Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design'

Page 6 of 8 [ 126 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

24 Oct 2005, 11:53 pm

Grievous

I think You kinda right there.

I would add to that it is apart of Intelligent Design (Intelligent Designer) also.

I think a Intelligent Designer would see it as Adaptation not as Evolution too.

That is My Theory anyway. Science might have to change its thinking on this also too.

Now that is something to think about.

_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.

ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

25 Oct 2005, 12:47 am

kevv729 wrote:

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.

The early form of the horse looks a little like a horse because that's the point at which the gene pool diverged from the masses of four-legged fox-sized mammals from which many other contemporary species trace their ancestry. That's the point where horse-like traits could be discerned; it doesn't mean that's where the fossils stop.

Grievous wrote:

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

What study is this?

kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

25 Oct 2005, 3:23 am

ghotistix

Those horse fossils go back to 60 million years. You say some fox-sized mammals they came from where are the hybrids fossils showing them changing into horses then. I not saying it is impossible but where is the proof (fossils) there is none yet that I see.

Grievous, Humanistic Naturalism, might be some type of creationism humanism thing, I am researching right now. It might go will with Intelligent Design.

_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.

ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

25 Oct 2005, 6:05 am

kevv729 wrote:

Those horse fossils go back to 60 million years. You say some fox-sized mammals they came from where are the hybrids fossils showing them changing into horses then. I not saying it is impossible but where is the proof (fossils) there is none yet that I see.

Paleontologists have discovered fossils dating back to the horse's original divergence from the ancestor it shares with other animals all the way up to its present form. It's not blind conjecture. It's only through known fossils that we know so much about the horse's evolution as well as that of many other life-forms.

If you want to drop the debate as a mutual disagreement, we can. But what I keep coming back to is the thought that if I ever have a kid who goes through the public school system, he or she might learn that it's OK for religions to decide which topics of science can and can not be taught, regardless of the topic's foundation in reality. That thought scares the s**t out of me. That is why I support evolution being taught in public school science classes, and not Intelligent Design. I'm debating this in the hope that maybe some people will change their minds.

kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

25 Oct 2005, 6:34 am

ghotixtix

I guess we at this mutual disagreement just maybe need to drop this debate about fossils evidence. For to me I just don't see what You see.

Though I think Intelligent Design without the religion could be taught though if it was done right.
If Intelligent Design could adhere to scientific set of standards again without religion it could and maybe should be taught.

I come from a public school back ground that evolution was taught as fact. This debate was not done then, wished it would have been done then. Then I could have made up My mind Myself.

I personally do not what religion in the schools.

I am debating this in also in the hope Myself that I can change some minds also.

Just so You know. OK!!

_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.

lenny77
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 6 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Hamburg, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, ???

26 Oct 2005, 3:51 am

kev729
you were taught evolution is a fact. it false und unscientific to do so, because there are a lot of gaps.
i may think that its ok, because there are many proves for that, but its not yet proven everything. and for a long time not everything will be proven.

but is this an argument to use the "intelligent design"-myth as a scool subject? definately NOT!
intelligent design is just a trojan horse for creationists to get their idea into schools. (with no success in europe )

kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

26 Oct 2005, 5:08 am

lenny77

I went to High School in the late 70s early 80s it was truly taught as a fact in My High School. There was no religion involved in it, no discussion about alternatives on how any other processes of Life could have formed on the earth. They never shown any gaps on Evolution just taught it as a fact. That is how it was done back then in the High School I went to.

I truly think students, in this day a age with all the information, that we have could and should be able to make up their minds themselves. They should be given the opportunity to discern the information themselves, and make up their own minds by what the see. Science has been to closed and not opened enough in the schools, this needs to change so all can benefit from the learning of Life.

Something needs to challenge Science to move ahead so why not Intelligent Design. If You truly did it in a SCIENTIFIC WAY WHY NOT DO IT THEN TOO. Take out the religion and the myths and truly make it SCIENTIFIC.

There is a lot of Intelligent Design in Life. All You have to do is dissect something like I did in Biology to see the Intelligent Design. There are many things I saw that were beautiful when I dissected something in Biology.

Science could learn a bit from the everyday person, but scientist don't do that. They hide behind theories and hypothesises, don't truly make understandable enough, argue among themselves to much, to get to a solution. Science needs to reform itself so it can move forward. It needs to be more UNDERSTANDABLE for all not just the scientists but for all people. SO WHEN WILL THIS HAPPEN NEVER I HOPE NOT.

We are living in a more technological age where we need to make it more simple so more can understand.

This is how I see.

_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.

lenny77
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 6 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Hamburg, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, ???

26 Oct 2005, 5:31 am

kevv729 wrote:

i agree with your wish for more discussion in school classes to make it possible for students making up their minds themselves. but all theories regardless of their religious or ideological backgound should base on empiric research.
the still existing gaps in the theorie of evolution are no argument to a creationistic explanation.

discussing it in school? welcome.
teaching it? no way!!

ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

26 Oct 2005, 5:34 am

What gaps?

lenny77
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 6 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Hamburg, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, ???

26 Oct 2005, 5:50 am

im talking about the "missing links" (but i think you know them well dont you?)

ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

26 Oct 2005, 6:11 am

lenny77 wrote:

im talking about the "missing links" (but i think you know them well dont you?)

Because of the special circumstances required for a complete fossil to be preserved, paleontologists are never going to discover transitional fossils for every organism on Earth. These don't signify "gaps" in the theory itself any more than the fact that we can't directly see atoms with our present technology means the atomic theory has gaps. What's important to remember is that everything we have found confirms the theory of evolution.

Think about atomic theory. It's changed so rapidly in the past hundred years that even scientists on the cutting edge will only accept any current atomic model with a grain of salt. Yet these latest models are still being taught in schools. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has stood the test of time as a reliable explanation for the development of life, nearly unchanged for a hundred and forty years. That's why it should be taught.

lenny77
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 6 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Hamburg, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, ???

26 Oct 2005, 7:52 am

i agree with you. it should be taught! but discussion doesnt harm does it?
its an opportunity for teachers (and other students) to open the eyes of children with christian or muslim or whatthefückever religions background.
but your explanation wont make a change of mind to creationists.

in my opinion these gaps are even another proves for evolution:
think of those which were found in recent years. and of those which will be found in the future!

they will never be mentioned by creationists or fans of the intelligent design hypothesis!!

ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

26 Oct 2005, 8:03 am

lenny77 wrote:

i agree with you. it should be taught! but discussion doesnt harm does it?

Not at all -- as long as it's in a contemporary issues class or the debate club.

lenny77 wrote:

its an opportunity for teachers (and other students) to open the eyes of children with christian or muslim or whatthe****ever religions background.
but your explanation wont make a change of mind to creationists.

in my opinion these gaps are even another proves for evolution:
think of those which were found in recent years. and of those which will be found in the future!

they will never be mentioned by creationists or fans of the intelligent design hypothesis!!

Yep... the situation in Kansas proves that.

kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

26 Oct 2005, 5:01 pm

ghotistix wrote:

Not at all -- as long as it's in a contemporary issues class or the debate club.

There should be a comparative study in that class that is teaching Evolution in that class.

It would be better if You had something to compare to Evolution like Intelligent Design in that classroom; for the student(s) to decide for themselves and debate if need be in that classroom. School is for learning even debating various subjects in the classroom. That is how the student(s) truly learn and decide what is important in their understanding of what Life is to them.

It should not just be in the contemporary issues class or debate club it truly belongs in the classroom for sure.

_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.

Grievous
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 3 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 256
Location: Minnesota

26 Oct 2005, 11:32 pm

The problem is that too many people presume that evolution is scientifically valid. It isn't. Intelligent design is a far more valid theory. Just becasue it does not have Humanistic Naturalism as it's basis don't be so quick to dismiss it. :roll: Science is about discovering truth. Darwin himself proposed both ways of teaching.

ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

27 Oct 2005, 1:15 am

kevv729 wrote:

It should not just be in the contemporary issues class or debate club it truly belongs in the classroom for sure.

Children go to school to learn facts, and they go to church to learn about religion. Intelligent Design, no matter how it's stripped down, is a spiritual belief. It's a matter of faith. I don't have any issue with parents sending their children to private schools that teach religious beliefs instead of evolution, but when the public school curriculum starts forcing religious beliefs on everybody then our country has turned its back on the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Grievous wrote:

You keep saying that, but do you have any studies to back it up?

Page 6 of 8 [ 126 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design' Post Reply New Topic

Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design'