Reply With Quote
No one wants to open up this can of worms again....
I think we all agree that we already know what camp we belong in.... and that no one crosses to the other side.... at least not yet.
Austin American StatesmanGov. Rick Perry, a Republican who has made outreach to Christian conservatives a theme of his gubernatorial portfolio, thinks Texas public school students should be taught intelligent design along with evolutionary theory, his office said Thursday.
.......
Perry "supports the teaching of the theory of intelligent design," spokeswoman Kathy Walt said. "Texas schools teach the theory of evolution; intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, and he believes it should be taught as well."
She said elements of creationism are consistent with intelligent design and that teaching different theories is part of developing students' critical thinking skills.
Marvin Olasky, a University of Texas journalism professor who has written favorably on intelligent design, credited Perry with "advancing discussion of this issue. I find it refreshing that he's saying it. The issue is not going to go away."
I'd like to see that scientific proof.
No one wants to open up this can of worms again....
I think we all agree that we already know what camp we belong in.... and that no one crosses to the other side.... at least not yet.
camp or no camp, keep this fantasy crap out of public schools
Itelligent Design is just as valid a theory as the Big Bang. See no reason not to expose people to it.
Oh, and I'm an atheist btw.
Man, they sold you on it.
Intelligent design is NOT scientific theory in any way shape or form. You cannot ever test it or prove it. It is an idea, based on the tenets of religion.
I'm afraid you have no idea what intelligent design is. I believe you are the one thats actually been sold.
Big Bang is astrophysical/mathemical theory based on the ING MATTTER in the universe.
ID is "this is complicated. Somebody musta designed it"
No evidence,
no matter,
no value for explanation,
no value for prediction,
no testability,
thought terminated,
Praise The Lord.
A 50 second video of evolution:
http://www.boardsmag.com/screeningro...mercials/1959/
Butons, here is a little video of your ancestors. Enjoy. The little one
sounds a whole lot like you.
http://www.discoverchimpanzees.org/b...&topic=Tantrum
Wonder if these folks could give you some scientific proof, Dan? Seems there
may be just a few who would argue your point.
Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted
that Darwins theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The
public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBSs Evolution series, that
all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution as does virtually every
reputable scientist in the world.
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction
to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
www.discovery.org
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM
DARWINISM
(scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position)
E ARE SKEPTICAL OF
CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY
OF RANDOM MUTATION
AND NATURAL SELECTION
TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
COMPLEXITY OF LIFE.
CAREFUL EXAMINATION
OF THE EVIDENCE FOR
DARWINIAN THEORY
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.
W PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T., American Chemical
Society member Lawrence H. Johnston, Emeritus
Prof. of Physics, U. of Idaho Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept
of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, U.
of Idaho David A. DeWitt, PhD Neuroscience-Case
Western U. Theodor Liss, PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.
Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology, U. of
British Columbia Walter Bradley, Prof. Emeritus of
Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M Paul D. Brown,
Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies, Trinity Western
(Canada) Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry &
Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School
Theodore Saito, Project Manager, Lawrence
Livermore Laboratories Muzaffar Iqbal, PhD
Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan, Center for Theology
and the Natural Sciences S.William Pelletier,
Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry, U. of
Georgia Keith Delaplane, Prof. of Entomology, U. of
Georgia Ken Smith, Prof. of Mathematics, Central
Michigan U. Clarence Fouche, Prof. of Biology,
Virginia Intermont College Thomas Milner, Asst. Prof.
of Biomedical Engineering, U. of Texas, Austin Brian
J.Miller, PhD Physics-Duke U. Paul Nesselroade,
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Simpson College Donald
F. Calbreath, Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College
Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia Fred Sigworth, Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale Grad.
School Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry, NAS member Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics, Tulane U. Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton Michael
Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U. Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois Tony Mega, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus
of Biology, San Francisco State Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville David
Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico James Keesling, Prof. of Mathematics, U. of Florida Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan Robert
Newman, PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College William A. Dembski, PhD
Mathematics-U. of Chicago George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. James Keener, Prof. of
Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universitδt Mόnchen Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis Joseph Atkinson,
William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton
Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum
Chemistry, U. of Georgia Jeanne Drisko, Asst. Prof.,
Kansas Medical Center, U. of Kansas Chris Grace,
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U. Wolfgang Smith,
Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics-Oregon State
Rosalind Picard, Assoc. Prof. Computer Science,
M.I.T. Garrick Little, Senior Scientist, Li-Cor John
L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular
Biology, U. of New Mexico Martin Poenie, Assoc.
Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, U.
of Texas, Austin Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of
Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia
Hugh Nutley, Prof. Emeritus of Physics &
Engineering, Seattle Pacific U. David Berlinski, PhD
Philosophy-Princeton, Mathematician, Author Neil
Broom, Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials
Engineering, U. of Auckland John Bloom, Assoc.
Prof., Physics, Biola U. James Graham, Professional
Geologist, Sr. Program Manager, National
Environmental Consulting Firm John Baumgardner,
Technical Staff, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos
National Laboratory Fred Skiff, Prof. of Physics, U.
of Iowa Paul Kuld, Assoc. Prof., Biological Science,
Biola U. Yongsoon Park, Senior Research Scientist,
St. Lukes Hospital, Kansas City Moorad Alexanian, Prof. of Physics, U. of North Carolina, Wilmington Donald Ewert, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Ins ute Joseph
W. Francis, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Cedarville U. Thomas Saleska, Prof. of Biology, Concordia U. Ralph W. Seelke, Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences, U. of Wisconsin,
Superior James G. Harman, Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Texas Tech U. Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm
Raymond G. Bohlin, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas Fazale R. Rana, PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. Michael Atchison, Prof. of Biochemistry, U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School
William S. Harris, Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences, U. of Missouri Rebecca W. Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico Terry Morrison, PhD Chemistry-Syracuse
U. Robert F. DeHaan, PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology Bruce Evans, Assoc. Prof.
of Biology, Huntington College Jim Gibson, PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. David Ness, PhD Anthropology-Temple U. Bijan Nemati, PhD Physics, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion
Lab (NASA) Edward T. Peltzer, Senior Research Specialist, Monterey Bay Research Ins ute Stan E. Lennard, Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery, U. of Washington Rafe Payne, Prof.
& Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U. Phillip Savage, Prof. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Michigan Pattle Pun, Prof. of Biology, Wheaton College Jed Macosko, Postdoc.
Researcher Molecular Biology, U.C. Berkeley Daniel Dix, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, U. of South Carolina Ed Karlow, Chair, Dept. of Physics, LaSierra U. James Harbrecht,
Clinical Assoc. Prof., U. of Kansas Medical Center Robert W. Smith, Prof. of Chemistry, U. of Nebraska Robert DiSilvestro, PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M David Prentice, Prof.,
Dept. of Life Sciences, Indiana State U. Walt Stangl, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, Biola U. Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley James Tour, Chao Prof.
of Chemistry, Rice U. Todd Watson, Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry, Texas A & M Robert Waltzer, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Belhaven College Vincente Villa, Prof. of
Biology, Southwestern U. James Tumlin, Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Emory U. Charles Thaxton, PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of
Science-Cambridge Paul Nelson, PhD Philosophy of Biology-U. of Chicago Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Ins ute
I invite all to read the following, link provided, I would post but it is six pages
long. But I will post the last paragraph which I think is relevant.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=526
Some opponents of intelligent design, however, arent interested in debating the evidence. They prefer to pretend that the intellectual work of scientists like Dean Kenyon revolve around Edwards vs. Aguillard. The theory of intelligent design owes much to law, but the laws it concerns itself with are the laws of nature. The second half of the 20th century revealed that they are exquisitely fine-tuned for life. It also revealed that while life needs a finely tuned set of physical constants, it apparently also needs something that only intelligence can provideinformation. Critics of intelligent design could do with more of it.
One more post and I quit for the day.
Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
LOGY. Why do textbooks define logy as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
Copyright 2001 Jonathan Wells. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
File Date: 1.31.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use.
I have a question for all you Darwin fans. Why is it that it bothers you
so much that an opposing view would be taught in schools? Why do
you put out so much garbage that ID has no basis in fact?
Could it be that you are in the same crowd as the "world is flat" bunch?
I have stated it once and will state it again, Darwin was a single person
who had an idea that a bunch of people gobbed onto. If you do a
little research with an open mind you will find no real basis for his so
called observations. Where has anything evolved in the past few
hundred years. huh? Even just a tiny, teenie, little bit. Huh? Cant
find any? strange isn't it, not even a centimeter of change.
Last edited by xrayzebra; 01-07-2006 at 11:40 AM.
That makes his questions invalid?
Seems to me there is some evidence with antimicrobal resistant bacteria. Is there a creationist theory for those?Where has anything evolved in the past few
hundred years. huh? Even just a tiny, teenie, little bit. Huh? Cant
find any? strange isn't it, not even a centimeter of change.
"INTELLIGENT DESIGN is NOT an 'opposing view' of evolution"
ID seeks to destroy all of science by redefining a new "something" (can't call it science) that is in opposition to traditional science and posits super-natural explanations for natural phenomena.
and yes, " ing man", ID is aggressively anti-science.
Did you see my post about the "other scientist". They may have
"opposing view" twerp. Seems as though they may have a little bit
more credentials than you do.
I don't know right off hand. Neither do you. But I do have enough sense
to know there is more than one opinion. Seems as though you don't.
So been closed minded, might want to practice that with your mouth.
What are you talking about? This is a legit question. Resistant bacteria are very real and there is an evolutionary explanaiton for them. I'm certainly willing to hear the creationist argument if there is one.
As far as I can remember, this is my first post about the creationism issue. Unless you can find others that prove I'm so closed-minded about it, I suggest you slow your roll.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 01-07-2006 at 05:04 PM.
Here is an easier to understand article on what "Intelligent Design" really is.
I am an atheist, and am not looking for God supporting theories. Intelligent Design is a theory outside that of Religions or Gods. So, keep an open mind when reading.
I don't totally subscribe to it...but, I don't totally subscribe to the "Nothing-Bang-Everything" theory either. However, they are both worth investigation and discussion.
This is easy an easy to read Newspaper Article. Doesn't really get into the meat tho, till page 2.
I'd be interested to hear what others think of it after reading this.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...9-46f4f17b5b61
Some thoughts on the article
- IDs Origin isnt a twisted way to get Creationism into the classrooms. Yet it has been twisted and used by religious groups in their effort to include an alternative theory to evolution that involves some sort of supreme being into classrooms after they failed to include creationism in science classes.
- The only evidence ID shows is the absence of evidence or the evolution theory inability to explain some things. But neither of those cons utes evidence by itself.
Some questions to IDs supporters
- Why do IDs supporters refer to Evolutionism as Darwinism? no one refers to relativity as Einstenism...
- Does ID reject the idea that we descend from apes? does it refute the idea that evolution is a natural process?
Sigh.... my first post was correct. And yet the people that so passionately argued in favor of 'evolution' (above) never once brought up a legit scientific experiment to the table....
I'm not going to try and convince anyone, as that was never the intent; but please, quit the childish insults (ahem... boutons, elpimpo4cc). I would hand you the nobel prize myself if that approach ever led to anything productive.....
How can something be millions of years old when they earth is only supposedly a few thousand?ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
How come people that support evolution don't want an opposing view?
How do you know that somewhere they may agree with each other?
Could it be, just could it be, that they are not sure of what they say?
"never once brought up a legit scientific experiment to the table...."
WTF?
the biological world is an ongoing experiment.
The evidence FOR evolution is overwhelming. Evolution has strong powers of explanation and prediction.
I read a article in the past few months about experiments with the popular fruit fly showing that thru ONLY 50 generations, genetic differentiations/adaptations were visisble in two different control groups.
Now extrapolate to 1000s and 1000s of generations going back millions of years with huge variations in environmental stress and variations ....
and why don't IDers/creationist set up experiments to prove super-natural design and intervention?
They have! Look them up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
