Kansas School Boards Approves "Intelligent Design" Theory in Science Textbooks

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Science doesn't have to be natural?...lol..okay so where does "science" take place Ush..if it doesn't take place in the Natural world..where else does it take place and what else does it describe?

Does it take place and describe the metaphysical world? 😕

Please elaborate on this new discovery that you've enlightened us with my friend.

Once again strawman arguments..Attacking the arguer..rather than the argument. I have as of yet not received a response from you regarding any of my inquiries. So I'm assuming you don't have a response, and are unable to intellectually and independantly answer them.(independently meaning..not going to google and typing in "evolution..then cutting/pasting a response from someone else)

To be fair to you though..I will repost all questions once again..with the hope that you will at some point gather the information..or perhaps ability..to answer them. The questions/arguments are piling up Ush. And I as many others are eagerly anticipating [b]your answers. [/B]

Well, for a start, science CAN be metaphysical if it wants to be- that's what Big Bang theory is.

Secondly, it should be patently obvious to anyone with a brain to all that science often analyses the operation of man-made things that are therefore NOT natural. The purely natural area of science is simply one branch.

Use terms like 'straw man' all you like- as it is, I am very much attacking the argument and have posted reams of evidence doing so. It also so happens that I firmly believer that everyone who holds your belief is an idiot that insults the rational capacity of the Human race. Go figure.

As for your inquiries- go read my earlier posts. Read them properly. Your whining about them being quotes from someone else does not impress me- they are cogent and relevant and explain my points and why your requests are hopeless. And note how silly you are being.

I doubt you will, of course, because you will defend this iditic fallacy 100% until your dying day- and a sad demonstration you are of how woefully deluded a person can make himself. But I will just point out one things- there is massive amounts of observable evidence for the process of evolution, which is what the theories are based on. Every time you say there is not, you are either being stupid, or just lying.

I will repeat- only those who have completely lost touch with the process of rationality and the application of the scientific method could possibly call the massively refined, inter-debated and well supported thoery of evolution anything even remotely approaching a faith. It's just plainw rong to do so. What whob is saying is wrong.

It take a certain amount of "faith" to believe in the theory of evolution. And it leaves many questions unanswered, but so far as science goes I suppose it's as good a shaky foundation as we're gonna get.

There are monkeys.

And there are men.

Yet there are no men-monkeys.

If evolution was a continuous process, there would be.

-----------------------------------------

Likewise, there are reptiles. There are birds.

Supposedly birds evolved from reptiles.

Yet there are no Sparrow-diles or Alli-turkeys.

-----------------------------------

The more complex the creature, the more complicated it's DNA.

A bird has more complex DNA than an ant.

An ant has more complex DNA than an amoeba.

Yet supposedly we 'evolved' from these amoebas via random mutations?

How can scientists say this, when they themselves have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that mutation can only result in the LOSS of genetic information from DNA... not the gain of genetic information...?

--------------------------------------------

For example....

Take the Wolf - the ancestor of modern dogs.

Say this wolf starts off in a temperate country where it's hair is medium length to suit the climate.

Some dogs go off North, where it's colder. Due to the colder climate, the dogs with shorter hair will tend to die out easier, leaving more dogs with longer hair to pass on their long-hair genes. Over time, all short-haired dogs will be gone and the only genes being passed on are the genes for long haired dogs.

Evolution? Or loss of genetic information?

Some dogs went south, to a hot country. The dogs with longer hair tend to overheat and die, leaving more short-hair dogs to pass on their genes. Eventually, the longhaired gene is lost and the short-haired gene is predominant.

Again - is this evolution? Is this advancement? Or is the fact that they can no longer breed long-haired dogs a loss of information?

---------------------------------------------

I have been a Christian for three years, since I was 18 years old.

I was as sceptical as anyone - nay - I was downright nasty to Christians, just as many are on this board.

But since I made the choice to become a Christian, my life has changed, I'm no longer depressed as I was and I am now married to my beautiful wife.

Even since becoming a Christian, it's been difficult struggling with issues such as creation, with the media and schools constantly telling people that evolution is fact, not theory.

But I've seen the questions and scenarios above posed to top scientists, top biologists, top professors in America and Britain. And no-one has come up with the goods.

I'm the last person who'd ever brandish a stick and tell you that you're wrong with your viewpoint. It's not my job.

I know people probably gonna rip me a new hole for this post, and if they feel anger or resentment towards me or my words then that's their choice.

I've only posted my two pennies' worth. 🙂

I have never had any satisfactory explanation of the above. Yet I've had many a time where the words of the Bible have been proven right in my own life and experiences. 🙂

Know I've been nothing but calm. Nothing but nice, honest, open and non-threatening in this post. I'm not telling anyone how to live or think. Just telling you about how I think and questions that I have.

Yet you just watch people leap on me, to tear me apart. 🙂

That's a very nice post. And both sides tear into each other. Both sides have certain people who feel to degnerate the other side's opinions.

Which is why I like to take a moderate approach to most political issues. Too messy...

In this instance, "Intelligent Design" is almost an oxymoron. That it is even being considered...well, this explains why one political party -- and Bush -- have been voted in twice to "govern" our country for the last few years.

BTW, where can I sign up for the Flat Earth Society?

I believe their website is www.dumbshits.com.

Originally posted by Draco69
That's a very nice post. And both sides tear into each other. Both sides have certain people who feel to degnerate the other side's opinions.

Which is why I like to take a moderate approach to most political issues. Too messy...

Very good point. And for someone who is obviously neutral, it's a good position to take. 🙂

And anyone who calls themselves a Christian but launches headfirst into a debate, where tempers flare and heated words are exchanged, is just kidding themselves.

A Christian is called to let people know about the Bible and Jesus - then leave the rest up to God. 🙂

Not to involve themselves in arguments that just end up hurting peoples' feelings. 🙁

Perhaps this will help...

As I understand it, Intelligent Design says that our universe is too finely tuned in all of its constants (eg, charge of the electron, speed of light) to chalk it all up to coincidence. What are the odds that everything would work out so darn well?

In cosmology, a similar position is called the anthropic principle: the universe is the way it is because, if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

But there is also something in cosmology called quantum cosmology, wherein the universe is treated as having a wave function, which implies that our universe exists in an infinite number of states. In other words: there are an infinite number of universes, all kinds of universes, some exactly like ours except for one small detail; others so different as to be totally unrecognizable.

If there are an infinite number of universes (and current attempts to unify the forces of nature, or understand the Why of quantum mechanics, suggests there are), then there is no mystery why ours is the way it is. Given an infinite number, eventually you will find one with the constants of our universe. We just happen to be living in that kind of universe which supports creatures which can ponder such questions. Meanwhile, out of "sight" there are many, many more realities where the constants haven't been so life-friendly.

I think what people react to with I.D. is that it suggests a "literal" interpretation of religious doctrine, which, historically has caused more misery than joy. And not just historically, even now: our world is threatened by those who would insist that their medieval view of the world is the correct one, to the point where they are willing to use WMDs (or even just suicide bombers) against innocent, live-and-let-live / many-colors-make-a-rainbow societies.

I have nothing against God (I like the "Guy"😉. It's just that I see His Infinite Intelligence being far more vast than anything humans could ever put into words. Evolution, because it pursues facts which can be repeated, shared, demonstrated, etc, seems to be, IMO, a closer map of His reality than anything else to date.

Originally posted by PVS
well, to enjoy another's suffering is worthy of hell in itself, isnt it?
what would jesus think of such a wish?

that is the part of christianity which has always bothered me and turned me off to organised religion. not the concept of hell, but the wish for it on others, which would fall under "revenge" if im not mistaken.

its one thing to acknowledge that there is a hell and those who piss god off will fry in it, and its another thing entirely to feel that you are somehow a spokesman for god and would be so bold as to damn others in his name...and worse yet, find glee in the thought of someone's eternal suffering...i find that disturbing beyond belief. not to target you, but its such a widespread accepted and encouraged attitude...i have to ask WHY?

I was saying that for effect.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, for a start, science CAN be metaphysical if it wants to be- that's what Big Bang theory is.

Well Ush..you do realize that you've just justified astrology, phrenology, and a host of other psuedosciences. Many of these are "metaphysical" studies as well....

Which essentially what TOE/Cosmology(Big bang) are..metaphysical philosophies which are flowered with scientific jargon..nothing more nothing less.

However..why don't you give me some testable hypothesi relating to cosmology. When you're done with that, as I have already asked of you a multitude of times..give me some testable hypothesi and evidence supporting each hypothesi which relates to random mutations forming new families of plants and animals.

Secondly, it should be patently obvious to anyone with a brain to all that science often analyses the operation of man-made things that are therefore NOT natural. The purely natural area of science is simply one branch.

Man made things are not natural? 😕

Many things are not produced naturally..naturally meaning..they aren't produced in nature.

However..they are still composed of processes/elements that exist within the natural world.

A nectorine is not found in nature..it's a man made hybrid. It is the cross polination between a peach and a plum..correct? Does this mean that it somehow is not related to natural science..since it was artificially made? Of course not..that's a silly supposition.

That's essentially where your logic begins Ush. Regardless of whether or not a process is "artificial" or "natural" it still exists within the natural laws that embody science..therefore it is part of natural science...🙄

This is correct..unless you are now going to tell me that "Man Made" things are not composed of processes/elements that make up the natural world...😕

So are "Man made" processes/elements/etc made from things that represent the "metaphysical" or "spiritual world" Ush? Please enlighten me once again my friend...it seems as if you have once again come up with a newfound scientific discovery..😆😆

Use terms like 'straw man' all you like- as it is, I am very much attacking the argument and have posted reams of evidence doing so. It also so happens that I firmly believer that everyone who holds your belief is an idiot that insults the rational capacity of the Human race. Go figure.

As for your inquiries- go read my earlier posts. Read them properly. Your whining about them being quotes from someone else does not impress me- they are cogent and relevant and explain my points and why your requests are hopeless. And note how silly you are being.

I doubt you will, of course, because you will defend this iditic fallacy 100% until your dying day- and a sad demonstration you are of how woefully deluded a person can make himself. But I will just point out one things- there is massive amounts of observable evidence for the process of evolution, which is what the theories are based on. Every time you say there is not, you are either being stupid, or just lying.

I will repeat- only those who have completely lost touch with the process of rationality and the application of the scientific method could possibly call the massively refined, inter-debated and well supported thoery of evolution anything even remotely approaching a faith. It's just plainw rong to do so. What whob is saying is wrong.

Translation to Ush's post provided by whobdamandog
If you don't agree with me..you are an idiot. I'm right..and you are wrong...Nah..nah..nah..nah..boo..booh..I've won.

I think that pretty much sums up the above. Once again Ush..you condemning those who do not agree with you demonstrates your overall immaturity, naivety, and ignorance. Very childlike. You haven't even adressed any of the questions that I so humbly asked of you, so I'll assume that you can't.

In summary..Neo Darwinism and ID are both philosophical theories. I do not believe in censorship, and believe that everyone should have the right to express their views..as long as their views are represented in an intellectual/tactful/ and informative way. That being stated...both ID/Neo Darwinism should be allowed to be taught in science class.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
There are monkeys.

And there are men.

Yet there are no men-monkeys.

If evolution was a continuous process, there would be.

-----------------------------------------

Likewise, there are reptiles. There are birds.

Supposedly birds evolved from reptiles.

Yet there are no Sparrow-diles or Alli-turkeys.

-----------------------------------

The more complex the creature, the more complicated it's DNA.

A bird has more complex DNA than an ant.

An ant has more complex DNA than an amoeba.

Yet supposedly we 'evolved' from these amoebas via random mutations?

How can scientists say this, when they themselves have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that mutation can only result in the LOSS of genetic information from DNA... not the gain of genetic information...?

--------------------------------------------

For example....

Take the Wolf - the ancestor of modern dogs.

Say this wolf starts off in a temperate country where it's hair is medium length to suit the climate.

Some dogs go off North, where it's colder. Due to the colder climate, the dogs with shorter hair will tend to die out easier, leaving more dogs with longer hair to pass on their long-hair genes. Over time, all short-haired dogs will be gone and the only genes being passed on are the genes for long haired dogs.

Evolution? Or loss of genetic information?

Some dogs went south, to a hot country. The dogs with longer hair tend to overheat and die, leaving more short-hair dogs to pass on their genes. Eventually, the longhaired gene is lost and the short-haired gene is predominant.

Again - is this evolution? Is this advancement? Or is the fact that they can no longer breed long-haired dogs a loss of information?

---------------------------------------------

I have been a Christian for three years, since I was 18 years old.

I was as sceptical as anyone - nay - I was downright nasty to Christians, just as many are on this board.

But since I made the choice to become a Christian, my life has changed, I'm no longer depressed as I was and I am now married to my beautiful wife.

Even since becoming a Christian, it's been difficult struggling with issues such as creation, with the media and schools constantly telling people that evolution is fact, not theory.

But I've seen the questions and scenarios above posed to top scientists, top biologists, top professors in America and Britain. And no-one has come up with the goods.

I'm the last person who'd ever brandish a stick and tell you that you're wrong with your viewpoint. It's not my job.

I know people probably gonna rip me a new hole for this post, and if they feel anger or resentment towards me or my words then that's their choice.

I've only posted my two pennies' worth. 🙂

I have never had any satisfactory explanation of the above. Yet I've had many a time where the words of the Bible have been proven right in my own life and experiences. 🙂

Know I've been nothing but calm. Nothing but nice, honest, open and non-threatening in this post. I'm not telling anyone how to live or think. Just telling you about how I think and questions that I have.

Yet you just watch people leap on me, to tear me apart. 🙂

Very well thought out and well written post. I hope someone actually gives you a direct response..but as you probably have noted that never happens in these forums.

Well done, Zephro. Kudos! 🍺

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Very well thought out and well written post. I hope someone actually gives you a direct response..but as you probably have noted that never happens in these forums.

Yes, well thought out. Now, is there anyone who isn't a Jesus freak that can justify including mythology and faith in a science class?

Originally posted by PVS
WHO is assuming? 😂
the irony tickles me

Were you right about me? No, never.

So, I'll just sit back and continue to troll around the General Discussion Form filled to the gills with you silly bunch of upper middle class suburban white kids trying to make yourself feel relevant by pretending you have an opinion on situations you have no experience with. 🙄

You're funny, but also embarrassing. 🙁

Nice sig....😆 How old are you again?

My comments are in bold, inside the quote

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
There are monkeys.

And there are men.

Yet there are no men-monkeys.

If evolution was a continuous process, there would be.

That is because they have a common ancestor. There are no men-monkies, as you put it, becuase they are contemporaries on teh evolutionary scale

-----------------------------------------

Likewise, there are reptiles. There are birds.

Supposedly birds evolved from reptiles.

Yet there are no Sparrow-diles or Alli-turkeys.

Birds did not evolve from reptiles, they evolved from different species of proto-saura...common ancestors with the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were not reptiles. Most current research indicates that they we, in fact, warm-blooded Again, terrible example

-----------------------------------

The more complex the creature, the more complicated it's DNA.

A bird has more complex DNA than an ant.

An ant has more complex DNA than an amoeba.

Yet supposedly we 'evolved' from these amoebas via random mutations?

How can scientists say this, when they themselves have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that mutation can only result in the LOSS of genetic information from DNA... not the gain of genetic information...?

Also not true. Yes, amounts of DNA strands does seem to have a correlation to the "complexity" of the species. However, that has nothing to do with the complex ways in which DNA works. Virus' adapt and evolve into super-viruses. Again, if the most simple forms of life can adapt and change, then why can't we?

Feel free to provide evidence that mutation of genes only results in loss.

--------------------------------------------

For example....

Take the Wolf - the ancestor of modern dogs.

Say this wolf starts off in a temperate country where it's hair is medium length to suit the climate.

Some dogs go off North, where it's colder. Due to the colder climate, the dogs with shorter hair will tend to die out easier, leaving more dogs with longer hair to pass on their long-hair genes. Over time, all short-haired dogs will be gone and the only genes being passed on are the genes for long haired dogs.

Evolution? Or loss of genetic information?

Some dogs went south, to a hot country. The dogs with longer hair tend to overheat and die, leaving more short-hair dogs to pass on their genes. Eventually, the longhaired gene is lost and the short-haired gene is predominant.

Again - is this evolution? Is this advancement? Or is the fact that they can no longer breed long-haired dogs a loss of information?

There's nothing wrong with your examples. But, this is not evolution, this is adaptation. And the genes that result in the long or short hair of the species are not lost, simply turned off...until such a time when they can be useful again.

Also, dogs do not come from Wolves. Again, they are contemporaries...they share a common ancestor.

---------------------------------------------

I have been a Christian for three years, since I was 18 years old.

I was as sceptical as anyone - nay - I was downright nasty to Christians, just as many are on this board.

But since I made the choice to become a Christian, my life has changed, I'm no longer depressed as I was and I am now married to my beautiful wife.

Even since becoming a Christian, it's been difficult struggling with issues such as creation, with the media and schools constantly telling people that evolution is fact, not theory.

But I've seen the questions and scenarios above posed to top scientists, top biologists, top professors in America and Britain. And no-one has come up with the goods.

I'm the last person who'd ever brandish a stick and tell you that you're wrong with your viewpoint. It's not my job.

I know people probably gonna rip me a new hole for this post, and if they feel anger or resentment towards me or my words then that's their choice.

I've only posted my two pennies' worth. 🙂

I have never had any satisfactory explanation of the above. Yet I've had many a time where the words of the Bible have been proven right in my own life and experiences. 🙂

Know I've been nothing but calm. Nothing but nice, honest, open and non-threatening in this post. I'm not telling anyone how to live or think. Just telling you about how I think and questions that I have.

Yet you just watch people leap on me, to tear me apart. 🙂

As I have said before in this thread, I have no problem with your faith. It does sadden me that in a majority of instances it causes the faithful to close their minds to reason and logic. However, your obsession with your faith should not be impressed on children IN A SCIENCE CLASS!

Originally posted by long pig
Am I right about you? Yes, of course. Always.

Were you right about me? No, never.

So, I'll just sit back and continue to troll around the General Discussion Form filled to the gills with you silly bunch of upper middle class suburban white kids trying to make yourself feel relevant by pretending you have an opinion on situations you have no experience with. 🙄

You're funny, but also embarrassing. 🙁

Nice sig....😆 How old are you again?

PVS is far from being a suburban kid. In fact it''s been many years since he was a kid at all.

The GDF is actually populated wioth quite a few members over 25 years old. It's nice to see you tell people that they seem to not have a clue what they are talking about, and then go about showing everyone that you no even less.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
There are monkeys.
And there are men.
Yet there are no men-monkeys.
If evolution was a continuous process, there would be.

Or you could look at many of the proto humans such as Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo erectus,Homo ergaster, Homo habilis, Homo erectus or Neandertals (actually more of a relation than a proto human). Men were not thought to come ditectly from monkeys. Evolution believes that Homo Sapien evolved from apes. If you are looking for a link between a spidermonkey and people, you either think on too simple of level, or have not at all studied evolution.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian

Likewise, there are reptiles. There are birds.
Supposedly birds evolved from reptiles.
Yet there are no Sparrow-diles or Alli-turkeys.

You might want to go to google and research ARCHAEOPTERYX.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
How can scientists say this, when they themselves have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that mutation can only result in the LOSS of genetic information from DNA... not the gain of genetic information...?

Beyond any shadow of a doubt? I was unaware of this and would appreciate more information on these inconclusive findings which completely debunk evolution.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian

I have been a Christian for three years, since I was 18 years old.

I was as sceptical as anyone - nay - I was downright nasty to Christians, just as many are on this board.

But since I made the choice to become a Christian, my life has changed, I'm no longer depressed as I was and I am now married to my beautiful wife.

Even since becoming a Christian, it's been difficult struggling with issues such as creation, with the media and schools constantly telling people that evolution is fact, not theory.

As wonderful that this is for you that you have found meaning in you life through religion, it is a moot point when debating whether religion or religious beliefs should be taught in science classes.

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
But I've seen the questions and scenarios above posed to top scientists, top biologists, top professors in America and Britain. And no-one has come up with the goods.

Define what you mean by "the goods" please. You have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever for you to believe that evolution is even remotely possible?

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
I have never had any satisfactory explanation of the above. Yet I've had many a time where the words of the Bible have been proven right in my own life and experiences. 🙂

The bible was written many years ago by men. Through the ages it has been translated from ancient hebrew (only 1/4 of which is now recognizable) to latin, back to hebrew, back to latin, and then on to dutch, english, french, italian and so on.

Many words and ideas morph or are hard to express through translation. Over the years that it was translated many ideas, politics and religious beliefs changed, thereby affecting the translations and interpretations.

Yet these words, that have, in a sense, evolved over time hold more validity and truth to you than the scientific findings of yesterday and today?

Originally posted by ZephroCarnelian
Yet you just watch people leap on me, to tear me apart. 🙂

Well, when you post in an open forum on a topic that is so heated you have to expect emotions to run high. But please don't prepare to play the victim, it lessons any validity of your comments as your response to any retort can be " you are just attacking me".

Your man-monkey and reptile-bird arguments were rather weak. Your self professed faith and enlightenment through the bible, though wonderful for you, does not relate to the topic (well maybe in in a most peripheral way).

The question is, does a faith based belief have any place in an environment where science is being discussed?

Kharma, you basically just repeated everything I said in my last post.

Great minds I suppose.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Kharma, you basically just repeated everything I said in my last post.

Great minds I suppose.

Sorry to be redundant.

PVS is far from being a suburban kid. In fact it's been many years since he was a kid at all.

That just makes it so much worse. At least a 19 year old has an excuse for being so idealistic.