Reply With Quote
I have no problem with parents teaching religion, or parochial schools, etc.
However, if you're going to teach science, I expect it to be science. Religion isn't part of science.
Can we please stop pretending ID is anything else than a wedge tactic created by the same people who push for creationism? They just figured they would need to get ID in first, to open up the door for creationism.
IF anyone recalls the big trial a while back about teaching ID, they brought the book the ID's wanted thought, I think it was called Panda's and people. Anyway, the evolutionists brought in a 1987 version of the book, and the big difference was.....the creationists simply changed the word "creationism" tp "intelligent design"....
It's really tiring seeing some home schooled dumb ask stupid questions like "evolution is a THEORY!!111" and "IT DOESNT PROVE THE ORIGIN OF LIFEEE!!!"
I have no problem with parents teaching religion, or parochial schools, etc.
However, if you're going to teach science, I expect it to be science. Religion isn't part of science.
Yes, I don't think anyone disagrees with the event. However, the idea that all forms of life today had no engineered help along the way is what ID people disagree with.
If you believe in aliens, is there no room to believe in ID?
No, I agree. ID isn't science. It's something better covered in Philosophy class. I'm just saying you're wrong in that ID is diametrically opposed to science. ID, as a belief system, typically embraces science.
Most IDers I've met would never stop researching and just say "It's the way it is because of God." Like was said above, ID covers the "why" not the "how." Science explains the "how" not the "why." If you figure out enough "how"s you might find the "why."
As Einstein is credited with saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Martin Noway, director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, and well respected scientist focusing on evolution and biology is a Roman Catholic and has said "Science and religion are two essential components in the search for truth. Denying either is a barren approach."
Many people view the 2 as intrinsically linked, and it doesn't interfere with their research.
It's not surprising someone who thinks we should flood death valley believes in ID.....
Excluding ID is atheist. ID is evolution, being helped.
No it doesn't have anything to do with religion. However, no neither were scientifically. Also it seems like you are confusing evolution with adaptation.
Then stop teaching that evolution is the way everything came to be. At least add how GM crops are made. That is a form of ID.
How can someone not believe in ID who believes GM exists?
You can propose any alternative theory you want. At the same time, be prepared to get laughed at and ignored when your theory is non-testable.
Your flood theory is testable, even if ridiculous.
That was a random though. Now that I know there wouldn't be enough surface area, I gave the idea up.
I don't need Ankle Biters like you criticizing just to criticize, like a dumb dog barks and bites at just anything.
thank God we have smarter people educating our young than the morons on this board..
how can you call that "missing"?
Like I said, not surprising someone who believes in ID comes up with such a re ed "thought".
There's a saying for people like you: it's better to stay quiet and make people wonder if you're stupid, or open your mouth and remove all doubt.
In your case, there's definitively no doubt left.
did you forget? he used to be a farmer.
WC is a missing link himself - stuck somewhere between man and chimp.
Why does ID have to be done by a God?
Non testable today. That doesn't mean the idea should be laughed at. One of the first understanding of science everyone needs to realize for themselves is "I don't know." I you summarily throw an untested idea out, you could miss something important.
Yes, my though, hypothesis not theory, turned out not to be what I was hoping for. If you wish to class all untested hypothesis as questionable, ridiculing the people with some creativity, then science would never advance.
Posting your random thoughts in a public forum assures that random jackasses will reply. Cope.
Also, keeping more of them to yourself is an option. Discretion is the soul of valor etc..
I agree, the Zeus-creation theory is an untested hypothesis we should seriously consider and research before dismissing it.
I never claimed it had to be "God." However, the Gods would be of such intelligence to do like we are starting to learn in genetic engineering.
I'm not saying ID is opposed to science. I'm saying that science can't fit ID as proposed. The problem here is the attempts to teach science next to non-science, and call the whole thing science.
FWIW, every 'faction' out there has a Einstein quote handy... he said a lot of things throughout his life
A lot of religious people do science, so I'm not surprised about certain comments. We had this conversation before with Phenomenaul IIRC a while ago. Also, I'm not opposed to teaching Religion under religion class.
The problem here is when people try to equate this as a science. It isn't and it shouldn't be taught as such.
Yes I know that. Sometimes those yapping ankle biters are more than I expect though.
Not sure who taught you evolution, but that's not what evolution tries to explain.
The ID we know as proposed has nothing to do with human engineering.
Pause. Take a deep breath. Think about where you're posting.
Now, what were you saying about expectations?
No confusion here. Evolution has a variety of parts and theories. Natural selection is one of them. Genetic mutations is another one (one that's been tested and proven over time). I'm sure a biology book or Google can do a better job explaining the intricacies better than I can in one post.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
