[karajorma]

Yeah but we KNOW 2 and 2 isn't 5. Do we KNOW one is correct and one isn't? Was someone there that is still around today that we can ask?

ID can't be taught in schools because no bugger knows what it actually is. If you were here for the last discussion on ID you'll have seen me spend 7 pages of discussion trying to get the proponents of ID to explain what ID actually was. After 7 pages of discussion the only explaination I ever got from them was.

"There are things you can't explain by evolution therefore God must have done it"
Me : "What things?"
"ummmmm."

Furthermore no one could give me answers to very basic questions using ID. I asked for instance how many thousands or millions of years does ID say that mankind has been around? I received no answer despite repeatedly asking this question because although proponents of ID claim that it's the answer to these things it isn't.

You can't teach ID in science class because it isn't science. Let me sum up ID for you in one paragraph (which funnily enough despite repeated calls for more info on it was the best the proponents of ID were able to do!)

There are things that Evolution can't explain. It doesn't matter that evolution says it can explain them cause it can't. And since evolution can't explain them God must have done them. For futher information see the bible*

*No one other than Christians are interested in ID but if you belong to another denomination look at your holy book. We can put this bit in cause we know that no bugger apart from us non-catholic christians is the slightest bit interested in ID.

Same as last time I challenge anyone to prove that there is more to ID than what I just said.

[WMCoolmon]

1+1=10

1+1 is obviously 11.  How can a '1' ever become a '0'?

[Ransom]

What is wrong with you people? 1+1 clearly = a window.

[General Freak]

Darwinian evolution has survived well over a century of scientific scrutiny and is yet to be disproved, marking it as good science. ID has barely existed, what, two decades, is fundamentally un-testable (and therefore not disproveable, and thus not scientific), and supported by 'evidence' that is easily disproven. Thus it's not good science, or science at all.[/bw]

I mostly agree, but ID has existed ever since the first religion with a 'creation god' was started.

[Black Wolf]

Darwinian evolution has survived well over a century of scientific scrutiny and is yet to be disproved, marking it as good science. ID has barely existed, what, two decades, is fundamentally un-testable (and therefore not disproveable, and thus not scientific), and supported by 'evidence' that is easily disproven. Thus it's not good science, or science at all.[/bw]

I mostly agree, but ID has existed ever since the first religion with a 'creation god' was started.

Depends on who you talk to. To sensible people like you and me, you're right. To the proponents of ID, it's a new theory, totally separate from that kind of religious creationism.

[an0n]

I get dibs on the Plasma rifles!!

*heads to the lockers and tries to open them

I get dibs on the Big Sharp Knife™.

* an0n sneaks up behind Singh, stabs him through the heart and takes the plasma rifles

[aldo_14]

Why couldn't those peeps just say that both evolution and intelligent design are possibilities, or better yet, teach both of them to us and let US decide?

Because evolution is science and intelligent design - creationism - is a religious belief (whose posing as science consists of trying to - often wrongly - poke holes within evolutionary theory without specifying any detailed alternative theory).  As kara pointed out, a scientific theory has to be testable and evidenced.  It also has to be open to disproof.  And formed from a hypothesis supported by evidence.

ID meets none of these conditions; partially because it's being pushed by a composite group of fundamentalist Christian groups (because even the Catholic church, for example, accepts evolution as a valid theory - their theological beef would be with abiogenesis) with different beliefs of bible literalism, such that a literal definition would be causing arguements between the flat earthists, young earthists, directed evolution, etc groups.  Also it's in their interests never to define ID in scientific terms as it could be disproven; antithesis to what is essentially an attempt to crowbar Christian theology into the classroom.

I remember the last, long thread on this.  Someone - I believe it was Stealth, not sure (apols if I'm mistaken) - made several arguements based on quotes from famous scientists.  One of these was completely made up, the other was true but...er... made up via cutting out large chunks from a paragraph to give the opposite meaning.  And then refusing to acknowledge the many transitional fossils that are known, like (for example) the equine ancestor fossils from (IIRC) South America.  and soforth.

That's the level of 'science' we're talking here.  Well, really I mean level of ignorance; it's born of intentional misunderstanding, ignoring or dismissing factual evidence.  That's fine - for faith.  Not for anything even masquerading as serious science.

Evolution can be taught in biology, creationism in R.E.  I'd say that's fair and represents the merits of both as a theory of complex life.  This verdict is a victory for common sense and rationality.

[Wanderer]

A bit OT, but:

If anyone is atleast a bit interested in the applications (sort of) of evolution and such you might better see some of these (online) lectures about astrobiology. They lay nice groundwork for speculations of evolution, life, the origin of life and other such minor issues

[Mefustae]

For those of you hazy on the subject, ie. thesizzler, if you've got a spare hour or 4, take a glance at the last thread on the subject that Kara and Aldo have been alluding to - http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35524.0.html - to which ID, Evolution, Seperation of Church & State, and soforth were discussed ad nausium, without (amazingly) deteriorating into a flamewar.

[aldo_14]

For those of you hazy on the subject, ie. thesizzler, if you've got a spare hour or 4, take a glance at the last thread on the subject that Kara and Aldo have been alluding to - http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35524.0.html - to which ID, Evolution, Seperation of Church & State, and soforth were discussed ad nausium, without (amazingly) deteriorating into a flamewar.

I bought The Blind Watchmaker as a more or less direct result of that thread.  I recommend it thoroughly; it's brilliantly informative.

[Rson]

The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory may explain how the universe came into being but not why or what the 'first cause' is and therefore, on their own, destroy the existence of a creator-god, but other factors may.  This is what most Christians beleive, it's just fundamntalist 'creationists' that hang on the old biblical story of Genesis as 'fact'.

[Black Wolf]

For those of you hazy on the subject, ie. thesizzler, if you've got a spare hour or 4, take a glance at the last thread on the subject that Kara and Aldo have been alluding to - http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35524.0.html - to which ID, Evolution, Seperation of Church & State, and soforth were discussed ad nausium, without (amazingly) deteriorating into a flamewar.

I hate reading old treadfs like that. So much stupidity, so many misconceptions, so many factual errors - and it's far too late to call people on them. Oh well. Next time.

[Kamikaze]

Going along with this OT trend... 29 Evidences for Macroevolution is a good resource to learn about the actual evidence behind evolution. It's also a good resource because it lists how evolution could be disproved (can you disprove Intelligent Design?).

[ionia23]

I asked a cosomology undergraduate some time ago (through email, by curiousity) about the whole Intelligent Design theory.  he said:

"I'd welcome it, if it were true.  That would answer all of our questions in one shot.  All of them except, 'how'd they do it?'"

The whole purpose of pushing intelligent design into the classrooms was theological.  I'm serious, not just being Mr. Kill-Jesus-Now Liberal.  Take something pretty concrete, like evolution, and poke holes in it.  What better to fill a whole in a belief than faith?

Sure, I'd love to see a class where the creation theories of different religions could be discussed, but that isn't a science class.

Christian woman at coffeeshop:  "The Bible says God created the world.  Do you really think you can argue against God?"

Me:  "The Bible says a lot of things, the least of which being that you are subservient to me, woman.  You will be silent, now."

[aldo_14]

I asked a cosomology undergraduate some time ago (through email, by curiousity) about the whole Intelligent Design theory. he said:

"I'd welcome it, if it were true. That would answer all of our questions in one shot. All of them except, 'how'd they do it?'"

The whole purpose of pushing intelligent design into the classrooms was theological. I'm serious, not just being Mr. Kill-Jesus-Now Liberal. Take something pretty concrete, like evolution, and poke holes in it. What better to fill a whole in a belief than faith?

Sure, I'd love to see a class where the creation theories of different religions could be discussed, but that isn't a science class.

Christian woman at coffeeshop: "The Bible says God created the world. Do you really think you can argue against God?"

Me: "The Bible says a lot of things, the least of which being that you are subservient to me, woman. You will be silent, now."

To paraphrase Dawkins; we can say life was created by God. But then we have the question of how did God come into being?  The creationist answer is 'God has always existed'.  So why not say, 'life has always existed' and be done with it?

[WMCoolmon]

To paraphrase Dawkins; we can say life was created by God. But then we have the question of how did God come into being?  The creationist answer is 'God has always existed'.  So why not say, 'life has always existed' and be done with it?

Well, in order to that, I suppose you have to answer according either to human nature (Curiosity about the unknown to facilitate discovery of things that might be usable for one's self-benefit) or a reason for human advancement. ie meaning of life.

[aldo_14]

To paraphrase Dawkins; we can say life was created by God. But then we have the question of how did God come into being? The creationist answer is 'God has always existed'. So why not say, 'life has always existed' and be done with it?

Well, in order to that, I suppose you have to answer according either to human nature (Curiosity about the unknown to facilitate discovery of things that might be usable for one's self-benefit) or a reason for human advancement. ie meaning of life.

That's not what he means.  What he means is, creationism is 'answering' the question of life, evolution, etc by simply adding an unknown.  That by simply assuming God as creationism does, it's no different to just going the whole hog and assuming life has always existed, forever.  Likewise for the creation/origins universe, matter, etc.

[WMCoolmon]

Well, yeah, I was more responding to the last question than anything.

[Ghost]

Christian woman at coffeeshop:  "The Bible says God created the world.  Do you really think you can argue against God?"

Me:  "The Bible says a lot of things, the least of which being that you are subservient to me, woman.  You will be silent, now."

You, sir, are a winner. I will use this next time some chick gives me **** about creationism and whatnot.

[Singh]

I get dibs on the Plasma rifles!!

*heads to the lockers and tries to open them

I get dibs on the Big Sharp Knife™.

* an0n sneaks up behind Singh, stabs him through the heart and takes the plasma rifles

Darnit...and here I was thinking I had stayed on your "Do not kill horribly and painfully" list

In either case, this is a good development. Some people finally making sense. Even though I dont completely have confidence in Evolution, it is, at the very least, logical and a far, far better alternative than ID.

But still, the scientific and academic community in general these days is starting to scare me, just as much as the church sometimes does.