<p>I just read on CNN that ID has gone to the PA Supreme Court and that it will most likely be a banned subject in schools. What happened to openness? It doesn't matter whether or not the concept is liberal; what really matters is that we at least have the freedom to be able to teach our kids that ID is a possibility. Isn't evolution itself to be questioned? I personally believe in evolution, but I also believe that censorship is wrong. Evolution = selection of the fittest. This happens socially, economically, and physically. Our planet practices this concept. Even inanimate objects, such as rivers and rocks could be said to work according to the principles of natural selection. If a river is running fast, then it is more pure than a slow-moving, stagnant creek. One could say that the river, from the first droplet to the many flows, underwent a process of natural selection to become the pure entity that it is now.
But WHY does this happen? No one can answer this fundamental question, and ID is a theory that actually attempts to get at the heart of the matter. Who are these legislators to tell us that censorship is right and that if the truth be that we are not really in control of our destiny, that that is wrong? They are just scared cats running from the possiblity that they might be wrong; that they might be puppets within an imagined framework of control that they built up around themselves. This is what makes me want to become a lawyer, to fight censorship and ridiculous rulings that may interfere with the search for truth. As a gay, liberal democrat, I am hands down all for evolution. But, cover up the truth and you get me ****ed.
My hero is John Roberts, a Republican. I am liberal. However, John gets the idea right in that he views arguments on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.scienceteecher.com/miracle_large.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://www.scienceteecher.com/miracle_large.jpg</a> = ID</p>
<p>There are millions of topics on this already - check some of those out.</p>
<p>What happened to openness? It doesn't matter whether or not the concept is liberal; what really matters is that we at least have the freedom to be able to teach our kids that ID is a possibility.</p>
<p>I agree, people should be allowed to take a class that teaches ID, but it should not be a science class in a public school. Why? Because ID is not science!!! People - please understand this, above all else. ID is theology, not science. To teach it as such is an insult to the hundreds of other theories that have passed scientific rigor. ID has not (nor will it ever, because it presupposes the existance of a being who existance cannot be scientifically verified or even tested in any way).</p>
<p>no matter what is correct, and happened, its not science, and cannot be proven through scientific theories and experiment</p>
<p>Not teaching ID is not censorship. It is common sense. It is a religious belief and theory. I would never want my children or myself to be subjected to religion in science class. ID is not science. If you want to teach it, put it in a religion class.</p>
<p>Check out what the parents have to say:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=128658%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=128658</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
what really matters is that we at least have the freedom to be able to teach our kids that ID is a possibility.
[/quote]
That would be fine if it were a possibility - however, as of right now, it's widely regarded as religious bs. If you'll allow me to snag a quote from Richard Dawkins: "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."</p>
<p>As a wannabe biomedical engineer, I was totally cheering this morning, btw, though I'm still shocked that we actually have to fight this battle.</p>
<p>though I'm still shocked that we actually have to fight this battle.</p>
<p>me too :(</p>
<p>I've practically been terrorised for proclaiming that Darwin has more holes in his theory than a leaking boat, but the only reason morons negate me is because their concepts are flawed and outdated and they know it.</p>
<p>Even though scientists were harping on about there being a link between invertebrates and fish, no transitional evidence has really ever been found. You know this, I know this, but obviously the only way to make scientists understand this is by throwing bricks at them.</p>
<p>Everyone knows that invertebrates and fish have different structural differences. Such an enormous "evolution" would have taken billions of steps, so there should be a wide array of transitional fossils to back this up. But, the custard pie truth is, there isn't.</p>
<p>Scientists hypothecised that some fish needed to pass from sea to land because of feeding problems, which quite frankly, moistens my gussets with laughter. The main reasons for this being impossible are thus:</p>
<p>Weight</p>
<p>Sea dwelling creatures have no problem in carrying their own weight. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume, say, thirty-forty % of their energy just lugging their bodies around. Creatures making their transition from water to land would have had to suddenly develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet the required energy need at the same time, which is impossible to have been formed by chance mutations, unless you're a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.</p>
<p>Heat Retention</p>
<p>We all know that on land, temperature fluctuates, however, remember that land dwelling creatures have a bodily mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes without them suddenly self combusting and blowing up in everyone's face. In the sea, the temperature changes slowly and the change doesn't occur within such a wide range. A living organism that has a body system regulated in accordance to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protection system to ensure minimum harm from the temp changes on land. So it's kind of proposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations (which aren't spurred by any suspect catalyst) as soon as they stepped onto land.</p>
<p>Use of water</p>
<p>Yes that's right: water, H20, sea-blood. This is essential to metabolism. Water and even moisture need to be used restrictively due to scarcity of water on land. Eg, an organism's skin has to be designed to permit losing water to a certain extent while also preventing excessive evaporation. Therefore, the land-dwelling creatures will have a sense of thirst, something which sea dwelling organisms don't have. One has to remember that sea-dwelling animals don't have skin which is suitable for a non-aquatic habitat... well... unless you're a little mermaid.</p>
<p>Kidneys</p>
<p>Sea dwelling organisms can easily discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, in their bodies by filtering them through gills, and since there is plenty of water in their habitat they're a-okay. On land though, water has to be used economically. This is why living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the almighty kidney, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea, meaning minimum amount of water is used during excretion. In addition to this, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. That means that in order for the passage from water to land to have occured, living things without a kidney would have had to suddenly develop a kidney system. LOL.</p>
<p>Respiratory System</p>
<p>Fish breathe by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they frantically pass through their gills, so they cannot live for more than a couple of minutes out of water. In order to live on land, they'd have to acquire a perfect damm system too.</p>
<p>Now you can see why it's impossible that all these dramatic psysiological developments could have happened in the same organism at the same time and by chance!</p>
<p>Have you read The Descent of Man?</p>
<p>Darwin is also a ****ing racist as explained thus:</p>
<p>" The break between man in a more civilised stat, as we may hope, even than the Caucasion, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and gorilla."</p>
<p>Apparently, social darwinism proposes that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder. Not only were his ideas theorised and not fact, but they also provided an important scientific platform for racism. So, a black man is actually more closer to a gorilla than a whitey. Hear that homie?</p>
<p>Just another nail in the coffin of evolution: Since evolution says that species gradually evolve, this means that there are organic links that denote a specific geneology. For example, when a dog breeder wants to develop a specific canine breed, he will keep on mating and mixing various dog breeds until the desired specifications are met. So in between the original dog and the "new" dog, there are about (usually) 70 generations, each one slightly different than the last, you can actually see the new breed evolving before your very eyes.</p>
<p>With evolution, it is the same, if specific species evolved out of others, then there should be a **** load of "in-between" fossils all over the place that show the step-by-step evolution of that species. These are called "inter-mediary" fossils. For every fully formed species, there should be millions of quarter-formed, half-formed and three quarters-formed species. The only problem is, they are NOT being found, even though they should FAR outnumber the number of fully-formed fossils. You might have heard of this little problem for evolutionary theory, it's better known as the "missing link" problem.</p>
<p>Just one more thing: towards the end of his life, Charles Darwin himself had grave misgivings about the theory he developed, he often couldn't sleep trying to explain how the eye, an organ that converts photons into electrical impulses that constitute images in our brain, evolved. He wondered, how does an organism know it needs an eye, how does it know how it will work and how will it survive in the meantime without a fully formed eye. He also worried a lot about reproductive systems: since reproductive systems also had to evolve, how did a half-developed reproductive system function? Did the organism have a back-up reproductive system? Who supervised the construction of this system?</p>
<p>Don't believe everything you are taught, the truth is much more complex and profound than you may think................
thesloc is online now</p>
<p>lol thesloc. Dude, the truth about logic and how to argue a point is obviously much more complex and profound than you know. Otherwise you would know that character attacks do not disprove scientific theories. Nor does pointing out that science does not YET understand every possible thing about the universe disprove all things scientific. </p>
<p>But you should know that ID is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and does not extend any predictions or ideas that could be disproven by observation or testing. And that does mean that ID is not science, and is not even worth arguing for.</p>
<p>So dont' believe every bit of propaganda you hear, because the truth is more complex and profound than they would have you think ;)</p>
<p>BOTH evolution and ID are theories. Neither of them can be proved beyond a doubt. Thus, either all major theories should be taught with equal footing or none of them should be taught!</p>
<p>um... no, not so much. They are most definitely not on equal footing. ID is theological idea and evolution is scientific theory.</p>
<p>"ID is theological idea and evolution is scientific theory." </p>
<p>support what you say icarus. so much for being the wise one who can tell between science and religion.</p>
<p>religion - A set of beliefs, values, and practices
Evolution is a set of beliefs and, in a way, can be a type or part of religion. </p>
<p>science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
How does the theory of ID not fit in with the definition of science?</p>
<p>Thus, you cannot make a clear distiction between science and religion on this issue. </p>
<p>BTW, ID is not only held by persons who practice religion. Some believe the things around us were organized by some being, but they do not see this as a "god" figure, only the organizing element.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How does the theory of ID not fit in with the definition of science?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um... because a) it doesn't observe anything (you can't observe the unobservable, which is just what ID claims is the reason for biodiversity/life/existenceoftheuniverse/ice cream/anything you want</p>
<p>b) You can't identify what is not identfyiable, nor can you describe what can't be described, nor can you do any experiment that can distinguish between ID or non-ID.</p>
<p>Nice try on defining evolution as a "religion." From your definition, showering is a religion, because I believe we should do it and I also practice it. Just misdefining things and trying to make things what they aren't doesn't do anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some believe the things around us were organized by some being, but they do not see this as a "god" figure, only the organizing element.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok. Natural selection. If you're going to start describing "beings," especially intelligent ones, you're going straight to god's territory.</p>
<p>The reality is that here in the US "ID" is essentially 100% backed by Christian fundamentalist groups, the same groups that previously tried to teach creationism and "creation science" in classes in the last few decades.</p>
<p>Suppose you had the ability to create life. You gathered the raw materials: blood, flesh, bones, and brain, and created a living animal. Let's say you built a mouse. Does that then infringe into currently accepted theories of science, religion, or both? I say both, since religion states that a creator exists, and science states that this is impossible and must be done via evolution, natural selection (etc.).
Now suppose something created us. Not necessarily God, but we're just organisms in a petri dish. If it were proven true, then I wouldn't say that my alien creators weren't the godhead of some new-found religion. I wouldn't say that it disproved evolution, either.
I just want people to be able to consider the possibilites in the first place. To me, information is the most important resource, and capping that resource, whether you want to spout it in the sphere of religion or science, is wrong. Why not be able to discuss ID as a religious belief, or a scientific theory? Who says that we cannot consider all aspects? I'm done with this forum. I just wanted to get my ideas out.</p>
<p>saying that life forms are not the same as they used to be is science. implying that all life forms are created randomly and therefore there's no intelligent designer is religion. if not, then why is suggesting "the non-existence of an intelligent designer is not fact" religion?? like meteu said, it's not fair to sneak in just one ^_^ !!</p>
<p>
[quote]
science states that this is impossible
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Science doesn't say anything like that. Science doesn't involve god in any way - it deals with the natural and not the supernatural. That's why there are plenty of Christian scientists out there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why not be able to discuss ID as a religious belief, or a scientific theory?
[quote]
</p>
<p>Because it isn't. Same reason why we don't discuss the fact that I am God in science class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
implying that all life forms are created randomly and therefore there's no intelligent designer is religion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Evolution does not mean that "all life forms are created randomly." Rather, random mutations combined with the very non-random process of natural selection result in biodiversity. This of course has nothing to do with the creation of life. Evolution has nothing to say on that topic.</p>
<p>Again, science doesn't say there is no god.</p>
<p>
[quote]
then why is suggesting "the non-existence of an intelligent designer is not fact" religion??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one is proposing that we teach this in science class either. We teach evolution in science class - god isn't mentioned either positively or negatively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Imagine, for a moment, that you were there in flesh and bone when Jesus Christ was crucified, and you saw that he was indeed lifeless, completely gone in death. Then imagine, for another moment, that you were there in flesh and bone when he came back to life 3 days later. If this really happened as written in the scriptures, then could it be argued that somehow, someway ID has been somewhat proven? </p>
<p>Oh death, what a crazy reality. Neither you nor I will/can escape it. If the apocolypse is indeed a future reality, and indeed a return of The Christ to once again reign on the Earth, then what matters more than ID? Please answer me that.</p>
<p>Imagine</p>
<p>there is your problem right there.
There, and here: If this really happened as written</p>
<p>If scientists could do that, we would be "imagining" anything we darn well please. Religion is about beliefs, faith in what cannot be proven. It is not science, and should not be taught as such. That is my point.</p>
<p>*religion - A set of beliefs, values, and practices *</p>
<p>if you add "about god or the supernatural", then your definition of religion would be correct.</p>
<p>science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.</p>
<p>That is the scientific method, more or less. Science itself is about knowledge. Knowledge, as Plato points out the in the Republic, is a cognitive feat set over "what is". Well, nevermind the philosophy - it would take too long to explain. In any case, ID does not fit in with science because, as I said before, IT HAS NOT PASSED SCIENTIFIC RIGOR. Sorry for shouting, but seriously, I answered your question before, yet you stand in your ignorance (which Plato would say is the cognitive feat set over "what is not" :))
Now if you want to show me where in the so-called "theory" of ID there is a falsifiable hypothesis, then we'll talk. Until then... take some philosophy classes :P</p>