Intelligent Design - Why It Needs To Be Kept Out Of High School

[dirtydonki]

& I am a toilet cleaner.

[benthemiester]

Don't change the goal post. You said teachers. I didn't say anything about Hovind because you were half right, he was a former teacher many decades ago. What your speaking of is basically human nature people sometimes exaggerate over inflate, this happens on both sides of the table. That is why empirical evidence is always king and propositions are just that, propositions.

[wavepsychic]

Right on! We really need to teach kids critical thinking skills. Most people seem to be unable to use critical thinking skills. This is also the fault of those who cling to Scientific conclusions (Theories) religiously. Such as the Big Bangers. Absolutely proven? There are other conclusions you can make using the facts & no god isn't necessary nor is the Big Bang.

[benthemiester]

This is a bunch of bull. If u are a teacher who openly question evolution you may get fired or be asked to resign. If you're a scientist who questions evolution u may lose your carreer or become a black balled persona non grata and end up with no tenure or grant money. Kids will grow up and formulate their own opinions the way we all do. They are not stupid. If anyone wants examples of people getting thrown under the bus just let me know. I'm speaking of critique of the theory not theology.

[BalthazzarCH]

ehm.. the problem is that intelligent design teachers don't actually teach science, they make up a story and then brag about it with dishonesty or misinformation and make their opiinion look valid.

But what they don't do is provide peer reviewed evidence (something every other scientific theory has)

teaching creationism is about as scientific is as teaching that the earth stands on pillars. ther is no evidence for it but it is mentioned in the bible. Sorry but ID is theology and nothing else.

[benthemiester]

Who is they? Give me an example. I have never heard the term, intelligent design teacher. Are you speaking of science teachers who believe in intelligent design? again, give a name, be specific. Those are serious charges. Galileo wrote many papers concerning the the God Head and design in the universe. Newton used words like Master Architect. Should we call them dishonest also? Telic vs naturalism thought had been around for at least 2000 years before they were born.

[BalthazzarCH]

nope i mean people who deliberately deny evidence that contradicts their religious belief. I don't have that many names in my mind atm. (just kent hovind pops up, but there are more), but the lobby is quite big in the US, one of the most famous orginisations is the "Discovery institute" or the book "of people and pandas" which was designed as an evolution denieing schoolbook.

for more information just type "creationism" in the youtube searchbar. you'll find a lot.

[benthemiester]

You still haven't been clear on what stories are being made up. Your using generalization like, they this, and they that. You offer no specifics. Hovind is a YEC Not an IDer who doesn't believe in teaching creationism in public school and has said so numerous times. Most people just want the truth to be taught, the good and bad, not just white washed sanitized propaganda. Questions are now being asked that Neo Darwinist don't have answers for. This is not the fault of religion.

[BalthazzarCH]

creationism and intelligent design is exactly the same with the difference that the term "god" has been replaced with "designer" and there are no open questions on the side of scientists. All there is are false claims from the IDots who make up strawman or just stupid claims to debunk them.. like "evolution has no explaination for the origin of life" and stuff like that... i really don't know what exaples you want to dicuss withing a 500 charset limit. go to a real school.

[BalthazzarCH]

a few more names: kirk cameron, Ray comfort, Ben Stein...

state some questions that "Neo Darwinist don't have answers for" (lol "neo darwinists", what a load of bull)

[benthemiester]

How about noble winning professors like co discoverer of the DNA molecule James Watson who a couple of years ago stated that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, or a more recently a study by Charles Murray who says blacks due to genetics were less intelligent than whites. Would you say they were telling the truth or making up stories. As a native American I find it a little interesting that evolutionist are not defending these men and there findings. Is it too hot of an issue?

[BalthazzarCH]

so, there are scientists who happens to be a fucking racists... i don't think that any human race is any more or less intelligent that an other one. Especially from a genetic point of view the differences in our genes are so small it's just ridiulous to make such a generalising statement.

But what does one fricking asholes opinion have to do with the topic of evolution vs. creationism? there are thousands of scientists in this world and none of those concerning with biology doubt evolution.

[BalthazzarCH]

p.s. i've looked up those guys the biologist had to stand down. and the other guy was a political scientists... these are the same guys who look for scientific explainaition why smokeing should e considered healthy. Those are not trust wothy eighter.

[benthemiester]

James Watson has never been know to affiliate with racist. He said he bases his opinions on science not personnel hatred. Charles Murray in the book The Bell Curve uses evolutionary methodology to state the same. Darwin believed blacks and women were less evolved and inferior stock with limited intelligence, and he wasn't a racist he hated the way slaves were treated and wrote about it many times.This is evolutions little trade secret that is never discussed. If you want more proof, hit me back.

[BalthazzarCH]

darwin did know shit about genetics, because they wheren't discovered at the time he lived... We still don't know very much how xactly the brain works. All mankind know is that the ratio of bodysize and brainsize is an indicator of possible intelligence. I highly doubt that thosw two people really had a profound reason to say such things... nor did i ever hear from any other of the thousands of biologists anything alike. This is still no reason why creationism should be told.

[benthemiester]

Gregory Mendel was contemporary of Charles Darwin and published and presented his work on genetics to the top scientist in Europe in 1860 and published it a short time latter. At that time Darwin published his debunked and false theory called pangenesis. Darwin was wrong. To say they weren't discovered at the time he lived is a little odd. Please research before you comment. Why would u want to embarrass yourself. Its better to research even if it takes a little more time.

[BalthazzarCH]

yeah they discovered the cells nukleus.. that had no clue what they found at this time.

[BalthazzarCH]

evolution has never been debunked not one of the creationists claims ever withstood any scientific research. The only thing that changed since darwin was that the way it worked became more detailed. Darwin didn't have that many fossils, we werent able to to geneology research and we didn't know that much about genetics at all. But everything we know now still supoorts the basic idea of small changes over time. due to mutation and natural selection.

[benthemiester]

Baltazar please read carefully, Darwin's theory of Pangenesis that came out shortly after Mendel presented his work, was debunked by his own cousin Francis Galton 1869-1871. I told you to research but your not listening. Your making me feel bad for you. If English is your second language then my apologies.

[BalthazzarCH]

english is my third language.. sorry.

yep i overread that you where talking about pangenesis.. sorry

[benthemiester]

No problem I understand... habla usted espanol?

[BalthazzarCH]

newton was a alchemist, he tried to find gold in the most ridicioulus places. But he also defined the laws of gravity... even if he would've been a child molesterer or something worse. The laws of gravity are still true anyway. Evolution isn't about glorifiing a certain person. it's about describing an observed effect.

[benthemiester]

Newton was a Christian, alchemist and a Freemason who also believed in sacred geometry. His world and spiritual views were steeped in metaphysics, and it did not interfere with his scientific observations. Yes we are in agreement. Ground breaking science can be accomplished by people in spite of their world views. Mendel was a Christian monk.

[xiker12]

Hey Terrarising, i think i agree with you, but i don't really know what they teach (or would teach) in this Intelligent Design. i live in spain, and we don't have such a subject.first i though it could be something related to desing, such as grafhic desing or, but i guess it isn't :p could you explain me what's that about, short and clearly? :p is that a kind of religion class or?

thanks anyway.

[BalthazzarCH]

it is a movement in america of Religious people who don't like it that science doesn't accord religious beliefs in their theories. look up "thunderf00t" and wath the series about creationism to get an idea what it is.

[godlessmessiah]

5 stars

[47f0]

Intelligent Design's glaring failure is quite simple. It proposes to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of complex phenomenon with something even more complex. You can't explain the watch on the beach without an intelligent watch maker? Well that's just freaking great. Now you've introduced something even more complex that requires explanation - the watch maker.

If, on the other hand, the watch is capable of reproduction with variation, there are much simpler, and more practical explanations.

[Equestions]

Terra - I'm not aware of any laws that actually prohibit the teaching of ID in schools. What usually happens is if a teacher tries to teach ID, and the word gets out that they are, then the ACLU files a lawsuit against them. The school, not being able to pay for a lawyer, either tells the teacher to stop or fires them to prevent the lawsuit. Creationists don't have to use 'tricks' to get the stuff into the classroom. The atheists have to use 'tricks' to keep it out.

[terrarising]

When a teacher tries to teach ID, they are in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

In the case of Aguilard Vs. Louisiana, it was declared unconstituational to teach Creationism alongside Evolution.

ID, as stated in the Kitzmiller V. Dover trial in Pennsylvania, is thinly disguised religion and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Those are the laws that prohibit ID from being taught in high school biology.

Continued below...

[terrarising]

Unfortunately, the Kitzmiller decision does not affect the other 49 states, and it is in states like Texas, where the state board is trying to push ID into classrooms, that this is still being fought.

As far as the creationists' not using tricks, by bypassing the legitimate scientific method of hypothesis, testing and review by peers, they are trying to get their conclusions taught alongside verified scientific principles as fact or as an equivalent.

That is one big trick, IMODO.

[Equestions]

I think the problem lies with "verified scientific principles". I am unaware of any "verified scientific principles" that have explained where the elements and matter came from for the big bang or exactly how the first life got started here on earth. "Ideas" of how this all happened is not actual science and if that's allowed then why not ID if we're just throwing around 'ideas' of things?

[terrarising]

Those have nothing to do with Evolution.

The beginnings of life is Abiogenesis and Evolution Theory/Study doesn't have offer an opinion on that. What Evolution does say is "Here's life and here's how it changes over time."

The Big Bang is Physics, Cosmology and/or Astrology, not Evolution.

[Equestions]

But life has to have a base to start from. If it hasn't been explained how life first got here on Earth then why 'assume' it just did and teach ONLY the evo aspect from that point forward? Why don't we 'assume' that maybe life arrived here on Earth from an intelligent designer like God or martians or some other outside life forms? There is no testable or observable evidence for one kind of animal changing into another so why assume that's the only way it could have happened?

[47f0]

Your crucial flaw is in the role of assumptions. Does science make assumptions? In the words of one of my favorite creationists, "You Betcha". The difference is where assumption comes into play in the process. Science starts with observable evidence, then makes assumptions based on the evidence. Those assumptions are then battered, modified, or junked based on more tests and evidence.

ID starts with an (ridiculous) assumption, then batters the evidence to fit.

[benthemiester]

How about you T, what do you think?

[Equestions]

All of the teachers I've asked in my state say that they are free to discuss ID in their classrooms....maybe that's not the case from a legal aspect. Interesting. Thanks for the info on that.

[terrarising]

You're quite welcome.

[JackBlair2]

OMG, if anything, keep THIS guy away from high school kids.

[leporidus]

What are you afraid of, JackBlair2?

[JackBlair2]

What's this guy talking about? He says "science teaches people to question everything." Aren't ID theorists doing exactly that?

Why shouldn't high school students be made aware of "controversies"? He says that they will become "confused." No, they will learn to "think critically," like this guy says. "They have enough on their plate." That's nonsense. The more that they have on their plate, the smarter they will become.

[Rambleale]

Jack' to teach the controversy first you need a controversy.

[JackBlair2]

If there is no controversy, why is everyone freaking out about this?

[Stegocephalian]

"If there is no controversy, why is everyone freaking out about this? "

1. Because people don't understand how science works.

2. There's money to be made, and political influence to be had in rallying people behind a cause, whether or not it is a justified one.

3. People tend to believe in the god of the gaps, and feel that science explaining things threatens their faith. This is enforced by evangelical leaders and pastors spreading false propaganda...

[Stegocephalian]

...There is no controversy over this in the scientific arena - evolution has long since been accepted on a ridiculously excessive and total overkill mountains of evidence. The controversy exists only among the lay public, who don't have any idea of the nature and amount of evidence on which the theory stands, and where evangelical leaders are eager to keep it that way.

[JackBlair2]

As I posted before, ID is not being taught in public schools.

[Stegocephalian]

"As I posted before, ID is not being taught in public schools. "

That reply has no relevance at all to what you were replying to - I was answering your question "If there is no controversy, why is everyone freaking about about this?" - not somehow contesting the fact that ID is not being taught in the schools. In my other comments to you, I showed why it is RIGHT and FAIR that ID - or for that matter any idea that hasn't gone through the process of scientific debate - is not taught in schools

[Rambleale]

Many people believe that ToE can not be true because it contradicts the creation myth of their religion.

Any controversy is religious and it seems political but nothing to do with the science.

Why are scientists, teachers, rational people etc 'freaking out' over this, oh I dunno maybe we have something against backsliding into the dark ages. We know that 'strengths and weaknesses' or 'teach the controversy' are nothing of the kind, they are fronts, shams, con-jobs and shenanigans.

[Equestions]

Scientists aren't 'freaking out' over this because what they want to be taught is being taught. 100 years ago it was the evo's who were 'freaking out' because God was being taught in the schools and not evolution. Why petition for something when it's already the way you want it to be? That doesn't make any sense at all.

[lambedan]

Every minute you teach of intelligent design is one less minute of teaching real science. There is a set amount of class time per semester.

Teachers should even be picky on what non controversial stuff to teach. It bugs me when I have a teacher who is spending too much time on particular topic that won't be as rewarding as other topics in the subject.

[masana2007]

Let's allow the proposition of ID, in which everything was designed by something, or someone. Wouldn't the "designer" be designed by something or someone as well? And where does that lead us? Pure imagination and no proofs. That's why ID is missing out the point, and that is why it's not necessary to be teached in schools. Creationists and ID believers just can't accept the true human nature that we are semi-civilized beasts, with automatic guns and baseball caps.

[JackBlair2]

It's not being teached in schools.

[terrarising]

That is true, ID is not being TAUGHT in schools at the moment. The Creationists want to change that, and it is the change we need to fight.

What the ID movement wants instead of doing the proper method of examination and research that science teaches, they want the backdoor into the classroom through more underhanded, lawyerly tactics.

[JackBlair2]

But they've been knocked down in court. Why do we need to "fight" them?

Why does this battle have to include children all the time? Shouldn't we fight to have all the IDers silenced, their books banned, from bookstores and libraries, their websites shut down?

That would be a real "fight." It's very unmanly to fight this only on the public school front.

Anyway, as we have discussed, it's NOT being taught.

[Stegocephalian]

"But they've been knocked down in court. Why do we need to "fight" them?"

Because they keep slightly modifying their strategies, inventing new terminology for old concepts that were discredited in court, and then peddling them to school boards all over again under new guises - creating more law suits to undo their latest salvo of attempts to sneak in their claims into the classroom. It is an ongoing battle.

[Stegocephalian]

"Shouldn't we fight to have all the IDers silenced, their books banned, from bookstores and libraries, their websites shut down?"

Absolutely not! Speech in the public arena isn't restricted, and shouldn't be restricted - it falls under free speech, and is, and must remain protected; even when the opinions they express are demonstrably fallacious.

Science classrooms aren't free-speech areas, but their purpose is to teach science, not ideology or religion. Thus ideas that make it to...

[Stegocephalian]

...must run the gountlet of proper peer reviewed science.

[JackBlair2]

What is "proper peer reviewed science"?

[JackBlair2]

It's only a "battle" to those with vested political and ideological interests.

[Stegocephalian]

It is no such thing! How can you, when you need to ask what peer reviewed science is, then claim to KNOW that it is some politically and ideologically motivated institution?

That claim is contradicted by the very fact of theories getting overturned and replaced by new theories, as a standard observation of science - there are good examples of even ideas that were rejected by the vast majority as highly unlikely at best, having gained, through predictions and empirical confirmation, the...

[Stegocephalian]

...acceptance of mainstream science! If peer review were as you say, then how do you explain the overwhelming, in-your-face practical success of science? The computer in front of you is testament to the effectiveness and functionality of peer review, as is all of the modern comforts around you. If peer review were nothing but a politically minded organization intent on preserving it's dogma, then where do it's revolutions come from?...

[Stegocephalian]

...All scientifically accepted ideas began as underdogs, and forced their way to acceptance through sheer predictive power, of empirically testable results.

Peer review is grounded on empiricism, and an experiment will turn out how it will turn out, no matter what your ideology. The wackiest ideas (like cold fusion), still manage to get published in peer reviewed journals; this is just the first step of becoming accepted science, and if you are genuine, and not using easily, demonstrably...

[Stegocephalian]

...false claims about empirically observable facts, if you further play by the rules and produce testable predictions from your ideas, then it really does not matter what ideology your ideas come from, you can get published. The problem with ID is that it produces no truly testable predictions at all, is not willing to put it's conclusions on the line, risking being empirically disproved. ID takes it's conclusions as an absolute, that cannot and will not be risked. That is why it's not science.

[Stegocephalian]

JackBlair2 - "Why shouldn't high school students be made aware of "controversies"?"

They should! When those controversies are genuine scientific controversies that have two or more sides arguing the merits of different theories in the scientific arena of peer reviewed journals - that is the arena where science is MADE, schools are where those results are TAUGHT. The ID movement's claims are only ever presented to laymen without the background knowledge to be able to recognize good arguments...

[Stegocephalian]

...from bad ones, without the necessary knowledge of what is even claimed by the theory they oppose.

If they HAD a case, and actually had the sort of good evidence, and empirically testable predictions for their ideas, they could debate the issue where science is debated - in the scientific arena, obeying the controls that prevent you from getting away with false claims and shoddy arguments - not the public arena, where they've always exclusively concentrated their efforts.

[Equestions]

Show me 'empirically testable predictions and evidence' for how the elements in the universe came to be. It is 'assumed' by science that stuff like hydrogen and helium were just always here when the big bang happened but they don't know that for sure.What about the heavier elements? So without this 'evidence' to back it up why is it allowed to be taught in the schools? It doesn't fit your criteria of what should be allowed so why can they teach THAT but not ID?

[Stegocephalian]

Equestions - I think you could use a basic primer on the Big Bang theory, and on the history of our Universe as science understands it today. Big bang theory certainly does not assume that "hydrogen and helium were just always there", and the origin of heavy elements is a later development - they were produced in the first generation of stars by the way of fusion, and ejected in the violent deaths of those stars. There's good evidence for these claims, but it doesn't yield to explanations in...

[Stegocephalian]

500 char snippets. If you are interested, I'm sure you can find good videos even here on YouTube to explain the evidence.

[Stegocephalian]

Just now thought of a good series on YouTube to recommend - the "Made Easy" series by potholer54. It begins explaining what science has discovered (and how) about the history of our world, from the Big Bang to our own evolution. Very much worth watching.

[Equestions]

I have read and watched a lot about the big bang and there is some interesting stuff I will agree but a lot of what's still contained in the theory are just 'ideas' and not proven so why teach it? Until it's all been proven by testable and observable ways don't teach it! Leave it out of the schools! If they want to explain how the universe was started to kids then show all the ways it could have been done and not just one way they 'think' it 'could' have happened. See my point?

[47f0]

ORLY? Hey, why teach gravity? Seriously. Not one single physicist out there knows how gravity works. We can observe the effects of gravity. We can test the existence of gravity. But as to "how it could have been done", we've pretty much got empty pockets at the current level of quantum physics - we still have no GUT.

So why teach it? Because it turns out to be useful in the real world. As does evolution.

[Equestions]

I hate the whole Why teach gravity? thing. You should stop repeating everyone else. I love gravity. Stand in front of a student, drop a ball, it falls. Gravity at work. Testable and observable right-there-in-your-face-scien­ce. Perfect. Now, take some mass the size of a period and create a universe out of it. Take some soup and strike it with lightning and create life. Show me a single celled organism change into a multi cellular organism. (cont)

[Equestions]

Now, scream god of the gaps at me all you want but until you can prove this stuff dont put this junk in the textbooks and call it science. Youre assuming all of this stuff happened because it fits your worldview but its not real science. Show the kids how earthquakes happen or why the moon goes around the earth. Real science. Not this "we refuse to believe in a higher power so we'll push our beliefs on you and play the 'science' card stuff. That's not fair to anyone.

[47f0]

It's clear in multiple and manifest ways that you have no slight clue of how science works. Science offers no "proofs". Ever. You must be thinking of geometry. And I'll bet you do hate the example of not teaching gravity - but the brutal truth is that we have a far better understanding of how evolution works than we do of how gravity works.

So why do you attack evolution? Because it conflicts with your silly book of fairy tales.

[Equestions]

I don't 'attack' it anymore than you 'attack' the Bible. I just don't see the evidence to prove it's true. You look at whale evolution and totally see how it could have happened because that's what you WANT to see. I look at it and all I see are some bones put in an order and sold off as 'proof' of whale evolution. No one ever saw these creatures evolve into anything and yet you all believe it happened based on some nostril hole positions and leg joint differences. (cont)

[Equestions]

You'll now say 'I just don't understand evolution' which is the biggest evo cop out of them all. I can take a whole bunch of bones and arrange the animals in such a way that it looks like anything turned into anything and if I were a 40 year biologists you'd believe anything I told you because you wouldn't know any better and you WANT evo to be true. Take the bones for what they are. Is it really rational to believe those animals turned into a whale?

[Stegocephalian]

Equestions - you need to look into transitional fossils a bit more; questions like what makes a fossil transitional (what is required for such a judgment). I recommend the transitional fossil playlist by Donexodus2.

Briefly - you simply cannot do what you say, "take a whole bunch of bones and arrange the animals in such a way that it looks like anything turned to anything" - because a transitional fossil will have, simultaneously, many transitional features in the same fossil, in between two..

[Stegocephalian]

...groups - for example, for a fossil to be a transitional between whales and land mammals, it has to not only show a change in body shape, reduction of limbs and formation of flippers, but ALSO some change between the land-mammal type inner ear and a sea-mammal type inner ear.

Paleontologists don't just randomly designate some fossil transitional based on superficial appearances. Further, the theory of evolution does predict specific transitionals, and not others - it couldn't HANDLE...

[Stegocephalian]

...others. So fossils of reptilian-bird transitions with feathers, and with teeth are expected, because birds evolved from reptilian ancestors - but a mammal with feathers would be devastating to evolutionary theory, as would a mammal with hollow bones. Birds have hollow bones, so their reptilian ancestors are predicted to have this trait - mammals are all solid boned, even bats, though they'd benefit from the lighter hollow bones, and all birds are hollow boned, even large flightless birds.

[atechworld]

@Stegocephalian "all birds are hollow boned"

Kiwis have mammalian bones.

[Tony2438]

so even if evolution was not right which by the why each time yours bunch of morons keep putting up for test and the evidence became s stronger for evolution. that dose not mean a book made by bronze age people is the alternative because when you put that up for test well need I say more.

[Stegocephalian]

Equestions, I would see your point if what you were saying were true - that what the Big Bang theory amounted to was only untestable ideas. This is not the case, however - The Big Bang theory makes specific predictions, for example, predicting the cosmic microwave background radiation (and details regarding it), predictions confirmed in1964. Further, the theory predicts the abundances of light elements in the universe; predictions that closely match observation.

[Equestions]

Were the predictions really made before the observations or were they made after the observation? It's very easy to find something that was previously unknown and then afterwards say "Hey. That's just what the evolutionary model would predict!" That just comes down to the discoverer seeing what they want to see to fit their worldview. That's still not science. The big bang is simply the best model they have right now but if something better came along they'd scrap BB in a heartbeat. (cont)

[Equestions]

Scientists will agree now that the universe must have had a beginning. Most of them think the universe started as a small dot roughly the size of a period on a page (or smaller). How is that testable or observable? How can one really think the entire universe came from something smaller than a period? Finding radiation in space in no way proves it all started as a period. How can you call that science? The idea that we can observe the universe is still expanding and radiation and blah blah (cont

[Equestions]

only leads that scientist to believe it all started as a dot. Why? Because the idea of a God or ID has NO place in that person's worldview so he's going to interpret the data as HE wants to see it. Still not science. These 'theories' have many holes in them but instead of waiting until they can explain those those holes scientifically they put it in the textbooks and they scream at ID'ers with 'god of the gaps' excuse to hide the fact they can't explain the holes through science See the problem?

[47f0]

Yeah, Equestions, I see the problem. You're projecting. You start with an assumption, and project that fatal flaw onto everyone else. Again, assumptions in science come AFTER the evidence. In your world view, the assumptions are first, middle and last. Your world view had gods throwing lightning bolts, cursing people with disease, and punishing evil people who didn't appease the volcano god.

[Stegocephalian]

Equestions (just posted this message, YouTube apparently lost it, so I need to rewrite)

It is very clear from your responses thus far, that you haven't really looked into what Big Bang theory is, and on what it is grounded, not enough to be in a position to level accurate criticism against it. First, and foremost, the BB theory, nor any other theory in science, says nothing whatsoever about whether or not there is a god or gods - and there are plenty of cosmologists who ARE theists, and find...

[Stegocephalian]

...the BB theory in no way even mildly challenging to their beliefs - indeed many Christians who are NOT the kind that takes the Biblical creation story as a literal history of some sort, see the BB theory as AFFIRMING to their faith, not contradictory.

So no, certainly I do not see your point, and think that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

Did the Big Bang theory make predictions that were only later confirmed? YES, it most definitely did! The cosmic background radiation...

[Stegocephalian]

...was unknowingly discovered by a team of radio astronomers, who thought the constant background disturbance was a fault in their equipment, and spent a lot of time and effort trying to track it down. Only later did they discover that there was new theory that predicted a cosmic background radiation perfectly matching their "disturbance", and put 1 and 1 together. The observation further that led to the Big Bang theory was the fact that the further an object is from us, the more it's light is..

[Stegocephalian]

...redshifted - this is explained by expansion - everything is flying away from everything else. Wind the clock backwards, and you've got everything coming back together. The elements that formed in the early stages of the Big Bang would have consisted of light elements, and their abundance can be predicted from the calculations of the theory - these are not arbitrary values that could be massaged in somehow after the fact. In fact, as late as 2002, I remember a report of an confirmation of...

[Stegocephalian]

...a prediction of the big bang theory, so it has received even new support from later confirmations of prediction.

Does this mean that Big Bang is set in stone? NO, of course not, but it does mean that if there is something to replace it, that something has to not only predict things Big Bang doesn't predict, and then empirically verify them, but it has to be able to account for the predictive power of the BB theory it's replacing. This is a tall order indeed.

[Equestions]

This is a great conversation and we could go on for hours about this but let me just ask you this.

1. Do you think it's possible that the BB started as small as a period and created all the space, time, and matter we have now in the universe?

2. Based on your studies of the BB do you think it has enough proof to show, with reasonable certainty, that it had everything it needed to create such a vast universe?

3. Does the BB theory explain where the first bit of energy came from to start the BB

[Stegocephalian]

1 - I do not see why not; that is perfectly consistent with what we know of physics today. That is not to say that I believe it MUST have happened this way - all that the evidence seems to point to is that at some point in the past the visible universe was very compressed. Modern cosmology includes many models that accept the Big Bang, but do not consider it "the first" event in any ultimate way - it is just the first event we can get any sort of evidence of... at least currently it's the limit.

[Stegocephalian]

2. If it happened, then obviously it DID have enough energy to result in the universe. The evidence seems to point to it having happened.

3. No - the BB theory explains the history of the universe back to the point when the Universe was compressed to that tiny point, it does not address the question of how that point came to be. There ARE other theories that attempt to do just that, including multi-verse theories related to string theory and M-theory, which offer various alternatives...

[Stegocephalian]

...most excitingly, some of these hypotheses make predictions that we may very soon be in a position to test - with the LHC finally getting going (hopefully) this fall, it is possible that it's observations may provide evidence for some of these theories. Multiverse theories also make some very difficult - but not impossible - to verify predictions about future observations, and I hope (and expect) that I'll live to see some of those predictions tested.

[47f0]

Bingo. You win a cookie. Yes, we may absolutely scrap BB tomorrow. That's exactly correct - and that's why science keeps improving. You twits who need some absolute knowledge handed down by a bunch of bronze-age desert con-artists can never change. It would defy the sacred word. Isaac Newton was wrong. Einstein provided a better theory, which fits observable evidence. But do you attack gravity because of that? Heck no, because your magic book says nothing on the subject.

[EvolvedAtheist]

The only controversy is the fuss made by religionists to try to get their social agendas around the Constitution. US educational results are bad enough!

I agree that high school kids are mostly not ready to distinguish between fact and religion (not quite what you said, TR).

It might be worth teaching "intelligent design theory" at the university level. But only to illustrate fallacious logic in philosophy classes, or to stimulate interest in the relevant, genuine science.

[dprjones]

Good video.

5*'s

Thank you.

[terrarising]

Thank you, DPR, and thank you everyone else :)

[Surathan]

Holy Crap! its TerraRising!

[shaybshay]

I think it was Sam Harris who said, "should we teach astrology along side astronomy, should we teach alchemy along side chemistry?"

[SauceNMeatballs]

Very good point!

Science=Questioning Things

ID=Blind Faith

"Sanitation, expiration date, Question everything!

Or Shut up and be a victim of authority!"

Good job TerraRising.

Ps. Where did you come up with your name from? Is it Terra like the Earth?

[terrarising]

I'm going to create a "FAQs of TerraRising " video when I reach 100 subs and I'll answer that question then.

But no, it's not because of the earth.

[SauceNMeatballs]

Alright, looking forward to it!