card chase credit visa
…

visa student credit card
…

0 apr credit card offers
…

download bingo games
…

mobile phones pay monthly
…

The debate on Intelligent Design vs Evolution has been flooding through the blogsphere like some cleverly conceived primeval super-goo this week….

Ok, so do you agree that it would be fair to include a Satanic theory of the origin of life in a science class? Or Satanic history in history class? After all, shouldn’t children hear all sides?

Don’t you see why that logic is lousy?

“And since when has evolution actually been proved?”

Pretty much since over the last 60 or so years.

“Have you personally watched a creature evolve into another?”

No, and proving common descent doesn’t require me physically observing it. It requires observing the physical evidence of life on earth. This evidence paints a network of evidential chains that are simply unavoidable.

Regardless, creatures don’t “evolve into another.” They are all related to each other.

“Yes, creatures adapt–humans do too–that doesn’t mean that in another few thousand years we will no longer be human.”

A thousand years is generally far too short a time to see major changes. However, there are plenty of minor changes occuring in human populations right now that will likely accumulate over time.

“I see no way that humans have changed in the times since things have been recorded.”

You… see? What, you were around 4000 years ago to observe this? Let me ask you: have you ever actually sat down and studied the data on human beings and their physical characteristics? If you have, bravo, but I’m betting that you have never ever done this. And so, in short, you are telling me something is so when in fact you’ve NEVER bothered to check and see if it was so. In fact, human beings have changed in terms of average features in many many different ways just within human history, from height to jaw structure, and so on. Of course, again, a few thousand years is generally far too small a period of time to see much that would jump out. to a layperson.

Of course, go back to fossil records of human beings and there are plenty of pretty obvious differences.

” When anyone supporting evolution has true, undisputable evidence, anymore that ID does, maybe then I’d reconsider,”

There already is plenty of undisputable evidence which is, in fact, why scientists, religious and non-religious, agree on evolution as being sound. You can keep insisting that there is not, but then again anyone can do what you do, just like I said. Do you think that Satanists could not insist that there was no Jesus Christ and keep claiming, all evidence to the contrary, that there is no evidence? Of course they could. Claiming it doesn’t make it so: the proof is in the pudding.

“if a student wanted to discuss it, it could be discussed without someone sueing the school system for it and making such a big deal for the sake of 8 families in an entire community.”

You seem as misinformed about this lawsuit as you are about evolution. The lawsuit isn’t about children asking questions. It’s about teachers being required to read a statement as science when that statement is NOT science, and is, in fact, nonsense.

As far as history goes, I’m sure the same history isn’t taught exactly the same across the board. They have their view of exactly what happened, and we have ours. Conspiracy theories abound and I know that in my high school that, no, they weren’t taught as fact, but if a student wanted to discuss it, it could be discussed without someone sueing the school system for it and making such a big deal for the sake of 8 families in an entire community.

Actual science is not itself a speculative philosophical debate: it’s a very particular method employed to learn what we can about things for which we have _evidence_. And when science lends its imprintur to something as a scientific fact, it is only after countless testings and retestings of the evidence (and then, of course, it’s only ever tenative: subject to factual disproof). When we teach children science, we generally only teach them the basics: that which has been shown to be extremely well established by the scientific process. There are any number of ideas out there with no evidence for them: if you think we should give “fair hearing” to ID, then why not to Satanic rituals too? After all: it’s free choice, right?

But that doesn’t even capture the way in which ID is simply not honest science: it’s political and it’s deeply dishonest, misleading children about actual well-established science at ever turn. Giving them a place in schools would be like giving Marxist revisionists a place in history class so they could tell children that the failure of the Soviet Union was all a Western conspriacy. Again: why not present all sides, like you say?

The reality is that scientists DO consider all sides: based on evidence. But that doesn’t mean that teachers should present fringe ideas as if they were scientific fact. And THAT is what the Dover case is all about.

The statement that the Dover school systems would have teachers read is simply false: worse, it misuses scientific terminology in an embarrassing way. It’s as bas as if an English teacher was forced to read the statement “Some sey you no need to reed good.”

“I continually hear news of scientists directly trying to disprove the theory of Intelligent Design, and failing.”

I’m not sure what this means or to what this reffers. ID proponents have advanced very few actual affirmative arguments for ID. Of those that are popular amongst ID proponents, like Irreducible Complexity and CSI, most scientists would consider them to have been pretty roundly disproven as arguments. That ID proponents would pass themselves off as victors in these disputes, trying to play to a Christian audience, does not surprise me anymore than a used car salesman trying to convince new car buyers to purchase a lemon.

Science is a study of…you fill in the blank, depending on the branch. Biology–a study of life/the world in general. Why can’t this be an alternative to evolution? It once was. Science tests things, yes, and comes up with theories/hypothsis, etc. to try to explain it away. Why is this simply not an option for an explanation? What proof is there that makes it invalid?

As a part of the Christian society, which, by the way, is not just an inferior few, but from what I understand a majority still in this country, I continually hear news of scientists directly trying to disprove the theory of Intelligent Design, and failing. If scientists recognize this as something to disprove, why can schools not teach it as an alternative and let the children being taught try to decide and think for themselves for once. Let their generation see the sides and what they want to prove/disprove. Isn’t that what science is all about? Learning, finding, figuring out, proving and disproving theories that have been introduced into society and generally working towards answers of all questions, not narrowing down the field and saying “You can only concentrate on this as truth or a possibility”.

From what I understood, until disproved, anything is a possibility with scientists, and that’s the fun of the game. Why are we taking away this element from our children? Isn’t that worse than what Christians are accused of–teaching one way and only one way–even with Christians there’s still free choice. Yes, there are consequences, but the choice is up to you.

Evolutionists don’t even seem to want to allow a choice, yet they’re the first to cry that they’re being discriminated against for their thoughts. Let the other side have a chance. We let you have yours, and now you’ve taken our rights away from us.