# On the teaching of Evolution and Intelligent Design



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

*You take a look at your child's science curriculum and you see that Intelligent Design is being taught. What do you do?*​
Do nothing, I agree with the ID philosophy.312.00%I would ask whether evolution is also being taught as an equal alternative and if so, then fine.936.00%I would pull my child because I don't believe Intelligent Design should be taught as an alternative to evolution936.00%While I disagree with the tenets of ID, I would let my child stay in the classroom416.00%


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Sorry to put up such an over-argued topic... but the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) is a new twist to the debate. Is ID science? Should it replace the teaching of evolution in public schools, or perhaps should it be taught as its equal? Or does it simply not belong in a science classroom?

What would you do? I'm not so curious as to what people believe here, just if they believe one way or another *strongly* enough to pull their son or daughter from a school because ID (or evolution) is being taught.

If ID is new to you, here is a website that may have more information:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If your going to be objective in science all theories need to be investigated. The Chaos theory is as valid as the evolutionary theory, and perhaps shares some commonality.

Not looking at alternative thinking is a form of censorship. I am old enough to remember when they wanted to teach evolution in high school. The liberals screamed this is censorship. I wasn't old enough to be involved in the debate, but liberals called conservatives book burners, anti intellectuals etc. I do remember their reaction. Now the shoe is on the other foot. What has changed?

Like I said lets look at all alternatives. Meanwhile I will enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

While I would agree that there has almost had to be some sort of guidance in our evolutionary history for so many diverse yet symbiotic relationships with our various species, untill the ID argument is pulled further away from the religious element, I would have to pull my child from the classes.

The creationists have very readily attached themselves to the theory of intelligent design, to the point that they still try to argue that the grand canyon and the extinction of the dinosaurs are a result of Noah's flood less than 5000 years ago. Also, to mention the idea brought forth by the Raelians ( the cultish group that claims to have succesfully cloned a number of human beings) that the design may have been directed by alien lifeforms, an idea just as possible as god, usually brings an inter ID arguement amongst themselves.

I think that the basic theory of evolution (which is that we simply have evolved) should be taught, as it has been for quite sometime. The idea that there are differences between the chaos thinkers and the ID thinkers should be brought up, but not delved in to deeply within public schools untill the child is not so impressionable that they see it as one sided, but are open to research and discover for themselves what they feel the truth is.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Remember when we were teenagers and thought we knew everything. Then as we grow old we realize we were not as bright as we thought. If we have gone through college, 50 years of growing, still alive, and not full of ourselves we realize we have not scratched the surface.

Remember when the doctors told us we should eat Mazola because corn oil was more healthy than butter. Then there were vegetable oils that were better than corn oil. Then recently we find that hydrogenated vegetable oils may be worse than butter.

How do these mistakes happen. Arrogance from those within our society that think they "know". If we truly respect science we will look at absolutely every possibility out there. If you don't believe that then you are afraid that some type of substantial evidence may contradict your current beliefs. Those who oppose ID are fearful people. We owe it to science and the future to have more guts than that.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I have no problem with intelligent design as long as the concept is presented in the appropriate context. For instance, it would be appropriate to discuss intelligent design as simply one of several theories of how life on earth came about. There are other theories, such as evolution. Some people even believe that life was introduced to earth from outer space. All of these are theories, and all can be presented as alternative possibilities.

However, my apprehension centers on whether any particular religion will be cited or used as an example for intelligent design. Many religions believe in intelligent design, and I would be OK with Christianity being included in that list along with other religions that have a belief in intelligent design.

At least in a science or philosophy course, it would be inappropriate to discuss intelligent design without discussing other theories relating to the origin of life.

Knowledge is the cure for many social ills. Giving students access to knowledge is never a problem as long as there are people to answer their questions or guide them to people that can.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Here is an official statement from a scientific society:

On September 20, 2005, the American Phytopathological Society released a public statement endorsing the resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science supporting the teaching of evolutionary theory and opposing the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as an alternative to it in science curricula.

There are two reasons why APS has acted. First, evolution is the foundation for what we do daily as plant pathologists in our teaching, research, and outreach activities. Second, we are a society of scientists and, as such, we should speak publicly for science when an important need arises, as it has on this occasion. We have an obligation to see that science is portrayed correctly to the public and in particular to youngsters who are just learning about science.

The evidence for evolution is multifaceted, robust, and congruent. There is no scientific evidence for intelligent design, nor can there be because it is essentially a belief-based concept. This does not mean that ID is wrong, but it is a question that cannot be addressed by science and thus does not belong in science instruction. This is not an attack by science on religion and it does not need to be a divisive matter. Rather it is an issue of what is taught in the name of science.

The full statement by the AAAS, including the resolution, follows verbatim:

"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.

Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.

Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;

Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;

Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;

Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;

Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;

Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government."

Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> How do these mistakes happen. Arrogance from those within our society that think they "know". If we truly respect science we will look at absolutely every possibility out there. If you don't believe that then you are afraid that some type of substantial evidence may contradict your current beliefs. Those who oppose ID are fearful people. We owe it to science and the future to have more guts than that.


But Plainsman, no scientists or researchers debate evolution... there aren't any argument between them. But then again, no one seems to care what they have to say about it either. No, we hear the "pros and cons" of evolution in the media from right-wing republicans and teachers from Kansas!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Whoever invented it sure new what they were doing!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"intelligent design theory" is nothing more than conservatives agreeing with the "theory of evolution," by saying that god is directing it.

If you believe in god......it sounds like there is no longer an argument there.Glad they came to their senses and agree with evelolution.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

DJRooster said:


> Whoever invented it sure new what they were doing!!


I agree...


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

KEN W said:


> "intelligent design theory" is nothing more than conservatives agreeing with the "theory of evolution," by saying that god is directing it.


That's not true Ken. The philosophy of ID is not God-driven evolution...

Here is a quick copy-paste from a site explaining ID:
"biochemistry reveals a cellular world of such precisely tailored molecules and such staggering complexity that it is not only inexplicable by gradual evolution, but that it can be plausibly explained only by assuming an intelligent designer, i.e., God. Some systems can't be produced by natural selection because "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional"

The buzzword is "irreducibly complex." Here, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

seabass said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > "intelligent design theory" is nothing more than conservatives agreeing with the "theory of evolution," by saying that god is directing it.
> ...


Sounds like just what I said.....God directed evolution.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Ken, you are right in that they think its "God-driven" for sure, but ID is NOT evolution. The sentence below your bold words explain how it isn't evolution ("some systems can't be explained by natural selection" (i.e. evolution)...)


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

There is no doubt that evolution is occuring but how far back you want to take it is open for debate. Some people believe that dinosaurs never existed on the face of the earth. The interesting parts to me are the "beginning" and the "creation of man" which are at completely opposite ends of the history of the earth and the universe. Everything inbetween seems very plausable in my humble opinion and everyone knows I am a humble guy. And to this my reponse has been stated in my previous post, "Whoever invented it sure knew what they were doing!" Seabass, which systems are you refering to?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I believe in evolution....but to say it is god driven is fine with me.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

KEN W said:


> I believe in evolution....but to say it is god driven is fine with me.


I agree (and I think this answers your question rooster?) I just don't want to confuse what you are talking about Ken with ID. They are not the same thing.

My point in bringing all this up is whether people felt strongly enough (religion aside) to pull their children from a classroom based on the science curricula.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051118/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution

Came across this today over lunch. This is interesting and timely. According to the article above, a Vatican astronomer and come out and said that discussions of intelligent design do not belong in a science class.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> "intelligent design theory" is nothing more than conservatives agreeing with the "theory of evolution," by saying that god is directing it.


Or, it is nothing more than liberals agreeing there is a place for religion in school and there is a God.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Since most liberals I know believe in god....I said it right the first time.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I like the idea of teaching theory as theory, and looking at every possibility. If your searching around your house for a lost wallet you don't say I am going to look everywhere but the third bedroom. After about a week I think you will look in that third bedroom. When we dismiss one idea we are exploring with half our brain tied behind our back.

I remember as a sophomore taking high school biology. That teacher taught scientific theory as theory with the exception of evolution. He said only fools don't believe it. Theory is theory and if you can respect the theory of evolution how can we not explore other theories.

This whole fear of, what is it ID, reminds me of a little boy who doesn't want to look under his bed because he is sure there are monsters there. I say if there is something to learn crawl under the bed and look close.

I do understand some of you who worry a specific religion may be pushed. I share that concern. But, even at my age my curiosity is just to high to pass up exploring any new ideas, at least a little bit.

Beyond this subject I look at the universe and think to myself what little we know. As a child we think our whole world is our home. We grow older and come to the realization of the community we live in. More experience and we learn about our state of North Dakota, then the United States, then the world, and then we stop. The universe is so large that the possibilities are infinite. I am afraid if I lived to a thousand years old I would die in relative ignorance, as will we all.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Since most liberals I know believe in god...


That may be true..... doesn't really mater. The question was should Intelligent Design be taught in school so neither your or my little digs are correct. :sniper:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

For those of you that believe that intelligent design should be taught in public schools, what class or setting would you want it taught? Are we talking a science class, philosophy class, social studies, what?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I remember as a sophomore taking high school biology. That teacher taught scientific theory as theory with the exception of evolution. He said only fools don't believe it. Theory is theory and if you can respect the theory of evolution how can we not explore other theories.


True, evolution is a theory. Gravity is also a theory. Both are foundational to how science and physics operate.



> This whole fear of, what is it ID, reminds me of a little boy who doesn't want to look under his bed because he is sure there are monsters there. I say if there is something to learn crawl under the bed and look close.


Actually, from what I've read, many scientists have indeed look closely at every example that appears to be irreducibly complex. No compelling evidence has come forward yet.



> We grow older and come to the realization of the community we live in. More experience and we learn about our state of North Dakota, then the United States, then the world, and then we stop. The universe is so large that the possibilities are infinite. I am afraid if I lived to a thousand years old I would die in relative ignorance, as will we all.


I agree. I think that if our oceans were to represent everything there is to know about science, our current knowledge is about the size of... Mooreton Pond.... or Green Lake. The one over by Wishek.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Why not teach it right along side of evolution wherever that is taught? And no, I'm not endorsing the teaching of ID, only suggesting where if taught. Intelligent Design is not something new. "The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the 'Logos' is typically credited to Heraclitus (c.535-c.475 BC), a Pre-Socratic philosopher, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments. Plato (c.427-c.347 BC) posited a natural 'demiurge' of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the formator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle (c.384-322BC) also develops the idea of a natural formator of the cosmos, often referred to as the 'Prime Mover' in his work Metaphysics. Cicero (c.106-c.43 BC) stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature," in de Natura Deorum".


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

The "Scientific Method" is the framework for how scientists go about their research. Step 1 is to make an observation. Step 2 is to form a hypothesis (and make predictions) about what you think is happening. Step 3 is to test the hypothesis with logical experimentation based on your observations. Step 4 and on is to basically continue research until your results explain your hypothesis...

With ID, we have to stop at Step 2. It is impossible to continue along with the Scientific Method at step 3 because the hypotheses simply aren't testable. I think that's the fundamental reason why all professional scientific societies refuse to recommend ID as part of any science curricula. If you can't test something with rigorous experimentation, then it follows you cannot prove it either.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Hmmmmmm, wouldn't cloning actually be a form of Intelligent Design and we are now into step 3, maybe even step 4 of the scientific process?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Gohon said:


> Hmmmmmm, wouldn't cloning actually be a form of Intelligent Design and we are now into step 3, maybe even step 4 of the scientific process?


You'll have to explain this one.

Cloning has nothing to do with ID (IMO). ID basically says that somethings are too complex to be explained by evolution. I think you are talking about "test tube babies" and that sort of thing?? From the little I know about ID, I don't think they bring this up.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

seabass said:


> Cloning has nothing to do with ID (IMO). ID basically says that somethings are too complex to be explained by evolution. I think you are talking about "test tube babies" and that sort of thing?? From the little I know about ID, I don't think they bring this up.


Intelligent Design refers to a unexplainable force or a force of superior intelligence assisting or interfering with evolution right............ Thats what I get from this definition I found...



> Intelligent Design is presented as an alternative to purely naturalistic forms of the theory of evolution. Its putative main purpose is to investigate whether or not the empirical evidence necessarily implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents


. Now we know what the intelligent force is in this case but in cloning, and I am speaking of cloning, not test tube babies, aren't we/someone making adjustments to evolution in progress? I'm not debating or arguing a point because I know very little of ID but simply throwing out questions in a attempt to understand. To me it makes sense that cloning is a form of ID when applied to evolution&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Gohon said:


> Now we know what the intelligent force is in this case but in cloning, and I am speaking of cloning, not test tube babies, aren't we/someone making adjustments to evolution in progress? I'm not debating or arguing a point because I know very little of ID but simply throwing out questions in a attempt to understand. To me it makes sense that cloning is a form of ID when applied to evolution&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;


Gohon, when scientists clone genes it isn't due to some unexplainable force of superior intelligence. It's commonplace for researchers (myself included) to clone genes and express them in other species so to find out more about their function.

But you are right in that science has "forced" evolution along a bit. For example, many crops have just a few genes in them that make them resistant to a certain pathogen. These genes were introduced in the crops by scientists. These crops are often "monocultures" which means they are planted in huge acreages. This puts pressure on the pathogen to either die out, or evolve new genes that make them able to continue to parasitize the plant. Within the pathogen population as a whole, usually some individuals will have what it takes to stay alive. These individuals will reproduce with each other and their offspring will also have these genes. In a natural ecosystem this also occurs but at a much slower rate.

ID, on the other hand, looks at a few specific examples in nature and says that no way could such a system have evolved. ID believes that some systems are too complex to be explained by the theory of evolution and therefore a higher power, (a power higher than human kind) must be behind such an event.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

In what class should we talk about intelligent desing? In all classes! The trend in education is reading, writing and math across the curriculum so this should be no different. Very few topics are isolated by subject area.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Rooster:

I disagree. Science is a discipline that is focused on explaining the universe through use of the Scientific Method. Much of a science curriculum is based on teaching students basic concepts such as taxonomy, physiology, anatomy, chemistry, and similar concepts to give students a firm foundation and allow them to "speak the language". However, much of a curriculum is also concerned with teaching students to use the Scientific Methods to solve problems through experiments.

As seabass has correctly noted, Intelligent Design cannot be proven through the Scientific Methods. Therefore, giving the subject its due discussion is probably not suited for a science class like biology or earth science. The best that a teacher could probably due is to give it 30 seconds of discussion as an alternative theory to evolution and natural selection.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

One man's opinion but I'm sure much discussion can be created in all disciplines of study depending on where the kids and their teachers run with it. So it all depends....A rigid curriculum can work but a curriculum that allows for a little flexibility can be fun and educational too!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The best that a teacher could probably due is to give it 30 seconds of discussion as an alternative theory to evolution and natural selection.


That would be enough to put things in proper perspective. It would confirm that evolution is indeed a theory. It would also keep teachers from insinuating that the students who didn't agree were fools. In short it should curtail teachers from injecting person bias.

Why do we need to make sure evolution is taught as theory. Beyond the religious aspect, it should be taught strongly as theory because when we think we have the answers why would we continue to look for answers? We already know right?????????????


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

seabass said:


> Sorry to put up such an over-argued topic... but the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) is a new twist to the debate. Is ID science? Should it replace the teaching of evolution in public schools, or perhaps should it be taught as its equal? Or does it simply not belong in a science classroom?
> 
> What would you do? I'm not so curious as to what people believe here, just if they believe one way or another *strongly* enough to pull their son or daughter from a school because ID (or evolution) is being taught.
> 
> ...


ID should not be taught in schools until it gains a scietific evidence. So far this is not the case. Science is what scientists do. We cannot decide what should be taught in schools by a popular demand without risking to slide backward in education. We have best evolution researchers in the world, publisehd best scietific books about natural history and it is amazing that some of us question teaching evolution in schools in XXI Century.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Plainsman, I have to disagree with your statement about, "teachers think that students who don't believe in evolution are fools." I think this is a bit of an exageration.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

DJRooster said:


> Plainsman, I have to disagree with your statement about, "teachers think that students who don't believe in evolution are fools." I think this is a bit of an exageration.


Plainsman is probably right. I'm sure teachers would look down on (or at least wouldn't grade well) any student who thumbed their noses at evolution or any other well-documented scientific theories that have been subject to decades of rigorous scientific experimentation. Theories like of how are cells are put together, have organelles, and perform functions dictated by genes(cell theory).... or the kinetic theory of gasses which allows prediction of how gases react in certain situations... or Einstein's theory of gravity... and evolution by natural selection etc. etc. etc... all these would probably raise the attention or ire of any teacher when a student refuses to believe they exist!!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I think that you are to black and white in your position and assume that you are either one or the other and their is no room for a belief in a little of each. If that is your belief, I can accept that but that is not necessarily the only way it can be! In my humble opinion, evolution can certainly explain much of the present life on earth it's origins and present form but there is the rest that allow for intelligent design. That is the problem with teaching evolution in school. Everyone want's to make it a black and white issue where as the only black and white issues in a schools curriculum are those that are legislated or have been decided in the courts. There are many issues in our curriculum that are certainly open for discussion and debate and teachers will certainly encourage this type of discussion because this is the best way to learn. I think your position is too simplistic and therefore cannot agree.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

DJRooster said:


> I think that you are to black and white in your position and assume that you are either one or the other and their is no room for a belief in a little of each. If that is your belief, I can accept that but that is not necessarily the only way it can be! In my humble opinion, evolution can certainly explain much of the present life on earth it's origins and present form but there is the rest that allow for intelligent design. That is the problem with teaching evolution in school. Everyone want's to make it a black and white issue where as the only black and white issues in a schools curriculum are those that are legislated or have been decided in the courts. There are many issues in our curriculum that are certainly open for discussion and debate and teachers will certainly encourage this type of discussion because this is the best way to learn. I think your position is too simplistic and therefore cannot agree.


I'm not sure what you cannot agree on. No one here is saying ID is right or wrong. That's not the issue. Its whether it can be taught in public schools in the name of science. Since it cannot be tested, how can it be science?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Since it cannot be tested, how can it be science?


I found this the other day while looking up another subject. Interesting and certainly applies to this discussion. Science in and of itself seems to have a lot of theory involved even by that which is accepted by the mass as fact that can't be explained. The entire article can be found at..... http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

"The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.

One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.

Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.

Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science".


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Gohon said:


> ...Science in and of itself seems to have a lot of theory involved even by that which is accepted by the mass as fact that can't be explained.


I would agree with your statement above only if you add "yet" at the end. Science is definitely a lot of theory that can't be explained _yet_.
Everyday science moves forward and explains things that even just yesterday we couldn't explain. Is there anyway that ID can be scientifically proven in the future... even with untold future technology??


```
Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance.
```
Doesn't matter if you use the above, the scientific method, or a combination of them all (which I believe is how all current scientists solve problems), I don't see how any route you take will allow one to explain ID in a scientific fashion.

I remember reading something from one of Robert Pirsig's books (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance I think) that I think is interesting, if not obvious once you think about it. That is, that often people fanatically believe in things that we can never actually prove (i.e. religious related beliefs). You never hear about people fanatic in believing that the sun will come up tomorrow for instance. We all know it will and therefore don't think about it. But its the unknowns that people believe the most strongly in.... Anyway, I'm now doubting whether this even pertains. Guess its time to go home.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> DJRooster said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman, I have to disagree with your statement about, "teachers think that students who don't believe in evolution are fools." I think this is a bit of an exageration.


Well, I'll guarantee you it is not an exaggeration.

My memory may not be that great, but you know how well you remember things that you find shocking? I remember student teaching. Every Tuesday evening we had a seminar. One week it would be a professor in education, the next it would be a high school biology teacher. One evening another student teacher said to the high school teacher, "you can teach these rural kids math, you can teach them English, you can teach them history, but when you start talking evolution you can't teach these fools anything". The biology teachers response was " they are not fools, they are not fools, most have parents that are unsophisticated, uneducated, backwoods (or rather in this case prairie) hicks. Like many unsophisticated or primitive people they still find hope and comfort in the mythological. Don't give up it is your duty to bring these people off their plow and into the real world". I may not remember the exact words, but as I do remember that was darn close. I was so ticked I wrote it all down at the time, but I kept my mouth shut.

Since that time I have had many people say this to me. They simply assume that I agree with them so get downright insulting at times, but still I keep my mouth shut in most situations. I find many of the pro evolution folks very offensive. They try shame you in front of others as if your not competent if you don't believe it in entirety. It's like trying to enjoy a good steak with a vegetarian constantly pi$$ing and moaning about meat is murder.

Rooster, Intelligent design is a compromise between evolution and creation. Neither can be proven. One requires faith that science is on the right track, the other requires faith that our ancient history is correct. Neither group are fools.


----------



## Joltin_Joe (Oct 11, 2005)

One thing is for sure: I didn't come from no ape!

Sounds like liberal propaganda to me! 8)


----------



## Joltin_Joe (Oct 11, 2005)

Looks like science is making some headway in PA:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

He isn't a very good judge if he doesn't know there is no constitutional provision for separation of church and state. Another activist judge legislating from the bench. I think that is unconstitutional.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't think it is over with just yet. Judge Jones also ruled that the school board would have to pay the plaintiffs' legal fees. That doesn't sound to me like it is going to fly and I would expect that part to be challenged by the ex-board members which in turn will open up the whole ball of wax again. 
Not only that but the new school board president, Bernadette Reinking, said the board intends to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum and place it in an elective social studies class. It didn't go very far did it.....


----------



## Joltin_Joe (Oct 11, 2005)

He made a decision for a case he was appointed to...legislating from the bench? What does that even mean under these circumstances?

Removing the ID class from the science curriculum and placing it in an elective social studies class is fine. In high school I remember classes like greek mythology, fiction and literature, and French Poetry being offered as electives. Those have nothing to do with required curriculum dealing with science and what most people like to regard as reality.


----------



## DeerScarer (Jul 23, 2005)

*Gohon*, you must be a scholar of some merit. Where'd you learn all that Greek Philosophy stuff anyway? 

*Seabass*, you seem pretty sure evolution is the way to go, but are you really satisfied with the current scientific explanations of where genes and chromosomes come from? Natural selection can only select from the genes it has to work with. Where do species get new genes? Are the observed rates and mechanisms for the random production of usable new genes able to account for the manifold variety of usable genes displayed in all the species of earth?

How about new Chromosomes? Has science even observed a mechanism for the evolution of a new set of chromosomes in a species? Let us suppose an individual did develop a new chromosome, how would that new chromosome be passed on?

I have read that mathematically speaking far too much coincidence would be required for random forces to create the diversity of life we see in just 3 or 4 billion years. Is that, in your opinion, a lie? Is it a position of ignorance? Please, tell me your real sense of these issues.

As for myself, I believe that God must be a very great scientist/mathematician/engineer, etc. to invent such marvelous complexity and diversity. Perhaps science can uncover the mechanisms by which he did it, but I do not believe that random forces could have done it. Anyway, for now at least, our public school science curricula should let children know that evolution has not solved the mystery of where life came from.

-Dave


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> Where do species get new genes?


Mutation. Your DNA is a code of four different chemicals called A C T or G that are arranged in very specific patterns called genes. UV light, for example, can switch an A to a C in a gene and even this simple switch can mean that the gene either doesn't work anymore or codes for a different protein which may now have a different function. This is fundamental in the evolutionary process. If the mutation codes for a different protein that now gives that individual an advantage over the rest of its peers, then this individual will more likely have offspring which may also have the mutation... etc. etc...

On thing that I think is interesting is some research on a pathogen of barley and another separate pathogen of wheat. Barley and wheat are pretty similar in terms of ancestry (both grass species, etc.). Anyway, it turns out that the only difference between the two pathogens in ALL their DNA is *one* gene. This one gene is so important, evidently, that it makes the wheat pathogen unable to colonize the barley plant, and likewise the barley pathogen cannot colonize the wheat plant... and between themselves, the pathogens cannot interbreed. Pretty interesting really. And this all is a good example of the above I think.

Another way a species can get new genes is something called horizontral gene transfer... but is more common in bacteria.



> How about new Chromosomes?


A good question and I'm no cytogeneticist. But, I know of some examples... with wheat. I'm going to use the web here because its much better at explaining. This is from Wikipedia:

_Wheat genetics is more complicated than domesticated animal genetics. Wheat is capable of polyploidism, or having more than two sets of chromosomes (diploid). Many wheat breeds not only have differences in their genomes but also in the number of chromosomes they carry. Four out of five of the most common wheat breeds are the results of hybridization. Einkorn wheat is diploid (2x chromosomes) and can be considered the "grandfather" breed of wheat. Einkorn wheat hybridized with another wild diploid grass (Triticum speltoides, Triticum tripsacoides or Triticum searsii) made the tetraploid (4x chromosomes) breeds, Emmer and Durum wheat. Emmer and Durum wheat hybridized with yet another wild diploid grass (Triticum tauschii) made the hexaploid (6x chromosomes) breeds Spelt wheat and Common wheat. It is debatable whether emmer wheat was naturally or intentionally hybridized: to interbreed emmer wheat's ancestors required a chromosome duplication mutation, a mutation that does not seem survivable naturally for more than a few generations for wheat. All of this hybridization was conducted thousands of years ago by ancient farmers completely unaware of modern genetics or the difficulty of intermating polyploid plants._

Now, this happened artifically but there is no reason to believe why it couldn't happen naturally. I'm sure examples exist, but I don't know any of the top of my head. But anyway, you can see how chromosome duplicatione events end up being the difference between normal wheat and durum...

Chromosomes are very handy ways of storing DNA for a species. Studies have shown that more "important" genes are localted near the center of chromsomes which has a much less frequent mutation rate. These are called "housekeeping" genes and are critical for a cell to function. Now, other genes that may actually benefit from a mutation here or there are located near the ends of chromosomes which happens to be a place where mutation events more readily occur.



> I have read that mathematically speaking far too much coincidence would be required for random forces to create the diversity of life we see in just 3 or 4 billion years. Is that, in your opinion, a lie? Is it a position of ignorance? Please, tell me your real sense of these issues.


I don't think its a lie, I just happen to believe that its possible to create this diversity via evolution.... and in my mind, it doesn't conflict at all with Christianity... but thats just my take on it all...

One last thing... even with PLENTY of funding, the proponents of ID have yet to publish anything on how or where ID has occurred. In the 100s of reputable scientific journals, there is nothing on ID.


----------



## DeerScarer (Jul 23, 2005)

seabass said:


> > I have read that mathematically speaking far too much coincidence would be required for random forces to create the diversity of life we see in just 3 or 4 billion years. Is that, in your opinion, a lie? Is it a position of ignorance? Please, tell me your real sense of these issues.
> 
> 
> I don't think its a lie, I just happen to believe that its possible to create this diversity via evolution.... and in my mind, it doesn't conflict at all with Christianity... but thats just my take on it all...
> ...


Your opinion is duly noted. Perhaps the observed rate of usable mutation is higher than I have been led to believe. Perhaps God created the heavens and the earth through random processes that would have created it anyway. After all "it is impossible to please God without faith." If you could prove the existence of God scientifically, then where would that leave room for faith?

But suppose there _was_ scientific evidence for the existence of God, or at least an intelligent designer of some sort, and _you_ found it. I don't mean absolute proof, just evidence, like that for evolution. Do you believe you could get your findings published in the "reputable scientific journals?"

If at any point you find yourself getting more curious about what the I.D. side has to say, be sure and let me know. I have a pile of papers and maps spilling down both sides of my desk and stacked in boxes everywhere, but I am almost sure I could find at least a couple good articles in there from the Institute for Creation Research. Not what you would call a "reputable scientific journal," but interesting stuff nontheless. If I can find it there's even one directly addressing your wheat/barley chromosomes, believe it or not. Most of that ICR stuff goes right over my head, but you might enjoy it. :wink:

-Dave


----------



## DeerScarer (Jul 23, 2005)

Hey,  for anyone who is interested in more from the "religious" side of this debate I just found ICR's website. Man I'm glad I joined this discussion, or I might never have bothered to look it up. Their site is fascinating!

http://www.icr.org

-Dave


----------

