• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

'Intelligent design' goes on trial: CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm abstaining from this thread. There's much better stuff to talk about than this head-meets-wall bullshit, like the giant squid being caught on film in the wild for the first time.

THAT'S cool.
 
Hitokage said:
I'm abstaining from this thread. There's much better stuff to talk about than this head-meets-wall bullshit, like the giant squid being caught on film in the wild for the first time.

THAT'S cool.
Click to expand...
But it actually happened almost a year ago...
 
Kaijima said:
In response to why should ID, for instance, be mentioned when other things like unicorns are not:

It's a recurring bias on the side of those who see themselves as scientific to regard *everything* that they consider unscientific as the exact same rubbish to be cast off with the exact same lack of consideration.

The reason why nobody is shouting to teach unicornology in biology class is that you don't have a huge number of people who all have a predisposition thanks to factors such as culture and upbringing to believe The Great Unicorn is actually behind all the mechanics of the universe.

This is not to say I am an advocate of Intelligent Design. But I agree with the sentiment that something such as ID should be brought up in context of preparing students to deal with it one way or the other, because it, or more accurately the motivations and beliefs that inspired it, are out there, very common, and are not going to simply vanish by next Tuesday. If anything, Intelligent Design could be used as a *superb* example of scientific methods are, and are not, applied to something. The very debate over whether ID should be included with the same weight as evolution would be instructive in itself - it's obvious that a lot of adults do not grasp the distinction between the two.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of secular examples that can be used to highlight the scientific method. Bringing intelligent design into the classroom lends it an implicit weight, particularly given the cultural cache around it. Public schools are not an appropriate venue for religious indoctrination, be it pro or con. Schools present factual, if not unbiased, information; students choose to pay attention to those facts, or ignore them on their own.
 
It cannot be understated how much rubbish ID is. The motives behind Intelligent Design are so transparent we (the US public) deserve to be laughed at.
 
It cannot be understated how much rubbish ID is. The motives behind Intelligent Design are so transparent we (the US public) deserve to be laughed at.
Click to expand...

Explain what created the big bang - not just the pop but how it came to exist.

Point is - who gives a turkey? We will never know.
 
Doesn't the evolution theory basically explain why there are so many different kinds of humans? You could easily put the finch theory to it, that due to being split up on different lands, humans evolved to their specific kind of weather and resources? Natural Selection?

I never see this come up in a debate..
 
Phoenix said:
Nope, one day we'll create a time travelling starship and go back to the beginning which will ignite the 'gas' that was supposed to be there at the beginning of time and for a brief moment when they say 'oh shit', we will indeed know the true answer.
Click to expand...

Nope when the universe colapses and explodes again so does time so it is one big infinite loop.


Thats my theory, I just thought if it right now :p
 
Fun fact: 80% of our DNA is identical to that of a banana. Our ancient ancestor?

Some of these guys are pushing 90%.

(having a mom that was an anthropologist has it's advantages)
 
Tabris said:
They really should just break America into two.

These people really are bringing you guys down.
Click to expand...



new_map.jpg
 
I love Canada :)

And no, I really don't think kids need to "prepare" for this idiotic debate in schools. And no, I've never "dealt" with it :lol

Just the thing is, if you believe intelligent design should be discussed in schools, it opens up the gates to a variety of retarded arguments :-\
 
miyuru said:
I love Canada :)

And no, I really don't think kids need to "prepare" for this idiotic debate in schools. And no, I've never "dealt" with it :lol
Click to expand...

It was "dealt with" in my 11th grade Ancient Civilisations course. (and I'm in Canada).
 
Boogie said:
It was "dealt with" in my 11th grade Ancient Civilisations course. (and I'm in Canada).
Click to expand...

History ain't Science class, son. Keep this shit out of science classes, because it is absolutely NOT science. Case closed, let's talk about more pressing matters.
 
Well people post a comic about Christianity enforcing it's beliefs on other people in a thread with a general sentiment that someone else's theory shouldn't be taught, because it's part of their belief system to oppose it.

To be redundant:

"It is my belief there is no superior being or designer so I will not have it taught."
*comic follows that Chrstians are close-minded and enforce beliefs on others*

then

NOBODY SEES IT?

Why do I even have to explain my comment.
 
Considering the only response the comic got by the time you posted was, "That's not funny," it was kind of hard to tell what people you were talking to.
 
etiolate said:
Well people post a comic about Christianity enforcing it's beliefs on other people in a thread with a general sentiment that someone else's theory shouldn't be taught, because it's part of their belief system to oppose it.
Click to expand...
ID is not a theory. It has no place in a Science class because it has been thoroughly discredited.

"It is my belief there is no superior being or designer so I will not have it taught."
Click to expand...
No one is saying that a superior being or designer exists or not. That is completely irrelevant and has no conflict with evolution.

You do realize that every one of those situations in the comic has occurred in real life?
 
The comic was a product of the "Stumble" Firefox extension, and this was the first religious thread I came across so it got put here. Personally though I have no problems with people teaching ID in school. So long as they teach it in a proper class, like Religion 101. You know, like how basic Science would be taught in Biology 101 and not Religion. But these assholes want to put religious overtones in a scientific environment (started with disclaimer stickers), fucking up an already tight syllabus.

Boys in the boy's bathroom, girls in the girl's bathroom is what it boils down to IMO. Why do the more extreme neocons have to make things so difficult?
 
f_elz said:
Bet they didn't know that Darwin didn't want evolution to be a way to disprove religion. :|
Click to expand...

Not that it does in any way, of course. A good chunk of folks merely see evolution as one of the more likely ways in which God might have created human life (the whole "dust of the earth" thing and all...)

Ok, devil's advocate question here...

Why does it matter whether a person believes in evolutionary theory, intelligent design, or any other idea tied to the origins of life on this planet? I'm not arguing which is true, mind you, I'm asking how it makes any difference in nearly any occupation the person might work in.

I know, everyone is going to scream "SCIENTISTS" first... but, again, in which science would you be UNABLE to work via observations and established data from the past 10,000 or so years without having to deal with the potential origins of life? In what field do you have to regularly deal with umpteen million years of data? Seriously? Speculative science, where you are trying to develop theories which tie together data and explain things... I can see why you'd need to know of the general theory of evolution as it ties into man... but, again, WHEN would believing or disbelieving it really matter? You're going to be taking the same data and making the same observations regardless of what you think happened 10,000 to 20 million years ago.

Is there a field in which you have to believe in the evolution of human life to work, other than some really esoteric theoretical academic field? It seems like most work would involve more "modern" observations and studies.

Again, I'm not attacking evolutionary theory -- rather, I'm asking why it's a necessarily "big deal" for someone to believe in it or not.

(Side note: The whole "FRUIT FLIES EVOLVE SUPER FAST -- THAT PROVES EVOLUTION" thing fails to address my point, as it can be observed and is currently occurring. I'm not debating whether or not one has to address evolution experienced before one's own eyes... I'm asking why it matters if someone doesn't believe man evolved over several million/etc. years).
 
DavidDayton said:
Not that it does in any way, of course. A good chunk of folks merely see evolution as one of the more likely ways in which God might have created human life (the whole "dust of the earth" thing and all...)

Ok, devil's advocate question here...

Why does it matter whether a person believes in evolutionary theory, intelligent design, or any other idea tied to the origins of life on this planet? I'm not arguing which is true, mind you, I'm asking how it makes any difference in nearly any occupation the person might work in.

I know, everyone is going to scream "SCIENTISTS" first... but, again, in which science would you be UNABLE to work via observations and established data from the past 10,000 or so years without having to deal with the potential origins of life? In what field do you have to regularly deal with umpteen million years of data? Seriously? Speculative science, where you are trying to develop theories which tie together data and explain things... I can see why you'd need to know of the general theory of evolution as it ties into man... but, again, WHEN would believing or disbelieving it really matter? You're going to be taking the same data and making the same observations regardless of what you think happened 10,000 to 20 million years ago.

Is there a field in which you have to believe in the evolution of human life to work, other than some really esoteric theoretical academic field? It seems like most work would involve more "modern" observations and studies.

Again, I'm not attacking evolutionary theory -- rather, I'm asking why it's a necessarily "big deal" for someone to believe in it or not.

(Side note: The whole "FRUIT FLIES EVOLVE SUPER FAST -- THAT PROVES EVOLUTION" thing fails to address my point, as it can be observed and is currently occurring. I'm not debating whether or not one has to address evolution experienced before one's own eyes... I'm asking why it matters if someone doesn't believe man evolved over several million/etc. years).
Click to expand...

The truth is that "Evolution" and "Biology" are basically one in the same field. To understand why things are as they are in the biological world (from the molecular scale up to why humans can walk) evolution has to be an assumption. Evolution does not simply equate "origin of species", that is simply a consequence of it. If you don't have evolution in the curriculum, you simply cannot teach Biology in any sort of capability.

You can also pose your same question to many other topics. Why learn history then? Do you need to know when the Roman empire collapsed to do any sort of non-academic work? What job requires you to know Shakespeare? School isn't some technical vocational based institution, it is meant to give you a greater sense of modern understanding.
 
This does not have to be such a complicated argument. Ask yourself: Is it the 1920's? No? Good. Let's keep it that way.

I have an old friend from central PA that actually had a teacher who walked out of the classroom for the rest of the year, because the kids were raised to believe in creationism, and creationism only. So when she had them write papers on evolution, she got harassing and threatening phone calls/e-mails from students and parents alike. Keep in mind that the people speaking out against her teachings of evolution represented the majority of her class. Very few either took the side of evolution, or accepted it as something required for the class and did their best to work through it.

When kids turned in their papers, they would either use the assignment to take an opportunity to shun the idea of evolution, or pretend that they had the choice to talk exclusively about creationism. Every time the teacher tried to bring up something associated with evolution, she was always shot down with righteous Christian babble. Ridiculous.

We're moving backwards, folks... it might sound nice to think learning both is the way to do it, but if parents and kids alike are that snobby about it? Evolution in the classroom could be in some trouble if teaching creationism becomes the norm...
 
GhaleonEB said:
Fun fact: 80% of our DNA is identical to that of a banana. Our ancient ancestor?

Some of these guys are pushing 90%.

(having a mom that was an anthropologist has it's advantages)
Click to expand...

The actual percentage is 50%.
 
The whole world is laughing at america for this. It doesnt matter if half the population over there find it supid, your country is getting laughed at.

Hah Hah.
 
milanbaros said:
The whole world is laughing at america for this. It doesnt matter if half the population over there find it supid, your country is getting laughed at.

Hah Hah.
Click to expand...

Yes, the whole world which is majority "religious".
 
milanbaros said:
My mistake, the UK is laughing at america for this. Everyone else is laughin at America because they're fat.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything else to contribute or are you just going to say "LOLOL we're laughing at you!" That's nice. I'm laughing too.
 
DJ Brannon said:
So long as they teach it in a proper class, like Religion 101. You know, like how basic Science would be taught in Biology 101 and not Religion.
Click to expand...

Out of interest, do you have such Religion classes in the US in your schools? I can only talk from personal experience, I had a Religious Education class (in the UK if it matters) where we were basically taught about religions, their beliefs, to respect them etc.

Admittably most of us didnt care and either slept or did homework for other classes (my brother now gets to watch tapes of a Scottish TV show called Still Game in his RE classes for reasons unknown to me) but Religion had its place. It just makes this whole issue seem bizarre to me.
 
Diablos said:
This does not have to be such a complicated argument.
Click to expand...
A-fuckin'-men. It seems like a strategy of ID proponents is to sidetrack the issue as much as they promote it, trying to start discussions on how valid evolution really is, and if evolution is so smart, how did the universe start? Or what's the harm in teaching ID -- shouldn't kids know BOTH SIDES?!

The debate here is whether or not a religious theory should be taught in a science class. The answer is no. QED.
 
Bat said:
The truth is that "Evolution" and "Biology" are basically one in the same field. To understand why things are as they are in the biological world (from the molecular scale up to why humans can walk) evolution has to be an assumption. Evolution does not simply equate "origin of species", that is simply a consequence of it. If you don't have evolution in the curriculum, you simply cannot teach Biology in any sort of capability.

You can also pose your same question to many other topics. Why learn history then? Do you need to know when the Roman empire collapsed to do any sort of non-academic work? What job requires you to know Shakespeare? School isn't some technical vocational based institution, it is meant to give you a greater sense of modern understanding.
Click to expand...

As an English major, I heartily agree that education isn't supposed to be a "trade school" -- but again, permit me to pose the evil questions. I'm just pondering! What, specifically, is essential about teaching evolution as it pertains to the origin of the human species, and why would it be necessary for someone to believe in evolution as the method in which humanity appeared (for lack of a better word, at the moment)?

...and again, playing the devil's advocate... why is prehuman evolution necessary material to be taught/believed? I'm not in any way saying it's false, but I am asking why it is necessarily necessary? For that matter, how is it that you couldn't teach Biology in any real capability without teaching about human evolution? (Again, I'm stressing the -human- evolution aspect here... as, well, that appears to be the major point of contention with the intelligent design folks.)

(Oh, as a side note, is it true that our elementary school students are taught false science because "true science" is deemed too difficult to understand at that age? I thought I remember hearing that somewhere.)
 
I guess I am a pretty religious person, whatever that means. However, I do believe that ID probably doesn't fit in a science class. If they do go over Evolution, they should at least mention that evolution doesn't mean there is no higher intelligent lifeform. It is very possible that both exist, but noone can prove this. Hence, a theory. I definitely agree that religion should be held in appropriate classes.

I do believe that science should be taught in it purist form because we do have careers out there that relies on science to come up with great things to better our lives. But I also believe that Religion should be taught too, because almost all religion at its most basic form teaches us to be good and moral people to help better society. I know that some religions out there seems to create a violent bunch of people, but that is because people with selfish agendas are misleading others. Goes back to getting good teachers to teach this stuff.
 
the only reason I think these people want ID in science class is because they want it presented as fact, or a legitimate alternative to the way the world works.

Seriously, how would science lesson in ID be structure.

"Welcome class, we will do an experiment on ID. Now take out your bibles."

Seriously, it's not testable and there is observable evidence to do any experiments on ID. It's just a statement to explain away something that is so far unexplained. It's not fact and it doesn't belong in a science class.

If you want to talk about ID in school, structure it around a philosophy class so that it can be discussed in a objective and reasoned way.

Read stuff like Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Locke in the class, where they actually discuss God, body and mind, what's knowable and unknowable. Maybe these kids will actually open their minds and learn something.


Unfortunetly, most of the people who are spewing ID never took a Phil class, if they actually did they'd stop holding their bibles so close and actually use a little bit of reasoning.
 
TheJesusFactor said:
If they do go over Evolution, they should at least mention that evolution doesn't mean there is no higher intelligent lifeform. It is very possible that both exist, but noone can prove this.
Click to expand...

Why would this disclaimer be necessary in a science class? Should we also cover any other unprovable statement imaginable?
 
TheJesusFactor, the theory of evolution SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Any moron in a science class can figure it out by reading or hearing the definition of the theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Roblox employee's 'day in the life' video goes viral
2
61
322
Boss Mog replied
Xzbit goes to Russia
26
1K
Dirk Benedict replied
Aya Hirano goes to Russia
14
920
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Keanu Reeves goes through his entire action film career with Scott Adkins
15
428
OmegaSupreme replied
Linus Tech Tips breaks silence after ex-employee’s resignation video goes viral. 'Spoiler linus acts like a donkey'.
News Drama  2 3
101
1K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
Top Bottom