61 replies to this topic

[Tristan Palmgren]

The website as a whole is rather scary/creepy though.

Browsing around... and, oh, God, they have it out for relativity. What did the theory of relativity ever do to them?

Apparently the theory of relativity is an artifact of "liberal universities." Cause we just have it out for God, or something.

[furrykef]

Particularly, number 4. There is no way in America that they would allow the Bible to be read in Public schools. I mean, I've always liked the idea of both Evolution and Intelligent Design being taught side-by-side, and that's gone nowhere fast.

The problem with intelligent design is that it is not science and has nothing to do with science. And if it's not science, then... what's the point of teaching it? I think it's a good thing that intelligent design isn't taught side-by-side with evolution, because that would be placing pseudoscience on the same level as science, and that's a very bad thing. Why not teach astrology alongside astronomy? Alchemy alongside chemistry? A science class should teach science, period.

Now, if you want to talk about intelligent design and creationism in a theology course, I'd have no problem at all with that, but that's not the context that most people have in mind.

Also, I have no idea what Schlafly means by "public school course", but he's pretty far gone in the first place... he thinks Conservapedia itself is a fine resource to use for public schools. *shudder* But I'm guessing he means his ideal vision of a public school and not the public schools we actually have.

- Kef

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

The problem with the intelligent design is that intelligent design is not science and has nothing to do with science. And if it's not science, then... what's the point of teaching it? I think it's a good thing that intelligent design isn't taught side-by-side with evolution, because that would be placing pseudoscience on the same level as science, and that's a very bad thing. Why not teach astrology alongside astronomy? Alchemy alongside chemistry? A science class should teach science, period.

Now, if you want to talk about intelligent design and creationism in a theology course, I'd have no problem at all with that, but that's not the context that most people have in mind.

As it turns out, the idea of the Evolution theory has the same beginnings as the idea of the Intelligent Design theory. Both were constructed without any scientific evidences to back them up, and both set out to find evidence to confirm either theory. This is why scientists had the theory of a "Missing Link" before any actual fossil evidence of it. Which is actually the exact opposite of the way true science really works. You find fossils, and then construct theories to explain them. Not come up with theories and then attempt to prove them. But in all reality, both scientists are just reading into the fossils and "evidences" according to their presupposed bias. As a result, some fossils appear to confirm the Evolution theory, and other fossils appear to confirm the Intelligent Design theory. Nothing is actually proven, just "confirmed" either way. Evolution just doesn't bring religion into the discussion, so it's better excepted by public school circles as a "politically correct" theory.

I never believed science, or religion for that matter, can alone tell us our origins, just like science alone can't tell us a whole lot about history. Science can help to explain parts of history, but it's strongest field is in medical research. Science can only be used in history as supplemental information (fingerprints, DNA, ect.), but it can hardly reveal to us everything about the past. For that, you need history and archeology. Then compare the archeological findings with historic documents and records and see what is confirmed though the archeological finds. Then see how those findings confirm various origin theories out there.

[fishtheimpaler]

True, but I think everyone believing in the Bible does so. Like the anti-gay fanatic who goes on about 'God hating queers' and yet ignoring the part about stoning disobedient children to death. Yeah, I see what you mean, how they would totally eliminate a portion from even being read, thus never personally interpreted.

It's an interesting question in what's more creepy: attacks on external proof or an elevated internal ability to suppress the senation of cognitive dissonance? I.e., the Ministry of Truth, or blackwhite, crimestop, etc.

And at least Conservapedia has a decent entry for Sonic. While out of date, it demonstrates a healthy contempt for Sonic Unleashed, and avoids the situation currently presented by Wikipedia, which contains more information about Sally Acorn than about Turkmenistan.

Which is actually the exact opposite of the way true science really works. You find fossils, and then construct theories to explain them. Not come up with theories and then attempt to prove them.

OT: There's two moments to science, one where you extrapolate from evidence to come up with a theory, then a second when you apply the theory to the world, discover potential problem areas where it doesn't fit, and see if you can make it fit/refine the theory with research. Most of science occurs in phase two.

ID varies a lot because the proponents tend to be uninterested in how life developed so long as whatever it is proves that God exists, but most of the types I have seen tend to lack several critical aspects of modern scientific endeavor, such as (1) a research project, (2) testable predictions about the world. Mostly it consists of playing (to my mind, questionable) games with statistics designed to suggest the development of life is highly unlikely in general, and pointing out current problems/areas of inquiry in evolutionary biology.

That's not to say that intelligent design is wrong, necessarily. But it's not science.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

OT: There's two moments to science, one where you extrapolate from evidence to come up with a theory, then a second when you apply the theory to the world, discover potential problem areas where it doesn't fit, and see if you can make it fit/refine the theory with research. Most of science occurs in phase two.

ID varies a lot because the proponents tend to be uninterested in how life developed so long as whatever it is proves that God exists, but most of the types I have seen tend to lack several critical aspects of modern scientific endeavor, such as (1) a research project, (2) testable predictions about the world. Mostly it consists of playing (to my mind, questionable) games with statistics designed to suggest the development of life is highly unlikely in general, and pointing out current problems/areas of inquiry in evolutionary biology.

That's not to say that intelligent design is wrong, necessarily. But it's not science.

True. Like I stated before, I don't believe science to be the best tool when discussing any part of history (recorded history, or origin history). Science can help, and it is an important tool when explaining parts of our history, but it certainly can't stand alone as the be-all-end-all of history.

[furrykef]

Why not?

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Why not?

Because most of science is built to test and explain what we see in the present. Every so often, you'd see a little "snap shot" of what the past was like if elements from the past were preserved in it's present form at the past time. For example: bugs fossilized in tree sap preserves the bug exactly as it was during the time of it's death. No changes at all in the fossil. That gives you a very clear picture on a very small part of Earth's history. But often we see fossils as they are now after being changed by past climates other environmental impacts. And scientists can't really judge very well how or when those changes occurred in the fossil after the animal or plant's death.

Example: Carbon dating seems somewhat helpful, but only if the fossil in question lost carbon at a consistent rate. The scientists know how much carbon living things have, and they just compare that to the amount of carbon they have now and it's just simple subtraction to reach a date for the fossil. But the rate of carbon loss in fossils often quickens depending on weather and geological developments. Volcano are known to instantly petrify tress and animals in only seconds. (Without the volcano, it's been calculated to take thousands or even millions of years to petrify trees.) But the volcano occurs without leaving a layer of dust thick enough to remain long enough long enough for proper fossilization for geological documentation of the event. We can currently test the aftermath of volcanic blasts to determine the geological documentation of the even is very rare. (Winds, rains, and plant growth would have to stop entirely in order to allow the proper volcanic dust layers to fossilize.) So with all of this undocumented volcanic activity going on all throughout Earth's history, it's impossible to state beyond a reasonable doubt that volcano or other weather elements did not fluctuate the speed of the carbon loss of any fossil in the fossil record, making the body carbon release carbon at an inconstant, untestable rate.

So there we can see an example of how limited science is in revealing history. It's all "theoretical", you might say. There isn't anything really solid, which is what you'd kinda want to see when making positive statements of Earth's history. (But then, that's why it's called the theory of Evolution, or the theory of Intelligent Design.)

[/wall of text]

[furrykef]

Well, I can't debate your specific point about the volcanoes and such because I know nothing about that, but...

So there we can see an example of how limited science is in revealing history. It's all "theoretical", you might say. There isn't anything really solid, which is what you'd kinda want to see when making positive statements of Earth's history. (But then, that's why it's called the theory of Evolution, or the theory of Intelligent Design.)

The use of the word "theory" in science has nothing at all to do with the absence of "anything really solid". Otherwise, you might as well argue that gravity is just a theory.

Wikipedia defines "scientific theory" as:

In the sciences generally, a scientific theory (the same as an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts.

There is nothing in there about any of it being "theoretical", "hypothetical", or anything of the sort.

- Kef

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Just study the effects of Mount St. Helens in the 80's, or the Hawaiian Islands as they are now.

I meant "nothing solid" as in "no hard evidence". Through the scientific method, enough evidence and tests can be done so a theory can be changed into what is called a Scientific Law. This means the theory in question has withstood enough experiments and tests with absolutely no counter examples, or that the theory has been adjusted due to the counter examples, making it so nothing can conceivably prove the theory wrong. Earth's gravity, for example, is a scientific law. Because we know beyond a doubt that it exists, we can create planes and space shuttles to fight Earth's gravity.

Evolution is still only a theory. It still has a lot of weak points in it (my example above) to where it can't be called undeniable truth. The Intelligent Design theory has the same issues as well. They are both theories that some fossils confirm, but no fossil can entirely confirm any theory, because there is just too little data to be collected from the fossil to make that possible.

[chief]

Eh I dunno what the huge deal is over this.. People can do and belive whatever they want. I mean.. People will belive whatever it is if they are dead set on it. Thats the way we are. Its just our choice to either say "no thanks" or "Hey, I'll give it a go."


So in my opinion.. Inless you are being forced to read and belive everything with your eye lids taped open... Why bitch? Hell in my opinion some of you lefty's on here are the exact same as the right. Always a huge dick waving contest between the two.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Eh, true. There are many belief systems out there, and they all have at least some problems with them. No one can please everyone. I was just making the point that there is so little "scientific" data about history that we can literally paste elements of that data to any theory out there and call it "proof" of that theory. But the bible's not a scientific document. It's a religious and at times historical document (some of it can be backed up by archeology, but not all of it).

@ TOPIC (finally!): I still don't know how the translators expect to get this newly translated Bible into the public schools as a text book of some sort. I just can't see that happening.

[The Man]

I'm so passed this it's not even funny. I heard lately in the past 8 years that the courts have been recieving quailified judges instead of very qualified. So how qualified are you?

As long at they don't force it on use a.k.a. coercion then it's not illegal just don't expect me to spend every waking moment with it. If you take it too far then we'll have to prosecute 'you' and your 'government.'

That's if you do something illegal.

[Silicate]

Reading the comments as a whole, Fish, I am glad to see the scope of your perspective and concern. It's good to read of such things here, and I enjoy seeing what you have to express.

I find it interesting to note the complex mesh of material which is being dealt with here: not only matters concerning the Bible and it's translation, but it's use in so-called core studies - such as being made a measure out outside validity and truths - including what appears to be an indoctrination agenda with it's sights leveled at common institutions of education and public opinion. I am curious as to whether they legitimize their current structure efforts, whilst downplaying any opposition via typification of those as mere political/radical/leftist aims of their enemies. System for system, there are bound to be similiarities in many operations; accounting for those, how do they remain viable in public efforts and perception, considering the details of what these 'conservists' are attempting to accomplish or set forth? Clearly they've been attempting to consolidate their views of the Bible and other resources in an easily-accesible online source, thereby undermining their opposition through simple use of an accessible, supposedly user-friendly interface.

Moreso, Fish, I find it simultaneously absurd and amusing that they are not only temporally pushing back and expanding the 'presence' of liberalism, but not accounting for the plethora of expanding views and validity of translations which others will have had over time. (Of course people are going to have differing views; why not participate with these - whether through sheer discussion or refutation - in order to strengthen one's standing, as opposed to delegitimizing them and claiming that exclusion as one's core of truth?) With all of their casting about against their foes within the same sphere (in general: that of translation of the Bible), and their use of shunning the taint of liberal influence, how is it that they can expect to continue their momentum? It would seem that their current method of momentum would simply erode itself away in a haze of universal suspicion of sources of information.

I also agree with MistressAli... That front page is rather irksome in it's 'essence.'

[furrykef]

Just study the effects of Mount St. Helens in the 80's, or the Hawaiian Islands as they are now.

I'm not a geologist, so I'm not the person to ask about that. Perhaps arguments like this might have some relevance?

Even if you're right, though, I'd hardly say it's a hole in the theory of evolution itself. The theory of evolution does not hinge on details like that. Unreliability of carbon dating would not suddenly invalidate the entire theory, only details of it.

I meant "nothing solid" as in "no hard evidence". Through the scientific method, enough evidence and tests can be done so a theory can be changed into what is called a Scientific Law.

This means the theory in question has withstood enough experiments and tests with absolutely no counter examples, or that the theory has been adjusted due to the counter examples, making it so nothing can conceivably prove the theory wrong. Earth's gravity, for example, is a scientific law. Because we know beyond a doubt that it exists, we can create planes and space shuttles to fight Earth's gravity.

Theories don't "become" laws. Scientific theories and scientific laws are fundamentally different things. Laws are things like the three laws of thermodynamics, or Newton's three laws of motion -- specific principles that can easily be summarized in a few words or in a mathematical formula. "Species evolve over generations" (or variations thereof) is much too general to be a scientific law, no matter how "proven" it may be.

Also, laws are in fact often proven wrong (though, I imagine, rarely completely wrong). For example, it turned out that Newton's universal law of gravitation applies only in weak gravitational fields; it wasn't until Einstein's theory of general relativity that a more consistent model was discovered.

Finally, ask any scientist (especially one in the field of biology, geology, etc.) that if we "know beyond a doubt that evolution exists", and they will say "yes".

Evolution is still only a theory.

Evolution is hard, solid fact. The details of it are not always clear, but the essential processes of it are indisputable in the scientific community, and there is a good reason for that.

Also, I ask that you not confuse "theory" and "hypothesis". If you say "X is only a theory" then you are not using the word "theory" in its scientific sense, which causes needless confusion.

It still has a lot of weak points in it (my example above) to where it can't be called undeniable truth. The Intelligent Design theory has the same issues as well.

But Intelligent Design isn't on anything near an equal footing with evolution from a scientific standpoint, because it's fundamentally not science. And although you've said "[science] can't stand alone as the be-all-end-all of history", you've yet to explain what could possibly do a better job than the scientific method. (More on this later.)

They are both theories that some fossils confirm, but no fossil can entirely confirm any theory, because there is just too little data to be collected from the fossil to make that possible.

First off: what fossils appear to confirm the intelligent design hypothesis (I refuse to call it a "theory")?

But, anyway, evolutionary theory doesn't hinge on one or two fossils. There is a vast number of fossils out there and I doubt any of them do much to make evidence against evolution. Many do make evidence for evolution, of course. Moreover, it's not really particular fossils that make the case for evolution, but rather the combination of all the fossils that we have.


At this point, I'd like to address a couple of arguments in your previous posts that I have previously neglected:

As it turns out, the idea of the Evolution theory has the same beginnings as the idea of the Intelligent Design theory. Both were constructed without any scientific evidences to back them up, and both set out to find evidence to confirm either theory. This is why scientists had the theory of a "Missing Link" before any actual fossil evidence of it. Which is actually the exact opposite of the way true science really works. You find fossils, and then construct theories to explain them.

It's well known that Darwin developed the theory of evolution after observing the apparent effects of speciation in finches in the Galapagos islands. It seems pretty clear to me that Darwin did go from observation to hypothesis.

Science can only be used in history as supplemental information (fingerprints, DNA, ect.), but it can hardly reveal to us everything about the past. For that, you need history and archeology.

In the case of evolution, I don't think you're going to find anything better. The only reason why history and archaelogy are (arguably!) not science is that there is often no means of experimentation, no means of forming hypotheses and testing them, etc.... but with evolution, there is. Heck, microevolution has been demonstrated in laboratories, and macroevolution is the logical result of microevolution. You can't have one without the other.

Eh I dunno what the huge deal is over this.. People can do and belive whatever they want. I mean.. People will belive whatever it is if they are dead set on it. Thats the way we are. Its just our choice to either say "no thanks" or "Hey, I'll give it a go."

I'm not sure whether you're referring to the evolution argument or the "revisionist Bible" thing. Either way, I think they're much too important to have that sort of attitude about. (Yeah, to you or me they may have only minor relevance, but when it comes to what we teach our children...)

- Kef

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Theories don't "become" laws. Scientific theories and scientific laws are fundamentally different things. Laws are things like the three laws of thermodynamics, or Newton's three laws of motion -- specific principles that can easily be summarized in a few words or in a mathematical formula. "Species evolve over generations" (or variations thereof) is much too general to be a scientific law, no matter how "proven" it may be.

Also, laws are in fact often proven wrong (though, I imagine, rarely completely wrong). For example, it turned out that Newton's universal law of gravitation applies only in weak gravitational fields; it wasn't until Einstein's theory of general relativity that a more consistent model was discovered.

That is true. But those "laws" were at some point only theories to scientists when they were first conceived. This didn't make these laws any less true, it just meant scientists needed to spend some time working on a model that better explained what was already at work in the universe.

Finally, ask any scientist (especially one in the field of biology, geology, etc.) that if we "know beyond a doubt that evolution exists", and they will say "yes".

Evolution is hard, solid fact. The details of it are not always clear, but the essential processes of it are indisputable in the scientific community, and there is a good reason for that.

Also, I ask that you not confuse "theory" and "hypothesis". If you say "X is only a theory" then you are not using the word "theory" in its scientific sense, which causes needless confusion.

It's well known that Darwin developed the theory of evolution after observing the apparent effects of speciation in finches in the Galapagos islands. It seems pretty clear to me that Darwin did go from observation to hypothesis.

The reason Evolution remain indisputable in the scientific community is due to a number of reasons. The main one is that it doesn't pull from outside of science for verification, therefore allowing scientists to "shield" science from the influences of historical events (which is fine in medical research, but not in historical research). Intelligent Design encompasses more fields than just science, needing parts of history to help confirm it. So therefore it's not "pure science". Simply because something isn't science doesn't mean it's not truth. It just means it's not science. (There is no scientific evidence of WWII, yet we know it's existence in history to be true.)

Another reason is because any evolutionist who finds fossils seem to also be confirming other theories are immediately expelled from the scientific community.

I believe there are some forms of Evolution that are hard, solid facts. Microevolution is the one that has been tests and observed better than Macroevolution, since we can see that from day to day, and therefore making it more scientifically valid that Macroeveolution.

Macroevolution is the elements take from Microevolution taken to extremes. Instead of just slight changes happening with in a species, like microevolution, you have spiecies changing into entirely different species. Whereas the idea is not scientifically invalid, it has been nearly impossible to test this theory though the observation of animals. Only fossils, which by their nature contain very little data anyway, can one theorize macroevolution. And since fossils contain so little data, the theory has always remained "unclear".

But Intelligent Design isn't on anything near an equal footing with evolution from a scientific standpoint, because it's fundamentally not science. And although you've said "[science] can't stand alone as the be-all-end-all of history", you've yet to explain what could possibly do a better job than the scientific method. (More on this later.)

First off: what fossils appear to confirm the intelligent design hypothesis (I refuse to call it a "theory")?

But, anyway, evolutionary theory doesn't hinge on one or two fossils. There is a vast number of fossils out there and I doubt any of them do much to make evidence against evolution. Many do make evidence for evolution, of course. Moreover, it's not really particular fossils that make the case for evolution, but rather the combination of all the fossils that we have.

Intelligent Design "theory/hypothesis" is considerably young compared to Evolution. So it has been called both a theory and a hypothesis.

The fossil record has very little data or information within terms of what actually happened in the past. It's like trying to reconstruct what a house might have looked like when you only have a few broken planks of wood and some fragments of shattered glass to work with. You're not even sure if it was a house. It might have been a bridge. It might have even been remains from a really bad vehicle accident, and the vehicle was carrying some wood. You just don't know given what you have to work with.

As a result, there are several elements of the fossil record that seem to "confirm" Evolution, and others that seem to "confirm" Intelligent Design.

Some Intelligent Design models (there are many models right now) contain an idea of a Young Earth. The fact that the rock layers are smooth and don't show any disturbance of intact plant growth seems to "confirm" that the rock layers were laid and fossilize rather quickly (some models even withing minutes), giving absolutely no time for plant growth to disturb the rock layers. Therefore, the undisturbed, smooth rock layers we see in the fossil record seem to "confirm" that model in Young Earth Intelligent Design.

Evolutionists do the same thing with seem to be fossilized "missing links". They found a fossilized jaw bone fragment of an animal they've since called Ramapithecus. From the small fragment of bone, it seemed to be mammalian. And from the teeth sockets (there were no teeth within the jaw bone) it appeared that it had small teeth. So the scientists theorized that it couldn't use it's teeth as a defensive weapon. So it must have had to hold it's defensive weapons with its hands. So it probably couldn't walk with it's hands. So it might have walked upright. So it obviously must be the "missing link" between ape-like creatures and humans. Therefore this fossil seems to "confirm" Evolution.

In the case of evolution, I don't think you're going to find anything better. The only reason why history and archaelogy are (arguably!) not science is that there is often no means of experimentation, no means of forming hypotheses and testing them, etc.... but with evolution, there is. Heck, microevolution has been demonstrated in laboratories, and macroevolution is the logical result of microevolution. You can't have one without the other.

That is true. But like I said earlier, not all truth comes from science. And since some scientific theories are constantly changing, not all science can be called truth. It used to be "true" that dinosaurs were dumb animals and so big that some had to remain submerged in water to keep their legs from breaking or suffocating their lungs under the pressure of their own weight. Now it's "true" that most dinosaurs were intelligent, hot-blooded animals with the strength to hold both the weight of themselves and the weight of other animals.

Our knowledge of science increases as we learn more about it, and there's a great deal about science we know to be true. But because of some theories constantly changing, those theories cannot be considered "truth", since scientific truth cannot changed, but only become better understood through research.

And I personally don't see it wrong to incorporate science with things like history and archeology. History and archeology can't be tested like science, but they can be allowed to be compared and contrasted time to time. But that's just my opinion.

[furrykef]

Intelligent Design encompasses more fields than just science, needing parts of history to help confirm it.

For example...?

Simply because something isn't science doesn't mean it's not truth.

This is true, but when scientific means are available, it's the most sensible way of proceeding, I think. Science has demonstrated time and time again, since Ancient Greece, that it's the best way to reason about things.

(There is no scientific evidence of WWII, yet we know it's existence in history to be true.)

But is there any analogue for Intelligent Design? Is there anything we know to be true about it?

Another reason is because any evolutionist who finds fossils seem to also be confirming other theories are immediately expelled from the scientific community.

Oh God, not that movie. That movie is so bad that it leaves real scientists in stitches. Many of its arguments had already been debunked long before the movie was ever made. See this page, for example (not to mention other stuff on the same website).

I hasten to add that just because the movie says something doesn't automatically make it wrong (that would be the ad hominem fallacy). But, nonetheless, that movie has very little in the credibility department.

Also, if scientists who support intelligent design are in fact "expelled", the reason is simple: intelligent design is not science. It seems reasonable to me to expect scientists to conduct science, not pseudoscience.

Macroevolution is the elements take from Microevolution taken to extremes. Instead of just slight changes happening with in a species, like microevolution, you have spiecies changing into entirely different species. Whereas the idea is not scientifically invalid, it has been nearly impossible to test this theory though the observation of animals.

I will readily grant you that macroevolution is not easily testable, but statistics will show that macroevolution is the logical result of microevolution. You can't make tons of tiny changes over millions of years without ending up with big changes.

Macroevolution can be and has been observed in fields outside of biology, too. Consider the evolution of languages. Although the evolution of languages and evolution of species is not the same thing, there are some parallels. Look at how Latin evolved into Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc. These languages evolved out of Latin through very tiny, incremental, almost undetectable changes over a couple thousand years. Yet these languages barely resemble Latin other than broad similarities in their vocabulary. A native Spanish speaker could not read Cicero, and Cicero would not have been able to read Spanish. Microevolution of language begat macroevolution of language.

Likewise, computer models of biological evolution have demonstrated that microevolution leads to macroevolution. True, these are extremely crude models by biological standards, but I think it's enough to shift the burden of proof to those who deny macroevolution.

See also this.

Only fossils, which by their nature contain very little data anyway, can one theorize macroevolution. And since fossils contain so little data, the theory has always remained "unclear".

On what grounds do fossils have little data? An individual fossil might present little data, but when you combine the entire fossil record, that's a lot of data.

The fossil record has very little data or information within terms of what actually happened in the past. It's like trying to reconstruct what a house might have looked like when you only have a few broken planks of wood and some fragments of shattered glass to work with. You're not even sure if it was a house. It might have been a bridge. It might have even been remains from a really bad vehicle accident, and the vehicle was carrying some wood. You just don't know given what you have to work with.

I doubt a paleontologist would agree with you...

As a result, there are several elements of the fossil record that seem to "confirm" Evolution, and others that seem to "confirm" Intelligent Design.

Although this doesn't completely refute your point, I'll say here that confirming intelligent design wouldn't be the same thing as disproving evolution; it would seem to me to be perfectly possible for a fossil (or set of fossils) to be consistent with both models. One point for intelligent design doesn't necessarily count as one point against evolution.

Some Intelligent Design models (there are many models right now) contain an idea of a Young Earth. The fact that the rock layers are smooth and don't show any disturbance of intact plant growth seems to "confirm" that the rock layers were laid and fossilize rather quickly (some models even withing minutes), giving absolutely no time for plant growth to disturb the rock layers. Therefore, the undisturbed, smooth rock layers we see in the fossil record seem to "confirm" that model in Young Earth Intelligent Design.

Hmm, I don't know anything about this. Can you provide a source?

Evolutionists do the same thing with seem to be fossilized "missing links". They found a fossilized jaw bone fragment of an animal they've since called Ramapithecus. From the small fragment of bone, it seemed to be mammalian. And from the teeth sockets (there were no teeth within the jaw bone) it appeared that it had small teeth. So the scientists theorized that it couldn't use it's teeth as a defensive weapon. So it must have had to hold it's defensive weapons with its hands. So it probably couldn't walk with it's hands. So it might have walked upright. So it obviously must be the "missing link" between ape-like creatures and humans. Therefore this fossil seems to "confirm" Evolution.

See this.

That is true. But like I said earlier, not all truth comes from science. And since some scientific theories are constantly changing, not all science can be called truth. It used to be "true" that dinosaurs were dumb animals and so big that some had to remain submerged in water to keep their legs from breaking or suffocating their lungs under the pressure of their own weight. Now it's "true" that most dinosaurs were intelligent, hot-blooded animals with the strength to hold both the weight of themselves and the weight of other animals.

Yes, but I don't think this is comparable to evolution. We understand evolution now much, much better than we understood dinosaurs 100 or maybe even 50 years ago.

And I personally don't see it wrong to incorporate science with things like history and archeology. History and archeology can't be tested like science, but they can be allowed to be compared and contrasted time to time. But that's just my opinion.

I still don't really see the parallels between history/archaeology and intelligent design...

- Kef

[Velvet D'Coolette]

I don't know if I can really take this seriously. The hardcore users of Conservapedia led by Andy Schafly are very real and very scary, but they only make up a tiny fraction of the people who edit the Wiki; the rest are mostly trolls and trolls trolling trolls. I'm kind of doubting that this project will go too far.

This, frankly. There's an ongoing sport over at the richarddawkins.net forum in which new pieces of religous propaganda (notably including Conservapedia on one occasion) where guesses are made on whether it is a Poe or genuine.

[John Roberts]

There is no scientific evidence of WWII, yet we know it's existence in history to be true.

Wha? Hiroshima when and got itself blowed up by a whole lot of scientific evidence in the soil to poke at with test tubes.

[chief]

Yeah but that just proves that a atomic explosion was there. Not the whole war.

[Ratty Randnums]

As it turns out, the idea of the Evolution theory has the same beginnings as the idea of the Intelligent Design theory. Both were constructed without any scientific evidences to back them up, and both set out to find evidence to confirm either theory.

Um, this is absolutely false. Bullshit in laymen's terms. Darwin (and that other fellow who had the idea at around the same time, missionary, had malaria, forget his name) came up with his theory of evolution to explain the diversity of life he had observed while in the Galapagos.- And by extension the diversity of life in general.

Intelligent design is religion parading around pretending to be science. Because it as you say starts with a preconceived idea and sets out to prove it.
This is NOT how the scientific method works.
You observe things and try to explain your observations based on the evidence. That is how science works.


Also as far as "science's relevance to history" -It is very valuable in understanding the past. For one thing history is famously "written by the victors". But by examining human remains (*Dr. Insano voice* using SCIENCE!) we can find out about what kind of health these people were in. What did they eat, common diseases, how fit were they, what was the average life expectancy? Basically what life style they led. And this evidence isn't slanted by some historians tall tales or misinformation or political and religious beliefs.

Scientific evidence of WWII? Um, how about all of the bodies of the victims? How about all of the left over weapons and other artifacts?