How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Spock]

I find humor necessary to difuse anger. No, that doesn't mean you have to get angry with me right now.

[rohirrim TR]

The evolutionist inference of "lightinig" or an "explosion" ocurring randomly to bring together the atmosphere and earth together from nothing is much more farfetched than the inference of a designer.

if religion is ilegal in science class a lot of people have been breaking the rules for years.

what is going to be taught is a contrast of two theorys not an "establishment" of ID to be forced on everyone. whats going to happen is balancing the exclusivity of evolution in the classroom.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

what is going to be taught is a contrast of two theorys not an "establishment" of ID to be forced on everyone. whats going to happen is balancing the exclusivity of evolution in the classroom.

at the moment in the US, creationism is mentioned but evolution is taught... my guess is it will probably remain that way in science class

but i would like to see comparative religions added to the required material

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but i would like to see comparative religions added to the required material

In most schools, higher ed, it is an offered course.
I've even known H.S. that had such an elective course.

[Insidious Rex]

CSPAN3 has been playing the Dover intelligent design debates the past week or so. Definitely worth checking out. It really makes it clear how baseless the notion of intelligent design as science really is when experts get into the details.

[Spock]

Yes, but I tend to get very upset with the entire CNN-CSPAN view on news....I'm just going to keep plodding along reading everyones input. Thanks

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

In most schools, higher ed, it is an offered course.
I've even known H.S. that had such an elective course.

it was an elective when i was in high school too in the early-eighties... but i'd rather see it required study... most american's have very scant knowledge of religions other than their own... sometimes they don't even know their own that well... yet it is a big factor in many people's lives

[BeardofPants]

Has anyone seen that Penn & Teller show where they discuss Intelligent Design? Ah classic.

[Spock]

No, but we saw them In June at The Rio in Vegas and they have one h*** of a show. Then afterwards they rush out and stand in the exit area signing autographs and generally chatting with the audience as it leaves. NO ONE in Vegas ever does that.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

The evolutionist inference of "lightinig" or an "explosion" ocurring randomly to bring together the atmosphere and earth together from nothing is much more farfetched than the inference of a designer.

Excuse me, but the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with the scientific approach to how life started on earth.

I'm sorry, but I'm firmly of the POV that ID/Creationism is reactionary pseudo-science. Grand Canyon created instantaneously by flooding my feckin' arse. [/rant]

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

Yes, but I tend to get very upset with the entire CNN-CSPAN view on news....

Well say what you want about CNN but how can you be upset about CSPAN? Theres no commentary. Its just a running camera.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I'm sorry, but I'm firmly of the POV that ID/Creationism is reactionary pseudo-science. [/rant]

Its not even that. Its just the latest attempt at mounting an offensive against evolution by creationists. Creationism didnt work so they figured theyd tamper down all the christian association and just label it a "designer" rather then a "creator". But they still offer very little in the way of testable methodologies FOR intelligent design.

[rohirrim TR]

i don't have tv or time to watch tv, the internet is it for me (hmm, might be off topic...nahh)

hey there BoP, relax, keep your shirt on(or pants if you prefer) it is just common sense that the grand canyon formed rather quickly, evolutionist would have you believe that the colorado river ran UPhill for a billion years, how likely is that?
not only that you have the layering you would get after everything being shook up so drastically.

[BeardofPants]

That's why I called it pseudo-science, IR.

Interesting wiki contribution here: Click me! Click me!

Partial quote of the article - rest can be found through the link above:

Intelligent Design (sometimes abbreviated ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection. Though publicly Intelligent Design advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters, nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be the Christian God.
Adherents of Intelligent Design claim it stands on equal footing with, or superior to, the current scientific theories regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe. [1] This claim has not been accepted by the scientific community and Intelligent Design does not constitute serious research in biology. Despite Intelligent Design sometimes being referred to popularly and in the media as "Intelligent Design Theory," it is not a scientific theory by any commonly used definition of that term. The scientific community holds it to be creationist pseudoscience or junk science.[2] The National Academy of Sciences has said that Intelligent Design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own. [3] Critics argue that Intelligent Design proponents try to find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs, and that Intelligent Design in this context may ultimately amount to the "God of the gaps." [4]
Both the Intelligent Design concept and the associated movement have come under considerable criticism. [5] This criticism is regarded by advocates of Intelligent Design as a natural consequence of philosophical naturalism which precludes by definition the possibility of supernatural causes as rational scientific explanations. As has been argued before in the context of the creation-evolution controversy, proponents of Intelligent Design make the claim that there is a systemic bias within the scientific community against proponents' ideas and research based on the naturalistic assumption that science can only make reference to natural causes. Critics view this argument as polemical. Some critics have called for their own origin "theories" to be put on equal footing with Intelligent Design as there is equal evidence for these ideas - for example the satirical Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
Media organizations often focus on other qualities that the designer(s) in "Intelligent Design Theory" might have in addition to intelligence, e.g., "higher power"[6], "unseen force"[7], etc.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i don't have tv or time to watch tv, the internet is it for me (hmm, might be off topic...nahh)

hey there BoP, relax, keep your shirt on(or pants if you prefer) it is just common sense that the grand canyon formed rather quickly, evolutionist would have you believe that the colorado river ran UPhill for a billion years, how likely is that?
not only that you have the layering you would get after everything being shook up so drastically.

Yeah... I'm not even gonna answer that drivel. Anyone else wanna take a shot?

[Count Comfect]

The evolutionist inference of "lightinig" or an "explosion" ocurring randomly to bring together the atmosphere and earth together from nothing is much more farfetched than the inference of a designer.

*COUGH* Except we have evidence that lightning and explosions happen naturally. And NO evidence of a designer.

hey there BoP, relax, keep your shirt on(or pants if you prefer) it is just common sense that the grand canyon formed rather quickly, evolutionist would have you believe that the colorado river ran UPhill for a billion years, how likely is that?
not only that you have the layering you would get after everything being shook up so drastically.

In reverse order:
A) Do you understand stratigraphy? You have the layering you would get after NATURAL EROSION over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME. A catastrophic event disorders and destroys layers, but a gradual one reveals them. The layering at the Grand Canyon is revealed, not destroyed. Check out what happened in Egypt after the Aswan Dam was built - flooding destroys layers.
B) The river did not flow uphill. It flowed over a long, fairly level plain, which it gradually eroded so that now it flows downhill. That how rivers work. It's how the Mississippi has meandered for years, for instance. This is a very well documented process.

[Insidious Rex]

Sure.

Rohirim, EVEN many radical creationists acknowledge that by geographic evidence alone the Grand Canyon could NOT have been created all at once like you insist. You have three well known components to the Grand Canyon: Lava flows on the plateau that the canyon is cut into. These lava flows are Cenozoic. And some of them spill into the canyon. The walls of the canyon are mostly cut into horizontal rock layers of Paleozoic age. There is an ‘angular unconformity’ at the bottom of the Paleozoic layers. An angular unconformity is the result of tilting and eroding of the lower layers before the upper ones are deposited. These tilted and eroded layers are Precambrian in age.

The geological relationships of the various formations are quite clear. The lava flows which spill into the canyon must be younger than the canyon. The canyon must be younger than the rock layers that it cuts into. The sediments above the angular unconformity must be younger than the sediments below it.

[Insidious Rex]

woops sorry count. you beat me to it by a few seconds.

[Count Comfect]

'S all good. You have more evidence

About C-SPAN - you can also view it online at c-span.org - streaming video from C-SPAN 1, 2, and 3.

[Rían]

Well, this post succeeded in getting me back on the thread ...

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Excuse me, but the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with the scientific approach to how life started on earth.

It doesn't?
Then what are you taking as the starting point for the forces of evolution to operate ON?

You can say they're different fields, but IMO, anyone that says that they have "NOTHING to do" with each other is being at least a little disingenuous (although I know you and don't think you would do this on purpose). Would you please consider recanting that statement?

At least you seem to believe that the study of how life may have started on earth is scientific. "Chemical Evolution" is one term that it is called, by scientists and educators.

Grand Canyon created instantaneously by flooding my feckin' arse. [/rant]

"hopeful monsters" and punctuated equalibrium my very attractive behind! [/rant]