Like Nathans_Dad, I find it frustrating the people cannot be comfortable with their religous faith and science. Why do these two things need to be in opposed?

It would seem the actual root of the problem here is folks literal interpretations of the bible.....

Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to get a reaction here?

I have my left shoe on my left foot, and my right shoe on my right foot.

do I get a prize?

Dover voted it down but the Kansas School Board did not. The issue will come up again in other states. Unfortunately (and I hope I am wrong) I think this could be the beginning of dark period - intellectually speaking - for the United States.

For years we have been at the leading edge of science and technology. In the past couple of years medical researchers here in the U.S. have left this country to pursue stem cell research abroad. The result? Several other countries are now leading the way with new breakthroughs in this field.

The U.S. will eventually use federal funding for stem cell research but only after realizing we have a lot of catching up to do.

When you start pushing science out of the classroom in favor of a faith based curriculum, the number of students wanting to pursue a career in science will dwindle even further. Already, the majority of science grads from U.S. Universities are foreign born. Nothing wrong with that except many of them take that education back to their country of birth, leaving the U.S. with even fewer scientists.

The Evengelicals have already stated that they would like to bring prayer into the classroom. That will be a fun debate.

In theory you are correct, however scientist are human beings and history shows they have sometimes doctored their data to advance their theory (belief)

Why do people start throwing out "belief in god" when discussing the theory of evolution? The theory of evolution does not concern itself with whether there is a god or not.

IMHO, the vast amjority of all people who oppose the theory of evolution know little or nothing about it. You can't intelligently argue about something that you know little about. That's apparent from some of the posts in this thread.

Pascal's Wager has absolutely no bearing on this subject (and doesn't make any sense in the first place).

Mike

Please explain.

If it requires 'belief' or 'faith' to accept a theory, then scientific theory, is in it's foundations, a belief system. I don't see a difference.

-Z-man.

Can you discuss differing opinions without resorting to childish insults?

Belief and disbelief in God are like two opposing chessmen standing next to each on a chessboard.

While most evolutionists believe God does not exsist, the main opposing view of evolution, aka creationism, begins with the theory that God does exsist. That's why "belief in God" comes up so often when folks debate or discuss the theory of evolution.

-Z-man.

I'll take that one step further - most of them don't even know the scientific definition of "theory". Again, that's evident from posts in this thread.

Proponents of ID don't allow themselves to be encumbered by facts. Why is anyone surprised?

Beginning? We're just getting into the sweet spot of the demise. The US has about a 10-20 year window before we are toast. We still hold a slim lead in "innovation", but that is only in limited fields now, and is shrinking daily. We have used off-shoring and outsourcing as a crutch to prop up corporate profits instead of leveraging it to drive creativity. We're fat, stupid, and wallowing in confusion.

holy crap, I sound like tabs. Mother, how did you let this happen?

Figures that nostatic would bring shoeism into this debate. Question is, which shoe did you put on first? And did you remember to put your socks one prior to slipping your feet into your shoes? Are they loafers? Tennis shoes? Dress shoes? And most importantly, what condition is your SOUL in?!? :eek:

-Z-man.

Take your last breath and you will have your answer.

And it was caught by the community. That's what peer review is all about. It isn't perfect, but the system works. Open inquiry and open publication of data and results.

Show me a scientific theory that in any way requires "faith" to accept.

The "foundations" of science are not "beliefs". Scientific theories are based on evidence, observations and experimentation -not beliefs.

Mike

Um, a bunch of lawyers a lot better versed on this debate than most of you have been arguing it up. Rather than have a contest to see who knows the positions best on PPOT, why not just read the trial transcripts?

The issue isn't whether ID is defensible. Clearly to have gotten as far as it has, ID proponents have done a masterful job crafting a debating position.

The issue is what teaching ID in public schools does to a township/city/state. If your local school teaches ID, your community is a joke. What company would want to locate in such a backwards place? How will it affect college admissions (and I'm not talking Bob Jones) when they find out?

...and you have proof of this?

The problem with the religious (and non-scientists in general) is that they equate "theory" with "hypothesis".

A theory is based on observation of facts, experimentation, and has been verified multiple times and can be verified by impartial researchers.

A hypothesis is a guess based exclusively upon observation. Such as "Bob is dead; we don't see him around town much anymore."

BTW, the next step up from "theory" is "law". You know, like 1+1=2.

First, belief != faith. Belief is trusting something to be true and faith is a belief that's not held up by logical proof. Science is not based in faith. For a scientist to believe something, he needs verifiable and repeatable evidence. For example, I believe that if I drop a ball in a vacuum at the surface of the Earth, it will accelerate at 9.81 m/s^2 until something stops it. I believe this because I've seen it done many times and never seen this not happen. It does not require faith to trust this fact to be true.

OTOH, there are those who have a faith in science - those who think that science will solve all of society's problems for example. This is not verifiable because it involves the future, and quite franky we've seen example (lots of them) wherein science has proved detrimental to society.

But don't confuse the larger 'faith' some have in science with the smaller verifiable beliefs in its theories.

With all due respect to those who number themselves in the creationist camp: There are many, many scientists who have very deep religious beliefs. The have no problem with reconciling their faith with their work in science. Why? Because Science is not trying to create a faith. Science examines mechanisms for how things can work. It is very pragmatic. It doesn't mater if a theory is "true" if it provides a framework to explain our observations. Once the theory breaks down, it either get fixed or replaced. Newtonian physics is still in the classrooms even at the undergraduate level, but we know that as a theory it breaks down. It is still taught because it is simple and very applicable for most of the conditions that we consider in everyday life.

Religion is trying to answer the "why" question. Any mechanisms proposed by a religious explaination at not necessarily literally true. That isn't the point.

Now there are some folks in the scientific community that try to operate at the religious level. They are making a mistake.

I will never understand why the theory of evolution seems so offensive to some people of faith (and they are in the minority). I don't see any debates about teaching newton's "laws" over "intelligent Physics" (or someother nonsense). There are certainly "gaps" in this theory.

To me the bottom line is the same if your whole life revolves around a strict and literal reading of the bible. It is very hard to do this without being forced to pick and choose. Besides, why does it seem that the literalists don't bother to read the bible in its original language? How can you be certain that you have it right if you are relying on someone else to develop the translations for you?

I guess I have it easy. I don't take the biblical stories literally. I assume that they are trying to make a point using imagery that people could relate to at the time it was written. Of course, I am not burdened with the belief the bible was transcribed literally either. I guess if you hold those beliefs, there is a lot to fear from science. Any observation that doesn't support the exact timeline and events outlined in the bible would have to be wrong. The theory of relativity can't possibly hold. If it did, then it would mean that it would contradict the whole biblical time line. We would have to assume that the speed of light is subject to huge variations in order to make it work. All of this is enough to make my head hurt.

Why on earth do we have to suppress an effective explaination for the transformation of life forms because it violates the religeous views of a small minority? Why should we force these specific religious views into our science classes? Doesn't this open us up to all sorts of crazy things? ID is not science no matter what the discovery institute claims. Teach it in Sunday school, but not in science class.

Oh yah. Why does this somehow end up being a liberal vs. conservative thing?

Not in the case of evolution...unverified, unproven and unobservable...Defies the very scientifically immutable laws it purports to hang its hat on.

Ummm, exactly why do you think this? Why on earth, or heaven for that matter, would God have such weakass HUMAN emotions so as to be petty, mean-spirited, and puerile?

You do God a great disservice with this statement.

Are you in the deity camp or the super-smart aliens camp of ID?

IROC, Z-Man is right. A theory is not proven. So, if you believe that a particular theory is true, you apply an element of faith.

I don't have trouble reconciling my religions beliefs with my scientific knowledge. I notice that science doesn't know everything yet, and so I see no conflict. I think the Bible is true. In fact, I'm not ready to conclude yet that the Genesis account of creation is not correct. It's possible that it is, and that natural selection is a mechanism that occurs in nature. But in my mind, there is no question whether we, and the Universe, are God's handiwork in some fashion or another. I just don't know how he did it. And neither do you. And anybody who asserts that God's hand is NOT in the universe......is going WAY beyond the evidence to make that conclusion.

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX ever." -- Dr. T. N. Tahmisian

Evolution has been verified, proven and observed! Where have you been? No one (with any credibility) disputes this. What many people do argue is whether or not the theory of evolution adequately explains the observed phenomenon of evolution.

Mike

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.

That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

Question: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school'."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist. British Museum of Natural History, London.

You tell a big enough lie, frequently, people start to believe it.

Ahhh...but it doesn't require the kind of "faith without evidence" that religion asks of it adherents (which I think was the original point when arguing something like ID is valid). It requires the faith (or I'll use the word "confidence") that if you repeat the same experiment, you'll get the same result. That isn't "faith without evidence" if the theory is sound.

I could say that I have "faith" that the Sun will rise tomorrow. It might not, but I have a large body of evidence to be confident that it will occur.

Mike

And you never know until you see it. Someone might be using artificial illumination above the clouds.

(Whoever knows the reference gets a cookie.)

If it is a "big lie" then simply point out one instance where the theory of evolution is false. Ought to be an easy task.

Mike

I am... Evolution is a proven, reproducable phenomenon. It should only be referred to as "theory" when it is used to explain biological phenomena.

If and how the process of evolution relates to the origin of man is theory.

Believe it? Hell, they'll send you money even! You can make millions off the suckers that believe it by telling them that [god|Great Green Arkleseizure|flying spaghetti monster] has dictated that they turn over 10% of their assets.

Respectfully, you are wrong. It's very easy to prove evolution in the lab. It's done every year in every genetics 101 lab in the country. It is, in fact, verifiable, provable and observable. The argument is if the process of evolution explains the origin of man. That's the question.

I agree with IROC, but I'll try to expand on his explanation.

I don't care whether you believe in creationism or not, but it is not science. "Science" is applying the scientific method to verify or deny certain theories. Evolution is a theory that is subject to scientific verification; creationism/intelligent design is not. To just say that the world is too complex, therefore God created everything - that's not science.

I was watching a show recently where a bunch of physicists were talking about string theory. Quite a few of them said that since strings are too small to be scientifically validated, string theory is more of a philosophy than a science. I believe the same thing about creationism/intelligent design - since it is not subject to scientific inquiry, it should not be taught in science class.

If you want to teach it in philosophy or religion class, I have no problem with that.

How does the micro environment of the lab explain the macro environment and the theory that randomness begat the complex interrelationship between all of creation?

Where is the half man?...New ones should be popping up regularly in the evolutionary fairy-tale.

They're called "Republicans"

Mul, you've got to be kidding. I really think you must enjoy trolling this board.

OK, that's better than what I had. :>)

Mike

My aim is not to kid you, unlike the godless purveyors of evolutionary theory.

Enlighten me as to my error.