Intelligent design isn't science

[Extra Stout]

Science? He was an observer. Just like the writers of the books of the
bible were observers. He came up with a theory, which people thought
made sense. Come on give me a break. His islands still exist and the
animals he observed still are in the same state they were. Shouldn't
they have some changes?

You are aware that in the intervening century-plus, thousands of other scientists have done scades of peer-reviewed research, right? They haven't just stood there and dumbly accepted Darwin's hypotheses.

Some of Darwin's ideas have been summarily disproven, in fact.

[boutons]

nah, just ignore xz, he's not capable of normal human intelligence and discussion, right down there with gtown.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And it is my fault? How, I ask questions. You have the answers? I don't have them. But I do have beliefs. That is wrong? But I don't see where you have to get upset because I question your beliefs.
Something doesn't compute here.

xray, my happiness doesn't hinge on whether evolution is true. It's not a religion

[xrayzebra]

You are aware that in the intervening century-plus, thousands of other scientists have done scades of peer-reviewed research, right? They haven't just stood there and dumbly accepted Darwin's hypotheses.

Some of Darwin's ideas have been summarily disproven, in fact.

My point, science is changing all the time. Sometimes something is proven
wrong, when in reality it is correct, and proven so in later studies. Happens
everyday, if you are to believe the papers. I know this isn't really
that relevant, but look at studies made on coffee. My goodness, it
has been found bad/good/not so good/maybe it is bad/terrible/on and on.
But the studies have been made by so called scientist. My point being,
in our culture anyway, and Muslim culture also, God created earth and
all creatures, what is so wrong in telling OUR children this is a belief that
is held by others. It really has not been disproven.

[Oh, Gee!!]

My point, science is changing all the time. Sometimes something is proven
wrong, when in reality it is correct, and proven so in later studies. Happens
everyday, if you are to believe the papers. I know this isn't really
that relevant, but look at studies made on coffee. My goodness, it
has been found bad/good/not so good/maybe it is bad/terrible/on and on.
But the studies have been made by so called scientist. My point being,
in our culture anyway, and Muslim culture also, God created earth and
all creatures, what is so wrong in telling OUR children this is a belief that
is held by others. It really has not been disproven.

It can't be proven either through scientific inquiry. It is a matter of religious faith and, as such, has no place in public school let alone science class.

[FromWayDowntown]

My point being, in our culture anyway, and Muslim culture also, God created earth and all creatures, what is so wrong in telling OUR children this is a belief that is held by others. It really has not been disproven.

You want to tell that to your children about an article of faith, do so -- or send them to Sunday School, or religious schools.

Why is it not enough to leave that for families and churches? Really, I'm curious.

[Extra Stout]

I know this isn't really
that relevant, but look at studies made on coffee. My goodness, it
has been found bad/good/not so good/maybe it is bad/terrible/on and on.
But the studies have been made by so called scientist.

Blame the journalists for that one. There will be an article in the New England Journal of Medicine saying, hey, there's a correlation between this and that, next we're going to do a study to see if some other thing correlates. The media takes that and runs with it, next thing you know, you see "Doctors Prove Watching Porn Decreases Cholesterol" or something in print.

My point being, in our culture anyway, and Muslim culture also, God created earth and all creatures, what is so wrong in telling OUR children this is a belief that is held by others. It really has not been disproven.

There is less disagreement about this than you think. I've had a lot of liberals come out and say, sure, you can teach in schools that "According to Christianity, God created the universe." They say you just need to keep it in history or sociology class, rather than in science class.

[hendrix]

My point, science is changing all the time. Sometimes something is proven wrong, when in reality it is correct, and proven so in later studies.

Thats beacuse those are field experiments or attempts to find a quick solution to some problem. Nobody developed a "theory on coffee".

[boutons]

xz doesn't have a clue how science works, or much of anything else either.

the evidence supporting biological evolution is overwhelmingly supportive, going back 100 years, form 1000s of scietists, and studies.

that IDer and creationists jerkoffs find what they consider and anomaly in evolution doesn't totally destroy all the supporting evidence, except when you have that objecive.

evolutionary theory has both wonderful explanatory and predictive power, and is one of the most heavily supported theories in science.

but, this is all pearls before swine ...

[DarkReign]

Simple .

Evolution can be marginally tested to scientific standards.

ID cannot.

Period.

[RandomGuy]

I will answer you question with a question. Should we not give an
opposing view to a theory. T H E O R Y, all "scientist" agree that it is
a theory not cast in stone. What is wrong with giving both points of
of the theory of how the earth was created. Darwin doesn't explain that
if I am not mistaken.

The theory of evolution does a MUCH better job at explaining the observed facts than the theory of intelligent design.

You are side-stepping the issue of how ID is being used to advance teaching the Christian faith in schools, I noticed.

[RandomGuy]

Simple .

Evolution can be marginally tested to scientific standards.

ID cannot.

Period.

Very simple, indeed.

I looked at a couple of ID websites provided by jocchejam, and when they came to things that didn't fit into their theory neatly, it was always shrugged off as "god did it". THAT really made me assign a LOT less weight or credence to their interpretation of the way we came into existance.

That isn't science.

[smeagol]

ID does not oppose evolution. It's just a compliment to evolution.

[Yonivore]

“Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? To see what’s at stake, consider Mount Rushmore. The evidence for Mount Rushmore’s design is direct—eyewitnesses saw the sculptor Gutzon Borglum spent the better part of his life designing and building this structure. But what if there were no direct evidence for Mount Rushmore’s design? What if humans went extinct and aliens, visiting the earth, discovered Mount Rushmore in substantially the same condition as it is now?"

"In that case, what about this rock formation would provide convincing cir stantial evidence that it was due to a designing intelligence and not merely to wind and erosion? Designed objects like Mount Rushmore exhibit characteristic features or patterns that point to an intelligence. Such features or patterns cons ute signs of intelligence. Proponents of intelligent design, known as design theorists, purport to study such signs formally, rigorously, and scientifically. Intelligent design may therefore be defined as the science that studies signs of intelligence.“

Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are considered the pillars of modern western thought. They differed in many ways but had one thing in common—they were reductionists who claimed that all higher realms of existence could be explained by lower natural causes. They were the pillars of naturalism.

But their ideas were tested during the twentieth century and found wanting. Freud was the first fall. Incidents in his career were cited to call into question both his integrity and his scientific competence, and psychiatry seemed to make more progress through medication than through Freudian analysis. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s inflicted a death blow on Marxism, which is now seen as not only failing to deliver its promised utopia but as creating an inhumane tyranny. Darwin is the last man standing, but his theory is rapidly eroding as modern biological science reveals amazing complexity and design that cannot possibly be explained by Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutations and natural selection.

“Freud is dead, Marx is dead, and Darwin is not feeling very well.”

In the 19th century, we thought that there were two fundamental en ies of science: Matter and energy. At the beginning of the 21st century, we now recognize that there is a third fundamental en y, and it is information. It is not reducible to matter; it is not reducible to energy.

All theories put forward in the twentieth century to reduce information to matter-like the random origin of life, self-organization of matter, the biological theory of evolution that has tried to explain species' genetic information through the mechanism of mutation and natural selection-have failed. Professor Phillip Johnson, a leading critic of Darwinism, wrote:

“The real duality at every level of biology is the duality of matter and information. The philosophers of mind-science fail to understand the true nature of information because they assume that it is produced by a material (i.e. Darwinian) process and hence is not something fundamentally different from matter. But this is merely a prejudice that would be swept away by unbiased thinking.”

As Johnson states, "information is not matter, although it is imprinted on matter. It comes from elsewhere, from an intelligence..." Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Ins ute of Physics and Technology, expressed much the same thought:

“A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physical matter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind.... There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter...”

Therefore, the source of the information in nature cannot be the matter itself, as the materialists claim. The source of information is not matter, but rather a supra-material Mind. This Mind existed before matter. The Mind created, shaped and organized the whole material universe.

Well?

[Peter]

One agenda versus another. Yawn.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well?

So we should teach that God is great in our public school science classes?

Why even bother with Sunday Schools when you can have Monday through Friday Schools?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well?

So, it's obvious that science can only explain so much. The universe and the things contained therein are made in such a way that some people could/and do reasonably infer that there was some intent or intelligence behind the design. That's wonderful and all but it ain't science.

The next obvious questions are: Who or what is the designer? God you say? Which God? What are God's attributes? Is it one God or many gods?

I don't see how you teach ID as an alternative (or compliment) to evolution theory without getting into heavy theological questions. That's why it doesn't belong in science class. And it probably doesn't belong in public school at all since we are supposed to seperate questions of theology and faith from state-approved curriculums.

[jochhejaam]

You want to tell that to your children about an article of faith, do so -- or send them to Sunday School, or religious schools.

Why is it not enough to leave that for families and churches? Really, I'm curious.

Christians believe in life after death either with God in Heaven or without him in . Many children live in families that are void of any mention of God, Jesus Christ, heaven, or the Church. You get quite passionate about a the hypothetical innocent on Death Row possibly having his mortal body wrongfully terminated, where's the passion for those that are in need of spiritual education in an area that has eternal repercussions that affect not only the physical body but the soul?
Many slip through the cracks of uncaring or unknowing parents and family and are never taken to church and I see electives in school as a safety net for those that fall into this category.

Being a Christian yourself what's the justification for wanting to deny them this? Why so impassioned for the possible wrongfully innocent executed on Death Row and yet so passoinate against taking advantage of every possible avenue to educate children in an area that leads to death of both body and soul?
I'm also curious.

Matthew 10 : 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in . -Jesus Christ-

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]So we should teach that God is great in our public school science classes? QUOTE]



If ID isn't Scientific (a large and growing part of the scientific community does not support this premise) it can be taught as a religious elective as an alternative view, or supplement if you prefer, to Evolutionary Theories.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Many slip through the cracks of uncaring or unknowing parents and family and are never taken to church and I see electives in school as a safety net for those that fall into this category.

you obviously have never heard of separation of church and state. So public schools should convert heathens?

[Nbadan]

I don't see how you teach ID as an alternative (or compliment) to evolution theory without getting into heavy theological questions. That's why it doesn't belong in science class. And it probably doesn't belong in public school at all since we are supposed to seperate questions of theology and faith from state-approved curriculums.

Bingo. ID belongs in a college philosophy course not a HS.

[Spurminator]

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

While it's not Science, it does have value as a philosophical theory... And I think teaching about world philosophies (not just Western) would have value in the Public School system.

[Nbadan]

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

While it's not Science, it does have value as a philosophical theory... And I think teaching about world philosophies (not just Western) would have value in the Public School system.

Yeah, if high-schoolers were educated enough and wise enough at this point to make intelligent decisions, but most still lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish between fact and non-fact. No need to muddy the waters further with ID.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

Who is fighting so hard for ID to be included in public school cirriculum? Fundamenatlist Christians.

So you propose to teach kids that the universe is a product of an intelligent designer without revealing the iden y of the "intelligent designer?"

Okay class, I know you heard all this hooey about evolution but it is my duty as a teacher to inform you that evolution is not the entire story. There was something more powerful that set everything into motion.

Kid raises hand: Are you talking about God?

Teacher: I can't answer that question.

While it's not Science, it does have value as a philosophical theory... And I think teaching about world philosophies (not just Western) would have value in the Public School system.

Okay, so teach ID in philosophy and not in science (because it is not science).

[mikejones99]

James Silas and Mr. T win this round.