Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by C1ay

No, it is the religious community that wants the scientific community to accept as science that which is not science.

You guys keep spewing this mantra, and Intelligent Design proponents continue to demonstrate that I.D. is COMPLETELY science-based. You folks try to ignore us, hoping we will go away. But we're not going away.

Originally Posted by C1ay

What's really puzzling to me is the drive to introduce bible ideologies as physical science. Why the determination to make religion a science?

The reason why it puzzles you so is that you're attributing this behavior to the wrong group. Physical science POINTS TO AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER independent of what the Bible says or does not say, and it does so by virtue of overwhelming evidence. Evolution, on the contrary, IS a religious philosophy disguised as science. It is completely faith-based.

Originally Posted by C1ay

Why the determination to have it compete with a rigorous physical science like biology?

I.D. does not "compete" against rigorous science, EVOLUTION DOES. (specifically, MACRO-evolution)

Originally Posted by C1ay

Why the determination to blur the line between a physical science and philosophy?

Why indeed! I've been wondering for YEARS why evolutionists insist on doing this. Excellent question… you got me.

Originally Posted by C1ay

Why does this seem to be mostly a christian effort?

Because Christians are the only ones with the cajones to accept that there is a single, infinitely powerful and infinitely intelligent God who created the universe for a purpose.

Now that I've answered your question, despite the fact that almost ALL of them were based on false premises and, as such, were pretty ridiculous questions (which is why my answers were somewhat flippant) why don't you step up to the plate and answer mine? Are you afraid the answers will make you vulnerable?

Anybody here have the stones to answer my questions?

It appears not.

TRoutMac
Bend, Oregon

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

why don't you step up to the plate and answer mine? Are you afraid the answers will make you vulnerable?

1. No
2. irrelevant
3. yes
4. yes
5. no

Your questions are completely irrelevant to my belief though. It's not that I don't believe that man can determine at this point in his existance if the universe was created or not, I know man cannot prove this or he would have already. Even the big bang theorists cannot prove it was any beginning of matter and energy. I believe matter and energy have always existed and didn't need a beginning. I believe that matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed. Perhaps there was a big bang event that redistributed them, but no one can prove that it did or didn't actually happen, only that observable evidence makes it appear that there was some event in the past.

The ID proponents can't prove their case either. It's certainly not any proof of anything to say, "it's so complicated it had to be designed" except to say "oh we need to invent our own answers because we just can't figure out any other way". The right answer in that case is simply, "we don't know" until you can conclusively prove your case. The only proof of any supreme being is that being itself. Until you can introduce it to us you have nothing but talk.

As for evolution, we know that mutation, adaptation and acclimation do occur. I do not believe any proof exists that this explains all new species but there is evidence it produces some like new strains of the flu each year.

Just for fun though, how does ID explain nylonase and ring species.

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Given your hypothesis "an intelligence designer designed life," we need a scientific way to test it. Some experiment we can do to potentially disprove or support your claim.

Fine. Got it. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

The problem with intelligent design is that they handwave about irreducilbe complexity and ordered information, but they haven't produced rigorous examples.

Are you KIDDING me? Have you ever heard of DNA? NO RIGOROUS EXAMPLES? Holy smokes.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Anytime some cell biologist discovers some evolutionary mechanism, ID just says "that really wasn't irreducibly complex."

What evolutionary mechanism are you referring to? Can you name one? Natural selection? Natural selection CAN explain MICRO-evolution… we I.D. proponents are "on-board" with micro-evolution. But natural selection CANNOT explain macro-evolution.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Now, while we are talking about silly examples (such as your hedge)

Care to explain why the hedge is a silly example? Do you understand where that example leads? Do you understand that DNA has a LANGUAGE underlying it? Do you understand that only intelligence is capable of producing LANGUAGE?

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

I recentlty moved, and the tiles on the bathroom in my new apartment are all cracked. Most incredibly, there is one row of tiles where the number of cracks in each successive tile is 2,3,5,7. These are the first four prime numbers. Did an intelligent person put that information into the tiles, or was it largely a result of random processes?

In a series of only four tiles, the odds against that are not that large. In fact, I'd say that compared to the odds of bushes growing naturally to spell the name of the city where they are growing, your scenario is downright LIKELY. If I dumped a bag of scrabble letters on the floor, I might indeed get short sequences of letters in close enough proximity to one another, and in the proper alignment so as to be legible according to conventions of our language. "CAT", for example. But here's the catch… it's really only a message if it's the message I INTENDED.

I INTENDED to type this particular message to you today. If I thought chance could produce this message, I wouldn't have bothered to type it… I'd have mowed the lawn instead. Back to your cracks, if there were a longer sequence which continued the pattern which you describe, then at some point we MIGHT have to conclude that some disturbed person was cracking your tiles. But at the level you describe, while it is interesting and impressive, it can be explained quite comfortably by reference to chance.

DNA, however, is a whole new ball game. Hundreds of MILLION base-pairs, all ordered precisely according to a LANGUAGE CONVENTION common to living organisms that geneticists refer to as the "Universal Genetic Code." And elsewhere in the cell, a system that processes, translates, interprets that code and builds proteins accordingly. You gonna try to compare THAT to 4 cracked tiles? He, he… I don't THINK so!! (by the way, there's a rigorous example for you, discovered something like 30 years ago)

TRoutMac
Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

Originally Posted by C1ay

1. No
2. irrelevant
3. yes
4. yes
5. no

In light of your answer to question 3, your belief that matter and energy have always existed is scientifically invalid. Why? Because you're accepting them as a "given". To you, the existence of matter and energy is inexplicable. They just "always were".

In light of your answer to question 4, please explain the existence of the natural processes? See… you've got the same problem. Natural processes, in your mind, are eternal and need no explanation. And again, referring to your answer to question 3, that makes naturalism a scientifically invalid theory, and it also makes evolution scientifically invalid.

I'll reply as to nylonase and ring species later… no time now to get into it.

TRoutMac
Bend, Oregon

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

In light of your answer to question 3, your belief that matter and energy have always existed is scientifically invalid. Why? Because you're accepting them as a "given". To you, the existence of matter and energy is inexplicable. They just "always were".

Not really, observation shows matter and energy exist. Observation shows that they cannot be created or destroyed. Lacking any evidence that they were created, they must have always existed.

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

In light of your answer to question 4, please explain the existence of the natural processes? See… you've got the same problem. Natural processes, in your mind, are eternal and need no explanation.

Observation shows that nature exists.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

Fine. Got it. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Fine, then describe to me testable criteria I can use to support either your designed hypothesis.

Are you KIDDING me? Have you ever heard of DNA? NO RIGOROUS EXAMPLES? Holy smokes.

How is that DNA must have been designed? Give me criteria I can use to test for this design. What features do desgined systems have that undesigned do not? If it is designed and laid out, why is there so much junk DNA? How is it that organisms develop new abilities (such as the bacterial ability to digest nylon, as I believe C1ay mentioned earlier)?

Natural selection CAN explain MICRO-evolution… we I.D. proponents are "on-board" with micro-evolution. But natural selection CANNOT explain macro-evolution.

What exactly is the distinction between micro and macro evolution? Are you suggesting that many small changes can't add up, over time, to large changes?

Care to explain why the hedge is a silly example? Do you understand where that example leads? Do you understand that DNA has a LANGUAGE underlying it? Do you understand that only intelligence is capable of producing LANGUAGE?

Why so condescending? Do you always think that those people who don't agree with you must be morons, who don't understand the slightest thing about DNA, and hedge trimming?
-Will

[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by TRoutMac

What evolutionary mechanism are you referring to? Can you name one? Natural selection? Natural selection CAN explain MICRO-evolution… we I.D. proponents are "on-board" with micro-evolution. But natural selection CANNOT explain macro-evolution.

The terms macro and micro evolution are pointless and not used in any other context than those trying to bolster ID.

Care to explain why the hedge is a silly example? Do you understand where that example leads? Do you understand that DNA has a LANGUAGE underlying it? Do you understand that only intelligence is capable of producing LANGUAGE?

DNA mutations occur randomly (unless you want to cite a vindictive malevolent "god" for them). Those that are harmful are selected against. Natural selection is the "spell checker" if you may. Advantageous mutatiouns are not selected against. This is how they arive....

In a series of only four tiles, the odds against that are not that large. In fact, I'd say that compared to the odds of bushes growing naturally to spell the name of the city where they are growing, your scenario is downright LIKELY. If I dumped a bag of scrabble letters on the floor, I might indeed get short sequences of letters in close enough proximity to one another, and in the proper alignment so as to be legible according to conventions of our language. "CAT", for example. But here's the catch… it's really only a message if it's the message I INTENDED.

It is easy to find intended words in retrospect. Just look at the Nostradamus prophecies..

I INTENDED to type this particular message to you today. If I thought chance could produce this message, I wouldn't have bothered to type it… I'd have mowed the lawn instead. Back to your cracks, if there were a longer sequence which continued the pattern which you describe, then at some point we MIGHT have to conclude that some disturbed person was cracking your tiles. But at the level you describe, while it is interesting and impressive, it can be explained quite comfortably by reference to chance.

I would be inclined to examine the stucture of the tiles...Perhaps the instialation was wrong.. I would call a plumber before a priest.

DNA, however, is a whole new ball game. Hundreds of MILLION base-pairs, all ordered precisely according to a LANGUAGE CONVENTION common to living organisms that geneticists refer to as the "Universal Genetic Code." And elsewhere in the cell, a system that processes, translates, interprets that code and builds proteins accordingly. You gonna try to compare THAT to 4 cracked tiles? He, he… I don't THINK so!! (by the way, there's a rigorous example for you, discovered something like 30 years ago)

I see no real evidence for a intelegent agaent in DNA...There are vast areas of junk DNA, it is reasonably simple to thwart and links to a common ancestry...not IC.

[Lolic]

I think Stephen Meyer said it best, "there is a massive Darwinian bluff going on". Why?.. evolutionists can't account for the origin of information in DNA, the origin of information to create a new cell or a fundamentally different body plan. They resort to dogmatic statements that their "just so" stories are science. To say there is no controversy is a proven lie (documentation below). For this to be taught to students without an explanation of the good, bad and ugly of evolutionary theory is simply wrong and city after city is standing up against it. If it was a FACT of science, the evolutionists would have shown up in kansas when the school board considered changing it's science standards. But since they had to agree to be questioned, they declined. Since when do real scientists act in this manner? The public will clean up this aspect of science since it is apparently unwilling to do so itself. The public has a vested interest since their children are being educated with this false information.

Problems with Evolution

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination."
Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University

"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."
Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 77

"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."
Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist

"If they could demonstrate the power of material mechanisms to generate biological complexity and diversity, we wouldn’t be having this discussion -- Darwin on Trial would never have been written and the intelligent design movement would not exist."
William Dembski

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view."
Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact."
Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University

"Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms...The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts...I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea."
Dr. Jacques Monod, Nobel Prize winning scientist

It never ceases to amaze us that when we were in kindergarten they taught us that a frog turning into a prince was a nursery fairy tale, but when we got to college they told us that a frog turning into a prince was science! The Bible says that only a fool says in his heart, "There is no God". By following evolution we have literally become a nation of fools following false, unscientific data.
Ron Carlson, Fast Facts on False Teachings

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission

"250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin."
Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology"

"Scientists at the forefront of inquiry have put the knife to classical Darwinism. They have not gone public with this news, but have kept it in their technical papers and inner counsels."
Dr. William Fix, in his book, "The Bone Peddlers."

"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection---quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection tautology."
Dr. Arthur Koestler

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."
Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling."
Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,

"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."
Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin

"It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolution doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine."
Dean H. Kenyon, professor of biology at San Francisco State University

"Perhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; that our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleontology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about, but that is heresy."
Dr. David Pilbeam, Professor of Anthropology at Yale University, American Scientist, vol 66, p.379, June 1978

"If I knew of any Evolutionary transitional's, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them in my book, 'Evolution' "
Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils

"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution....But there was not one thing I knew about it... So for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people, the question is, "Can you tell me any one thing that is true?" I tried that question on the Geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, A very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High School"....over the past few years....you have experienced a shift from Evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."
Dr. Collin Patterson evolutionist, address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Nov. 1981

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.

"I shall discuss the broad patterns of hominoid evolution, an exercise made enjoyable by the need to integrate diverse kinds of information, and use that as a vehicle to speculate about hominoid origins, an event for which there is no recognized fossil record. Hence, an opportunity to exercise some imagination."
Dr. David Pilbeam

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, "Evolution, Erratic Pace"

"Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another one. It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis, this must be admitted."
Dr. T.H Morgan

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."
Dr. P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937

"I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law."
Dr. Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London (1966) [an ichthyologist (expert on fish) in a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society in London]

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."
Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"
Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."
Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities...Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."
Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96.

"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."
Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."
Dr. David Berlinsky

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Dr. Ronald R. West

"In terms of their basic biochemical design....no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."
Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist

"We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold "The Way of the Cell," page 205

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation."
Professor Phillip E. Johnson

"The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long-dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin's Black box"
Michael j. Behe, Biochemist "Darwin's Black Box, pg. 252"

"Miller is presupposing precisely the point in question, namely, whether evolution, a materialistic form of it, can bring about biological complexity. Sample enough organisms, and you’ll find structures in different states of complexity that perform the same basic function. But arranging such structures according to some similarity metric and then drawing arrows marking supposed evolutionary relationships does nothing to show whether these systems in fact evolved by material mechanisms. Similarity may suggest evolutionary relationships, but evolution is a process, and the evolutionary process connecting similar structures needs to be made explicit before the similarity can legitimately be ascribed to evolution. Miller’s analysis never gets that far. He gestures at similarities but never demonstrates how evolution accounts for them."
William Dembski

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."
Dr. Johnathan Wells, author of the book, "Icons of Evolution"

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

SHEESH!!!!!!!! THAT WAS A LONG ONE! MY POOR EYEBALLS ARE GONNA BE FOR WEEKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[emessay]

Intelligent design existence in life system :
1. There is basic automation principle : INPUT-->BLACK-BOX-->OUTPUT ( FEEDBACK-->INPUT) [ we define as a byte of 1(one) basic of loop of flow-chart]
Example : Thermo-nuclear fusion reaction in our Sun :[ H + H --> Helium+energy+photon]. Is there any feedback to input ? How many loops we can describe it in flow chart, then compare with our life system ?
2. There are huge numbers of flow-chart in life system from basic procaryote-->eucaryote-->plant and animal kingdom-->conscious human-->conscious universe.
3. Whether God or Alien is exist or never exist, there are basic designs in quantum, atomic, molecules, stars, planets, galaxies but there are huge intelligent designs in life evolution system.
4. Is it all still unknown or is it all from evolution via primordial soup of matters ?? Which better to teach to 'intelligent humans' ?? They are the future , we are going to be the past reflections.