Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by shannonL:
I don't need to have the bible proven scientifically either. Evidently some people do have that need or they wouldn't be trying to reconcile the two all the time.
Evolution to me is man's best shot at being able to understand our coming into existance using his finite brain. It takes a greater leap of faith to believe evolution than it does Gen 1 account.
Evolution is a theory the Bible is fact. I don't have to ever worry about there ever being a theory that will be examined that will have more evidence than Creation because the Bible says we were created. The Bible will never be discedited because it is God's Word. It is infallible, it is inerrant. If it isn't then I must have a fallible, errant faith. I don't though because the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
How can man be responsible for his sin if he simply evolved and wasn't created? He should evolve into a better type of man over time. If man is constantly evolving then there is no need for redemption. He should just "get better"

The Bible says we were created and as long as that remains a question of faith, as you described for yourself, it requires no proof. When Creation is tested alongside Evolution in a high school Biology or Geology class it will require proof. That's why I'm against teaching Creation as a scientific theory.

 

[JWI]

Actually, many believe the whale hip bones are used in reproduction, and are not useless, vestigial bones at all.


http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask00/0698.html

By the way, this link came from Wheelock College, not some creationist website.

http://www.wheelock.edu/

Many evolutionists are aware of this, but continue to ignore this evidence to support their belief in evolution.

 

[JWI]

And here is an interesting article about whale hips and legs from a creationist website. Good reading.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp

 

[UTEOTW]

That would be fine and dandy if "vestigal" meant "useless." Unluckily for you, it does not. It means that it no longer serves its original function and generally implies that it has degenerated.

So let's look at the vestigal whale pelvis. It is now simply used as an attachment point for some minor muscles. But look at the design of the pelvis. A pelvis is a very complex piece that normally fascilitates walking, primarily, but also is involved in many other functions. The pelvis of the whale has lost all of these functions yet still maintains a complexity far greater than needed for its modern reduced role. If the whale had been intelligently designed from scratch, then it would be logical to assume that the anchor for these muscles would have been designed for that specific task. But instead we that, as expected in evolution, an existing part has been recycled to be used in a new though reduced task. That it still retains the characteristics to be recognized as a pelvis shows us its evolutionary origins. You have chosen a bad example.

Not only have you chosen a bad example, but your obfuscation becomes more apparent. YOu have raised here a red herring to distract from the question that goes back to the OP. If you wish to teach ID/YE, just what is it that you wish to teach? Tell us how you recognize intelligent design as opposed to unintelligent design.(You just gave us a good example of unintellignet design.) Tell us what structures could not possibly have been the result of evolutionary processes and support your assertion. No out of context quotes. No secondary sources. No incredulity. Give us your positive case for design that is testible and falsifiable.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by JWI:
Actually, many believe the whale hip bones are used in reproduction, and are not useless, vestigial bones at all.


http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask00/0698.html

By the way, this link came from Wheelock College, not some creationist website.

http://www.wheelock.edu/

Many evolutionists are aware of this, but continue to ignore this evidence to support their belief in evolution.

here's the alledge "use" quote:

That is a very good question! Whales have a small pelvis (hips) that is no
longer attached to the vertebral column (in other mammals, like us, the
pelvis is fused to the vertebrae). Their pelvis is also much smaller than it
would have been for their ancestors. Interestingly, many investigators have
termed the whale pelvis is vestigal, meaning that it is no longer functional
or useful for the whale, and it is merely leftover from the slow
evolutionary process. A more accurate description is that the pelvis serves
a very important function for the reproductive physiology of the whale.
Several small muscles attach to the little pelvis bone and are partly
responsible for making reproduction possible.

This is nonsense of the highest order. First of all, there are a few whales - such as the grey whale - that completely lack these vestigal bones. My goodness, how do they reproduce? They do just fine!

Secondly, merely because they attach, they are considered essential. But the truth is that it would be impossible for them to remain at all if they didn't attach to something . . . so concluding that mere attachment proves they are necessary is false. The organs they attach to could be attached to simpler cartelidge or muscle which is already present in abundance, as they do in a few species of whale anyway.


Third, dissection of living whales shows not only the bones but the muscles that form imbedded leg structures.

Sorry, this idea that those scraps of bones have any real reason today is just whistling in the dark.

 

[JWI]

What would I like to see ID teach?

Exactly what it puts forth. That the amazing complexity of living organisms shows intelligent design.

That evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible.

You could leave it up to the student to determine the source of this intelligence.

Science should not rule out the possibility of a supernatural intelligence if that's what the evidence points to.

"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?"
-Dr. Wernher von Braun.

Real science proved that a higher intelligence must exist to von Braun.

But I guess he's not qualified to make such comments in your opinion??

UTEOTW says quotes are dishonest and not evidence. That is absurd. Quotes are used as evidence every single day in courtroom trials.

Ever hear of the Watergate tapes????

How were the cigarette companies prosecuted? Mostly from old documents and statements that showed they knew nicotine was addictive.

Statements and quotes are valid and very important evidence.

You have hundreds of quotes from evolutionists admitting serious problems with evolution. Many have even said creationism and ID support the real evidence far better than evolution.

Why is it wrong for a student to hear this??

I am not against a student hearing both sides, or even additional theories.

But for evolutionists to try to keep people from hearing alternate evidence and theories is completely dishonest and unscientific too.

Thankfully, some states like Kansas are considering altering the definition of science to include the possibility of the supernatural.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156596,00.html

Von Braun would have no problems with this, science showed strong evidence for a creator to him. Einstein also said that the Universe must have been created by a super intelligence.

And Einstein did not believe in the Christian God as we understand it. So you cannot say that teaching ID will lead to any particular religious faith.

 

[JWI]

I like this article about Kansas redefining science. Actually, Kansas has looked toward Ohio which already has language which might consider evidence for ID as scientific.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/reason_theoretical_050218.html

You gotta love the vicious assault against ID by the writer, and how he claims how scientifically proven evolution is.

Until you notice he is Southern Director for the Council for Secular Humanism.

Yeah, he sounds like a real scientist.

 

[UTEOTW]

"What would I like to see ID teach?

Exactly what it puts forth. That the amazing complexity of living organisms shows intelligent design."

That is only assertion. I have heard you make that assertion before.

Now, pretend you are a biology teacher. What will your ID/YE lesson plan look like?

You are completely avoiding the question. Still.

Now, once again, what is it that you would have in the ID lesson plan. You say that "the amazing complexity of living organisms shows intelligent design." That is only assertion. By what criteria do you judge that organisms are the result of intelligent design and not unintelligentdesign? YOu already gave us a great example of unintelligent design today.

Tell us by what criteria we judge. Test us the facts. Tell us how to test your hypothesis or how it could be falsified. Show us your positive evidence.

Thus far we have only assertions. And I am beginning to get a glimpse that seems to indicate that assertion is all that you have. If you had a good example of clear intelligent design based on something more than incredulity, surely you would have provided it by now. If you had something that could not possibly be the result of natural design processes, surely you woud have given it to us by now.

Even you know that you cannot point to one demonstrable case of unequivocal intelligent design.

 

[UTEOTW]

"That evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible."

Another oft made assertion without a shred of support. Your "mathematics" always assume odds by supposing that everything had to come together at once without any selective pressures and that there are no other possible answers. Both have been shown to be huge mistakes. For instance, you have been given citations where studies of theoretical proteins show that huge numbers could potentially serve a given function.

"Real science proved that a higher intelligence must exist to von Braun.

But I guess he's not qualified to make such comments in your opinion??"

I, too, am convinced of a "higher intelligence." But that is not the issue. The question is whether you can make a case for ID/YE being actual science.

And von Braun is perfectly capable of stating such an opinion. We all are. But as we are discussing evolution, it is a fallacious appeal to authority to suggest that he has anything meaningful to say about biology.

"UTEOTW says quotes are dishonest and not evidence. That is absurd. Quotes are used as evidence every single day in courtroom trials."

And science is not conducted in the courtroom.

You can quote all you want, but it is the underlying data that matters in this subject. Quotes do not count as evidence. Now there are appropriate times to use quotes. I often use quotes myself.

The problem comes when quotes are lifted from their context. If you change the meaning of a statement by removing the context, or if you try and make someone have an opinion that is not their true opinion or if you make up quotes, that is dishonest and inappropriate.

I think that deep down you recognize this. I have long requested that if you are going to quote and if a reasonable person might doubt whether the quoted person actually holds the opinion that you are attributing to them, that you should provide a link where the quote can be read in its original context.

Since you steadfastly refuse to do so, it is my opinion that you have seen the dozens of examples that I have provided where your quotes are found to be inaccurate when placed in context and that you have correctly decided that it is not in your best interest to provide such references because you realize that the meaning changes when they are put into context and destroys your point.

"You have hundreds of quotes from evolutionists admitting serious problems with evolution."

No, you have hundreds of quotes where the opinions of scientists are misrepresented and the meaning of their statements is changed by removing the context of the original.

"I am not against a student hearing both sides, or even additional theories."

There still is not a second side to hear. Evolution is the only theory out there that explains our observations. You make this abundantly clear by refusing to tell us your evidence for design.

"Von Braun would have no problems with this, science showed strong evidence for a creator to him. Einstein also said that the Universe must have been created by a super intelligence."

Since we are guessing about what dead people might have done, I'll go ahead and wager that neither would have dared let anything other than methodological naturalism creep into how they did their science. They may have both personally recognized God, though I think you should check your Einstein reference more closely, but neither would have attributed any scientific observations to the supernatural.

 

[ronthedisciple]

[/QUOTE]Frederich Nietzsche said "God is dead", and he wasn't a scientist. He also was not refering to the God of the OT, but to the Cartesian, rationalist notion of god. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I was already aware of those facts. I am also aware that a number of scientists have repeated that phrase, referring to God of our Bible, probably taking the phrase from Nietzsche, perhaps not. I was not pointing a finger at anyone specific, then or now.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Paul,
I've read several books pro an con by evolutionists and creationists.I'm not trying to trap you or anybody else with my questions or answers.Frankly I just grew weary of reading books on both sides that tended to run in circles.So I'm just asking questions.Truthfully I will lean toward the Biblical account.I am sure the earth is more than 6,000 years old but I don't know how much older.I also know in Biblical geneologies it is common to leave out generations and olny include the significant generations so we have no accurate measuring stick.

 

[JWI]

One of the biggest false arguments of evolutionists against ID and Creationism is that it will destroy science or bring it to a halt.

They will say that when a problem cannot be figured out that people will simply attribute it to the supernatural work of God and not seek further knowledge.

This is so utterly false and ridiculous. Sir Issac Newton was a Christian. His religious beliefs did not stop him from studying science. Louis Pasteur was also another famous Christian. Didn't stop him either.

There are dozens of Creationist websites. The ICR has many notable scholars and scientists who are fully qualified and educated in their fields who study science. Hasn't stopped any of them from investigating the origin of life and the universe.

And UTEOTW, go to any of the ID websites. There are many. And many scientific proofs are put forward arguing for intelligent design and showing the impossibility of evolution.

Right here on this forum, Helen's husband is a notable scholar. I have seen his name all over the web. Look up any articles concering the theory that the speed of light is slowing down.

His Christian belief sure isn't stopping him from doing true scientific investigation.

Evolutionists are just plain dishonest. They dismiss any evidence against their theory and make up totally false arguments against alternate theories as Creationism and ID.

The real truth is, they know both Creationists and ID have better scientific evidence, and if people were to know this they would turn away from evolution.

 

[JWI]

Here is an article from ICR (Insitute for Creation Reasearch) arguing for a very young age for the earth.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2467

One important thing that has to be considered is that many Creationist and ID websites write articles for the common man. Thus, they do not go into great detail or use scientific jargon often. The man on the street would not understand many of these articles if they did so. These articles are written to inform the general public and are written in a style the average person can understand.

But that does not mean that real scientific research by very qualified individuals did not do the scientific investigations. And this information can be secured.

Evolutionists often like to post articles full of scientific jargon that the average person cannot follow. They believe this gives the article an air of credibility. It also appeals to the pride. They feel it shows they are more highly educated
and intelligent than the average Joe.

They love to ridicule opponents as being uneducated, even superstitious.

But the truth is, real scientists doing real research are discovering evidence quite contrary to the theory of evolution.

 

[UTEOTW]

"This is so utterly false and ridiculous. Sir Issac Newton was a Christian. His religious beliefs did not stop him from studying science. Louis Pasteur was also another famous Christian. Didn't stop him either. "

Same answer as before.

If these guys were alive today and performinf science, it would be according to methodological naturalism. Their science and their religion would be seperate. They would not entertain supernatural causes in their science. Just as the roughtly half of scientists today who can be described as creationist, mostly theistic, do not invoke the supernatural to explain any part of their work.

"There are dozens of Creationist websites. The ICR has many notable scholars and scientists who are fully qualified and educated in their fields who study science. Hasn't stopped any of them from investigating the origin of life and the universe."

It has not? Could you point me to their work?

Some of them actually do real science and get it published. And when they do, they leave thier YE beliefs out of it. But none of them can publish their YE beliefs. It just does not stand up to scrutiny.

"And UTEOTW, go to any of the ID websites. There are many. And many scientific proofs are put forward arguing for intelligent design and showing the impossibility of evolution."

I have done so many times. I have yet to see one that does a good job. They seem to rest mostly on misunderstanding and misrepresenting the real science.

Do you have an example you would like to put forth?

"Right here on this forum, Helen's husband is a notable scholar. I have seen his name all over the web. Look up any articles concering the theory that the speed of light is slowing down."

Oh Helen and I have had quite few discussions about Barry's work. Unfortuneately, his work does not stand up to scrutiny, either. It is not consistent with observation. For instance, go to this thread from the last time it came up.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3139.html

Working through the math of his theory, when we observe rotating galaxies, the slowing of the speed of light should swap the Doppler effect of the rotation and make it appear as if the galaxies are not rotating. But instead we see them rotating at the expected speeds.

Now Helen tried to use the normal formula that gives you the change in wavelength due to rotation to argue that you would still expect to see the same shift. But if you look closely, you will see that the formula that she uses assumes that the speed of light is the same when the light is emitted as when it is observed. When you substitute through the change in the speed of light that he posits, the shift goes away.

This means that his ideas are not in line with reality. It is a really simple math error. And easy to make. But you will notice that once it is pointed out, that it is never answered. She has to resort to begging the moderators to close the thread that she started. She also promises to shortly put a full reply on their website. As of last week, three months later, it was not there. YOu will notice that I rightfully requested that my objections be stated in full and not excerpted.

There are other problems, but this one is stright forward.

"Evolutionists are just plain dishonest."

Prove it. Where is anything dishonest being used to support evolution?

You want me to show you some cases where dishonesty is being used today to support YE?

"They dismiss any evidence against their theory ..."

Do you have any examples that are not based on incredulity or misrepresentation?

"...and make up totally false arguments against alternate theories as Creationism and ID.
"

Any examples?

These two seem like baseless and unsupported assertions to me.

"The real truth is, they know both Creationists and ID have better scientific evidence, and if people were to know this they would turn away from evolution."

Nope.

The objection is to sceince falsely called so.

So, what is it that you wish to have taught in your ID/YE classroom? Where is your positive, testible, falsifiable, demonstrable case of unequivocal intelligent design from primary sources? Where is your examples, with supporting evidence, of things that could not possibly have been the result of natural processes?

 

[JWI]

And here is an article that shows evidence that man and chimpanzees are not related is emerging.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2324

These articles not only show evidence discovered by ICR researchers, but also other researchers and universities as well.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Uhh - JWI - the article says the HOPE to be able to show that someday. It doesn't say they can show it now. As long as they use reality based investigation techniques, they will never rule out a common ancester of champanzees and humans, since we know there was one . . . from the evidence.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Here is an article from ICR (Insitute for Creation Reasearch) arguing for a very young age for the earth.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2467

"

Hey, did you know that polonium halos have been found in coal?

Hey, did you know that if you go to the AIG website, you know Answers in Genesis, they have an article about halos in rocks that they claim themselves to have formed since the creation of the world?

Well as long as we are just posting links...

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/15032.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/pohalo/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

"And here is an article that shows evidence that man and chimpanzees are not related is emerging.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2324

These articles not only show evidence discovered by ICR researchers, but also other researchers and universities as well."

Well let's point out a few things.

First.

The study of the human genome will reveal much about the number and organization of genes and the products of their transcription (proteins). ... This information will enable scientists to answer a number of questions about heredity (the study of inheritance) and possibly lead to a number of cures for genetic disorders. But what else might the genome tell us about ourselves? Will this provide any new information about human origins and help determine what makes a human distinct from the animal kingdom? Many secular scientists have used this information in a variety of ways to support evolutionary hypotheses about human origins and the origin of all life forms. At ICR, we have also begun to investigate the field of genomics to provide scientific evidence supporting the Biblical position that man was created distinctly different from the animals, and that each "kind" of animal was created distinctly different from other "kinds."

So, as Paul pointed out, ICR thinks that this is the beginning and not the end. To use his phrase, they hope to one day tease support out from this new data.

To be fair, they do go on to make some claims based on existing data. Let's look at the first to see if it is worth going further.

As molecular data (including amino acid sequences in proteins) have accumulated over the past thirty years, this evolutionary link has supposedly been confirmed. Many protein-coding sequences in the genome have been reported to have a 98.5% sequence homology (the percent of DNA that matches between two organisms) for humans and chimpanzees. However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology. In a recent analysis by Britten et al., inclusion of "indels" in human and chimpanzee sequences reduced the human/chimpanzee homology to 95%.

Now if you go to the bottom, they reference this as being from

Britten, R. J., 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99(21):13633-13635.

Now if you follow that, you will get a more complete picture.

ICR claims that "indels" are "areas with zero sequence homology." While that may be true in the strictest sense, it is not accurate. It is actually shorthand for INsertions and DELetions. IN other words, these area areas in which segments of DNA have either been inserted or deleted. SO by definition they are not homologous because they only exist in one or the other.

But here is the important part. Well parts.

In the study, no one indel, not a single one, was found to be in a coding region of DNA. They were all in non-coding regions and did not affect the homology of coding DNA nor protein sequences at all.

In addition, they also verified in that study that there is only about 1% difference in sequence between the coding sections of human and chimp DNA.

All this ignores, of course, the abundant genetic evidence that supports the common ancestry of humans and the other apes.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html

So, what is it that you wish to have taught in your ID/YE classroom? Where is your positive, testible, falsifiable, demonstrable case of unequivocal intelligent design from primary sources? Where is your examples, with supporting evidence, of things that could not possibly have been the result of natural processes?

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

What a joke. You demand "positive, testible, falsifiable, demonstrable case of unequivocal intelligent design from primary sources".

Evolution cannot be tested. It has never been demonstrated whatsoever after tens of thousands of experiments.

And many have said so.

“The theory suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts…No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot cross…Darwin ransacked other spheres of practical research work for ideas…But his whole resulting scheme remains, to this day, foreign to scientifically established zoology, since actual changes of species by such means are still unknown.” Albert Fleischmann, "The Doctrine of Organic Evolution in the Light of Modern Research," Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): pp. 194-95, 205-6, 208-9.

Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.


“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page.

Comment- It is incredible. Evolutionists have a theory that fits everything. If transitional fossils are found it proves evolution. If transitional fossils are not found, it fits punk eek.

This is so incredibly wrong. No REAL scientist would accept this. Evolutionists are not scientists at all. They are religious fanatics. Evolution is their religion. To them, everything proves evolution. There is no evidence against it.

Maybe you will wake up someday like Dr. Patterson and realize you do not have one single fact to support evolution. This was a man who devoted his life to the subject.

I guess one day his conscience got the better of him.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.

"That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

Dr. Colin Patterson

You will be shocked too I believe.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


Same answer as before.

If these guys were alive today and performinf science, it would be according to methodological naturalism. Their science and their religion would be seperate. They would not entertain supernatural causes in their science.......

You are blowing some thick smoke there Bro. UTE.
IF JWI had made such a statement you would have reamed him for it.

A.F.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by AntennaFarmer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:


Same answer as before.

If these guys were alive today and performinf science, it would be according to methodological naturalism. Their science and their religion would be seperate. They would not entertain supernatural causes in their science.......

You are blowing some thick smoke there Bro. UTE.
IF JWI had made such a statement you would have reamed him for it.

A.F. </font>[/QUOTE]I think if you will pay close attention, you will seem that was in fact going after him for making a false connection between the religious and scientific sides of scientists from long ago. YOu might get a better since if you go back to my response to the first time he said the same thing today

Since we are guessing about what dead people might have done, I'll go ahead and wager that neither would have dared let anything other than methodological naturalism creep into how they did their science. They may have both personally recognized God, though I think you should check your Einstein reference more closely, but neither would have attributed any scientific observations to the supernatural.

That might make it more clear.