functions, whether of plants or of animals. It is an equally valid argument to say that these commonalities exist because, as with an automobile, or anything else, a particular design sutiably serves many models equally as well, as so was used in the construction of many varieties, whether of automobiles or of animals, and so the matter of commonality does not necessarily mean common descent anymore than it could mean a common designer. Does the point favor evolution more than ID? Read on.

It was believed that what would also be found, when the realm of genetics was added to this study of commonality, that a genetic trail of common DNA would also be traced and found to be responsible for these common appearances or functions. What has since been discovered however, is that commonality stops at appearances, and that when DNA is studied, it is found that no such commonality exists, and that it must exist at this level for the concept of a commonality of descent to be valid, as all characteristics are derived from the DNA. Commonality was never considered a valid argument for evolution because commonality of design could account for it equally as well, but now that the DNA demonstrates no such commonality, evolution cannot use the argument at all.

Due to time constraints, I must end this here for now, but I will return to conclude later on your fourth point.

Ronald said

Ronald [ guest ] — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:28:06 PDT

Unfortunately Harold, I will not go into details here on someone's personal blog. The Internet has unlimited information to help you find your answers. But for starters evolution has evidence like the fossil record that show a panorama of evolutionary change over the past billions of years. In our labs we witness interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.

I respect your beliefs and if the science behind evolution hasn't proven enough for you, then that's fine. But ID is much worse alternative.

The ID movement is orchestrated by the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), a subdivision of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle.

The CSC strategy for countering evolution is twofold: challenge its soundness as a scientific theory, then replace it with ID.

The CSC is using a campaign called "Teach the Controversy" to carry out the first part of the strategy. The campaign is aimed at public schools and teachers are urged to expose students to the "scientific arguments for and against Darwinian theory." It exploits disagreements among biologists, pointing out gaps in their understanding of evolution in order to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis."

Selling ID as a viable alternative to evolution, however, is proving more difficult. In modern science, a theory must first undergo the gauntlet of peer-review in a reputable scientific journal before it is widely accepted.

Measured by this standard, ID fails miserably. According to the National Center for Science Education, only one ID article by Stephen Meyers (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 2004) has passed this test and even then, the journal that published the article promptly retracted it. The journal also put out a statement that said "there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity."

Also in 1999, a fund raising document used by the Discovery Institute to promote the CSC was leaked to the public. Informally known as the "Wedge Document," it stated that the center's long-term goals were nothing less than the "overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies," and the replacement of "materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Harold said

Harold [ guest ] — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:01:15 PDT

Ronald,

Welcome to the discussion. I don't know if you are a scientist or not, but a hypothesis is an educated guess that attempts to explain an observation or answer a question. Evolution certainly rises to that level. Only when it has been tested by experiments, is supported by evidence, and can make falsifiable claims does it qualify as a theory.

If I may ask you, what do you perceive to be any experiment that has been conducted, the results of which has supported the hypothesis of evolution?

I would also be very interested in learning of any evidences that you believe supports the hypothesis, that cannot be at least as easily, if not be better explained by special creation?

Specifically, what transitional phases have been observed, that would be between what lower species that then transitioned to a higher one, resulting in a vertical evolutionary rise, and not merely another horizontal variety of the same specie?

In what ways has evolution been observed working in our lives and in our labs, specifically where it has been working on its own, and not aided in any fashion by intelligent intervention on the part of scientists?

Evolution most certainly does deal with the origin of life, as the first living thing had to have been of some specie or another, and the origin of life is the origin of the first specie.

Whether one likes it or not, since all that one may have to work with is evolutionary theory, and are willing to accept only a naturalistic answer; the origin of the first specie is in need of being explained in some naturalistic and evolutionary manner, unless one is willing to go with seemingly the only other alternative answer, that being creation. It is no confusion of the two at all, but merely the most obvious question when examining the origin of species by means of cause and effect. There still must be some first cause for the first specie.

I don't doubt that the majority of scientists support evolution. In fact, for the vast majority of all scientists, it was all that they were ever taught, and were required to publish along those lines in order to be acknowledged by their peers. The scientific community is not without its own politics and pecking order. General consensus of opinion does not make for good science. Only facts do. And a point in fact is that literally thousands of other lettered scientists do not believe evolution to be true, and so evolution does not get to be fact by the concensus of a democratic vote.

You state that, "evolution does hold enough facts and evidence to promote it to a scientific theory." If that is the case, then you are just the person to be posting on this thread. Especially since you claim to have studied it to its fullest. I will be the first to confess that I cannot make such a claim as that, and so I may find myself at a distinct disadvantage.

However, I believe my first questions above ought to give you satisfactory room for the beginning of our discussion on this topic. I only ask that I be permitted to respond, and make my own points from a scientific perspective.

You say that ID is a good thought. I am curious as to why you believe it to be a good thought?

You have put the cart before the horse, when you state that ID, "is based off an intelligent designer." The concept of an intelligent designer is a conclusion to which the evidences point. If they do not, then the right question is to ask to what other possible conclusions can those evidences point to?

If the evidences logically point to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, then the evidences themselves constitute the only proof we have for a designer, and is no hole at all.

If evolution has never actually been observed to have resulted in a new and higher order of specie, then it too has no more proof than that for an intelligent designer.

You try to make the argument, that I have often heard, that we have nothing more than a 'God of the gaps', if I undertsand you correctly. However, I would point out that the gaps are so many, and they are so large, that not only does God make for a better explanation of all those many huge gaps, but He then also serves as the better explanation for all that has been observed as well, since insufficient evidence would seem to exist between any species.

You seem to think we make such claims on the basis of no evidence, or where there is no evidence, on the contrary, the case for ID is based upon a tremendous body of evidence, of which a great number of books have been published.

Perhaps it would make sense to simply ask, what do you consider to be the very finest evidence for evolution?

Unbelievable and rack only responded one time, and neither has been back since. I suspect they didn't have the evidence for the support of their beliefs. I am grateful that you have joined in, may it be a spirited and intellectually honest discussion to all our benefit.

Ronald said

Ronald [ guest ] — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:59:33 PDT

Harold,

You state that evolution doesn't qualify as a scientific theory but rather a hypothesis instead. I don't think you understand what hypothesis means. To be quick, a hypothesis is an idea that has absolutely no proof of being correct. Evolution has plenty of facts that support it as a scientific theory. There is plenty of evidence of transitional phases all around us - phases that are supported by evolution. To argue that the theory of evolution is incorrect because we do not know all the facts is the same as arguing over the theory of gravity. Both are missing facts or contain unexplained areas. Yet we see gravity work everyday in our universe just like we see evolution working in life and in our labs.

In a lot of your comments you talk about origin of life. Please understand that evolution does not deal with origin of life, but rather origin of species. It is a common misconception for some people to confuse the two.

Also understand that the scientific community isn't made up of a few members with hidden agendas. Instead it's made up of millions of well-informed, experienced, and education people from all over the world. When their general consensus concludes that evolution does hold enough facts and evidence to promote it to a scientific theory, then that's the case. As a scientist, I've studied evolution to its fullest and in the end it holds up. Yes, there are holes and things that we cannot YET explain in the theory. But just because we can't explain it yet, doesn't mean it's unexplainable.

While ID is a good thought, it's still not accepted by the scientific community as science. Why? Because of the simple fact that our whole world, and current animal structure is based off an intelligent designer. ID is missing the proof/facts/evidence of this designer, and my friend, this is a giant hole.

You also stated that ID has more evidence to support it than evolution does. This depends on your definition of 'evidence'. ID tries to fill the holes that evolution leaves behind by simply claiming facts with no proof to support them. This is the other problem I have with ID.

Harold said

Harold [ guest ] — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:11:42 PDT

Rack,

Thank you for responding. I was beginning to believe that this site was dead.

I read the article in question as to what the gov't in the UK intends to do about creationism and ID within their nation's science curriculum, to which I say, So what? It is obviously a political decision, as though somehow gov't is the final arbiter as to what is and what is not science. Are you comfortable with that? Do you want your gov't telling you what is and what is not science?

Why not let lettered scientists address that issue from out of their respective fields, as is being done in America today, and in many fine books being published on the subject.

Further, what if I am religious, as you call it, and what if it does mean I have a bias? How does that disqualify what I have written, if those things I have written can be substantiated by any observer employing the scientific method, including yourself?

If you will read carefully, I only stated the facts, and then asked the obvious questions, based upon the most fundamental scientific principle of cause and effect; who or what are responsible for those observable facts I wrote of?

To this day, no naturalistic answer to any of the very most basic questions, as they pertain to the origin of matter, space, time, energy or life, or of the facts about DNA and its necessary role in life, can begin to explain the origin, existence or maintenance of any of these things.

DNA is vastly complex, quadratically encoded information. No reasonable person in the field of informational science will deny the axiom that wherever information is found, intelligence is behind it. Information has never been known to arise by random chance; not anywhere, not at anytime.

Beyond that, the information contained within DNA, must be translated by RNA, and its commands carried out by other protein components within each cell. Can anyone begin to contemplate, not only how the encoded information could have evolved, but also, at the very same time, something that could translate the code, and also something else altogether that could carry out the instructions derived from the translation of the code? All had to be present, and fully-functioning, with the very first living cell, or it could not live. Life depends upon that encoded instruction, the ability to decifer it, and for something to do something with those instructions.

You are biased too, only your bias would appear to be the opposite of mine. I have stated some "common sense" reasons for my bias. Would you care to share any of your reasons for your bias?

Certainly you would not prefer your government to decide that for you, would you?

rack said

rack [ guest ] — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:41:17 PDT

Harold, you say you're religious which instantly gives you a bias. Sorry, but everything you wrote has been tainted by your faith.

Check out this article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/25/id_not_science/

I'm glad some places of the world still have common sense.

Harold said

Harold [ guest ] — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:45:59 PDT

If I may, I would like to include this recent op/ed column from the 6/11 edition of the Boston Globe. It brings a very good perspective to this forum.

Evolution and Dissent

By: David K. DeWolf
Boston Globe
June 11, 2007

"IT'S THE QUESTION that won't go away. Twice during the Republican presidential debates and once at a forum for Democratic candidates, candidates were asked about evolution. For example, in the California debate all the candidates were asked to respond to the question of whether they believed in evolution. In the New Hampshire debate, follow-up questions were asked of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. At the Sojourners Forum debate, John Edwards was asked, "Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism?"

As several commentators have pointed out, these are trick questions, because "evolution" was never defined. Do I believe that the Corvette has evolved over the years? Yes, I do. Do I think that it evolved by random mutation and natural selection? No, I don't.

At the New Hampshire debate, Wolf Blitzer asked Arizona Senator John McCain a follow-up question: "Do you believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools?" This too is a trick question, because no serious advocate wants to teach "creationism." However, there is increasing skepticism among thoughtful scientists of a central claim of neo-Darwinism, namely that complex living systems can be generated from mindless processes like random mutation and natural selection. Thus, the question that Wolf Blitzer should have asked would be along these lines: "Do you think that the topic of Darwinian evolution should be taught objectively in our public schools, with evidence for and against the theory?"

Some candidates would undoubtedly answer "No," asserting that there "is no debate" over evolution and that teaching "both sides" of a non controversy does a disservice to students.

But we have heard that rhetoric elsewhere. For example, Al Gore has famously said that the debate is over regarding global warming. Even assuming that human beings cause global warming, scientists vigorously debate how significant the human contribution is and how beneficial remedial measures would be. "The debate is over" really means, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."

You might think that a public high school is a poor venue for controversies in science. But even in higher education political and ideological agendas are threatening academic freedom. For example, Guillermo Gonzalez, a talented astronomer at Iowa State University, was recently denied tenure. Gonzalez has published 68 scientific papers, more than three times the number normally expected for tenure in his department. His college textbook on astronomy was published by Cambridge University Press. His work has been featured in top scientific journals, including a cover story in Scientific American.

But in 2004 Gonzalez co authored a book, "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery," which made the case for attributing the life-sustaining features of our planet to something other than random chance. This was too much for some colleagues at ISU. A petition was circulated by a religious studies professor and signed by 120 colleagues, affirming their rejection of "all attempts to represent intelligent design as a scientific endeavor."

Some may have the illusion that science is devoid of politics. But whether we debate the efficacy of a pharmaceutical drug, the risks of electromagnetic radiation, or the potential benefit of embryonic stem cells, financial and ideological agendas are not easily set aside. As bad as political correctness may be in the humanities and social sciences, we should be particularly alarmed by a threat to the right to dissent from the "mainstream" when it comes to scientific knowledge, often a critical component of our public policy.

Those with the courage to challenge reigning orthodoxies ought to be able to follow the scientific evidence where it leads. Some may study the scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution and conclude that there is no God. Some may study the evidence for intelligent design and conclude that atheism is irrational. Some may reach the conclusion that Darwinian evolution and religious faith are perfectly compatible. The question of how best to explain the appearance of design in the universe should be fair game; scientists, teachers, and students should have the right to reach the answer that each finds most satisfying.

At the next presidential debate, I'd like to hear the following question: "Do you think public school students should be permitted to hear both sides of the debate about Darwinian evolution?" American voters want to know their answers."

What does anyone else have to say to these things?

Harold said

Harold [ guest ] — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 22:50:37 PDT

I'd like to take Dr. Richard Cravatts piece at the top of the page apart. He may have a Ph.D, but I believe he may have been writing outside of his field.

He opens by saying, "Intelligent Design is nothing more than a new name for 'creationism'". He is mistaken, as that is simply not true. Creationism is the explanation of origins as it is derived from the Bible. As such, it does not purport to be science, since no one was there to observe the event. ID is the conclusion derived from many things which are readily observed in a scientific fashion that would seem to necessitate ID, as no naturalistic explanation would seem to possibly account for how some things exist and/or function. As such, the two are actually very different. I can't imagine what Cravatts was thinking, unless his piece was just "preaching to the choir." He seems to adequately define creationism in his second paragraph, but wrongly equates that with ID.

While his third and fourth paragraphs may be considered a history of efforts to get creationism in the schools... since ID is different, whatever happened to creationism does not apply to ID.

Cravatts sixth paragraph mades a valid point, "this new 'creation science' still points to the belief that life was created by an intelligent mind." Exactly, and if it does, so what? The issue becomes, is it science, not what it points to. Scientific inquiry is supposed to take the inquirer to whatever conclusion best fits the observed facts.

ID certainly does challenge evolution, but what is the problem with, "teach people two things that completely contradict themselves"? The facts don't change, only the interpretation of them, and the conclusions drawn from them are different, or change.

His illustration of saying, "It's like teaching someone that '2+2=4' and then saying, 'no 2+2=7'", simply does not work here, as we are clearly not talking about 2+2, but rather, we're discussing observed facts that may be interpreted to support more than one conclusion, and that one of the conclusions may better fit the facts, leaving fewer unanswered questions than the other. Those conclusions being evolution or ID, in this case.

The Establishment Clause has no bearing on the question of alternate interpretations of scientific evidence, and so Cravatts statement, "Intelligent Design will have to proof its beliefs or theories on hard science with lots of scientific knowledge", is absolutely correct, and is perfectly capable of doing so. The school room is a perfect place to detail the evidence and both explanations, with issues that make either explanation scientifically problematic. In any such forum as that, ID has no problem holding its own.

Cravatts conclusion, "Intelligent Design falls on all counts of the above and I completely agree with the courts rulings. People don't question the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity; just the theory of evolution. Who cares about the US's declining test scores in reading and math. Let's waste everyone's time with evolution vs. creationism," is very weak, as he only states a personal opinion, and gives no reason in support of it.

Beyond that, what straw man is this that he erects by saying, "People don't question the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity; just the theory of evolution"? He is attempting to equate these three in his readers minds, but evolution is not on the same plane as the other two, and so should be questioned. If it had the standing of gravity or relativity, there would be no such questioning. It is precisely because it fails to adequately explain so much that we observe in the world, that it deserves to be questioned!

Cravatts closes by quoting Gould. Well, I can quote Gould as well. Stephen J. Gould has also written, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design... has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Now, that's an understatement for you!

He even further underscores the point, writing, "I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record." That's all, but an admission, that he doesn't see evolution as being supported by the fossil record.

The page ends with a truly odd statement, "I'm sure a lot of teachers will not like having to teach something they do not believe in," to which I would say, "Well, yuh, after all, they were never taught anything else to believe in, and so they were only left with evolution to believe in. Perhaps it's time to let the other side present their case. It's a compelling one, and perhaps teachers would have something else to believe in, just like their students.

The real reason? Fear and politics. The real reason isn't about the science. Any fair presentation of the evidence will amply bear out the scientific validity of the ID position.
___________________________________________

To unbelievable, I would like to pose this personal question... just how comfortable can you be with your religious view, which you labelled as a fact, "that that when you die?you're DEAD! End of story!," when just two paragraphs later you entertain the possibility that, "There may be some logical voids in the Theory of Evolution."?

My religious faith would not be so strong as to make a statement concerning my final end as being absolute fact, if I entertained notions that my faith contained 'logical voids'. You badly need to take the Darwin challenge I closed my last post with.

I completely agree with Nick, in #2, that, "While in school kids need to learn F-A-C-T-S." I only ask, why can't we teach those facts that controvert evolution and point to ID?

Harold said

Harold [ guest ] — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:08:11 PDT

Unbelieveable asks whether the proposed creator be alive. While not available for scientific observation, we may surmise that the creator lived, since that which he created lives, as the lesser is derived from the greater.

Would the creator be required to to have DNA? Probably not, since we have only been talking about that which had a beginning, and therefore a cause, whereas, the creator is said to have no beginning, and therefore no cause. The creator being the first cause was free to make these things come about as he wished, that did not necessitate that the created life be a perfect imitation of his own.

Your subsequent questions are those of a scoffer and a mocker, not someone interested in scientifically observable facts and truth. This is usually construed as a demnstration of weakness in one's own position, and a particularly poor means of debate.

I did not describe a belief in my first post. I detailed readily confirmable scientific fact. If any of it is not, I will not refuse to be corrected. Since all of these things seem to point directly to the necessity for a creator of incredible intelligence and power, I have freely chosen to let the facts lead me to a reasonable belief. As a result, I find it completely rational to submit myself to such a One as my Lord.

It is equally understandable how that one would want to take comfort in their religious belief "that when you die--you're DEAD!", which you call a fact, if one wishes to live as they please, acknowledge no higher Lord, and do not want to entertain any thought of possible final judgment.

I am concerned that the instruction in our schools be that which has been observed, measured, may be repeatedly tested and is falsifiable by some means. This is the scientific method, and is the best way we know of to arrive at real knowledge.

Since the points I made in the first post were arrived at by this process, the implications of them can only be left to those to whom they are presented. The inferences, of course, are unmistakable, by why should that be objected, if arrived at from the facts?

If these are not facts, and is not good science, then I may have arrived at a wrong conclusion.

Don't ridicule my conclusion, deal with the evidence. The conclusion is my own... the evidence is everyone's.

You do not specify what it is you claim is "riddled with centuries of contradiction, political power play and deceit." But if you are referring to the Church, I totally agree, but then, that was the Roman Catholic Church, and any comparison of it with the Bible it was supposed to follow would clearly indicate that they are not one and the same, and that same church persecuted and murdered millions of my belief throughout the centuries, so you will get no argument from me. It is false and always has been.

Finally, you state that there are some logical voids in the Theory of Evolution. It is yours to examine those voids and to decide whether any of them are fatal to the theory or not. If so, you are then left only with its alternative; the evidences for which, you might find startling.

Let me challenge you with this thought; read Darwin and take note of one particular point throughout his work. He says himself, as a good scientist, exactly what discoveries would overthrow his theory. If you look for those specific passages, and take each one out and examine the evidence that has been uncovered since, you will know whether his hypothesis has been either strengthened to the place of real theory or perhaps, even fact... or whether the very tests he proposed himself, and the evidence uncovered since, has actually destroyed his hypothesis.

If you have the courage of your convictions to take up that challenge, you will know what you must believe by the time you are done.

I hope you will write again, and I hope that you will come back willing to deal in facts, if you want to discuss the religious implications of them, you can direct me to the appropriate thread, and I might join you there. I do have a business and very ill wife, and so my time is somewhat limited, but I am always interested in trying to bring ideas to bear that others may not be aware of, and may not have yet considered, as there is great potential for changing one's entire outlook on things when they do.

unbelievable said

unbelievable [ guest ] — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:30:40 PDT

Is this proposed Creator alive? Would it then be required by scientific law to have DNA? Where did this DNA come from? Where did the creator's life come from?

Why is the Popemobile bullet proof?

If God works in mysterious ways and calls us to Heaven when it is our time, then why are we locking up murderers. Aren't they implementing God's plan?

Religion is the oldest form of government. To rule [and take monetarily from] the masses of the uneducated and the ignorant through fear and peer pressure. Even the word Lord means authority. The Lord, as in God and/or JC is synonymous with the word King.

How this belief has survived this long is an incredible phenomenon. My guess is that fear of mortality drives the believers [to religion] to find comfort and explanation for things that we cannot know due to the fact that when you die?you're DEAD! End of story!

The idea is equal to modern people insisting or believing that the Earth is flat. I'm sure in some undeveloped, third world country you could find flat Earth believers. Should we teach their beliefs too? Or do we just confidently admit that they are WRONG?

There may be some logical voids in the Theory of Evolution, but it is not riddled with centuries of contradiction, political power play and deceit. We don't pass the hat to get the science community to teach us evolution and the professors of evolution don't threaten us with the action of not continuing to evolve if don't believe in evolution or scientists.

Harold said

Harold [ guest ] — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 05:01:57 PDT

I have been a student of all things origins for more than 25 years. The Theory of Evolution truly has scant evidence, not enough to rise to the qualification of theory. It may only be properly considered as an hypothesis, an attempted explanation of the evidences, but leaves way too many questions unanswered, and actually contradicts many established laws within science, that evolutionists have yet to overcome.

The alternate theory of origins, that of special creation, actually fits the evidences far better, leaving many more questions unanswered than evolution.

The first two Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation and the Law of Entropy make a strong case for the idea that matter/energy is not eternal, and therefore had an origin. If anyone needs an explanation as to why, just ask. It is legitimate to ask who or what originated matter?

The Theory of Relativity tells us that matter, energy, space and time came into existence at the very same instance, and that no one of these can exist apart from the presence of the other three. They therefore all came into existence at the same moment in time, with all the laws of physics governing their existence in place, applying to all of the universe, and seemingly never having evolved since their coming into existence. And man did not invent the physics, he discovered it already in place as being very complex and yet, as many physcists have described, as being very "beautiful". Who or what caused the universe, and such complex, "beautiful" math to run it?

The universe is continually expanding, and it could not have been expanding forever, it therefore had a beginning, everthing that had a beginning had a cause. Cause and effect is foundational to all scientific understanding. Who or what is the first cause?

The Law of Biogenesis states that all that is living came from that which was alive. Logically, we ask then, who or what was the living first cause of life?

Evolution requires belief in two truly silly notions. The first being that matter, energy, space and time actually came into existence by themselves from out of nothing. It also requires belief in the spontaneous generation of life from that which was not living, a truly insurmoutable problem for the reason I shall describe next. Both of these have, of course, never been observed, and they have never even been remotely explained to any degree of satisfaction by evolutionists, except to those who wish to believe in it, I suppose.

Every cell that has ever lived could only do so with the in-place and fully-functioning strand in its nucleus of DNA. No cell can function and live without the incredibly complex coded functions afforded by its DNA. Further, DNA cannot exist for no purpose, and its only purpose is to monitor and control all of the many functions of a living cell, which can be likened unto all of the infrastructure necessary to run an entire city. No DNA, no living cell; no living cell, no DNA. It's truly an imponderable catch-22 situation for evolutionists.

A further, truly inexplicable problem for evolutionists, is that they have never yet discovered the means by which they claim evolution has taken place. Their argument typically revolves around mutations being preserved by natural selection, as the survival of the fittest, but that cannot be.

For any organism to evolve into a higher species or order, it requires the addition of much additional DNA information. Mutations do not add DNA material. Mutations are a corruption of already existing genetic material, and always result in a net loss of genetic information.

Mutations do not result in the accumulation of necessary genetic information, which could result in higher life form... a net loss of information, which is only a corruption of already existing information, can only result in some kind of change in an organism, and possibly, but only incredibly rarely, improving the species, but never in such a way that information was added that could result in a higher species.

All creatures are bound by the quantity of DNA encoded information within their cells, no additional information, absolutely necessary to form any higher being has ever been surmised as to how it could get there.

The idea that evolution could come about by means of genetic mutations is, so far, considered an absolute impossibility, and evolutionists have yet to conceive of an alternate means... which they must.

If you study only the properties and operations of DNA alone, and nothing else, you will find every evidence you need to understand the case both FOR Intelligent Design and the case AGAINST any hope of evolution by means of genetic mutation.

DNA is encoded information of a quadratic nature, far more advanced than the binary system we employ in our computers. It was there present and fully functioning within the nucleus of the first living cell... if such a thing had ever fallen out of space, we would have certainly decreed instantly that intelligent life lives out there.

I could literally go on for hours about the subject, and hope to check in from time to time. I was asked by a dear friend to write here, as he told me his son-in-law posts about his atheistic beliefs here, and would like for him to consider a real case for creation, which would, of course, necessitate a Creator, of which an incredible number of lettered scientists are fully convinced of as a result of the work within their scientific disciplines.

The real issue is truly religious and political, because based purely upon the objective science alone, an incredibly tough case for the probable existence of a creator is really very easily made, and a seemingly insurmountable case against evolution is not at hard to construct either... as I have attempted to point out.

If anyone would like a list of titles, all of which I have read, I would only be too happy to share them with you.

Brittani said

Brittani [ guest ] — Sat, 19 May 2007 04:21:08 PDT

I think that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, and if the child wants to be taught that he or she should go to church. For one this theory is not scientifically. You can't make one person form another persons rib. If we could we would have people popping out of the graves. And if Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth we would all be committing insest every time we kissed or anything else with another person.

I would truthfully rather beleive and be taught that i came from monkeys.

Adam said

Adam [ guest ] — Fri, 11 May 2007 02:42:48 PDT

I believe it should not be and/or should never be legalized in to any school... ANYWHERE! If there was a class for intelligent design, people might be offened, I personally do not believe that we were brought to this Earth by intelligent design. Besides, most kids end up not getting to choose what classes they go into, they are just put into a class that has extra space. If a person that doesn't believe in intelligent design is put into that class, they will always end up failing because nobody wants to work in a class they don't believe in it. And though this may be the perfect argument for both sides, even the religous, science has been tought almost since the beginning of school itself. If we changed it now everything for everybody would be different. If it was just suddenly changed, a lot of people might start to fail because it is something so new to them.

Paul Smith said

Paul Smith [ guest ] — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:47:21 PDT

Joshua, you don't need a time machine to go back in time to see what happens (not that evolution deals with the origin of life, it deals with the origin of species). You can observe the evidence that remains. Fossils etc.

The same as a crime scene, clues are left behind, those clues are studied and a hypothesis formed, if some clues don't fit the hypothesis you tweak it or throw it out until you have one that fits them all. You then can know what happened at the crime scene without ever having been there, you then have a "theory" strong enough to convict somebody of the crime.

Nick Villescas said

Nick Villescas [ author ] — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:52:20 PDT

*sigh* Now you're confusing theory with scientific theory. Let me try to explain this to you in simple terms.

Evolution is a scientific theory, just like gravity and relativity. It is supported by EVIDENCE. Since we have evidence and proof of evolution, then there is no need for your blind faith or belief.

Creationism on the other hand is just a theory. A regular theory is just a guess or hunch. It is unsubstantiated. Meaning their is no evidence, there is no proof. You have to have blind faith to believe in it.

Science has evidence to back it up. The scientific theory of evolution has evidence to back it up. There is no blind faith in science or evolution. Religious beliefs require lots of blind faith to believe. Thus science is NOT a religion. I hate to lower myself down like this, but you must be incredibly ignorant to believe otherwise.

Joshua said

Joshua [ guest ] — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:44:00 PDT

Here is the description of science from Dictionary.com:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

However, nobody living today was there at the beginning of life (whether that be evolution or creation). And since, to be real science, it has to be observed, neither can be completely proven at this time, so since neither are science, they are theories. If there is no proof in something, then you must have a belief in it.

Here is the description of Religion from dictionary.com:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Since a religion is a set of beliefs that govern they way you see everything, both evolution and creation are inherently religious.

Nick Villescas said

Nick Villescas [ author ] — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:00:09 PDT

And what religion does evolution follow? The religion of science and logical thinking? Or are you saying it follows a religion because it disproves your belief, which upsets you thus you have to find some way to insult or provide some sort of alternative motives, agenda, or conspiracy against evolution to discredit it somehow? Well, try as you may but the scientific facts and findings are still there. Sorry. Look up Turkana Boy.

I like how science can do all these great things like create medicine to save lives, create technology to make peoples' lives easier, split atoms, send mankind into space. But whenever science finds something that discredits your beliefs, it's wrong. Sorry science. You're cool and fun and great to have around, but disprove anything in the bible and you're the enemy of millions of people.

Derek said

Derek [ guest ] — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:42:01 PDT

Evolution is a religion and is being taught in schools. Don't believe so then check it out. my e-mail is oneil-c-784@mssu.edu. If u want proof then e-mail me and I will give u proof. oh and by the way creational science has plenty of proof.

bobby f said

bobby f [ guest ] — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 05:44:29 PDT

I choose to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created all life, and that pirates are His chosen people. So I guess my theory should be taught in school, too.

May you all be touched by his noodly appendage.

RAman

Coco said

Coco [ guest ] — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:23:19 PST

Intelligent design should not be taught in class mixed with science because it will make the kids that are learning mixed up about what really or what we have proved so far to be the true evolution.

Nick Villescas said

Nick Villescas [ author ] — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:53:50 PST

There are some tribes in Africa that truly believe that 2 + 2 = 5. That has been their belief for thousands of years. They have their reasons why they believe that. But in school they only teach that 2 + 2 = 4. Why do you think that is?

One concept has plenty of proof and facts to support it. The other is solely based off beliefs and personal opinions. How would you like it if your child was taught that 2 + 2 can equal 4 or 5, based on what they choose or believe? Sure, those tribes in Africa would be happy about it, but do you think the rest of the world would?

It's the same thing with evolution and creationism. One concept has plenty of proof, facts, and research. They have seen it happen the the past and in the present. The other concept is purely based off belief and opinions. What happens when you teach both concepts that completely contradict each other?

Remember, not every religion believes in your creationism concept. So what happens when you teach the concept of a few popular religions to kids who belong to other religions? You will have a lot of offended and upset people.

To fix that should we just teach about every single religious creationism-like concept known to man? Well, that's what we'll have to do if creationism gets taught in school.

Out of all these origin of life concepts, there's only one with hard scientific facts and theories, and with no religious agenda behind it. And that concept is evolution.

Alicia said

Alicia [ guest ] — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:24:45 PST

I believe that both evolution and creationism should be taught in school and the students can then choose what they want to believe in. By teaching just evolution students may be offended because of their beliefs and customs. To make things fair and truely educational, I think both theories should be taught and the students should choose what they want.

Nick Villescas said

Nick Villescas [ author ] — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 05:24:05 PST

No. Religion does not belong in school. Just like science does not belong in church. In a school science class you teach science. Not religious stories. Religion has nothing to do with education. Nothing. You don't send your kid to school to learn about religion.

If you want your kids to learn about Intelligent Design, then take them to church. Stop trying to destroy the separation of church and state.

Do you really think a science teacher (aka scientist) really wants to teach kids about something they don't believe in? No.

While in school kids need to learn F-A-C-T-S.

Marissa said

Marissa [ guest ] — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:28:33 PST

Kids should have the choice on which theory they believe in. You wouldn't like it if someone told you that your religion is wrong and that your god(s) doesn't exist. If you teach one theory, the other should be taught also, even if Intellectual design is only briefly mentioned.