Politics
Give me your most controversial issue.
New Follow Forum Follow Topic
Page 1 2 Next »
Disturbly
Topic inspired by the board creator's pen name. So? Should it be?

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell: "Intelligent Design" is anything but; it simply states that there's no way to know how life began, so we should accept "magic" as a viable solution. Yes, there are problems with evolutionary theory, but they don't automatically mean we should turn to the invisible man who lives in the sky for an explanation.

And what about the idea of competing theories? A lot of people believe in creationism? Shouldn't that be taught as another option? Maybe. But a lot of people believe the Holocaust never happened; should that be taught as a "competing theory" in history class? Should the geocentric theory be taught as a "viable alternative" in astronomy? How about sex education; should "the stork" be a competing theory? There are any number of things people believe with no basis; either you teach the youth of our country what the general consensus of qualified experts believe, or you unleash every crazy with a crackpot idea on their impressionable minds, and let them go wild (which actually could be quite amusing). I'm not trying to set the standards; I'd just like to see them applied equally.

Sorry if I stepped on any toes; these are merely the humble opinions of a timid commentator. -Disturbly.

8/25/2007 #1
ONETRACKMlND
Well, creationism shouldn't be taught, because it isn't science. If you want to learn creationism, go to church or something.
8/26/2007 #2
The Intelligent Designer
Hahahahaha....I love my pen name...

The theory of Intelligent Design does not, actually, turn to magic for an explanation to the mysteries of the universe. I do believe, that they rather prefer an alien creator? Some God like being that is not, in fact, a devine entity. That, at least, is my understanding. However, I wholeheartedly agree with your statements that the theory shoudl not be taught in school...

And I enjoy hearing everyone's opinions! No matter how humble or timid they may be...

8/26/2007 #3
Disturbly
The theory of Intelligent Design does not, actually, turn to magic for an explanation to the mysteries of the universe. I do believe, that they rather prefer an alien creator?

To an extent, you're right. Intelligent design is careful not to specify *which* designer is being given credit (wink wink, nudge nudge, air-quotes). It's inability to do so is only one of the myriad reasons it's not actually science... But if you look at the people advocating and read the subtext, you know. Often, you don't have to read *any* subtext; many of it's advocates are vocally in favor of teaching a theory based on the Judeo-Christian God, as opposed to, I dunno, Norse, Chinese, Egyptian, or Sumerian creation myths.

(On a sidenote, how fun would that be? To have a chapter in your Biology textbook explain how prominent scientists believe that the universe began when Marduk slew Tiamat, and how the background microwave radiation in the universe we usually take as evidence of the big bang is actually just the brain waves of the great dragon? Sadly, not going to happen.)

In actuality, almost no proponents of the "theory" seriously argue that we were created by aliens; that would be cool. Rather, it's an argument for God straight and simple, based on the logical fallacy that "if I don't know where it came from, the Adonai did it".

8/26/2007 #4
ONETRACKMlND
I love being a non-practicing christian. That allows me to have *gasp* moderate views! Essentialy, the bible is like a child's book, a book of fables that have strong morals, but they view this book as the word of god.
8/26/2007 . Edited 8/26/2007 #5
Disturbly
I love being a non-practicing christian. That allows me to have *gasp* moderate views! Essentialy, the bible is like a child's book, a book of fables that have strong morals, but they view this book as the word of god.

While I agree with the sentiment, I must take issue with the way you phrased it. Although my specific views on the Christian faith amount to the same idea, I'd like to play Devil's (God's?) Advocate with your critique of the Bible.

Purely as a work of literature, the Bible *is* very good. Without it, our language would lack any number of proverbs, axioms, and aphorisms. I don't have a complete list, but I believe Richard Dawkins provided a huge number of examples in his book, "The God Delusion".

The stories the Bible tells are powerful, moving, and epic. I wouldn't use the term "fable"; "parable" is better. In addition, as a source of inspiration, there are few fonts as prolific as the Bible. Forget artists commisioned by the church; can you imagine what Hellsing or Trigun would be without the trappings of Christianity?

While I don't interpret the Bible as the sole word of God, or advocate any person doing so, as a work of literature, it is top notch. I wouldn't relegate it to the status of a children's book; better to contrast it against other religious epices, such as the Norse Eddas, the Japanese Kojiki, or the Indian Vedas. Just my tenth of a dime.

8/26/2007 #6
The Intelligent Designer
As my English teacher once put it, "The Bible is the greatest story ever told." Wonderful piece of literature, fantastic idea, absolutely impossible.

But delightful to believe.

Also, I see you did not include the Qur'an in your list...any particular reason?

8/26/2007 #7
Disturbly
Also, I see you did not include the Qur'an in your list...any particular reason?

Oddly enough, yes.

I was given a cd-r with a great number of e-books, among them the aforementioned Kojiki, Eddas, Vedas, and some of the fundemental texts of Buddhism, Zoarastrianism, Thelema, Hermeticism... also, some of the more prominent Gnostic Gospels. There was *supposed* to be a copy of the Qur'an on there, but the link doesn't work.

So, as I've never read the Qur'an (unlike the ones I named), I can't vouch for it's literary merit myself. I'm sure it is; but I couldn't assert it from personal experience.

I really must dig up about six CD-RW's and spend a few hours on sacred-texts.com/.

8/28/2007 #8
crazeedaizee411

If you're comparing evolution to religion think about this for a second.

Evolution is saying for us to have FAITH that single-celled organisms adapted into human beings through a series of mutations(That have proven to never be beneficial in nature).

Faith is the key word here, because isn't that the basis behind any basic religion in the world? You have to have faith that your religion is correct? In which case, even though the theory of evolution has a bunch of sciency crap in between it all, the basics are based off of the idea that you have FAITH in something happening in such a way that it would create humans. In this way, evolution is the same as any other idea in any other religion. In which case, I beleive that evolution should be treated the same as any other religious concept. It is the aethieist's beleif of how we were created, and they have FAITH in it.

Evolution is a Faith. Not a scientific idea that should be taken seriously and treated like anything more.

4/24/2008 #9
The Intelligent Designer
Crazee... I completely disagree; one does not have faith in evolution. Evolution is not a faith, or belief system; it is a scientific theory; similar to gravity and the idea that germs cause disease. (Theory of gravity, germ theory....) Evolution states that through the mechanism of natural selection new species are created, not that we must have faith that single celled organisms adapted into human beings. Mutations do have something to do with it however. You should look up the Heterotroph Hypothesis, or if you wish, I can explain it. Not all scientists are atheists, and they have faith in God. They only recognize the theory of evolution as a valid explanation for how new species come about.
4/25/2008 #10
ONETRACKMlND

Let me try the bolding fun

the concept of evolution is the idea species change due to changes in their nucleotide sequences (ie their DNA). Now, this is both a theory, a scientific concept, and a part of science. The idea that spontaneous generation of advanced structures like cells is impossible predates evolution. Therefore, logic says that evolution brought us from primordial cells that all assembled billions of years ago due to natural circumstances. There are some leaps that you have to make, like the development of the cell parts. This in no way counters the idea that God played a role in the establishment of life. If you must see this as having some sort of role in Christianity, it could be said that God guided/caused the assembly of cells and the seemingly random mutations. Get that through your head.

PS. What sense does the linking rule make?

Notes: To prevent spam, you may only create clickable links pointing to fanfiction.net, fictionpress.com, and youtube.com.

W**?

4/29/2008 . Edited 4/29/2008 #11
crazeedaizee411

I found out that Jesus Christ is really the answer, which changed my thoughts about evolution. My thoughts about evolution didn't change overnight. Many a night I would wonder how evolution played into God's creation, but I really never could make the two adhere to each other. After a couple of years of basking in the love of God I came to the conclusion that evolution was dead wrong.

There are Christians I learned, who still believed in evolution. These people, called theistic evolutionists, try to unite the theory of Evolution with God's creation, and many of them think that they are successful. Such people, I think, really lack a lot of faith in God, thinking that it was too hard for the Master of The Universe to create all that we see in just a literal 7 days. They look at passages in the Bible that might have dual meanings, or words that have that same way, and they twist them to meld their love for evolution into Biblical Christianity. It's too bad that they just can't believe the Bible literally.

There is a strange thing in this whole evolution versus Christianity thing though. I have not heard of any evolutionary scientist who is trying to bring the Bible into an evolutionary light. Scientists are either hot or cold where the Bible is concerned. When a scientist learns and accepts the truth of Creation, they change totally and become strong Bible believing Christians.

The important thing here is to define what science is. According to the dictionary, the definition of science is:

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method ..... the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

So we see by the above definition, that true science should be defined as facts, backed up by tests using the scientific method. So, what is the scientific method? It is defined below.

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

From the definitions above, we know without a shadow of a doubt that something can only become a scientific fact if it passes all of the rigors of scientific method. When a theory is established as fact, it becomes a law of science. Laws do not have to be proven anymore, they are established and concrete.

Take for instance the Law of Gravity. It is readily observed, you can experiment to your hearts delight and it still stays the same, because it is a law. On the other hand, theories are mere conjecture, as is stated in the definition below. They should not be presented as fact and certainly not taught as fact. But we must remember that to become a theory, there has to be a reason to believe that the speculation could be true.

Theory: Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein Date: 1592 The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another : abstract thought :SPECULATION : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena wave theory of light : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE.

4/29/2008 #12
Disturbly
Yeah, CD, here's the thing... Some of those definitions you give? Aren't. A "law" does not mean a theory established as fact; merely a theory that hasn't been disproven *yet*. They can still be disproven if verifiable evidence to the contrary is uncovered. Also, the part of the definition of "theory" you underlined? Was the colloquial, common usage definition. Within the specific context of science, that first, "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena" would really be the relevant part. And as for scientific theories not being concrete: "the Earth revolves around the Sun" is 'just a theory'. Hence "Helio-centric theory". Don't see many people disputing that, though... And this may be off topic, but I just have to take the snarkiness up to that next level; per your "It's too bad that they just can't believe the Bible literally" comment, am I to take it you advocate slavery, and the putting to death of usurers, people who work on the sabbath, and children who swear at their parents? Because the old Testament is *very* clear on those points...
4/30/2008 #13
crazeedaizee411

What part in the Bible do they advocate slavery and killing naughty children, if this is true?

4/30/2008 #14
Disturbly
Glad you asked; I always keep the relevant passages in a Word document on my flash drive, and I'm finally getting a chance to use 'em. The prescription to buy and own slaves can be found in Leviticus, Chapter 25, Verses 44-46. Note that while the euphemism "bondservant" is used, the conditions of their... 'indenture' as described are clearly what we would recognize to be "slavery". The command to kill children who curse their parents' names can be found in Exodus 21:17, to kill someone who fails to honor the Sabbath in Exodus 31:15, and at least one mention of killing usurers (people who lend money at interest, or in other words, every banker alive) can be found in Elzekiel 18:13. Forgive me for not posting the full excerpts, but this crappy laptop I'm using makes these come out in one massive paragraph no matter how many times I hit "enter", and I need to keep them short.
4/30/2008 #15
ONETRACKMlND

Pwned.

And science is 'explanation of the natural universe without invoking the supernatural in any way, shape, or form.' If you think that that parameter is erroneous, then bring me a true scientist that will object to it.

4/30/2008 #16
Disturbly
Hmm. It's been 48 hours, plenty of time to reference those Bible quotes and formulate a cogent reply. Owing to your failure to do so, CD, I believe I have to concur with 1 Track. By the authority of the sacred rules of internet debate, crazydaisy, I now pronounce you: PWNED.
5/2/2008 #17
Disturbly
However, the original topic of the thread wasn't whether the Bible is a good source of morality, or whether you believe in evolution or creationism. The question I originally posted was: Do you believe that Intelligent Design has enough merit to warrant it being taught in school, regardless of whether you personally believe in it? Sorry to double post, I slipped up and hit enter one time too many last time around, and since this crappy lap top won't seem to let me break paragraphs up, I may have post every one as a distinct entry anyway...
5/2/2008 #18
The Intelligent Designer
CD, did you even read my post? I'm thinking you didn't, because I already told you that there is no such thing as the LAW OF GRAVITY. GRAVITY IS A THEORY, JUST LIKE THE IDEA THAT THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN AND THAT THE REASON YOU ARE SICK IS BECAUSE OF SMALL ORGANISMS COMMONLY REFFERED TO AS "GERMS." HET THIS TRHOUGH YOUR HEAD: EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS AS MUCH EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION AS THERE IS FOR GRAVITY AND "GERMS." Sorry for the caps, but, apparently, you haven't been reading my posts. I don't appreciate that. But, all this aside, Disturbly is correct; we should attempt to stay on topic. Should Creationism be taught as fact? And either way, which creation story should they teach? The first one, where God did his thing day by day? Or the second one, where he molded man/woman out of clay?
5/3/2008 #19
The Intelligent Designer
pwned.... And Disturbly, don't worry, I can't do it either.
5/3/2008 #20
crazeedaizee411

I'm not questioning your faith in evolution. I respect your beleif in that. I'm just saying that we shouldn't force our children to learn a beleif system that people like me(for instance...) beleive is crap and will teach their children it's crap until they find somehing that makes it more than a theory. I look at evolution as a beleif system/religion, and if you beleive it, that's fine. But don't force it down the throats of america's youth if you're not going to teach other theories of creation either.

5/4/2008 #21
The Intelligent Designer
Creationism is not considered a scientific theory.
5/4/2008 #22
Disturbly
". I respect your beleif in that. I'm just saying that we shouldn't force our children to learn a beleif system that people like me(for instance...) beleive is crap and will teach their children it's crap until they find somehing that makes it more than a theory. " ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, that sounds reasonable... at first glance. But consider this, CD: Many people believe that the Holocaust didn't happen. If we apply your standards, how should we handle the subject in History class? Should we avoid it altogether? Or should Holocaust denial be taught as a competing theory?
5/5/2008 #23
crazeedaizee411

There's proof that the Holocaust happened (such as remains of consentration camps and 6 million missing(killed) people and witnesses) whereas there is no scientific proof that humans evolved from a uni-cellular organism that mutated by a chance of luck to be beneficial which has been proven to never happen in nature. If you beleive in that, that's fine, but don't force me or my children to learn it if you're not going to teach other beleifs of creation as well. And evolution is a scietific theory, The Intelligent Designer. That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. Look it up.

This is the problem. They teach it as a fact, not the theory that it really is and that's what makes me upset.

5/5/2008 #24
ONETRACKMlND

Let me try and beat this into you.

Are you going to deny the fossil record?

Are you going to deny genetics?

Are you going to ignore that evolution is happening right now?

Are you going to ignore that only religious fanatics that refuse to believe anything but what they were told first are willing to deny evolution?

This is as much a scientific theory as the Sun-centered solar system. We couldn't witness it, but we could observe effects of it in our everyday lives. We could compare chunks of data to prove that it was true. But the Church denied that the sun was at the center of the universe. It denied it, and forbade the knowledge that was eventually proven true from being spread to the masses.

The Church also places teh creation of the earth at about 6000 years ago. Yet, things like carbon dating prove that the earth is indeed nearly 4.6 billion years old.

I would like to continue this, but my lunch bell just rang and now I have to go to sixth period =(

5/5/2008 #25
Disturbly
Damn; 1Track beat me to it. I'll just have to settle for pointing out everything else wrong with CD's statement. 1.You still seem to be confused as to the definition of the word "theory" (namely that it means a hypothesis that has ammassed a considerable deal of verifying evidence, not idle speculation). As I have seen the Intelligent Designer point this out to you at least once, now you're just being obstinate. 2.Your understanding of evolutionary theory seems to be poor at best; namely, mutations don't play as significant a role as you seem to think they must. Please, please take the time to at least look up the subject on wikipedia. 4. You've stated repeatedly that it's impossible for a mutation to be beneficial; got a source, or am I to take your word for it? And, 5. Regardless of your personal feelings about the theory of evolution (I have some issues with how it accounts for the differentiation of species, myself, actually), you have to concede that it's believed by 99.85% of biologists and geologists, a.k.a. the highly trained and qualified people who are experts in such matters. How can you possibly contend that we don't teach what they believe? I mean, seriously... Learning science from anyone other than scientists if like taking flying lessons from a pastry chef. It's not a matter of elitism, it's a matter of "who has the relevant knowledge?".
5/5/2008 #26
Disturbly
On a sidenote, "believe" and "beliefs" are spelled like this. "I" before "E", except after "C", mkay?
5/5/2008 #27
The Intelligent Designer
Yes, CD, evolution is a theory...a scientific one...we established this earlier...I'm not arguing this point with you, I'm telling ou about other theories so that you may come to a more advanced understanding of the word in a scientific context. It is crucial that you understand the vocabulary at play here. My teacher taught her class the theory of evolution. She called it a theory, and mentioned that it was the most believed theory on Earth. And yes, Disturbly is quite correct; you do not understand what is meant by a mutation. The definition of an adaptation, in biology vocabulary, is a mutation that causes an organism to be more fit for its environment. (This means that the mutation is a benefit.) I understand though, CD. You feel like there needs to be an understanding that evolution is only the most commonly accepted theory, not a fact. I agree, however...Creationism is not a valid scientific alternative; there is no scientific basis for it, and it offers little in terms of explaining the fossil record. It's not science; it's religion. SO, currently...there are no other theories about how different species are formed, other than Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
5/5/2008 #28
crazeedaizee411

Like I said before, there's no talking me INTO believing evolution is real, I'm always going to think it's a load of crap. I'm just saying, that if they're going to continue to teach evolution in schools, they should teach other theories of creation as well, or at least give a little insight into it, for, though you may believe "science is truth" I believe the Bible is the way to go and that's what I believe and will always believe. So, in my eyes, evolution is just as screwed up as you see the Earth being created in 7 days by God. It's about opinion, and I don't beleive that one person's opinion should be placed upon someone else's in the form of education in America when it comes to theories. Scientific or not.

5/5/2008 #29
Disturbly
Fair enough. But it's like I said before, 99.85% of biologists acknowledge the theory of evolution. Why in the name of God should they teach anything else? As far as science is concerned, there are no competing theories. Religion has no place in the science classroom, just as rational thought and critical thinking have no place in church. And as for whether anyone's opinion should be given precedence over anyone else's, shouldn't some have special status or eminence? Like, those of the highly trained experts who've devoted their careers to a subject? I'll bring up the subject of Holocaust denial again; you've pointed that there's compelling evidence for the occurence of the Holocaust (witnesses and missing people). You have to realize that to many, the evidence for evolution is just as compelling, just as for many more, the evidence against the Holocaust is as strong as the evidence for creationism (particularly, deniers point out that many gas chambers didn't seem to have the facilities to work as such, and many walls don't show signs of being impregnated with Zyklon B; none of this bears up to scrutiny, mind, but neither does intelligent design). My point is, if, as you assert, every opinion should be represented equally, shouldn't Holocaust denial be taught as a competing theory? Should kids be taught that the Earth *might* be flat, and that it *may* be the center of the universe? Where does it end? Should we teach every belief, no matter how obscure or crazy? Or do you just want to see YOUR opinion taught?
5/6/2008 #30
Page 1 2 Next »
Forum Moderators: The Intelligent Designer
Rules:
  • Forums are not to be used to post stories.
  • All forum posts must be suitable for teens.
  • The owner and moderators of this forum are solely responsible for the content posted within this area.
  • All forum abuse must be reported to the moderators.
Membership Length: 2+ years 1 year 6+ months 1 month 2+ weeks new member