Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 09/02/05 - 20:48 Post subject: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
I know I'm getting into a topic here that I have not truly studied in depth but I have heard a lot about the subject lately and wanted to approach it here.
Recently I heard a series of lectures regarding this subject. As a Christian I am sure you probably know these lectures were supporting Intelligent Design. However, the guy that taught the series is a professor at the Naval Academy so he gave a very scientific presentation rather than a totally "Darwin-condeming" lecture.
As a scientist (not a very studied one) I never really questioned the Miller Experiment. To me it was just the way things were. I didn't believe that the world was just created with one big bang but I did (and do) believe that we evolve. But, the information I heard in the lecture regarding the Miller Experiment is very disturbing to me.
The Miller Experiment was based on the study of a graduate student who attempted to create amino acids in the lab. Amino acids are what combine to make proteins which are the building blocks for life. When Miller created the amino acids in the lab everyone said "Ah Ha! You CAN create life in the lab!" Well, that theory has actually been blown out of the waters since then. Yes, he made an amino acid but the chances that he could build the type of protein that would form a life are like 1 x 10 to the 30,000,000,000th power (or some extreme number like that). And that is just to form ONE protein.
So, years later you can even ask a hard-core Darwinist to explain the Miller Experiement and even they will tell you that the Miller Experiment doesn't hold water. The chemical elements that he used are said to have not even been available at the time of the creation of the world.
Okay, so some dude experimented, thought he did something wonderful, we realize years later he could in no way have created an amino acid that could form a human life. So, my big question is....
WHY IS THE MILLER EXPERIMENT STILL TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES EVEN TO THIS DAY????????????
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/02/05 - 21:49 Post subject: Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
| DCRunningDiva wrote: | | WHY IS THE MILLER EXPERIMENT STILL TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES EVEN TO THIS DAY???????????? |
Because it was it was the starting point for subsequent research. It can be taught as such without being taught it is without fault.
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/03/05 - 17:37 Post subject: Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | WHY IS THE MILLER EXPERIMENT STILL TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES EVEN TO THIS DAY???????????? |
Because it was it was the starting point for subsequent research. It can be taught as such without being taught it is without fault. |
Okay, I wouldn't mind it being in the textbooks if that was the case. However, it is my understanding that it is being taught as the reason to not believe in Intelligent Design. "If we can make it in the lab..."
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/03/05 - 19:39 Post subject: Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
| DCRunningDiva wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | WHY IS THE MILLER EXPERIMENT STILL TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES EVEN TO THIS DAY???????????? |
Because it was it was the starting point for subsequent research. It can be taught as such without being taught it is without fault. |
Okay, I wouldn't mind it being in the textbooks if that was the case. However, it is my understanding that it is being taught as the reason to not believe in Intelligent Design. "If we can make it in the lab..." |
I guess it would be good to check in with an actual school that is teaching it.
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/04/05 - 08:14 Post subject: Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | WHY IS THE MILLER EXPERIMENT STILL TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES EVEN TO THIS DAY???????????? |
Because it was it was the starting point for subsequent research. It can be taught as such without being taught it is without fault. |
Okay, I wouldn't mind it being in the textbooks if that was the case. However, it is my understanding that it is being taught as the reason to not believe in Intelligent Design. "If we can make it in the lab..." |
I guess it would be good to check in with an actual school that is teaching it. |
I have spoken to a local high school science teacher and that is how they are teaching it here.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/04/05 - 08:28 Post subject: Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
| DCRunningDiva wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | WHY IS THE MILLER EXPERIMENT STILL TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES EVEN TO THIS DAY???????????? |
Because it was it was the starting point for subsequent research. It can be taught as such without being taught it is without fault. |
Okay, I wouldn't mind it being in the textbooks if that was the case. However, it is my understanding that it is being taught as the reason to not believe in Intelligent Design. "If we can make it in the lab..." |
I guess it would be good to check in with an actual school that is teaching it. |
I have spoken to a local high school science teacher and that is how they are teaching it here. |
Which way? As a reason not to believe in Intelligent Design?
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/04/05 - 21:46 Post subject: Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
| camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | WHY IS THE MILLER EXPERIMENT STILL TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES EVEN TO THIS DAY???????????? |
Because it was it was the starting point for subsequent research. It can be taught as such without being taught it is without fault. |
Okay, I wouldn't mind it being in the textbooks if that was the case. However, it is my understanding that it is being taught as the reason to not believe in Intelligent Design. "If we can make it in the lab..." |
I guess it would be good to check in with an actual school that is teaching it. |
I have spoken to a local high school science teacher and that is how they are teaching it here. |
Which way? As a reason not to believe in Intelligent Design? |
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Jenn
Fresh, Hot & Wild
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 7935
Location: Suite 550
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/05/05 - 09:06 Post subject:
Why not?
There are plenty of now unfounded scientific experiments and many things most of us don't truly understand talked about in the classroom. Do we understand WHY math works out the way it does? No, but we teach it anyway.
Public schools are not allowed to teach that God created the heavens and the earth. The Miller experiment is just another concept introduced by teachers, in addition to Darwinism and the Big Bang theory to make your child think for themselves. It helps them form their own opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
DCRunningDiva
Look at me!!! ©
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 9344
Location: Washington DC Metro
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/05/05 - 17:18 Post subject:
| Ms. Jenn wrote: | Why not?
There are plenty of now unfounded scientific experiments and many things most of us don't truly understand talked about in the classroom. Do we understand WHY math works out the way it does? No, but we teach it anyway.
Public schools are not allowed to teach that God created the heavens and the earth. The Miller experiment is just another concept introduced by teachers, in addition to Darwinism and the Big Bang theory to make your child think for themselves. It helps them form their own opinion. |
Even though you know I would prefer they teach God I didn't specifically say God in this post. For some people, "Intelligent Design" does not mean the God I believe in.
With that being said, I don't appreciate them discussing the Miller Experiment but since they do why don't they teach Intelligent Design? THAT will allow children to think for themselves. Giving them a one-sided view does NOT allow them to think for themselves...it puts the concept of Darwinism in their minds as the only truth. You can't form your own opinion when there is only one option.
Since I homeschool my son I get the wonderful privilege of teaching him both sides of the story. 
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/06/05 - 07:42 Post subject:
Diva, because I am nuts I believe that Evolution is God's Intelligent Design and see nothing that forces the two to be mutually exclusive. In fact, the only way this Macro Evolution where species evolves into species makes sense is with God's hand.
With that said, I don't want Intelligent Design taught in public schools. It is up to you as a parent, and your church, to teach your children about God and how you believe He works.
A science classroom is for exactly that: science. If God or Intelligent Design is not something that can be scientifically discussed or proven or have a good reason to believe scientifically, it shouldn't have a place in that classroom. Perhaps there should be another class called Religion and Science where discussion can be had about how Religion and Science interact, how they don't work together and how they can.
But belief in Intelligent Design is based more on Faith than on Science. The classroom isn't the place for it.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/06/05 - 08:04 Post subject: Re: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
| DCRunningDiva wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | camelia bedelia wrote: | | DCRunningDiva wrote: | | WHY IS THE MILLER EXPERIMENT STILL TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES EVEN TO THIS DAY???????????? |
Because it was it was the starting point for subsequent research. It can be taught as such without being taught it is without fault. |
Okay, I wouldn't mind it being in the textbooks if that was the case. However, it is my understanding that it is being taught as the reason to not believe in Intelligent Design. "If we can make it in the lab..." |
I guess it would be good to check in with an actual school that is teaching it. |
I have spoken to a local high school science teacher and that is how they are teaching it here. |
Which way? As a reason not to believe in Intelligent Design? |
Yes. |
Things must be taught a little differently around here. I've never heard of a public school trying to prove, or disprove, ID. Science is taught as science and the faith portion is left out of it - that is left to the parents to teach.
And like Pug said, I don't see how a belief in the Big Bang or evolution precludes a belief that God created the universe. I went to a Christian school, and I was taught that God was responsible for creating the universe and about evolution and the Big Bang. It never seemed contradictory to me.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/06/05 - 09:14 Post subject:
A lot of science is based on human interpretation and conjecture. Human history is filled with scientific theories that humankind believed to be almost as good as fact that turned out to be flawed. Things like Newton's understanding of gravity, force and acceleration were considered immutable foundations of classical physics and then a guy like Einstein comes along and finds huge problems with the very foundation of Newtonian thought. Every reasonable scientist I've met knows that a large part of what they study requires faith - its just a faith in humankind's ability to reason. I don't know that faith in human reason should be considered any more laudable or legit than faith in God.
I think there's room for both kinds of faith to be taught in our education system. I think its imperative for children to be taught that science is really just one angle from which humanity attempts to understand the world in which we live. Our abilility to trust science to give us answers to questions we seek is subjected to human bias just the same as philosophy or spirituality. I think we do our children an injustice if our schools lead them to believe that science is the only credible path to take for objective thought. This is the only problem I have with the way I've seen and experienced the way origins science is sometimes taught.
There really are as many leaps of faith required to believe in random design origin theory (as we currently understand it) as there are to believe in intelligent design origin theory. And both theories start from a biased view of the universe in which we live.
|
|
|
|
|
AlaninTX
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 6582
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/06/05 - 10:11 Post subject:
The private Christian church school I attended offered a geology class. So, on the first day of school I go to this geology class, and the professor informs us that "The earth is 6 billion years old, and humans evolved from single cell microscopic organisims. Anyone who tells you anything different is lying to you." This, of course, precluded a lecture on how carbon dating works, and how to read the geologic record. Then we had labs to explain why the findings support the hypothesis.
It seemed then, as it does now, pretty clear cut to me.
He left any explanations as to why we exist to religion department and the department of philosophy.
Here is my problem with intelligent design. It equally supports the idea that a loving, merciful, caring God created us in His image, as well as beings from another universe created us and then abandoned us and we are nothing more than a discarded experiment unloved and unwanted by our creator. There is no science to support the theory. None at all. While Darwinism doesn't explain everything, intelligent design explains nothing.
Anyway, my take on it is intelligent has no place being taught in public classrooms. Established science takes time to teach, and even more time to understand. I do not think we need to take time away to teach theories of the "why" in public school classrooms. It takes time away from the public school mission, to teach a general diffusion of knowledge.
Intelligent design beliefs should be left to the faith based organizations, aka the church.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/06/05 - 12:39 Post subject:
| AlaninTX wrote: | | The private Christian church school I attended offered a geology class. So, on the first day of school I go to this geology class, and the professor informs us that "The earth is 6 billion years old, and humans evolved from single cell microscopic organisims. Anyone who tells you anything different is lying to you." |
To me the comment made by your teacher shows not only a lack of sensitivity for the beliefs of others but also a bit of ignorance about the nature of scientific theory. Thoughts about the age of the earth and the origins of human life are based strictly on scientific theory (much of which is highly speculative) and far from scientific law, let alone fact. How any educator could suggest that the only possible motivation was deceit if somebody presented ideas that contradict a theory is beyond me. Sounds like your teacher had other goals in mind besides just presenting his class with a theory about the origins of the earth.
| AlaninTX wrote: | | This, of course, precluded a lecture on how carbon dating works, and how to read the geologic record. |
This statement confuses me, I can only guess you meant to use a word other than preclude? Did you actually look at scientific evidence that support evolution or did your teacher think his opening statement to the class precluded the need for scientific explanations? If that's what you're saying how can you argue that he's even teaching you science.
| AlaninTX wrote: | | He left any explanations as to why we exist to religion department and the department of philosophy. |
I disagree with the concept that science is science and should be kept separate from philosophy or spirituality. I believe that in many cases the "why" is intricately wrapped up in the "how". I know not everybody will agree with this but it don't believe you can argue that its an unreasonable idea. To me, the origins of life reflect this cross-over of aspects of thought more than just about any other topic.
Why do some people seem afraid of presenting scientific research that opposes some of the foundations of the theory of evolution? The truth about most of our understanding about the origin of life is that what we do know barely scratches the surface of explaining how we got here. But instead of being taught this way, you're told "you're being lied to if you don't believe it". There are many unclear concepts in all areas of science - is light a particle or a wave, are there mathematical contradictions within Einstein's special relativity, why are instances of cancer increasing globally... Why do some people seem so hesitant to put the origins of life in this category?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 09/06/05 - 13:01 Post subject:
| TOsteve wrote: | | AlaninTX wrote: | | The private Christian church school I attended offered a geology class. So, on the first day of school I go to this geology class, and the professor informs us that "The earth is 6 billion years old, and humans evolved from single cell microscopic organisims. Anyone who tells you anything different is lying to you." |
To me the comment made by your teacher shows not only a lack of sensitivity for the beliefs of others but also a bit of ignorance about the nature of scientific theory. Thoughts about the age of the earth and the origins of human life are based strictly on scientific theory (much of which is highly speculative) and far from scientific law, let alone fact. How any educator could suggest that the only possible motivation was deceit if somebody presented ideas that contradict a theory is beyond me. Sounds like your teacher had other goals in mind besides just presenting his class with a theory about the origins of the earth.
| AlaninTX wrote: | | This, of course, precluded a lecture on how carbon dating works, and how to read the geologic record. |
This statement confuses me, I can only guess you meant to use a word other than preclude? Did you actually look at scientific evidence that support evolution or did your teacher think his opening statement to the class precluded the need for scientific explanations? If that's what you're saying how can you argue that he's even teaching you science.
| AlaninTX wrote: | | He left any explanations as to why we exist to religion department and the department of philosophy. |
I disagree with the concept that science is science and should be kept separate from philosophy or spirituality. I believe that in many cases the "why" is intricately wrapped up in the "how". I know not everybody will agree with this but it don't believe you can argue that its an unreasonable idea. To me, the origins of life reflect this cross-over of aspects of thought more than just about any other topic.
Why do some people seem afraid of presenting scientific research that opposes some of the foundations of the theory of evolution? The truth about most of our understanding about the origin of life is that what we do know barely scratches the surface of explaining how we got here. But instead of being taught this way, you're told "you're being lied to if you don't believe it". There are many unclear concepts in all areas of science - is light a particle or a wave, are there mathematical contradictions within Einstein's special relativity, why are instances of cancer increasing globally... Why do some people seem so hesitant to put the origins of life in this category? |
Kids should learn about all aspects of scientific theory, whether it be about gravity or molecular biology or evolution or whatever. I don’t have a problem, and in fact would expect them to, learn about contradictory research and things that aren’t yet fully understood. That’s all part of learning science. I just don’t want those holes in the theory to be used as “proof” of anything. I’m not going to freak out if ID is discussed in my kids’ classroom, as in; the question is raised in class of who caused all this to happen, but I don’t want faith based beliefs taught to them as fact.
I just don’t understand why some people seem to think a belief in science, more specifically a belief in science that looks at the origins of the universe, excludes a belief that God created the world. I don’t get that.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
