Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-25-2005, 07:44 PM   #1
BoleroBelle
 
BoleroBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 70
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/....education.ap/

okay, read that bullshit.

I can't believe he's suggesting this. I mean, exactly how is intelligent design even comprable to science? It's not even in the same ballpark.
BoleroBelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2005, 08:45 PM   #2
Panther
 
Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The middle of nowhere, on the outskirts of the boonies.
Posts: 506
good call, as always, Tom.

Honestly, I don't care if they're giving the option to teach children intelligent design instead of evolution. If you want to completely rule out scientist as your child's profession from the start, by all means, go ahead.
__________________
Will we walk all night through solitary streets?
The trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses,
we'll both be lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love
past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent
cottage?
-Allen Ginsberg, A Supermarket in California
Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2005, 09:21 PM   #3
BoleroBelle
 
BoleroBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 70
i don't think it's about ruling out a child choice in proffession. what they want to do is teach intelligent design right next to evolution as if it's a plausable counter argument to evolution. But it's not.

intelligent design makes no sense and shouldn't be taught because A) it is bringing religion into the schools and b) it has no bases in reality, much less science.

i mean, even though, evolution is just a theory, it's affects can be seen. We can see the natural progression of many animals, plants, etc.

But there is nothing to be seen for proof to uphold the theory of intelligent design. It's just a myth.

how can you say that intelligent design is a comparable theory to evolution? That's just nuts.
BoleroBelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2005, 09:26 PM   #4
Panther
 
Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The middle of nowhere, on the outskirts of the boonies.
Posts: 506
. . . because you believe in God?

I can understand teaching intelligent design. I think it's stupid, but I can understand it.

However, I'm glad that, despite my going to a catholic grade school, I was taught evolution.

And you can't be a respected scientist and believe in intelligent design. At all. Your previous comments show exactly why.
__________________
Will we walk all night through solitary streets?
The trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses,
we'll both be lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love
past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent
cottage?
-Allen Ginsberg, A Supermarket in California
Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2005, 09:29 PM   #5
BoleroBelle
 
BoleroBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 70
Belief in God has nothing to do with it. It's all about the proof. Intelligent design has nothing to back it up. That's like deciding that you want to teach that babies come from storks. There's no evidence.
BoleroBelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2005, 09:36 PM   #6
Panther
 
Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The middle of nowhere, on the outskirts of the boonies.
Posts: 506
Right. The people who came up with it don't need proof. They believe that God made man in his own image. So belief in God has everything to do with it.
__________________
Will we walk all night through solitary streets?
The trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses,
we'll both be lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love
past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent
cottage?
-Allen Ginsberg, A Supermarket in California
Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2005, 01:11 AM   #7
Disfunction
 
Disfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
The problem with the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design is that those are two very different uses of the word theory. Such as, I have a theory that I'm made of aluminum, because I'm not magnetic as opposed to I have a theory that I'm made of aluminum due to observable evidence such as density, lustre, etc.

It is moronic to teach a non-scientific theory alongside scientific theory and give it the same leve of credibility in a classroom environment.

It's also hilarious that having a president that imbues all of his decisions with religion, or so he prides himself, is against the very purpose of the seperation of church and state... but I digress. It's stupid. The end.
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.

...don't smother your kids."
Disfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2005, 10:16 PM   #8
Spazik
 
Spazik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 182
Spazik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2005, 12:49 AM   #9
BoleroBelle
 
BoleroBelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 70
riht on! FUCK THIS TOO SHORT ANSWER NONSENSE!
BoleroBelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2005, 12:58 AM   #10
Fenris
 
Fenris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Madison, IN
Posts: 34
Evolution is the only viable theory of creation plausible in a Science classroom. While both Evolution and Intelligent design are theories, Evolution is a theory composed of various proven components, whereas intelligent design is "proven" only within the confines of the bible. While it is entirely reasonable for one who believes in the bible religiously to pass it as a viable scientific text, and therefore teach intelligent design in school, It then leaves the realm of science. Instead of proposing the idea of teaching creationism in a science classroom where it is absurdly out of place, a more fitting approach would be to introduce a "introductory comparative theology" class, which would take into account many more "theories" of creation, and thus be far less biased. However this approach would fail to indoctrinate our children and would fail to propagate the Christian faith, and therefore is not advocated by our Christian government. No one believes Creationism to be a valid scientific viewpoint, it's just the latest in a series of Christian attacks on the freedom of relilgion our nation was founded on. This is simply an unsurprising case of unconstitutional attempted indoctrination of our nations most vulnerable minds, and you are fully right to be outraged. Sorry for my tirade, but I feel very strongly on this issue and all issues concerning separation of church and state. Feel free to PM me if you feel the need to agree, disaggree, or for any reason debate this issue further than this thread would be a suitable medium for.
Fenris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 08:13 PM   #11
Loy
 
Loy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 408
Ummm....ID is not a theory by any means, and should never be called one. Why is that? Simple-theory is (to simplify the term) the most plausible explanation in consideration of all the available data. Theory is the phase an idea stays in before it's proven (and becomes a fact). For example-we stay on the Earth because it spins, thus creating gravity? Just a theory.

However, with ID, it negates the role of scientific investigation by having an answer that form the type of hypothesis' that come about for investigative purposes...in other words, pushers of ID actually change pre-existing facts to fit into their "theory".

Now, with evolution, the actual theory of evolution has changed many times over the past 100 or so years (new information changes our understanding of basic aspects), but the basic idea of evolution has stayed the same. Why? Because whilst minor details about have turned out to be incomplete, or even out-right wrong, the system of evolution itself has stayed as the best possible explanation with all the available data....in other words, the best theory.

As far as I'm concerned, they SHOULD teach ID in school, for the same reason they should teach hollow-earth "theories"-in order to show kids the difference between real science and bad science.
__________________
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
Loy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 11:58 PM   #12
Granny-like_the_apple
 
Granny-like_the_apple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 517
I heart god. like m83 says-god is beautiful.
__________________
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him.

Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.
Granny-like_the_apple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 02:23 AM   #13
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Plus Evolution isn't a theory, the Theory Of Evolution is a theory.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 08:25 AM   #14
Empty_Purple_Stars
 
Empty_Purple_Stars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right Here
Posts: 3,442
If I had a cat, his breath would smell like cat food...
Empty_Purple_Stars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 08:30 AM   #15
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Not if you fed it dog food.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 09:12 AM   #16
soggypicklemuncher
 
soggypicklemuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 353
I think the solution to this is to teach science (evolutionary theory/natural selection) in science class and intelligent design in religion class. You know, like that grade school class many of us took that gave an overview of the major world religions. That way solid facts that have been collected and used to piece together the best theory we can on the origin and development of life will be kept separate from religious theory.

The problem is that religious factions will make it difficult to reach a compromise, as they certainly don't want Jesus and God's guiding evolutionary hand being introduced along with all those heathen fake gods and silly creation stories involving turtles and incest. And they'll argue that no one could look at "creation" and not sense a guiding force. They actually think what they believe is science, although there is no empirical way of testing it.

Of course I'm only talking about stupid people that follow leaders who really know better but use issues like evolution to generate flocks; and this applies to religious zealots too, the kind that want to make the U.S. into a virtual theocracy. I know many Christians who use their brains and are capable of understanding the difference between solid data and faith.
__________________
You've got red on you.

You only see what you want to believe
When you creep from the back
I got tricks up my sleeve
24/7 the devil's best friend
It makes no difference
It's all the same in the end

-"Same in the End" by Sublime
soggypicklemuncher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 07:19 PM   #17
Blushing Heliophobe
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,055
I may well be shunning myself with this post, but, I feel it's only fair to present another type of view.

There are some Christians who feel that if God is the true author of Creation, and Science is the pursuit of truth, that the two should not be 'enemies' of each other...and also should not be haphazardly pieced together in blaring contradiction of logic and reality.

Many, as I, believe that if a human being can not possibly know everything in the world (and by that I mean everything -such as stars in the sky, drops of water in the ocean, exact population of Quebec, etc) then, how can that person logicly say that they know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is no God? It may be true that the person believes there is no God, that they feel there is no God, that they have not seen what they consider evidence that there is God, but it would be scientifically inacurate to say that beyond a shadow of a doubt it is absolutely true that there is no God.

I'm not trying to evangalize anybody or stir up a whole mess of unhappy shunnings.

I'm just saying that maybe if we don't want people on the other side of the spectrum to lump Goths into an untrue stereotypical category that it may be hypocritical to do the same to all those who believe in Creation, ie Intelligent Design, and not Evolution.

And as an afterthought, if Science is the pursuit of absolute, proveable Truth, then why do we have so many blaringly stupid, disproven theories and hoaxes still being passed off as evidence of Evolution in our textbooks? The embryo drawing (proven as a hoax some 80 years ago) the three toed horse display (another hoax) as some examples off the top of my head...they are wrong, everyone in the scientific community knows it, and they're taught still. Isn't that the opposite of Science?!?

I am putting a link below for Dr. Kent Hovind, a Creation Scientist. While, trust me, I do not neccesarily agree with everything he has to say (as well he would probably not agree with me ) I do believe that he has got a few valid points.

Not all Christians are sign waving judgemental ignorant fanatics.

Well, most maybe.

But not all.

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76
http://www.creationscience.com/
Blushing Heliophobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 07:35 PM   #18
soggypicklemuncher
 
soggypicklemuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 353
Maybe I came off a little bit hostile toward Christians who believe in Intelligent Design. I don't have a problem if people believe something if they know enough about it to understand why they believe it. Not all Christians take Genesis literally when it says the earth and everything on it were created in seven days. But I think the people who want intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution are just uncomfortable with the idea of evolution period and want to console themselves and make their children a little less uncomfortable when they have to take a class on something that their parents have taught them is contrary to God's word.

I have some reservations myself about parents raising children into a religion, since of course the kids will believe everything their parents tell them until a certain age and religious dogma drilled into a person's consciousness at a young age can haunt him for life, but if parents really want their kids to know about intelligent design then they can teach it themselves because it's not the job of public schools to teach religious theory. Or teach it in a religion class and treat it as a religious subject, not a scientifically valid theory.
__________________
You've got red on you.

You only see what you want to believe
When you creep from the back
I got tricks up my sleeve
24/7 the devil's best friend
It makes no difference
It's all the same in the end

-"Same in the End" by Sublime
soggypicklemuncher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 08:31 PM   #19
Disfunction
 
Disfunction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,242
Oh shit... I just spilled my coke.
__________________
"You had a tough day at the office, so you come home, make yourself some dinner, smother your kids, pop in a movie; maybe a have a drink. It's fun, right? ...wrong.

...don't smother your kids."
Disfunction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 09:28 PM   #20
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
What's the point of Intelligent Design anyway, I see lots of attacks against various theories of evolution as if this somehow proves ID despite the fact that ID doesn't even deal with the same topic, but nothing actually saying why ID is true.

Surely it's self-defeating, if you say that things are complicated and therefore must have been designed intelligently then isn't that intelligence also complicated and therefore must have been designed intelligently. It doesn't explain everything, just creates another question: If stuff had to be created, who created the creator?
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 09:33 PM   #21
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blushing Heliophobe
Many, as I, believe that if a human being can not possibly know everything in the world (and by that I mean everything -such as stars in the sky, drops of water in the ocean, exact population of Quebec, etc) then, how can that person logicly say that they know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is no Giant Pink Creation Weasel? It may be true that the person believes there is no Giant Pink Creation Weasel, that they feel there is no Giant Pink Creation Weasel, that they have not seen what they consider evidence that there is Giant Pink Creation Weasel, but it would be scientifically inacurate to say that beyond a shadow of a doubt it is absolutely true that there is no Giant Pink Creation Weasel.
... because logically speaking Gods and Creators are themselves illogical and therefore logically do not, and cannot exist.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 09:35 PM   #22
soggypicklemuncher
 
soggypicklemuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 353
I always used to wonder about that. Where did god come from, you know? I never was satisfied with any of the explanations my parents tried to give me. I had a habit of vexing them with pretty much unanswerable questions as a kid.
__________________
You've got red on you.

You only see what you want to believe
When you creep from the back
I got tricks up my sleeve
24/7 the devil's best friend
It makes no difference
It's all the same in the end

-"Same in the End" by Sublime
soggypicklemuncher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 10:02 PM   #23
Blushing Heliophobe
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,055
Okay, Peter, show prove me wrong, scientifically and beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist.

Everyone has a right to believe whatever they choose, and in posing this question I in no way seek to demean anyone for their beliefs, and far from it.

It's just that if you claim logic as your reason, how can you claim that one's faith in God, or lack of faith in God, logicly makes Him exist or not exist?

And anyways, I do agree that even though I believe in ID, it does seem somewhat...weird...teaching all these different theories in a biology class.

Who's to say that I don't believe that aliens dropped us out of the sky onto planet Earth, and just because the Evolutionists and Christians have their say means I should have mine on the taxpayer's dollar as well?

As a believer in Creation, honestly, I'd just be happy if there were more up to date textbooks that don't include blatant hoaxes and mistakes - oh I forgot one earlier, like the peppered moth example that was also uncovered as a hoax. It seems a shame to me that we would be teaching these things when we know they are not true.

It does seem to be playing with fire to be introducing so much theology into biology class...
Blushing Heliophobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 10:08 PM   #24
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
the other day, i was taking care of a drunk and he told me the following... hold onto your hats, cuz this is rather shocking... (really bad pun)

"lightning, man. it was one bolt of fuckin' lightning that started all this shit. you got all those germs runnin' around and WHAM! one bolt of lightning made 'em crazy and here we are. holy fuck."

so, there you are. for all you know-it-alls who provide such in-depth and well thought out explanations about life and its genesis - ya'all missed the boat.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2005, 10:13 PM   #25
Blushing Heliophobe
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,055
I extend my most humble apologies for overkill of the definition thing, but I couldn't help myself. Here is what a theory is...

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.

So if someone had an idea, no matter how unpopular in any type of social circle, and had evidence, correlations with various proven natural laws, etc to back it up, then it would then be a theory.
Blushing Heliophobe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Top home-school texts dismiss Darwin, evolution CptSternn Spooky News 75 03-20-2010 11:07 AM
What Religion do you Follow??? Crying_Crimson_Tears General 378 04-01-2009 07:29 PM
Evolution Godslayer Jillian General 187 03-15-2009 02:18 PM
Darwin In The News Again CptSternn Spooky News 39 02-14-2009 11:26 AM
The Vatican Sides Up with Evolution The Minister Saint-Fond Spooky News 16 01-20-2006 10:03 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 AM.