Evolution...

[buckeye_fan]

In my opinion, and I've been interested in this subject for twenty some years, there is more actual evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.

And in my opinion, the mind sees what it wants to see. So please, enlighten us.

[R13]

So should we be teaching something that we do not know is right then?

Its not that that we don't know it's right, it's all the details mainly. It won't ever be "100 percent absolute fact", hardly anything in science is. But this is what we know, this is what is supported by facts. Just because we aren't in a position to know the ultimate answer, doesn't mean we ignore what we have now. It should be taught in school, but I'm not saying have the teacher say there isn't a God. Why can't it be this is what we know to be true as of right now, the basis and facts there is now and leave the idea of it being "nature" or "divine spark" to the students?

[R13]

Once a liar, always a liar. If one commits perjury the rest of their testimony is questionable. The evolutionist movement clung to recapitulation for decades and decades after it had been disproved. And apparently it's still being taught to some extent.

In my opinion, and I've been interested in this subject for twenty some years, there is more actual evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. In fact mutation is about it on the evolutionist side that isn't questionable and dubious, and it isn't in question at all. Mutation exists....but it is not in any way proof or even real evidence of evolution.

So since one component of the theory that was proven wrong and because some in the past chose to still believe this component (which was once believed to be true) it debunks the whole thing? It was understood very little then, look at the capabilities at the time. It was accepted as fact at the time, there are some that weren't convinced and still believed it...that's not a conspiracy and preaching lies, that's lack of knowledge.


And I'm with buckeye, I'd like to see that too. Intelligent design isn't backed up by hardly anything and was come up with for the sole purpose to go against the evolution movement. The God of the Gaps argument explains their position more than they explain their own.

[1inStripes]

Its not that that we don't know it's right, it's all the details mainly. It won't ever be "100 percent absolute fact", hardly anything in science is. But this is what we know, this is what is supported by facts. Just because we aren't in a position to know the ultimate answer, doesn't mean we ignore what we have now. It should be taught in school, but I'm not saying have the teacher say there isn't a God. Why can't it be this is what we know to be true as of right now, the basis and facts there is now and leave the idea of it being "nature" or "divine spark" to the students?

Why not teach both though since these "facts" cannot support an absolute? You state yourself that hardly anything in science is absolute, so if we are teaching students theory, what would be the problem of laying out multiple theories?

[Gotch]

So since one component of the theory that was proven wrong and because some in the past chose to still believe this component (which was once believed to be true) it debunks the whole thing? It was understood very little then, look at the capabilities at the time. It was accepted as fact at the time, there are some that weren't convinced and still believed it...that's not a conspiracy and preaching lies, that's lack of knowledge.

You are not even getting it are you?

1. It was not accepted as fact then. It was completely debunked scientifically by no later than 1925.

2. It was not "some". It was in every high school text book in the country more than 60 years after being debunked completely.

3. It was not lack of knowledge. The truth was well known. It was a lie.

I can't remember who, but some leading evolutionist, when asked about this around 20 years ago, stated, "it was a good teaching tool"!

It was a systematic lie.

I'll be glad to discuss certain aspects, but to simply say, "enlighten us" is disingenuous, not to mention impossible.

We can touch on certain issues, but I'm not going to type a 325 page dissertation on the subject here.

[R13]

Why not teach both though since these "facts" cannot support an absolute? You state yourself that hardly anything in science is absolute, so if we are teaching students theory, what would be the problem of laying out multiple theories?

I'm not getting what you're asking.

Are you saying teach Creationism too?

[buckeye_fan]

Why not teach both though since these "facts" cannot support an absolute? You state yourself that hardly anything in science is absolute, so if we are teaching students theory, what would be the problem of laying out multiple theories?

I think there is a difference in teaching our kids theories based on overwhelming notions consistent with reason and intellect and teaching them theories based on... well.. written stories in a book and faith.

[1inStripes]

I'm not getting what you're asking.

Are you saying teach Creationism too?

Yes.


buckeye, my point is, if one is a theory that has some basis, and the other does as well (which intelligent design does have) why not teach both. Or, scrap it and not teach either, since neither apparently can be identified completely as an absolute.

[Gotch]

I think there is a difference in teaching our kids theories based on overwhelming notions consistent with reason and intellect and teaching them theories based on... well.. written stories in a book and faith.

You know, there is a lot more to it than that, and yet again you are being disingenuous. I could well say that you believe a gob of goo was struck by lighting and created every living thing on earth...and at its core that would be true to your belief.

[R13]

You are not even getting it are you?

1. It was not accepted as fact then. It was completely debunked scientifically by no later than 1925.

2. It was not "some". It was in every high school text book in the country more than 60 years after being debunked completely.

3. It was not lack of knowledge. The truth was well known. It was a lie.

I can't remember who, but some leading evolutionist, when asked about this around 20 years ago, stated, "it was a good teaching tool"!

It was a systematic lie.

I'll be glad to discuss certain aspects, but to simply say, "enlighten us" is disingenuous, not to mention impossible.

We can touch on certain issues, but I'm not going to type a 325 page dissertation on the subject here.

What I am saying is that when Haeckel came up with his theory, it was considered to be true by many. Later on when it was debunked, couldn't some still continue to think he was right and believe it. I don't believe there was this conspiracy movement at all, just ignorance maybe.