Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Whaleboy]

Science should not be taught as dogma, but then, that's why it's not taught in citizenship lessons.

Creationism should be taught in my opinion, but as part of Christian/semitic studies in religious education, it should not be taught as scientific fact. Evolution after all is not taught in religious studies.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion...

ID is easily refuted by Russells take on PSR which unfortunately many pro-ID scientists are unaware of.

Evolution
Creationism
Religious dogma

[Theben]

@ loinburger: Okay, for a second there I thought you were referring to the teachers.

I'll go you one better: we should push for a law that requires any religious school that receives any public funding (which is 99% of them) to teach evolution.

Yeah, that's a much better idea. In fact, I think we should do just that.

[Whaleboy]

Yeah, that's a much better idea. In fact, I think we should do just that.

Agreed

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Ummm...I don't know if I'm infringing on the debate, but...

The arguement of "Intelligent Design" apparently dictates that some form of INTELLEGENCE created us.

Can I ask where THAT intelligence came from? Because, after all...humans are intelligent. That means, of course, if you follow ID, OUR intelligence was created by ANOTHER'S intelligence. But for that to happen, according to ID, the intelligence that created the human intelligence would have to have been created by ANOTHER intelligence.

So where exactly did that first INTELLIGENCE come from?

That's the problem of all theories of life & the universe, including evolution and the big bang, ect... the only answers are either "nobody knows" or "it came to existance out of nothing", which isn't a very satisfactory answer.

[Whaleboy]

Ludd; that's precisely where philosophy is useful and one needn't invoke God to answer it. Subjective existentialism, and evolution provides the nuts and bolts .

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Can I ask where THAT intelligence came from? Because, after all...humans are intelligent. That means, of course, if you follow ID, OUR intelligence was created by ANOTHER'S intelligence. But for that to happen, according to ID, the intelligence that created the human intelligence would have to have been created by ANOTHER intelligence.

Well, that is where god comes in. The term "god" automatically refers to an intelligence that does not require a creator.

The fact is that evolution has a similar problem. No matter how far back you go, at some point you have to say that "nothing" led to "something". This completely violates the law of conservation of energy. True nothingness by definition is nothing and therefore cannot produce anything.

So pick your poison: either the universe resulted from nothingness which is completely impossible accodring to the laws of nature or the universe was created by an intelligence that did not require a creator.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Aliens.

or

Gods.

Suitably powerful aliens would be indistinguishable from God anyway.

[General Ludd]

What's scientific about evolution, that puts it "beyond" creationism? Evolution isn't really about microbiology, molecular structure or any sort of "hard" science - it's about the interaction of life forms with each other and their environment.

[Whaleboy]

Well, that is where god comes in. The term "god" automatically refers to an intelligence that does not require a creator.

In this sense (the cosmological argument) it is absurd because it begs the question of a creator. In otherwords god's creator.

Russell answers this by saying that a cause is not necessary to the context of the conclusion, though of course science seeks to be categorically objective so that's insufficient, but in respect of the universe it holds. Modern theories of the big bang hold that at time=0, nothing was only nothing by our definition and by others it needn't have been.

The choice you offer at the end is rather simplistic and quite useless imo.

[Whaleboy]

What's scientific about evolution, that puts it "beyond" creationism? Evolution isn't really about microbiology, molecular structure or any sort of "hard" science - it's about the interaction of life forms with each other and their environment.

Well what is scientific? It's a whole question irrelevant to the discussion. Evolution is a theory with more and better evidence behind it, which science tags along with for scientific method is best represented by it, and creationism is a theory purported by Semitic religions, hence the perceived conflict.

[Theben]

We haven't observed creationism in action.

We have observed evolution.

I'm not disputing the fact that evolution can fit into place of loose interpretations of the bible or that it still fails to answer ALL of the questions OR that creation might be correct. However ID doesn't fit in with evolution nor do literal interpretations of the bible, and I've yet to find any reason to believe creationism isn't anything other than pseudo-scientific BS.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I'll go you one better: we should push for a law that requires any religious school that receives any public funding (which is 99% of them) to teach evolution.

Excellent.

Return fire!

-Arrian

[the_ceebs]

What's scientific about evolution, that puts it "beyond" creationism? Evolution isn't really about microbiology, molecular structure or any sort of "hard" science - it's about the interaction of life forms with each other and their environment.

The difference is that a Scientific theory is different to an everyday theory, it's not that a scientific theory is just an idea that a bloke had in a bar one night. scientific theories are damn close to being proved, in fact if you are looking at successful theories there are other big everyday theories that are not proven, how about the theory of gravity.

If you are going to insist on a half baked idea like ID (It isn't a theory, find the merest shred of proof beyond wishful thinking and I may acknowledge an upgrade in its status) then I think you should also insist on alternate biblical explainations for all science being taught in classrooms

For example

Theory of Gravity

Ezekiel 33:10
"Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down, and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?" '


Theory of Reletivity

Light moves at 186,000 miles an hour but only after 4400 BC when god said let there be light

And please no Google for it replies, If you want us to believe you then present an argument .

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Theben
We haven't observed creationism in action.

We have observed evolution.

When, where (other than micro-organisms)?

[Whaleboy]

the_ceebs: Agreed mostly, it's just the difference between science and absolute faith is that science accepts theories contingently, that is until something better comes along, in order to avoid some psychological attachment to ones ideas, like faith, latterly where people seem to stick by the same tired idea despite superior reasoning to the contrary. Dealing with this on my "why I am not a christian" thread. This is what we mean by scientific proof, but that doesn't invalidate it, it makes it stronger by "plugging it in" as it were to reason, instead of being subject to its opposition.