Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?

Hey, POB I believe in Intelligent Design! I really do!

Only its part of my theology and my philosophy, not my science. I would like to see some philosophy courses in which the proposition of intelligent design is maintained, even at the High School level . . .

Its just not science, that's all.

Oh, evidence for evolution. You already know about shin splints on horses, right? Well, here's a fossil horse:


Notice the three toes. There are earlier fossils where the three toes actually get all the way down to the ground and used. The extra toes on this guy just hung loose, not touching the ground. Today's horses as you know have "splints" where these extra toes are reduced to mere lines along the side of the leg. The middle "toe" has evolved to become the hoof.

Now you asked for "indisputable" proof. Well, alas, some people can dispute anything. You know that. So "indisputable" is to high a bar to set. All we can do is show you something real.

 

I defy you to find where I said the Bible is full of mistakes. I said, instead, that properly interpreted the Bible is true.

But you no longer believe them to be literally true.

personally, I have no problem with the terms "days of creation". We still use the terms today! Scientists are not confused at all by these terms. Creation does appear to have been a single noun from our perspective.

Another false witness. Did you not read where I said God LEFT THINGS FOR US TO DISCOVER?

I am utterly at a loss to see how this means "God himself is ignorant". Your need to resort to this extreme kind of parodying of my comments shows, of course, how weak your arguments would be if you relayed my statements accurately.

I will look at that sight and speak to it in a later post. I have never yet found an anti-evolution site of more than one page that did not contain serious scientific error.

No, the statement did not point out a single serious problem. It merely said there were serious problems. It is a typical ploy of creationists to merely say there are serious problems without specifying them, because they know that every time they specify one they get trounced with how their science was bad when they tried that.

ID "theory" in science remains a strangely negative simple denial of the adequacy of current evolution theory. It doesn't establish, positively, anything.

The inerrancy of scriptures is hotly debated sometimes even in this forum. Some of the rescue interpretations necessary to maintain the idea of inerrancy border on the extreme.

The judge concluded that ID was in fact religious. It was pushed by people with patently religious motivations, it is denied as real science by every major scientific organization, and it doesn't have a leg to stand on except for a declaration that we will always fail to find another answer to certain complexities. In other words, it depends on foretelling the future in order to be valid.

There you go again, mis characterizing what I say. Have you no shame? Or is it that you really make that leap of illogic in good faith? I give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that your passion for your cause clouds your judgment.

It's true that the Bible, interpreted literally, says those things. But then, I for one an NOT IN FAVOR of insisting on the literal interpretation of the Bible at all times. You, on the other hand, insist that we do this - in principle - except when YOU don't want to do it.

It is to preserve the value of His word and its message to all generations that I speak up against misusing it to oppose the truth about the history of life on earth and past of our universe.

You seem to be content to let it become marginalized and left out from serious consideration by anybody with a decent understanding of science. God's word deserves better than that.

 

Paul of Eugene

I haven't mischaracterized you whatsoever. It was you that brought up the account of the Sun standing still for Joshua. You may not have directly said that the Bible is wrong, but you surely implied it strongly. You brought up Sunrise and Sunset, not me.

I don't remember if it was you specifically, but it was certainly one of the supporters of evolution that pointed out that the bat is not a bird (the Bible actually says fowl) and argued that the Bible said insects have 4 legs.

And now you use the flimsy excuse that you are not casting doubt on the Bible. You try to turn it around. You say you don't always read all verses as literal.

But that is bogus. It is you evolutionists who try to say the verses on the bat and 4 legged insect were literal and show errors in the Bible.

I am making a fool of myself arguing with you and the others. It is not that you have shown any compelling evidence. In fact, just the opposite. But it is difficult to debate with people that come across as less than honest.

If you don't think you and others have made many statements that imply the Bible is full of mistakes, you are in a serious case of denial.

 

More responses without an answer. I still don't know what it is that you wish to be taught. What is the positive, testible, falsifiable theory that you wish to be presented in science?

"It is amazing. When someone points out scientific reasons against evolution (lack of transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, etc...)"

Science recognizes many transitional fossils. YOu have been presented with many examples of such on these threads. If you want to claim that these are not really transitionals, then the burden of proof is upon you show why they could not be transitional.

Here is one example of a transitional series which has been presented to you. I cannot find the post where I showed it to you so I will link to my original post on the matter.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html?

Please tell us why these could not possibly be transitional.

And does your mention of irreducible complexity mean that this is what you wish to have taught. [You do realize that even if you could prove that something could not be produced by known evolutionary mechanisms that it is a fallacy of the false dilemma to say that it supports your side, right? But I did offer you an exception above, so I'll allow it if you can demonstrate it to be true.] So please document for us a single irreducible complex structure.

"But you and the other evolutionists strongly imply that God himself is ignorant of the very universe he created."

Nope.

He seems to have not considered such things as necessary for inclusion in the Bible and has instead allowed us to discover them through study of the creation.

"You believe there is no "good science" that argues against evolution. You are wrong. Here is a very good site. I think if you will read the 14 chapters shown, you will see very scientific reasons why evolution cannot be true."

Why don't you pull out one particularly good point, phrase it in your own words and provide the references to support your claim in the primary literature.

I have read much of that site in the past and I may get around to more later since you asked, but we cannot discuss 14 chapters of a book on one thread.

"The lastest fight in Pennsylvania was to prohibit a single 100 word statement to be read one single time to students before evolution was to be studied. The statement simply pointed out some serious problems with evolution that evolutionists themselves have admitted many times. It also included information that some scientists have other theories for the origin of life based on complexity that argues for an intelligent designer. "

It pointed out problems? I missed that part.

Have you read the ruling? There was a thread on the ruling. The following link has a link to the ruling and some quotes from the ruling. It is from another thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/4412/2.html#000025

"But that is bogus. It is you evolutionists who try to say the verses on the bat and 4 legged insect were literal and show errors in the Bible. ... If you don't think you and others have made many statements that imply the Bible is full of mistakes, you are in a serious case of denial."

You fully misunderstand. No one is trying to say the Bible is in error. It is pointing out that you and others will often reinterpret scripture when you are convinced that it is right to do so. We do not think that God says that the sun goes around the earth, for example. The point is that if you were to just interpret the scriptures literally, you would be forced to conclude many of these things that have been mentioned. Indeed, many people have done so. See the trouble that Galileo had.

But when the science is convincing to you, you gladly reinterpret. Well to us, the evidence for evolution meets that burden. I understand that it does not for you. But for those that accept the science as true based empirical observation and the Bible as true based on faith, then there must be a way to reconcile. But you and others, instead tell us that these two things that we hold to be true are mutually exclusive. THAT is what tends to tear down believers and make people doubt their faith!

"In fact, just the opposite. But it is difficult to debate with people that come across as less than honest. "

POINT TO SINGLE INSTANCE OF THOSE WHO HOLD AN OPPOSITE OPINION TO YOUR POSTING ANYTHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS DELIBERATELY "LESS THAN HONEST!"

 

Yes you have. When you said this:

You utterly mischaracterize my position on Who God is and how much He knows. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.

Some evolutionists might say these must be interpreted literally. I merely say you take the incredibly vain position of deciding you are allowed to pick and choose what to interpret literally and what to intepret non-literally based solely on your own decisions as to what is real science out there. You've gone so far as to accept the rotation of the earth . . . but not the age of the earth. You've accepted the biology of genes . . . but not the genetic relationships they reveal. Odd picking and choosing you do there . . .

If you think you aren't harming the cause of the Bible by insisting it must be interpreted to conflict with the rest of our knowledge, you are the one in serious denial.

 

How many 3 toed horses were there?Was that the way all horses were formed at one time? do we have any proof that all horses were 3 toed at one time?Or was that one species of horse?Would that come under the heading of micro evolution?

 

Hey, POB, when I took that picture in the museum, the caption said it was the whole species that was like that. I don't have any personal information about how many there were of that species. Bear in mind that only one of a million or so animals will ever fossilize. But at the time that critter roamed the grassy plains there was no single-hooved horse in existance. It is my opinion that the change from three toes to a single hoof - including the development and perfection of the single hoof - counts as macro evolution.

 

I used to believe in Theistic Evolution. My stumbling block was the creation of man. I have no problem with theorizing that God used natural forces like the Big Bang (or newer theories) and evolution (or other scientific theories) up until man appeared. I believe that man is so special that only God could have created him, the only creature with an eternal soul created in the image of God. I don't necessarily accept the 6 day creation described in Genesis or the idea of a young earth mbut the Theory of Evolution is just that for me, a theory.

 

Bill

Intersting questions. Back about a year ago, there was a thread where this came up. This was back when Gina was a moderator. She kindly pulled the horse material out and into a seperate thread where it could be discussed by itself. Many questions were asked and it was a very friendly and wide ranging exchange. You might find it interesting.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/2.html?

"How many 3 toed horses were there?"

I am not an expert so I'll guess instead from what I can recall.

There are somewhere around 60 known genera of fossil horses and some have quite a few species. For quite a while, there were three toes per foot, even four in, I think, the front legs at first. This situation was maintained while other changes were taking place. The teeth changed, including the number of molars. The shape of the head. The legs got longer. Bones fused making the body less flexible. They got much larger. And so on.

I remember the change to three toes being rather quick. There were multiple lineages of horses at that time. One developed the single toed feet and went on to produce the horses we see today. The others died out over a period of time.

"Was that the way all horses were formed at one time? do we have any proof that all horses were 3 toed at one time?"

Yes, all horses were three toed at one point. Except that since they were not really horses yet, maybe we should say that the normal situation in the lineage that led to horses was to have three toes for a long period of time. By looking at what fossils are found together and by dating fossils where possible, we have a pretty good idea of when the three toed varieties lived.

"Or was that one species of horse?"

Not one species. Way too much morphological change.

"Would that come under the heading of micro evolution?"

Funny story.

Some people like to claim that micro cannot lead to macro changes.

The horse series is known to a very fine gradient as far as fossil series go. In some cases, it is very difficult to decide just where one genera ends and another begins. If I were to give you any short segment, you would be able to make a very good case for it being just a variation within kind. But when the changes across the whole series are examined, there is no conclusion to make other than microevolution.

Especially when one considers that the starting point is also the starting point for the evolution of rhinos. A parallel series that has been confirmed by genetic testing. No one would claim that horses and rhinos are the same "kind" would they or that you could get both through mere microevolution alone.

If you want a completely different take, here is a writeup Helen did on horses.

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/horsevolution.htm

I don't buy it. Surprise. If you have questions, please ask.

 

I don't know the politics of this issue that well. I don't know about all the many schools in the U.S. I do know about the one little school I work at in Illinois. I am a teacher's aid for emotionally disturbed high school students. The teacher I work for is currently teaching World History and Consumer Mathematics. The math presents no religious challenges, but you might imagine what we come across in History. Without going into too much detail, I can tell you that the driving force behind our care in what we teach in regards to religious topics is based on a fear of a lawsuit that has not yet been filed. That fear stems from the overall current of discontent on the subject as seen in the media. Our students do voice their opinions at times, none of which are well informed. One of my students professes to be a Christian Egyptianist - he believes in Jesus Christ the Son of Ra and Osiris (thinking Osiris is female) and that the Japanese Samurai is a angel of some kind. That we do not teach anything religious is not the cause of these choices, but our silence serves to perpetuate it. Choices will be made - based upon whatever information is there. If we want to be concerned about we teach in school, we must not forget what we distribute on this interenet either. If we want our children to make intelligent choices, then we must provide them with intelligent information. Withholding information to prevent a lawsuit will only make our children more susceptible to one.

 

Paul of Eugene,

You never really answered POB's question concerning evolution and hard science. You just showed a horse pic.
As popular as evolution is and as widely accepted as it is it is still only accepted as a theory. You know this to be true. Even if you think evolution is a stronger theory than the ID theory both are still a theory (for you their both a theory). Why do you defend so fiercely a postion that is only a theory?
Your comments above concerning inerrancy of Scripture tells me you really don't put alot of faith in the Scriptures. Therein lies your problem.
BTW, you can't seperate your science from your faith. That is as ludicrous as a politician claiming he can seperate his private life from his public life or views.
It is very evident you have a higher view of science than you do of Scripture. The men who have made scientific discoveries over the year were not inspired by God. The men who wrote the Scriptures were. BIG difference my friend. There is not one scientific discovery that can make that claim.
I know you will deny it like most of your persuasion do but I highly doubt you believe in the virgin birth or other miracles of the Bible.
Stop and think about it. Why is it impossible for woman to be made from a man's rib but it is not impossible for the Savior to be born of a virgin. I don't think it is a problem but for you theistic evolutionists it seems it would have to be? If it isnt' please explain how you can believe in the one and not the other.
Also, how can you believe that the Holy Spirit resides in us as believers if you don't even accept Gen. 1-11? You can't pick and choose. II Tim 3:16 says we can trust all Scripture.
You old earth,evolution people hate it when your salvation is questioned yet your position is what brings on the criticism. It is only fair to ask when your position itself cast doubt on the authority of Scripture. I true follower of Christ would never put the Bible in a weaker place than that of science.

 

Do you really want the Bible to be tested in the crucible of science? I believe that the Christian faith involves a leap of faith. In other words it can never be proven scientifically. Suppose Evolution, Creation, and other theories were examined and at this point in time something other than Creation has the most scientific evidence. remember faith is not a scientific proof. Then would you stop believing in God?

I wouldn't because I have faith. I don't need to have the Bible proven scientifically. But for many this might become a major stumbling block. (Creation was disproven. Therefore, the whole Bible is in error.)

 

I don't need to have the bible proven scientifically either. Evidently some people do have that need or they wouldn't be trying to reconcile the two all the time.
Evolution to me is man's best shot at being able to understand our coming into existance using his finite brain. It takes a greater leap of faith to believe evolution than it does Gen 1 account.
Evolution is a theory the Bible is fact. I don't have to ever worry about there ever being a theory that will be examined that will have more evidence than Creation because the Bible says we were created. The Bible will never be discedited because it is God's Word. It is infallible, it is inerrant. If it isn't then I must have a fallible, errant faith. I don't though because the Bible is the inspired Word of God.
How can man be responsible for his sin if he simply evolved and wasn't created? He should evolve into a better type of man over time. If man is constantly evolving then there is no need for redemption. He should just "get better"

 

Shannon, he said not to use "quotes" and to use something that was "incontrovertable". What better than a picture? Besides, if horses used to have three toes and now have a single hoof with shin splints, doesn't that prove evolution?

Not in the realm of real science. In the realm of real science, evolution is known to have happened in the same sense that the earth is known to rotate. There is, in addition, a theory about how it happened. That is the theory of evolution.

OK now we have to do some caveates here. I know you think evolution never happened. You know I think it did. So when I say "evolution really happened", just translate into "He really thinks evolution happened" and when you say "no it didn't" I'll translate into "she things it really didn't".

I believe in ID - its part of my religious faith. Its not science, so it shouldn't be taught in science class.

You are dead wrong about my relationship with the scriptures. I read them regularly, I teach from them, I trust them for information about God and Salvation. But, like you, if the scriptures say one thing literally and I know another thing to be the literal truth, I look for a non-literal interpretation . . . its just that simple.

You and I both believe the truth is the sun does not move around the earth and go into a chamber at the end of the day. Scripture says, literally, that it does.

We both do just the thing you claim to deplore - accept the scripture anyway, and take those passages non-literally. Why? Because we have to.

The difference between us is you have not yet studied, objectively, the science behind evolution and the age of the earth. Your prejudice against all the other sources of truth God has allowed us to uncover may keep you from doing that all your life, which will be too bad.

OK I'll try not to do that, in spite of all those who keep urging me to give up the science.

How can you say one truth is "higher" than another? Truth is truth, wherever you find it! Some of it is merely interesting - say, like, the fact that butterfly wings use diffracted light to make colors. Other truth is life changing - such as Jesus Christ died for your sins. But its all truth, and all fits together in God's universe.

Now that's a weird thing for you to know. God Himself arranged for science to be successful, you know . . .

Dan 12:4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."
NASU

Prov 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
NASU

Please don't take up mind reading for a career, you are not very good at it. I certainly do believe in the the Virgin Birth and other miracles of the Bible. Why can't God have done miracles? The only real reason to believe in an old unverse and a common descent of life is the evidence for those things. Guess Who is in charge of leaving the evidence behind in the fossils, the genes, the stars, the rocks. Not you and not me. God left that evidence there.

Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly poetic narratives and it is not necessary to interpret them literally in order to interpret them as valid revelations of God as creator.

yet you are doing so with this very post, because there is person after person out there who is looking at the disconnect between what you say about the history of life and the universe and what they know about the universe and the history of life. The more you say people must give up their knowledge to come to Jesus the more you invite people to turn away from Jesus.

Please, for the sake of the gospel, for the love of Jesus, please don't turn people away from Him by doing that.

 

"there is intellgent design, therefore, there is God". i doubt this would fall as a science. this is more of "i think therefore i am, i think therefore i exist" line, which is taught in philosophy.

however, scriptures tell us that the elegant and artistic design of nature is part of God's plan, thus we read in Genesis 1 "...and it was good..."

what, then, is the use of ID?

we can use it to say: Wow! this is part of what God meant when He said "...and it was good..."

but to say that ID implies the existence of God is debatable at best since such a only claim can be said if there can be shown even just a single thing that cannot happen by chance or evolution.

there have been some tries on this such as: protein-DNA relationship, blood clotting, the flagellum, etc.. while some cannot yet be explained by science, it is hard to claim them as impossible by chance, because to say so is not scientific, and would deny objectivity for future scientific studies.

as for the impossible ones that is now accepted by science, i've read only a couple that is by far undeniable:

1. only life begets life, or that life can come only from another life. and if God would not be considered, everything must start as non-living, making life impossible. thus God made the impossible of creating life, as can be read in Genesis.

2. nothing can come out of nothing. herein again God used a naturally impossible method of creating everything out of nothing, as accounted in Genesis.

 

Between the picture and the explanation what I see is change within a kind.Am I getting this right?

 

Gosh, pob, nobody has ever given a verifiable criterion by which we can tell a kind from another kind, so how can we answer that?

Sure, you can say the kinds are what God created and let evolve into subspecies. But what are the exact barriers from one kind to another? There is no definition.

Well, you can use the word "kind" for a talking point. You'll be getting it right according to the current wording of those who deny the findings of modern science.

You won't have explained the persistence of vestiges across the kind barrier . . . such as these remnants of hips within the skeleton of a whale. (I'm supposing that a transition from land to sea animal at least would count as becoming a different kind . . . )

 

So far as my studies have shown (in science and Scripture), I have not encountered anything scientific that makes Scripture false, nor have I found anything Scriptural that makes scientific findings false (understanding that a scientist saying, "God is dead." is not a scientific finding, but a person's opinion.)

Where the two studies come together, I have found interesting to wonderful insights. For example, I was recently reminded that scientific opinions placed the beginning of agriculture among men at about 10,000 years ago. The fundamental Biblical opinion (ICR mainly) holds that to be the maximum age of creation. However, I take note that Adam and Eve were placed into the Garden of Eden - for now the emphasis being on the term "garden". Perhaps the world (as we know it - the dawn of civilization) began in the "Graden of Eden" - or the place where man first began to farm. The timing seems to be close enough to match. Let's remember, the Bible is not intended to be a history book.

 

i am no contributor in science, and the best that i have is reading, and no research nor computation whatsoever.

and as far as i've read, one of the basic criteria in categorizing a kind is: if they are able to reproduce - arguably, this is the same in the genesis account. regardless of how varied a couple of species may be, if they can reproduce, then they are of the same kind.

herein is the catch. if two cannot reproduce, neither will their offspring, nor whatever variation they come into, can copulate and reproduce. that may be the barier in keeping two kinds apart.

everything have started with the kinds that are in Noah's ark. after the flood, the different species scattered, and their offsprings may have went different ways. it caused variation as affected by their environment. should any different variation meet but are of the same initial parents from the ark, then they are of the same kind.

when it's hard to tell if they are of the same kind, then we check if they can reproduce or not.

but rest assured, any two species that are not able to reproduce together will not be able to forever, and they are definitely of different kinds.

in short,

two species of the same kind: able to reproduce.

two species of different kinds: not able to reproduce.

those that are able to reproduce would have variation in their offsprings, who may still be able to reproduce themselves.

those that are of different kinds will not be able to reproduce together permanently.

 

Frederich Nietzsche said "God is dead", and he wasn't a scientist. He also was not refering to the God of the OT, but to the Cartesian, rationalist notion of god.