Discussions

Intelligent Design May be Taught Alongside Evolution in Louisiana Schools

Posted by MarkPogue • 10/18/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Evolution, intelligent design, Separation of Church and State

On May 21, 2008, Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southern Louisiana University, testified in the Louisiana state legislature on the dangers hidden in the State’s Science Education Act.

According to Forrest, the Act allows teachers and school boards across the state to teach non-scientific alternatives to evolution including ideas related to Intelligent Design (ID). Forrest says the bill is a backhanded way to get creationism back into schools.

She states the wording of the Act names evolution along with global warming, the origins of human life and human cloning as worthy of “open and objective discussion” — suggesting that evolution is scientifically controversial topic.

A U.S. Supreme Court case in 1987 barred creationism from being taught in U.S. public schools. The justices ruled state aid to religious teachings violated the Establishment Clause of First Amendment. Since then, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute has successfully lobbied that intelligent design is not only scientifically sound, but also that it differs from creationism barred from schools.

Despite Forrest’s testimony, the bill passed easily in Louisiana with a majority House vote of 94 to 3, followed unanimously in the State Senate. Louisiana’s conservative Christian governor Piyush Jindal signed the bill, making it law on June 28.

More at link..
www.dailytech.com/Intelligent+Design+May+be+Taught+Alongside+Evoluti%20on+i...

User Comments

10/18/08

jefftompkins71

There is nothing to teach. I think it's fine if someone wants to hold a personal belief in some idea like creationism/ID, but it's silly to pretend that there's any positive evidence for the idea. The entire premise of it is to shoot holes in the theory of evolution and then declare creationism/ID the "correct" theory by default.

[reply]
1. 10/18/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  This.
10/18/08

pointlessbanter

No wonder why we are getting the shit kicked out of us compared to other countries in math and science.

[reply]
1. 10/18/08
  
  cranelegs
  
  damn you beat me to it! i second pointless's point.
2. 10/20/08
  
  DoubleXGeeks
  
  Exactly. This is what happens when those unqualified are given an equal voice. I don't pretend to know anything about how to teach say.. a second language. So why should my opinion be given equal weight as someone with a linguistic background!
10/18/08

timethief

McCain believes “all points of view should be presented” in the classroom. Obama has said, “I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.”

I assume that if McCain & Palin are elected to office then there will be even further incursion of religion ie. Christianity into government, making a laughing stock of the work the founding fathers did to insure a separation of state and government.
www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/oct/18/ben-bova-science-will-be-vital-issue-ne...

Rather than introducing "creationism" and "intelligent design" into science (biology) classrooms where it clearly does not belong, I think American parents ought to be concerned about their kids learning the basics when it comes to critical thinking and philosophy. IMO it is imperative to educate teens in how to use their logic, so that they gain skills to apply critical thinking at an early age.

[reply]
1. 10/18/08
  
  bradhart
  
  McCain is just a pandering bastard who could care less what is taught in schools none of his family will ever sink so low as public education. I want someone to ask him why that can't be taught along side Hindu creationism in comparative religion rather than trying to compare it science. They always seem to freak out when you call intelligent design religion. I think this one might actually give him a heart attack if he was forced to explain.
10/18/08

rfburnhertz

This is why we home school.

My children get the benefit public school children do not, being exposed to more than one theory and being exposed to the purported evidences for those theories.

From this they make their own decisions as to what they might believe, or if they even care.

[reply]
10/18/08

bradhart

Intelligent design isn't science. Why do you pathetic religious types fear teaching it along side religion where it belongs.

If people want to know why we lose high tech jobs it is because we have coddled the damn evangelical movement and backed away from teaching the things that matter in school. If you want to preach intelligent design do it in your homes and churches, not in places of science...

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  rfburnhertz
  
  Creationism could be taught in relation to theology only but it can be taught in a science class room as well.
  
  Creationism is science and it is taught in my home both in connection with our Christian beliefs and in science class.
2. 10/19/08
  
  bradhart
  
  comment removed by the community.
10/18/08

mrwolf

There's nothing wrong with teaching this in the correct field. It becomes a problem when it is given as fact, closing the student's eyes to any other data and robbing them of their judgement. The end product is not an educated person but someone who will be blind to any data that refutes their believes.

[reply]
10/19/08

ttiger

how to teach an invented theory which almost has no base and no proof..

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  Are you saying, "Well, it COULD HAVE been the Christian god's work," is not science? Le gasp.
2. 10/19/08
  
  ttiger
  
  religion is not science for sure and intelligent design is just another trendy word for creationism ..
  maybe there something behind life and universe who know? but as human being im not intelligent enough to tell if their is a god/creator or not..
3. 10/20/08
  
  bradhart
  
  what is this almost thing
10/19/08

freeatlast

no comment

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  I second that: no comment.
2. 10/19/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  This is not a comment. This is also not a paradox.
10/19/08

mrwolf

If it is going to be a subject in the curriculum it belongs in the field of religion or philosophy not in the field of science. If it is to be mentioned then it has to be labeled as a theory along with the source and other theories.

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  Not to nitpick, but scientific theories explain facts. ID must be labeled as an assertion; irreducible complexity a hypothesis.
2. 10/19/08
  
  pointlessbanter
  
  This is the one thing that drives me nuts when people debate this. They point to evolution as being a theory... and like you said scientific theory is based on fact. It isn't like me coming up with a theory of who ate the last cookie...
3. 10/20/08
  
  bradhart
  
  evolution is a fact we can see and prove. There are plenty of scientific theories about the how and why, but they all accept that it does happen. The problem too many people get stuck on is saying it is all darwin's theory simply because it was the first to try and explain this.
10/19/08

xmarks

If we are forced to teach intelligent design than I think we should also teach the creation story that basically believes we are the flatulence of a giant turtle.

[reply]
10/19/08

bladeaxe4

hmmm

[reply]
10/19/08

farangrakthai

The US will sure never stop to amaze us.
At what point in time did the Americans become so different than the Europeans actually?

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  xmarks
  
  I think we were different, so we left.
  
  For the last 9 years, I have worked for two different European owned companies. It would be interesting to hear how you think we are different.
2. 10/19/08
  
  MarkPogue
  
  You're right! There is a big difference.
10/19/08

farangrakthai

Well, read the the first post...

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  xmarks
  
  Specifically. Compare and contrast.
  
  For example, one European friend said "You Americans!!! You think you are always right!" In those 9 years, some of which had pretty close relations with Europeans, to me it seems as if Europeans always think Americans are wrong.
10/19/08

farangrakthai

This is another topic, Xmarks.
And you're not always wrong, just often.
And the reason is?
Quite a few of you, and unfortunately it includes quite a few of the decision makers, let your religious beliefs influence your decisions.
We're maybe "socialists" in Europe as Mac Cain put it but at least we look down for the decisions we take, not "up"...
End of the off topic part.

[reply]
10/19/08

MarkPogue

Religious beliefs has NO place in public schools! That’s why there are tax-exempt entities like churches, temples, and private schools. We can practice or worship any god we want in our private settings also.

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  bradhart
  
  the problem with people pushing intelligent design actually believe it is science not religion...
10/19/08

mrwolf

@voodoo - hypothesis vs theories. That's exactly my point. The way it is being taught robs the student of the ability to pass judgement over it (probably why Europeans look down on the US). If it were presented as I described earlier then many would reach a sane conclussion. Like realizing that the idea may be as far fetched as the one where we're the product of a turtle's flatulence.

[reply]
10/19/08

SyntaxOfL

That would be so idiotic if they would teach intelligent design. The end of logic.

[reply]
10/19/08

mrwolf

@syntax - exactly my point. The system gets so ridiculous that when these kind of thinking gets enforced logic goes out. For disagreements you either get labeled a heretic or flunked.

[reply]
1. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  In the opposite field, for dissagreement you are labeled of "stupid" or "fanatic", evolutionism is a theory (with many flaws I must say), but the fact that ID cannot be (at this moment) scientifically explained, does not mean that it could not be explained in the future, as many other things previously considered "magical" or "supernatural" now have been explained by science.
2. 10/21/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Flaws in the theory of evolution? Please point them out.
10/19/08

mikeny07

"A U.S. Supreme Court case in 1987 barred creationism from being taught in U.S. public schools"

This does not make any sense really because everything works too well in the universe to really be considered chance luck, including us being here. If you had to vote for chance or creation, most likely you would say creation, based on the odds of everything just happening to work out the way we see it all.

[reply]
10/19/08

mrwolf

It is perfectly ok to believe in something. I have my own set of beliefs. My point is that these are belefs not exact science. You can't prove the validity of these theories the way you can prove that 1+1=2.

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Which is perfectly fine, because you aren't required to submit your privately held beliefs for peer review. It is however the responsibility of a schooling system to ensure that there are those who are empowered to the point where they are able to submit their more robust theories for peer review. They usually end up in science class..
2. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  "Ability to pass peer review", that could be a good definition on where to draw the line on what it should be considered "science" *today* and what shouldn't.
3. 10/21/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  Uh, that's the final step of a scientific theory before it becomes accepted science. =\ There is no "could" about it.
4. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  My point is that there are a lot of facts that cannot be explained through *today's* science but could be explained by future science.
  
  Since a bunch of that facts are pushing to be accepted at peer with today's accepted scientifical theories, in order not to mix in the same "science" bag things that *could* have a chance (even minimal) to be true, like ID, and waste our energies debating things that cannot be confronted on the same plane; it's a good thing that, as a convention, we could draw a line on what to accept as science and what not to.
5. 10/21/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Whether ID is true cannot be investigated by the scientific method. It follows that ID is not a scientific theory and has no place whatsoever in the science class.
  
  If ID gets into the class room, science should be taught in churches.
10/19/08

Dukepro25

They should have an Alternative Science class that students can take as an elective.

Compromise - Problem Solved

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  MarkPogue
  
  Public school = NO religious teachings
  
  Private schools, home, churches = Religion and faith
  
  Problem solved!
2. 10/20/08
  
  Dukepro25
  
  Schools have release time for religious classes.
  
  Why not do the same with this?
  
  I think it would be more than expectable so long as credits are not applied to their overall grade.
  
  People are getting crazy over this for no reason.
3. 10/20/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  Public schools are funded by our tax dollars. As a consequence, public schools must follow the rules of the State. One of these rules is that it cannot be a vehicle for promoting religion.
10/19/08

linkmandx

Creationism isn't science.

Science is a study of natural occurrences, and the creation would have been a supernatural occurrence.

End of story.

[reply]
10/19/08

latewire

I find it funny that one side of this debate is fighting for the right to pass on their beliefs to their children, and other other side is telling them that they're not allowed to teach their own kids what they want.

Creationism is a big pile of crap. However, you're a freakin [member of a German WWII-era political party] if you want to tell parents what they're allowed to teach their kids. Seriously: Shame on you.

Of course, this wouldn't even be an issue if the federal government didn't mandate local curriculum (which is wantonly unconstitutional anyway). Hell, it's not like they're making things any better by doing so.

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  pointlessbanter
  
  That is the dumbest thing I think I have read on here.
  
  There is a separation of church and state. If you want to teach your kids your religion and other things that are based on your beliefs nobody is stopping you.
  
  But to have creationism allowed or even mandated to be taught in classrooms is totally unacceptable. Nobody is saying you can't teach your children your beliefs... If you want to teach them your beliefs at home do it. But to force a school to teach your beliefs over science is idiotic.
2. 10/19/08
  
  latewire
  
  >But to have creationism allowed or even mandated to be taught in classrooms is totally unacceptable. Nobody is saying you can't teach your children your beliefs... If you want to teach them your beliefs at home do it. But to force a school to teach your beliefs over science is idiotic
  
  My tax dollars, my community, my kids, my rules. This is the way the educational system USED to be, and that's why it sucks now. Why does someone who wants their kid to go to a religious school have to pay when they've already paid (usually property tax) for school? They should get a tax credit or a a voucher, but they usually don't.
  
  This church and state (church and school) thing is quite a new idea (relative to the age of this country), especially in its implementation.. I'd advise you to look it up.
10/19/08

poisonapplesauce

too funny

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  timethief
  
  comment removed by the community.
2. 10/20/08
  
  poisonapplesauce
  
  comment removed by the community.
3. 10/20/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  If your religion doesn't let you keep your religion to yourself, it's an abusive practice.
4. 10/20/08
  
  poisonapplesauce
  
  perhaps you didn't read, I ALWAYS keep my stuff to myself. Go find me a thread where I have ever preached. As I said, I could care less about public schools or saving people. I'm not a witness and it is not my place. Doesn't that fit in with what you just said? I don't preach, therefore I am not "abusive". So that comment seems a bit misplaced
5. 10/20/08
  
  morgantj
  
  It's not a concern to you and you don't know anyone that finds a concern with what they teach in public schools? WOW! just WOW!
6. 10/20/08
  
  timethief
  
  comment removed by the community.
7. 10/20/08
  
  poisonapplesauce
  
  comment removed by the community.
8. 10/20/08
  
  timethief
  
  @poisonapplesauce
  I had no idea that you have embraced the the belief that dinosaurs and humans co-existed on earth. I assumed you were by far too intelligent to embrace such an patently asinine belief, given the fossil record. www.tyrrellmuseum.com/
  
  You have alleged that my laughter at such a nonsensical belief amounted to trivialization.
  
  I DO NOT apologize for not giving the Epic of Gilgamesh, the origin of "the Flood" myth ripped off from the ancient Sumerians and included in the Old Testament (Noah's myth) more attention. Anyone who believes such tripe ought to have their head examined.
  
  I likewise DO NOT apologize for not giving serious attention to the ridiculous belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on earth a mere 6,000 years ago. Anyone who believes such tripe ought to have their head examined.
9. 10/20/08
  
  timethief
  
  University of Utah geologists identified an amazing concentration of dinosaur footprints that they call “a dinosaur dance floor,” located in a wilderness on the Arizona-Utah border where there was a sandy desert oasis 190 million years ago. www.newswise.com/articles/view/545455/
10. 10/20/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  comment removed by the community.
11. 10/20/08
  
  timethief
  
  @voodokobra
  She's not only posting to this thread she's is sending me hate mail in my shoutbox.
  I just received this:
  "poisonapplesauce said:
  you are such an intentionally offensive, rude two face shell of a woman. I truly hope someone beats the hell out of you in a dark alley. You are a disgusting coward and I hope that you didn't breed as that would be tragic."
  
  And she claims to be a Christian ... sheesh! We all know that there is no support whatsoever found in the New Testament teachings ascribed to Jesus that uphold violence in any way shape or form.
12. 10/20/08
  
  MarkPogue
  
  @ timethief
  
  Then they wonder why we call them on their hypocrisy.
10/19/08

mikeny07

Creationism to me is just based on odds. It had nothing to do with teaching the bible in school.

We all use odds for everything else in life on a daily basis. How come when it comes to the creation of the universe we toss them out the window?

It could have happend by chance everything but odds are against it. So why can't we teach both? It has nothing to do with religion.

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  urikalish
  
  Isn't that a bit like tossing a coin 1000000 times, taking the end result whatever that result may be and asking what were the odds for that exact sequence to happen?
2. 10/19/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  It's science class, which is based on epistemology. It's not about what is possible or even probable, it's about what is plausible and supported by evidence.
3. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  For a scientific theory to become a fact, it must be able to be reproduced, that is, if we apply the same factors, under the same conditions, the result has to be always the same. 1+1=2, E=mv2, a=d/t2 and so on.
  
  Now I wonder why nobody questioned that no one single experiment attempting to re-create the earth's primal conditions has been able to make (don't want to use the word *create*) a form of life?
4. 10/21/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Evolution is not a theory that explains the origins of life. Evolution has been replicated in the lab, in species as diverse as bacteria and dogs from wolves.
  
  Evolution is a fact like gravity.
  
  The ID of the flying spaghetti monster is just as valid as the ID of the Bible, or the creation myths of Norse mythology, or anything you or I can suck out of our thumbs. Is this creative writing class, or science class?
  
  For a theory that explains the origins of life, try abiogenesis.
5. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  As a matter of chance, yes, it could be said that the flying spaghetti monster ID can be trated the same that the Bible ID, but that's just an attemp to ridicule the Bible, which wrong or right is a book in which the life and beliefs of millions of people is built up, and that's an action of disrespect to all that people.
  
  I'm not talking about the Bible ID, just stating that we should not close our minds to the posibility that something that *today* cannot be scientifically proven, *could* be more than a theory.
6. 10/21/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Well, belief that the earth is round is an insult to many who believe that the earth is flat.
  
  Should we teach that the earth is flat in geography just to keep them happy? Or should we encourage people to deal with reality?
7. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  Nowadays it's more than proven that earth is not flat, it's not a theory. We have pictures from outer space, we have measured it diameter, and know a lot of data about our planet.
  
  Evolution is still a theory. A theory which explains very good a lot of things, but as every theory could be replaced as soon as tomorrow by another theory or by a proven fact.
  
  And coming back to your question, what we know is a fact is what must be taught, but calling names to people whose beliefs go against proven facts is disrespectful and is not going to help to teach them what it's fact and what's not.
8. 10/22/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Insert rant about the semantic differences between the word theory in every day use, and a theory in the scientific sense of the word.
  
  A theory in the everyday use of the word means a conjecture or a speculation.
  
  A theory in the scientific use of the word means you can bank on it. Most scientists agree that it is true. Evolution has been proven. The theory of how and why it happens is still incomplete.
10/19/08

mikeny07

To me everything seems like it was designed from the start with a plan in mind. If the big bang created everything we have now, then it is the best designer we have ever seen. Must be intelligent
That is just my view on the entire thing.

[reply]
10/19/08

timethief

America was once considered to be a "leading" nation in the world but that's no longer the case. Millions of men, women and children live in poverty and have no health care. Millions of children are undereducated when compared to those in other states, let alone, other countries.
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/do-you-belive-that-health-care-is-a-right...
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/do-you-belive-that-health-care-is-a-right...

So maybe it's high time for Americans to consider why teaching "creationism" and "intelligent design" in science (biology) classrooms where they clearly do not belong, is not an issue in other "leading" nations.

In this information age, globalization is a reality and it makes no sense at all to confuse American youth with regard to what the scientific method is and how to apply it. IMO it's time for Americans to tell the religious right wing meddlers to stop tampering with public school education curriculum, and to insist that kids in public schools are taught the basics when it comes to critical thinking and how to use their logic. And maybe it's time for the extreme religious right to refocus their zeal and direct it to feeding the hungry and healing the sick.

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  latewire
  
  Creationism is not what's making America dumb, it's centralized power over the educational system.
2. 10/19/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Or on teaching the hungry to feed themselves. Which is the same thing as fixing the education system.
3. 10/19/08
  
  pointlessbanter
  
  Um centralized power???? Schools are run on a local level.
4. 10/19/08
  
  MarkPogue
  
  @ latewire
  
  Centralized power? Care to explain that...or is that conservative lingo for "communism"???
5. 10/19/08
  
  latewire
  
  Sure: There are huge federal and state guidelines for education and how each school has to be run. There is tons of bureaucracy to do just about everything. Districts are huge and focus on expanding current schools rather than building new ones to support growing population bases.
  
  The Jeffersonian (as in Tom Jefferson) education system (or his idea, anyway) was actually paid for and run by the people in a very small area called a "ward." Small groups of people determining how best to educate their kids and how to pay for it. The idea here is that the smaller the group of parents, the fewer ideas and therefore the less the disagreement. You can't satisfy everyone.
  
  Currently, these expanding districts grow to encompass larger populations of students and eventually become cumbersome and bogged down in administration. My old high school had 4,500 people when I graduated (class of 750). Now it has around 6,000 just 7 years later. In Japan they even have rules about the maximum number of students in a school.
  
  There's a reason why most of the world pays less per student and gets more out of education: it's because of the top-down method for really doing nothing more than babysitting kids. Of the kids that come to school, make sure they have a classroom to go to and SOMEBODY there to watch them.
  
  As far as creationism: For F$#@ssake, if kids were learning what is ALREADY IN THE CURRICULUM, they'd do awesome on SAT/ACT's, EVEN IF THEY WERE FORCED TO LEARN CREATIONISM AS WELL.
  
  I guess I should mention this: I am IN MEDICAL SCHOOL RIGHT NOW and there are creationists in the classroom with me... they may not be the smartest people in the class, but it obviously doesn't make a huge difference as far as biochemistry and anything else.
  
  I'm not even christian here, people. It just bugs me people are getting worked up about creationism and somehow thinking it matters... at all...
6. 10/21/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  SAT/ACT scores aren't everything, latewire.
10/19/08

mrwolf

@timethief - agreed. The basic flaw is in imparting certain beliefs and data that can be expelled at will during a test. Instead more time should be invested in teaching students how to think, how to take a problem, break it into all its parts and solve it. Maybe reach some sane conclussion and be able to defend this with facts instead of narrow minded thinking.

[reply]
10/19/08

mikeny07

If someone was brought into this world today and didn't have any beliefs on anything yet, and you told them that everything they see here on Earth, including us, and in the universe, happened by chance, they would think you are crazy.

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  If you told someone evolution happened by chance, they'd think you're crazy too.
2. 10/19/08
  
  MarkPogue
  
  Not as crazy and immature as the one creator myth! When's the puppet show?
10/19/08

morgantj

If ID is going to be an elective so should "Stork Theory" and all the others.

[reply]
1. 10/19/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Yes, I mean it is unlikely but you can't completely disprove it.
2. 10/19/08
  
  morgantj
  
  "it" being?
3. 10/19/08
  
  MarkPogue
  
  @ flamingpoodle
  
  Nor can anyone disprove elves or Bigfoot. Is a belief itself enough to validate an existence or fact? NO!!!!
4. 10/21/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Bigfoot must be true, because I downloaded the photo off the interwebs.
5. 10/21/08
  
  morgantj
  
  You're the one.
10/21/08

amtelemarket

Reading the whole thread, it seems to me that there are few attemps to understand each other's possitions. Just plain bigotry from all parties.

Maybe ID is a complete fallacy, maybe not, maybe only up to a certain degree. Stating that the only truth is on the text books is doing the same thing that in other ages the scientifical stablishment did with people like the very Darwin.

I don't remember now who was the one who said that there is nothing more conservative than a text book. Once the knowledge gets promoted to written and published words, it takes a rank of "holyness" which cannot be confronted without being attacked with sarcasm, and name calling from the stablishment and from the ones who just repeat what it's on the books without givin it a second thought.

A mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open.

[reply]
1. 10/21/08
  
  morgantj
  
  Just be careful its not so open that your brain falls out.
2. 10/21/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  The fallacy here is that ID is a real, valid, sound, scientific theory. It is not. It is not an alternative to evolution. ID has never been peer reviewed. Just like we are laughing at the notion that people used to believe that the earth is flat or that the earth was the centre of the universe, we will laugh at the notion of ID in a few hundred years.
  
  A mind is also like a muscle and it needs regular exercise. If the 'holiness' of established scientific facts is bothering anyone, then rather focus on highlighting the shortcomings of existing theories so that fertile young minds can start working on something constructive. Teaching superstition to young scientists is not productive.
3. 10/21/08
  
  RTBjr73
  
  "A mind is also like a muscle and it needs regular exercise."
  
  Oh, that is so true!!!!!
4. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  @morgantj LOL, Even though I come from a scientific background, there is some mystical voice inside which keeps telling me that there is something more beyond science.
  
  @flamingpoodle "we will laugh at the notion of ID in a few hundred years." How can you be so sure? Do you know something that the rest of us don't?
  
  From what I can see, in this type of threads at BC there is a pattern which reduces everything to a conflict scientist/atheist/liberals against empyrical/religious/conservatives.
  
  I don't agree on teaching religion on public schools, but what I have read about ID (and not talking about the finger of God here) makes sense. Every new discovery of science, instead of taking us closer of total knowledge, just makes us realize that there is much more that we don't know.
  
  Maybe you are right and in a few hundred years everybody will be laughing about ID, but there is a chance that you are wrong. For me is easier to believe that there could be some sort of intelligent being or energy or whatever behind our existence, that to believe that we are the fruit of trillions of random atom collisions.
5. 10/21/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Let me put it this way:
  
  You go to the doctor and the doctor says you are violently ill. You have 2 days left to live, but there is good news. He has 2 antidotes. The one has been tested and found effective, even though there are a few side effects. The other hasn't been tested, but there is a slight possibility it might cure your disease. Nobody has tested it, because it doesn't qualify as an ordinary medicine and thus doesn't get into the medical trials.
  
  Which antidote would you take?
6. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  The tested one, of course. But that's not invalidating the second one, which is not tested *yet*
7. 10/21/08
  
  morgantj
  
  For me is easier to believe that there could be some sort of intelligent being or energy or whatever behind our existence, that to believe that we are the fruit of trillions of random atom collisions.
  
  For me, it is easier for me to follow the evidence. There is evidence that we are the fruit of trillions of random atom collisions. There is no evidence of a intelligent being that created everything.
8. 10/22/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Of course not. But just because something hasn't been invalidated, does not make it as valid as something which has.
10/21/08

voodooKobra

Regarding abiogenesis:

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/old_scientists_never_clean_out.php

[reply]
1. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  I'm going to read that, thanks
2. 10/21/08
  
  amtelemarket
  
  I've read the post and the comments. Very interesting appart from the same old fight between creationists and darwinist. To state my opinion I will cite one of the comments with which I fully agree (and by quoting it, I will spare the pain of translating my thoughts to english in a way that could make some sense)
  
  These results are very interesting indeed. I am rather excited about them, and what if any further investigations take place in the search for early formations of life. However, this science alone does not necessarily debunk any and all forms of theism.
  We can all certainly agree that all of the elements used in this experiment are naturally found on the earth and furthermore the overall universe, and that the conditions that these elements were put through also exist on the planet. So these results are a positive steps towards a potential understanding of how life started.
  However, this is just a steping stone to the beginings of "life as we understand it", and in no way has any speculative theories with regards to how existsance started.
  I personally have a certain level of faith, although it is not to any of the prescribed organized views. I also have a very strong sense of scientific rigor and support the experimental process. It is here the science and faith diverge. One is not the other and cannot be compared as such. The debate between darwinism and creationism is an argument between science and philosophy (at best).
  I find it utterly insulting that a scientific minded indivudual is not open to ideas that they know not the answer to. I find it unscientific that the so called scientists are unwilling to diverge from a single theory and look at other theories (as it stands Darwinism is a good theory but hasn't been proven... and cannot be).
  The dangers that I've seen in modern scientists is almost the same as the danger I've seen in modern "beleivers", and that is that they cannot and will not acknowledge anything from the other camp, even when both camps are truely in the dark.
  My real question is: Without knowing how the Universe started (if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory -- that was the start), what made it all start. Was it non-existant chemicals reacting with non-existant energies in a non-existant space? In sciencetific terms, the universe has it's own inertia, it is ever growing. What gave the initial universe the energy to start? This is where neither science nor faith can provide an answer. Faith however does provide an theory... I haven't heard any from the scientific camps (not saying that there aren't)...
  Science is a great thing for the masses, but faith is a great thing for the individual... I believe with my scientific mind in darwinism, and in a "some-kinda-form-creator-of-the-overall-universe" as I do with my faith based heart. Logic dictates that something exists above us, possibly in one of the other UNOBSERVABLE 23 dimensions that science has concluded as a result of some of the more recent universal theories (String theory comes to mind).
  I don't follow the literatures as written by common day creationists, they are too simple and give up when things get tough... but pure atheism seems too random...
  Once again, this was a very cool discovery...
  
  And that's all for today. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
  Anthony
10/21/08

halvoropsal

Terrible idea to have I.D. in schools at all! Give me a break! I should blog on this one since it is rearing its ugly head again!

[reply]
10/21/08

halvoropsal

Terrible idea to have I.D. in schools at all! Give me a break! I should blog on this one since it is rearing its ugly head again!

[reply]
10/22/08

flamingpoodle

I got that from here:
africans.co.za/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1316

[reply]
1. 10/23/08
  
  voodooKobra
  
  Magic Arsonist*. - Fixed
10/23/08

MarkPogue

[reply]
1. 10/29/08
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  Excellent!
  
  To anyone who struggles with the concept of evolution, or who thinks that creationism is even a viable alternative theory, read this book:
  
  www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
  
  You can read it online for free.
8/10/09

gerryPlanetEarth

It is almost comical reading the comments of people who worship the theory of evolution...

There is an intelligent design to all the life forms on Planet Earth...

[reply]
8/10/09

gerryPlanetEarth

It is almost comical reading the comments of people who worship the theory of evolution...

There is an intelligent design to all the life forms on Planet Earth...

[reply]
1. 8/10/09
  
  flamingpoodle
  
  The mere fact that ID is even considered to be taught in schools testifies that intelligence is a rare trait.