GSCI340 - Environmental Geology

This was probably the best documentary on the battle between evolution and intelligent design. Unlike most documentaries on this subject, this one takes on a (mostly) neutral position, with very little bias in either direction (it actually bounced between which side it biased, which made an impression that the decision could go either way). The findings were a bit interesting though. I believe the judge was unduly harsh in his ruling. While the current view is that intelligent design is not science, we may see it gain more and more scientific credibility as time wears on (at least in testability). Basically, its a difficult struggle, and we will not see the end of it soon. I personally believe that a mention of intelligent design is warrented, if no more than a shot clause stating that the idea exists. Scientists are taught to be open-minded after all, but I believe that there are too many close-minded people (not to mention hot-headed) on both sides for anything to be accomplished. Maybe the next debate over this topic should be conducted in a spa.

After watching this documentary I realized that there are many more arguments for and against evolution or intelligent design then I once thought. I liked the way that PBS didn’t show bias towards one particular view of the topic. Although, I don’t see the scientific community and the religious community agreeing on matters anytime soon. I believe scientific exploration will continue to uncover details exclusively in favor of evolution because that is what most scientist believe is the overiding factor.

I think the real question was if religion was encroaching on the constitutional rights of americans, it wasnt a debate on the legitimacy of intelligent design as science. but because this is a argument of symantics i can see why there was such a struggle to both debase and legitmise intelligent design theory.

Despite the thrilling debate (which made me even more excited for the theory of evolution) I think the judge made the right descision; to secure constitional rights of ALL americans, religion must not be part of state interests, ( the pledge of allegiance is one of those tiny infringments i like to ignore…it is american tradition after all…) but you can pursue your religious interests anywhere else on your own free time and with your own money. If you have a church background and you are firmly in the sway of Intelligent Design then you can go on believing as you do and you can operate well in church but what about out in the big world where there are so many other ideas? Schools teach the Darwin Theory for obvious reasons, it, among other discoveries from our age of enlightment have made it so that there is much to disccuss!!

Where are the ‘intelligent design’ scientists discoveries?
Where are the trials and retrials and subsequent research? The letters of debate, the fractions and ammendments, the schools of thought - the think-tanks? — has there been any progression in this idea? What studies could students engage in to understand intellient design theory? Home work assignments anyone?? If there were lodes of knowledge to communicate where is it? Evolution is a theory, not fact, we already know this, it is examplar of science not creating truths but creating vehicles for understanding observations, thus making it open to interpretation; but there are guidelines to fallow, being that we are physical creatures we can only observe the mudane and not the metaphysical and this is where intelligent design; if it is a science, is almost impossible to perform by its practicants.

However, Creationism easily fits into theological platforms because unswerving faith is allowable there, not in institutional areas like a public school where you are encouraged to question and debate. Intelligent design stops debate (though i think a few arguments could arise about who exactly this Designer is and where it came from)

The theory of Evolution, no matter how choppy or unclear — has mounds of data and argument to nurture itself into oblivion. But by all means, if there is something to say, then intelligent design should fight for its place just as evolution has in the past century - it shouldnt sneak into our education system under the cloak of ‘balance’

In conclusion, I think the board genuinely wanted intelligent design in the class room to benefit their young people and thus to benefit society,but in this case Intelligent design was a prop to project on students the moral standards decided on by people in a secular group — to make their young people ‘good’ in their eyes is to make better christians - not to make them more intelligent or open minded. This is a vast judgement call on people who ar not christian, also,if open mindedness was an issue then all genesis ‘intelligent design theories’ from cultures all around the world should have also been included in their prepared statement (to be read by teachers in class), not just the ideas of one certain christian sect.

- so what does this have to do with geology?

Basically, all those crazily written paragraphs are just my oppinions borne from watching the film (hoping comment wasnt in emotional excess)

Nova does a good job with their programs. This topic, Creationism vs. Evolution is such a hoot. You would think God (being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent would be ok with science and evolution instead of creation myths. Creationists want to believe in the “specialness” of mankind and believe that we alone are made in the image of God. And creationists feel threatened when those beliefs are challenged. As if a being who could conceive of all the universe would need to be defended by a few people and calling something intelligent design would make it more acceptable.
We are created with a brain with great capabilities for reasoning and problem solving. In this case I wager on the side of science.

I thought the video was very informative, although I would’ve enjoyed it more had I not missed the 8:00 showing and had to watch it at midnight.

The disclaimer that started it all basically said that there is more than one idea concerning the origin of life, and that another movement, Intelligent Design, exists as a different idea than Darwinian evolution. It offers a supplemental, not required, reading into this other idea.

Personally, I think critical thinking into the realm of science could’ve been bolstered by allowing this book to remain (I assume) in the library. By allowing the students to read into these new ideas and be aware of the situation, they could use critical thinking and known scientific knowledge to identify possible inconsistencies within the text or to determine if some parts violate the scientific method. Or, as ID suggested, address possible gaps or inconsistencies within Darwinian evolution and find methods to study them.

It would be a good way for students to actually analyze things in the scientific world that pertain to society, instead of simply regurgitating facts long enough to remember them on a test and then forget it altogether.

Off on a tangent, did I hear correctly that the plaintiffs got a sum total of over $1,000,000? Good grief!

One thing we all need to reallize is that both of these are THEORIES. Neither one can be explicitly proven. I don’t believe there is any right answer. A problem I see with intelligent design, is how does something just appear. However, evolution is extremely hard to fathom because there are gaps missing in historic records. Who knows, maybe the two go hand in hand; ever thought about that? Evolution takes place at such a large time scale, as humans, we cannot fathom that kind of time. Fossil records prove that there has been life on Earth for a very long time. These records also support the evolutionary change in time. In my opinion, evolution is just the chage over time of an organism, group of organisms, or environment. From this, each one of us is expressing evolution. It is the same thing as adapting to your environment. However, I am not trying to discredit ID. At this point, there is significant more data and evidence directed towards evolution. Maybe some day this will change. Does anybody really know? No, it is all speculation. Both theories allow for the testing of hypothes and excellent science.

This video portrayed both sides of an ongoing debate between evolution and intelligent design. Major differences between the two was indicatied in the fact that intelligent design cant be adequateley tested or repeated which is key in any scientific assumption. The video also touched on the fact that intelligent design has its basis in religion and is not considered true science.

I found this controversial debate incredibly interesting. Mostly because I was not aware of this label called “intelligent design” or that teachers were being forced to educate students with it before I watched the video. I think that the point of intelligent design is that it is not supposed to be proven, just explained. Whereas for evolution it is supposed to be proven and explained. I think that in some ways, science helps to hold up, or sort of establishes religion. What with the need for proof that Jesus did exsist, etc, etc. I really think that both theories should be brought up in a classroom as a way to teach students to think critically for themselves. It is a great tool for life.

I was unable to watch the actual show, but I did some rather extensive research on the trial and I have to admit that both sides had some very good points. However, I agree a lot with what Chris Schuler said in his comment. These are both theories and neither one can be proven. With this in mind is it really plausible to think that this debate will ever end? It basically splits our country in half based on their beliefs. If there are two major beliefs in our country and about half of the population believes in one and the second half believes in the other then is it not pretty obvious that we should at least introduce our youth to both of them? I remember talking about evolution in high school and talking about creationism in Sunday School. Learning about both sides of the story helped me to form my own beliefs. If people are not at least somewhat educated on both of these theories then they will not have a very valid opinion either way. I also read that there were many teachers who didn’t want to teach this to their class. I think these teachers need rethink what they are saying. Their job is to teach and to help young people learn. If you don’t teach them something then they will not know anything about it. The teachers are not required to teach students that either theory is right or wrong, they should just simply address that both beliefs occur. Besides that, it would probably only take one class period to cover it.

Wow this is a duzey! First thing first no where in the U.S. constitition is the words sepperation of church and state. This is mearly the verbage used from a U.S. suppream court justice in a court rulling over the 1st amendment that reeked of judical activisom. This is the real crime in my eyes. Scince is simple brainstorme over ideas establishe a study and try to establish it’s validity through testing. Testing seemed to be the judges point for his ruleing. Yet the U.S Suppream Court rulling about the removeal of creationism from the class room had littel presidence even though it should have. This was a trial heard only bey one judge that is how the system works but could use some reform. I am not saying that inteligent desine is or is not since I do feel that if a for of study is established then I feel it should be acnoledged at least. The qustion of weather or not evelution is since or not is a no brainer. I would like to ask exactly what specific religion if not all does intelegent desine support. To prove that this so called theory supports any one whitout all is absurd. I do not feel at all that the founding fathers ment that no belife be rerecognized but that no one religion be made an offical one. (keep in mind of who we were decliring our independace from) I do however feel that their veiws were bias as to the presentation of the issue. The establesh ment of what they did gather was focused only on the side of evolution becuse is was simple to obtaine. I wish that more facts presented on both sides. With over one million dollers payed, society was ripped off if you ask me.

I find the topic of evolution very interesting and I agree with Ken Miller when he said “evolution has been, is, and will reamin a topic of controversy”. Because no matter what evidence there is to support the theroy of evolution or to not support the theory people are always goin to have a different way that something should have happened. I really dont take either side of this argument, I kind of agree with both. I agree that everything in the world is here because of God but, I also agree that most natural things can be further understood through scientific exploration. I also agree with the people that say evolution is “just a theory” but, like barbara Forrest pointed out basically everything we know of and use today is or has been at some point based upon a theory and to say that it is “just a theory” and shouldnt be implemented really dosent make sense. Basically, yes things are the way they are because God created them but, if Earth’s organisms werent supposed to figure things out, adapt, and evolve to meet their environment then non of them would have been given the minds that they have.

First of all this debate can go on for ever until science proves otherwise. So from that standpoint one must look at Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and have some sort of understanding of what it is all about. A definition of a scientific theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. I believe the most important thing in this definition is that the theoretical material is capable of predicting future occurrences, and is capable of being tested through experiment, and that is pretty much all Darwin’s really was and is. There can be many future predictions based on Darwin’s theory but there are factors within themselves that evolve over time. One thing that I believe was overlooked in this debate was how and what causes things to evolve, and most importantly why. Through Darwin’s theory organisms evolve to better their population; to put it short. The most important thing to an organism is survival in their habitat and to be able to reproduce. And from that point one can look at the geological time table over the last 4.5 billion years and clearly see that the world has changed dramatically. From an organism’s perspective, if their environment changes and causes them to have dysfunctions then they must change to maintain their population or otherwise become extinct. Now I definitely believe that there was some sort of “Intelligent Design,” in my beliefs God. But I believe once he did his thing it was up to the organisms to maintain their occurrence through evolution.
All in all there will never be an end to this debate until one meets his maker! Also, this is such a harsh topic to debate because people have their beliefs and are extremely passionate about them and they will stick to them until they are 100% proven different. The judge that made the ruling on the Dover case received many death threats for goodness sake!

I didn’t get to see the program, but surfing through the website, I’m kind of sad I didn’t get to see it on television. It seems to be a fairly balanced look at the debate of evolution versus creationism.
The essence behind creationism, how I see it, is the faith that there was a creator. In most instances, it’s believed that God was the creator. God doesn’t visually exist, so it’s kind of hard to get hard-and-fast proof that he does at all. In my opinion, that’s why it’s hard to argue for creationism.
Evolution has some missing links and some big things to prove yet as well, so it’s just as far from absolute truth as creationism.
This debate is far from over. No one side will win until there is indisputable, one hundred percent real truth presented on the subject. I don’t see it happening in our lifetime, either.

I unfortunately also missed this episode of NOVA. This is a very heated topic and it seems that everyone has an opinion of some kind. Many believe that everything happened exactly as the bible says and God did create everything in 7 days. Others argue that science has proven this to be impossible and Evolution is the only possible explanation. I personally have my own balance of the two. (correct me if I am wrong on any of this) I have heard on more than one occasion that there are several major layers in the earth’s crust. In all honesty I believe that their could have been a slight typo in the bible. I also think that when the bible refers to the beginning of Adam and Even, it could be referencing the beginning of when we ceased to be animals and became “human”.

Now everything I have stated can easily be dismissed or argued away but the one thing that no scientist has yet to come close to explaining is how the universe came to be. Scientifically, something cannot come from nothing. So the universe had to come from something. This to me is the greatest proof that their truly is a GOD!

I could argue the Points of each for many many pages but it comes down what we should teach our students. I believe the answer is quite simple. We should teach both. Teach both in a way that is open to opinions so that the students themselves can develop their own opinions. I realize that the judge elected to keep religion out of schools, and I understand that he did what he had to do legally. I however do not think that it was the right decision.