OT - For those that like political discussion on rmr - you can even discuss religion with this one

Consider the good news. Considering how well USA students learn reading, writing, arithmatic, and science, nobody need fear when ID and creationism ARE taught in biology class.

It won't take.

Jerry

Well there is the joke that when contact is finally made the aliens are asked why they didn't talk to us earlier and they simply bow theirs heads and shake them side to side chanting, "Married with children, Married with children...."

If that's the case, I just hope they don't have a magnifying glass.

I have always loved this discussion...

Just a couple of comments...

"There is no proof of evolution" True, that is why it is the "theory of evolution" and not the "law of evolution". Frankly, even if it were the "law of evolution" it doesn't necessarily mean that there is "proof". The "law of gravity" has never been "proven", it just has such overwhelming supportive evidence that it has passed the boundry between "theory" and "law" as defined.

"There is not one shred of evidence of evolution". Untrue. There is a wealth of "evidence". more than enough to qualify as a "theory". Just like the "theory of relativity". Enough for a "theory", just not enough to pass that boundry and become the "law of relativity"

Let's just make sure we understand the terms we are using.

Now, as for "science"... In a "scientific theory" one has to (by definition) accept that if something comes about that "scientifically proves" a part of that theory incorrect, then the theory is either modified to accept that proof or the theory is dropped. Such is the case with the "theory of evolution". It has gone through MANY changes over the years (it has "evolved"... :) ) Under NO circumstances can I attribute as my "scientific proof" magic nor miracles.

If I have "scientific proof" that, for example, Noah could not build a boat big enough to hold 2 of EVERY animal (including ALL extinct species) or if I can provide "scientific proof" that Noah could not load 5000+ pairs of animials every second, 24/7 for 7 days then either the "theory (bible)" has to be modified or dropped.

Such "proof" exists in the realm of scientific knowlege yet the "theory" is neither modified nor dropped. Hence, while it is a great story, it fails the acid test of "science"

Now, as for the argument that "A chicken could never hatch out of a lizard egg" (popular with Dywane Gish (sp?)), it seems that Creationist would have us beleive that such an event is clearly "impossible", yet a full grown and developed man emerging from a pile of "dust" is perfectly reasonable.

I am not saying that I "know" one way or the other how it all came about, nor whether there is life beyond the earth nor anything else. Just trying to estabilsh what is a "theory" and what is a "beleif". What is "science" and what is not. What belongs in the "Science Class Room" and what does not.

food for thought.

If life is the result of Intelligent Design, someone please explain the platypus to me...

Mario

"Tom Wates once said "There's no devil, its just god when he drinks." Ever think then, if god drinks, he might get stoned... Look at a platypus...I think you think he might." - Robin Williams

;)

"Mutation" does not necessarilty mean "bad." Open up a high school biology texbook and read a bit about cell division, especially meiosis. There is a process called "crossing over." Once you learn the basics, maybe you can come back and I'll listen to your dubious pseudoscientific arguments..

Your logic is flawed. Snakes have vestigial legs, as do whales. You can't see them, but they are there, internally, complete with digits and all.

It isn't random chance that causes evolution. Natural environmental changes simply amplify natural genetic fluctuations in animals over a long period of time.

Well at first I'd agree but then intelligent design really isn't about traditional creationism. Creationism is the whole god made the earth in

6 days and all that. Intelligent Design is a series of either active or programmed structured adjustments and changes to achieve some sort of goal. You could teach it much like you teach evolution except that the underlying reason for the emergence of various species and why some may change is different. You could still teach the same basic life processes but just as little time is spent now in trying to explain the unexplained (as of yet) of how we came from nothing, whether that be the primordial soup struck by lightning or the big bang itself you can also spend a bit of time suggesting either aliens(as in a certain Star Trek TNG episode revealed) or even a God did it. What it boils down to for many is the Big Bang. No one can say where it came from and if we can't then everything else that has followed in terms of the creationism/evolution debate has holes in it. I tend to subscribe to the bubble in a pot of boiling water theory,, that there are new universes springing out all the time out of a vaster greater sub universe of which we are all a part.

The theory of evolution is indeed that, a theory. Darwin was even a religious man which few seem to remember. Carl Sagan said it(Evol) was a Fact but yet there is no proof it is and there are so many holes in the fossil record. The assumption that the variety of animals we have today all occurred through random chance is mind blowing. The conjecture that one turned into another based upon some unseen law of the universe is even more in the realm of conjecture. How scientific is it to say this turned into that when you only have the beginning and the end result? You don't have evidence for the change itself.

Here's a better one. If there is a God and he created us in his own image then why is it that we're such smelly unclean creatures in our natural state? Some liberals like to say that the fact that we have bowel movements and menstrual cycles proves there is no God. I have to agree on that to a certain extent. If God created us in his own image then he must be pretty smelly. Some would say though that 'his image' means a 'thinking creature' which is probably more correct and is in line with ID. ID merely says that adjustments were made along the way and probably got the ball rolling in the first place. It doesn't say that whatever was a part of ID still plays an active hand, just as God doesn't seem to be playing too much of an active hand these days or in the past for the matter.

Another interesting question. If evolution is true then why do we still have organisms like amoebas etc? Shouldn't all life have naturally evolved beyond that primitive state by now? It's a real lapse in the logic.

Much like supporting our troops doesn't necessarily mean you agree with the war in Iraq, suggesting ID explains the complexity of life doesn't necessarily mean you believe in the Bible(Noahs ark nonsense) as well.

Ok, so if not knowing what caused the big bang is a big enough hole...

Where did God come from?

Surely if life is too complex to have happened by chance, a being capable of manipulating everything in the universe at a whim is too complex to happen by chance.

This is one of my biggest gripes with ID...they can't accept that life could possibly have happened by chance, but they accept that something capable of creating said life did with much less evidence than they demand for evolution.

How was the universe created? I don't know. Nobody knows for sure, but that is hardly a reason to assume it must have been created by a god and stop researching to find out.

But what is important is that for every single species that we have now or that has ever existed, it had to have gotten to that point only through an incredible series of random mutations that just happened to create the correct result necessary for survival. The only way to explain that that can work is to say, well, 1,2 or even 3 billion years is a long time folks,, it could happen.

There's more to this story guys. Evolution doesn't explain it and ID doesn't either simply because it does't explain where the alien or the god came from. I lean towards alien myself but yet an alien capable of creating the complexities of life on earth WOULD be at a God level now wouldn't it? So, what defines God!?

An addendum: tailbones have been removed with no problems other than standard surgical complications. Here's more for the curious:

The only way I can really accept evolution is the fact that frankly we have only lived in the modern world for the past few hundred years and really only the last hundred has seen major advancement. That indicates that for much of our past we were just dirty smelly human beings without a hell of a lot going for us...and therefore we and everything else was probably that way for millions of years. See this is a very important tidbit in all of this. A religious person can't see a doctor, the space shuttle, walmart, their lovely dress, their VCR or their car as anything possible without the belief that God was somehow responsible. But it all falls apart when you realize that for

99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of our history we were really living in shit holes. To this day we still get cancer, sexual diseases, bursting appendixes(spelling?), brain tumors, blood clots, cholesterol and any number of other uncomfortable or fatal maladies,, so why if there is a God did he allow all of that to happen!?

And yet I'm brought back to all of these nature tv shows I watch which indicate so many incredible things that it's mind blowing to me to think it all happened by chance which is why I think whatever had a part to play did so in a fairly hands off way once the ball got rolling. I don't have a doubt that evolution works, but I doubt the way that scientist's tell us that it works.

Evolution and extinction, are two different things.

When You were born, did all Your blood relatives become extinct?

My relatives are equal to me, I am not an improved copy I guarantee it! lol An amoeba however is an example of that which we for some reason moved on from, so if it wasn't successful and we were, why does it still exist? the dinosaurs don't exist, and neither do countless other unsuccessful organims. Amoebas are just darned lucky little bastards I guess. Since the processes that started single celled organisms etc etc were a singular event it seems to reason that since those processes no longer occur we shouldn't have simple oganisms anymore. Unless there is no evolution in which case it explains why we still have basic life forms. Arg. You know, I don't think anyone has ever shown evidence of new life being created on earth today through natural processes............Oh darn I just gave somebody more ammo.

Not necessarily. Globally, whole species do not change. Local concentrations of species do. There was probably a time in the past in which something resembling the amoeba somehow got separated into two groups, and one group changed and evolved into something else because of an envrionmental change. Such an evolution might not be noticable, because it might not have required a change in structure or appearence.

There is only a tendancy to evolve when the environment dictates it! It does not have to happen spontaneously or without reason. Read Darwin's paper, it makes a lot more sense.

Evolution is not random. Random mutations are certainly a part of it, but evolution mostly relies on natural changes in the environment in which organisms that have the right genes to cope with the changes survive, while others die off. The ones that survive are later built upon by further environmental changes.

How life evolved on Earth reflects how the Earth has changed over time. If the Earth had been warmer, colder, wetter, drier, more massive or less massive, life as we know it would look and act much differently.