Debate on ID: Need help

Cassiopeia
Cassiopeia's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Debate on ID: Need help

Having a debate with ID proponent could use tips. Here is debate so far.

Me-1.Do you feel it should be taught in science classes along side
evolution?
    2.If so, what would be taught? For example what would the lesson plan
be?
    3.If teaching ID in science class how do you teach the theory
using the
scientific method?(hypothosis,observation,testing,repetition,fallsifiabilty,etc...etc..)
    4.What scientific discoveries has ID given us?
    5.If ID is the explanation for anything Evolution cannot explain,
whatis the point of investigating? What mysteries about the way
 life cameto be should be explored in light of ID? In other words: What's the point of Science if god did it?

ID- 1. In my opinion i beleave that evolution shouldn't be taught at all because its a false teaching that takes away all the credit from God creating life  My answer as a whole may sound harsh and i dont intend it to be, but what i said is pretty much the oppisite of what it is today with evolution being taught and ID not bein gallowed what so ever in the classroom. So yes i
 beleave ID should be taught in the classroom but no i don't think it should  be taught along side evolution because i dont think evolution should be taught.

 2. Seeing that evolution has all ready been taught in our culture
 one of the
 main points of the lesson plan should be how ID is what really
 happened, not
 what they were taught about evolution. (i hope i chose the right
 words
 there) You can use bibically reasons along with scientific reasons
 or you
 can just stick with scientific reasons with this lesson. One
 scientific
 point that comes to mind is that evolution explains the natural
 selection of
 life evolving, but there is no sound theory that life came out of
 no where
 and was made by chance.

 3. This can be a tricky one because to learn about ID one must
 first believe
 there is a God or else it is pointless for that person to be in
 class cause
 they would refuse to learn.  Also as Christians we are not supose
 to force
 things on people, God wants us to have faith in him with free will
 not be
 forced into it. So maybe those who dont't beleave if they choose
 can take a
 class where a teacher train in apologetiucs or theology or the
 like can help
 them find evidence for a God if they so choose, if they choose not
 to its
 their free will not to, thats fine but options were made to help
 them if
 they so choose. on that note i have more to add to this one just
 please give
 me a day or so to add more.

 4.  Well ID is the teaching of God creating everything. Throu God
 all things
 are possible, even thou i tmay be a gerneric answer i would have
 to say God
 has given us everything.

 5. If for some reason evolution can explain something then it is
 wrong
 because The Lord did not use evolution he created. Just because yo
uput God
 in the picture doesn't take away mystery, Genises never said how
 he brought
 the universe in existence but we have learn its very posisble he
 may of been
 the Creator of the Big Bang. its important to remember that
 evolution is
 just one part of science. By evolution being wrong doesn't destroy
 science,
 science is still there, theres medical science, bioligy,
 chemistry, physics
 and much much more. Removing evolution is not destroying science
 as a whole
 it would just be what science has allways done. Witch is get rid
 of theories
 and such that dont add up. In close im not starting a debate over
 evolution  more saying if evolution was taken out of science it would not
destroy it but it would do what it normaly does witch is maintains itself with checks and balances.

ME- >I agree, I will not argue for evolution since this is about ID.
>
>1.It surprises me that you don't think a scientific theory such as
>evolution should be taught in a science class. I know you think it's
>wrong, but I guess I don't understand how that means no one should
>learn about it.
>2.I will again evade the argument from evolution here in favor of
>something about your answer that disturbs me greatly. Doesn't it seem
>like you propose a complete breakdown of separation of church and state
>when you say teach biblical reasons? In a science class? And I don't
>understand the something from nothing reference. Isn't that how God
>created the universe? From nothing? It seems dubious the argument works
>only in aggreance with your point of view no?
>3.I'll refrain until more is added as you've noted.
>4.Very generic indeed, but maybe I should have phrased the question
>more specifically. What scientific discoveries has ID made since the
>theory came into light?
>5.In concordance with your answer as ID being a scientific theory that
>should be taught instead of evolution, how is ID falsifiable? And I'm
>not arguing for evolution here, but since you mention its use and it
>being removed from science, you know you'd have to remove other fields
>of science then too right? For example you mention medical science
>which is due in great part to evolution.(can explain further if you
>like)Again not arguing the validity of evolution but the application as
>you brought up.(don't want any confusion of our agreement not to debate
>evolution.)

ID-

1 Like i stated this is just my opinion, pretty much dreaming how I
personally think how it should go my ideas may not reflect others but they
are my own. I also recognize it will be a work of God if ID was taught in
schools because as of how many are against it. Now im done with the
disclaimer lol. Well when ever someone in a scienc eclass or school, or even
a school board tries to touch on different alternatives then Darwinism they
are automaticly told to be silent untill a court case. Any thing against
Darwinian theaory is autopmaticly thrown out as religion and not allowed to
be tought. I feel by me saying that ID should be tought only is pretty much
how it is with the darwin theory today. Meaning that is the only thing
allowed to be tought.
2. Like i have stated in my above answer this is just my opinion and my
dream. But i also stated students would get a choice to attend biblical
based classes not forced as some are forced to learn the theory of
evolution. I thought i made it clear they would have a choice but my
apoligies if i didn't.   God did not take a "handful of nothing" and made
something out of it, as though "nothing" were something out of which he made
the world. There was God and simply nothing else. Then God brought something
else into existence that not existed to that point. I would just liek to
state that from what i have read for now from scientist there is no sound
theory how amino acids linked up in the right order to form protiens that
will ffform moleclues and so on. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding

3 Feel free to commet on what i've wrote so far if you wish but, studying th
question more you mention scientific modle but the things you wrote in
paranthesis were that of the scientific method i just want to know witch one
you ment i forgot to put that in the email yesterday. So this answer will
take atleast one more email lol. forgive me for the delay

4  This answer may be gerneric as the other one. You say what discoveries
has ID made since the theory came into light. The way i respond to this is
that ID is a fact that has been around since the moment God created, not
something that came into knowledge in the last 10 to 1000 years. Since ID is
a fact it proves that there is a God.

5 I would just like to state i dont believe ID to be a scientific theory i
believe it to be 100% fact and i do think it should eb tought other then
evolution, but getting back to the question at hand. It owuld be interesting
to hear more so please do explain niot for argrumen tsake but for knowledge.
But even if evolution is somewhat part of medical science by removin git
wont destroy medical science as a whole because im sure tylenol helping a
headache isn't cause of evolution.

Me- >1.What other theories have been throwing out of science because they
>disagree with evolution? What alternative theories have school boards
>thrown out?
>2.The very act of having the classes taught biblicaly is a violation of
>separation of church and state. Regardless of the choice. This should
>bother anyone whom holds this value as a key ingredient to the
>foundation of our country. In my opinion at least.
>3.Why do you think ID deserves to be inserted in science class
>immedieatly? All scientific theories have to pass rigiourous trials of
>the scientific method and peer review. When has ID gone through this
>process?
>4.How do you test ID?
>4a.How do you make predictions based on ID?
>4b.How do you falsify ID?
>4c.When has ID faced peer review? as stated above?
>4d.I meant what scientific discoveries has using the theory of ID given
>us?
>5.You say fact. What empirical evidence do you have to support this
>claim?
>6.If you don't regard ID as a scientific theory why do you want it
>taught in a science class?
>
>I think you would be interested in learning what you can about the
>Dover trial.
>The main proponent of ID Michael Behe was thouroghly handed his ass on
>every point he made by people much smarter than me. You can even look
>up the transcripts of the trial if you like.
>Personal opinion time: I find ID attempted validation to arise from
>repeated failed attempts to disprove evolution. As if disproving a
>theory proves your theory? Not only this, but I find ID lacking in
>every attempt to pass itself of as science. If you can answer the above
>questions with a deductive argument then I'd be more than happy to
>reconsider.
>Misconceptions: 1.Evolution doesn't speak to explaining how life began.
>That's abiogenisis. 2.You tell me God did not take a handful of nothing
>as if it were something, but then say it was God and nothing else
>before he made something? See my problem with this explanation? 3.The
>big bang doesn't propose something from nothing to begin with. It's
>explanation is of how the universe came to be the way it is now. It
>doesn't try to explain the state of matter and energy or its forms
>existence beforehand.
>4.Natural selection is the opposite of chance. Random mutations, like
>those you've stated in microevolution. This is where chance plays a
>role. I don't understand the constant confusion form this.

ID-

1. everytime they talk about teaching competting theories of evolution they
are constantly stoped by a group of darwinian followers who i can not think
of the name but onc ei get it ill let you know. I have to agree with Bush
when he said  "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of
thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to
different ideas, and the answer is yes." By teaching or mentionin
gintelligent design in school your not forcing people to believe. Like i
mention it chould be a choice for the student to learn. Unlike how it is now
in some places where if you do not wish to learn about evolution you fail.
2. I'd like to point out how i said t was my opinion and i was pretty much
dreaming cause i know that wouldn't happen. I think there would be no
problem with having a class about religion in school that someone could take
by choice and in m yopinion it should be on Christianity or the History of
Christianity. At Bay View they had a class on Greek Mythology concerning the
Greek gods why is that ok to have and not another? Is that seperation of
church and state? or does seperation only count when it comes to
Christianity? Its funny how seperation of Chruch and state when alot of this
country's earliest history is of christianity. The Bible itself talks about
voting in your leaders witch we have here in a Democracy.

3. I have stated before that i think ID should be inserted in class because
as the Bible said God created man and when i came back to Christ thats when
the Lord's word became truth to me and opened my eyes. i know he created
cause i know he exists.

3 and 4 a-c. You state how do we use the scientific method and going throu
rigious trials. Now scienc eis full of laws and naturalistic things. We must
remember. God is supernatural amd he can not be contain inside the laws of
science, he said in the bible. Jeremiah 29:13  "You will seek me and find me
when you seek me with all your heart." He didn't say when you seek me with
science you will find me. God is not inside the laws of naturalistic
science.

4d ID proves there is a God it wont be viewed as scientificly but everything
we have is all thanks to God allmighty and his named is Glorified for all of
it.

5 The reason i say ID is a fact is because of my Face to face encounter with
Christ. (can go in more depth if youd like but i know we have talked about
this before."

6. Because there are scientific facts that point towards a God. Im not
saying that it automaticly proves there is God cause like i stated the Bible
didnt say we wil lfind him when we seek him with science its when we seek
him with our heart.

I Know a fair amount of the dover trial and also i know that the 8 people on
the school board were replaced by people who wouldn't even consider ID, so i
feel that the darwinists kind of bullied right in there.

My personal opinion time: I find it interesting that you say disproving a
theory proves my theory. because evolution going back to Darwin has tried to
disprove the exsistence of God.  Evolution to me is just another way of
trying to take God out of the picture witch takes out the meaning of death
and the judgement after. So this is a way to let people (not saying you
personally)  live comfertable without having to worry about what the Lord
has said and lets them think Christ came to die for all man's sins. Like i
have stated God did not take a handfull of nothing and created, he more or
less spoke te universe into existence.
Ok during evolution a change is made if its beneficial it gets past on ot
the next generation if it doesnt succeed it doesn't get passed on. seems to
me like theres a chanc eof it working or not. Now not even talkin gabout
natural selectio nwith happens after life had began but lets go back before
life when natural selection plays no role. Proteins are some of the most
important molecules in the chemistry of life. Proteins are formed when amino
acids link up togather in very precise orders. Some simple proteins have
only a 100 or so others have up to 10,000. The protein ribonuclease is found
in human beings. It contains 17 different types of amino acids linked
together 124 times in a very specific order. If they were linked up the
wrong way or if one of the amino acids were the wrong type the protein
couldn't do its job. The chance of forming a protein with Lysine as the
first amino acid and Glutamic as the second one is 1 in 289. Chance of the
first three being Lys, Glu, and  Thr is 1 in 4,913. if you finishe dthe
calculation you would find that the chance of making this protein is 1 in 10
followed by 152 zeros. Its the same chance of a poker player drawing a royal
flush 19 times in a row without drawing any cards. I hope this clears things
up a bit and why i call i tchance if you would like more info please let me
know.

ME- I Don't really know much about the protein stuff here and any helping hand would be great. Thanks.

I suck at signatures.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Well to start, you can

Well to start, you can inform this person that ID has been completely ridiculed and thrown out of the scientific community. The only thing about it which is in any way scientific is the concept of Irreducible Complexity. A subject based on the idea that if stripped to it's component parts, an organ or vital feature of life would cease to function. There has not been one single demonstration of irreducible complexity in life. Since it is testable, it is scientific. But it's also false, since it has never been witnessed.

Second, evolution doesn't try and disprove a god. At best, or worst depending on your point of view, it just proves christianity or parts of it is a lie.

And third, his idea on the chances of things happening is crtiically flawed. His assumption is that there is one of every molecule/atom in existance, and that by some fluke all these single molecules have to come together in a specific order. When this is not even remotely similar to reality. If one person rolls a thousand dice, his or her chances of rolling a six on every single die are near impossible. So small as to not be worth calculating. But if two people are rolling their own set of a thousand dice, the chances of it happening has just doubled. If a thousand people are each rolling their own sets, then the chances of someone hitting all sixes has increased by a factor of 1000. Since the universes size and contents vastly outweigh this, the chances of life forming somewhere in the universe are far higher than the chances of life not forming somewhere in the universe.

His thoughts on probability are scewed horribly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Would he be happy if the

Would he be happy if the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation story and all the other creation stories were also taught?

Also, science is naturalistic (or at least biology), therefore it is focused on naturalistic answers.

Invoking the supernatural poses a problem: it explains the unknown with an even greater unknown.

Finally, LOL at all of the non sequiturs.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The problem with intelligent

The problem with intelligent design as stated by the fundamentalists is that the intelligent creator apparently created a race of people of which he expects to abandon their intelligence.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: The

wavefreak wrote:
The problem with intelligent design as stated by the fundamentalists is that the intelligent creator apparently created a race of people of which he expects to abandon their intelligence.

Nice to see this coming from a theist.

I can understand why you get flack from both sides: because you probably make good points like this. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: wavefreak

todangst wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
The problem with intelligent design as stated by the fundamentalists is that the intelligent creator apparently created a race of people of which he expects to abandon their intelligence.

Nice to see this coming from a theist.

I can understand why you get flack from both sides: because you probably make good points like this.

 

I can handle rhetorical jabs from most anybody. The attempted exorcism freaked me out, though. 


Cassiopeia
Cassiopeia's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the help so far

Thanks for the help so far guys. And sorry for the format I just cut and pasted.

 


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Well from a rhetorical

Well from a rhetorical rather than biological standpoint, the first step in getting somebody to come around to your position (or at least understand it) is to find some common ground you can agree on.

I can see that you already started in on the guy's assertion that "evolution is a false teaching" but let him sidetrack into the evolution as a Darwinian conspiracy idea.  Until he accepts that there is legitimate scientific evidence that evolution is true, it's going to be hard to argue that it should be taught.

Secondly all the way to the end he's still asserting "ID proves there is a God" (although he's also asserting conflicting things like that God is outside of science).  Until you can move him toward the idea that ID is not scientific, it will be hard to argue that it should not be taught.  I think this is the direction you're going with the specifics, but I suggest don't let the opponent bog you down in details.  Stay with the bigger issues of why ID is not scientific.

Those are my suggestions anyway. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I can

wavefreak wrote:

I can handle rhetorical jabs from most anybody. The attempted exorcism freaked me out, though.

Wavefreak, sometimes you make me laugh out loud. ROTF

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Teresa Nichols
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 2007-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Do you think there is any

Do you think there is any hope of reaching this individual with reason, facts or science?

  He claims,". . . The reason i say ID is a fact is because of my Face to face encounter with Christ . . . "

Medication before conversation with this type, I am afraid.Cry Then again, you never know.  Maybe you will reach him, but don't hold your breath. 

 

 


Cassiopeia
Cassiopeia's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Thanks everybody. I got him

Thanks everybody. I got him to admit ID ,"May not be science."

And, "Maybe it should be taught in a different class." I consider this a minor victory thanks in part to the pointers given here that I used in my conclusion.

 

I suck at signatures.