This evening I heard more on the news about "Intelligent Design taught in school". I may be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.
Foremost, "who" or "what" is the Designer?
Second, Catholics have one view of Creation, J.W.'s have another view, and Baptists have their own view of Creation and I am sure they have individual differences on `how' the elusive designer designs. Certainly there are some who disagree with Intelligent Design hypothesis, and will not want their children taught the hypothesis? Or, am I in error on this?
Why should one religious ideaologue be taught in the school system, given preference over other "design hypothesis"?
I've not really kept up with the issue, because Spongebob is monopolizing screen-time. Occasionally I get to tune into the news and catch up with what's going on in the world...
More of my question . . .
I presumed that the Constitution provided that State would not superimpose one religious view over the next. They often call "atheism" a religion and the atheists have their own view of how life came about, and sometimes atheists do not agree on every detail between themselves (how much more so then, Christians?), but one thing they have in common is a lack of belief in "purpose". The I.D. hypothesis assumes life was planned, "designed by a designer"... we were created for "what purpose"?
Will they give equal time to atheistic "origins"? The bleak view that we die and that's all there is to it... the chaos of the cosmos... the flaws and barbarity found in nature, atheists can paint a pretty cynical picture if given room to tell their world view in the classroom. If they give time to I.D'rs, they should give equal time to the "non-intelligence, non-designers".
Those who would claim Evolution is already there for atheists, are wrong...
Evolution does not teach "why we are here", simply how we got here: Fossils are fact, not hypothesis. Really, when debating this "ID hypothesis", without empirical evidence for said Designer, everything boils down to nothing more than hopeful speculation and philosophy which has no place in science. But George Bush probably doesn't fully understand what either evolution or intelligent design are, himself.
If my understanding is correct, these ID'rs are saying some things cannot be explained by science. Perhaps it cannot at this time... even Einstein could not fully explain the atom . . . another fifty years, maybe science can find the answer. It's hardly time to start filling in gaps with "superstition".
"The US president told newspaper reporters in Texas that children should be taught about intelligent design so they could better understand the debate about the origins of the universe."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4136690.stm"Both sides ought to be properly taught?" asked Hutcheson
""Yes," Bush answered, "so people can understand what the debate is about."
www.time.com
How will people understand what the debate is about unless they allow the "non-intelligent, non-designers" to give their side, and that is not part of Bush's plan --though it is the only way "both sides" can be heard.
Even still `evolution', which deals with fossils is not part of this issue, as there are many Theistic / Christian Evolutionists.
You figure George Bush has got the "Divine Tinkerer Hypothesis" or "Ignorant Designer Hypothesis" or all the sub-hypothesis in between worked into that plan to "help children understand what the debate is about"?
Of course not. He's too ignorant about the debate himself. He actually believes evolution is the only "alternative view" and is somehow a view exclusively held by atheists and apostates.
More on W and ID . . .
Has Intelligent Design Hypothesis been proven anymore "empirical" than any other Design hypothesis, i.e., Divine Tinkerer hypothesis? If not, it should be shown no partisanship over its other hypothetical counterparts. I say "Teach the Intelligent Design hypothesis", so long as W is also willing to spend tax dollars on teaching kids "Ignorant Design" as well. W wants them to *understand* the debate afterall, I say "Go For It".
Foremost, "who" or "what" is the Designer?Timothy Chase: Well, here is one interesting article which argues that the intelligent designer must, as a matter of logic, be God (odd periodical for it to appear in, though):
The Bait and Switch of Intelligent Design
http://www.americandaily.com/article/8086... although you might also ask the father of the Intelligent Design movement:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson... then you might ask one of its leading theorists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dembski
TIM CHASE: Do you mean something along the lines of silly an intelligent designer must have been to give us goose bumps so as to fluff nonexistent fur, which if we had such fur, would better insulate us against the cold -- but as it is, ends up being worse than useless? I can see your point. At the same time, I believe that even if the classroom weren't to become politically charged as the result of bringing an intelligent designer and an inept designer into the classroom, simply bringing both of these fellows in will leave less time for real science and education. But here is another view which might be worth considering:
Should we Teach ID in Schools?
Posted by Steve Reuland on March 16, 2005 10:44 AM
www.pandasthumb.orgFurther Points:
Bruce Carter: As for "separation of church and state" - that phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.
Ian Robinson: But the first amendment, Article I., states the concept in slightly more legal language. Namely:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Bruce Carter: A variation of it, however, did appear twice in the Constitution of the old Soviet Union.
Ian Robinson: Well that got that right then. Lots of things they got wrong. But not that.
Ian Robinson - Belfast - UK http://www.canicula.com
Soapbox - http://homepage.mac.com/ianrobinson/index.htmlSHARON: "Individual ID advocates differ greatly on these critical issues, yet they never debate them among themselves. Instead they downplay their differences and pretend as if they don’t matter. ID isn’t wrong so much as it is meaningless, because it consists of nothing more than stale and erroneous criticisms of evolution."
"Once you go to the trouble of rebutting these criticisms, you most assuredly will not hear the ID advocates say, “Hmm, I guess I may have been wrong.” At best they will simply ignore you and proceed to the next bogus claim. Once you’ve gone through a whole cycle of them, the earlier ones that you already rebutted will suddenly pop up again, their proponents seemingly oblivious to your previous critiques. The whole point is, you’re not dealing with people who have a sincere interest in science."
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000875.htmlMy original point remains. If Bush wants to give "the full spectrum of the debate" he must also include all counterpoints in the course. Even in Evolution, various theories for how "a" got to "b" are considered and heard, both pro and con.
A good example is the formation of the moon.
How the Moon Formed: The Condensation Theory
OTHER THEORIES ON THE MOON'S FORMATION: Any theory which explains the existence of the Moon must naturally explain the following facts:
-The Moon's low density (3.3 g/cc) shows that it does not have a substantial iron core like the Earth does.
-Moon rocks contain few volatile substances (e.g. water), which implies extra baking of the lunar surface relative to that of Earth.
-The relative abundance of oxygen isotopes on Earth and on the Moon are identical, which suggests that the Earth and Moon formed at the same distance from the Sun.-The Fission Theory
-The Capture Theory
"Something would have to slow it down by just the right amount at just the right time, and scientists are reluctant to believe in such "fine tuning".
Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received."
starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov
-The Condensation Theory
-The Giant Impactor Theory
(How The Moon Formed)
Science has not concluded one way or another for specifics of how the moon formed, but it does allow all reasonable, reviewed theories to be heard. That is the only way science will ever find the true answer how the moon formed.
At present, they may lack the correct theory but that does not make "the designer" responsible `by default'--filling in the gaps with superstition is not an answer.Bush would have the population to believe "ID Hypothesis" has been reviewed and approved as an alternative to "evolution". Nothing could be farther from the truth. (The above post/URL you've given) demonstrates quite well these people cannot even agree among themselves or, if in error, ID does not change. They simply move on to the next bogus claim (which has already been debunked numerous times). Does Bush's plan include allowing these points into the course? Probably not. But further, does he intend to give all the counterpart Hypothesis to ID Hypothesis'... even the atheists have their own `hypothesis'.
Can you imagine Bush spending tax dollars to teach "Non Design Hypothesis", pointing out the chaos in the cosmos, and the bleak hopelessness and lack of purpose for why man exists? But this would be taking "atheism into the classroom", and Christians would be made to see it is clear mix of church / state.
Here's a good opener for the counter-course:
Why We Believe in a Designer
Why We Believe In A Designer!
It is a lengthy read, but by the time I finished reading about the nature of nature, I had my own newly implanted doubts about the intelligence in design.Lastly, creationists ignore the many clumsy, as well as hideous, adaptations for survival, poetically alluded to in the following song:
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did.All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox great and small,
Putrid, fouled and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.["All Things Dull and Ugly," from the Monty Python movie, The Meaning of Life]
MORE ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
The I.D. theory assumes life was planned, "designed by a designer"... we were created for "what purpose"? Will they give equal time to atheistic "origins"? [non-design, non-designer hypothesis]Dave Oldridge (debunkcreation) wrote: "By teaching ANY religion, there is a sort of automatic favouring of some over others. And, speaking as clergy, I'd rather teach about spiritual origins myself than have some heretic dressed in a lab coat try to do it in a school science course.
If they give time to I.D'rs, they should give equal time to the "non-intelligence, non-designers".Dave Oldridge: Again, personally, I'd like to keep both out and just stick to the science.
Those who would claim Evolution is already there for atheists, are wrong...Dave Oldridge: Yep, they are. Evolution is not about whether or not there is a god, but about how biological species diversify.
Evolution does not teach "why we are here", simply how we got here: Fossils are fact, not a hypothesis. Really, when debating this "ID Hypothesis", without empirical evidence for said Designer, everything boils down to nothing more than hopeful speculation and philosophy which has no place in science. But George Bush probably doesn't fully understand what either evolution or intelligent design are, himself.Dave Oldridge: One of the dangers of democracy, as noted by Plato, is the danger that it will vote itself into a tyranny.
Children would be indoctrinated to believe the state of consciousness depends entirely upon active chemicals in the brain --when the brain shuts down --life ends, and there is nothing more. That would qualify as a "religious belief", and does not belong in the classroom.Elroy Willis (alt.atheism) wrote: Wouldn't it qualify as a lack of religious belief?
Sharon: Yes of course. In another way, atheism is also a philosophical view.
Nobody really knows these answers (origins, afterlife, if there's a purpose, etc) -- everyone has an opinion, and that's really all religion is, an opinion. What's funny, is Christianity alone, has around 35,000 of them.Has Intelligent Design Hypothesis been proven anymore "empirical" than any other Design hypothesis, i.e., Divine Tinkerer hypothesis? If not, it should be shown no partisanship over its other hypothetical counterparts. I say "Teach the Intelligent Design hypothesis", so long as W is also willing to spend tax dollars on teaching kids "Ignorant Design" as well. W wants them to *understand* the debate afterall, I say "Go For It".Aaron Clausen (talk.origins) wrote: Sharon, there is no debate. Save for a very small (I'd say insignificant) number of scientists, evolution is accepted. The so-called "teach the controversy" is really a lie, a sham, an excuse to put God into the science class.
Sharon: I agree with you and I knew this. Though George Bush doesn't seem to. If Bush believes there is only (1) Evolution (2) Intelligent Design in debate, he doesn't seem to understand anything about it himself --but proposes to spend megataxes on this non-science in the public school system? I myself, would not mind to sit in a classroom and be taught "the debate", but I wonder "what practical use" will any of this information serve 98% of the student body exposed to it? A small percentage may become biologists or go into a career field that would relate vaguely in some way. Most will not. How much time wasted explaining "the debate" --it is not so easy to understand, and I have been actively involved for around two years now... one needs an advanced degree in biology or physics to understand --and they intend to teach children this "Hypothesis" alongside Evolution(?). Evolution is theory, but it is also fact. Bush does not understand that himself. The "Divine Tinkerer Hypothesis" has crossed me, I've seen the "Ignorant Design" website., I understand Atheists believe in "No Design, No Designer", will that be given room in his proposed course? He said he feels people should understand the debate --he does not understand it himself. Then too, this is the same man who (like AlQaeda and Hitler) sincerely expresses belief he is doing "God's work", and so I've read, claims God speaks directly to him and directs him (and they were concered about Hillary leading Bill?)... he should wonder about that voice, after realizing "God" either lied or made an error on those WMDs. That's just my opinion.
T. Pagano (talk.origins) wrote: Why is this theory significant? Since the 18th century scientists have presumed that only law and chance were legitimate modes of causation. ID theory provides a scientific test.
MagentaStudios wrote: The point is you see things that are so complex that they must have been made by a creator. Scientists have discovered processes that can create that complexity just fine without a creator.
ID is not a scientific test- it is ignoring the scientific tests already done.
Sharon Mooney: This email just came through on an ID-group I subscribe to. Felt it was interesting and wanted to share . . .On 8/21/2005 2:04:08 AM, mathematicalproofsofintelligentdes/yahoogroups.com wrote:SHARON: If my understanding is correct, these ID'rs are saying some things cannot be explained by science. Perhaps it cannot at this time... even Einstein could not fully explain the atom . . . another fifty years, maybe science can find the answer. It's hardly time to start filling in gaps with "superstition" for an answer.JR: Einstein is one of the persons who believed there is a designer, namely God.
SHARON: Terrible analogy JR. I'll tell you why. Einstein could not explain gravity -- but he never resorted to intellectual laziness by saying "God's divine hand makes it happen so." --filling in the gaps with superstition. He continued to consider the question until the day of his death... Einstein's achievements were followed with Quantum Mechanics.
Einstein believed in God? I believe in God, so you're telling me nothing new. Do you presume Einstein was a Christian?
Excerpts from "CHRISTIANITY AND EINSTEIN", 1945 by Woolsey Teller
[...]
As for Professor Einstein, I never claimed that "any statement" of his is necessarily "drivel". I specifically named "curved space" as coming under that classification - and I repeat the charge. The term is a verbal monstrosity, a distortion of words. Space is an abstraction, not a physical object, and, as such, can no more be twisted or bent than it can be tied in a knot; it is as absurd to speak of curved space as of circular years, square months, or rectangular days. "Curved" space is as much moonshine as "curved" time.
Astronomers are not misled by this language.''This curved space is not, it is true," says Jeans, "the ordinary space of the astronomer. It is a purely mathematical and probably wholly fictitious space" or, as he adds, "a convenient fiction of the mathematician." And a fiction-- whether "convenient" or otherwise--- is always a fiction.
Mr. Frost considers Einstein "the profoundest thinker of all time." There are others who share this view, but whether he is or is not our greatest thinker (and I, for one, think he is not), Einstein is not a Christian. He rejects every doctrine in Christian theology which Mr. Frost accepts, and, in his more lucid moments or when writing coherently, is a fine rationalist. He can even be brilliant at times, as in the following passage:-
"The ethical behavior of man is better based on sympathy, education, and social relationships, and requires no support from religion. Man's plight would, indeed, be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear of punishment and hope of rewards after death.
It is, therefore, quite natural that the churches have always fought against science and have persecuted its supporters,"
Here is a criticism of religion not apt to please Mr. Frost, and I venture to believe that if I, who "take a fling at Christians" in each issue of The Truth Seeker, had written it myself, it would have been condemned by Mr. Frost. He would have probably censured me severely for not thinking in the logical manner of Einstein.
What else has the Professor rejected in Christian theology?
"A Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible." Here is repudiation of miracles.
And again: "A God who rewards and punishes is ... unthinkable, because man acts in accordance with an inner and outer necessity, and would, in the eyes of God, be as little responsible as an inanimate object is for the movements which it makes," This dispenses with the Christian doctrines of heaven and hell, of future rewards and punishments, and of free will.
There you have Einstein at his best. If, on the other hand, you prefer relativity jargon, try this:
"If a person were hurled at the velocity of light away from the earth and from a certain point allowed to return at the same speed, he would not become a second older in the interim even though the time of the earth had elapsed a thousand years while he was on his journey."
Now all this, coming from Professor Einstein, may sound very profound, but anyone not bereft of his reason might tell him to tell it to the marines. It is, on the face of it, a silly enough remark, since any lapse of time, no matter how short the interval, leaves a person that much, older than he was before. You cannot be of the same age you were the day before yesterday. And going away on a cosmic journey won't prevent you from getting old.
The trouble with Einstein is that he is not a laboratory physicist. As Dr. Read Bain remarks in the November number of the Scientific Monthly, Einstein is "not particularly noted for empirical research." He is, by all odds, a dreamer-mystic, who, in his own words, thinks that "imagination is more important than knowledge." That, of course, is not the language of science, and may account for the additional statement:
"I believe in intuition and inspiration."
Professor Einstein is primarily a blackboard physicist, who has built up a titanic world out of mathematical symbols. It is, at best, a gossamer world, which sometimes falls apart and has to be assembled again with a new set of symbols. It is, in short, a fanciful and shadowy realm, in which space bends back upon itself, parallel lines meet, and yardsticks shrink to the vanishing point if they travel too fast. And it is a world which has no visible counterpart in space.
Mr. Frost, in naming Einstein, has picked the wrong man, for whatever his vagaries may be in the field of relativity, his views on religion give no support to the doctrine of Christianity.
Christianity and EinsteinMagentaStudios (talk.origins) wrote "The point is you see things that are so complex that they must have been made by a creator. Scientists have discovered processes that can create that complexity just fine without a creator. ID is not a scientific test- it is ignoring the scientific tests already done."
Sharon wrote "Einstein could not explain gravity -- but he never resorted to intellectual laziness by saying "God's divine hand makes it happen so." --filling in the gaps with superstition. He continued to consider the question until the day of his death... Einstein's achievements were followed with Quantum Mechanics."
Professor Bernal's Science in History:
"Newton's theory of gravitation and his contribution to astronomy mark the final stage of the transformation of the Aristotelian world-picture begun by Copernicus. For a vision of spheres, operated by a first mover or by angels on God's order, Newton had effectively substituted that of a mechanism operating according to a simple natural law, requiring no continuous application of force, and only needing divine intervention to create it and set it in motion."
www.blupete.com
Google + isaac newton angelsA review of Sir Isaac Newton's Commentary - Historicist.com The ...
Did you know that Sir Isacc Newton wrote over one million words on Bible Prophecy?
... Previous Page A review of Sir Isaac Newton's Commentary ...
http://www.historicist.com/newton/review.htm"Behind all his science was the conviction that God made the universe with a mathematical structure and He gifted human beings' minds to understand that structure... The very orderliness and design of the universe spoke of God's awesome majesty and wisdom. Gravity itself was an active principle God used to impose order on the world. Seeking to understand God's methods, Newton developed formulas for specific phenomena such as ocean tides, paths of comets, and the succession of the equinoxes. Newton spent a tremendous amount of time studying the Bible, especially the prophetic portions of Scripture. He believed history was under the dominion of the Creator, and prophecy showed how the Creator was to establish His earthly kingdom in the end. His Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended used astronomical data to argue that the Bible was the oldest document in the world and that the events of Biblical history preceded all other ancient histories."
www.gospelcom.netSharon: I see a similarity between Newton and I.D. Hypothesis, namely they presume the Bible and Christianity are the one truth and try to make religion into science. Imagine if science had stopped based on Newton's claim angels hold the cosmos in order. That is why ID Hypothesis poses a threat to scientific progress and critical thought.
Bush says he wants people to understand the debate, both "sides".-- Evolution is science. So what does that make "the other side"?
T. Pagano: This is a misrepresentation. ID theory is a generalized theory applicable to all objects, systems and events not just biological ones. ID theory presupposes nothing about the origin or the emergence of biologicl diversity.
MagentaStudios: Um, yes it does- it presupposes the possibility that an intellegence preexisted the creation of any of the intelligences we know to exist.
Sharon: In other words, the very label "Intelligent Design" indicates BLIND faith in the existence of a supreme being (not even comparable with SETI as was pointed out in the thread, SETI seeks the existence of intelligent life like us -- flesh and blood), -- Christians are making a pathetic attempt at pawning this hypothesis off as "deist" -- I am a deist, it's good old Jesus in disguise --it is blindingly obvious Christians are behind this fraud, from the claim that "atheistic origins have been taught in school". I find that impossible to believe, because of all teachers employed throughout the United States, very few are atheists. The majority of teachers hold religious beliefs, and many want to bring their religious beliefs into the classroom, (and many already do). So who is teaching all this *atheism* to the children? I remember being made to pledge the allegiance to the flag, "one nation under god". . . and I remember the school prayers in the 1970s. and I remember world history class and Nimrod being spoken of as a literal figure in ancient history . . . Atheism, however is a lack of belief in God and it is a philosophy, and I know for a fact, I was never taught in school "God does not exist." If atheistic origins were taught in schools, children would be coming home in tears "I don't want to die. The teacher says there is no God. The teacher says there is nothing after the brain shuts down. I'll never see Grandmom again." Science does not tread into that philosophical realm.
The most ironical irony is this Christian Hypothesis not only acknowledges its ignorance on the Designer but also its ignorance on the method of design used by this elusive designer (aka Jesus Christ and Jehovah). Wannabe Deists... It merely piggybacks on some unanswered questions which Darwinism may yet find answers for, and pawns this hypothesis off as a scientific theory.
T Pagano (talk.origins): If this were true then the government would not be funding SETI research. There is absolutely NO empirical evidence of the existence of extra terrestrial life anywhere else in the universe. Absolutely none. Nonetheless SETI researchers use a method very similar to ID theory and their inferences don't rely on knowledge of the extra terrestrial's existence...
Sharon: "funding"... so, you mean adults, with credentials and qualifications, who chose to go into that line of work? I am to suppose likewise that if the government wastes tax dollars teachings the ID Hypothesis to children, one of them will offer some clue to the origins of the Universe?
MORE COMMENTS FROM ATHEISTS:
Additional Comments
I say "Teach the Intelligent Design hypothesis", so long as W is also willing to spend tax dollars on teaching kids "Ignorant Design" as well. W wants them to *understand* the debate afterall, I say "Go For It".Apostate wrote: It's a matter of choosing an academic subject into which ID can be spliced. Certainly, it can't be forced into a science curriculum, pretending that it is science. Perhaps a Conscientious Objectors to Science course could be added to the curriculum, as an elective the fundies could substitute for learning to count to twelve by threes. Everything that could be culled into a Theory of Intelligent Design, as of today, could be fit neatly into the lesson time that that last-mentioned skill takes to teach/learn. But if they'd like to pursue my proposed new course idea, they could afterwards (after the first five minutes of class day one, that is) consider the chief alternative theories to Newton's theory of gravity, as enhanced by Einstein: Intelligent Grappling (the more ancient of the leading pretenders) and Intelligent Falling, the new comer. In a few years, we might hope for some anti-Maxwellian to finish his thesis on Faith-Based Charge Phenomena and Currents, and if we get really lucky, Holy Fluid Dynamics (God's Snot.)
Certainly there are some who disagree with Intelligent Design hypothesis, and will not want their children taught the hypothesis? Or, am I in error on this?Ken wrote: I don't really want my kids taught this stuff in science class. I wouldn't mind if it was taught in a comparative religion class or even a civics class as an example of a current issue. It isn't science.
DanielSan wrote: I, too, would not mind Intelligent Design to be taught in school... as an elective course. Also, in that same elective course, have other "theories" such as the ancient Egyptian "theory," the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory, and so forth.
EXACTLY WHAT ARE ATHEISTIC ORIGINS?Will they give equal time to atheistic "origins"?That's what is taught exclusively now.
Pastor Dave
I disagree. If atheistic origins were taught in the classroom, children would be coming home in tears crying "I don't want to die, the teacher taught us there is nothing beyond this life and the teacher said there is no God." Children would be indoctrinated to believe the state of consciousness depends entirely upon active chemicals in the brain --when the brain shuts down --life ends, and there is nothing more. That would qualify as a "religious belief", and does not belong in the classroom. Nobody knows the answer "what happens" after we die. Science does not attempt to embark on the unknown such as "life after death". Science (Evolution) merely addresses the empirical, as in interpretation of fossils.
Evolution does not attempt to answer "why we are here" or "where we are going" after we die.
SHARON: Evolution does not teach "why we are here", simply how we got here:PASTOR DAVE: Not true. Evolution teaches that we are just animals.
SHARON: "Not just" animals. Though, if you take a look at history -- mankind has often proven itself worse than animals.
SHARON: Fossils are material fact, not hypothesis.PASTOR DAVE: And they do not show evolution.
SHARON: There are plentiful examples of evolution. From genetic mutations to whole species arising from another --wolves to dogs. Land mammals to sea mammal. . . yet, over the course of 3.8 billion years, mankind could not evolve from a single cell, when humans accomplish this feat in 9 months.
The fossils show evolution as well as extinction in both animal and plant kingdoms. The fossil record shows complete ecosystems which arose, and went extinct, replaced by a new ecosystem, which too were followed by extinction.
There have been five such great extinctions --and some are asking are we headed into the sixth extinction with problems such as global warming.Ordovician mass extinction, 438 million years ago. Likely cause: climate change. 50% of all species wiped out, mainly in the sea.
Devonian mass extinction, 360 million years ago. Likely cause: climate change, 40% of all species wiped out.
Permian mass extinction, 245 million years ago. Likely causes: volcanic activity, climate change, formation of Pangea. 70% of all land species wiped out.
Triassic mass extinction, 208 million years ago. Likely cause: climate change. 45% of all species wiped out.
Cretaceous mass extinction, 66 million years ago. Likely causes: meteorite impact, volcanic eruptions. 45% of all species wiped out.
Source: David Burnie, Illustrated Dinosaur EncyclopediaSharon: Imagine if the Judicial system operated on the bias "all people with green eyes can commit no crime, therefore they are always innocent." A case is brought before a Judge and Jury, and the evidence laid down before them. The evidence points toward the green eye person's guilt, but the predisposition is to believe "no matter what, the green eye person is innocent, therefore the evidence is wrong."
That is what Creationists do when they reject fossil evidence. The Bible says we were created in six days, therefore it must be so. These fossils are a lie, or Darwin's interpretation is a lie. "The Bible and my interpretation of it, cannot be wrong."
The evidence (fossils) will not change.
Interpretations and beliefs must change with the material evidence.
MORE ON ORIGINS
Sharon: Children would be indoctrinated to believe the state of consciousness depends entirely upon active chemicals in the brain ... --when the brain shuts down --life ends, and there is nothing more. That would qualify as a "religious belief", and does not belong in the classroom.Pastor Dave: They are taught that.
Sharon: In what school? You know if this was taught in a public school system, they would take it to court. Why I know that it is not taught in school, is because that borders on religion and science has no proof the soul "dies" with the body. That's for a philosophy class, not science. I know for a certainty I was not taught that in school. I was taught that if the brain dies, the body dies.. but not anything about what becomes of a "soul" after brain-death.
Sharon: In what school? (-are they taught atheism and the non-existence of God?)
Pastor Dave:You never went to school?
Sharon: I went to school, and I was never taught atheism.
Sharon:You know if this was taught in a public school system, they would take it to court.Pastor Dave: Really? So you're saying that they're taught spirituality in school?
You know, if that was taught in a public school system, they would take it to court.Sharon: Most teachers do it on the sly. They bring their own personal religious beliefs into the classroom. I recall one teacher handing out crosses to her students, and telling them to "shhhssshhh".... I recall being asked to stand before the class (1st Grade Elementary) and explaining my religious beliefs to my peers because my fundamentalist Protestant teacher told me to. I recall being told to pray before the school day began. I recall clearly being told to pledge allegiance to the flag . . . "one nation under God". . . (incidentally, the Jehovah Witnesses refuse to do this). I recall these things, but I do not recall being taught atheism.
Not only are some teachers unconstitutionally bringing personal Christian beliefs into the classroom at times, but this minority who has no respect for the powers that be (the Constitution of the United States) i.e., the Judge who refused to remove the Ten Commandments from the court room, those who constantly battle against the Court and insist their religious monuments be placed on state-owned property -- including now, the insane George Bush pushing for I.D. Hypothesis in the classrooms -- a man who claims God speaks to him and leads him (but God lied about those WMD's) are now publically demanding to legalize mixing religion in the school cirriculum. WWJSay? --"Render to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar."
SHARON: "Not just" animals. Though, if you take a look at history -- mankind has often proven itself worse than animals.Pastor Dave: The children are taught that they are animals. That is a fact.
Sharon: Define animal. Define a god. What else is there? Humans are animals, Dave. They eat, sleep, pee, poop, -- everything animals do. Are you flesh or are you spirit? (On the exterior -- you are animal, the "soul" is not in discussion -- you are not a god, if you do without food, you will become hungry, just as any other animal, and you will kill just as any other animal to get food.) You are not a god -- you are flesh and bone and blood, the same as any animal.
And you know what else, because mankind (especially the religious) feels it is "superior" and believes he is divinely descended from a "god", man feels lisence to commit grevious crimes against their fellow man, often in the name of god.
If man were humbled in viewing themselves as kin to animals, perhaps he would better recognize his true nature is more animal like than god and work to overcome the "carnal nature". There is nothing more dangerous in this world than a preacher that has became delusional, i.e., Jim Jones and David Koresh.
SHARON: "Not just" animals. Though, if you take a look at history -- mankind has often proven itself worse than animals.Pastor Dave: The children are taught that they are animals. That is a fact.
Sharon: Define animal. Define a god.
Pastor Dave: This is your argument? It sucks.
Sharon: No, you assume you are a "child of god". Hercules was a son of God.
Jesus was a son of God. Are you born of gods?If not, you are born of flesh -- even in the book of Genesis... it does not claim that man came from the loins of gods, but rather muddy clay or dirt -- dust thou art, and to dust you will return. The filth of dirt is what Genesis teaches --your own holy book teaches you are not a descendant of a god. Like the animals, you share a common origin in the dust.
Sharon: What else is there?
Pastor Dave: Humans.
Sharon: Who by Genesis, share a common bond of dirt. Who by Evolution, share a common bond through genetic divergency. Neither one qualifies you as a descendant of god. Therefore you are related to animals, one way or the other. Common ancestry or created from the same dirt --take your pick. You're related to animals.
Pastor Dave: But of course, since you said so, that must be good enough.
Sharon: At least it's my own opinion, better than parrotting a book I don't believe in and many Christians themselves have questions about, but too afraid to ask.
That is what Creationists do when they reject fossil evidence.Pastor Dave: There is no fossil evidence for what you believe. If there were, it would have been trotted out and this argument would have ended world wide a long time ago.
Sharon: There is enough fossil evidence for what I believe. The evidence is, "I believe the fossil record".
And, `No' it wouldn't end. There will always be Christians that will cling to the Bible as the `one true truth', [despite all the fossil evidence, indifferent whether a hundred or a million fossils] who will swear through denial and self-delusion -- "The only evidence that matters is `The Bible'".Simply, people believe what they choose to believe.
Pastor Dave: There is no fossil evidence for what you believe. If there were, it would have been trotted out and this argument would have ended world wide a long time ago.
Sharon: There is enough fossil evidence for what I believePastor Dave: That is a claim, not proof. If there were proof, this argument would have ended a long time ago.
Sharon: There is only an argument with Evolution, because of that book which does not provide anything empirical --only requires faith. The proof that there is enough fossil evidence, is the fact that "I believe the fossil record and interpretation of scientists." There's your fact --at least one person believes in the ample fossil evidence, and your claim is that nobody believes? (Faith and belief is the only issue at stake afterall, isn't it?) You ought to take a poll on how many people believe in the fossil evidence and evolutionary interpretation. In these newsgroups you might find a surprising number... Evidently some of us do feel there is ample fossil evidence to believe in. End of argument. The Bible proves nothing.
Pastor Dave wrote: There is no fossil evidence for what you believe. If there were, it would have been trotted out and this argument would have ended world wide a long time ago.
Sharon: Given time (and Creation Scientists and ID Hypothesizers restrained) science probably won't need that `back to back fossil record' to prove the evolution of species to new species (Macroevolution). As in, `Kind sometimes begats a new kind.'
Timothy Chase wrote: HOX: A Change of Plans (non-technical, short)
The following article is a nice introduction to the importance of HOX genes.
Moreover, it specifically addresses one of the major criticisms which creationists have leveled against evolution...First Genetic Evidence Uncovered of How Major Changes in Body Shapes Occured During Early Animal Evolution February 6, 2002
ucsdnews.ucsd.edu"Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.
In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects." . . .
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htmPastor Dave: As I said, ridiculous.
Rushing science again? Science, like God, moves at its own pace . . . not at Pastor Dave's.
Sharon: I went to school, and I was never taught atheism.
Pastor Dave: You were taught that life came from non-living matter all by itself, by chance.
Sharon: I was taught about that, yes, in religious magazines, preachers . . . but quite the contrary, I do not remember it taught to me in school. You know what else, Pastor Dave.. the school textbooks had little effect on me... if *anything* I read in those textbooks contradicted what my parents had taught me, it tended to go in one ear and out the other. In other words, *if there was a time* I was taught in school "life came from non-living matter", I do not remember it.
Further, do you disagree "dust / dirt / clay" is "non-living matter"? Genesis claims the same. There is only a matter that evolution does not take a stand on "how", merely that it "did".
Since there is no empirical evidence that it was by the hand of God, it does not belong in the classroom. (There is more than enough resources being dedicated to that issue without need for tax dollars spent on the search for God). Creationists will not be satisfied until (1)God (2)God (3)God replaces reading, writing and artithmetic and God is ate, slept and breathed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and all manmade documents such as the Constitution (drawn up by the founding fathers, many holding deist spiritual views) thrown out and replaced with the Bible. That is the agenda of the radical religious right and I know it, whether or not you will admit it. Ultimately dragging us centuries back to the same hostile church-state atmosphere, that our founding fathers were vehemently opposed to. I know the history of the Inquisition (Galileo prohibited to propose the heretical view, the Sun stood still despite Joshua.)
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
- Thomas Jefferson in "SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS"
Sharon: Most teachers do it on the sly.
Pastor Dave: That is an accusation. The fact is, the curriculum does not teach spirituality.
Sharon: Then you agree atheism is not taught in the school? And no, it is not an accusation, it is a fact... change that from "most teachers" to "some teachers". What do you expect, when [Christian] Judges themselves refuse to act accordingly with the very Constitution they are suppose to represent?
Pastor Dave: And the fact is, that the Bible does not teach that we are animals.
Sharon: But doesn't it?
Gn:2:19: And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gn:2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (KJV)
- Why would animals be searched over to find a mate for Adam?
Pastor Dave: According to you, Genesis isn't scientific. So why do you bring it up, to support scientifically, your claim?
Sharon: Because your argument hangs on the Bible. Your own Bible demonstrates man is not born of god, but are formed from the same stuff animals are made of. Man is not superior to beast, except in intellect. Further, I stated earlier on, man has proven himself through history, "worse" than animals in some cases.
Scripture seems to indicate the same conclusion about man, namely:
Gn:6:5: And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (KJV)Man has not proven itself any godlier than apes.
"Darwin was wrong. Man's STILL an ape."
-Gene Kelly
Pastor Dave wrote: You were taught that life came from non-living matter all by itself, by chance.
Sharon: I was taught about that, yes, in religious magazines, preachers . . . but quite the contrary,
Pastor Dave wrote: You're lying.
Sharon: Am I? Who just wrote in this thread "You were taught that life came from non-living matter all by itself, by chance."
I will tell you who wrote "You were taught that life came from non-living matter all by itself, by chance." It was written not by a school teacher, not by a scientist, rather, it was written by a man who claims to be a Pastor. "You were taught that life came from non-living matter all by itself, by chance," was written by Pastor Dave. I did not hear "You were taught that life came from non-living matter all by itself, by chance," in school, but I did read "You were taught that life came from non-living matter all by itself, by chance." from you, my parents, the church, religious literature... therefore I tuned anything that contradicted what my parents taught me, out of sight and out of mind. I do not remember school teaching "You were taught that life came from non-living matter all by itself, by chance." I do remember Pastor Dave saying it however, just today.Here Pastor Dave speaks again: "You remember being taught that life arose from a primordial soup, due to chemical reactions." No, I do not remember the school teaching this. I remember Christians saying this, but I do not recall school textbooks saying it.
Sharon: You know what else, Pastor Dave.. the school textbooks had little effect on me...
Pastor Dave: You're lying again.
Sharon: Then why didn't I believe in Evolution?
Sharon: I do not remember it taught to me in school.
Pastor Dave: Yes you do. You remember being taught that life arose from a primordial soup, due to chemical reactions.
Sharon: No I do not remember the school teaching me that. I REMEMBER my parents saying the school textbooks teach that, but I do not remember the textbooks saying any such thing. We were taught by the church "Memorize only what you must, to pass the tests, but do not believe what the books say." My memory is a blank. I do not remember a single textbook stating "life arose from a primordial soup, due to chemical reactions."
You are not psychic Pastor Dave. When I say I do not remember a single textbook saying "life arose from a primordial soup, due to chemical reactions." I literally mean I do not recall a single textbook claiming "life arose from a primordial soup, due to chemical reactions."
The Preachers, my parents, the Bible, the Church had control over my mind, not teachers and textbooks. This is a scientifically established fact, parents are the most powerful influence in a child's life. For instance: They often encourage parents to discuss drugs and smoking with their children. The anti-drug campaign slogan: "PARENTS - THE ANTI-DRUG".
Pastor Dave: You have failed to demonstrate your claim that humans are animals, scientifically, which is why you keep trying to switch the subject to the Bible.
Sharon: You have failed to demonstrate man is anything more than animals.
Sharon: I went to school, and I was never taught atheism.
Pastor Dave: You were taught that life came from non-living matter all by itself, by chance.
Sharon: Origins from non-living matter never bothered Creationists before.
Gn:2:7: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground...The difference is simple. In higher animals ---it holds true . . . everyone (including cats, dogs, apes) wants a reason to feel "special", "loved", "cared about" -- some even want to believe they "are better than the next guy." I see it outside my door every day -- animals competing. From the Alpha male vs. Omega wolf - to the Bible thumping fundamentalist - the need to feel "special" is a universal instinct in animals.
Genesis may romance the idea that man was specially hand-made by Jehovah (Though consider this, weren't the animals "hand-made"? Does Genesis indicate Jehovah being any less pleased with his animal designs?), nonetheless, there is no way around it -- entertain the idea man is any better than animals -- the fact remains both evolution and Genesis teach "man and animal alike, came from mud".
Message awaits moderator approval
RELATED LINKS
I.D. (Intelligent Design) for I.DUMMIES
What is Intelligent Design? What are some of the arguments against it? What debate tactics are usually employed when discussing this controversial issue?What is Intelligent Design?
Questioning the purpose and intent of Intelligent Design advocates. Is this a last ditch attempt to drag scientific progress backwards due to man's natural disposition toward superstition and fear of the unknown?SETI and Intelligent Design
Amusing look at an Intelligent Design argument, comparing the ID hypothesis with SETI, which presumes extraterrestrial intelligent life may be found.Is Mankind Special?
Is mankind special, different or better than other creatures? Brief discussion on similarities and differences of man and animal --and what does make man, special.George W. Bush goes Ape
George W. Bush turns into a monkey.
Certified error free by http://htmlvalidator.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |