Intelligent Design/Creationism and why it doesn't belong in public schools

[hawkeyenick]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Watch, THEN discuss, please

[eldeeder]

dont need to watch it, Im familiar with Ken Miller. Creationism has no place in schools, and honestly, doubting evolution now, in 2007, you might as well believe the earth is flat. We have more evidence to support evolution than we do to support that the world is round.

[Sergeant Brother]

Get rid of public schools and this would be a non-issue.

[Truth Warrior]

The Metaphysics of Evolution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html
Compulsory Evolutionism
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed80.html

[Man from La Mancha]

dont need to watch it, Im familiar with Ken Miller. Creationism has no place in schools, and honestly, doubting evolution now, in 2007, you might as well believe the earth is flat. We have more evidence to support evolution than we do to support that the world is round.
Agreed no religious theory such as creationism or evolution should be talked about in school or discuss both view points.

.

[Thomas Paine]

I am a creationist who does believe that God created the earth (as we know it) in six literal days. However, I agree Creationism should not be a part of the public school curriculum. Nevertheless, if a Christian student in a public school wants to raise the issue of creationsim in the classroom, then s/he very likely has a right to do so under the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment so long as the student does not do so in a disruptive manner.

[literatim]

Who are you to determine what my child learns or doesn't?

[loupeznik]

I am Atheist. I agree that intelligent design and creationism are bunk. I have to say that this is a divisive issue. We are better off focusing on issues that unite us as supporters of Ron Paul and divide us from other candidates. Please stop this discussion.

[Truth Warrior]

Who are you to determine what my child learns or doesn't?
Well, the statists tend to believe that your children belong more to the "state" than they belong to you.<IMHO> :)

[thuja]

this is a parent's job, and not the school's. i think homeschooling should be welcomed everywhere.

[literatim]

They want their own religious propaganda spoon fed to other people's children. They are hypocrites.

[evadmurd]

Get rid of public schools and this would be a non-issue.

AMEN to that one!! I am so tired of hearing about it on this forum. Go hang a sign and talk to someone!

[Truth Warrior]

They want their religious own propaganda spoon fed to other people's children. They are hypocrites.

Of course they do and are. ;)

[rockwell]

I don't think it's a subject that needs to be taught, from either perspective.

Teach English; writing, composition, and the classics.

Teach Mathematics

Teach History and Civics

Teach Laboratory Science, not theory.

There are as many holes in the evolution theory as there are in Creationism, both are theoretical, not absolute. If evolution was a fact, then scientists would be routinely creating life out of inert material in laboratory conditions, yet they can't. This is the biggest flaw in the theory from my perspective. You hear a lot of talk about "primordial soup", yet for some reason the very act that led to an unstoppable and unchecked process that has led to all life forms in all it's diversity across the eons is still shrouded in some mystery? Please. Do we have all the basic elements? Can we replicate and combination of heat/radiation/and combinations of elements in a laboratory? Then why can't single celled organisms be routinely created from lifeless ingredients?

Public schools do such a poor job of teaching the basics- and if you don't believe me put an ad in a newspaper help wanted section and have a look at the resumes, then interview a couple of hundred applicants and tell me what you think. Virtually all of them are public school educated and almost none of them are conversant in even the basics or language, math or social skills.

Until we find a way to master the passing of empirical data with 90% effectiveness, there's absolutely no point in even considering theoretical instruction about unprovable theory. Anyone who is intelligent enough and who has mastered the basics will of their own volition continue to search out and inform themselves on matters of theory if they are so driven. That's how it used to be done. The very concept that everyone can learn the same things to the same degree is not only ridiculous, it's collectivist.

[WayOfTheDodo]

Agreed no religious theory such as creationism or evolution should be talked about in school or discuss both view points.
Evolution is a scientific theory, and not religion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html



The Metaphysics of Evolution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html
Compulsory Evolutionism
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed80.html
Unfortunately, all these do is to show a poor understanding of Evolution. I'll just go to the core of the issue and show you that the author simply does not understand Evolution by quoting this:

"Evolution breaks down into at least three logically separable components: First, that life arose by chemical accident ..."

I am not a scientist, but even with my very basic understanding of Evolution compared to the vast amounts of data there is to wrap one's head around, I know that Evolution does not deal with how the first form of life arose. That the author thinks this is the case tells me that his understanding of the issue is extremely poor, since even I, as a non-scientist am aware of this.

This alone does not damn him, you might say, so I'll simply point to another error, such as the following, where caterpillars are supposed to pose a problem to Evolution:

"Or consider caterpillars. A caterpillar has no obvious resemblance to a butterfly."

If he had bothered to do even a tiny bit of research, he could have found the following online:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB311_1.html

Still not convinced? Let's look at this one:

"Let's consider the chance that the chimp would type a particular book."

This analogy, too, shows an extremely poor understanding of Evolution, since Evolution is not pure chance. It is not at all comparable to a single chimp typing a particular book. If you wonder why that is, there are at least two reasons:

1. Evolution does not have a goal. Existing species do not evolve into other existing species. The above example, however, makes the assumption that Evolution leads to a specific goal (the particular book).

2. Evolution is not pure chance. Natural selection is the process through which successful mutations are carried on to the next generation. Thus, it is not at all like someone punching randomly on a keyboard or a typewriter.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my case. The author of these texts shows an appalling lack of knowledge, and he uses his ignorance to spread misinformation and already refuted and invalid arguments against Evolution.

[Thomas Paine]

I respect Evolutionists and the Theory of Evolution. I just happen to disagree with it as the sole explanation for the origin of life.

I was fortunate enough to have a mother who made the financial sacrifices to send me to parochial school. However, some families are even poorer than my family ever was (we were pretty poor) and can't affort private school tuition or to keep a parent at home for homeschooling. Therefore, some families are essentially compelled to send their children to public schools. Personally, I think these low income families should be provided with vouchers or tax credits so that they can decide how they want their children educated. After all, their taxes are supporting the public schools.

[WayOfTheDodo]

I respect Evolutionists and the Theory of Evolution. I just happen to disagree with it as the sole explanation for the origin of life.
Evolution does not explain the origin of life, but only the origin of species. It does not attempt to explain how the first form of life came to be.

Evolution is the only existing scientific explanation to the origin of species on Earth.

[literatim]

Evolution is a scientific theory, and not religion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

It is a religious doctrine for the origins of man masking itself as science.


Evolution does not explain the origin of life, but only the origin of species. It does not attempt to explain how the first form of life came to be.

Evolution is the only existing scientific explanation to the origin of species on Earth.


The Theory of Evolution incorporates origin of life. I was taught in middle school and high school that we all evolved from primordial ooze.

[Brennon]

I do not believe in creationism, per se, however, evolution is so full of holes it's ridiculous. Likewise, the bigbang and super string theory are just as astoundingly absurd as creationism is. I feel like I'm reading a buddhist text when looking at writings on super string theory. Really, it's a joke. It's rather difficult to create a cohecive theory that explains everything in the absence of god, but in doing so, it sounds exactly like religious dogma and not at all like science.


Science degree, btw.

[johngr]

I agree with Fred Reed's take on evolution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html
and on teaching it in schools
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

It is ironic that the anti-religious gramscian Marxists (I am atheist, myself, btw.) who so deride "creationism" (and Christianity in general) and revere "evolution" indistinguishly from if it were sacrosanct dogma are the very same people who scream bloody murder someone tries to apply evolutionary theory to differences among human races or to society.

[Brennon]

I agree with Fred Reed's take on evolution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html
and on teaching it in schools
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

It is ironic that the anti-religious gramscian Marxists (I am atheist, myself, btw.) who so deride "creationism" (and Christianity in general) and revere "evolution" indistinguishly from if it were sacrosanct dogma are the very same people who scream bloody murder someone tries to apply evolutionary theory to differences among human races or to society.

I like you sir.


In a manly sort of way of course.

[Original_Intent]

I don't think it's a subject that needs to be taught, from either perspective.

Teach English; writing, composition, and the classics.

Teach Mathematics

Teach History and Civics

Teach Laboratory Science, not theory.

There are as many holes in the evolution theory as there are in Creationism, both are theoretical, not absolute. If evolution was a fact, then scientists would be routinely creating life out of inert material in laboratory conditions, yet they can't. This is the biggest flaw in the theory from my perspective. You hear a lot of talk about "primordial soup", yet for some reason the very act that led to an unstoppable and unchecked process that has led to all life forms in all it's diversity across the eons is still shrouded in some mystery? Please. Do we have all the basic elements? Can we replicate and combination of heat/radiation/and combinations of elements in a laboratory? Then why can't single celled organisms be routinely created from lifeless ingredients?

Public schools do such a poor job of teaching the basics- and if you don't believe me put an ad in a newspaper help wanted section and have a look at the resumes, then interview a couple of hundred applicants and tell me what you think. Virtually all of them are public school educated and almost none of them are conversant in even the basics or language, math or social skills.

Until we find a way to master the passing of empirical data with 90% effectiveness, there's absolutely no point in even considering theoretical instruction about unprovable theory. Anyone who is intelligent enough and who has mastered the basics will of their own volition continue to search out and inform themselves on matters of theory if they are so driven. That's how it used to be done. The very concept that everyone can learn the same things to the same degree is not only ridiculous, it's collectivist.

+1

[S3eker]

I am Atheist. I agree that intelligent design and creationism are bunk. I have to say that this is a divisive issue. We are better off focusing on issues that unite us as supporters of Ron Paul and divide us from other candidates. Please stop this discussion.


I second that. Let's focus on the US message. Of course we all believe in many things. We are a large group with a common cause. Let's keep the focus on that cause.

By the way, I also hate Bananas! I careless if Ron Paul likes Bananas or not!

[shasshas]

you can teach creationism in classes on religion

you can teach evolution in science classes

students can decide for themselves when to follow each ethos

[johngr]

I agree with Fred Reed's take on evolution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

and on teaching it in schools
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

It is ironic that the anti-Christian Gramscian Marxists (I am atheist, myself) who have control of education in the Western world presently so deride "creationism" (and religion in general) and hold "evolution" as sacrosanct yet are the very same people who equally deride applying evolutionary theory to economics as "social darwinism" and who scream bloody murder when it's applied to differences among human races.

[RonPaulMania]

you can teach creationism in classes on religion

you can teach evolution in science classes

students can decide for themselves when to follow each ethos

What if there is proof of biological design in creation? What if there are scientists who have proof on their side? Why is it there is this massive outcry if evolution is attacked, and scientists who bring up their proof of disbanded, denied tenure, ridiculed for looking at the evidence and following where it leads?

Because evolution is a religion more than creationism. I know that might shock some modern sensibilities but it's true. Creationism is a religion when biological proofs can be asserted and discussed, but get into evolution and it's raw science without evidence or logical connection. Facts are both groups posit "religion" as cause.

I have a better idea for your open-minded evolutionists, let them BOTH be taught or let none of them be taught and then let the children decide. Frankly I think many on the "evolution can do no wrong" are scared of evidence and arguments and fall back on the argument of ridiculousness instead of debating the issue. I wonder how many staunch evolutionists who are so afraid have read biologists who became creationists because of the facts.

I also wonder why the media and intellectual elites are trying so hard to diminish open discussion with ridicule and disdain instead of debate. Hey, that sounds like a candidate I know and like and I'm on his board. There is no coincidence is there?

Some of you should look a little further on why this issue is so clandestine in debate in the open forum and realize whatever the media and elitists shy from your eyes might have a lot more credence. You have learned the same in politics, but why not in other spheres too?

[rockwell]

"...whatever the media and elitists shy from your eyes might have a lot more credence..."

Some one get out the chisels and head on down to the marble quarry, I think we have a winner.

[Dr.3D]

you can teach creationism in classes on religion

you can teach evolution in science classes

students can decide for themselves when to follow each ethos

Actually, you are really describing two distinct religions, the one suggesting evolution is from the Humanist religion. So perhaps both should be taught in classes on religion.

[loupeznik]

Humanism is a philosophy not a religion. I am not a Humanist but do think the evidence points to evolution.

[literatim]

you can teach creationism in classes on religion

you can teach evolution in science classes

students can decide for themselves when to follow each ethos

No... You can teach your child whatever the hell you want and quit telling others what they should teach their children and where.


Humanism is a philosophy not a religion. I am not a Humanist but do think the evidence points to evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Religion

[Dr.3D]

Humanism is a philosophy not a religion. I am not a Humanist but do think the evidence points to evolution.

And all this time I thought religion was a philosophy.

[Sandy]

Agreed no religious theory such as creationism or evolution should be talked about in school or discuss both view points.

.

Should, should, should. No, get rid of the public schools and let PARENTS decide what their kids are taught. Not you, or anyone else that is arrogant and thinks they should be the decider.

That is the problem with public schools, the parents don't have a say even though they are paying taxes for the schools, and is why more and more are home schooling or carefully selecting a private school.

The public schools are indoctrinating the kids into socialism/communism and 'global interdependence' and much more.

[loupeznik]

Should, should, should. No, get rid of the public schools and let PARENTS decide what their kids are taught. Not you, or anyone else that is arrogant and thinks they should be the decider.

That is the problem with public schools, the parents don't have a say even though they are paying taxes for the schools, and is why more and more are home schooling or carefully selecting a private school.

The public schools are indoctrinating the kids into socialism/communism and 'global interdependence' and much more.

Amen

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Doubting evolution is about as stupid as you can get. Seriously.

If you believe in Creationism, you may as well believe the terrorists hate us for our freedoms.

[Brennon]

Doubting evolution is about as stupid as you can get. Seriously.

If you believe in Creationism, you may as well believe the terrorists hate us for our freedoms.

Not really cool my friend.

I'm neither an evolutionist nor a creationist, but I think it rather naive to not at least take a long hard look at your own belief set to see problems in it.

Even libertarian philosophy has problems in it. I find it the most appealing and the most practical, but is it by any means perfect? No. Not much in this world is.

[Mesogen]

What if there is proof of biological design in creation?
What if?


What if there are scientists who have proof on their side?
If they have "proof" then they aren't doing science.


Why is it there is this massive outcry if evolution is attacked, and scientists who bring up their proof of disbanded, denied tenure, ridiculed for looking at the evidence and following where it leads?
1st no scientist has "proof" of anything.
2nd any person calling themselves a scientist that invokes a supernatural explanation for their findings deserves to be ridiculed.


Because evolution is a religion more than creationism. I know that might shock some modern sensibilities but it's true. Creationism is a religion when biological proofs can be asserted and discussed, but get into evolution and it's raw science without evidence or logical connection. Facts are both groups posit "religion" as cause. Could you reword this to where it makes sense?


I have a better idea for your open-minded evolutionists, let them BOTH be taught or let none of them be taught and then let the children decide.That's a stupendous idea! Then we can also teach the theory of intelligent falling side by side with the theory of gravity and let the students decide. We could have Bible classes and Koran classes and let the little kiddies decide which religion to follow. It would all be very democratic and fair! Ah, wikiality will be reality at last!

[jeff_from_VA]

This is a very simple issue. I am not sure why it's made so complex.

We all know that people who believe in creation are never going to believe in evolution. These people will be offended by having to pay taxes to teach their Children to believe in a way that they do not.

We all know that people who believe in evolution, are never going to believe in creation. These people will be offended by having to pay taxes to teach their Children to believe in a way that they do not.

Easiest solution is to end public education and let parents decide how to educate their kids.

Most realistic solution, considering not all parents will be able to pay for an education under a free market not subsidised by tax dollars, and all children deserve an education regardless of family income - School Voucher systems, under a free market in education. Parents decide, and the tax dollars go to where they decide, creating competition in education.

I am a Christian, and am home schooling my children. My family has it's beliefs, but I will be damned if I tell another family how to teach their kids. That is none of my business, just as what I am doing is none of theirs. Unfortunately, even though I pay out of my pocket for my children's education, I still have to be burdened with supporting the public schools as well. Fair would be to let me decide how those tax dollars are spent, and send my child to a school with similar values, instead of forcing me to do it on my own, and still pay for the system I do not believe in.

[Paulitician]

We all know that people who believe in creation are never going to believe in evolution. These people will be offended by having to pay taxes to teach their Children to believe in a way that they do not.

We all know that people who believe in evolution, are never going to believe in creation. These people will be offended by having to pay taxes to teach their Children to believe in a way that they do not.
Wow, you are so wrong...

Many of you are so wrong about the subject, too BTW. Some of this stuff basically satirizes itself :D

I liked the fact that Truth Warrior posted articles from a Libertarian site to debunk evolution, but not a scientific site. Bravo

It's quite ironic that some people would have children "learn" creationism in public schools. I know if I were "taught" creationism at my former high school I'd be laughing all the way back to my house. Now, I know public schooling is a joke (I learned pratically nothing from it), but if they were to "teach" creationism that would absolutely seal the deal. What a joke! What a joke.

I never understood why it's so important for some people to want their schools to mention to children the fact that creationism is a possibility. Really, what's the big deal with that one :confused:. (I can, however, understand people having problems with the scientific theory of evolution, and not wanting their children to learn that... fine with me :).)

On a final note, this site (http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/idlit.html) is pretty funny [whilst a little out-dated].

[literatim]

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters.htm

[WayOfTheDodo]

It is a religious doctrine for the origins of man masking itself as science.
You are mistaken. In fact, if you take a look at the 2005 Intelligent Design trial in the US, Dover vs. Kitzmiller, you will notice that the primary witness for the plaintiffs (parents who did not want the religion of ID to be taught in science class) was a devout Christian and Evolutionist named Ken Miller. In fact, Judge Jones, who concluded that Evolution is science and ID religion, is a conservative Christian, appointed to office by Bush after creationist senator Rick Santorum recommended him.

Evolution is a scientific theory because, among other things

a) it has huge amounts of supporting data (facts),

b) it makes predictions (if evolution is true, then X must be true), and

c) it has practical applications, such as understanding diseases.

Neither of these apply to Creationism/ID, which is religion.


The Theory of Evolution incorporates origin of life. I was taught in middle school and high school that we all evolved from primordial ooze.
Evolution does not deal with how life first arose, no.




I agree with Fred Reed's take on evolution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html
and on teaching it in schools
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html
I have already addressed this text, and shown that the author shows an appalling lack of knowledge on the subject. Unfortunately, it looks like the thread I posted my response in has been removed, and I can't be bothered to write it again. But the fact that he thinks Evolution deals with how the first form of life arose shows that he lacks an even basic understanding on the subject. He even asks many questions throughout the text, so he is clearly quite ignorant on the subject.


It is ironic that the anti-religious gramscian Marxists (I am atheist, myself, btw.) who so deride "creationism" (and Christianity in general) and revere "evolution" indistinguishly from if it were sacrosanct dogma are the very same people who scream bloody murder someone tries to apply evolutionary theory to differences among human races or to society.
Those who try to apply evolutionary theory to prove that some humans are superior and others inferior are not actually applying evolutionary theory, but rather a misunderstanding of such.




Why is it there is this massive outcry if evolution is attacked, and scientists who bring up their proof of disbanded, denied tenure, ridiculed for looking at the evidence and following where it leads?
Who has this happened to? Give me specific examples, please. The fact is that actual scientists are trying to "break" Evolution every single day. It's a scientist's job to test scientific theories! It's a scientist's job to find holes in scientific knowledge!


I have a better idea for your open-minded evolutionists, let them BOTH be taught
So astrology should be taught alongside astronomy? Alchemy alongside chemistry? Flat earth alongside spherical earth?

[hypnagogue]

...no religious theory such as creationism or evolution should be talked about in school... Please... there is not one iota of religiousness within the theory of evolution. This is just pathetic. (the statement, don't take it personally la mancha) Since the movement is strong to kick all religious material out of public schools, and creationism along with it, so you're going to try and tag evolution as religious and take it down with you.

I think the definition of religious could be helpful here.

Religious adj.

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent zealous

[Brennon]

Please... there is not one iota of religiousness within the theory of evolution. This is just pathetic. (the statement, don't take it personally la mancha) Since the movement is strong to kick all religious material out of public schools, and creationism along with it, so you're going to try and tag evolution as religious and take it down with you.

I think the definition of religious could be helpful here.

Religious adj.

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent zealous


I think anyone who has ever taken even an introductory course in philosophy or logic could argue that evolution meets all three of those. Come on, honestly? You think evolution is a hard science? We can't observe the creation of life nor can we recreate it, thus far. It's something that sounds like it may work but has little corraborating evidence.

I wait to stand behind a theory when there is actual evidence for it, personally.

[WayOfTheDodo]

I think anyone who has ever taken even an introductory course in philosophy or logic could argue that evolution meets all three of those.
If you argue that evolution meets all three, you are willfully ignoring the facts.


You think evolution is a hard science? We can't observe the creation of life nor can we recreate it, thus far.
Evolution does not deal with how life first appeared. It only deals with how life diversified through mutations and natural selection.


I wait to stand behind a theory when there is actual evidence for it, personally.
There is a huge amount of actual evidence for common descent. Just because you are not aware of any doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Please educate yourself by reading the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

[loupeznik]

No... You can teach your child whatever the hell you want and quit telling others what they should teach their children and where.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism#Religion

Did you read your source?

[WayOfTheDodo]

I agree with Fred Reed's take on evolution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html
and on teaching it in schools
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html
I have already addressed this text, and shown that the author shows an appalling lack of knowledge on the subject. Unfortunately, it looks like the thread I posted my response in has been removed, and I can't be bothered to write it again.
Not removed, actually, just merged. Here is my post showing how terrible this person's understanding of Evolution is:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=761486&postcount=273

Why you posted the link after I had already refuted it, I have no idea.

[JGalt]

Personally, I think that if the federal government funds schools, they must not teach religion in the science classroom. Of course, I also don't think the federal government should be funding or regulating schools; that should be left to the states and local governments.

Even though I am an atheist, I think that people should be able to have their children taught in whatever school of thought/indoctrination that they want. Basically, whatever helps you sleep at night. So long as you're not pushing your ideologies on me, I won't push my Objectivism on you.