Kansas School Board Votes Against Science

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap ... _vote.html

Do you think that schools should counterdict the theory of evoultion?

As far as i am aware the only problems with the theory of evoultion is are fossil record dose not cover every life form ever to exist and will never.

very short summerys of the 2 theorys.

Evolution=mutations within a cell's DNA makes the life form capible to live in a harsher environment.

Intelegint Design=if somethings is complicated a godlike thing orderd it to be.

A Big Problem with ID

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/05 ... ience.html

look near the bottom of the page at the nylon problem.

Are we in the 15th century again?

also a while back i found a page on googlenews about Americans becoming sicentific iliterate can someone please find it if they know were it is. they had some statictis i want to post thank you

do you want me to copy the pages and past them here just wondering?

Intelegint Design=if somethings is complicated a godlike thing orderd it to be.

Your definition is a bit off..

Intelligent design says that the world is so complex that there must have been a higher power behind all the change.

A Big Problem with ID

 

 

 

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/05 ... ience.html

 

 

 

look near the bottom of the page at the nylon problem.

I disagree with this with this-- bacterial genes have a special ability to be "on" or "off". For example, (I don't remember the exact names), ecoli has a gene that codes for a protein that breaks down one of the sugars in apples. This gene is activated by having the apple sugar in its environment (due to the sugar reacting to an enzyme, allowing the gene to be "on"). If the sugar is not present, the enzyme will attach to the gene, turn it "off". (I'd be more specific if I remember which enzyme and sugar I was talking about)

This on/off system is to conserve energy; why bother wasting resources making unnecessary proteins? :P

I think this is the case for the nylonase gene. It was there in the DNA

code, but never activated until the bacteria was placed near nylon.

(I'd probably know much more in a few years, after I take my courses in fermentation/micro biotechnology)

I do, however, side with evolution and hate the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in schools. It contridicts science: if you cannot prove something, it cannot be true. Unless someone has some scientific proof which proves that a supreme power helped evolution along, it should not be taught.

I would rather this topic died. I'm sick of discussing this now. Its old news

The future is secular! Religion does nothing but hold back the development of society

Actually, there are many things wrong with the theory of evolution. The main thing is how many people are declaring it to be law when it is still a theory.

I personally believe in intelligent design and the theory of microevolution. Microevolution is the belief that life adapts to its enviroment, but the traits stay within species characteristics. Examples would be how people who live in desert regions are darker than those have live in forest regions.

Personally, my belief is that all life is much too complex to develop from a chance few atoms mixing in a soup.

Evolution, when you narrow it down to a lifetime, is just choosing the best partner you can find and raise the best offspring to fit an ever changing environement around you. People seem to do this, and after many generations eventually a new better adapted species appears from this survival of the fittest process - evolution. Whether people believe or not in evolution, it is happening.

Actually, there are many things wrong with the theory of evolution. The main thing is how many people are declaring it to be law when it is still a theory.

 

 

 

Yet that would be exactly my reasoning for not believing in intelligent design. I don't really take it as a theory either as a theory would mean it would have some kind of theoretical test to prove it.

I think one of the main facts about people believing in Intelligent Design is that life is just too complex for it to be created by evolution so i'll try to explain how life started in my eyes:

To me life started when a nitrogen and 2 carbon atoms came together to form a very simple amino acid, just like oxygen and iron come together to form rust - simply because of the fact that both atoms were present. The amino acids formed together to form the basics of proteins and because these amino acids joined together in lots of different ways they formed different shapes and sizes of proteins however one type of protein was particularly shaped which prevented it from being destroyed by, lets say, heat and when an increase in heat occured on the earth - perhaps by some environmental affect eg. volcano, thickening of the earths atmosphere, albedo of the earths orbit etc, the protein which was resistant to heat and survived. This simple process has happened for over 3.5 billion years; building on what processes previously happened.

In-fact in a flyby mission of Europa (one of Jupiters moons) it was found that there were the begginings of amino acids which could potentially follow the same path as Earth however the seas of Europa are frozen and have been for a long time.

To be honest the truth of the begginings of the Earth and our solar system and the mystery surrounding the origins of the universe is much more enticing to me than religion.

What i like is that this goes against separation of church and state. I mean come on we can teach that god created everything but we can't pray in school. To me those seem to contradict each other.

I personally believe that it is a mix of both. Where we had the world created by some intetelligent being. But through small evolution we have all the variety there is today.

Nothing mentions the absolute separation of church and state, though I think the two should be seperate. No, the constitution does not say this. Nor does the Bill of Rights. That's why it's so controversial. :wink:

To me life started when a nitrogen and 2 carbon atoms came together to form a very simple amino acid, just like oxygen and iron come together to form rust - simply because of the fact that both atoms were present. The amino acids formed together to form the basics of proteins and because these amino acids joined together in lots of different ways they formed different shapes and sizes of proteins however one type of protein was particularly shaped which prevented it from being destroyed by, lets say, heat and when an increase in heat occured on the earth - perhaps by some environmental affect eg. volcano, thickening of the earths atmosphere, albedo of the earths orbit etc, the protein which was resistant to heat survived. This simple process has happened for over 3.5 billion years; building on what processes previously happened.

I totally agree. Nature is wonderful. :)

intellegent design and evolution are 2 different things..

intellegent design = someone created life (AKA: a greater from of life)

evolution = progress of life after intel. design. (ape to human, ect)

intellegent design and evolution are 2 different things..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

intellegent design = someone created life (AKA: a greater from of life)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

evolution = progress of life after intel. design. (ape to human, ect)

Evolution describes the steps in the change of an organism over a long period of time. Mutation in DNA -> Change in organism -> More adapted to environment -> etc.

I don't think evolution has anything to do with ID at all. :?

What i like is that this goes against separation of church and state. I mean come on we can teach that god created everything but we can't pray in school. To me those seem to contradict each other.

I've honestly never understood how teaching ID in schools has anything to do with the separation of Church and State. Saying "There's a possibility that a self-existant intellegent being created is the universe." is hardly forcing people to follow the Church. It's not like their saying "The Genesis account is true, so you have to follow Christianity." or "The Greek gods created the earth and you, therefore you should worship them and sacrifice to them." It's hardly affirming one religion, so I don't think it has anything to do with Church and State separation.

And to those saying there's no proof of ID - Do you not consider the degree of organization in this world to be proof enough? When one sees a highly complex structure that works well, one assumes that someone made it. Or at least I do.

To use an old example, if you put all the pieces of a fighter jet together in a wind tunnel, turned it on, and let the pieces fly about, would you expect all the pieces to come together to fit the proper design and work perfectly? If you saw a perfectly working fighter jet, would you assume it came together by that process or that it was built by a skilled professional?

 

 

 

To use an old example, if you put all the pieces of a fighter jet together in a wind tunnel, turned it on, and let the pieces fly about, would you expect all the pieces to come together to fit the proper design and work perfectly? If you saw a perfectly working fighter jet, would you assume it came together by that process or that it was built by a skilled professional?

:? How is that an example, we got proof that the person made that, blue prints, being shown the lace the make it, ect.

ID is a theory as well...

 

 

 

To use an old example, if you put all the pieces of a fighter jet together in a wind tunnel, turned it on, and let the pieces fly about, would you expect all the pieces to come together to fit the proper design and work perfectly? If you saw a perfectly working fighter jet, would you assume it came together by that process or that it was built by a skilled professional?

If you had billions of fighter jets in peices, and billions of wind tunnels to put them in, yes, I would expect that eventually at least some of the peices would come together.. that is if they were all some way able to fuse together. You can't expect screws to screw themselves in, nor can you say that evolution is like screws screwing themselves in, that's just silly.

From the billions of single-celled organisms that existed in the primordial sea, I beleive it highly likely that they began to grow and adapt, and went from there.

Remember - evolution happened over hundres of millions of years, this didn't happen overnight or even in a couple of millenia. It took a -long- time.

I don't think evolution has anything to do with ID at all. :?

Agreed, though I think the two compliment each other quite well.

The future is secular! Religion does nothing but hold back the development of society

Oh please, step off your soapbox and into the world of different beliefs. Ever thought that people might think society as a whole is declining? Bet you didn't. You're looking at development from a strictly scientific POV - there's other ways for society to develop, and sorry; science doesn't cover it all, nor does religion hold it back - because some people might think religion is the only thing left holding it together.

But of course, you know better - religion sucks eh :|... so much for objectivity from the scientific community.

People, you *cannot* compare religion and science. It just doesn't work! Almost any comparison will be fallacious.

Oh please, step off your soapbox and into the world of different beliefs.

Actually, Matt is quite right about Religion holding back the development of society. It (science) was suppressed by the Christian Church soon after the collapse of the Roman Empire and remained like that for almost 600 years.

It wasn't untill science regained more acceptance that society started moving forward, technologically. And even then it wasn't till the 16th century or so that things really started to pick up again.

 

Oh please, step off your soapbox and into the world of different beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, Matt is quite right about Religion holding back the development of society. It (science) was suppressed by the Christian Church soon after the collapse of the Roman Empire and remained like that for almost 600 years.

well yes and no Europe was held back by religion because the church wanted the bible to be law and in most countrys it was however early religion was almost a form of science to early man but for the most part of the last 3000 years it has slowed scientific progress. befor anyone flames me i do believe in a god but i do not believe that he controls are destinys(sp?)

Religion wasn't close to being a form of science to early man. At least not from what I have read about it. Granted science was highly accepted during the Greek and Roman domination of Europe but their religion was far from being a form of science.

I'm not sure what else you could be refering to?

 

Oh please, step off your soapbox and into the world of different beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, Matt is quite right about Religion holding back the development of society. It (science) was suppressed by the Christian Church soon after the collapse of the Roman Empire and remained like that for almost 600 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It wasn't untill science regained more acceptance that society started moving forward, technologically. And even then it wasn't till the 16th century or so that things really started to pick up again.

Too bad he was talking in present tense, and you in past.

 

intellegent design and evolution are 2 different things..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

intellegent design = someone created life (AKA: a greater from of life)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

evolution = progress of life after intel. design. (ape to human, ect)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution describes the steps in the change of an organism over a long period of time. Mutation in DNA -> Change in organism -> More adapted to environment -> etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think evolution has anything to do with ID at all. :?

:P i should pay more attention in biology, my teachers been talking about it for about 2 weeks now :P

I should probably start off saying that intelligent design is just a tool used by some Christians to assert their morale beliefs on others. Below is a list of their goals and time frame for them with some links at the end for further reading.

GOALS

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Actually, there are many things wrong with the theory of evolution. The main thing is how many people are declaring it to be law when it is still a theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally believe in intelligent design and the theory of microevolution. Microevolution is the belief that life adapts to its enviroment, but the traits stay within species characteristics. Examples would be how people who live in desert regions are darker than those have live in forest regions.

 

 

 

No one calls evolution a law. No one wants to call any of their theories a law because it is possible that it is in fact not a law. Take a look at Newton's LAW of gravity, it is wrong. However it does describe our world accurately (you can even use Newton's laws to calculate how to get a space ship to another planet rather accurately) but it fails to take into account things such as pressure influencing results slightly. As a result no one wants to call theories a law because we don't know everything in 100% detail but it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean we don't know things 95% or so. Pretty much we don't call things laws because of a technicality; I would like to see every law called a theory because we can not prove 100% that these laws hold. They only seem to hold in our part of the universe, we havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t tested the laws everywhere in the universe.

Microevolution is the same thing as macroevolution. You may consider forming a new eye to be macro evolution but in fact it consists of many microevolutions. In fact there is no theory of microevolution since it was a term made up by creationists to help dismiss evolution as a whole.

People, you *cannot* compare religion and science. It just doesn't work! Almost any comparison will be fallacious.

And thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why it shouldn't be taught in Science classes, because I.D. doesn't have a testable hypothesis and hence is not a scientific theory. It is more philosophical theory then scientific theory; however you don't see them petitioning to get their theory taught in philosophy classes or even religious classes. It is because they want to try and stop a scientific idea that goes against their belief that evolution means that their bible is one big lie and they canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t let it happen. Classifying it as a sc

(Just using your quote as a basis for this paragraph, not arguing against you)

[/url]

Nice way to deny that it ever happened :roll:

Nice way to deny that it ever happened :roll:

When did I deny it ever happened? I said that you were speaking in past tense, and I did not say that what you said wasn't true. Stop putting words into my mouth.

(Just using your quote as a basis for this paragraph, not arguing against you)

Yep, that's what I figured before reading this.

@insane: You do realise that Matt's statement is a generalization?

I applied historical information accurately to it and you simply dismissed it because of the dates? IMO that is blatent denial of the event. Society pretty much stood still during that entire time. There was social improvements during that time but religion had next to nothing to do with most of them.

All that aside, Matt is still correct. The benifits which religion brought were exhausted centuries ago. Religion might be holding society together as you say but until you can show me that it is moving it forward...

@insane: You do realise that Matt's statement is a generalization?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I applied historical information accurately to it

No, you didn't - you may have given accurate historical information, but it was not applied correctly.

and you simply dismissed it because of the dates?

Exactly, because it isn't applied correctly. Just because something happened some way in the past, doesn't mean it happens the same way in the future/present. Merc was talking about the *present*, you were talking about the past; in this specific scenario, the church no longer holds society back, therefore Merc's post was invalid. I am *not* dismissing what you said, I'm dismissing your application.

This is so black and white I'm surprised I needed to reexplain this.

IMO that is blatent denial of the event.

IMO I never denied the event. If you call denying the event happening *now* denying the event happening *then*... then wow, just wow.

Society pretty much stood still during that entire time. There was social improvements during that time but religion had next to nothing to do with most of them.

Sure, too bad it's of no relevance to the church *not* holding back society today, as well as of no relevance to Merc's post.

All that aside, Matt is still correct. The benifits which religion brought were exhausted centuries ago.

I would disagree. Religion still benefits people today, I can speak from personal, objective experience.

Religion might be holding society together as you say but until you can show me that it is moving it forward...

Your post might have some truth in it but until you can show me how it is relevant to my *first* "merc-quoted" post...