Why must intelligent design be stopped

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Excellent, so now you have blind faith.

No matter what, you were told something you do not know by someone else and believe it. And you believe it becasue you have faith in the scientific method. I am not saying you have faith in radar, but in science (and its heart, the method),

What an ignorant statement. Anyone who has even a basic understanding of how waves reflect off surfaces or who has watched waves bounce off of and reflect from the wall of a swimming pool has more basis of fact on how radar works then any creationist does on how species developed.

[Ben Kenobi]

find a primate or Dinosaur before the first occurence of protista in the ground. Bonus points for style if you find it before what is accepted to be the phanerozoic era.

Would that disprove evolution, though? Couldn't an evolutionist simply say that the reason we find these dinosaurs then, and not later, is because a massive extinction occured, wiping out the 'higher' organisms, and leaving only the microbes?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm working through the thread, gepap. Apologies.



Very good. Is this the extent of the claims that Darwin makes though? Does he just see people gradually improving over time to be better adapted to their conditions, though retaining their form of a 'person'?

"Improving" is relative term. The point of selection is that some organism will be more successfuly than others and in the end breed more. Changes accumulate over time.

He makes no predictions about the end rseult of any species, because such predictions would require one to have precognition of the coming environmental changes. NOt having read Origin of Man, I don't know if he makes any predictions about any future human evolution- and honestly, that would be meaningless to the proccess which he lays out for the creation of new species.

Evolution has no end, there is no "improving" in the sense that any organism that can successfully procreate itself and continue on given their environment is a success-no matter the complexity or simplicity of its design. What works is good, period.

[Ben Kenobi]

As I said, your ****ty schools.

Yeah, that I can't refute now can I, other then to say that I thought they were rather good schools, IB in high school, and UBC.

That's not true on many levels. He observed far more than just bird species in his travels. Further evidence that when it comes to Darwin, you talk out of your ass. I've had to correct you on so many false claims you've made about him and his writings, I'm astounded you still come up with wrong things to say. I suspect you've never even read Origin of the Species or the Descent of Man.

Read both, quoted from the Origin extensively last time we argued. This is just another ad-hominem. Darwin doubted his own theories to a much greater degree then folks will now, because he wanted to have a better basis to rest his own conclusions.

That we come from apes is easily observed in molecular, genetic and physiological evidence.

The assumption being that similarities in genetic structure show closeness in relationships across species. Yet, just a small change in the genetic code produces huge differences, let alone several percent.

Physiological, looks at how the monkeys are like, and noting similarities between them and men. Sure, they are more similar to us then jelly fish, but that doesn't mean we descend from them.

Demanding that such evolution be observed in the act is a ludicrous goal post that's established just so folks like you can deny the facts. Evolution has been observed on many levels, and the evidence for it abounds to such an extent that 99+% of biologists know it's true without question.

The controversy includes more then just 1 percent of biologists dissenting with the 'accepted consensus' of biology, at least from articles I have seen. They are biologists, who when they compare their own disciplines to the rigour of others, particularly physics and chemistry, prefer greater evidence in support of evolution.

And that you would claim the theory of abiogenesis (which, I have to point out once again, is independent of evolution) relies on a "soup" shows you're again totally out of touch with the theories. The soup theory was known to be inaccurate long ago.

First of all, abiogenesis is an essential link to evolution. I'm surprised you claim that it has nothing to do with evolution at all. It is an important step to the process, because it allows all of the animal kingdom to be related to each other. If we only have a certain number of species that are related to each other, and they all spawn from a certain number of other species that existed before them, that sounds an awful lot like creationism to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

He makes no predictions about the end rseult of any species, because such predictions would require one to have precognition of the coming environmental changes.

Fair enough. His theory then fails to be scientific because it doesn't make any verifiable predictions that can be tested.

NOt having read Origin of Man, I don't know if he makes any predictions about any future human evolution- and honestly, that would be meaningless to the proccess which he lays out for the creation of new species.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/

Evolution has no end, there is no "improving" in the sense that any organism that can successfully procreate itself and continue on given their environment is a success-no matter the complexity or simplicity of its design. What works is good, period.

To be accurate, it destroys the notion of a 'higher' species, since all organisms are properly adapted to their niches, and their environment. If organisms merely adapt to better make use of their environment, then it doesn't make sense to say that the will 'improve' or evolve to anything 'higher'.

[Ben Kenobi]

Really ? In what respect ?

In explaining and demonstrating how one species becomes another.

Because I think most people would agree that multi-drug resistant staphylococcus aureus, salmonella, bubonic plague, tuberculosis and malaria indicates evolutionary theories are alive and kicking.

So that is the entirety of evolution, the fact that genetics will produce mutations from time to time?

Unless of course you imagine that the Almighty Bujobu 'made' those critters resistant to relatively recently created drugs to punish modern humanity.

Not at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

This thread is a good example, until Ben came and put it textbooks back into the arguement.

Actually I did say that I preferred them not to teach about evolution in high school, and to leave it for university.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Fair enough. His theory then fails to be scientific because it doesn't make any verifiable predictions that can be tested.

Are you really that dense on what experimentation means!?

HIs theory of selection predicts that if you take a population and subject it to new selection pressures, then certain traits that make individuals more suceesful in the new environment will be passed on at a greater rate than before, and that given enough generations this will mean a significant change in the characteristics of that population. The existence of resistant bacteria shows this to be true already.

Evolution has shown experimental successes, it has shown its prediction do bear out. As I stated earlier, the evidence has already been posted. You simply refuse to look at it.

To be accurate, it destroys the notion of a 'higher' species, since all organisms are properly adapted to their niches, and their environment. If organisms merely adapt to better make use of their environment, then it doesn't make sense to say that the will 'improve' or evolve to anything 'higher'.

Lord, give me strength!

I already stated that there is no such things as "improvement" in a absolute term. Species are either successful, OR not. That is it. Evolution has no end- it has no direction, it has no goal. Evolution is a system, it is what happens when life is placed in a changing, dynamic universe. If the universe was static, there would be no change, no need. But the universe is dynamic, and for life to succeed and spread, it must be dynamic as well.

That is evolution, the process of how life comes to succeed in a harsh, dynamic universe, one of chaotic changes. Species that are around are those spcies that can succeessfully cope with the current conditions- changes in current conditions will lead to changes in what species there are- certain forms are universal, hearty, they can succeed in very hard conditions without much change for epochs. Others are specialized for the current situation, and will likely die when it changes dramatically.

Anyone who thinks for a second that evolution has a goal, or that there is a "hierarchy" of species is someone who knows nothing about evolution. Greater complexity can be a boon, or a disservice, to survival. What will be, will be.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Actually I did say that I preferred them not to teach about evolution in high school, and to leave it for university.

That is so wrong as it can be. It should be taught from when children first meet biology.

[Odin]

Ben, There is no such thing as "higher" and "lower" organisms, that is old terminology from the days of the Scala Natrulae

I suggest you read a college biology textbook, and Ernst Mayr's book What Evolution Is and enlighten yourself on the subject. Right now you are just posting nonsensical BAMs that show you are not knoledgable about what you are even talking about.

[Deity Dude]

Well back to my original question that no one here quite answered.

Should the "shortcomings" of evolution be taught without proposing a divinity to fill in the gaps?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Well back to my original question that no one here quite answered.

Should the "shortcomings" of evolution be taught without proposing a divinity to fill in the gaps?

There are no shortcommings.

[Deity Dude]

So you have read the book that I cited earlier by the gentleman who is an MD, has a PhD in Molecular biology and is well known for his papers in biololigal research. And on top of that you have read all the other scientists that he cites in his book who point out flaws and are not convinced of teh "purity" of the theory..

You prefer "there are no shortcomings" be taught. I suppose anyone who disagrees should meet your wrath.

That attitude reminds me more of the "Spanish Inquisition" than science.

[Dinner]

There is nearly universal concensus among experts that evolution as a process exists and was the cause of speciation. The only arguments which occur deal with details like how closely certain species are related or the exact DNA mutations which occured and in what sequence.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Well back to my original question that no one here quite answered.

Should the "shortcomings" of evolution be taught without proposing a divinity to fill in the gaps?

Evolution should be taugh like all scientific notions. Students are given the theory, and then presented with the evidence there is to back it up. Students should feel free to ask question of the theory, and if they are smart, they will ask, and when they come up to a point in which the evidence is yet inconclusive then the teacher is honest and tell them, the evidence is inconclusive.

That simple.


To propose any notion in science class that goes against the very basis of science, that is, empirically sought out knowledge, is to undermine the entire teaching of science.

Any notion of "divinity" is certainly out of bounds. If kids want divinity, let them take comparitive theology.