Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/18/05 08:04 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

I just wanted to say that this guys first post on page 2.. Is freakin Genious.. We finnaly have someone admitting publicly that they are not always right, and that they are capable of flaws... WOW

At 8/18/05 08:15 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

I'm aware of that but it is still a theory. And even if the meaning of the word theory is different in a scientific contxt(as has been pointe dout) Intelligent design still has a following. so its still technically a theory in that sens eand if Evolution is taught in thats ense why not Intelligent design?

Im gonna say, that in my oppinon you should only teach the theroy with the most credible evidence when you reach a subject in school... You might list some other largely followed theroies, but leave it at that and let the children decide if they want to persue these theroies... Im pretty sure that is what your saying to....

The reason intelligent design isn't taught, while evolution is, is because intelligent design is very solidly a religious issue. Evolution is not (and is, in fact, a part of intelligent design).

Science does not conjecture onto whetheror not there is an omnipotent being we would call "God". Science says "This is how things are."

Intelligent design says "God is what makes these things how they are." Of course, the only reason it establishes that, is because things just can't be that way because they just are. Someone had to come make them that way.

The two are unrelated topics entirely. Science is a study. Intelligent design is a religious theory, falling in line with anything else (just Intelligent Design embraces science as opposed to tossing it in the trash).

Since it is a religious issue (and, if taught, wouldn't even provide any greater scientific understanding anyway), I could see why you wouldn't teach it in schools.

Itelligent design is more conjecture than theory, because it doesn't have actual evidence to support it, just something we like to call "argument from ignorance"

At 8/18/05 11:11 AM, mofomojo wrote: Some education you got there.

"If I don't understand something, I'll just assume it's the work of God."

I was only raising the point that the people who believe in Intelligent design think that anything they can't explan must be the work of God. Whether that is correct or not I don't know.

For the last time. I. AM. AN. AGNOSTIC.

Can I put it any simpler than that?

At 8/18/05 05:31 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: whilst Intelligent design is Biased becuase the scientists or ,whoever came up with the theory, need to prove the existence in God, A theory is still a theory and in my opinion to truly prepare a kid for the outside world you need to give them the choice between all the theories so they can make up their own mind.

A theory is a theory, perhaps. But not all theories are a like. Scientific theories are-- well, deal with sciences, while religious theories are dealing with religious theories. While they may have opinion on the same subject "Adam and Eve Versus Evolution"-- they're wholey different types.

Then why is Evolution taught as fact when it is only a theory? I spent 3 weeks in my biology lessons learning about evolution and it ws being taught as though it were fact. Whilst there is evidence there to support it, it's not 100% proven so it shouldn't be taught as a fact.

You were taught a theory.
I don't believe anyone for a minute that a science text book in the US says that evolution is a fact.

You're saying that intlligent design is biased when in reality every single theory is biased. Don't all scientists go out of their way to prove or disprove a theory? If they thinkthe theroy is accurate they try and prov eit. if they think its bullshit they try and disprove it.

No, Evolution wasn't created by a single group. Many scientists of different upbring and backgrounds, Christians and non-Christians, have all contributed to the theory of evolution by either proving and disproving things-- fine tuning it. People all over the world observe things and evidences and come to the same conclusion-- that Evolution is the most likely thing that made this world to what it is today.

Indian Hindu scientists. US American Aetheist scientis. European Roman Catholic scientists.... people any spectrum of nationality and belief system all contributed to the theory of evolution.

But what about Intelligent design?
Well-- you got the Christian, Protestant, Roman Catholic, etc. people (and perhaps some scientists) who are contributing, most if not all from the US. All with the bias to prove that God made the world.

And what about the people whom contributed to the theory of evolution? Well, let's look at the first person who made the theory. Darwin.
He just looked a birds, turtles, sea shells, and noticed things. He tried to explain them as well as he can in the most scientific way. And for him, he believed that spontenous mutation, "Eat or be eaten", and all those things you learned in your science class was the best explaination to why birds on this island were different from other places, and etc.

Because Science and religion always seem to be at odds with each other, I can make an assmption that some scientists would og out of their way to prove the theory of evolution andwhen they look at the facts because their eyes are clouded with thier bias they see thigns as they wnat it.

A prime example of this cluding of the eyes is the Roman Doctor Galen, who is possibly the most influential doctor in the history of man kind. At times when he made an observation he saw what he wanted to see.(ie the blood moving through the septum in the heart instead ofit being pumped aound)

You're overlooking something in your example. Galen did the scientific thing of observing things and explaining them as best he can. He could have done the "catch-all" answer: The gods made it so. But he didn't. He did the scientific thing of making the best and likely answer, although now we know what he believed is false.

Galen,like darwin, was a man of science and if one man of science can make that mistake whats to say that darwin or somene else that was influential in evolution didn't make that same mistake?

No one has proved the theory of evolution wrong-- and we cannot say that it is wrong because other theories have been proved wrong.

Let's observe another scientist: Jean-Baptiste Lemarck, who made a theory about how traits come and go. For example, he said that a giraff got its long neck because its ancesters stretched its neck out to get its food. And that snakes are lizards who discontinued using its legs till it just disappeared.

Of course these things are wrong. But let's look what Lemarck did: he made the best scientific explaination without scientific bias. He wasn't looking to prove anything-- but give the best scientific answer. Though it is wrong, this is what science is all about.

Science tries its best to fine tune things by proving and disproving things.
And this without bias-- if it happens, then it happens. What could the people of intelligent design say about this? They can't because they look for the necessary and sufficent evidences, discrimining some and emphasizing others, to be called a theory.

The theory of evolution doesn't have the history. Things have been proved wrong and other things have been proved right by scientists all over the world, all of them with different backgrounds, belief systems, and genders.

And this is what science is all about--
If Galen and Lemarck made scientific explainations. Other scientists scientifically proved them wrong. Thus making an even more accurate scienfic answer for everyone.

That for certain cannot be said about intelligent design.

i like the way they say "(unless you believe in space aliens)." as if it were unlikely. as to the article. they were full of shit but bush is equaly full of shit. the article was a load of interjecture and opinion and it's only use was to tell me that bush it still a stupid dickhead.

At 8/18/05 03:42 PM, Generic_Unfunny_Name wrote: i like the way they say "(unless you believe in space aliens)." as if it were unlikely. as to the article. they were full of shit but bush is equaly full of shit. the article was a load of interjecture and opinion and it's only use was to tell me that bush it still a stupid dickhead.

While the article does go to the extreme, and I don't agree totally with many of the opinions in the article, the main opinion that Intelligent Design should not be taught in school I believe to be the right way to go. There is no evidence supporting intelligent design, it also puts many other religions right out the door in a public school which is also troubling. It puts the government supporting certain religions over others which this government is not suppose to do in the first place. But other than that, like has been said, unless there is significant proof about something, it shouldn't be taught in science class. Sorry there is no proof that Intelligent Design is how it happened. Plus as someone else said, Evolution is a part of Intelligent Design anyways.

screw your "you have to show all of the opinions" and "say these people believe this" science is about the undeniable truth. in a science class i dont give a shit about other peoples opinions. i just want the truth. isn't that the point of science? if i wanted crazy theorys about life i would go to an RE lesson. i think i would like to stick to science in science classes.

At 8/18/05 03:31 PM, fli wrote: A theory is a theory, perhaps. But not all theories are a like. Scientific theories are-- well, deal with sciences, while religious theories are dealing with religious theories. While they may have opinion on the same subject "Adam and Eve Versus Evolution"-- they're wholey different types.

You were taught a theory.

Yes but not once was it mentioned that it was a theory. it was taught as fact.

And what about the people whom contributed to the theory of evolution? Well, let's look at the first person who made the theory. Darwin.
He just looked a birds, turtles, sea shells, and noticed things. He tried to explain them as well as he can in the most scientific way. And for him, he believed that spontenous mutation, "Eat or be eaten", and all those things you learned in your science class was the best explaination to why birds on this island were different from other places, and etc.

You're overlooking something in your example. Galen did the scientific thing of observing things and explaining them as best he can. He could have done the "catch-all" answer: The gods made it so. But he didn't. He did the scientific thing of making the best and likely answer, although now we know what he believed is false.

It wasn't a case of he mistook what he saw, it was that he saw what he wnated. he developed a theory in his mind and then when he did his experiments he looked at the results and twisted them to suit his theory.

No one has proved the theory of evolution wrong-- and we cannot say that it is wrong because other theories have been proved wrong.

I have never said the theory of evolution is wrong and I never will. I believe in the theory of evolution.

Let's observe another scientist: Jean-Baptiste Lemarck, who made a theory about how traits come and go. For example, he said that a giraff got its long neck because its ancesters stretched its neck out to get its food. And that snakes are lizards who discontinued using its legs till it just disappeared.

Science tries its best to fine tune things by proving and disproving things.
And this without bias-- if it happens, then it happens. What could the people of intelligent design say about this? They can't because they look for the necessary and sufficent evidences, discrimining some and emphasizing others, to be called a theory.

I do not deny the fatc that ,in all hoensty, Intelligent design is primairly a crock of shit. I repeat for the nth time in this threa dthat I do not support Intelligent design as a theory. I support kids being told the alternative theories so they cna do their own research and make thier own mind up on the situation.

That for certain cannot be said about intelligent design.

True it can't be said about intelligent design. And for the last time ( how many times have I said this now?) I don't support intelligent design. I just think its a good idea that kids should be taught alternative theories on any subject whether it be the beignings of life or how to cook a boiled egg. I don't care what it is. I think that giving kids an alternative to choose from helpsthem develop more and lets them make up their own mind so they aren't brainwashed numbskulls that believe everything they readjust becaus eit was on TV, or they rea dit in the paper or they read it in a book.

well if your gonna teach the scientific point of view, why not the religious point of view?
its not forcing any religion on anyone, just showing what other people believe, if you refuse to teach any point of view other than the scientific one, then they shouldnt teach the scientific one either. and besides, it doesnt matter how the universe was created, all the people need to know is that we are here now, not then. whatever happened all those billions of years ago doesnt effect anyone now, or ever will. unless of course the judeo-christians are right, with judgement day and everything, but that remains to be proven if its true or not.

At 8/18/05 05:20 PM, Tsuchiya wrote: well if your gonna teach the scientific point of view, why not the religious point of view?

Because it's a SCIENCE class.

Hence, they teach... well... science...

At 8/18/05 08:15 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: I'm aware of that but it is still a theory. And even if the meaning of the word theory is different in a scientific contxt(as has been pointe dout) Intelligent design still has a following. so its still technically a theory in that sens eand if Evolution is taught in thats ense why not Intelligent design?

It is not a theory. In scientific context, it is not a theory at all. It's a hypothesis with no scientific backing.

what you said is fact. I can't deny that and I wouldn't even if I could I think Intelligent design is bullshit. But I just think it should be taught so kids can make up there midns on the subject. Chances are (provided they aren't brainwashed biblebashers) that they will see the lack of evidence and think " Hey thats a load of BS!" but you still need to give them the chance to make the chocie on what theory they believe. After all, isn't that what freedom is all about? Making choices?

But in order to teach it to the kids, you have to not respond to the arguments intellegent design puts forth, which would be wrong because they are all easily answered. If we taught it and responded to the arguments, then we would be taking sides. Intellegent design requires teaching opinion, any way you teach it.

look i'm not saying,and never have said that they say " OOOO Intelligent design worls like this. Therfor eit must be right!" I'm saying that they should MENTION IT. Explain WHY people berlieve in it. And then MOVE ON.

That would be like saying the reason people believe that the US attacked the Pentagon on 9/11 was because there was no plane debris, and then never pointing out that much of the aluminum would have melted and any debris would be inside the building.

it is an advent of religions but that sil doesn't mean that schools shouldn't give kids the knowlegde that the theory exists.

It's not a theory though, it's just some persons opinion. It's not the schools job to teach opinions. If some kid wants to believe that, fine. If there were legitimate arguments backing up that opinion we could consider teaching it, however there are none, anyone who knows something about evolution can explain away them.

rofl. that made me laugh. 'tis a good thing I'm not a creationist.

Indeed. However people who believe in evolution but explain it wrong anger me just the same, so watch out. It's not that I'm against religion, the catholic church even acknowledges that evolution is probably right, it's that I'm against pretending that something we can see with out own eyes is still up for debate. It's not, creationists cannot debate evolution anymore, all they can do is claim that since its too hard for them to understand it cant have happened.

At 8/18/05 12:05 PM, Solthiel wrote: I really don't see the harm in saying:

Because as previously stated, this is a science class we are talking about. If these beliefs were backed up with strong and tested scientific evidence, then that would be just fine. However since they are beliefs and conjecture, they are best left to philosophy/religion classes.

If anything, we are sheltering our kids from knowledge by stuffing science down their throat as the absolute facts. We are slowly making them intolerant to the possibilities and stories of religion, by teaching them it is taboo in our society. I remember my teacher actually had to fear for her job once when I stood up in class and brought up a debate about religion. Even though the debate stayed very calm and very levelheaded because everyone was being logical, she was sitting behind her desk fretting and sweating. And this wasn't isolated, I made a point of bringing up religion in every one of my history and science classes. The only teacher that had the balls to debate me, ended up opening my mind, a lot, and after that point, the class actually seemed to have a lot of respect for him (Seeing as I am in the Bible belt...so a good amount of them were most likely Christian in some way)...he was an openly agnostic man, and had no problem having small debates about religion.

But that is not what is being discussed. I know full well I've had theological discussions with my teachers before and enjoyed them. What is being proposed is taking them out of impromptu discussions and turning them into lesson plans. Those, as I said earlier, are discussions for philosophy and religion classes... not science ones.

Just discussing possibilities and accepting diversity is the key here, not completely outlawing it, as to avoid the responsibility as such. I really don't see how just saying "Well, the Taoists believe...", if it has context in the conversation. Of course, I don't think they should say "And God made the Earth..."...but bringing up that it is the belief of a good portion of the American population, may be beneficial and logical.

No-one here is to completely ban any and all religion from impromptu discussion in school. Just making that clear.

Of course church is a place to learn about God...but its like deeper searching. I think outlawing all mention of God, creationism, and Intelligent Design is completely absurd and is in many ways denying what this country was built on. A week on religions from all over the world could not be harmful. In all reality, there is no avoiding stuffing something down someone's throat, especially if evolution is being taught...you have to realize to the majority of "young-Earth" creationists, this is pretty detrimental to their beliefs and is quite opressive that they have to answer "How did evolution affect our journey into Homeo-Sapiens?" and they have to answer as if they actually believe "Through micro-evolution we made changes from monkeys to Humans in small changes to our environment and our environments changes in turn to us..."

To say it simply, science doesn't cator to what people want to believe. It cators to what we have come to understand is truth in our world with the minds that we have been blessed with. If they want to use science to challenge current theories then that is perfectly fine. Science only progresses through people constantly seeking, questioning, testing the knowledge that is out there. However when you try to reject scientific principles using folklore and "what seems right to me," then your stance has no weight.

Who exactly is being driven away here?

Ignornance

At 8/19/05 04:12 AM, jmaster306 wrote: Ignornance

DUR..... I IS SMART!

*Ignorance*

As long as I am already double posting, good to see some good discussion on both sides =)

Jmaster I have to say it's good to hear some reasoning on this message board. I couldn't agree with you more. I just have another point to make.

Not only is Intelligent design not scientificlly based (as Jmaster said, religio-phylisophically based), but it isnt agreed upon.

Different religions have different views of creation therefore teaching it as a science would open up that whole can of worms. Instead of worrying about whether there is a creator we'd worry about who he was, how he did it, how long, where...blah blah blah

well, I pointed out the whole "it's only a theory" bullshit last night, thought about it a while, and i guess I have something to actually say now. I've been a part of this debate for about ten years now, so why not drag my side of it to a newgrounds forum since it's already been brought up.

Intelligent design and Creationism are neither good science nor good religion. They were dreamed up as a reaction and attack to the Theory of Evolution by sentimental religionists. The reactionary nature and religious sentiment obviously appeal to those less educated in secular science, which promotes ignorance, reaching up into our highest ranks in the U.S. as demonstrated in the first post. If the Creationism movement had its way, this would present a great danger for the future of technology and medicine. How are Intelligent Designers different from Flat Earthers?

While Flat Earthers are still around, they are generally a bit ashamed of their beliefs and are not so vocal to the conventional public as Intelligent Designers, and the Flat Earth belief was generally given up in the Renaissance. Regarding evolution, we have already done the equivalent of sailed around the world, and this information is stifled from popular knowledge specifically by the misinformation of Creationism and Intelligent Design. Spontaneous Generation, Speciation, and Human Evolution have all been demonstrated, and demonstrated thoroughly, and half-baked, unfounded rebuttals are floating around in the general publice as planted there by the Creationist and Intelligent Design movement. In short, the wool has been pulled over your eyes. A good education is the solution. An education diluted by mixing religion and science would be a grand detriment to our society. Creation myths are the subject of cultural philosophy and comparative religion courses. They do have a place in the public education system, just not in biology or astronomy or geology courses.

I'd like to be the first person in this room to have the balls to say this.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are unintelligent, wrong, uneducated beliefs. Creationism and Intelligent Design are no more plausible than Greek Myth or Native American Legends. They are tottaly false and have no merit to be taught in schools as a science.

At 8/19/05 04:36 AM, SoldAsFreedom wrote: I'd like to be the first person in this room to have the balls to say this.

I hate to tell you this, but you're not the first, unless you mean that exact assertion. A few of us have said the same thing, though not in so many words.

I apologize for the mistake :-)

At 8/19/05 04:36 AM, SoldAsFreedom wrote:

Creationism and Intelligent Design are unintelligent, wrong, uneducated beliefs. Creationism and Intelligent Design are no more plausible than Greek Myth or Native American Legends. They are tottaly false and have no merit to be taught in schools as a science.

and how do you know this, talk to the almighty recently

At 8/19/05 07:36 AM, fenrus1989 wrote:

and how do you know this, talk to the almighty recently

All he is saying is that modern religions, or rather intelligent design theroy, have no more crediblity than ancient day religious myths... And I agree, if you present creationism as legitiment theroy then you may as well present ancient myths as one.....

At 8/19/05 12:14 PM, TheMartyr18 wrote:

At 8/19/05 07:36 AM, fenrus1989 wrote:

and how do you know this, talk to the almighty recently

All he is saying is that modern religions, or rather intelligent design theroy, have no more crediblity than ancient day religious myths... And I agree, if you present creationism as legitiment theroy then you may as well present ancient myths as one.....

oh i aggree not to have evolution in a science class because it's science class. most likely in a hundred years they'll be laughing at us for believing this. they'll be like," they thought we came from monkies." but i didn't like how he said it without any proof or argument whatsoever.

At 8/19/05 03:36 PM, mofomojo wrote: A Book about Fables has no scientific backing whatsoever.

fair enough

Knowing that, I'm not saying that we should abandon religion. All I am saying is that we can't just start stuffing religion into parts of science and education because we think it's wrong and it can't apparently co-exist with our religion.

alright thats fine.

There has been evidence ever since the renaissance that religion is wrong, the exploration of the human body (Leonardo DaVinci once wrote how there is no soul inside the human body), Dinosaurs, and finally evolution.

a. how would leanordo( a great learned man) know what a soul looks like, how can dinosaurs prove relgion is wrong,

Yet people continue to hang on to this burden. I say, if we can drop evolution, it will be social evolution, although at the same time we still maintain general morals and decency. Such an evolution will bring us closer to a global race, tearing down walls of religion and getting along much better.

you do understand were most of your morals are based upon right

If you're offended in any way by this post. Please, shut the fuck up.

sorry

At 8/18/05 07:30 PM, Jimsween wrote: That would be like saying the reason people believe that the US attacked the Pentagon on 9/11 was because there was no plane debris, and then never pointing out that much of the aluminum would have melted and any debris would be inside the building.

I think I didn't make myself clear here.What I was trying to suggets was that they mention Intelligent design as a possible( although rather improbable) alternative. Then they can explain why its looked down on or whatever. Even if the kids are being taught that its wrong they are still being taught which is what is important to me cause it exposes them to other schools of thought and not just the accepted norm.

Indeed. However people who believe in evolution but explain it wrong anger me just the same, so watch out.

As far as I'm aware I don't think I've even tried to explain what Evolution is. I admit I got my use of the word theory when being used in a scientific context wrong but I don't think I've explained (or tried to) what evolution is.

If I have and I've got it wrong then I'm screwed cause there was a question on evolution on my Biology exam paper.

At 8/19/05 05:41 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 8/18/05 07:30 PM, Jimsween wrote:

I think I didn't make myself clear here.What I was trying to suggets was that they mention Intelligent design as a possible( although rather improbable) alternative. Then they can explain why its looked down on or whatever. Even if the kids are being taught that its wrong they are still being taught which is what is important to me cause it exposes them to other schools of thought and not just the accepted norm.

don't worry in a hundred years they'll all laugh at us for believing in evolution.

If I have and I've got it wrong then I'm screwed cause there was a question on evolution on my Biology exam paper.

i just know it's pretty much natural selection, or the prosese a creature goes through to survive or get better in its' enviroment.

Question, since you want intelligent design taught, do you also want all of the other thousands of hypothosis taught about how we came to be as well?

Might as well teach creationalism, big bang, aliens made us, white hole theory, the Greek's version, the Roman's version, the Native American's version and every other version now. Whats the difference?

The theories that are taught now have scientific evidence to back them up, all of the rest have none.

At 8/19/05 05:47 PM, ReiperX wrote: Might as well teach creationalism, big bang, aliens made us, white hole theory, the Greek's version, the Roman's version, the Native American's version and every other version now. Whats the difference?

In short yes, If it were posisble I'd like as many theories as possible to be mentioned(if not explained fully) so if kids wnated to do there own reasearch on it they can.

From my personal point of view I'd find it fascinating to learn the different theories. But thats just me.

The theories that are taught now have scientific evidence to back them up, all of the rest have none.

Indeed and I'm not denying that at all. But in my personal opinion I think that kids should be given a number of options so they are more prepared to deal with people of differing opinions in the real world.

That is why I find this whole segregation of Church and Schools,in America, ridicoulous. By not teaching kids anything to do with religion you are not providing them with information on the religions that are out there and there views on subjects. IF you have that information your'e less likely to cause offence to them.

At 8/19/05 03:12 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:

oh i aggree not to have evolution in a science class because it's science class. most likely in a hundred years they'll be laughing at us for believing this. they'll be like," they thought we came from monkies." but i didn't like how he said it without any proof or argument whatsoever.

It entirely possible that they will.. But based on present day knowledge us coming from monkies is a very logical conclusion.. IT is the most scientifically backed theroy, and if its ever proven wrong or partially wrong we should change the klesson plan accordingly... Or if a new more credible theroy ever arises....

At 8/19/05 05:47 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Might as well teach creationalism, big bang, aliens made us, white hole theory, the Greek's version, the Roman's version, the Native American's version and every other version now. Whats the difference?

What's that? We already teach the Big Bang in science? Well i'll be damned.

The theories that are taught now have scientific evidence to back them up, all of the rest have none.

Altho there's evidence against it, we already teach most of what you mentioned above in other classes such as history or Early American Lit (Native American, Ancient Greek and Roman). History and Literature touch on Christianity, but all they do is tell who went around to preach it (because parents bitch about there kids being exposed to too much of it).