Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design'

Page 6 of 8 [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

26 Oct 2005, 6:11 am

lenny77 wrote:
im talking about the "missing links" (but i think you know them well dont you?)

Because of the special circumstances required for a complete fossil to be preserved, paleontologists are never going to discover transitional fossils for every organism on Earth. These don't signify "gaps" in the theory itself any more than the fact that we can't directly see atoms with our present technology means the atomic theory has gaps. What's important to remember is that everything we have found confirms the theory of evolution.

Think about atomic theory. It's changed so rapidly in the past hundred years that even scientists on the cutting edge will only accept any current atomic model with a grain of salt. Yet these latest models are still being taught in schools. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has stood the test of time as a reliable explanation for the development of life, nearly unchanged for a hundred and forty years. That's why it should be taught.



lenny77
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Hamburg, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, ???

26 Oct 2005, 7:52 am

i agree with you. it should be taught! but discussion doesnt harm does it?
its an opportunity for teachers (and other students) to open the eyes of children with christian or muslim or whatthefückever religions background.
but your explanation wont make a change of mind to creationists.

in my opinion these gaps are even another proves for evolution:
think of those which were found in recent years. and of those which will be found in the future!


they will never be mentioned by creationists or fans of the intelligent design hypothesis!! :D



ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

26 Oct 2005, 8:03 am

lenny77 wrote:
i agree with you. it should be taught! but discussion doesnt harm does it?

Not at all -- as long as it's in a contemporary issues class or the debate club.

lenny77 wrote:
its an opportunity for teachers (and other students) to open the eyes of children with christian or muslim or whatthe****ever religions background.
but your explanation wont make a change of mind to creationists.

in my opinion these gaps are even another proves for evolution:
think of those which were found in recent years. and of those which will be found in the future!


they will never be mentioned by creationists or fans of the intelligent design hypothesis!! :D

Yep... the situation in Kansas proves that. :(



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

26 Oct 2005, 5:01 pm

ghotistix wrote:
Not at all -- as long as it's in a contemporary issues class or the debate club.
There should be a comparative study in that class that is teaching Evolution in that class.

It would be better if You had something to compare to Evolution like Intelligent Design in that classroom; for the student(s) to decide for themselves and debate if need be in that classroom. School is for learning even debating various subjects in the classroom. That is how the student(s) truly learn and decide what is important in their understanding of what Life is to them.

It should not just be in the contemporary issues class or debate club it truly belongs in the classroom for sure.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


Grievous
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: Minnesota

26 Oct 2005, 11:32 pm

The problem is that too many people presume that evolution is scientifically valid. It isn't. Intelligent design is a far more valid theory. Just becasue it does not have Humanistic Naturalism as it's basis don't be so quick to dismiss it. :roll: Science is about discovering truth. Darwin himself proposed both ways of teaching.



ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

27 Oct 2005, 1:15 am

kevv729 wrote:
It should not just be in the contemporary issues class or debate club it truly belongs in the classroom for sure.

Children go to school to learn facts, and they go to church to learn about religion. Intelligent Design, no matter how it's stripped down, is a spiritual belief. It's a matter of faith. I don't have any issue with parents sending their children to private schools that teach religious beliefs instead of evolution, but when the public school curriculum starts forcing religious beliefs on everybody then our country has turned its back on the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Grievous wrote:
The problem is that too many people presume that evolution is scientifically valid. It isn't. Intelligent design is a far more valid theory. Just becasue it does not have Humanistic Naturalism as it's basis don't be so quick to dismiss it. :roll:

You keep saying that, but do you have any studies to back it up?



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

27 Oct 2005, 1:53 am

ghotistix

Then maybe they need to teach only science in schools not theory. Need to then take out Evolution in the schools.

Then they could debate it in a contemporary issues class or debate club were it belongs. It does not belong in school then.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

27 Oct 2005, 2:04 am

All science is based on theories.



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

27 Oct 2005, 2:13 am

ghotistix wrote:
Intelligent Design, no matter how it's stripped down, is a spiritual belief.
How is a stripped down Intelligent Design still a spiritual belief.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

27 Oct 2005, 2:19 am

It relies on vague, unfalsifiable assumptions.



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

27 Oct 2005, 3:13 am

ghotistix

The theory of Evolution to me is unfalsifiable and full of assumptions.

I believe that the animals adapted not evolved over the years.

Take Darwin's Galapagos finches they may come from one finch or one type of finch, but they became different types of finches because they just adapted to their environment. The finches are still finches, they never evolved into something else, they just again stayed finches.

The same with the horse they have been around for 60 million years. They have adapted over the 60 million years, But they have remained horses, and again they stayed horses.

Evolution assumes that the finches and horses evolved when only they adapted.

Maybe the schools need to teach Adaptation Theory not Evolution Theory.

Remember Evolution has not yet truly been proven yet.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

27 Oct 2005, 3:38 am

kevv729 wrote:
ghotistix

The theory of Evolution to me is unfalsifiable and full of assumptions.

Unlike Intelligent Design, evolution relies on evidence. The theory attempts to explain certain scientific observations while remaining open to scrutiny -- the individual facets can be double-checked by anyone. And they have been double-checked more thoroughly than nearly any other theory. I have yet to see any contradicting evidence.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, can't be double-checked because it has no observable evidence. No matter how much we learn about the world, the ideas of religious proponents are so vague that they can be adapted -- evolved, if you will -- so that they can never be disproved.

kevv729 wrote:
I believe that the animals adapted not evolved over the years.

Take Darwin's Galapagos finches they may come from one finch or one type of finch, but they became different types of finches because they just adapted to their environment. The finches are still finches, they never evolved into something else, they just again stayed finches.

The same with the horse they have been around for 60 million years. They have adapted over the 60 million years, But they have remained horses, and again they stay horses.

Evolution assumes that the finches and horses evolved when only they adapted.

The evolutionary process has shown that all contemporary organisms share common ancestors. The horse was not always a horse; before a certain point, the creature that would evolve into it looked nothing LIKE a horse. But that animal split into so many other animals that would later evolve into the ones we know today that we don't classify it as a horse. That's why you don't see diagrams detailing its path all the way back to a single-celled bacteria. The same thing applies with Darwin's finches.

kevv729 wrote:
Maybe the schools need to teach Adaptation Theory not Evolution Theory.

Remember Evolution has not yet truly been proven yet.

It's widely accepted among scientists and educators as the central theory on organism development.



Last edited by ghotistix on 27 Oct 2005, 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

27 Oct 2005, 3:53 am

ghotistix wrote:
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, can't be double-checked because it has no observable evidence. No matter how much we learn about the world, the ideas of religious proponents are so vague that they can be adapted -- evolved, if you will -- so that they can never be disproved.


this is part of Popper's argument (scientific philosophy) - a theory has to be falsifiable. whether we like it or not, we're living and working within a (Popperian) scientific paradigm, at the present time, even if Popper's epistemology is prone to difficulties, including the difficulty of falsification itself. however, if we are within an empirical paradigm (and we have been since the 17th century), we have to reject a priori arguments as they have no evidence and are not falsifiable.

Feyerabend disagrees, but is considered to be unscientific. and, of course, there is always the issue of underdetermination.

i'd stick with "agreeing to differ", personally.



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

27 Oct 2005, 5:26 am

ghotistix and vertivert

Science in itself has become a philosophy of beliefs that in the end borders on the religious.

Evolution is philosophy that many take as being absolute. I have said this one to many times that I have come across many in Science that see it as their religion, are they then BLINDED by their BELIEFS. I have heard many arguments from them that they thought I should believe in what they believed. No matter what I believe it is how I see it that matters to me.

The evidence still shows me what I see it is called LIFE, we all see LIFE differently, that is what LIFE is. Science will never truly explain what is LIFE. Science will truly never know LIFE. Science will truly never understand LIFE.

We can come up with all the theories about LIFE and they are just theories.

Darwin's Galapagos finches are just birds that only adapted to LIFE. They remained finches they remained birds. They never evolved one bit. Darwin only described these finches and their ADAPTATIONS ONLY.

We only can describe the horses through the fossils only. They only show the ADAPTATIONS that they have gone through.

LIFE is full of ADAPTATIONS. Evolution does not truly EXPLAIN these ADAPTATIONS. Evolution and Science will never be able to truly EXPLAIN THEM EITHER.

We may even see it differently in the future.

Even LIFE might truly show us something new, that we will have to study and come up with a new theory or theories one day.

As we have a Intelligent Designer that has made us also intelligent beings called HUMANS.

Just something to think about.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

27 Oct 2005, 5:49 am

kevv729 wrote:
The evidence still shows me what I see it is called LIFE, we all see LIFE differently, that is what LIFE is. Science will never truly explain what is LIFE. Science will truly never know LIFE. Science will truly never understand LIFE.

We can come up with all the theories about LIFE and they are just theories.

If you refuse to believe the theory I don't really care. I just hope you realize things that aren't science don't belong in a scientific classroom, and when people start thinking otherwise then we are on the yellow brick road to thought control. People have the right to learn anything they want -- that includes both the right to go to a private school if they want to learn the teachings of their religion and the right to go to a public school if they want to learn facts.



eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

27 Oct 2005, 6:02 am

ghotistix wrote:
People have the right to learn anything they want -- that includes both the right to go to a private school if they want to learn the teachings of their religion and the right to go to a public school if they want to learn facts.


Unfortunately that really means the parents decise they go to a religious school. Schools shouldnt be allowed to be any denomination. The parents can send the kids to sunday school for religious education or do the brainwashing themselves as a lot of them already do anyway.