Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

Of course there is no intelligent action preceding it! You appear to have not understood the fundamental nature of this and the depth and sophistication of the organisational processes. A human eye may appear complex to you, but it is simply the natural expression of a bunch of different proteins and hormones acting together in an unintelligent way as guided by the proteins based on the specification in the DNA. Layers upon layers of simple organisation leading to an eye. The earliest "eyes" in evolution were simply light sensitive cells but millions of years of evolution have refined that crude organ into what it is today. Look it up... there are plenty of resources on the internet if you want to find out more.

Creationists propose intelligent design by a creator. The fact that our bodies have numerous design faults and our DNA is a complete botch job of bits of DNA going back to the earliest life forms indicates there is no intelligent design involved.

A few moments ago you were unaware that matter is capable of organising itself into highly complex structures at all. You believed chaotic matter could not organise itself. Now all you offer is "you doubt the kind of thing" but this is mere supposition on your part. The scientific evidence says the contrary. I'll go with where the facts are, not where your uneducated speculations point. Read the science, read about the research done and the facts uncovered, then come back. Until then all you offer is unfounded opinion.

The result might have been unexpected, but the initial action had been intelligent.


I can understand that kind of conclusion being drawn, but it is still an arrogant one second-guessing a variety of things.


No, I was not taking that thought that far. I do not know any significant details beyond the kind of thing you have mentioned, but I certainly have heard of that kind of thing. I am just saying those kinds of things are yet a long way from proving life as we presently know it came from chaos and without any ordered influence.

Simple mechanisms have now been found that are quite capable of explaining the origin of life from chaos and those same mechanisms are capable of explaining the evolution of life. While they don't constitute proof that life has indeed formed using those mechanisms they are very much a smoking gun. Intelligent design on the other hand is mere speculation with no evidence to support it; nor any mechanism presented for how it might work. The evidence points strongly towards evolution being a very haphazard process governed by simple natural principles of cause and effect with no intelligence guiding it.

What initial action?

A chaotic mixture of two chemicals spontaneously organised itself into a complex arrangement of molecules. This wasn't a chemical reaction in the normal sense of the word; the molecules didn't react with one another they just spontaneously organised themselves into a complex structure - and what made this particularly interesting was that the new complex structure spontaneously disintegrated and formed another second distinct complex structure then kept alternating at random between the two. Spontaneous order forming from chaos.

That man had put the stuff into the beaker.


That is just not true! However, I do understand many scientists say that while preferring the idea of "a very haphazard process with no intelligence guiding it" or whatever being more logical and acceptable. I would just like to hear more such people willing to say they categorically reject the idea of "God" while placing their faith in the human mind and a belief this universe needs no "God" to explain any of it.

I'll just add that these natural mechanisms that create complex structures from chaos are now known to be responsible for the formation of the embryo from the simple fertilised egg. They are also responsible for the growth of the embryo and the formation and distribution of the various organs leading up to formation of the baby and beyond into the growth of the adult. These natural organisational mechanisms are the same ones thought to be responsible for both the origin of all life and the evolution of those primitive organisms to the multitude of lifeforms we see today. There is nothing "intelligent" behind these organisational mechanisms.

You've completely missed the point. You've done the equivalent of making a comment about the hair style of the person doing a documentary on physics and believing you've raised a valid point about the physics.



Please feel free to provide scientific evidence in support of intelligent design, because to date I've not seen anything other than unfounded opinion, mal-comprehension of physical findings and straight out lies.

It isn't a case of preferring a "very haphazard process with no intelligence guiding it". I have no preference in that regard. My only preference is for the truth, whatever the truth is and frankly intelligent design simply doesn't cut it. The facts speak for themselves but you have to be prepared to do the in depth research to discover them. Not by digging into creationist propaganda sites but by doing the hard work; studying the sciences at university or to similar depth at home. Read scientific articles and research journals. Read the facts, not opinions or suppositions. When you have sufficient knowledge of the subject it is very clear where the evidence points.

The idea of a "God" is irrelevant to science. I have faith in the scientific principles of research and fact finding. Our theories need to match the facts not the other way around. Regarding the formation and evolution of life I've found nothing indicating any "intelligence" behind any of this. On the contrary the whole thing appears to be a natural consequence of simple physical principles. This doesn't mean that God doesn't exist; simply that if a god does exist then it appears he has nothing to do with the formation or evolution of life; or that life would have formed and evolved irrespective anyway.

Science belongs in science classes. Fairy tales belong in fairy tale classes. Problem solved. Next.

I think children love to hear about the universe and the big bang and how all that started.

Now theres a story!

There is the bias with no science to support it, and that makes all of this a matter of religion. The only way science could prove the idea of intelligent design untruthful would be to know the mind of the Creator and prove life has evolved differently than said Creator would have done it.

No, if you want proof that Intelligent Design is a scam and not based on any kind of science, then all you have to do is look up the Wedge Document:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html



This document shows what intelligent design is actually all about (intelligent design originated from the Discovery Institute) and as you can see from the above quote, the goals were political and actually have nothing to do with science, yet they want to sneak it into the science classroom. If that isn't dishonest then I don't know what is.

Also, it doesn't help you much to claim that Intelligent Design cannot be disproven in principle because if that were the case, then that would actually make it unscientific and not a valid alternative to evolution.

On the contrary; I've studied the massive overwhelming evidence in support of evolution as I've laid it out to you, both during my university days as a science student and since, keeping up with scientific research, discoveries and advances. It is people like you who bring in your religious beliefs and try to claim your preconceived ideas fit the facts but they don't. You are intellectually dishonest. You want there to be some sort of intelligent design at work; but the bottom line is that there is not. But you either lack the moral fibre to accept the truth as it is or you lack the motivation to delve into the subject matter as deeply as I have. Either way I can see it is a waste of my time discussing this issue with you further. You are completely bogged down in your belief system and are incapable or unwilling to look beyond it. I've done the hard work and spent many years looking into this issue in great detail and you clearly know sod all about the subject based upon what you have posted.

You have a lot of strong opinions based upon negligible knowledge of science or evolution. I prefer to start with learning the facts and let my opinions form based upon that knowledge. Your ignorance of the subject matter results in you talking nonsense. You seem to talk nonsense with some passion and conviction, but non the less, it remains nonsense.

Last edited by TallyMan on 01 Mar 2014, 2:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.

The OP is spouting the latest party-line that: nonreligion is religion.

And that NOT mentioning God shows a religious bias, but mentioning God does NOT show a religous bias.



The OP is saying that because the modern Darwinian Evolution Theory explains the origin of species WITHOUT involving a creator that that makes it a "religous belief".

But he claims that "Inteligent Design" is NOT based upon religion because it DOES require a diety.

How is that NOT doubletalk?

I'm curious about the alleged textbook errors. Is there a summary somewhere that is not a 2:30 hour video?