Btw i don't see how people can reject evolution theory. You make it sound as if ID and ET can be put on the same level since both haven't been 'proven' yet. But that's not correct.

There are a LOT of aspects from evolution theory that are undeniable, the WHOLE theory still has some gaps indeed (missing links etc.), but that doesn't mean that the basics it's founded on can be put aside and replaced by something else. Embryology, paleontology, biochemistry, ... have all provided very strong evidence for evolution theory, all independant from eachother as well.

I'm not having problems with ID being brought up in anyone's education, but i do have serieus problems if it's taught as science. And i'm saying this as a science teacher

So why are you forcing your atheism on us? Or rather, why are you forcing your atheist thinking on children? ID and God have nothing to do with each other.

I think that the idea that kids learn about ID and might open their mind to God, you feel its an attack on atheism not science. Plus your using science to backup your pro atheist mindset. Science is neutral. Its not atheist or god fearing. If their is another possibility to explain the way something is the way it is then it should be studied and explored. It should be debated and thought about. And science is not the end all be all of knowledge.

Take for example. Children are taught, in science class for years that pluto was the last planet. Guess what! THATS WRONG! Science was wrong! There is another large planetary body beyond pluto. So what now? There are alot of things science does not know.

So I think this is more about atheism trying to keep its reign in the science class room even though ID isnt about God.

Also, you sat down and thought about god and religion and determined its all bullshit. Thats great. But your just 1 person. 1 brain. Just because you came to that determination doesnt mean your right. It doesnt mean you have gained some kinda of superiority in intelligence over everyone else. Im not saying your wrong or right, Im not saying Im wrong or right in the realm of god or not god. But just because your atheist doesnt mean you Mr. Science.

I think any more knowledge or lessons we can give our children we should give them. I can understand your argument if it was creationism that was being taught in schools but its not.

Again, evolution has a LOT of holes in it. Why are you putting so much faith in it? Nobody on the face of the planet knows if evolution is true. Noone. So why should that be the only thing we teach kids about? Why only give them part of the answer? Why give them part of the answer thats more than likely not the real answer?

I know why, because you want to keep kids from even thinking that evolution is false and something of great intellect designed us. Your not even letting the kids think for themselves. Youre assuming that just because you "think" you figured it out that everyone who doesnt agree with it is retarded.

Thats like me saying anyone who doesnt think homosexuality is bad is a faggot.

"you think there is another explanation to our history other than evolution?, Why your a retard!"

o rly?
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

What are you going to teach them, this?

Yea thats sound science.

Heh, coming with a link to a page from creationism in an ID-evolution theory "discussion", can't say i'm really surprised.

Btw that cartoon shows exactly how narrowminded/one-sided you're looking at this, or at least pretending to look at this.

damnit, quit misinterpreting what I'm saying. You mentioned how god was removed from the pledge of allegiance...that's what my whole god/atheism shit was about. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Evolution can totally fit in any religious context....god could have created mutations, god could have created natural selection, god could have started life, etc etc.

is science wrong sometimes? Yes! But it's verifiably wrong. The whole point of science is you can test your hypothesis...experimentation, observation, redefining your theories to go with reality....ID doesn't allow any of that. There is no difference between ID (the eye is too complex to have evolved!) and God (lightning is loud and powerful and must be god being pissed).

As for evolution being a theory...everything is science is a freakin' theory. We theorize that the human mind allows human cognition...it's pretty freakin' established, but it could be wrong. Ditto with evolution. EVOLUTION HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN THE LABORATORY! Not with human, but with other animals, like fruit flies. They have such a short life cycle that people have watched significant evolution in fruit flies. It's real! It's scientifically verifiable! But it's still a theory, because nothing can ever be 100% certain.

ID has never been shown in any experiment, ever, and it can't be, because it's a damned philosophy or religion, not a scientific theory. And though it could, theoretically, stand as being un-religious, it's pretty clear where the idea comes from. It doesn't even reflect all religion, just a few that describe a genesis (like, say, Christianity).

Great post.

Okay ive done some googling and think ive found the difference between Creationism and ID.

As far as i understand, ID seems to be the idea that the development of species on our planet is influced by an extraterrestrial intelligent entity. The basis of which idea seems to some from 2 places:

1- Because it justifies god.
2- Because it supposedly fills-in the theoretical flaws that the idea of evolution allegedly has.

So i have a question. Im no great scientist. What are the flaws of the theory of evolution?

The 'flaw' is that there isn't a greater purpose behind life than life itself. That's where religion chokes on its potatoes, and that's why ID -carefully avoiding mentioning God- was called to life.

So need to bring my brother to this conversation will see what I can do..... he is an evolutionary biologist. At any rate he spent a good amount of time with his first masters degree working with fruit flies and I am sure he could add good information to this conversation - however not sure his time constraints as he is running for public office in his town and not long after hurricane hit it twice this year..... blah I degress - I think something like ID should be in a philosophy class, and I think we should leave science to science. Evolution is a scientific principal, however I would be willing to put evolution to history of philosophy classes. But why bring in something where you are being told that their is some super being - that is against my religious principals - I do NOT believe there is or was someone who is a more superior being than I am - maybe I have an ego but that is my belief. So you dare tell me I am not allowed to have my belief?

another 'flaw' of evolutionary theory is that we don't have an end-to-end skeletal record of evolutionary changes. IE, we can't take the remains of modern man and have a series of unearthed bones that follow the devolution of mankind into significantly more simple life forms.

Now, I'm no expert, but I believe we DO have fossil remains that demonstrate speciation in 'mankind'. Ie, homo sapien vs homo erecturs vs the various other distinct species of mankind. Speciation is the key. We have proven as much as is possible that microevolution occurs...ie, that a species changes over time. However, speciation, where a species diverges into two separate and distinct species, I'm not so sure about. I don't know if there's laboratory proof of speciation or not. If there is...well...at this point, evolution is as close to fact as anything in science can be.

Of course, I'm no trained scientist, so I could be way off base. However, that's my understanding of how the whole thing fits together.

There's even noticeable "evolution" in the last few generations of ppl. Because we eat more fatty foods in the west, we are gradually becoming more resistant to fatty foods. I.e., we process it more efficiently and don't become as fat/unhealthy from eating them. That's evolution, right there.

Or how The Dutch have grown over the past few generations thanks to better food and comfort, that's also evolution. They're a ppl of freaking giants now, when they were short potatoefarmers a few hundred years ago.

Now if you consider that these changes you explain Ox take place over a couple of generations, then there is little doubt that something as complex as the eye is capable of being evolved over several million years.

Also you have the question of Homo Florensis (the Hobbit). found only on Flores (if it is different to Erectus and there is strong archaeological evidence such as multiple skeletons to prove it) then this means that humans can adapt to the environment (look on the mini elephants on the island). ID is definitely something that does not fit standard scientific practice, its a philosophy with no way of experimentation unlike evolution. Therefore it shouldn't be taught in Science classes. If it was disproved (and this is what occurs regularly in science), then it would be acceptable to change teaching practices.

I did some research on ID, and guess what? The place where it originated, a think tank called Discovery Institute, is sponsored by -among others- or good friend Bill Gates. Personally. I guess I should be shocked, but then I'm not.


(for the record...Gates doesn't directly finance ID 'research' (that'd be awesomer), but he does sponsor the institute as a whole. But then, if I found out that ID originated in an institute I sponsored, first thing I'd do is cut the moneystream. And he's not doing that either. Sheesh.)

Is it him deliberately doing it or not being aware?