Am In So Much Pain. Is It Because I'm A...
Body & Soul1 min ago
Evolution
Does anybody else find it a huge backward step in thinking and logic that in the US (Kansas), schools must now teach that evolution is just a theory, and that the universe is so complex there may be 'intelligent design' (ie a creator). <A target='_blank' href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4419796.stm&am p;quot;>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/441 9796.stm</A>
I naively thought that in the modern world of science and technology that myths were assigned to the dustbin of historyt. Apparently not. Superstition and hokum is obviously alive and kicking in the USA. What next? Maybe teach them the earth is flat?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bobclean. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry, link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4419796.stm
Perhaps they figured that since somebody was stupid enough to come up with �intelligent design� and they we stupid enough to believe it, somebody/something had to be intelligent and it wasn�t them or someone they reelected. And so they created 'God' in their own image! And 'God' spake unto them saying,"verily, verily, there is no place ahhh for the teaching of reason nahhh in the classroom mahhh!"
Thats what you get from a Chemist what was it Rutherford said "All science is physics or stamp collecting"? :c)
Seriously you have to remember that public policy is rarely dictated by science and that whilst less than 7% of people in the UK go to church that figure is nearer 50% in the US.
Whilst we're on quotes I have to admit a bias and say that I back Emile Zola when he said "Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest"
Putting aside the usual Evolution v Creation debate for a moment, what you have to realise here is that this is "Bible Belt" America, where they are deeply religious, the very idea that anything other than the lord created the heavens and the Earth and the flora and fauna within is blasphemy. It's like a Newcastle supporter claiming any sunderland supporters are the spawn of satan, entirely predictable and not very suprising.
Kansas wasn't the only state where this happened, but have a look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html? th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html? th&emc=th
"Is evolution proven fact, or is it still a theory?"
It's a bit of both, the theory of evolution is fact and can be demonstrated using experiments on plant's, insects (you get into ethical problems if you start using mamals for some reason).
What's a point of theory is that man evolved from Ape's. The likelyhood is high but there is the classic missing link between Man and his Ape cousins, a theoretical beast which links the two. But given the huge body of evidence for the evolution of Man from Apes and the total lack of evidence that god exists I think we can all draw a conclusion which is more likely.
It's a bit of both, the theory of evolution is fact and can be demonstrated using experiments on plant's, insects (you get into ethical problems if you start using mamals for some reason).
What's a point of theory is that man evolved from Ape's. The likelyhood is high but there is the classic missing link between Man and his Ape cousins, a theoretical beast which links the two. But given the huge body of evidence for the evolution of Man from Apes and the total lack of evidence that god exists I think we can all draw a conclusion which is more likely.
Why not be controversial!!!!??? I think it's great that this is happening and is about time. Note the words 'may' be an intelligent creator. It would be wrong for education to go back to teaching creation theory as a fact, just as it is wrong to teach evolution as fact when there have been so many scientific doubts raised.
Read 'God, the Big Bang and Stephen Hawking' by David Wilkinson or 'The Case for a Creator' by Lee Strobel.
Surely education is about presenting all possibilities and leaving it the student to research and come to a conclusion. For too long they have had evolution rammed down their throats - now scientists are realising that they don't have all the answers and saying there is a possibility of an ''intelligent creator". What is so wrong about that?
I don't personally believe literally in the book of Genesis but am, overall, a creationalist - as are many scientists.
Don't dismiss it without looking at ALL the arguments.
Many arguments are simply too absurd to consider and such ideas can be created ad infinitum to distract from valid ideas. In such cases reason dictates that we examine ideas for which some hope for contributing to or advancing knowledge can be assumed.
'Creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' are classic examples of the too absurd to consider ideas. This is why neither of these is a valid scientific theory.
Lynneuk74, with all due respect, your argement is flawed. Education is not about exploring all possibilities...(see previous post about flying spaghetti monster). Since when did scientists claim to have 'all the answers? As for having evolution 'rammed down their throats', are you being serious? Evolution is taught as a theory, but the best theory we have. Myth and religion have come up with many weird and imaginative explanations for our existence, but evolution theory is based on observation and fact. The conclusion that the universe is so complex that there must have been intelligent design is both flawed and absurd. Think about it, The same ignorant conclusion has been reached by countless cultures throughout human history...'I don't understand the complexity of the world, therefore there must be some greater intelligence' Well if that is the case, where did the creator come from? If the creator is so complex, does this mean there must be an even greater intelligence that designed him?
Do you see? I think your arguement is based more on a need to believe rather than logic and reason.
Intelligent Design's cornerstone argument is that of Irreducible Complexity, which is pretty much summed up thus:
"I cannot conceive of any way in which that could have happened without the intervention of a higher power. Therefore it must have happened by design, rather than chance. If this is true, then there was a designer, and evolution is false."
The classic case thrown up by ID advocates is that of the eye. They claim that the eye is so complex that it could not have evolved from a simpler structure, because anything simpler would not have functioned as an eye, and so evolutionary pressure/selection could not have been the cause.
Unfortunately there a few slight flaws in the ID case:
- Irreducible complexity completely ignores the concept of random mutation. Not everything that happens to a species is a result of evolutionary selection and survival instincts. Sometimes things go wrong in cell division or DNA replication. Cells don't behave the way they should, and that's when you can get cancer. Conversely, a mutation can have a positive effect such as immunity to a pathogen. Let's say that a bug has antennae that let it tell when it's light or dark. One bug has a mutation that means it has two antennae facing in opposite directions. Suddenly it can tell if something is creeping up from behind. Consequently it lives longer than most bugs and reproduces more, passing on this mutation. The next generation get two pairs of antennae, then four, then eight etc. etc. Pretty soon, you have a bug with a cluster of light sensors. We might call that a rudimentary eye...
... and there's more!
- Everyone knows that by "Intelligent Designer", they mean God. They are fooling NOBODY! The "God Squad" tried to push Creationism through the schools a decade or so ago, and lost comprehensively due to the constitutional requirement of the "Separation of Church and State". So they change the name from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design" and try again.There are even newer versions of the same banned textbooks where the only change they have done is replaced the words "God" and "Creation" with "Intelligent Designer".
- To quote Bill Hicks, "Umm, Dinosaurs?". This presents a problem for the ID enthusiast. It's going to be pretty hard to get round this one because:
- Strict Creationists believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. As there are fossils all over the world, how come Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible?
- Dinosaurs are extinct. If there really is an Intelligent Designer, how come he's so stupid as to allow them to die out?
- Assuming that that the Earth is not in fact only 6000 years old, and the dinosaurs were created by the Intelligent Designer: That means that he designed them first, let them live for over 100 million years, then... got bored? Shook up the planet like a giant Etch-A-Sketch and came up with humans instead? Again, what was wrong with his first "Intelligent Design". How can someone who is supposed to be infallible make such a ****-up that he has to wipe out the planet and start again?
�If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.� Darwin, C., (1872), Origin of Species, 6th Ed., New York University Press, New York, p. 154, 1988.
Usually, in these types of discussions, the process devolves (pun only slightly intended) into name calling and derision. There have been threads on this subject that run for several hundred posts. The discussion can be energizing and informative, but in most cases, the two opposing camps rely on dogmatic positions and a common, middle ground becomes impossible to attain...
Contd.
Contd.
Having said that, if I may, I'd like to, once more, submit a view. Firstly, mibn2cewus' contention that creationsim and/or intelligent design are ideas are "to absurd to be considered" rejects the fact that many, many credentialed, respected, peer-reviewed scientists are either 'considering' the idea or are adherents. There are, granted, many, many such scientists that are in opposition. That certainly doesn't mean that one side or the other has the ultimate truth, but does imply that perfectly valid 'ideas' are in contention.
Secondly, this supports my view that bobclean's proposition that education is not "about exploring all possibilites" is not defendable, in my opinion. That's exactly what education, at it's heart, is all about. If it weren't, even the consideration (some would say domination) of the Theory of Evolution by Darwin, would not occupy the position it does today. It certainly was not well received in its day.
Thirdly, in any honest discussion of this kind, the parties must have a clear, concise definition of the terms involved. For example, by evolution, does one believing in its veracity mean macro-evolution as expounded by Darwin? Change over time leading to speciation? Or, does one mean micro-evolution; changes caused by environmental adapation leading to modification of the individual species? I think I could defend the latter, but evidence, again, in my opinion, doesn't support the former.
Contd.
Latest Posts
If Planes Are Safe Then Why Do...
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles50 mins ago
