NationStates Jolt Archive

So all you creationists have been concentrating on the small holes in the evolutionary theory. It is well known that there are many facts supporting evolution and there are very few holes. Now what i dont understand is how you creationists can complain about these small holes when you have absolutley no facts supporting ID. So provide some facts because right now i am highly doubting there are any.

P.S- Saying that things are too "complicated" to be random does not count as a fact. Saying this only demonstrates the simplicity of the human mind and is not a fact at all, unless of course you can actually prove with another set of facts that it is too complicated, which i doubt you can.

GO!

oh dear God what have you done!!!! :eek: (sees mob of fundamentalists approaching)

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) will punish your insolence with his noodly appendages. Oh, yes, he will.

oh dear God what have you done!!!! :eek: (sees mob of fundamentalists approaching)

Well, time to fire up my defense platform...(catapults Harry Potter books, D&D manuals, the Origin Of Species) and call Richard Dawkins. Maybe Stephen Gould will rise from the dead to help us...

The fundamentalists might approach, but they never have evidence for ID, just some pesudo-scientific evidence against evolution. Evidence against something, even if it were valid (which it isn't) isn't the same as evidence for something else.

So all you creationists have been concentrating on the small holes in the evolutionary theory. It is well known that there are many facts supporting evolution and there are very few holes. Now what i dont understand is how you creationists can complain about these small holes when you have absolutley no facts supporting ID. So provide some facts because right now i am highly doubting there are any.

P.S- Saying that things are too "complicated" to be random does not count as a fact. Saying this only demonstrates the simplicity of the human mind and is not a fact at all, unless of course you can actually prove with another set of facts that it is too complicated, which i doubt you can.

GO!
You know, some of us creationists don’t like ID. I see it as bad science and bad theology. It also has the added bonus of being the basis for bad government policy. Thus, I dislike ID even more than I dislike evolution, which is simply science working under the assumption that God, in all his Glory, does not exist.

That brings up another point, prover that god exists.

You know, some of us creationists don’t like ID. I see it as bad science and bad theology. It also has the added bonus of being the basis for bad government policy. Thus, I dislike ID even more than I dislike evolution, which is simply science working under the assumption that God, in all his Glory, does not exist.

Incorrect. Science assumes no such thing. Science assumes neither the existence nor non-existence of God. Because either assumption would be unfalsifiable, any idea relying upon such an assumption would be unscientific at its core.

Well, time to fire up my defense platform...(catapults Harry Potter books, D&D manuals, the Origin Of Species) and call Richard Dawkins. Maybe Stephen Gould will rise from the dead to help us...

(puts on cross T-shirt so I can escape....alive) let's hope Jesus has our souls because are asses belong to catholic priests!

ID supporters have no proof, no facts to back up their "theory". It's just another means of getting religious dogma into the science class.

..Now what i dont understand is how you creationists can complain about these small holes when you have absolutley no facts supporting ID. So provide some facts because right now i am highly doubting there are any.

GO!

I'm not a creationist, whatever "creationist" means.

BUT,.. I do see the hand of my God in that big huge thing that we call "the
world".

To "debunk" intelligent design, you'd have to define what "intelligence" is, and
theat has never been done very well. Certainly not rigorously enough to
exclude the possibility that some "coherent system with a purpose" (a lame
attempt at define intelligence) is "responsible" (whatever THAT means) for
the world as it now exists.

The "anti-ID" folks are just religiously opposed to people using the word "God"
to deal with ANY subject matter (usually without atually inquiring about what
the users of the words themselves MEAN when they utter it), and most
especially their pathological obsession with protecting the cornerstone of
common sense, namely evolution, from incurrsions by "God" users..!

Anyway,.. what I'm saying, essentially, is both "sides" are arguing in a
vaccuum, and they both simply prove how primitive they are in mental faculty.

Get over yourselves, and your stupid "protectionist" attitudes towards that
which does not need your puny attempts at protection, and get on with the
(real) job of observing the world and making sense out of it.

..which is what God and Darwin intended. :)


-the REAL Iakeo

very well done Dempublicents1, in fact, Darwin was actually a Christian. Further proving the fact that evolution does not undermine the idea of god, or any other higher being. Unless you're a fundamentalist :eek:

You know, some of us creationists don’t like ID. I see it as bad science and bad theology. It also has the added bonus of being the basis for bad government policy. Thus, I dislike ID even more than I dislike evolution, which is simply science working under the assumption that God, in all his Glory, does not exist.

Can you quote a single thing about Evolutionary Theory that says God doesn't exist?

oh, leave Undalia alone. that was a very well-thought-out post.

Noone said evolution HAD to discount God, it's just that it never includes God either. ID implicitly requires God, which is why it's such bad science (and theology).

I'm not a creationist, or even a religious person, but I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that ID is "bad science and bad theology." Anyone who disagrees with that is nuts in my book.

Well i guess that during this discussion we can use your deffinition of "intelligent" which is about as on the mark as anyone can get without writing an essay. I am not against the idea of ID, just against the teaching of it, or the downplaying of evolution, in our schools. It will only hurt America's scientific sector if, 10 years from now, we have a large number of scientists believing that the world just appeared along with everything in it. This could, and would probably lead to the ignorance of prehistoric data (such as dinasours etc.) because a growing number of people dont want to hear about it because they believe god created the earth. Of course then we would be ignoring facts ( some people already are) and after that starts to happen on a wider scale, our progress would be stopped and we would start moving backwards.

probably should have added this since the definition we are to use was posted a few posts up, here is the simple definition of intelegence that we can use -coherent system with a purpose. If anyone can come up with something better, without writting 5 paragraphs on it, please do so.

I see a level 3 shitstorm coming this way!

I see a level 3 shitstorm coming this way!

$10 says the "shitstorm" contains not a single scrap of evidence for ID.

And again, evidence against Evolution is not evidence for ID, it's a false dichotomy.

Incorrect. Science assumes no such thing. Science assumes neither the existence nor non-existence of God. Because either assumption would be unfalsifiable, any idea relying upon such an assumption would be unscientific at its core.
I‘ve always heard that science operates under the assumption that God does not exist because there is no scientific proof of His existence, and therefore no reason to. I could be wrong, though.

There is no evidence for creationism, intelligent design or god. It is that simple.

I just want to say: isn't "intelligent" and "design" sort of synonymous? I mean, you can't have a "design" without any "intelligence".

In other words, shouldn't it be enough to suggest that the Earth was designed, because it would have been designed by an intelligence?

it gives no regard either way, if something is found to be unexplainable, they further study/ experiment untill it is explained. It does not operate under the assumption that god does not exist, however in some of the fields it proves that the world was created on its own, or that it was possible that it did, and that a higher being did not have to create it. (I couldnt really think of a better way to word that last part so i hope you understand what i mean) :confused:

Well, time to fire up my defense platform...(catapults Harry Potter books, D&D manuals, the Origin Of Species)

I wonder what the damage modifier for an airborne copy of "The Dungeonmaster's Guide" is.

Anyway, God manifested to me the other night, and She says that, while She did in fact design biological life on Earth, it was actually part of a Senior Undergraduate Reseach Project for a class in drama, and She didn't like the results.

Her present project, a graduate thesis in "Designed Sentient Three-dimensional Mass/Energy Biosphere Systems" is evidently way better. So, if you're interested in Intelligent Design, you're in the wrong reality.

I‘ve always heard that science operates under the assumption that God does not exist because there is no scientific proof of His existence, and therefore no reason to. I could be wrong, though.

Not so, Science operates under the premise that if there is no evidence for or against something, then the issue is unresolved. For example, Einstein stated that the matter and energy we know cannot go faster than the speed of light. That does not rule out some exotic kind of matter/energy/particle that can.

Dragons Bay- it depends on the deffinition you are using for design, if you mean that there was a plan and then that plan was followed, then no your idea is incorrect because evolution is basicly that we got to where we are through slightly random happenings. If you are saying that design means something was created, then yes i would say that you are correct, cause obviously we, and everything around us came to be by some process, not just creation. Well i'm out to dinner i hope to find some answers (because there still have not been any cold facts presented) when i come back.

All this talk about ID is a bit misleading, in that the only debate between ID and evolutionary science is among the school boards, not the scientists; I cannot think of any scientific journal that has taken the idea seriously enough to have actual debate about. Most scientists, quite rightly, dismiss it right off without even bothering to waste time on it.

In that way, Intelligent Design is the scientific equivalent of Holocaust denial.

And, for the love of whatever deity you believe in, do not purposely misconstrue that as meaning I believe ID is as offensive and evil as Holocaust denial.

I just want to say: isn't "intelligent" and "design" sort of synonymous? I mean, you can't have a "design" without any "intelligence".

In other words, shouldn't it be enough to suggest that the Earth was designed, because it would have been designed by an intelligence?

The world is filled with idiotic designs. :D You're using Windows, right?

Dragons Bay- it depends on the deffinition you are using for design, if you mean that there was a plan and then that plan was followed, then no your idea is incorrect because evolution is basicly that we got to where we are through slightly random happenings. If you are saying that design means something was created, then yes i would say that you are correct, cause obviously we, and everything around us came to be by some process, not just creation. Well i'm out to dinner i hope to find some answers (because there still have not been any cold facts presented) when i come back.

Okay....but if there was a plan as you say and it was followed it still needs intelligence.

Creation is Evolution. An Alien told me that. Just before he plucked me like a chicken. What a nuisance!

The world is filled with idiotic designs. :D You're using Windows, right?

Well, "intelligence" in this case is not the opposite of stupidity. Stupidity and idiocy are also intelligence, or just the lack of it.

In any case, I think Windows is better than all the other platforms.

I just want to say: isn't "intelligent" and "design" sort of synonymous? I mean, you can't have a "design" without any "intelligence".

In other words, shouldn't it be enough to suggest that the Earth was designed, because it would have been designed by an intelligence?

Slippery slope argument. Just because you say doesn't make it so.

Slippery slope argument. Just because you say doesn't make it so.

No no. Simply the definition.

To "design" something, someone has to first have intelligence. As in somebody takes a pen and pencil and ruler and start drawing blueprints as to how to make this world. That requires intelligence. So design = intelligence anyway, right?

No no. Simply the definition.

To "design" something, someone has to first have intelligence. As in somebody takes a pen and pencil and ruler and start drawing blueprints as to how to make this world. That requires intelligence. So design = intelligence anyway, right?

Nothing got "designed", it just is. You are making quite a jump though, and it is pretty much glaring in your arguments.

So all you creationists have been concentrating on the small holes in the evolutionary theory. It is well known that there are many facts supporting evolution and there are very few holes. Now what i dont understand is how you creationists can complain about these small holes when you have absolutley no facts supporting ID. So provide some facts because right now i am highly doubting there are any.

P.S- Saying that things are too "complicated" to be random does not count as a fact. Saying this only demonstrates the simplicity of the human mind and is not a fact at all, unless of course you can actually prove with another set of facts that it is too complicated, which i doubt you can.

GO!

i'm a creationist, but what's ID?

Nothing got "designed", it just is. You are making quite a jump though, and it is pretty much glaring in your arguments.
I'm not taking a stand. I'm redefining the phrase "Intelligent Design".

There is no evidence for creationism, intelligent design or god. It is that simple.

Not if "creationism", "intelligent design", and "god" have by definition the
characteristic of "never leaving any evidence of themselves".

"Creationists" make the mistake of thinking they can find "evidence" of the
hand of God. I posit that that simply goes against what God is about, and
therefore, to my thinking, is futile and only makes creationists look silly.

(( Trying to "pin down" God is just silly to me. ))

"Scientists" make the mistake of even entering into the debate, as there is no
common vocabulary with which "Creationists" and "Scientists" share to make
such a debate meaningful.

(( Arguing with small children about the unreality of the Easter Bunny with
rabbit anatomy diagrams and mathematical computations regarding the
energy requirements of trans-world travel via bunny-feet is just as silly to
me. ))


-The REAL Iakeo

To "design" something, someone has to first have intelligence.
I'm inclined to disagree - we assume it requires intelligence, but we're biased in that regard. Suppose it doesn't? What if it's more like an idiot savant sort of thing...

Nothing got "designed", it just is. You are making quite a jump though, and it is pretty much glaring in your arguments.

that's like me saying "oh cars weren't invented, they just were"

see, unless you were there to see something, you don't know if it's true (where faith comes in). if someone told you abe lincoln was the 16th president, would you believe them? i mean, how do you know they weren't lying? because if you're saying that just because someone says creationism is true, it doesn't mean it is, i could say the same of anything you say

that's like me saying "oh cars weren't invented, they just were"

see, unless you were there to see something, you don't know if it's true (where faith comes in). if someone told you abe lincoln was the 16th president, would you believe them? i mean, how do you know they weren't lying? because if you're saying that just because someone says creationism is true, it doesn't mean it is, i could say the same of anything you say

I was talking with regards to the universe, not with cars. You still can't provide any evidence for creationism, or intelligent design... just useless conjectures.

Not if "creationism", "intelligent design", and "god" have by definition the
characteristic of "never leaving any evidence of themselves".

"Creationists" make the mistake of thinking they can find "evidence" of the
hand of God. I posit that that simply goes against what God is about, and
therefore, to my thinking, is futile and only makes creationists look silly.

(( Trying to "pin down" God is just silly to me. ))

"Scientists" make the mistake of even entering into the debate, as there is no
common vocabulary with which "Creationists" and "Scientists" share to make
such a debate meaningful.

(( Arguing with small children about the unreality of the Easter Bunny with
rabbit anatomy diagrams and mathematical computations regarding the
energy requirements of trans-world travel via bunny-feet is just as silly to
me. ))


-The REAL Iakeo

well, i appreciate your logical thinking and civility in the matter anyways

Not so, Science operates under the premise that if there is no evidence for or against something, then the issue is unresolved. For example, Einstein stated that the matter and energy we know cannot go faster than the speed of light. That does not rule out some exotic kind of matter/energy/particle that can.
So science is truly agnostic then. Not atheist. Is that what you are saying?

Not if "creationism", "intelligent design", and "god" have by definition the
characteristic of "never leaving any evidence of themselves".

"Creationists" make the mistake of thinking they can find "evidence" of the
hand of God. I posit that that simply goes against what God is about, and
therefore, to my thinking, is futile and only makes creationists look silly.

(( Trying to "pin down" God is just silly to me. ))

"Scientists" make the mistake of even entering into the debate, as there is no
common vocabulary with which "Creationists" and "Scientists" share to make
such a debate meaningful.

(( Arguing with small children about the unreality of the Easter Bunny with
rabbit anatomy diagrams and mathematical computations regarding the
energy requirements of trans-world travel via bunny-feet is just as silly to
me. ))


-The REAL Iakeo

"Scientists" dont even enter the debate. Alll they say is that God, as something without evidence, is not science.

This has been explained several times already, and yet you still argue. This is our problem with ID and creationists.

I was talking with regards to the universe, not with cars. You still can't provide any evidence for creationism, or intelligent design... just useless conjectures.

can you prove to me that abe lincoln existed? like without a textbook, or anything that just says he existed. those sources might have lied

So science is truly agnostic then. Not atheist. Is that what you are saying?

When applied correctly, yes. Real Science operates under the iron clad rule:

Anything is possible, but we aren't going to say it's a fact unless we have evidence.

can you prove to me that abe lincoln existed? like without a textbook, or anything that just says he existed. those sources might have lied

My what a ignorant person. There are historical documents.

You need to prove god, and creationism. You can't.

Not if "creationism", "intelligent design", and "god" have by definition the
characteristic of "never leaving any evidence of themselves".

"Creationists" make the mistake of thinking they can find "evidence" of the
hand of God. I posit that that simply goes against what God is about, and
therefore, to my thinking, is futile and only makes creationists look silly.

(( Trying to "pin down" God is just silly to me. ))
I’m a creationist. You are right in saying that you cannot prove that God exists. You are correct in calling it foolish. I think those that try to are insecure in their faith. I don’t need to prove that He exists. I know He does.

Slippery slope argument. Just because you say doesn't make it so.

i quote you

That brings up another point, prover that god exists.

Actually that is a question that need not be asked. You can't prove or disprove it so you don't ask it.

can you prove to me that abe lincoln existed? like without a textbook, or anything that just says he existed. those sources might have lied

:rolleyes: Can you prove to me that you exist.

I’m a creationist. You are right in saying that you cannot prove that God exists. You are correct in calling it foolish. I think those that try to are insecure in their faith. I don’t need to prove that He exists. I know He does.

yay for you!!!!!!!!!!
(no sarcasm intended)

i quote you

Quote me for what?

:rolleyes: Can you prove to me that you exist.

nope :D

I'm inclined to disagree - we assume it requires intelligence, but we're biased in that regard. Suppose it doesn't? What if it's more like an idiot savant sort of thing...

Suppose it doesn't? Which means it does? An idiot is not unintelligent. An idiot has a lower value of intelligence than other people. He/she still possesses intelligence.

When applied correctly, yes. Real Science operates under the iron clad rule:

Anything is possible, but we aren't going to say it's a fact unless we have evidence.
Well, you learn something new every day. :) However, there still are individual scientists that say they are positive there is no God, but then there are religious people who say that you can prove His existence.
People. :rolleyes:

Well, you learn something new every day. :) However, there still are individual scientists that say they are positive there is no God, but then there are religious people who say that you can prove His existence.
People. :rolleyes:

heeheehee:D :D :D :D :D funny...

4 pages and not a single shred of evidencefor ID.

Well, you learn something new every day. :) However, there still are individual scientists that say they are positive there is no God, but then there are religious people who say that you can prove His existence.
People. :rolleyes:

Yeah, but scientists are people too. They can't scientifically say that there is no God, but they're still allowed to express their beliefs, just as you are. A belief system does not invalidate one's evidence if one's evidence is sound.

The "anti-ID" folks are just religiously opposed to people using the word "God"
to deal with ANY subject matter (usually without atually inquiring about what
the users of the words themselves MEAN when they utter it), and most
especially their pathological obsession with protecting the cornerstone of
common sense, namely evolution, from incurrsions by "God" users..!

God has no place in the discussion of evolution since you can't prove or disprove his existence. You can only take it on faith as to your choice. As such you don't ask the question.....


Anyway,.. what I'm saying, essentially, is both "sides" are arguing in a
vaccuum, and they both simply prove how primitive they are in mental faculty.

Get over yourselves, and your stupid "protectionist" attitudes towards that
which does not need your puny attempts at protection, and get on with the
(real) job of observing the world and making sense out of it.

You are sounding very creationist with that argument.

If protectionism means keeping bad science out, then I am all for it.


..which is what God and Darwin intended. :)

-the REAL Iakeo

Darwin had reservations but he didn't allow for the addition of the question of God in his work.

Originally Posted by Oekai
Not if "creationism", "intelligent design", and "god" have by definition the
characteristic of "never leaving any evidence of themselves".

"Creationists" make the mistake of thinking they can find "evidence" of the
hand of God. I posit that that simply goes against what God is about, and
therefore, to my thinking, is futile and only makes creationists look silly.

(( Trying to "pin down" God is just silly to me. ))

"Scientists" make the mistake of even entering into the debate, as there is no
common vocabulary with which "Creationists" and "Scientists" share to make
such a debate meaningful.

(( Arguing with small children about the unreality of the Easter Bunny with
rabbit anatomy diagrams and mathematical computations regarding the
energy requirements of trans-world travel via bunny-feet is just as silly to
me. ))


-The REAL Iakeo


"Scientists" dont even enter the debate. Alll they say is that God, as something without evidence, is not science.

This has been explained several times already, and yet you still argue. This is our problem with ID and creationists.

I'm not arguing anything. And I'm not a creationist,.. except in the most
general meaning of that words, meaning "God created that which is."

If you ARE a scientist, and as such should recognize that no one can "argue"
with you if you refuse to argue, then what is your actual "problem"..?

I think your problem is that you are simply insecure in the "truth" of your own
pronouncements (that God doesn't exist), and harbor a secret tiny fear that
the "mosquitos" (creationists) will infect "your populus" with the idea that
there is a human need for God, even though what they actually SAY is utter
nonsense.

Just my thoughts on the subject. :)


-The REAL Iakeo

Yeah, but scientists are people too. They can't scientifically say that there is no God, but they're still allowed to express their beliefs, just as you are. A belief system does not invalidate one's evidence if one's evidence is sound.

let's leave it at that then and not try to rip each other apart. i mean, is anyone going to get their views across to people if they're being jerks about it?

4 pages and not a single shred of evidencefor ID.

I'm still trying to redefine "Intelligent Design". I think that itself is an argument of its own.

You know, some of us creationists don’t like ID. I see it as bad science and bad theology. It also has the added bonus of being the basis for bad government policy. Thus, I dislike ID even more than I dislike evolution, which is simply science working under the assumption that God, in all his Glory, does not exist.
Someone's probably already said it, but the thread's still short enough that it's possible nobody has yet... ahem...

EVOLUTION MAKES NO CLAIMS ABOUT THE EXISTANCE OR NONEXISTANCE OF GOD

I‘ve always heard that science operates under the assumption that God does not exist because there is no scientific proof of His existence, and therefore no reason to. I could be wrong, though.

You have heard wrong. The question of Gods existence can't be proven or disproven so it is a question that is not asked.

I wonder what the damage modifier for an airborne copy of "The Dungeonmaster's Guide" is.

Anyway, God manifested to me the other night, and She says that, while She did in fact design biological life on Earth, it was actually part of a Senior Undergraduate Reseach Project for a class in drama, and She didn't like the results.

Her present project, a graduate thesis in "Designed Sentient Three-dimensional Mass/Energy Biosphere Systems" is evidently way better. So, if you're interested in Intelligent Design, you're in the wrong reality.

Can you ask her were my keys are?

"Scientists" make the mistake of even entering into the debate, as there is no
common vocabulary with which "Creationists" and "Scientists" share to make
such a debate meaningful.



Scientists have to enter the debate because the creationist/ID types are routinely harassing school administrations, state, local and even federal goverment to allow for ID into the classroom.

Scientists have to enter the debate because the creationist/ID types are routinely harassing school administrations, state, local and even federal goverment to allow for ID into the classroom.

Well, why not?

And on to a more general question:
Why must religion be kept out of the school?

God has no place in the discussion of evolution since you can't prove or disprove his existence. You can only take it on faith as to your choice. As such you don't ask the question.....

I absolutely agree. God has no place in ANY discussion about observable fact,
other than as the ultimate cause of said observable fact. But that CAUSE is
both utterly inconsequential AND ubiquitously obvious at the same time. So,
as a cause, it makes no difference whether one takes it into consideration or
not.

Which is the definition of faith. :)


Get over yourselves, and your stupid "protectionist" attitudes towards that
which does not need your puny attempts at protection, and get on with the
(real) job of observing the world and making sense out of it.


You are sounding very creationist with that argument.

I'm actually speaking to both sides. :)


If protectionism means keeping bad science out, then I am all for it.

There is no "bad science", only science and non-science. The term "bad-
science" gives non-science too much credit.

If you fear "bad-science", and treat as a variety of science, then you're not
striving to explain the difference between science and non-science to those
you fear will be infected by your "bad-science".


Darwin had reservations but he didn't allow for the addition of the question of God in his work.

And he did so because it was a silly question, because, as EVERYTHING is the
work of God, it makes no sense to try to tease out which parts of creation
are GOD's work and which parts are NATURE's work.


-The REAL Iakeo

I‘ve always heard that science operates under the assumption that God does not exist because there is no scientific proof of His existence, and therefore no reason to. I could be wrong, though.

Science is neutral with respect to God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Scientific thinking doesn't lead you to believing that God exists, however it doesn't lead to disbelief either.

The only reason that many atheists are scientists is that those people thought that the only purpose for religion was explanation, and thought that it wasn't needed because of Science. Also, many scientists think the whole Biblical creation story is silly.
That brings up my next point. Science is neutral with respect to God (or gods and/or goddesses, spirits, etc.) however, it is at odds with the Bible in many places, not the least of which being the YEC garbage. Science does have evidence against a 6000-year-old Earth.

Well, why not?

And on to a more general question:
Why must religion be kept out of the school?

It doesn't, as long as the school isn't taxpayer funded. If it is taxpayer funded, then a little thing called The Constitution gets in the way. If you want to teach your child religion, do it yourself or pay for a private school.

Originally Posted by Oekai
"Scientists" make the mistake of even entering into the debate, as there is no
common vocabulary with which "Creationists" and "Scientists" share to make
such a debate meaningful.

Scientists have to enter the debate because the creationist/ID types are routinely harassing school administrations, state, local and even federal goverment to allow for ID into the classroom.

I say let them into the classroom. What is it you fear by their being there?

It is simple to point out the difference between faith-based "ID" and actual
science.

It is the "scientists" job to distinguish science from non-science. Have them
do their jobs and quit being so lazy..!

Anything faith-based is obviously NOT science, and is easily pointed out as
such, and once the charlatans who try to palm anything faith-based as
science are exposed, they run for the hills like the thieves they are.

Just do you jobs as "scientists", and the situation will solve itself.


-The REAL Iakeo

-snip-

There is no "bad science", only science and non-science. The term "bad-
science" gives non-science to much credit.

If you fear "bad-science", and treat as a variety of science, then you're not
striving to explain the difference between science and non-science to those
you fear will be infected by your "bad-science".


-snip-

There is indeed "bad science." What it is is something that portrays itself as science but fails to follow the scientific method...like ID.

I say let them into the classroom. What is it you fear by their being there?-snip-

It's called the Constitution. If we allow one religion in to the classrooms, then we have to allow them all with equal emphasis on non-religious philosophy. All this would take away from what schools are supposed to do: Teach reading, writing, math, history etc..

Besides, do you really want your child learning Scientology in school?

Again, if you want your child to learn religion in school, take them to a private school. No one will stop you.

Well, why not?

And on to a more general question:
Why must religion be kept out of the school?

In the US we have something called the seperation of church and state. This basically means that goverment is supposed to be religious neutral. Public schools are funded by the goverment so they have to be religious neutral.

There is nothing wrong with setting up a private religious school.

As to the topic at hand. Religion has no place in the science class room.

I say let them into the classroom. What is it you fear by their being there?
-The REAL Iakeo

A) First Ammendmant no laws establishing religion and all that jazz.

B) Because children, even teenagers won't necessarilly be able to tell the difference between "faith" based issues and evidence based issues, which will confuse children about the nature of science, and damage science as a whole in the long run.

C) Because ID has Nothing to do with science and shouldn't be taught as such.

There is no "bad science", only science and non-science. The term "bad-
science" gives non-science to much credit.

Sure there is. Something that masqurades as science is bad science. The introduction of arguments based on faith is bad science.


If you fear "bad-science", and treat as a variety of science, then you're not
striving to explain the difference between science and non-science to those
you fear will be infected by your "bad-science".


Not at all. If ID had a convincing argument that showed it could debate evolution then I am all for it. ID hasn't prevented that case.


And he did so because it was a silly question, because, as EVERYTHING is the
work of God, it makes no sense to try to tease out which parts of creation
are GOD's work and which parts are NATURE's work.

-The REAL Iakeo

Who did the work is not the discussion of evolution. It's only how the work was done. Science leaves itself open to self correction can you see that with religion?

There is indeed "bad science." What it is is something that portrays itself as science but fails to follow the scientific method...like ID.

No,.. that is non-science being displayed as science. It is the scientists job
to show the difference. And once it is shown, the people can make up their
own minds.

And if you (as scientists) can't show the difference, then you don't deserve
the label "scientists", and the people are the poorer for your bungling.

So do your jobs,.. but don't set the situation up to benefit your "opponents"
by making it a battle of one faith versus another, because the ONLY way to
show the difference between science and non-science is with clear exhibition
of the facts, and legislation (banning) simply empowers your "opponent" with
the social will and power of the ballot box.

And quite often, truth loses at the ballot box.

..so don't bring the ballot box into it.

Keep it in the realm of exhibition.


-The REAL Iakeo

I say let them into the classroom. What is it you fear by their being there?

It is simple to point out the difference between faith-based "ID" and actual
science.

No. Then the science classroom stops teaching science and gets into to philsophical discussions.

The fact that it involves the Christian God will quickly create a mess because if a teacher says ID is bunk because.... He will be accused of not providing a fair balance. Even if he is right. School resources don't need to be spent dealing with that.


It is the "scientists" job to distinguish science from non-science. Have them
do their jobs and quit being so lazy..!

They already do and ID still gets parroted. Since it's about ones religion they are not going to accept ID/creationism as bad(the ones promoting it that is).


Anything faith-based is obviously NOT science, and is easily pointed out as
such, and once the charlatans who try to palm anything faith-based as
science are exposed, they run for the hills like the thieves they are.

They leave it to the philosophical class on world creation, abiogensis theory.....


Just do you jobs as "scientists", and the situation will solve itself.

They are trying to do their jobs. Philisophical and or religious discussion does not belong in the science classroom.

This Is Not FOR the case of creationism, it is against evolution:

Evolutionists believe in the big bang. According to the big bang, a great spinning dot exploded cause it was spinning too fast. You evolutionists can't even agree how big the dot was. Some of you say "it was 50 million milies wide", while others say "no, it was an infinite size!" While Others say it was the size of an atom. While others say it was so small that it was nothing, but it was there. Since When does out of the blue, nothing Explodes. Or A great dot was spinning so fast.... It exploded. Explain that! Also, Big Bang. If it was spinning so fast that it exploded, everything that came off would be flung off spinning in the same direction according to the law of perpetual motion. How come 7 moons in our solar system are spinning backwards compared to the majority of the other objects in our solar system? Also, The Earth was said to be a molten rock, and then it started raining. It rained and rained and rained and rained, and THEN the cooled molten rocks came to life, and started swimming, and the rock became a fish. The fish eventually was chased onto land by a bigger fish, and grew legs and started breathing air. You all know the rest of the story. Tell me. Explain these black clouds looming over the evolution theory.

No,.. that is non-science being displayed as science. It is the scientists job
to show the difference. And once it is shown, the people can make up their
own minds.

And if you (as scientists) can't show the difference, then you don't deserve
the label "scientists", and the people are the poorer for your bungling.


Again. Science is not about debating philosphy and religon.


So do your jobs,.. but don't set the situation up to benefit your "opponents"
by making it a battle of one faith versus another, because the ONLY way to
show the difference between science and non-science is with clear exhibition
of the facts, and legislation (banning) simply empowers your "opponent" with
the social will and power of the ballot box.

And quite often, truth loses at the ballot box.

..so don't bring the ballot box into it.

Keep it in the realm of exhibition.


-The REAL Iakeo

Science is not about defining truths. It can't. You should know that.

The science classroom is for science. Not philosophical debates about religion.

Originally Posted by Oekai
I say let them into the classroom. What is it you fear by their being there?-snip-

It's called the Constitution. If we allow one religion in to the classrooms, then we have to allow them all with equal emphasis on non-religious philosophy. All this would take away from what schools are supposed to do: Teach reading, writing, math, history etc..

Besides, do you really want your child learning Scientology in school?

Again, if you want your child to learn religion in school, take them to a private school. No one will stop you.

Evolution and "ID/Creationism" are as different as "Biology" and "Economics".

THEY DON'T COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER, except in the (puny little) minds
who think that they compete with each other..!!

A school can teach biology and economics in the same facility. Why not
evolution and ID/creationism..?


-The REAL Iakeo

This Is Not FOR the case of creationism, it is against evolution:

Evolutionists believe in the big bang. According to the big bang, a great spinning dot exploded cause it was spinning too fast. You evolutionists can't even agree how big the dot was. Some of you say "it was 50 million milies wide", while others say "no, it was an infinite size!" While Others say it was the size of an atom. While others say it was so small that it was nothing, but it was there. Since When does out of the blue, nothing Explodes. Or A great dot was spinning so fast.... It exploded. Explain that! Also, Big Bang. If it was spinning so fast that it exploded, everything that came off would be flung off spinning in the same direction according to the law of perpetual motion. How come 7 moons in our solar system are spinning backwards compared to the majority of the other objects in our solar system? Also, The Earth was said to be a molten rock, and then it started raining. It rained and rained and rained and rained, and THEN the cooled molten rocks came to life, and started swimming, and the rock became a fish. The fish eventually was chased onto land by a bigger fish, and grew legs and started breathing air. You all know the rest of the story. Tell me. Explain these black clouds looming over the evolution theory.

Evolution is different from abiogensis. They are not linked.....

The only real way I can see I.D. being approved as science in this day and age is if it is observed that organisms are complex with the belief that complex organisms require a creator. Of course, the latter part is easy to attack. The whole "intelligent designer" argument is like a snake eating itself. The next question then becomes, "Who created the Intelligent Design?"

Or, one could go even further back and argue that science is illogical since it states that so-and-so will happen based on past experiences. What's to say the sun will rise tomorrow simply because it's risen all the other times in the past? Then you need to work on the Scientific Method and whatnot. At this point, you're pretty much blurring the line between philosophy and science.

I do agree that both science and religion does require some faith to be convinced by it. In a court of law, I don't think it would hold up well to just try to prove something by saying "Well, I read about it." However, I think Richard Dawkins summed it up pretty well: "Although it has many of religion's virtues, [science] has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence."

Right now, I think Intelligent Design should go to a philosophy class instead of a science class. I can only see the whole topic as just being, "We are complex organisms and had an Intelligent Designer. Any questions?"

Evolution and "ID/Creationism" are as different as "Biology" and "Economics".

THEY DON'T COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER, except in the (puny little) minds
who think that they compete with each other..!!

A school can teach biology and economics in the same facility. Why not
evolution and ID/creationism..?


-The REAL Iakeo

Since you don't teach biology and economics together; you are correct.

Biology goes to the science classroom and ID/Creationism can go into the comparative religions classroom.

1. My finger is just the right size to fit neatly into my nose.

2. My arms are exactly the right length to comfortably reach my sexual organs.

Obviously we were intelligently designed by god to pick our noses and masturbate.

This Is Not FOR the case of creationism, it is against evolution:

Evolutionists believe in the big bang. According to the big bang, a great spinning dot exploded cause it was spinning too fast. You evolutionists can't even agree how big the dot was. Some of you say "it was 50 million milies wide", while others say "no, it was an infinite size!" While Others say it was the size of an atom. While others say it was so small that it was nothing, but it was there. Since When does out of the blue, nothing Explodes. Or A great dot was spinning so fast.... It exploded. Explain that! Also, Big Bang. If it was spinning so fast that it exploded, everything that came off would be flung off spinning in the same direction according to the law of perpetual motion. How come 7 moons in our solar system are spinning backwards compared to the majority of the other objects in our solar system? Also, The Earth was said to be a molten rock, and then it started raining. It rained and rained and rained and rained, and THEN the cooled molten rocks came to life, and started swimming, and the rock became a fish. The fish eventually was chased onto land by a bigger fish, and grew legs and started breathing air. You all know the rest of the story. Tell me. Explain these black clouds looming over the evolution theory.

This isn't evolution, I don't know where you got the comparison. Evolution would only kick in with organisms showing up.

ID is a hypothesis. I don't care whether or not it is taught in the science classroom, or whether it is correct, but it is not a theory as it is not testable.

1. My finger is just the right size to fit neatly into my nose.

But they can't reach my sinuses!

2. My arms are exactly the right length to comfortably reach my sexual organs.

Hmmmm, this is true...and it isn't reasonable, according to evolutionary theories, for, if we can easily mastrubate, then we would NOT be procreating, and our genes would NOT be carried on! :p

Originally Posted by Oekai
I say let them into the classroom. What is it you fear by their being there?

It is simple to point out the difference between faith-based "ID" and actual
science.

No. Then the science classroom stops teaching science and gets into to philsophical discussions.

The fact that it involves the Christian God will quickly create a mess because if a teacher says ID is bunk because.... He will be accused of not providing a fair balance. Even if he is right. School resources don't need to be spent dealing with that.

Why would one teach ID/Creationism in the SCIENCE CLASSROOM?

The scientists get to decide what is science, and ID is not science, and can't purport to be because (NEWS FLASH) scientists decide what is science and what is non-science.

ID/Creationism would be taught in the ID/Creationism classroom. Period. If that doesn't satisfy the ID people (in other words they want ID declared a science) then they must prove to scientists that ID is a science, which is a definitional and physical impossibility.

But I say give them their own classroom, as it's probably very interesting to watch people do silly things. Look at an art class or any economics class..!


It is the "scientists" job to distinguish science from non-science. Have them
do their jobs and quit being so lazy..!

They already do and ID still gets parroted. Since it's about ones religion they are not going to accept ID/creationism as bad(the ones promoting it that is).

The scientists job is not to qualify "goodness" and "badness" in things. It is to show what is science and what is non-science. PERIOD..!

If there is a "need" of some sort for people to believe in ID, then that need exists and should be honored. To not allow for peoples beliefs is fascism and a dire evil in itself.

Why would you insist that someone's (relatively benign) belief is "bad"? Not that that's not possible, but why is this particular belief that bad as to warrant nazi-like oppression?



Anything faith-based is obviously NOT science, and is easily pointed out as
such, and once the charlatans who try to palm anything faith-based as
science are exposed, they run for the hills like the thieves they are.

They leave it to the philosophical class on world creation, abiogensis theory.....

Your point..?


Just do you jobs as "scientists", and the situation will solve itself.

They are trying to do their jobs. Philisophical and or religious discussion does not belong in the science classroom.

I absolutely agree. Who says ID is science..?


-The REAL Iakeo

Hmmmm, this is true...and it isn't reasonable, according to evolutionary theories, for, if we can easily mastrubate, then we would NOT be procreating, and our genes would NOT be carried on! :p

I disagree regarding the viability of frequent masturbation as an expressed trait in organisms. The ability to flog it keeps me from cheating on my wife when she's out of town, which in turn prevents her from butchering me with a garden tool when she gets back, which keeps me alive long enough to mate with her later that evening.

Its the circle of liiiiiife.....

The scientists get to decide what is science, and ID is not science, and can't purport to be because (NEWS FLASH) scientists decide what is science and what is non-science.
But the government is supposed to be representative of the people, no? Or at least to an extent. Why not let a community teach its children creationism if they desire so?

I disagree regarding the viability of frequent masturbation as an expressed trait in organisms. The ability to flog it keeps me from cheating on my wife when she's out of town, which in turn prevents her from butchering me with a garden tool when she gets back, which keeps me alive long enough to mate with her later that evening.
Psh, if there were not a government, you could easily overpower and kill her. Remember, you are a hunter, and she is a mere gatherer. That means YOU can throw a SPEAR! :p

Evolution and "ID/Creationism" are as different as "Biology" and "Economics".

THEY DON'T COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER, except in the (puny little) minds
who think that they compete with each other..!!

A school can teach biology and economics in the same facility. Why not
evolution and ID/creationism..?


-The REAL Iakeo

But ID/Creationism are Christianity based. If you introduce thaose, you have to introduce the creation myths from every religion on the planet. Again, do you want your child learning Scientology?

Even if that were desirable, teaching the basics of every religion on earth certainly would take time away from every other course a child needs to take, and our schools are already underfunded as it is.

ID/Creationism would be taught in the ID/Creationism classroom. Period. If that doesn't satisfy the ID people (in other words they want ID declared a science) then they must prove to scientists that ID is a science, which is a definitional and physical impossibility.


Then why not encourage said courses to a private religous school? Why not let the churches offer classes in it?

If there is a "need" of some sort for people to believe in ID, then that need exists and should be honored. To not allow for peoples beliefs is fascism and a dire evil in itself.

Because it introduces the prospect of taking things on faith. If they are going to take it on faith an Intelligent designer is involved then what else are they going to accept on faith.

If something comes up to disprove their stances, do you think a good christian is going to accept it?


Why would you insist that someone's (relatively benign) belief is "bad"? Not that that's not possible, but why is this particular belief that bad as to warrant nazi-like oppression?


Hey there's a godwin. ;)

There is nothing oppressive about it. They have to prove their case. Which BTW you have overlooked is the fact the debates are going on all the time in publications. There are books and articles being published and attacked right now.

A beginning biology class is not the place for this debate.

To allow ID in means you have to allow any other crackpot idea in as well.

But the government is supposed to be representative of the people, no? Or at least to an extent. Why not let a community teach its children creationism if they desire so?

This is a representative democracy. The people elect representatives to make decisions for them. You think there is going to be a vote for every single issue? Or that every single citizen is smart enough to make the right decision? This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

This is a representative democracy. The people elect representatives to make decisions for them. You think there is going to be a vote for every single issue? Or that every single citizen is smart enough to make the right decision? This is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The Founding Fathers laid out a plan for FEDERAL government, and would vomit if they saw what we had done with their blueprints.

ok well i'm back from dinner and i read to about the fourth page and there is still NO EVIDENCE. Let this be a lesson to all of the people that are arguing for ID to be taught in schools, we should never teach anything which does not have even one shred of evidence. And yes i can prove i exist. And yes there is evidence showing that Abe Lincoln lived, your argument was by far the stupidest thing i have ever read in my entire life. I think my IQ went down a few points reading it, if it goes down any more i might become a creationist... :(

oh, and another thing, creationists already have a classroom where they can learn about their belief's, its called sunday school. There is no reason to spread the ignorance to the rest of the days of the week.

But ID/Creationism are Christianity based. If you introduce thaose, you have to introduce the creation myths from every religion on the planet. Again, do you want your child learning Scientology?

Even if that were desirable, teaching the basics of every religion on earth certainly would take time away from every other course a child needs to take, and our schools are already underfunded as it is.

I personally think it's silly to try to teach comparative religious thought
processes in school below the level of undergraduate,.. myself.

Even THAT may be asking way too much from the adolescent minds of the 18-
to-25 year old range.

Religion is a cultural characteristic. It should be taught by the
representatives of the (sub)culture that the child is embedded in.

The idea the ID/creationism is a science is laughable on the face of it. It has
no place in the science classroom any more than nose-picking class has a
place in the science classroom.

BUT,.. if the representatives of a subculture decide that ANY subject matter
has a place SOMEWHERE in the school curriculum, then it should be included.

But it should be taught by experts in that subject in the appropriate venue.

-The REAL Iakeo

*snip*
ID is a hypothesis that ends putting the world in a different light. There is absolutley no harm in learning it in the classroom, and, if the theory of Evolution is perfectly sound, no one should object to letting students create their own opinons about the two subjects.

ID is a hypothesis that ends putting the world in a different light. There is absolutley no harm in learning it in the classroom, and, if the theory of Evolution is perfectly sound, no one should object to letting students create their own opinons about the two subjects.

No it doesn't. It only attempts to add God to Science.

No it doesn't. It only attempts to add God to Science.
And that does exactly what I just said it does. It forces you to see the whole world in a different light, eats up almost no class time (you can't even perform a lab, since it is only a hypothesis and NOT testable), and is supposedly so weak that we can trust students to make up their own minds.

ID is a hypothesis that ends putting the world in a different light. There is absolutley no harm in learning it in the classroom, and, if the theory of Evolution is perfectly sound, no one should object to letting students create their own opinons about the two subjects.

A hypothesis? Based on what observation? That humans are complex? Like I said, that is an argument that can be easily attacked. I.D. is not even a hypothesis by the Scientific Method.

And that does exactly what I just said it does. It forces you to see the whole world in a different light, eats up almost no class time (you can't even perform a lab, since it is only a hypothesis and NOT testable), and is supposedly so weak that we can trust students to make up their own minds.

Then it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

I didnt know how to copy the actual post cause im new at this place so i just did this so you know the level of ignorance im taking on here, not only did this young fool decide not to answer the question at hand, he used 40 year old science to back up his argument against evolution/ big bang so here it is, try not to laugh too hard, my response is below it-

"This Is Not FOR the case of creationism, it is against evolution:

Evolutionists believe in the big bang. According to the big bang, a great spinning dot exploded cause it was spinning too fast. You evolutionists can't even agree how big the dot was. Some of you say "it was 50 million milies wide", while others say "no, it was an infinite size!" While Others say it was the size of an atom. While others say it was so small that it was nothing, but it was there. Since When does out of the blue, nothing Explodes. Or A great dot was spinning so fast.... It exploded. Explain that! Also, Big Bang. If it was spinning so fast that it exploded, everything that came off would be flung off spinning in the same direction according to the law of perpetual motion. How come 7 moons in our solar system are spinning backwards compared to the majority of the other objects in our solar system? Also, The Earth was said to be a molten rock, and then it started raining. It rained and rained and rained and rained, and THEN the cooled molten rocks came to life, and started swimming, and the rock became a fish. The fish eventually was chased onto land by a bigger fish, and grew legs and started breathing air. You all know the rest of the story. Tell me. Explain these black clouds looming over the evolution theory. "


Where to start, where to start. First off, the theories you used are 40 years old, further studies have been performed, and we are closer to the truth than we were then. The going theory is that the big bang has been happening for an infinite amount of time, expanding and contracting, right now we are in the expanding stage of our current big bang, scientists have measured that the outer edges of the universe are traveling away from us, but slowing down. So we're still "exploding" in a certain sense of the word. Since they are slowing down the will eventually stop. When that happens the gravity from all the trillions of planets and stars takes over, and it begins to contract again, eventually after billions, maybe trillions of years, bringing everything back into a ball in the middle where it started. Now you say, well how did that ball get there? This process has been happening forever. Now of course you say thats impossible, everything has to have a beginning point. Well then where did god come from, was there another god that created him, then who created taht god, and that one, and that one? so theres the big bang.

Now evolution. I guess i will start with the formation of the earth, you said that rocks formed the earth which is correct, basicly slammed into eachother and slowly grew as it gathered more and more. Of course when two big objects slam into eachother that creates heat, in this case enough to melt some of the rock, cause the lava you were talking about. Then it rained but you skipped the part about why. The heat given off by the magma (steam, or water vapor) was constantly rising into the air, at first just off into space but it slowly began to form the atmosphere. Then of course the atmosphere was finished in all its layers, but the steam was still rising so it formed clouds, which of course led to the big rain that formed the oceans (you mentioned this). And then the most idioc part of your statment, no a rock did not turn into a fish. You know what makes up a single cell, natural occuring things, protein etc. All that was needed for the cell to form was for these things to bind together, which by CHANCE happend in the ocean. Then of course the cell multiplied, became more complex, and eventually resulted in life forms, of which have been evolving since then.

So there you have it, hopefully you can put those lower back mussles to work now and pull your head out of your @$$. If you have any questions feel free to ask, i gave a summary of everything that i know, i just graduated from highschool, and although i wish i was studying biology in college, im doing diplomacy instead, so if you ask anything on a real complex level i wont be able to answer it just because i havent studied ultra deep like some people have. But of course if there was something in those ultra deep studies that disproved what i said, we would know. So dont say that just because im not a complete genius in the area means its not true.

Oh and you forgot to prove ID, please do so at this time

The Founding Fathers laid out a plan for FEDERAL government, and would vomit if they saw what we had done with their blueprints.

That's what I said. What's your point?

And that does exactly what I just said it does. It forces you to see the whole world in a different light, eats up almost no class time (you can't even perform a lab, since it is only a hypothesis and NOT testable), and is supposedly so weak that we can trust students to make up their own minds.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is a question that should not be asked since you can't prove or disprove it.

Biology class is for learning biology; not religion.

But ID/Creationism are Christianity based. If you introduce thaose, you have to introduce the creation myths from every religion on the planet. Again, do you want your child learning Scientology?
Scientology has no creation myth. It's more like an ...immigration myth. :D

ID is a hypothesis that ends putting the world in a different light. There is absolutley no harm in learning it in the classroom, and, if the theory of Evolution is perfectly sound, no one should object to letting students create their own opinons about the two subjects.

ID is a hypothesis that ends up putting the world in a different light. That's great.

There *is* aboslutely no harm learning it in the classroom.

The theory of Evolution is NOT perfectly sound, but it does seem to be mostly-sound. And it's getting more and more refined, as we investigate it further. It's becoming better and (most probably) more complete as time goes by. That's a good thing.

I have no objection to letting students create their own opinions about the two subjects.

*BUT*

We have to bear in mind where and when we are teaching people things. And HOW they are taught. When I go into science class, I get taught about (scientific) theories, I get taught that we THINK things happen in a certain way. I get taught that we aren't 100% sure, but the evidence points to things being true.

When I go into religion class I get taught that we KNOW God exists, I get taught that, if you look into your heart, you CAN be 100% sure. I get taught that the bible is enough evidence to KNOW that things are true. (Disclaimer: Your experiences may vary)

Now, I'm smart enough to know that they are discussing different things, but not everyone is. And I got taught religion/evolution in seperate classes, which made it easier for me to know they were different things. I know ID isn't a religion (debatable by some people, but let's accept that). So maybe it shouldn't be taught in religious class. However, ID does do some very un-scientific things. It doesn't use the scientific method. It makes claims like "evolution is just a theory - they don't even know it's true for sure!" which only shows that the ID'ers don't understand scientific theories.

Teach both. But teach them seperately. Make sure that the students understand the difference. THEN let the students make their choice. It's not fair to put them both in the same classroom, unless they're going to discuss the same material using the same methods.

There IS a harm to the students if you say "here is a THEORY, oh, and that one, that's a FACT". They're trusting their educators to give them good information. They're going to be biased towards the "theory" that seems to be most certain. Because of the nature of good science, we intentionally look for areas of doubt in our theories. ID doesn't do this. High school students won't be able to tell the difference between good and bad science without being taught.

*snip*
1. Is your theory that teaching ID will automatically make the school seem to support God? I disagree. I don't think the school takes any stance, at all.
2. Okay, we teach facts in science class. Why was I being taught Newtonian Mechanics? We don't teach facts all the time, it seems...
3. In the US, we can't force people to take religion classes. :p

I'm on faculty in a Catholic School and we teach evolution as a theory in science classes and ID as the one who put it all into motion. I think religion tackles the why and science the how. There is plenty of room for both. If some people are satisfied with life having no meaning, God bless you. I'm content knowing my life here does serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things.

ID is a hypothesis that ends up putting the world in a different light. That's great.

There *is* aboslutely no harm learning it in the classroom.

The theory of Evolution is NOT perfectly sound, but it does seem to be mostly-sound. And it's getting more and more refined, as we investigate it further. It's becoming better and (most probably) more complete as time goes by. That's a good thing.

I have no objection to letting students create their own opinions about the two subjects.

*BUT*

We have to bear in mind where and when we are teaching people things. And HOW they are taught. When I go into science class, I get taught about (scientific) theories, I get taught that we THINK things happen in a certain way. I get taught that we aren't 100% sure, but the evidence points to things being true.

When I go into religion class I get taught that we KNOW God exists, I get taught that, if you look into your heart, you CAN be 100% sure. I get taught that the bible is enough evidence to KNOW that things are true. (Disclaimer: Your experiences may vary)

Now, I'm smart enough to know that they are discussing different things, but not everyone is. And I got taught religion/evolution in seperate classes, which made it easier for me to know they were different things. I know ID isn't a religion (debatable by some people, but let's accept that). So maybe it shouldn't be taught in religious class. However, ID does do some very un-scientific things. It doesn't use the scientific method. It makes claims like "evolution is just a theory - they don't even know it's true for sure!" which only shows that the ID'ers don't understand scientific theories.

Teach both. But teach them seperately. Make sure that the students understand the difference. THEN let the students make their choice. It's not fair to put them both in the same classroom, unless they're going to discuss the same material using the same methods.

There IS a harm to the students if you say "here is a THEORY, oh, and that one, that's a FACT". They're trusting their educators to give them good information. They're going to be biased towards the "theory" that seems to be most certain. Because of the nature of good science, we intentionally look for areas of doubt in our theories. ID doesn't do this. High school students won't be able to tell the difference between good and bad science without being taught.

Very good post, but... it seems to me that even if a school were to teach ID in a class, that there wouldn't be that much to teach. It'd just be the idea, and possibly the problems with evolution. That's it - anything more would be undeniably religious, I'd think. So I don't think it's worthy of its own class.

""I'm on faculty in a Catholic School and we teach evolution as a theory in science classes and ID as the one who put it all into motion. I think religion tackles the why and science the how. There is plenty of room for both. If some people are satisfied with life having no meaning, God bless you. I'm content knowing my life here does serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things. ""


Ok then tell me what that purpose is

The short answer is live a humble life...be good to your neighbor, be honest, follow the basic virtues, etc... I've had a million debates with my friends about the purpose of religion in anyone's life and they mirror a lot of the discussions on this board. One conclusion we always have however is that human nature corrupts pretty much everything. But, the bottom line is we were provided with guidelines on how one should live their life--whether or not these are divine or man-made is the argument I suppose. Whether we choose to obey is up to each individual. It makes perfect sense to me. I feel better when I treat people with respect. I do what I feel is the right thing and when I do something wrong I feel guilty about it. Why? They seem deeper than just cultural taboos to me.

well then unfortuantly you are operating under the idea that anyone who is non-religious is a monster. I am humble, nice to my neighbor etc. Its just not necessary for me to have to be doing it to "serve" something of to make "god" happy, its enough for me just to know that the person i am being nice to appreciates it.

Just so you all know, we're 8 pages in, and we haven't been priviledged with a single FACT that provides EVIDENCE for ID.

oh and about the cultural taboos, religion is a part of culture, there for any action that you take such as being nice to someone in the name of religion is accepting, or avoiding (depending on what it is) a cultural taboo, so you kinda crossed yourself there. And as i said i find it enough just to be nice to someone to put a smile on their face.

Just so you all know, we're 8 pages in, and we haven't been priviledged with a single FACT that provides EVIDENCE for ID.

And you won't get any, goof ball,.. because no one here has any.

In fact, no one ANYWHERE has any...!!

That's the POINT...!!


-The REAL Iakeo

I'm on faculty in a Catholic School and we teach evolution as a theory in science classes and ID as the one who put it all into motion. I think religion tackles the why and science the how. There is plenty of room for both.

Do you teach the non God version of abiogenisis?

Then they don't fit together as you have limited the scope of thought.

This is why ID doesn't belong in the science classroom.

But hey. You are a private religious school so that is your choice.


If some people are satisfied with life having no meaning, God bless you. I'm content knowing my life here does serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things.

:rolleyes:

Evolution != athiesm. I guess you missed that part.

haha, yea for some reason, im beginning to think that all this creationist stuff is a bunch of bs, i mean after 8 pages you would think taht at least ONE person would be able to provide ONE piece of evidence, i guess not... :eek:

well then unfortuantly you are operating under the idea that anyone who is non-religious is a monster. I am humble, nice to my neighbor etc. Its just not necessary for me to have to be doing it to "serve" something of to make "god" happy, its enough for me just to know that the person i am being nice to appreciates it.


Don't worry about it. Until the Catholic Church apologises for their efforts to hide pedophile Priests, they have no right to judge and or speak of morality.

But let's not hijack this thread with religious morality talk.

I claimed no such thing. Some of my closest friends are non-religious. Why would I befriend monsters? You misinterpret me, quite blatantly too. I don't think you have to draw lines between a religious and a non-religious person. God is not fooled by those who just profess religion and those who actually act in good faith. I'm not a fundamentalist, okay. Please don't judge me as such because I have faith in God. I think there is inherit goodness in everyone, and a dark side too. Its one of those struggles we're all trying to tackle. How can there be Mother Theresa's and Hitler's in the world? Religions, whether Christianity or Islam, Judaism or Buddists attempt to answer. There is nothing to get all bent out of shape about.

And you won't get any, goof ball,.. because no one here has any.

In fact, no one ANYWHERE has any...!!

That's the POINT...!!

-The REAL Iakeo


But does the Force exist?

How many metaclorians have you eaten today?

i wasnt bent out of shape, just kind of appaled but what i thought you meant, i am glad you explained yourself because at first i was pretty worried...

well then unfortuantly you are operating under the idea that anyone who is non-religious is a monster. I am humble, nice to my neighbor etc. Its just not necessary for me to have to be doing it to "serve" something of to make "god" happy, its enough for me just to know that the person i am being nice to appreciates it.

Where did you get that idea?

Oh,.. projection. Since YOU think THEY are monsters for having beliefs
different than yours, THEY must think YOU are a monster because you don't
believe as they do..!

Of course,.. makes perfect sense now. Thanks for the illumination.

:)

But seriously,.. just because YOU can't (now) fathom the concept of God,
doesn't mean that all those who believe in God are inferior to
your "greatness".

Perhaps, indeed, you being nice to people simply because it makes you happy
to see that they're happy with your niceness is what God wanted in the first
place.

-The REAL Iakeo

Apologies have been made and actions taken against those priests who committed those evil acts. Remember, pediphiles become priests, teachers, coaches, boy scout leaders because they have access to children...those professions don't make men or women pediphiles.

But does the Force exist?

How many metaclorians have you eaten today?

What Force...!? THE Force..!!?

Uhhhhh,... sure,... but why does it exist? It's just a word to me at this point,
just as "God" is just a word to so many people here, but if you'll tell me WHY
it exists I might be able to fit it into my idea of the universe such that it
serves it's purpose...!

..and unless metaclorians are tasty, or can be MADE tasty with a nice sauce,
I'd rather not invest in foreign foods right now.

Thanks though..! :)


-The REAL Iakeo

Oekai- pretty bad timing there im guessing his explination and my response happend while you were typing that, anyways i dont think that they are inferior, just misled from the time they were infants

*moves beard behind head and waves his arms "prophetically* Why!!!! how dare you be so heretical and insolent, ALL THE PROOF you will ever need is in the bible! the book god wrote for us! How can you argue with it. God made us in his image, and he made the earth in 7 days. How can you say thats not true, billions of years! the bible clearly states the earth is 5000 years old <.<. I think its time people got there heads out of Satans rear end and threw away all science! Its time to get back to the true science of god!!!!!!! ok now all seriousness here. The only proof for creationism is in the bible and that is crap proof. Now if it were the ancient cimmerian bible i would buy it. Ok here it is want to hear the ancient cimmerian creation story...you may not believe it lol

500 million years ago [yes this is the number they used 24000 years ago, yes the creators of beer] a wicked planet smashed in to the earth, slaying all the life that dwelled therein, but this planet was not without life and in fact had much of it, of a darker form then our own. Part of this planet flew off in to the far reaches of the solar system past the ninth planet [yes they wrote 9th planet] but life survived on the piece that stayed on the earth. Through many years this life did flourish till it became us man, through many years of growth, it finally took the form of the life on that world, though earth being more pure we were more beautiful and like the very gods then there first children. {the rest is a warning about the 10th planet and those that still dwell there lol]

anyways there is a scientific creation story, those that doubt it i want you to think hard about this. Ok the myth is europe was an advanced medieval nation with knights and all that. truth is we werent, we stole everything we have today off the chinese and east indians but mainly, we went from dwelling in glorified mud hats and throwing spears...to space flight in a mere 500 years. We hardly know what happened 22000 years ago, who knows ancient cimmeria may have been almost as advanced technologically [notsocially dont ever forget socially they may have been backwards thus having tech in the hands of the upper class and no one else]. Anyways the only creation myth that makes sense is theres so HAH on you christianity...damn bastardization of the cult of zeuss anyways <.< dont argue it. Satan...prometheus, garden of Eden. Zeuss enjoyed watching man struggle and fear, so he kept him in the dark without fire. Prometheus felt bad and therefore gave him fire being punished. now god wanted man to be a stupid animal, Satan said Fuck you god, i love man and they deserve more then to be wretched animals for your amusement, he seduced Eve gave us knowledge then rebelled against god to fight for our freedom, same story. only in the bible they say Satan is bad because in the days it was written free thinking and free wil and love were bad things. The god in the old testament is not the god ofthe new testament for instance, not evfen close in fact the old testament god is a jealous god, who will have no other gods but he [ie cult of zeuss is most important to jewish people] have fun trying to argue that without actually have taken any theology ^.^

But does the Force exist?

How many metaclorians have you eaten today?

mmm, metaclorian minestrone...

Apologies have been made and actions taken against those priests who committed those evil acts. Remember, pediphiles become priests, teachers, coaches, boy scout leaders because they have access to children...those professions don't make men or women pediphiles.

Actually no they haven't. At least the last time I have checked. The Vatican thinks it doesn't have to apologise.

There is over a billion in out of court settlements and the Panzer Pope himself has said the American Press has blown it way out of proportion. To bad he won't acknowledge it's not simply a US problem.....

Dealing with the Priests should have been done a long time ago and that means simply not moving them to another parish; another country were they can attack again.

The Vatican sure punished Cardinal Law. They moved him to Italy and put him in charge of....of course I blanked on the name....

But again lets not hijack this thread.....

*, who knows ancient cimmeria may have been almost as advanced technologically [notsocially dont ever forget socially they may have been backwards thus having tech in the hands of the upper class and no one else].^

Ok, I'm not asking to be a dip, I'm just interested. Is "cimmeria" an alternate spelling of Sumeria? I would imagine words from other languages can be spelled any number of ways, and I suppose one is hardly better than the other.

The reason I ask is, when I was a kid, I used to read these fantasy/adventure books, and the lead character was from "Cimmeria", which I thought was a mythical land. If there actually was such a place, it would be interesting to know if the author based any of the character's facets on an authentic culture.

On topic, its interesting to note how a sort of ideological "natural selection" seems to be in effect among various religion over the years. The progression from animal sacrifice to "there's a giant that holds up the sky" to young earth creationism to "intelligent design"; these things seem unrelated, but at one time or another, they've been ferverently held doctrine by one group or another. I guess much as science develops and revises new models based on observation and experimentation, religion will develop new myths based on a line that asymptotically approaches plausibility.

Oekai- pretty bad timing there im guessing his explination and my response happend while you were typing that, anyways i dont think that they are inferior, just misled from the time they were infants

Hae ae ae ae ae...! :D

And I think you've been mislead by your trainers (mostly so that they had an
excuse to "do their own thing" and screw up not only your little mind but their
own) into believing (religiously) that only your beliefs are "true", and all
others are infantile and inferior.

But,.. that's just my opinion. :)

Now, that statement begs the question: Do I (Oekai) think that Sangria's
beliefs are infantile and inferior..?

Actually,.. I do. And here's why: Because I believe that experience will show
Sangria that allowing other's to have their beliefs is not an evil, while Sangria
believes that experience will show "believers" that holding their beliefs is an
evil and will hurt them.

Only time (and actually looking around at people who are "happy") will prove
which idea is the superior one.


-The REAL Iakeo

Hae ae ae ae ae...! :D

And I think you've been mislead by your trainers (mostly so that they had an
excuse to "do their own thing" and screw up not only your little mind but their
own) into believing (religiously) that only your beliefs are "true", and all
others are infantile and inferior.

But,.. that's just my opinion. :)

Now, that statement begs the question: Do I (Oekai) think that Sangria's
beliefs are infantile and inferior..?

Actually,.. I do. And here's why: Because I believe that experience will show
Sangria that allowing other's to have their beliefs is not an evil, while Sangria
believes that experience will show "believers" that holding their beliefs is an
evil and will hurt them.

Only time (and actually looking around at people who are "happy") will prove
which idea is the superior one.


-The REAL Iakeo

Science believes in nothing, and therefore it is open to anything. It's up to hard evidence to separate what is likely true from that which is not. Saying science is a religion is simply an ignorance of science.

Evolution: The big bang comes out of nowhere, millions or billions of years later a random germ turns into a bunch of germs turns into a plant turns into a slug turns into a crocodile into a dinosaur into a bird into an everything. Man appears from monkies, every suspicious link groans, and dies. Monkies spared.

Intelligent Design: God makes a bang for six days, randomly sneezes out different parts of creation, and kicks up his feet on the seventh day, officially inspiring the weekend. Woman made out of man's rib; woman serves ribs eternally to men in some kind of subtle revenge(?)

----

Really, both take as big a leap of faith at some point as the other. Evolution has founding evidence? The same could be said for ID if you want to take the Bible as proof since some of the Jewish/Christian bible has archaelogical stuff that's been uncovered at least showing that some of its records aren't totally falsified (towers of babel, etc). Also, there've been arguments about carbon dating's inaccuracy and a whole other load that I really don't want to get into, because as far as I care-- I don't really care. Both theories hold about as much water to me as the next step of faith. It's just that. They're both theories. People try to hold to one like it's fact when it's not.

...Man, I'm too neutral.

Evolution: The big bang comes out of nowhere, millions or billions of years later a random germ turns into a bunch of germs turns into a plant turns into a slug turns into a crocodile into a dinosaur into a bird into an everything. Man appears from monkies, every suspicious link groans, and dies. Monkies spared.

Intelligent Design: God makes a bang for six days, randomly sneezes out different parts of creation, and kicks up his feet on the seventh day, officially inspiring the weekend. Woman made out of man's rib; woman serves ribs eternally to men in some kind of subtle revenge(?)

----

Really, both take as big a leap of faith at some point as the other. Evolution has founding evidence? The same could be said for ID if you want to take the Bible as proof since some of the Jewish/Christian bible has archaelogical stuff that's been uncovered at least showing that some of its records aren't totally falsified (towers of babel, etc). Also, there've been arguments about carbon dating's inaccuracy and a whole other load that I really don't want to get into, because as far as I care-- I don't really care. Both theories hold about as much water to me as the next step of faith. It's just that. They're both theories. People try to hold to one like it's fact when it's not.

...Man, I'm too neutral.

Um, since you think Evolution = Big Bang, perhaps your entire problem is An elephant-sized chunk of ignorance?!

I mean, seriously, that's as basic as it gets. I don't mean this to be condescending or insulting. I'm just really trying to point out the mistake in your assumtions and the fact that you are arguing about something from an extreme direction of ignorance (which I want to make clear does NOT = stupidity.)

If someone told you that Evolution = The Big Bang, let me assure you with 100% confidence that they were as wrong as it possibly can be to be wrong about something.

Slippery slope argument. Just because you say doesn't make it so.

Dragons Bay didn't make a slippery slope argument. If anything, he committed the fallacy of circular reasoning. Slippery slope would be something more like this: "If you allow women the right to vote, then it's only a matter of time before women are drafted into the military!"

But design does imply intelligence or simply a creator - someone or something with the forethought to plan out the universe. That isn't proof in itself that such a being exists, of course, but Dragons Bay did make a good point.

Let break it down as simply and as concretely as possible.

Science's ultimate goal it to prove itself wrong.

No one can argue that that is Religion's goal.

My reasoning for ID:

(Before I begin, I just thought I'd let you all know that I also believe in evolution. I don't think the two are contradictory or mutually exclusive.)

The universe operates under a number of principles or laws. Imagine if I created a computer game. I set the rules of the game: how the players interact with the game, the limitations of what the characters can do, and so on. After I've made the rules, I don't need to interfere in the game ever again. The people who play my game can do whatever they want within the framework I've set. The players of my game, like the stars, the planets, and human beings, cannot break the rules, and the players still possess free will.

If you're looking for solid scientific proof, you're not going to find it. I'm arguing deductively, not inductively - or if you're really into philosophy, I'm arguing a priori. I'm using reason, not empirical data, to explain how ID might work.

Now here's why I think ID's possible: since we operate under certain laws wherever we are in the universe (on earth a few of those principles would be gravity and inertia), that suggests there's some sort of design. Is it even possible to have an "accidental design"? Is that an oxymoron? Who here thinks the scientific laws of the universe just popped out of thin air at its inception? Who knows, I can't say, I wasn't there, but if you think about the situation rationally, it's obvious to anyone mildly observant that the universe abides by scientific rules. If you can agree with this premise, that in no way proves that it was the Christian god who set these laws in motion. It could be many gods, one god, a being who is omnipotent (or not). But it's hard to look at the laws and properties that govern the universe and not think that there's some order to it. And order strongly suggests planning. And planning strongly suggests an intelligent creator.

Very good post, but... it seems to me that even if a school were to teach ID in a class, that there wouldn't be that much to teach. It'd just be the idea, and possibly the problems with evolution. That's it - anything more would be undeniably religious, I'd think. So I don't think it's worthy of its own class.

I agree, and that's exactly how I was taught at my school.
The problem is, what about when the ID people want "equal time"? Isn't that a large part of the push in kansas schools?

1. Is your theory that teaching ID will automatically make the school seem to support God? I disagree. I don't think the school takes any stance, at all.

Actually, that is my theory. If the "scientific" theory says that "a designer made this" and religion says "God, our designer, made this" then there is a strong argument that the school supports god. Not the god of any particular religion, of course.
I have no problem with the science class saying "We can't explain this yet, perhaps it WAS god" but that's not actively teaching that a designer created it.
To my mind ID really is creationism, tried to make non-religious. But that's my personal belief, and I won't insist on it for this debate. I accept that we can have ID taught in schools, if it's taught well, without supporting or being against God.

2. Okay, we teach facts in science class. Why was I being taught Newtonian Mechanics? We don't teach facts all the time, it seems...

I was taught newtonian mechanics, too. I was also taught that they are just an approximation, and don't take everything into account. They work "well enough" for what we were studying. Newtonian Mechanics got man the chance to walk on the moon. It was made very clear that there are other, more correct, theories, but to keep the concepts at a high-school level, we studied Newton.
And, hey, we were taught about the THEORY of gravity, weren't we? :)
And we were given the chance to experiment, and test the theory, and check if it held true. And given the chance to explore other theories, if this was unfulfilling. I had many fascinating discussions with my high school physics teacher.

Give me a reasonable, scientific way to explore ID, and I'll be happy to study it in class. For as much time as it takes to explore ID, then let us get back to evolution. If we can spend as much time exploring ID as we can spend exploring evolution, then I think they should get equal time. But, only as long as we're using scientific methods to study and explore them.

3. In the US, we can't force people to take religion classes. :p

No. Which is why it's interesting that ID is so close to a religions creation story, just without any religious terminology. It almost looks like people who believe in a certain religious theory are looking for a way to teach it as a scientific theory.

Religious theories are fine. I studied philosophy of religion. It was my favourite subject ever. But it sure wasn't science, and it does the religion a disservice to treat it as science, just as it does science a disservice.

My reasoning for ID:

(Before I begin, I just thought I'd let you all know that I also believe in evolution. I don't think the two are contradictory or mutually exclusive.)

The universe operates under a number of principles or laws. Imagine if I created a computer game. I set the rules of the game: how the players interact with the game, the limitations of what the characters can do, and so on. After I've made the rules, I don't need to interfere in the game ever again. The people who play my game can do whatever they want within the framework I've set.

*snip*

Now here's why I think ID's possible: since we operate under certain laws wherever we are in the universe (on earth a few of those principles would be gravity and inertia), that suggests there's some sort of design. Is it even possible to have an "accidental design"? Is that an oxymoron? Who here thinks the scientific laws of the universe just popped out of thin air at its inception?

*snip*


This is very close to what I believe. Nothing stops me believing that a God did, indeed, create the universe. That a God did, indeed, create man. Perhaps evolution was just the method he used to make us (just like I'd make a model with glue and paper). We can investigate evolution and understand the process. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
It doesn't mean that he does exist, either. He's not really part of the equation when we're studying evolution. At least, not until we find evidence of him having an influence in evolution as it's currently happening.

As such, while I believe that a God (or Intelligent Designer) could have started evolution, that's a topic for religion or philosophy class, not science class.

Who thinks that the principles of the universe just sprang into being? I do.
Just like we get sand dunes from the interaction of wind & sand, without any intelligence being involved, I believe that atoms, quarks, and all those other funny little quantum dohickeys interact in certain ways without needing intelligent design.

If the principles of the universe were created, what principles governed that creation? And what principles governed the creation of THAT? and so on. I don't see the need for a designer, though. Just like I don't see the need of an intelligent designer to create sand dunes.

Either a god set it all in motion, or he didn't. Either way, until we have a scientific reason to believe it, this should stay out of the science classroom and in the religion or philosophy classrooms.

My reasoning for ID:

(Before I begin, I just thought I'd let you all know that I also believe in evolution. I don't think the two are contradictory or mutually exclusive.)

The universe operates under a number of principles or laws. Imagine if I created a computer game. I set the rules of the game: how the players interact with the game, the limitations of what the characters can do, and so on. After I've made the rules, I don't need to interfere in the game ever again. The people who play my game can do whatever they want within the framework I've set. The players of my game, like the stars, the planets, and human beings, cannot break the rules, and the players still possess free will.

If you're looking for solid scientific proof, you're not going to find it. I'm arguing deductively, not inductively - or if you're really into philosophy, I'm arguing a priori. I'm using reason, not empirical data, to explain how ID might work.

Now here's why I think ID's possible: since we operate under certain laws wherever we are in the universe (on earth a few of those principles would be gravity and inertia), that suggests there's some sort of design. Is it even possible to have an "accidental design"? Is that an oxymoron? Who here thinks the scientific laws of the universe just popped out of thin air at its inception? Who knows, I can't say, I wasn't there, but if you think about the situation rationally, it's obvious to anyone mildly observant that the universe abides by scientific rules. If you can agree with this premise, that in no way proves that it was the Christian god who set these laws in motion. It could be many gods, one god, a being who is omnipotent (or not). But it's hard to look at the laws and properties that govern the universe and not think that there's some order to it. And order strongly suggests planning. And planning strongly suggests an intelligent creator.


And even so it has no place in a SCIENCE class

I never said ID belongs in a science class, but that doesn't mean it can't be taught in school. I think philosophy should be taught at the secondary level and intelligent design is a philosophical, not scientific, theory. Unscientific theories shouldn't be taught in science classes, obviously.

As for the sand dunes-- I'm too lazy to go back and see who posted that --it's not that god created sand dunes. A god could have set in motion certain scientific laws that eventually led to sand dunes. God didn't necessary set out to create sand dunes - that'd be a little odd. I don't think scientific laws just popped out of nowhere - I think there's definitely a design, an order to the universe. I don't think the creator or creators interfered in the universe after its inception, though. Natural laws govern the universe in place of any being. I really like the watch and the watchmaker analogy. The universe has self-operating laws so it can function without any interference, much like a watch.

I never said ID belongs in a science class, but that doesn't mean it can't be taught in school. I think philosophy should be taught at the secondary level and intelligent design is a philosophical, not scientific, theory. Unscientific theories shouldn't be taught in science classes, obviously.

As for the sand dunes-- I'm too lazy to go back and see who posted that --it's not that god created sand dunes. A god could have set in motion certain scientific laws that eventually led to sand dunes. God didn't necessary set out to create sand dunes - that'd be a little odd. I don't think scientific laws just popped out of nowhere - I think there's definitely a design, an order to the universe. I don't think the creator or creators interfered in the universe after its inception, though. Natural laws govern the universe in place of any being. I really like the watch and the watchmaker analogy. The universe has self-operating laws so it can function without any interference, much like a watch.
Agreed then ... as a theology course I think ID could be covered

As for the sand dunes-- I'm too lazy to go back and see who posted that --it's not that god created sand dunes. A god could have set in motion certain scientific laws that eventually led to sand dunes. God didn't necessary set out to create sand dunes

I agree. But the sand dunes are also an example of how different things interacting could create something that wasn't expected WITHOUT needing a God or other designer.

God COULD have put in motion certain scientific laws that eventually led to sand dunes.
but
Certain scientific laws could have been true without God, and they just happened to cause sand dunes.

Same with the underlying universal principles, I don't believe that we *need* a God to have created them, they could have happened on their own. That still doesn't mean that a God *didn't* create them, for all I know He could have!

I'd like to add that it's absurd to look at philosophical theories and explanations (deductive, a priori arguments) as well as religious justifications and ask them to offer scientific proof. They're not scientific by nature, so why should they behave scientifically? Religion and philosophy don't answer the scientific questions in life. Science attempts to figure out how things work - to find patterns, laws, predictable and repeatable behavior in our surroundings. Religion and philosophy seek to answer the big 'why' questions: why are we here? What's the meaning of life? Is there metaphysical truth? Are there ethics? If so, what are those ethics? Science, philosophy, and religion have completely different purposes, so I think it's reasonable to expect different things from them.

I'm a deist, so I don't think god intended to create sand dunes or human beings. :)

The whole point of my post is that it's difficult to look at the rules that govern the universe and not think some intelligent creator designed it. It's self-operating, needs no interference, and naturally seeks equilibrium and order. I'm the sort of gal that looks for cause and effect in the natural world. I see the effect--the universe--so I must look for a cause. The only cause that seems rational is an intelligent creator.

I'm a deist, so I don't think god intended to create sand dunes or human beings. :)

The whole point of my post is that it's difficult to look at the rules that govern the universe and not think some intelligent creator designed it. It's self-operating, needs no interference, and naturally seeks equilibrium and order. I'm the sort of gal that looks for cause and effect in the natural world. I see the effect--the universe--so I must look for a cause. The only cause that seems rational is an intelligent creator.

I agree with you here. I can't look at how wonderful the world is, without believing in some sort of a god.

But I'm also aware that I understand the concepts of, for arguments sake, evolution. I now have a scientific understanding of why a cat looks different to a human, without needing God to explain why that is so.

I can't help but think that, if I understood enough, that it's possible to find a reason for the universe seeking equilibrium, being self-operating etc. without needing God either. It seems to make more sense to me that there *wasn't* a god, actually (from what I understand of other parts of the universe).

Still, I'm awed by the wonder of the universe, and that does make me believe.

You made some really excellent and very well-though-out points. I suppose I attribute the universe's self-sufficiency to an intelligent design, which necessarily means an intelligent creator. I'm open to the idea of a creator-less world, though. I'm always bouncing back and forth between agnosticism and deism.

I’m a creationist. You are right in saying that you cannot prove that God exists. You are correct in calling it foolish. I think those that try to are insecure in their faith. I don’t need to prove that He exists. I know He does.
I am going to object to only one thing here, the word choice. You don't "know" that He exists. Knowledge requires truth AND justification. You have a "strong, unshakeable inner conviction" that He exists. Let's just not throw the word "know" around, because then two people could "know" two contradictory things, and that's impossible.

Well, you learn something new every day. :) However, there still are individual scientists that say they are positive there is no God, but then there are religious people who say that you can prove His existence.
People. :rolleyes:
There are also religious scientists and nonscientifically inclined atheists.

The reason for the correllation, I believe, is that for scientists the Universe is not wholly unexplained and mysterious. There know quite a bit through the centuries of discovery, and so they are less inclined to take one look at the stars and see the work of a God.

Well, why not?
ID does not belong in a SCIENCE classroom because it's not SCIENCE. It's religion and philosophy, and if schools have such a department they are free to teach ID, as long as they teach other philosophies and religions too. They just can't teach Christianity (or Monotheism in general) as fact in public schools because of the separation of Church and State (public schools, being operated by the Government, cannot show religious favoritism under the Constitution).

And on to a more general question:
Why must religion be kept out of the school?
I think I just answered that: however, at my school (private, but liberal and rather main-stream) they have a Rel/Phil department, and you can learn about all sorts of different religions and philosophies, as well as Logic. I don't think there's an ID course, but Creation would of course be taught as part of Christianity.

I am going to object to only one thing here, the word choice. You don't "know" that He exists. Knowledge requires truth AND justification. You have a "strong, unshakeable inner conviction" that He exists. Let's just not throw the word "know" around, because then two people could "know" two contradictory things, and that's impossible.
But he knows what he knows. Knowing does have other contexts, in this case "knowing" in the context of "I see," which is understanding the nature of a thing. "Strong inner conviction" equates to sufficient justification to declare knowledge of a thing unknown, kind of like the way we "knew" there were planets orbiting other stars before they were actually found last year. There is also "knowing" in the context of the experience of a thing (brilliant example of that in the movie Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, where the children incorprated that meaning into their language).

11 pages.

Not a single fact.

Haha, nice sarcasm... I hope... just in case, I'll go through it...

This Is Not FOR the case of creationism, it is against evolution:
Thank you for making the distinction.

Evolutionists believe in the big bang.
The Big Bang and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. If it's mostly the same people who believe in both, perhaps it's because those are the people who take the scientific explanation with evidence over the religious explanation without evidence. However, they are in no way related, and they get pulled in together way too much.

According to the big bang, a great spinning dot exploded cause it was spinning too fast.
I haven't heard that. Maybe that's one view on it. The one I heard was that it was so hot and compacted that it exploded. The electromagnetic forces would have been incredible, not to mention the whole expansion due to heat thing.

You evolutionists
gah!

can't even agree how big the dot was. Some of you say "it was 50 million milies wide", while others say "no, it was an infinite size!" While Others say it was the size of an atom. While others say it was so small that it was nothing, but it was there.
Let's see... 50 million miles wide? How'd they get that number? Are you sure you're not talking about a few hours after the big bang?
Infinite size? Do you mean infinitely small, i.e. infinitessimal? Because if it were of infinite size, then it would have shrunk, and would be shrinking now, not expanding...
Size of an atom or whatever sounds reasonable. As for the so small that it was nothing part... it could have been a sort of super-über-ultra-massive black hole, which is a singularity, meaning a single point. That's possible.

Since When does out of the blue, nothing Explodes.
Yes, it does. That is, if I'm interpreting your sentence correctly... it looks like you changed what you were going to say mid-sentence. I hate it when that happens to me :(

Or A great dot was spinning so fast.... It exploded. Explain that! Also, Big Bang. If it was spinning so fast that it exploded, everything that came off would be flung off spinning in the same direction according to the law of perpetual motion. How come 7 moons in our solar system are spinning backwards compared to the majority of the other objects in our solar system?
Law of perpetual motion? Do you mean inertia? Because otherwise I don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, a few things.
1. A point cannot spin. So the people saying that it's a point can't be saying that it was spinning. I think you've misinterpreted Big Bang Theory.
2. Say it was the size of a baseball, just to make it easier to visualize. in a spinning baseball, individual parts of the baseball aren't spinning, they're moving on a tangent to the circle that they follow as the ball spins. If they came off, any spin would be random. Also, when it exploded, it was a little while before even elemental hydrogen was formed. There were no fully-formed moons coming out of the Big Bang.

Also, The Earth was said to be a molten rock, and then it started raining. It rained and rained and rained and rained, and THEN the cooled molten rocks came to life, and started swimming, and the rock became a fish. The fish eventually was chased onto land by a bigger fish, and grew legs and started breathing air. You all know the rest of the story. Tell me. Explain these black clouds looming over the evolution theory.
Where did you get THIS? The molten rock cooled over a period of a billion years or so (this STARTED maybe 10 billion years after the Big Bang, by the way... our solar system is relatively young) by radiating heat into space. There were all sorts of chemicals present at that time, generally referred to as the "primordial ooze". A soup-like mixture of molecules in the oceans at the time, when jolted with electricity (lightning in the real Earth) has been shown to create amino acids in laboratory tests. Some were surrounded by a lipid bilayer (a primitive sort of cellular membrane). This eventually (keep in mind it took billions of years and oceans full of materials, not exactly a "right away" sort of thing) developed into the first, primitive life forms on this planet. THIS is where Evolution comes in. Nothing before this is remotely related. Here, Evolution says that over billions of years, the pressures of natural selection, together with random mutation, resulted in new, multi-celled species, which evolved further until it eventually came to us. And the way you tell it, it sounds like scientists are just saying "and it just happened that way cuz we think it did". No, there are mountains of data and so much evidence proving the basic truths of Evolution that no scientists debate its truth anymore. All the evolution debates now are about how a specific species evolved, what form evolution takes, etc.
Thank you for listening to me blow off some steam. [/rant]

Evolution and "ID/Creationism" are as different as "Biology" and "Economics".

THEY DON'T COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER, except in the (puny little) minds
who think that they compete with each other..!!

A school can teach biology and economics in the same facility. Why not
evolution and ID/creationism..?


-The REAL Iakeo
BECAUSE IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SHOWS RELIGIOUS FAVORITISM. Also, there is absolutely no evidence for ID, so it doesn't belong in a Science classroom, because it's not Science. Would you teach Economics in a Biology classroom? No, even though it actually has evidence behind it. You only teach Economics if you have an Economics department. If you have a religion/philosophy department, where you offer a choice between several different religions and philosophies, then you're free to teach ID in that department.

1. Is your theory that teaching ID will automatically make the school seem to support God? I disagree. I don't think the school takes any stance, at all.
2. Okay, we teach facts in science class. Why was I being taught Newtonian Mechanics? We don't teach facts all the time, it seems...
3. In the US, we can't force people to take religion classes. :p
You are taught Newtonian Mechanics for the same reason you were taught the basic rules of spelling. Are there exceptions? Sure. But they're great guidelines to follow until you have enough experience to understand and remember the real way to spell words.
Newtonian Mechanics is off by such a small amount at velocities that we deal with in our lives outside of a particle accelerator that we don't really care, and the Newtonian formulae are much simpler and easier to work with. It's only when you get up reasonably close to the speed of light (within an order of magnitude or two) that the differences start to matter.

11 pages.

Not a single fact.
I have noticed the same

I have noticed the same
I can look at every post and see some fact.

You are taught Newtonian Mechanics for the same reason you were taught the basic rules of spelling. Are there exceptions? Sure. But they're great guidelines to follow until you have enough experience to understand and remember the real way to spell words.
Newtonian Mechanics is off by such a small amount at velocities that we deal with in our lives outside of a particle accelerator that we don't really care, and the Newtonian formulae are much simpler and easier to work with. It's only when you get up reasonably close to the speed of light (within an order of magnitude or two) that the differences start to matter.


ah.... lies to children (from Pratchett...) The method by which you use a mostly false analogy or rule because it is easier, and then you explain the more complex one later if you have to...

First example to come to mind is "I before E, except after C", and H, or when it sounds like an A, with the following exceptions: seize, either, weird, foreign, leisure, conscience, counterfeit, forfeit, leisure, neither, science, species, sufficient, rein, veil, weight, their, sleigh, vein, neigh, skein, neighbor, reign, freight, weir, weigh, friend, mischief, sheik, financier, sovereign, protein, geiger (as in 'counter'), sleight, feisty, seismograph, poltergeist, kaleidoscope, and some others :-)

My reasoning for ID:

(Before I begin, I just thought I'd let you all know that I also believe in evolution. I don't think the two are contradictory or mutually exclusive.)

The universe operates under a number of principles or laws. Imagine if I created a computer game. I set the rules of the game: how the players interact with the game, the limitations of what the characters can do, and so on. After I've made the rules, I don't need to interfere in the game ever again. The people who play my game can do whatever they want within the framework I've set. The players of my game, like the stars, the planets, and human beings, cannot break the rules, and the players still possess free will.

If you're looking for solid scientific proof, you're not going to find it. I'm arguing deductively, not inductively - or if you're really into philosophy, I'm arguing a priori. I'm using reason, not empirical data, to explain how ID might work.

Now here's why I think ID's possible: since we operate under certain laws wherever we are in the universe (on earth a few of those principles would be gravity and inertia), that suggests there's some sort of design. Is it even possible to have an "accidental design"? Is that an oxymoron? Who here thinks the scientific laws of the universe just popped out of thin air at its inception? Who knows, I can't say, I wasn't there, but if you think about the situation rationally, it's obvious to anyone mildly observant that the universe abides by scientific rules. If you can agree with this premise, that in no way proves that it was the Christian god who set these laws in motion. It could be many gods, one god, a being who is omnipotent (or not). But it's hard to look at the laws and properties that govern the universe and not think that there's some order to it. And order strongly suggests planning. And planning strongly suggests an intelligent creator.

Do you believe in the Bible? It wasn't clear from your post. Anyway, in the Bible (and Torah and Qur'an), God is active. Those books are full of miracles, etc. that suggest that God is always watching and interfering. So, are you arguing that God made the Universe and then just "let it spin", or do you agree with the Biblical view of an active God?

But he knows what he knows. Knowing does have other contexts, in this case "knowing" in the context of "I see," which is understanding the nature of a thing. "Strong inner conviction" equates to sufficient justification to declare knowledge of a thing unknown, kind of like the way we "knew" there were planets orbiting other stars before they were actually found last year. There is also "knowing" in the context of the experience of a thing (brilliant example of that in the movie Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, where the children incorprated that meaning into their language).

Then you're accepting the possibility of contradictory knowledge? C'est impossible!

I can look at every post and see some fact.

True, but there has yet to be a FACT that supports ID. People are expressing their opinions, but there has yet been no evidence. It doesn't seem like the IDers are even trying.

True, but there has yet to be a FACT that supports ID. People are expressing their opinions, but there has yet been no evidence. It doesn't seem like the IDers are even trying.


there is no way to give ID facts, id say because there are none to give.

there is no way to give ID facts, id say because there are none to give.

Yeah, but they're not even trying.

Then you're accepting the possibility of contradictory knowledge? C'est impossible!

Well, as you can see, I'm sketical of ID in the extreme, but just to comment on your question here: Light is both a particle and a wave, after all..

True, but there has yet to be a FACT that supports ID. People are expressing their opinions, but there has yet been no evidence. It doesn't seem like the IDers are even trying.Considering that it's possible to produce facts in support of anything, maybe they're just not bothering.

Oh, oh, fact! Mankind can currently execute and/or simulate spatial manipulation on a material level that has only a minimal effect on the material composition of the current boundaries of reality. Thanks to computation, we can define a set of physical laws outside of our own, design and create objects within them, manipulate those objects and watch as causality takes place.

That's a simple fact. It also supports the concept of a designer of this reality; design, development and implementation of a universe and all of the physical laws that encompass it can be successfully achieved external to the reality itself.

It's not a proof, but the topic didn't ask for that. Just a fact that supports it.

Incidentally, I'm more of an evolutionist, myself. But the possibility that existence on the highest possible plane may originate by raw evolution doesn't exclude a designer of some lower planes.

Considering that it's possible to produce facts in support of anything, maybe they're just not bothering.

Oh, oh, fact! Mankind can currently execute and/or simulate spatial manipulation on a material level that has only a minimal effect on the material composition of the current boundaries of reality. Thanks to computation, we can define a set of physical laws outside of our own, design and create objects within them, manipulate those objects and watch as causality takes place.

That's a simple fact. It also supports the concept of a designer of this reality; design, development and implementation of a universe and all of the physical laws that encompass it can be successfully achieved external to the reality itself.

It's not a proof, but the topic didn't ask for that. Just a fact that supports it.

Incidentally, I'm more of an evolutionist, myself. But the possibility that existence on the highest possible plane may originate by raw evolution doesn't exclude a designer of some lower planes.


Uh, we can make simulations. So, since we can make simulations, it suggests there must be a God...nope, the fact that we can make computer simulations isn't evidence for God. I appreciate your attempt, but that's a stretch to say the least. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

Uh, we can make simulations. So, since we can make simulations, it suggests there must be a God...nope, the fact that we can make computer simulations isn't evidence for God. I appreciate your attempt, but that's a stretch to say the least. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.It's not proof in the slightest. It is, however, a fact, and it supports ID in that it provides evidence that subrealities can be designed by mortal hands. Nothing more, nothing less; simply fact that can be used to support a theory.

I'm just giving you what you asked for. >_>

(( By the way, our ideas of God probably vary significantly given my non-Christianness; though I'd rather not bore you to death with Gestalt/Emergence theory, so that's for another time. ^^; ))

It's not proof in the slightest. It is, however, a fact, and it supports ID in that it provides evidence that subrealities can be designed by mortal hands. Nothing more, nothing less; simply fact that can be used to support a theory.

I'm just giving you what you asked for. >_>

(( By the way, our ideas of God probably vary significantly given my non-Christianness; though I'd rather not bore you to death with Gestalt/Emergence theory, so that's for another time. ^^; ))

It's fact, but it doesn't support ID in the slightest. The fact that we can do something on a computer in no way suggests that someone can do something similar to reality. If that were true, then writing a work of fiction would be similar proof of god. A book contains it's own world with it's own rules, but is hardly proof of god.

Actually it isn't because nothing in that space actually exists within the space, nor for that matter does the space itself exist. All things in a computer simulation are nothing but switches in this world. Good try though.

All things in a computer simulation are nothing but switches in this world. Good try though.

Ahh but a switch responds to a pulse. Guess what the brain works on? ;)

It's fact, but it doesn't support ID in the slightest. The fact that we can do something on a computer in no way suggests that someone can do something similar to reality. If that were true, then writing a work of fiction would be similar proof of god. A book contains it's own world with it's own rules, but is hardly proof of god.I'm guessing we don't want to delve into the degree of complexity required for a simulation to be considered a reality. Which is fair enough, I suppose; it all gets a little pseudo-philosophical from there. But, in the end of the day, we're all pseudo-philosophers, anyway.

Again, don't think I'm trying to prove God. I believe personally that an Omni-Creator is an impossibility and that Christians are looking at their deity with rose-tinted spectacles. However, if your simulation was complex enough to create self-conscious entities, could we call it a reality of it's own?

The reason I think it could be used in support of ID is that, basically, if we can simulate an entire universe wherein structured, self-conscious automata could form, we would be Intelligent Designers ourselves. And I feel that we, as a race, are not far off such a feat.

That being the case, is Intelligent Design of our own world so remote a possibility?

Ahh but a switch responds to a pulse. Guess what the brain works on? ;)Analogue programming and bioelectricity? In any case, correct, but my point is it does not provide evidence for an external manipulator to an existing universe because in the case of programming all things exist within the same universe.

Actually it isn't because nothing in that space actually exists within the space, nor for that matter does the space itself exist. All things in a computer simulation are nothing but switches in this world. Good try though.Space exists in such a reality simply because we define its dimensions and physical laws beforehand. Objects within it adhere to such definitions. When objects within it follow laws and interact, what other sense of "real" matters to those objects?

Just because the only thing it occupies in this world is a few pulses of electricity across a series of transistors doesn't mean it doesn't exist beyond such material impact.

But the government is supposed to be representative of the people, no? Or at least to an extent. Why not let a community teach its children creationism if they desire so?

That option already exists... Parents may remove their children from sceince class and substitute it for any religious teaching they wish. Forcing ID into a science class when it is clearly philosphy is not only irrisponsible but unessesary.

Um, since you think Evolution = Big Bang, perhaps your entire problem is An elephant-sized chunk of ignorance?!

I mean, seriously, that's as basic as it gets. I don't mean this to be condescending or insulting. I'm just really trying to point out the mistake in your assumtions and the fact that you are arguing about something from an extreme direction of ignorance (which I want to make clear does NOT = stupidity.)

If someone told you that Evolution = The Big Bang, let me assure you with 100% confidence that they were as wrong as it possibly can be to be wrong about something.

Are you going to deny that on the large, the people that support the big bang support evolution?

The two theories are nearly irrevocably interlinked.

I would say it's like creatinists saying Yahweh burped out the world then everything crawled out of the mud, but they've started crawling back into the mud themselves on that topic out of fear of persecution of big shiny caps just like that.

Generally the Big Bang theory is just another model of science where the world is once again billions of millions of years old again as opposed to creationist views of a few thousand, and again with the big bang things have to just as randomly fall into place.

You also need to get some pill insert or something, because if you can't take the obvious joking tone throughout the entire post, I'd have to propose you're extremely constipated.

A hypothesis? Based on what observation? That humans are complex? Like I said, that is an argument that can be easily attacked. I.D. is not even a hypothesis by the Scientific Method.
ID is a hypothesis based on a lot more than just "humans are complex." And it is a hypothesis by any rational thought process, except that it differs in that it cannot be tested.

Then it doesn't belong in a science classroom
Why do YOU get to make that choice and NOT the people that are PAYING for THEIR children's education? Were you given ANY power by them AT ALL?

That's what I said. What's your point?
No, you said that the Founding Fathers would have been opposed to teaching religion in school, and used the First Amendment as an argument. I am saying that the Constuition is almost meaningless in the United States since, the way our system is currently set up, 5 Supreme Court Justices serve as a permament constuitional convention.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is a question that should not be asked since you can't prove or disprove it.

Biology class is for learning biology; not religion.
What do you tell the student who asks why biodiversity is important, seeing as how it is damn near impossible for any appreciable biodiversity to occur in the early stages of a new species?

Science believes in nothing, and therefore it is open to anything. It's up to hard evidence to separate what is likely true from that which is not. Saying science is a religion is simply an ignorance of science.
Everything believes in something. Science believes in causality and the Scientific Method.

Actually, that is my theory. If the "scientific" theory says that "a designer made this" and religion says "God, our designer, made this" then there is a strong argument that the school supports god. Not the god of any particular religion, of course.
I have no problem with the science class saying "We can't explain this yet, perhaps it WAS god" but that's not actively teaching that a designer created it.
To my mind ID really is creationism, tried to make non-religious. But that's my personal belief, and I won't insist on it for this debate. I accept that we can have ID taught in schools, if it's taught well, without supporting or being against God.
No school would teach ID as fact. They would only teach as how I presented it, a hypothesis.
The school need make no opinon on it.
The path you take says the word "Christianity" can't even be MENTIONED in the school, since the school would be lending credibility to the existence of a Messianic figure.

I was taught newtonian mechanics, too. I was also taught that they are just an approximation, and don't take everything into account. They work "well enough" for what we were studying. Newtonian Mechanics got man the chance to walk on the moon. It was made very clear that there are other, more correct, theories, but to keep the concepts at a high-school level, we studied Newton.
And, hey, we were taught about the THEORY of gravity, weren't we?
And we were given the chance to experiment, and test the theory, and check if it held true. And given the chance to explore other theories, if this was unfulfilling. I had many fascinating discussions with my high school physics teacher.
Exactly, and the Theory of Gravity, as we teach elementary school students, is wrong. Most of Newton's theories have been proven to be wrong; we are teaching our children incorrect things, no?

Give me a reasonable, scientific way to explore ID, and I'll be happy to study it in class. For as much time as it takes to explore ID, then let us get back to evolution. If we can spend as much time exploring ID as we can spend exploring evolution, then I think they should get equal time. But, only as long as we're using scientific methods to study and explore them
This is why I have no real objection to ID in the classroom. It takes about two minutes to explain, the students don't care, and you are back to doing labwork. I F*ING HATE LABWORK! :mad:

You are taught Newtonian Mechanics for the same reason you were taught the basic rules of spelling. Are there exceptions? Sure. But they're great guidelines to follow until you have enough experience to understand and remember the real way to spell words.
Newtonian Mechanics is off by such a small amount at velocities that we deal with in our lives outside of a particle accelerator that we don't really care, and the Newtonian formulae are much simpler and easier to work with. It's only when you get up reasonably close to the speed of light (within an order of magnitude or two) that the differences start to matter.
So we teach Newtonian Mechanics to high schoolers because they are stupid? :confused:
There is VERY little logical leap and not an unacceptable amount of mathwork to leap from Newton to Einstein. It WAS written, after all, so anyone could understand it. We never even discussed Einstein in our "honors" physics class; the rest of my peers were dumbfounded when I struck a conversation with my teacher about it.
So, IMO, it is indisputable that we are teaching students "bad science" to begin with.

Are you going to deny that on the large, the people that support the big bang support evolution?

The two theories are nearly irrevocably interlinked.

I would say it's like creatinists saying Yahweh burped out the world then everything crawled out of the mud, but they've started crawling back into the mud themselves on that topic out of fear of persecution of big shiny caps just like that.

Generally the Big Bang theory is just another model of science where the world is once again billions of millions of years old again as opposed to creationist views of a few thousand, and again with the big bang things have to just as randomly fall into place.

You also need to get some pill insert or something, because if you can't take the obvious joking tone throughout the entire post, I'd have to propose you're extremely constipated.

Firstly the only thing you establish here is that Science is imperfect and incomplete (which we already know). This in no way states how ID or creationism is perfect or why we should consider it sceince.

the two are only interlinked in that one preceeds the other... evolution does not explain the big bang, nor is it suppose to... only explain how organisims developed to where they are today.

thats like saying how cars changed over time is analogis to how Ford designed the first car.... if there are problems with what we know how the first car was designed.. it in no way impacts how cars have developed over time.. because the two are seperate.

ID is a hypothesis based on a lot more than just "humans are complex." And it is a hypothesis by any rational thought process, except that it differs in that it cannot be tested.

Yes.. you have established that it is a hypothesis in that it is an idea... but most Creationist and ID supporters also call it a theory.. so by what measure do you differentiate Theory from Hypothesis ?? As i know it... to be a theory.. it must be testable.

Are you going to deny that on the large, the people that support the big bang support evolution?

The two theories are nearly irrevocably interlinked.

The fact that many evolutionists support the big bang concept still doesn't mean anything.

They are NOT linked. Evolution doesn't explain the big bang. It can't.

Yes.. you have established that it is a hypothesis in that it is an idea... but most Creationist and ID supporters also call it a theory.. so by what measure do you differentiate Theory from Hypothesis ?? As i know it... to be a theory.. it must be testable.
Dammit, man, that's the exact same thing I said at the beginning of the thread! :p

Space exists in such a reality simply because we define its dimensions and physical laws beforehand. Objects within it adhere to such definitions. When objects within it follow laws and interact, what other sense of "real" matters to those objects?

Just because the only thing it occupies in this world is a few pulses of electricity across a series of transistors doesn't mean it doesn't exist beyond such material impact.
But at the same time there is nothing to suggest it does. That sounds like an argument from ignorance logical fallacy really. While it may seem real to the programs, we know it isn't. From a scientific standpoint we are not allowed to do that with our own reallity and so we cannot claim them to be analogous.

ID is a hypothesis based on a lot more than just "humans are complex." And it is a hypothesis by any rational thought process, except that it differs in that it cannot be tested.

Then you throw it away.


Why do YOU get to make that choice and NOT the people that are PAYING for THEIR children's education? Were you given ANY power by them AT ALL?

Public school vs private school. We asigned a body to design a "balanced" education that will suit the needs of the nation.

If your religious values don't like that then you should send your kids to a private religoius school.


No, you said that the Founding Fathers would have been opposed to teaching religion in school, and used the First Amendment as an argument. I am saying that the Constuition is almost meaningless in the United States since, the way our system is currently set up, 5 Supreme Court Justices serve as a permament constuitional convention.

The goverment is supposed to be religous neutral. The goverment funds public schools(well they are supposed to anyway) as such the teaching of the cristian version of creationism is an endorsement of a religion.


What do you tell the student who asks why biodiversity is important, seeing as how it is damn near impossible for any appreciable biodiversity to occur in the early stages of a new species?

Biodivorsity is a good topic. Saying that God went "hocus pocus" and all the animals appeared is a religous philisophical question. Never mind the fact you have to take it on faith he did. Since you can't prove or disprove his involvment, you don't ask it.


Everything believes in something. Science believes in causality and the Scientific Method.

The Scientic Method is nothing more then a tool. If something better comes along, it would be replaced.

Faith belongs to religion. Not science.


No school would teach ID as fact. They would only teach as how I presented it, a hypothesis.


I would argue that. Especially when you see some of the comments made here. Look into the recent Kansas rulings. They don't talk about hypothesis. They view it as the truth.


The school need make no opinon on it.

That's the teachers job and I am willing to bet if a teacher didn't like it and said so, he would get warned about "not presenting a 'balanced' presentation" as the Christians in the class would think he was just slaming their religion.


The path you take says the word "Christianity" can't even be MENTIONED in the school, since the school would be lending credibility to the existence of a Messianic figure.

Three out of the major personalities pushing for ID are devout Christians. Christianity was dropped simply because they knew people would not listen to their claims.


Exactly, and the Theory of Gravity, as we teach elementary school students, is wrong. Most of Newton's theories have been proven to be wrong; we are teaching our children incorrect things, no?

They are?

What are they teaching now? Intelligent Falling? ;)

Yes.. you have established that it is a hypothesis in that it is an idea... but most Creationist and ID supporters also call it a theory.. so by what measure do you differentiate Theory from Hypothesis ?? As i know it... to be a theory.. it must be testable.
Actually, both hypotheses and theories must be both testable and falsifiable. Theories have lots of evidence in favor of them. Hypotheses don't.

In short, ID doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

Are you going to deny that on the large, the people that support the big bang support evolution?

The two theories are nearly irrevocably interlinked.

I would say it's like creatinists saying Yahweh burped out the world then everything crawled out of the mud, but they've started crawling back into the mud themselves on that topic out of fear of persecution of big shiny caps just like that.

Generally the Big Bang theory is just another model of science where the world is once again billions of millions of years old again as opposed to creationist views of a few thousand, and again with the big bang things have to just as randomly fall into place.

You also need to get some pill insert or something, because if you can't take the obvious joking tone throughout the entire post, I'd have to propose you're extremely constipated.

Just because people who tend to believe one thing also believe another doesn't mean the theories are linked. Hell, they don't even belong to the same disciplines of science.

Big Bang = Physics and Astronomy

Evolution = Biology

You may be joking, but you're still trying to connect two things that are completely unrelated. Also, if you are indeed joking, then it might help to say something kinda funny. Just a suggestion. :D