TED Conversations

Obey No1kinobe

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is intelligent design science and should it be taught in public schools?

Most definitions of modern science describe a methodology of finding testable explanations of the universe or similar.

I often hear evolution is a theory not a fact. A scientific theory explains the facts and is verifiable or demonstrable. Evolution is one of the most validated theories around.

I propose ID is not science. It is not verifiable and its challenges to evolution. For example the arguments about irreducible complexity have been debunked e.g. a subset of components of the bacterial flagellum are used by some bacteria inject harmful proteins into other cells. There are so many transitional forms scientists argue whether some of them are birds, reptiles or mammals.

To allow ID into science you would need to change the definition of science and drop the testable requirement. This would enable astrology, alchemy and crystal healing alongside astronomy, chemistry and physics.

I also hear the argument why not include all sides of the debate. Scientifically there is no debate. Philosophically, this is akin to suggesting alchemy be taught alongside chemistry, or Greek mythology as history.

I propose it should not. This does not stop parents teaching their kids any religious dogma they choose within the law. But it is not science and religious beliefs have no place being taught in public schools.

+9
Share:

Closing Statement from Obey No1kinobe

ID is a form of creationism promoted by the Discovery Institute and supported by many evangelical Christians. The Institute defines it as "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Evolutionary theory is the foundation of modern biology. Whether you want to believe it or not explains the development different species and genetic similarities between species. Essentially gene frequency changes due to natural selection, from less adapted to more adapted. At some stage the divergence of one group may get to the point where they can not interbreed successfully with other related groups or their ancestors ie they become a new species. This is a gradual process, supported by much evidence in the fossil record, DNA and gene analysis.

The key argument for ID is irreducible complexity which proposes the bacterial flagellum, immune system, blood clotting could not have evolved or developed from something similar. They need all the parts to do anything. In all cases it has been proven that these are reducable. They could have evolved.

ID is basically, life is complex, hard to explain, so it must be designed. Read the comments and Í hope you see there is a sound argument that ID has tried to bypass scientific consensus. It is a discredited hypothesis except for those who want to believe. Also, you start to get into mythology when you try and describe and explain the creator for which there is nop verifiable evidence.

While there is no scientific evidence for design, we can not scientifically say the universe isn't. That is a philosophical question. If you value the truth then science can inform faith. We can respect religion except where it is wrong. The universe is not 6,000 years old. Life evolved. We should not make special exceptions to promote falsehoods in schools. Our children deserve better. If our growing understanding makes some beliefs obsolete, so be it

progress indicator
  • thumb
    Aug 17 2012: Fortunately ID is not taught in Denmark or England (and I don't think in any other European public schools).

    This because of the simple fact that it is not a scientific theory.
    And just because some people call it a theory, does not make it so.

    Religion is taught here, also covering religious beliefs of creation.
    But it does not belong in a science lesson.
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2012: Thanks Sophia. Do they teach about religion in general or teach one religion as being true?
  • thumb
    Aug 17 2012: I agree with your point of view

    ID is not science.
    It can only be thought as an example of bad science and how people can twist their mind in order to fit some assumptions they cannot let go.

    If you wish to have some good arguments:
    http://fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Dawkins_The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth

    I think all these kind of debates boil back to a fundamental misunderstanding of uncertainty.
    Uncertainty is quantifiable (any kind of gambler knows this). Something that is likely to be true needs to be treated as such, as everything that is unlikely to be true.
    Current evolution theories fit for over 99%, ID is an inconsistent theory and has a worse fit.
  • Aug 15 2012: I highly recommend seeing a documentary called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" featuring Ben Stein (it's available on Netflix). It's quite fascinating and points out that assumptions about evolution or intelligent design are booth foolish. There are a lot of holes in both theories (although arguably more in ID). A quote comes to mind, "We don't just use illusions to hide the facts. Sometimes we use them to explore the facts." The film advocates teaching ABOUT intelligent design (not teaching that it's right) alongside evolution. Science should be the one area that welcomes questions. I disagree that there is no debate scientifically. Yes, species evolve, but that's doesn't completely solve the mystery of the origin of life. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang or what caused it. In the conclusion of the film, Stein says, "What I'm asking for is the freedom to follow the evidence WHEREVER it may lead." There are still so many questions. Nobody is in the position to claim that ID is absolutely wrong or absolutely impossible. ID doesn't have to be a religious debate. If there was some sort of intelligence before life, perhaps it was completely different from what we think of as God. Einstein, for instance, did not believe in a deity but believed that "some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe." I'm not saying his belief is correct either, it's just an example that Intelligence doesn't equal God. I don't propose that schools teach there is a Creator, but I also don't propose that we treat evolution theory as the end-all. It's an incomplete answer. It may be more compatible with other theories than we realize. Without freedom of thought, how can we make innovative discoveries? Young minds should be encouraged to look at facts from various angles and be encouraged to find answers to the unanswerable.
    • thumb
      Aug 15 2012: Hi Natalia,

      I'll have to check out the film.

      I'm with you on the origins of life being a work in progress. Probably a few billion years ago so a tough cookie.

      I tend to separate abiogensis from evolution at least in my head. My understanding is evolution is well established once we have multicelluar life, but it all gets more murky the further back we go.

      Agree with following the evidence whether it may lead. I'm not so attached to evolution or any theory that if something better came along, fine. ID is not something better.

      I realise ID could also be by aliens, but that pushes the question back to where did they come from. Also it is the discovery institute and other religious groups pushing ID with the objective of getting alongside evolution theory in science any way they can. For them it is all religious, not what is the best theory.

      Most the stuff I have read and heard makes different conclusions about ID. The examples of irreducible complexity proposed have been found to be reducible and so on. In the end an intelligent agency, lets call it god for example, is unverifiable. My understanding is ID currently they don't have anything compelling. If the ID proponents come up with something better, it is likely to be something we have no explanation for currently rather than positive evidence of design.

      I'm fine with the debate in Science land as appropriate. My understanding is ID is not at a point where it is appropriate to teach as science. If it improves and gains more weight, evidence etc or even is found to be superior to evolution then so be it, it should then be taught. But it is not at the point yet and I see no need to pander to a special interest religious group for high school education if ID doesn't meet reasonable criteria at this time to include in the curriculum.

      I agree about teaching a balance of open mind and critical thinking. I don't think ID which is currently a half baked pseudo theist argument is the best example to include today.
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2012: Hi Obey.
        "Expelled" is a must see!

        :-)
  • Aug 16 2012: Obey: intelligent design is a testable theory. For example, scientists at the Biologic Institute are doing studies from an ID perspective on the origin and role of information in biology, functional and design constraints, and design patterns and hallmarks. At the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, they study the role of design using information sciences. As they put it:
    "What if patterns best explained as the product of intelligence exist in biological systems? In that case, the intelligence in question would be an unevolved intelligence. For most persons, such an intelligence has religious connotations, suggesting that it as well as its activities cannot properly belong to science. Simply put, intelligent design, when applied to biology, seems to invoke ‘spooky’ forms of causation that have no place in science. Evolutionary informatics eliminates this difficulty associated with intelligent design. By looking to information theory, a well-established branch of the engineering and mathematical sciences, evolutionary informatics shows that patterns we ordinarily ascribe to intelligence, when arising from an evolutionary process, must be referred to sources of information external to that process. Such sources of information may then themselves be the result of other, deeper evolutionary processes. But what enables these evolutionary processes in turn to produce such sources of information? Evolutionary informatics demonstrates a regress of information sources. At no place along the way need there be a violation of ordinary physical causality. And yet, the regress implies a fundamental incompleteness in physical causality's ability to produce the required information. Evolutionary informatics, while falling squarely within the information sciences, thus points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer."

    Should ID be taught in public schools? Consider this: are students in science class taught to critically think? Or are they spoonfed ideas?
    • thumb
      Aug 16 2012: Thanks Andrew. No issue teaching critical thinking. In fact I would support it.

      Is ID versus evolution the best way to teach critical thinking?

      Why pick this topic? What are the motives?

      Why not start with the basics, and use faith based beliefs for examples. I'm not suggesting that is the best way, just turning it around.

      When ID or some other theory is found to better explain what we observe, and it has scientific consensus then it should be taught in science.

      ID seems to look for things that are hard to explain and promote a creative intelligence as the cause. I guess they failed with irreducible complexity so moving on to something else. I've heard some arguments information. Maybe they will come up with something better. Good on them.

      IC if proven might indicate abrupt creation in some body part and biological functions. It actually does not mean this happened in conjunction with evolution for everything else.

      The intelligence argument seems even weaker if your end goal is to show humans were created as are. The outcome is there is a possibility an intelligence helped set up some biological information systems. This does not deny the bulk of evolution. Its almost guided or assisted evolution. If I may paraphrase - some parts of reality are so complex maybe they were created that way.

      I'd need more than the quote above to be convinced of the assertion "points to the need for an ultimate information source an intelligent designer"

      A single cell is remarkably complex. How did it get that way. Maybe it was created. The operation of a single cell is incredibly complex maybe a supernatural intelligence is driving these cell processes and all other processes in nature and the cosmos we find hard to understand.

      Seems like a fancy argument from ignorance.

      Why isn't there evidence of an actual gods rather than arguments that they may be responsible for things that are hard to understand for our limited brains?
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2012: Most scientists who discovered the law we use to make scientific deductions are know by name and can take credit for their work. To my knowledge no entity has come forward to claim the work of Scientific design. Let the creator speak or let the subject die. I'm sure if such a creator could create all we accept as reality that creator could speak to us about it.
      • thumb
        Aug 17 2012: Some would say the creator has spoken in an old collection of books or through the words of prophets or god incarnate.
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2012: Some say the earth is flat and we never set foot on the moon. I think I'm done with this questions and point you to read my last post.

          It's been enjoyable conversing with you. See you around with a another question perhaps. If you would like to discuss more on the topic you can email me at my address listed in my profile.

          Later....
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: Thanks for the comments JM
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: If intelligent design doesn't mean a spooky creator in the sky then it's merely moving the question of how life arose and how species formed.
  • Aug 16 2012: The Discovery Institute (a misnomer if ever there was one) was set up after "scientific" creationism was ruled by the US courts to be religion, not science, and therefore could not be taught in public schools. It's explicit goals are religious and political, not scientific, as is clear from the "Wedge Document" which is freely available on the internet. The concept of Intelligent Design is based on a series of false premises, most significantly that if evolutionary theory can be falsified, the "explanation" of an "Intelligent Designer" (which is a rather dishonest euphemism when it is clear that they mean God) must be responsible.

    The claims of ID for scientific legitimacy were tested in the US courts in the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial. The evidence showed clearly that it is little more than "scientific" creationism repackaged (look up "cdesign proponentsists") to evade the US constitution, and that has no more claim to scientific legitimacy than astrology.

    However, it is the behaviour of the creationists trying to promote ID which is why I think we should oppose it. They lied under oath about the source of funding for "Pandas and People" - a "textbook" promoting thinly disguised "scientific creationism" . Michael Behe, one of the principal figures in the ID movement dismissed the scenario published in several scientific papers for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum as "unconvincing" whilst admitting that he had not even read them. William Dembski, the supposed intellectual heavyweight of the ID movement responded to the ruling on the trial by releasing a video of the judge to which he had added farting noises.

    Some Discovery Institute fellows have perfectly respectable track records of research and publication. They must know that their arguments cannot be tested and have no validity as science, yet persist in promoting them as science.

    I don't think that ID should be taught as either religion or science. I don't think that we should teach lies as truth.
    • thumb
      Aug 16 2012: Very succinct yet thorough argument. Thanks.

      I guess some creationists think scientist twist the facts to support their theories. I agree there is interpretation and many theories will get superseded. Yet the more we know the more it looks like all creation myths are just made up. If one were right, it's surprising that it doesn't easy fit the facts, that it needs convoluted explanations to account for what is observed or ignore evidence.

      Why did god make it so tricky that people need to lie to try and get their theist science accepted as science.
  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +2
    Aug 12 2012: I used to be strongly against religion in school. But I'm beginning to change my mind. Banning any kind of learning is a bad thing. So I think that ALL religions and all creation myths be taught in a class called 'WORLDVIEWS OF THE WORLD". Evolution would be reserved for science class, because it is a science.

    In this way, children could see that the invisble noodly appendages of the flying spaghetti monster could have created the earth, but because he was inebriated at the time, he made some mistakes. But, he declared, all is good, so a mistake is good. Next they could learn about an invisible God who sits on a throne with a lightening bolt ready to strike at you, and how he created the earth, then destroyed everything on it, and will come back and throw all evil people into hell. Then they could learn about Thor and about Pangu and Pele and all of the rest of the creators of the universe and the children of these gods.

    We cannot make an informed choice if we do not have enough information to make an informed choice. Children are no different. Require them ALL because education is about education, not political or religious agendas.

    Keep prayer out though. That really crosses the line
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2012: Great minds think alike : )

      Cheers for remembering "Spaghetti String Theory" too...
    • thumb
      Aug 14 2012: Hi Gail, I also support teaching about religions in public schools, but not indoctrination in any particular brand.

      I expect the approach you suggest would end up being dialled back.

      In fact I think objectively teaching about religion as a human cultural construct it might even be vetoed in some places, even if it was framed in a way that acknowledged the value many attribute to particular dogmas and highlighted the value of freedom of religion in a society and the good and the bad.
  • Aug 19 2012: two more thoughts...

    6. I am not sure I can say if ID SHOULD be taught in public schools or not. That depends on what exactly is taught, how it is taught, and what is the goal of public schools in the first place. I do think a beneficial conversation for children and communities to have would be "given a definition of ID and using scientific methodology, do you think ID is accurate as an explanation?"
    7. I can see, deeper in the thread, you addressed some of what I brought up including your working definition of ID. Sorry for the initial oversight.
  • Sam Iam

    • +1
    Aug 18 2012: No, and no it should not be. Duh. Why is this question still being asked?
  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: I would like to add that I, myself, believe in Darwin's theory. I think the Intel Designer advocates can be extreme and equally narrow-minded in their cause as much as fans of the Richard Dawkins Club. Whatever the case, I just hope neither side is trying to hijack anyone's mind or belief system.

    Santa Claus may not be real to adults but the power of myth and story hasn't caused innumerable child defects or psychological disorders to children in disturbingly epic proportions. They grow out of it (some sooner, some later) and appreciate imagination and fairy tales as Jungian playgrounds of sort. I believe Intelligent Design advocates will also or at least I hope so.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: Hi Charles. I get the point of not trying to indoctrinate, either way

      Just trying to ensure science gets taught in science. This is a long way from communist or atheist indoctrination.

      I doubt they will grow out of it unless they grow out of the core beliefs or something else is invented to try and get their beliefs into schools.

      Even though ID has been scientifically debunked, believers still cling to it. In one of the trials the main proponent of irreducible complexity was presented with dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers debunking his claim that the immune system was irreducible and could not have evolved. He told the judge that this was not sufficient evidence for him. He just ignored it. WE see this with radiometric dating etc. It is the dogmatic religious mindset. The bible must be true.

      When ID was raised with me initially I didn't have an answer. I was skeptical, but did not have enough information to completely debunk the IR bits. So I went looking to understand it. Now I have a better understanding and it is not a scientifically robust hypothesis.
  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: The picture is not a self-portrait of me in this life but one of my alter-ego, for sure.

    As Tibetan Buddhist (or how about just a Buddhist or even better...just a man in general) and per practice and free will, I do not believe in a Creator designer (as worded). I believe that evolution is reliable, inspiring so much gratitude and appreciation for the world we live in and all its bounty. It's truly unfortunate that many people miss this focal point.

    I do think science should be taught just as standalone science in schools unless the class is specifically a scientific-intel design curriculum, which is really delving into the social science or social studies stage. However, I also would like to see Intel Design as another class that would give students an opportunity to challenge both sides of the coin, if you will. Again, science will not suffer and evolution will remain on course if Intel Design advocates pitch their tents on the same academic camp ground.

    Schools have gay-lesbian-bisexual-homosexual education awareness, and the preliminary worry by anti-gay or homophobic groups was that such programs would (1) turn entire campuses into gay congregational centers, (2) straight students would be brainwashed into gayness, and (3) ideas as absurd as the school mascot and football team switching to pink uniforms and colors etc... What we generally have found is that gay-awareness does this: raise awareness, promote sensitivity and diminish hate crimes by not condoning violence. If a student chooses a gay option it's either an inherent thing or experimentation; not an awareness program. Therefore, the brainwash argument is invalid. And assuming that pink is strictly a gay color or somehow weakens an athletic program is just a reflection of homophobic hysteria.

    As such, I don't think people should be Intel Designerphobic. I'm not. You either disagree or agree. Whatever the case may be, public schools should be open forums for open debate.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: Thanks Charles.

      I'm not sure legitmising ID by teaching it alongside science, or raising the debate in science classes is the same thing as awareness education about sexuality.

      The attack on science, particularly evolution is about undermining science that doesn't agree with a particular type of creationist belief. Have you heard about the stickers and statements undermining evolution. To the evangelicals this is a spiritual war and evolution is a foundation for evil.

      I'm all for debate but I'm not naive enough to believe that teaching the controversy in science class is about open mindedness. Its about putting unscientific debunked religiously inspired as an equal legitimate alternative, or maybe a superior one depending on the teacher, to the best scientific theory we have to pretend there is some science behind creationist views. Its teaching a bit of answers in genesis in classrooms. Its teaching disguised religion under the cover of open debate.

      Lets debate it. Fine. Lets debate it in professional science. Lets debate it in public. But don''t let religion sneak into science class if it has no scientific merit. That's my view anyway.

      I'm not sure school classrooms are the right place for deciding what is science and whether something found to be religious and non scientific should be taught in schools. I probably wouldn't have such an issue if ID was discussed as an example of trying to bypass the scientific consensus process and the fact that it's key claims are debunked, but I guess it would not be taught that way. Maybe it is a good topic for debate in constitutional studies or social studies in regards to the threat and strategies of christian evangelicals to undermine the seperation of church and state.

      Anyway, we disagree, but I appreciate the thoughtful comments and debate.

      In Aus we don't have official seperation. So more of a worry. Also from outside the US the tea party and evangelicals and dominionists and some politicians are a little scary.
  • Aug 18 2012: Most certainly,

    Like every literature has a term, an appointed time, relative to social intercourse. I think we write our own codes as we go along, and we should hope our unborn generations don't add dogmas and worship to our failures. However I wouldn't be surprised - lol

    I often cannot fathom why our societies put so much effort and TRUST into long gone people yet deny those valid enough here and now. It is this conduct that's limiting our societies.

    Enjoy the day
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: I second that.
      Have a god one.
    • Aug 18 2012: The awakening has begun. More religious beliefs are evolving into spiritual principles. I can't help myself with the puns, sorry.
      I am living proof that a brainwashed sheep can fight the system and the machine and tear down the programming built up against him. It is an endless task. It will last me to the end of my days. But I do attribute my kindness to the teachings of Jesus. I always felt good about him and his deeds. Did read a book called "The Shack" that almost sent me running for church. Excellent book. But that's all these are, are books. Books that men made, and therefore in the context of un-provable subject matter, should be read as fiction and enjoyed and allowed to inspire people.
      • Aug 18 2012: Hi Jeremy

        I'm sure it must be an intrinsic battle to make that shift. As for the wisdom of Jesus, I believe he should be, in character, an exemplar to his following. He stood up for human rights and that's all I need as truth from any man who risks his life for society. However it's sad that over the millennia his cause was distorted into what it is today. The same with sages like Martin Luther, Ghandi and the like, they supposed a system of government and tried their utmost to uplift society.

        Books are boons for us to reflect upon and hopefully not repeat the failures of past societies, and if we turn them into 'holy' then we fail to reflect.

        Here's a saying I live by - the pain we carry as a society, is the love we withhold from each other.

        Great ruins lie on this planet as evidence of this withholding love from each other. That is the essence I get from our history. I leave out the fancy trimmings.

        Peace in wisdom will get us there
  • thumb
    Aug 17 2012: I'd like to say this in closing.

    We are actively working to create life in the laboratory. One day we will create a living cell after the knowledge to do so is complete. We may design dna and program it to create a cell wall, the medium inside and the particles that power and sustain the cell. We may even program it to divide and reproduce.

    If we do it will be done under laboratory conditions where the proper environment and nutrients are always present. To release such a device into the normal earth-like environment it will need some system of propulsion to compete with other life forms. We may have to create a flagellum to help it compete and survive.

    What we call evolution could simply be the conditions offered by our planet that enable and force organisms to change to suit varying environmental conditions. If the earth-like conditions did not exist, evolution might not exist.

    There are bacteria that have not evolved at all since they obtained a certain form. It may be that their form allows them to survive in the earth-like environment with no need to change. I don't believe that what we call evolution is a force that promotes change. I think it is simply the environment that is responsible. In a more fixed environment, like Mars or Neptune, perhaps, evolutionary processes may not exist. It may be that any life we create and put into those environments may never change, but still survive.

    ID -Intelligent Design- may be a process that allows for religious dogma to evolve and catch up with the scientific world or meld with it into a more scientific mind-set. After all, it was Religion that gave rise to Science and not the other way around. It may be that religion is simply locked in a mindset, because of the "old books" and ID is the process that will eliminate that mindset, allowing religion to progress along scientific lines or die away as unpractical.

    Evolution is not of itself a force that causes change. It is the environment that promotes the activity.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: Thanks very much JM.

      I also think it likely we will be able to create life one day from non living matter. If it is DNA based it will be subject to natural selection.

      I note we are already playing around the distant edges of this when we manipulate DNA. We are modifying life.

      I'm not sure if religion gave rise to science. If we go back a step, perhaps it is our curiosity, our competitiveness etc that gave rise to both once our brain had evolved to a suitable point.
  • thumb
    Aug 17 2012: Your point is well taken No....., so lets give it a go with the seniors to start with and see if they can handle it. Perhaps by arguing the point in high-school the subject will be ridiculed by kids and send the red-faced teachers packing. I put my money on the students.

    Science has written off ID as a non-science when I don't see where they actually make that claim. Their claim is that "perhaps" evolution is not pure science and should not be taken as such. I have to give them that argument because evolution is not a pure science, based on infallible scientific premises. It is described in different ways by different scientists. There is no formula for evolution. There is no evolutionary Mathematics that resolves the issue.

    Current genetic research is decades, if not longer, behind answering the question concisely.

    While I don't believe in God in the normal sense of main stream dogma, I do believe that there are some device-like structures in living organisms that perfectly mimic machinery we use everyday. The flagellum of a bacteria for instance. It looks very much like a mechanical device that is powered by energy and propels the bacterium along its way.

    When I see the progress and direction that genetic research is taking mankind, I can only suggest that there will be a day when we will create life in a manner of our choosing in the Laboratory. This would make us creators of a sort. If it is possible for humans to do perhaps it has already been done by other more intelligent beings of the type we may call Gods.

    The question comes to mind more often than not. Anyone who dismisses something as religious based; ergo; it's nonsense, misses the point that much of science was created and organized by the religious order that included some very smart priests and priestly scholars. Religion has indeed dictated and created the scientific method we use today.

    It is the duty of science to examine all possibilities, instead of creating scientific dogma.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: Hi JM, evolution is a theory that tries to explain the facts by proposing natural selection resulting in better adapted etc etc.

      Not all science is physics formulas.

      It makes predictions and retrodictions and these are born out. Things like you expect to see a progression from simple to more complex. We see this in the fossil record. It predicts we would see remnants from ancestral forms - like humans have a redundant egg sack in the womb during fetus development. Why would a creator design an egg sack. But this is what we expect if we evolved from reptiles that do lay eggs.

      There are also complex genetic calculations and predictions etc etc. But I take your point it is not Newtonian physics. F=ma. But when you get down to it, what is force, what is mass. Now you start to get more descriptive.

      I take your point of what if there is supernatural agency. I guess we haven't found a need for it yet. I also note this supernatural agency is incredibly subtle and elusive, no real evidence of its existence or what it is. almost like it didn't exist.

      It is natural we compare or use the language of familiar and more easily comprehensible items to describe the more difficult and complex things. But perhaps we need to be careful how we use the metaphors for man made items and biological constructs. Our eyes are effectively camera eyes (there are several different types of eyes actually, we just evolved with the fish/reptilian ones). Usually we can tell the difference between a man made camera and a biological one (wait till nano tech develops).

      Why wouldn't we expect some similarities in what has adapted to give functionality that enhances survival and what we build. Birds wings have light bones. We don't build aircraft wings out of lead. While we might add decoration we usually don't add stuff like vestigial limbs in whales, and egg yolk sacks in humans.

      I agree science should assess all possibilities on their merits, learn, improve update.
  • thumb
    Aug 17 2012: From participating in this debate and thinking about some of the comments have had a couple mini insight, minsights.

    1) Firstly that if examples of irreducible complexity (IC) had not been debunked, we would have a situation where we don't know how this biological constructs came about and some sort of intelligent input would be a possibility or other yet to be determined explanations. Even if you suppose an intelligence helped make the bacterial flagellum etc it is still a leap of faith and counter to other evidence that the rest of it did not evolve. You essentially at best have assisted evolution.

    To take a few instances of IC and say this is proof for all life being created more or less as the "kinds" we see today is very poor logic. Do the supporters of ID agree with this conclusion?

    2) Is it okay to teach stuff in public schools that may offend religious beliefs? This is a tough one for me. I guess if we deleted everything from the sciences and humanities that offended all the different religious sensitivities there would be a lot taken out. What a dangerous precedent. If only science or history or literature that everyone agrees with is taught, if anything that is objected to we probably are left with math and PE.

    I can appreciate that while I see science as objective as humans can be, others don't. In fact some see organised science almost as an organised religion influenced by the devil.

    Where to draw the line on this is a tough one depending on your viewpoint. Any thoughts?
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2012: Thank you for the picture comment. This was my first impression.

      ID, In my Opinion, is just a guess at something that could or not be true. Of course, we have no proof of any kind, scientifically or otherwise. So it is simply a guess based entirely on normal or common logic.

      I'm impressed with the flagellum studies that show the mechanical functions of the bio-construct that propels bacteria in a fluid medium. I really can't answer how such a device came into being along evolutionary lines. But, then again, no one really knows the interaction of a natural environment and the evolutionary process. They know even less about a creator who could fashion such a process. We can put bacteria under a microscope and see how it works. We can't put a creator under any tool I know of that will induce us to scientifically decide that a creator exists or has influence on how nature develops.

      Further along in the comments section, I express my feelings that I have nothing against teaching ID in schools, as long as it follows school rules and the teachers are qualified. There in lies the rub. How do you qualify those teachers? What studies will you use? Where is the science that implies or logically deduces that such an idea is practical?
      • thumb
        Aug 17 2012: could be. why.

        love your picture.
      • thumb
        Aug 17 2012: Thanks for expanding JM. The first time a Christian showed me the irreducible complexity argument, including the bacterial flagellum, I could not explain how it could evolve. Heck I can not explain lots of things that seem to happen naturally. So I recognised it as a variant of an argument from ignorance, but a very clever one.

        Professional biologists have shown how subsets of the flagellum exist in biology and have function ie that it is reducible. So it is not something that had to be created. The argument fails.

        We all have different limits where our understanding of how things work ends. I see the tree of life, the fossil record, and DNA evidence of common ancestory, the shared physical traits, the imperfect design and evolution makes sense. I don't know anything but religion that would stop a well educated person seeing that humans are mammals that eat other living things, and defecate, and rut, and give birth and breast feed etc.

        But ask me how a fertised egg can end up as an adult human, I don't really know. How do our cells and bodies work in detail. What is the stuff of matter. Is it just concentrated energy. What is gravity, how does it work.

        But just because my human super smart but limited primate brain does not have all the answers is not an excuse to say god did it.

        Creationism and gods live most comfortably in the gaps of our understanding. Where did the universe and humans come from and how? Evolution answers part of the question. Some theists live with this. Others have literal biblical beliefs and can not. IF fact evolution is seen by some as some diabolical evil plot and foundation for a world view that threatens theirs. They are half right.

        I agree with your point that saying god did it doesn't answer where god came from or how it did it, which is usually answered by god is eternal and all powerful so he can. How do you know that. I read it in an old book and was taught this in church, and the same book say jesus ressurected, so its true.
  • thumb
    Aug 16 2012: It is interesting that adaption gives the appearance of design for the environment.

    Some of the predictions of evolution include a progression of simple to more complex forms. We see that in the fossil record. Also adaptation is not as perfect as design. You expect to see flaws and evidence of ancestry. Like remnant rear legs in whales from when their ancestors were land mammals. Like the hair that grows on human babies in the womb from hairy ape days. Like the unused yolk sack with human babies in the womb from reptilian days. Like the appendix, prostate, sharing an eat/breathe pipe and problems giving birth to human babies optimising brain development versus a pelvis used for walking. Not great design. Entirely inconsistent with evolution.

    Why would a creator/designer trick us with this evidence of evolution?
    • Aug 17 2012: "It is interesting that adaption gives the appearance of design for the environment."

      Yes it is interesting, I think there is more wisdom in this observation than is initially apparent. Adaptation itself may very well be a sign of the greater intelligence that people are speaking to when they infer a "being" in charge of shaping nature. Maybe we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we say there can't be an intelligence responsible for evolution. The very nature of genetic procreation seems to mirror the dual nature of everything in our universe. Intelligence also mirrors this, as almost every choice we make can be refined to "either this or that", with knowledge being the limiting factor. The choices we call "intelligent" are the ones that work, for the most part. We are here debating this, so the choices made by our DNA must be somewhat intelligent over a huge span of time.

      We tend to think very locally regarding events that require a long time to unfold. And because of our human perspective we unconsciously anthropomorphize everything as well. I hope we find evidence of life on another planet sometime soon, perhaps then we can compare its emergence there and develop some juicy new questions to ask.
      • thumb
        Aug 17 2012: Great point Adrinn.

        The more I have learnt about biology and the universe in general we seem to have one word, intelligence, that covers a lot of ground.

        At one end you have brain based problem solving "intelligence" , that we can IQ test in humans or evaluate in different animals. This intelligence is associated with a more or less consciousness and awareness of the surroundings.

        At the other extreme is the more subtle "intelligence" in nature that pattern seeking animals like us can detect in the non conscious entities. A tree is not going to debate plato with you but can respond "intelligently" to the environment.

        Actually there is a continuum of consciousness and intelligence I guess. Cells, Plants, basic animals to more complex animals.

        I guess the many theists would disagree with a definition of intelligence or intelligence designer as some impersonal, unconscious (in the brain sense), natural force or process.

        We really are getting to the edge of straight forward primate brain capability.

        For me personally, there could be something deistic, or something not really a being, or just some poorly understood complex natural phenomena. In regards to this phenomena having characteristics of being created in our image in some way, and revealed precisely through a particular religious tradition, I find that possible but virtually absurd.
        • Aug 17 2012: I think it's well known by those possessing critical thinking skill that "Classic ID" is not in fact science testable, it is group think philosophy. Philosophy is quite valuable though, since it is partly the philosophic nature of human beings that drives us to seek the testable facts we discover. I think religion should be taught alongside philosophy and other social fields. One caveat, the injustice of imposing ones' subjective belief system on others should also be taught.
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2012: rubish. read the article again.
  • Aug 16 2012: Dogma is not science. Whether we should be attempting to brainwash our children in school environments is entirely another question and it is deserving of its own debate.

    There are debates on TED as to whether science is faith-based and (by extension) no more deserving of our attention than many religious beliefs and thereby extending the argument to religion being somehow equal to science and therefore as valid as science and requiring to be taught in school as a worthwhile subject on the general curriculum.

    Intelligent design is not testable and therefore not subject to falsification. Without the means to test the intelligent design proposition, it will be held out (by vested interests) as an axiom. This would mean our children being required to accept the proposition uncritically and that does not sit on all fours with the notions which underpin education.

    Demanding uncritical acceptance is tantamount to coercion and it is wholly unacceptable for educational establishments and proponents of ID to demand this special status for the insertion of intelligent design into the school curriculum.
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2012: Thanks Jeff. I recall some of the debates about science, religion, belief and faith.

      While science is a human process and all the failings that implies it is not dogmatic in the way religions are.
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2012: "There are debates on TED as to whether science is faith-based and (by extension) no more deserving of our attention than many religious beliefs and thereby extending the argument to religion being somehow equal to science and therefore as valid as science and requiring to be taught in school as a worthwhile subject on the general curriculum.
      "
      In some countries, religion is taught as fact; the Muslim religion for instance. Perhaps if we allow ID which is not a religion but an argument based in somewhat scientific terms, to be argued in school, we can put an end to the argument or at least prevent it from evolving into a type of religion like Islam.
      • Aug 17 2012: I choose my words with care.
  • thumb
    Aug 15 2012: NO. I do not think that they will teach the other programs in churches, synagogues and mosques. Schools are public and the only place where cutting edge science is taught. We should teach our best to our children. They can learn dogmas in the other hours of the days and weeks. And do not think they will not be so compelled.
    • thumb
      Aug 16 2012: Hi Debra I hope our schools teach the best science we have.
      I suggest theories with a scientific consensus based on testing and evidence such as evolution that are found to predict the facts should take precedent over hypotheses that have not met the scientific hurdles.
      If ID was the best theory then it should be taught, but it is not.
      Thanks for the input.
  • thumb
    Aug 14 2012: Hello Obey,

    I agree with you, to a certain extent. I believe that all public schools shouldn't teach ID, but if it is a religious school, then I find nothing objectible in that aspect, as long as the religious school also adds normal scientific curricula with ID.

    If I'm not mistaken, are you proposing to deestablishing religious schools as well as the concept of ID being taught in public schools?
    • thumb
      Aug 14 2012: Hi Derek, I support freedom of religion, and while I find religious indoctrination of children abhorrent, I see religious schools as part of that freedom.

      I'm talking about state run public schools, tax payer funded as a part of principle separation of church and state. There is a compelling rationale for the separation of church and state. While this upsets the religious majority it actually supports religious freedom and protection of minorities and does not prevent the exercise of faith except under state instruments.

      So I disagree with Peter that parents should get to decide whether a public/state school religiously indoctrinates

      Apologies if that was not clear.
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2012: Ah, I usually seek clarification, so I won't take any blind step forward.

        I do agree, there should be a seperation of church and state. Especially in schools.

        I believe there is a time and a place for all things, like religion is best kept in religious institutions and not spread through other institutions.

        Yes, majority will always win, but one must examine the minorities as well. It only makes sense to keep the ruling at a national level or governmental level.

        No need for apologies Obey because I have not been offended and clarifications should always be seeked.
  • thumb
    Aug 14 2012: Hi Obey,
    The theory of evolution is more than a theory, but everything that is taught in evolution is not all fact. The idea that we are a cosmic accident implies that evolution has no guiding force. I don't agree with that.

    On the other hand, Intelligent design follows the premise that some higher power is running the show from some remote vantage point, and that such higher power is distinct and separate from what has been created. I don't agree with that either.

    Irreducible complexity is just as ludicrous as Aristotle's crystal spheres. But like Aristotle's crystal spheres, it carries the weight of the believers.

    The idea of a separate God that is apart from reality is part of the problem. The idea that quantum fields are deaf, dumb, and blind is just as big of a problem. There is a universal common denominator to all that exists. It is apparent in atomic structure, which is the basis of all that comes into existence through upward causation. So is the universe following some sort of plan? Maybe not in every detail, but certainly in the overall progression. That is the only thing that I would support if it was to be taught.
    • thumb
      Aug 14 2012: Hi Roy. In science a hypothesis with the status of being an established theory is something more than colloquial use of the word.

      I guess people are free to believe in the hand of a creator or similar in the origin of the universe and life in accord with what is basically theorised, verified, observed etc i.e that we did evolve, or people can reject the best of current science.

      So people are free to inject the supernatural into the gaps or super impose it on the natural explanations.

      As for purpose and meaning and guiding force and that there is some mystical causation and spiritual type essence to stuff, spirits etc I have wondered about whether science is throwing the baby out with the baby water, but my current thinking is unless there is something scientifically verifiable it does not fit in the realm of science, it fits in the anything could be space, or philosophical, metaphysical speculation.

      If there was compelling evidence of a guiding hand I guess it would show up, but so far, say our evolution, there is nothing I know that indicates it is not simply natural processes, natural selection, adaptation etc or that there is something that clearly indicates what some believe i.e. a guiding hand. This does not prevent people believing in a guiding hand if they want, but there is not enough there scientifically to propose it, in my view.

      The process of evolution via natural selection, as I understand it, while not having predetermined outcomes is not entirely random. Better adapted individuals on balance will survive to pass on their genes at a higher rate leading to changes in the gene pool and at some point an individual may not be able to reproduce with its distant ancestors or other subgroups. You don't really get a child as a different species to its parents.

      It's a tricky one. I hope it is not just my view that most likely their is not a guiding hand, but rather there is not the objective evidence or rationale to support including this in the hypoth.
      • thumb
        Aug 14 2012: You misunderstand my reference to a guiding hand. The use of the term is similar to a person who drives with a lead foot. We know that his foot isn't actually made out of lead. So what do I mean by a guiding hand?
        The shaping forces of nature in action is the guiding hand. I don't interject a supernatural force into the gaps. I acknowledge that the gaps may all have a cause and that they are probably scientifically verifiable. But let's say that we could explain everything by science. Does that prove that there is no intelligence other than in the finished product?

        We know that quantum fields are what is doing the creating. Are they deaf, dumb, and blind as random mutations imply? I ask the question because in my childhood, I experienced something that went way beyond what I was currently being taught. And when I learned of quantum fields, I was able to put the two together. Was that itself pure random chance? Or is there more to this thing called nature other than that it merely exists? I have had too many experiences that tell me that evolution is reductionism in reverse and that what we observe doesn't tell the whole story.

        I am not trying to interject a religious fundamentalist viewpoint. I am only saying that we are not the only intelligence here. Our intelligence is derived from the source. How could there have been a communication between me and the source if there is no awareness at the source level? If we could explain what consciousness was, I might know the answer. Until such time, I refuse to close the door to something I don't understand because I would have to deny a part of my experiences in doing so.
        • thumb
          Aug 15 2012: Hi Roy,

          Even if a particular topic is well understood in terms of natural explanations e.g. why feet don't burn when fire walking, lightening, or gravity, or earthquakes, or epidemics, that does not prove some other intelligence might be involved.

          But I suggest just because you can not disprove a claim, this does not prove the claim. In fact if there is no evidence, if it is unverifiable, its actually a very weak claim.

          As to your QF experiences, they are unique as far as I can tell. I can not explain it. Could be random chance, 1 in a billion. Could be something more. I wonder why just you? How can you be sure it was communication from something other. The brain moves in mysterious ways. As biological machines our brain/mind/perception systems are imperfect resulting in odd experiences.

          I understand you are far from traditional religious fundamentalism.

          But we'll have to disagree in regards to there being intelligence similar to ours without a brain. My view is there could be but I have no reason to think there is. I'm quite comfortable that the materialist position, and while not sure and open to new information, I'd put my money on this.

          I don't close the door to these unproven ideas, but I can't see anything through the door that indicates there is something more or what human interpretation comes closest.

          I guess we have a intuitive and incomplete scientific idea or description of what consciousness is and does and how it works. Its different to the unconscious. The architecture and process of consciousness seems to be in the brain, linked to our senses and urges, kind of like a watcher. It changes modes when we sleep. I think it often observes and tries to regulate instinctual or unconsciously determined preferences or instructions to our body and other times when can decide to move our arm etc consciously.

          Our mind/brain is pretty cool, but I see not reason to think it is more than a physical brain based construct. And this does not make life 0
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2012: Hi Obey,
        There are many ludicrous religious claims based on false perceptions. It is a problem that religion itself warned about through the character Satan; beware the power of deception. Unfortunately, religious advocates don't know what this character represents, and can't see deception in their own teachings.

        Getting back to your original question, Intelligent design, as it is taught today, is not science because it is based on some supernatural force controlling the cosmos. Science is about recognizing repeatable patterns and seeking ways to present them for all to see and understand. Intelligent design presupposes that creation didn't follow an upward progression, but was spontaneously created by some all knowing God. Such a claim has no scientific basis.

        If intelligent design were to be taught in schools, it would have to divorce itself from the supernatural and focus on the patterns of nature, going back to quantum fields. It would have to also reject any claims which are based on faith and treat them as hypotheses in need of verification. And such verification could not come from religious writings, since all religious writings are based on associations in need of reflection to discern what they are telling us. From what we see today, religious advocates can't agree among themselves about what religious writings mean, as is obvious in the number of alternate churches that all teach their own spin on what scripture is meant to say. That can't even be considered bad science. It is no science at all.

        Although parts of evolution may still be a theory, there are many verifiable facts that are indisputable. Intelligent design is trying to put a wrench in the gears to get people to see the religious side of things. Although I don't deny that there is a religious side of things, it has no place in the science class.
  • Aug 12 2012: No. And No.
  • thumb
    Aug 12 2012: If religion can be taught in public schools than why not ID?
    However my position is clear.....religion shouldn't be part of curriculum of kids at any level......let parents take care of that if they really care too much....
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2012: Actually, that's what is shocking in America. Religion, cannot be taught in schools, at least not public schools. You have to be relatively wealthy to pay for a private school that teaches your child religion here. On the other hand, it sneaks its way in.

      Many people have been trying to get religion taught at our public schools for generations, but they never succeed, so they try "abstinence only sex education", and "intelligent design". Abstinence only sex education, is of course, no sex education whatsoever. They teach this in a few states in the south, with very high teen pregnancy rates as the result.

      "Intelligent design", is the new attack. "Well you teach them evolution, teach em my side to"... "Well what is your side sir?"... "Well... God and the baby Jesus, and six thousand years, and... Poof! It was"...

      It makes me curious sometimes though, and I wonder how you would feel about this Salim... You think we could sneak a "Religion as Literature", or "Comparative Religion" class in there? Or is that too indoctrinating the other way?
      • thumb
        Aug 13 2012: Hi David
        It's not shocking but rather very good news to me that religion is not part of public school in US. Well my post was biased with my experience of the curriculum of my own country. Influence might have come from my unconcious mind , which is aware that one of the intersting law suit of the history happened in US that was about Darwinism.......so thought wrongly about public school curriculum in US......thanks for correcting me....

        About your question , what I feel, that would be a smart and effective way of indoctrination ......raw religion is much better than that disguised form........
        • thumb
          Aug 13 2012: Good answer, I think you may have swayed me a bit on that. I didn't mean shocked in a bad way, by the way. I just think many people assume that The United States teaches religion in school, because they hear we are so religious.
      • thumb
        Aug 13 2012: Thanks David...
        No I didn't , I just joked with your shock as was sure about kind shock you are talking .....:)

        Being an outsider to US , when each dollar bill proudly declare such believe , outsiders can be easily mislead....what do you think ?
        • thumb
          Aug 14 2012: Oh ya, I imagine we do a good job of making people think we're a bunch of backward religious zealots. Luckily we all use debit cards now : p

          One other thing about the US very few people understand, is that if asked the question "Do you believe there is a creative force which sparked the beginning of the universe", you'll get something like 90% of people who you can then say are "theists", or "religious", or "believe in god"... depending on how far you want to exaggerate.

          Traditional "god in the image of man" results drop to like 50%. Then if you ask a question about attendence at an actual religious ceremony... it drops to like 20%. Many Americans identify with a faith simply because they don't want to talk to everyone around them, about how their beliefs in god are nowhere near concrete.
    • thumb
      Aug 14 2012: Hi Salim and David, I suggest teaching about religion should be fine, but not indoctrination.

      I guess in the US teaching about all religions equally would be inflammatory or likely to be abused by the religious majority or loudest voices, so perhaps better to steer away.

      Its a shame but reflects the religious militancy in the US always looking to establish their form of Christianity in schools and government.
  • thumb
    Aug 12 2012: Requirements for ID to even be considered- 1) a designer and a method of design, evolution already has 5 different processes which can cause change.
    2) A good explanation for bad design, i.e hayfever and solar urticaria, cancer, disease in general
    3)explanation for suffering and cruelty- there is a wasp that paralyzes caterpillars then lays it's eggs inside the caterpillar lets the caterpillar go whilst the eggs devour it from the inside out.
    IDists just don't realise how science works. For something to be science it has to explain more than a previous theory. ID just asks more questions than answers. Who created the creator?
    So yea, not science, creationism with fancy terms.
    • thumb
      Aug 14 2012: Hi Stewart,
      1) ID Fails
      2) ID ignores or makes excuses
      3) as per 2

      There are apologetic arguments of rationales for 2 and 3.

      My considered view currently is that the problem of evil and the dog eat dog universe points strongly to a naturalistic evolutionary direction but does not disprove a supernatural creator or guiding hand. It's just this being may be, lets say uncaring at the least to create such a universe where all animals we know survive by eating other living things, with disease and parasites etc.

      I have heard that because god made the universe and god is all good, then it is not bad or evil by definition, but free will introduces evil. The explanatory link between freewill and disease is pretty weak in my view.
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2012: Isn't it such a circle argument that too, the universe isn't evil but free will lets us create evil, who gave us free will? God of course, and then the circle continues.
        We're on the same lines, we can't say there is no creator, just that it isn't a nice creator.
  • Aug 12 2012: Only in the United States is this an issue. So it's not science , and its believers are not good religious models
    • thumb
      Aug 14 2012: Thanks George.

      FYI, we have some issues in Australia and New Zealand with religion in state schools
      Religious instruction classes
      Government funded School Chaplains (why not qualified counsellors???? to win votes)
      Evolution and Creation were taught in year 12 biology in New Zealand

      No formal separation in these British outposts and still have a Queen in another country as head of state and head of the Church of England. Pity we didn't have our own revolution.
  • Aug 19 2012: Hello,

    I hope this hasn't already been addressed farther down the thread, but here are my thoughts on that above, at the moment.

    1. I think your proposition that "ID is not science", is valid so far as everyone agrees on terminology. You open with a definition of science as a "methodology of finding testable explanations". You don't seem to define intelligent design explicitly but I am assuming (correct me if I am wrong), that it is an "explanation of the universes origins and more specifically of the beginnings of life as we know it, which posits the presence of a being who is capable of creating as such." So, simply by definition, you have two different things: 1. a methodology of finding explanations (and I would add, testing them) 2. an explanation. Because an explanation is not a methodology, your statement, "ID is not science", is valid.
    2. You seem to wander from the above into an argument regarding the validity of ID as an explanation without defining it.
    3. Intelligent design is a term with a wide range of definitions which may include ET as a accurate explanation of genetic diversity. Depending on the definitions, ID may include a being that created the driving forces that ET behaves within.
    4. I propose you use science(a methodology) to evaluate ID (a possible explanation).
    5. Please let me know if you would like my thoughts on applying science to the evaluation of ID and ET as explanatory theories.
  • thumb
    Aug 19 2012: I entirely respect your point of view, and you make good points. This was engaging, and I truly hope similar types of rational and productive templates of argument provide better models of discussion for the Intelligent Design community (i.e. in some cases the dogmatic extremists). At the top tier of ID, I think one of their strongest proponents is Stephen Meyer and his Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies. However, the teach the controversy approach is still philosophy knocking on the front door of science and that's an illustrative example of muddling fine lines. Very much like the last dtich attempts by World War II kamikaze pilots, the Intelligent Design thrust will not stop until ....well, until they run out of planes. Planes in this case representative of recycled ideas, Watchmaker analogy, etc.
  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: Yes! Intelligent Design should be taught in schools----I've always wanted to build my own android!
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: I heard a while back that a search for intelligent design in scientific literature revealed most intelligent engineering design books, so you might be on to something.
  • Aug 18 2012: It will be a swell day when the law recognizes the dogmatic indoctrination of children by their parents of spurious arbitrary beliefs as a form of child abuse that it is.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: Thats a tough one George.

      I personally believe it is abuse of the rights of the child.

      But I'm not sure if making it illegal is the right thing. It would be almost impossible to control anyway.
  • Aug 18 2012: for obey no1kinobe
  • Aug 18 2012: then yes my friend then they must change to the word science because it doesn't have the right definition because it describes everything as science. Also they should go into making science more compatible with little kids like in 4th or 5th .Grade also so they should make ti more easy to topic because it is just to tough for the human mind to think about and it is very hard to explain. So yes they should do that
  • Aug 18 2012: Look. Public education is in the toilet. I send my kids to school well beyond what their peers are doing. Whose fault is that? Other kids might feel slow or dumb around them because they learned to write and spell before preschool. My daughter sat on lap through three semesters of online classes and paid attention. She has an intrinsic comprehension of math, she speaks French and Spanish and picks up other languages very fast. She'll be tall enough to advance a class and not stand out. These are the concerns of Academics.Let's be honest, if the Greek god system hadn't divided the Greek government, we'd all still be heathens. The need for unified religion was a desperate act to maintain control over the Roman Empire that was about to fall the same way Greece did and at the hands of the same gods. So God sent his only begotten son to die on the cross for all us sinners and save the Roman Empire from ruin? I kinda doubt that last part...just google the word "Vatican" and there is something nasty attached to it.
    Anyways, I have worshipped everything I could to find that thing that I was missing. All it took in the end was worshipping a woman who blessed me with two kids that saved my life and filled that empty spot. My cup runneth over!
    I don't think the Vatican even support creationism anymore...didn't they open up to the idea of Alien beings? Oh yeah. Yup! It's okay to believe in aliens now, because the Vatican says so. Gosh I hope there are no Catholics in here...what am I saying - they mourn their faith. (Shut Up Kevin Smith and get out of my head with your Dogma!)
    Anyways, for those "believers" out there who have to cling to a man's robe to feel connected to God - you're groupies. Don't get offended! Most people are. We are social groupies! And for those of you who think you have a right to shove your ideals down my kids throat, you better watch yourself...intelligent design is something people do, and I designed these kids to be very intelligent. ;)
    God Bless ya!
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: Thanks for the comment J.
      Catholic and Anglican higher ups accept evolution.
      They don't talk about it much.
      The Cardinal of Sydney made of fool of himself on TV with Dawkins trying to explain when a spirit might have been injected during the process of evolution.
      We don't need a magic spirit to have a human soul and magical life
      Sometimes its the people in our life that make a difference.
      Maybe nearly always.
      I'm going out to fill my cup.
      Cheers