Vatican: Intelligent design is not science

So children of Christians get there religion taught in school in science (ID) and the other religions, or if atheist none of?
Why not offer religious studies in schools (wich most schools have...)
The question is, should ID be taught in science, biologie to be precise, and that is nothing than creatonism in disguise wich is run by christian fundis.

Problem is, ID followers claim evolution is a form of "faith" and tell children so, its "only a theorie", and they try to suggest its something you either believe in or not, but science is per definition the absence of faith and only acknowleding somehting as at least possible if you find no way to prove a theorem false and THEN it becomes a valid theorie, after the scientific community as a whole can agree that theres no hole in it.

When Einstein came up with his ideas light and radiovawes used some fomr of ether noone could explain through vacuum, if that would have been a question of faith it would still be valid by the majority of scientists most likely, but Einstein offered the better way to explain things so the idea got abandomed.

The theorie of Evolution is a little bit longer arround and still the best way to explain all the evidence, fossil record and living, observable processes, so we can say it had a very long time of testing and research to go through.

ID on the other hand wasnt even up to peer review yet but theres the demand to teach it in schools in science???

I think the point is all here. According to the concept of what God is (at least the concept that Christians are supposed to have; i don't know enough of other religions), He is not there to explain anything.

If so, we might be still thinking that Earth is in the middle of the Universe...

That would also be evidence for magic, or extraterrestrials, or super intelligent rocks if you posit that life started because of any of those reasons. Life being stunningly complicated is evidence only of life being stunningly complicated.



Millions of people believe in the power of crystals, astrology, ghosts, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, ESP, reincarnation, that Elvis is still alive, and on and on and on. Millions of people holding irrational beliefs that aren't based on evidence is evidence only of the willingness of people to believe in irrational things.

Piffle. That's like saying that the fact that the speed of light is constant regardless of the direction in which it is measured is only evidence of the speed of light being constant regardless of the direction in which it is measured.

I read it..... Let's pick it apart, shall we?

"According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendants are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree. "

So, according to the theory of common descent, you suggest we can verify macroevolution?

Let's see the logic, if all life is alike because all life has these characteristics... (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendants are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism) we must assume all life descended from earlier life, correct?

ID says if all life has these characteristics, it shows all life has a common creator, who used the same DNA and detailed plans of functionality, such as common design for extremities etc, to create all life. Both theories fit the record, which means ever bit of of the fossil record SUPPORTS Intelligent Design and therefore IS EVIDENCE FOR ID.. ID has more facts, fossil records etc, to back it than macroevolution.

The problem is macroevolution is allowed to make these fables up, myths actually, as there is no way to confirm the stories made up by men. Both theories of Origin, ID and macroevolution require fables to fill in the gaps. Some people prefer to avoid any mention of a creator, and would prefer a humanist approach. But we know humanism is a religion and shouldn't be allow in school. Separation of church and state you know.

Yes, exactly. If I were to posit that this is so because the speed of light is determined by the pan-dimensional nature of faerie dust then according to your line of reasoning the nature of the speed of light is evidence of faerie dust.

Oh please, everyone knows the speed of light is governed by the light police. I saw a sun ray pulled over the other day for breaking the limit.

I almost forgot, here is a website that answers the website you posted, line by line. Please, read it to get a better understanding of the flaws in the site you posted.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp#pred1

Please state why your site is more accurate than the other site.

The same reason people like the site they post, and suggest it is THE authority. We all think we are right, right?

But really, it's much more logical

That was indeed the original point of that link - to refute your repeated claim that "macro"evolution cannot be tested. As you don't seem to argue this point in the rest of your post, I can only assume that you agree that macroevolution can indeed be tested, and you retract your previous assertions. Correct?

Ah, instead you go on to say how ID also "explains" these observations. The difference is that ID makes no falsifiable predictions whatsoever. We could discover a new species of 7 legged sentient giraffes living at the bottom of the Pacific, and this would also be "explained" by ID. If deep sea aquatic giraffes (i.e., in terms of DNA such that they were clearly recently descended from giraffes) were really to be found, the theory of evolution would be serious trouble, but ID would have no trouble at all.

It is akin to saying that the planets move around the sun because they are being pushed by ancient Greek gods. If the planets were to suddenly reverse direction and start going back the other way, our best theories of gravity would have been refuted... but the ancient Greek gods theory is still trucking on strong. Do you see the analogy? If a statement is not falsifiable then it isn't part of science. Yes, this includes string theory. String theory is better classed as mathematics at the moment.

Macroevolution isn't falsifiable, so it 'ain't' science according to you. You look at the current data and say "hmm, every life form has similar characteristics, they must have evolved from lower life forms with the same characteristics." That isn't evidence for macroevolution any more than it's evidence for a common creator. Please, explain how macroevolution could be falsified. What evidence would falsify it?

Also, read the website I posted just now.

I gave you, in the very post you just quoted, a sequence of events which would falsify macroevolution (the deep sea giraffe). The website I linked to, it seems like months ago, which you now claim to have read, gives other experiments which could cause trouble for evolutionary theory (examining the DNA history for instance). If we found a single species alive today which had totally different DNA from anything else, this would refute the theory of common descent. There is no such species.

You seem to have missed a couple of my posts since you last deigned to reply to me. Had you replied to those then I wouldn't have to repeat myself again, for you to ignore me again, no doubt. Go on, prove me wrong.

The website you linked to, what do you want? A commentary on it? If I post about it, will you have taken the trouble to understand the issues, or will I be posting to a vacuum again? I am disinclined to spend the time to read through it if you are still unwilling to debate.

Oh, so you've reduced the pursuit of understanding to a matter of opinion then? It surprises me not that you can swim in the sea of knowledge and not even become moistened.

Yes, I have indeed read your "much more logical" site, which is indeed "much more logical" for sufficiently negative values of "more".

The difference that no one can bash into your head despite your zealous advocacy is that if this were a mere matter of opinion, no one could reasonably disagree with you. Unfortunately for you, it isn't a matter of opinion and wishing doesn't make it so.

Fret not, you aren't the first I've encountered who has voluntarily intellectually hamstrung himself. Most of those I have met have been able to bathe, clothe, feed themselves, and even find gainful employ. Some have even managed to become lobbyists. You are in august company.

If we found the deep sea giraffe with seven legs, evolutionists would hold it up as proof of mutational change, and claim it as evidence for evolution.

Look, we already know the genetic family tree of the giraffe is limited. We have no fossil record that would show where the giraffe came from unless you accept the fables that rap it into a deer family. Check this out....

"Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe."

Now, use these names to find pictures of the skeletons, not recreated artistic sketches. Compare these "so-called" links. Then notice only the Pliocene, the modern giraffe has a long-necked. Do you see the smoke and mirrors yet?

If I don't respond to your data, I didn't find it compelling, which means I don't think it's worth debating. Or... we have discussed it in past threads and I feel it's played out from my prospective. If you think it makes your point, and I don't respond, you can assume you win the point. But don't get frustrated that I ignore a point.

I'm sorry, you bring nothing to the debate. Your ego is clearly an issue, and I'm not sure you know it. I read your posts for anything other than snide, rude comments, and here is what I have found:




This is the last time I will address you.

Well, if you think that's how scientists and science work, I'm not surprised you don't think much of it. God can, of course, make giraffes with 7 legs that live at the bottom of the sea. The process of evolution on the other hand cannot magic into existence organisms from nothing, and any proponent of evolution would agree with me.

Giraffes: yes, the fossil record is always incomplete. When they find a fossil of something in the gap you're complaining about, will you now ask for two more intermediates, to fill the two new gaps?


This is not how debate works. I reiterate my claim that you're just pontificating. In particular, it does no good if you ignore a point that refutes a claim of yours, then you repeat it again a day or two later. If you did indeed concede the point, then you should not be restating claims that you have conceded, assuming that you are attempting to debate honestly. If, on the other hand, you don't find an argument compelling, then you owe it to your audience to take the time to post a counterargument.

I have been paying very close attention to these threads. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the methods for testing macroevolution have never been discussed by the ID side. We have almost touched on it today.

Did you take into account the number of cervical vertebrae in the giraffe, not to mention the other shared traits with artiodactyls? If "long neck" is all you're looking for, then you're ignoring the big picture, and it is easy to see where your confusion on evolution is coming from.

Also did you take into account the environmental conditions that potential ancestors of the giraffe had to live in? I doubt it, I think you're simply looking for another animal that "has a long neck".

I'm surprised you didn't try to lump them in gerenuks (Litocranius walleri), as they too evolved long necks for foraging trees, however they are not in direct relation to the giraffe.

I find it hard to believe in ID because #1. God obviously isn't very creative. #2. All the things working together to make a creature, such as the giraffe, seems a little more like -tinkering- with what might work, as opposed to building something outright. In this sense, ID compliments Evolution, as God would have had to experiment to see what better worked with the animal.

I think the giraffe is a great example of evolution in action, if someone is willing to get all the facts and approach it logically.

You point to a link or a theory that supports you statements. As do I. But in the end, the fact is, new species appear suddenly, virtually overnight. Fins turn into legs suddenly, without a trail of intermediate forms. There is no gradual evolution of feathers. You either have feathers or you don't. Eyes show up from nowhere.

"To originate a new species by mutations would require a huge number of coordinated changes all at once. A fish that suddenly develops lungs, for example, had better develop legs at the same time or it will simply drown. A giraffe that develops a long neck must at the same time develop a specialized heart to pump blood up its long neck."


That is why the theory has been changing to fit the new fact, the missing links are not going to be found.

The newer theories suggest sudden bursts of evolution.

Now, as you may know, 90% of the responses I get are from that one website claiming to show examples of macroevolution, and falsifiable testing. So when I see or hear that same old, old, very old repeat, my eyes glaze over and I mumbles some strange words about how I deserve this...

I would like to touch on this as well. God could easily make 7 legged giraffes if he so choose, but if one would note, mammals have about a 10% DNA difference between them all. This stands to reason that they're all so similar that they must have had a common base. Now if God creates animals like I create avatars, this would make sense (as I use the same base for many of them) but if God has all this power to make whatever he wanted, why make everything almost identical.?

But going back to the fossil record, Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Just because we haven't found something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What it means is, we strive to solve the puzzle, we continue on, and move forward. ID does not move forward, it throws in an explaination in place of the gaps, and essentially halts all forward movement. I'm not talking about general creationism, I'm talking about the stance of ID being a "science".

Science itself is about learning, and discovery. We cannot move forward if we are roadblocked. ID provides "an end result" but is not the correct end result. Evolution on the other hand relies on scrutiny, observation, logic, and facts to continue down the road. ID simply states "God made it", well end of story, right?

Sure, if you don't care to educate thyself.

You point to a link or a theory that supports you statements. As do I. But in the end, the fact is, new species appear suddenly, virtually overnight. Fins turn into legs suddenly, without a trail of intermediate forms. There is no gradual evolution of feathers. You either have feathers or you don't. Eyes show up from nowhere.

"To originate a new species by mutations would require a huge number of coordinated changes all at once. A fish that suddenly develops lungs, for example, had better develop legs at the same time or it will simply drown. A giraffe that develops a long neck must at the same time develop a specialized heart to pump blood up its long neck."


That is why the theory has been changing to fit the new fact, the missing links are not going to be found.

The newer theories suggest sudden bursts of evolution.

Now, as you may know, 90% of the responses I get are from that one website claiming to show examples of macroevolution, and falsifiable testing. So when I see or hear that same old, old, very old repeat, my eyes glaze over and I mumbles some strange words about how I deserve this...

It is god's will that you be tested in this manner, for verily it requireth patience beyond Job's to be surrounded by sodomites and heathens who do not see the Truth and for thee to perservere in your faith when all the world would corrupt your precious... bodily... fluids.

Please prove this with irrefutable evidence. Because frankly, that goes against everything I've learned about biology and evolution.

In addition, eyes don't show up from 'no where', they started out as being typical sensory organs, very simplistic. Examples of these can be seen today in mollusks. They can detect mostly light and dark, potentially some movement. Eyes in other entities evolved into what was necessary for their survival.

I think eyes were probably the worst thing for you to choose, considering. But let's take a look. Birds evolved eyes that have extremely sharp vision to locate their food source from above. Foxes and cats have evolved eyes (note that foxes are canidae, and the only canids to have this trait) that are vertical slits that give them the advantage on controlling, almost precisely, the focus of their vision, it's quite amazing actually.

Artiodacyls on the other hand, have evolved eyes that can see almost 350degrees around itself, in search of predators.

Diurnal and nocturnal species have evolved eyes for their lifestyles as well, wolves and lions for example.

And in addition to having these evolved eyes, their brain must be able to process this information adequately for them to use. That too require systemic evolution.

Fins didn't /suddenly/ turn into legs, they grew stronger and in such a way that some fish, who incedentally survived because they could skip ponds, mind you, could walk. Mudskippers today have this ability. (With also evolved structures to help them survive leaving the water).

There was indeed a gradual evolution of feathers, which is obvious from fossil records as well. Birds also retain scales on their feet, much like their ancestors. Many scientists believe that feathers originally were developed for warmth, or retaining heat, but may have developed into the stronger flight feathers we know today.

So no, these things didn't pop out of no where. And there are facts to back this up. Where are your facts? I'd be very interested in reading about it.