There is no way to disprove the existence of a god categorically therefore the debate is of no interest to science. I don't find this disturbing at all, science only concerns itself with what can be proven. If you accept that a god created everything with the properties that we observe (and presumably created fossils just to confuse us) then all scientists may as well just quit and say "god did it" and get a job at the quickie mart. To look at the whole panorama of life and say 'here is this one tiny microscopic thing (flagellum) that is pretty hard to explain therefore the whole theory is wrong' is madness, especially since it was explained shortly after Behe started talking about it - although I didn't see any serious attention paid to the scientific explanations in the transcript (I didn't read the whole thing either). It is too easy to sit back in your armchair and do no real science and just look for small things here and there that scientists have yet to explain and say, "see you are wrong...God did that".

"The flagellum owes its status principally to Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996a) a book by Michael Behe that employed it in a carefully-crafted anti-evolution argument...<clip>...studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional." From http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...2/article.html. I read an explanation from a book by Stephen J. Gould but I don't have it to quote so I just did a quick web search.

Of course God invented Evolution so the debate rages on!

 

Roger that.

That's why I don't understand the activity in this thread.

One the one hand, science is all about theory and conjecture. If something can't be empirically proven, the scientific community doesn't cast it aside and ignore it.

On the other, any religious scholar would readily admit that their foundation is all surrounding 'belief' not facts.

So, you have two diverging factions, neither of which can prove anything on this issue beyond a shadow of a doubt. And when you get down to it, neither can viably charge the other side with making conclusions based on false or incompetent conjecture.

Why wouldn't a society want their young to be given EVERY theory so that they can better form their opinions?

 

We'll die and find out for sure I guess.

 

They should. But not in a science class. Which is most peoples argument.

 

Exactly. Teach science in science class and religion in the church of your choice and then your kids can make an informed decision. If you incorrectly tell kids in science class that the science is bogus you are forcing them to make an uninformed decision.

 

Why?

Why build in connotation?

 

I just feel that those that belive in a God that created the earth and all its life may suffer ridicule for that belief, we all know it happens outside of the classroom. I don't want a child that asserts that belief to be told by a teacher that their belief is invalid. There has been no talk from the opposition to that belief that just that will not happen in our classrooms.

 

^^^^^

builds character.

 

seperation of church and state?

 

Sure, why not study music in math class. Dodge-ball during history! My point being there has to be a connotation between the type of class and what is studied in it i.e. science in science class, religion in church or philosophy class. Religion is a belief system not a curriculum.

According to an ARIS study, 77% of Americans are Christian, with another percent or two that believe in other gods, spirits, forces, fairies, etc. Who is ridiculing Christians? It isn't 8 out of 10 people in this country. I have never experienced anyone talking down to a person for believing in religion. Now try telling a Christian that you are an Atheist and they get all, "what happened to make you stop believing in God?", "I feel sorry for you for not having God in your life","I'll pray for you". Christians are fighting like they are being ostrecized but as an atheist I am surrounded by god all the time - pledge of allegiance; under God, money; in God we Trust, swear to tell the truth so help you...Well you get it.

 

The flagellum example is EXACTLY the same as the cow's eyeball example they used to start the whole ID crap about 150 years ago. Lame as hell, written by a scientific dabler and philosopher, not by someone who know's what he's talking about.


Because it's more than connotation. One has proof and is being constantly challenged and rewritten to fit what we obsearve. The other takes a leap of faith. One is science, one is not. Why do you think we should teach a non-scientific theory in science class? Should we teach about how carbon dating has prooved parts of the bible wrong in Sunday School? I think not.

 

Well put.

 

Here is a thought about atheism:

I would guess that atheists get peeved when they hear people of different faiths espouse their individual religion as being the "right" way to think or the right thing to believe in. True?

If so, mull this over. Atheists do the exact same thing. They have faith that their is no transcendental being. Atheism in and of itself is a faith that no such thing exists, and atheists are positive in their position. Indeed, they believe that they are 100% correct, otherwise they would be agnostic. So the very thing that irks atheists is an inherent aspect of their own "faith".

 

And this is exactly why I think evolution should not be the sole explanation taught in schools. It is a hypothesis of how things may have unfolded. There is no irrefutable evidence that macro-evolution is absolute fact.

 

But there is some evidence for evolution. You can't say that about ID, because there IS no evidense for ID. That's the whole point...we have one theory that can be backed up by observation and evidence that is taught in science class. If there was another theory that had any type of evidence for it, then it would be taught next to evolution...but we don't, we have another (religious) theory that's based on faith and the belief is something that is unobservable. That should not be taught in a science class.

Evolution is the best scientific theory of how we came to be. Period. Saying it's not 100% truth is fine; but you can't just throw in a non-scientific theory as an alternative. You have to have another scientific theory with observable evidence.