creationism?

Intelligent Design advocates do not use actual evidence. They don't concentrate on research (they don't produce any), peer review publications, or winning scientific consensus (they haven't). They've only concentrated on public relations and political pressure. And check out the Dover Trial, where evolution was proved again, and ID was disproved.

First ID is a theory of evolution, just like Darwin's theory.
The Thing is, they do not let scientists have an actual debate on the subject because the Darwinists are afraid of anyone potentially poking holes in their unwaivering belief in Darwin's 150 year old theory. That doesn't sound like science to me. And shouldn't we learn all the alternatives in school--- to expand our mind and let us decide for ourselves?

You're making a "straw-man" of evolution. You're ignoring the fact that nature keeps what works and discards what doesn't.[/QUOTE]

How does nature "know" what works or what will work down the line if everything truly is random, without a plan? Also, where's the fossil record of all these transitional creatures, or how about randomly mutated creatures that didn't survive because they were "discarded" for just being too weird (like a donkey with wings)?

 

I definitely agree with Alexander. I think learning about religion is key to understanding history. In nearly every civilization religion penetrates just about every aspect of life. This is not as true with society today but still prevalent in some places.

The heart of this topic seems to be regarding teaching religion as an alternative to science which I think should not be done. I would imagine it would hold the human race far back from it's potential if it was allowed to be taught as fact in schools. Just look how long it took for Galileo's theory of heliocentrism, the idea that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun, to be accepted. To explain the unknown by attributing it to a "greater being" stifles our natural yearning to learn, explore and understand.

I have no qualms with people who believe in a greater being, I just think the teaching of these beliefs should be kept in churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, etc.

 

It is obvious that I need to explain evolution to you, as you don't even seem to be properly educated about how it works.

Thought experiment:
You have a population of grey rabbits that live in a snowy place. One day, during DNA transcription, the enzyme that copies DNA makes an error in the sequence. This error in the genetic code is called a mutation. Most mutations are (as you'd expect) harmful, and are gibberish that results in, most likely, the death or debilitation of the newborn organism (like muscular dystrophy in humans).

Today, though, purely by chance, it turns out that the new, mutated DNA instructions actually make better sense than the previous ones. How? This bunny being born is being born with white fur, instead of grey. This is the end of the randomness.

This bunny can blend in better to the snow. When she mates, her offspring will probably be white too, and will pass on her genes because they stand a better chance of surviving than the grey ones. Sooner or later all of the rabbits are white (The grey ones die off faster). This all has nothing to do with what the rabbits might want, or what nature wants (nature is blind). Evolution is imposed from the outside. If you're a grey rabbit, wolves are gonna eat you. If you're white, you can live and make lots of white babies, like yourself.

If you give this process a billion years, think of the changes that will happen in a species! A fish might grow legs to walk on land, where there are (as of then) no predators to eat the eggs that you lay! (This is the story of modern amphibians).

Now you must see how nature keeps what is good and weeds out the bad, without being random or all-knowing.

Right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
The species is named "Ambulocetus natans." If your Latin is good, you'll know that means "walking whale who swims." And that's one of many intermediates that creationists play stupid about. There are so many of these species, paleontologists are arguing about whether to call them "mammal-like fish" or "fish-like mammals."

if you read all that, you deserve one of these: (!)

 

I think it's fine for "creationism" to be taught.. But I just think that those who would be teaching it will instill "personal zeal" into the teachings.

I think it's fine for: "There are many 'coincidences' throughout evolution that perhaps can be explained by creationism or theistic evolution."

But I have a feeling it'd turn out to be: "You see how smart those ants are! You know why? God created them!!! So believe in GOD!!"