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.
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.
#39
First question answer just leaves more questions. The first organisms did not reproduce how did we get more of them?
Your second answer does not answer the question why?!? Everything you said supports ID.
some of your questions
Where did God come from
In the begining God created the heavens and the earth
God was there at the begining this is some thing that I believe by faith, there is no other way to explain this ( I do not pretend this is science)
Why does God create some humans imperfectly so they either die before birth or shortly after?
this is another tough question. What you must remember is God does not make these things happen but rather allows them to take place. Why, there is only one who knows, but I am confident that all thing work for the good of those who love him.
Why couldn’t God create a straight line in nature?
this goes no where, that just like ‘can God make a rock so large that even he can’t move it’. What would the purpose be
And something never comes from nothing, never has, no examples. It’s called the infinite regression of material reality.
Not that it concerns True Believers.
BTW, Curtis — a series of statements of attainder has as little to do with science as they do with debate.
#42
you must be very dense or do not know how to read
I already said this is what I believe by FAITH
Thanks Curtis, you’re at least helping with the debate, which is more than most ID proponents do on this board. I’ll do my best…
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)
Well it does tell us where it died, but only within a certain margin for error. Geology can help with that to some extent (which is is why science fields work with one another)
But as to how they can tell us anything – For a start: It shows us how that organism was built and, as I’m sure you are aware, not everything is built the same – we can see differences, and some of those differences will evolve over time (Small front legs get smaller, or develop a skin membrane, then develop feathers.. etc etc. and show we can see the development of a type of lizard into bird)
Does that help answer that?
how the colorado river carved the grand canyon (snip)
Where did the space for the universe come from
where did matter come from
how did matter get so perfectly organized
where did the energy come from to do all the organizing
None of these are evolution questions, those are geology (#1) & physics (the rest) questions. As such it isn’t anything to do with this discussion. Valid questions, but off topic.
how did life come from nonliving matter (also when, where, why)
Not really an evolution question, but I’ll say this about it: Everything is made of “non-living matter” we are carbon based lifeforms. Atoms and molecules. You can even see atoms, they aren’t a hypothesis or “theory” so your question applies as equally to a lump of rock as it does a person. However its a physics question at its core.
how did life learn to reproduce
I don’t have a good answer to this, but my “learn to reproduce” I assume you are talking the original simple systems. It also depends on how you define “life” – in this kind of example the obvious thing would be a single cell organism like an Amoeba. However I don’t have a complete answer for you – I hope someone else can help more.
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
how can mutations create anything new
That is what a mutation is. Something new. Sometimes they are good, sometimes bad – Cancer is just bad mutation.
(does this not just scramble information that is already present)
Ah I see your point – a mutation can only build on what is already there. for example – take these two characters | & _ (a pipe and an underscore) – together they are something new, an L.
Ok that is a simplistic (and not perfect) example – but it illustrates the point.
show me a beneficial mutation
Your skin? You see everything that serves a function is a mutation in some way. What would you consider beneficial in the human body? That is going to have come about from a mutation of some sort.
is it not possible that similarities prove a common creator and not a common ancestor
Yes, yes it is. I wouldn’t say it wasn’t. However concidering what we know about how organisms change that creator would have to have set Evolution is motion rather than have created everything
natural selection only works with genetic information available and creates stable species how does this create new genetic information that is not already present
This is the same as the question above about new forms. To give another example – like genetics, the alphabet has some fundamental building blocks, but look at how many words can be created from these. Look how language evolves! Do you see the point I’m making?
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
Chicken or the egg? Basically the answer is usually “neither” because those things are probably different now to how they were then. The whole world isn’t static.
how did thought evolve
Ooo that’s a great question. I love it if someone can find a good answer to this.
how did photosynthesis evolve
I actually had this in one of my textbooks, but suffice to say it is well covered – a quick Google will probably find you this information. Sorry I don’t have it here, but it has been well discussed.
how and why did fish change to amphibians to reptiles to birds and how the intermediate forms live
How? well that’s not hard – the fundamental structure of all animals is pretty similar – only very small changes would need to happen. The fossil record covers this pretty well too. There are even “missing link” style creature around today (the Axolotl for example – google it).
Why? Because they needed more room? Less competition? The short answer is “because they needed to”
—
However I’m not a scientist, you will have to actually read and study to get complete answers. The evidence is there for this. For ID – and Creationism (which are the same thing) – there is no evidence. None. It relies on faith, not evidence or proof. Faith is proof of nothing, or science.
So it isn’t really up to scientists to defend science, but for Creationists to show that their ideas have scientific merit. If they can then I will be first to support their addition to the science curriculum.
OK, Gregory has stolen my thunder but here’s my 2 cents:
how fossils tell us anything more than something died?
Ask any forensic investigator what bones can tell you. Age, sex, possible cause of death, sicknesses or injuries sustained while living. Where it died? Good chance it was nearby, probably on the same continent.
how the colorado river carved the grand canyon when it enters the canyon lower than the highest part of the canyon.
The earth’s surface is constantly undergoing changes. From where I sit I can see a cliff face where the layers of sedimentary rock are on a 45 degree angle. I don’t know much about the Grand canyon, but I bet the sedimentary layers are not perfectly flat
where did the space for the universe come from?
The universe IS space. No space exists out the universe, so it doesn’t need “space” to fit in.
where did matter come from.
The current theory on the Big Bang suggests that all matter was compressed very tightly before the big bang. No “extra” energy has been created since then. Try reading some Stephen Hawking on a much better explanation than I can express.
how did matter get so perfectly organized.
Matter isn’t “perfectly” organised but it’s organised well enough for life. The laws of physics dictate how matter is organised.
where did the energy come from to do all the organizing
(keeping in mind evolution, and laws of physic).
Energy and matter are pretty much the same (Think E=MC2). Once again no extra energy/matter is created since the big bang.
how did life come from nonliving matter
(also when, where, why).
The basic building blocks of life are pretty abundant. The earliest form of life only needs to be a molecule that is able to replicate itself from the molecules around it. From there on, molecules that are better at replicating will become more abundant, more complex molecules evolve, natural selection kicks in.
how did life learn to reproduce.
See above. Replication is one of the main requisites to life. We’re getting close to philosophy here, especially when you start thinking about what constitutes living. Look at viruses. Are they alive?
why would a plant or animal reproduce more of its kindsince it would have to compete for food, space, air assuming survival of fittest. Survival of the fittest applies to the species, not just the individual. Therefore reproducing and passing on genes is essential. Some people believe that all behaviour can be traced to the basic need to keeping the species going.
how can mutations create anything new
(does this not just scramble information that is already present).
The information in DNA is really just down to 4 sequences. From a chemical point of view, your DNA is not much different from a tree’s. It’s the sequence that results in the way, for example, proteins are built and therefore organisms are structured. If the same 4 building blocks contains the information on how to build a tree, or how to build a human, then a lot of “new” organisms are possible.
show me a benifical mutation.
In Britain there was a moth that was a grey mottled colour, with a few natural variants. The colouring made the moth hard to see against the local trees on which it rested during the day. During the industrial revolution the burning of coal gradually coated everything black, including the trees. As a result the moth almost died out in these areas because the birds could easily pick them against the trees. Guess what? After few years the moth made a comeback sporting a new darker colour, almost black. Luckily for the moth, at least one carried a mutation that made it a darker colour and harder for the birds to see them. Since this was now an advantage, the black moths had a better chance of survival and therefore pass on their mutation to their offspring. Definitely an advantage.
is it not possible that similarities prove a common creator and not a common ancestor.
I see no way of proving a common creator. That is a matter of belief.
natural selection only works with genetic information available and creates stable species how does this create new genetic information that is not already present. See previous on mutations. Also, species aren’t inherently stable, it’s just those with successful mutations survive longer.
which came first i have a ton of these
the drive to reproduce or the ability.
Easy – ability. The drive comes later and becomes an advantage.
dna or rna
Not sure what the latest on this is.
the termite or the flagella in its intestines and how the other survied. You are assuming that the termite and the flagella are unchanged since the relationship started. The original termites and flagella could have survived without each other, but when together they gave each other an advantage over other species and therefore were more likely to survive. Over generations as the flagella became better at converting the starch and the termite became more successful over other species they could reach a point where they are now where they cant survive without each other.
the plants or the insets that live on them feed on them and pollinate them
Flowering plants that relied on insects for pollination appeared during the Cretaceous period. Before that plants usually relied on the wind to carry pollen around, like conifers still do today.
how did thought evolve. I’m not touching this! Some cynics believe thought is nothing more than a chemical process, but I’ll leave that to the philosophers.
how did photosynthesis evolve. Once again you are assuming that photosynthesis first appeared in its current form. A much simpler chemical reaction involving sunlight would have been the pre-cursor.
how and why did fish change to amphibians to reptiles to birds and how the intermediate forms live.
Fish that walk on the ocean floor exist today, using their fins. A fish that could move into shallow water or even to the next puddle to lay its eggs away from predators would have a huge advantage. An amphibian that lays tougher eggs that can survive periods out of water also has an advantage. Evolution from fish to amphibian or amphibians to reptiles doesn’t happen in just one or two steps. It takes many steps over a long period of time, with maybe an occasional bigger leap. Species with the characteristics of different groups of animals exist today – look at monotremes (egg laying mammals).
thanks if you need more just ask. Keep ‘em coming!
ID debunked in one simple statement:
Test it. Show me a way that I can test the tenets of ID. Show me experimentation, show me how to reproduce some experiment (just like your high school biology class) that gives me data that supports ID. The problem is that you can’t, either way. You can’t show me an experiment with data either way, because how do you test the presence or lack thereof.
Meanwhile, evolution by natural selection is observable and testable, and it has been observed and tested for over 100 years now. And with modern techniques we can now understand on the genetic level, in a way we never could before.
#41, Why couldn’t God create a straight line in nature?
this goes no where, that just like ‘can God make a rock so large that even he can’t move it’. What would the purpose be
Comment by Curtis — 10/11/2006 @ 8:46 pm
Good answer. So why did God create our appendix? Our appendix serves no useful purpose. In certain situations, it may actually harm or even kill us.
The answer is that God didn’t create our appendix. It is the remnant of a ancestral form. In many animals the equivalent organ is still used to digest cellulose.
Hi this is Curtis I have been black listed by the website sorry
I must have upset someone with questions
Bye Bye
#33 – …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”.
Comment by AlF — 10/11/2006 @ 6:39 pm
That’s because it places everything in faith. ID is a smokescreen.
It’s important that defenders of science and of rational thinking not use terminology like “Inteligent Design”. These is no such thing. It is not a school of thought. It is not a legitimate pursuit of science. It is just the subversive (and, admittedly clever) attempt by zealots to get religious teachings into school. It’s Creationism. That is the word to use. That’s the only word that can apply.
It’s okay to believe in Creationism. There is no law that mandates that you cannot be wrong, so you can believe in whatever hooky spooky witchcraft bullshit you want, but I’m not standing around here suffering slings and arrows of outrageous dogma without saying exactly what ID really is. It is the rantings of the loons.
I hope Curtis hasn’t been banned (and if he is posting at all I doubt it, because he wouldn’t be able to). It’s more likely that someone (he or not) wanted to not answer the questions, or couldn’t respond to them.. ah well.
However Mr Fusion – you’re wrong. The Appendix has a function as part of the lymphatic system. Ask any doctor. The stuff about it not doing anything is rubbish and poor science. It isn’t as useful as it once was but it still functions (its just a function we can live without – like one kidney, or half a lung).
I see how this whole thing works.
You are allowed to post your ideas as long as they agree with the webmaster of this site. If you don’t agree with the controler of this site you are edited.
# 50
It ‘s a good thing you add some constructive commons to this debate.(hahaha) It is very easy to sit and name call and make fun. This is because your side has nothing else than to name call and make fun.
If you were true interested in science you would atleast hear the other side. As far as proof for creation just look around you. Look at the complex nature of everything. You are trying to tell me that long ago far away there was a big explosion(add enough energy) and created the order lines for the present world.
Japan added all sorts of energy to Pearl Harbor, how much did that organize? We had alsorts of energy to Japan(Atomic bombs)what did that organize?
Ah, so “all” probably isn’t Curtis – or if he is he’s shown his true colors. Sad, I had hoped for more.
1 – you’re still posting, therefore not been banned or censored.
2 – You’ve not responded to the points raised.
3 – Science does listen to evidence from all sides, ID has no evidence. If you have some evidence in favour of it then please present it so it can be evaluated.
4 – Complexity does not equal design.
You are trying to tell me that long ago far away there was a big explosion
Nope, no-one thinks it was an explosion, The Big Band was actually a nick name given to the idea by an opponant,
and created the order lines for the present world.
“Order lines”? What the hell are you talking about?
(Atomic bombs)what did that organize?
Who said explosions or bombs organized anything? Only you. No-one has said that at all. You are making an argument from your own incorrect understanding of the science.
Ha Gregory there are ways around blocks. Duh like change your name, change emails, change computer etc…
I have answered, but they are not going to posted due to the editor of this site, ask for them to posted. (Which is highly unlikely without them being changed! Somebody must be afraid)I am not going to respond to any quetions or diggs until I am taken of the black list.
Okay… Okay… Stop feeding the troll.
#53 – Nope, no-one thinks it was an explosion, The Big Band was actually a nick name given to the idea by an opponant, — Comment by Gregory
You got a problem with Big Band? Dig those crazy horns! You not hip to the swing daddy-o? You are squaresville man!
Oh, that Big Band. I thought you were referring to Levon Helm, Garth Hudson, Rick Danco, Robbie Robertson, and Richard Manuel. You remember, Up on Cripple Creek?
doh.. typo.. shush 😉 😛 I love Big Band music 😉
“all” – so what you are saying is that one post of yours was deleted?
If you were banned it would be by IP, and unless your post was full of hate filled garbage then I doubt the admins would have banned you. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill: one edit or deletion does not a ban make.
Plus it might have just failed to post, happens sometimes you know. Try posting again – I’m sure it will stay here if what you have to say isn’t abusive or filled with hate speech.
FYI, Curtis, alias All, has not been banned as far as I can tell. Haven’t heard from all the other editors, but looks like he’s trying to play the martyr.