Return to General Talk

Intelligent Design

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby JTWood » Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:42 pm

ID simply takes a scientifically proven fact, and then asks a very valid question.

Fact - Scientifically, an organism (asexual) or organisms cannot be shown to be able to reproduce into anything more complicated than itself/themselves.

Question - Given the above, how did mankind (arguably the most complex creature on the planet) come to exist?

It's a very interesting topic because it is a question that touches both scientific and philosophical ideas. I don't agree that the teaching of evolution necessitates the teaching of ID. I think that evolution is fundamentally unproven and shouldn't be taught in the first place.

Better yet, let's put both of these topics in a philosophical class and be done with it.
Last edited by JTWood on Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11253
(Past Year: -255)
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Postby Amazinz » Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:43 pm

Well to be fair ID is not Creationism. Creationism is the belief that God created man. ID searches for evidence that there was an intelligent agent involved in the evolution of man. That may seem like semantics at first glance but it is much more than that. Creationism involves belief in a higher power whereas ID doesn't suggest that it is a higher power. It may very well be an intelligence similar to our own. The control we have at the molecular level (genetically cross-breeding sheep and silk spiders for example) is downright scary.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18680
(Past Year: -120)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Postby da1chipo » Sun Aug 21, 2005 11:18 pm

Amazinz wrote:Well to be fair ID is not Creationism. Creationism is the belief that God created man. ID searches for evidence that there was an intelligent agent involved in the evolution of man. That may seem like semantics at first glance but it is much more than that. Creationism involves belief in a higher power whereas ID doesn't suggest that it is a higher power. It may very well be an intelligence similar to our own. The control we have at the molecular level (genetically cross-breeding sheep and silk spiders for example) is downright scary.


I admit it, you are right that the hypothesis does make it so that it isn't necessarily a god (though there are many supporters, namely the conservatives in this country who want it to be taught because of its religious connotations, but we shouldn't get into it), but still, whether it is "science" is a different matter.
Image
da1chipo
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Award-Winning Graphics Expert
Posts: 1915
(Past Year: -15)
Joined: 17 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NY

Postby CubsFan7724 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:53 pm

DK wrote:
Half Massed wrote:What I always find interesting about this arguement is that people seem to believe strongly one way or the other. Why can't the truth be somewhat of a mix of the two, or even a mix of all religious/scientific beliefs? Maybe God created the Earth and life and all that stuff (there's creationism) for a personal reason, something like wondering "Who am I?" From there He sent pieces of himself, such as drops from an ocean, to Earth where they would go through many lives and forms (there's reincarnation) experiencing evolution, experience, and involution (there's evolution) until this drop returned to God.

The point is, nothing is proven, so really nothing can be said to be the correct idea. There may be more physical proof of evolution than any creationist theory, but that doesn't make it better or even right.

So that brings about the question, what should be taught in schools? One answer would be nothing, but that is unsatisfactory as such a complex topic should not be ignored and children are curious about such things. However, if a school decides to teach one, the others should have fair representation also, and that means ALL the others. This would take a very long time to teach and the teacher with their natural bias would most likely focus on one and slightly ridicule the others. Another solution would be to put the different ideas in different classes, as has been suggested earlier. Science for evolution, religion for creationism and so on. This doesn't allow a student to study them side-by-side though and natural connotations with each class name would put subconcious biases in a student's head. Another possibility would be to create a whole semester class on the topic to examine each in depth. This is the best option in my mind, but not every school can manage this.

Really, it is up to the school and no law should be created to make one be taught over the other as no one can really be proven. This topic will always be open to debate and controversy. As Art said earlier in this thread, anyone who claims to be right on either side is a fool.


That's the exact point, though. Evolution isn't supported by any specific religion, it's supported by science. Creationism isn't supported by any specific science, it's supported by religion. It's the same as saying let's teach math in history.

Creationism is directly connected to religion, therefore it should be taught in religion class. Evolution is directly connected to science, therefore it should be taught in science class. It's relatively simple.

Also, your first two paragraphs essentially define where I am on the subject (I am an agnostic, although I lean towards no God).

DK, you are a unitarian, correct? But you don't really believe in a god? Isn't Unitarianism the belief in the oneness of God?
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6410
(Past Year: -16)
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby Big Pimpin » Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:56 pm

JTWood wrote:ID simply takes a scientifically proven fact, and then asks a very valid question.

Fact - Scientifically, an organism (asexual) or organisms cannot be shown to be able to reproduce into anything more complicated than itself/themselves.

Question - Given the above, how did mankind (arguably the most complex creature on the planet) come to exist?

It's a very interesting topic because it is a question that touches both scientific and philosophical ideas. I don't agree that the teaching of evolution necessitates the teaching of ID. I think that evolution is fundamentally unproven and shouldn't be taught in the first place.

Better yet, let's put both of these topics in a philosophical class and be done with it.


Very well said. You the man, JT. ;-D
Big Pimpin
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13224
(Past Year: -486)
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Building a metric. And being ignorable and stupid.

Postby acsguitar » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:26 pm

Again the Catholic church is trying to make everyone in the country follow their rules and beliefs. Far Conservative Catholics are supposed to try to convert people to Jesus. This is a problem when you have them in the whitehouse/governemnt.

This is purely a convention of the Consevative Right Wing trying to push their agenda onto everyone.

This "Intelligent Design" has merit I guess but shouldn't really be taught.

There really isn't anything to teach about it. I believe its ok to say "Something may have created the tinyiest atom and maybee someone like a "God" put it into play."

However, Just saying blindly that "GOD" created everything is wrong. God may have created evolution but to ignore all science fact and say that everything was put here in its right place is balony.
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26605
(Past Year: -117)
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby da1chipo » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:28 pm

JTWood wrote:ID simply takes a scientifically proven fact, and then asks a very valid question.

Fact - Scientifically, an organism (asexual) or organisms cannot be shown to be able to reproduce into anything more complicated than itself/themselves.

Question - Given the above, how did mankind (arguably the most complex creature on the planet) come to exist?

It's a very interesting topic because it is a question that touches both scientific and philosophical ideas. I don't agree that the teaching of evolution necessitates the teaching of ID. I think that evolution is fundamentally unproven and shouldn't be taught in the first place.

Better yet, let's put both of these topics in a philosophical class and be done with it.


I might be getting this wrong, but is a six-fingered hand more complicated than a five-fingered hand? I'm pretty sure it is. Yet humans still reproduce with these results, and these anomalies do occur.

So in your science class, you'd teach only what has been proven as a law? Theories are NOT okay? Even those that have much observable evidence? Check out comparative embryology, anatomy, and genetic makeup, as well as geographic distrubution.

Comparative embryology:
Look at the similarities

Image

Can you really deny that they evolved from the same organism?
Image
da1chipo
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Award-Winning Graphics Expert
Posts: 1915
(Past Year: -15)
Joined: 17 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: NY

Postby acsguitar » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:33 pm

da1chipo wrote:
JTWood wrote:ID simply takes a scientifically proven fact, and then asks a very valid question.

Fact - Scientifically, an organism (asexual) or organisms cannot be shown to be able to reproduce into anything more complicated than itself/themselves.

Question - Given the above, how did mankind (arguably the most complex creature on the planet) come to exist?

It's a very interesting topic because it is a question that touches both scientific and philosophical ideas. I don't agree that the teaching of evolution necessitates the teaching of ID. I think that evolution is fundamentally unproven and shouldn't be taught in the first place.

Better yet, let's put both of these topics in a philosophical class and be done with it.


I might be getting this wrong, but is a six-fingered hand more complicated than a five-fingered hand? I'm pretty sure it is. Yet humans still reproduce with these results, and these anomalies do occur.

So in your science class, you'd teach only what has been proven as a law? Theories are NOT okay? Even those that have much observable evidence? Check out comparative embryology, anatomy, and genetic makeup, as well as geographic distrubution.

Comparative embryology:
Look at the similarities

Image

Can you really deny that they evolved from the same organism?


Nice graphic! Mutations and natural selection are so easy to see. Thats a great graphic again.... JT I don't understand your point. Things can't grow more complex then themselves but you are talking about the cell itself being more complex during its life span. However, its offspring can of course become more complex due to random chance. Thats how some people are taller, smaller, smarter, faster , fatter skinner. I just don't get your ID and think its False
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26605
(Past Year: -117)
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby Simulacrum » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:51 pm

da1chipo wrote:
So in your science class, you'd teach only what has been proven as a law? Theories are NOT okay? Even those that have much observable evidence? Check out comparative embryology, anatomy, and genetic makeup, as well as geographic distrubution.

Comparative embryology:
Look at the similarities

Image

Can you really deny that they evolved from the same organism?


It's next to impossible to "prove" a theory and make it a law in science. For example, we still have "Germ Theory" that it's bacteria and viruses that make us sick- that's still scientifically unproven!

I don't want to get into Intelligent Design, but it has one thing going for it that I like- in ID, humans are not the center of the universe. One thing that annoys me about lots of other religions is that they believe that God created this entire universe as a playground for his favorite creations, the human beings. ID just says that with an environment this large and complex, some kind of intelligent being had to be pulling the strings.
Simulacrum
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Chief Pixel PusherCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 9708
(Past Year: -167)
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: On a Mission

Postby Amazinz » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:56 pm

ID is not in contention with the ToE it just contends that some form of intelligence may have had a hand in setting off the chain of events that is evolution.

Looking at forms (such as the picture posted) to try and prove evolution doesn't work. It was this type of thinking (due to skull structure) that incorrectly categorized the Neanderthal as a direct ancestor of man.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18680
(Past Year: -120)
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

cron