What if...?

[Styx87]

Okay, let's say hypothetically that pivotal evidence is unearthed supporting Intelligent Design. Let's say we uncover the fossil of some kind of Chimera that can't be taxonomically categorized in any one single group. Something along the lines of an Arthropod with a spine, tentacles, three inner ear bones, feathers and gills. Let's also say we have some if it's DNA and after sequencing it we get something along the lines of this...

Synthetic Cell

Yup, we find a clear message in it's DNA that simply reads... "I did not Evolve! I was Created!" and that's it. (Cause that's about what it would take).

So now ID, has equal footing with Evolution. Remember Evolution isn't dead cause we still have all that evidence for it, but now we have this too. Let's say now that people propose that ID be taught in school as an alternative theory and it passes this time.

What do you propose the curriculum should be?

Bearing in mind that to infer a supernatural creator or imply religion at any level, at any time would have it thrown out once again on the grounds that it violates the 1st and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.

(assume that we're talking about schools in the United States for the sake of argument)

 

[Jamin4422]

we find a clear message in it's DNA

Yes, DNA is a clear message for Creationism. DNA is the language of life and the language of God. God spoke and said let their be life and the DNA went forth and there was life. Just as God said.

Gen 1:3And God 430 said559 , Let there be 1961 light 216: and there was light 216.

1) to say, speak, utter[/font]
a) (Qal) to say, to answer, to say in one's heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend
c) (Hithpael) to boast, to act proudly
d) (Hiphil) to avow, to avouch​

 

[AECellini]

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos would go nuts.

 

[Styx87]

Yes, DNA is a clear message for Creationism. DNA is the language of life and the language of God. God spoke and said let their be life and the DNA went forth and there was life. Just as God said.

Gen 1:3And God 430 said559 , Let there be 1961 light 216: and there was light 216.

1) to say, speak, utter[/font]
a) (Qal) to say, to answer, to say in one's heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend
c) (Hithpael) to boast, to act proudly
d) (Hiphil) to avow, to avouch​

You're not answering the question. We don't find messages in DNA that infer design. They're not organized by prime numbers, they can't be decoded to say anything and they don't infer a designer.

In the op is a link to a case when a definite designer designed an organism with a decipherable code in it's DNA that actually says...

Crack the code and you can read the messages, but as a hint, Venter revealed the quotations: "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life," from James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man; "See things not as they are but as they might be," which comes from American Prometheus, a biography of nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer; and Richard Feynman's famous words: "What I cannot build I cannot understand."

So, go back and read the OP again please. Thank you

 

[SkyWriting]

Bearing in mind that to infer a supernatural creator or imply religion at any level, at any time would have it thrown out once again on the grounds that it violates the 1st and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.

There is no problem teaching that Christian religions are monotheistic and a majority of them declare that our biological environment shows evidence of intelligent design. When taught in a secular format.

First Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/14th amendment

 

[SkyWriting]

Okay, let's say hypothetically that pivotal evidence is unearthed supporting Intelligent Design. Let's say we uncover the fossil of some kind of Chimera that can't be taxonomically categorized in any one single group. Something along the lines of an Arthropod with a spine, tentacles, three inner ear bones, feathers and gills. Let's also say we have some if it's DNA and after sequencing it we get something along the lines of this...Yup, we find a clear message in it's DNA that simply reads... "I did not Evolve! I was Created!" and that's it. (Cause that's about what it would take).So now ID, has equal footing with Evolution. Remember Evolution isn't dead cause we still have all that evidence for it, but now we have this too. Let's say now that people propose that ID be taught in school as an alternative theory and it passes this time.

What do you propose the curriculum should be?

I've changed my answer. You've given that the procedure is a reproducible event. The words you've described are now a scientifically verifiable piece of data. A number of theories would result, the most likely being that Humans were Created by intelligent sources. The words could include the entire book of Genesis. ID would be the leading scientific theory, but it wouldn't include anything supernatural.
Nothing would change.

 

[Jro]

I'd say that we should teach it similarly to the way we teach epigenetics - as an incredibly interesting field that we don't know enough about to come to meaningful conclusions about its larger role in the diversification of life. So mention it to undergraduates and have focussed graduate courses that examine research conducted and methodology for performing further research.

 

[CabVet]

Okay, let's say hypothetically that pivotal evidence is unearthed supporting Intelligent Design. Let's say we uncover the fossil of some kind of Chimera that can't be taxonomically categorized in any one single group. Something along the lines of an Arthropod with a spine, tentacles, three inner ear bones, feathers and gills.

Yeah, you can go back to me after all that happens. And when it does you still have to convince me it was really ID (I really don't see how an arthropod with a spine would support ID, since that is a pretty dumb design). Until then we keep teaching evolution.

 

[Jamin4422]

We don't find messages in DNA that infer design.

Creationists clearly see design. If you do not see design, then your not a Creationist. Everyone has a choice to make.

What do you propose the curriculum should be?

To guess at that is trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. The curriculum is based on the soup of the day and the flavor of the week. Whatever that happens to be at that point in time. God never changes. The Laws of physics never change. But Science seems to be in a constant state of change.

 

[AV1611VET]

Intelligent Design can take a hike.

Either teach that the God of the Bible created the universe, or don't teach anything at all.

Creationism, not Intelligent Design, should be taught in history class, not science class.

 

[Styx87]

@SkyWriting: Actually there is a problem with it. You can teach about religion in general or about the development of theology in general but to teach in a way that promotes one over any other or as being more valid than any other is illegal. After all, you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

@Jro: Good Answer .

@CabVet: That was the point about the DNA. This creature is fossilized so it's not modern and there's a clear message in it's DNA that when deciphered (and likely translated) says "I did not Evolve! I was Created!". This would be an animal outside of Evolution... it would not invalidate evolution.

@Jamin4422: People see patterns in chicken bones when spread on a table too. Is that proof of the Pagan gods or that Voodoo practices are valid? Maybe we should teach those too according to your logic... maybe we should teach them in medicine.

@AV1611VET: The first and oldest religious texts are those of the Egyptians (2560 BCE), why are they any less valid than yours? The Greek texts come shortly after (2200 BCE), (2150-2000 BCE) The earliest surviving versions of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (originally titled "He who Saw the Deep" (Sha naqba īmuru) or "Surpassing All Other Kings" (Shūtur eli sharr&#299) were written. The Torah (950 BCE). (600-500 BCE) Earliest Confucian writing. Why should any of these teachings be any less factual than your own?

 

[AV1611VET]

@AV1611VET: The first and oldest religious texts are those of the Egyptians (2560 BCE), why are they any less valid than yours? The Greek texts come shortly after (2200 BCE), (2150-2000 BCE) The earliest surviving versions of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (originally titled "He who Saw the Deep" (Sha naqba īmuru) or "Surpassing All Other Kings" (Shūtur eli sharr&#299) were written. The Torah (950 BCE). (600-500 BCE) Earliest Confucian writing. Why should any of these teachings be any less factual than your own?

My friend, the King James Bible existed in Heaven before God ever called the first thing with mass into existence ... the earth.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Those books are, in my opinion, the 66 books of the King James Bible.

 

[Styx87]

My friend, the King James Bible existed in Heaven before God ever called the first thing with mass into existence ... the earth.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Those books are, in my opinion, the 66 books of the King James Bible.

Then how is it that people are religiously inspired by other gods and inspired to write that down and educated to do so before the KJb was written? Why would god allow that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how is it that people are religiously inspired by other gods and inspired to write that down and educated to do so before the KJb was written?

Because their inspiration comes from Satan.

Have you ever heard, for example, how A Course in Miracles got written?

Why would god allow that?

I don't know ... I'm sure He has His reasons though.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay, let's say hypothetically that pivotal evidence is unearthed supporting Intelligent Design. Let's say we uncover the fossil of some kind of Chimera that can't be taxonomically categorized in any one single group. Something along the lines of an Arthropod with a spine, tentacles, three inner ear bones, feathers and gills. Let's also say we have some if it's DNA and after sequencing it we get something along the lines of this...

Synthetic Cell

Yup, we find a clear message in it's DNA that simply reads... "I did not Evolve! I was Created!" and that's it. (Cause that's about what it would take).

So now ID, has equal footing with Evolution. Remember Evolution isn't dead cause we still have all that evidence for it, but now we have this too. Let's say now that people propose that ID be taught in school as an alternative theory and it passes this time.

What do you propose the curriculum should be?

Either ID, or nothing at all.

If such a chimera were to be discovered, it would disprove evolution. All the evidence for it wouldn't mean anything, as we now know that evolution, however well-supported it once was, is actually fundamentally false.

Of course, the nature of the chimera might mean that the evolutionary tree of life needs a major overhaul, and that evolution itself isn't disproven, but that seems unlikely in that circumstance.

Bearing in mind that to infer a supernatural creator or imply religion at any level, at any time would have it thrown out once again on the grounds that it violates the 1st and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.

(assume that we're talking about schools in the United States for the sake of argument)

Hmm. Well, the reason ID was classified as religion, and therefore unteachable under the US constitution, was that it was inextricably rooted in Creationism, and Christian fundamentalism.

However, with this chimera, it now has actual empirical support, at last separating it from its unsubstantiated religious origins. With scientific support, it can be taught as science.

It isn't necessarily religious, either, because the designer could well be aliens, who were themselves the product of abiogenesis and evolution.

In its current form, it's religious superstition masquerading as science. In the above hypothetical, it is more reputable.

 

[CabVet]

@CabVet: That was the point about the DNA. This creature is fossilized so it's not modern and there's a clear message in it's DNA that when deciphered (and likely translated) says "I did not Evolve! I was Created!". This would be an animal outside of Evolution... it would not invalidate evolution.

It would not support ID either.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Because their inspiration comes from Satan.

How do you tell the difference? Have you ever read any of the other texts?

Have you ever heard, for example, how A Course in Miracles got written?

Never heard of it. I'm always up for a good story though.

I don't know ... I'm sure He has His reasons though.

Is that sufficient excuse for everything you think your God does that either doesn't make sense to you or strikes you as wrong?

 

[Giberoo]

So now ID, has equal footing with Evolution. Remember Evolution isn't dead cause we still have all that evidence for it, but now we have this too.

Wiccan Child has it right. Evolution would be dead. That is, after we have discounted the possibility of the creature being a fake and that it is in any way compatible with the tree of life. In that case, ToE would be shown to be wrong and would be off the table completely.

However, as far as evidence for ID goes, we have only the "I did not Evolve! I was Created!" message. That's it. Unless ID actually stipulates any mechanisms that we can test for (or any mechanisms at all, actually), it is not a scientific theory. This is one of ID's many problems. "It was designed" is the equivalent of saying "It was magic". It does not tell us how it was designed - did the designer put it together from pre-exiting materials? If so, what ones, where, when and how? Did the designer use tools? Prototypes? Did they draw sketches? Did they always get it right first time or eventually create what they wanted through trial-and-error? Or is the designer simply magic and able to make matter materialise out of thin air with a snap of their fingers?

When you look at ID, there really is nothing to teach. It can neatly be summed up in 'Goddidit'. The rest all seems to be insisting that ToE is wrong (which would be immediately redundant the moment anyone actually found any proof that it was wrong). What exactly is there to teach?

 

[Giberoo]

Creationists clearly see design. If you do not see design, then your not a Creationist. Everyone has a choice to make.

You have just clearly demonstrated the problem with creationism. It is an interpretation. It is not a scientific theory. There is no evidence to actually suggest design, you just have to examine the data with the pre-existing assumption of design.

To guess at that is trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. The curriculum is based on the soup of the day and the flavor of the week. Whatever that happens to be at that point in time. God never changes. The Laws of physics never change. But Science seems to be in a constant state of change.

You say the laws of physics never change. But don't you also believe in a miracle-peforming God?

Miralces are violations of the natural laws of physics. So the laws of physics can be violated at the whims of a capricious God. Thus, the world is not built according to stable an unchanging laws of physics.

 

[Jamin4422]

Is that proof of the Pagan gods

WOW, You do not know me at all do you. My "proof" for the Bible is everything modern science has to offer. All of science verifies that the Bible is true and accurate. To be sure science is limited and can not yet prove all of the Bible is true. Still there is nothing in the Bible that anyone has ever been able to falsify. In fact the Bible CAN NOT be falsified because God Himself stands behind the Bible to perform and to do what HE says He will do.

The Bible is a covenant. A rock solid contract between us and God . IF we do our part of the deal, then you can BE SURE that God will do His part. So your only kidding yourself because ALL the EVIDENCE and ALL the PROOF is right there for everyone to see. It is amazing that the evidence is SO SO SO overwelming. Yet people are still trying to live in denial. This only shows that we live in a time of great apostasy and a falling away from the truth. As we all know this age is soon coming to an end. Then for 1000 year Christ will rule and reign here on Earth. Even for ever and ever, for all ages and all eons.