Intellagentdesign

In-Tell-Agent-Design

No

Intelligent-Design

Oh

I know I'm going to opon up a can of worms here, but oh well.

Evolution - Does that really happen, can you show me some proof

It must be invisable - because no matter how far I go back, everybody looks just like me, nobody looks like an ape.

But nevertheless - It should be taught in science, even though we can't seem to be able to prove it.

I will agree that intelligentdesign should not be taught in science, but neither should evolution. If we are not going to let our science teachers teach intelligentdesign then we shouldn't let them teach evolution.

Why - I don't know - why not

It really doesn't really matter to me - I just can't understand why anyone is so scared of intelligentdesign - it doesn't bite, kids won't hate their parents and rob banks - What's The Big Deal?

Well let us start with the worms shall we? You happen to have a penis I assume. Why?

Okay, well I am by no means an expert on evolution, but here's what I know. The reason you can't see a change in human appearance is because you can only go as far back as a couple thousand years or so. And I know that scientists estimate the earth to be around about 4.5 billion or so years old. I'm not sure when life comes to play in on that timeline, but I know that that's a hell of a lot of time. And changes would no doubt take place over such a huge time frame. 2000 years is such a small piece of the time life has existed, I guess that's the best way to explain it.

If you really want some "evidence" of evolution go to...

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

or search around.

quote:

---

I will agree that intelligentdesign should not be taught in science, but neither should evolution. If we are not going to let our science teachers teach intelligentdesign then we shouldn't let them teach evolution

---

Evolution is a scientific theory. It deals with genetics and biological development. That is why it is a part of the Biology curriculum in schools. It carries actual scientific evidence and postulates with it, and Intelligent Design does not. Besides, do you think everything that is taught in science classrooms is entirely fact? No, because that is the nature of science. It is based off of observations and reasonable hypotheses and inferences. Intelligent design isn't science, from what I've seen.

heres some proof, just look at viruses they are evolving all the time to avoid being killed hence why humans will wind of dying from super viruses becouse our anti-biodics are killing them off but not killing enough so that the virus is comeplety distoyed. It then evolves to become resistant and in some cases deadler.

Yes, that is refered to as micro-evolution and takes place in many smaller life forms.

Hebrews 11:1 -

quote:

---

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

---

quote:

---

The reason you can't see a change in human appearance is because you can only go as far back as a couple thousand years or so. And I know that scientists estimate the earth to be around about 4.5 billion or so years old. I'm not sure when life comes to play in on that timeline

---

It sounds like faith to me, therefore evolution is a religion. I'm a religious person so I might believe it.

By the the way, growing up is called growing up evolution - but its really just growing up and micro evolution is simply mutation. The organism's function is to mutate in order to survive much like lizards who change colors to blend in. They were created to do that by intelligentdesign.

But here is the whole thing - why are we afraid of intelligentdesign? What will happen if we teach this to our kids? You who believe in logic, what logical explanation can you give to force every child to be taught evolution and refuse that they be taught intelligentdesign.

quote:

---

The organism's function is to mutate in order to survive much like lizards who change colors to blend in. They were created to do that by intelligentdesign.

---

things mutate to survie yes, that implies evolution. however not all mutation is to survive some is just to become better and stronger. and adding they were created to do that by intelligent design sounds like an opion in that sentance more then fact becouse you have no proof of that.

quote:

---

They were created to do that by intelligentdesign.

---

That really gets to me, because no matter what scientific argument or evidence one could present, you could just say that the intelligent being was responsible for it. How perfect.

I just think that as far as teaching goes, you can't teach intelligent design, because it is founded on true ignorance. Tell me how it is not something to "be afraid of", when it's basically saying "Hey, the world is way too complex and mindboggling, so something must have designed it all", instead of observing things in the world and using logic to find more answers in science as time goes on. Early humans would have seen lightning and exclaimed some supernatural being was angry, but some time later, we know it's simply electrical charges floating about in the air. This is a rant, but all I am saying is that scientific thought and experimentation is continually giving us more answers as time progresses.

What benefits or progress would be yielded from teaching intelligent design?

none

I assume those of you who are athiest here realize that the teachings in school are similar to religious teachings in the since that they are not the perfect truth and they are used to control and mold youths into good useful citizens.

not nessicarilly, my bio teacher told us about both even though I.D is not on the curiculm, we mostlly focused on evolution but she said it was a theory and even though there is evidence supporting it its your choice on what you want to belive.

Intelligent Design is merely a marketing tool to cover up the fact that its foundational beliefs cover creationism or even Christianity.

Evolutionary changes don't only occur through mutation, they also depend on genetic drift, genetic flow, random mating and random selection.

The ultimate goal of science is to understand the natural world in terms of scientific theories, which are only concepts. The word 'theory' refers to a speculative idea. A theory can't claim the truth or fact- they are simply reasons

Now, one might ask, why should anyone wish to avoid anything that would introduce God into a scientific theory; and the answer is that God makes a poor addition to any scientific theory precisely because God explains too much. Being omnipotent, God can do anything. Thus, if we ask, "Why is the sky blue?" we could simply say, "Because God makes it blue." Since this doesn't really explain anything, it must be a strong principle of science to exhaust all other forms of explanation before resorting to something that will simply end inquiry. This must be true about life on earth just as much as about the color of the sky.

Evolution has no long-term goal. Unlike 'Creationism' there is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although many people assume the stupid notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. The idea of tiny changes cumulated over many steps is a powerful idea, capable of explaining a huge range of things that would be otherwise inexplicable. Evolution can be more strongly supported by evidence of telling imperfections than by evidence of perfection.

Its up to the individual to make decisions of beliefs, not feebleminded institutionalized policies within the education system. However I find it rather despondent how creationism or ID can be emphasised.

lol

That was one hell of a post summit. I'll have to say more after school.

Life itself has not been on earth, at least has not been proven to be, the entire 4.8 billion years. The only problem I see with intelligent design is that it so far cannot be proven. Therefore really should not be taught. I am not trying to do away with it I only think that facts should be taught not speculation. Evolution is easy enough to prove, just not applying it to humans. As far as science has been able to prove Humans as a species have either reached an evolutionary dead-end our we do not evolve

'Intelligent Design' is a tool to promote theology. It seems despondent and rather ironic the term used 'intelligent'. The theory should be called Poor Design.

Here are some examples of why/how it is poor. Evolution explains these, yet on the other hand 'Intelligent Design' is left dumbfounded. Evolution gives logical reason. 'Intelligent Design' does not.

- the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
- the urinary tract in the human male, especially the unnecessary passage of the urethra through the prostate gland. As the prostate almost always grows with age, it eventually compresses the urethra and often makes urination difficult or even impossible
- barely used nerves and muscles (e.g. Plantaris muscle) that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations
- intricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly used for different purposes in other flowers
- the use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs
- the pointless existence of the appendix in humans, and the corresponding potentially fatal condition of appendicitis
- the striking non-symmetric structures and features of bony flatfish, such as flounder and halibut
- the seemingly "backward-facing" arrangement of photoreceptors (and the related blind spots) within the retinas of many organisms, including all mammals
- portions of DNA - termed "junk" DNA - that are claimed not to serve any purpose
- photosynthetic plants that reflect green light, even though the sun's peak output is at this wavelength. A more optimal system of photosynthesis would use the entire solar spectrum, thus resulting in black plants
- the structure of the human eye. The retina is "inside out" in that nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as in invertebrate species. Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice.
- crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and yet we share a thier tooth set.

'Intelligent Design' is left inept.