Intelligent Design Debate Brews

tbo.com ^ | October 12, 2005 | RONNIE BLAIR and ALLYSON BIRD

[mlc9852]

TAMPA - When the Pinellas County school district's science supervisor, Bob Orlopp, met with his science teachers before the school year began, he made sure they had one thing clear: Intelligent design is not science.

Three days later, on Aug. 1, President Bush endorsed intelligent design -- the view that life is too complex to have happened by chance -- as a supplement to evolution that should be taught in school.

[Mamzelle]

I just adore how this enrages the evos...

[mlc9852]

It is fun.

[will of the people]

If we accept evolution as fact; do we not accept that we are becoming better (more evolved) as time goes on?

This of course creates the first conflict: How can we determine 'better' or higher without some standard outside ourselves.

But for the moment let's accept evolution.

It is only recently in the evolutionary travel of what is now (hu)mankind that there has been a 'religious' awareness in life.

We see no amoeba cathedrals in the fossil record, for example.

So if life is E-volving as opposed to DE-volving (it is of course, not the theory of DE-volution); would not the appearance of religion in the near distant path of evolutionary travel need to be viewed as an E-volution?

Could we not make the case then, that believing in evolution, we MUST accept that the (in evolutionary terms) recent appearance of religious thought is a POSITIVE evolutionary ADVANCE?

And since this advance brings with it a 'creation myth' with each religion; is it not logical then to point out that people who DENY religion and CREATION are in fact less evolved life forms trying to stop the advancement of the natural selection process?

By refusing to believe in creation, are these people not, in fact, refusing to allow for evolution?

[bvw]

Did Orloopy also say that math wasn't science? Heard that "math isn't science" from one god-less evolution proponent on FR.

[mlc9852]

You bring out a very good point.

[Mamzelle]

How the evos jeer in their panic!

[PastorJimCM]

If evolution is true - shouldn't we encourage the disappearance (dying out) of the weaker species? Those endangered species lists should be left alone (obviously they can not adapt), die out and let a stronger, better, evolving creature take its place!?
Yet we, as a nation, celebrate spending megabucks on saving the owl, white tiger, two whales in the artic, etc. I would think that an honest evolutionist would see them as weak links and, in a sense, desire their extinction.

[RogueIsland]

We see no amoeba cathedrals in the fossil record, for example.

Clearly the most compelling argument against the Theory of Evolution to date.

[Senator Bedfellow]

This of course creates the first conflict: How can we determine 'better' or higher without some standard outside ourselves.

Evolution is defined in terms of how well one is adapted to one's environment. Any notion of "better" or "higher" is purely your own value judgement.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I would think that an honest evolutionist would see them as weak links and, in a sense, desire their extinction.

Would you think that an "honest" weatherman should desire tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, etc.? After all, they're just a natural part of meteorology too, right?

[laredo44]

I just adore how this enrages the evos...

Why?

[will of the people]

Shouldn't it be called the 'Theory of Random Change and/or Adaptation' then?

It seems to me that the word 'evolution' is pejorative in the positive sense.

Also, all the historically factual evolutionary charts I've been shown have certainly demonstrated increasing complexity.

It is not I who have coined the phrase 'higher life forms' in respect to the evolution of species.

Perhaps it time for the theory name to evolve, or purely on my value judgment, devolve.

[metmom]

Sure, otherwise what would they have to do? Meteorology would get pretty boring.

[metmom]

If the human race is really evolving, then why is the human population as a whole deteriorating so much? There are rising incidences of cancer, asthma, diabetes, autism, obesity, etc. not to mention the moral decay around us. If moral character developed by evolution as survival of the fittest because morals contributed to the survival of societies, thereby protecting individuals, then moral character should be inborn and fall into the same category as physical conditions.

[Senator Bedfellow]

It seems to me that the word 'evolution' is pejorative in the positive sense.

Evolution is defined as adaptation to one's environment - whether it "seems" that way to you is neither here nor there. Something makes me doubt that anyone is going to jump at the chance to take responsibility for how things "seem" to you.

Also, all the historically factual evolutionary charts I've been shown have certainly demonstrated increasing complexity.

I think you've omitted the critical half of your post, the half where you demonstrate that "more complex" is the same as "better".

B. bufo - the common European toad - has a genome of 6.9 billion base pairs. Your genome is 2.9 billion base pairs. The toad's genome is self-evidently more complex than yours is. Do you intend to argue that the toad is also, in some respect, "better" than you are?

[will of the people]

I think you've omitted the critical half of your post where I based complexity on genome base pairs.

Wait let me rephrase that to make it easier for you:

It seems to me you've omitted the critical half of your post where I based complexity on genome base pairs.

[Senator Bedfellow]

You haven't defined "complexity" at all - feel free to jump in at any time and fill that hole. Neverthless, you've pretty clearly taken advantage of a certain equivocation between complexity and goodness, so let's just boil it down to the bare minimum - is the toad's genome "better" than yours? Why or why not?

[will of the people]

I have equated nothing with goodness

I have stated that EVOLUTIONARY charts show increasing complexity as the evolutionary line progresses.

I have never seen an evolutionary chart that shows an amoeba being the RESULT of human evolution.

I have never heard the theory postulated that lifeforms were intrinsically more complex in earlier stages of evolution.

This seems to me (threw that in just so you can ignore the rest of this comment) to be consistent with the term 'evolution' which in and of itself carries an impression of positive change (as opposed to the terms 'random change' or 'devolution')

You then instituted straw man arguments concerning better and goodness. According to you, if these things even exist, it would be based only on my own perception.

To answer your question, it seems to me (getting tired of that yet) that the toad's genome is perfect for the toad, and my genome is perfect for me.

Why?
Sounds like an argument for intelligent design doesn't it.? Thanks for pointing it out.

[Mamzelle]

Why? I suppose it's a kind of iconoclasm. The evos have enjoyed their patronizing tone for so many decades on so little evidencel. So much of the noise they now make, now there there is an idea out there that dare to attempt competition is a matter of a threatened franchise.

There is also a cadre of cranks here on FR who do naught but Creationist-Baiting . Sometime, look through the postings of the average evo. Are they interested in the Supreme Court, taxes, gun control, abortion, etc? Nah. They're just here to seek out the barefooted snake-handlers and give them a good snarl.

The IDers give the evos a run for their Grant Grubbing, and I say that's a healthy exercise.