-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?
- Thread starter Ron Arndt
- Start date
AntennaFarmer
Member
When I was a teen I took great delight in convincing my friends that they could see ghosts near the grave yard. Once I saw a ghost in my own back yard. I could see it clearly even though I knew it was just my imagination working overtime. Even today I can see a lot of spooky things in the twilight. What is the common element? Darkness.
Often, at twilight, a hunter will see a deer where there is only a stump. A short-wave radio operator will hear signals in the noise where there are none. The human mind has a tremendous ability to find patterns. But where there is noise or randomness the mind attempts to force fit a pattern.
I have seen the pelvic bones of various land creatures. They don't look any thing like that. Ball and socket joints aren't unusual features. - Bones are usually curved. - Muscles commonly attach to bones. Most of the whale "pelvic bone" examples I find clearly show them to be completely detached from the spine. That seems to be an important difference that clearly differentiates them from the pelvic bones of land animals. Can we find a clearly attached example? Some of the photos look like Nessie to me!
In any event I think this is a good example of an overactive imagination at work.
A.F.
Charles Meadows
New Member
It seems that the idea behind intelligent design is to find an alternative to evolution - period.
I agree with Paul that it is not necessarily scientific stuff.
But that being said there are many folks who believe, for religious reasons, in a non-evolved discrete creation. There are also a number of open debates in the whole evolution thing - that is to say that evolution has yet to explain everything.
I for one have no problem with offering intelligent design as an alternative.
The DSM III (standard psychiatry manual) used to classify homosexuality as a mental illness. Because this offended many the classification was changed. Obviously homosexuality is NOT normal and is in fact a devaition from the normal. But yet we refrain from calling it mental illness because that offends sensibilities. If evolution is offensive to many then what is wrong with tempering it with an alternative?
I think it IS important that we are truthful to our kids. Science does seem to suggest the earth is old. And we will do our kids no service by trying to shield them from science. There is nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory, something not yet fully understood or proved. And there is nothing wrong with offering an alternative - especially since there is precedent for doing this.
I agree with Paul that it is not necessarily scientific stuff.
But that being said there are many folks who believe, for religious reasons, in a non-evolved discrete creation. There are also a number of open debates in the whole evolution thing - that is to say that evolution has yet to explain everything.
I for one have no problem with offering intelligent design as an alternative.
The DSM III (standard psychiatry manual) used to classify homosexuality as a mental illness. Because this offended many the classification was changed. Obviously homosexuality is NOT normal and is in fact a devaition from the normal. But yet we refrain from calling it mental illness because that offends sensibilities. If evolution is offensive to many then what is wrong with tempering it with an alternative?
I think it IS important that we are truthful to our kids. Science does seem to suggest the earth is old. And we will do our kids no service by trying to shield them from science. There is nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory, something not yet fully understood or proved. And there is nothing wrong with offering an alternative - especially since there is precedent for doing this.
The funny thing is I'll bet the Big Bang Theory remains as an alternative possibility within their textbooks.
Personally, I'm tweaked that I don't have wings yet. Eventually, through evolution, people should have wings. I WANNA FLY!!!
My question to a Christian who claims to believe in evolution. What would God's purpose be and how does that fit with man being created in God's image?
Personally, I'm tweaked that I don't have wings yet. Eventually, through evolution, people should have wings. I WANNA FLY!!!
My question to a Christian who claims to believe in evolution. What would God's purpose be and how does that fit with man being created in God's image?
Paul of Eugene
New Member
When I was a teen I took great delight in convincing my friends that they could see ghosts near the grave yard. Once I saw a ghost in my own back yard. I could see it clearly even though I knew it was just my imagination working overtime. Even today I can see a lot of spooky things in the twilight. What is the common element? Darkness.
Often, at twilight, a hunter will see a deer where there is only a stump. A short-wave radio operator will hear signals in the noise where there are none. The human mind has a tremendous ability to find patterns. But where there is noise or randomness the mind attempts to force fit a pattern.
I have seen the pelvic bones of various land creatures. They don't look any thing like that. Ball and socket joints aren't unusual features. - Bones are usually curved. - Muscles commonly attach to bones. Most of the whale "pelvic bone" examples I find clearly show them to be completely detached from the spine. That seems to be an important difference that clearly differentiates them from the pelvic bones of land animals. Can we find a clearly attached example? Some of the photos look like Nessie to me!
In any event I think this is a good example of an overactive imagination at work.
A.F. </font>[/QUOTE]A.F., here's a link to a site with sample pelvic/leg bones from several whale species. Some of them are curvier than others. In addition, there are some comments about them you will be interested in, I post an excerpt here (check the web site for further documentation)
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Forensics duplicates the process and shows how the result comes out the same and then announces the result. For example, a wound is found in a body. A knife is suspected of causing that wound. The knife is stabbed into the body of, say, a pig and the shape of the wound compared. Matches? Its taken as a clue.
ID can't do that, when applied to life sciences.
Please explain what you mean when you say they use the same methods.
Charles Meadows
New Member
This debate is about intelligent diesign and not creation vs evolution.
My position is that ID is a reasonable addition to school curricula because evolution is NOT proven and because a curriculum which excludes intelligent design is presumptious and offensive to many.
I also think that kids should be introduced to evolutionary theories since they do have some supporting evidence and since denial of this would be dishonest.
My position is that ID is a reasonable addition to school curricula because evolution is NOT proven and because a curriculum which excludes intelligent design is presumptious and offensive to many.
I also think that kids should be introduced to evolutionary theories since they do have some supporting evidence and since denial of this would be dishonest.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
I'm not sure - why does "ID is a reasonable addition" become valid to put into a science classroom because "evolution is NOT proven"?
In what positive sense has ID theory gained a foothold on the science scene that it deserves a presentation in a science class, on its own merits, irrespective of the presence or absence of merits of the leading evolution theory?
In what positive sense has ID theory gained a foothold on the science scene that it deserves a presentation in a science class, on its own merits, irrespective of the presence or absence of merits of the leading evolution theory?
Eric Pement
New Member
Forensics duplicates the process and shows how the result comes out the same and then announces the result. For example, a wound is found in a body. A knife is suspected of causing that wound. The knife is stabbed into the body of, say, a pig and the shape of the wound compared. Matches? Its taken as a clue.
ID can't do that, when applied to life sciences.
Please explain what you mean when you say they use the same methods. </font>[/QUOTE]Intelligent Design theory is a system for recognizing when certain events or objects (broadly considered) came to be as a result of intelligent causation. It uses an explanatory filter or sieve to rule out natural causes.
Did the victim have butter on his shoes and was the knife wound in the abdomen? Maybe he slipped and fell on the knife. Intelligent design takes into account natural "laws" or lawlike behavior (e.g., butter on shoes reduces the friction necessary to walk firmly) and also the laws of probability (it is statistically probable that a household accident can occur while walking with a knife).
The ID position would say that if the event can be accounted for by laws of physics or chance, or both, then there is no need to look for agent causation.
However, intelligent design also looks for small probability. Was the victim seated on a chair, with the knife stuck through his back? In that case, there is an extremely small probability that the death was the result of an accident while walking across the floor ... even with butter on one's shoes. ID also considers "specified complexity", or a state of affairs which is not only improbable but also which fits a particular need or situation. A recently-filed insurance policy might do the job, and if so, we would be justified in suspecting a murder instead of an accident.
Specified complexity would also obtain if the knife were not still in the chair and the victim, but were lying on the table with all fingerprints wiped clean. In this situation, ID would insist that the death resulted from "intelligent design."
ID allows that extremely rare things may occur, and does not stipulate that improbability always indicates agent causation. Improbable events can and do occur, and they should not be attributed to deliberate acts.
Intelligent Design, like forensics generally, doesn't always catch false negatives (a murder designed to look like an accident), but overall it seems to do a pretty good job of describing the logical or mathematical process of distinguishing deliberate actions from accidents or chance events.
Evolutionists just don't like to have this process applied to abiogenesis. And that, in my opinion, is the rub.
Charles Meadows
New Member
I'm not sure - why does "ID is a reasonable addition" become valid to put into a science classroom because "evolution is NOT proven"?
Why?
This issue is quite obviously fraught with political agendas. There are plenty who want all hint of religion out of school or public. We all know that there are neither innocent nor even-handed motives behind this.
Those who adhere, based on religious reasons, to an earth divinely created do so because of a belief that faith and a relationship with Christ are all important. It is more important to be theologically correct than politically correct.
We certainly see precedent for accomodating beliefs of groups - such as deciding not to classify homosexuality as a mental illness so as not to offend.
I do not see ID as a complete viable alternative in terms of being a full scheme. But because of the importance of the issue and because there ARE antiChristian agendas here I see it as quite reasonable to mention ID along with evolution.
Why?
This issue is quite obviously fraught with political agendas. There are plenty who want all hint of religion out of school or public. We all know that there are neither innocent nor even-handed motives behind this.
Those who adhere, based on religious reasons, to an earth divinely created do so because of a belief that faith and a relationship with Christ are all important. It is more important to be theologically correct than politically correct.
We certainly see precedent for accomodating beliefs of groups - such as deciding not to classify homosexuality as a mental illness so as not to offend.
I do not see ID as a complete viable alternative in terms of being a full scheme. But because of the importance of the issue and because there ARE antiChristian agendas here I see it as quite reasonable to mention ID along with evolution.
RayMarshall19
New Member
The theory of evolution faces two obstacles. The first is getting life as we know it started in the first place. This is not the place for a lengthy discussion, but if anyone wants to investigate the problem it is the existence of only left-handed and no right-handed amino acids (vice-versa for DNA) in all living organisms. Nobody has ever described even an imagined process that could build proteins that do not contain both.
The second obstacle is showing that one species ever changed into another. Real evolutionists have given up on finding fossil evidence. Many have turned to "punctuated equillibrium" to explain the absence of evidence. Think about that, a scientific theory to explain why there is no evidence for the theory. Does it make sense that we should teach that to our children?
What we should do is simply present the FACTS, with no assumptions or conclusions from EITHER side disguised as fact, to our children and let them decide if they think there is intellegent design in our world. If we did that most of them would decide that there is, and that's what evolutionists don't want.
The second obstacle is showing that one species ever changed into another. Real evolutionists have given up on finding fossil evidence. Many have turned to "punctuated equillibrium" to explain the absence of evidence. Think about that, a scientific theory to explain why there is no evidence for the theory. Does it make sense that we should teach that to our children?
What we should do is simply present the FACTS, with no assumptions or conclusions from EITHER side disguised as fact, to our children and let them decide if they think there is intellegent design in our world. If we did that most of them would decide that there is, and that's what evolutionists don't want.
ronthedisciple
New Member
The Bible instructs parents to "teach your children in the way they should go, and they shall not depart from it." This scripture dos not promise that children will follow whatever we decide to teach, although even with poor teaching or the teaching of the wrong things, most often children will follow that path. I believe God is saying, discern the True Way, and teach that Way to them (we believ that to be in Christ Jesus), and God says they will not depart from that true way.
So, how does this apply to this topic? Simply this, if we as parents just pass along some information, and leave it to our children to decide right from worng, then we know that they will choose wrong - just as we did, and do. No, God instructs us to teach them to do right, no matter how unpopular it may seem, or how unfashionable it may appear. Does that mean the public school system has to do this? No. The responsibility is on the parents, and the family to which the children is born (that is given to by God). But, in our country, where the will of the people is supposed to prevail, if there enough parents who demand Christian education being publically taught, then they can make it happen - and have it done Constitutionally (it can be amended if necessary). With man such thing may be impossible; with God all things are possible. The first step is to pray.
So, how does this apply to this topic? Simply this, if we as parents just pass along some information, and leave it to our children to decide right from worng, then we know that they will choose wrong - just as we did, and do. No, God instructs us to teach them to do right, no matter how unpopular it may seem, or how unfashionable it may appear. Does that mean the public school system has to do this? No. The responsibility is on the parents, and the family to which the children is born (that is given to by God). But, in our country, where the will of the people is supposed to prevail, if there enough parents who demand Christian education being publically taught, then they can make it happen - and have it done Constitutionally (it can be amended if necessary). With man such thing may be impossible; with God all things are possible. The first step is to pray.
"UTE, you are probably more knowledgeable than me in this area. But you are correct, neither of us are "evolutionary biologists".
But think about that very term. Come on, what do you expect a evolutionary biologist to believe??"
It goes back to the question of who has the knowledge to judge.
Evolutionary biologists are the ONLY folks who have put in the necessary study to be able to judge. (Bear in mind that you may have to tweak that statement a bit for different specifics. If you want to talk fossils, then I suggest you get a paleotologist. If you want to talk geology, then you get the right kind of geologists for the question. And so on.)
Who else has taken the time to be trained in the way things are really done? Who else has studied the material? WHo else than the ones doing the actualy research do you think has the ability to judge that kind of research?
This is the same reason that you go to the doctor when you are sick and not your mechanic. This is the same reason that even when you make it to the doctor that you may need to go see a specialist. YOu want the person who has put in the work to do the job.
And if you go out there and look, you will find that there is a correlaton between how much one has studied evolution and how likely one is to accept it. The number of Americans in the general population who accept evolution is what, less than half? If you take college graduates, it is now more than half. If you take scientists, it is more like 95+ %. And if you take just biologists, you will be hard pressed to find more than a handful who do not accept evolution. Even many of your ID guys accept the common descent part of it. And despite all of the YE claims of evolution's rising tide of dissenters, these numbers really have not changed over the years.
"It is only natural that these people would believe as they are taught. It is perfectly natural for people to respect higher education. Many people blindly accept what they are taught and do not question it. "
Do you think that they are so dumb as to not know how to do their own research once they get through with their training and get out and start practicing their chosen profession? That is an incredible insult to the intellect and I suppose the honesty of these people.
And do you really think that people who have not studied the subject in the same detail and who have not done the lad work and the field work and have not made the discoveries and have not published their findings for the world are really in a better position to try and point out the flaw?
Perhaps you think that your mechanic would do a better job of treating your next medical problem since he has not been brainwashed in the normal medical practices.
"Who would better understand chance than someone in the field of mathematical probability??
And those in this field are strongly against evolution."
Really?
You can show that most mathematicians, when working from an accurate evolutionary framework, are "strongly against evolution."
I'll have to see your cards on that one. I call.
But think about that very term. Come on, what do you expect a evolutionary biologist to believe??"
It goes back to the question of who has the knowledge to judge.
Evolutionary biologists are the ONLY folks who have put in the necessary study to be able to judge. (Bear in mind that you may have to tweak that statement a bit for different specifics. If you want to talk fossils, then I suggest you get a paleotologist. If you want to talk geology, then you get the right kind of geologists for the question. And so on.)
Who else has taken the time to be trained in the way things are really done? Who else has studied the material? WHo else than the ones doing the actualy research do you think has the ability to judge that kind of research?
This is the same reason that you go to the doctor when you are sick and not your mechanic. This is the same reason that even when you make it to the doctor that you may need to go see a specialist. YOu want the person who has put in the work to do the job.
And if you go out there and look, you will find that there is a correlaton between how much one has studied evolution and how likely one is to accept it. The number of Americans in the general population who accept evolution is what, less than half? If you take college graduates, it is now more than half. If you take scientists, it is more like 95+ %. And if you take just biologists, you will be hard pressed to find more than a handful who do not accept evolution. Even many of your ID guys accept the common descent part of it. And despite all of the YE claims of evolution's rising tide of dissenters, these numbers really have not changed over the years.
"It is only natural that these people would believe as they are taught. It is perfectly natural for people to respect higher education. Many people blindly accept what they are taught and do not question it. "
Do you think that they are so dumb as to not know how to do their own research once they get through with their training and get out and start practicing their chosen profession? That is an incredible insult to the intellect and I suppose the honesty of these people.
And do you really think that people who have not studied the subject in the same detail and who have not done the lad work and the field work and have not made the discoveries and have not published their findings for the world are really in a better position to try and point out the flaw?
Perhaps you think that your mechanic would do a better job of treating your next medical problem since he has not been brainwashed in the normal medical practices.
"Who would better understand chance than someone in the field of mathematical probability??
And those in this field are strongly against evolution."
Really?
You can show that most mathematicians, when working from an accurate evolutionary framework, are "strongly against evolution."
I'll have to see your cards on that one. I call.
"Comments- This person in my opinion makes erroneous assumptions. He claims that thick sediments take long periods of time.
This is not only false, it has been observed. Floods produce significant sediment in very short periods of time. Entire forests were buried by landslides and floods when Mt. St. Helens exploded."
We are once again dealing with the same issue.
How can you suppose that you can better speak about what the geological evidence shows than an actual geologist?
I would also be curious to know in what parts of the deposits from Mt St Helen's do you think that there are features analogous to what you would label as flood deposits?
"There are records of eyewitness accounts of the ark. Many were made by credible witnesses such as military pilots.
Here is an interesting page on that. "
I'd be a little more skeptical if I were you. Even most YE organizations seem to me to distance themselves from this.
"You say Creationists misrepresent facts. Creationists make the same claim about Evolutionists.
http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/acall.html
So you see, your evidence is not one bit different from mine. Both ID, Creationism, and Evolution are theories. They are equal in every way, and should be presented to students on the study of origins."
There is a huge difference here.
Let's go back to the recent example. You post a link to ICR. They used a reference to make a point. When the reference is looked up, one finds that the reference was not as it was made out to be. The ICR had tried to score points by claiming that the reference found a larger difference in the human and chimp genomes that previously thought. They failed to point out that the differences was in non-coding regions and that the study confirmed earlier studies on the similarity of coding regions.
You link makes a lot of assertions, but backs few of them up. Many of the assertions are based on that old problem of personal incredulity. It is mostly opinion. To be equivilent, you would need to show where scientists were doing the same things as what was shown in the case of the ICR.
This is not only false, it has been observed. Floods produce significant sediment in very short periods of time. Entire forests were buried by landslides and floods when Mt. St. Helens exploded."
We are once again dealing with the same issue.
How can you suppose that you can better speak about what the geological evidence shows than an actual geologist?
I would also be curious to know in what parts of the deposits from Mt St Helen's do you think that there are features analogous to what you would label as flood deposits?
"There are records of eyewitness accounts of the ark. Many were made by credible witnesses such as military pilots.
Here is an interesting page on that. "
I'd be a little more skeptical if I were you. Even most YE organizations seem to me to distance themselves from this.
"You say Creationists misrepresent facts. Creationists make the same claim about Evolutionists.
http://www.creationapologetics.org/refuting/acall.html
So you see, your evidence is not one bit different from mine. Both ID, Creationism, and Evolution are theories. They are equal in every way, and should be presented to students on the study of origins."
There is a huge difference here.
Let's go back to the recent example. You post a link to ICR. They used a reference to make a point. When the reference is looked up, one finds that the reference was not as it was made out to be. The ICR had tried to score points by claiming that the reference found a larger difference in the human and chimp genomes that previously thought. They failed to point out that the differences was in non-coding regions and that the study confirmed earlier studies on the similarity of coding regions.
You link makes a lot of assertions, but backs few of them up. Many of the assertions are based on that old problem of personal incredulity. It is mostly opinion. To be equivilent, you would need to show where scientists were doing the same things as what was shown in the case of the ICR.
"I have seen the pelvic bones of various land creatures. They don't look any thing like that. Ball and socket joints aren't unusual features. - Bones are usually curved. - Muscles commonly attach to bones. Most of the whale "pelvic bone" examples I find clearly show them to be completely detached from the spine. That seems to be an important difference that clearly differentiates them from the pelvic bones of land animals. Can we find a clearly attached example? Some of the photos look like Nessie to me!"
They aren't attached anymore because they do not need to be anymore. They are no longer supporting weight. If you go back and read the dissection report you will see that they really cannot even move anymore.
I'll accept that ball and socket joints are not uncommon.
Now, what are several of them doing at the back end of a whale in the area where you would expect legs to be if they had them? I assert that they are the remains of legs and a pelvis from when the ancestors walked on land. What do you think they are?
They aren't attached anymore because they do not need to be anymore. They are no longer supporting weight. If you go back and read the dissection report you will see that they really cannot even move anymore.
I'll accept that ball and socket joints are not uncommon.
Now, what are several of them doing at the back end of a whale in the area where you would expect legs to be if they had them? I assert that they are the remains of legs and a pelvis from when the ancestors walked on land. What do you think they are?