Spaghetti Monster vs. Intellegent Design

[epo]

One of my favorite displays of our constitution & democracy in action is the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. It is an outstanding example of making a mockery of something that is attempting to make a mockery of our public education system.

For those that are unaware of what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is or what is has to do with our democracy, I'll explain. A couple of years ago, a group of creationists (or "intellectual design" fans) wanted to teach creationism in the public schools right beside evolution in science classes. Well, a local man in Kansas thought that was a bad idea and invented the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. He wanted a third of the time spent on evolution, a third on creationism and a third on spaghetti.

Needless to say, he got his way and the local Kansas School Board decided not to lower their standards and abandoned the idea of teaching creationism in science class. For more on the theory of flying spaghetti monsterism or the faith of Pastafarians use this Wiki stub. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)

And his "noodly appendage" has struck again, this time in Polk County, Florida. From the story I quote (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/22/na-polk-needled-noodled-in-evolution-flap/):

"They've made us the laughingstock of the world," said Margaret Lofton, a school board member who supports intelligent design.

Score another one for the power of pasta.

http://vienna.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/09/flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg

[thejives]

rock on.
but to be fair, people who believe in intelligent design usually make fools of themselves.

[Devo37]

Ramen.

[A.J.]

Lofton, a former geometry teacher with a master's degree in mathematics and one of the pro-intelligent design board members, said she has no interest in engaging with the Pastafarians or anyone else seeking to discredit intelligent design.

She describes herself as secure in her beliefs. "I'm a Christian. I personally believe that the Bible is inerrant truth and the word of God."

So she'll believe that woman was created from the rib of Adam, or that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish, and that God talked to Old Testament prophets: but she won't believe in the possibility of a Spaghetti Monster? Narrow-minded bitch!

[DiabloSammich]

Spaghetti Monster has the better reach, and has youth on it's side, but Intelligent Design has the experience and has much better footwork. It should be a slobber-knocker.

[Bulldogcakes]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c8/CookieMonstersMom.jpg

I would have went with the Cookie Monster myself.

[scottinnj]

I'm all for intelligent design theories being taught alongside the theories of evolution. As long as one God isn't specified, it can be tied in where gaps appear in our understanding of Darwins theory.

There are too many gaps in the evolution theory to fill. Where did all the matter in the universe come from? Where did the initial reactin come from to start the nuclear fires in the stars we see?

How did fish know how to develop lungs to be able to leave the water and crawl on land? Why would they in the first place? And how did they know that the lungs they were developing were for oxygen, not carbon like the plant life that is on earth?

How did life come from the elements? How did it develop into bacteria and then multi-celled organisms?

I'm all for teaching all of it.

Because as much as you guys think Jonah and the whale, the rib from Adam to make Eve sounds stupid, that is as stupid as your theory that all this in the universe came from nothing, and it all happened over billions of years by chance.

Like I said, as long as God, Allah, Buddha with his turtle holding up the universe or some other spaghetti monster God is not emphasized over the theory of evolution, and the students are allowed to debate freely like we do here on the board, I don't have a problem with it.

My idea that the spaghetti god people are just pissed off that someone wants to discuss a topic that they don't agree with, and as typical close-mindedness, censors true debate.

[underdog]

I'm all for intelligent design theories being taught alongside the theories of evolution. As long as one God isn't specified, it can be tied in where gaps appear in our understanding of Darwins theory.

There are too many gaps in the evolution theory to fill. Where did all the matter in the universe come from? Where did the initial reactin come from to start the nuclear fires in the stars we see?

How did fish know how to develop lungs to be able to leave the water and crawl on land? Why would they in the first place? And how did they know that the lungs they were developing were for oxygen, not carbon like the plant life that is on earth?

How did life come from the elements? How did it develop into bacteria and then multi-celled organisms?

I'm all for teaching all of it.

Because as much as you guys think Jonah and the whale, the rib from Adam to make Eve sounds stupid, that is as stupid as your theory that all this in the universe came from nothing, and it all happened over billions of years by chance.

Like I said, as long as God, Allah, Buddha with his turtle holding up the universe or some other spaghetti monster God is not emphasized over the theory of evolution, and the students are allowed to debate freely like we do here on the board, I don't have a problem with it.

My idea that the spaghetti god people are just pissed off that someone wants to discuss a topic that they don't agree with, and as typical close-mindedness, censors true debate.

But there's no science to creationism. It is all based off of faith. That's not science. That's religion, which is why it has no place being taught in public school science classes.

The theory of evolution may have "gaps" in it, but a lot of it can be tested.

And I'm also pretty sure your first two "gaps" have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Also, by your logic, if I have faith that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why shouldn't that be taught and "debated" in schools? The reason people are so against ID being taught in schools is because its not science. It really has no place in an scientific debate.

[DarkHippie]

How did fish know how to develop lungs to be able to leave the water and crawl on land? Why would they in the first place? And how did they know that the lungs they were developing were for oxygen, not carbon like the plant life that is on earth?

They didn't. Over millions of years, one or two fish developed a series of genetic mutation, they discovered that they could now eat food above water, which helped them to survive while others died. they were then ale to pass on their genetic code.



How did life come from the elements? How did it develop into bacteria and then multi-celled organisms?
energy from lightning created chemical reactions that formed molecules from elements.

[Bulldogcakes]

I'm all for intelligent design theories being taught alongside the theories of evolution. As long as one God isn't specified, it can be tied in where gaps appear in our understanding of Darwins theory.

There are too many gaps in the evolution theory to fill. Where did all the matter in the universe come from? Where did the initial reactin come from to start the nuclear fires in the stars we see?


Don't get too hung up on the word "theory", most settled science are still called theories. Thats just semantics.

And don't get too hung up on the gaps. There are gaps all over science, yet any reasonable person can draw conclusions as to where the evidence leads.

For instance, ther has never been a causal link found between cigarette smoking an lung cancer (which the Tobacco Co execs made much of during their hearings) While technically thats true, observational studies have overwhelmingly and conclusively linked smokers with higher rates of lung cancer. There's a gap in the science there, they can't pinpoint the exact gene that goes kablooey, but the overall trend is clear. Its the same thing with the fossill record, you're looking at trends over long periods of time and the evidence is overwhelming. Pieces of the picture are missing, but when you step back the image is plain too see.

[scottinnj]

But there's no science to creationism. It is all based off of faith. That's not science. That's religion, which is why it has no place being taught in public school science classes.

The theory of evolution may have "gaps" in it, but a lot of it can be tested.

And I'm also pretty sure your first two "gaps" have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Also, by your logic, if I have faith that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why shouldn't that be taught and "debated" in schools? The reason people are so against ID being taught in schools is because its not science. It really has no place in an scientific debate.

Because the science of evolution can be applied to the theory that an ID made the universe. Why stifle the debate?
The very balance of nature, trees breathing in carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen while animals breathe oxygen and generate carbon dioxide, the seasons which rest areas under ice and snow while other parts of the earth grow and are green, all point to something greater that thought all of this out, and however the process, put it together.

Sure there is science to creationism. The law of relativity, where did it come from?
Did it just happen, or was it used to be a foundation on how the universe sustains itself?

[epo]

Aren't the serious merits of creationism merely a theologic foundation to the scientific study? And if so, why would it be discussed in anything other than a theology class?

Also I would like to know why the creationism crowd re-branded their efforts to "intelligent design"?

[scottinnj]

Aren't the serious merits of creationism merely a theologic foundation to the scientific study? And if so, why would it be discussed in anything other than a theology class?

Because we don't have theology classes in public schools-the teaching of religions is verboten. Besides, what does a science teacher do when kids start asking tough questions like "where did the matter of the universe come from?" Wouldn't that be a good segway to open a discussion to debate the different theories? With proper supervision, a brief detour from the science book and opening up a floor of discussion would be a healthy thing.


Also I would like to know why the creationism crowd re-branded their efforts to "intelligent design"?


That I don't have an answer for. I am assuming that it is because of the different religious groups that have gotten behind this movement, because it really is a mulit-cultural phenomenom, not just a bunch of kooky Christians pushing one ideology.

When I was in school, I went to a private Christian high school. We were taught both creationism (which it was called back then), and evolution. And it wasn't some wishy washy course on evolution either. We were taught from the science books.
I believe in Darwin's theory. You would be a fool not too. It just does not explain everything.

[epo]

Also I would like to know why the creationism crowd re-branded their efforts to "intelligent design"?


That I don't have an answer for. I am assuming that it is because of the different religious groups that have gotten behind this movement, because it really is a mulit-cultural phenomenom, not just a bunch of kooky Christians pushing one ideology.

When I was in school, I went to a private Christian high school. We were taught both creationism (which it was called back then), and evolution. And it wasn't some wishy washy course on evolution either. We were taught from the science books.
I believe in Darwin's theory. You would be a fool not too. It just does not explain everything.

After about 10 seconds of research, it's obvious that the creationists changed their language in 1989. They got schooled (no pun intended) in a Supreme Court case, Edwards vs. Aguillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard), which basically said that creationism was unconstitutional by applying the Establishment Clause.

So creationists rebranded their efforts in a 1989 textbook called "Of Pandas and People (http://www.kcfs.org/pandas.html)" where they changed the verbiage from creationism to "intelligent design" and from the creator to the "designer".

Seriously, it seems to me to be a pretty obvious way to teach religion in schools.

:banning:

This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html)case in the state of Pennsylvania court. Not only did the "intelligent designers" lose the case, with then abolished intelligent design from the school district. But then all 8 school board members who approved intelligent design were voted out of office during the next election cycle.

[scottinnj]

They didn't. Over millions of years, one or two fish developed a series of genetic mutation, they discovered that they could now eat food above water, which helped them to survive while others died. they were then ale to pass on their genetic code.


So how come that genetic code didn't pass on to the other species, and how come the other species survived being in the water breathing with gills, and how did the ones that mutated lungs know to go to the surface for air instead of drowning?



energy from lightning created chemical reactions that formed molecules from elements.

Where did the DNA come from? And how come we don't see new forms of life forming from different chemical mixtures being exposed to lightning? And how did the primitive life formed from the lightning striked survive without being able to be fed or pro-create on it's own?

[epo]

Because we don't have theology classes in public schools-the teaching of religions is verboten. Besides, what does a science teacher do when kids start asking tough questions like "where did the matter of the universe come from?" Wouldn't that be a good segway to open a discussion to debate the different theories? With proper supervision, a brief detour from the science book and opening up a floor of discussion would be a healthy thing.


And why is it verboten?

I would guess it is an extension of the Lemon Test of the Establishment Clause (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm). Based off of the Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) case, the Lemon Test demands three things from a law regarding religion:


First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
Finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.


So I'm guessing most school districts just keep religion out of their curriculum? Where is Mike the Teacher when you need him?

[scottinnj]

And why is it verboten?

I would guess it is an extension of the Lemon Test of the Establishment Clause (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm). Based off of the Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) case, the Lemon Test demands three things from a law regarding religion:


First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
Finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.


So I'm guessing most school districts just keep religion out of their curriculum? Where is Mike the Teacher when you need him?

I don't know where Mike is, but he should be here. Anyway, if you want to keep science and philosophy and theology apart, why not have a class where people could discuss such things, if not in the science class?

[thejives]

Like I said, as long as God, Allah, Buddha with his turtle holding up the universe or some other spaghetti monster God is not emphasized over the theory of evolution, and the students are allowed to debate freely like we do here on the board, I don't have a problem with it.

Someone missed the whole point of this thread.

[midwestjeff]

I don't know where Mike is, but he should be here. Anyway, if you want to keep science and philosophy and theology apart, why not have a class where people could discuss such things, if not in the science class?

They do, it's called college.

[scottinnj]

Why do you say that, because I disagree with you? I say that the discussion between me, darkhippie, bulldogcakes and epo is entirely the point of the thread.

Edit: Oops I didn't hit quote-midwestjeff jumped in before I hit enter. This was in respone to thejives' post #18

[scottinnj]

They do, it's called college.

Colleges are publicly funded, as high schools are. In fact, the GI Bill allows for veterans to go to private universities to get their degrees in religion and become pastors.

So if colleges allow it, and are publicly funded, why not in high school?

[Old Fitzgerald]

Behold the true and magnificent glory of spaghetti Jesus!!

[scottinnj]

Behold the true and magnificent glory of spaghetti Jesus!!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[booster11373]

Colleges are publicly funded, as high schools are. In fact, the GI Bill allows for veterans to go to private universities to get their degrees in religion and become pastors.

So if colleges allow it, and are publicly funded, why not in high school?


My guess that in college students are allowed to pick their course to some degree depending on the area of study they are pursuing while HS students are a ccaptive audience to some degree

[booster11373]

as far as the gaps in any particular theory are concerned, over time the gaps in theories have been filled in, transitional species have been found in glacial deposits in northern Canada

My problem with any ID or creationism is that no matter how many words used in ID creation textbooks the end result of the question, how did the Universe or Life come to exist is

God made it so, case closed

[scottinnj]

as far as the gaps in any particular theory are concerned, over time the gaps in theories have been filled in, transitional species have been found in glacial deposits in northern Canada

My problem with any ID or creationism is that no matter how many words used in ID creation textbooks the end result of the question, how did the Universe or Life come to exist is

God made it so, case closed

As is my problem with evolutionists who won't allow discussion of ID.

It just happened, so don't ask questions or think too hard about it. JUST BELIEVE.

Case closed.

It's exactly the same.

As for the electives in college verses being "held captive" in high school, I remember I did all my requirements in high school by my junior year and basically had a math course and a science course in my senior year, and study hall the rest of the day.
Which I spent studying on the beach and boardwalk. Senior Year ruled!

[booster11373]

[QUOTE=scottinnj;1564504]As is my problem with evolutionists who won't allow discussion of ID.

It just happened, so don't ask questions or think too hard about it. JUST BELIEVE.

Case closed.

It's exactly the same.

See I dont agree with your point there because even with gaps, a line can be made with logical assumptions on how point A made it to point B with either evolution or the formation of the Universe, There is evidence there and a conclusion can be made from it. I just dont see the same thing when it comes to ID or creationism or any religious argument

[scottinnj]

I find it interesting that the tables have turned so much in the past 100 years. I remember reading where the Darwin theory was put on trial by a bunch of Christians who were afraid of having it taught to their kids in school.

Like discussing something in a school where learning new things is supposed to be is a crime. :thumbdown:


But now I see where people who want to discuss alternates to traditional evolution are laughed at and called stupid for believing in something greater then anything we can currently observe. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

[scottinnj]

[QUOTE=scottinnj;1564504]As is my problem with evolutionists who won't allow discussion of ID.

It just happened, so don't ask questions or think too hard about it. JUST BELIEVE.

Case closed.

It's exactly the same.


See I dont agree with your point there because even with gaps, a line can be made with logical assumptions on how point A made it to point B with either evolution or the formation of the Universe, There is evidence there and a conclusion can be made from it. I just dont see the same thing when it comes to ID or creationism or any religious argument

I know you don't but a chemical reaction that created life doesn't explain emotional responses or the ability to be self aware. It also doesn't explain where all this stuff came from in the first place.

[booster11373]

I find it interesting that the tables have turned so much in the past 100 years. I remember reading where the Darwin theory was put on trial by a bunch of Christians who were afraid of having it taught to their kids in school.

Like discussing something in a school where learning new things is supposed to be is a crime. :thumbdown:


But now I see where people who want to discuss alternates to traditional evolution are laughed at and called stupid for believing in something greater then anything we can currently observe. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:


But in reality they are not coming up with anything new Creationism and ID are the same thing and they are old

[thejives]

But now I see where people who want to discuss alternates to traditional evolution are laughed at and called stupid for believing in something greater then anything we can currently observe. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

That's what I meant by saying you missed the point of the thread.

A scientific theory is not "believing something greater than anything we can currently observe."

That's a spaghetti monster. Hence, this thread.

Hence you've missed the point.

You shouldn't be arguing for ID. You should be explaining how ID is different than the flying spaghetti monster. Otherwise your arguments just open the door for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Flying Spaghetti Jesus, and the 12 meatball disciples. And whatever other crazy shit people want to make up and say it should be taught in schools to get equal time.

[booster11373]

But science also says that we can keep looking for those answers, in the past 100 years science has explained so much of what was once thought the realm of the supernatural.

Religion only closes the door on discovery

[Devo37]

As is my problem with evolutionists who won't allow discussion of ID.

It just happened, so don't ask questions or think too hard about it. JUST BELIEVE.

Case closed.

It's exactly the same.



that's not true by any means!!! most scientists and men-of-science discard ID because there is no evidence available and no testing of the claims made by ID proponents. ID is "JUST BELIEVE".

Science, on the other hand, is an ever-changing picture based on the evidence available. theories are proposed based on evidence gathered. the theories are put up to scrutiny. if flaws are found, the theory is cast aside. if no flaws are found, the theory gains strength and is held true (unless it is proved false at a later date).

rather than "It just happened, so don't ask questions or think too hard about it. JUST BELIEVE.", science is about ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS YOU CAN!!! if a theory is true, it will be bullet-proof to any amount of questioning. if it's not, go back to the drawing board, re-examine the evidence, come up with a revised theory, and put the new theory to the test. (repeat until the end of time).

[scottinnj]

But there should be no "equal time" Only to allow a discussion of the possiblity of a higher power. Spaghetti Monster, or God is a moot point. The basics are essentially the same from one religion to another.


And how is a logical step from one spot in the evolutionary stage to another different then using logic to assume that it couldn't have happened without a higher power.


It is illogical to me to believe that all the matter we see in this universe came from one explosion, or that it had always existed in one form or another, expanding and contracting over unimaginable periods of trillions of milleniums.

All creatures adapt to their enviroments, but that does not fully explain how one species of animals moves from one form as a fish to a flying bird or a lizard.

[underdog]

Because the science of evolution can be applied to the theory that an ID made the universe. Why stifle the debate?

Why stop the debate there? I think my cat created the universe, and I have as much scientific information as the creationists do. Therefore, the debate of whether my cat created the universe should be put into schools as well.

The very balance of nature, trees breathing in carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen while animals breathe oxygen and generate carbon dioxide, the seasons which rest areas under ice and snow while other parts of the earth grow and are green, all point to something greater that thought all of this out, and however the process, put it together.

Ugh.

Pointing to something greater is faith. Not science. It is faith.

Sure there is science to creationism. The law of relativity, where did it come from?
Did it just happen, or was it used to be a foundation on how the universe sustains itself?

No explanation for one thing doesn't equal science for creationism.

While watching a documentary on this ID v Evolution stuff, someone stated that every theory starts with a gut feeling. With the theory of evolution, from the gut feeling comes loads and loads of research and testing.

With creationism, it's just a gut feeling.

[thejives]

But there should be no "equal time" Only to allow a discussion of the possiblity of a higher power. Spaghetti Monster, or God is a moot point. The basics are essentially the same from one religion to another.

Then you're making a different argument than most ID people.
They mean God.
And they don't mean Spaghetti Monster.

That's why they're wrong.

If you don't feel evolution is possible, you have a church to go to.
If I don't feel creationism is a testable scientific theory, you have a science class to go to.

[scottinnj]

that's not true by any means!!! most scientists and men-of-science discard ID because there is no evidence available and no testing of the claims made by ID proponents. ID is "JUST BELEIVE".

Science, on the other hand, is an ever-changing picture based on the evidence available. theories are proposed based on evidence gathered. the theories are put up to scrutiny. if flaws are found, the theory is cast aside. if no flaws are found, the theory gains strength and is held true (unless it is proved false at a later date).

rather than "It just happened, so don't ask questions or think too hard about it. JUST BELIEVE.", science is about ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS YOU CAN!!! if a theory is true, it will be bullet-proof to any amount of questioning. if it's not, go back to the drawing board, re-examine the evidence, come up with a revised theory, and put the new theory to the test. (repeat until the end of time).



But if there is a possiblility, why don't scientists come up with a hypothesis to try and find out if there is one or not? If there is one, it sure would explain a lot of what we don't know.

[thejives]

But if there is a possiblility, why don't scientists come up with a hypothesis to try and find out if there is one or not? If there is one, it sure would explain a lot of what we don't know.

One what? A god?

You mean like studies that show prayer has no effect on cancer patients' survival rates? Or geological data that prove the earth has been around longer than 6,000 years? What kind of study would you propose to test the existence of a creationist god?

[underdog]

But if there is a possiblility, why don't scientists come up with a hypothesis to try and find out if there is one or not? If there is one, it sure would explain a lot of what we don't know.

If you're talking about god, its because its unfalsifiable. There's no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of god.

[thejives]

Boston is looking like the seat of reason right now ...

[scottinnj]

If you don't feel evolution is possible, you have a church to go to.
If I don't feel creationism is a testable scientific theory, you have a science class to go to.

Church doesn't explain to me how the pepper moth came to be, or how equal forces of gravity and anti gravity keep the particles that make up a nucleus of an atom in place without risk of constantly smashing into itself and causing fission.


Science class doesn't explain to me why the pepper moth was able to learn to change its color over time to adapt to an artificial change in its enviroment in order to survive. Nor does it explain to me how the laws of physics came to be to keep the atoms in order the way that they are.


There is a place for both science and theology in the public square, and for one to be allowed and not the other is just stifling creativitiy and a full learning experience to me.

Either way. I would make the same argument if tomorrow evolution was kicked out of schools and science class consisted of Genesis chapter 1. It doesn't explain everything either.

[Devo37]

But if there is a possiblility, why don't scientists come up with a hypothesis to try and find out if there is one or not? If there is one, it sure would explain a lot of what we don't know.

Exactly! if the ID crowd wants to be taken seriously, they should be trying to gather scientific evidence of an intelligent designer, rather than saying "it just couldn't happen without one".

as for the things we don't know, saying "god did it" is a cop-out. history is full of examples of things that people, at some point, thought that there was no explanation for other than "god did it". but upon further investigation, there always appears to be a more logical, less supernatural explanation.

That is what the phrase God of the Gaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) is all about.

[thejives]

There is a place for both science and theology in the public square, and for one to be allowed and not the other is just stifling creativitiy and a full learning experience to me.

Fine. But that place is in these kinds of forums or interfaith discussions, not a classroom where kids are learning the periodic table and metric conversions.

While you may be a fine, upstanding, open-minded theologist who doesn't realize that evolution explains pepper moths, there are people that would like to see Genesis chapter 1 replace Biology 101. That's why the separation is there.

[thepaulo]

of course, you realize we don't know much.
we probably don't know more than 0.00001% of what there is to know.
Intelligent Design and Creationism can't be taught in schools because there is too much conflicting science, but don't assume there aren't twist and turns on the road of knowledge, when and if we ever reach the end.

[scottinnj]

One what? A god?

You mean like studies that show prayer has no effect on cancer patients' survival rates? Or geological data that prove the earth has been around longer than 6,000 years? What kind of study would you propose to test the existence of a creationist god?

I'm not the scientist. Actually the test that there is a god is a result of your science failing to be able to explain reproduction in life that formed from a lightning bolt and how that one molecule was able to self sustain and could eventually be the life we see around us.

Or how that life developed emotions and self awareness by itself along the way. Or how natural law that governs us all came into being.

No amount of assumptions in the gaps of science's theories can explain those questions.

[Devo37]

of course, you realize we don't know much.

it seems that there are a lot of Gaps in Paul-O's knowledge. ghe ghe ghe! :tongue:

[thejives]

No amount of assumptions in the gaps of science's theories can explain those questions.

four hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about how lightning strikes.

three hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about the cause of illness.

two hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about disappearing stars.

one hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about genetic disorders.

[scottinnj]

Fine. But that place is in these kinds of forums or interfaith discussions, not a classroom where kids are learning the periodic table and metric conversions.




You are ABSOLUTELY right. ABSOLUTELY. I didn't mean at all that the classroom should break out in a "high school musical" song and dance routine or anything like that. That would be stupid. But there is a place for a healthy discussion for it someplace, and while the ID people may not have the correct way to do it-I don't know, but from what I've been hearing, they may be over-reaching-but that they just have hit on a decent basis for a classroom discussion that may not change minds, but at least get both sides talking and understanding each other.

Holy crap could you imagine learning ohms law while trying to think about where it came from? :help:

[thejives]

Holy crap could you imagine learning ohms law while trying to think about where it came from? :help:

And that's exactly what ID people and creationists are talking about.

Disclaimers in textbooks.

That's why the spaghetti monster was put forward as a foil... and so by and large, we really agree.

[Devo37]

one thing that i agree with is that there should be a place for open discussion of ID, but a science class is not the place.

based on the examination of evidence from multiple disciplines of science (geology, biology, astronomy, etc), it seems evident that the earth is billions of years old, and that life has progressed from simple to more complex forms throughout it's history here on earth.

for a group to say "we don't believe it" without providing any refutation of the evidence and expecting to have their ideas taught in science classes is foolish.

ID should be a religion/philosophy subject.

[thepaulo]

I know I don't know much but, Science is in it's infancy. It seems like we've made enormous strides in knowledge each and every year but it's just a beginning. There are gaps we are ages from touching. two in particular I for one am curious about.....
black holes and sub-sub-sub atomic behavior.

[scottinnj]

four hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about how lightning strikes.

Except that even though we have an understanding of electricity, we don't know when and where it became what it is.

three hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about the cause of illness.

Except that now no one can still explain where the germs came from in the first place, and how they developed into things that we need to avoid, or how we developed the self awareness to study germs to be able to protect ourselves.

two hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about disappearing stars.

Except you still can't explain the power of gravity to be able to pull in light particles, how gravity is generated to make the black holes or how gravity came to be.

one hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about genetic disorders.

Not really. If you are saying that people believe that "God made you that way" or that a person with a genetic disorder was a result of some dark sin that the parents committed, well that was just people being cruel.

[thejives]

I know I don't know much but, Science is in it's infancy. It seems like we've made enormous strides in knowledge each and every year but it's just a beginning. There are gaps we are ages from touching. two in particular I for one am curious about.....
black holes and sub-sub-sub atomic behavior.

I'm curious what's going on here:
http://ronandron.com/archive/p-13.gif

[thejives]

Except that even though we have an understanding of electricity, we don't know when and where it became what it is.



Except that now no one can still explain where the germs came from in the first place, and how they developed into things that we need to avoid, or how we developed the self awareness to study germs to be able to protect ourselves.



Except you still can't explain the power of gravity to be able to pull in light particles, how gravity is generated to make the black holes or how gravity came to be.



Not really. If you are saying that people believe that "God made you that way" or that a person with a genetic disorder was a result of some dark sin that the parents committed, well that was just people being cruel.

that's my point, man.
despite all the questions that remain, there has been progress.

ID hasn't changed since Newton's watchmaker argument.

Give it time, and don't shut it down by telling kids who could grow up to answer these questions an addendum to their studies that says "or not."

[epo]

I know I don't know much but, Science is in it's infancy. It seems like we've made enormous strides in knowledge each and every year but it's just a beginning. There are gaps we are ages from touching. two in particular I for one am curious about.....
black holes and sub-sub-sub atomic behavior.

Watch out....the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is coming to Pinellas County, Florida next! (http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/19/pinellas.htm)

Maybe you can shoot a documentary?

[scottinnj]

I know I don't know much but, Science is in it's infancy. It seems like we've made enormous strides in knowledge each and every year but it's just a beginning. There are gaps we are ages from touching. two in particular I for one am curious about.....
black holes and sub-sub-sub atomic behavior.

Disney already covered the black hole part.

http://as7.dsi.go.com/is/image/DisneyShopping/61305?$full$
YECH!


Now if you could do a movie about sub-sub-sub-atomic behavior you'll get an Oscar reaction! Ah Ghee Ghee Ghee Ghee!

[thepaulo]

I would looooove to do a movie about sub-sub-sub atomic behavior.......
a sequel to The Incredible Shrinking Man perhaps.

[scottinnj]

Why stop the debate there? I think my cat created the universe, and I have as much scientific information as the creationists do. Therefore, the debate of whether my cat created the universe should be put into schools as well.



Ugh.
Now you're being smug and arrogant. Which is exactly what I've been saying about trying to stifle the debate in the classroom. Either you don't understand it, or are afraid of it, but for whatever reason, it is something outside your bubble of protection, therefore it must not be discussed at all.

Pointing to something greater is faith. Not science. It is faith.
I don't agree with that. It is not me pointing to the higher power. It is the science that shows the order of the universe, and the order of the universe itself points to a higher power.



No explanation for one thing doesn't equal science for creationism.

While watching a documentary on this ID v Evolution stuff, someone stated that every theory starts with a gut feeling. With the theory of evolution, from the gut feeling comes loads and loads of research and testing.

With creationism, it's just a gut feeling.

No its not. Like I just said, the powers we know about but can't explain why they exist or how they are generated, even destructive powers like black holes shows the order of the universe. Did you know every galaxy has a black hole in it? And that black hole is equal in power to about 15 percent of the total power of the galaxy it is in? Which shows that even black holes don't appear willy-nilly across the universe. They form in some sort of order, and bring balance to the mass of each galaxy.
Why? Probably because the laws of physics would be pulled and strained if there were too many of them, distorting other universal powers like light waves and gravity. So to keep the universe in check, black holes appear in proportion to the mass of the galaxies they exist in to help keep everything running the way it has for as long as it has been around.


Everything we see has order to it. From the structure of stars to the makeup of galaxies to the balance of nature here on earth. To say it all happened on its own is just illogical to me.

[thepaulo]

I should throw this out there.....
I think it is a mistake to attack the idea of God.....
Sure, the Bible and most Religious works don't hold up to scrutiny but maybe they were never meant to. Scientists should stick to things they can prove and not make conjectures about things no one knows for sure. The spaghetti monster is just a facile joke but the only problem with Intelligent design is that it is not science. But it should be and I'm sure it will be approached in a more serious manner as time goes on. If you know anything about science, intelligent design actually makes a lot of sense.

[scottinnj]

that's my point, man.
despite all the questions that remain, there has been progress.

ID hasn't changed since Newton's watchmaker argument.

Give it time, and don't shut it down by telling kids who could grow up to answer these questions an addendum to their studies that says "or not."

I don't want to tell the kids "or not." If science survived all these years and we gained all this knowledge despite curmudgens like me, there should be no fear that scientific study will go away if ID is taught in some form in the schools.
Especially if you read the letters written in the spaghetti god blogs. It seems that those who are against ID are even more intent in having science prove the ID people wrong.

And then it's no longer science. It's an agenda. And whether it's science or theology, if it is being used as an agenda, it's no longer a tool to make life better for mankind.

I condemn both theological and intellectual oppression.

[thepaulo]

Hear,hear.

[Yerdaddy]

I'm all for intelligent design theories being taught alongside the theories of evolution. As long as one God isn't specified, it can be tied in where gaps appear in our understanding of Darwins theory.

There are too many gaps in the evolution theory to fill. Where did all the matter in the universe come from? Where did the initial reactin come from to start the nuclear fires in the stars we see?

How did fish know how to develop lungs to be able to leave the water and crawl on land? Why would they in the first place? And how did they know that the lungs they were developing were for oxygen, not carbon like the plant life that is on earth?

How did life come from the elements? How did it develop into bacteria and then multi-celled organisms?

I'm all for teaching all of it.

Because as much as you guys think Jonah and the whale, the rib from Adam to make Eve sounds stupid, that is as stupid as your theory that all this in the universe came from nothing, and it all happened over billions of years by chance.

Like I said, as long as God, Allah, Buddha with his turtle holding up the universe or some other spaghetti monster God is not emphasized over the theory of evolution, and the students are allowed to debate freely like we do here on the board, I don't have a problem with it.

My idea that the spaghetti god people are just pissed off that someone wants to discuss a topic that they don't agree with, and as typical close-mindedness, censors true debate.

Why do gaps in an evidenciary record require filling in by non-science-based theories? Why does the concept of billions of years make chance a more stupid explaination for the evolution of life on earth? Why does the complexity of life serve as evidence of it's creation by something complex enough to have intelligently designed it? Why doesn't the absurdity of many aspects of life serve as evidence that it's not that purposefully designed to begin with? Why are science classes a good place for non-science discussions? Why does removal of mention of a specific deity make accpetable a theory which is entirely based on one specific religious text and requires faith separated from the scientific methodology? Why can't anyone who believes in ID explain how complies with the scientific method, which itself is the set of standards that preclude the dominance of faith in the study of science? Why did God create something so horrible as the parasites carried by mosquitoes to become one of the world's biggest killers of the poor children Jesus loved so much? Why would Noah be ordered to preserve hookworms, trichinosis, deer ticks, pubic lice, the paracites that carry river blindness disease, malaria, dengue, those little fish that swim into the hole in your penis if you pee in a Brazilian lake, tape worms, and other horrible God's creatures to preserve them until today, and how did Noah and his family survive for 40 days while hosting all of these dangerous creatures? Can ID explain as much about the detailed nature of life on earth and if not then what qualifies it to "fill in the gaps" where science fails to explain the details?

Please have your assignment in by Friday, single-spaced, 12-point font, no less than 8 pages and no more than 15. I'll be grading your response for spelling and grammar. Sleeping with the teacher is not mandatory but extra credit will be awarded on style and degree of dificulty. An alternate assignment can be to convince me that Mary really was a virgin rather than that she had an affair with a black man and Joseph just couldn't handle the truth.

[thepaulo]

First of all, none of us know what is out there. If I may be allowed to be an Angel advocate, wouldn't a supreme being be allowed any endless variations in amusement and invention? Clearly we live in a universe in which good and bad co-exists. Is there any reason why that can't be intelligent design?
Clearly the root of all evil is when God allowed free will. If not for that everything would be paradise.
All atheists may proceed to condescend.

[Yerdaddy]

Science class doesn't explain to me why the pepper moth was able to learn to change its color over time to adapt to an artificial change in its enviroment in order to survive.

Wikipedia does. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution)

Moths have evolved color patterns, camoflage, to blend in with their environments and make them less easy to be preyed upon. The peppered moth's environment changed when pollution changed the color scheme of it's environment making it easier for birds to see lighter colored moths and making those moths less likely to survive to pass along their genes. The ones with darker spots, as determined by their genes, survived and the species became dominated by peppered color, better camoflage, and thus better adapted to its new environment. What's wrong with that explaination?

[scottinnj]

I should throw this out there.....
I think it is a mistake to attack the idea of God.....
Sure, the Bible and most Religious works don't hold up to scrutiny but maybe they were never meant to. Scientists should stick to things they can prove and not make conjectures about things no one knows for sure. The spaghetti monster is just a facile joke but the only problem with Intelligent design is that it is not science. But it should be and I'm sure it will be approached in a more serious manner as time goes on. If you know anything about science, intelligent design actually makes a lot of sense.

Well, I see it this way:

The real scientists are not the problem. The science is not the problem. The true theologins are not the problem. The theology is not the problem. The problem is when people on either side get too scared to listen to the other side, and try to keep the other side out of the equation:


[Kooky Christian covering his ears]"Bible says 6 days and 1 day He rested. Bible says 6 days and 1 day He rested. I'm not listening to math. I'm not listening to science. I'm not listening to logic."[/Kooky Christian covering his ears]

[Evolutionist with an agenda covering his ears]"I am right. I will prove you are wrong. I am right. I will prove you are wrong."[/Evolutionist with an agenda covering his ears]


For a while the kooky Christians had the power and shut out the scientists from the public discussion. Now it's the kooky evolutionists who are afraid of the religious and want to keep God out of public discussion.

It's wrong either way.

[thejives]

I condemn both theological and intellectual oppression.

You've already said it's a bad idea to put ID in a science classroom ... which puts you on our side of the fence on this issue. So really there's no argument here. Now you're just trying to win props for the philosophy of ID.

Fine: It's a very pretty idea. happy?

[scottinnj]

Wikipedia does. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution)

Moths have evolved color patterns, camoflage, to blend in with their environments and make them less easy to be preyed upon. The peppered moth's environment changed when pollution changed the color scheme of it's environment making it easier for birds to see lighter colored moths and making those moths less likely to survive to pass along their genes. The ones with darker spots, as determined by their genes, survived and the species became dominated by peppered color, better camoflage, and thus better adapted to its new environment. What's wrong with that explaination?


If it were adapting to a natural change in climate, it would be an explanation. But this change was a result, according to science, to an unnatural change in climate. The soot from the coal was a result of man. How did the genes know to change the moth's color to soot? What would have happened if the genes changed their color to red or blue? Why would the pepper moth even know about camoflage? And how did it happen in one generation when most evolutions to an advancement in life is explained by using periods of time of thousands to millions of years? Science can't explain that.

My theory is that God knew that the moth was an important part of the food chain for birds and other animals, and to keep everything in balance, He caused the color change to make up for our pollution and keep things running on the course He set it out to be in the first place. What's wrong with taking about that?

And if you're a Christian, what's wrong with believing that the universe is billions of years old? Even if you use the Bible as the basis of your arguments, it says "The earth was without form, and void, and darkness covered the face of the earth"
No theologin (am I spelling that right?) can explain to me what that means. For how long? What does "without form and void" mean? And if there was darkness first, why didn't God just make the light at the same time?

[thepaulo]

As has been demonstrated, intelligent design is not pretty. Nature is full of all sorts of unpleasantness. You know the old saying, "Life is shit and then you die."
Well, assuming we are all imperfect, we are suppose to experience all the shit.
The shit is suppose to bring us to greater understanding.

[thejives]

The soot from the coal was a result of man. How did the genes know to change the moth's color to soot? What would have happened if the genes changed their color to red or blue? Why would the pepper moth even know about camoflage? And how did it happen in one generation when most evolutions to an advancement in life is explained by using periods of time of thousands to millions of years? Science can't explain that.

fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. The genes don't choose anything.

all species have a natural amount of variety. (tall, short, black, white etc...) There were already some peppered moths by chance. All the non-peppered ones were eaten when people dropped shit on the environment.

My theory is that God knew that the moth was an important part of the food chain for birds and other animals, and to keep everything in balance, He caused the color change to make up for our pollution and keep things running on the course He set it out to be in the first place. What's wrong with taking about that?

Great. I wish God had had the same foresight for all the other endangered species that have gone extinct. I guess those got by him.

And if you're a Christian, what's wrong with believing that the universe is billions of years old?

Explain that to the other Christians please... Start with the ones running for president.

As has been demonstrated, intelligent design is not pretty. Nature is full of all sorts of unpleasantness. You know the old saying, "Life is shit and then you die."
Well, assuming we are all imperfect, we are suppose to experience all the shit.
The shit is suppose to bring us to greater understanding.

What... did Melly make you clean the toilet tonight?

[thepaulo]

Melly is visiting family......I am free to create as much shit as I like.

[thejives]

Melly is visiting family......I am free to create as much shit as I like.

you have my full support.

[thepaulo]

Hopefully my shit will not contribute to devolution.

[thejives]

Hopefully my shit will not contribute to devolution.

too late.

but thanks for the afterthought.

[thepaulo]

I kind of figured I was responsible for the downfall of mankind....sorry.

[scottinnj]

You've already said it's a bad idea to put ID in a science classroom ... which puts you on our side of the fence on this issue. So really there's no argument here. Now you're just trying to win props for the philosophy of ID.

Fine: It's a very pretty idea. happy?


I didn't say I didn't want ID to be in another classroom. I am just trying to be flexible here, while you seem to be fixated on saying "NO RELIGION." I also said I didn't want it to dominate the science class but that there should be discussions somewhere.

I also said that while ID in its current form may be a bad idea to some, it is something new, and I agree everything new should be looked at for improvement. But you and your spaghetti god and your cat that created the universe seem quite content to just hold your ears and repeat "I'm not listening" over and over.

It's the arrogance you portray such as in the highlighted statement that shows me the close mindedness of your side. I'll give you a pass for it because I haven't really gone round and round with you before-I usually follow up with a wakka wakka when I think something I said could be taken the wrong way. Plus it's late, and we're both getting pretty passionate about our arguments.

But having said that I just wanted to say that while I have been trying very hard to be a voice of reason on my side and trying to find the middle ground, you have demonstrated to me that "progressive" in its modern terms means "my way or the highway"

The argument of the spaghetti god is nonsense, because anyone who believes in a higher power or only in plain science would realize with a bit of common sense that of course spaghetti can't be a god, because since we made spaghetti, that would make us gods. The spaghetti god people are nothing more then the hysterical Left who don't want to hear anything about a god or any religion and insist that if they hear about religion, somehow they will be offended beyond repair. But these people aren't using common sense at all. They are merely being hysterical and shoving their agenda down our throats, thereby intruding on our rights.
The spaghetti god bloggers rights end where my right to speak freely about ideas in the public square, whether religious or not begins.
The government suppression of ideas and the public discussion of those ideas, whether those ideas can be proven scientifically or not, is not to be tolerated.

Ummmm, wakka wakka, just in case I came off too mean. I'm enjoying this so far. But I'm tired.

[thepaulo]

Frankly, I'm always tired.....and lazy and good for nothing, just to make sure I've got all the bases covered.

[underdog]

Now you're being smug and arrogant. Which is exactly what I've been saying about trying to stifle the debate in the classroom. Either you don't understand it, or are afraid of it, but for whatever reason, it is something outside your bubble of protection, therefore it must not be discussed at all.

This paragraph just infuriated me.

You know why I don't think there should be "debate" about it in the classroom?

BECAUSE. IT. IS. NOT. FUCKING. SCIENCE.

It's not that I don't "understand" it or am "afraid" of it (although, I'm pretty sure you just described why people are drawn to religion).

It shouldn't be discussed because it is ridiculous. If you want to discuss creationism, go discuss it with your pastor or minister or whatever else.

"I don't understand stuff and my brain cannot comprehend that there's no reason for me being here. I know! There's someone who designed my life! That makes me more comfortable."

See? That's not science.

And please explain to me the difference (scientifically) between me having faith that my cat (who I've met and can actually see) creating the universe versus you having faith that "god" created the universe.

Can you prove that my cat did not create the universe?

I don't agree with that. It is not me pointing to the higher power. It is the science that shows the order of the universe, and the order of the universe itself points to a higher power.

There are a LOT of astrophysicists that believe in a higher power. However, I'm pretty sure that is NOT creationism.

No its not. Like I just said, the powers we know about but can't explain why they exist or how they are generated, even destructive powers like black holes shows the order of the universe. Did you know every galaxy has a black hole in it? And that black hole is equal in power to about 15 percent of the total power of the galaxy it is in? Which shows that even black holes don't appear willy-nilly across the universe. They form in some sort of order, and bring balance to the mass of each galaxy.

If I put milk in a bowl and drop some vanilla extract in it, the vanilla evenly scatters out from the middle of the drop. Does this mean that god is moving my vanilla extract evenly through my milk? Or does it just mean that something as small and insignificant as the reaction between milk and vanilla extract has some sort of order?

Just to get the "science" thing through, there are eight "qualifiers" for a theory to be considered scientific? Do you know how many ID passes? 2. TWO. Out of eight. Why should schools and science make an exception because a bunch of adults never stopped believing in Santa Claus?

[underdog]

[Evolutionist with an agenda covering his ears]"I am right. I will prove you are wrong. I am right. I will prove you are wrong."[/Evolutionist with an agenda covering his ears]

What is the agenda of an evolutionist? Most "evolutionists" are just scientists. Their agenda is discovering more information. If evolution wasn't it, they'd just move on to whatever was next. They (well, most) gain nothing for the theory of evolution.

[scottinnj]

Why do gaps in an evidenciary record require filling in by non-science-based theories? Why does the concept of billions of years make chance a more stupid explaination for the evolution of life on earth? Why does the complexity of life serve as evidence of it's creation by something complex enough to have intelligently designed it? Why doesn't the absurdity of many aspects of life serve as evidence that it's not that purposefully designed to begin with? Why are science classes a good place for non-science discussions? Why does removal of mention of a specific deity make accpetable a theory which is entirely based on one specific religious text and requires faith separated from the scientific methodology? Why can't anyone who believes in ID explain how complies with the scientific method, which itself is the set of standards that preclude the dominance of faith in the study of science? Why did God create something so horrible as the parasites carried by mosquitoes to become one of the world's biggest killers of the poor children Jesus loved so much? Why would Noah be ordered to preserve hookworms, trichinosis, deer ticks, pubic lice, the paracites that carry river blindness disease, malaria, dengue, those little fish that swim into the hole in your penis if you pee in a Brazilian lake, tape worms, and other horrible God's creatures to preserve them until today, and how did Noah and his family survive for 40 days while hosting all of these dangerous creatures? Can ID explain as much about the detailed nature of life on earth and if not then what qualifies it to "fill in the gaps" where science fails to explain the details?

Please have your assignment in by Friday, single-spaced, 12-point font, no less than 8 pages and no more than 15. I'll be grading your response for spelling and grammar. Sleeping with the teacher is not mandatory but extra credit will be awarded on style and degree of dificulty. An alternate assignment can be to convince me that Mary really was a virgin rather than that she had an affair with a black man and Joseph just couldn't handle the truth.

You crack me up! And I will not be bogged down in silly school assignments so that your PIMB/FIFB party can steamroll over epo and me getting the ronfez.net nomination for prez.

There is a lot of stuff I was taught in Sunday School that at the time was easy to swallow when I was a kid. I broke away from it when I was in my 20s because I saw the bad part of theology, the stifling of questions coming from logic. Believe me, when I went to Atlantic Christian School (http://www.acseht.org/) and The Pilgrim Academy (http://www.pilgrimacademy.org/) the first word out of my mouth whenever someone told me about a new rule or to do something was "why."
When nonsense answers were given, or stupid lies were told, I tuned a lot of it out and walked away from religion. But not from God. My logic kept me to God, and I only understand Him the way I was taught, so I'm not going to poo poo others who believe differently from me. He is too complex to me for that.

But enough testifying.

I am always interested to hear what the theories are about the origins of the universe. Remember, I am a person who used to be like Black Earl and believed the earth was 16000 years old, and God created it to look like it was older. (That's the explanation to get around carbon dating-but that'll be our little secret!)
I take the science and compare it to the Bible. The Bible backs up the notion that the earth and the universe is really really old.
Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And why is it that you and I look at the same things and come up with different notions of it all?
We both had religious upbringings (you were raised Catholic, if I remember correctly) and we both have had our splits from our "training" at church, but you go atheist and I hung on to some sort of spirituality. Why is that? You and I are almost alike in many ways but yet on the fundamentals of religion and politics we are way over on different sides. I find that fascinating.
Anyway, I believe the Bible. I believe in the Flood and all that. I don't know if it was worldwide, but I don't believe it is blasphemy to question that.
I look at the knowledge and I see the order of things. And order tells me that something organized it. That's pretty much it. The "How" I'll leave up to science to figure out.

[scottinnj]

BECAUSE. IT. IS. NOT. FUCKING. SCIENCE.

BUT THE FUCKING SCIENCE POINTS TO SOMETHING!

It shouldn't be discussed because it is ridiculous.
Did you manage to prove that statement scientifically? Because until you do, it is your opinion, and it is just as important as mine, and both should be freely discussed.



And please explain to me the difference (scientifically) between me having faith that my cat (who I've met and can actually see) creating the universe versus you having faith that "god" created the universe.

Can you prove that my cat did not create the universe?
Universe was here before your cat. How's that for science, smarty pants.




There are a LOT of astrophysicists that believe in a higher power. However, I'm pretty sure that is NOT creationism.
It is logic. The same thing that I used to find God as I know Him.



If I put milk in a bowl and drop some vanilla extract in it, the vanilla evenly scatters out from the middle of the drop. Does this mean that god is moving my vanilla extract evenly through my milk? Or does it just mean that something as small and insignificant as the reaction between milk and vanilla extract has some sort of order?
It is the order that is set up that science can't explain.

Just to get the "science" thing through, there are eight "qualifiers" for a theory to be considered scientific? Do you know how many ID passes? 2. TWO. Out of eight. Why should schools and science make an exception because a bunch of adults never stopped believing in Santa Claus?

Because Santa is cool, and scientists have nerdy pocket protectors and slide rulers. Wakka Wakka.

[scottinnj]

What is the agenda of an evolutionist? Most "evolutionists" are just scientists. Their agenda is discovering more information. If evolution wasn't it, they'd just move on to whatever was next. They (well, most) gain nothing for the theory of evolution.

Notice I didn't say all evolutionists. I'm more worried about people like you who take the science and use it to say "god is a fairy tale, christians are dummies who believe in santa claus and need to be silenced"

[Yerdaddy]

If it were adapting to a natural change in climate, it would be an explanation. But this change was a result, according to science, to an unnatural change in climate.

Evolution doesn't care about natural or unnatural changes in the environment. Either the animal adapts or it doesn't.

The soot from the coal was a result of man. How did the genes know to change the moth's color to soot?

Genes don't "know" anything; they just do. Like the genes for blond or brown hair in humans, the genes that made moths dark and spotty were passed on because the birds didn't kill them and eat them while the genes for other colorations weren't passed on because their carriers were brutally set upon and had their flesh cruelly ripped from their bloody fuzzy carcasses by the avian beasts of prey simply because they could be seen.

What would have happened if the genes changed their color to red or blue?

They'd be REDRUMED.

Why would the pepper moth even know about camoflage?

Same way babies know to be born blond or brunette - Hugh Heffner visits every live birth around the world on his flying Lexus Shaggin Wagon pulled by his trusty team of magical Bunnies with his list of "Hot or Not" and sprinkles "blonde", "brunette", or "firey redhead" cocaine sprinkles on each of the babies as they come out. Then he chews off the umbilical chord and slurps up mom's end to her box and gives her about 18 orgazms in a single lick and then flies off to the next baby's birth. Basically the baby has no say in the matter, and neither does the moth.

And how did it happen in one generation when most evolutions to an advancement in life is explained by using periods of time of thousands to millions of years? Science can't explain that.

There is no set rule in evolution that change takes thousands or millions of years. It depends on the genetic simplicity or complexity of the environmental change, and the simplicity or complexity of the genetic adaptation. In this case only one gene, (I imagine), had to be controlled for - like that of hair color - and the moth has a lifespan of about a minute and a half. The decades under which the change took place was actually many generations in moth years - where animals with longer lifespans would naturally require more time to adapt, move or die in similar circumstances.

My theory is that God knew that the moth was an important part of the food chain for birds and other animals, and to keep everything in balance, He caused the color change to make up for our pollution and keep things running on the course He set it out to be in the first place. What's wrong with taking about that?

Nothing's wrong with talking about that unless you're in a science class where the point is to teach science. The other problem, of course, is: teaching your theory of divine intervention is an endorsement of religion by the state. That's unconstitutional because it is impossible to teach one religious interpretation of the peppered moth without teaching every recognized religion's interpretation, inlcuding mine, which I would demand equal time to argue against all of the religions' interpretations. Like I do on the board, only in every friggin science class in the country. That would nearly double the amount of time I spend arguing and I just don't have that kind of time. So why not let the scientific explaination be enough, and if science truly can't explain something, let the science teachers say, "science can't explain this yet - maybe you kids will someday be the ones to explain it if you ever stop passing notes back there and TURN THAT FUCKING IPOD OFF YOU LITTLE PRICKS!"? Why isn't that sufficient?

And if you're a Christian, what's wrong with believing that the universe is billions of years old?

Nothing. By the statistics of religion in America alone we can assume that the vast majority of scientists, including geologists and natural historians in America, are Christians.

Even if you use the Bible as the basis of your arguments, it says "The earth was without form, and void, and darkness covered the face of the earth"
No theologin (am I spelling that right?) can explain to me what that means. For how long? What does "without form and void" mean? And if there was darkness first, why didn't God just make the light at the same time?


I'm sure many of those Christian scientists have speculated on that very question - but they don't call it science because it's a question that the scientific method can't be applied to, (for reasons that someone explained earlier).

The ultimate question that we all seem very close to agreeing on is: do non-scientific explainations belong in science classrooms? I understand why science belongs in the science classrooms. I don't understand why non-science should. You seem to be saying that the imperfections of our scientific understanding - the gaps in the explainations we have in all of the known physical world, justifies filling in those gaps with faith. But saying,
"we don't know this" is, and always has been a part of the study of science. If those gaps could be filled in, then what would be the point in spending billions of dollars on the space shuttle program just to watch rats try to fuck in zero gravity? OK, that would justify the money. But you get my point! Why do the gaps in science need filling in and not the gaps in our understanding of why great literary writers get drunk and punch women? Or why Plato and Aristotle were such smart homos? Or why only smart-ass punk janitors can do equations that professors put on the halls of MIT?

One more question: If the unknowable complexity of the known universe is proof that it was created by something even more complex - enough so to have designed it that way - then why should we trust that ID practishioners, (who have never used their knowledge to put a man on the moon, to invent an iPod, to make cars that tell us to fasten our seatbelts, to discover, [allegedly], the female orgazm, or to invent a knife that can cut through a shoe and still slice a tomato perfectly every time!), with giving us the the answers that scientists, (who gave us all those other cool - well, maybe not the female thing - stuff), can't? It seems to me that once you've said "the incredible complexity of life and the universe points, to me, to a higher power", you're done. Anything else you want to add to that either falls into the category of "our scientific understanding isn't perfect" which nobody denies, or using pseudo-scientific theories to convince people that faith should be substituted for scientific exploration, or that faith is superior to scientific learning. It's a bit like scientists suing to be able to teach science in your churches, isn't it?

[Mike Teacher]

The original post and explanation are off, and it's the crux of the issue...

No one would dare call themselves a Creationist, or ask that Creation/Creationism be taught in schools; the courts are clear; that violates the establishment clause.

So Intelligent Design was born. ID says there is some higher unknown power/force/energy at work. See Michael Behe/Darwin's Black Box. In short he/they argue very complex biological processes could not have evolved by random chance evolution.

As far as the court cases, the proponents of ID have not been able to seerate ID from Creationism. Why? Because when ID is used, it is so vague that any power/force/energy can be used to fill in the blanks. Like Spaghetti Monsters. The courts have so far branded ID as non-science, and a veiled attempt at getting religion, certain specific religions perhaps, into the schools.

=

I didnt read the whole thread; a family member died so I missed the thread and I'm off to a funeral soon. No sympathy please, just stating my answers are short and quick and dirty so errors will occur...

=

Science makes no claim to have all the answers; it makes no claims. Science is about a way of thinking. That's it. The body of knowledge is great but it's about a way of doing things; to ask specific Qs, and most importantly to go where the data goes; no matter how wrong it might feel, no matter if it violates cherished beliefs, we Must follow the data and not our beliefs and persoanl biases. That's the core of science.

We don't have a complete theory on how something flies. Or atoms. We hardly understand electrons at all. But to deny flight, or the existance of atoms, would strain credulity and logic. The cuurent theories on flight and atoms are very good, but we still dont know a lot. But not knowing doesnt mean a god did it.

I saw a lot of Qs asked; some about the origins of Universe, matter, and energy.

First nature is not random, or chance; it follows specific rules.

How did the Universe get here? No one knows.
But no one knows doesnt mean it must have been some human like diety.

Perhaps it always existed; no creation, no need for a creator. Perhaps the Big Bang is just *this* incarnation of the Universe.

Oh, and if this all sounds like I'm an atheist. I'm not.

I'll try to get back to this puter but please ask away.

[Yerdaddy]

You crack me up! And I will not be bogged down in silly school assignments so that your PIMB/FIFB party can steamroll over epo and me getting the ronfez.net nomination for prez.

There is a lot of stuff I was taught in Sunday School that at the time was easy to swallow when I was a kid. I broke away from it when I was in my 20s because I saw the bad part of theology, the stifling of questions coming from logic. Believe me, when I went to Atlantic Christian School (http://www.acseht.org/) and The Pilgrim Academy (http://www.pilgrimacademy.org/) the first word out of my mouth whenever someone told me about a new rule or to do something was "why."
When nonsense answers were given, or stupid lies were told, I tuned a lot of it out and walked away from religion. But not from God. My logic kept me to God, and I only understand Him the way I was taught, so I'm not going to poo poo others who believe differently from me. He is too complex to me for that.

But enough testifying.

I am always interested to hear what the theories are about the origins of the universe. Remember, I am a person who used to be like Black Earl and believed the earth was 16000 years old, and God created it to look like it was older. (That's the explanation to get around carbon dating-but that'll be our little secret!)
I take the science and compare it to the Bible. The Bible backs up the notion that the earth and the universe is really really old.


And why is it that you and I look at the same things and come up with different notions of it all?
We both had religious upbringings (you were raised Catholic, if I remember correctly) and we both have had our splits from our "training" at church, but you go atheist and I hung on to some sort of spirituality. Why is that? You and I are almost alike in many ways but yet on the fundamentals of religion and politics we are way over on different sides. I find that fascinating.
Anyway, I believe the Bible. I believe in the Flood and all that. I don't know if it was worldwide, but I don't believe it is blasphemy to question that.
I look at the knowledge and I see the order of things. And order tells me that something organized it. That's pretty much it. The "How" I'll leave up to science to figure out.

Actually I was raised Mormon and I left the church when I was 11 because those people were bat-shit crazy and racist as all get-go.

But that doesn't mean I've been hostile to religion ever since. By the time I was in my early 20s I was scared shitless of not being in the "true" religion and spending eternity having my body split "from the mouth that eats to the mouth that shits" over and over again. The times I've felt that after a bad Yemeni meal is bad enough. So I explored, seriously, the religious books from the Rig Vedas, to the Popul Vuh, to the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh and I came to the conclusion that man made all those marvelous myths to understand his world on his own terms. I believe that faith is an intrinsicly positive and negative impulse in human life, and I'm not hostile to it - only to the individual results it produces, which should be judged on their merits. I trust science, and logic, over faith for one reason: the scientific method. Science admits what it does and doesn't know, sometimes belatedly, but the rules of logic are, in my opinion, the best way to base decisions upon - take the most plausible explanation based on the evidence. It aint perfect, certainly in my life, but the attempt to follow these rules have made me much more comfortable in my own knowledge of the world than when I still relied on allegience to a set of doctrine based on unknowable assumptions - like liberalism and the wisdom of other liberals. There was a time when I would have rejected myself as disloyal to the cause for supporting the surge in Iraq or John McCain for president, but that was faith - not reason. I know faith has a place in people's lives - people who are much happier and successful than myself - but I don't trust it in mine. And if I had kids I'd fight to make sure nobody imposed it on them. But thank God for vascectomies!

[GvacMobile]

I just want to go on record stating the spaghetti monster is a crock of shit!

I also firmly believe that the impetus behind the life force and the creation of the universe is far beyond our mortal ken. Both sides could argue for an eternity but in the end it would prove to be as pointless as debating what the best cookie is.

[sailor]

i've had darwin's black box sitting in my bookcase for years, but have never gotten around to reading it. is it worth it?

[Mike Teacher]

i've had darwin's black box sitting in my bookcase for years, but have never gotten around to reading it. is it worth it?

Behe knows his shit; that can not be denied. He just doesn't offer an alternative. He was on the stand for one of the trials mentioned above but under examination could come up with no alternative to...

I'm going backwards here...

Behe looks at things like the chemical casecade in blood clotting; hugely complex chain that all has to be correct at the beginning or it's fucked. And it can't be correct at the beginning coz that's not how things evolved. That's one arguement.

Another is for the flagella/little hair-like whips in some protozoans. These are little whirling motors; behe argues half a motor is useless and hence would/should/could not evolve. The mousetrap is used as an example. ALl the parts have to be there, assembled, for it to work. Half a mousetrap is useless.

Or not. Actually, half a mousetrap has a bunch of uses, and this has been shown enough times in nature. Other biologists have shown that parts of the clotting cascade and the flagella could be useful in other ways/areas, ones were just not seeing/aware of.

The evolution of the eye is a classic. What good is half an eye? Why should that evolve? What good is a badly functioning kinda-sorta eye?

Science/Nature seems to say: A whole lot better then no eye at all.

This is where ID seems to fail. Behe et al fail to give a scientific alternative.

[A.J.]

So I explored, seriously, the religious books from the Rig Vedas, to the Popul Vuh, to the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh and I came to the conclusion that man made all those marvelous myths to understand his world on his own terms.

WINNER!!!!! :clap:

God/religion is a means to explain that which we do not yet understand.

[underdog]

Did you manage to prove that statement scientifically? Because until you do, it is your opinion, and it is just as important as mine, and both should be freely discussed.

It's my opinion. And my opinions shouldn't be discussed in science classes. Or else kids would never learn anything because instead of talking about facts, they'd be discussing a bunch of dumb opinions.

Universe was here before your cat. How's that for science, smarty pants.

How do you know? Have you seen my cat? Did you see her be born? How do we know that when she appeared in her current form, she wasn't living as another type of being or power before that? I can't prove that, so I'll just fill the gaps in.

I call my theory "The Cats of Gaps".

It is logic. The same thing that I used to find God as I know Him.

But we're not discussing belief in god. We're discussing whether or not creationism, a theory with no scientific backing at all, should be discussed in a SCIENCE classroom.

It is the order that is set up that science can't explain.

I'm pretty sure science could explain why my milk and vanilla react the way they do.

[underdog]

Notice I didn't say all evolutionists. I'm more worried about people like you who take the science and use it to say "god is a fairy tale, christians are dummies who believe in santa claus and need to be silenced"

Why would you worry about me? All I do is argue with people on a message board.

[underdog]

Both sides could argue for an eternity but in the end it would prove to be as pointless as debating what the best cookie is.

Chocolate chip.

I didn't even think there was a debate.

[Furtherman]

WINNER!!!!! :clap:

God/religion is a means to explain that which we do not yet understand.

QFT.

And scottinnj, in this thread you asked many science questions and observations that there are scientific answers to. A lot has been explained since we all went to high school. Look into it. Nothing mysterious about it.

You believe in a higher power, that's fine. But to subject the rest of the people who are trying to learn, to get a handle on life and its uphill climb, that it's all for something as arrogant and egotistical as a higher being is insulting. Funny how the gods have human qualities. Not very godlike, is it? It shouldn't be fed to children. Let them make up their own minds when they have their wits to stand upon.

The Brilliant Universe (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/)
Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/section/id/news)
Lonely Planets (http://www.lonelyplanets.net/)

[TheMojoPin]

What is the agenda of an evolutionist? Most "evolutionists" are just scientists. Their agenda is discovering more information. If evolution wasn't it, they'd just move on to whatever was next. They (well, most) gain nothing for the theory of evolution.

I too am curious about this spate of "evolutionists with an agenda" that have such power and pose such a threat.

[Furtherman]

I too am curious about this spate of "evolutionists with an agenda" that have such power and pose such a threat.

Why, they spread the fear of nothingness of course! No god? You mean, when I'm gone, there is nothing left of me? But... But... that's impossible! I have to live eternally!

[A.J.]

Why, they spread the fear of nothingness of course! No god? You mean, when I'm gone, there is nothing left of me? But... But... that's impossible! I have to live eternally!

"Remember"...your katra!

http://www.bullnet.com/photos/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=1908&g2_serialNumber=4

[Furtherman]

But in all seriousness, the Spaghetti Monster must be pleased.

Religion in our country is on its way out, and I'd expect it with more knowledge of the world available now more than ever, in other countries as well. It's a hotbed in the middle east and poorer parts of the world, but that is exactly why: it's hot, it's poor... perfect conditions for religion to grow.

People with deep roots in our country will teach their children, maybe even send them to religious schools... but when those people roam from home and see the world as it is and the more they learn - the more they'll be likely to do something productive with themselves than rely on help on high.

Just a couple years ago, the Journal Of Religion and Society published a study stating Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html)

It makes perfect sense. You tell a kid not to look in a closet, as you as you have your back turned, he's going to look in that closet. It's human nature.

In a few short generations, maybe it'll die down enough that it won't even matter to be part of government debate. I hope so, because the human race depends on it.

[thejives]

Religion in our country is on its way out, and I'd expect it with more knowledge of the world available now more than ever, in other countries as well. .

I agree in part.

Religion is in transition. IMO, it is no longer the best place to go for answers about the world around us.

However, it is a good place to go for answers about yourself. When I'm scared, lonely, frightened, or faced with tough choices ... faith, and perhaps a pastor with an open ear, is there to help.

I think the future of religion is to become a kind of free group therapy.

Oh, and rereading this thread, I'm convinced that Scottinnj is just instigating. accusing us of being close minded anti-religious zealots is a great way to keep the thread going, but it's also gibberish.

[Furtherman]

However, it is a good place to go for answers about yourself. When I'm scared, lonely, frightened, or faced with tough choices ... faith, and perhaps a pastor with an open ear, is there to help.

Faith in yourself is good. And why talk to a pastor? Try a family member or close friend.

But religion turning into a group therapy is an excellent idea. Humans helping humans is the only way to get things done.

[thejives]

Faith in yourself is good. And why talk to a pastor? Try a family member or close friend.

Yeah... I talk about most things with my wife,

but the thing is, she's so close to the situation. So is my family. The theory behind good therapy is that you have an unbiased third party to give you advice. I haven't had a good pastor to talk things over with since I was in high school, but he was really good at giving advice. Usually god didn't even come up.

[Furtherman]

Yeah... I talk about most things with my wife,

but the thing is, she's so close to the situation. So is my family. The theory behind good therapy is that you have an unbiased third party to give you advice. I haven't had a good pastor to talk things over with since I was in high school, but he was really good at giving advice. Usually god didn't even come up.

I see what you mean, and that is a good thing. That's what people need. Someone to talk to instead of talking to... well, if you're talking to a god, you're talking to yourself.

[thejives]

well, if you're talking to a god, you're talking to yourself.

Which is good, cuz I like to think I have all the answers

[DarkHippie]

I think the reason that we don't teach ID or anything religious in public school is that relgion is inherently personal. Religon is something that you feel inside, not something that comes from a book. It can't be tought, because no two people, even people of the same relgion, believe the exact same thing.

For example, I believe in God. I believe that God created The Big Bang, but I believe that science took over from there. I don't believe that he guided anything past that--it all happened naturally.

However, I also believe in reincarnation.

There are very few people that belive something like that, but even the people who do, I'm sure that there are little alterizations in perspective that we have.

Anyway, the reason we teach science in school is as much to improve reading comprehension, retention, and research skills as getting science facts.

[thejives]

However, I also believe in reincarnation.

There are very few people that belive something like that, but even the people who do, I'm sure that there are little alterizations in perspective that we have.


Do you believe that merit scale where you work your way up the chain of animals?

What species do you think you'll get next?

[Mike Teacher]

Religion in our country is on its way out

=

Maybe someday, but not soon, and the trend is the opposite. In then past 20 years in the USA, church memberships have increased, the %age of people who say they believe in a God has increased, $ to churches is up; sales of books on/about religion have increased; more and more doing the religion thing.

[DiabloSammich]

Do you believe that merit scale where you work your way up the chain of animals?

What species do you think you'll get next?


I hope I'll be a puma with laser eyes. That would be the shit.

[booster11373]

But in all seriousness, the Spaghetti Monster must be pleased.

Religion in our country is on its way out, and I'd expect it with more knowledge of the world available now more than ever, in other countries as well. It's a hotbed in the middle east and poorer parts of the world, but that is exactly why: it's hot, it's poor... perfect conditions for religion to grow.

People with deep roots in our country will teach their children, maybe even send them to religious schools... but when those people roam from home and see the world as it is and the more they learn - the more they'll be likely to do something productive with themselves than rely on help on high.

Just a couple years ago, the Journal Of Religion and Society published a study stating Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html)

It makes perfect sense. You tell a kid not to look in a closet, as you as you have your back turned, he's going to look in that closet. It's human nature.

In a few short generations, maybe it'll die down enough that it won't even matter to be part of government debate. I hope so, because the human race depends on it.

I'm 34 I hope I live to see this in my lifetime.

What would happen if all Atheists were as Militantly anti religious as Believers are anti Atheist?

[thejives]

I hope I'll be a puma with laser eyes. That would be the shit.

You have to be a manatee with explosive diarrhoea first

[DiabloSammich]

You have to be a manatee with explosive diarrhoea first



Awwww, man. Does it have to be explosive?

[thejives]

Awwww, man. Does it have to be explosive?

I don't make the fucking rules sammich

[keithy_19]

I believe that an intelligent God made the spaghetti monster and also created the world the way that science believes the world was created just to fuck with everyone cause I imagine God to be a silly, silly goose.

And the Garden of Eden is now present day New Brunswick New Jersey.

[booster11373]

I believe that an intelligent God made the spaghetti monster and also created the world the way that science believes the world was created just to fuck with everyone cause I imagine God to be a silly, silly goose.

And the Garden of Eden is now present day New Brunswick New Jersey.


Makes as much sence to me as the Bible and Jersey is the Garden State

[DarkHippie]

Do you believe that merit scale where you work your way up the chain of animals?

What species do you think you'll get next?

A liger

[A.J.]

What would happen if all Atheists were as Militantly anti religious as Believers are anti Atheist?

The IQ of this country would increase.

[thejives]

A liger

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/photogalleries/ligers_dynamite/images/primary/Liger2.jpg

[Ritalin]

http://craphound.com/images/fsmbiccies.jpg

[epo]

A liger

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2004/11/03/Justin_Thunder_Liger.jpg

[underdog]

A liger

http://www.bigcatrescue.org/images/WhiteTigerDeformed1.jpg

[scottinnj]

The origin of the species:

http://www.liloia.com/images/liger.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

http://www.bigcatrescue.org/images/WhiteTigerDeformed1.jpg

Does anybody have a picture of Snoogans to post next to this?

[epo]

Does anybody have a picture of Snoogans to post next to this?

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/photobattle/dogtag/ly020217ko21.jpg

[Mike Teacher]

Dont know shit about wrestling but that looks like an Ultraman mask.

[scottinnj]

http://www.badmovies.org/tvshows/ultraman/ultraman2.jpg

That's Ultraman. I have no idea what epo posted. Looks like a dude in a Power Rangers outfit.

[smiler grogan]

Thats Jushin Thunde Liger very popular Japanese wrassler.

[Yerdaddy]

[National Academy of Sciences] stresses evolution's importance (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080104/sc_nm/evolution_usa_dc)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The National Academy of Sciences on Thursday issued a spirited defense of evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology, arguing that it, not creationism, must be taught in public school science classes.

The academy, which operates under a mandate from Congress to advise the government on science and technology matters, issued the report at a time when the theory of evolution, first offered in the 19th century, faces renewed attack by some religious conservatives.

Creationism, based on the explanation offered in the Bible, and the related idea of "intelligent design" are not science and, as such, should not be taught in public school science classrooms, according to the report.

"We seem to have continuing challenges to the teaching of evolution in schools. That's something that doesn't seem to go away," Barbara Schaal, an evolutionary biologist at Washington University in St. Louis and vice president of National Academy of Sciences, said in a telephone interview.

"We need a citizenry that's trained in real science."

Evolution is a theory explaining change in living organisms over the eons due to genetic mutations. For example, it holds that humans evolved from earlier forms of apes.

The report stated that the idea of evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. "Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future," said the report.

But teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not, according to the report's authors.

"Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines," the report stated.

President George W. Bush said in 2005 American students should be instructed about "intelligent design" alongside evolution as competing theories. "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said.

Advocates of "intelligent design" contend that some biological structures are so complex they could not have appeared merely through natural processes.

A judge in Dover, Pennsylvania ruled in 2005 that the teaching of intelligent design violated the U.S. Constitution, which requires a separation of church and state, because it is based on religious conviction, not science.

A 2006 Gallup poll showed that almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Read the book, or about the book, here. (http://www.nas.edu/morenews/20080104.html)

[sailor]

I'm 34 I hope I live to see this in my lifetime.

What would happen if all Atheists were as Militantly anti religious as Believers are anti Atheist?

i'd say, based soley on this board, the atheists are way more anti-religious than vice versa. heck, just look at this thread. if anyone brings up anything religious they basically get told "you're a fool."

mr teacher, that sounds a lot like the "half-a-wing" anti-evolution argument. and actually, half-a-wing turns out to also be sort of good, like for increased jumping and aquatic uses.