Intelligent Design in Tennessee Schools

[ChainzCooper]

This reminds me of a few months ago when Richard Dawkins rolled into my town professing that Evolution was Scientific law and not theory. Ignoring the fact that thats not true, what Dawkins fails to realize is that even his argument falls into the same old chicken-egg debate that I'm sure everyones tired of hearing about. That is that all life evolved from a lower species which began (by accident it seems) as single cell bacteria. Which leaves one not so simple question that even Dawkins can't answer. So exactly where did the bacteria come from?
Jordan

[Carol]

This reminds me of a few months ago when Richard Dawkins rolled into my town professing that Evolution was Scientific law and not theory. Ignoring the fact that thats not true, what Dawkins fails to realize is that even his argument falls into the same old chicken-egg debate that I'm sure everyones tired of hearing about. That is that all life evolved from a lower species which began (by accident it seems) as single cell bacteria. Which leaves one not so simple question that even Dawkins can't answer. So exactly where did the bacteria come from?
Jordan

Well said Jordan!
Some of you already know I'm a Christian. I'm also a Creationist (as we are called in Sweden). I believe God created human beings and all living creatures without resorting to 'evolution'. I have never heard or read anything to explain how evolution could possibly have started. As Jordan said 'So exactly where did the bacteria come from?'
The 'evidence' that is put forward to explain how one creature could change into another completely different type over a period of millions of years is unconvincing in the extreme. The 'changes' that can take place are explainable by 'adaptation' to living conditions. The creature remains the same.

Love
Carol

[c.d.]

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

c.d.

[Errata]

This reminds me of a few months ago when Richard Dawkins rolled into my town professing that Evolution was Scientific law and not theory. Ignoring the fact that thats not true, what Dawkins fails to realize is that even his argument falls into the same old chicken-egg debate that I'm sure everyones tired of hearing about. That is that all life evolved from a lower species which began (by accident it seems) as single cell bacteria. Which leaves one not so simple question that even Dawkins can't answer. So exactly where did the bacteria come from?
Jordan

Dawkins always makes me cringe a little. I am a faithful person. I believe in G-d. I also believe in evolution and the big bang (Which ironically was formulated by a priest). The genesis of life on earth does not start with a single celled organism, or even the amino acids that bonded together to create that organism. The one thing that started everything is the big bang. The real mystery is, where did the super density that rapidly expanded come from? If we have scientifically ruled out spontaneous generation, doesn't that leave G-d? Maybe like a computer virus he left a small package that would unspool into a universe. Who knows?

The question of evolution always boils down to "What do we teach in a science class?" Apply scientific method to Intelligent Design and it will collapse every time. Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world Science isn't always true, and thats an important distinction to make. It is one way to search for truth, but there are others. It is a tool. Like math, or philosophy, or religion. In science class, I would hope that they teach students the tools of science. They should teach how those tools are used, what those tools have been used to create or explain. You don't teach kids how to lay brick in wood shop, and you don't teach sculpture in theater class. The theories of evolution come from scientific observation and experimentation. It stands up to most challenges. It is a scientific theory. It should be taught. If its wrong, then it's wrong. My parents were taught vastly different things about radiation than I was. What they were taught turned out to be wrong. They don't particularly feel cheated. Classes altered what they taught when new information was obtained. That's the best we can do. Intelligent Design does not come from scientific method. That's fine, but it shouldn't then be taught in science class. Teach it in Social Studies with the rest of religion.

[c.d.]

"Surely the idea of education is to present the available theories as theories and require the students to examine them and discuss them and challenge them and make their own minds up."

Hi Julie,

Following that path we could tell students that some people believe that storks bring babies. It is a theory and equally valid to the theory that babies result from acts of sexual intercourse in which sperm and egg unite. Pick the one that you prefer to believe.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Errata,

I have read Dawkins as well. And while he makes very credible arguments, he can also be a bit overbearing and condescending as well.

I just recently finished "god Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens and found his arguments to be impeccable. A thinking person would be hard pressed to read that book and not have his faith seriously questioned.

c.d.

[Stephen Thomas]

Maybe or maybe not pertinent to this discussion...

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

I have read Dawkins as well. And while he makes very credible arguments, he can also be a bit overbearing and condescending as well.

I just recently finished "god Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens and found his arguments to be impeccable. A thinking person would be hard pressed to read that book and not have his faith seriously questioned.

c.d.

I asked my Rabbi once about the all loving all knowing all powerful G-d once... He asked me what book I had been reading, because in the Torah, G-s is pissy and vengeful with very little useful help being doled out. I was appalled that he would say that... until I realized he was right.

[c.d.]

Hitchens absolutely rips the Bible to shreds both Old and New Testament. He rips Christianity apart along with Islam and Judaism. He thens starts in on Eastern Religions. No religion is spared. But what is so disconcerting is that he simply examines their stated beliefs and their sacred texts and points out the fallacies and hypocrisy. Not a pretty sight.

As Dawkins frequently stated, those people who like to quote the Bible to prove their point probably have not read the whole thing.

c.d.

[Robert]

Hi Julie

The trouble is, nothing in the Bible is to be taken literally. If it were, civilisation would collapse.

Hi Good Michael

Please let's not support a scientific theory just because it has edifying consequences. I don't suppose that's your position, but it's worth saying anyway that a scientific theory might be broadly correct and still have bad social consequences. When that happens, we've had bad luck.

[Stephen Thomas]

I asked my Rabbi once about the all loving all knowing all powerful G-d once... He asked me what book I had been reading, because in the Torah, G-d is pissy and vengeful with very little useful help being doled out. I was appalled that he would say that... until I realized he was right.

You've got one smart Rabbi there, Errata.

Does the Jewish religion have a Heaven and Hell?

If not, why should one be 'good' ?

[c.d.]

Hi Julie

The trouble is, nothing in the Bible is to be taken literally. If it were, civilisation would collapse.

Hi Good Michael

Please let's not support a scientific theory just because it has edifying consequences. I don't suppose that's your position, but it's worth saying anyway that a scientific theory might be broadly correct and still have bad social consequences. When that happens, we've had bad luck.

Hi Robert,

I am not quite sure of your point here. I know that the hard core Creationists like to point out that supposedly Hitler and the Nazis used the theory of evolution as their basis for eliminating the Jews as though this was the fault of evolution and not the Nazis themselves. That is like saying that ovens are evil because the Nazis used them to cremate the Jews that they had killed. If something is correct scientifically, then it is correct. Social consequences should not enter in to it.

c.d.

[Carol]

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

c.d.

Hello c.d.
Many thanks for your input. To start with, the so-called 'theory' (more correctly, 'hypothesis') is based on arguments that are not in any way proven.
Referring to your last sentence, you must know that there are many scientists all over the world that do not believe in the Darwinistic explanation for, dare I use the word, 'creation'.
There are many features that show that the different geological strata could not have taken millions of years to form. Just to give one example - tree trunks that penetrate through many strata that, according to evolutionists, would have taken hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. With the 'intelligent design' explanation that these strata were laid down over a very short period this sort of observation could be easily explained.
I'm afraid that the 'enormous range of observations of the living world', as you put it, can be interpreted in different ways, even in the scientific community.
Best wishes,
Carol

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello c.d.
Many thanks for your input. To start with, the so-called 'theory' (more correctly, 'hypothesis') is based on arguments that are not in any way proven.
Referring to your last sentence, you must know that there are many scientists all over the world that do not believe in the Darwinistic explanation for, dare I use the word, 'creation'.
There are many features that show that the different geological strata could not have taken millions of years to form. Just to give one example - tree trunks that penetrate through many strata that, according to evolutionists, would have taken hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. With the 'intelligent design' explanation that these strata were laid down over a very short period this sort of observation could be easily explained.
I'm afraid that the 'enormous range of observations of the living world', as you put it, can be interpreted in different ways, even in the scientific community.
Best wishes,
Carol

Blimey, a European Christian fundamentalist.

I thought only American hillbillies bought into such illogicallity.

[Robert]

Hi CD

Precisely. Just as the Victorians disliked the theory of evolution because it seemed to deprive man of his soul and divine origin, when the main question is whether it's true - so Good Michael's example of the theory of evolution helping us to live together more harmoniously is a separate issue from its truth (as I said, TGM knows this anyway). The thing is, though, that if some scientist proved tomorrow that, say, Eskimos are racially inferior, he should not be howled down and silenced. Fact is fact whether we like it or not.