Judge Says No to ID

My intent was not to point to a positive anything. My intent was only to show that NEW INFORMATION can be added because things like mutations and deformities occur.

It is up to a creature's ability to cope with an environment to determine its value.

I now give you: The undeniable fact that proves evolution exists.






































Male Nipples.

That's because you believe "new" means something that has no relation to anything before it. That is also something that doesn't exist.



That's because you don't believe in evolution.

No new information is added with mutations or breeding. Mutations don't add anything to the species, they take away from a currently good function, the mutations don't last either, as they are weeded out through natural selection.

Breeding isn't adding, it's just rearranging current coding. As I said earlier.... As an example, lets say I have the letters A, C and M. And my mate has letters E, G and K. When we combine our letters we make new words neither of us could form alone. However, no new material has been added, the same letters exist as always, just in different order.

I would say it's proof of ID, as the Creator used the same DNA to form both male and female. Evolutionism can't explain the genders at all.

Let's climb the recursive ladder.

If there wasn't genders there wouldn't be any life at all except for maybe some asexual worms. Evolution clearly explains this.

Hey! I thought this thread was about teaching religion in schools, which the Federal Court has clearly ruled to be illegal, and not about someone's personal viewpoint on the fact that evolution is a fact.

Please go start some other thread if you want to debate your religious ideas.

Kevn, based upon what I have seen personally, there are a lot of reasons for a logical person to buy into macroevolution.

For example, evidence resulting in data like this:
http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/evolution/speciation.html




I hope you would see that I, at least, have no personal agenda or anything to gain by 'avoiding god' through macroevolution, or anything of the sort. Deep down, that's really not what motivates me. Honestly. I think it makes sense only by sheer force and depth of the evidence presented.

And yet I do believe there is spirituality; in fact I can show that we all believe in it. Even Chip, even Ulrika. By typing responses to each other, we acknowledge each other's self-awareness, or spirit, exists, regardless of what baloney we type.

Science has miserably failed to explain spirituality - I doubt it ever will. So I don't rule out a god or gods, or even stranger things. Science hasn't even come close to explaining self-awareness.

Yet, even with the vast possibilities of stuff beyond science - the evidence for macroevolution is strong, consistent, and coherent. So strong that even in a world dominated by believers in a god or gods, most people who study plants or animals are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt. By logic and reason, not their professors.

You're doing the same thing Creationists have been doing for a very long time, the deliberate misuse of the word 'Theory'. When ID or Creation science or FSM worship can actually follow a scientific model, and present itself on an equal footing with Evolution, then you have a case.

I'm very tired of people hollering 'Oh, Evolution is just a theory! Therefore anything I theorize is just as likely to be correct!'.

I'd call that consciousness rather than spirituality, but yes, the problem of consciousness (what is it anyway? how does it work? etc) is in many ways the biggest of them all. Science is making some progress into it, but has a long way to go.

I don't get the anti-evolution stance. If you want a creator, its much easier (currently at least) to say that a creator was needed for abiogenesis, or even easier, that a creator was needed for the big bang. Science knows far less about those (they happened longer ago and there is less in the way of hard evidence) than about speciation, and they are harder to argue against.

If you really really want species created by the big beard in the sky, then just say the world is a few thousand years old and there hasn't been time for evolution to happen, although given enough time it would. Explaining what all those fossils in the ground are about is just as hard if the world is a few thousand years old versus if the world is older but evolution doesn't happen.

Come to think of it... what is the ID explanation for fossils?

The ID explantion for fossils is...nothing! They seem to live on some other planet.

Anyway I thought this thread was supposed to be about the illegal teaching of religion in public schools. The school board who took part in this crime are nothing more than common criminals in my opinion. I would be interested to hear from people outside of the US of A on how their governments view all of this.

Let me guess, you are either atheist or agnostic?

Perhaps but that has nothing to do with a school board committing illegal acts.

I beg to differ. The bullies of science, similar to the types of people who try to intimidate on these forums, are waiting for anyone to dare question their dogma of macro-evolution. When someone is brave enough to say the emperor has no clothes on, the snipers come out of the woodwork. Just look at how I'm attacked for supporting the notion students should have all possible theories, and that they should be taught as theories. It's the evolutionists (one who BELIEVES in evolution) who seek to deny students the opportunity to hear both sides of the debate.

It reminds me of the abortionists who refuse to allow women considering abortion the time and information to make an informed decision. They say it's blocking a woman's right to an abortion. But in reality it's letting them see the progress of their child and understand there are alternatives.

Let them know the choices and let them decide. Why do we feel we must tell them what to believe when there is noway to test either theory? Are we afraid they might think for themselves?

Your faith is clear to all by your statements. It's the bias you hate in Christians, only in reverse. But still clearly a major bias.

My feelings towards Christians has nothing to do with a school board breaking the law. Somehow I thought we lived in a Constitutional Republic governed by laws and not by some rabble rousing Christians who seem more concerned with spreading their faith than with civil liberties.

I read the constitution, and in the amendments we see the first amendment which tells congress they may not make any law concerning religion, or create a national religion.

Teaching ID does neither of these things. Although if congress makes a law denying the free expression of ones religion, congress is breaking the constitution.

Which religion is advanced when ID is taught? ID teaches an intelligent force (aliens, people from another time, spiritual beings etc etc could be responsible for creation) and who is the creator isn't even suggested. Is the religion of aliens advanced, or the time-travelers religion advanced?

But lets suppose for the sake of argument, ID is suggesting a God, does ID state which God? Are we advancing Judaism? Christianity? Islam? Or are you suggesting if any religion is even discussed it's breaking the constitution?

Now, as I see it, your bias does have much to do with how you feel about this issue. If you were not an atheist or agnostic I doubt you would care if students learn about ID.

The fact most of the lawsuits forcing any mention of God from the public square are brought by atheists should tell us something about how a tiny minority can demand everyone live as the minority insists, so as not to offend said minority.

Please read the courts ruling in this case and then get back to me.

Oh and by the way you might want to read the constitution while you are at it.

Are you saying a judge (a former lawyer appointed by a politician) is the decider of what is true and correct? If so, will you happily follow Judge Alito's ruling concerning abortion when he's a SC justice?

I read the constitution and I made an argument concerning it, did you read my post? If so, you neglected to respond to it.

All Federal judges are appointed and no, if that Alito guy somehow gets appointed and he gets the Constitution all wrong I will accept it but not be overly happy with his lack of brainpower.

I did read your post on abortion and I did respond but that has nothing to do with a school board breaking the law and getting caught.

It was concerning the constitution, and it had everything to do with the judge (ex-lawyer appointed by a politician) misreading the constitution.

There are people who believe that the earth is flat. If students should have all possible theories about the origin of species, then surely they should have all possible theories on the shape of our planet. I don't think anyone claims that the earth is a cube, or a triangular prism, but those are other alternative theories. Surely we should let the students hear all sides of the debate... right?

No, we don't teach that the earth might be flat, because there is overwhelming evidence that it is round. Similarly, we have overwhelming evidence that evolution is whats going on, and none that ID is. The only reason we're discussing this is that some people seem to think that evolution is an affront to their big beard in the sky.

Maybe we don't teach the Earth is flat because we can prove it's not flat, ya think?

There are no proofs in science. There is only evidence of varying levels.

I won't claim that the evidence for evolution is as strong as the evidence for the non-flatness of the Earth, but neither are proven.

I will claim that the evidence for ID, and the evidence for the flat Earth theory are so pitifully weak in comparison with their opposition that they should not be taught in a science class.

We can see the Earth isn't flat by looking with our own eyes.

We have two competing theories for how life appeared.

One is Abiogenesis (the belief life originated from non-life) even though science teaches as fact biogenesis, which is the fact all life comes from existing life.


The second is life was created by some type of intelligent being. The evidence for the theory also can't be tested. But we can make observations and predictions. Exactly as we do with other untestable theories, such as the theory of macro-evolution.