I believe Intelligent Design should be taught in school. Liberals appear to be so ""open-minded"" while we are "close-minded" but look at their hypocrisy not wanting Intelligent Design to be taught as well as evolution.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

But there are so many possible theories aside from Intelligent Design and Evolution. What about those? What if I believed that there were two boulders sitting on two hills, and then they suddenly started rolling downhill toward eachother, knocking together and shattering, and from them all life suddenly popped out? Shouldn't I have MY concept of the beginnings of life taught as well?

No, the best way to avoid this fiesta is to avoid it COMPLETELY - do not teach any theory at all concerning how life or the Universe started/was created. It is not necessary knowledge for one to have in order to get a good career and succeed in life, so what is the point of teaching it? It only opens huge cans of worms. If kids want to know where everything came from, they should be told to ask their parents, and then their parents can teach them anything they like. Just keep it out of school.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

At first I was wondering if this was a kind of parody on people who argue against evolution, but sadly, it is not. I think as a science, the starting point of life is as relevant a study as any other involved in biology (unless you want to also go through biology and remove all other parts of it which are unlikely to net you a career- a very corrupted form of biology if I've ever heard of one!), and actually, it is something that our kids may end up choosing for a career in their life. Why not? I'm not sure how you can say this, unless you just aren't a science student or were alienated from it because it didn't interest you, or whatever other reason. It's just as important a field as history (and how much more relevant or job-ready is that?)

I think avoidance is the simple and easy way out. Will there be confrontation? Fine. Maybe it will finally arouse some of our high school kids to get inspired about a subject, and if a high school can at least do that, they have surely accomplished something that rarely happens with high schoolers, especially in the realm of science. I really think it is wrong to look at the stress of a conflict alone as a reason to avoid the situation.. (and its kind of a psuedo conflict stirred up by creationists, whose angle is "teach the controversy".. the controversy which they have been pressing upon a subject relatively calm and in consensus at least in a general sense).

Also, it is important I think, to learn about evolution because of the sense of civility and intellectualism (at whatever minimal level) it puts in our high schoolers. I want them to be able to look at a tree an know about how it grows, or to look at a dog or a bird and to think about their evolutionary history. It elevates our level of thinking that has become the standard for us modern people, and it's kind of nice to have a line such as this to be able to seperate us from the more ignorant generations and civilizations of the past.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

i think first and foremost, the ability to make one's own choices should be taught to the next generation. there are too many mindless zombies around in society these days.

intelligent design is taught in the churches, evolution is being taught at more at schools. it balances out pretty fine. what should really be taught is the ability for one to make a circumspect decision on which of these theories suits onself best

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I see a lot of people arguing for and against and a lot of people coming up with points that they think prove one way or the other. Also a lot of people saying that you can't prove one way or the other because there is no scientific method/experiments that can be done to prove either - On the contrary. I have seen scientific experiments for both. Some proved either side and some disproved. kasm, you said that there is no scientific proof so far for evolution and no experiments that can be done to prove it - that's not true. For example, some years ago an experiment was created that replicated primordial earth. Amino acids 'spontaneously' occurred and amino acids are one of the building blocks of life. The experiment, if left long enough, would have then produced proteins... Or another (unrelated) study found that ALL living creatures on earth have at least one gene in common. These genes are known as homeobox or hox genes. For example, humans and mice have 4 hox clusters, meaning that if a particular characteristic from these clusters was taken from one and transplanted in the other, it would function exactly the same. To clarify, if you took the gene that makes eyes from the mouse and replaced the human gene for eyes with the mouse one, the human wouldn't end up with mouse eyes, it would still have human eyes. Why? Because the mouse gene is virtually exactly the same as the human gene. Hox genes indicate that all living creatures on earth have a common ancestor. I could of course, if you like, come up with more experiments and research that lends itself towards evolution but that would take up a lot of time and space and I know that some people will only argue contradictions anyway. To be fair, I have seen some good research into Intelligent Design, but at the same time, I'm afraid, I've seen more that disproves it and more that supports evolution. That is not to say that I don't believe in God, I do but not as most people would and for that matter I don't believe humans evolved on Earth (no I am not one of those Raelians or anything remotely like them )
You have to understand that everything is science and science is everything. That may sound a bit odd but true when you think about it. Science is the subject of the universe. It shows how the universe works. Just because something has not yet been 'proven' in science does not mean it does not have a scientific grounding. I'm a very spiritual person yet I believe that my soul has a scientific 'explanation' just as much as gravity, or molecular weight, or lightspeed or mendelian genetics or anything else anyone considers 'sciencey'. (And no I am not a scientologist - I don't belong to any religious group or pertain to any religious beliefs before you ask). Evolution is a much bigger subject than just genes and life on earth just as Creationism and Intelligent Design have much more far reaching implications. But before anyone accuses me of sitting on the fence, I'm with evolution. It's still happening all around if you look.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I didn't said there are no researches or studies about Evolution but I said there is no proof had received to this hypothesis then it is still not fact. I am aware what the three [in fact 5 ] groups are saying in thousands of publications. The question has this experiment mentioned above has produced living thing?. Saying "The experiment , if left long enough" lead us to square zero? i.e we still not proved it . And how "long enough" to be enough.

It is invalid inference. If we have similarities does not mean we have a common ancestor. This is wrong conclusion and jump to the point you want to prove. Take this example , the PC Pentium 4 and another computer Pentium 3, have many in common. That not mean that Pentium 4 was before Pentium 3 or first generation of PC.


Please give us even one example that one animal changed to another in reality.

I agree and I am highest degree scientist [I said that in my first reply]. If it is not enough I give details:  I studied 4 years  in Faculty of Science for Bachelor degree then 3 years preparing Master Degree. then 4 years for PH.D degree.

If all the course's subjects are still not approved, then it is belief so it is not be taught in science class. As well as Creation or Intelligence Design.


Show us where it's happening. But don't confuse Micro Evolution with Macro Evolution


This is another own belief so I will not debate it as you said "I believe...". But do you believe in Evolution the same manner?

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

What?! How is that even possible- the two theories utterly contradict each other! How could you have seen both sides be "proven"? And remember, being proven is very different from just some evidence that helps the cause of either side. You said "proven".


I agree. There are some people on the Usenet groups that have been arguing on evolution for 10+ years

Overvall, TR, I agree with your post, but am worried at how you are trying to put up a "middle ground" on evolution that resolves everything. There may not be a middle ground.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Kasm, asking evolution to produce a whole entire animal or organism is remarkably disingenuous and unfair. The changes in a new direction are all that is needed to prove that things evolve. And they have been observed- any honest scientist (if you really are one, which I seriously doubt) would be aware of at least a few examples of OBSERVED, happening evolution.

Remember, factual, undeniable proof, doesn't require a whole new animal, it requires a change in an animal.

Here are some observed instances (these are from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ... go look yourself there are a ton more)




This is where the FACTS validate the HYPOTHESIS.


It's really ironic that you use this example, because you can look closely enough and see that their similarities do suggest that they are related. And I'm sure someone educated enough could observe the two, and see which one is more highly evolved, and see that the Pentium 3 came before the Pentium 4... but it's kind of a silly example, that doesn't prove my point any better than it does yours.


What do you mean "approved"? Even in places where it may be a beleif- it is a "beleif" backed up by empirical evidence, collections of information that can reasonably explain how we got to where we are today. That's how the string theory is being developed- not with observable proof, but with hypotheses that work and can explain things without going that far off course. Because of this abscence of "proof", you lump evolution in as "beleif" with intelligent design, which is unbeleivably dishonest, as it is a beleif with a whole lot more weight behind it.


Micro and Macro aren't different types of evolution- they are different viewpoints. Macroevolution IS microevolution over a large enough period of time to show significant, rather than minor, changes. From wikipedia:



The invented idea of Macro vs. Micro as different methods of evolution is the last straw creationists have to cling on to, as Micro evolution has been proven beyond a doubt (which is why I guess you tried to disqualify it as proof of evolution), and the last debate they have left is whether the two are different at all.

And it is remarkably convenient and self-serving to shift the debate to Macro which takes hundreds or thousands of years and then claim it's not true because no one has lived to see it. What if it WAS only micro evolution? Why are we discounting it? Honestly, NO amount of Micro can produce new animals in that 50,000+ years?

It's kind of like looking at a giant 500 year old tree and saying we should disregard everything we know about trees; and say that this tree was always this way, because no one lived to see it grow. And don't confuse Micro growth with Macro growth!

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

The idea that life sprang out spontaneously without anything to cause it is illogical just as evolutionists say "How did God begin"

Evolution has some ideas that are correct such as adaptation. Like when you work out lifting weights, your body begins to adapt and build muscles which makes it easier for you. However things such as we are the same ancestors as every single life form on Earth is something that cannot be taken as factual without some strong evidence and not some assumptions or guesses or "we still have to figure out how this happened". Just because evolution uses some ideas that are obvious to everyone doesn't mean that their Macro-Evolution ideas are correct. Even Darwin admitted on his death bed that Evolution has major flaws.

Evolution still does not explain how this entire universe was created. Some people believe that God created the building blocks of evolution and allowed the process to take place. This kind of thing we will never know since Genesis was written in a way for the people of that time to understand.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Ok, Scientific American, a science journal, can probably answer this question better than I can...
Even if that peice turns up untrue (which has not been demonstrated) that does NOT render the rest of evolution irrelevant. Not just adaptation, not just micro-evolution, but ALL of evolution.

The Lady Hope story! This story is famously untrue and has been demonstrated as such repeatedly (which you could discover quickly in a google search), but still gets perpetuated. Nothing against you dude, but even Answers in Genesis, a christian web site that defends genesis has dismissed this as uncredible. Don't listen to it because it's them, listen to it because it's true:
And what if it was true? Does that mean because Darwin said it no one should take evolution seriously anymore? Evolution isn't established and credible because Darwin said things about it, in fact it was the other way around- Darwin became established and credible because of his testable and remarkably accurate theory of evolution. If he did recant, the only thing that would matter is WHY he recanted and if it is credible. This is not what our evolution debate should be about!

Reducing the science evolution to gossip about what one evolutionist may or may not have said has nothing to do with science.

Blank assertions are great, but when I talked about Macro and Micro I at least discussed the ideas and their definitions a little. Like with Darwin, I will listen to this when I hear about the SUBSTANCE behind it. The surface level assertion won't do it for me.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)