Yes, but at what point did plant evolutionary lineages diverge from animal evolutionary lineages? Why do we have two vastly distinct groups, yet multiple sub groups within each?
So why not teach ID in schools? I think it needs to be offered as an OPTION to scientific THEORY's on how life began.
Life either began from nothing, or we are designed. Since there is very weak evidence on how life began, or how the universe formed, intelligent design needs to be implemented into science courses to offer some real alternative to why we may be here.
23 comments
Sheesh, I remember studying Euglena in first-year biology.
so why not teach Astrology in in schools? I think it needs to be offered as an OPTION to scientific THEORY's on how to universe works.
so why not teach Alchemy in in schools? I think it needs to be offered as an OPTION to scientific THEORY's on how to chemicals work.
so why not teach flat-earthism in in schools? I think it needs to be offered as an OPTION to scientific THEORY's on how the world looks.
See my point?
Let's see what your argument is worth:
False dichotomy - 1 point.
Failure to understand the specific definition of the word "theory" within a scientific context - 1 point.
Misuse of an apostrophe - definitely 3 points for that.
Congratulations, you're a fundie.
1. This is ignoring the fungi "kingdom" which is a somewhat intermediary between animal and plant.
2. Because "God Did It" is not science.
3. It's not a real alternative cause it does not explain how our designer came about.
ID doesn't teach us anything, though. With evolution we know that birds and dinosaurs are close enough that birds have the DNA for teeth and long tails left, and scientists have re-activated this DNA to produce hilarious teethed chickens.
With ID, it's all 'idk goddidit'
I think we should teach all sides of every subject.
Sure most people say 2+2=4 but why not allow students to decide for themselves that it might = 5?
In opposition to the theory of gravity, why not teach the theory that we are held onto the planet not by some invisible force but rather by the weight of our sins? (Did you know that heavy rocks are big sinners? Totally true.)
Yes, but at what point did plant evolutionary lineages diverge from animal evolutionary lineages? Why do we have two vastly distinct groups, yet multiple sub groups within each?
What, you mean exactly how evolutionary theory would predict? Gee. Totally beats me.
Yes, but at what point did plant evolutionary lineages diverge from animal evolutionary lineages? Why do we have two vastly distinct groups, yet multiple sub groups within each?
A question, properly posed, is frequently its own answer. It requires absolutely negligible mental effort to deduce, from the information implicit in your second, qualifying sentence, that the differentiation of terrestrial life into plant and animal kingdoms occured early on, before all the subsequent branching within those kingdoms.
Plants and animals diverged from one another and one would expect them to be very distinct, because they descended from groups that haven't been able to interbreed with one another over the course of a few billion years.
I'd say that animals diverged from the plant lineage, or that they diverged in two different directions. However, these two are not the only "vastly distinct groups"; what about bacteria and fungi?
Christian Creationism belongs in Religion Classes, and should be taught alongside all the other creation stories.
Another false dichotomy; Life could also have begun from something.
And you have to divorce the ID concept from your brand of Christianity before it becomes a theory.
Christianity is what you're trying to get in schools, not a scientific consenses or even a plausible, coherent, or fact based conclusion. ID is a smokescreen for religious indoctrination.
Can you remind me what practical applications ID have ?
Oh, right, it does not have any use. Let's spend your belloved tax dollars to teach younglings useless horse shit.
There's obvious confusion in the argument: scientific THEORY: no, Modern Synthesis is a scientific theory , which is not a theory/hypothesis, but an explanatory model for all the evidence and working hypotheses. ID is a pseudoscientific opinion for religious creationism, not science and not resting on evidence.
A good description of ID is pseudoscientific creationist science uncertainty propaganda disguised as academic, for deception. Designed to corrupt science education for doctrinal and manipulation purposes. Old Testament mythology belongs in theology.
Linking to closely related gaming forum spam by the same author, with clueful FSTDT user responses: https://fstdt.com/2YM3
So why not teach ID in schools?
Because of this (from http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Phrases.xhtml#sdfootnote1sym ):
Intelligent Design ("ID") Theory
Non-fundie definition: “Creationism in a clown suit!”
It’s just creation with "God" replaced by the more vague "intelligent designer."
Fundie definition: “The theory that because science does not yet understand everything in the universe, God an "intelligent designer" magically created all life.”
ID draws its strength from the idea that if we don't know exactly what a particular species' or feature's evolutionary precursors looked like, then there must not have been any , so it must have appeared spontaneously at the will of God.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
