Science Versus Religion

[Tree Fingers]

There is a revolution upon us! Evolution being taught in schools has been the instigator of much controversy. Continuously, creationists have failed to have Creationism taught equally with evolution. This is an American phenomenen. In fact, Pope John Paul II actually accepted evolution as correct.

Nevertheless there is still the battle. There has been a revolution in the creationist doctrine, where Creationists no longer rely on biblical literalism to defend their position. It's called Intelligent Design [Creationism]. The superstars of this genre defend the claim that there must have been an intelligent designer in order for things to exist as they are.



Please comment with your opinion or argument. How do you feel about this? Do you believe there was an intelligent designer? Why or why not? And, if so, should it be taught equally with evolution theory?

[Rose'nShannenRox]

I think kids should be knowledgeable about the THEORY is evolution, but to many times i see (and have epxierenced) it being taught as truth.

People claim not to allow Christianity being taught in shcool because no one can prove or disprove the exsistents of God.



Yet no one can prove or disprove evolution...hence it still being a Theory



It comes to a dead end in both.



might as well take both out of ciriculem, solve everyones problem.

It will continue to be debated no matter what...and if kids wanna know about it. Read a book.

[A! Elbereth]

I really couldn't care any less about this, but evolution flawed, but their are bits of truth. Who cares if it is taught as a THEORY, and it always is from my experience. New species are not born from another species, but species do change slightly with their enviornment, like birds beaks being smaller here but larger there... but I don't believe that makes them a new species.



People are smart enough (or dumb enough) to make their own decision about the creation of the earth and its species. It's all up to them in the end.

[SirPostAlot]

we were taught both...

in history class we were taught creationism and biology we were taught evolution, with evolution haveing more logical backup...

but i do not think that creationism should be taught in schools since it is a religious background...

i mean i don't think that religion should be taught in school, w/ some exceptions...

i mean in english class when they talk about religious literature, thats fine...but lecturing about god and lecturing about creationism isn't necessary...

Its just repetitive and insultive to those whose beilf is against creationism/intellicgent deisnger...



~Jeff~

[SirPostAlot]

Originally posted by Rose'nShannenRox@Sep 27 2005, 06:17 PM

Yet no one can prove or disprove evolution...hence it still being a Theory

[right][/right]

There are proofs for evolution...

many many proofs...

search the internet you will find some (just make sure they are crediable sources)...

our bio teacher talked about them...examples are like nipples, webbed feet, how some people are born w/ gills, how as we are growing as fetuses we have tails, etc...





~Jeff~

[Tree Fingers]

Let's put the evidence for evolution in a nutshell: The only thing that evolution theory lacks in order to become fact is an observation of 1 million years. What that simply means is we have not seen macroevolution in its entirety. However, we have all the evidence (fossil records, anatomies, genetics, vestiges, multiple functionality, proven bacterial evolution and microevolution) and logic of causation to declare evolution fact. We just don't have direct empirical proof of evolution because it exceeds even the existance of the human species. What is funny is that Intelligent Design lacks, well, practically everything. No evidence, no empirical proof; it is simply "Well, evolution can't be right because things look like they have been designed. Therefore, there was a designer."



Trust me folks, if you even attempt to discuss flaws with an evolutionist scientist in evolution theory, you will be so quickly disproven that you may not even recognize it. The proof for evolution is beyond overwhelming.

[309756]

Right. SCIENTIFIC theory and ACADEMIC theory are two different things.



Read some real evolutionary biology textbooks, or you can even consider species with a fast rate of reproduction. Say, for example, fruit flies.



Okay, so in South America they use a lot of pesticides to try to protect their fruit crops, but what ends up happening is as follows:



1. 90% of the fruit fly population (appox.) is killed by the pesticide, meaning that the remaining 10% of the fruit flies are genetically resistant to the pesticide used.

2. The pest problem momentarily disappears (90% of the flies are dead).

3. The flies reappear, and the pesticide does not kill them. The genetically "stronger" members of the species have experienced a form of natural selection by adapting to their environment. With enough mutations and enough time, genetic resistance will become inbred into the species.



This brings us to the next concolusion. That is, to address A! Elbereth's question or argument.



She states that birds may have beaks that are suited to their environment. But what constitutes a new species? Taxonomy (classification) of species is an imprescise science at best, and mere binomial nomenclature at its worst. Genetically speaking, evolution explains the diversity within a species, and between species as well.



And finally, consider this tidbit.



In order for ID (intelligent design) to match the fossil record, God would have had to make (1) a mouse with a really long nose, (2) a bear with an even longer nose and bigger ears, (3) a huge rodent with increased ear and nose size, (4) an incredibly large, hairy elephant, (5) a less hairy, smaller elephant, and (6), the modern elephant. Whew! Either that, or the family Rodentiae could have evolved over millions of years by adapting to its environment and having its population sifted by the mechanisms of natural selection. It's up to you to decide. :-P



How "intelligent" is that plan of action? If every species was created by God, then every species in existence would be in its original incarnation. ID enthusiasts allow for the "microevolution" of species, like A! Elbereth's mention of the birds. Yet science, in its elegant principles, simply proves that this law is universally applicable--and that in the end, evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.

[!XogFog]

Someone please show me how the eye evolved, and how each step along the way was evolutionarily favorable.

[Tree Fingers]

Originally posted by !XogFog@Sep 27 2005, 08:56 PM

Someone please show me how the eye evolved, and how each step along the way was evolutionarily favorable.

[right][/right]

Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable, describes exactly how the eye evolved. And, in several different ways.

[Tree Fingers]

Originally posted by pandasandpenguins@Sep 27 2005, 08:41 PM

Right. SCIENTIFIC theory and ACADEMIC theory are two different things.



Read some real evolutionary biology textbooks, or you can even consider species with a fast rate of reproduction. Say, for example, fruit flies.



Okay, so in South America they use a lot of pesticides to try to protect their fruit crops, but what ends up happening is as follows:



1. 90% of the fruit fly population (appox.) is killed by the pesticide, meaning that the remaining 10% of the fruit flies are genetically resistant to the pesticide used.

2. The pest problem momentarily disappears (90% of the flies are dead).

3. The flies reappear, and the pesticide does not kill them. The genetically "stronger" members of the species have experienced a form of natural selection by adapting to their environment. With enough mutations and enough time, genetic resistance will become inbred into the species.

This is true. A more precise example would be the fast-paced evolution of bacteria, and say diseases such as the flu. That is why we have vaccines that have to be updated almost yearly; so to adapt to the new evolved forms of the bacteria.

This brings us to the next concolusion. That is, to address A! Elbereth's question or argument.



She states that birds may have beaks that are suited to their environment. But what constitutes a new species? Taxonomy (classification) of species is an imprescise science at best, and mere binomial nomenclature at its worst. Genetically speaking, evolution explains the diversity within a species, and between species as well.

Evolution also does more than explain diversty; it explains vestiges, similarities, why species obtained certain functions and where they are derived.

And finally, consider this tidbit.



In order for ID (intelligent design) to match the fossil record, God would have had to make (1) a mouse with a really long nose, (2) a bear with an even longer nose and bigger ears, (3) a huge rodent with increased ear and nose size, (4) an incredibly large, hairy elephant, (5) a less hairy, smaller elephant, and (6), the modern elephant. Whew! Either that, or the family Rodentiae could have evolved over millions of years by adapting to its environment and having its population sifted by the mechanisms of natural selection. It's up to you to decide. :-P

ID completely neglects fossil record, as Michael Behe puts it: there is no evidence of selection with modification. Fossil record lacks the credentials of producing minutiae. Evolution scientists of course state that that does not matter, fossil records just help with the predictions. Genetics and anatomy are all that is truly needed to make conclusions of relationships between certain species (that is having a common ancestor) The real question in ID ideology is how God would do such a project. Does God interfere consistently? Is he apart of the universe where he would have to abide by the laws of the universe?

[Jaegermeister]

i've never understood this debate. To me it's always seemed like arguing about whether the sky is "azure" or "blue". It really doesn't matter either way, theyh've proven that at least some forms of evolution is true, and I believe in microevolution. Macroevolution is a bit harder to float past me, but definitely micro. And I believe that there is an Intelligent Design guiding the whole process of life on earth. Why do the advocates of these theories belittle themselves by constantly needing to assert dominance? Why don't they realize that science and religion actually COMPLIMENT each other, and are a more powerful and more beautiful force when theyare together.



tJ

[!XogFog]

[Tree Fingers]

[Dobby]

Allow me to define two different things.



Mutation. A mutation is that change in a physical aspect of a creature due to a change in it's genetics. While some of these mutations may have positive and other negative. Usually only the ones that are positive ending up surviving and are chosen to breed again. At least that is the way it works in nature, but since humans have a weird way of selecting, (money possesions ect...) it usually doesn't depend on their physical structure based on mutations unless you count the increasing height of people as of late.



Evolutation. An evolutation is when a mutation has been chosen through natural selection and is now a part of a part of the population. Because of the new population with it's new feature this is a new species. Through natural selection, an evolution has occured.



I hope that made some sense..............Let's put it this way, it does to me...........I think...



Dobby

[lina]

There are a lot of gaps in the evolution theory, gaps of hundreds of thousands years.



Intelligent design is not creation. Intelligent design in a nutshell is the evolution theory but with guidance.



Creation is the way we are here and there is proof that this is the way the world came to be.



Both of these links makes a case for creation:



http://www.answersingenesis.org/



http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... =type&ID=2



another thing is you can take the same evidence and fight it for all three cases. I know what I believe because my Bible tells me. others believe what they do b/c it is what their parents or teachers have told them. there isn't any real scientific proof that disproves any one of these theories 100 percent. It is all about what we want to believe.

[309756]

Well, again.



Did God create rats with long noses before he made elephants?



Religoius belief is compatible with scientific theory. i jsut don't want to learn about it.

[Tree Fingers]

[lina]

the design theory coincides with the evolution theory and i don't believe in it. i believe in creation. there is no more proof for design theory than for evolution theory. creation is as it is stated in the Bible, the earth and everything on it was created in seven days. i will not deny there were some animals that were created and then died off. and what is human knowledge compared to that of God's. i understand some people can't or won't believe in God, but it is what i believe and know to be the truth.

[Tree Fingers]

[309756]

Or adherence to ridiculous forms of belief. Either way, not very intellectual.