really though its all a non issue because you can have evolution an ID at the same time
but whatever

12/23/2005 1:17:08 AM

^ It's a non issues to most sane people. But the people for which it is an issue believe in YEC (and think they have proof) and are pissed off. These are the types of people that whine about it, and want the stickers.

12/23/2005 1:18:33 AM

whats YEC stand for

12/23/2005 1:19:16 AM

Young Earth Creationism

the bat-shittest of the batshit insane

12/23/2005 1:19:42 AM

young earth creationism

AKA

carbon dating / dinosaurs / universe's background radiation = VAST CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!



The reason why the whole ID thing came into play is becuase the fractured YEC and OEC can come together on something.

80% of the time, you cant make an IDist look like a fucking idiot by asking them how old the earth is.

12/23/2005 1:21:20 AM

oh yeah
this whole issue in large part is just a thinly veiled effort by those types of people. thats why i liked the language the judge used

12/23/2005 1:21:36 AM

Dude.

Carbon dating and dinosaur bones are tests.

TESTS, NIGGA.

God has to weed out the punk-ass bitches whose faith is swayed by empirical evidence.

12/23/2005 1:23:19 AM

God burrying dinosaur bones




LETS SEE WHO BELIEVES IN ME NOW....AHAHAHAHAHH

AHAHHHAHAHAHAH

12/23/2005 1:25:34 AM

wow i missed a lot of... stuff... so sad...

i think someone argued that what i said wasn't a part of intelligent design... i'm just pretty sure that i didn't agree with intelligent design to begin with..

happy arguing!!

12/23/2005 1:26:46 AM

dude, i know you are saying that darwin said that evolution means blacks are inferior, but I'm just not buying it. I've got this passage from a paper on it:

Quote :

"It is true, as critics claim, that Darwin and contemporary evolutionists such as T.H. Huxley and Alfred Russell Wallace made a distinction between the so-called “civilized” and “savage” races of humans, judging the latter to be lower on their Eurocentric evolutionary scale.“I do not believe it is possible,” wrote Darwin,“to describe or paint the difference of savage and civilized man. It is the difference between a wild and tame animal.”[12]It is also true that Darwin himself had condescending things to say about the “primitive races” he encountered during his travels aboard the Beagle.“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries,” Darwin predicted in The Descent of Man, “the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.”Yet to condemn Darwin’s work as racist would be to read the nineteenth century by modern standards.Measured by mid-nineteenth century standards, Darwin was a racial liberal and was judged so by his contemporaries.As historian Robert Bannister has argued, although Darwin worked within the limits of the dominant racial ideology of Victorian England he held relatively progressive racial views.“An ardent opponent of slavery,” Bannister writes, “he consistently opposed the repression of nonwhites, and thus had special reason to avoid crude applications of his theory…Although by modern standards The Descent of Man is frustratingly inconclusive on critical issues of human equality, it was a model of moderation and scientific caution in the context of midcentury racism.”[13]Indeed, even Darwin’s most repugnant passages on the extermination of savage races were less an endorsement of European colonial expansion than observations on the effects of imperialism gleamed from firsthand experiences during his travels.As Bannister observes, “Darwin’s predictions concerning the extermination of lower races were not prescriptions for racial imperialism but a summary of recent anthropology and the apparently undeniable results of European expansion since the Renaissance.”[14] "

http://www.princeton.edu/~jconley/DarwinRacism

Quote :

"They are claiming that right here. The 'intellegent cause'...lets call it, god, created the universe. There it is, plain english....its the first damn sentance of huge site's definition. That ID says there is a god creator. And evolution doesnt conflict with that, or the idea of a directed evolutionary process."

i'm sorry, but that does NOT say that evolution precludes the existence of God.

Quote :

"they could/do have theology classes..."

i was never offered a theology class in K-12 schools, nor was one mandatory for me every year since 3rd grade.

Quote :

"Likewise, we ought not teach ID, because that might favor theistic religions."

ID favors theistic religions no more than evolution favors atheism. ID says that "something created this stuff!" AKA, ID posits, at worst, that a supernatural entity existed at some point in time. this is NOT the same as saying "god exists." Its not even the same as saying "a god might exist." it is, at best, analagous to saying "ghosts might exist."

Quote :

"Please....thats not science."

please, keep saying that. you only further my point of "OMFG ITS NOT SCIENCE!!!" put it this way: would it be right to exclude talks about islam from a christianity class based on the fact that "christianity is right?" hell no. science class is exactly the same. you are excluding ID from science class because "only science is right" and "ID is not science." its circular logic. "why can't ID be in science class?" "because its not science..." "why does it have to be science?" "because science is right." "well, why isn't ID possibly right?" "because its not science" If you can explain to me why ID is not possibly right (and thus should be excluded from public school science classes for being "not right") without using the phrase "its not scientific" or anything analogous to it or "religion is dumb," then I will yield. But I know you can't.

Quote :

"What I'm saying is, we don't take the time to mention every crackpot theory that runs contrary to generally accepted thought."

nor should we. but, 1) Christianity isn't a random "crackpot theory." Its a major fucking religion, and evolution conflicts DIRECTLY with the teachings of a very literal interpretation of Christianity. 2) schools don't say anything about appendectomies or the necessities of any medical procedures, which makes your scientology argument null and void.

we don't need to mention every crackpot theory, but we certainly don't need to teach only a theory which is in direct conflict with major religions.

Quote :

"Biology came from logic? Where the fuck does evolution claim that life didnt come from a logical god ... or a logical being. Random mutations are a mechanism for speciation"

logic, by its definition, is not random. if we accept the alleged premise that evolution occurs due to random mutations, then evolution can not be logical. if we accept the alleged premise that ID states that creation was logical, then evolution is counter to ID. Of course, those two premises are overly simplistic and ultimately wrong, but I think you get the point. Overall, I think biology is quite logical, even without the existence of a creator being.

Quote :

"1. stfu 2. gtfo"

hey, thank you so much for that thoughtful and intelligent commentary. i mean, its not like you could have actually attacked his statement easily or anything... its not like evolution isn't the atheist's creation myth...

Quote :

"The historical claims built on museums packed with fossils of transitionary speices, extinct speices a;; with homologous features?"

unfortunately, Josh, every last one of those fossils is meaningless if they were put there by a creator being. nevermind the fact that an extinct species means nothing except that the species died. and nevermind the fact that there are no real "transitionary species." rather, its "hey, here's an amoeba. hey, here's an unrelated fish from somewhere else. hey, here's an unrelated salamander from somewhere else. hey, here's an unrelated bird from somewhere else. Clearly evolution occurred!" That is just a case of fitting the evidence to your hypothesis and making your hypothesis the conclusion. Show me "hey, here's this animal. it changed into this animal and the prior one completely vanished. here's more evidence that shows that evolution, itself, is the only explanation for the emergence of the new animal and the disappearance of the old one."

Quote :

"Intellegence? Evolution is a fairly intellegent way to make sure that species adapt to a changing eviroment."

did you really just say that? i mean seriously. he wasn't saying "the answer should be a smart answer." dumbass.

Quote :

"Is there an intellegent God? Thats what youre asking. The answer is not one science can provide."

nice strawman. i love it. his argument is not "is there an intelligent God." its "I believe an intelligent being made everything." and scientific principles can be used to test his evidence for his claim. it can't test if an intelligent God actually did make everything. but it can test if his evidence is wrong.

Quote :

"Let a bunch of idiot middle aged common folk decide what is science?"

yeah, lets also let a bunch of arrogant intellectuals about creation and see how objective they will be and how much they will include all real and viable possibilities.

Quote :

"Didnt the sun stand still in the sky in the bible? All those pagan physics teachers and their souless teachings of radical ideas with amazing theistic implications should have to also teach that biblical magic is a competing thoery among christian physics scholars."

yaaaaaaaaay. my favorite argument. please, show me you have data that proves conclusively that there never existed a time when the sun stayed still in the sky. it doesn't matter that the earth actually rotates, causing the sun to "move". remember, you have to prove that the earth has always done that and that there is no instance where the earth didn't do so. ever.

Quote :

"It's a non issues to most sane people. But the people for which it is an issue believe in YEC (and think they have proof) and are pissed off. These are the types of people that whine about it, and want the stickers."

I know. how DARE they be upset that the gov't which says it will not endorse any religion is actually endorsing that their religion is wrong. what crazy fucking people.

12/23/2005 2:01:55 AM

how are they endorsing a religion is wrong

12/23/2005 2:03:57 AM

ID NEVER SAYS IT WAS YHWH YOU IGNORANT CUNTS

12/23/2005 2:13:36 AM

Quote :

"please, show me you have data that proves conclusively that there never existed a time when the sun stayed still in the sky. it doesn't matter that the earth actually rotates, causing the sun to "move". remember, you have to prove that the earth has always done that and that there is no instance where the earth didn't do so. ever."

wouldn't the solar system have to stand still as well as the planet?

i mean, just wondering
since we're looking at every page of the Bible as if it is scientific, i want to know the physical ramifications of the sun sitting still while a battle rages on

12/23/2005 2:16:53 AM

Quote :

"If you can explain to me why ID is not possibly right (and thus should be excluded from public school science classes for being "not right") without using the phrase "its not scientific""

-not testable
-not falsifiable

therefor

NOT SCIENTIFIC. Its not circular logic, becuase we're reffering to a process, not a label.

Quote :

"logic, by its definition, is not random."

This kind of statement doesnt even really make sense. We're treading in philosphoical waters, not scientific ones.

Quote :

"unfortunately, Josh, every last one of those fossils is meaningless if they were put there by a creator being."

You have just admitted that some supernatural event is to account for fossils. You have just admitted that your theory does not meet the definition of a scientific one, which is why it does not belong in sceince class.

Quote :

"and nevermind the fact that there are no real "transitionary species." "

Have you ever taking biology? Physical anthropology? Been to a museum?

Quote :

"yeah, lets also let a bunch of arrogant intellectuals"

So...they are wrong becuase they are smart?

Quote :

"please, show me you have data that proves conclusively that there never existed a time when the sun stayed still in the sky."

So youre saying we should teach that magic probably does happen becuse we cant prove it hasnt happened?



Heres a summary of your arguments:


I do not accept the scientific process. I seek to change the definition of science. I believe that supernatural events can explain our existence better then natural observations. I believe my supernatural ideas should be included in science class, even though I achnowledge that the scientific community(evil pagans) does not accept my ideas. Am I wrong?




[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 2:27 AM. Reason : =]

12/23/2005 2:22:34 AM

Quote :

"how are they endorsing a religion is wrong"

12/23/2005 2:24:36 AM

persecution complex

btw--if you actually think that God burried a bunch of dinosaur bones to test your faith, then i feel very bad for you.




One last thing. There are dozens of species between apes and humans, they are called homonids.


Do you deny the existence of lucy, homo habilis, homo erectus, neandertals?
Were the transitionary species from apes to humans also placed as one big magical ruse?
Or were they all just faked by pagans?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 2:41 AM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 2:28:38 AM

Quote :

"The historical claims built on museums packed with fossils of transitionary speices, extinct speices a;; with homologous features?"

All these features can also be explained within ID, or creationism. The fact that animal life created by a particular intelligence is similar is not surprising. Hmm... all Fords have a common design, they must have evolved from some common ancestor. And there is still debate about missing links.

Quote :

"Ill be glad when bird flu mutates and then kills you. You dont believe tamiflu can save your life, becuase avian flu is not currently transmissable from humans to humans. It could never pose a serious threat. Since evolution cant occur, the bird flu cannot change."

way to ignore what I've posted, I never claimed that microevolution didn't occur. A virus mutated to another virus, big deal, it's still a virus. We can quibble about what a "species" is, but I never argued that a virus couldn't mutate.

Quote :

"Intellegence? Evolution is a fairly intellegent way to make sure that species adapt to a changing eviroment. No biologist would disagree. Again, this is a non-issue, because there is no conflict."

Since there exist proponents of ID who are practising biologists you are incorrect, you should
be free to have your oppionion that evolution via natural selection is a reasonable explaination, and we ought to be free to say that it is not. Why is it so hard to understand that a person can find evolution to be an unconvincing theory, why are you so dogmatic?

Quote :

"Is there an intellegent God? Thats what youre asking. The answer is not one science can provide."

That's not what any number of prominent physicsists have thought. How can you know for certain
that such an answer cannot be given by science? Is it that God does not interact with the world, or is it that God doesn't exist? Either way how did you know that to be the case? I would not be so
sure, if there is a God then why would he not reveal Himself through nature. I believe that He does in a general manner. The beauty and structure of physical law speaks to the existence of the divine.

Quote :

"Let a bunch of idiot middle aged common folk decide what is science? Why stop there.....lets do it by democracy. Lets have a vote for relativity. The universe has no speed limit...theres no your mass changes when you move at different speeds....theres no way that time moves slower relative to those who walk around all day then those who dont.....if i dont understand it, it be pagan bullshit...lets do science by democratic rule. If the masses dont get it, why teach it! bravo sir."

I love the argument by association, as if special relativity were at all on a par with evolution. Whatever. And for what it's worth your mass doesn't change as the speed increases, this idea
of varying mass exists only in elementary physics texts. Go look in any particle physics text and you'll find out that mass is the rest mass ( a constant which characterizes the particle, in part )

Details aside, the "masses" ought to be able to decide for themselves. Anyway, your whole suggestion that ID proponents are antiscience is false. We're just anti-evolution. There is more to science than evolution, there is more to biology than evolution. We do not disagree with most of
what is termed "science".

Quote :

"Better yet, before any scientific discovery, lets just run it by every theological institutional and make sure to modify it so as to not offend anyone."

we have that now in the reverse.

Quote :

"we should also vote for math i really think 2+2 should equal 5"

yes, everyone who doesn't accept evolution must be a slack-jawed yocal... ha ha .

Quote :

"Didnt the sun stand still in the sky in the bible? All those pagan physics teachers and their souless teachings of radical ideas with amazing theistic implications should have to also teach that biblical magic is a competing thoery among christian physics scholars."

Again, bring up physics as if just because we use the same term to label them they have comprable
verity. All the creationists that I've read do not object to experimentally verifiable physics, there is no debate about those things which we can test directly. The debate is over history.

As far as the scientific content of scripture goes, I think we have learned from some early mistakes.
Although, I suspect there have always been people like me who think that scripture should be read carefully. This much I will say, it is interesting that God has told us that for Him a "day is as a thousand years". From a purely materialist perspective we have only recently begun to understand what that kind of statement might entail physically speaking. I think that scripture is true, but I also think that when it comes to creation it is likely symbolic. I mean, God chose to explain creation in terms that they could understand. The account is correct to the accuracy allowed by such terms as "water" and "void" and so on... I digress...

12/23/2005 2:58:01 AM

Quote :

"Why is it so hard to understand that a person can find evolution to be an unconvincing theory"

Because they are all christian fundamentalists who are basing their beliefs on the bible. Just like the ID people. I dont see any muslim IDists. I dont see any jewish ones. How coincidental.

Quote :

"And there is still debate about missing links."

In the scientific community? Nope. Among a bunch of non-scientists or a few token biologists with christian agendas, yes.


[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 3:24 AM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 3:10:34 AM

I am far from a christian fundamentalist and I am very aware of the gaping holes in the theory of evolution.

if its such a sure bet, why is the thing still a fucking theory?

12/23/2005 8:58:34 AM

I'm skeptical of gravity. Fucking theory.

12/23/2005 9:11:46 AM

are you really that fucking stupid?

look into the theory of gravity.

there are conflicting views on how it works and what exactly it is.

just because we have a name for something doesnt mean we have it explained

12/23/2005 9:19:37 AM

holy shit.

please tell me that the theory of evolution was not just compared to the theory of gravity.


i mean, yes, creationism is a bunch of BS, but lets put aside the rhetoric for a second and acknowledge that it is impossible to scientifically test the theory of evolution.

if you're threatened by that fact, then you're no better than the christians for it then becomes obvious that evolution is just as much a religion to you as creationism is to them.

12/23/2005 10:13:50 AM

ps

ID DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MEAN CREATIONISM

it boggles my mind that conservative Christians have been so duped into fighting for this thing

if i was a science teacher, and this passed, we would spend a week studying points in history where the aliens came in and fucked with our ancestors to get us to this point

and then sue the fuck out of the school system when they fired me

12/23/2005 11:01:02 AM

In this case, though, ID clearly meant creationism.

12/23/2005 11:15:37 AM

Quote :

"nor should we. but, 1) Christianity isn't a random "crackpot theory." Its a major fucking religion, and evolution conflicts DIRECTLY with the teachings of a very literal interpretation of Christianity. 2) schools don't say anything about appendectomies or the necessities of any medical procedures, which makes your scientology argument null and void."

1) Is it the government's business to decide which religions' points of view are valid and which ones are not? The norse believed that the earth was created when a giant cow licked an enormous disc of ice, and a giant came out of it and killed the cow's owner and his body is the world. Hindus believe that the world started in a lotus blossom floating on the seas of nothingness. Are we to teach to all of these "theories"?
2) I don't know why you're so argumentative about this, but whatever. Plenty of high schools have psychology classes. Plenty of history classes discuss the progressions of various diseases (the plague, influenza, smallpox). Biology classes will tell you how a bacteria or virus do their thing. All of these things are in direct conflict with scientology. There is no disclaimer in AP History books saying that "One point of view is that the native americans were dying from smallpox. Another is that they had a bunch of body thetans omg!!!"

12/23/2005 11:23:31 AM

Quote :

"how are they endorsing a religion is wrong"

12/23/2005 12:00:51 PM

Quote :

"I am far from a christian fundamentalist and I am very aware of the gaping holes in the theory of evolution. if its such a sure bet, why is the thing still a fucking theory? "

Maybe its a gaping hole in your understanding given you dont even know the definition of a scientitic theory.

12/23/2005 12:30:15 PM

Its the basic principle that ID accepts hand-waiving as the explanation for species on this planet that precludes it from science.

12/23/2005 12:45:15 PM

thats not entirely true

12/23/2005 12:47:21 PM

But it is the Jist of ID.

12/23/2005 12:49:38 PM

Quote :

"Maybe its a gaping hole in your understanding given you dont even know the definition of a scientitic theory. "

ahh

so you cant answer the questiong and just use a pathetic attempt at an insult

gotcha

12/23/2005 12:56:59 PM

an insult? im sorry you think that.

the fact is, you dont know what scientific thoeries are if you believe the word 'theory' is meant to express reservations. i really am sorry if youve been insulted, but you really should go look up the definition of a scientific theory.

12/23/2005 1:02:36 PM

do you know the difference between theory and fact?

its rediculously pathetic you think the only people that have issues with the theory of evolution are people with heavy christian agendas.

i mean fuck

thats like saying the only people who believe in evolution are people with anti-christian agendas.

you seriously are dumb as a brick

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:06 PM. Reason : *]

12/23/2005 1:04:04 PM

dl

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:10 PM. Reason : dbl]

12/23/2005 1:09:16 PM

^^haahhahh. you ACTUALLY USED the most trite and easily rebuked argument of 'just a theory' on a college message board.


youre saying that because you dont understand evolution, it shouldnt be accepted.


seriously, show me ONE muslim/jewish creationist or IDist. show me one. ive never seen ONE.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:10 PM. Reason : =]

12/23/2005 1:10:18 PM

^ hahahaha

dude

who the fuck are you arguing against?

where did I say that if you dont understand the theory of evolution it shouldnt be accepted?

I am calling you out for thinking that EVERYONE except a select few with a christian agenda in the scientific community believes the theory of evolution as it is today.

Youre a fucking idiot

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:11 PM. Reason : *]

12/23/2005 1:10:39 PM

'its just a theory'


keep it up. its a losing argument.

Quote :

"EVERYONE "

just about everyone.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:13 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 1:11:20 PM

HAHAHA you just called yourself a joke!

12/23/2005 1:11:24 PM

^another christian who interprets the bible literaly.

where are the muslims ID/creationists?

where are jews?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:17 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 1:15:28 PM

so youre saying just about everyone in the scientific community thinks that the theory of evolution as we know it is correct.

I am saying youre a retarded pitstain.

I dont give a fuck about ID.

12/23/2005 1:18:27 PM

Quote :

"so youre saying just about everyone in the scientific community thinks that the theory of evolution as we know it is correct."

Thats a fact. Thats also what the judge said. A very conservative bush appointed judge.

If you had an argument you wouldnt need to insult me. Sad.



[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:19 PM. Reason : =]

12/23/2005 1:19:13 PM

Quote :

"you had an argument you wouldnt need to insult me. Sad."

did you really just say that?

My argument is that it is nowhere near a fact that the scientific community agrees on evolution as we know it now.

The fact that it is a theory just shows that it is not proven, full of holes, and is changing with new discoveries.

12/23/2005 1:24:06 PM

^what do you base that claim on?

btw how old is the earth?

also, SandSanta,

how old is the earth?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:28 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 1:24:46 PM

^any article ive read or show ive seen on evolution is what i base it on

you base yours on what some judge thinks?

Current thinking is that its ~4 billion years old, maybe more i dont remember the exact number. what the fuck does that have to do with evolution?

12/23/2005 1:28:11 PM

^the judge's descision was based on the presentations of lawyers who proved that the sceintific community overwhelmingly believes evolution is correct

Quote :

"show ive seen"

youve just cited 'some tv show' -- or something youve read?

ok try this. please define the 'scientific community' thats always reffered to -- do you know the definition of this phrase?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:31 PM. Reason : - ]

12/23/2005 1:30:00 PM

youre changing your fucking argument.

evolution is definatley overwhelmingly popular and most, but def not all, think they are on the right 'track' with it.

your insinuation, however, was that we know what evolution is, and we know how it works, and everyone agrees on it.

which is fucking bullshit, if we did, it wouldnt be a theory.

Yes I cited a tv show or something ive read, since I dont have my bibliogrophy here at work with me

12/23/2005 1:39:25 PM

National Academy of Sciences:
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools sometimes ask that teachers present evidence against evolution.' However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. Some of the details of how evolution occurs are still being investigated. But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history.

American Association of University Professors:
"The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars and has contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the natural world. [...] The American Association of University Professors deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."

American Association for the Advancement of Science
The [intelligent design] movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution... the lack of scientific warrant for so-called intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education.

American Anthropological Association
The Association respects the right of people to hold diverse religious beliefs, including those who reject evolution as matters of theology or faith. Such beliefs should not be presented as science, however.Science describes and explains the natural world: it does not prove or disprove beliefs about the supernatural.

American Astronomical Society
Science is not based on faith, nor does it preclude faith. Whatever personal beliefs teachers, students, parents or administrators may hold, the teaching of important scientific concepts, such as the formation and aging of planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe, should not be altered or constrained in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines.

National Association of Biology Teachers
Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called creation science,' scientific creationism,' intelligent design theory,' young earth theory,' or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum.

Geological Society of America
In recent years, certain individuals motivated by religious views have mounted an attack on evolution. This group favors what it calls creation science,' which is not really science at all because it invokes supernatural phenomena. Science, in contrast, is based on observations of the natural world. All beliefs that entail supernatural creation, including the idea known as intelligent design, fall within the domain of religion rather than science. For this reason, they must be excluded from science courses in our public schools.

The American Chemical Society
Evolution cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation.The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science and compromises a central purpose of public educationthe preparation of a scientifically literate workforce.

American Institute of Biological Sciences
The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. Explanations for the origin of life and the development of species that are not supportable on scientific grounds should not be taught as science.

The Paleontological Society
Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it must be taught in public school science classes. In contrast, creationism is religion rather than science, as ruled in recent court cases, because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested. Consequently, creationism in any form (including scientific creationism, creation science, and intelligent design) must be excluded from public school science classes. Because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes.

Botanical Society of America
Science as a way of knowing has been extremely successful, although people may not like all the changes science and its handmaiden, technology, have wrought. But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.

Quote :

"THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY POSITION STATEMENT: EVOLUTION Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases. Evolution is also a theory – an explanation for the observed changes in life through Earth history that has been tested numerous times and repeatedly confirmed. Evolution is an elegant theory that explains the history of life through geologic time; the diversity of living organisms, including their genetic, molecular, and physical similarities and differences; and the geographic distribution of organisms. Evolutionary principles are the foundation of all basic and applied biology and paleontology, from biodiversity studies to studies on the control of emerging diseases. Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it must be taught in public school science classes. In contrast, creationism is religion rather than science, as ruled by the Supreme Court, because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested. Consequently, creationism in any form (including “scientific creationism,” “creation science,” and “intelligent design”) must be excluded from public school science classes. Because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes. This difference between science and religion does not mean that the two fields are incompatible. Many scientists who study evolution are religious, and many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. Science and religion address different questions and employ different ways of knowing. The evolution paradigm has withstood nearly 150 years of scrutiny. Although the existence of evolution has been confirmed many times, as a science evolutionary theory must continue to be open to testing. At this time, however, more fruitful inquiries address the tempo and mode of evolution, various processes involved in evolution, and driving factors for evolution. Through such inquiry, the unifying theory of evolution will become an even more powerful explanation for the history of life on Earth. "

[link]http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Xbtiffcfn7UJ:<a href="http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21768res20051123.html+biology+scientific+community+evolution&hl=en[/link]" target="_blank">http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Xbtiffcfn7UJ:http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21768res20051123.html+biology+scientific+community+evolution&hl=en</a>



show me one scientific commuity, like those listed above, who doubts evolution?

show me ONE.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:44 PM. Reason : - ]

12/23/2005 1:43:09 PM

Quote :

"I dont give a fuck about ID."

Quote :

"I dont give a fuck about ID."

Quote :

"I dont give a fuck about ID."

Quote :

"I dont give a fuck about ID."

Quote :

"I dont give a fuck about ID."

Quote :

"I dont give a fuck about ID."

Quote :

"But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution"

This was my point...which you have only proven for me. They dont agree on how it works, which leaves the theory of evolution a hot topic.

by the way, most of that shit you just posted was arguments for keeping religion out of the classroom.

also

what does the age of the earth have to do with our discussion?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 1:50 PM. Reason : *]

12/23/2005 1:48:59 PM

The quotes have all stated that their respective communities support evolution. Can you read? They all agree it happened, and continues to happen and had happened by variation and selection.

There is no dissention. I dont know where you get this crap about how they disagree on how evolution works.

Quote :

"But scientists continue to debate only the particular mechanisms that result in evolution, not the overall accuracy of evolution as the explanation of life's history."

No theory is beyond rebuke. They all are constantly changing and studied. Thats just basic science. The point is, the core of the claim of evolution has withstood 150 years of scrutiny and is not in contention.

Quote :

" The fact that it is a theory just shows that it is not proven"

Youve been proven wrong. All the big communities just listed clearly say youre full of shit.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 2:01 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 1:52:35 PM

IDGDIF

12/23/2005 1:55:10 PM