Victory for evolution in Texas

[Blake]

seriously blake...

seriously, you shouldn't have to get confirmation from your mother about whether or not you are a stupid .

[Blake]

In my experience, 100% of the message while allowing that the Bible is written in literary prose.

so the part where Jesus died on a cross and came back to life again in 3 days is just literary prose?

In my experience exactly 0% of the Christians I know believe that to be just "literary prose".

[ElNono]

Non testable today. That doesn't mean the idea should be laughed at.

The currently proposed ID theory includes a non-testable en y/being/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. If you want to propose an alternate ID theory that includes a testable being, there's nothing stopping you.

[Wild Cobra]

Not sure who taught you evolution, but that's not what evolution tries to explain.

Evolution I learned says every life evolved. I'm OK with that. I just believe it did have help along the way instead of being purely mutations, natural hybrids, selection, etc.

The ID we know as proposed has nothing to do with human engineering.

You think that level of capability isn't in the thoughts of many scientists? The Bible in essence says in the future, we will be like gods.

[Blake]

We had this conversation before with Phenomenaul IIRC a while ago. Also, I'm not opposed to teaching Religion under religion class.

or even some kind of philosophy class, imo.

The problem here is when people try to equate this as a science. It isn't and it shouldn't be taught as such.

Even Michael Behe ended up admitting as much in court.

[Winehole23]

Did a bird in your coffee this morning, or was that just "top o the mornin to ye?"

[Wild Cobra]

The currently proposed ID theory includes a non-testable en y/being/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. If you want to propose an alternate ID theory that includes a testable being, there's nothing stopping you.

There is not one single ID idea. I would agree that some are outrageous. However, I believe ID exists in some form in our past history by some more advanced intelligence. It could be Jehovah, it could be the aliens described in a Sumerian story, could be other extra terrestrials, or a more advance civilization like the fables Atlantis, etc.

As for testing it... Maybe when I'm older, we will have the means.

[Blake]

I just believe it did have help along the way instead of being purely mutations, natural hybrids, selection, etc.

great, just keep your belief system out of science books.

[Winehole23]

In my experience exactly 0% of the Christians I know believe that to be just "literary prose".

You probably don't have much experience with Wesleyans.

[ElNono]

Evolution I learned says every life evolved. I'm OK with that. I just believe it did have help along the way instead of being purely mutations, natural hybrids, selection, etc.

You should present your theory then. Unfortunately, it's going to be tough to compete with a 150 years old theory that you can't prove false.

You think that level of capability isn't in the thoughts of many scientists? The Bible in essence says in the future, we will be like gods.

Again, ID as proposed today has nothing to do with human engineering.

[fyatuk]

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.

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.

I agree with all that. ID should not be taught as science, not just because it's an unfalsifiable proposition (under current testing capabilities, at least, and most likely ever), but because it doesn't directly relate to any science.

Sure, there may or may not be a plan, but it doesn't change whether primordial soup works, whether evolution happens or is induced by natural selection, what the constants c, e, pi, etc represent, or anything else. ID doesn't relate to the particulars of science, and I agree has no place in science class.

I just have issues with people who claim that religion in any form stiffles scientific study, or that believing ID somehow diminishes your thought process or intelligence.

FWIW, every 'faction' out there has a Einstein quote handy... he said a lot of things throughout his life

Quite true. He was a bit crazy. That's just one of my favorites.

[Wild Cobra]

Did a bird in your coffee this morning, or was that just "top o the mornin to ye?"

Asking me?

Funny... I did sleep in on this day off. I'm on my second cup of coffee now!

I wasn't referring to you as one of the ankle biters. At least you usually have some pretty intelligent thoughts, even if at times you are putting someone down.

[Wild Cobra]

great, just keep your belief system out of science books.

And stop teaching that all life evolved then. Leave it as "we don't know."

[GoodOdor]

And stop teaching that all life evolved then. Leave it as "we don't know."

And that's why uneducated parts changers don't get a say in the education curriculum.

[ElNono]

There is not one single ID idea. I would agree that some are outrageous.

Again, because this seems to still escape you: We're discussing a contemporary version (mainstream, whatever you want to call it) of ID that some people want to include in science class. Wether evolution is right or wrong, there's no doubt that it is science, using the scientific-method, whereas the proposed ID theory is not.

If you want to write to Nature about your alternate ID theories, including aliens, please by all means do so.

[Winehole23]

@WC: I was asking Blake. He played the stupid card.

[Blake]

You probably don't have much experience with Wesleyans.

Not at all, tbh.

Does Wikipedia not have it right?:

In addition, they [Wesleyans] believe in the following articles of religion:

.....This article indicates the following beliefs

Jesus Christ is the Son of God
Conceived by the Holy Spirit
born of the Virgin Mary
Truly God and truly man
He died on the cross and was buried
He rose bodily from the dead
He ascended into heaven
He intercedes at the Father's right hand
Until he returns
to judge all humanity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Church#Beliefs

[ElNono]

And stop teaching that all life evolved then. Leave it as "we don't know."

But we know that life evolved. We have actual evidence of that. We might not know specifically how it happened, but we know it did.

[fyatuk]

so the part where Jesus died on a cross and came back to life again in 3 days is just literary prose?

In my experience exactly 0% of the Christians I know believe that to be just "literary prose".

I know quite a few. They view it as an interpretation of the Romans/Jews attempting to kill Christ's teachings, but Christ's teachings not only surviving, but growing stronger.

Most believe that part is quite literal, however.

But it's also semi-justified, since there are plenty of examples of people being legally dead for hours before suddenly waking up, and that's with modern science and machines to determine.

[Blake]

@WC: I was asking Blake. He played the stupid card.

no I didn't. I was responding to the one who did.

[Wild Cobra]

Again, because this seems to still escape you: We're discussing a contemporary version (mainstream, whatever you want to call it) of ID that some people want to include in science class. Wether evolution is right or wrong, there's no doubt that it is science, using the scientific-method, whereas the proposed ID theory is not.

If you want to write to Nature about your alternate ID theories, including aliens, please by all means do so.

I agree from the viewpoint that one is theory and the other a hypothesis. However, being a theory, it needs to leave room for other possibilities. I have a problem with teachers who make a student question their faith by saying evolution is the only answer.

[Winehole23]

I was being facetious, but I have been to a Wesleyan reading group and this whole privileging of message over literal text is a well-established style it seems to me.

[Wild Cobra]

@WC: I was asking Blake. He played the stupid card.

Didn't think you were responding to me, but if there is a "threaded mode" in this forum, I don't use it. Too often, your responses come out as not knowing that post or who you are referring to.

[baseline bum]

And stop teaching that all life evolved then. Leave it as "we don't know."

ing nihilism, the calling card of the creationists.

[Blake]

I know quite a few. They view it as an interpretation of the Romans/Jews attempting to kill Christ's teachings, but Christ's teachings not only surviving, but growing stronger.

Most believe that part is quite literal, however.

But it's also semi-justified, since there are plenty of examples of people being legally dead for hours before suddenly waking up, and that's with modern science and machines to determine.

so these same people also have explanations for the magic tricks that Jesus pulled off as well?

point is, if you are allowed to pick and choose what is literal and what is not, then the whole thing is bull .....

you're either all in or you're all out, imo.