Evolution vs Creationism

Should Creationism or "Intelligent Design" be taught in schools? Should students be informed on the different views of how life began or is Intelligent Design simply not science? If so, should Intelligent Design be taught in another subject such as Social Studies or does it violate the first amendment of separation of church and state?

I think that the best schools would not agree to teaching creationism. Probably because its bullshit!

What makes intelligent design scientific?

I ask that question because in order for something to be technically "science" shouldn't it have to follow the scientific process? Intelligent design does not follow the scientific process because

" A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The existence of God cannot be tested, therefore, does not follow the scientific process and is not technically science.

Creationism is illogical, it has been proven wrong therefore to teach it is as fact is a waste of time and energy.

we should be teaching students about genetic mutations, recombination, and natural selection.

Actually creationism is completely logical and it has not been proven wrong so CrypticTruth get your facts straight before you post shit.

Informative and Rational.

"I don't know much about it, but I watched a documentary where they were talking about certain cells or components of cells or something where there are five different parts of the machine that all work together to provide a purpose. Evolution apparently doesn't have a solution for this problem since everything in evolution is gradual and it's almost impossible that any number of mutations resulted in that complex of a machine."


Although it seems that it would be impossible for that number of mutations to occur in something to create such a complex machine, what about the seemingly impossibility that Earth would have the perfect conditions to sustain life? When one considers the number of chances and time that planets have to form, it would be illogical to count out the possibility of life. On a biological scale, after such a long amount of time and so many chances, why would we count out evolution.

A plant cell has tiny mechanisms within it to create a whole cell. It would seem improbable for a series of random mutations to occur to create such a complex mechanism. However, the events are not random. In fact, they are carefully weeded out through the process of natural selection so that only the most functional mutations pass on to the next generation. It is actually more probable than you would think, for something like the cell to occur.

- The chance that life could be sustainable on any planet is very unlikely and the chance that a complex mechanism such as the cell would result after a long process of evolution is also very unlikely. The chances of it eventually happening is very unlikely but given the number of chances it gets, it seems inevitable. For every grain sand on the planet Earth, there is a galaxy in the universe.

- Evolution does not consist of random mutations randomly making a complex mechanism. It is a series of random mutations, in a deliberate process of natural selection. The goal of survival is what drives evolution. Evolution has a purpose.

I watched "Expelled - no intelligence allowed" the other day with Ben Stein in it. It kind of opened my eyes to it being an option that shouldn't be ruled out, but looked into further. Not giving it a chance is the only thing that could hurt. I rather know all of my options.

"What I'm talking about it something like an engine. If there are 5 different pieces, and every individual piece has no real use on its own, but together they provide an irreplaceable function, it becomes very unlikely that any series of random mutations propagated it, since no one component would have survived for its uselessness independant of the rest of the components.

So, in essence, all five components would have had to mutate simultaneously even though there was no point, survive the test of the fittest, and then at some point work together to provide the organism a functional use."

You are using the argument of irreducible complexity. Just because we cannot take parts away from an irreducibly complex mechanism ,and have it still be functional, does not mean that it did not evolve to get to that final stage.
For instance, imagine a mouse trap. As a mouse trap, the mechanism is completely functional, but if I take away one of its parts, then it can no longer function as a mouse trap. However, it can still function as a paper clip or tie clip.
Another example is, imagine that I have a bridge made of three stones. This bridge then has a "mutation" where a long flat piece of wood is placed over the three stones. This mutation may not make the bridge any more functional but it is still a mutation. Mutations do not have to enhance the mechanism. Then imagine that the bridge goes through one more "mutation" where the three stones from under the bridge are removed. Now the bridge is irreducibly complex but it still evolved to get there.

quote:

---

Actually creationism is completely logical

---

Mr. T how is creationism logical?

I bet you believe life is fixed and unchanging and is best understood in a linear Scala Naturas

quote:

---

CrypticTruth get your facts straight before you post shit.

---

I am taking a paleontology class right now. if you want I can post pages upon pages of facts that backs my pervious statements.

A reference material that you may want to pick up: Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

Ahh!

quote:

---

So, in essence, all five components would have had to mutate simultaneously even though there was no point, survive the test of the fittest, and then at some point work together to provide the organism a functional use. . . . So they are not readily explained by evolution properly, as far as I know, and you haven't explained it either.

---

Ya, I was thinking , I had my appendix removed . . . so it is supposed to have no function . . . Now?
Did it ever have a function or could it have a function?
Adaption to environmental stimuli => mutational aspect generating a complex aspect?

Ok lets take the example of the engine then. If I take any one part away, it becomes completely non functional as an engine. That does not mean that a combination of the left over parts can't form a function. The way evolution works is that mutations can happen in any combination with any number of changes. Here is a video talking about the flagellum. It describes how the argument of irreducible complexity is incorrect and talks about how different combination of mutations can make evolution possible even in extremely complex mechanisms.

Ok, with all that in mind, should intelligent design be taught in schools?

I don't consider Intelligent Design a science. If it were to be taught in school at all perhaps it should be in a philosophy or history class or something. A high school Biology class, no. Some schools have had labels stuck to the biology books with a caution sticker warning that the books contain evolution theory in it. It said that evolution is only a theory and should be considered critically. Of course all theories should be considered critically but why single out evolution?