And pigs will fly

[Seagoon]

Hello Pei,

Originally posted by Pei
Evolution is a scientific theory.

Intelligent design is a religous theory.

I'm curious, because I read this all the time here, what religion is Intelligent Design exactly, because I've never heard of it, neither can I find any of its houses of worship in the phonebook? I'm also curious about a religion that has as its proponents Agnostics, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and so on from the scientific and academic rather than theological communities and which doesn't possess nearly the consensus that say Ultradarwinists share. In any event, ID may be many things, but biblical Christianity it certainly isn't.

They should not be taught in the same class but in separate classes (one in science and one in religion). Teaching them in the same class or even comparing them is a victory for the fundamentalists who hold belief over knowlege.

This and other comments about a supposed "lack of faith commitments" amongst materialists reminded me of a quote from Phil Johnson -

"One of the illusions of scientific materialism is its insistence that materialists don't have faith commitments. Faith is not something some people have and others don't. Faith also isn't something opposed to reason. Faith is something that everybody needs to get started in any direction, and to keep going in the face of discouragement. Reason builds on a foundation of faith.

For example, scientific materialists have faith that they will eventually find a materialistic theory to explain the origin of life, even though the experimental evidence may be pretty discouraging for now. Because they have faith in their theory, Darwinists believe that common ancestors for the animal phyla once lived on the earth, even though those ancestors can't be found. Eldredge calls himself a "knee-jerk neo-Darwinist" in spite of the invertebrate fossil record - because he is convinced, on philosophical grounds, that the theory must be true. That's every bit as much of a faith commitment as the belief of a young-earth creationist that all radiometric dating must be wrong because it contradicts the literal words of Genesis..."
[Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, p.66]

- SEAGOON

[Denny_Crane!]

You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter lets him in. Sees a guy in a suit making closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."

[Skilless]

Originally posted by Samiam
The difference between scientific theory and faith is that scientific theory is supported by observable, provable facts.
.

The very word THEORY, means it is unproven.  None of you know if I am a religious fanatic or a atheist.  All I am saying is STOP PREACHING THEORY AS FACT!  because the true FACT of the matter is, none of us truly know what the origin of life is.  To scream Big Bang and Darwinism is just as rediculous as to say "there's an invisible man in the sky who is watching us"!  Get over yourself and look at reality.

[Torque]

so...jump off a ten story building, it's only a theory of gravity holding you back.

[Hangtime]

(pssst.. torque, it's called the law of gravity. when science is about 90% sure of something they start calling it a 'law' instead of a 'theory'. )

[Torque]

you mean walt disney...lied?

i propose a new theory of "intelligent falling".

[Hangtime]

and he's dead too.

nothin worse than lyin dead dudes with persistent social influence.

(damn.. did i just define religion? is this the theory of dead dude relativity?)

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by NUKE
Students should be told and taught that evolution is just a theory, not a fact.

Heh, just a theory.  Gravity is just a theory as well.  What makes you think that students aren't being taught was a scientific theory is in science class.

The debate is about the origins of the universe and of life.

No, that's your strawman.  The name of Darwin's book was "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life" nor "The Origin of the Universe".  Evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life or the universe.  Perhaps you should try to have a passing knowledge of something before you chose to be against it.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Hangtime
(pssst.. torque, it's called the law of gravity. when science is about 90% sure of something they start calling it a 'law' instead of a 'theory'. )

Actually, "Law" is an archaic term that they came up with when indeed they thought they found laws that govern how things work.  The theories that had the term law attached to them way back when generally still are referred to as such.  But when new theories surpass the old ones the term isn't used for the new theories.


PS:  Anyone that is interested in reading "The Origin of Species" can find the complete test by following the link below.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

[oboe]

Thanks for that link.   I had always been interested in what Darwin actually said, not what others attributed to him.  Here are his words:

...Throughout whole classes various structures are formed on the same pattern, and at an embryonic age the species closely resemble each other. Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class. I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.

Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.

Sounds like he had some doubts ("analogy may be a deceitful guide") and in the very end, regarding the Origin of Life itself, was a creationist.

Tempest in a Teacup?

[SkyWolf]

Originally posted by Skilless
You cannot tell me one thing that science shows that absolutely proves evolution or the big bang.  And you certainly cannot disprove creationism.

By the way, Moot is correct.

I think developing wildlife in different areas proves evolution is correct. Madegascar has animals that have adapted to life on the island and they exist no where else. Did God just randomly disperse animals all about based on a whim? A Polar bear in Zaire?...... Ooops. Oh I forgot... he created each animal especially so that they could survive in specific habitat so that we could pave it and put up a Burger King.
Assuming there was an imaginary daddy floating around up in the "sky" he obviously doesn't give a rat's fanny about anything or anybody. Especially not mankind.

Oh yeah... I forgot... Whatever imaginary daddy you believe in only helps a select few and dumps on everyone else. I'm still trying to figure out which imaginary daddy is the correct one to believe in.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by Skilless
The very word THEORY, means it is unproven.  None of you know if I am a religious fanatic or a atheist.  All I am saying is STOP PREACHING THEORY AS FACT!  because the true FACT of the matter is, none of us truly know what the origin of life is.  To scream Big Bang and Darwinism is just as rediculous as to say "there's an invisible man in the sky who is watching us"!  Get over yourself and look at reality.

Go back to school, Skilless (but not in Kansas).

A scientific theory is an explanation of a complex system that is held to be TRUE by the scientific community and is supported by tested science.

In science, the term HYPOTHESIS means an unproven educated guess. ID is at best a hypothesis. The difference between most scientific hypotheses and ID, though, is that the intent of science is to devise testable, repeatable methods to substantiate them. With ID, by definition, there is no way to substantiate it becuase it is dependant on the supernatural. Therefore, by definition, IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

(Unless, of course, you do like the Kansas board of Ed. did and REDEFINE science to include the supernatural. But this opens the door to any unprovable supernatural bullpuckey, so you loose that way, too.)

Overwhelming scientific evidience supports evoloution. Nothing rediculous in stating it as scientific truth and explaining the science that leads us to this conclusion.

When you can explain the science that supports ID - actual science, not using a negative as a proof - it should be taught.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Thrawn


No, that's your strawman.  The name of Darwin's book was "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life" nor "The Origin of the Universe".  Evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life or the universe.  Perhaps you should try to have a passing knowledge of something before you chose to be against it.

I'm tired of you and your cute assumptions.

Did I ever mention Darwin or Origin of the Species? Perhapse you should read what I was debating here before you comment.

And evolution, by the way, all boils down to the origin of life.....the first life by which all other forms have evolved. Are you saying that origin of the "species" is diferent than the origin of life? Perhapse you should also put a little more thought into your drive by answers.


So it is about the origin of life. I say the origin of life begins at the origin of all the energy/matter in the universe.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by NUKE
So it is about the origin of life. I say the origin of life begins at the origin of all the energy/matter in the universe.

Oh great.  I pop in to see where this train wreck of a thread is going, and now you're on abortion.  

Fan-tastic.

[midnight Target]

This thread makes drosophila melanogaster cry.