Possible solution to resolve "fight between" Evolution theory and Intelligent Design?

Intelligent design is not science, that is why there is argument from the scientific community. Evolution is a theory, but in the scientific community a theory carries a lot of weight. If there is ever question about a theory, the scientific community is the first to say so. There really isn't question about evolution, there is tons of evidence to support it and nothing against it.

I think children should be exposed to different religion because it is an important part of society, but it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

ADDITION:

My problem isn't that its too religious for the school, its that its too religius for science because science and religion are different things. Like I siad, I have no problem with discussing religion in school in an appropriate area such as social studies. It jsut isn't science.

How scientifc theories come about

1. Question asked

2. Evidence examined to see waht is already known

3. Hypothesis created based on previous evidence

4. Test hypothesis

5. Evaluate results, see what has been gained and what is still left unexplained

6. Repeated process to explore what is still unexplained

The reasonings being ID:

A)

1. The Bible said so

2. The Bible is always right , so God must have done it (some people just stop here)

3. Look and see if something fits to convince other people

B)

1. Its too complicated for me to understand

2. There must have een someone who put it here (again some just stop here)- God did it

3. Find evidence to convince people.

Science NEVER works from going to conclusion to evidence!

As I said on the other question.

No

This was ALREADY tried and ALREADY struck down by the courts as a government endorsement of religion.

Look, anyone who thinks a biological Theory replaces their faith...had no faith in the 1st place and is an idiot.

I don't see these primates trying to force us to teach Ancient Mayan astrology in Greek poetry class....know why?

THEY ARE TWO SEPERATE SUBJECTS!

You go into science class, and you learn about science..from a scientific standpoint. Then you can go to church and learn about faith from a religious standpoint.....and you mediate between the two YOURSELF...that is how life works, that is how it is supposed to be, why should one subject have to stop and explain that there are other ways to look at the world when no other subject has to? Why can't...oh let's say..A PARENT tell child about faith? Are parents that cowardly these days? Are they that lazy?

OK this is SAME EXACT thing as having a historian come up right after preacher's sermon in church and say "There is no documented evidence that there was any such person as Jesus. We think faith shuld be explored with an open mind and critical thinking to the alternate ideas that there never was a Jesus or that Jesus was just a man punished by the Romans who after his death was created into a hero to help start the resistance against Roman rule".

No as no one would stand for that.....it cannot be done to science class.

*and before I get the "Oh well churches are private blah blah blah" I remind everyone churches pay NO taxes and if wants the rights of a private clubhouse then maybe they should start paying taxes like everyone else and other groups such as business

The ID Operating Prodecure:

1) Ignore and refuse to accept all empirical evidence

2) Lie and corrupt words any way needed to look like our side is scientific

3) Claim vast conspiracies deny you proper access while ignoring all question about why your "evidence" is 100% false

4) Combine Evolution with Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Abortion, Satanism and say they are all from the same Theory.

5) Parrot the party line no matter that every line you spouyt has been proved false hundreds of times

6) Go after the weak minded and young to twist and corrupt them into joining your side so you can try the "Science is about democratic vote on natural laws" argument

7) Never EVER discuss with anyone who has any learning on the subject as he/she will be able to show your argument as ridiculous

hsmomlovinit> Actually sorry you are incorrect. During the ID trials it was found that it basically was word for word the previous material of creationism but they just replaced the word God and Designer. That is a 100% true fact that you can look up yourself. The ONLY debate in science circles is not IF Evolution is answer but by WHAT PROCESS Evolution functions and that has been the case for decades. Even in 1999 National Academy of Science stated that there were so many transitional fossils they could not seperate by category

Well, I solve it by allowing my son to study both, side by side, and make the decision for himself. Isn't that what science is about - studying all of the evidence and drawing conclusions from it?

Edit - science chick, ID didn't come from biblical creation. It came from evolutionary scientists realizing that parts of the evolutionary theory didn't line up, and questioning it. The basis of ID is that something - not necessarily God, though they don't rule him out - created everything. Those scientists, to this day, are not Christian and don't hold to biblical creation as anything more than a possibility. There are just parts of evolution that don't line up, and many of the foundational hypotheses that were the basis for Darwin's theory were disproven decades ago. Yet, since evolution completely denies the possibility of anything or anyone creating all that we see, it's considered "science".

As far as I can see, true science doesn't rule out possibilities - it considers them fairly and makes determinations from all of the evidence. It doesn't start out with an assumption of "my belief couldn't possibly be wrong, so it has to be such and such - now I'll set out to prove that."

I don't personally have a problem with things evolving; I firmly hold to natural selection, variation, and adaptation. What I have a problem with is the firm stance of denying evidence when it contradicts Darwinian evolution. The truth is, we don't know 100% which one is right or wrong...we all go from the same evidence. However, if we're going to call it science, then we shouldn't start out with the presupposition that something is right or wrong just because it fits our agenda or belief system.

If it's religious or theological, it belongs in a philosophy classroom. Teach ID there. Teach evolution in the science classroom.

That's too simple, but this is not a question that can be decided here or anywhere.

Good luck in your discussion.

of direction Evolution is an thought, yet nonetheless the some definitions of an thought are:- "A coherent group of examined time-honored propositions, usually referred to as ultimate, that is used as concepts of rationalization and prediction for a classification of phenomena: e.g.Einstein's concept of relativity." and "A concept in technical use is a extra or much less shown or accepted rationalization accounting for usually used information or phenomena: the thought of relativity." sensible layout satisfies not one of the above definitions. this is not a examined proposition and is not usually referred to as ultimate (i.e. via the knowledgeable medical community at super) and this is not a shown or accepted rationalization of something this is clever.

A *really* important question, which you leave vague ... is whether you are talking about SCIENCE class ... specifically BIOLOGY.

If so, then its really important to understand what the purpose of Science class actually is in primary school or high school.

The purpose is about teaching kids the *BASICS* of the scientific method, which includes exposing them to the *MAIN* theories accepted by the current consensus of the scientific community.

* In physics class this includes the basics of Newtonian mechanics, the theory of gravity, and maybe the basics of electrons and the photon theory of light.

* In chemistry class, the *MAIN* theory is atomic theory of matter, and the concept of how atoms form into molecules.

* In geology class, the main theories concern how rocks are formed, and the plate tectonics theory (continental movement), which explains everything from mountain ranges to earthquakes.

So what about biology?

Mainstream biologists will tell you that there are two CORE theories that are absolutely essential for understanding modern biology:

1. Cell theory (the concept that all life forms are made up of cells, the mechanisms by which cells reproduce and pass on inherited information, and the molecular processes that all cells employ);

2. Evolution theory (the concept that life forms change over time, *why* they change, and how all life forms are related by common ancestry).

It is impossible to have even a *BASIC* understanding of modern biology without *BOTH* of those concepts.

To try to learn biology without evolution ... is like trying to learn chemistry without atoms or molecules!

Intelligent Design is nowhere *CLOSE* to being even a fringe science accepted by even a tiny fraction of the world's scientific community. If you were to ask the world's biologists whether they favored evolution or intelligent design, I would be absolutely shocked if you got even 1% who said that they favored Intelligent Design over evolution.

However, Intelligent Design is being vigorously promoted by religious groups as an *ALTERNATIVE* to evolution to be taught in schools to children. Ask an ID supporter what evidence they cite for ID, and listen carefully as these arguments are always, always, always presented in the form of "evolution doesn't explain ..." In other words, to argue in favor of ID one has to argue *against* evolution.

Such arguments invoke phrases like "irreducible complexity", whether "mutations increase new information", whether "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics." These arguments are easily refuted by a scientist who has some foundation in complexity theory, information theory, thermodynamics, not to mention genetics and biochemistry. But a 10th grader, faced with these complex arguments is just left utterly confused.

And that is *PRECISELY* the goal. To confuse kids into thinking that evolution is either complicated, or controversial ... and evolution is neither! Evolution is *really* simple to understand, and it is not controversial at all among scientists.

In short, unable to convince scientists to take Intelligent Design seriously, they are glad to settle for confusing children.

It is despicable and cowardly.

If advocates of Intelligent Design think they have some scientific merit ... then do what all scientists have done throughout the history .... DO THE SCIENCE. Do it in the labs, in the universities, write papers, accumulate evidence, convince your fellow scientists. You don't do it in 10th grade biology classrooms!

But if you can't convince fellow scientists, then you have NO BUSINESS taking your case to 10th-graders instead!

So no ... evolution is one of the two *FOUNDATIONS* of modern biology ... as accepted overwhelmingly by the *current* scientific community ... especially the world's biologists.

Intelligent Design isn't even a blip in mainsteam biological circles. Students should no more be presented with a "choice" between evolution and intelligent design, than they should be offered a "choice" about whether the earth is round or flat.

Please, please, please ... is it too much to ask that we teach only accepted *science* in science class!

what is wrong with believng both?

The Bible says Adam and Eve were 'chosen'

but when cain and abel fought and one killed the other, the murderer was sent to the 'land of nod'

he found a wife------where did the wife come from?

so from that little sentence, I have found it might be both.

how about that??

Yes, that would make a lot of them happier, but as you say, it is "too religious for non-religion school curriculum" (they won't allow it).

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID.

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet. You are one of the few who understand this ("God, Allah, the FSM or whatever you name it").

Good science teaching should include controversies (or at least allow them to be mentioned). But, whenever you talk about this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.

This may or may not be over the top, but as Cal Thomas has said, “Why are believers in one model—evolution—seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It’s because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.”

Whatever you may think of George Bush, he was right in this: "Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

As the Chinese paleontologist J. Y. Chen said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”

And it's not just in the high school classroom (e.g. Ben Stein's new movie).

============================

To the so called "science chick", there is a lot more science involved in ID than you think.

Many people (like you) have the problem of not making a distinction between the evidence and the implications. ID may have unsavory theological implications, and so many people simply reject it or dismiss it as religion. But implications don't decide the truth of theories—evidence does. As Dr. Stephen Meyer has said, “The evidence is one thing; the implications are another. We want you to settle the discussion on the basis of the evidence.”

Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

As Dr. Stephen Meyer said (when being interviewed by Nightline), “From the evidence of the information that’s embedded in DNA, from the evidence of the nanotechnology in the cell, we think you can infer that an intelligence played a role. In fact, there are sophisticated statistical methods of design detection that allow scientists to distinguish the effects of an intelligent cause from an undirected natural process. When you apply those statistical measures and criteria to the analysis of the cell, they indicate that the cell was designed by an intelligence.”

The four main areas the ID movement focuses on: Information Theory, Irreducible Complexity, The Anthropic Principle, and The Design Inference.

Here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?...

Here is a growing list of scientists who signed “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-do...

Here is a helpful reference guide with the Neo-Darwinian view next to the Intelligent Design view: http://www.arn.org/docs/Redeeming%20Darwin%20Refer...

From what I've seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

The Darwin Party M.O.

• Step 1: Assume evolution.

• Step 2: Observe a fact.

• Step 3: Make up a story to show how the fact might fit in with the assumption of evolution.

• Step 4: Attack, ridicule, and persecute anyone who doesn’t toe the Darwin Party line.