What would actually be in a "magical creation" textbook? Beyond it isn't evolution.

[rdean]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

 

[g5000]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

Of Pandas and People The Central Question of Biological Origins

An actual school biology textbook used to teach Intelligent Design, now outlawed by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

 

[RosieS]

Cavemen riding dinosaurs as if they were bucking broncos.

How exciting!

Regards from Rosie

 

[daws101]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

Of Pandas and People The Central Question of Biological Origins

An actual school biology textbook used to teach Intelligent Design, now outlawed by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

it's creationism not science...

 

[Carib Gyal]

Um....evolution doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe, merely the origins of man.

 

[rdean]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

Of Pandas and People The Central Question of Biological Origins

An actual school biology textbook used to teach Intelligent Design, now outlawed by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

There are 141 reviews of that book. Did you bother to read any of them?

And my question was: Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"?

So where is the science? Saying the eye is too complex to evolve is not science. In fact, for anyone who has read Behe's book, the centerpiece of it is "irreducible complexity" or the idea that some things are simply too complex so it must have been created. Can you see how unscientific that is? It isn't this so it must be that. And the example he uses again and again is the flagellum in a common bacteria. They insist that no scientist will say there are no other examples of it in science so it must have been magically created exactly how it is now. Do some research. How do scientists explain that?

So where is the science beyond "I don't believe it"?

 

[Asclepias]

I long for the days when science and religion were one. Most of the worlds problems would be gone.

 

[daws101]

Um....evolution doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe, merely the origins of man.

the uneducated think it does..

 

[g5000]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

Of Pandas and People The Central Question of Biological Origins

An actual school biology textbook used to teach Intelligent Design, now outlawed by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

There are 141 reviews of that book. Did you bother to read any of them?

And my question was: Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"?

So where is the science? Saying the eye is too complex to evolve is not science. In fact, for anyone who has read Behe's book, the centerpiece of it is "irreducible complexity" or the idea that some things are simply too complex so it must have been created. Can you see how unscientific that is? It isn't this so it must be that. And the example he uses again and again is the flagellum in a common bacteria. They insist that no scientist will say there are no other examples of it in science so it must have been magically created exactly how it is now. Do some research. How do scientists explain that?

So where is the science beyond "I don't believe it"?

You asked what it teaches. I provided you the actual textbook.

You're welcome.

Are you making assumptions of where I stand just because I actually answered your question? I think you are.

Interesting.

 

[g5000]

Um....evolution doesn't attempt to explain the creation of the universe, merely the origins of man.

Right wing politicians use the term "evolution" to represent far more than the origins of life and Man.

 

[nodoginnafight]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

 

[Asclepias]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

There is no doubt there is a design. It is apparent everywhere in nature. The marks of engineering are all around us if we can see them.

 

[daws101]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

there is no empirical observable evidence of an intelligent creator .
no gods bar code..

 

[Asclepias]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

there is no empirical observable evidence of an intelligent creator .
no gods bar code..

Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

 

[daws101]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

There is no doubt there is a design. It is apparent everywhere in nature. The marks of engineering are all around us if we can see them.

I disagree, we engineer, we build so it's natural fallacy to see that in nature even when it's not there.

 

[Asclepias]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

There is no doubt there is a design. It is apparent everywhere in nature. The marks of engineering are all around us if we can see them.

I disagree, we engineer, we build so it's natural fallacy to see that in nature even when it's not there.

I would agree except the pattern is repeated throughout natural design and its mathematical.

 

[daws101]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

there is no empirical observable evidence of an intelligent creator .
no gods bar code..

Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

I know the golden ratio rather well. I'm also an engineer lighting and set design..

Fractal

• A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale. If the replication is exactly the same at every scale, it is called a self-similar pattern. An example of this is the Menger Sponge. Fractals can also be nearly the same at different levels. This latter pattern is illustrated in Figure 1. Fractal…
  A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale. If the replication is exactly the same at every scale, it is called a self-similar pattern. An example of this is the Menger Sponge. Fractals can also be nearly the same at different levels. This latter pattern is illustrated in Figure 1. Fractals also includes the idea of a detailed pattern that repeats itself.
• en.wikipedia.org

 

[daws101]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

There is no doubt there is a design. It is apparent everywhere in nature. The marks of engineering are all around us if we can see them.

I disagree, we engineer, we build so it's natural fallacy to see that in nature even when it's not there.

I would agree except the pattern is repeated throughout natural design and its mathematical.

mathematics in nature is a by product ..

 

[Asclepias]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

there is no empirical observable evidence of an intelligent creator .
no gods bar code..

Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

I know the golden ratio rather well. I'm also an engineer lighting and set design..

Fractal

• A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale. If the replication is exactly the same at every scale, it is called a self-similar pattern. An example of this is the Menger Sponge. Fractals can also be nearly the same at different levels. This latter pattern is illustrated in Figure 1. Fractal…
  A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale. If the replication is exactly the same at every scale, it is called a self-similar pattern. An example of this is the Menger Sponge. Fractals can also be nearly the same at different levels. This latter pattern is illustrated in Figure 1. Fractals also includes the idea of a detailed pattern that repeats itself.
• en.wikipedia.org

Doesnt that strike you as odd that something that should be random has a blue print?

 

[nodoginnafight]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

There is no doubt there is a design. It is apparent everywhere in nature. The marks of engineering are all around us if we can see them.

I disagree, we engineer, we build so it's natural fallacy to see that in nature even when it's not there.

I would agree except the pattern is repeated throughout natural design and its mathematical.

I'm not necessarily looking for scientific evidence of a creator. I am just asking. Why does it HAVE to be one or the other. I think we can all agree that science has not discovered all there is to be discovered or proven everything their is to be proven or answered every question there is to be answered.

So why does creationism necessarily eliminate evolution or why does evolution necessarily eliminate creationism?

Why not save the fighting for later, when we learn something that makes them mutually exclusive?