Sai'nu wrote:Science: We started as Single-celled organisms and 'evolved' into what we are now. We can link this back through the evolution of many animals. But, we can't seem to find our own missing link to the past.
Science is a method, a process. Science does not say that we evolved, the Theory of Evolution does. Some scientists believe that Theory. Some don't.
Science typically does not agree on many of the complex topics. We can't say that Science has declared evolution to be truth, because it hasn't.
Science also changes it's mind a lot (which is a good thing.. that proves it is doing it's job).
I'm currently in a class entitled, Evolution vs. The Creationist Theory. In this class I learned of the true nature of the arguement. The arguement of wether ID should be taught in schools has nothing to do with its validity. This conflict exists only for social and political reasons.
We watched a documentary that was on WTTW Chicago in '98 or so (If you want better documentation, just ask). It was a reporter investigating both sides of the arguement. One creationist said, when asked why he fights so strongly for ID to be taught in school, "Look at the youth in this country, they drink, they do drugs, they disobey authority. When I was young, we went to church every Sunday, and I never disobeyed authority." This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of ID
Another creationist said, when asked the same thing, "I believe that parents should be in control of what their children are being taught." Once again, this statement has nothing to do with the validity of ID.
IMO, the people who are fighting for ID to be taught in public schools have their heads up their asses. The court system in this country had to determine 2 things in it's rulings. 1. Is this idea religious? and 2. Is this idea scientific? The courts answers were yes and no respectively, thereby declaring that the teaching of ID in a public classroom is unconstitutional.
Sai'nu wrote:That is a very typical view from the science point of view though.
Science does not have a point of view. If it did, would it be science?
Science is about observing and drawing conclusions. It is about asking questions and trying things.
Science is not dumb enough to declare something like the Theory of Evolution to be truth when it has failed to be proven as such. You want science to be harsh like that.
Ekade wrote: Scientifically speaking, [evolution] is no more or less valid than ID or even Creationism for that matter.
Not true, science draws its conclusions on physical evidence. The evidence that supports evolution is very clear, which is the existance of fossils of intermediate species. Species such as the Archeoptryx. So scientifically speaking, it is more valid than ID and Creationism.
Last edited by Shadowpaw on Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ekade wrote: Scientifically speaking, [evolution] is no more or less valid than ID or even Creationism for that matter.
Not true, science draws its conclusions on physical evidence. The evidence that supports evolution is very clear, which is the existance of intermediate species. Species such as the Archeoptryx. So scientifically speaking, it is more valid than ID and Creationism.
How do you know that evidence is not supporting ID or Creationism?
I kinda want to agree with Shadowpaw here...it's not really about the validity of either argument, as neither can be proved. It's really more about the social/cultural argument of getting religion into schools and people making a statement about society, a commentary on how they feel things should go and how other people's children should be raised for the good of society.
People who are for intelligent design/creationism know about evolutionary theory enough to fight against it--learning it didn't threaten or shake their faith, obviously, as they've still got their beliefs very much in tact.
Really, though, nobody's going to win. Nobody wants to be told how their kids should be raised.
Ekade wrote:How do you know that evidence is not supporting ID or Creationism?
You don't.
Therefore.. they are still equally valid.
1. If this were evidence supporting either ID or Creationism, someone involved in the court room hearings probably would have used it as such, but they didn't.
2. ID and Creationism both believe that human beings were the first animals to exist on this planet, so under the assumption that a fossil is a remnant of a once living creature, that fossil can only, logically, support evolution
Ekade wrote: Scientifically speaking, [evolution] is no more or less valid than ID or even Creationism for that matter.
Not true, science draws its conclusions on physical evidence. The evidence that supports evolution is very clear, which is the existance of intermediate species. Species such as the Archeoptryx. So scientifically speaking, it is more valid than ID and Creationism.
How do you know that evidence is not supporting ID or Creationism?
You don't.
Therefore.. they are still equally valid.
Because ID and Creationism are faith, not science and do not rely on physical evidence. You can also have faith and support the origin of life via evolution too.
You can teach ID and Creationism based off faith, you cannot teach them based off science.
Ekade wrote:How do you know that evidence is not supporting ID or Creationism?
You don't.
Therefore.. they are still equally valid.
1. If this were evidence supporting either ID or Creationism, someone involved in the court room hearings probably would have used it as such, but they didn't.
2. ID and Creationism both believe that human beings were the first animals to exist on this planet, so under the assumption that a fossil is a remnant of a once living creature, that fossil can only, logically, support evolution
1) Look around! We are here. How more evidence do you need?
Evidence is everywhere. Science is comprised of observations and conclusions. We see the same thing.. yet we have drawn different conclusions? Why is that? Maybe the beliefs drive the conclusions? Does our religion taint our observations sometimes? Certainly. We want things to conform to our views and definition of reality. We are human.. we *need* that consistency and comfort. We want to be able to predict things and manipulate our reality to please us. (Ok.. I am getting deep, I'd better stop.)
2) Man and Woman were the last creation, not the first. Make a note of that and thank me later if you get quizzed on it in class.
I have not been reading his thread, other than injecting stupidity in to it and hoping for a quick death. That has not happened and so its time for unnatural selection.
Ekade wrote:This is why the scientist in me chafes when people say "colds prove evolution".
If you can't grasp how bacteria and viruses can evolve to continually defeat our own evolving white blood cell defence mechanisms, then you don't have a scientist in you.
Ekade wrote: Scientifically speaking, [evolution] is no more or less valid than ID or even Creationism for that matter.
Not true, science draws its conclusions on physical evidence. The evidence that supports evolution is very clear, which is the existance of intermediate species. Species such as the Archeoptryx. So scientifically speaking, it is more valid than ID and Creationism.
How do you know that evidence is not supporting ID or Creationism?
You don't.
Therefore.. they are still equally valid.
Show me the evidence. SHOW ME.
You're arguing an empirical model vs. faith.
Evidence is pertinent to one, and abhorred by the other two. Obviously, if they were all equally valid, this thread wouldn't exist with 4 pages of debate in it.
Ekade wrote:
1) Look around! We are here. How more evidence do you need?
I exist therefore god exists?
Your logic is failing and fleeting. At best. Stop trying to combine science and faith. They are mutually exclusive. There are times when both can happily coincide (for instance if one attempts to reconcile 7 days as an allegorical figure and not a numerical figure, that each day represents a larger scale of time), but you can't exactly prove creationism by stating you exist.
That's like a child saying Santa exists because they found presents under the tree.
