Intelligent design belongs in Church not Biology class.

[MODU]

It belongs in schools but not the biology class

Dave

So does evolution due to the fact that evolution has more holes in it then a block of swiss cheese.

That's why it needs to be taught correctly.  There is a difference between Macro-evolution (the theory which says that everything began with one cell) and Micro-evolution (the science which covers actual evolution which we are able to observe and analyze).  One is theory, one is fact. 

[KillerPollo]

It belongs in schools but not the biology class

Dave

So does evolution due to the fact that evolution has more holes in it then a block of swiss cheese.

That's why it needs to be taught correctly.  There is a difference between Macro-evolution (the theory which says that everything began with one cell) and Micro-evolution (the science which covers actual evolution which we are able to observe and analyze).  One is theory, one is fact. 

the thing is... which one? that's what is puzzling all those Kansas freaks.

[??????????]

It belongs in schools but not the biology class

Dave

So does evolution due to the fact that evolution has more holes in it then a block of swiss cheese.

That's why it needs to be taught correctly.  There is a difference between Macro-evolution (the theory which says that everything began with one cell) and Micro-evolution (the science which covers actual evolution which we are able to observe and analyze).  One is theory, one is fact. 

Most Christians (even evangelicals I know) accept Micro-evolution as a fact. Its Macro-evolution w/which they are strongly against.

[MODU]

So why don't we, as the elightened group that we are, issue a statement to the press to tell the two extreme groups out there to get over themselves and show them how to teach the material?  Teach Micro-evolution in biology (where it belongs), and Macro-evolution and Christian Creationism in History, where it belongs?  That way, the "science" is taught in science classes, and myths/theories are taught in History classes where it belongs. 

[??????????]

So why don't we, as the elightened group that we are, issue a statement to the press to tell the two extreme groups out there to get over themselves and show them how to teach the material?  Teach Micro-evolution in biology (where it belongs), and Macro-evolution and Christian Creationism in History, where it belongs?  That way, the "science" is taught in science classes, and myths/theories are taught in History classes where it belongs. 

The problem is out of the the three ideas we have no idea which one is science/myth/theory. But I'm pretty sure Macro evolution is complete bunk.

[MODU]

So why don't we, as the elightened group that we are, issue a statement to the press to tell the two extreme groups out there to get over themselves and show them how to teach the material?  Teach Micro-evolution in biology (where it belongs), and Macro-evolution and Christian Creationism in History, where it belongs?  That way, the "science" is taught in science classes, and myths/theories are taught in History classes where it belongs. 

The problem is out of the the three ideas we have no idea which one is science/myth/theory. But I'm pretty sure Macro evolution is complete bunk.

Hmmm . . . interesting.  How about this:  If God truly exists, and one day he shows that he is real and did in fact make the world, would it then be considered science, or just history?

[??????????]

So why don't we, as the elightened group that we are, issue a statement to the press to tell the two extreme groups out there to get over themselves and show them how to teach the material?  Teach Micro-evolution in biology (where it belongs), and Macro-evolution and Christian Creationism in History, where it belongs?  That way, the "science" is taught in science classes, and myths/theories are taught in History classes where it belongs. 

The problem is out of the the three ideas we have no idea which one is science/myth/theory. But I'm pretty sure Macro evolution is complete bunk.

Hmmm . . . interesting.  How about this:  If God truly exists, and one day he shows that he is real and did in fact make the world, would it then be considered science, or just history?

Option 3 : Philisophical

[MODU]

Option 3 : Philisophical

hahaha

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Terms like macro-evolution and Darwinists are only used by creationists.

[ragnar]

Terms like macro-evolution and Darwinists are only used by creationists.

Macroevolution is a scientific word creation of new species throw evolution and mutation, while microevolution is a scientific word for genetic inherience from the parents to the offspring.
You right about the word Darwinist.

[MODU]

Terms like macro-evolution and Darwinists are only used by creationists.

Darwinist, maybe, but not Darwinism.  Darwinism is a term used to define evolution in regards to the explanation of Darwin.  Micro and Macro evolution are scientific terms. 

[MissCatholic]

More people are attacking Darwinism than Intelligent Design.

The discussion should not be why Darwinism should or shouldn't be in Science Classes. The debate should be WHY should Intellignet Design be in biology class when it is a theological idea.

[MODU]

More people are attacking Darwinism than Intelligent Design.

The discussion should not be why Darwinism should or shouldn't be in Science Classes. The debate should be WHY should Intellignet Design be in biology class when it is a theological idea.

We've already said (and pretty much agreed) that it shouldn't.  My example of God himself actually coming down to Earth to prove that he created everything still wouldn't put it into a science class (since magic/divine power is not science), but rather history.  Darwinism (or more accurately Micro-evolution), on the other hand, needs to be taught correctly. 

[MissCatholic]

...alright... can we set some ground rules?

1- evolution is not "just a theory". it is supported within the fossil record. it makes quantifiable and verifiable predictions. those predictions have been quantified and verified to such an extent that evolution is looked upon as the bedrock of modern biology.

2- just because a bunch of scientists say they believe something doesn't make it scientifically valid. that's not how science works. you remember sixth grade algebra? remember how you couldn't just write down the answer and expect full credit? remember how you guessed the right answer but didn't get credit because your teacher said you had to "show your work"? yeah... science is kinda like that. until the ID people "show their work"... it's not science.

3- evolution does NOT violate the second law of thermodynamics. save yourself the embarrassment of posting this. your argument is flawed in so many ways it's just rather embarrassing that you'd even feel comfortable positing it.

4- "irreducible complexity" is not an immediate proof of ID. it is a proof of the limits of our knowledge SO FAR... furthermore, there are numerous refutations of the notion that irreducible complexities cannot arise by darwinian means. so don't bring that argument up.

5- the fact that a lot of scientists believe in god has NOTHING to do with science. they may believe in god, but they don't (the good ones, at least) pull him into their research because they can't quantify god. they can't prove him, so they keep their faith to themselves. a lot more christians should follow that example.

6- check out talkorigins to see if your pro-ID argument has already been refuted. in all likelihood, it already has. if it's been refuted, there's really no point in posting it, is there?

7- please don't spout any self-assured, bible informed dogma here... you're not convincing anyone. whether or not you believe "there is a creator and you're going to find out what happens to people who don't believe in him"... that's entirely irrelevant.

7a- your faith is just that: YOUR FAITH... two components to that. the first: YOUR. this is implying possession on your part. as in, it is yours and not that of someone else. that is to say, it is yours and not mine. the second: FAITH... faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. it is not quantifiable. it's not even justifiable, really. it's something you hope or believe. that's NOT science. so we have YOUR FAITH... that is: a gut feeling or belief belonging to you... thus, it's not universal, and it's not science... so it's got no place in the discussion, huh?

...alright... with those rules out of the way... LET'S GET IT ON!!!!

...what's that, you say? i've taken away the grounds upon which you'd argue ID?
...well, hell... if you can't play by the rules, then you've got no place in the game, do you?

...guess you'd just better move your ID over to a philosophy class then, huh

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Terms like macro-evolution and Darwinists are only used by creationists.

Rubbish. Darwinism, Darwinists etc. were first said by Alfred Russel Wallace.

[MODU]

1- evolution is not "just a theory". it is supported within the fossil record. it makes quantifiable and verifiable predictions. those predictions have been quantified and verified to such an extent that evolution is looked upon as the bedrock of modern biology.

It depends on what aspect of evolution you are talking about.  (See above discussion) . . . Micro or Macro evolution?  We have fossil records as well as current day observations of Micro evolution.  We don't, on the other hand, have any clear evidence of Macro evolution, especially from a single cell into any species.

[color1]

If I gave you a 500 million transistor chip, would you say it evolutioned by Darwinian evolution or was it designed?   If I gave you a ten transistor chip from 40 years ago, would you say it evolved or was designed?
   DNA is more complex than that chip.  I wonder is it Darwinian evolution or design?

If one MUST believe that a 10 transistor (or even a 1 transistor) chip was created by design and not by evolution, then what's wrong with believing that DNA was created by a designer - GOD?
 
   The DESIGNER created a coding system that can adapt to the environment so that the creature could survive even as conditions changed.

   It seems that complex life (creating oxygen) existed as far back as the rocks can show around 3.7 billion years ago.  How did this happen?  Evolution could in no way, not, nada created these complex organisms in 0/instantaneous time.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Looks like we've got a scientist out there!

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Maybe we should give alchemy equal time to chemistry in classes as well. Teach the controversy!

[Torie]

If I gave you a 500 million transistor chip, would you say it evolutioned by Darwinian evolution or was it designed?   If I gave you a ten transistor chip from 40 years ago, would you say it evolved or was designed?
   DNA is more complex than that chip.  I wonder is it Darwinian evolution or design?

If one MUST believe that a 10 transistor (or even a 1 transistor) chip was created by design and not by evolution, then what's wrong with believing that DNA was created by a designer - GOD?
 
   The DESIGNER created a coding system that can adapt to the environment so that the creature could survive even as conditions changed.

   It seems that complex life (creating oxygen) existed as far back as the rocks can show around 3.7 billion years ago.  How did this happen?  Evolution could in no way, not, nada created these complex organisms in 0/instantaneous time.

Ah, jumping from the inorganic to the organic for purposes of analogous argument, is sort of like trying to leap over the Grand Canyon, and count on the momentum of your jump to get you to the opposite rim.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Bumping a thread from 2005 by Miss Catholic is interesting.

[Ban my account ffs!]

DNA is complex.  Therefore it had to be created by God. 

What an argument.

[TJ in Oregon]

The validity of the argument is irrelevant, only whether or not it is capable of being disproven. A designer cannot be disproven by any experiment I can imagine, so it's not science.

Don't mistake that for a disbelief in God or a disbelief that God created humans, I believe both. But that's not science. I don't think science or anyone else apart from science can validly claim that all knowledge is scientific in nature and/or should be taught in science class. That's why we have other subjects and they convey truth and useful information in different ways.

Given the quandries that will arise from the situation, I do think a discussion on exactly what science is, what it tells us, and what it doesn't has a place in science class. Maybe a day on Karl Popper. Like it or not this issue has to be dealt with somehow in a science class because people come in with all sorts of ideas about the topic. But that doesn't make intelligent design science.

[Torie]

I agree with TJ's text in its entirety.

[kobidobidog]

Biology class deals with whatever in this world after the fall of Adam and Eve. All of it is here for people to use.