Legos make a reasonable tabernacle
The State Board of Education on Tuesday approved public school curriculum guidelines that support the teaching of evolution in science classes — but not intelligent design.
Intelligent design instruction could be left for other classes in Michigan schools, but it doesn’t belong in science class, according to the unanimously adopted guidelines.
Intelligent design has also become an issue in the Michigan governor’s race.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos, a conservative Christian, said last month that he approves of intelligent design being taught along with evolution in science classes, though he said the decision should be left up to local school districts.
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is Roman Catholic, said Michigan schools need to teach evolution in science classes and not include intelligent design. She said school districts can explore intelligent design in current events or comparative religions classes.
I think those of us who accept the wholly writings of the Fying Spaghetti Monster should have an equal opportunity to present our case in Michigan’s religion schools.
put up or shut up time show me where there is any proff in the bible or anywhere that a dog does not reproduce a dog
Curtis, I’m sorry but I can’t post 100′s of papers on this blog. If you truly want to educate yourself, do the leg work, otherwise remain ignorant.
JimR just like your story, long ago, far away, in place where i am to dumb to understand because i can not see it but some how you can see it …… You all have the same answer heard it before
I didn’t say you were to dumb to understand. On the contrary, I suggested you educate yourself by reading scientific papers (which require a reasonable level of intelligence) on current provable facts using DNA and other scientific tests before you make silly examples (getting a cat from a dog through breeding) that would more describe a miraculous transformation rather than define evolution. I guess you have been brainwashed to expect miracles, so I understand your shortfall.
Curtis, while I would generally describe myself as a deist and find a purely evolutionary explanation of a whole planet full of highly diverse life developing from a chance chemical reaction in the “primordial ooze” to be a little beyond far-fetched, you probably could have picked a better species than dogs to argue against evidence of evolution.
Alright now i am confused evolution did not happen fast, did not happened slow, does not happen now, (because we can not see it, or you need alittle more time) maybe it didnot happen at all
I do believe in miracles I believe in God this is on faith
you however take your belief turn it into so called fact provide not evidence and somehow i am suppose to stand by and let you pull the wool over my eyes
Alright now i am confused evolution did not happen fast, did not happened slow, does not happen now, (because we can not see it, or you need alittle more time) maybe it didnot happen at all
I do believe in miracles I believe in God this is on faith
you however take your belief turn it into so called fact provide no evidence and yours is fact and mine is belief
JimR:
Apparently the fossil record isn’t enough proof for you? Still looking for your missing links after all these years? I would rather say that it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in ID. I congratulate you on the amount of faith that you display; unfortunate that it is misplaced.
Oh, oh, the kooks are starting to appear. Curtis, the proof is there if you choose to learn about it. At least I studied the bible before I made any comments.
Fear of dying does strange things to people. You believe in an imaginary friend who will not let you die if that comforts you. Me … I have no problems facing the truth that I will die and nothing else exists for me afterward. Ta ta.
Now the truth finally comes out this has nothing to do with is there proof for evolution but if there is a creator and if there is a creator what he can do with his creation
I hope you come around because you are going to die as well as I and i am sorry to hear that all you think you are worth is the dash between the dates(1973-20 ) i live for more than that
as far as fossils are concerned the only thing they tell you for sure is that they are now dead anything futher than that is just a guess
the second law of thermodynamics clearly shows over time everyhting falls apart this is a problem for evolution unless you say that humans to day are the least complex thing in nature
Curtis – please outline (in bullet points ideally, because its easier to read for everyone) all your problems with evolution and natural selection (which are two different things).
I’ll try to answer them, if I can’t I’m sure others can.
#16, Comment by Curtis — 10/11/2006 @ 12:50 pm
What the hell is your post about? I don’t believe I have ever read such a load of undecipherable drivel as this.
NOTE. Punctuation always helps.
Personally I’m open to ideas, I would like to see the scientific data that suggests intelligent design has some basis in scientific fact based upon the physical world we live in. I’ve tried reading some articles about this but it seems ID places too much faith in “faith”.
For all those who don’t believe that evolution is happening now, please explain to me how the increasing number of strains of bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics. And why are new viruses appearing? As for ID being taught as science, somebody should explain that exploring hypothesis alone isn’t science unless you are willing to give it up if there is no supporting evidence. ID stems from a belief in a creator that for some is immutable. For true scientific exploration the researcher would have to be willing to abandon that belief. Teach ID if you must, but don’t try and pass it off as science.
#20, I think in alot of ways Intelligent Design helps science. It’s a great case study of the limits of science and the difference between science and pseudo science. And it also teaches shows the ongoing battle between science and public opinion. Science conflicts with not just religious fundamentalism, but also things like healthcare, global warming, and nutrition. Much of what you believe to be true is probably wrong. For instance, do you believe that a low fat diet a healthy diet? Hmm.
Just remember that science does not address the issue of the existance, or non existance, of a supernatural God. The scientific method cannot address the supernatural. It’s beyond it’s capabilities.
If you are hung up with a conflict between God and Evolution, I suggest you read the Dover trial transcripts. Pretty much the entire defense team was devoutly religious, and believe God and Evolution were compatible. Also read or watch the Father George V. Coyne, the Vatican Observatory Director, on science and God: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504 .
Also, it’s a wonderful question why a dog does not evolve into a cat. I suggest you seek the answer for yourself. The answer may not be trivial, but neither is science and the fundamental nature of the universe. Science can be really, really hard.
I wonder why ID enthusiasts want to teach creationism because evolution has some holes in it’s theory. Is ID a perfect theory? Let me ask,:
Where did God come from?
Why does God create some humans imperfectly so they either die before birth or shortly after?
Why couldn’t God create a straight line in nature?
Why did God give great wisdom to some and great stupidity to Baptists?
Why did God put those that would hurt innocent children among us?
Why did God create the foreskin and hymen?
If I knew the answers to these questions then I would be inclined to accept the teaching of Unintelligent Design.
@#36
It reminds me of a great line I read from a remarkable author, it goes… “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
how fossils tell us anything more than something died
(not where it died, that it had any kids, that it had kids that were different from the parent)
how the colorado river carved the grand canyon when it enters the canyon lower than the highest part of the canyon
(rivers can not run up hill atleast not for long like millions of years)
where did the space for the universe come from
where did matter come from
how did matterget so perfectly organized
where did the energy come from to do all the organizing
(keeping in mind evolution, and laws of physic)
how did life come from nonliving matter
(also when, where, why)
how did life learn to reproduce
why would a plant or animal reproduce more of its kindsince it would have to compete for food, space, air assuming survial of fittest
how can mutations create anything new
(does this not just scramble information that is already present)
show me a benifical mutation
is it not possible that similarities prove a common creator and not a common ancestor
natural selection only works with genetic information available and creates stable species how does this create new genetic information that is not already present
which came first i have a ton of these
the drive to reproduce or the ability
dna or rna
the termite or the flagella in its intestines and how the other survied
the plants or the insets that live on them feed on them and pollinate them
how did thought evolve
how did photosynthesis evolve
how and why did fish change to amphibians to reptiles to birds and how the intermediate forms live
thanks if you need more just ask
#38, I’ll take a stab at a couple of your questions. But I do notice that you didn’t answer even one of mine in #36.
how did life learn to reproduce
Life did not learn to reproduce. The first living organisms probably did not reproduce and it was only after many years that a life form came into being that was able to divide itself into two self sufficient cells. There is no proof that this occurred as there is no fossil record, nor could there be, of soft tissued life.
why would a plant or animal reproduce more of its kind since it would have to compete for food, space, air assuming survival of fittest
Numbers. The greater the probability of survival, the less offspring are required. An Oak tree has thousands of acorns every year, yet there will most likely be only one tree that will grow to maturity. Many acorns may germinate and sprout, but most will die. By being a food source, acorns are spread by squirrels much further then the mature oak could by just dropping them.
An American baby has a very good probability of reaching maturity and that reality is reflected in the approximate average of one child per parent. In poorer areas of the planet, infant and child mortality is much greater and often several children must be borne for one to reach maturity.
So I guess we could also toss this back and ask God why he made the Oak have so many acorns when only one will reach maturity?
#36 It depends, Fusion, on whether or not ID is just the idea that someone or something created the universe and the rules it operates under, or if it also means there is a god in heaven manipulating the daily workings of things. Belief in the former does not require a belief in the later. Who knows, maybe we are all just part of an incredibly complex computer simulation. I don’t have a clue, and I don’t claim to. But I do believe that it is completely reasonable to conclude that the reliance on some chance chemical reaction billions of years ago falls far short of explaining an entire planet full of diverse life… not to mention an explanation for how some of that life became sentient.
This debate always degrades into name-calling from both sides, so I frankly don’t understand why it keeps coming up, or why Christians insist on always bringing it upon themselves.