Quote :

"They formed a basis for what we call evolution. Darwin believed in and wrote about MICRO evolution. He did not believe in or write about MACRO evolution. "

you can't be serious. either you accidentally got it backwards or you don't know what the difference is between the two.

12/27/2005 1:31:41 AM

Yep, just read the descent of man, I'm wrong.

Quote :

"The most ancient progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata, at which we are able to obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted of a group of marine animals,* resembling the larvae of existing ascidians. These animals probably gave rise to a group of fishes, as lowly organised as the lancelet; and from these the ganoids, and other fishes like the Lepidosiren, must have been developed. From such fish a very small advance would carry us on to the amphibians. We have seen that birds and reptiles were once intimately connected together; and the Monotremata now connect mammals with reptiles in a slight degree. But no one can at present say by what line of descent the three higher and related classes, namely, mammals, birds, and reptiles, were derived from the two lower vertebrate classes, namely, amphibians and fishes. In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded. "

12/27/2005 1:40:06 AM

According to the ruling, the judge said the ID people were trying to recreate Creationism. That's why it was thrown out of the science class. CREATIONISM HAS NO PLACE IN THE SCIENCE CLASS (particularly the young-earth kind, which is what most ID nuts really believe).

Irreducible Complexity is NOT a scientific theory. How do you teach that? How do you form a curriculum around that? It basically says "we can't understand this, so it must be god," not to mention that to many people, it is understandable (if life dies and becomes dirt, why can't dirt spontaneously, in rare and certain conditions, become life?). It's laughable (and only supports the idea that creationist-IDist are dumb) that you (prep-e) would try and use that as "proof" of ID.

I'm pretty sure this has been said before... but the valid form of ID (the very general, non-scientific idea that life has divine/intelligent inspiration) also has no valid scientific, teachable basis. This form of ID, incidentally, doesn't conflict with evolution. Young-Earth Creationism though (which is what those pro-ID people in Pa. believe) is completely stupid, and shouldn't be taught anywhere, but if it is to be, it should stay in a philosophical context.

12/27/2005 2:01:12 AM

i just think it's in poor taste to teach evolution without at least giving the alternate opinions, regardless of their scientific merit.

what it comes down to is that the earth was created by what a person believes. it doesn't discredit anyone to say "some people think this, scientists say this, others say this." because ultimately, it's dangerous for science teachers to up-end the faith of grade-schoolers, which, sadly, is the agenda that many of the "anti-ID" push. it's not so much a cry of scientific validity for evolution so much as it is an axe to grind against religion.

i mean honestly, how can fox news not be right with this sort of venom being spit? granted, some have been respectful, but you can't deny the underswelling movement that wants to trash religion and keep it so confined as to where you can only practice in your bed under the sheets at 3am without a flashlight.

12/27/2005 2:58:07 AM

if you come up with another scientific explanation im sure they'll teach it in class

Quote :

"but you can't deny the underswelling movement that wants to trash religion and keep it so confined as to where you can only practice in your bed under the sheets at 3am without a flashlight."

yeah you definately can
this whole american persecution is a complete fiction

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 3:01 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2005 3:00:14 AM

Quote :

"it doesn't discredit anyone to say "some people think this, scientists say this, others say this.""

Are you suggesting that they add an entire section on religious creation myths stories to biology classes?

IIRC, we touched on religious creation stories in World History class, as well as English class in HS, AND in History class in middle school.

12/27/2005 3:04:36 AM

Quote :

"what it comes down to is that the earth was created by what a person believes. it doesn't discredit anyone to say "some people think this, scientists say this, others say this." because ultimately, it's dangerous for science teachers to up-end the faith of grade-schoolers, which, sadly, is the agenda that many of the "anti-ID" push."

Evolution DOES NOT DISPROVE ANYTHING.

THEY CAN FUCKING COEXIST. Teaching that the THEORY of evolution still holds true, BECAUSE IT DOES, in NO way affect's the ability of a child to practice their faith.

How fucking hard is it to get through all your fucking heads? This ISNT ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG OR ALTERNATIVE THEORIES. ITS A FUCKING SCIENCE CLASS AND THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LEARNING SCIENCE.

DID ANY OF YOU FUCKERS READ THE ACTUAL JUDGEMENT?

12/27/2005 6:11:21 AM

Quote :

"i mean honestly, how can fox news not be right with this sort of venom being spit? granted, some have been respectful, but you can't deny the underswelling movement that wants to trash religion and keep it so confined as to where you can only practice in your bed under the sheets at 3am without a flashlight."

And no. The underswelling movement is to bring this country BACK to being the damn secular state it's SUPPOSED to be. You act as if Christians are being persecuted. When in fact, the sway of the religious right has gotten WAY out of whack. Things are this way to prevent what has happened EVERY FUCKING TIME IN HISTORY that ANY religious body has gained political power. Corruption, genocide et al.

12/27/2005 6:14:31 AM

i aint come from no got damn monkey

12/27/2005 7:50:39 AM

Quote :

" what it comes down to is that the earth was created by what a person believes"

no, i'm pretty sure that it was created in one specific way, what you believe doesn't alter that

what you believe just doesn't make anything so

if i "believe" that boiling water is cool and refreshing and proceed to drink it, i'm pretty sure that the physical reality of the matter is going to supersede the belief

people don't seem to get that none of this is something that you "believe" in - that's not even a word that should be used in these conversations

12/27/2005 10:36:39 AM

Quote :

"When in fact, the sway of the religious right has gotten WAY out of whack."

OK, SO ALL OF A SUDDEN SAYING "HEY, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS ANOTHER POSSIBILITY" IS JUST LIKE THE NAZI'S KILLING ALL THE JEWS


I MEAN WOW THEY'VE GONE WAY TOO FAR THIS TIME.


DUMBASS, A RELIGIOUS BODY HAS NOT AND MOST LIKELY WILL NOT GAIN POWER IN THIS COUNTRY. NOBODY'S ARGUING THAT THIS IS INHERENTLY A BAD IDEA.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE.

PRETTY GRAND FUCKING DIFFERENCE.


^nah man, totally unrelated comparison. none of us know how the world was created... science has an explanation which is perfectly plausible given what we know and have discovered about the design of our universe. i'm not arguing against evolution, because personally i believe that it's pretty solid. all i'm saying is that spending 5 minutes in a class talking about other theories doesn't hurt the child, in fact, i'd wager to say it makes them more conscious about the continuing debate, and gives them the ability to decide for themselves, or at least talk about it and research it more. beliefs are factored in when teacher's use the arguments against ID to take potshots at religion. IT HAPPENS. DON'T FUCKING IGNORE THIS. some of you are guilty of this yourselves.



[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 10:48 AM. Reason : :]

12/27/2005 10:36:54 AM

Quote :

"i just think it's in poor taste to teach evolution without at least giving the alternate opinions, regardless of their scientific merit."

Wait.

So you're saying....you're saying that it is in poor taste to not teach things with no scientific merit. IN SCIENCE CLASS?

12/27/2005 10:50:37 AM

Quote :

"i just think it's in poor taste to teach evolution without at least giving the alternate opinions, regardless of their scientific merit"

alternate option to evolution with no scientific merit...sounds like a religious push to me.

12/27/2005 11:19:26 AM

Intelligent Design at the lowest point... basis EVERYTHING on the assumption that "Things cannot just be. There must be a reason for everything". That is why it is fundamentally flawed.

Science (not just evolution), at its lowest point basis EVERYTHING on visual, repeatable reactions. Things that any tom or joe can walk up and test.

Evolution is based off of the core sciences. Chemistry, Biology, BioChemistry, Geology, etc.

Everything we do in life is based off cause and effect. At the core of any of the above, we can reproduce these things any number of times and have the same results.

Here's what I believe and it's going to piss some people off even though it's true. Most people in the world don't understand the basic concepts of the core sciences. Whether they don't care, lack the education etc. Just look for yourself. Most people don't go to college.

Religious people I have found cannot fathom the world without something bigger than themselves. That's from my experience. I'm not stating the reasoning behind it just the fact.

Intelligent Design people are very similar. They cannot believe for one second that perhaps... a supreme being or intelligent something... didn't design the world. They cannot believe for a second that this all happened by chance. When I've argued with them I brought up a good arguement.

Earth... in comparison to the known universe. If earth was the size of a grain of sand... ALL THE SAND in ALL THE BEACHES in this world would not encompass 1% of the known universe. So to think that somewhere in all of that, that we couldn't just happen is stupid.

Statistically... we shouldn't be alone.

12/27/2005 11:39:10 AM

bases?

12/27/2005 12:39:31 PM

who cares? we should be committing science toward discovering life on other planets, not trying to get philosophy into the science classroom.

12/27/2005 12:45:36 PM

just as a tangent

religious affiliation aside,

do the pro-id people think that noah's arc needs to be taught alongside contenential drift?

12/27/2005 12:47:49 PM

yes. the great flood actually happened. in my front yard that one time i left the sprinkler on.

12/27/2005 1:08:45 PM

Quote :

"just as a tangent religious affiliation aside, do the pro-id people think that noah's arc needs to be taught alongside contenential drift?"

give them an inch, they'll try for a mile

12/27/2005 1:24:43 PM

to anyone that thinks ID has no basis or evidence, click this link and look around for a little while, i would be interested to hear any counter-arguments you have...
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idtheorymenu.htm


specifically, here are some of the topics that might be of interest:


irreducible complexity http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm

the science behind intellegent design theory http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm

are evolution and ID falsifiable? http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm

12/27/2005 2:15:03 PM

I think it would be ok to teach both theories in school. One puts its faith in religion, the other puts its faith in science. Either way, it is still faith, and mentioning the concept of god does not push a particular religion onto people. If anything, the current method pushes atheism onto the masses.

12/27/2005 2:20:34 PM

ID isn't all about faith, neither is evolution. it's about taking the evidences and making a reasonable induction as to what caused things to come into being.

12/27/2005 2:28:15 PM

if you read the verdict you would understand why it doesnt really matter if ID is valid or not
it doesnt matter
if you read the verdict youd understand why

12/27/2005 2:30:59 PM

it does matter.

ID and evolution ('descent') are mutually exclusive.

if ID is correct, evolution cannot also be correct.

12/27/2005 2:42:48 PM

somebody lock this.

12/27/2005 2:53:13 PM

ID and evolution arent mutually exculsive

jesus christ just read the opinion

12/27/2005 2:54:13 PM

ID tries to explain the "gaps" in the evolution theory.

12/27/2005 2:59:54 PM

Quote :

" irreducible complexity http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm the science behind intellegent design theory http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm "

Those two are pretty much the same thing. Nothing on that site though seems to have been compiled or analyzed by an actual scientist either.

But, irreducible complexity is a joke, and pretty much is the opposite of what science is for. It basically says "we don't understand it, so god did it". Why not try to understand it? Why give up?

Quote :

"are evolution and ID falsifiable? http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm "

This one completely disregards a significant amount of research being done in the area of biology, particularly in the past few years. One new thing they are doing with DNA and evolution is comparing the expected drift rates (which are fine tuned are more genetic research is done) with historical fossil evidence about when 2 species may have come together. In a lot of cases, the 2 dates line up well.

Another big hole that those IDist don't seem to mention, and which should be an easy answer for them given their love of "information theory" (which they also grossly misrepresent) is when was this designing done? Millions of years ago? Billions? With their view of information theory, shouldn't all species have just been dust by now?

Nothing on that site either says that it has to be ID or evolution (if they mentioned dates, it might, but IDist know if they mention dates, they sound insane), because evolution could be the mechanism of ID.

12/27/2005 3:39:24 PM

this will end up like all religion threads.

alot of quoting and bashing...and in the end, no minds have changed.

12/27/2005 4:03:48 PM

Quote :

"to anyone that thinks ID has no basis or evidence, click this link and look around for a little while, i would be interested to hear any counter-arguments you have... http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idtheorymenu.htm"

DUDE, no one is saying ID has no basis or merit.

US LAW SAYS RELIGION CANNOT BE TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL. Since ID is based, in part, on supernatural occurances, IT CANNOT BE LEGALLY TAUGHT.

Quote :

"are evolution and ID falsifiable? http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm"

You can stop reading this after the author makes a critical error. He supposes that scientists "say" that creation science is falsified. While that is true for young earth creationism, it is absolutely not the case for ID and many other forms of creation science.

Very very few respected people in the scientific community ever touch on creation sciences, because it's impossible to empirically test, observe or reproduce the claims.

There is so much garbage in that writing it's rediculous. Not to mention it's published on a website, by an unnamed author, with more conjecture than reference, via a student club. I can point you to a hundred web articles on white supremicist sites that will show the evolution of the aryan race and be just as "researched" as this.

Quote :

"OK, SO ALL OF A SUDDEN SAYING "HEY, INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS ANOTHER POSSIBILITY" IS JUST LIKE THE NAZI'S KILLING ALL THE JEWS I MEAN WOW THEY'VE GONE WAY TOO FAR THIS TIME. DUMBASS, A RELIGIOUS BODY HAS NOT AND MOST LIKELY WILL NOT GAIN POWER IN THIS COUNTRY. NOBODY'S ARGUING THAT THIS IS INHERENTLY A BAD IDEA. "

Crossing the line to allow ANY religious belief in schools IS a horrible thing. Because of our legal system, once ONE instance has been established, it opens the floodgates for ANY religous propaganda. IF ID were allowed in schools, why shouldn't the other 1000 or so supernatural theories of origin, and our universe be allowed too?

Should we teach that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe? Because there are still many people who BELIEVE it and provide just as much evidence to support it based on the supernatural and religious beliefs.

And you are dead fucking wrong on that. The puritans had a stranglehold over New England for decades during the early years of our country. Go check the original bill of laws for Mass. It has happened, and it can easily happen again should be complacent about it.

Quote :

"I think it would be ok to teach both theories in school. One puts its faith in religion, the other puts its faith in science. Either way, it is still faith, and mentioning the concept of god does not push a particular religion onto people. If anything, the current method pushes atheism onto the masses. "

1) Faith in science is based on falsifiable evidence. AKA the five senses.
2) Mentioning the concept of God ABSOLUTELY pushes particular religions. What about hindu, buddhists, nihilists, athiests, wiccans, et al? Not everyone believes in a single God, and nor should their children have to be presented with that by our public institutions.
3) The current method does no such thing. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISCOUNT CREATION SCIENCE. This is THE BRAINWASHED BULLSHIT THAT THE RIGHT WING PUSHES ON YOU.

Evolution and Creation Sciences have been happily coexisting for nearly 10 years. Why don't you go check out the Catholic Church's stance, because they have no problem with it. The pope has no problem with the teaching of evolution as science.

Quote :

"ID and evolution ('descent') are mutually exclusive. if ID is correct, evolution cannot also be correct."

Absolutely wrong. If ID and Evolution are correct, then the designer would be the one driving the evolution of species. The designer would be the cause and force behind the mutations that are "irreducibly complex". If ID is incorrect, evolution correct, then there is no such thing as irriducible complexity. If ID is correct and evolution wrong, then there is a designer and no descent of species.

If both are wrong, then we got a lot of splainin to do.

As you can see, very fucking easily, they are theories independent of the validity of one another.

READ THE FUCKING COURT OPINION

12/27/2005 4:11:16 PM

darwinian evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. you are ignorant if you say otherwise.

Quote :

""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species "

[Edited on December 27, 2005 at 4:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/27/2005 4:45:08 PM

"Irreducible complexity" ignores the possibility of intermediate forms that serve other functions (read up on some of the theory about the development of butterfly wings).

12/27/2005 5:35:04 PM

that quote does nothing to show why they are mutually exclussive
jesus christ just read the opinion

12/27/2005 5:37:06 PM

Quote :

"""If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species"

You do realize that the modern theory of evolution does not rely on Darwin?

Much in the same way that modern physics does not rely on Newton.

It's called evolution, pun intended. And through ID you can have designed evolution. Hence they are not mutually exclusive.

But you are still MISSING THE POINT. This isnt about the VALIDITY of ID.

READ THE FUCKING COURT OPINION

12/27/2005 6:59:58 PM

ridiculous r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s ridiculous

12/27/2005 7:03:00 PM

Just for the hell of it...

Quote :

"irreducible complexity http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm the science behind intellegent design theory http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html does a pretty good job of tearing apart Darwin's Black Box in particular, and addresses the notions covered in the two articles you linked here.

I would also highly recommend reading Climbing Mount Improbable, written by Richard Dawkins. The book absolutely shreds the common examples of "irreducible complexity," and yet it was written years before all of this "intelligent design" crap started coming out.

On a side note, I think Dawkins' works should be required reading for everyone. The vast majority of people on both sides of these debates have no idea of how genetics or evolution actually works, something which can be easily rectified by reading The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and/or The Blind Watchmaker--all of these are very easy to read and understand, yet do a beautiful job of explaining the concepts involved.

Quote :

"are evolution and ID falsifiable? http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/falsify.htm"

Wow....just wow. I don't even have the time to go through and destruct all of the false and misleading points in that article.

Let's just look at their "predictions":

Quote :

"Predictions of Intelligent Design (1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.9 (2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.10 (3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.29 (4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".30 "

1) I have yet to see any examples given of structures that are truly "irreducibly complex." Again, read the works I mentioned above.
2) Again, do some reading. It is incredibly improbable that every organism will end up being fossilized--the conditions necessary for a creature to become a fossil aren't exactly simple. And yet, this simple explanation (Occam's razor, anyone?) tends to be completely ignored. In addition, under the theory of punctuated equilibria, evolution occurs more rapidly during periods of intense selective stresses, meaning those transitional forms are present for much shorter periods of time, making it even less likely that they will be fossilized (sheerly as an issue of percentages and probabilities). Of course, the fact that the theory is modified is used in your link as "damning evidence" against evolution (just like, I suppose, the transformations that Einstein applied to Newton's laws are evidence that Newton's laws were utterly wrong as well).
3) Again, can be explained by evolution itself. (What does "unrelated" mean here anyway? Under evolutionary theory, all life is related to the original precursor. Some genes are present almost ubiquitously.) Similar "functional parts" in "unrelated" organisms can also arise in unique manners--see Stephen Jay Gould's The Panda's Thumb for a good essay on this.
4) The article you linked basically contends that because purposes have been found for some parts of DNA that were previously not understood means that there must be a purpose for all DNA. This is not a logical assumption. (In addition, I don't see why evolution even requires the presence of "junk DNA"--although it would be present as some point, it confers no survival benefit and thus would be just as likely to disappear).

12/28/2005 1:57:33 AM

Quote :

"Statistically... we shouldn't be alone."

Find me somebody who has published a paper on this ... or write one yourself

12/28/2005 6:23:39 AM