Reply With Quote
If ID were a religious theory you'd might have a point Magic, but it's not so you don't.
Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, and Scientology are religions not religious theories.
I think this "theory" should be taught as well:
Aztec Creation Story
The mother of the Aztec creation story was called "Coatlique", the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes. She was created in the image of the unknown, decorated with skulls, snakes, and lacerated hands. There are no cracks in her body and she is a perfect monolith (a totality of intensity and self-containment, yet her features were sqaure and decapitated).
Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom. Whe she looked for it later, it was gone, at which time she realized that she was again pregnant. Her children, the moon and stars did not believe her story. Ashamed of their mother, they resolved to kill her. A goddess could only give birth once, to the original litter of divinity and no more. During the time that they were plotting her demise, Coatlicue gave birth to the fiery god of war, Huitzilopochtli. With the help of a fire serpent, he destroyed his brothers and sister, murdering them in a rage. He beheaded Coyolxauhqui and threw her body into a deep gorge in a mountain, where it lies dismembered forever.
The natural cosmos of the Indians was born of catastrophe. The heavens literally crumbled to pieces. The earth mother fell and was fertilized, while her children were torn apart by fratricide and them scattered and disjointed throughout the universe.
http://www.indians.org/welker/legend.htm
If ID were a religious theory you'd might have a point Magic, but it's not so you don't.
Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, and Scientology are religions not religious theories.
You can't call ID science. It is misleading, at most it's metaphysics, and it could be even said that it belongs to the field of theology.
Typical CBF post, both infantile and incoherent.
How is it that ID is any more scientific than Creationism? neither are scientific enough, they just dont meet any criteria.
They don't belong in a science classroom, they belong in a philosophy/religion classroom.
Well, maybe its just because no other theory has been serious enough, or shown an amount of supportive evidence to require any further study...these scientists will say the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution, and no other theory comes close. Well, of course it doesn't because no other theory has been studied seriously. This crowd has a vested interest in proving Darwin correct, and anything else is dismissed out of hand.
Who? How many? What evidence do they show?Most people have no idea that serious scientists believe there is a strong case for intelligent design.
"are religions not religious theories."
But all great religions have had their own Creation Myths, and ID is a myth, a belief, "this 's so complicated SomeBody had to dream it up, but there's no shread of evidence of SomeBody's agency" other than the fact that we IDers BELIEVE there MUST BE a Designer.
One of the primordial "natural laboratories" proposed for the creation of first biological molecules is clay, because it has some weird, surprising elecrtro-chemical behaviour under pressure and heat. The Bible says God fashioned Adam from, sonofa , clay.
Does that prove the Bible is scientific? no
Does that prove that life arose from clay? no
ID's basic concept is that "this 's so complicated, we can't understand it, we can't imagine how it go so complicated, esp on its own over billions of years. Therefore, we terminate thought, we quit, and say a Designer created it".
Somehow, my understanding of Designer is that He wants us to keep striving towards Him, which precludes terminating thought and quitting the search for knowledge.
Last edited by boutons_; 12-27-2005 at 05:54 PM.
Thread off the rails...
First, no one has claimed in this thread that Darwin's theory of evolution isn't a legitimate, valid, scientific model.
Second, I don't believe Darwinian evolutionary theory contradicts -- , it doesn't even address -- any theories of the origins of biological life.
Third, intelligent design isn't creationism but creationism depends on intelligent design just like Darwinian evolution depends on some pretty creative mathematics at times.
Fourth, there are unmistakeable signs of design in the living cell that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution or any existing theory for that matter. What's the big ing deal with exploring whether or not these design features are illusory or not?
Fifth, until the 1950's every brain on the planet thought the universe was contracting. Well, it ain't.
Yetthere are unmistakeable signs of design in the living cell that cannot be explained by the theory of evolution or any existing theory for that matter
No big deal at all, it just isn't science and doesn't belong in a science classroom.What's the big ing deal with exploring whether or not these design features are illusory or not?
There is no debate. There won't be any debates. This is not science and all the reference you people have been posting are (what a surprise) from advocates. Thats about it.
You can say all you want about it, but since ID is so closely related to creationism, only "believers" would support such a lame attemp to block knowledge from people. This is obscurantism. It's what all religions have been doing since the rising of churches.
Old conservative (aka right wing) methodology to permanently further their agendas in trying to discredit every single theory, author or basic notion they dont like, so they can keep the stupid sheeps still.
It's as much science as string theory.
So let's teach string theory in highschool so the kids can judge for themselves about string theory. We don't want to muffle or persecute the string theorists.
Is string theory being taught in middle school?
[QUOTE]References for anything implies that they're an advocate. Thanks for stating the obvious.
And just what "knowledge" is ID attempting to block?You can say all you want about it, but since ID is so closely related to creationism, only "believers" would support such a lame attemp to block knowledge from people.
And just what is ID trying to obscure or discredit?This is obscurantism. It's what all religions have been doing since the rising of churches.
Old conservative (aka right wing) methodology to permanently further their agendas in trying to discredit every single theory, author or basic notion they dont like, so they can keep the stupid sheeps still.
If you think it's evolution you're dead wrong.
Is Discovery Ins ute trying to eliminate, reduce or censor the coverage of evolution in textbooks?
No. Far from reducing the coverage of evolution, Discovery Ins ute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. The true censors are those who want to stop any discussion of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
I agree, String Theory is just a theory yet it does comply with several more criterias than ID as to be called more scientific than ID. For example it is Consistent (internally and externally), Parsimonious, Progressive as posted in a couple links before.String theory remains to be verified. No version of string theory has yet made a prediction which differs from those made by other theories—at least, not in a way that could be checked by a currently feasible experiment. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it possesses many features of mathematical interest, and it may yet become supremely important in our understanding of the Universe, but it requires further developments before it is accepted or falsified.
Censors? so they have scientific gathered proof that evolutionary theory is wrong and Science Mag (for example) is refusing to publish it? give me a break...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You've got to have scientifically gathered proof, gathered through a scientific method, in order to refute a scientific theory, or else well, it isn't science...
Although I do share some of the same opinions, I believe you go nowhere insulting people and their beliefs. If you think they are wrong, explain them why, eventually if you are right most people will agree with you or at least accept the possibility that they might be wrong, if they don't well maybe they were right to begin with...
For a start, this isn't a scientific debate. Anyone who believes that ID should be debated as a scientific theory, desires to go back into pre-science times, where knowledge and religion were almost the same thing. At most, this is a philosophical (metaphysical specifically) debate. Whoever thinks that this isn't true, and Intelligent Design is science, should go back and read about 200 years of history and evolution in science. If they still believe that ID is science, it's not because they have a strong case for it, but actually because they want to go with their agendas.
Some people said that those who back the Evolution Theory have agendas. Of course they do, the difference is that the agenda is to debate evolution within a scientific discussion (and it's not a big Communist International Conspiracy, you have right wing & religious scientists who accept this as a fact). Some people who support Intelligent Design don't want to take the debate into the metaphysical realm, that's the big difference. Just check this thread and those who oppose to ID in highschools are a very different bunch of people, with very different political views, but they all have two basic ideas that should be respected as a symbol of reasoning and Modern Era:
- Evolution is a scientific theory, ID isn't. Any debate of metaphysical nature is for philosophy or pseudo-science. Evolution and its supporting and opposing scientific theories are a debate for science. Intelligent Design isn't.
- Public state education must not be mixed with religion (and ID is a theory mainly motivated by religion). Doing it would be going backwards in the history of humanity, pre-French Revolution, Scientific Era, where things that couldn't be explained were considered "supernatural acts", "Divine intervention", "an act of God", etc.
I'm quite frankly suprised that so many people in the U.S. are even debating this. A country that has based a large part of its success and power on scientific progress, now has a very real and dangerous posibility of moving back into the Dark Ages if the ultra-religious agendas are allowed in the schools. This is a further proof that Islamic and Christian extremists are both real threats in today's world. While one group has its methods based into violence and terrorism, the other is moved by similar reasons, but acts differently. The U.S. has never been an historical supporter of laicité (specially in political speeches), but the ultra-religious point that is reaching right now is really scary.
In the "so they can keep the stupid sheeps still." part of my previous post I was referring to all of us. I guess you refer to that part (I dont insult to anyone, except to the ID theory itself)
It goes something like this, "I support intelligent design because I am opposed to sexuality."
What??? I think you better check your own extremism....
Weak take. Your opinion.... Oh... and quit confusing the issue...
Dude you are talking to a math major.... before you go on another insulting tirade calling people stupid at least make sure they won't make you look like a fool...
Anyway, the orders of magnitude complex design requires is beyond imagination.... those numbers don't lie and are reproducible in any mathematical analysis.
If you had actually taken time to read the excerpt you might have been amazed that such complexity even for the simplest of proteins can not be obtained even while accounting for every second in a "30-billion year old" universe.
Don't like the odds... tough.
o... the "evolutionary establishment" has been dead set in disallowing ANY idea that differs from evolution from getting exposure...
Evolution whether you recognize it or not requires as much faith as ID does. What most fail to realize is that the "unguided" natural process which governs "evolution" cannot be proven with the scientific parameters posted earlier....
Give me one experiment that proves evolution....
From those, give me any experiment that does not rely on inferences or rate observations to try and cover what occurred over "millions and millions of years."
Fact of the matter is you nor anyone else can produce such an experiment because as far as I know no one has created a time machine.
C'mon CBF please..... Is this supposed to be an argument with any statistical relevance??? I seriously doubt you went around asking all your professors whether they were atheists or not... Anyway, if the professors at my university (@ MIT) were cleary divided on the issue how is it that your establishment wants to say there is no debate...
[QUOTE]I wasn't inferring that the minority's rights be subjugated to or trampled on by the majority. In some cases the complete opposite is true, example; we have a small minority of people that don't want the Commandments displayed on public grounds so what's the solution, trample on the will of the majority because of the gross misinterpretation of Congress passing no law respecting the of establish of Religion. Thus the rights and will of the majority have been subjugated and trampled on by the minority (read ACLU).
The First Amendment regarding religion did not intend for religious symbolism or morality to be removed from Government, it was their intention that Government not take the step of meddling in the affairs of the general population by creating a State Religion.
Moralilty or lack of morality is a part of all religions as far as I know but it is not non-existent without religion.
You're either knowingly or unknowingly supporting the humanism/humanist agenda of values clarification, that morality is relative, there is no clear right or wrong and there are no moral absolutes, that's what's reinforced in our children (good old fasioned brainwashing) in Schools where broaching the subject of morality is anathema.
So what's the problem with instilling and reinforcing moral values into our children? What's the objection to that on face value? What fundamental rights of the minority (not minorities, there is a big difference here) in the Cons ution are violated by this?
And teaching morality without tieing it in to one particular religion is not brainwashing.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 12-28-2005 at 12:15 PM.
still does not mean its impossible
Evolution whether you recognize it or not requires as much faith as ID does.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
