Welcome to Gaia! ::

Alright, WS, based on faith? Let's look at a few facts.

1.) Evolution, as Darwin claimed in the Origin of Species, would be supported by fossil evidence as more discoveries were made. He stated that if the fossil record failed to back his claims up, then his theory is not valid, BUT he believed the fossil record would. Well, since his death, the fossil record has essentially buried his theory. Archeologists have discovered an era known as the "Cambrian Explosion". A period of immense species explosion. Approximately 540 million years ago every living phyla and several known extinct phyla came into being. Previously we had records of sponges, jellyfish, etc. Until the Cambrian Explosion was discovered, without any intermediary steps, every phylum we know appeared in the fossil record. Essentially, according to Darwin himself, this defeats his theory.

2.) Abiogenesis is the only decent explanation as to the origin of the original cell. However, this even has its fallacies. Where did the basic amino acids come from? Miller Experiment has been disproved, scholars now believe that the conditions he used are not the ones that would have existed in the "primordial soup". Anyway, even if they were, the 5-7 amino acids he created, insufficient to create any functioning cell, broke down afterward to form cyanide and formaldehyde. Not necessarily the best to sustain life.
Now say that after time, these amino acids emerge and form basic proteins, even the ones necessary to form a cell, and they remain in existence until the rest of the elements are created. It is irrelevant because for a functioning strand of DNA to form, is nearly impossible through random chance. But even if it did, how did it pair up with the proper proteins and create the systems it needs to sustain itself? DNA needs to self replicate, and have systems in place that allow it to function, even in the most basic of cells. So, random chance is not a scientific explanation. EVEN IF the Miller Experiment was valid, it still only accounts for amino acids, and not cells. Science has yet to account for the emergence of life out of no life, i.e., the formation of a cell. According to Ockham's razor, do you believe that over 2 billion years, this impossibility randomly occurred, or the simpler explanation that it was influenced by a designer?

3.) There is substantial scientific evidence that is pro-creator, as shown above. So if anything, the school's should at least mention that there are problems with Darwinian evolution as they teach it, and that it is possible for there to be an intelligent designer. Intelligent Design is NOT religion, it is a scientific explanation as to the origin of the universe, and of life, that stands where all other theories fail. If you think you have a theory as to the origin of life or the universe that does not fail, that does not pile on layer after layer of assumption and "random chance", please present it to me. But until then, there is no reason for an intelligent person not to at least CONSIDER the existence of an intelligent designer. Separation of Church and state (Which is NOT part of our constitution, but is however a point the Jefferson brought up in a SPEECH) does not apply because this is Science. It is not something that someone should simply look up in a Bible, it is something that that school's should at least give a nod to for being a legitimate theory.

tl;dr: There are fallacies within Darwin's theory, and thus the school's should mention that, and that intelligent design is a legitimate theory.

I don't see a problem with teaching both, can't hurt. Some will look to one, others will look to the other.


Personal opinion on the subject:
Creation: If god created just Adam and Eve and we are descendants of them, then where did the different races come from? (I haven't read genesis, so maybe it is explained in there, but I haven't heard it)

Evolution: Don't think I've seen an explanation of how it all started, if something evolved it had to start somewhere. But I do think that completely discounting it is also wrong. Look at breeding, for example making a dog smaller over time and generations, that definitely adds credibility to evolution.

It's true that is exactly what I think. But that is also what some of the people opposing it think, so I was putting it out there.

I really don't know, you all have such valid points. I think it is important to let students know all of the theories, so yes, I suppose it should be taught at school

I can understand how it scattered (even if that part wasn't in the bible), I just had the impression that when someone didn't believe evolution that they meant all of it together. I didn't know it was separated into micro/macro, just thought it was one thing.


And just out of curiosity how do you 2 feel about the Christians who say the earth is only 12,000 or so years old? Do you agree or disagree?

Indeed, I personally think that the seven days, was just to relate it to how the people would know it.

My whole point with that is that when evolution finally collapses and a new theory comes along, what will still remain the same? Intelligent design. When that new theory is replaced, what will remain the same? Intelligent design. What has always been the same? Intelligent design.

of course there are fallacies in scientific theories, in its definition it mentions it has not been 100% proven, so i'm not here to argue that. that is basic science terminology. my point was that the theory of evolution was developed as a result of scientific observation.