This story is archived
Intelligent Design: For Dummies Only! »
Posted by: RickyDawkins 2 years, 5 months agoEvolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases.
Read Full Story at ncseweb.org »
Submitted By:
RickyDawkins
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 317
-
RickyDawkins
June 5, 2007, 4:15 p.m.Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it must be taught in public school science classes. In contrast, creationism is religion rather than science, as ruled in recent court cases, because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested. Consequently, creationism in any form (including scientific creationism, creation science, and intelligent design) must be excluded from public school science classes. Because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes.
This difference between science and religion does not mean that the two fields are incompatible. Many scientists who study evolution are religious, and many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. Science and religion address different questions and employ different ways of knowing.
-
RickyDawkins
June 5, 2007, 4:18 p.m.The rock record is a treasure trove of fossils, and by 1841, eighteen years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, geologists had not only assembled much of the geologic time scale from physical relationships among bodies of rock, but they had also recognized that fossils document profound changes in life throughout Earth's history. Since the time of Darwin, geologists have continued to uncover details of life's history, and biologists have continued to elucidate the process of evolution. Thus, our understanding of life's evolution has expanded through diverse research, much of it in fields unknown to Darwin such as genetics, biochemistry, and micropaleontology. In short, the concept of organic evolution has not only withstood the test of time the ultimate test of any scientific construct, but it has been greatly enriched.
-
rooftopjoe
June 5, 2007, 5:53 p.m.Evolution is a 'factless religion' than science facts. By trying to ignore God, they have opted for a religion of convenience to support their godless lifestyle which is destroying millions of people's lives. Christianity is a religion based on facts which support true scientific studies. God created all things, and man is curious to know the mechanics of His creation. We are learning more and more about 'behind the scenes', and come to realize we understand the design truly had a Designer.
Are Viruses Really "Evolving"?
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
We're all familiar with the conceptâ;;viruses changing over time, appearing to perceive and then circumvent our medicinal efforts. But do they do it on purpose?
This item is available on the Apologetics Press website at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2059
-
Eagle_Eye
June 5, 2007, 8:49 p.m.IMHO, from my conversations with God, science proves that God exists.
I think God kept "tweeking" the species until happy with the design.
-
RickyDawkins
June 5, 2007, 10:08 p.m.Hey luvmyprez, I'm curious where you stand on global warming now that the "Prez" has come out in favor of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Anthropogenic = Caused by YOU!
-
Macondo
June 5, 2007, 10:10 p.m.Natural selection works most of the times.
There are regressive tendencies however. (I am not talking about Dubya.)
-
oneironaut420
June 5, 2007, 10:30 p.m."Christianity is a religion based on facts which support true scientific studies."
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way...I hope you get well soon.
-
lum-chate
June 5, 2007, 11:56 p.m.I bet Monica Goodling & all the other top flight grads of prestigious Regent University Law School all believe in intelligent design, and if they had it their way would have it taught to all. All the more reason that the justice department has to be purged and tho I'm no liberal I'm afraid to say we have to vote Democrat next time to eliminate this nonsense. Pat Robertson & Oral Roberts & Falwell all intelligent design promoters routinely blame each world disaster on imagined enemies of the holly roller society.
-
-
Mutainia
June 6, 2007, 2:42 a.m.If evolution is scientific, does that mean the "Second Law of Thermal Dynamics" is false? Aren't the laws of thermal dynamics "scientific"? The key word to evolution is to call the first life forms on earth "simple". Question. A cell that can eat, grow, digest and reproduce...ah, does that sound "SIMPLE" to you? Atheists like to ask, "Where did GOD come from?" Yeah, well, where did TIME come from? The universe? Oh, it exploded from something "smaller than a proton". Let's igNORE the scientific belief that "nothing can escape from a black hole, not even light" that Hawking is famous for. I don't know about YOU guys, but, it sure looks like there is a LOT of blind faith to go around.
-
tiredofwhiners
June 6, 2007, 5:28 a.m.It really goes to the ultimate goal of all physicists and philosophers. That is the question: What started it all. No human can answer that. If you want to believe it was God, that's fine with me. Let's leave the religions alone on this. To me God = the laws of the universe and the laws of nature. Science can go back as far as they want, all the way to the singularity that made the "big bang" (if that's a correct theory), 11 dimensions and string theory. But they still can't explain where that came from or why. And they can't explain why the particular laws of physics are what they are. Why is the speed of light 186,000 mps as opposed to, say, 300,000 mps? How do we explain infinity or even imagine it? Why do I feel I have consciousness (sometimes I don't). Consider evolution to be God's way way of creating ever more advanced life. Religion will come around to that some day (except the Muslims of course). God is the mysterious unexplainable unimaginable start of it all.
-
tiredofwhiners
June 6, 2007, 5:41 a.m.Here's my mathematical explanation of everything:
x - x = 0 (or substitute any number for x).
x is a finite number representing something or anything.
-x is the opposite of same. Like matter and anti-matter.
The equation balances out so therefore we have something and negative something equal to nothing. Be sure to stay on the left side of the equation if you want to exist.
-
tiredofwhiners
June 6, 2007, 5:57 a.m.Ricky: I liked the article. Unfortunately I see from the comments you are a Berkeley grad and are obstinately a believer of earth's warming being caused primarily by man's activities. If you promise that you were taught equally by conservatives and liberals at Berkeley and that you will look at and consider the theory of cyclical Earth's warming and cooling, I will read your future articles. Too bad about Berkeley's and San Fran Freako's really abysmal political reputation. Do they teach liberal philosophy in physics class there?
-
MarkeD
June 6, 2007, 6:15 a.m.I think I agree with tiredofwhiners; its the third way :)
Christianity, Islam and Zionism are all the same yet insist on being mutually exclusive. Life of Brian described it best there (The shoe!)
They are all good ways to live life, if everyone believes them. Fortunetly we're not all the same and do disagree, which unfortunetly means we can think we're so right we'll kill another human for it.
You also all seem to be coming from a very polarised American view, the view that lumps gun-control, abortion and Creationalisim together which just seems crazy.
Evolution is more far reaching than life on earth, it happens all around us as more successful systems replace less successful; to deny evolution in life to me denys the evolution of human society, business systems, you learning quicker ways of getting to work in the morning. The examples are numerous and happen before our very eyes.
-
tryingtofindmyway
June 6, 2007, 7:33 a.m.Evolution is not a fact, but a theory. Now before you all get up in arms, let me once and for all explain what a scientific theory is. Quite simply, a scientific theory is a general hypothesis that has been tested and subjected to verification through accumulated evidence. Most people tend to think of a theory as an unproven and unlikely hypothesis, which is entirely mistaken. That being said, a theory isn't as concrete as a scientific law, such as gravity, laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, and the law of conservation of mass and energy. Most scientific laws can be reduced to mathematical equations and are indistputable universal truths. Unfortunately, evolution cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation. Especially in the early years of evolutionary theory, many conclusions were drawn based only on inferences from fossils and Darwins Galapagos' spieces, which was not at all conclusive.
-
tryingtofindmyway
June 6, 2007, 7:38 a.m.The constraints of early evolutionary theory have been tremendously removed with the discovery of genetics and the DNA structure. I agree with those who maintain that the fossil record is wholly inadequate to validate the theory of evolution. There simply are too many gaps and unanswered questions in the fossil record, which is to be expected. Fossils simply don't line out the development of species over time for our convenience. The real development of evolutionary theory lies within the development of modern science and genetics.
-
tryingtofindmyway
June 6, 2007, 7:51 a.m.I believe that an unfortunate fact about evolution's development is that sometimes scientists felt forced to jump to conclusions before they had concrete justification for doing so. The theories of evolution were developed in the presence of heated opposition from the religious and even political powers of the time. Thus, I believe that early evolutionists felt the need to scramble to find evidence and proof for their theory just to ensure it's survival, sometimes at the expense of scientific objectivity. Darwin himself had no right to make the sweeping claims that he did in his "origin of species" based only on what he knew at the time, though at least he never tried to explain the actual biological evolutionary process. Those who did, such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, came up with rather silly hypothesis such as the "inheritance of acquired characteristics." But now, with the advances of modern science, the theory of evolution can be objectively tested and validated.
-
MLTKRT
June 6, 2007, 8:33 a.m.God created the heaven and the earth. The only way to the father is through Jesus. Please let Jesus in your life today. 8-)
-
torrent29
June 6, 2007, 8:39 a.m.Its always interesting to me to see the differences of opinion that some people have regarding things and while all sides claim to embrace science, not everyone really does.
Luckily I havent seen any twoofers pop up lately, but here you have a group of extreme left wing nutjobs claiming science backs them up without really providing any sort of facts to the matter. They rather conveniently ignore all facts that do not support their ideas. Though I have to be amused at the notion that at its core 911 conspiracies are rather right wing in their nature.
Then again, you come back around to evolution and suddenly its the same thing in reverse, and then again with global warming.
In nearly all cases you have a consensus of scientists, and then there are people hinting at a 'conspiracy' of sorts. Those who support Global Warming are only in it for the money, IDers are left out because they support unpopular ideas.
Its all rather silly in the end.
-
Alleycat169
June 6, 2007, 9:03 a.m.Religious people are too glib to understand the the word "Theory" in science means something that HAS BEEN PROVEN. As in: Hypothesis - Proof - Theory. If they had paid attention in Science class they'd know this. Instead they think we're all as stupid as they are and try to use the word "Theory" in a layman's context, as in: I have a theory about where all those socks go in the laundry. It's not a "Theory", nor is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory. It is; Wishfull thinking, Theological postulation, Fantasy, a hypothetical sceanrio perhaps... but one thing that is 100% true is that Religion can't be proven. God is a Hypothesis, not a fact or even a Theory.
I'm so sick os stupid, addle minded babies, telling smart, well educated people that they don't know anything. Stick to church with your God Fantasies and keep it out of the science classroom/
-
XXanyoneXX
June 6, 2007, 9:26 a.m.I don't think it'll make that much difference in the end if evolution isn't taught in US schools. My concern is the that in trying to introduce Creationist concepts to oppose evolution, the Creationists are attempting to LITERALLY redefine Science. These new definitions remove the need for supporting evidence. The backers of Creationism have freely admitted that redefining Science in this way would mean that things like astrology, psychics, and ghosts would also have to be considered science. How long do you suppose the US would remain a world leader in scientific research under these conditions? There are plenty of nations out there that would love to surpass us, just like when the Middle East was once a world leader in science until their religion began to take precedence. If Creationism was capable of surviving the scientific process, it would be placed in schools right alongside evolution. It can't, that's why its backers resort to the legal system.
-
matty-walter
June 6, 2007, 11:08 a.m.I have been schooled in science my whole life (almost 60 years) and was taught about evolution in high school back in the early 60s. I believe in it and accept it.
However, even though I do not subscribe to any organized religion, I do believe in some type of intelligent design by a higher being. I believe, as many deists did in the 18th century (before Darwin) that this higher being began creation at some point, endowed it with various characteristics, and then let it go on its own, perhaps interfering a little from time to time (notice I said "perhaps?).
Some of these characterists may have been tendencies that would permit or encourage evoltion of species of life, as well as astronomical changes.
Does this belief put me in the same class as those in middle America who are trying so hard to foist their brand of religious dogmatism on the rest of the world?
-
DoerNotASayer
June 6, 2007, 11:17 a.m.I find it hard to believe that in the year 2007 people would post, for others to read, that they don't believe in pollution or in evolution.
What the hell happended to this country? When did being a Frank Burns clone become a desirable trait?
-
curlin
June 6, 2007, 12:09 p.m.I don't feel intellegent design is valid, but if people want to embrace it that's fine with me. My problem is the movers of this notion trying to convert others & incorporate their ideas into the political arena.
-
ITALBEOK
June 6, 2007, 12:18 p.m.Hello all--I Would like to share a short clip with all of You--Please take a minute and visit this link http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html... I can visualize Darwin meeting GOD for the first time and saying,And who are You ?
The first 244 comments are shown. Show all 317 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
