Btw, only non-progessives have feathers. lol

I don't think anyone is saying that only those who believe in evolution are the top of the chain (except you). ALL Humans are the top of the chain. No other creature hunts us for food. (some humans do, but I digest.) Those who might look at us as idiots from the 21st century will only be other humans who will most likely still be at the top of the chain. Believing we're the top of the chain is not the same as believing we're the center of the universe, or that we are all-knowing.

That is the egotistical stature of man is the only intelligent life form in the universe.  For we may be but ameobas to others out there. It is very self centered to believe that earth is the only planet that developed intelligent life.  I for one, do not subscribe to that egocentrism.

By "center of the universe" I meant the belief that the sun revolved around the earth.

I know.  I used that to indicate that man thinks they are the only sentient beings.  Kind of egotistical in my opinion.

That is the egotistical stature of man is the only intelligent life form in the universe. For we may be but ameobas to others out there. It is very self centered to believe that earth is the only planet that developed intelligent life. I for one, do not subscribe to that egocentrism.

Neither do I. I thought this article is strictly about life on earth.

Neither do I. I thought this article is strictly about life on earth.

Oh, sorry for my mis-assumption.  I dont think of things on a planetary level when talking about evolution and stuff.  Perhaps it is just wishful thinking, but I always look to the possibility that we are truly not alone.

ALL Humans are the top of the chain. No other creature hunts us for food. (some humans do,

Hmmm. I wonder if this means that cannibals are more evolved.

I find it funny that in the US this is even a hot topic. Nowhere else in the world views it this way but here in the US. This debate is really a clear PR campaign (called the Teach the Controversy campaign" created by a very smart think tank called the Discovery Institute which seeks to inject intelligent design into public schools. Here's the thing... intelligent design is NOT a scientific belief. It's a religious belief. There's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't belong in the same course materail as evolution. For the record, I don't see why this is controversy at all... there's nothing in science that says that they cannot co-exist. It's just that in science, things are discovered using the scientific method. In creationism/intelligent design/whatever buzzword they want to call this week, it's not. Science is not perfect, there are no "facts" only really really good ideas based on a proven scientific method for findinng results. Those methods are peer reviewed to double check the result. Evolution doesn't fill in ALL the gaps, but it does paint the most accurate picture we have today. Remember at one time the theory was that the sun revolved around the Earth. There wasn't anything wrong with it at the time... it was the most sound theory they had based on what we knew. But...it was proven wrong, things were revised and we now know better. The most recent argument I've heard for Intelligent Design use Mt Rushmoore as an example "What about this rock formation convinces us that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mt. Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point us to an intelligence." Well, I'd have to agree with that... proponents of ID look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence, there for it must have been done by intelligent design. But that's not science, that's philosophy, or religion. Plato, Descartes, etc... all used the same rationale to explain things in the world around them... but they weren't scientists, there were philosophers. ID... has no place in a science classroom. Another thing that bugs me is that this is all Christian slanted. The people pushing for this wouldn't say we need to teach the Buddhist view of creation... only the Christian one. I gotta have it to the radical Christian right... they are fighting a VERY smart PR campaign lately, but I'm not buying it.

This topic is still debated in the US because the theory of evolution contradicts the Biblical version of creation. It doesn’t discount ID at all. Evolution could very well be part of an ID. Christians have always seen evolutionist as being anti religion even though nothing could be further from the truth. It is simply an attempt to explain the origins of life on this planet using the scientific method. ? + (We don’t know) = ID would be the beginning an end of any ID class so what would be the point?

intelligent design is NOT a scientific belief. It's a religious belief

It is NOT a religious belief!!!

intelligent design ...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth. --Victor J. Stenger* To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141 ... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences

Nowhere in here do they postulate that this was god's doing. They actually favor more the alien theory.

drmiller, sorry I'm not going to even debate this topic with you until you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.  Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis.

Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis.

And a pretty good one for now.

I am NOT particulary religious, but find that somehow for the GODLESS it is easier to think the creation of MANKIND is more easy to swallow as a cosmic accident, a divine joke, that to see that maybe GOD dod creat man instead.

I am NOT particulary religious, but find that somehow for the GODLESS it is easier to think the creation of MANKIND is more easy to swallow as a cosmic accident, a divine joke, that to see that maybe GOD did create man instead.

drmiller, sorry I'm not going to even debate this topic with you until you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But then again, it's only your "opinion". Most people out there in the real world consider it to be theory and not hypothesis. Try this:Link

dr -

ID is a religious tenet dressed up as a hypothesis, for which there is no supporting evidence in the scientific sense. It is forced, contrived & reactionary. It is a postulate that can never be proven, only believed, meaning it is, by definition, an article of faith. It's like the conspiracy buffs who claim the best evidence of a conspiracy is the absence of evidence of a conspiracy - completely circular reasoning.

I'm not sure you realized it, but the quotes you kindly provided in reply #40 argue strongly against ID.

Cheers,
Daiwa

r - ID is a religious tenet dressed up as a hypothesis, for which there is no supporting evidence in the scientific sense. It is forced, contrived & reactionary. It is a postulate that can never be proven, only believed, meaning it is, by definition, an article of faith. It's like the conspiracy buffs who claim the best evidence of a conspiracy is the absence of evidence of a conspiracy - completely circular reasoning. I'm not sure you realized it, but the quotes you kindly provided in reply #40 argue strongly against ID. Cheers, Daiwa

ID is NOT religious! Belief in evolution would also be an article of faith. Based solely that I must "believe" what they're telling me is fact. Also addthis to your mix. Religion "requires" a diety to be considered such. ID has NO diety involved.

One entry found for religion. Main Entry: re·li·gion Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY 1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith - re·li·gion·less adjective

#4 would be considered religiousness or religiously
And did you look at where the linked page is from? " Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center". I highly doubt that they would argue "against" ID.

ID, at best, is a philosophy. It has no scientific basis.

dr -

You can pretend it's not religious, but the ID hypothesis, in order to be true, requires that some external "intelligence" had a hand in creating the universe and humans in particular, since it also posits that human anatomy (the eye being the example cited) cannot possibly be an accident. Just exactly what external intelligence are you arguing in favor of, if not God or the supernatural?

Belief in the theory evolution does not require blindly accepting something we know cannot be proven. Evolution is not an attempt to explain "why" living things exist, it is a theory explaining "how" the multitude of species of living things came to be. There are many unanswered questions about how evolution has played out over the millenia, and certainly Darwin didn't have it all sorted out when he published, but that does not mean "faith" (in its religious meaning) is required to accept what is known about evolution, it just means we don't know all the pieces of the puzzle. And the fact that we'll never know everything about evolution doesn't mean every other hypothesis, no matter how improbable, must be given equal weight.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Most people out there in the real world consider it to be theory and not hypothesis.

So what planet are you living on? Because here, on Earth, which I think is pretty real, it's considered to be a hypothesis (ID that is).  Pointing me to the Intelligent Design Awareness Center website is like using the bible as proof to support a biblical claim.

How would you react if someone pointed you to the DNC website for proof that Bush is a "liar"?

I am NOT particulary religious, but find that somehow for the GODLESS it is easier to think the creation of MANKIND is more easy to swallow as a cosmic accident, a divine joke, that to see that maybe GOD did create man instead.

Sigh. Let's say it together: Evolution does not postulate how life came into existence. You can believe in God and still believe in evolution. They are not related.  Evolution has to do with how different species evolve over time.  Nobody knows how life came into being. That would be where God, religion, or other HYPOTHESISES come into play.

How would you react if someone pointed you to the DNC website for proof that Bush is a "liar"?

Oohhh! It gets political!

for the record and so you know, ID is an hypothesis that fits the facts.  As the final fact is not known yet, it is a valid one.  It may not be true.  But 600 years ago, the truth was the earth was flat.

Why are we dismissing possibilities out of hand when the facts are not known?

And a pretty good one for now.

Which part of intelligent design specifically do you think is "good"?  Do you believe that cows and birds were directly created by a higher power? Or do you believe that their..evolution was guided by some higher being (whether it be a God or an alien) in order to become cows and birds for reasons we cannot fathom?

I mean, WHAT exactly do you believe about "Intelligent Design"?  Because if you're referring to how life got started on this planet in the first place, that's not the element of it that is being debated because that is DEFINITELY philosophy and it doens't compete with evolution since evolution doesn't involve how life came from inorganinic materials because (wait for it) theories have their basis in existing facts and we don't know how life came into being on this planet.

for the record and so you know, ID is an hypothesis that fits the facts. As the final fact is not known yet, it is a valid one. It may not be true. But 600 years ago, the truth was the earth was flat. Why are we dismissing possibilities out of hand when the facts are not known?

But you don't even bother to specify which parts of ID you think "fits the facts".  The whole thing?  No way.  There's no reason whatsoever to believe that some higher being guided the evolutoin of say, fish flies.  It doesn't make any sense to believe that. Evolution through random mutation and local adaption not only has been observed, but fits the facts.

Moreover, the part that evolution isn't involved -- how life got started -- could be explained by all kinds of different philosophies and such statements as "fits the facts" is a nonissue.

And btw, 600 years ago they knew the world was round.  It was commonly known by scholars, even back in Greek times, that the world was round.  They had a pretty good measurement of the Earth's circumfrance back 2100 years ago (Posidonius for the record).  Just because some of you guys don't undestand how things came to be doesn't mean that magic or aliens or something else are the cause of it.  There are people, we call them scientists, who do know how this stuff works to a pretty good degree. 

To use your flat earth example, sure, the Dr Guy of the 14th century probably thought the earth was flat.  He probably was outraged to hear a that most scholars (probably devil worshippers) said the world was round and even had measured its circumfrance based on a theory.  I mean, who the heck do they think they are? Like they ever took a tape measure and measured the earth. How can they possibly, arrogantly argue that the world is round when one can look out and see it's flat and two, even if it's round, try to say they know how big round it is?

That is what we have today. The scientific community doesn't debate evolution today any more than the scientific community of the 14th century debated whether the world was flat or not. 

Most people out there in the real world consider it to be theory and not hypothesis. So what planet are you living on? Because here, on Earth, which I think is pretty real, it's considered to be a hypothesis (ID that is). Pointing me to the Intelligent Design Awareness Center website is like using the bible as proof to support a biblical claim.

Oh really? Try using this as a string for a google search and then come tell me what you find! "intelligent design theory or hypothesis". Do not be surprised to find out that you may be wrong.

I mean, WHAT exactly do you believe about "Intelligent Design"? Because if you're referring to how life got started on this planet in the first place, that's not the element of it that is being debated because that is DEFINITELY philosophy and it doens't compete with evolution since evolution doesn't involve how life came from inorganinic materials because (wait for it) theories have their basis in existing facts and we don't know how life came into being on this planet.

For the record (again), I am not calling for ID to be taught in Science.  I think Philosophy is the place for it.

For the record, I am not contending that cows did not descend from birds.  I have never stated that.

For the record, I am saying that perhaps (perhaps as in maybe as in purely speculative, but fitting the facts) that a higher intelligence did seed the early apes with a gene that created man with intelligence.  Or earlier.

For the record, I am not calling this a fact, just an hypothesis.  As the facts do not contradict the hypothesis, how can YOU dismiss it?  You may not believe it, but you cannot dismiss it. yet.

That may come in time.