Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as an Alternative to Evolution?

[adren@line]

One text book on religion doesnt cut-it. Its a good start, but nothing you will learn in a generalized textbook will be enough to carry-on an informed conversation.The "Z" religion is Zoroastrianism.The rest of your response in regards to various religions is full of bias and reflects a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. You are making blanket statements about other religions in relation to Christianity that are simply not true. Your historical analysis of "Christians being persecuted" is also completely wrong, because historically Christians were the ones usually killing everyone else.In regards to evolution, you are also wrong. The "brick wall" is not the singularity. This is easily answered in string theory/m-theory and oscillating universe theories, and can be explained via math. The idea that the singularity is the beginning of all and the pivotal moment in space-time is old and outdated.

 

[Jerusalem Junkie]

The rest of your response in regards to various religions is full of bias and reflects a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. You are making blanket statements about other religions in relation to Christianity that are simply not true. Your historical analysis of "Christians being persecuted" is also completely wrong, because historically Christians were the ones usually killing everyone else.
Well I will be a monkeys uncle your the first one I have heard say that.......

 

[adren@line]

Then you havent read the history of Christian Europe or the Americas, or the various empires that were established by the British, Spanish, etc.Or I am pretty sure you have, but you will come back with the expected "they werent really Christians" tagline when in-fact these people did follow some form of Christianity, and what is "true Christianity" and what isnt is simply a matter of opinion and bias.

 

[RobinD69]

OK lets do some math or gambling statistics. Take a mechanical pancil apart, put it in a box, shake well, and how many tries before you have a pencil? More time than we have in this life and still considered impossible.Hwy how about this, we take the chemicals and matter that makes up a human body, mix it all together in a big pot, how long before we have a person? Impossible.Just with these two things, we have proof there must be a designer/creator.All living creatures and plant life have the ability to adapt in different ways. If this is the evidence for evolution, it is also the evidence for creation/ID. Do the math and look at the logic. Mathematically a jumbo jet does not create itself or evolve on its own, therfor some form of intelegence is logically at work.I have take the liberty to brush up on Biology by reading a biology book I have in my book collection. This book is biased towards evolution, but repeatedly it says it is what they believe rather than diffinative fact. Looking at the evidence, most of it can be applied to creation or ID, depending on ones bias. Repeatedly they claim it is what they believe, sounds like religion rather than science.

 

[adren@line]

Your comparison doesnt hold up.You are comparing an act that takes a few seconds (shaking around a box) to a the process of evolution which occured over millions of years.There is a big difference.And "beliefs" in science are different from beliefs in religion. Im sure you already know why, as I have already explained it.

 

[RobinD69]

(adren@line;46255)
Then you havent read the history of Christian Europe or the Americas, or the various empires that were established by the British, Spanish, etc.Or I am pretty sure you have, but you will come back with the expected "they werent really Christians" tagline when in-fact these people did follow some form of Christianity, and what is "true Christianity" and what isnt is simply a matter of opinion and bias.
Read the Bible and then compare what these other socalled Christian groups claimed and what the Bible states. Jesus said to love your enemy, but He also told the apostles to defend themselve as they saw fit. The crusades were started by a power hungry Pope. If you would study Catholic Doctrine you will understand that it isnt very Christian. Islam came about because of a power hungry merchant, Muhammad, and both Islam and Catholocism collided. Much what you like to point out does not add up to Christian doctrine or the Bible. The witch hunts you liked to point out, did not add up to the Bible as a whole, as many times it was a method of picking and choosing from the Bible. "I will not suffer a witch to live" is not a liscence to kill witches. Prayer and good living examples would have taken care of the problem. Many of the dictators who claim to be Christian and doing Gods will contradicted the Bible. Come now, should I blame all atheist for the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin or any other atheistic dictator? Constantine was a Pagan until the day he died, but many want to attribute the roots of Christianity to him, which is revisionist history, just as claiming the Catholics gave us the Bible, more revisionist history. We like to adhere to the Bible and Biblical History because the world at large has created their own revisionist history on Christianity by merging all sects who claim to be Christian. I am a Baptist, but I didnt always agree with Falwell. I am white, blonde haired and blue eyed, but I dont agree with Hitler. Shoot, you can ask Denver and Kriss, I love them and agree with them alot, but not on everything, does that mean they love God more than I or vise versa. No, it means some of us see things others may not and some of us theorize where others dont. So please before you blanket all sects together, get to know a few facts.

 

[RobinD69]

(adren@line;46259)
Your comparison doesnt hold up.You are comparing an act that takes a few seconds (shaking around a box) to a the process of evolution which occured over millions of years.There is a big difference.And "beliefs" in science are different from beliefs in religion. Im sure you already know why, as I have already explained it.
Actually you may have to shake that box for a million years. Belief is belief, compare science to your little list you used to prove Christianity is a religion, science fits pretty well.

 

[adren@line]

(RobinD69;46262)
Read the Bible and then compare what these other socalled Christian groups claimed and what the Bible states. Jesus said to love your enemy, but He also told the apostles to defend themselve as they saw fit. The crusades were started by a power hungry Pope. If you would study Catholic Doctrine you will understand that it isnt very Christian. Islam came about because of a power hungry merchant, Muhammad, and both Islam and Catholocism collided. Much what you like to point out does not add up to Christian doctrine or the Bible. The witch hunts you liked to point out, did not add up to the Bible as a whole, as many times it was a method of picking and choosing from the Bible. "I will not suffer a witch to live" is not a liscence to kill witches. Prayer and good living examples would have taken care of the problem. Many of the dictators who claim to be Christian and doing Gods will contradicted the Bible. Come now, should I blame all atheist for the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin or any other atheistic dictator? Constantine was a Pagan until the day he died, but many want to attribute the roots of Christianity to him, which is revisionist history, just as claiming the Catholics gave us the Bible, more revisionist history. We like to adhere to the Bible and Biblical History because the world at large has created their own revisionist history on Christianity by merging all sects who claim to be Christian. I am a Baptist, but I didnt always agree with Falwell. I am white, blonde haired and blue eyed, but I dont agree with Hitler. Shoot, you can ask Denver and Kriss, I love them and agree with them alot, but not on everything, does that mean they love God more than I or vise versa. No, it means some of us see things others may not and some of us theorize where others dont. So please before you blanket all sects together, get to know a few facts.
Im not stating that all Christians are the same. I am stating that Christians, of any sect or denomination, have historically been the ones who have persecuted others. The only time when significant persecution against Christians occurred is before Europe by-large converted and the European rulers. Christianity is like Islam in the respect that you have fanatics, liberals, moderates, etc all who are "Christians". In Islam, you have Sufi mystics who were and are largely pacifistic and intolerant, and then you also have hardcore extremists and terrorists, all who call themselves "Muslim" and read the Quran.

 

[adren@line]

(RobinD69;46263)
Actually you may have to shake that box for a million years. Belief is belief, compare science to your little list you used to prove Christianity is a religion, science fits pretty well.
Actually, you could shake the box for 1 billion years and it probably will not assemble into anything, because a pencil is not a natural object. Neither is a Honda Civic or a nuclear reactor. But the human body is. So is the planet, solar system, galaxy, etc.You cannot compare objects to which do not appear or exist naturally to those that do.As far as religion vs science and definitions, I have already explained such.Scientific theories are based on observations in nature and math. Most religious claims are not.

 

[Jerusalem Junkie]

Scientific theories are based on observations in nature and math. Most religious claims are not.
Agreed. But do you not have to consider that the Bible is based on Archeological results that have been confirmed through science to be authentic in nature. Are not the writers of the Bible noting observations about what they saw or heard or even dreamed about. Theres a fine line here that could as we say in the South straddle the fence either way. I am starting to understand your point and where you are coming from but you must try to understand those of us here who do not agree. You could let 200 people read the same newspaper article and no two folks would have the same opinion of it the same could be said here would you not agree.

 

[Wakka]

(adren@line;46292)
Actually, you could shake the box for 1 billion years and it probably will not assemble into anything, because a pencil is not a natural object. Neither is a Honda Civic or a nuclear reactor. But the human body is. So is the planet, solar system, galaxy, etc.You cannot compare objects to which do not appear or exist naturally to those that do.As far as religion vs science and definitions, I have already explained such.Scientific theories are based on observations in nature and math. Most religious claims are not.
Nature and math huh?1. Math goes against evolution in the probability that it did happen. (If you add that the earth came into existence by chance. You can't have evolution if the earth didn't appear on it's own).2. Animals cannot change into other species. Why don't we have hybrids that are in the middle of evolution. I see no bird lizard. Finally, no scientist has ever recorded the development of a single cellular organism. They only assume that it may have come from some cosmic accident. There is no explanation. There are even cells with irreversible characteristics.With that said, evolution (other than micro) cannot be tested in a lab. It's not a science. Gravity can be tested, and it even has a mathematical formula. Evolution is an idea based on assumptions. With that said, I say that evolution shouldn't be taught as fact (IT IS TAUGHT AS FACT). It would be most fair if they showed both sides of the argument. With both side's flaws given directly to the students, so that they may pick and choose (even though I do not see any flaws in ID). It bugs me that scientists only give the public the assumptions, but never the problems and the serious holes. They make it seem as though evolution is flawless.

 

[RobinD69]

(adren@line;46292)
Actually, you could shake the box for 1 billion years and it probably will not assemble into anything, because a pencil is not a natural object. And the same could be said for putting all the genetic material for a living being in a box or bottle, you still end up with sludge. Neither is a Honda Civic or a nuclear reactor. But the human body is. So is the planet, solar system, galaxy, etc.But if you look at it scientifically, all these things came from the earth to begin with, so the statistics are the same for all.You cannot compare objects to which do not appear or exist naturally to those that do.But you can, as I said above.As far as religion vs science and definitions, I have already explained such.But you have not acknowledged the logic, logically science is a religion based on your own definition.Scientific theories are based on observations in nature and math. Most religious claims are not.
But many are while many theories are just assumptions without observations. You cannot observe millions of years.

 

[adren@line]

(Jerusalem Junkie;46308)
Agreed. But do you not have to consider that the Bible is based on Archeological results that have been confirmed through science to be authentic in nature. Are not the writers of the Bible noting observations about what they saw or heard or even dreamed about. Theres a fine line here that could as we say in the South straddle the fence either way. I am starting to understand your point and where you are coming from but you must try to understand those of us here who do not agree. You could let 200 people read the same newspaper article and no two folks would have the same opinion of it the same could be said here would you not agree.
Yes, there is good reason to believe that many events in the Bible did occur, and ofcourse there is plenty of archaeological research to back this up.However, that means that the Bible is better at being a history book as opposed to a substitute for science.BTW, I was born and raised in the south.
1. Math goes against evolution in the probability that it did happen. (If you add that the earth came into existence by chance. You can't have evolution if the earth didn't appear on it's own).
What math?From who? what? where? when? how?By "math", I am refering to physics, which concerns itself with the atomic and sub-atomic and the macro-level laws of the universe and processes. Evolution is biology (more wordly). They deal with two different spheres of science and nature.
2. Animals cannot change into other species. Why don't we have hybrids that are in the middle of evolution. I see no bird lizard. Finally, no scientist has ever recorded the development of a single cellular organism. They only assume that it may have come from some cosmic accident. There is no explanation. There are even cells with irreversible characteristics.
A monkey slowly evolving into modern man over millions of years is nothing that spectacular.
With that said, evolution (other than micro) cannot be tested in a lab. It's not a science. Gravity can be tested, and it even has a mathematical formula. Evolution is an idea based on assumptions. With that said, I say that evolution shouldn't be taught as fact (IT IS TAUGHT AS FACT). It would be most fair if they showed both sides of the argument
Much of physics cant be tested either. And there are not two legitimate sides to the argument. So far its only one-sided. Until another legitimate theory comes up within the scientific community and is not the result of the religious meddling in science, then evolution is what we have.
And the same could be said for putting all the genetic material for a living being in a box or bottle, you still end up with sludge.
Thats true, but shaking a box is not a natural act.
But if you look at it scientifically, all these things came from the earth to begin with, so the statistics are the same for all.
Yeah, the materials used ultimately are harvested from the earth, but they do not exist naturally. They are based on a manipulation of nature.
t you have not acknowledged the logic, logically science is a religion based on your own definition
how?
But many are while many theories are just assumptions without observations. You cannot observe millions of years
One can observe the effects of millions of years.

 

[RobinD69]

(adren@line;46415)
Yes, there is good reason to believe that many events in the Bible did occur, and ofcourse there is plenty of archaeological research to back this up.However, that means that the Bible is better at being a history book as opposed to a substitute for science.BTW, I was born and raised in the south.Where at, I was raised in central Virginia.What math?From who? what? where? when? how?Statistical math.By "math", I am refering to physics, which concerns itself with the atomic and sub-atomic and the macro-level laws of the universe and processes. Evolution is biology (more wordly). They deal with two different spheres of science and nature.A monkey slowly evolving into modern man over millions of years is nothing that spectacular.But shouldnt there be transitional fossils connecting the monkeys to humans?Much of physics cant be tested either. And there are not two legitimate sides to the argument. So far its only one-sided. Until another legitimate theory comes up within the scientific community and is not the result of the religious meddling in science, then evolution is what we have.Thats true, but shaking a box is not a natural act. Yeah, the materials used ultimately are harvested from the earth, but they do not exist naturally. They are based on a manipulation of nature.how?Look at the definition you shared and really think about it. It is an organized belief system using theories for their faith basis. You must have common faith in what you believe. I dont completely remember your definition, but science fits what I do remember.One can observe the effects of millions of years.
Actually they think they are observing effects of millions of years, but still it is a theory.

 

[adren@line]

(Called 2 Conquer;46616)
This has to be the most outragious thing a science adict could say.
Not really.Me turning on a flash light is not the same as the sun rising. Turning on a faucet is not the same as water flowing over the Niagra falls. Shaking a box is not the same thing as the formation of the earth or other chaotic events that occur in the universe on macro scales.
Oh and I strongly suggest you find a new world religions book to study from and not the one you use now written by a bunch of liberalists that can write a book about something which they themselves have never experienced
Like who?Suggest some. Which books did you read?

 

[adren@line]

(RobinD69;46492)
Actually they think they are observing effects of millions of years, but still it is a theory.
Ive already explained the difference between a scientific theory and a religious theory.If you keep ignoring everything I state and then simply repeat yourself, it solves nothing.One can in no way, shape, or form compare a Biblical "theory" to something such as string theory.