Intelligent Design a new synonym for belief in a God designing and creation of the universe, has gained some level of popularity among a small group of scientist and a large number of the religious public.

Intelligent Design theory holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Some scientists in this forum like davidylan believes Intelligent Design is more scientific than The Theory of Evolution, he has supporter in people like Noetic, Mr Olaadegun, prizm and a host of others. So we are waiting for david and co to provide the scientific basis of their theory. Also i am asking them if the Theory of Intelligent Design should be put in the science curriculum of secondary schools in place of evolution theory. What a about in the university, the theory of Intelligent design should replace evolution in such disciplines like Paleontology, geology and all other courses.

In the US, the supreme court ruled in 2004 against teaching intelligent design in US school as science, but as a religious view.

intelligence design is more scientific than evolution. . . . . .infact there is nothing scientific about evolution.

I think the question should be. . .why EXACTLY is evolution taught as science in our schools?

The world and it's contents were actually designed by God.Just like man scientific and technological inventions cannot understand him ,likewise man can never comprehend the nature of God.

noetic2:

intelligence design is more scientific than evolution. . . . . .infact there is nothing scientific about evolution.

I think the question should be. . .why EXACTLY is evolution taught as science in our schools?

Is that your personal belief or a general view among scientists. Are you the person giving science a whole new definition and deciding what is definition should be?

As i say that your personal view is highly unpopular, because i do not know a scientist in the world or any educational board that view intelligent design as scientific and go on to teach it in a biology class.

Also i have not seen a detailed theory of Intelligent Design being taught in any university as a science course. So since you are more knowledgeable in science and what science entails, i think you should start with your university to change the wrong perception of Evolution as science instead of intelligent design, you might get a Nobel price for it.

Shit. The crazy theory was taught in my friggn' university everyday!

Was it a course on its own? Under what branch of science was it taught - Biology?. What data was used to present the theory and what textbooks were you referred to?. Are there practical demonstrations of the theory?.

Please let us know

Is evolution itself a science?

wirinet:

Was it a course on its own? Under what branch of science was it taught - Biology?. What data was used to present the theory and what textbooks were you referred to?. Are there practical demonstrations of the theory?.

Please let us know

the astounding amount of rubbish you read on these boards never ends. What data is used to maintain the apparent LIE that man evolved?

Intelligent design, just like evolution, is not a science but a thing of faith.

Evolution is like working from the answer to the problem. All we have are people making bogus "discoveries" and struggling to use them to explain the alleged gap in man's evolutionary tree.

davidylan:

Is evolution itself a science?

the astounding amount of rubbish you read on these boards never ends. What data is used to maintain the apparent LIE that man evolved?

You get so worked up when you hear of see the word evolution. The scientific data used to validate Evolution, includes a study of fossils, bones and teeth of ancient creatures. It also enabled us to know that creatures do not remain static or the same forever, but changes in tune with their environment, i do not think any reasonable person can argue against that. Also a study of animal ( and plants) families and groups is enough scientific data to know that such animals and plants had a common ancestor but changed to survive in different environments and conditions. That is physical science and not faith.

I have not seen where creationists get there data from before we talk of interpreting such data.

wirinet:

You get so worked up when you hear of see the word evolution. The scientific data used to validate Evolution, includes a study of fossils, bones and teeth of ancient creatures. It also enabled us to know that creatures do not remain static or the same forever, but changes in tune with their environment, i do not think any reasonable person can argue against that. Also a study of animal ( and plants) families and groups is enough scientific data to know that such animals and plants had a common ancestor but changed to survive in different environments and conditions. That is physical science and not faith.

I have not seen where creationists get there data from before we talk of interpreting such data.

I wrote only 3 lines and you're talking of me getting "worked up"? Do you dudes come here with prepared talking points?

1. Fossils, bones and teeth of ancient creatures are themselves the problem with evolution - all the fossils found to date are all of fully formed, highly advanced creatures . . . where are the intermediate life forms that the theory of evolution predicted?

2. The study of animal and plants do not tell us they came from the same origin, scientists arrived at that conclusion for baseless reasons. I have argued here before . . . does man and bacteria evolve from the same origin? Afterall they have thousands of proteins in common.

3. Its odd that you say "animals and plants had a common ancestor but changed to survive in different environments and conditions" . . . what condition made a plant to become a plant and left the rat as it is? Both man, animals and plants grow and survive in the same environmental conditions!

To be honest, your above explanation is just too poor.

davidylan:

I wrote only 3 lines and you're talking of me getting "worked up"? Do you dudes come here with prepared talking points?

1. Fossils, bones and teeth of ancient creatures are themselves the problem with evolution - all the fossils found to date are all of fully formed, highly advanced creatures . . . where are the intermediate life forms that the theory of evolution predicted?

2. The study of animal and plants do not tell us they came from the same origin, scientists arrived at that conclusion for baseless reasons. I have argued here before . . . does man and bacteria evolve from the same origin? Afterall they have thousands of proteins in common.

3. Its odd that you say "animals and plants had a common ancestor but changed to survive in different environments and conditions" . . . what condition made a plant to become a plant and left the rat as it is? Both man, animals and plants grow and survive in the same environmental conditions!

To be honest, your above explanation is just too poor.

I am sorry to say this but attempting a debate with you on this issue is like trying to argue with someone without a clue of what biology is ( and i am trying to be civil here).

It is AMAZING that you did not know that the conditions on earth is always changing. So you do not know that plants were on the planets way before any animal. It was plants that cleaned up the primitive atmosphere of poisonous gasses and put out oxygen, which allowed animals to thrive. The primitive atmosphere did not have free oxygen. The condition of the early earth was very much different from what we have now.

Please try and do some reading instead of using blind faith to reason out issues. We have millions of resources out there both online and offline. i do not think i have the time to teach you basic science.

wirinet:

Intelligent Design a new synonym for belief in a God designing and creation of the universe, has gained some level of popularity among a small group of scientist and a large number of the religious public.

Intelligent Design theory holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Some scientists in this forum like davidylan believes Intelligent Design is more scientific than The Theory of Evolution, he has supporter in people like Noetic, Mr Olaadegun, prizm and a host of others. So we are waiting for david and co to provide the scientific basis of their theory. Also i am asking them if the Theory of Intelligent Design should be put in the science curriculum of secondary schools in place of evolution theory. What a about in the university, the theory of Intelligent design should replace evolution in such disciplines like Paleontology, geology and all other courses.

In the US, the supreme court ruled in 2004 against teaching intelligent design in US school as science, but as a religious view.

No. At least not until the intelligent design crowd present potentially falsifiable data, (potential) experiments for their claims and utterances, and stop believing that attacking other science theories validates their so-far pseudo-science.

wirinet:

I am sorry to say this but attempting a debate with you on this issue is like trying to argue with someone without a clue of what biology is ( and i am trying to be civil here).

It is AMAZING that you did not know that the conditions on earth is always changing. So you do not know that plants were on the planets way before any animal. It was plants that cleaned up the primitive atmosphere of poisonous gasses and put out oxygen, which allowed animals to thrive. The primitive atmosphere did not have free oxygen. The condition of the early earth was very much different from what we have now.

Please try and do some reading instead of using blind faith to reason out issues. We have millions of resources out there both online and offline. i do not think i have the time to teach you basic science.

and where is your empirical data that supports all these? where you there to OBSERVE this or you're simply[b] quoting by faith[/b] what you ASSUME happened so long ago?

So you said earlier that RNA and amino acids from the primordial soup formed life by abiogenesis . . . but then you say plants came first. so any abiogenesis experiment MUST PRODUCE PLANTS ALONE right?

Ok so how did plants now morph into animals since we all have the same origin?

I'm trying to do some reading but its hard to read when everything out there is all THEORY with no proof.

KAG:

No. At least not until the intelligent design crowd present potentially falsifiable data, (potential) experiments for their claims and utterances, and stop believing that attacking other science theories validates their so-far pseudo-science.

did you ask wirinet to provide this for his wild faith claims of plants appearing first to clean up the air?

wirinet:

Intelligent Design a new synonym for belief in a God designing and creation of the universe, has gained some level of popularity among a small group of scientist and a large number of the religious public.

Intelligent Design theory holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Some scientists in this forum like davidylan believes Intelligent Design is more scientific than The Theory of Evolution, he has supporter in people like Noetic, Mr Olaadegun, prizm and a host of others. So we are waiting for david and co to provide the scientific basis of their theory. Also i am asking them if the Theory of Intelligent Design should be put in the science curriculum of secondary schools in place of evolution theory. What a about in the university, the theory of Intelligent design should replace evolution in such disciplines like Paleontology, geology and all other courses.

In the US, the supreme court ruled in 2004 against teaching intelligent design in US school as science, but as a religious view.

Evolution holds that we are complex because we evolved from less complex organisms. Where are these intermediate forms?

In the strictly modern sense, the name plant refers to the biological classification kingdom Plantae, but for the sake of this forum i was using the term plant to connote all photosynthetic organisms, including protists, green algae, and cyanobacteria that have evolutionary significance to modern plants. So i laugh when i make obvious statement and you immediately get jumpy and shout faith.

Please does it take faith to believe that plants must have appeared on earth before animals? If not so, then what will the animals feed on, or can animals make their own food and absorb energy directly from the sun?

I am trying to explain things as simplistic as possible so that any person that is interested can seek more information.

If we want to leave the realm of simple high school biology and venture into more complex biology, then we will have to discard the simplistic classification of living things into plant and animals. The classification should then be Archaea, Eukarya and Bacteria.

Archaea Are the most basic and simplest of all living things (except virus - with is very difficult to classify). They have no cell nucleus or any other organelles within their cells.  Archaeabacteria are the only creatures capable of withstanding the very harsh conditions of the primitive earth, where we had very high atmospheric pressure and temperature and in fact utilize these conditions to produce its own energy.  Archaeabacteria are still living today in hotsprings and very harsh environments.

As conditions on earth improved and temperature decreased, eubacteria evolved from pre-existing archaeabacteria, that was capable of utilizing energy contained in inorganically produced organic compounds dissolved in oceans, either bysimplifying their molecular structure as in fermentation or by oxidizing them as in respiration.  It was these eubacteria that evolved most of the biochemical processes on which life rests.

In a relatively short period of time eubacteria must have run out of suitable organic compounds to "feed" on as the formation of organic compound from inorganic compound is a slow time consuming process. So life met its first major crisis. It was then photosynthesis came to the rescue as chlorophyll was rapidly included in the bacteria cell structure, giving rise to cyanobacteria.  i could go on and on but this is a forum and not a course on biology.

Most of the remnants of these processes can be found on earth today.

A truly concise explanation on how life started on earth  will require many text books. 

For some more information regarding evolution go the the links below;
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_01
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-beginnings-of-life-on-earth/1 

I implore David to study it before shouting, and highlight points he disagrees with instead of screaming "faith" or were you there?

here is an interesting piece i found online;

Several parents won a lawsuit against a Pennsylvania school district in 2005 that had added the controversial theory of "intelligent design" to its curriculum. Unlike the theory of evolution which is taught at most schools as a fact-based science, "intelligent design" -- as argued by the plaintiffs -- was nothing more than a philosophy predicated on the Judeo-Christian belief that the logical sequences found in nature are not random happenings or surprising mutations, but deftly managed events created by a greater omniscient and omnipresent intelligence with a specific plan. In short, the work of God. A federal judge thought otherwise.

But therein lies the rub: Which god? When the founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States, they chose to include the separation of church and state. This was to ensure that the state-sanctioned religious persecutions that plagued much of Europe during the 16th century would not despoil the young, yet grand experiment in democracy that was to become this Republic.

Scientific research has come a long way since Charles Darwin first posited the concept of "natural selection." In the intervening years, humanity has learned much about how we became the dominant species on the planet, how the Earth and the solar system were formed and the ever-changing development of the Universe. Over that time, how we understand the theory of evolution has also changed.

Scientists now think that there is an intrinsic logic to our reality, that there are absolutes, laws of nature. Much remains a mystery, and as one question is answered, many others arise. The question that faced Pennsylvania's Dover School District was whether or not the imposition of one creation belief on a multi-ethnic, secular student body is in keeping with the law that prohibits the creation of a state religion. If they allow one belief system to be taught, surely they must also teach others?

Source - http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

@wirinet
i think the major problem u guys have with intelligent design is the fact that it cannot be reproduced under standard conditions, but pls show me where evolution has been reproduced under lab or standard conditions for it to merit being called fact/science,it is all a theory widely accepted but never reproduced or proven.

matrim:

@wirinet
i think the major problem u guys have with intelligent design is the fact that it cannot be reproduced under standard conditions, but pls show me where evolution has been reproduced under lab or standard conditions for it to merit being called fact/science,it is all a theory widely accepted but never reproduced or proven.

Its simple because there is no data to support it.