Faith school controversy

Former Member

With the greatest of respect klintock, I think using Wikipedia to provide a convenient definition which you then use as part of your argument is just lazy.

Answer this to yourself and be honest. No need to tell anyone else. If I had posted from Wiki supporting your line of reasoning, would you have dismissed it like this?

Blagsta did the same when arguing against a global flood.

Blagsta thinks with his feelings. I don't.

I could post another two dozen links outlining what the scientific method is, what it isn't and then measure all those definitions against ID and it would still get debunked. ID isn't science. Sorry to be the one to tell you.

Enjoy your birthday, Kentish. :birthday:

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Moreover, I'm not suggesting that intelligent design be included in biology lessons in the traditional sense. The evidence for and against Darwinian evolution should be included.

Intelligent design theories and creationism should continue to be taught in religious studies classes though.

Isn't that pretty much what happens already? Evolution was mentioned and discussed in passing (although I don't believe it was part of the curriculum), creationism was taught objectively in religious education.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Why should we teach children about evolution? Why should we teach them algebra, or ancient history, or French. Because it's useful information, and educates children in the ways of others and gives them skills to get on with different people.

Just like people take the phrase "speed limit" literally? If no alternative is offered, what else can children assume but that evolution is the only possibility.

It was the "used to" part I was questioning.

Like I say, it has become a 'diagnosis of exclusion'. If evolution isn't adequate to explain the development of humankind, there must be another explanation. That's why the creationists would spend a lot of time picking holes in evolutionary theory - those holes are even helpfully summarised for you in Richard Dawkins' article from the Guardian.

I don't really know what sort of answer would satisfy you, but spirituality is a universal human concept, and every culture on the globe will have some sort of god or idol that is worshipped. You can mock the lack of 'evidence', but it remains that many billions around the globe worship a god, and that is not because they have been "brainwashed" by attending a faith school.

You're one for historical aspects of religion - do you think Jesus, for example, existed and that his claims about being Son of God are historical fact, or modern fiction?

Of course it's a theory. It attempts to explain how we came to be, just the same as evolution does.

Do you think there are factors outside of school that have a stronger influence on such beliefs? Did you establish your spiritual beliefs at school?

Your ideas border on paranoia. You deny the ability of children to weigh up the arguments and that is an insult to teachers and pupils alike.

Do you make this argument about economic theory, or is it just your anti-religion views that dictate what you can investigate (and allow to be investigated)?

theres varying forms of evolution theory, darwinian is only 1, and theres people who believe that evolution happens its just god making alterations as things happen

evolution is currebtly the only tangeable scientific theory for the development of modern species - how life came about has a few,like that bacteria came on a rock of some sort to this planet etc etc

relativity is only a theory however it has a mathematical reasoning behind it and strangely theres circumstances where quantum physics works better however the overall message is that you teach a topic in the appropiate context

ID isnt a scientific theory (if you know the process of how something is a theory) - id is just a really VAGUE hypothesis with no evidence to support it

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

With the greatest of respect klintock, I think using Wikipedia to provide a convenient definition which you then use as part of your argument is just lazy. Blagsta did the same when arguing against a global flood. It's meaningless.

As opposed to you who makes wild assertions and then completely fails to back them up you mean?

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

If you think Nature is low ranking then you don't know much about popular science.

You didn't read the link did you?

The article was in a different journal, but was mentioned in a Nature article.

There have never been any ID papers in Nature as far as I can tell, just lots of papers discussing what bollocks it is.............

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Actually I think you'll find that evolution is being taught as undisputed fact. I was never taught about intelligent design at school.

You probably were.........

In an RE class rather than a science class though.............

Former Member

Did you know that on the BBC you are not allowed to promote the notion of creationism whereas you are free to preach evolution.

Regardless of what you believe, that's just not fair.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

As opposed to you who makes wild assertions and then completely fails to back them up you mean?

Yeah.

Former Member

Toadborg wrote:

You didn't read the link did you?

The article was in a different journal, but was mentioned in a Nature article.

There have never been any ID papers in Nature as far as I can tell, just lots of papers discussing what bollocks it is.............

Your link didn't work, but there have been papers published in Nature.

You probably were.........

In an RE class rather than a science class though.............

That would be creationism. But it is the fact that evolution is taught as fact, without mention of its limitations, that is the most worrying for scientific rigour.

Former Member

when an embryo is a few weeks old ...as many as a quarter of a million brain cells a minute are created ...these aren't blobs of flesh ...they are highly programmed circuitry.
they will all take up the correct positions according to a diagram ...or set of instructions.
one part of the brain will be wired and programmed for music appreciation.
another part will be wired up for recieving and interpreting the light pulses coming through the eyes or self cleaning auto focusing cameras ...
there are more connections in a human brain than the entire communications network of the planet.
there are circuits and micro circuits.
everything precisely placed in a bewildering complexity.

and then comes the cerebral cortex!!!!!!!!!!

quarter of an inch thinck and highly folded and compact.
opened up it would measure about three square feet ...every square inch packed with ten thousand miles of connecting fibre.

while that brain was being put together chemicaly and electricaly ...all very precise and complex and according to a written out diagram ...

billions of other cells were being manufactured ...cells which form bone ...celss that absorb oxygen ...a myriad of extremely important valves each in the right place and flowing in the right direction.
cells for hair eyes coulour vision ...cells to build an audio translation unit which picks up vibrations from the outside world.
connected in a big way to another part of the brain which deals with language.

the most complex thing yet discovered in the known universe is the human brain ...which amazingly ...produces thoughts and feelings!

some of you think it scientific to believe these written diagrams with all their complexity ...could have evolved by chance from a boulder.

science shows such complexity cannot happen by chance ...it just doesn't never has and never will....
such complexities that are being discovered surely debunk all idea of any nineteenth century theory ...which knew nothing of these things.

such complexities should be scientificaly investigated as to ...who ...could possibly have written down these things?

set these things in motion?

Former Member

theory of evolution ...an eighteenth century idea based on eighteenth century understanding and technology.

inteligent design ...based on twentieth and twenty first century understanding and technology.

we have come a very long way since the eighteenth century.
things that were simply fluids and solids and gasses and pumps and filters making up man ...have now been taken to pieces like never before.
when you start to delve into eighteenth century gooey bits with modern technology ...what do we find ...digital encoding ...wiring diagrams ...each cell being a manufacturing plant ...with transport controls and entry and exit control.

we find fighting machines and building and repair teams in our blood.
all complex ...all wired and programmed according to a diagram.

the closer we look the more amazed we become!

but somehow ...cave man like ...millions of people go into religous mode ...their faith in the impossible ...in the unproven and downright ridiculous
goes against every science we have ...
'duh man ...there was a big flash of light in a big bowl of soup ... and it was written and it came to pass ...the code of life'. your faith is very strong if you believe we accidently came from boulders.

Former Member

Roll, where did the intelligence come from to do the designing?

Former Member

Link works for me..........

Former Member

http://search.nature.com/search/?sp_a=sp1001702d&sp_sfvl_field=subject%7Cujournal&sp_t=results&sp_q_1=Nature&sp_x_1=ujournal&sp_p_1=phrase&sp_q=Intelligent+Design&image.x=20&image.y=4

Search results form nature

i haven't looked exhaustivley but i can't see any peer reviewed appers advocating ID there, maybe you can find them as you are so cetrtian they exist?

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

Your link didn't work, but there have been papers published in Nature.

That would be creationism. But it is the fact that evolution is taught as fact, without mention of its limitations, that is the most worrying for scientific rigour.

I suggest you actually read up on the philosophy of science and the scientific method and then come back to us.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

science shows such complexity cannot happen by chance

Actually, science shows the exact opposite - the universe is ruled by chance.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Actually, science shows the exact opposite - the universe is ruled by chance.

rubbish!!

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

rubbish!!

Good response. Read up on quantum physics sometime, emergent properties, evolution, genetics etc.

Former Member

Toadborg wrote:

Roll, where did the intelligence come from to do the designing?

i don't think i can answer that!

unless of course we take a listen to the biblical view which says ...god had no begining.
as difficult as this concept sounds even evolutionists ...cos of the struggle with absolutely nothing ...no matter no energy no space no time ...going bang in a big way and creating all of this becoming ever more impossible to accept ...many are now thinking along similar lines to the biblical ...though they would be loath to admit or even recognise it ....by saying that maybe the universe had no begining ...it has just always been ...an endless series of big bangs and collapses ...like breathing.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Good response. Read up on quantum physics sometime, emergent properties, evolution, genetics etc.

yes i've had a delve ...
chance and accident do not build design and replicate complex mechanisms.
or do you know of some kind of lab experiments than can show this?
repeat these things?

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

yes i've had a delve ...
chance and accident do not build design and replicate complex mechanisms.

Evolution does.

Is it really that tricky a concept to grasp? Simple organisms and structures evolve into more complex ones. Can't really understand what the problem is...

It is infinitely more plausible to me than a deity of sorts creating life and the universe for no apparent reason and then pissing off never to be seen or heard from again.

Plus, of course, there is countless amount of research and scientific evidence to back up evolution (even if there are "holes", i. e. not 100% of it has been backed up with proof yet), whereas there has never in history been even the tiniest amount of anything resembling evidence to back up creationism, 'intelligent design' or even the very existence of God. Something people have been claiming for millennia and yet been unable to provide any proof whatsoever of. Ever.

I know which one of the two schools of thought is in desperate need to provide the world with some evidence. Any evidence.

ETA: Sorry, I keep forgetting. Religious beliefs only require 'faith'... they're beyond evidence...

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

yes i've had a delve ...
chance and accident do not build design and replicate complex mechanisms.

Yeah they do, given enough time, like billions and billions of years.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

i don't think i can answer that!

unless of course we take a listen to the biblical view which says ...god had no begining.
as difficult as this concept sounds even evolutionists ...cos of the struggle with absolutely nothing ...no matter no energy no space no time ...going bang in a big way and creating all of this becoming ever more impossible to accept ...many are now thinking along similar lines to the biblical ...though they would be loath to admit or even recognise it ....by saying that maybe the universe had no begining ...it has just always been ...an endless series of big bangs and collapses ...like breathing.

So you're happy to advocate a theory why one ste of intelligence (us) MUST have been created by a God but then feel equally happy handing out some vague bullshit about where God came from..........

Former Member

Toadborg wrote:

So you're happy to advocate a theory why one ste of intelligence (us) MUST have been created by a God but then feel equally happy handing out some vague bullshit about where God came from..........

i haven't stated that a god did this ...
i made reference to the biblical explanation of where did the original inteligence come from because v...i have no other answer.

there are millions upon millions of fosils available for study ...not one of which supports evolution.

the billions of years bit always strikes me as a bit of a cop out.

we have many examples of insects millions of years old ...preserved in amber ...they are exactly the same as modern insects.

where is the evidence to support the theory of evolution?
seeing as so many people seem to be convinced it is a truth ...where is the evidence?

my evidence is all around me.

if you find a pice of pottery in the ground ...you know someone designed and manufactured it.
find something extremely technicaal and complex ...it just happened!
doesn't make sense and is very iunscientific.

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

we have many examples of insects millions of years old ...preserved in amber ...they are exactly the same as modern insects.

where is the evidence to support the theory of evolution?
seeing as so many people seem to be convinced it is a truth ...where is the evidence?

Er... absolutely everywhere.

Watch a nature programme. You will see countless pieces of evidence for evolution, from jellyfish that live in a coastal lake that got separated and sealed from the sea 10,000 years ago losing their tentacles (because they're no longer needed) and adapting to the new conditions, to plants that have copied the appearance of neighbouring poisonous varieties to fool potential predators from eating them, to the millions of different variations of land species that have adapted and evolved to be best suited for the conditions of their local environment, etc etc etc ad infinitum.

How could anyone possibly deny that species evolve and change to suit their environment? :banghead:

You need to look no further than the human species. How do you think we've come to have black and white races, to name but two? Surely nothing to do with climatic conditions? Oh no, that's too far fetched...

my evidence is all around me.

if you find a pice of pottery in the ground ...you know someone designed and manufactured it.
find something extremely technicaal and complex ...it just happened!
doesn't make sense and is very iunscientific.

Actually it does make a lot of sense once you know how it happened, and it is very scientific. Your argument on the other hand comes across as rather simplistic. "Something I don't understand how it came to be? It must be God's work. Phew! That's a rest on the mind..."

Former Member

morrocan roll wrote:

i haven't stated that a god did this ...
i made reference to the biblical explanation of where did the original inteligence come from because v...i have no other answer.

But your arguemtn is that something complex can't be arrived at by chance, it must have been designed in some way, yes?

But where did the designer come from, surely that requires explantion and it justs leads to infinite regress...........

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

How could anyone possibly deny that species evolve and change to suit their environment? :banghead:

No one does.

You're on about the difference between micro-evolution (that is, adaptation within a species) and macro-evolution (the creation of a new species from another).

Former Member

Toadborg wrote:

But where did the designer come from, surely that requires explantion and it justs leads to infinite regress...........

1. Why does it matter?
2. Where did the material required for evolution come from?

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

No one does.

You're on about the difference between micro-evolution (that is, adaptation within a species) and macro-evolution (the creation of a new species from another).

Well for starters that proves that evolution is possible and it occurs.

And I think there are plenty of examples out there that can safely be described as evolved, not micro-evolved. It is a moot point in any case, since it is already proven without reproach that species can evolve.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Well for starters that proves that evolution is possible and it occurs.

And I think there are plenty of examples out there that can safely be described as evolved, not micro-evolved. It is a moot point in any case, since it is already proven without reproach that species can evolve.

It's not a "moot point" - it's absolutely fundamental to the argument.