"Intelligent Design" & Public Schools

“My beliefs on natural selection are irrelevant to that statement. As somebody who does not believe that we evolved from ape-like creatures, I still recognize that the concept is not necessarily mutually exclusive from ID.”

“uh oh. Bull#&%!$ Alert.

You don't have the right to indoctrinate other peoples' children with your religion. �Period. �End of Story.

If you like, you can pull your children out of the science curriculum and they can all work at call centers.

Home school them that the Moon is made of green cheese --- Whatever.”

“I love it when atheists confuse ID with religion. Demonstrates well their stupidity.”
Sarge
7:00:48 AM
11/16/07
ignore this user

Link

The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court had also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."[19] In drafts of the creation science textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivatives of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".[16] The book was published in 1989, followed by a "grass-roots" campaign promoting the use of the book to teach intelligent design in high-school biology classes.[20]

Creationism is religion. ID is creationism relabeled (not reinvented, just relabeled), so it would appear to me that calling someone stupid for recognizing that fact is a good example of a turd calling a rose "stinky".





Disclaimer: I am not calling anyone a turd (or a rose for that matter), I am making an analogy.
last edited: 11/19/07 9:25:55 AM”

“Home school them that the Moon is made of green cheese --- Whatever.


Can the ID folks opt out of paying taxes to support government education then?

If you weren't demanding money from the ID folks using the force of government there wouldn't be an issue.
last edited: 11/19/07 9:27:30 AM”

“I can get on board that bandwagon. As long as a kid can pass End of Grade test for basic education I don't care what else you teach them in your school. Just don't make me teach it in mine.”

“Oy.

Science is, in fact, an important aspect of our country's future.”

“It's a "public good," �Einstein. � I suppose you could move to a part of the country where Warren Jeffs would feel at home.

No wonder these people deny climate change. � � "Science Be Da Boogeyman!" � �If they want their children to be just as ignorant, fine.� You're not going to take us all down with you.

#&%!$ing magazine trolls ----”

“tilt likes to toss out strawmen. He knows most of us don't deny climate change, we just deny that our puny efforts will stop mother nature from doing what she wants. Adapt or die”

“"Science is, in fact, an important aspect of our country's future"

I am all in favor of standardized tests to confirm that educational goals are being met.

An understanding of the theory of evolution would obviously be necessary to meet the standard.

What that would allow is the ID folks to teach evolution as a theory not fact. Understanding the theory should still be required under the government certification scheme.”

“Wow, so creationism = religion. Really?”

“...and religions' recent reamergence has set this country back behind third world countries in its ability to do science.”

“I would like to see intelligent design in our public schools. There is a lot of crap out there. For example, the HS I went too in upstate NY was designed for the climate of Texas. What the designers failed to consider it that the NE gets a little thing called winter every year. Had the design been intelligent the school would have been one building instead of a group of buildings connected by covered walkways. The heating system would have also been designed adequate enough to heat the buildings when the temps fell below zero.”

“You got the whole nail in that stud, LOL.Too funny!”

“You got the whole nail in that stud, LOL.Too funny!

The same bureaucrats that were in charge of building lz's substandard school are in also in charge of educating the children.
last edited: 11/19/07 10:10:16 AM”

“LOL”

““...and religions' recent reamergence has set this country back behind third world countries in its ability to do science.”
salebored
12:49:56 PM
11/19/07

I disagree wholeheartedly. Its the Science as Religion that has stagnated US science. We no longer explore science for science sake. The scientific method has assumed room temperature. No longer do we use science to disprove a theory. We use science to prove a theory - which can't be done.
last edited: 11/19/07 10:16:14 AM”

““Wow, so creationism = religion. Really?”
Sarge
7:46:43 AM
11/19/07

Of course.”

“What that would allow is the ID folks to teach evolution as a theory not fact. Understanding the theory should still be required under the government certification scheme.”
ChicagolandRon
7:46:08 AM
11/19/07

Evolution is taught as a theory.”

“OMG, did he really post that? LOL.”

“I disagree wholeheartedly. Its the Science as Religion that has stagnated US science. We no longer explore science for science sake. The scientific method has assumed room temperature. No longer do we use science to disprove a theory. We use science to prove a theory - which can't be done.
last edited: 11/19/07 8:16:14 AM”
hyway
8:16:28 AM
11/19/07

I'd argue that this statement is completely unjustified, but I think I'd be pointing out the obvious.
last edited: 11/19/07 10:32:08 AM”

“Hyway, could I ask that you take a moment to look up the definition of a scientific theory before you post next?”

““Wow, so creationism = religion. Really?”
Sarge
7:46:43 AM
11/19/07

Of course.”
Phaedrus

OMG! Did he really post that?!?!?! LOL”

“Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

How else would yo describe it?

Do you use a different language than I do?”

“A "religious belief" is not "religion".

That's like if you were talking about school subjects and said "science is subject". Science is a subject, but it's not "subject".

That is an important distinction.

The next thing wrong with your theory ... "creationism" is not "a religion" (assuming that's what you meant to say). A religion is a set or series of beliefs, not just one. One belief is a belief. A "set" of beliefs might (can be) a religion.

That is another important distinction.

These are not just semantics.

You are claiming that ID is a relabeling of creationism, therefore it's a religion. One major problem with that is creationism is not a religion. It's no more a religion than the belief than meditation is a religion. Buddhists meditate, but so do people in other religions. Meditation in itself is not a religion, it just happens to be one aspect in a particular religion.”

“phaedrus, my point is that science these days is used to "TRY" to prove a theory. If enough people say that there science supports theory then it becomes a religion and people take it on faith that the Theory is actually proven when it is not. IE, mad made global warming is a theory, but since we have "consensus" by some scientists people think that means it is no longer a theory and say such things as "man made Global Warming is a fact."”

“Creationism is a key religious belief of Christianity that has no basis in science.

Creationism is religion - not science. That is what I meant. I thought it was pretty clear.

I did not mean to imply that creationism is a religion unto itself. I'm curious, in fact, as to why you would believe that I was!”

“I have an issue with the materialists dogmatic view of cosmology. They assert things they don't know as facts.

I don't have the faith to believe that chaos + time = order or that inanimate matter in a state of chaos + time = sentient personality.

If something in science seems impossible they just ascribe a long time period for it to take place as if all chaos needs is some time to "work" it all out.

You cannot get 10 minutes into a nature program or book written for the layman without anthropomorphic language being used in relation to supposed natural processes. Science (subconsciously?) imbues inanimate processes with volition in the language it uses regularly. They tip their hat to the force, the will driving life, the One ordering chaos and they don't even realize it.

Personalty and sentience are the big dilemma for modern science. All they can tell us about are the mechanics. At the root to them we are not even brute animals.

Sentience/personality is to the materialist scientist nothing more than an illusion that is the byproduct of bio mechanical processes.

Nothing has been discovered using the scientific method to dissuade me from believing that there was a first cause or designer of the universe.”

““phaedrus, my point is that science these days is used to "TRY" to prove a theory. If enough people say that there science supports theory then it becomes a religion and people take it on faith that the Theory is actually proven when it is not. IE, mad made global warming is a theory, but since we have "consensus" by some scientists people think that means it is no longer a theory and say such things as "man made Global Warming is a fact."”
hyway
8:54:25 AM
11/19/07

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.

Again, that is from wikipedia.

Anyway, a scientific theory is never fact. It makes predictions, and if any of the predictions of the theory are disproven, the theory must be modified to accept the new data, or be discarded.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that science is somehow less rigorous than in the past.”

“Where's the pasta in all this?”

“I did not mean to imply that creationism is a religion unto itself. I'm curious, in fact, as to why you would believe that I was!


I did not believe that is what you said. You said : "Creationism is religion"

Creationism is NOT religion. Your statement that it is is incorrect.

Creationism CAN BE a component of A religion.

Creationism is often found IN religion.

Creationism is NOT religion.”

“Little late for Halloween don't you think?”

“Where's the pasta in all this

Using a cartoon god because your argument is weak?”

“Nothing has been discovered using the scientific method to dissuade me from believing that there was a first cause or designer of the universe.”
ChicagolandRon

Ditto.

However, Nothing has been discovered using the scientific method to persuade me that way either.

My own personal beliefs are not completely science-based.”

“I did not believe that is what you said. You said : "Creationism is religion"

Creationism is NOT religion. Your statement that it is is incorrect.

Creationism CAN BE a component of A religion.

Creationism is often found IN religion.

Creationism is NOT religion.”
Sarge
9:03:10 AM
11/19/07

Creationism is, in fact, a religious belief. It's not a scientific theory.

Now that we have your confusion out of the way, are you defending the teaching of creationism relabeled as ID in science classes?”

“I think the scientific community in many ways has set out to prove a materialistic view of the natural world just as much as the ID guys have looked at the facts of science and interpreted them in the context of intelligent design.”

“I think it's easy to say that without having any evidence to support it.”

“phaedrus, many scientist these days start a test with an expected outcome and slant their input data to achieve it. I wasn't around in the past. Perhaps thats the way its always been done, but I was taught that you performed an experiment, analyzed the results, then hypothesize what the results mean.”

““I think the scientific community in many ways has set out to prove a materialistic view of the natural world just as much as the ID guys have looked at the facts of science and interpreted them in the context of intelligent design.”
ChicagolandRon
2:15:03 PM
11/19/07

The difference is that the people who hypothesized evolution used experimental data and historical record that could be duplicated/observed by other scientists and leaders of the day who supported/believed in creation. ID was around back then and had a very small following. ID can not be measured, its a statement of faith that no other explanation is suitable. Teach it if you want in your own school, but don't call it the equal of Evolution.”

“Teach it if you want in your own school, but don't call it the equal of Evolution

You will notice I said "I am all in favor of standardized tests to confirm that educational goals are being met.

An understanding of the theory of evolution would obviously be necessary to meet the standard."

but did not include ID as part of that standard.

If some day ID has strong enough evidence and support to justify it then it would have to included.”

“"What empirically testable predictions has ID made that have actually been tested and supported by observation?"
Mutt
9:26:40 AM
11/16/07

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. If ID is in fact a scientific theory, then it should be an easy question to answer.

Really, I'm just wondering what the ID Debate Book says to counter this with.”

“Really, I'm just wondering what the ID Debate Book says to counter this with

Have a link to that book for me? I must have missed it, lol.

As you can tell from my arguments my problem is not so much with modern science as it is with the materialist philosophy that is piggybacked on it as the only legitimate view of reality.

Science can only say that what we see is all that exists but that is an unfounded assumption.

It takes a leap of faith to believe modern cosmology.

As has been pointed out to me in the past my argument is primarily metaphysical.

Believing the party line of modern materialistic science/cosmology has ramifications that go beyond the nuts and bolts of things and in fact intrudes into the realm of metaphysics.
last edited: 11/19/07 11:55:54 AM”

“
Creationism is, in fact, a religious belief. It's not a scientific theory.

Now that we have your confusion out of the way, are you defending the teaching of creationism relabeled as ID in science classes?”

That is what I said. That is not what YOU said. It was your confusion, not mine.”

“When you come up with a testable theory with repeatable results, send up a flare.”

“"When you come up with a testable theory with repeatable results, send up a flare."

I'll be watching for a cosmology that doesn't require me to have faith that order comes out of chaos plus time contrary to everything observed. Not to mention the problem with where did it all come from in the first place.”

“As you can tell from my arguments my problem is not so much with modern science as it is with the materialist philosophy that is piggybacked on it as the only legitimate view of reality. - Chicagolandron

No doubt there is a certain conceit in science not unlike religious hubris that gives rise to claims of exclusivity, for example. But from what I've been able to tell from your posts is that you have a problem with science being completely naturalistic in its perspective. It seems to be pretty common with ID supporters. They just don't *like* that science won't include a "GODDIDIT" clause (or its exact analog "ALIENSDIDIT").”

“Okay, Sarge, glad to see that you're still confused.

Care to address the issue?”

“from what I've been able to tell from your posts is that you have a problem with science being completely naturalistic in its perspective

It is a conundrum that science by it's very definition must be naturalistic in perspective but then finds itself having to make unfounded assumptions that all things are in fact the byproduct of natural causes.

If all you think exists is natural processes then you will shoehorn your observations to fit your assumptions.”

“Not to mention the problem with where did it all come from in the first place.”
ChicagolandRon
3:07:17 PM
11/19/07

Playing devils advocate here, but doesn't ID have the same problem? Where did the intelligent designer come from?”

“Playing devils advocate here, but doesn't ID have the same problem? Where did the intelligent designer come from

ID doesn't seek to explain the nature of the designer only that a designer exists.

Naturalistic science esp cosmology precludes the existence of a designer.”

“By definition... it's faith, not science. �And it's unconstitutional. �Funny how Some people raise hell against theocracies.... unless it's their own theocracy.

By all means, teach whatever you want in your Sunday Schools.”