Teaching Intelligent Design Among Other Ideas

[numeral2_5]

I think in public schools they oughta have a class which teaches both the idea of Intelligent Design among atheist evolution in high school.

Strip evolution and creation out of high school core classes and put them both into this optional class.

[Believer]

I think in public schools they oughta have a class which teaches both the idea of Intelligent Design among atheist evolution in high school.

You mean Intelligent Design and Evolution? Not atheist evolution, again, evolution does not deny the possibility of God, however, evolution in itself is atheistic because it says that all things came about by natural selection, an unguided process. There is no definition by "atheist evolution". From http://www.m-w.com, here is a set of definitions:

Evolution:

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Atheism:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Atheist:

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

Strip evolution and creation out of high school core classes and put them both into this optional class.

[Cougar]

As far as I know, creation can't be taught in public schools anyway... but evolution is taught in biology classes because it forms the basis to many lectures in a biology class... genetics, cell biology, ecology, natural selection, Mendelian genetics, physiology, Hardy-Weinberg, etc. Without understanding the basis of evolution, I think it would be difficult to understand some basic biology.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

LOL, that is hilarious. So, the way you set things up, everything is circular reasoning. You claim that evolution is somehow the foundation for all sorts of fields of study in biology...which are then used to support evolution. So, we now have cougar saying that evolution is built on circular reasoning.

[Cougar]

After making several observations of natural selection on the Galapagos Islands, Darwin was basically the founder of evolutionary theory... later backed by hundreds, if not thousands, of other scientists observing similar behaviors and morphologies on various species, the most easily observed being Drosophila (fruit fly). Based on recurring observations and continuing studies supporting evolution, it is taught to high school students as being the most parsimonous biological explanation for the existence of certain traits, diseases, behaviors, etc. that we see today. I didn't say that evolution formed the basis of these studies, but to understand what we presently know about these subjects, understanding evolutionary theory facilitates teaching these subjects.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

After making several observations of natural selection on the Galapagos Islands

A myth. Darwin was unimpressed with the finches. He took clumsy notes, and has one entry in his journal/diary about the finches. These finches were never the fuel behind Darwin making his theory. (Icons of Evolution).

Darwin was basically the founder of evolutionary theory

No, the Greeks.

later backed by hundreds, if not thousands, of other scientists observing similar behaviors and morphologies on various species, the most easily observed being Drosophila (fruit fly).

Really, such as what? And the fruit fly is not an example, sorry. It took three lines of fruit flies combined to get a fly with four wings, and the problem is that the flies could no longer fly correctly, because these wings had no muscles, and the halters (stabilizers) were removed. These "evolved" fruit flies are cripples. Not only that, but you haven't done anything amazing. All you've done is turned off an inhibitor which stops the genes manufacturing the wings in the section the halters are supposed to grow.

I didn't say that evolution formed the basis of these studies, but to understand what we presently know about these subjects, understanding evolutionary theory facilitates teaching these subjects.

How does assuming evolution to be true help these subjects out?

Based on recurring observations and continuing studies supporting evolution, it is taught to high school students as being the most parsimonous biological explanation for the existence of certain traits, diseases, behaviors, etc. that we see today.

What supports evolution? You've never said or quoted anything that supports evolution (and don't nitpick and say you were referring to micro, because when evolution is left by itself in a discussion on science, the implied meaning is macroevolution).

[Forge]

Are those the best pictures you can come up with? Pfft. I am not impresses.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Oh hush

[cfish]

I am new to this forum, and this is my first post. I would like to add some of my thoughts on this subject, and look forward to your response.

AttnKMart... wrote that Darwin was "unimpressed" with the finches on the Galapagos Islands. Is this your opinion, or did Darwin or his peers feel that way? If the latter, please cite examples for your quote.
Also, I believe you are correct in replying to Cougar that the Greeks were one of the first people to contemplate evolution. However, I think that it was Cougar's point that Darwin's theory was revolutionary in that, prior to Origin, most people believed in spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Darwin's proposal was devastatingly simple: 1. that there is variety in the animal and plant world, 2. all living creatures must have a parent, and 3. evidence that some animals had existed on earth long before the present day animal population (via fossils). The conclusion to his theory was inescapable - that later animals must have developed out of earlier animals via morphological change (evolution). It is interesting that societies rejection over Darwin's ideas, both then and now, dealt much with his lack of scientific method...his "theory". This is somewhat ironic when you consider the widespread acceptance of supernatural causes for questions of origin.
Furthermore, I think Cougar was on point in stating that "evolution formed the basis..." for many other fields of study. You could even go further and say that his ideas could not only be applied to social structures and moral systems, but furthermore to human societies and systems of knowledge. In other words, Darwin said that to understand life you must construct of history of that life. And when you do you find that it is rife with constant change. This record, while revealing nothing but the successful adaptation of life, provides no reliable indication of the future, other than the virtual certainty that life either significantly changes or dies out for ever.
Lastly, you pose "What supports evolution"? I would simply ask you to look around at the vast diversity of life around us. Plants and animals today were not around in the beginning, and the plants and animals around in the beginning are not here now. And this succession of change is not "progress", because we are not going anywhere. We are simply changing as the chance changes in our genes and our environment dictate.
Well, how's that for my first post? [/list]

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

AttnKMart... wrote that Darwin was "unimpressed" with the finches on the Galapagos Islands. Is this your opinion, or did Darwin or his peers feel that way? If the latter, please cite examples for your quote.

My source is Icons of Evolution for this.^^

I think that it was Cougar's point that Darwin's theory was revolutionary in that, prior to Origin, most people believed in spontaneous generation of life from non-life.

Darwin didn't fix that problem, it was Louis Pasteur. Darwin's theory, it seems, says that once upon a time spontaneous generation did happen...in a warm little pond somewhere. (horrible paraphrase)

Darwin's proposal was devastatingly simple: 1. that there is variety in the animal and plant world, 2. all living creatures must have a parent, and 3. evidence that some animals had existed on earth long before the present day animal population (via fossils). The conclusion to his theory was inescapable - that later animals must have developed out of earlier animals via morphological change (evolution)

Non sequitor. The premises don't lead to the conclusion. Don't inject materialistic philosophy. (Also,Darwin never said much revolutionary in regards to this). Thus my conclusion, evolution is materialistic philosophy masquerading as science. It's glaringly obvious that the conclusion is not supported by the evidence because the evidence contradicts the conclusion. I mean, the fossil record shows sudden appearance and statis, and the Cambrian Explosion is a glaring contradiction to what Darwin expected.

A small expansion on why your syllogism is a non sequitor...the evidence also supports a common designer. So you cannot say the evidence CLEARLY leads to common descent.

It is interesting that societies rejection over Darwin's ideas, both then and now, dealt much with his lack of scientific method...his "theory". This is somewhat ironic when you consider the widespread acceptance of supernatural causes for questions of origin.

Also don't forget the lack of evidence for his theory...

Furthermore, I think Cougar was on point in stating that "evolution formed the basis..." for many other fields of study. You could even go further and say that his ideas could not only be applied to social structures and moral systems, but furthermore to human societies and systems of knowledge. In other words, Darwin said that to understand life you must construct of history of that life. And when you do you find that it is rife with constant change. This record, while revealing nothing but the successful adaptation of life, provides no reliable indication of the future, other than the virtual certainty that life either significantly changes or dies out for ever.

It's interesting what conclusions one draws. There is no difference morally between Hitler and Mother Teresa for example...there is no reason we should trust what we believe we know and what we think, we really don't exist...that's always fun.

[thereal]

My source is Icons of Evolution for this.^^

Not surprisingly you chose a work written by a creationist to validate your thoughts on science. Here is a commentary written on this "reference work":

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/

I think the following statement from this article says it best:

"This makes Icons of Evolution useful at most for those with a certain political and religious agenda, but of little value to educators."

...and aren't we here to try to educate each other?

This particular instance brings up a serious question that I've wanted to address for quite some time (maybe, I should start a new post, but it seems somewhat fitting with the original topic of education). Why is it that those refuting evolution get their ideas/arguments of what evolution is and how it works from non-scientific or downright religious sources. I'm not trying to bring up any religion vs. science situation per se, but it just seems like a bad strategy to begin with. If you're going to argue against a position, belief, theory, etc., why would you not first go to the sources of information in that field first (like reading an introductory Evolutionary science text for example...one not written by creationists). I'm not saying that science is right and you agree with it because you are reading it, but it would make you a lot more prepared to argue your point. From my perspective, I would never go to the National Science Foundation and ask them their beliefs on religion, then use those beliefs as an argument why religion does nothing to advance our knowledge of species origins. It seems like the disbelief you have for the opposing side of the argument has prevented you from even examining opposing beliefs in their unaltered form (not filtered or interpreted by a religious medium). Statements I've seen on these boards like "requiring research to be in journals to be considered valid" (to paraphrase) serve as glaring examples of what I'm talking about...if you don't have a scientific background, that's one thing that is quickly visible. But if you go to a religious source to get your "scientific information", aren't you doing both yourself and your argument a disservice? You don't have to like the position you're debating against, but at least read a genuine account of what the opposing view is stating. This is not a direct response to anyone in particular and I'm not trying to cause mass chaos...this suggestion just arose as I was considering what seem to be basic guidelines for debate.

[Mystical]

thereal:

To discount information based on whether or not you like the source is a logical fallacy.

Remember, too, you use scientific works to validate your thoughts on theology/Christianity/ID.

P.S. I don't understand where you are getting your view of Christians from. How do you know that Christians only get their scientific information from Theological sources? I didn't. I came to my conclusion on evolution from non-Christian sources. Most Christians weren't "born that way". Many of them became Christian after doing research and after years of subscribing to matters they realized were false. To think that Christians are close-minded, are ignorant to scientific studies/data, or arrived at their faith as a result of cluelessness is naive.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Not surprisingly you chose a work written by a creationist to validate your thoughts on science. Here is a commentary written on this "reference work":

Not surprisingly, evolutionists site evolutionists as sources. Amazing. You can't do this according to your own rules which I am breaking.

"This makes Icons of Evolution useful at most for those with a certain political and religious agenda, but of little value to educators."

LOL. It's of no benefit to teachers who (probably) unknowingly teach "evidence" for evolution that is not in fact evidence? So, the purpose of teaching is to indoctrinate students with lies? OK, what fun!

So, thereal says that the only people we should go to in arguing that evolution is not valid are evolutionists. Amazing. Thank you for your insight.

But if you go to a religious source to get your "scientific information", aren't you doing both yourself and your argument a disservice?

So Jonathan Wells is a religious source now? Funny, especially when he got help from many scientists (and he only lists those who don't fear their name being attached to his book).

Thereal, I'd respond to your entire thread, but it's really bogus. Your nonsense has really shown through.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=1180

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Jonathan Wells is a religious source?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ellow=true

Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.

Dr. Wells has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is also author of Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regnery Publishing, 2000).

Dr. Wells is currently working on a book criticizing the over-emphasis on genes in biology and medicine

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Jonathan Wells is a religious source?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ellow=true

What thereal was saying was to know the opposing side before trying to argue against it. It makes for a more interesting and knowledgeable debate. Otherwise you are simply debating what you beleive the other side represents a strawman as you like to call it.