"Intelligent Design" fails in some areas of the US

[bjbj1991]

 

I don't know why it's so hard to understand..It's a very old law, the seperation of church and state is...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's never been a law, you know. More of a tradition.

 

 

 

I think its called the first amendment but i guess that the United States Constitution doesn't count as a law. first amendment states that the country will not favor one religion over another or in any way hinder another religion. Atheism is a form of a religion therefor if they teach that evolution is flawed then it would harm MY religion. also i don't believe that ALL the other religions teach that life was created by a Godlike being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And ID is not a scientific theory, their is no way to prove ID and it only says that stuff like DNA can not form naturally so some Godlike being formed it. to say that the Theory of Evolution is just a theory is like saying that the Theory of Gravity is just a theory. ID completely ignores the whole scientific method and if we give equal time to both ID and Evolution will mean that either they force me to read genesis or just give us a crossword puzzle to solve with a few words.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

I don't know why it's so hard to understand..It's a very old law, the seperation of church and state is...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's never been a law, you know. More of a tradition.

 

 

 

I think its called the first amendment but i guess that the United States Constitution doesn't count as a law. first amendment states that the country will not favor one religion over another or in any way hinder another religion. Atheism is a form of a religion therefor if they teach that evolution is flawed then it would harm MY religion. also i don't believe that ALL the other religions teach that life was created by a Godlike being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess you don't know your history. Go get a copy of the constitution and tell me where it says "seperation of church and state." It never does. Read my above post about the origins of the phrase "seperation of church and state" and then re-evaluate yourself. Before speaking about what the constitution says, how about you actually read it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And ID is not a scientific theory, their is no way to prove ID and it only says that stuff like DNA can not form naturally so some Godlike being formed it. to say that the Theory of Evolution is just a theory is like saying that the Theory of Gravity is just a theory. ID completely ignores the whole scientific method and if we give equal time to both ID and Evolution will mean that either they force me to read genesis or just give us a crossword puzzle to solve with a few words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the Law of Gravity...not the theory. Therefore, your point = not valid. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do so many people make such opinionated posts about topics they have no idea about.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the Law of Gravity...not the theory. Therefore, your point = not valid. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do so many people make such opinionated posts about topics they have no idea about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to be technical, Newton's (and EinsteinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s) gravitation is in fact theory. Newton's law of universal gravitation is the law contained inside the theory. Do you really think all the work Newton presented could be contained in one single law? Sure you get the basic idea but you then miss out on all the small details such as the force having to be communicated instantly, gravity of a single body, the 3 dimensional vector form of gravity etc. How about his reservation about ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwhat gravity isÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Hannibal]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the Law of Gravity...not the theory. Therefore, your point = not valid. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do so many people make such opinionated posts about topics they have no idea about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to be technical, Newton's (and EinsteinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s) gravitation is in fact theory. Newton's law of universal gravitation is the law contained inside the theory. Do you really think all the work Newton presented could be contained in one single law? Sure you get the basic idea but you then miss out on all the small details such as the force having to be communicated instantly, gravity of a single body, the 3 dimensional vector form of gravity etc. How about his reservation about ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwhat gravity isÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[AThousandLies]

That's all well and good, but we're at a point now where science has a LOT more backing, and our current theories have a lot less inconsistancies than theories on the same subjects centuries ago. We should teach the theories that have a LOT of credibility and a lot of backing - not just things that are based on faith and have no objective credibility.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the Law of Gravity...not the theory. Therefore, your point = not valid. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do so many people make such opinionated posts about topics they have no idea about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to be technical, Newton's (and EinsteinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s) gravitation is in fact theory. Newton's law of universal gravitation is the law contained inside the theory. Do you really think all the work Newton presented could be contained in one single law? Sure you get the basic idea but you then miss out on all the small details such as the force having to be communicated instantly, gravity of a single body, the 3 dimensional vector form of gravity etc. How about his reservation about ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwhat gravity isÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Hannibal]

That's all well and good, but we're at a point now where science has a LOT more backing, and our current theories have a lot less inconsistancies than theories on the same subjects centuries ago. We should teach the theories that have a LOT of credibility and a lot of backing - not just things that are based on faith and have no objective credibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree we should teach the things with lots of credibility, but that doesn't mean you can't point out that nothing is 100% certain, and point out alternatives? And anyway - credibility is relative, as shown by the previous postl. In other 100-200 years some people probably think we were crazy believing Einstein and Darwin to be right (just like GhostRanger pointed out - missed that post as I didn't see there was a new page ;) ).

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

That's all well and good, but we're at a point now where science has a LOT more backing, and our current theories have a lot less inconsistancies than theories on the same subjects centuries ago. We should teach the theories that have a LOT of credibility and a lot of backing - not just things that are based on faith and have no objective credibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree we should teach the things with lots of credibility, but that doesn't mean you can't point out that nothing is 100% certain, and point out alternatives? And anyway - credibility is relative, as shown by the previous postl. In other 100-200 years some people probably think we were crazy believing Einstein and Darwin to be right (just like GhostRanger pointed out - missed that post as I didn't see there was a new page ;) ).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 27th, 2005: Hannibal and Ghost Ranger agreed on something.

[Hannibal]

December 27th, 2005: Hannibal and Ghost Ranger agreed on something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At least we don't need to make it a new year's resolution ;)

[HugATree]

 

 

 

So, why am I saying all this? Because some people here seem to believe that 'theories' like Evolution are based on fact, and thus they are true. They're missing a point - the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It may go well with the facts we know, but as Necromagus pointed out, it doesn't let us make scientific predictions, nor does it have a clear mechanism (ie, there's no way to logically derive how evolution will unfold). So whatever the case, the theory of evolution isn't perfect (nor is any other theory). Hence, I don't see a problem with alternatives being taught, as long as there is some explanation on scientific paradigms, and why one should or shouldn't support one theory or another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems you're missing the point, the scientific theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, ID isn't even a testable hypothesis. Sure, teach the alternatives if you can find one.

 

 

 

Evolution has made predictions that currently test true, all life on earth sharing a common ancestor; research in genetics have shown this to be accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, if you know of any alternative theories (theory in the scientific context); you should tell someone.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

So, why am I saying all this? Because some people here seem to believe that 'theories' like Evolution are based on fact, and thus they are true. They're missing a point - the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It may go well with the facts we know, but as Necromagus pointed out, it doesn't let us make scientific predictions, nor does it have a clear mechanism (ie, there's no way to logically derive how evolution will unfold). So whatever the case, the theory of evolution isn't perfect (nor is any other theory). Hence, I don't see a problem with alternatives being taught, as long as there is some explanation on scientific paradigms, and why one should or shouldn't support one theory or another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems you're missing the point, the scientific theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, ID isn't even a testable hypothesis. Sure, teach the alternatives if you can find one.

 

 

 

Evolution has made predictions that currently test true, all life on earth sharing a common ancestor; research in genetics have shown this to be accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, if you know of any alternative theories (theory in the scientific context); you should tell someone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think Hannibal is missing the point - in fact I think you just restated exactly what he said and what I said at the beginning of this post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teach all scientific theories as scientific theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teach all religious theories in context to the curriculum as social sciences.

[HugATree]

 

 

 

 

 

So, why am I saying all this? Because some people here seem to believe that 'theories' like Evolution are based on fact, and thus they are true. They're missing a point - the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It may go well with the facts we know, but as Necromagus pointed out, it doesn't let us make scientific predictions, nor does it have a clear mechanism (ie, there's no way to logically derive how evolution will unfold). So whatever the case, the theory of evolution isn't perfect (nor is any other theory). Hence, I don't see a problem with alternatives being taught, as long as there is some explanation on scientific paradigms, and why one should or shouldn't support one theory or another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems you're missing the point, the scientific theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, ID isn't even a testable hypothesis. Sure, teach the alternatives if you can find one.

 

 

 

Evolution has made predictions that currently test true, all life on earth sharing a common ancestor; research in genetics have shown this to be accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, if you know of any alternative theories (theory in the scientific context); you should tell someone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think Hannibal is missing the point - in fact I think you just restated exactly what he said and what I said at the beginning of this post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I read it he said it made no scientific predictions, I pointed out one of the biggest predictions.

 

 

 

I apologise if I read it wrong.

[Hannibal]

 

 

 

 

So, why am I saying all this? Because some people here seem to believe that 'theories' like Evolution are based on fact, and thus they are true. They're missing a point - the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It may go well with the facts we know, but as Necromagus pointed out, it doesn't let us make scientific predictions, nor does it have a clear mechanism (ie, there's no way to logically derive how evolution will unfold). So whatever the case, the theory of evolution isn't perfect (nor is any other theory). Hence, I don't see a problem with alternatives being taught, as long as there is some explanation on scientific paradigms, and why one should or shouldn't support one theory or another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems you're missing the point, the scientific theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, ID isn't even a testable hypothesis. Sure, teach the alternatives if you can find one.

 

 

 

Evolution has made predictions that currently test true, all life on earth sharing a common ancestor; research in genetics have shown this to be accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, if you know of any alternative theories (theory in the scientific context); you should tell someone.

 

 

 

I can't accurately predict how humans are going to evolve next using the evolution theory. It doesn't define a clear mechanism on what will happen next either (where clear would be clear as in the Newton's law of gravity or whatnot - fuzzy terms such as 'most suited to the environment' are up to just about any interpretation). According to ID, nothing more will happen, and there is no evolution, hence the prediction part is that earth will stay somewhat the same (at least, if nature had its way. Of course, humans tend to screw up the earth quite a bit on their own). The fact that all life on earth shares a common ancestor is not a prediction at all, as it is about the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and again, GhostRanger was right. :)

[Necromagus]

Doesn't the theory of Evolution simply predict that genetic traits are passed on or die out depending on changing enviromental conditions? For example, if you have an isolated island with two different flowers and a species of bird where each individual bird can only extract food from either type of flower. Wouldn't the theory of evolution dictate that if the population of one of the flower types grows, the amount of individual birds within the species with the genetic trait that allows them to feed on that type of flower will also grow?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Doesn't the theory of Evolution simply predict that genetic traits are passed on or die out depending on changing enviromental conditions? For example, if you have an isolated island with two different flowers and a species of bird where each individual bird can only extract food from either type of flower. Wouldn't the theory of evolution dictate that if the population of one of the flower types grows, the amount of individual birds within the species with the genetic trait that allows them to feed on that type of flower will also grow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, that is something more to do with supply and demand. I think. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Selection is when something like a bird, adapts itself to a changing enviroment. For instance, if a type of bird kept getting eaten while it was sleeping at night - that species might adapt themselves to become nocturnal. Evolution would happen when a species has to adapt so much...they evolve into a different species of animal. Theoretically its how humans came to be.

[bjbj1991]

To end the theory vs law debate please go to this page it was real hard to find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theories it shows that theory has many uses and in science does not always mean unproven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also about Newton's law of gravity, even that needed to be tweaked because it only illustrates the similar forces in play. einstein modified the law of gravity based on new observations with the theories of relativity nethor have been disproven in the past 90+ years but they are still called theorys.

[Guest GhostRanger]

To end the theory vs law debate please go to this page it was real hard to find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theories it shows that theory has many uses and in science does not always mean unproven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I've quoted that page several times in the off-topic page. The difference is that proven does not always mean 100% true. Did you even read that page?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither is a scientific theory a fact. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right on that page you just referenced. There is nothing 100% fact about a scientific theory. Evidence does not mean proven.

[Necromagus]

 

Doesn't the theory of Evolution simply predict that genetic traits are passed on or die out depending on changing enviromental conditions? For example, if you have an isolated island with two different flowers and a species of bird where each individual bird can only extract food from either type of flower. Wouldn't the theory of evolution dictate that if the population of one of the flower types grows, the amount of individual birds within the species with the genetic trait that allows them to feed on that type of flower will also grow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, that is something more to do with supply and demand. I think. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Selection is when something like a bird, adapts itself to a changing enviroment. For instance, if a type of bird kept getting eaten while it was sleeping at night - that species might adapt themselves to become nocturnal. Evolution would happen when a species has to adapt so much...they evolve into a different species of animal. Theoretically its how humans came to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, adaptation isn't entirely the right word for the process. The genes of a species as a whole don't change, it's mutation in the individual genomes that cause evolution. The most adapted genes will be passed on and become dominant, the least adapted genes will die out. The species as a whole doesn't evolve, it's the mutation of the individual genome that makes the difference.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

Doesn't the theory of Evolution simply predict that genetic traits are passed on or die out depending on changing enviromental conditions? For example, if you have an isolated island with two different flowers and a species of bird where each individual bird can only extract food from either type of flower. Wouldn't the theory of evolution dictate that if the population of one of the flower types grows, the amount of individual birds within the species with the genetic trait that allows them to feed on that type of flower will also grow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, that is something more to do with supply and demand. I think. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Selection is when something like a bird, adapts itself to a changing enviroment. For instance, if a type of bird kept getting eaten while it was sleeping at night - that species might adapt themselves to become nocturnal. Evolution would happen when a species has to adapt so much...they evolve into a different species of animal. Theoretically its how humans came to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, adaptation isn't entirely the right word for the process. The genes of a species as a whole don't change, it's mutation in the individual genomes that cause evolution. The most adapted genes will be passed on and become dominant, the least adapted genes will die out. The species as a whole doesn't evolve, it's the mutation of the individual genome that makes the difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, and eventually the whole species changes. And eventually, the species changes into another species. I don't understand how what you said is any different than what I did. You just used bigger words to say exactly what I did. :roll:

[bjbj1991]

 

 

 

Doesn't the theory of Evolution simply predict that genetic traits are passed on or die out depending on changing enviromental conditions? For example, if you have an isolated island with two different flowers and a species of bird where each individual bird can only extract food from either type of flower. Wouldn't the theory of evolution dictate that if the population of one of the flower types grows, the amount of individual birds within the species with the genetic trait that allows them to feed on that type of flower will also grow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, that is something more to do with supply and demand. I think. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Selection is when something like a bird, adapts itself to a changing enviroment. For instance, if a type of bird kept getting eaten while it was sleeping at night - that species might adapt themselves to become nocturnal. Evolution would happen when a species has to adapt so much...they evolve into a different species of animal. Theoretically its how humans came to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, adaptation isn't entirely the right word for the process. The genes of a species as a whole don't change, it's mutation in the individual genomes that cause evolution. The most adapted genes will be passed on and become dominant, the least adapted genes will die out. The species as a whole doesn't evolve, it's the mutation of the individual genome that makes the difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, and eventually the whole species changes. And eventually, the species changes into another species. I don't understand how what you said is any different than what I did. You just used bigger words to say exactly what I did. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well you stated species unsed of an indeveduial. if a species evolves as a whole then the speciace will remain so there would be no monkeys. if a grup of indeviduials evolve then now there are 2 difrent species so thats why there is man and monkey.

[runesmithie]

 

 

 

well you stated species unsed of an indeveduial. if a species evolves as a whole then the speciace will remain so there would be no monkeys. if a grup of indeviduials evolve then now there are 2 difrent species so thats why there is man and monkey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone mind translating?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*slackmouth stare*

[MyPurpleCrayon]

 

 

 

 

Doesn't the theory of Evolution simply predict that genetic traits are passed on or die out depending on changing enviromental conditions? For example, if you have an isolated island with two different flowers and a species of bird where each individual bird can only extract food from either type of flower. Wouldn't the theory of evolution dictate that if the population of one of the flower types grows, the amount of individual birds within the species with the genetic trait that allows them to feed on that type of flower will also grow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, that is something more to do with supply and demand. I think. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Selection is when something like a bird, adapts itself to a changing enviroment. For instance, if a type of bird kept getting eaten while it was sleeping at night - that species might adapt themselves to become nocturnal. Evolution would happen when a species has to adapt so much...they evolve into a different species of animal. Theoretically its how humans came to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, adaptation isn't entirely the right word for the process. The genes of a species as a whole don't change, it's mutation in the individual genomes that cause evolution. The most adapted genes will be passed on and become dominant, the least adapted genes will die out. The species as a whole doesn't evolve, it's the mutation of the individual genome that makes the difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, and eventually the whole species changes. And eventually, the species changes into another species. I don't understand how what you said is any different than what I did. You just used bigger words to say exactly what I did. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well you stated species unsed of an indeveduial. if a species evolves as a whole then the speciace will remain so there would be no monkeys. if a grup of indeviduials evolve then now there are 2 difrent species so thats why there is man and monkey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, but I can't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are talking about adaptation, and you are over here in your own world talking about evolution between men and monkies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like reading this repetition: You know, the kind where everyone agrees but tries to sound smarter by repeating the same thing with bigger words and wikipedia references.

[Necromagus]

It seems that GhostRanger and I got tangled up within the confines of language, so let's skip what could be a long and entirely pointless squabble over words and focus on the topic at hand, shall we?

[Craven_Image]

 

 

 

Doesn't the theory of Evolution simply predict that genetic traits are passed on or die out depending on changing enviromental conditions? For example, if you have an isolated island with two different flowers and a species of bird where each individual bird can only extract food from either type of flower. Wouldn't the theory of evolution dictate that if the population of one of the flower types grows, the amount of individual birds within the species with the genetic trait that allows them to feed on that type of flower will also grow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, that is something more to do with supply and demand. I think. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Selection is when something like a bird, adapts itself to a changing enviroment. For instance, if a type of bird kept getting eaten while it was sleeping at night - that species might adapt themselves to become nocturnal. Evolution would happen when a species has to adapt so much...they evolve into a different species of animal. Theoretically its how humans came to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, adaptation isn't entirely the right word for the process. The genes of a species as a whole don't change, it's mutation in the individual genomes that cause evolution. The most adapted genes will be passed on and become dominant, the least adapted genes will die out. The species as a whole doesn't evolve, it's the mutation of the individual genome that makes the difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, and eventually the whole species changes. And eventually, the species changes into another species. I don't understand how what you said is any different than what I did. You just used bigger words to say exactly what I did. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your explanation sounded like the species adapted to its surroundings by doing something throughout its life to bring about the change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you should note that Natural Selection does not involve Speciation; the separation of sub-species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An example of evolution is the early dolphin when it developed it's fins because a mutation caused one dolphin to have a deformity - a primitive fin. This 'deformity' allowed it to swim better and catch more fish for it's offspring and ensured it's success. This mutant could create much more offspring then the others and it's 'deformity' was passed on to it's siblings. This occured much much more over the millions of years and created what is now known as a dolphin. This happened all over the planet with all species and that is what evolution is.

[Hannibal]

Your explanation sounded like the species adapted to its surroundings by doing something throughout its life to bring about the change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you should note that Natural Selection does not involve Speciation; the separation of sub-species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An example of evolution is the early dolphin when it developed it's fins because a mutation caused one dolphin to have a deformity - a primitive fin. This 'deformity' allowed it to swim better and catch more fish for it's offspring and ensured it's success. This mutant could create much more offspring then the others and it's 'deformity' was passed on to it's siblings. This occured much much more over the millions of years and created what is now known as a dolphin. This happened all over the planet with all species and that is what evolution is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, and in any case, just this theory doesn't provide any way to predict which features will dominate, simply because the environment and the species are too complex to make any logical conclusion out. So my original point remains - the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything.