What is Digg?389 Comments
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Thank goodness.
And I know I'm feeding the trolls, but I'm sorry, but the comment "It's not any less scientific than evolution" is a fascinating one to me.
Let's break down the scientific method:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Results, start over at 1.
Evolution we know happens (see the changing patterns of moths around pollution, etc). However, the Theory of Evolution as originally put forth by Darwin is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest": those species who have a mutation that enables them to survive better than their competitors will breed and pass along that mutation to their descendants, who will then continue the process.
How did Darwin come up with this theory?
1. He observed the various species on the islands, and how they were all similar (birds, I believe) and how each was best fit to his environment.
2. He hypothesized that this condition arose because of his theory (see above).
3. The experiment (mainly carried out by other folks looking at fossils): See if similar species have changed over time due to environment and had mutations that allowed them to survive. Usually this "experiment" involves saying "All right, we have Fossil A which we know to be 100,000,000 years old, and we have Fossil C which is 25,000,000 years old. Fossil C shows a better ability to survive the environment, and is the same kind of creature as A except for the mutations observed. Therefore, there should be Fossil B that is like Fossil A, only it includes some of the mutations of C but not all of them as the species adapted to better fit the environment. This fossil should be between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 years old. If we find it, then we know we're right. If we don't, then either we need a better theory or need to keep looking."
4. Results: Over time, thousands of fossil records and observations of species has held up the Theory of Evolution. Adaptations have come into play (such as the "Survival of the Fittest and the Luckiest", which holds that sometimes pure chance comes into play of wiping out a dominant species, such as an asteroid, but when equilibrium is reached Survival of the Fittest is shown to work again).
This leads to a "theory": a set of rules that *currently* work in explaining a phenomena. The Theory of Relativity has been held up by experiment (such as "can we find bended light around a large gravity source. Answer: Yes.). As long as no one comes up with a better scientifically proved theory, the theory is held up.
Intelligent Design doesn't follow these rules. It goes like this:
1. Observation: There's a lot of different species out there.
2. Hypothesis: Some "intelligent designer" must of altered the species to allow them to survive in their environment.
3. Ummmm....
The "step 3" is important. With Intelligent Design, you *can't test it*. Actually, let me back up: you're not allowed to test it. The only way to prove/disprove Intelligent Design is to find a tablet between 100,000,000 and 25,000,000 million years old that says "Note to self: change DNA of duck billed platypus to make it better to survive. Love, ID."
If you do bring up a changing fossil record and say "Look, we have a changing species over time", the ID'er will say "Ah, see - the designer changed the species". Again, no proof, no experiment needed.
This is why ID is not science, or even a theory: it's a belief. It's a nice belief. Do I believe some God/Goddess/Higher Being made the Universe? Sure. Do I think that They put a hand in everything?
Who cares? Until such a being gets on the Megaphone of the Cosmos and says "Hey, dudes - check out Chromosome #15 where I spelled out 'Jesus if ***** metal", I'll trust that They wrote the universe so that we could understand it and grow closer to Them.
But this is a belief. Not a theory. And I will not throw out a perfectly working theory that has been held up under scientific processes just because I like my belief better. Until something better comes along (like, say, a time machine so people can see evolution in action, or something similar like as in "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus", we're all just going to have to use "what works", and leave belief/faith for the religious/philosophy classes.
Of course, this is all just my belief. So I could be wrong. - dharh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10If there is really to be scientific endeavor with intelligent design two things should happen. One they need to stop justifying ID by saying there are gaps in evolution when there aren't and no real scientist thinks so and they need to use facts and observations to base their theory. ID can only be called a science if it adheres to what science is about.
- lonelycanuck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"Sorry dharh but only an idiot would believe there are no gaps in evolution. Which is why evolution is still a theory, ever since Darwin came up with it the idea, it has never been proven a fact."
Another fool who doesn't know what the scientific definition of a theory is. Go back to school. - apthebold, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Thank God for intelligent members of the judiciary.
- databyss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Intelligent Design is funny when they claim it's not religion.
If this something is complex enough to have the ability to create us, then it must have been created, according to ID, by something even more complex. That creature also is too complex and must've been created by something even more complex. This chain of increasing complexity inevitably leads to one conclusion, a being of infinite, or atleast unattainable complexity and power.
(a.k.a. God) - kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7normal people 1
religious nutcases 0
man that cheered me up today. - jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6People saying "Evolution is just a theory." Need to learn what a Theory means in Science.
They also need to learn what the Scientific Method is.
ID does not work with the Scientific Method, therefore is not Science, and therefore does not belong in a Science Class room. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6What have our schools come to???
First of all, evolution is an observable condition in nature. It is a fact that it does exist. It can be recreated in the lab. The drug cocktails currently used to fight the AIDs virus are used because the virus EVOLVES quickly and becomes resistance to any single medication.
Darwin created the THEORY of natural selection which goes a long way in explaining evolution. It does not explain everything but it is generally accepted in the scientific community and follows scientific law...it is observable and repeatable.
ID is a BELIEF. People used to think God threw lightning bolts down from the sky because our knowledge was not advanced enough to understand the science behind lightning. Now our citizens are not advanced enough to understand science so they would prefer to just believe that God does everything.
Believe what you want just don't tamper with the advancement of science. Everytime religion gets involved in science they are made into fools. Remember the earth is not the center of the universe, the earth is not flat, women are not innately inferior to men, but all of these things were promoted at Christian truths at some point in history.
Id is a great topic for philosophical discussion but philosphy isn't taught in the science classroom....at least not in Dover anymore :-P - reaver, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Good. Intelligent design is not science. It doesn't belong in a school.
- badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'd like to see some articles back up either side here. I consider myself a Christian, but I also believe in Evolution. To say that Evolution is less fact than God and Angels and Heaven is just plain wrong. Evolution has been observed. Read Darwin's Dreampond and the Third Chimpanzee people. Both great reads and both authors have a great reputation in the scientific community. I am not taking any side here (though it looks like I am), but you can't say things like "there is no proof of evolution" without backing it up. I say believe what you want. I believe in a higher power, but keep ID out of MY schools because of a little thing called Separation of Church and State.
- databyss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4More humourous is that the Vatican supports evolution over Intelligent Design.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html
Why won't you crazy christians listen to your leader? - jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3BrBeaird, Evolution does not profess to explain Origin, it explains how life is changing. That is a huge misconception amoung laymen, they think Evolution is trying to explain stuff it actually isn't.
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Holy crap, this thread is full of ingorant nuts. Tell me this. Why is 90% of ID concerned with disproving evolution rather than proving its own ideas of the origins of man with observable proofs.
- reaver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Curious why evolution supporters are so quick to do away with this alternate theory. There is scientific evidence that supports ID as much if not more so than evoluton.
This is a major step back for science."
Scientific evidence for ID? What is this evidence you speak of? Please explain. - notkevinrose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"It should also be noted that Darwin himself rejected the Theory of Evolution."
no he didn't he was a firm believer in it his whole life i don't know where you ID ***** get this "fact" from??! probably the same place you get all your information... a deep tissue colonoscopy - skyeandangus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's a sad truth that this whole thing has been co-opted by both sides. Intelligent Design has been so grabbed onto by the fundamentalists, that even rational religious people like me dislike them. And evolution has been co-opted by non-religious groups so hard as to be athiest in nature. Even Darwin believed in God. Why can't one believe in Evolution, AND in that higher power that sparked the engine of life that IS evolution?
- TRUEPATRIOT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3w00t flame wars are acoming!
for the gaps that evolution theory has ID has a GIGANTIC gap where a magical thing created us all which can never ever be proven or disproven so ITS NOT SCIENCE!atleast evolution is observable and tested thru out the years. you guys will change religion in 2000 years and laugh at how people believe we came from dirt and ribs.zeus was once thought to be real people.... - starflyer3000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have to say that I'm split on this issue. While I don't believe in evolution, I don't because of religious and philosophical reasons. A person whose world view that does not allow for the existence of anything but Nature (ie. Naturalism) must believe in Evolution simply because of the sheer weight of evidence. On the other hand, a world view that allows for the existence of something outside of Nature (ie. Supernaturalism) does not *have* to believe in evolution; that is, there is another (albeit not scientific) alternative.
However, people should not assume that Supernaturalism is not rational, or that Naturalism is more rational. The reasons may not be strictly "scientific", but that does not make them any less rational. The best argument for the Supernatural that I've read is made by C. S. Lewis in his book *Miracles*. (It should be noted, however, that even Lewis allows for the possibility of Evolution as a means of creation; thus, evolution can actually fit into the ID world view.)
Now, what does that mean for the ID v. Evolution debate? As much as I hate to say it, the debate should not be in science class, but in Philosophy class, because that's really where the disagreement lies. Until we clear up the Natural v. Supernatural debate, we don't have a common starting point from which to argue ID v. Evolution. - drjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2BTW this is why ID folks allways say 'teach the controversy' because when they actually have to back up their side of the argument it falls apart like a deck of cards. It's like me telling everyone in the world I can beat Mike Tyson because his moves are so flawed. Oh but I don't want to fight him, I just want to talk about how I could beat him rhetoricaly, that's just as good right?
-drjones - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"We should not jump to the conclusion that intelligent design is not science because of this ruling. Remember that the judge must rule according to the law, not according to the reality of the matter."
He did rule according to the law. The reality of the matter is that the religious nuts are trying to sneak their beliefs into a pubic school setting. Separation of church and state? The Church has no business interfering with the teaching that goes on in a state run school. Thats why there are private religious schools, if parents want their kids to learn about that then then can send them to one of those. - colebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I guess you could classify me as one of those "right-wing religious nuts", but I happen to agree with this ruling.
I don't believe in a Creator as a matter of science, but rather as a matter of faith. Trying to explain the supernatural in natural scientific terms flies in the face of everything all the "intelligent design in school" proponents say they believe in. My beliefs on the origins of life are a principle of my faith and belief in God and honestly don't belong in a science class. I find it more offensive when people try to explain my God with science than those who are taking Him out of the scientific realm.
I'm not concerned with the government taking God out of itself. When the government tries to take God out of you and me, that's when you worry. That day may come sooner rather than later, but for now I don't see this decision as a problem. - zeroun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Now the children will never know the truth about his noodly appendage :-(
- wokavan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if you want to read the ruling in full:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf - redwards, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone who thinks that a theory 'graduates' to a fact after thorough explanation doesn't understand the word 'theory.'
And no, ID is not as 'observable' and 'scientific' as evolution. In fact, ID is neither observable nor scientific, in any way, while evolution is both. - DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My favorite part
"Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said."
Hey berean - "All theories should be allowed in schools" what?????
How about all theories that the holocaust didn't happen (yes there are still people who are crazy enough to believe that), how about all theories that we evolved from space aliens, or all theories that the earth is flat. - dharh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here I bring you the rulling:
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Boards ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwins theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 136 of 139 137 that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 137 of 139 138 imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Boards decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants actions.
Defendants actions in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs attorneys services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 such that Defendants ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.
s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge - cannuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is was never and is not about Intelligent Design or about Evolution or about Science - this is all about a bunch of LYING FREAKS - trying to force their notion of a BOOGEYMAN (g0d) into the classrooms! Since the judge in the case says these believers in the big BOOGEYMAN - were lying - I hope they are charged with perjury - and go to jail for 5 years. That's where these evil people belong - in jail.
- zeroun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When will humanity evolve past this religion phase?? I think we might need some inter-species competition.
- reaver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If you read the article, they weren't going to teach ID, but just mention that there was an alternative to Evolution (because as mentioned, evolution has many holes.)
I think this ruling is a little off. More than 75% of America believe that God had to do in some way with the creation of the world, I think if so many people think that ID is true, it should at least be allowed to be mentioned in schools as an alternative."
Religion doesn't belong in school, therefore it shouldn't be mentioned. Going to church and parents talking to kids about religion should be enough to teach them that there is an alternative to evolution. Teaching ID is not the job of a biology teacher. - TheNino85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hooray for censorship! It's about damn time we got theories we don't accept kicked out of schools forever!
You people make me sick. If the title of the article said, say, "Bush Prohibits the Teaching of Radical Feminist Liberation Ideologies in Public School," everyone here (including me) would be up in arms over censorship and free speech, no matter whether we agreed with the subject matter or not. But suddenly whenever anything that even slightly challenges evolution is involved, the Constitution flies out the window in an effort to defeat those "evil" Christians. Have you seriously lost it? Are we going to outlaw the teaching of everything we don't like in schools nowadays?
Besides, you want absolute proof of ID? There isn't any. Nor is there absolute proof of evolution. Or of relativity, or of electromagnetism, or of anything. But the anthropic principle comes pretty close to proof. Basically, according to our current theories, we live in a universe that is so ridiculously improbable that many well-respected physicists (Weinburg, Hawking, etc.) have adopted or at least toyed with the idea that the reason why we observe the universe to be the way it is because there is a multiverse (although they argue on what the multiverse actually is) in which most of the universes (what constitutes a universe, again, is argued upon, whether it's an entirely different space-time continuum or not) do not have any intelligent life, and we are one of the exceedingly lucky universes that does have intelligent life.
Is this theory science? Not in the least. It is an ad-hoc appendum to current theories which are in trouble themselves (dark matter, anyone? It's kinda a big deal when your cosmological model predicts totally wrong courses for the movement of galaxies, since that's kinda the point of a cosmological model to begin with) in order to refuse to allow any ground to God, to continue in the vain quest for a deterministic, self-contained universe. Yet we are still allowed to teach it in science classes. Does this have to do with evolution itself? No. But once someone lets God into the formation of the universe, one must ask why the hell would He* stop there? Why wouldn't He design all the complexity lifeforms of this universe, especially when mathimatical models of evolution predicted that it would take much, much longer than even 15 billion years in order for any species to make the jump between different kingdoms? This is a religious argument on both sides, over the existance of God Himself.
I don't like to argue like this. I wish digg was just a tech site where I could come to see the latest advancement in technology. But I was wrong. Digg is now becoming more of a political site. And so I must bid you all good day. I hope that someday, in the future, if I return, everyone here will have moved their childish arguments to different sites meant to argue politics and religon. The venom exhibited by both side is overwhelming, and I have better things to do with my time.
*In case you can't tell, I am a Christian, I do not in the least claim to be objective about the subject. But judging from the posts here, objectivity is a rare commodity in digg arguments. - millergenuine94, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Intelligent Design and Evolution both require a level of faith, in that regard, they are both the same. Faith fills the gaps for those that believe in Evolution, likewise, faith allows us to believe what we cannot explain for those that believe in Intelligent Design.
Why not present both "theories" in our public educational forum (AKA public school system) and then let people make their own educated choice? After, all the freedom to choose is one of our greatest God-given gifts.
Merry Christmas AND Happy Holidays to all! - nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@digitalsin - "Kids need not be singled out because they don't celebrate Christian holidays."
Nobody is singling them out. Christmas is an observed NATIONAL holiday just as Thanksgiving or Independence day. When I was in Spanish class in school we celebrated Cinco De Mayo. That doesn't mean it's part of my out-of-school life, it was just a learning experience. - kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@k311man:"I'm surprised so many of my fellow diggers are so closed minded. It's not a battle between ID and evolution. It's simply people saying, "Hey, it could have happened this way and no one knows for sure." I don't understand why it's such a problem to tell kids that at school. You never need mention God. Just that someone or something created the universe as opposed to it all having happened by chance."
and meanwhile the Chinese are churning out millions of science graduates.
it certainly is a battle, i'm afraid. a battle between rationality and superstition. - jpc82, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone that thinks evolution is just a "theory" does not understand what the word theory means in science.
The theory of relativity is just a theory also, but it does not make the atomic bomb which used it less real. - scarper86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I think if so many people think that ID is true, it should at least be allowed to be mentioned in schools as an alternative."
The point is that it doesn't belong in _science_ classes. It could fit in with other philosophical theories but it's not science. It's like complaining that they're not teaching algebra in English. It's amazing how so many technology oriented people don't understand what the scientific method means.
Science doesn't really "prove" things, it says that based on the preponderance of the evidence this is the most reasonable conclusion to draw. 2000 years ago, based on the evidence at hand, the earth appeared to be flat. As we accrued more knowledge it became clear that it was no longer rational to believe that. But faith makes people maintain their belief in something even when there is contrary evidence. It's religion that deals in absolutes, not science. - elrawtic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amen to that!
Ooops...oh wait...I mean thank God...no wait....I mean Great! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@hypersapien
Gradual transitions in the color spectrum are easily demonstrated and proven. I am not arguing what the theoretical process of evolution is. I agree that a gradual transition from one species to another is what the theory describes. I just stated that there is no evidence of this whatsoever. A transitional organism has never been found, unlike the wavelengths between red and yellow. Without proof, I cannot believe in this theory. And I find it a travesty that our public schools are forced to present this as scientific fact to our children with no debates or alternate theories allowed. - NotBlaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm from the school of thought that the universe is only 13 years old and everything that is older than 13 was created at that age when the rest of the universe was created. If you're 30 right now, you were spontaneously created at 17 years old, with 17 years of memories.
It explains amnesia, amnesia is just where your memories didn't take and you need rebooted.
Fossils, movies, 1971 Dodge Chargers and Glue were all created at the exact same time, late August 1992.
All of the fossils, research and evidence in favor of evolution were also created then as well.
So were all the religious books (well...book) and writings.
They all exist to detract from the fact that the universe is only 13 years old and was created specifically so we'd have somewhere to plug in our Dreamcasts and play Jet Set Radio. - Hypersapien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MajorOutage,
"Can you prove that Evolution is true?"
Evolution has been observed. How does that work for you?
"That men were once apes?"
Technically humans are still classified as apes
"birds were once reptiles?"
Ever hear of archaeopteryx?
"Cats were once dogs?"
Ummm... they weren't.
"I won't even bother asking for proof of the Big Bang."
Good. Because the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"One thing is certain, athiests certainly are a fiesty upset bunch!"
You would be too if someone pisses on you, tells you it's raining and that you are close-minded for thinking otherwise. - johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, and for those who need a primer in the Scientific Method:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html - MajorOutage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Evolution has been observed. How does that work for you?"
Adaptation has been observed, yes. And it works just fine. But that's still not proof.
"Technically humans are still classified as apes"
Probably because the people in charge of such classifications believe in evolution.
"Ever hear of archaeopteryx?"
I didn't recognize the name, no. Quite an interesting little creature, though. What gets me on this stuff is how we're always finding relatively matured evolutionary cycles. I'd imagine such a drastic change like growing wings would be a long, long process with many, many failed cycles that we never seem to find, especially considering genetics is a downstream process. - badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ true patriot
it makes me sad that people have forgotten that we were founded by religious people who believe that state and religion should be
seperate =(
Exactly. - TRUEPATRIOT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1brbeaird i can say it which such confidence after reading alot of the studies done on evolution.just look at the flower that darwing looked at that had its nectar way at the bottom of its stem and how there was one species of moth that could get to it by having a long sucking thing(lol dont know name)or blue and red footed boobies came to be evolution just makes sense to explain how animals change around environments and breeding.ID explains nothing it just says god did it and that cant be observed.the vatican believes that evolution is true does that make all of them atheist god haters who are out to destroy you?
- DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It has nothing to do with "proof", but rather the best possible guess a scientist can make based on the evidence at hand. "
Actually, that's called a hypothesis. - TRUEPATRIOT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1brbeaird evolution has never stopped its just soooo slow that humans can never see it.and no one ever from anywhere can prove how we got here.
- kartbart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The "testable" part of evolution that everyone speaks of doesn't exist. All experiments show evidence of "micro-evolution" - evolution within a species. No one has ever changed a bacteria into something other than a bacteria. Yes, you can get it to mutate and become a slightly different bacteria, but no one ever has been able to make it something other than a bacteria.
I don't believe in evolution. However, I'm surprised that the proponents of ID don't see this simple fact - to acknowledge ID is to acknowledge the possibility of a creator, and indeed of a God. This makes the possibility of moral accountability real. Atheists naturally are never going to accept this.
At the end of the day, evolution theory is as much philosophy as ID. For evolution, you have to assume that there was the right soup and the right set of physical laws to promote living things. Well, where did the soup and the laws come from? Also, if evolution is a gradual change, how come we have such distinct species. Surely, you need to have some intermediaries between man and ape still around. How is the distinction between species so discontinuous? How come we don't see a continuous series of evolutionary stages of man? Some more advanced and some less? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The main problem with the creationist theory is that it isn't even a theory.
- DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1asher12000 it's not the best possible guess
its (from wikipedia)
"In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."
ID is not testable so it is not a scientific theory. - daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I want ID in school, easy examinations, you only need to tick 'God' at every question to get good grades.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 387 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is