Fossil fish nixes Intelligent Design

[GT WT]

The Link

Flatfishes are morphologically asymetrical as adults. This article in National Geographic discusses CT scan examinations of fossil flatfish morphology. Lo and behold, intermediate forms are described. These forms are easily explained using the evolutionary paradigm. Creationism, on the other hand, has a serious issue with intermediate forms.

The intelligent design proponent (aka, Creationist) has always grasped at gaps (i.e., straws) in biological knowledge. The gaps are becoming smaller & smaller. No wonder that so many creationists have abandoned arguing ID in favor of attacking climate science.

 

[Horn-N-LA]

Would love to prove that. Get your name in the National Geographic.

 

[zosostein]

disproving intelligent design is as impossible (and really the same thing i believe) as disproving the existence of god(s)

i'm not a proponent of ID, but saying this "nixes intelligent design" is a stretch imo

 

[ProdigalHorn]

When they find the intermediary form which shows the evolution between actual distinct species, then you could at least make that argument. I don't think the argument has ever been that no species has ever changed some of its characteristics.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

Anyone who thinks Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing doesn't understand either.

 

[Coelacanth]

The GT WT doth protest too much.

 

[HornsInTheHouse]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[theropods]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Gone To Texas]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Steinbeck]

I loved the "missing link" reference on that Nova piece, even though anybody who really thinks there's no link between the two is a spin artist at best.

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[MirrOlure]

I've never understood the "A-HA!" "Gotcha" nature of this so-called "argument" between evolutionists, creationits, IDists, whatever....
Who really give a ****?

Nobody knows for sure what really happened, so why can't we just be happy reading and learning about the various theories and methodologies involved in trying to solve the mystery?

 

[Red Five]

Mirr, got kids? Think they should be taught creationism in science class? Because that's the goal here.

 

[MirrOlure]

I do.

They go to the same private (yes, Christian) school I went to, that teaches "sound science".

It also has classes where students study (gasp!) OTHER RELIGIONS!

We studied Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism........what they believe and how they got there.

So no....I wouldn't have a problem if as part of their science cirriculum, they were taught "here's what some poeple believe".

And for the record........I have equal disdain for the folks who want "their" version to be crammed down peoples' throats, to the exclusion of any other version. As I said, neither the scientific community nor the religious community knows for sure "what happened".

I'm more interested in my children learning about methodology, process, etc. that what supposed "facts" they actually learn.

 

[LHB_SOB]

Hemingway called people that insist on ramming evolution down everyone's throat as "Monkey Missionaries."

 

[Red Five]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[notreally]

what do the schools in the middle east teach? i am thinking that, other than Americans and their new ultra religious right, that would probably be the only other region that would teach something as ridiculous as ID. in fact, i bet they don't even try to mask it with some ******** scientific term like ID.

 

[Fried JJ Pickles]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[MirrOlure]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[SubliminalHorn]

How can you apply the scientific method to ID, Mirr?

 

[MirrOlure]

First of all, I'm not advocating "teaching" it in the context of indoctrination. Let's get that straight. But in the context of a "science" class, you go through the whole hypothesis, prediction, observation, etc.

Then (perhaps getting into philosopy a bit) the concept of "belief/faith" comes into play. You teach that in some fields, the experimentor allows their personal belief or faith influence the result of their application of the scientific method.

Something like that........

 

[Red Five]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[MirrOlure]

I can't argue the finer points of ID / Creationsim, because I haven't studied either in thier modern incarnations.

I was never taught, nor did I ever study anything beyond "and on the third day, God created the earth........"

I guess to some, "science" is obviously a sacred cow. I'm anything but a scientiest, so I don't necessarily hold it in such high esteem. Don't get me wrong, I respect and appreciate science.

However, I've personally always been more attuned to the philosophy of various subjects, and more intrigued by the philosophies that have influenced science over the course of time.



Whether it is taught as "science" or "philosphy" , I just don't get why so many people are afraid for the concept to be introduced to students. That's all I've got on this subject.

 

[crash_davis]

anyone who knows anything knows that the earth is only 6000 years old. any fossil evidence showing the contrary is just a test by an insecure god to test your faith, or something like that.

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BattleshipTexas]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Red Five]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[I_Live_In_OK]

In reply to:

---

---