Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design'

Post Reply New Topic

What about the fossil record? For hundreds of years, scientists have observed radical changes in organisms through adaptation to their environment dating back to the first single-celled bacteria. I'd say that's pretty solid evidence.

time to weigh in, i believe...

1. evolution is taught as a theory, not as fact. the fact is that, whilst the evidence from the fossil record, from dating techniques, etc., etc., is persuasive, it is not conclusive. i don't know of anyone who teaches that evolution is a fact - certainly, candidates don't score marks for saying so if they write that in their exam scripts.

2. i often teach all sorts of things i don't personally believe in, especially in the teaching of religion. however, i believe in educated choice, so i teach them everything. i just make sure to explain that some people believe x , whilst others believe y. i'd teach ID, as long as it was balanced with teaching evolution, and as long as i could explain that both are viewpoints held by different people.

3. someone said that evolution is a hypothesis and not a theory. this isn't so - there's a distinct and clear difference between the two in scientific parlance, and evolution is definitely a theory.

4.

sounds like Heisenberg to me... and "the observer affects the experiment" stuff. all science works within a paradigm, and paradigm shifts take a massive amount of change, generally with a new generation of scientists.

5. i don't see any problem with religion and science going together, provided neither is from a fundamentalist stance. for example, i had no problem understanding quantum physics when i first read "in search of schrodinger's cat" (john gribbin) years ago, when everyone else was trying to twist their brains around the concepts, cos i was a catholic at the time, and was used to holding ideas in my head which were intangible ("mystical", if you like), which didn't need to be empirical.

6. people keep talking about "The Truth". there are many different truths - i'm thinking of perspective, personal mental filters, etc. ken wilber is a great one for this - read "eye of spirit", and see how he manages to piss off just about everybody, by agreeing that their belief system (religion, science, whatever) holds some truth, but not all.

7. a question - why do people need to "prove" that their stance is the "correct" one? i support the evolution thing, myself, but i'm more than happy to hear the arguments for ID, even creationism. i'm not saying i'd change my mind, on what i've heard so far, mind you, but it's all interesting. and i don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, on a personal level. the problem for me is when stuff like ID and creationism is taught to kids as The Truth, to the exclusion of other "Truths", which limits their education, and thereby the choices they can make. that's just mind control.

apart from anything else, if you are totally secure in your beliefs, then arguing your case and leaving other people to make up their own minds should suffice - if it's The Truth, then they will, surely? other than that, it's foisting your views on someone else. what's the problem - is it that that particular "Truth" can't stand on its own merits, and so needs to exclude any other ideas, in case people start questioning?

Last edited by vetivert on 07 Dec 2005, 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

ghotistix

Even I believe organisms can and do adapt, to whatever they may need to survive, I don't believe they evolve into something else and become something higher on the tree of life.

A bird is a bird is a bird. A moth is a moth is a moth. A deer is a deer is a deer. These animals might need to adapt because of climate, food resources, or new threats to need to change and adapt to things like these. I have not seen any real evidence hybrids animals yet.

Even if You go to the first early humans, we already find them walking upright. We haven't yet truly found any hybrid early humans types yet. What we have found in early human types that they have adapted and become smarter and better at living on this earth. But early humans are early humans are early humans; and modern humans are modern humans. Even we might need to adapt in new ways just to live in the future. Even we now have the science to even make these changes ourselves. We are already playing god, in our science today.

You could say that about anything schools teach. A theory is science's best guess at fact, and when it's widely accepted like evolution is, I don't see why it shouldn't be called that. Otherwise you'd have no facts at all.


But public schools shouldn't be teaching opinions, even if they're popular. Who decides when people's personal, unfalsifiable beliefs reach the magnitude where they can be taught in schools? When can I expect to take Flying Spaghetti Monsterism 101?


Debating is fun!


Maybe you haven't seen the evidence, but many others have. Fossils and skeletons of all kinds of weird creatures halfway between contemporary species have been found.

vetivert

You got to remember this science is never static always changing always moving forward. This is why I see science as subjective we interpret what science is or is not. Maybe in the future Science and Intelligent Design can be taught. But the way science is today it will not be taught. It is people that prejudices that get in the way of anything else being taught truly. It is like Science in in competition with Intelligent Design, and they can not let it go. These arguments shows me that Science is a truly closed system, and they do not like anything that truly might change their perceptions of what Science is to them. As long as this is happening Science really can not move forward and is blinding itself in such endeavors. This could give science uncertainties in the future.

yep - do remember all that (i was a researcher, as i said).

and all you've said is to do with the paradigm shift i was talking about: scientists (like everybody) tend to hang on to what they think is right, and resist change. consider the two schools of the steady state and big bang theories. consider even the resistance to the change from the newtonian paradigm to the einsteinian paradigm.

and, as i also said, fundamentalism means that one's mind is closed, whether one is a fundamentalist (insert religion of choice) or a fundamentalist scientist.

vetivert

Yeah and You are agreeing with me pretty much.

ghotistix

What fossil evidence of any creatures. Some prehistoric dinosaur that looked like a bird. As I see they where adaptations of once live creatures that adapted to their environment to live. Science is not sure if they are birds or dinosaurs or some hybrid animal. Can I find some of these fossils on the Internet.

Wikipedia has a great list of transitional fossils. The radical evolutionary process of the horse is especially interesting.

This quotation also helps address the gaps in the fossil record:

ghotistix

OK, Lets take the horse, the prehistoric horses to modern horses really have not changed much; they look like horses from prehistoric to modern times. Yes they have adapted in the leg bones over the years and have gotten bigger, taller, wider and such changes like these. But again they look like a HORSE. Adaptation is just adapting to your environment so you can live in that environment. The same for the birds, many a the mammals looked like dinosaurs back then. We have some living fossils in fish even today but again they are more fish than anything else.

I guess we will just beg to differ, on Adaptation of animal life, and Evolution of animal life.

Yeah... so? That is what adaptation is, and that is what evolution is. Those adaptations occur slowly over long periods of time. You want an example of a sudden, almost instantaneous, radical change. That does not happen.

Bec

I see Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution, it should be called Charles Darwin Theory of Adaptation instead.

Evolution to me is that the animal evolves to some other type of animal.

Adaptation to me that the animal adapts but stays as the same type of animal.

Charles Darwin's Galapagos finches all came from one type of finch, then through adaptation they became many types of finches. The finches remained finches so they truly did not evolve in to some other type of animal.

That is just how I see it.

What makes one type of finch different than another type of finch? A series of adaptations. What makes a human different than a dog? A series of adaptations. The point is, the only difference between one species and another is a series of adaptations. The series of adaptations is evolution.

Bec

You got to remember that Charles Darwin dealt with the Origin of Species just compared animals that where related. The same species only.

We are just going to see it differently as I see it you see it differently and I see it differently.

Your comparisons of human and dog are of different species does this mean that we evolved from dog, I don't think so. But I understand what You are trying to say by using the human and dog comparison. Though it it does not truly makes sense to Me.

We have never truly yet found the original origin specie and we most likely never will either.

To me they still are just Adaptations not Evolution.

That is just how I see it.

It's not a matter of interpretation, but you are allowed to 'see it' however you want, I suppose.

No, not at all. What I am saying is that humans and dogs had a common ancestor a long, long time ago.

Bec

LOL

Yes it is a matter interpretation, and You are allowed Your interpretation to, as I am allowed My interpretation too.

Maybe Science might even yet see it My way one day, who knows how Science may yet even see it in the future. Science is always changing and redefining itself.

Now that would be something to think about.

Right. A serious study of evolution without the Humanistic Naturalism framework reveals that it is impossible from a scientific perspective and frankly, laughable.