This may be a be of a hot potato, so just remember everyone, keep it civil and polite

So what are your thoughts on the current controversy surrounding the decision to teach intelligent design alongside science in schools? Is it a good thing, bad thing? It's not so much of an issue in Britain, but as far as I know, they've made Religious Instruction a compulsory subject alongside the sciences - what are your feelings on that?

Remember, this isn't a religious debate - this is a 'what's best for the youth of tomorrow' debate...no need for anyone to get defensive

I think it's pretty ridiculous that teaching intelligent design in American schools (I can't really speak for other countries) is such a hot button issue. With all the holes and circular logic involved in the theory of evolution I don't see why another theory can't be taught, and why scientists are so adimitt about it. I think the thing that erks me the most is how in the recent court trial deciding whether or not it could be taught in a certain state, the judge decided against it being taught; not because he felt that it wasn't a valid theory or on the same plane are evolution, but simply because of it's religous roots. So now I guess even if something is, or could be, true it can't be taught in schools if it has a religous undertone.

I think what topics are and aren't taught in school should be decided on their own merritts, not on their affiliation with religion.

In Britain, the percentage of people who believe in God or even recognise god is so slight, that it will be completely ignored on the whole as an issue. Britain has just about the lowest church attendance and faith of any country in the world, and very few people would recognise this conflict. I go to school next to Canterbury Cathedral the seat of the Church of England, and that is the most religious place in the country. When warner brothers asked to film Harry Potter there, the dean declined saying Harry Potter was against god. So for that reason evolution is not studied at my school, but this is the one place it is. The are little or no fundamentalists left in Britain to oppose the introduction of Darwins theory, so all in all we can start teaching it and no one will notice. However i am not a scientist, but i'm also not religious, and do not believe in religion, but i do believe in God. So i suppose there is a certain conflict of interests, and for me i'd rather learn about our spiritual birth than an evolutionary one, but that is my opinion and 99% of the country would rather it the other way round, so its lucky i'm going to the only school which likes it my way round! I do not think that theres a lot of noise to be made on the subject here in Britain, however i can see it been tackled as a fundamental problem in other more faithful societies.

You'll have to forgive me if I dip in and out of this discussion, but it's quite involved and I may not always have time to post, but I will read the replies, I promise

I'm very interested in what the critics of the theory of evolution have to say because I've heard about the holes in it quite often and the theory, overall, is taking quite a bashing from the States lately. I say the States because it's being reported over here as being a major issue there, I don't know if it is elsewhere. Obviously it's not here in Britain because they don't teach it so places like this forum are the only way that people like myself can find out what the real opinions about it are.

Nimbus - these holes...what are they? Why are they being so criticised and what alternative explanations does the theory of intelligent design have to offer instead?

On your last point, I completely agree.

EDIT : Nick posted while I was writing A fellow Brit is always nice to see Yes, you're right - religion in general is a far bigger issue, or at least it seems to be, in other countries than it is here anymore. Perhaps that's why creationism and intelligent design is largely ignored. I am a scientist, but I'm not at all religious, just for the record I don't think it's really important what I believe in, or what anyone else believes in for that matter. Whatever your belief system, if this is a theory that is to be taught to everyone in schools, regardless of beliefs, then it's something that is going to affect everyone and I think it's a very good idea to understand it a little more.

I simply don't support the intelligent design being taught in schools because that doesn't go with our laws and amendments of separation between Church and State. Not everyone believes in God, so you can't teach God's creations and such to everyone.

You have to think of it from the non-believing side as well. What if someone decided they were going to come in and teach you things that went against God? Would you want them taught to you? We have to be fair and equal to everyone. Plus, if you truly believe in God, then you wouldn't have to have someone remind you of what he's done in a class every day. You would have it in your heart. (kind of like the 10 Commandments being posted in public places. You don't need them posted as long as you have them in your heart. )

I'm kind of split on whether I believe in Darwin or intelligent design. I see it Darwin's way because we have some proof of evolution. It is the logical way to go that has some evidence. But I have to question evolution in the fact that, How could all of this be created in just 4.5 billion years? I know it seems like a long time, but I think it would take a super long time for something like a human to go from a single cell to a bajillion celled thing over 4.5 billion years. Plus, I can't seem to believe that all of us started from a one celled organism from the water.

What I think happened is maybe God made a bunch of animals and things, then over time, he let nature do it's thing as it was supposed to, and it evolved into how we know it. That's why we are so advanced in just 4.5 billion years. We started as a very rough draft, then we evolved into this.

That's all I have to say about that.

Ha alright, this is probably going to be a pretty long post because everyone of the "holes" requires that I give a bit of back ground info so you understand why it's a hole. I do A LOT of reseach on I.E v. Evolution and have written a couple papers on it so I bit of my post is going to be verbatim from my papers so I might have a lot to say, But ill try to keep it as short as I can

1). Ok, so life had to start somewhere. How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter ... [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it." Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life.This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws which govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.
Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature which forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontaneous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work - in other words, an intelligent designer. How do they get around this dilemma?

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as honestly as an evolutionist can: "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August, 1954. In other words, rather than acknowledge a designer the evolutionist will knowingly accept a concept he knows is impossible to have occurred in order to validate evolution. Louis, as a scientist ( I think I remember you saying something about the fact that you worked in forensic science one time) I think you can appreciate how this goes against one of the 4 assumptions of science: Empiricism. For those of you who don't know, empiricism pretty much means that scientific knowledge must be from directly observable and measured evidence. Since spontaneous generation is not, it goes against what would be considered science. Infact, since it has been proven that S.G can't occur, it would be more logical to say that Intelligent design is more probable than S.G.

2). What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any manmade thing on earth The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955:

"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."

A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:

"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years." The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23.

The fact that scientists would accept something so outrageous when you consider that scientists are suppose to be broad-minded and tolerant. Evolutionary scientists, however, seem to be very bias in trying to suppress opposing points of view. They have repeated their assumptions for so long in support of their theories that they have started accepting them as facts. No one objects to their assuming whatever they want to assume, but to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it science is being dishonest.

3). Ok, so far I think I have touched on the holes which point to the fact that there can be no evolution because life couldn't have started without a designer in the first place. But let's pretend like there aren't any discrepancies in the starting of life (we can, scientists do it all the time), and that life could actually just spring up. Or better yet, that life was in fact created but then left to involved. In other words, let's look at the actual logistics of an organism evolving.

One of the most necessary parts of evolution, which is supposed to provide the power for changing the amoeba into a man, is mutation. This refers to abnormal changes in the organism which are assumed to be caused by chemical changes in the genes themselves. Through gradual changes in the various species through mutation, it is assumed by the evolutionists that the amoeba turned into an invertebrate, which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, the species are not fixed in the eyes of the evolutionists. Families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses. This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundaries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else - with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men. Oddly enough, or perhaps no, instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. let's look at the vehicle which the evolutionists have depended upon to provide the possibility of the drastic changes required by their theory. Sir Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution, said this:

"Mutation provides the raw material of evolution." Again he said, "Mutation is the ultimate sources of all...heritable variation." Evolution in Action, p. 38.

Please keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species which changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT - the scientific fact is that mutation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several reasons. As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand, is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead toward extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism worse instead of better. Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism." Ibid. p. 39.

Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism. Professor G. G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simultaneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation every day! He concludes by saying:

"Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96.

Does this sound sort of confusing to you! They say mutation is necessary to make the changes required by their theory, yet they have to confess that it is scientifically impossible for multiple mutations to make the changes.

evolutionists expected the fossil record to support their theory of species changes. Their doctrine demanded vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming their scales into feathers and their front feet into wings. Other reptiles supposedly should be changing into fur-bearing quadrupeds. Did they find those thousands of multi-changing creatures? Not one! No matter what particular strata they sifted through. If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions of transition forms with combination features of two or more species. Not only so, but there would have to be millions upon millions of observable living links right now in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin confessed:

"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record." Life and Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25.

The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.

Darwin confessed in his book, Origin of the Species:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer...the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." p. 309. Many modern scientists have shared the same dissapointment, as the "problem" has still not been solved.

The absence of Precambrian fossils points to one great fact, unacceptable to the evolutionists - a sudden creative act of a designer which brought all the major creatures into existence at the same time. Their claims that creationism is unscientific are made only to camouflage their own lack of true evidence. The preponderance of physical scientific data is on the side of creation, not evolution.

4). "Natural selection" is a coined phrase of the evolutionist to describe the survival of the fittest. Simply stated, it is the natural process which enables the strongest of each generation to survive and the weaker, more poorly adjusted ones, to die out. The assumption of evolution is that since only the strongest survive to father the next generation, the species will gradually improve, even advancing into other more highly developed states on the evolutionary scale. Darwin believed that natural selection was the most important factor in the development of his theory. Many of the top teachers of evolution today do not believe this to be the case, but many do. In other words, evolutionists are split over whether or not N.S. plays a role in evolution.

Sir Julian Huxley believes in it, as this statement indicates:
"So far as we know...natural selection...is the only effective agency of evolution." Evolution in Action, p. 36.

He is disputed on this by another one of the heavyweights in the field, Dr. Ernst Mayr:
"Natural selection is no longer regarded as an all-or-none process but rather as a purely statistical concept." Animal Species, p. 7.

These opposite views are rejected by G. G. Simpson, who is regarded as the leading interpreter of the theory today. He said,
"Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause." The Geography of Evolution, p. 17.

What is the evidence that it can actually reproduce all the changes involved in the transition from amoeba to man? Is there scientific proof that it can even make one small change? When it comes right down to answering those questions, the spokesmen for evolution do some of the fanciest footwork in semantics you ever saw and make some of the most amazing admissions. Even though Simpson supports natural selection as a factor, he recognizes the scarcity of evidence in these words:
"It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation." Major Features, pp. 118, 119.

But listen to Huxley's circular reasoning on it. He says:
"On the basis of our present knowledge natural selection is bound to produce genetic adaptations: and genetic adaptations are thus presumptive evidence for the efficiency of natural selection." Evolution in Action, p. 48.

Did you follow that gem of logic? His proof for natural selection is adaptation or change in the organism, but the change is produced by natural selection! In other words: A=B; therefore B=A. His "proof" proves nothing. Were the changes produced by natural selection, or did he invent natural selection to explain the changes? It is just as likely that the changes produced the natural selection theory. The ludicrous thing is that even the changes from species to species have never been verified. As shown already, there is not one shred of fossil evidence or living evidence that any species has changed into another. So Huxley's proof for natural selection are changes which never happened, and the changes which never happened are offered as proof for natural selection. Surely this is the most vacuous logic to be found in a science textbook.

But let us continue with Sir Julian's explanation about the reliability of this natural selection process:
"To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way." Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55.

Don't miss the force of that last sentence. The evolutionary changes by natural selection are "astronomically improbable," but because Huxley sees no other way for it to be done, he believes in the astronomically improbable. To illustrate the omnipotence of his "natural selection" god, Huxley computed the odds against such a process. The computations were done on the likelihood of every favorable evolutionary factor being able to produce a horse. Now keep in mind that this is all a chance development through the operation of nature, time, mutation, and natural selection. In his book Evolution in Action, Huxley gave the odds this way:
"The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print!...No one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." p. 46. And keep in mind, that was just the probability of a horse...how much more would it be for a man?

I dare anyone to walk into a room of scientists and declare that they believe in creationism or intelligent design and I'm sure you will be laughed at. Yet a scientist can declare evolution (which has been proven scientifically impossible) as fact and we are all suppose to shut up and listen? Futhermore, they can demand that it be taught in schools and we are not allowed to learn anything to the contrary? Sounds really fair to me...

I think that each should be taught, or not at all. People will believe what they choose, but narrowing it down doesn't give someone a choice. Of course, just because one thing is taught in school, doesn't mean other things outside of school can't be taught.

I'm a believer in evolution, but I think it all started somewhere, similar to what JTD said. But I think it goes farther back than that. I think God created elements, chemicals, etc. and let everything go at it and mesh together. How did humans form? Eventually primates came along, after millions upon millions of years. I think the species was called gigantopithecus (what some scientists believe bigfoot is)...well, I think our ancestors (the cro-magnon) split, and lived alongside the other species that split (neandrethal). The cro-magnon and neandrethal were in competition, and they outlived the neandrethal...which gave way for the next step...us...but it stemmed from somewhere, which is where the first part I talked about comes in...but its hard to grasp an understanding because if there wasn't a universe, where was God? What made God?

I went to a Christian Brother's School for a few years, and I was taught intelligent design. Before that I went to a public school. At the public school, the teacher said that he didn't really care about anyone's beliefs, this is what was going to be taught (evolution). Is it because evolution is science-related...and since science is taught in school, it is also taught? At the Christian school, we had a religion class and a science class...they taught all three without stressing any of them because they didn't want to force us to believe in one particular thing. I'm not sure how this would work in public school, since theres that little thing called separation of religion and state.

I'm an anthiest, so therefore, i don't believe in god, and therefore don't believe in the Creation Theory, i Believe in Evolution.

That said, I agree with Chris, that both should be taught in school. Just because it's taught to you doesn't mean that you have to believe it. I was raised in an athesit family and i had to learn Religious Education at school, however I still don't believe in it. I find religion, all religions, a fasinating subject and i took RE even though i no longer had to study it. I believe that it's important for everyone to know about other peoples religion and beliefs and respect them, even if you don't believe them.

As some schools don't teach evolution and, some people refuse to learn it, can get you in some problems in later life [EDIT: If you want to go into science fields]. I met once a biology lecturer who taught in Ireland, and he said that lot's of students wanting to study biology didn't know about evolution. He said, that although the course could be done without knowing evolution it did make life in the 'real sceitific world' that little bit harder.

So therefore shouldn't it be taught it schools in order to help people in the real world if people want to study science? But can't the creation theory be taught along side it? Why does it have to be one or the other?

I completly agree with you JTD. I find it very logical for the creation of earth to have happened after the big boom. With the collection of astroids and other materials, it is very likely that 9+ planets were formed. Now over the years the earth started to cool down and after a few billion years, it was suitable for a few life-forms to survive. Over time, I think these simple celled organisims evolved into bigger and more complexed organisms.

Now when the Earth was suitable for human life, I think that God created human life and then let it evolve into what it has become. There are many therories that are outragous like we are aliens from another plant that settled here a few million years ago. Those I think give Darwin's therory a bad name.

As far as it being taught in school, I think people take it way to serious. Well in America they do. I am an avid church goer and I am open to hear what anyone has to say about creation and evolution, but that isn't going to change my mind on what I think about it. I just think people take it way too seriously. I know its their religion and such but its what you believe in is what should matter, not what others believe in.

Yes, theres many wierd theories on our existence here on Earth. Like the one about us being aliens that Secret mentioned. Another is that when Neandrethal's were around, aliens came down and messed with our DNA making a mix between them and us. Essentially mixing the hunter with the more civilized being.

Another way that life could have started here is a series of intense collisions on Earth. Some scientists theorize that the moon was formed by another planet crashing into Earth...and it had life on it and it either mixed with ones already living here or left the ones on that colliding planet. Now, they might have immediatly died because I'm sure the gravitational pull and everything else would have been a bit hay wire, along with the rotation increasing, etc. How does that help? It may have provided organic matter which provided for cells to form. Then at some point a comet hit as well...not sure if it was before or after life...which provided a lot of water which led to life as well.

Now, if any of that is true...was it all by chance? The sun struck a cell in a particular way, to a certain degree angle, that allowed the hemoglobin to be formed...essential to mammals (can someone back me up on this who knows more?). I remember one of my religion teachers saying, after reading an article about this, that it was a 1 in 10000000000000000000000th chance or some crazy number like that, that the hemoglobin was formed. What if the Earth was a hair's length closer? Would it have still happened?

---Just only if I took notes and really payed attention in that class...

my ideas on the topic are totally split.

firstly, the idea of creationism being taught in school is not right. I agree with Just the Droobles on the part that if you looked at it from a non religious perspective, it wouldn`t be their cup of tea.

on the other hand, the idea of schools already having taught the ideas of evolution would be okay.. because you`re learning it in a science based class.

basically, all these theories, are nothing short of just a theory, (if that made sense). It`s okay for the ideas to be mentioned as what some people believe to build upon the students knowledge and ideas.. but not to be taught as a "this is how we all started" kind of thing.

so in the end, everything would be easier if left in place.
1) godly ideas left to be learned to those who believe, in church.
2) Evolution ideas to be shared with every student to gain a basis upon the scientifical thories.

p.s. I also believe in aliens. Perhaps everyone's views have been altered by the media, and heaven's knows, E.T., but i believe that earth is not the only planet on which beings can exist. If any, the least of it would be small, single-celled organisms.

Nimbus, that was very interesting read, thank you.

I don't agree with almost any of it, but that is besides the point, because you see, science doesn't require you to BELIEVE.

True Science, does not admit to knowing the truth. Real scientists make up a theory that fits the known (and testable) facts, then try and disprove it. Until it is disproven, it is accepted as the most likely 'reason'. Again and again the 'laws' are abandoned when a theory that fits the facts more accurately is made.

I too believe in aliens, but I think its almost rare that they trave to Earth...and if they have...then I guess they're doing okay or else we'd already be certain that we aren't alone...right? One theory has it that we're in a "universal reserve", where no one else is aloud to intrude or hunt because we're still far behind advanced civilizations. But who knows...perhaps that can be another topic...

I can see your argument Phoenix, and thats the way it will probably be, which I think is its current state as well (at least in the US)...unless you're in a private school.

While evolution is science, it is also just as much a belief as well. Evolution is something tangible. When the environment changes around a species, that species responds and evolves. People can see it in action, but I don't think anyone has seen it on a huge scale like one thing becoming something else entirely (almost)...like Neandrethals and cro-magnon. What has been seen, or at least seen in more quantities, is when the environment changes things go extinct or start to go extinct...or are out competed by other animals (Survival of the fittest).

So maybe if scientists can see it, it must be something real (to them), so therefore it must be passed down to all...like math (unfortunatley). However, we don't see history, what we do see is what was left behind and written records. Is it safe to say we have faith in history as well? I'll stop there for now...

Bajab said it beautifully! The business of science is to disprove, not to prove.
As a person who majored in biology during college, I just want to say this: the theory of evolution is at the core of all the sciences. Just to give an example a brief example, without a working understanding of the theory of evolution, we would not be able to fight disease, for we would have no medications. Medicine is forever changing upon the discoveries of mutated viruses and other pathogenic organisms.
While I think the Creation theory is beautiful and the theory of I.D. is a "compromise" of some sort, I don't feel that they hold in a scientific setting to disprove and teach fact.

Now there is proof that animals and organisms have evolved over long peroids of time. There are fossil evidence that today's common lizard was once a form of snake that grew legs over thousands and thousands of years. Now for humans to partake in this cycle, it has taken longer than animals did.

For example, humans migrating from one place to another is adapting to its surroundings. The migraters that moved south adapted to the warmer temptures and the weather there. The also had to adapt to the different food sources such as farming. The ones that stayed north, they adapted to the cold and harsh weather and their food sources like hunting and fishing. This proves that humans evolve over time and can adapt to their surroundings.

Now I believe that God created the humans and let them grow and develop over time. That is how human life came to what it is today. That is what I believe any way.

Ahh, that...

There indeed have been fossils found that prove snakes lived in water, but wait...there are still snakes that live in water today! The fossils don't really prove anything other than the fact that snakes living in water is nothing new. There are also fossils of snakes and lizards on land. Interestingly enough, or perhaps not, the fossils found on land are no less older than those found in water. And most importantly, there is no indication of any transitional species of snake turning to lizard (another point I touched on in my second post) and these two findings are one of the short-commings of the theory of evolution that have baffled scientist. Oddly enough, this doesn't stop them from declaring authoritatively that lizards evolved from snakes or some common "ancestor".

So they made an assumption. They saw snakes in water and they saw snakes and lizards on land and they said "well lizards came from snapes"- an assumption which all observational data says is wrong.

Secret, I didn't mean a burst from the sun...I meant struck as in a ray (sunshine) Sorry for the confusion.

What I meant by the history thing, that Phoenix pointed out, was that we are taught one thing but not the whole thing. We only see one side or part of the whole deal, but yea...its off topic


As for animals...I think there has been proof of them evolving (if thats what the argument is). Mammoths had to evolve to combat the cold environment forced upon them by the ice age, they then evolved to the present day elephant...I guess thats one example...

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are two different aspects of the whole Evolution theory. Macro-evolution would be inter-species evolving (one species evolving into another species), and micro-evolution being intra-species (one species evolving within itself to deal with climate and environmental shifts). I think the woolly mammoth would fit into the micro-evolution category.

As far as dinosaurs being mentioned in the Bible-please remember that these terms did not exsist when the Bible was written (the termed was coined in the 1800s), so the language used when written would not specifically say dinosaur (regardless of whether you agree with the Bible or not, we do know that it includes ancient texts), but if you want to look it up, here are a few references:

Job 40:15-24
Job chapter 41
Psalm 104:25,26
Isaiah 27:1

These are a few references, but there are also many references to "dragons" in the Old Testament, and many believe that the term dragon was used for dinosaurs.

Thanks Passerby, I didn't realize that dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible (and I also forgot that the term wasn't brought up till the 1800's).

I would like to apalogize, I shouldn't have said that there has been proof of them evolving. You're right Nimbus, no one has actually seen it happening, they come across a species that looks like a similar one and might refer to that as evolution. Such as Darwin and his finches, weren't they different sizes and had different sized beaks as well?

Are you sure, however, that mammoths and elephants isn't proof of evolution? Scientists have found fossil remains from different eras showing how the jaw bones got larger or smaller/higher, and the teeth enamel thinned due to changes in diet. It was a process of hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions of years. Those were responses to the change in environments, which took that long...taking a group of elephants today and dropping them off in the arctic would just kill them.

Oh dear, now see...here I go again....

Okay...I'm going to apologise in advance if this offends anyone because that is completely not my intention, it's simply my opinion and one that's taken a long time in forming.

I think that for the people who say that life can't have come from a single cell just don't really understand a lot of what scientists are saying about it. It's been a long time since I did the origins of life, and it's pretty complex stuff so I don't want to get too much into it, but basically the theory is that life started when certain chemical precursors, the building blocks of life, came together from water onto a solid surface - for example, by the sea washing over rocks. Experiments have shown (I can't be more precise than this because I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm happy to look them up for anyone who would like me to) that basically, only a few things are needed...amino acid building blocks (proven to be able to survive on the surface of meteorites), a solid surface, water and some sort of spark...I think the common theory is the many lightning storms that happened during the violent early part of the Earth's history. Once life had started, it grew from there and became gradually more complex.

You have to look deep into the cell, right down to the level of DNA - only 1% of our DNA codes for our differences - the rest codes for a head, two arms, two legs etc...and the vast majority, 'junk DNA' codes for...who knows what. But what is true is that certain sequences of our DNA are found in innumerable species - daffodils, for example. And then there's the obvious connections with primates. Whatever form life may take - be it a blue whale, an oak tree or a human being, we're all comprised of basically the same stuff. Our building blocks are the same - carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphate...we're a bag of chemicals, and that's all. From the huge blue whale right down to the virus causing the bird flu. Life is as life does. Instead of looking for the differences, I think most people would be staggered at the similarities if they really looked. Now if that doesn't indicate some kind of common ancestor somewhere along the way, I don't know what does. There is evidence of evolution everywhere you look. Mutations aren't rare - they happen every single day in your own bodies, thousands of times. Mostly, the cell recognises the error in replication and corrects it. Sometimes, it doesn't. Sometimes we get cancer, or genetic diseases and sometimes, we get a successful, beneficial mutation that proves to give that particular species an advantage.

If evolution didn't happen, why is everyone so afraid of the bird flu? Why can't they cure cancer? Why can't they cure AIDS? Why do you have to have the same blood group when you have a transfusion?

There's evidence of evolution everywhere - I see no evidence of God. I see thousands of people dying needlessly everyday. I see children suffering horrible, painful diseases. I see atrocities like Sarajevo and Bosnia and Iraq and innumerable others...in the Bible, God and the Devil apparently had a bit of a game over who could wind poor Job up the most. If God has so little to do with his time that he torments one single human being, what does that say for the suffering that goes on today?

Science makes sense - evolution makes sense. Creationism does not.

I'm not saying evolution doesn't have its holes - I read Nimbus' post with interest, but I would sooner believe that we were tampered with by an alien race than believe we were simply ploncked here by God. It makes no sense and I can't have faith in something that makes no logical sense.

I don't know about the Constitution, all I know is what happens here in Britain and I would be absolutely mortified to think that the government dictates to me and my children what we should or shouldn't learn. We're not living in a dictatorship and we shouldn't be censored or taught things through filters created by people with their own agendas. Teach both creationism and evolution and give future generations the right to choose for themselves what makes sense to them and what they can live with. Don't teach some watered down, filtered, biased version of what someone somewhere along the line thinks is an appropriate compromise between the two.

I don't believe there can be a compromise between religion and science when people deny the evidence of their own eyes based solely on faith that this is simply 'the way it is because God deemed it so.' Maybe that's why I'm a scientist...I never could just take what people told me on face value. If it doesn't make sense, I just don't buy it.

So there we go...my two cents... I'll go back to lurking now before I get mobbed....

I agree with a lot of what you said Louise...thats what I was getting at in the 100000000000000000th degree thing I was talking about in a previous post. I couldn't go into it because I didn't know a whole lot about it, but you summarized it very nicely. The only thing I disagree with is God. I believe he started it all somehow, like made the elements and chemicals and let them have at it...

To back up evolution, and your post Louise, germs and virus's change all the time...they evolve. When given a chemical to kill them, the next generation suddenly has an immunity to it (or a generation down the line). Same thing with insects.

So...basically what I theorize is that the elements and chemicals were created, then everything was left to fend for itself which led to evolution. But, to touch on religion, why did God do all this in the first place? Was he sitting in Heaven and suddenly had an idea to make the universe? How was he made? Whatever made him...how was it made? I think that was a theory in itself similar to creationism, evolution, and intelligent design...like we can keep going back an infinite amount of times...forgot what it was called though

I liked Louise's comments about similar DNA strands.

One thing I've read over and over in this thread is "complex." Are we really all that complex? Or is it just arrogance? Do we think we're complex because we have the biggest brains for our size among the creatures of this planet? When it comes down to it, we're simply a conglomeration of cells. I think it's pretty cool how it all fits together though.

Religiously speaking, I'm a Buddhist. What do the Buddhists say? They say, basically, "We're here. Should we care how we got here? Why bother, there are more important things to worry about. We should care about being good to each other." Simplistic, I know. Humans are naturally inquisitive--I wonder if that evolved too?

Maybe neither 'theory' should be taught in schools. Maybe we should teach chemistry and let kids wonder, instead of trying to give them answers without proof.

I really enjoyed reading all the different points of view!

Just my two knuts.

I would like to clear up one of Nimbus's apparent mis-understandings.

Every single creature ever discovered, living, dead, fossil, what ever, is in a state of evolving; nothing is at an end point. That really is the main point of evolution theory.

As others have pointed out, mutations suround us, and more are found everyday. Some of these mutations are viable, despite the huge odds against that (as Nimbus quoted earlier), and not just diseases. For example - there is sub-species of mosquito that lives in the London underground that does not exist anywhere else in the world (it lives on human blood - http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...10/ai_70770157).

But, perhaps I am confused here. Wasn't the main "sell" of ID that things did evolve, but according to a Plan? Creationsim says nothing evolves and all fossils are fakes left behind to test our faith in the bible - which is interpreted as saying the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

It was only under close investigation that the 'proof' of a guiding intelligence was shown to be a religious concept and not based on scientific evidence, which evolution theory is.

Boy am I glad to have this thread back...I've missed our debates, Louise. And this whole Great Hall thing...great idea!

Right, well firstly I'll touch on a few things that have been talked about already...

The first thing that got my blood flowing was the whole seperation of Church and State; as an aspiring Constitutional Law Student, I absolutely love this. Gaburdette (i think...) said it right, no where in the Constitution does it say that. It's an idea taken from the Establishment Clause, which also goes hand in hand with the Freedom of Exercise Clause, which we'll get to later.

The seperation of church and state comes from a private letter of one of the Founding Fathers, and I'm not sure, but I think nearly a decade after the Constitution was written. Obviously a private view of anyone, even a Founding Father, is not equal with a ratified Constitution. The Establishment Clause merely reads;

Oh, Mason!! So good to see you back!!

I wish I had the time to compose a proper reply to your post, but I'm, as usual, very pushed for time this morning so I'll try and keep it brief for the moment...

Firstly, I want to say that I am very happy to be able to say that I've been accepted onto a teacher training course beginning in September so hopefully, I'll be a chemistry teacher for the future generations in a little over a year or so The bad thing about this is that I was reading in the Times Educational Supplement yesterday that the war that's been raging over there about Intelligent Design is about to invade us...next year, they're going to make Intelligent Design a part of the biology syllabus. I have no words to describe the utter despair I feel at this announcement. Though I said that both theories should be taught, I meant separately...Religion in the Religious Instruction lessons and evolution in the Biology lessons...not together as though it were an amalgamated concept. It presents me with a huge personal quandary. I have severe issues with being forced to teach something that I don't believe in...I just thank whatever deity exists, if there is one, that chemistry is, for the moment, not included in the changes - the theory will only be taught in biology lessons.

All that aside, just to briefly address a few of your point, Mason...

Hehe, Louise, that was a good enough response for me.

Nimbus had my question nailed a little bit more, though they sort of stole my thunder. It's okay, though. My next question would be where'd the star dust come from? Where did all the basic elemental atoms, or the electrons, protons, and neutrons that make them up come from? Or the quarks that make them come from?

You can explain all you like, and even come up with a possible, if not probable, explanation for just about anything. But everything we know today tells us that you cannot make something out of nothing, and at some point in the universes history, that had to happen. You can keep going back and back, but at the root of all the theories and beliefs, it comes down to which would you rather put your faith in? A freak accident that breaks the laws of mass, or a Supreme Being who created not only the exceptions to those laws, but the laws themselves? This is also the only answer that can be given to crsdba on her question of where God came from. The difference is that religions are up front about faith being a necessary part of life.

I'm not entirely read up on the cat species, or however they are all grouped. But your examples of a lion, moved to the jungle, stripes appear, tactics change, etc. They are all bits of micro-evolution. A cat getting bigger is a far cry from walking on it's hind legs and using tools, etc. The differences between a lion and a tiger are like the differences between someone from an Asian and a Caucasian. They may look different, one may be on average taller than the other, their hair may be different colors, traditions, mannerisms, and a million other things may be differnt. But essentially they are they same, they are all still human beings. Members of the cat family are usually able to reproduce with one another, one of the distinguishing factors of a species. Ligers, Tigons, etc. It doesn't happen often because of geographical constraints, but it does happen.

Nimbus explained again quite well how the very same 'evidence' can be seen from an Intelligent Design standpoint. If you've got something that works, why change it? Genesis 1, over and over repeats, "And God saw that it was good." Obviously if God approves, he's not going to change something just to change it.

Louise, my only hope is that when you're a successful chemistry teacher (congratulations, again. ) you'll at least give each student the chance to make their own conclusions about the very beginnings of everything. It's not exactly a huge part of practical chemistry, the beginnings. We know how things work now, and that's what's really important in the education.

Sorry if I stole your thunder QQS, I was just trying to build off of what you said; it's nice to have you back at the forums too!

I know my screen name has an 'a' at the end of it...I wasn' real creative when I came up with it, so its all part of my whole name, but I'm a guy! crs=Chris. I shoud probably ask to change it, but everyone knows me as crsdba

I dunno...in the opening sequences of Genesis it also mentions the holy trinity "let us make them in our image...". How was the trinity there already (unless he was talking to the angels)? How is it described as making 'them' when God made Adam first and then Eve later? Who was Cane's wife (or was it Able?)? They either left stuff out of the Bible or something freaky is going down in the Land of Nod.

I remembering reading someone's post that was asking how ape's are still around if we've evolved from them. Would what we have evolved from die out as well? Perhaps early humans competed for food with them and were more skilled, and thus forced them into extinction (I'm talking about neandrethals and cro-magnon). Maybe we can say the same for what was before neandrethal and so on...isn't it called competitive exclusion? Survival of the Fittest?

But you're right QQS (if I can call you that), it all leads down to one simple yet complex question of where atoms came from with respect to the laws of physics.

Nimbus, I read the link you gave us. That was very insightful...it explained pretty much all my questions...except for where did God actually come from, though he exists in neither time nor space, so...I would recommend everyone reading it to know what I'm trying to say!
My religion teacher back when I was in high school (Christian brothers school for two years) said that Jesus and the trinity had to always exist or else there was a time when Jesus didn't exist...maybe we should continue all this in the religion thread, though the discussions in there seem more like telling what your religion is then respectfully questioning or commenting on another's religion (for the most part)!

But, after reading the link, what if the elements have always existed and they did what they did to create everything in the emptyness of the universe? Its hard to grasp an understanding of this...and I for one don't think I ever will (because it seems complex for me to understand, not because I don't believe it)...like what I said about explaining how cars work to roaches.

Therefore, I believe evolution exists only because of this non-understanding that happened (not sure if non-understanding is a word, but I'm not misunderstanding because I don't know how to describe or understand it at all). So maybe its all three in action, just one happened that led to the other (creation from a being that doesn't exist in time and space led to evolution), at least thats how I see it...for now...

This is a very interesting discussion and I hope I can bring something more to the table.

It seems to me that asking the question about where all matter came from is a much larger question than evolution versus intelligent design. The questions that push the very edges of science is where I personally find God. When you talk about the big bang, which happened to become popular through the work of a catholic priest I believe, you are talking about a topic in which the laws of physics break down. It is such a mind blowing concept, that faith in a higher power becomes so much more relevant. There are so many other areas that I find God. The idea of a soul, for example, is something that science can never explain. These are the places that religion becomes so important in our understanding of the world. It adds to our understanding of God's plan, whatever God you believe in.

When you talk about evolution, there is science that can answer questions in a way that we can wrap our heads around. It isn't perfect, but that's what science is all about. It is a process that is always searching for new answers. It's a challenge to future generations to fill in the gaps and test the theories. We may not have the answers, but we must continue to try to decipher the details.

If we look at intelligent design, there is no further discussion or challenge. The answer to all questions is God and that answer is based on faith. Where do you go from there? What do you gain that you havn't already gained from the following of your own personal religion? That is why, I feel, that Intelligent design doesn't belong in a science classroom. That is also why intelligent design discussions are always based on finding holes in science. It cannot define itself or answer anything in any other way. It is faith in God. Perhaps it is useful as a means of philisophical understanding in a classroom setting, but I don't believe that it teaches students anything more about our physical world that their faith hasn't already bestowed upon them.

I also disagree that Intelligent Design is a non faith specific idea. I could use more information on this if someone has an opinion. The reason that I can't really address this is because there seems to be a spectrum of belief for creation that, depending on what you believe, becomes faith specific. I would be interested in where people on this board place themselves. Some believe in strict adherance to the christian bible, word for word (the earth is the center of the universe, it was created a few thousand years ago, the dinosaurs died in Noah's flood) The other end of the spectrum would be purely scientific, atheistic beliefs. I have touched on what I believe, which is probably in the direction of pure science. There are beliefs in between, I suppose that allow for all faiths to fit, but I don't know enough about it to say anything.

Sorry Chris, for the gender confusion. I remember back in the day when people weren't sure whether I was a guy or a girl, so I ended up with QQS, which is completely neuter.

Anyways, ya'll are correct, before this thread gets too religion specific, we should move to the religion thread...here. This topic is supposed to be purely about the Intelligent Design v. Evolution, which obviously is going to incorporate some religious discussion, should still be kept within the whole 'beginning of the Earth' realm.

That thread that I've linked to hasn't been active in quite a while, I'm sure you'll understand the reasons once you read it a bit.

Oh no, here we go again....*sigh*

Okay...here's the thing - I'm ducking out of this one now before I start tearing out huge chunks of my hair again.

I say that all these things can be explained, in time, through science. Just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean it has to be a miracle created by God. I don't believe that there is a God in the sense that religion conceives him to be and there is absolutely nothing in the world that anyone can say or do to convince me that there is. Anyway, even if there is a God, I don't want to believe in someone who saves cities from destruction but allows 16 five-year old children to be herded into a school gym and shot to death and allows terrorists to drive planes into building supposedly in his name or fight wars over which nations religion is the right one. It just makes no sense whatsoever to me. I'd say that Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy and Thomas Hamilton were far from perfect, and if God supposedly makes no mistakes...I don't know...someone messed up with those guys somewhere, huh?

Anyway....

I could explain things until the cows come home and I will never convince anyone of anything either when arguments get religious because it comes down to a matter of faith and put very simply, I just don't have any. Greatest respect to those of you who do, of course...

I can't explain everything and I would never even attempt to try, but I shall continue, in my own little way to try and make sense of the universe and I'm pretty sure that I'll come a lot closer to understanding the origins of the universe in a cosmology textbook and not in the bible.

So, with the greatest respect to everyone here, I'm ducking out now. I can't argue with people on the basis of religion...sorry.

If the argument gets back to the Intelligent Design Vs Evolution, I might dip back in...see how it goes

Michelle,

You seem to be saying that Intelligent design is not a religion based argument. I absolutely don't see how it can be argued any other way. Could someone please explain to me how intelligent design is not based on faith and religion?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the intelligent design movement is a way to transform creationism into a science so that it has a better chance of being added to school curriculums. I understand that it tries to distance itself from a particular "designer", but that doesn't change the fact that it cannot be argued without bringing up faith.

We seem to confuse arguments against evolution as arguments for intelligent design. The only arguments that are actually for intelligent design are faith based. Am I way off base here?

No, vulturemort, you've got it about right. The idea of intelligent design has been around for millenia, going way back to the nature-worshipers BC. It was lost after organized religion gained dominance, Christianity, Islam, etc. because most people didn't really care about proving their beliefs with science.

Here rises a common misconception about religion; that by definition, religion is anti-science, anti-progress. There are a lot of people on this forum who believe this.

And the fact is it's not true; without religion, science as we know it wouldn't be around. I am most familiar with the advancements made by Christian scientists, but the metal work, astronomy, calender, clock making, and other advancements made by the Arabs were fuelled by religious desires. Organised religion didn't focus on backing up what was taken as fact; a stance that would come back to haunt them in the 20th century.

Anyways, Intelligent Design gathered quite a following; I found an outdated list detailing organizations and individual scientists who had dedicated their careers to getting the evidence against evolution out into the public, because it's been conveniently left out of most text books. Seems that people were tired of the constantly explaining away evidence against evolution.

Then the theory was put on the front page when the book Of Pandas and People, which was the first of scientific books that presented an alternate hypothesis other than evolution as published as a high school text. A great portion of the book was dedicated to explaining the incompatable facets of evolution with the available evidence.

Of course the book was immediately attacked by an unspecified "scientific community", though I can't find exactly whom is considered to make up the 'scientific community'. They claim it's not real science, it's religious propaganda aimed at destroying real scientific advancements...attacks that I personally find quiet ironic and hypocritical, but that's another matter.

Most of the 'evidence' for Intelligent Design is scoffed at, according to Wikipedia, again by the unnamed 'scientific community', because it rests upon observations and conclusions drawn from them that cannot be tested by hard and fast experiments. i.e., it cannot be experimentally proven that a God actually exists. Something that I find odd, as observations of real world conditions are usually great evidence for whatever your idea may be.

But it's got one up on evolution; at least intelligent design is falsifiable. Evolution is not; at least not by the 'scientific communities' standards.

So now die-hard evolutionists are trying hard to retain the virtual immunity it's been granted by the 'scientific community' by making it the only theory taught in science classes, ridiculing alternate theories, and by book after book which apparantly 'prove' evolution, like Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable

I really like this website, which is a skeptical review of Climbing Mount Improbable. The science is sound, so give it a chance before you simply write it off as biased and refuse to read it. All writings are biased, because they're all written by humans.

I really wish that you wouldn't run off again, Louise. You say that you can talk til the cows come home and not change anybody's mind, so why bother, but nothing can ever be accomplished in the world if everybody thought like that. Give me your science, and lets see what happens.

QQS

You seem to view the "scientific community" as a conspiring group out to falsify and discredit intelligent design at all costs, regardless of evidence. I think what you misunderstand or choose to ignore is that all scientists make up the scientific community. It isn't some mysterious entity holding weekly meetings and deciding who to discredit.

Published material becomes fair game for anyone to research and refute. That is how science works. If a theory holds up to scrutiny, then it gains acceptance. If the book "Of Pandas and People" was free of faults, then there would be scientists standing up for it. From what I have read in Pandas, there are quite a few glaring omissions and misrepresentations. The facts are that a vast majority of scientists have refuted the statements in Pandas and it is therefore easier to call that group the "scientific community". It would be a bit difficult and pointless to name each and every name. Now, I will qualify this statement by saying the majority isn't always right. The fact is when an article states that the scientific community disagrees with a theory, that is simply a matter of a vast majority. I get the feeling that you are implying that there isn't a concesus on this book, in regard to scientists, which there definitely is.

You say that a great portion of "Of Pandas and People" is spent refuting the incompatible facets of evolution. Is there any other scientific information in that book? I would be interested to hear about the explanations that intelligent design puts forth on its own, without resorting to disproving evolution.

You say that Intelligent design holds an advantage over evolution by being falsifiable. Could you please explain that? I don't understand how that statement is true.

Finally, if intelligent design were an accepted answer to the history of life, what further advancements in science would we be able to achieve? It would seem to me that we would have the final answer at that point and no further explanations would be necessary. What do you think the scientific results would be if all questions were answered?