paper against evolution, for intelligent design

Hello sweetstuff383:I have a suggestion for you, if it is not too late to change the focus of your paper. When I was a student I took a class entitled Environmental Law. The course was an almost 50/50 split between biology majors and business majors. As you can probably guess, whenever a situation arose in which the environment was pitted against business interests, the biology majors sided with the environmentalists while the business majors came down in favor of the busuness interests (not always of course...but more often than not). However, the Instructor (who was one of the best I have ever had) would not let us off so easy. Instead, he would require the we argue our position from the other point of view. Talk about a great way to truly learn about the topic.Why don't you try the same approach? Why not write a paper in support of the Theory of Evolution? Based on the threads you have written, it appears to me that you are already biased against the ToE, and (being creationist yourself) have probably heard many of the common arguements against the concept of evolution, so I doubt if your paper will be very objective. However, if you require yourself to learn and understand a viewpoint that is in direct opposition to your own beliefs, a much more thorough investigation will be needed on your part. And who knows, you might actually learn a little something about science along the way ()

Hello again sweetstuff383: I don't want to read too much in to your reponse regarding my recommendation, but it does suggest to me that perhaps you have your doubts about the scientific validity of creationism...or at least it seems you have an open mind and want to learn more about the Theory of Evolution. If that's true then I applaud you. As someone who says they're interested in journalism, I would think you'd be pretty upset about censorship. If it's not true then you probably won't like the rest of this post.Does anyone else find it somewhat disturbing (and perhaps ironic) that this young lady is being forced to remain close minded? Creationist are constantly spouting off about "equal time", and "teach both", and "we're just as valid", and "blah, blah, blah". But yet, here we have a "teacher" who is requiring his or her students to write a paper that either supports creationism (I assume from a scientific standpoint, not a religious one) or refutes the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution. I guess that it's entirely possible that the class is structured and designed to do exactly what I suggested. That is, perhaps the course is designed to require the students to explore creationism so they can see its complete lack of scientific merit, but I have my doubts. Let me ask you this sweetstuff383: Is this paper for a science class? If not, then for what course is this paper is being required? Rand Al'Thor suggested you write a paper in support of evolution anyway, and see how the teachers reacts. NosyNed pointed out the potential downside to such a bold (and brave) idea. Why not try this. Approach your instructor, tell him or her about your visits to this web page and the suggestions that were made, and then explain to him the importance of writing a pro-evolution paper.On a side note to everyone else reading this, wouldn't it be a hoot if this teacher and the school received a "few" e-mails from concerned individuals about the narrow minded approach that seems to be taking place in regards to science? Wouldn't it be fun to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring "other" explanations about the diversity of life on this planet? Wouldn't it be a riot to point out that this is 2003 and that there have been a lot of scientific advancements made in the past 6000 years or so. Wouldn't it be fabulous to ask them what their school is so scared of, or how they can be so closed minded? I know that sweetstuff383 stated that it was a private school (I assume a religious one), which means they can teach pretty much anything they want (to a point...they still have to meet basic State requirements). But turn-about is fair play I think. The public schools in my State are constantly under attack from fundis demanding that creationism be taught as a scientifically valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Here's a chance for us to fight back with the same arguement.

Matt:First, thanks for replying for sweetstuff383.Now that that's out of the way, let's continue. Boy, I'm glad you straightened me out on that, how silly of me to think of you as close minded. And I wasn't aware that I was trying to "convert" anyone into an evolutionist. But, you being such an open minded religious fundamentalist (now there's an oxymoron), I guess you have had vast more experience in converting people and can therefore recognize it when you see it. If you go back and read what I have written you will notice that I have only suggested that a great way for her (a creationsist) to learn about the Theory of Evolution would be to research and write the paper from an evolutionary stand point. What's the matter Matt, are you afraid that if someone researched and wrote a paper in that manner that they might notice the complete lack of scientific evidence for, and the implausibility of, creationism? Are you afraid that they might stumble onto an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence independantly collected by all the scientific disciplines over the past couple hundered years? Are you fearful that they might discern that this mountain of evidence completely supports the Theory of Evolution. Are you afraid they would notice that creationists have never successfully refuted any of this evidence? I think the Pope might have a little something to say about that. Please give me any scientific evidence that doesn't support the Theory of Evolutoin. What exactly is "that way"? Trust me Matt, your school has come nowhere even remotely close to falsifying any alternatives. Wait...maybe your school has come up with a new scientific discipline called "reasonable science", in which you can simply claim anything to be false that you do not feel is reasonable. Under the rules of this new science, no preliminary reaserch to address your hypothesis (if you even have one) should be done, no repeatable experiments need to be conducted, any conclusion you reach should be neither subjected to any sort of statistical tests nor conflict with the answer you wanted, all evidence contrary to your desired results can and should be ignored, and you're only allowed one source (makes for a nice short Literature Cited section in your publications). Hmmmm, this sounds familiar. So am I to understand that in the State of Maryland, private schools can teach whatever they want? They can teach that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and really delivers toys to all the boys and girls of the world? They can teach that a giant rabbit lays multi-colored, hardboiled, chicken eggs? They can teach that a little green fairy will replace the tooth under your pillow with money? They can teach that the Earth is flat and everything revolves it? They can teach that a six-hundred year old man and his family kept a butt-load of animals alive on a boat for a year? They can teach that the holocaust never occurred?
Wow Matt, I want to go to your school! Could I get in as is, or do I first have to promise to ignore anything that contradicts what the teacher says? Would I get in trouble if I suggested that perhaps we should use a new Biology text book when we "learn" biology and not a 4000 year old religous book? (Oh, and the same for geology, astromony, chemistry, and physics).Can anybody out there from the state of Maryland confirm this? There truly are no minimum state requirments that need to be met by an organization that claims to be an institute of learning (ie; a school) that (I assume) is going to award some sort of diploma to their graduates that might be later accepted at an accredited university? Why would such an open-minded school flippantly ignore legitimate questions or comments?

Hello again Matt: Of course Matt, you are more than welcome to reply to any post your feel relevant. I was only trying to point out that you were speaking FOR sweetstuff383. If she feels the same way you do (and she probably does)...fine...that's her perogative. I just think that she can/should speak for herself. Sorry. Well now Matt, that depends. If you have seriously studied evolutionary theory...if you have become relatively knowledgeable about biology, chemistry, astronomy, geology, physics, and other sciences to the point that you can refute the science behind their conclusions regarding evolution....if you can show that the science behind the Theory of Evolution is somehow flawed (not simply reject it Matt, but show that the science is false), then perhaps rejecting the Theory of Evolution would not make you close-minded. To simply reject the theory because it conflicts with your religious convictions, well sorry to tell you this Matt, but that's the epitome of being close-minded. Wow...so the Popes going to Hell. I guess I have no real response to this one...except to mention that he's gonna have a lot more company than even I ever imagined. Other horrible heathens, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa (just to name a couple), will make for fine eternal company. Don't you find it a bit disturbing that such great, peace-loving, caring, unselfish people are condemend to an eternity in Hell by your God, while people like Jeffrey Dalmer and other wonderful mass murderers that repent will go to heaven? You don't have to answer this Matt, it's a rhetorical question. What is unjust about asking your school questions about their curriculum? Actually Matt, nothing at all would be wrong with talking about these topics. I would however, have serious problems with your school if they were teaching about them as scientific facts. And since they have as much scientific validity as creationism...well...guess what. Where, exactly, did I say I didn't believe in God? But since you brought it up, since (I assume) you accept things like Chemical Bond Theory and The Theory of Gravity, please show me where in the bible God explains these wonderous miracles. Let me ask you a few questions Matt. What do you receive after you graduate from this school? Are you awarded some sort of "high school" diploma? If so, is it accepted at non-religious state funded Universities? That is to say, would, for example, The University of Maryland accept you based on this diploma?
Asqara provides a link to a web page that explains the criteria that all schools in Maryland must meet. It includes a section that states that approved nonpublic schools need to include four hours of science and mathematics. I guess your school bypasses evolution by not considering biology to be a science?

Welcome to The Forum Servus Dei:Wow, I go home for the evening and come back to find that I'm quite a few threads behind here, so pardon me if I cover some topics that have been addressed by others (Rei, Loudmouth, NosyNed...you "guys" are good at this!). You are probably correct in assuming that this is slightly off topic, but that was/is my fault. I only mentioned it to illustrate what I believe are serious flaws in Christian beliefs, which then, in turn, affect education. I cannot comprehend how any one faith can claim that their God is the one true God, and to not accept this (or in the case of Christains, further accept Jesus Christ as the Savior) condems you to some sort of Hell. It's truly pathetic, and is the root cause of almost every conflict that the World has ever seen. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. But I digress, so to the moderator, I apologize and will try to get back on target. It's nice to know (or maybe it isn't) that the school is accredited. However, I have to be honest here, I find it sad that Matt is studying biology. Nothing personal against Matt by himself, but IMHO, to studying biology as a creationist is ridiculous. I mean, come on, you have to pretty much ignore virtually every biological concept. Sure, you can get a "degree", but you will have failed to grasp, or will have to purposely ignore, even the most basic ideas behind biology. Similarly, I suppose one could get a degree in physics, and not believe in gravity. I guess you could study chemistry and not believe in protons, electrons and those other tiny things. But what's the point? I'm sorry, but if you want to understand biology, then you have to accept the Theory of Evolution, otherwise, you are only fooling yourself. I have serious doubts about this statement. But my main point is this: In a biology class you should not be given both sides (actually, there are hundreds of "sides", but I'm sure the school ignores all but the Christian story). In a biology classroom ONLY science should be taught. Creationism is not now, nor was it in the past, nor will it ever be in the future, a science. Now, if the students are given creationist stories during their theology or philosophy classes, fine...as long as they're presented as stories, not facts. Yes, it is true that in science we cannot prove anything. Basically, in science we look at ALL of the available evidence and form theories and laws based on what this evidence tells us. We can, and do, however, falsify ideas if they do not have supportive evidence. By doing this, we continually narrow the realm of possibilities until we are left with the concepts that have not yet been falsified. And how do we do this? Through repeatable experimentation, an analyses.
You are confusing two concepts here. First you say we cannot prove anything. Then you say that because of this, the physical laws of the universe "are not set then". Why do you say this? One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. You go on to say that because of this, God can do whatever he wants. Please tell me you don't believe that teaching this in a science class is acceptable. To answer your first question...yes...it does. I'm not a rocket scientist (like I said before, that's my brother) but my understanding is that the very fact that the Law of Gravity (and the other physical laws of the universe) is universal and constant is why we are capable of space travel. We don't just point a space vehicle where we want it to go and light the candle. Basic (basic if you're Einstein I guess) equations let us predict how objects will behave in space. Understanding things like gravity, chaos theory, relativity, quantum physics, etc., is predicated on the laws being constant, and thus far we have seen nothing to indicated otherwise. Quite the contrary. We have done some pretty amazing things because have accepted (via the scientific method) that the physical laws of the universe are indeed constant.
To address the rest of this paragraph let me put it like this. The concept of a miracle falls outside the realm of science because it is simply not testable. I'm confused? What "type of stuff" will Matt and Ashley be including in their papers? How can they include the things that have been discussed at this forum in a paper that is against evolution or supportive of creationism? Are they gonna say something like: "Although there is overwhelming scientific evidence in support of the ToE, we know it is not true because it conflicts with our literal interpretation of our bible."? Or maybe they will include information such as: "While it it true that creationism has no hard science to back up its claims, we know that it must be true (and therefore a science) because of what is writtten in our bible."? I will agree with the first part of this statement only if you acknowledge that the allowance for your bible in school is only in regards to its theological information, and maybe some historical data, but certainly not any scientific information. Additionally, you need to understand that yours is only one of many deity based concepts, and that all of these should be given equal time, if this school is truly open-minded.
As for Matt proving that the bible is being used in schools, his sample size is only one, which is too small for any sort of statistical test...sorry.You know, I'm not nearly as good at articulating my thoughts in writing as some others are at this Forum, so please accept this apology for my verbosity. Like you, Sevus Dei, I am relatively new to this site and have not yet aquired the "Forum Knowledge" (linking to other threads...additional web pages...relevant postings...etc.) that many of the other individuals that post here possess. Quite a few of them have supplied a number of links to other insightful threads and web pages that address many of the questions and concepts you have raised. I notice that you have been visiting those other locations and are trying to comprehend what they're saying. Good for you. I guess what I want to say (finally) is that if you choose to belief in creationism, that's fine. It's just that you cannot turn it into a science by hyjacking a few scientific terms and/or using analogies to make it appear scientific. You can believe what ever you want, and as long as you keep creationism out of the science class and/or NEVER teach it as a science, I have no problems.

Hello Warren: You're kidding right? If not, then I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here. All along, we have been telling you that ID is not a science, and you have (to your credit I guess) stuck to the notion that ID is a valid scientific field of study. However, this last statement by you only helps us prove our point. Loudmouth used his example to show the arbitrary nature of your ID arguments. If I correctly understand what you wrote, you basically support his idea then, by saying that his example is valid as long as his predictions are consistently based on the physiology and morphology of the unicorn. Really? And then you say that this somehow proves that your ID arguements have equal merit and scientific validity because they consistently show that intelligence (albeit low) is behind intelligent design. What the hell sort of twisted logic is that? Please, before you try anymore to expalin to us dummies how and why ID has just as much scientific evidence to support it claims as the ToE does, go out and at least attempt to learn a little about what makes something a science.Can you believe it? I actually wrote only a one paragraph reply![This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 12-17-2003]

Warren:First you say this: Now, call me silly, but does that not say that predictions of a unicorn designer are ok with you, as long as these predictions are based on the "unicorness" of the designer?Now you say (or relate back to an earlier reply at least) this: So are the relevent or irrelevent?Then you insult me by saying this: Warren, you have yet to demonstrate any logic what-so-ever to your arguments. They are nothing more than a collection of big words and contradictions.You also say this: When? Where? This thread has gotten quite long and I will admit that it is entirely possible that in a previous thread you presented a testable ID hypothesis, but to be honest I cannot remember reading it. If you have, would you please be so kind as to either repeat it in your next reply or supply me with the link back to your response in which it is located?
However, I will also admit that I have yet to see a testable hypothesis come out of ID that cannot be falsified in about five minutes. Maybe you and I have a different perspective on what we consider to be useful (or for that matter, what we consider to be a hypothesis).

Hello Again Warren: I get, I get. But that is not what you said here: However, I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse. I understand where you're coming from now, and I am sorry for the misunderstanding.As for this: I'm not sure how to respond. Are there ID hypotheses that are not a part of creationism? I have to admit, if I cannot include creationist ID hypotheses, then I cannot supply you with an ID hypothesis that has been proven false because I have never seen a non-creationists ID hypothesis.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I joined this part of the debate a little late so if you did supply a testable ID hypothesis in an earlier thread, I did not see it. Can you give it to me now? (Can I stop you for a second here? As I said in the previous paragraph, I only recently joined this portion of the debate so perhaps I missed it...but what exactly, Warren, is your ID hypothesis?)Anyway, in your "hypothesis" the intelligent designer is not a perfect being? It is not the omnipotant, omnificent, omnipresent God that creationsist refer to? Instead, it is "something" of high intelligence that designed the first organisms (on a side note...could you explain "original life forms") and then allowed evolution to do the rest. This is why we see mistakes....because the designer was not perfect?
This is a new one for me. Um...Warren, we don't view them as random goo. Do you believe that we have learned so much about the cell because we have treated them as random goo?
If you want to view them as little machines, that's fine. If describing them as such helps you explain what they do and how they function, fine. But please understand that using the machine analogy doesn't prove that they were indeed designed. It actually does nothing to explain how they did first come into being. Evolutionary biologists can explain how they may have evolved without the need of some intelligent designer.
So far, your only proof of design is your contention that living things appear designed. It seems you're asking us to abandon valid scientific explanations and just accept that things were designed by some sort of intelligent entity. Why? I'm not sure what your agenda is. You say that you are not a creationist (or at least that our ID hypothesis is not based on creationism). You say that you accept evolution after the "original life forms" came into being (I assume you accept the mechanisms of the theory as well). So why do you abandon scienctific explanations of events prior to the appearance of those origainal life forms. If these same mechanisms can lead to the diversity of life we presently see, why can we not apply the same logic to explain how they came into being in the first place? Granted, this falls outside the realm of the ToE, but certainly scientific principles still apply. Ok, pick an organism and tell me what you believe to be its purpose?You keep saying things that imply that viewing life from an evolutionary standpoint somehow hinders progress. Can you back this up in any way what-so-ever? How so?You then go on and talk a great deal about randomness and repeatability. It was all very impressive to read but I fail to see how it proves design or disproves evolution. I'm not a physicist (hell, I'm not even a very good biologist) nor can I go toe to toe with too many people about quantum theory. That being said, I think that Loudmouth and Rei did a fine job of critiquing your post. Still, I am going to try to address some of your points, but it might be a day or two before I can respond because this area is certainly not one of my strong points. I need to first do some research and ask some questions of friends that are far more knowledgeable in this area than I am.