10-23-2005, 03:20 PM #1
Intelligent design and evolution at the white house
Yet again bush speaks on things he have no clue
10-23-2005, 04:08 PM #2
That's nothing, he says stuff like that daily. Sadly, that is a prime example of how he views the world. The best arguement against intelligent design in the class room is that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and has no place in a science class.
10-23-2005, 05:05 PM #3
ayup, he's retarded.
10-23-2005, 05:12 PM #4
“Q: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?
THE PRESIDENT: I think -- as I said, harking back to my days as my governor -- both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
Q: Both sides should be properly taught?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people -- so people can understand what the debate is about.
Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.
what in here is everyone saying Bush is retarded about? That his view that creation should be taught in schools as an alternative to how we are here compared to macro-evolution? I dont see anything wrong with that, unless i missed something. I just read the small interview portion, not the whole article. perhaps im just as retarded..
10-23-2005, 05:14 PM #5
they are both just "theories" with no definitive proof. So i think it should be taught "some people believe in evolution and this is why" and "some people believe in creation and this is why". Not "evolution is how we are here, end of story".
10-23-2005, 06:05 PM #6
a scientific theory varies wildly from the term theory in general usage,
there is no "proving" a scientific theory like there is in math or aristotalian logic, but rather theories are proven by being tested scientifically and not being disproven.
take the idea that we evolved from an ape ancestor. well we have alot of evidence that that is the case, like sharing almost all our DNA with chimps, and the fact that we have fossil evidence of bipedal apes that are smaller-brained and less like ourselves the older they get.
as for intelligent design it's not anythign scientific- it's untestable and it uses porly applied logic.
if you saw a watch on the beach you'd assume it was too complex a natural accident and would know it had to be made by a creator
but when you look at the earth, it's not like that- you see all types of random things, and if you look at living organisms the oldest evidence is of extremely small single celled ones and they gradually emerge as more complex throughout the ages. and share dna (which contains all kinds of waste material btw). etc etc etc.
10-23-2005, 06:30 PM #7
i agree that the proofs of creation are not something you can conclude by science experiments. but i think that the proofs of creation are at least equal to proofs of evolution (when discussing the beginning of life).
i guess i didnt know exactly what a scientific theory was. i figured, it was a scientific theory, probability if you will, and once experiments proved it, it wasnt theory, but fact. perhaps thats the "general" definition.
but, i dont wanna go into things like proofs for each, we do that a lot (unless you or others want to) but my point is, the fact that everything we know was formed by the macro-evolution of the first basic life form is not even close to being definitive and there are just as much, even perhaps more arguements against macro-evolution then for it. and just because creation cant be proven with scientific experiments does not mean its not true. creation has a lot of proofs going for it as well. and thus I think both should be explained. perhaps not in science class. perhaps a new class should be taken in schools about it??? but i dont agree with science books using the general term for evolution to say thats how the beginning of life happened and then using examples of micro evolution as proof, when the beginning of life has nothing to do with micro evolution but macro evolution, but if you took a survey of high school students, i bet a very high percentage has no clue what the difference is and if they have even heard of the terms, they dont know what they mean. but you ask what evolution is and they give you the microevolution definition and then go on to say thats how the beginning of life began. to me, thats like "malpractice" leading our children down a path by fogging the facts by using a term (evolution) to describe something (macroevolution) but giving proofs of a different term (microevolution) but using the original term (evolution).
10-23-2005, 06:47 PM #8
are you thinking of speciation (the act of a new species actually coming into being)? that's something that hasn't been documented.
10-23-2005, 07:36 PM #9
macroevolution: Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
speciation: The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
microevolution: Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.
when referring to how all of the living organisms we see today and how they all got here, its not talking about microevolution because microevolution refers to subspecies, not a new species alltogether, which is what would have to happen if evolution is correct (first basic life evolves into all the different species we see today) which is macroevolution/speciation which you are correct, never been seen. microevolution has been seen but microevolution does not describe the process which evolution is talking about when discussing the beginning of life.
10-23-2005, 11:07 PM #10
max I think he is retared because it sounds like he wants ID to be in science classes.
10-23-2005, 11:11 PM #11Originally Posted by max2extreme
10-23-2005, 11:14 PM #12
has the theory of evolution been proven too 100% ??????????
10-24-2005, 12:43 AM #13
10-24-2005, 04:23 AM #14Originally Posted by Prol
10-24-2005, 07:29 AM #15
wasnt it a theory that the world was flat?? now its not a theory, its a fact...
theories arent something that is always a theory, at least i never thought that. i just thought theories were something that hadnt been proven yet but suspected. once its proven and not suspected, its not a theory. do scientist only make something a theory if they know it can never be proven? If so, what do they call thoughts that havnt been proven but they know that it will be proven?
10-24-2005, 07:42 AM #16
A scientific theory is in all senses of the world a scientific law. For a hypothesis to be raised to a accepted theory it has to be shown to be so damn right that there is no chanse it hell that it will be proven wrong(unless under certain circumstances, like theory of relativity on quantum level or quantum theory on comsological levels).
If I state the theory that all swans are white thats a pretty damn solid theory. But to prove it right I would have to examine every swan that ever existed and every swan that will exist. That is practicaly impossible, so my theory can never be proven to be 100% right even though it gets support everytime we se a white swan. Its the same with scientific theories. While the evidence might seem overwhelming one only has to find a non white swan and its proven wrong.
That doesnt neccesarly mean the theory has to be tossed out of the window though. Because its still accurate to 99.99999%. Now the challange is to find a theory that explains the 0.0000001% that the original theory doesnt explain.
This is how science looks at evolution or all other solid theories. Even if its proven wrong, its still so right that it wont be banished, only modified and added to.
10-24-2005, 01:41 PM #17Originally Posted by Prol
Personally, I don't know, as I'm not a biologist, don't know much about that stuff, and I have other things (better things) to worry about.
But, I DO know that "Creation Science" is based on the Fundamentalist approach to the Christian Bible, and as I've demonstrated time and time again, the Bible is not a reliable source of information. It is, however, a rich source of legend, of talking animals and unlikely tales of world-wide floods and mass exoduses and decimation of armies.
Public Schools should teach history, arts, science, and language skills, and leave religion to churches. Problem is that church leaders want to make sure that kids who never go to church learn religion, so they want to teach Bible lessons where the kids are -- in public school.
If it was Muslims or Scientologists that wanted to teach their religious messages to the vast majority of schoolkids, I'll bet the Christians would be crying "Foul!"
10-24-2005, 01:43 PM #18Originally Posted by johan
You can't even prove that you're alive.
10-24-2005, 01:46 PM #19Originally Posted by max2extreme
Here's a website for starters:
Introduction to the Scientific Method
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
10-24-2005, 07:10 PM #20
i guess my misunderstanding was the term "theory". to me i thought it was just a theory if it hadnt been 100% been proven true. i didnt know it was something that could never be proven true, only supported.
10-24-2005, 09:24 PM #21Originally Posted by johan
Last edited by J.S.N.; 10-29-2005 at 11:27 PM.
10-24-2005, 10:12 PM #22
if we evolved from apes.. then why are their still apes
10-25-2005, 12:27 AM #23Originally Posted by decadbal
And another apt response would be from:
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
Hope this answers your question.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)