To "Maudine " so you have not read the bible and compared it to the
evolutionary theory.You are commenting on something without reading
or doing any research. Why should I consider anything you have stated?You are also wrong about the Law of Gravity being a theory at the same time.
The law of gravity includes an equation that yields consistent predictable
results. The Law of Gravity explains the orbit of satellites, moons, planets,
suns, and galaxies. The Law of Gravity does not change. A theory changes.
That simple difference is HUGE.
@ Redshirt: The Bible is not science - it is religion. You may believe in a
designer, but there is no scientific proof for one. And yes,
evolution can and has been tested. Gravity is both a theory and a
law. In science a law is a subdivision of a theory. The law of gravity tells us
dropped things fall. The theory of gravity explains interactions between planets
and stars and the solar system and galaxies and the universe. Trying
to misdirect by using terms incorrectly highlights the flaws of your argument.
I don't think the evolutionists here have bothered to read the Bible. If
they had, they would see that the Biblical account of the Earth's creation
MIRRORS evolution. The only difference between intelligent design and evolution
is who is controlling the same mechanism. Is it a completely random event or is
it influenced by a being of greater intelligence?To
"RanchHand" you can't test evolution either., so according to your
standards it should't be taught in school.To "Ultra
Bob" but what is a life form failure? If it grew to be, then the conditions
at that time were favorable to its existence. A life form failure only shows us
that the Earth's environment has been changing.To
"unrepentant progressive" if Darwin's thoery is so factual, why is
it still a theory? Why isn't it a law, like the law of gravity?
pragmatistferlife, Looks like Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.Information - 1the communication or reception of knowledge or
intelligence2b the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or
more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in
DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects (merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/ information)If the order of the
nucleotide bases in DNA were determined exclusively by chemical and physical
laws, then the genome of all organisms would by definition, be identical. In
that case, you couldn't have evolution, diverse species, or even the
slightest difference between you and any other human.
In 1802, William Paley wrote Natural Theology, in which the watchmaker analogy
was made famous (it was used previously by other philosophers).Paley's description of the analogy is itself an argument against the
analogy: He begins by talking about stumbling against a rock and states how he
would be unable to say how the rock had gotten there and that for all he knew
the rock could have been there forever; and based on his knowledge there would
be no proof to the contrary. If, however, he found a watch, he would know that,
since it is an artificial object, it could not have been there forever and
someone would have had to drop it there and this someone would have either
needed to make the watch or get it from someone who had.This
analogy, in its very telling, differentiates between natural objects and
artificial objects.Science tells us about the natural world, and how
natural objects occur - no designer or creator is needed. This is observably not
true for artificial objects. Explanations for artificial objects are not
explanations for natural objects.
@ GrandpaScott: Contrary to your claim and the claims in the original letter,
there are no scientific tests, and therefore no scientific proof, for
intelligent design. Your inability to accept scientific data does
not mean that data does not exist or is wrong. Evolution is
supported by scientific data and testing. We understand the processes by which
it occurs. There are no missing links nor is there “irreducible
complexity.”While many who support intelligent design claim to
have performed tests, these tests do not show what they claim to show and they
are not generally applicable (they apply only to that particular circumstance).
There is no proof for intelligent design just as there is no proof
for turtles all the way down. These are not science and do not belong in science
Intelligent design was conceived by a born-again Christian viewpoint (and now
hyper-LDS) who hide their intent by saying it doesn't reference god as the
source. This deception denies the repeated admonitions in the Bible not to lie.
In Utah, there are LDS seminaries and institutes next to every
public middle and high school where students can learn about "intelligent
design the LDS way." It is enough! The constitution allows the
freedom of religious choice, including not choosing religion. This is a
religious agenda disguised as a science debate. Currently, the Utah
Board of Education is debating this issue but Lisa Cummins (a homeschooler),
Scott Neilson, Michelle Boulter, and Alisa Ellis are pushing intelligent design
and stopping progress in our science curriculum by ignoring pleas from science
educators. They want "parental/local" control of education which is
code for LDS controlled education. They have no shame in pushing their self
righteous, "I know what God wants" religious agenda. No
Utah university, including BYU supports intelligent design. This is not about
"science," it is about religious control and access to power through
Grandpa.."Modern biology relies on an understanding of the information
encoded in DNA, and how that information correlates to biological
function."No it doesn't. The information idea is a
metaphor (a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object
or action to which it is not literally applicable.).It's a way
of understanding the chemical and physical reactions that take place. Here..if I have a pan of water that boils at a given temperature..always, then
I add two table spoons of salt. Now it boils at a different
temperature..always. I have a completely different chemical reaction. Is the
salt "information" to the water, or just an agent that causes it act
differently?If I were talking to a child, it would be reasonable to
say that the salt "tells" the water to react differently than normal,
when in fact it doesn't "tell" the water anything.That's the story of the "information" metaphor. Look it up.
It's all over both technical, and popular science literature.
intelligent design can no more be a "known cause," then a fluffy red
bunny since neither is observable or measurable. it fails to meet primary
expectations for a hypothesis.
@ GrandpaScott: You said, " In this case, there is only one known cause
capable of generating prescriptive information, and that is an intelligent
mind." How do you KNOW this? Where are your citations of peer
reviewed scientific studies that verify that alleged cause? My perception is
that this is the classic "God of the gaps" argument. That is a pretty
tenuous position to base your "knowledge" on. Regarding intelligent
design you state, "But for now, it’s the only viable theory."
Intelligent design is a hypothesis at best. It doesn't meet the criteria of
a scientific theory by any objective measure.
@Pragmatistferlife No information in RNA or DNA, seriously? Try explaining
that to a biologist. Modern biology relies on an understanding of the
information encoded in DNA, and how that information correlates to biological
function.@1st avenueThe scientific methods used to evaluate
Intelligent Design are the same as those for Evolution. It is the same approach
used by all of the historical sciences including paleontology, archaeology,
geology, and even forensics. Because the historical events that they attempt to
understand by definition cannot be reproduced, they use methods appropriate to
these branches of science, just as Darwin did. In fact another of Darwin’s
major contributions was his clarification of this approach.Scientists look to causes that are known to be capable of explaining the event
being studied. A hypothesis is falsified when it is shown to not be capable of
causation. In this case, there is only one known cause capable of generating
prescriptive information, and that is an intelligent mind. Does that prove ID?
No, of course not. But for now, it’s the only viable theory. That's
testable, falsifiable science that may or may not have religious implications.
As a science teacher should I teach about the Native American creation story of
the hummingbirds creating the stars, or the Egyptian Creation Story that life
started with a God spewing semen from his mouth, and it landing like rain on the
valley creating all life.I have my own faith, I don't want
anyone teaching my kids/students what their faith is. Any type of non-evidence
based science teaching should never be allowed. When it comes to evolution, I
present the evidence and guide students in their OWN understanding. That is what
the new sEED standards outline. Obviously the author has not read the revised
standards. There is nothing new that was not previously taught in the past
standards. The way a teacher is supposed to teach is the biggest difference.
I taught high school biology which included discussions of organic evolution and
natural selection. I told them it was a theory, not a fact, but that natural
selection was logical and there was a lot of evidence to support it. I
wasn't dogmatic but I thought that any educated person should understand
what natural selection is. It wasn't unusual for students to bring up
something their seminary teacher had said (Fossils were put there by the devil
to deceive man) which made them just look silly. Usually, I would just tell them
that there are different opinions and they will have to sort things out for
themselves. Occasionally, if the setting was right, I would tell them that
President McKay said that the LDS church has no position on evolution.@ unrepentant progressive -"Darwin's theory has yet to be
disproven." Explain the Cambrian explosion. Darwin himself didn't have
an answer for it. Some people look at the complexity of life and
conclude that it just couldn't have happened without something creating it.
Isn't intelligent design is a reasonable possible explanation?
"It is based on science and can only be used to imply the possibility of
divine intervention, so there are no religion or state issues with it."Mr. Baxter,I'd strongly suggest you read the ruling in
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In that case Judge Jones stated
that:"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is
imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific
theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a
pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into
the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
Science classes address the physical processes by which things happen.
Intelligent design theory goes in a totally different direction -- postulating
about whether (or by whom) the physical processes were made to happen. These
are two totally different arenas of discussion. It's best to leave each to
it's own arena of study -- the hard sciences to the world of science (since
there is clear and overt evidence that physical effects happen) and the "who
made it happen" (intelligent design) to the world of philosophy (since there
is no clear or overt evidence that anyone made anything happen).
@ No one: Very few science teachers teach that there is or is not a God, gods,
Goddess, or goddesses - they especially don’t teach that science proves
such a thing because the very nature of science prohibits the proof of a
negative. @ GrandpaScott: So you feel evolution is not fully
explained by science and therefore think we need to throw in a completely
unscientific claim to fill in the blanks? No - that is not how science works.
"teaching intelligent design is nothing more than a brief acknowledgement
that scientific theories do not preclude the possibility that intelligent life
drives nature."Basically your wrong. The fact that science
explains nature without the need for an outside influence "precludes"
the need for an outside force. Scientific theories (based on
mathematical models) include unknown outside sources all the time. Evolution
isn't one of them, because it isn't necessary. Evolution
is based on chemistry and physics and we know how they work together. Where did they come from is basically not germane to the argument. They are
they and we know how they work.If you insist on an explanation for
origin..then explain to me who made God.
@No One Of Consequence - West I have no problem with teaching the concept
of intelligent design but it belongs proper context which is in a world
Our scientists search the stars for signs of intelligent life yet they recoil at
the notion that there may be an intelligence that seeded our earth with life.Yes, as Shaun in Sandy mentioned, teaching intelligent design is nothing
more than a brief acknowledgement that scientific theories do not preclude the
possibility that intelligent life drives nature. Instead we have teachers at all
levels who insist on teaching that science proves that there is no God, which is
an unprovable negative position.
"The problem is that new species require enormous amounts of NEW genetic
information, not just small tweaks to existing information"That
is absolutely and fundamentally wrong Grandpa. There is no information in RNA,
and DNA..none. It is all chemical reaction conforming to the laws of chemistry
and physics. Therefore, evolution as understood now in combination with time
does in fact explain species changes. It's the accumulation of
new reactions building on themselves, while the old reactions remain the same or
change in ways that destroys the original. There is no information
passed on, only chemical reactions.
@GrandpaScottEven if your argument were true, A basic tenet of science has
always been the absence of evidence of something “new gentic code”
is not evidence of something else “intelligent design .” How
exactly do you propose to even meet the basic requirements for
“intelligent design” to be a scentific hypothesis? Until it can meet
that basic threashold we cannot begin the work of repeated confirmation through
experiment or observation for it to become a scientific theory. The concept of
Intelligent design is by its very essessence untestable and unfalseable and will
therefore always belong in the realm of religion not science.
So much misinformation. No one disputes that natural selection acting on random,
heritable changes explains adaptation within a given species (microevolution).
Darwin proposed that these changes, as they accumulate over time, account for
the diversity of species we find today (macroevolution). What Darwin
didn’t know was the exact mechanism responsible for heritable variation.
That discovery came decades after his death. Now we know that this
variation is caused by genetic mutations that result in subtle changes to the
information in our genes. The problem is that new species require enormous
amounts of NEW genetic information, not just small tweaks to existing
information. Darwinian evolution can’t explain even very small amounts of
NEW genetic information, let alone the amount required for a whole new
species.Don’t believe me? Just look at all the competing
explanations proposed by modern evolutionary biologists that try to explain away
this problem (unsuccessfully I might add). The only thing that can generate NEW
information is an intelligent mind. If you want to discount intelligent design
you need to provide a better explanation for the origin of NEW genetic
Is this supposed to be satire or something?
I don't know how you would even teach intelligent design. It could
literally be taught in five minutes, which would useless for a curriculum.
1st avenue is correct. There is no place for "intelligent design" in
Back in high school I had a science teacher who as a person of faith felt there
was no reason these arguments were mutually exclusive of each other. We know
evolution at the micro level exist. We have seen how species have morphed over
the millennia. We see how even man has changed with his environment - grown
bigger over time as nutrition has become better. These things we know.Cross specie morphing hasn't been shown.... but that doesn't mean
that God didn't leverage methods like the big bang to do his creation. I
say lets teach what we know, then leave it to the learner to draw the lines
together to match their belief system. Let teachers teach science, and
churches teach things of faith. Smart people can come to the right
Dear Mr. Baxter,I would like to tell you that I I have believed in
Intelligent Design (ID) even before I knew the term existed. However, as an
educator I cannot agree with you that ID should be taught in schools. Schools
should teach what our human knowledge can prove or to what our knowledge direct
us at this moment.I believe in evolution but I also believe in a
First Mover . But that is my personal research and my personal path, I cannot
teach it as nothing more than a personal opinion. Schools however, may discuss
ID if a student brings up the topic.@ pragmatistferlife: You
wrote:"Fact, there were many different near human beings that
didn't make it. So for intelligent design to be valid, your God would have
to be quite the experimenter, and yes made many mistakes. " I find
your statement/conclusion very astute and enlighten. If we LDS believe that God
once was as we are now and eternal progress, then we should be open to the
possibility of experiments and errors. Again, my personal opinion.
Scientific theory is a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a
group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed
through experiment or observation. A scientific hypothesis is an
idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of
phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a
scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability. Intelligent design fails to meet either of these standards and is therefore a
belief system not science and should be taught in world religion classes not
What science is intelligent design based on? What proof do you have and what
testing can be done? Who/what is this “designer” and where did
he/she/it come from? We have answers for evolution - do you have
them for intelligent design?
Evolution is proven every time a child is born containing a mixture of the
genetic code of two parents
So your original myth doesn't match up to reality so you denigrate actual
facts in order to resurrect it. "Specific processes have to
take place at specific times and places for life to be possible. Mistakes and
natural selection can’t qualify for such processes.That
statement is in fact religion because of the given in that statement. The given
is I am here just like I'm suppose to be..in Gods image, therefore no
mistakes could have been made in the process. You dismiss out of hand that you
are here just like the process created you and there was no "suppose to
be" in the process. Just an "as is". Fact, there were
many different near human beings that didn't make it. So for intelligent
design to be valid, your God would have to be quite the experimenter, and yes
made many mistakes. Truth be told none of the previous beings were
mistakes, just different iterations of the process. Intelligent
design always starts with the end as a perfect conclusion and works backwards to
justify it. Sorry nothing in the world works like that.
EmergerDarwin's theory has yet to be disproven. In fact, with
a tweek or two, it has been proven true for over 150 years. It is our best and
proven scientific framework for understanding how life became what it is today
on this planet. The fossil record is indisputable. That is evidence!Yet, intelligent design, which is really religion with a fig leaf of science,
has no such record. Magical thinking does not constitute the scientific method,
and certainly not proof of anything.Your assertion ("the theory
of intelligent design cannot be proven right now, but neither can the theory of
evolution be proven") is patently untrue and worthy of scorn.
People who want to teach “intellegeny design” really need to learn
the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. The lack of understanding of
such basic scientific standards calls into question thier credibility before
they even get out of the gates.
It's all supernatural. As in the days of Noah. The corruption is coming.
People get ready.
To Ranch Hand: It is true that the theory of intelligent design cannot be proven
right now, but neither can the theory of evolution be proven. Circumstantial
evidence does not equate to "proven."
Any study of life forms would probably indicate that for every successful life
form there were an uncountable number of life form failures. While that
doesn't prove or disprove the theory of intelligent design, it does seem to
indicate the normal process of evolution after the first successful life form.
There may have been an uncountable number of failures to produce life.
Nonsense. If you think kids should learn about it, it should be taught as
philosophy. Teach them to seek knowledge, and to seek for themselves what is
science and what is conjecture.
"Intelligent design is self-evident in the creation of life..."-- Nonsense; you can't even test the "theory". Teach it in your
churches and leave it out of schools.
Intelligent design should be introduced as a possibility to actual science and
facts. To put it on equal footing to history and reality would be disingenuous.
Equating reality and fiction, regardless of feelings and faith, is still