'Intelligent design' debate back in court

[Colrom]

Imagine how we'd look if we had evolved on say pluto?

 

Colorm, have you ever had a kid come up and say that men have one less rib than women because of the bible story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, but I can see how that might happen.

 

For starters I would just say the number is the same for men and women.

 

If they want to go further then it is possible to consider some other options for discussion like:

 

1. They can be refered to an anatomy book:

"Twelve pairs of flexible, archlike ribs form the lateral portions of the thoracic cage. They increase in length from the first to the seventh and then decrease again from the eighth to the twelfth."

(Weinreb, E. L. 1984. Anatomy and Physiology. Addison Wesley Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. p. 345.)

 

2. Maybe they can count their own ribs. That might be worth a try for some.

 

3. They can be refered to x-rays of men and women.

 

4. They could could also discuss the question of whether one of their ribs would regrow if it was removed and whether their boy or girl children would have one less rib if his or her parents' rib was removed.

 

It depends on the person and the class. If there is any sense of discomfort or especially any bullying I would be inclined to retreat to the simple answer.

 

I wouldn't get into discussions of the biblical interpretation in a science class (for obvious reasons) but biblical literalists have similar views to normal scientists in this case. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp .

Edited September 27, 2005 by Colrom

[Calax]

Imagine how we'd look if we had evolved on say pluto?

 

Colorm, have you ever had a kid come up and say that men have one less rib than women because of the bible story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, but I can see how that might happen.

 

For starters I would just say the number is the same for men and women.

 

If they want to go further then it is possible to consider some other options for discussion like:

 

1. They can be refered to an anatomy book:

"Twelve pairs of flexible, archlike ribs form the lateral portions of the thoracic cage. They increase in length from the first to the seventh and then decrease again from the eighth to the twelfth."

(Weinreb, E. L. 1984. Anatomy and Physiology. Addison Wesley Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. p. 345.)

 

2. Maybe they can count their own ribs. That might be worth a try for some.

 

3. They can be refered to x-rays of men and women.

 

4. They could could also discuss the question of whether one of their ribs would regrow if it was removed and whether their boy or girl children would have one less rib if his or her parents' rib was removed.

 

It depends on the person and the class. If there is any sense of discomfort or especially any bullying I would be inclined to retreat to the simple answer.

 

I wouldn't get into discussions of the biblical interpretation in a science class (for obvious reasons) but biblical literalists have similar views to normal scientists in this case. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I remember from somewhere there was a Bio teacher that got this question. He had a male and female skeleton in the room so he had the kid count the # of ribs on them, the kid promply told it's mother and mommy complained to the principal and the teacher got a slap on the wrists... It's odd how people can be punished for stating facts.

[LoneWolf16]

^...Ok, now that's sad.

[taks]

There is no proof that the Universe appeared out of nothingness on it's own, and that life just happened to have the perfect circumstances so that primordial soup sloshed together basic acids to form the first proteins, and from this pond scum humans developed either.

evolution does not attempt to describe origins. anybody that claims it does, obviously does not understand the concepts.

 

Intelligent Design isn't so specific as to give creedence to a specific religion, but rather suggests that the Universe as we know it was created by something intelligent.

actually, while it is not specific to any one religion, it does not simply try to explain creation. ID is creationism in a new wrapper. the theory being put forth in various school districts was developed by the discovery institute. do a search on "the wedge strategy" and you'll see exactly what their motives are. they are not trying to explain origins, they are trying to replace ALL of evolution with creationism. they've backed away from this strategy, but only because of the bad press it was giving them and it runs counter to the "we're not trying to replace evolution" cries many ID supporters are clinging to. really, they are trying to replace it.

 

Honestly, I think it makes more logical sense than most theories I've heard.

only if a) you believe in a higher power and b) you ignore all of the evidence FOR evolution. ID is not science, it is faith. they are attempting to have this part of a school curriculum without any proof of their theory. the term "theory," btw, is misleading since it is NOT a scientific theory as it is NOT testable. sorry to the faithful, but either you have it or you don't, and there's no way to test it regardless.

 

There is more scientific evidence these days against the Big Bang than for it.

this statement is patently false. there is some evidence pointing away from the BBT, and i have read most of it, but not at all most.

 

And while  I firmly believe that evolution occurs, I'm skeptical of pond scum becomming human, especially when some of the basic tenents of evolution argue against it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you obviously do not understand evolution. pond scum did not become human. pond scum spent billions of years working itself into a variety of other lifeforms before even thinking about humanity. humanity as it is is nothing more than an evolutionary blink of an eye (irreducible complexity and all) in evolutionary terms. nearly every mechanism now appearing in humans was well developed in some other creature looooong before even our remotest ancestors were around.

 

taks

[Colrom]

"I remember from somewhere there was a Bio teacher that got this question. He had a male and female skeleton in the room so he had the kid count the # of ribs on them, the kid promply told it's mother and mommy complained to the principal and the teacher got a slap on the wrists... It's odd how people can be punished for stating facts. "

 

I'm convinced that children learn bullying from their parents as much as anywhere else and bullying teachers seems to be a popular passtime these days.

 

I especially like the case where some parent complained to a school administration about the "harsh impact" (or some such) of a teacher's use of red ink in correcting papers and was able to get the administration to force the teacher to use another color ink.

 

I'm sure alot of students and parents got the real lesson of that story quite well!

 

Anyway, back to intelligent design.

 

One of the key claims of some smart guy advocates of intelligent design is that there are no examples of new species being developed by mutation. They are willing to give up on the question of change by breeding and mutation, but not on the question of species development.

 

That's how I interpret the "pond scum doesn't become a human" claim.

 

I don't agree, but I understand.

[taks]

One of the key claims of some smart guy advocates of intelligent design is that there are no examples of new species being developed by mutation. They are willing to give up on the question of change by breeding and mutation, but not on the question of species development.

 

That's how I interpret the "pond scum doesn't become a human" claim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

we do see mutated changes in many things, particularly bacteria. the problem with this claim, however, is that our "scientific" history of evolution is only a few hundred years in the making. species evolving from other species takes on the order of hundreds of thousands of years, not a few hundred. and, as i noted above, the pond scum point is even further removed since that was 4 BILLION years ago. uh, american billion, so 4,000,000,000,000 years ago. the "jump" from a pool of amino acids to the proper proteins and then life is yet unexplained, and probably never will be.

 

taks

[mkreku]

How can they say that no new species are being developed by mutation? Of course, an ape doesn't mutate over a day and become a donkey! But small mutations are common. They're even used to get new colours in flowers. Just breed a million roses in a field, and you're bound to get a few differently coloured roses.

[DeathScepter]

i am more of a thestic evolutionist.

 

 

 

Thru NATURAL LAWS God made the universe.

 

 

I do believe that Science and Religion can be great allies.

 

but there are idiots within both areas that make both of them look bad.

[Calax]

I'm gonna toss this out there.

 

To the best of our Archeological knowlege we were origionally more like baboons than apes. approx. 6 million years ago the apes and chimps and other primates diverged from us in the evolutionary tree. We were designed origionally to be tree dwellers but after a while the trees started to get farther and farther apart. (this was all in africa, it was heavily forested back then.) so the tree dwellers slowly started to learn to walk on two feet. And from what our scientists tell us, there were about 15-20 different versions of us based on skeletal structure in the interveneing years/generations.

 

I just spent the better part of 7 weeks going over this in my history class.

I'll try to find the slides he used, I know they are somewhere around on the net.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Calax

[EnderAndrew]

We've witnessed evolution and documented it. I've seen spiders develop a second spinner to create ultra-violet webs that look like flowers to insects, when it didn't have that trait previously.

 

However I think it is fair to say there is very little evidence to suggest pond scum became humans via evolution.

[Commissar]

the "jump" from a pool of amino acids to the proper proteins and then life is yet unexplained, and probably never will be.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't think so? I think that's what has the religious right so worried, in all honesty. I think, provided we don't revert back too often to the sort of society that locks our Galileos up, humanity as a whole will eventually have more answers than it ever dreamed of.

[julianw]

I do believe that Science and Religion can be great allies.

 

but there are idiots within both areas that make both of them look bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed.

 

I think Einstein said this: Science without religion is meaningless and religion without science is superstition. The two should be practiced in harmony.

[Colrom]

We've witnessed evolution and documented it.  I've seen spiders develop a second spinner to create ultra-violet webs that look like flowers to insects, when it didn't have that trait previously.

 

However I think it is fair to say there is very little evidence to suggest pond scum became humans via evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was clever of those spiders!

 

I'd like to try something like that myself! (w00t)

 

Any suggestions for what I should develop? :D

[EnderAndrew]

We've witnessed evolution and documented it.  I've seen spiders develop a second spinner to create ultra-violet webs that look like flowers to insects, when it didn't have that trait previously.

 

However I think it is fair to say there is very little evidence to suggest pond scum became humans via evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was clever of those spiders!

 

I'd like to try something like that myself! (w00t)

 

Any suggestions for what I should develop? :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was in a Junion High biology class. We watched a 2-hour video about these scientists who went down to South America and watched insects progress from generation to generation over 3 years. Since many insects only live a few days, said generations are frequent and thusly insects are great for studying evolution.

 

However, since we had insects millions of years ago, and they have considerably more frequent generations than us, and haven't evolved into a super race in a larger span of time since humans supposedly evolved, I find it hard to assume that there are huge jumps in species evolution, such as the phylogenic tree would suggest.

 

I did not come from pond scum.

[kirottu]

However, since we had insects millions of years ago, and they have considerably more frequent generations than us, and haven't evolved into a super race in a larger span of time since humans supposedly evolved, I find it hard to assume that there are huge jumps in species evolution, such as the phylogenic tree would suggest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Goal of evolution isn

Edited September 28, 2005 by kirottu

[EnderAndrew]

And yet from simple pond scum humans (supposedly the only sentient race) developed, and yet species that went through more generations in a larger span of time never came close to developing our level of complexity or intelligence.

 

Given that insects also have a far greater population, if you were to figure the enormous number of insects that have lived on the face of the earth since the age of dinosaurs to today, and compare it to the supposed evolution of humanity in a much shorter span, none of it makes sense.

 

People also often say that we evolved from primates like apes. Well another problem with that is that Darwin taught evolution occurs when it is a necessity to survive. The parent species dies out.

 

Yet we have reason to believe that apes and other primates existed around the time of early humans. It stands to reason that we thusly did not evolve from them. If evololution was necessary for survival, those who didn't adapt would have died out, not exist alongside us for all these years.

 

I love how people call some of these theories science when they have HUGE holes in them.

 

These theories are popular, widespread, and perhaps our current best guess. That doesn't make them right, or well founded.

[WITHTEETH]

We've witnessed evolution and documented it.  I've seen spiders develop a second spinner to create ultra-violet webs that look like flowers to insects, when it didn't have that trait previously.

 

However I think it is fair to say there is very little evidence to suggest pond scum became humans via evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I'm back and i see ive missed a few points that i could have shared darnit

 

Ender, you have brought up the main missing link in evolution. but scientists right now are doing just that, or should i say trying to. They have built a scenario of how the earth was like before it created living organisms. to try just that. so my advice is, never say never.

 

I think Einstein said this: Science without religion is meaningless and religion without science is superstition. The two should be practiced in harmony.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Einstein also said "

 

"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.... Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me." ~Albert Einstein

 

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." ~Albert Einstein

 

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." ~Albert Einstein

 

I don't know.  The evidence for the theory of evolution is pretty shoddy.  Evolutions entire history is made up of lies and distortions and is practically a pseudoscience.

 

Evolutionists are just as religious as the Creationists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Barth, evolution is very complex when it comes down to knowing everything, but what about Ocrams razor? well you'd think believing ID would be right right? well no, because ID has to many holes. its like jumping into an abyss of no reason. Its just an idea, not even a hypothesis, not even science. Evolution is testable and you can witness it. You can see information increase in a nylon bug, you can see a change in bactria, you can watch the fossils as they evolved over millenias and look at birds from different islands with evolved traits to help them survive better.

 

Is evolution a religion? is science a religion? NO, all science is are statistics, thats it period! its just a system to reason, and its been doing a great job(opinionated i know). some people may believe in science yes, but that is not a religion. A religion sets a complete way to live ,not just on belief. Is my atheism a religion? no its just one belief, just like theism is just one belief.

Edited September 28, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Hurlshort]

I teach 7th grade history, which covers all the major religions, and the jump from polytheism to monotheism. I think philosophical theory needs to be taught just as much as scientific theory about our possible roots. The problem is, as a teacher, you need to present an unbiased opinion about ALL sides. That way students can make up their mind. If you can't take a neutral stance on this issue, you shouldn't be in the classroom.

 

On a side note, George Bush Jr. (who I typically scratch my head over) actually had a good statement about this issue. He said something to the extent that he believed all theories should be taught. Why not?

[EnderAndrew]

Perhaps it is more fair to say that belief in a postulate, or unproven theory can be construed as an act of faith, the same as believing in a religion.

 

Ask a Catholic Priest how many miracles they acknowledged recently, or how many saints have been canoninzed from such miracles. There are people who see miracles all the time, all over the world.

 

For these people, faith is based on observation in much the same way science is based on oberservation.

 

Those science-minded also often discount religion because it seems to be one accepting what one is taught from the pulpit, but no scientist operates in a void. They accept theories, postulates and the like from what others tell them.

 

Science is more reliable and trustworthy you might say?

 

Didn't scientists insist that lunacy was caused by the moon and female sex organs, and that insanity was cured by fumigation and hysterectomies?

 

Scientists knew for a fact the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.

 

Time and time again science has been proven wrong, and science has yet to prove anything right.

 

Science and religion are two different methods for explaining that which we don't know and I find it sad that the two sides must be so exclusive and dismissive of each other.

 

I try to have a healthy respect for spirituality and science.

[WITHTEETH]

Perhaps it is more fair to say that belief in a postulate, or unproven theory can be construed as an act of faith, the same as believing in a religion.

by EnderAndrew

 

He who controls the words, controls the debate!

 

Well when it comes down to it, everything takes a first assumption. so then everything takes faith because of that assumption. As i said, all science is are statistics. if you can beleive scientific theorys such as plate tectonics and gravity that are here today, will also be here tomarrow then you can believe in science. Its easy for me to beleive. but thats just my perspective.

 

Also, science does not claim facts. they humbly claim scietific theorys which is as close as they go. They think that way because they know they cannot know EVERYTHING about one thing, that would take a lifetime ATLEAST. unlike Zues.

Edited September 28, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[kirottu]

Given that insects also have a far greater population, if you were to figure the enormous number of insects that have lived on the face of the earth since the age of dinosaurs to today, and compare it to the supposed evolution of humanity in a much shorter span, none of it makes sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually it does. The vast amount of insect clearly says that their evolution has been more efficent than humans.

[Hurlshort]

Well, I've yet to see an insect whip out a can of RAID when a human settlement gets too close. Clearly there are evolutionary limits. Early man was still more advanced, as the tools found nearby can attest to. There are other animals that have used tools, but clearly there is something unique about mankind.

[taks]

the "jump" from a pool of amino acids to the proper proteins and then life is yet unexplained, and probably never will be.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't think so? I think that's what has the religious right so worried, in all honesty. I think, provided we don't revert back too often to the sort of society that locks our Galileos up, humanity as a whole will eventually have more answers than it ever dreamed of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, i don't. i think it is not only unprovable, but untestable. origins are part of what i'm talking about when i refer to ID not being science. neither are origins. even if we could reproduce origins in the lab, e.g. electric current through the pond scum creates single celled organisms, we'll never be able to make the jump to how it happened in the beginning or, more importantly, how the right combination of pond scum was present in the first place (if we do it, then we put the right combination there... who put ours there?). we may, however, run into some advanced society from space one day that tells us what happens. but that's not really high on my list of things to expect.

 

i agree, however, that this is part of what has the religious right worried. but ID goes much deeper than that. like i said, read the wedge strategy and you'll see. they want all education to embrace GOD and his role in our lives. not good.

 

taks

[taks]

And yet from simple pond scum humans (supposedly the only sentient race) developed, and yet species that went through more generations in a larger span of time never came close to developing our level of complexity or intelligence.

what part of this don't you get? humans did not come from pond scum. sheesh ender, this is pretty simple. furthermore, evolution is directed by what works where. other species evolved based on their environment, among other things. other species developed only as far as they needed to to survive. again, simple concept.

 

it is also incorrect to say that other species don't have our level of complexity or even intelligence. au contraire. you're just assuming that we are leaps and bounds ahead of everything else, which is not true. this is a qualitative comparison between man, other primates, dolphins and many other mammals. we're just at the top of the list, but the differences in intelligence are extremely subtle. this is particularly true with primates.

 

Given that insects also have a far greater population, if you were to figure the enormous number of insects that have lived on the face of the earth since the age of dinosaurs to today, and compare it to the supposed evolution of humanity in a much shorter span, none of it makes sense.

uh, your own statement refutes your supposition. given that insects have a far greater population, they kinda qualify as "the fittest" by default. evolution is about species surviving. nothing else. mutations that would change insects just don't survive.

 

People also often say that we evolved from primates like apes.  Well another problem with that is that Darwin taught evolution occurs when it is a necessity to survive.  The parent species dies out.

not true. evolution happens as a result of mutations in genes. when a gene mutates, if the mutation is not detrimental to the life of the carrier, it will be passed on. not all mutations result in new species. this is not a "flip of the switch" kind of thing. it is true, however, that certain mutations will create a greater chance of the creature carrying on its genes. that the parent species did not "survive" is not relevant since it may have taken a thousand generations before the offspring is not closely related to the original parent.

 

Yet we have reason to believe that apes and other primates existed around the time of early humans.  It stands to reason that we thusly did not evolve from them.

nobody said we did. evolutionary biologist claim we evolved from common ancestors. get your facts straight before commenting about things you don't understand.

 

I love how people call some of these theories science when they have HUGE holes in them.

i'm curious when holes in theories automatically started renouncing the possibility of science? communication theory had huge holes in it when bell did his thing with the phone. not so now. the fact that there are huge holes in it are precisely what makes this science. science is not about having all the answers. science is about the search for answers.

 

These theories are popular, widespread, and perhaps our current best guess.  That doesn't make them right, or well founded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, it makes them science. science is nothing more than testing theories. if evidence supports the theory (which evolution has boatloads of), then it is assumed to be true (not proved as that is typically not possible). if evidence does not support the theory, then the theory is changed accordingly. this process continues ad infinitum.

 

seriously, EA, you disappoint me. this is really the most close-minded thing you've ever said.

 

taks

Edited September 28, 2005 by taks

[taks]

Well, I've yet to see an insect whip out a can of RAID when a human settlement gets too close.

but can man wipe out any population of insects? no.

 

Clearly there are evolutionary limits.

i doubt this is true. not all mutations will result in beneficial traits, but some do. it's a little random in that respect. trial and error has been mentioned, though there is no real attempt at doing trials. they happen, and there are results. some good, most bad.

 

Early man was still more advanced, as the tools found nearby can attest to.  There are other animals that have used tools, but clearly there is something unique about mankind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not sure how that's relevant. primates today are a different line. our earliest ancestor may have used tools, but some of his offspring "stayed in the trees" so to speak.

 

keep in mind, the term "common ancestor" does not mean one couple spawned both man and ape. we may have evolved from a society of primates that no longer had trees for shelter. other colonies of the same primate lived in areas that still had trees. their evolutionary chain did not vary as much because the mutation that allowed them to walk upright was not beneficial. such creatures would simply fall out of the tree and die. on the edge of a newly forming desert, however, such a mutation would be extremely beneficial.

 

taks