Intellegent Theory

Has anyone heard of this intellegent theory thing in the states , their trying to get it into the schools now , it states that scientific evolution is to complex and you should just leave everything to god, does anybody know any more on this ?

 

Bunkum

 

????

 

Ah, you mean this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4136690.stm

 

If religious groups in today's world can make that schools replace the theory of evolution with these other theories then we might as well just scrap the whole idea of education, because what's the point of learning if what you learn is "religiously inspired". Of course the theory of evolution is so far nothing but a theory, but at least there are innumerable reasons to believe in evolution and none to believe in creation. I'd rather believe in something which was carefully studied and examined by serious scientists using approved scientific methods, than in something written down by some people nobody knows who lived thousands of years ago and who weren't even aware of scientific method.

 

Um, actually the theory of evolution was put forward by somebody who was not a scientist, and did not approach it in a rigorous scientific approach.

Subsequent studies have knocked holes in the theory, but it persists in the public consciousness.

 

I was so sure that Roel (or somebody) would counter my statement that I actually did a little digging to support it.

From http://www.creationscience.com (most of which is heavily Christian-biased, and even I admit that many of their arguments will sem tenuous to a non-believer) comes this wee nugget.




Figure 4: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or downward) changes—no increasing complexity.

Because science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible, what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes.

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

 

It's still all religious bunkum and has no basis in science.

FNG

 

Just pointing out that science has not actually provided a proper answer yet...

I love being awkward.

 

I do believe that he did, and that doing so made him a scientist. However, Darwin was of course not alone in this, others had already hinted at the theory but hadn't quite found the right track in it yet.

About the "holes" you suggest. I never said the evolutionary theory was the truth, because it remains without solid proof. Human sceintific research simply doesn't exist for long enough to have actually observed the changes that species undergo through evolution. The fact that "museums aren't overflowing with intermediates" doesn't say everything, however; especially since corpses only fossilize in very few geological areas, and most evolution seems to take place in areas of typical conditions, which require species to adapt. My point being that the world's collection of fossils does not equal the world's collection of all living creatures that ever existed.

Oh, and Archeopterix is a pretty damn clear intermediate for the exemplary course of evolution shown on the pic you posted. In the case of human evolution so are the Australopithecus, Homo Erectus etcetera skeletons known to man.

 

Granted!

I must admit that I simply took the first reasonable-sounding argument from that there website

 

Intelligent design = Last refuge for the baffled

Its an excuse for giving up on trying to find the answer to a problem - if we cant understand it, instead of trying to find an answer, it must be the product of Intelligent Design.

A question for the supporters of 'Intelligent Designer', if we are the product of Intelligent Design:

Why do we have a respiratory system, in which the wastes and dirt that accumulate in the throat and nasal regions drain inside – a prime cause of many bronchial and chest complaints?

Why do we have our two most important inlets (for air and for food/liquid) crossing allowing for the possibility of choking?

Why is birth difficult and risky for the mother and baby?

Why do we have retinal arteries/veins lying on and in front of the retina of the eyes. Many causes of blindness come from this defective design?

Why have we got an appendix – something that can get infected and rupture in a life threatening peritonitis unless removed quickly. There have been suggestions that it might have bacterial that make certain vitamins but its unproven.

Why is our abdomen as it is, in quadripeds it is underneath. Ribs hold the contents inside. An attacker cannot easily get to it. The predator has to attack the tougher back and spine. But in the human the belly is sticking out there for some clawed or toothed predator or knife wielding lunatic to take a swipe and rip us up.

And one for George, why has his Intelligent Designer not allowed us to develop an energy system whose fuel is widespread rather than mostly concentrated in a few increasingly unstable areas????

 

As race we can't have all the anwsers thrown in are lap , we have to gradually figure things out, and if you can't find an anwser you just can't give up , some things just take time, and just becaue evolution dosen't happen instantly dosen't mean it dosen't exist.

Like on Larry King on August 24th , one guy said he feels like Gallileo going against the church when he said the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun.


A bit off the direct topic but Jay Leno gave this joke in one of his monologues: "I hear Bush Is preaching scientific theory to explain evolution , saying that it is to complex and that we should just leave everything to god , he also said the same thing about algebra"

 

New one to me. Haven't heard anything about it.

 

if we come from apes wouldn't we be able mate with them. Notice in the picture in the first one the bird has two legs one stepping forward one planted in the back and by the fourth one a set of forward legs have come in to the picture from nothing. I know the intelligent design is pushing the god and offends non believers and evolution is pushing a theory that dos not have a lot of evidence and offends believers so what do you teach in school. i think they should the child or there parents decide what they want to learn and and have difrent classes for them of teach both of them.

 

There also seems to be some confusion over Darwin's two most famous theories; 'Natural Selection' (proven I understand) & 'Evolution of Species' (unproven).
If historians & contemporary writers are to be beleived, Darwin recanted his own theory of the Evolution of species for a couple of years prior to his death.

I also understand the "missing link" to actually be three to five links, not just the one.

 

Personally, I am more in favour of schools teaching the truth, which is:

These are the various theories on 'evolution/creation':

1) God set us up just as we are (Creationalism)
2) God set evolution rolling (Intelligent Design)
3) It all just happened (Evolution)

And then state the unproven-ness of each.

Try to start the wee kids thinking about it, not just 'this is what school told us happened'.

 

Umm , apes and humans are similar , but their still differet species, you don't see robins doin it with bluejays do ya ? or chameleons and other reptiles doin it ,
Allthough lions and tigers can produce offspring, same with dogs and wolves and etc.

 

PMN1 wrote:

I don't know much about Intelligent Design as a theory thus won't comment directly about it. I do see a flaw in the above statements though if they are meant to disprove the theory that there was intelligence behind the design of the universe.
Let's look at an automobile(or any other obviously non-natural object) which was designed by intelligence. If one analyzes the object in detail many design compromises can be found. Why four wheels instead of, say eight ,which would give better traction? Why is it powered by a relatively expensive and dangerous fuel when the technology exists to exploit renewable safer sources such as solar, wind and geothermal? Why is it vulnerable to damage and even death to the occupants from relatively minor collisions? Why does it have collisions at all for that matter when humans possess technology to virtually eliminate the danger?

All the answers to these questions (and many more that you can think of )point to compromises in design. If we used other forms of energy then the utility and practical uses of an automobile would be compromised. If you had to wait for a windy or sunny day to drive or store the energy in heavy expensive batteries then the aauto would be less useful. Collisions could be nearly eliminated by placing autos on rails or using sophisticated radars linked to automatic braking and traction control..at least this is possible using expensive and complex technology that exists today. Again the compromises were made due to cost or complexity or utility considerations.
The presence of these design compromises do not mitigate against the conclusion that the automobile is the product of intelligent design do they?

 

Nothing is perfect , evolution happens when theirs a problem and there is need for adapting , and the body adapts to the most "serious" problem , while many other problems linger.