"Intelligent Design" & Public Schools

“Why is that on this thread?”

“Why are you on this thread?”

“Duck!”

“I was hoping for some "intelligent design" & public schools discussion, but all I see is you and something about the Big Bang, so I'm starting to wonder.

; )”

“Feel free to wonder all you wish.”

“Ok ...

I wonder why non-IDers think the ID debate can be resolved by determining if the Big Bang is real or not.”

“I would welcome your speculation, especially since it's validation that my post is part of the disussion that should take place on this thread.”

“Actually, it questions whether or not your post is part of the discussion that should take place on this thread, but I find it refreshing that you look to me for validation of yourself.
last edited: 3/17/06 12:45:50 PM”

“Sure it does. It's a perfectly valid example of the point you are trying to make.”

“The point I am trying to make is that you indiscriminately add fluff to the ID discussion in order to water it down. I am glad you find this an perfectly valid example of the point I am trying to make.”

“I am so glad you are glad. You seem to enjoy chasing your tail.”

“You seem to enjoy chasing my tail as well.”

“Too bad you couldn't answer a legitimate straight forward question and had to resort to personal attacks pitts. I'd expect more from you. Instead, you resort to personal attacks and chasing your tale.”

“take this kind of talk back to the gay marriage thread!

You seem to enjoy chasing my tail as well.”
Sarge
12:54:34 PM”

“I think new evidence concerning the appearance of the Universe is very relevent to a discussion of Intelligent Design.

Very few still argue that the Universe appeared only 6,000 or so years ago.

Also, no one has scientifically been able to explain the sudden appearance of space, time, matter, energy, etc., so, no one is yet able to refute 'In the Beginning, Go....'
last edited: 3/17/06 3:43:36 PM”

“Srg has a tail? He is the proverbial "missing link"?”

“lonesurveyor - How do the things you listed make the big bang relevant?

Very few still argue that the Universe appeared only 6,000 or so years ago.

Right, that even more so demonstrates that the Big Bang, existing or not, may have been created by an IDer. If anything, this diminishes the reason to bring the BB into the debate.

Also, no one has scientifically been able to explain the sudden appearance of space, time, matter, energy, etc., so, no one is yet able to refute 'In the Beginning,

Again, ... (see above). Sounds like you listed arguments to remove BB from the discussion of ID, not to include it.

I think new evidence concerning the appearance of the Universe is very relevent to a discussion of Intelligent Design.

I agree with that, but pitts is on a mission to prove the Big Bang existed in an effort to disprove ID (you'd have to read the history going back many months). That is why I asked him the question, to allow him to explain if he's bringing it up to disprove ID, or to just talk about origins. Unfortunately, he decided to make his response a personal attack instead, so I can only assume for now his message hasn't changed over time.”

“IMO, the BB and ID are completely separate issues from each other. ID seeks to explain evolution with a theological slant. It really does nothing to explain the origin or development of the cosmos.”

“ID seeks to explain evolution with a theological slant. It really does nothing to explain the origin or development of the cosmos.

whaaaaaaaa?”

“It's fun to make money for Matt.”

“So, are you all saying the discussion of ID is limited to the appearance and development of living things on Earth?

Not to include the appearance and development of the universe in general?”

“well first came the earth and then the giant goat monster created the rest of the general mish mash.”

“Personally I view the force which brought about the appearance of the overall universe to be the same force which brought about life on Earth

be that force intelligent or naturalistic/random.”

“So, are you all saying the discussion of ID is limited to the appearance and development of living things on Earth?

Not to include the appearance and development of the universe in general?

lonesurveyor - I'm not. I'm saying that this is about origins, but pitts' quest is to prove the Big Bang happened (is happening) ... but that's not in dispute in the context of this discussion (I believe in universal expansion), and proving it in itself does not disprove intelligent design.

Personally I view the force which brought about the appearance of the overall universe to be the same force which brought about life on Earth

be that force intelligent or naturalistic/random.

Agreed.
last edited: 3/18/06 9:12:22 AM”

“Science is the study of natural phenomena using naturalistic explanations. ID is non-naturalistic (i.e. supernatural) and hence not Science. That's why it has no place in public school Science curriculum.”

“Big Bang was the beginning of a change in the infinite existence (no beginning) cosmos.
Science and ID would be change ,for, only the national debt had no beginning and no end.”

“natural is what is real - If there is an IDer, that is real.

Supernatural is a term used to explain what we do not understand. It's real, whether or not we understand it.

Electricity was not understood before we created the means to discover it. It was still naturalistic at the time, regardless of what we perceived.

Science includes the process of creating tools to allow us to discover what is currently beyond our reach in comprehension.

If science refuses to try to see what is beyond our current means, it's only the fault of those scientists who impose those restrictions on themselves. It's still a natural phenomena, and therefore science.

Science is the exploration of the universal truths, including the building of the ships to get you there - regardless of whether or not you ever reach your destination.”

“I went to the restaurant at The End of the Universe. The Gnab Gib was really cool. Especially after a few Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters.”

“Big Bang was the beginning of a change in the infinite existence (no beginning) cosmos.

That the universe had no beginning is only theory, and a very recent one at that.”

“Supernatural means not-natural. ID describes a process (or influence) outside of nature. Hence it is a supernatural theory... non-naturalistic.

Science is the study of natural, observable phenomena using naturalistic explanations. Science doesn’t study things that are not naturalistic (not part of the natural universe). Also, Science doesn’t use non-naturalistic explanations for the phenomena it observes.”

“ID describes a process (or influence) outside of nature.

Absolutely not true. Your whole premise is incorrect.

If there is an IDer, it's the most natural thing abound. In fact, everything else is synthetic.”

“how would you know?”

“How would you know what?”

“Finite beings, as many mistakenly consider us, have earthly problems when limits of term are undefined. Dynamic change with no start and no finish calls to most a need for purpose defined and whether real or not.”

“The need for an undefined start serves no purpose.”

“Since you clearly don't know what Science is, how could anyone accept that you would recognize what is not Science?”

“More personal attacks from pitts. Much easier for him than actual debate.

I suppose Faraday wasn't a scientist either. He realized what pitts would consider as "supernatural" had he lived back in the day as something that was very natural. Pitts, you would have been one of those laughing at Faraday, but he had the last laugh.”

“I WIN!”

“yeah - by staying out, that might be the only way to "win".”

“Sorry guys, I am late getting in, I busy worshipping at the Temple of Good Godly Miss Molly.......anyway,....Science derives from the Latin root Scientia which = "KNOWLEDGE", the study and knowledge derived therefrom of facts, phenomena, laws and proximate causes by observation, experimentation, empirical and methodlogical. Now, the basic unit of knowldege in ALL science is the THEORY - without which there would be no science.
Unless you can Prove or Disprove the existence of an IDer, Supreme Taco, Madame Magnificent, God, Yahweh, Mother Nature, etc., then you can neither say it is or it isn't science
last edited: 3/19/06 2:39:54 PM”

“Unels you can Prove or Disprove the existence of an IDer, Supreme Taco, Madame Magnificent, God, Yahweh, Mother Nature, etc., then you can neither say it is or it isn't science

The rules change from conversation to conversation.

So pinetop, has the Big Bang been proven?

Has evolution been proven?

Has brown dwarfs been proven?

How about worm-holes? Got any proof of them?

Ok, now you can further redefine what you'd accept as science since your first requirement is clearly inadequate, as you now realize. Go ahead. I'll wait right here.”

“Wait Sarge, don't go anywhere.

Due to further analysis and empirical evdience I have made a realization, my statement contained an inherent contradiction.....how can the basic unit of science be defined as a THEORY, thus science by definition is only a good guess......WRONG!

I left some important steps out and now will elaborate - science is a THEORY (yes) but it is Theory that is PREDICTIVE, that is, it must be a theory that explains what will happen under specific sets of conditions or circumstances.

Brown Dwarfs (and female bearded dwarfs......lol), worm-holes, evolution all have some merits of prediciting a future situation if the right combination of circumstances come together in the right manner. Or have had past circumstances explained by empirical methodology.

An IDer is not science because we cannot predict what will happen, nor do we know what the hypotheses or pre-existing conditions/circumstances that are necessary to have an IDer. Therefore it is not science.

I was wrong. An IDer is NOT science until we can find out how it behaves and reacts and we find out under what circumstances give rise to an IDer. Until then it is simply supernatural / paranormal / ideology / good ole faith (gotta love faith and hope and charity, they keep me going) but it is not a science.
last edited: 3/19/06 3:04:03 PM”

“An IDer is not science because we cannot predict what will happen,

1. So you can now predict what will happen with a worm-hole? or you can only speculate?

nor do we know what the hypotheses or pre-existing conditions/circumstances that are necessary to have an IDer.

2. We only recently discovered that life and survive in extreme conditions, in space, in extreme heat, and in extreme cold, although that was previously theorized. Was it not science until we saw it with our own eyes? The people searching for this stuff were what? Journalists?

I was wrong. It an IDer is NOT science until we can find out how it behaves and reacts and we find out under what circumstances give rise to an IDer.

3. You know how a worm-hole behaves? You know how they react? Why don't you share that information with the rest of the world because nobody else does.

Until, then it is simply supernatural / paranormal / ideology / good ole faith (gotta love faith and hope and charity, they keep me going) but it is not a science.

4. Until those things are met? Then according to your definition, brown dwarfs, worm-holes and evolution are not science either.”

“A brown dwarf has been seen, and has been studied; evolution has been studied and seen to exist; Worm holes have been seen and thus exist. The exact, precise mechanics of how these processes work do not need to be known to make them a science. Science is the observation of these "things" and then the analysis of their make-up, their reactivity, thier processes, etc.

However, God, etc., or as you please, IDer (by any other name is still God), has never been seen, never stiudied, there is no remotely possible empirical foundation from to launch a "scientific" investigation into even trying to prove the existence or non-existance of God. Thus, it is not a science.”

“oooops malfunction at the junction - computer is messing up. Its amazing, no matter how fast and how advanced they make these things, artificial intelligence wil never be able to handle natural stupidity.......lol
last edited: 3/19/06 3:52:12 PM”

“Wow, there is so much there to question. Let's start at the beginning.

A brown dwarf has been seen, and has been studied; ... Science is the observation of these "things" and then the analysis of their make-up, their reactivity, thier processes, etc.

So a brown dwarf is science because it has been observed according to you definition.

So then, is a black dwarf science? Should it be taught in a science class?”

“Poor Sarge. He can't make a supernatural theory naturalistic so he tries to make naturalistic theories supernatural. Stop redefining words to fit your needs. It makes you look like a mental midget.”

“Poor Sarge. He can't make ... It makes you look like a mental midget.

Poor pitts - everything is a personal attack with you.

Honestly pitts - Your personal attacks have really begun to define you. I used to respect your debating with me, even with the occasional patronizing I always felt it was unintentional. This is blatant immaturity.

Where does one go when they see no hope in winning a debate? pitts again answers that question.

____

As a side to you pitts, you are the one redefining words. Natural is what is real. By definition, if there is an IDer, you are synthetic - as is all that you allow yourself to recognize.

___

The irony is unequivocal. It is the so-called scientist that now believes he is the center of the universe.”

“not even close”