Seems like it is only a matter of time before church and state become one.

Interesting... Jindal is a Catholic. The Catholic Church accepts evolution and rejects ID. Therefore Jindal is going against the teachings of his church. I wonder if they'll deny him communion or anything...

Also, this is a guy who thinks he exocised a demon from a friend of his. Clearly he's a religious wacko, which makes him PERFECT for the GOP VP slot.

But do the Rethuglicans really want a VP candidate who is half McSame's age.

[Deleted. Clean it up, please. Thank you. Site Monitor]

Pawn @ 4:

You know, gravity is proven scientifically. Evolution and Intelligent Design are really on the same level. Neither is proven, nor is there a realistic way to prove either. Just because evolution has been a long standing theory, intelligent design has been around thousands of years longer. What makes evolution so much more palatable than intelligent design? It comes down to your beliefs, and what you determine to be right. I don't like Jindal, or the mixture of religion and politics, but similar to the last post on Jindal's exorcism comments, we have to really focus on what he is doing politically not religiously. Let's not let ourselves fall into the republican attempts to make this election about religion!

With all due respect, Pawn, I suggest that you look up the scientific definition of "theory". Gravity and evolution ARE considered to be scientific theories. Intelligent Design is not.

I'm okay with teaching I.D. with evolution in science classes as long as the far right is willing to fund biologists to come teach evolution in their churchs.

Simple.

This guy just officially creeped me out (in a political way).

Evolution explains how. Creationism and ID don't say how. They instead answer the question of How with Who. It's not even the same question when they get done answering it.

ID has its place, however. If we were attacked with a man-made virus, one might suspect we could determine whether the virus was designed by mankind or occurred naturally by studying it.

the fact Americans are sitting around, discussing whether ID should be taught along side evolution is exactly the reason why this great empire will fall. while we're "debating" this, the rest of the world working with accepted scientific theory to make advancements. well, maybe not 8th century sha'aria law guys in the talliban so maybe you should go live with those winners.

hey, id guys, why don't you use your id theory to cure cancer, aids, the bird flu or anything else? oh, because doing that research requires acceptance and understanding of the theory of evolution. damn.

Restore the Constitution @ 8:

I'm okay with teaching I.D. with evolution in science classes as long as the far right is willing to fund biologists to come teach evolution in their churchs.

Simple.

Good Show!

Politics needs to be taken away from politicians.

(Meant . . . "and the sun revolves around the earth" . . .)

Actually, Jindal, the reason it's not required to be taught beside evolution is because it's a load of crap. I assure you the good teachers out there are discussing the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of intelligent design anyways.

Fairy tales have no place in a science classroom.

I can’t wait for the Hoff to do some hassling this season!

http://www.nbc.com/Americas_Got_Talent/video/index.shtml#mea=262134

Don’t forget to check out “America’s Got Talent,” Tuesdays at 9/8c on NBC

And while we're at it, the medical schools should be required to teach, alongside the germ theory of disease, the demon possession theory of disease. Not!

People like Jindal are the cause of our country being the laughing stock for the rest of the civilized world. We are being governed by idiots.

While we're at it, let's teach astrology along side astronomy and numerology along side mathematics.

*sigh*

Karen @ 333:
This thread has my mind reeling, so I had to come back. I'm glad I did as Karen's response is great. First off, I think it is quite obvious that I am speaking outside of the scientific definition of theory. To keep it simple, to me theory is something that is unproven. Most of the terms I use should not be perceived from a scientific definition of the word. Let's remember that the english language typically provides more than one definition for a word.

I think one of the key points you make is: "Because all we can do is reduce uncertainty, and adopt reasonable beliefs based on probability, we (as science does) must always make room for the possibility that we could be wrong." Many that have included themselves in this discussion seem to believe that there is no longer room for error.

When you state that gravity and evolution have reached their pinnacle, and now it's simply reducing uncertainty, I beg to differ. We as humans may have reached the capacity of our current ability to understand these topics, but they certainly have potential for further breakthroughs.

"On the other hand, as proffered, Intelligent Design, makes claims that by their nature cannot be proven through scientific observation and experimentation. It affords no predictive leverage about the world, and merely posits an intelligent designer whenever gaps exist in a scientific theory. It is of a completely different nature than science. It is not science."

First off, in a later post I do retract myself from the term Intelligent Design, though I do believe that God created the heavens and earth as provided in Genesis. Science may later reveal this to be true or false. I will look at what is provided and make a decision based on the facts that are presented. I don't simply use religion to fill in the unknown, and I think the statement you made is unfair. As you state it is based on the observation of the evidence. The evidence in my life has shown that there is a God. I won't go into details now, and those that don't believe in God attempt feverously to refute what has happened to me. Perhaps your statement is solely based on the term Intelligent Design and how it is being pushed by those that want to disregard science. Those people are not me.

"Everything empirical comes down to "beliefs," in the strictest sense of the word. It does not follow, however, that all beliefs are equal. Some are backed by evidence. Some are backed by very strong evidence. Some are backed by weak evidence. Some are backed by no evidence and taken on faith. Some are actually contrary to the evidence, and taken on dogmatic faith. What makes evolution palatable has nothing to do with the amount of time it has been since its proposal. Evolution is backed by overwhelming evidence. Intelligent Design, however, is not -- because it cannot be, not the way it is proposed. To the extent that it can be examined through observation of evidence, it is contrary to the evidence that we have."

When you say that belief are not equal you are essentially stating to me that without a preponderance of evidence your belief is less deserving than mine. I disregard that. In the scientific community you are trained to use tangible evidence to support your theorems. What happens when there is no explanation then? Is there no room for something that is not tangible to your eyes and experience? Even having so many things that back your theory's, don't they simply present further questions?

"Except if Jindal wants to integrate church and state, his religion is a legitimate topic for political discussion. To argue that evolution and intelligent design should be taught as equal scientific theories betrays either a desire to integrate church and state or a woeful ignorance of the terms "science," "theory," and "intelligent design."

I agree with you, this specific statement is commingling politics and religion, and should fall under further scrutiny. My argument is to not allow ourselves to be focused on religion as this is one of the few strengths republicans have remaining.

"Because it isn't science. Because it doesn't conform to the scientific method. And that's it. There's nothing more to it. I think this video (and the narrator's entire series of YouTube videos) would help explain the concepts of "science," "theory," "evolution," and "intelligent design." (By the way, everyone here should watch potholer54's awesome "Made Easy" series. It's wonderful!)"

So if it isn't science, there's no room for argument. Is this fair? Who are you, or anybody for that matter, to make that kind of judgement? Am I to understand this as that the all-inclusive scientific profession is "elitist" and all-knowing? You've already stated not.

"Yes. And you should understand that science itself is not a collection of information. Science is a method of collecting information. It's a method of figuring out what's true to the best of our human abilities. We've gotten very good at it, which is why you can have conversations with people all over the world by typing into a computer on your desk, actions which rely on "theory.""

We may have gotten very good at "true and best", but as you state it is to the extent of our human abilities. Our abilities, though most likely infinite, may reach a plateau that would require a strong breakthrough (such as the human genome) to further explain that which we don't understand. We are only limited by our own ideology. Once our mind is opened to new possibilities we run away with it and work to perfect it.

"Your argument is wrong. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. And the theory of gravity, just like evolution, continually requires the adjustment of our understanding for the better. Notions about gravity, not to mention time and space, had to be revised upon adopting Einstein's great theory, that of relativity. This is part and parcel of how science works, ever approaching truth asymptotically."

Though the evidence for evolution is overwhelming it is a scientific theory to the extent that it has been proven to the "true and best" abilities of humankind. Many scientists today continue to argue this point. Is it a fact? No. Therefore there is room for argument that perhaps science does not provide the whole answer. Einstein was a great intellect of our time, and I'm sure the future will provide us with other of even greater intellect that will present us with other "great theories".

"Before we can argue evolution, you actually have to know how it works and what it postulates. Your statement demonstrates that you do not. I would recommend these videos this time." & "I would venture to guess that you do not really know the process by which species "adapt" to their environments. If you did, you would also see how it is imminently logical, even inevitable, that new kinds of species would "evolve" over time."

I admittedly am not trained in evolution. What seems clear is that evolution from some form of primate is not a proven fact at this point in time. I think in your second statement provided you misunderstood me, as I do believe that all animals and humans will evolve based on their environment and circumstances. Was there something different you are trying to communicate that I'm not seeing?

"But, you did begin arguing this."

What the statement I made you are referring to by making this comment was how the human genome is broken down. I think you are taking me out of context at this point. Now, based on some reading I have been doing (primarily tonight), the genome does not 100% prove that we evolved from some form of primate. Others argue that there is a fossil history that contributes to evolution. Based on reading that I have done, scientists have been presented with more questions than answers by the supposed jawbone that was unearthed. Is there other fossil history that supports evolution from another form of primate? If so, is the scientific community completely in agreement then that this proves human evolution from primates. Not even close based on what I've read so far.

"When you say that you "haven't seen any proof," what do you mean? What have you seen, what do you understand evolution to be, and on what basis are you rejecting it? Again, watch the linked videos, and begin to embrace the education that you admittedly lack"

I think that you are going down the right direction that all of us need to ask ourselves. Is evolution simply scientific that will provide evidence of our ancient roots being another form of a primate? Do we simply evolve based on our environment and circumstances? Do the two questions even relate to each other? Perhaps science will completely debunk human evolution from primates and point to a God. Even if other breeds of animals have actually evolved to their current being, does that actually aid to prove that humans evolved from primates? There are alot of questions that need answers before we debate this so vigorously. All of this energy we're putting into this may be for not.

"Intelligent design, like most religious propositions, begins with "I do know," and ends with, "Well, maybe you do have evidence on your side, but I'm right anyway, and for you to reject my side means you're not open-minded." Such an attitude is disingenuous, for to have an open mind does not mean being willing to consider beliefs contrary to scientifically observed evidence. Instead, it means willing to observe new evidence that contradicts a theory. Intelligent Design does not provide that with respect to the evidence for evolution."

Similar to scientific evidence that is tangible, I have experienced intangible evidence to convince me that God does exist. For you my experience may be far-fetched and unbelievable. To you it may be an anomaly of my mind that created the illusion of what happened to me. That's because you have to have tangible evidence that proves what is hypothesized, or believed to be true by others. Isn't that close-minded. If one is unable to prove what they say, they are immediately discredited. I believe this is a form of arrogance, and it limits the ability to learn more about what is actually happening in the world. Now it is also unfair to assume that people will not accept evidence to the contrary of there being a God. There will be some that will, no doubt, and the same will go for the scientists that will stand strong that there will never be any proof of a God. So be it, it is their right to hold onto their beliefs.

To wrap up, I'd like to ask, what is the harm in believing in God and Jesus? Are the teaching of Jesus unjust. Are these too difficult to live by, therefore we must make up our own standards for living? You stated that those of us that believe in God in fact use it out of convenience when we cannot prove something scientifically. I disagree. Contrary, I believe those that don't believe in God don't because they believe that the rules are too strict to follow deep down inside? Sure many of the scriptures of the bible show some stern disciplinary sentences for those that break the rules, but under the new covenant under Jesus Christ those old ways were replaced. The rule of mans law today are founded on biblical teachings. Many that don't believe also believe that the laws of man are gone too far. Well, I'll agree to a point, and that's where the laws have strayed from the bible. This forum has proven to be hostile to my beliefs. So I don't expect a positive reaction to what I say. When science proves something, there are more questions than there was originally when the first question arose. I think that in itself goes towards evidence of something that may never be able to be proven until it's too late.

Sorry for all that type being a link on the upper part of my last post, I obviously did not edit the not well.

Vincennes @ 346:

Hey I'd been psyched to learn in school about intelligent design along with just about every religion, cult, belief system ever created on Earth ... as long as each gets equal billing. Do you think the pro-intelligent design Christians would allow that?

How about we learn Scientology creation theory first?

noparty @ 360:

Otay:

Again, would you start caring about teaching evolution if we no longer had the knowledge of evolution to develop antibiotics? Or had the capability to adapt to evolving strains of deadly viruses?

Ah, you're talking about small-scale evolution that has been observed and proven. Yes, that should be taught. As for the theoretical evolution (Man came from ape, which came from lizard, which came from fish, which came from legos, or whatever), I don't really care either way.

Theoretical evolution? A scientific theory explains how things evolved. That is the most important part of evolution, as that tells the scientists how the process works, and enables them to predict how to counter the process (such as countering antibiotic resistance). And the how of evolution (genetic change and speciation) is tied in with its practical use.

If practical evolution could not be separated from speciation and other "large-scale" examples of evolution, would you just accept not teaching it, so you would not offend anyone?

Epinnoia @ 13:

Evolution explains how. Creationism and ID don't say how. They instead answer the question of How with Who.

There is no "Who".

Here's the bottom line: ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.
End of story.
If you think otherwise, you are wrong.
There is no argument.

Next topic.

Can we start having math students calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, now?

Whenever this nonsense comes up, I want to propose a deal to the fundies:
You can teach Creationism in our schools, if we can teach Darwinism in your Sunday Schools.

I gotta say I too feel hostility on these forums for my Christian beliefs. I'm a pro-gay, anti-war, anti-capital punishment, anti-drug war, etc guy that happens to be a Christian. My faith is not logical or scientific, but it is a part of me. In fact, the teachings of Jesus are the root of my progressive beliefs. Love your neighbor, love your enemy, take care of the poor, money sucks, power sucks, hypocritical religious leaders suck, etc. He never spoke against homosexuality or evolution or abortion, never condoned war. Anyways, I'm a Christian and I'm on your side on pretty much every political issue. And I'm far from alone. The modern-day "Pharisees" just get all the press.

99Lufballons @ 256:

The ID "theory" crumbles with one very simple question.
"Who's GOD is responsible for everything?"
Allah?
Jesus Christ?
Sun Ra?
Yahweh?
Jehovah?

They are all GODs, but are we to believe the Bible version of GOD or the Talmud, or the Koran, or the ....?

the Kama Sutra!!

ysbaddaden @ 299:

291 BroRuss Says: To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, anyone who thinks mankind was intelligently designed by a divine creator never stopped and took much time to ponder such things as the tonsils, the prostate gland, the female reproductive system, or teeth.

Male nipples.

AMEN!!!

Otay @ 367:

noparty @ 360:

Otay:

Again, would you start caring about teaching evolution if we no longer had the knowledge of evolution to develop antibiotics? Or had the capability to adapt to evolving strains of deadly viruses?

Ah, you're talking about small-scale evolution that has been observed and proven. Yes, that should be taught. As for the theoretical evolution (Man came from ape, which came from lizard, which came from fish, which came from legos, or whatever), I don't really care either way.

Theoretical evolution? A scientific theory explains how things evolved. That is the most important part of evolution, as that tells the scientists how the process works, and enables them to predict how to counter the process (such as countering antibiotic resistance). And the how of evolution (genetic change and speciation) is tied in with its practical use.

If practical evolution could not be separated from speciation and other "large-scale" examples of evolution, would you just accept not teaching it, so you would not offend anyone?

No, a scientific theory doesn't explain how things evolved. It explains how things might have evolved, if they evolved.

If my daughter's elementary school doesn't get around to teaching that particular scientific theory, I guess I will have to live with substandard antibiotics somehow.

CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory @ 364:

RACE TO THE BOTTOM.
In ten years, there will be no credible american science other than weapons development. the fucking neocon-educated idiocracy will be too stupid to train to use modern weapons.

to the fucking idjit warmongers:

WHAT THEN, ASSHATS?

Good to know we'll give the North Koreans a run for their money, eh?

The problem with teaching ID in school is this: What exactly do you teach??

1: Intelligent Design says that life on Earth was not random, but was designed by a creator, in much the same way a house is designed by an architect.

Ok, that's about it. 10 seconds of class time. Now what?

noparty @ 375:

I gotta say I too feel hostility on these forums for my Christian beliefs. I'm a pro-gay, anti-war, anti-capital punishment, anti-drug war, etc guy that happens to be a Christian. My faith is not logical or scientific, but it is a part of me. In fact, the teachings of Jesus are the root of my progressive beliefs. Love your neighbor, love your enemy, take care of the poor, money sucks, power sucks, hypocritical religious leaders suck, etc. He never spoke against homosexuality or evolution or abortion, never condoned war. Anyways, I'm a Christian and I'm on your side on pretty much every political issue. And I'm far from alone. The modern-day "Pharisees" just get all the press.

You don't sound like the type of guy who tries to force his beliefs on others though. Those are the ones we're hostile to. People who impose their rules onto us. Can't buy beer in NC until noon on Sundays. Why? Because of church. That's ridiculous. I don't try to force my atheist views on others. I don't try to force people to live my lifestyle, or force people to take the lord's name in vain. But they try to impose their rules on me, and limit my behavior in accordance with their "doctrine". That's BS.

Now, if we want to be fair, we can strike a compromise. We won't buy beer on Sundays until their church is over, but then they aren't allowed to get out of bed on Saturday until noon. Deal?

HULK THINK G.O.P HAS HEADS UP THIERANUS.

Hey, Bobby get your head out of Uranus.

stonicus @ 387:

You don't sound like the type of guy who tries to force his beliefs on others though. Those are the ones we're hostile to. People who impose their rules onto us. Can't buy beer in NC until noon on Sundays. Why? Because of church. That's ridiculous. I don't try to force my atheist views on others. I don't try to force people to live my lifestyle, or force people to take the lord's name in vain. But they try to impose their rules on me, and limit my behavior in accordance with their "doctrine". That's BS.

Now, if we want to be fair, we can strike a compromise. We won't buy beer on Sundays until their church is over, but then they aren't allowed to get out of bed on Saturday until noon. Deal?

I don't impose my beliefs on others, nor do I claim my beliefs are "right". I too can't buy beer until 11 on Sundays (they moved it to 11 from 12 because Titan's fans couldn't buy beer for their tailgating parties. Football fans first, Christians second apparently.) And in my church, we have ridiculed this. Like people say "Well, I can't get drunk...might as well go to church!" But it's Sunday and I'm on my 4th Guiness, so praise Jesus. :)

I guess it's just frustrating to me that the word "Christian" on progressive websites means "Someone who does the opposite of Christ's teachings."

Roger @ 373:

Whenever this nonsense comes up, I want to propose a deal to the fundies:
You can teach Creationism in our schools, if we can teach Darwinism in your Sunday Schools.

Darwin was a Christian and we have talked about him (positively) in my church.

America's in a bad way when a state governor is encouraging the teaching of fantasy in schools. Fine, let's go with that, but let's also include teachings about the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn and every other crackpot bullshit out there. Maybe with the time left, kids could get an education during recess.

I don't know what it is to live in the South.

To believe in evolution, and liberty, yet to support politicians like Jindal.

Or to oppose him and know that I'm in the minority.

Why do I want to live in such a place?

Because of heat and humidity? Or greasy food? Or because the South hates the North?

Jeanne @ 36:

This guy looks like he's straight out of MAD magazine. So what's the punchline Jindal?

i couldn't put my finger on it... where have i seen this guy before..........you nailed it thanks

where is christopher hitchens when you need him..?

As a scientist, I greatly resent christian religious fundamentalist attempts to negate hundreds of years of empirical science, only to replace it with fairy tale stories from a made-up book of fiction.

I allow them to believe as they will, and I do not tell them how to live their lives. Why can they not keep their beliefs to themselves; and why do they feel that they have to convert everyone over to believing what they do? Is it a power thing? A money thing? I just do not get it.

Intelligent Design

Compassionate Conservative

Abstinence Only Sex Education

Random Combinations of Buzzwords

Strong Patriotic Freedom Democracy Liberators

Youllist Inropetric Pealigreenal Busicratonnicisticism (look it up, it's in the bibble)

...master (de)baiters like Booby Jingle don't need to make sense as long as they keep jerkin off their gullible moron base.

I'll preface this comment with the fact that I am Catholic. What kind of conversion classes did this dolt attend and was he paying attention? I attend Catholic schools for all 12 years and I can tell you that I was taught the theory of evolution in science classes in grade school in the late 60's by Dominican nuns. They would have really taken these ID types to task. Back then, Catholic educators truly respected academia including science. According to them, God gave humans incredible minds and we were duty bound to use them to our fullest potential.

Did Jindal go to Regency U or some other non accredited college? If people like Jindal keep getting elected, we'll end up back in the dark ages. Accredited universities have to take a stand and say that they will not accept students from school districts that teach ID or give equivalent standing to ID because enough is enough. We need an educated population to maintain an advanced enlightened society.

The Church does in fact support the theory of evolution. Catholics are not fundamentalists. I am appalled that this ignorant man thinks as a lay person, he can perform an exorcism. I'll repeat this for the umpteenth time, only a priest can perform an exorcism in the Catholic Church. There are only a few priests who are even allowed to perform the ritual and then only with the permission of the bishop of the diocese and only after an extensive investigation that the person is truly possessed. One cannot simply request an exorcism by a parish priest.

The difference between those that think science is a religion and Religion is a science is that Religion comes from the supposition that the facts in nature are there to support their concept of a unitary all-knowing entity, while science holds no such requirement, and allows the facts in nature to support whatever theory best fits the facts.
Religion can never even begin to be put under the rubric of science as religion holds at its very core the nature of its existence to be a singularity experience to each individual, ergo, no possiblity of shared facts are able to be put forward. And they like it this way, as everyone gets their own take on the subject, and this then empowers them more, by forcing the social powers to PROTECT the sungularity over the mutality of facts that is the core to science.

The two endeavors are diametrically opposed. Science says hey everyone look at this observation, I have a theory about it, and Religion says each person has their own experience, and no two are alike, but please let this universality of singularity of experience have the same weight as mutual experience.

The two are different things in their entirety.

stonicus @ 396:

The belief isn't the harm. It's when others try to make me live by their standards. Some of the rules I agree with. Don't kill. Don't steal. Be nice to people. But other rules I disagree with. Pre-marital sex. Cursing. Abortion. Homosexuality. General debauchery.

When did Jesus condemn those? He condemned those who judge.

Well, you can feel that way if you wish, and for some it may be true. I've seen people "shop around" for a religion, and I find that to be very fake and disengenuous(sp). I don't follow the rules of christianity because I don't believe in the story. Simple as that. Just as I don't think Jedi are real, so I don't follow a Jedi code, not because the Jedi code would be too hard.

My Sunday morning class right now is on The Gospel According to Star Wars: Faith, Hope and the Force by John C. McDowell. The Jedi code is easy. Wine, wine, wine some more, save the world.

L.A. Confidential @ 109:

Numinous @ 92:

Stop making idiotic claims. It just makes you look silly.

Stretch yourself and study metaphysics. ALL OF IT. EVERYTHING.

It's not going harm you or hurt you. In fact you'll learn eventually there's more to this than walking upright and lugging around a sack of flesh and bones that needs to be clothed, fed, sheltered, and catered to.

MASTER YODA! Is that YOU?

noparty @ 335:

Epinnoia @ 322:

noparty @ 301:

"Teacher, I found a watch. Can I assume there was a watchmaker?"
"No, that would violate the separation of church and state."

I don't really care if they do or don't teach evolution and/or intelligent design. I just don't understand why open-minded progressives would get so worked up and feel so threatened by this. 80-90% of Americans believe in some form of intelligent design. You can't "hide" it from kids.

I question your 80-90%. In fact, I suspect you just pulled it straight out of your posterior end.

We have seen watches being made. Therefore we can presume a watchmaker. We have never seen a universe being made. Therefore we cannot presume a creator of the universe. It really is just that simple.

Gallup 2004 study. You suspected I pulled it straight out of my posterior end without seeing me do it.

I found the following from a 2004 Gallop poll:

"Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don’t know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."

So yea, you're wrong.

HEY!
First of all take the word 'belief' out of any sentence containing 'evolution'. Belief is not a requirement for studying the theory of evolution in much the same way it's not required for studying ANY SCIENCE.
Do you 'believe' in the sun, hmmm?
No, you OBSERVE the sun, and make some guesses (more or less accurate but generally increasingly accurate) about it's behavior, using a baseline of RECORDED OBSERVATIONS to refine your understanding, and using it to advance other ideas about the world around you.

This is the essential difference between science (an entirely human endeavor, uniting all of us in common experience) and ID (an isolating, exclusionary belief, unique to a small sect of ill-informed anti-rationalist people).

My own personal take on the teaching of ID as a comparative 'theory' next to evolution is that it's fine with me; we need more people in the food service industry.
As long as my children and the ones I teach (evolution and zoology!) don't have to dip their toes in that ilk.......

Ex-Canuck @ 43:

As a scientist, I greatly resent christian religious fundamentalist attempts to negate hundreds of years of empirical science, only to replace it with fairy tale stories from a made-up book of fiction.

I allow them to believe as they will, and I do not tell them how to live their lives. Why can they not keep their beliefs to themselves; and why do they feel that they have to convert everyone over to believing what they do? Is it a power thing? A money thing? I just do not get it.

I'm not a Christian, but I think you should view your own beliefs with the same skepticism you aim at the ID people. No fundamentalist christians want to negate "hundreds of years of empirical science". 150 years ago, most of the empirical scientists WERE christians who believed in ID. And evolution, as a model for the variation of species on Earth, does not rely on empirical science. My dictionary defines "empirical" like this: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." . No one observes or experiences one type of animal becoming another type. It can't be replicated in the laboratory. Evolution is verifiable soley on the grounds of theory
and logic.

Why do you want to quiet the Intelligent Design folks so badly? If their ideas are as stupid as most of these comments make them out to be, then no one will believe them anyway.

I'm the first to admit that ID people see the world that way because they want to. Their beliefs instruct their interpretations. But, let's face facts. Everyone does that. We all explain our lives in a way that is consistent with what we believe. Evolutionists also see the logic of evolution because they want to.

Philip Johnson himself, who essentially founded the modern ID movement, has said that ID is not ready for the "educational market". He has said, "We don't have a product which can compete with evolution" but that he hopes that the people who are aligned with the ID movement will eventually come up with something. Look up his interview with the Berkeley Science Review (He teaches at Berkeley).

Notice that the Discovery Institute didnt back the effort by fundamentalists in Dover to get ID into the school system. The case was a loser and they knew it. There is a huge disconnect between the fundamentalist base and some of the promoters of ID.

There is nothing to teach at present when it comes to ID.

noparty @ 399:

stonicus @ 396:

The belief isn't the harm. It's when others try to make me live by their standards. Some of the rules I agree with. Don't kill. Don't steal. Be nice to people. But other rules I disagree with. Pre-marital sex. Cursing. Abortion. Homosexuality. General debauchery.

When did Jesus condemn those? He condemned those who judge.

Well, you can feel that way if you wish, and for some it may be true. I've seen people "shop around" for a religion, and I find that to be very fake and disengenuous(sp). I don't follow the rules of christianity because I don't believe in the story. Simple as that. Just as I don't think Jedi are real, so I don't follow a Jedi code, not because the Jedi code would be too hard.

My Sunday morning class right now is on The Gospel According to Star Wars: Faith, Hope and the Force by John C. McDowell. The Jedi code is easy. Wine, wine, wine some more, save the world.

Doesn't matter if jesus or bible actually condemn those things, because that's what american christianity has evolved into. It's getting better, don't get me wrong. It's no longer the shame it once was to be an unmarried mother. Divorce is more accepted. But there still exists sections of the population that look at you like the devil for this. Homosexuals can get married in a few states now, but even still, many exist that want to amend the constitution to prevent it from happening. What is their motivation beyond religion for this desire? This is the danger of belief. Strike that. This is the danger of human thinking. =) They can twist ANYTHING into some sort of evil machination of oppression and conflict under the guise of morality or logic. The problem is, religion has a long history of being an excellent medium to push one's will or agenda on the masses.

As for the Jedi code, what do you mean by wine? I never saw them drink. =)

I try very hard to be tolerant of others’ beliefs. I don’t pretend to have all the answers and I certainly don’t want to begrudge others answers that work for them.

I don't really care what stupid shit you need to distract yourself from reality. Here is the difference between your fucked up invisible man in the sky myths and SCIENCE classes; SCIENCE relies on testable evidence from reality. So, when we are trying to teach our children SCIENCE, keep your unprovable supernatural blatherings to yourself. And if you feel so strongly that your child shouldn't be exposed to reality, then keep them at home and brainwash them yourself.

I'm sure they will thank you for ruining their lives later.

noparty @ 408:

dbsf @ 405:

HEY!
First of all take the word 'belief' out of any sentence containing 'evolution'. Belief is not a requirement for studying the theory of evolution in much the same way it's not required for studying ANY SCIENCE.
Do you 'believe' in the sun, hmmm?
No, you OBSERVE the sun, and make some guesses (more or less accurate but generally increasingly accurate) about it's behavior, using a baseline of RECORDED OBSERVATIONS to refine your understanding, and using it to advance other ideas about the world around you.

This is the essential difference between science (an entirely human endeavor, uniting all of us in common experience) and ID (an isolating, exclusionary belief, unique to a small sect of ill-informed anti-rationalist people).

My own personal take on the teaching of ID as a comparative 'theory' next to evolution is that it's fine with me; we need more people in the food service industry.
As long as my children and the ones I teach (evolution and zoology!) don't have to dip their toes in that ilk.......

Evolution = The Sun? Okay, that's even better than the Evolution = Gravity thing.

I'm hearing a lot of fundamentalist scientists claiming that science is the only path to enlightenment. I don't think you can scientifically say that science is the answer to everything until you've answered everything.

Bed calls. Good night.

Fundamentalist scientists?

Sounds like Science Fiction to me.

ysbaddaden @ 76:

Hey gang,

Why don't we teach astrology side by side with astronomy!

And Alchemy along with Chemistry as well.

And phrenology along with Human Anatomy...

AgentX @ 417:

ysbaddaden @ 76:

Hey gang,

Why don't we teach astrology side by side with astronomy!

And Alchemy along with Chemistry as well.

And phrenology along with Human Anatomy...

And Reaganomics next Economics, the Bush Doctrine next to Foriegn Policy...

Wait, that's what we have been doing...

Pawn @ 255: ...if I disagree with the scientific theory of evolution...

that would be like disagreeing the earth is round and revolves around the sun...

Pawn @ 361

First off, I think it is quite obvious that I am speaking outside of the scientific definition of theory. To keep it simple, to me theory is something that is unproven. Most of the terms I use should not be perceived from a scientific definition of the word. Let’s remember that the english language typically provides more than one definition for a word.

Fair enough. If we stipulate that we are speaking in ordinary vernacular, evolution is not a theory. It is a fact.

When you state that gravity and evolution have reached their pinnacle, and now it’s simply reducing uncertainty, I beg to differ. We as humans may have reached the capacity of our current ability to understand these topics, but they certainly have potential for further breakthroughs.

That's not quite what I said. Science is always about reducing uncertainty, because reducing uncertainty is the best we can do for empirical claims. We will never find an absolute empirical truth. Absolute truth exists only in the realm of analytics -- e.g. formal logic, mathematics, intralinguistic truths.

Of course gravity and evolution are ripe for further breakthroughs. As is medicine, relativity, and every other theory. Part of the genius of science is that as soon as a hypothesis becomes a theory (or, in every day language, when an idea/theory becomes a fact/law), various scientists will conspire to challenge the theory at its margins. By doing so, they will improve upon it, and bring us ever closer to the truth we crave.

Evolution's detractors, however, are not seeking to challenge the theory at its margins, and to improve upon it. They reject it outright. To do so, they would have to demonstrate that the entire paradigm upon which it is based is wrong, or present extraordinary new evidence that undermines the mountains upon mountains of evidence in its favor. Such has not been presented. I suspect that the attitude you perceive -- that of dogmatic insistence that we cannot be wrong about evolution -- is more frustration with people who disbelieve evolution despite the evidence because it does not conform to others of their already maintained and cherished beliefs.

You might experience a similar kind of frustration if someone insisted that you were not a human being, but an intelligent butterfly having an extended dream that you were a human being. You have no evidence for such a silly claim. They have no evidence for such a silly claim. You have no reason to adopt such a belief. But if they insisted that they were right about your true state of being, and instead of offering you the kind of staggering evidence it would take to convince you, simply said, "Now, now. Don't be dogmatic. You could be wrong, after all," you might begin to tire of them.

First off, in a later post I do retract myself from the term Intelligent Design

Ok.

though I do believe that God created the heavens and earth as provided in Genesis. Science may later reveal this to be true or false. I will look at what is provided and make a decision based on the facts that are presented. I don’t simply use religion to fill in the unknown, and I think the statement you made is unfair. As you state it is based on the observation of the evidence. The evidence in my life has shown that there is a God.

I do not begrudge you your beliefs, and will certainly fight for your right to them. However, while you might have come to a conclusion about god and the creation story in Genesis based on "the evidence," it would be disingenuous at best to compare such a decision-making process to the method of science. We all have various beliefs about the world around us -- about our friends, our pets, etc. -- that are empirical in nature, based on a casual and "every-day" kind of observation, but they are not scientific beliefs. To establish a scientific claim as empirically true, we would have to be as skeptical as we could about the claim, no matter how attached we are to it emotionally, and withhold belief in it until it has been tested repeatedly with predictable results.

By the way, you say that you belief "that God created the heavens and earth as provided in Genesis." Which version do you believe? Genesis contains two different creation stories.

When you say that belief are not equal you are essentially stating to me that without a preponderance of evidence your belief is less deserving than mine. I disregard that.

I did not mean to imply any normative connotation to the term "equal," though I admit that it is a loaded and political term. I simply meant that not all beliefs were identical, and thus, not all beliefs were scientific. Some beliefs are based on evidence. Others are not. Some are even held and cherished despite evidence against them. Whatever utility there might be to certain beliefs that are not backed up by evidence, they cannot be said to be the same kind of beliefs as scientific ones, and cannot be offered as equally valid in scientific arenas.

What happens when there is no explanation then?

Then a good scientist will admit that an explanation is lacking, say, "I don't know," and begin studying, observing, and searching for the answer.

Is there no room for something that is not tangible to your eyes and experience?

Of course there is room for such. In fact, much of what science has discovered is not immediately tangible. Consider that time probably does not proceed in the linear fashion that comports with our intuitions. Consider as well that most solid objects are made mostly of empty space, and that empty space itself has a "fabric" that might one day be manipulable with technology.

But I would imagine you are asking more about a sense of awe, a sense of transcendence. Certainly. Most scientists do feel that. It is what compels them to study the universe around them. And much of our experience as human beings is subjective, and not reducible to the dispassionate understanding of an outside observer. All of that is normative, however, and other than inspiring scientific study, has nothing to do with proper determination of scientific truths.

Even having so many things that back your theory’s, don’t they simply present further questions?

Always. As it should.

My argument is to not allow ourselves to be focused on religion as this is one of the few strengths republicans have remaining.

You'll have to explain that one to me.

So if it isn’t science, there’s no room for argument. Is this fair? Who are you, or anybody for that matter, to make that kind of judgement? Am I to understand this as that the all-inclusive scientific profession is “elitist” and all-knowing? You’ve already stated not.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. It's not illegitimate to judge whether a particular discipline is science. In order to be a scientific discipline, a field of study must comport with the scientific method. Intelligent Design does not. Anyone who understands the scientific method and the tenets of Intelligent Design is competent to make that judgment. How this means there's "no room for argument" eludes me, as does whether this is "fair."

Consider: Science tells us that the sun's gravitational field pulls the earth around it in an elliptical orbit. Now suppose that someone offers a contradictory hypothesis. She says, "That's not what's happening. What's really happening is that a giant Space Bunny is pushing the earth around the sun every year." So, scientists ask for the evidence. The person says, "Oh, well, you can't see the Space Bunny, and you can't hear it, and none of your instruments can measure it. There's no way to test it. It's just there."

The Space Bunny hypothesis is not a scientific one. People who might seek to have the Space Bunny taught alongside the gravitational field theory in science classes would rightfully be denied their ambitions. What they propose is not science. Does that mean nothing about the earth's orbit can be argued or studied further? Of course not. It just means that the Space Bunny idea isn't science, and should not be taught as such. Is that fair? Yes.

We may have gotten very good at “true and best”, but as you state it is to the extent of our human abilities. Our abilities, though most likely infinite, may reach a plateau that would require a strong breakthrough (such as the human genome) to further explain that which we don’t understand. We are only limited by our own ideology. Once our mind is opened to new possibilities we run away with it and work to perfect it.

You have just described exactly how science works. But the mere fact that we might be wrong about what the evidence tells us is very, very, very probably correct does not mean it makes sense to believe the very, very, very probably incorrect.

Though the evidence for evolution is overwhelming it is a scientific theory to the extent that it has been proven to the “true and best” abilities of humankind. Many scientists today continue to argue this point. Is it a fact? No. Therefore there is room for argument that perhaps science does not provide the whole answer. Einstein was a great intellect of our time, and I’m sure the future will provide us with other of even greater intellect that will present us with other “great theories”.

Again, that's science. We're always improving our understanding. But when it comes to adopting belief, it is rational to believe what the evidence tells us, and irrational to believe something contrary to the evidence.

I admittedly am not trained in evolution. What seems clear is that evolution from some form of primate is not a proven fact at this point in time.

That humans have a common ancestor as other primates is indeed a proven fact.

I think in your second statement provided you misunderstood me, as I do believe that all animals and humans will evolve based on their environment and circumstances. Was there something different you are trying to communicate that I’m not seeing?

I apologize if I misunderstood you. From your words, however, I'm not sure you do understand the process by which animals adapt to their environments. I'm not sure you know what that means. You could, of course, prove me wrong, and explain succinctly how the process of natural selection causes species to adapt.

What the statement I made you are referring to by making this comment was how the human genome is broken down. I think you are taking me out of context at this point.

My apologies. Reading through hundreds of blog postings makes one prone to such errors. I hope you'll forgive the indiscretion.

Now, based on some reading I have been doing (primarily tonight), the genome does not 100% prove that we evolved from some form of primate. Others argue that there is a fossil history that contributes to evolution. Based on reading that I have done, scientists have been presented with more questions than answers by the supposed jawbone that was unearthed. Is there other fossil history that supports evolution from another form of primate? If so, is the scientific community completely in agreement then that this proves human evolution from primates. Not even close based on what I’ve read so far.

What are you reading? I do not think you have a basic command of the theory of evolution.

Jindal? Hmmm, let's see here. Scheming politician? Check. Religious whooper and exploiter? Check. Anti-intellectual? Check. Yet wants an oligarchy of religious overseers-like a new intelligensia? Check.

Hmmm, I recall the name of a Jamacian politician, Michael Manley. His supporters were sometimes thuggish and used superstitions to scare other Jamacians into supporting old Mike. These supporters of Manley were called Jungleites and were the fodder for a number of Jack Anderson columns. The opposite of the Jungleites were the Dreads of Rasta fame.

Perhaps we can call the gang around Jindal, the Jindalites, a group of religious belief exploiters that may resort to thuggish violence to advance their benighted agenda of political control...I can see where such a group would hold a special place in the heart of a Republican Church of What's Happening Now political chameleon like John McCain, and his gang.

Similar to scientific evidence that is tangible, I have experienced intangible evidence to convince me that God does exist.

"evidence," ur using it rong.

noparty @ 375:

I gotta say I too feel hostility on these forums for my Christian beliefs. I'm a pro-gay, anti-war, anti-capital punishment, anti-drug war, etc guy that happens to be a Christian. My faith is not logical or scientific, but it is a part of me. In fact, the teachings of Jesus are the root of my progressive beliefs. Love your neighbor, love your enemy, take care of the poor, money sucks, power sucks, hypocritical religious leaders suck, etc. He never spoke against homosexuality or evolution or abortion, never condoned war. Anyways, I'm a Christian and I'm on your side on pretty much every political issue. And I'm far from alone. The modern-day "Pharisees" just get all the press.

I'm with you until you state money sucks, power sucks, and come back to agreement then with hypocritical religious leaders suck. Using the resources that are available to you can make you all the more effective in your faith.

Karen @ 424:

Pawn @ 361

Similar to scientific evidence that is tangible, I have experienced intangible evidence to convince me that God does exist. For you my experience may be far-fetched and unbelievable. To you it may be an anomaly of my mind that created the illusion of what happened to me. That’s because you have to have tangible evidence that proves what is hypothesized, or believed to be true by others. Isn’t that close-minded.

No more so than it would be for you to disbelieve me if I were to tell you that I have magical powers that enable me to levitate and talk to animals, but told you that the only proof was intangible, that I couldn't demonstrate it for you, and that the only evidence for my claims were a personal form of proof available only to me. It defeats the very concept of proof if the evidence can only be understood subjectively by the person making the claim.

I think we need to clarify something else: To disbelieve the truth of a proposition is not the same thing as believing that it is false. To say, "I believe there is no god" is a very different statement from, "I do not believe there is a god." One is a statement of positive belief. The other a statement of lack of belief. As a skeptic, I disbelieve all claims until evidence warrants believing them. This does not mean that I believe or think I know that all the claims I disbelieve are false. Just that without evidence for them, I will not adopt belief in them.

If one is unable to prove what they say, they are immediately discredited. I believe this is a form of arrogance, and it limits the ability to learn more about what is actually happening in the world.

Not discredited. Disbelieved. And disbelieving is all about keeping the open mind necessary to learn more about what is happening in the world.

Now it is also unfair to assume that people will not accept evidence to the contrary of there being a God.

I don't assume that. It is the behavior I have both witnessed and read about in so vast a majority of religious people that the generalization is not unwarranted.

There will be some that will, no doubt, and the same will go for the scientists that will stand strong that there will never be any proof of a God.

No scientist worth his salt would say, "There will never be any proof of . . . " anything, god included. What most say is that the evidence does not support the god hypothesis, and that they thus do not believe it. Scientists who dogmatically claim anything are not being good scientists.

So be it, it is their right to hold onto their beliefs.

I concur with that. I will always fight for people's rights and liberties to believe what they believe.

You stated that those of us that believe in God in fact use it out of convenience when we cannot prove something scientifically. I disagree.

I think I stated that Intelligent Design proponents do that. Intelligent Design is simply about pointing out gaps in evolutionary understanding, and to posit god wherever they find them.

Contrary, I believe those that don’t believe in God don’t because they believe that the rules are too strict to follow deep down inside?

That is not only utterly false about the vast majority of us, but it is insulting. My disbelief in god has nothing to do with a rejection of any particular moral code. There is no good evidence for god, and that's that.

Sure many of the scriptures of the bible show some stern disciplinary sentences for those that break the rules, but under the new covenant under Jesus Christ those old ways were replaced.

Whether that's a valid interpretation seems to depend on the particular sect of Christianity. Personally, I don't care either way, since I believe none of it. Persuading me of the empirical truth of Christianity's extraordinary claims will require correspondingly extraordinary evidence. I am open-minded in that I am willing to be shown. But I will not believe until shown.

Are the teaching of Jesus unjust.

Some are; some are not.

Are these too difficult to live by, therefore we must make up our own standards for living?

Everyone has a hardwired moral sense s/he uses to determine right from wrong. The real challenge is articulating that sense in language. Few religious people follow every rule in the Bible. They cherry pick the parts they like, and dispense with those they do not.

To wrap up, I’d like to ask, what is the harm in believing in God and Jesus?

I'll let Normal Bob Smith answer for me:

Reason #1 that Christianity is harmful- It teaches faith over logic. The Christianity you believe and teach to children promotes believing in things using faith over the use of one's own common sense, and sometimes even over science itself. I feel that this is harmful because it discourages the search for real answers, and instead allows the Christian to "fill in the gaps" with answers based solely on faith.

Reason #2 that Christianity is harmful- The Christianity you [hate mail author, June] practice tells of Christ's glorious return to earth and all of His followers being swept up into heaven after Armageddon. Correct? And June, did you know that a majority of Christians think that this event will take place within their own lifetime? This belief does not encourage any sort of preparations for our long term future, but could instead encourage any kooky Christian in power to do their best to usher in an Armageddon by whatever means necessary. This is very VERY bad.

Reason #3 that Christianity is harmful- Your religion puts many things as priority over other human beings. Number one thing more important than human beings is God, of course. This includes more important than your family, friends, and anyone else you may think is really important. Jesus is also more important than every other human being. The Word of God and Jesus are more important than human beings. If God commands it you do it, NO MATTER WHAT! This is very VERY dangerous too, June!

Reason #4 that Christianity is harmful- Christianity paints a picture that this life is nothing compared to the one you get after you die. As an atheist I cringe thinking of how many people put that other "eternal life" as the one worth waiting for– The life that makes this one look like a freakin' speck of dust.

Reason #5 that Christianity is harmful- Your belief damns certain people to hell, forever. These are human beings who suffer forever and ever, sometimes for just believing something other than Christian beliefs. How is it that a person can enjoy any sort of paradise in heaven if, for instance, their parent or child dies a non believer? How is a person supposed to compute the information of a paradise with loved ones in hell? Perhaps family members don't matter once you're in heaven? Perhaps your fellow human beings don't affect your emotions once you're in heaven. Maybe once you're in heaven your mind is wiped of the people you cared about on earth, and those human lives lost in hell are trivial, and don't deserve one tear once you're in heaven. Perhaps this means life is trivial? What else could it mean if I can have a paradise while others burn forever?

Reason #1-Christianity has its inquirers as well. St. Thomas Acquainus (I know I butchered that last name) was a great hero of the Faith in opening inquiry. The Christians you condemn are the Fundamentalist Christians, who are about as Christian as Haredim are Jewish.

Reason #2-That eschatology is practiced by a minority of Christians. Most Christians, aside from the Protestant fundies, who as a matter of fact are mostly confined to the US, believe in amillenialism, which has been our dominant theory of the end times since St. Augustine. The Rapture Bunnies are, and always will be, a minority, and are actually going to cut themselves off at the foot if they keep doing what they're doing. They're the ones Yehoshua bar Yosef condemned as following him insincerely and even doing "great works" in his name, and still burning in Hell.

Reason #3-We do put Yahweh first. So, despite my hestitations about Haredim, and about Bin Laden-esque Islam do all moderate and extreme religious. However, Yehoshua's two Mitzvot for a Christian to obey were the Shema Yisrael and "Love your neighbor as yourself." If Yahweh were to command me to behead an atheist neighbor or something evil like that, I myself would defy Him and let myself burn in Hell with all the nonbelievers. Yahweh is not the author of evil, and if He were to command it, I would not do it.

Reason #4-To place undue emphasis on Parousia and Afterlife at the expense of this life is foolish. I won't argue that point. To pray for heaven's blessings to be bestowed while ignoring the depths of poverty and misery on this blood-soaked planet is sinful. Doesn't stop the Fundies from doing that, but sinful it is.

Reason #5-Again, Judaism has the Gehinnom, Islam the Inferno, and while the Dharmic faiths lack the sort of Hell Abrahamicism has, they condemn you basically to walk the Earth forever, until you earn the right to stop living in this world of madness. As far as conceptions of Hell go, I guess the best is the Islamic one, as they believe that even Shaitan will one day get into the Paradise, and lack the vengefulness even the mainline Protestant and Apostolic churches sometimes display about Hellfire. Islam is morally superior in Afterlife.

Now to deal with Prawn:

Sorry bub, but what goes for bacteria and lions and jellyfish also goes for mankind. We have no true distinguishing features from a chimp except finer hair, a smaller muzzle, and walking upright. Try again.

Next up, you state that today's law is based on religious law. It is, but our Western legal tradition is derived from the Justinian code which was a survival of a law system based on Zeus and the Hetaconchire. Sorry, but we can't honestly claim the 10 commandments are the basis for law, as law itself is derived from the old pagan Rome.

And third, no harm comes from Christianity itself, the harm comes when misguided fools like you try to make God in your own image and confine him to explicitly acting to a script. God does exist, but He is not confined to a script, or even to Mankind. Neanderthals had religious rites, and in all likelihood worshiped Him in some fashion. They're dead. So, no dice.

Wow, defending the Faith from atheists and Fundies at the same time. (shakes head.)

Okay, can we force Creationists ministers to teach Evolution from their pulpits?

I really truly wish we could teach intelligence.

DMS @ 22:

"In fact, even though I recognize it goes against the Constitution, I’m not sure that shouldn’t be a test for elected office: If you feel that the idea of Intelligent Design (which can not be proven in any kind of scientific way) should be taught alongside with evolution (which is as much a theory as gravity is), then you do not belong in a position where you can make that decision."

I have no problem with considering what a candidate believes when I make my voting decision, because a person's belief in poppycock tells me something about that person's judgment and how much I could trust that person to make the right decisions in office. His Mormon religious beliefs (Jesus visited America, Native Americans came here from Israel, etc.) were among the many factors that made Romney a terrible choice.

Moreover, in the present case, Jindal is making a statement about public policy (what should be taught in classrooms), not just religious beliefs.

"Evolution is as much a theory as gravity"?

Uhhh. I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure you, just like everyone else on this planet, is attracted to the earth by the force of gravity. That's not a theory.

Now... as to what gravity IS? We'll, that's a different story. We're still looking for answers to that.

I should also point out that we have ENORMOUS amounts of proof for evolution, and have WITNESSED IT IN ACTION.

There's fossils, genetic evidence (check out the gene project) and we've seen animals, plants, bacteria, and virus's evolve and change.

All I.D. has is the follow "god did stuff and made everything". Believe in it, or your going the hell. Obviously the work of a true genius. By the way, I'm being sarcastic.

Also, scientific teachings have to be approved by a group of peers. They need to be tested and approved before they can be taught in classrooms.

I.D. tries to bypass all that. The people looking to have that nonsense approved don't want it tested or gone over by a group of scientific peers. They just want it approved.

I.D. should have to be tested, just like every other claim. Notice I don't call it a scientific theory? That's because it isn't. It's just a claim. A scientific theory is an idea put forward by observing data. That data must then be tested. Even when the theory has been proven it is usually still called a theory because it must allow for new information to be added at a later point.

That's a scientific theory.

I.D. is a claim. Nothing else. The only they that's 'backing it up' is a book of magic written by goat herding nomads in the bronze age.

Question:

Is truth political?

Or not political?

Attila the Appeaser, Bilderberg Despot @ 38:

Pawn @ 4:

You know, gravity is proven scientifically. Evolution and Intelligent Design are really on the same level. Neither is proven, nor is there a realistic way to prove either. Just because evolution has been a long standing theory, intelligent design has been around thousands of years longer. What makes evolution so much more palatable than intelligent design? It comes down to your beliefs, and what you determine to be right. I don't like Jindal, or the mixture of religion and politics, but similar to the last post on Jindal's exorcism comments, we have to really focus on what he is doing politically not religiously. Let's not let ourselves fall into the republican attempts to make this election about religion!

Gravity is a scientific theory just as evolution is a scientific theory. That is to say, they are backed by mountains of evidence pointing in the same direction. Neither is a universal law, because we puny humans don't really know what conditions obtain in the rest of the universe. Intelligent Design may be "palatable" to those who ignore the evidence, but that should not excuse those same people from producing evidence to support their hypothesis.

Also, evolution by natural selection has a predictive component to it. You can observe that one species is "better-equipped" for predator avoidance than another, and then predict that they will survive at a higher rate. You can predict that if you artificially select for corn plants with high oil content, that the line of plants will eventually produce a greater oil yield. Male-female behaviours are evolutionarily based - you predict that the male will behave in a way as to gain access to as many females as possible (since access to females is the limiting factor of their reproductive output). You predict the female (whose limiting factor is the production of gametes) will behave to ensure that her resources are devoted to producing 'fit' offspring, and is therefore very selective about choosing a mate.

Intelligent design has no such predictive power, and as such only serves as a foil that helps further our understanding of why the theory of natural selection is so widely accepted.

Pawn @ 32:

Nicole Belle @ 7:

Pawn @ 4:

You know, gravity is proven scientifically. Evolution and Intelligent Design are really on the same level. Neither is proven, nor is there a realistic way to prove either. Just because evolution has been a long standing theory, intelligent design has been around thousands of years longer. What makes evolution so much more palatable than intelligent design? It comes down to your beliefs, and what you determine to be right. I don't like Jindal, or the mixture of religion and politics, but similar to the last post on Jindal's exorcism comments, we have to really focus on what he is doing politically not religiously. Let's not let ourselves fall into the republican attempts to make this election about religion!

With all due respect, Pawn, I suggest that you look up the scientific definition of "theory". Gravity and evolution ARE considered to be scientific theories. Intelligent Design is not.

Why is intelligent design withheld from being SCIENTIFIC theory, because it's religious. I'm rusty on my science, and you are correct, gravity is a theory. Thank you for correcting me. Gravitation on the other hand is a "general term describing the attractive influence that all objects with mass exert on each other." (taken from Wikipedia). Fair enough. My argument adjusts then to that gravity has much more supporting evidence over evolution or intelligent design. To be more specific, let's argue human evolution. Now saying that we evolved from an ape, I can't find any evidence as such. Evolution in regards to adapting to environment and circumstances is quite logical and I won't argue that. The larger fact is, than, that they are all theories left open to your beliefs until something comes along that pushes one from theory to proven.

Compare human and Chimpanzee genomes. The only chromosomal (large-structure difference) thing to tell them apart is two chimp chromosomes are merged to form 1 human chromosomes. Another issue is that human genetic diversity comes from Africa, with only Africans having Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial haplogroups other than M. Yet another is that out of all animals on Earth, the only animals to bear a physical resemblance to mankind are the Great Apes, the Orangs, Gorillas, and Chimps. And of those, the closest relatives are Chimps. There's also the deep commonality of human and chimp lives, from the intense ties to ingroups, to the tendency to make war on outgroups, to the deep power-lust in both species, to the anatomical similarities, to also the long history of fossils that show a commonality leading from the Ur-hominin (best candidate is Sahelanthropus) to the African savannah scavenger called Homo sapiens. As entertaining as Neanderthal and Erectus evolutionary histories are, the one history most germane to our species is the hominin history in Africa, of quadrupedal apes gradually adapting to life on the ground and eventually displacing the other species of bipedal apes. We aren't evolved from apes, we are apes.

The Metaphysical Domain is a proven fact. It's the reason we exist to begin with. But don't wait for scientists to capture it in a test tube though it's not possible.

Rather then limiting yourself to scientific or religious dogma. Embrace the unlimited infinite potential with which there is no end and no beginning.

Thats the last I'm going to say about it because those who know don't say.

If you want your kids to be exposed to the theory of "intelligent design" then take them to the church of your choice. No one is stopping you. But leave that out of the public square since the line of separation of church and state is fast becoming blurred. These people seem to think that the only place for these teachings is within the confines of the classroom. Wrong. This is what a church signifies. Go there if you must but leave the schools alone.

I'm a Christian, but I happen to view the first book of Genesis as allegorical poetry, not scientific text. It sure reads that way, by my (limited) understanding of ancient Hebrew writing and poetic structure.

I've never heard a persuasive case for intelligent design made from scientific principles. Of course I know how imperfect evolution is, and how much our current level of scientific knowledge leaves unexplained. But no one in scientific history has ever started with just the observable facts of the natural world and then--without having ever heard of the theory of six-day creationism beforehand--measured and deduced and arrived at the scientific conclusion of: The earth and universe were created in a six day period around five to ten thousand years ago. It's not a scientific theory.

Teach evolution, with it's strengths and numerous weaknesses, in science classes. Teach intelligent design in comparative religion or current events classes. Don't be afraid to honestly teach kids "we don't know" about things we don't know about. Quit trying to mix religion and secular government. My $0.02.

-Scott

nonny mouse @ 58:

To be more specific, let’s argue human evolution. Now saying that we evolved from an ape, I can’t find any evidence as such...

Guess what, Pawn? Neither can evolutionists, and with this statement you've just exposed your woeful ignorance of a theory you seek to denigrate.

There isn't an evolutionist anywhere who will claim humans evolved from apes. Humans and apes evolved from common ancestors. That's the theory, and it's backed up by a hell of a lot of pretty solid evidence, which only gets stronger as science - excuse the pun - evolves.

Intelligent design is an idea, a 'theory' without any evidence - classificatory, comparative or quantitative - to support it.

I will support your right to believe in any religion you so desire without hesitation. But I will fight you to keep religion - yours or anyone else's - out of the classroom. You want God? Go to church. You want science, go to class.

Let me clarify, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor...

and are the same thing adapted to different living. Humans, chimps, gorillas, and bonobos are all equally evolved to different styles of living, but we still are apes of different sorts.

“Let the kids decide what science is true?” God!

What's wrong with that?! Let some 8 year old decide, based off a cartoon book with lots of fancy and shiny cartoons, what theory is true. Not, you know, the best scientific minds of the last three hundred years... who all, you know, have figured out long ago that you're theory is pure fantasy... right up there with Wizard of Oz and My Pet Goat.

For those of us that believe in Christ and his return, it is based from Matthew 28:19-20 (among other scriptures).

Oy vay.

Using the Bible to 'scientifically prove' ID is like using a Julia Child cookbook to prove theoretical quantum mathematics.

Except I suspect you'd have more success with a Julia Child cookbook.

Science classes have to teach science.

Once we allow one religous group too much overt influence over what is taught, what is to prevent anothers once the demographics change.

Jindal doesn't believe in the democratic process, only demagoguery.

Education is good.  Fair is good.  Complacency is bad.  Intelligent design is a philosophy of life, not fact.  Science is factual works in progress.

All religions are trying to explain the "why" of it all. So myths, legends, and stories are developed and passed on the various cultures of the world -- intelligent design is an example of this. There is no science involved, it is just a comfortable explanation for at an attempt for peaceful loving existence, or it can be at the higher moral planes. 

It is very well intentioned for the most part. However, it gets corrupted, when the leaders of religion get lost in their primary purposes. Hence cultures and nations go to war because they cannot cooperate with belief systems of religion, science, bigotry/hatred, trade, moral values, you name it.

It's okay to teach intelligent design because it is a beautiful story, but it is not okay to teach it as the truth. Teach intelligent design as someones idea of faith, and teach many of the world faiths to get a healthy perspective. School can benefit from wonderful explanations of the world.  I am for that, I hope you are too.

Herds/community/culture/society/nation/country need to cooperate with each other, and historically it does not happen unless leaders do the right thing with their vision, expertise, self knowledge, and their ability to be trusted.

Science is different. It is constantly changing and reaching for the answers to the mysteries of life by an analytic factual approach -- the scientific methods of mathematics, biology, chemistry, astronomy, anatomy ect. You get the picture.!?

It also is well intentioned but is led by the "powerful elite" also. We all know about the powerful elite. The wealthiest of world are going to maintain their wealth at a very uncomfortable price to the countries they have wealth. They will not give up that wealth without a struggle from the others. The people with the most power -- the power elite can control science. Every scientist has his price to earn his way. People are bought and sold at the market place in science and in religion. So when the ethics disappear or become less in science and religion, and political leaders incorporate religion and science to get and keep their power; the search for meaning is less important to the culture.

A nation's complacency kills a democracy.

Lousy leaders equals lots of wars. Since 911, our democracy sold out -- big time. 911 was a tipping point.  Maybe our country's ethical standards had evolved to such a low level that electing the Bush/Cheney ticket was the best we could do at the time.   I know I thought wrong when I thought Bush would lose in a landslide in 2000, because he was so wrong for the country.  The power elite won.  I/we were asleep/complacent.   We have been at war most of the current administration. The majority of the people in this country fell asleep with complacency and elected a very poor leader. Now we have war criminals leading us. They need to be impeached, fined, and imprisoned.  Wake up America!  Get Busy With Fairness.

ysbaddaden @ 436:

431 General_Rennenkampf

The 10 Commandments seem to be a combination of the Laws of Hammarabi and the Greek story of Dicta. She received tablets of the law from the Goddess Gaea.

The 10 commandments have 603 other brothers that are ignored by Christians who loudly bray about putting just those 10 on display. Yahweh really revealed 613 Mitzvot, but Rabbi Yehoshua shrank it to 2. A funny thing, however, does seem to be happening, in particular the Fundies appear to be slowly evolving their own Talmud or Shari'ah. It's a pretty normal thing for such a movement to do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if in 500 years today's Evangelicals resemble nothing so much as a Protestant Judaism or Islam in that they have a Holy Text, Schools of Interpretation, and laws based on each school. Fundie Christianity's already started evolving in that direction. History is a cycle, not a line...