Teaching Intelligent Design


#1

What do you guys think about teaching intelligent design? I’m a big fan of separation of church and state… (keep your religion at home and out of my kids throat.) I know that ID is not supposed to relate to Creationism (which should not be brought up in school)… but I’m afraid this would give the “in” that religious groups and fundamentalists need to throw creationism in.

What Is Intelligent Design, FAQ, Evolution, Creationism, Darwin, Dawkins, Behe, Kansas, Anthropic - Beliefnet.com


#2

Well, its a good concept. It seems to be to accomidating though for the people who want some religion in their life, yet don’t want to accept all the mumbo jumbo of the bible. I myself am probably the person i just decribed, but the artical doesnt go into enough detail to really understand it.

As far as the church and state thing, i also agree. However, did you know that the 1st amendment was actually designed to protect Relegion from government, not the government from religion as it is so done today. Just a thought…


#3

hahaha, what a joke…

not to undermine what yall believe tho… yall gotz yallz rightz to believe in what you want…

not saying that "id"ism is wrong, but that just like telling the police man that the doughnut is good for you cuz its bread :lol


#4

here is a draft of “the beginning of time” and if you have 30 minutes to spare- read the whole page… it may not make you a beleiver, but it will “send chills up your spine”…

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

ive done some research myself and it has been scientifically proven that the torah, or first 5 chapters of the bible, is logically proven with modern and globally accepted scientific and mathematical formulas that the age of the universe, along with carbon dating, plaeontology, archaeology, and cosmology to be dead-on accurate with the internationally accepted views of time and relativity dating the universe to 15 billion years- 15 3/4 billion years.

cliffnotes

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What’s exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the “view of time” from the beginning, relative to the “view of time” today. It’s not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see it every second? No. We’d see it every million million seconds. Because that’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Torah doesn’t say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we’re sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah’s perspective is from the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I’m not speaking as a theologian; I’m making a scientific claim. I didn’t pull these numbers out of hat. That’s why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step. Now we can go one step further. Let’s look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in “The Principles of Physical Cosmology,” a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That’s the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the “beginning of time perspective.” But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible’s perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there’s more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I’ll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

SOOOO…
why not teach creationism? separation of church and state? well if the state accepts the 15 billion yr “time” factor and with modern space/time conversions in a scientifically accepted formula of 1 million million… 6 days equals 15 3/4 billion yrs. pretty accurate, so the creationism 6 days are equivalent to the scientific dating of the universe (both should be taught?).

from my viewpoint, it makes more sense for it to be created by a creator than to be spontaneously produced. i think spontaneous production of any sort has been statistically proven impossible without guidance of energy form a “creator” if you will. :blah :blah


#5

All Dr. Schroeder is doing is validating his strong scientific reasoning with his deep faith. The two just don’t coincide… and he takes Genesis at literal, face value. It seems to me that he is trying to make himself… and us, believe that they can both exist in his/our mind in harmony. You think he can explain how Jonah survived in the belly of the whale? With his obvious intelligence, I’m sure he’d roll it right over my head and I’d believe it too. LOL


#6

you really don’t want my thoughts on religion…


#7

We’ll let you by on that Bacon… I sugarcoat mine with a lot of people as well. At least give us your opinion on the topic at hand… or just on religion and the public school system.


#8

when I get to talking about religion people get upset…it should be seprate from schools but kids should have the right to exercise what they believe in just as long as it doesn’t interfere with their class


#9

I totally agree with you… but I know that will never happen anytime soon. At least not in my lifetime or region of the US. Can you imagine a young kid wanting to sprinkle a salt circle and cast a protection spell during lunch at a NW Georgia Jr. high school? LOL


#10

well with dr shroader’s evidence- which is scientific, not something he made up to sway people in belief to his faith- creationism is time scaled to be exactly the same as scientific deductions based on carbon dating, paleontology and the like…

as far as religion in public schools, it should remain in private schools IMO

but teaching the similarities and differences in scientific “theory” could be done publically. although creationism is not a theory, id and the accepted beginning are theories- and they all match up in time scales.

im not one to be easily swayed in one direction or another. i dont just use one “dr.'s” essay as a one-and-only resource- that is not reliable enough or factual enough… but shroader’s writings have been scientifically verified, so what he said is not sugarcoated to gain belief in the sense that he made it up to get people to accept his faith, it is factual and credible.


#11

His work has actually been highly criticized… as have the works of
D Russell Humphrey (another “young earth” theorist).
Interesting read:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm


#12

Moses says you can see G-d’s fingerprint on the universe in one of two ways. Look at the phenomenon of the Six Days, and the development of a universe which is mind-boggling. Or if that doesn’t impress you, then just consider society from Adam forward - the phenomenon of human history. Either way, you will find the imprint of G-d.

whats so mind boggling about the universe developing?

take one law of chemistry:

law of conservation of mass:

starting = ending

that is the mass at the beginning of a reaction = the mass at the end of a reaction… in a closed system…

in a closed system is the key - the universe is a closed system so really, its not the key…

so if you had 2 water molecules and you applied enough heat to them, you would get 4 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecules:

2 H[size=2]2[/size]O -> 4 H + O[size=2]2[/size]

well, using that law of science, the universe has to have been completely there before, and is still here today… maybe not in the exact context as we know it, but still the molecules/atoms/etc were still there…

if the molecules were all tightly packed together… that would create gravity…( just think of our world, its huge, it creates gravity, we stay on ground )…

if gravity is applied to molecules, causing acceleration

now the molecules in the equation above (water to hydrogen and oxygen) when separated into the individual molecules have small electric charges… (thats why water conducts electricity, cuz the charges can move from the molecules like a circuit board)

when the acceleration levels get high enough bonds between electrical charges can create different molecules… some heavier than water, some lighter than water…

different sized molecules have different masses, and when the mass is acted upon by gravity, greater acceleration occurs

when the faster moving-bigger sized molecules crash into smaller molecules, energy is released, thus allowing for more bigger molecules to be made… (this is how partical accelerators work…)

when big enough moleclues collide into to other large molecules, enough energy may be given off to cause an explosion of all the particles in the universe (which would have been big, cuz the universe is big)

first part to the quote about the mind-boggling stuff (i just took the law of conservation of mass and applied it to the universe)

next time, ill do the evolution of human society, which is extremely simple, in my opinion

when your done reading, go look at your car, and think of what you are going to do with it next :smiley:


#13

Re: RE: Teaching Intelligent Design

[quote=AtlanticBlue99]here is a draft of “the beginning of time” and if you have 30 minutes to spare- read the whole page… it may not make you a beleiver, but it will “send chills up your spine”…

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

ive done some research myself and it has been scientifically proven that the torah, or first 5 chapters of the bible, is logically proven with modern and globally accepted scientific and mathematical formulas that the age of the universe, along with carbon dating, plaeontology, archaeology, and cosmology to be dead-on accurate with the internationally accepted views of time and relativity dating the universe to 15 billion years- 15 3/4 billion years.

cliffnotes

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What’s exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the “view of time” from the beginning, relative to the “view of time” today. It’s not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see it every second? No. We’d see it every million million seconds. Because that’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Torah doesn’t say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we’re sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah’s perspective is from the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I’m not speaking as a theologian; I’m making a scientific claim. I didn’t pull these numbers out of hat. That’s why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step. Now we can go one step further. Let’s look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in “The Principles of Physical Cosmology,” a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That’s the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the “beginning of time perspective.” But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible’s perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there’s more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I’ll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

SOOOO…
why not teach creationism? separation of church and state? well if the state accepts the 15 billion yr “time” factor and with modern space/time conversions in a scientifically accepted formula of 1 million million… 6 days equals 15 3/4 billion yrs. pretty accurate, so the creationism 6 days are equivalent to the scientific dating of the universe (both should be taught?).

from my viewpoint, it makes more sense for it to be created by a creator than to be spontaneously produced. i think spontaneous production of any sort has been statistically proven impossible without guidance of energy form a “creator” if you will. :blah :blah[/quote]

Thats just rediculous. That would assume that time is ever changing. Using scientific dating this theory would conclude that, for example, yesterday was a day away, 1 year ago was 500 days previous, 10 years ago was 15 years ago etc. Meaning every thing would be dated wrong. It wouldn’t take many difficult experiments to disprove this.

The problem I have with religion is there are no hard facts other than “just believe” Relgion is merely a made up friend for big people, its there to comfort you when you need it. More power to the people who can accept this as their beliefs, but its gonna take a lot more than what religion is claiming for me to live by it. I could… you know what, i dont want to offend anyone, but i have some pretty strong thoughts on this, most of the time i just piss people off when I bring them up tho.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful”
-Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Roman stoic philosopher


#14

well lemon- go to ap chem bro… 2H20 would yield 2H2 + O2 or possibly react with polarity and ionize or dissociate into H30+ and OH- (hydronium and hydroxide)

also, matter has no mass if it moves equal to speed of light. physics… but once an object travels below the speed of light, it gains perception and mass.

and you think it happens by chance that water is the only natural made molecule that has this property?..

ice floats.

all other molecules are more dense in a solid state than in liquid, but water is different… why? because of a creator’s wish for life… if water was just like every other molecule that is naturally made, it woul allow for ice to sink to the bottom which would rapidly raise freezing temp once freezing began and fish as well as other aquatic animals would continue to float up and up until they were suffocated by being in air too long… but no, water is different, it has ice that forms a protective “shield” form the outside during extreme cold. that is why if it is -40C the ice is still less than a foot deep, whereas at this tem pand any other molecule with similar melting points as water would be completely encapped as a solid.

ramble on bishes- it aint just a coincidence…


#15

and kevin- not advocating religion… not going into it… but i am advocating a creator

again- things arent created spontaneously… its been proven so.

and it isnt “time-scaled” so to speek. it is a physics problem involving the speed of light and travel and time… read the essay dr schroader wrote and you will understand.


#16

and lemon, water is not a conductor of electricity. aquatic solutions are but pur H2O is not. water does go under self-ionization but does not create enough energy to conduct electricity. however mix water with an acid such as HCl (hydrochloric acid) and you will get H3O+ and Cl- and the hydronium and chloride ions will conduct an electric current. :blah


#17

Re: RE: Teaching Intelligent Design

[quote=AtlanticBlue99]well lemon- go to ap chem bro… 2H20 would yield 2H2 + O2 or possibly react with polarity and ionize or dissociate into H30+ and OH- (hydronium and hydroxide)

also, matter has no mass if it moves equal to speed of light. physics… but once an object travels below the speed of light, it gains perception and mass.

and you think it happens by chance that water is the only natural made molecule that has this property?..

ice floats.

all other molecules are more dense in a solid state than in liquid, but water is different… why? because of a creator’s wish for life… if water was just like every other molecule that is naturally made, it woul allow for ice to sink to the bottom which would rapidly raise freezing temp once freezing began and fish as well as other aquatic animals would continue to float up and up until they were suffocated by being in air too long… but no, water is different, it has ice that forms a protective “shield” form the outside during extreme cold. that is why if it is -40C the ice is still less than a foot deep, whereas at this tem pand any other molecule with similar melting points as water would be completely encapped as a solid.

ramble on bishes- it aint just a coincidence…[/quote]

You seem pretty knowledgeable, but you should realize that water expands when it freezes due to the crystaline structure. When water freezes it cause the HCP cystals to become rigidly held together, leaving spaces between the molucules. Whereas in a liguid form they move freely and slide past each other, break, reform etc. All of these phenomenoms are based around hydrogen bonding


#18

Over thinking. Mere over thinking. You are mixing hard scientific fact with theory. You stated factual information (with obvious intelligence)… and then threw in “because of the creators wish for life.” That is opinion… which is exactly what Schroeder does. It appears to me that you are reading way to far into it. I will not debate with anyone as to if there is a god or not. It is up to one to decide; and determine belief for himself. My thoughts are, If you truly believe something in your soul… then it is true (for you). Who am I to tell you that you are wrong in your belief structure? But my beliefs are just as valid as yours.

“Gripped by fear men go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.” ~Buddha

But back to the original topic… I’m not sure I am comfortable with the teaching of ID in public schools. Now if they would stick to the true theory of ID… and not turn it into their own back-door for creationism; then teach away. There will be some who would teach the proper ideals, then some who would run away with it.

“My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.” ~Dalai Lama


#19

i agree with you and have respect for you too… and i think id would be taken advantage of y many teachers and turned into religious propaganda. my current teachers already try to pull those stunts but i shut them out, not b/c i am not religious (which i dont feel like going into right now) but b/c they are abusing their powers with mind-manipulating tactics on growing brains of adolescent teens.


#20

Re: RE: Teaching Intelligent Design

i dont exactly memorize all the molecules that naturally occur in 2s, so i may be wrong on that point, but still, the law of conservation of mass still applies

polarity = electrical charges, so it conducts electricity in some form
if ionized into H[size=2]3[/size]O+ and OH-, those molecules have an electric charge which would act upon each other to produce some form of movement, which would escalate…

how much energy did it take for that matter to get to the speed of light? alot… which if two matters are moving at the sol, then what happens when they collide? what happens to that energy they both had? simplify it more, and line up two guns face to face, approximately 100 feet apart, and pull both triggers at the same time… what happens to the bullets?

so what is it?