Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[the_ceebs]

When, where (other than micro-organisms)?

Fruit flys

[Whaleboy]

Mosquitos in the London underground.
The artificial breeding of dogs etc

[MikeH]

And "other than micro-organisms" is crap anyway.

If I drop a whole selection of different sized small objects on the ground, and observe the results it's perfectly ok for me to theorise what would happen if I performed the same experiment with a big object.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by the_ceebs
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)

ID is not a half-baked idea. And there is mathematical evidence to give it credence.

Check this website: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aege...roofcreat.html

[Theben]

Moths
many diferent insects
Also populations that have become isolated from the dominant strain over long periods of time, that are subjected to variant climates, food sources, etc.

[Theben]

Originally posted by The diplomat


ID is not a half-baked idea. And there is mathematical evidence to give it credence.

You're right, it's an idea served cold.

And if you want me to believe you, bring the 'evidence' here. I already wasted my time with that other link.

[Whaleboy]

DIP: That article is using nothing but the probability of contingents and attractors to support ID. Attractors in fact goes against ID because it only works with chaos theory and as for the probability, PSR renders it a half-baked idea . And it's lucky to have that half.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
When, where (other than micro-organisms)?

You didn't pay attention to evilution vs creationism threads before?

Here some

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The diplomat
ID is not a half-baked idea. And there is mathematical evidence to give it credence.

Then again, Michael Behe was refuted from here to Madagascar.

[SpencerH]

Genetic changes to moths, fruit flies etc is natural selection. There is no example where we have observed evolution (i.e. one species becomes another) with the possible exception (depending on your definition of species) of micro-organisms. One can postulate evolution from observing changes to micro-organisms (or fossil record) but no one has observed it (if we did it would no longer be theory but fact).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by the_ceebs


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.

Yes, they usually have it in the bath tub, don't they?

scientific theories are damn close to being proved

and equally close to being disproved

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.

So now you're saying that proof isn't necisary for a scientific theory to be accepted?

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 .

I'm not making an argument for creationism, I'm making an argument for an open forum, and against this ivory tower attitude.



Actually, this reminds me of a quote from a book I've read recently:

Scientism, the aura of authority carried by scientists, has made us believe that knowledge obtained by scientists is the ultimate authority, that as we accumulate information, our capacity to understand, control and manage our surroundings will grow correspondingly. But the basic principle of scientific exploration contradicts this faith: knowledge comes from empirical observations which are "made sense of" by hypotheses, which in turn can be experimentally tested All information is open to being disproved. As Jonathan Marks has pointed out;

... the vast majority of ideas that most scientists have ever had have been wrong. They have been refuted; they have been disposed of. Further, at any point in time, most ideas proposed by most scientists will ultimately be refuted and disposed of... Science, in other words, undermines scientism.

[Theben]

Originally posted by SpencerH
There is no example where we have observed evolution (i.e. one species becomes another)

Also populations that have become isolated from the dominant strain over long periods of time, that are subjected to variant climates, food sources, etc.

[Theben]

... the vast majority of ideas that most scientists have ever had have been wrong. They have been refuted; they have been disposed of. Further, at any point in time, most ideas proposed by most scientists will ultimately be refuted and disposed of... Science, in other words, undermines scientism.

Uh, not to end your quest, but that in fact only helps prove the validity of science.

EDIT: And yes, many theories are accepted. However NONE of them are accepted as a scientific law. That doesn't mean that every time I drop an object it won't accerate towards earth at 9.8 m/s, barring other variables (wind resistance, altitude).

[MikeH]

Originally posted by The diplomat


ID is not a half-baked idea. And there is mathematical evidence to give it credence.

Check this website: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aege...roofcreat.html

People consider that mathematical evidence?

I think I could probably provide evidence that stars shouldn't exist on the same basis.

[MikeH]

There is only one correct answer to this problem:


Evolution is an incomplete theory with some evidence to support it as well as problems.

Intelligent design is an incomplete theory with very little evidence to support it and some much bigger problems.

Therefore at the current time we should probably accept evolution as the more likely explanation, whilst, as with all science, keeping an open mind to other explanations.