Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[LuvRPgrl]

"It is more scientific than ID exactly HOW? There is as much evidence to support one as the other."

You simply must be called out on this. There is zero evidence for ID. Not one measly shred of evidence. How do you not realize that? And even if the theory is right, there still isn't evidence. So it's not science.

You tell me what evidence there is for ID compared to evolution or big bang. It's all based on the premise that there is an invisible superior being that there is no evidence exists.

Not everything has to be proven scientifically for it to be proven at all.

Logical deduction can prove things.

Since you purport that ID is not science, maybe we should simply rename the cirriculum. Instead of calling it science class, we should call it origins of life class, or science/ID class, or science/theology. Point is, both ideas should be presented side by side in any open minded forum of learning. Let those who are learning decide what to believe and accept. If Id is so nonsensical, as you purport, then standing next to science/evolution should make it all the more obvous, and be desirous to you.

Now, our mere existence is evidence of a Creator. Since the only alternative to their being a creator, is NO CREATOR. If there is no creator, then all matter must have come into existence without any help, it must have suddenly "appeared"

on the other hand, the belief in a spiritual being (non material) existing and creating matter is more plausable. The idea would be that the Creator is some form of life that isnt matter, nor it isnt non existent. That does not seem possible, but every possibility we come up with is "impossible" according to your scientific parameters.

I believe it is more likely that a non matter, spiritual being existed, rather than to believe at one point NOTHING existed and then suddenly things did exist.

 

[Gunny]

"Im assuming you believe both. How can you "prove" ID is nonsense.???"

I don't believe both. But ID is nonsense in the fact that people are trying to pass it off as science. That is definitely nonsense.

Not any more nonsense than any other theory of origin. If you're going to keep making the same ignorant statement, I'm going to keep throwing the flaw in your argument in your face.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Please tell me this doesn't escape you. There is no proof for ID. None whatsover.

You can't just say : That shit is pretty complicated so it must have been designed by an invisible supernatural being. That's silly.

No it isnt, in fact, YOU do it all the time.

If you were walking in a forest, and you saw a house, very complicated, built out of twigs, and it even includes doors and window holes, you would immediately conclude it didnt just accidentally form itself, but that an intelligent creature built it.

 

[Powerman]

Not any more nonsense than any other theory of origin. If you're going to keep making the same ignorant statement, I'm going to keep throwing the flaw in your argument in your face.

But you are dead wrong. One theory that has evidence is clearly superior to one that has zero evidence.

 

[Powerman]

No it isnt, in fact, YOU do it all the time.

If you were walking in a forest, and you saw a house, very complicated, built out of twigs, and it even includes doors and window holes, you would immediately conclude it didnt just accidentally form itself, but that an intelligent creature built it.

Yes but this observation would be based on reasoned expectation. If I see a house I can say with 100% certainty that it was built by someone because I've seen houses being built before. You don't have the same comparison to base your analogy on becuase you have never seen someone create a universe.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

"You are saying, since it cant be proven, Science should disregard any possibility of it. "

Yes and there is reasoning behind that. Science should always seek to find more answers. Since we can't prove that there is or is not a God for the sake of science it makes much more since to assume that there isn't one for the purpose of gaining more knowledge. If you just say everything is the way it is because God made it that way then you are essentially giving up.

I'm not saying that there definitely isn't a God but you will get absolutely nowhere in your search for scientific truth if you just assume that things that we don't understand are the works of a supreme being.

I'm not sure if I'm putting this into words for you but if you but it makes sense. When you come to the conclusion that something is unexplainable then you are just giving up.

But if there is a creator, and science intentionally plugs along as though there isnt, then they are denying themselves truth, and forcing themselves to go down the WRONG path. Acknowledging the possiblity of a creator is not the same as saying there is a creator. Science should at least go in the direction of always considering both possibilities, otherwise it may be looking for answers where it doesnt exist.

Your thinking puts science in a box, a narrow box. There are three ways to go about science. Consider there is a creator. Consider there isnt a creator. Or consider either possbility may be true. We are suggesting taking the non extreme, non narrow minded, non bigoted middle path. You are supporting going down a narrow path of bigotry.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I can deal with this. And that's exactly why it isn't science. Can't prove it. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just means it isn't science.

Thats a step forward

I will tell you this. The leap of faith requires just that , a LEAP. There is a time when you put all your TRUST in the Supreme Being, and see how it comes out. It has not failed people throughout history.

If you want to wait for "proof" of a God untill you will believe, it wont happen.

This is just my own personal experience, and what I see with others who are sucessful in life.

 

[Powerman]

I think you're pretty close to what I'm thinking but not quite on the same level. I don't think scientists should discount that there might be a creator. But since there can be no evidence for something supernatural then you would be going down the wrong path assuming that there was one. You would be much more productive in assuming for the sake of your research that there wasn't one.

 

[Gunny]

But you are dead wrong. One theory that has evidence is clearly superior to one that has zero evidence.

No, I am not wrong. Shall I whip you up a theory that the tree in my backyard is descended from the Tree of Life? After all, I DO have a tree as evidence. All I need is to concoct a story to support it.

In other words, and as I previously stated, you have far too much blind faith in Man's intellect, and nowhere near enough cynism to notice that for some inexplicable reason (an act of God? ), scientists always manage to prove what they set out to.

Scientific fact: a helicopter cannot get off the ground.

Or how about the T-Rex? For years the T-Rex was the dreaded king of predators. The landshark turns out to have been a land catfish.

 

[Annie]

But if there is a creator, and science intentionally plugs along as though there isnt, then they are denying themselves truth, and forcing themselves to go down the WRONG path. Acknowledging the possiblity of a creator is not the same as saying there is a creator. Science should at least go in the direction of always considering both possibilities, otherwise it may be looking for answers where it doesnt exist.

Your thinking puts science in a box, a narrow box. There are three ways to go about science. Consider there is a creator. Consider there isnt a creator. Or consider either possbility may be true. We are suggesting taking the non extreme, non narrow minded, non bigoted middle path. You are supporting going down a narrow path of bigotry.

That is where I'm trying to go. For me at the present time, I feel that within a science curriculum, theories should be open to scientific method. ID doesn't currently meet that threshold. However, evolution does not account for 'the beginning of the creation' so, alternatives certainly are 'on the board.' Big Bang, accounts for the apparent expanse of the universe, is testable, thus ok as a theory presented, however tenable. ID is not something that can be 'tested' at the current time, thus should be addressed in religion/ethics/theology curriculum. That's my opinion.

 

[MissileMan]

But if there is a creator, and science intentionally plugs along as though there isnt, then they are denying themselves truth, and forcing themselves to go down the WRONG path. Acknowledging the possiblity of a creator is not the same as saying there is a creator. Science should at least go in the direction of always considering both possibilities, otherwise it may be looking for answers where it doesnt exist.

Your thinking puts science in a box, a narrow box. There are three ways to go about science. Consider there is a creator. Consider there isnt a creator. Or consider either possbility may be true. We are suggesting taking the non extreme, non narrow minded, non bigoted middle path. You are supporting going down a narrow path of bigotry.

You might have a reasonable argument there except you expect secular scientists to acknowledge the possibility of a creator but don't expect religious scientists to acknowledge the possibility there isn't one. It's a double standard.

 

[Gunny]

That is where I'm trying to go. For me at the present time, I feel that within a science curriculum, theories should be open to scientific method. ID doesn't currently meet that threshold. However, evolution does not account for 'the beginning of the creation' so, alternatives certainly are 'on the board.' Big Bang, accounts for the apparent expanse of the universe, is testable, thus ok as a theory presented, however tenable. ID is not something that can be 'tested' at the current time, thus should be addressed in religion/ethics/theology curriculum. That's my opinion.

I posted this a page back:

Now, try for once to think outside your narrow, little box ..... all a Creator would have to be is a form of life far superior to, and beyond the comprehension of man, who has mastery over life and death enough to create it.

Point is, it is not that it is untestable .... it is that man does not have the capability physically and/or intellectually to test it.

However, I am not an dhave not been arguing that ID should be taught in science class. I am merely pointing out that science already DOES teach unproven theories of origin and calls them "science," while discriminating against one theory that is no more whimsical than the ones it accepts.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think you're pretty close to what I'm thinking but not quite on the same level. I don't think scientists should discount that there might be a creator. But since there can be no evidence for something supernatural then you would be going down the wrong path assuming that there was one. You would be much more productive in assuming for the sake of your research that there wasn't one.

Naw. If science takes the path down the middle, allowing for both possibilities, then it doesnt narrow itself. Either extreme, a creator is true, or a creator isnt true, those two paths could lead us down the wrong path, WE SIMPLY DONT KNOW. But at least the middle path allows us to follow where our evidence takes us.

It is possible that at some point there isnt an answer, and if the scientist isnt considering the possibility of a creator, they may be wasting their time. If a creator did in fact create life, and irreducable complexity is true, and life did not come into existence from a primordial soup, then all the scientists and all the time they are spending trying to prove it, or find evidence for it, is essentially wasted. Science should not declare anything as fact unless it has enough evidence to "prove" it, neither should science ever discard ANY possibility of anything. EVER.

It is possible to conduct experiment A considering both possibilities side by side.

 

[Powerman]

No, I am not wrong. Shall I whip you up a theory that the tree in my backyard is descended from the Tree of Life? After all, I DO have a tree as evidence. All I need is to concoct a story to support it.

In other words, and as I previously stated, you have far too much blind faith in Man's intellect, and nowhere near enough cynism to notice that for some inexplicable reason (an act of God? ), scientists always manage to prove what they set out to.

Scientific fact: a helicopter cannot get off the ground.

Or how about the T-Rex? For years the T-Rex was the dreaded king of predators. The landshark turns out to have been a land catfish.

This is all nonsense and douchebaggery. You do not understand that a theory in science is different than just some theory that you make up. If you've got a theory you're doing really well. It's not the same as a hypothesis.

 

[Annie]

I posted this a page back:



Point is, it is not that it is untestable .... it is that man does not have the capability physically and/or intellectually to test it.

That was my point, it's not testable, with what we have. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered, just am questioning the venue for under college curriculum.

However, I am not an dhave not been arguing that ID should be taught in science class. I am merely pointing out that science already DOES teach unproven theories of origin and calls them "science," while discriminating against one theory that is no more whimsical than the ones it accepts.

Seems we are on the same page. I think that all kids should be exposed to the alternatives, just not calling something that is not amiable to scientific method, science. It may well be, someday, it's just not there yet.

 

[MissileMan]

Naw. If science takes the path down the middle, allowing for both possibilities, then it doesnt narrow itself. Either extreme, a creator is true, or a creator isnt true, those two paths could lead us down the wrong path, WE SIMPLY DONT KNOW. But at least the middle path allows us to follow where our evidence takes us.

It is possible that at some point there isnt an answer, and if the scientist isnt considering the possibility of a creator, they may be wasting their time. If a creator did in fact create life, and irreducable complexity is true, and life did not come into existence from a primordial soup, then all the scientists and all the time they are spending trying to prove it, or find evidence for it, is essentially wasted. Science should not declare anything as fact unless it has enough evidence to "prove" it, neither should science ever discard ANY possibility of anything. EVER.

It is possible to conduct experiment A considering both possibilities side by side.

Evolution is taught in science classes as a theory, not a fact. It has been given the status of the leading theory because of the large amount of evidence gathered that supports it. If another theory should be forwarded with a substantial amount of evidence to support it, I would expect it to be included in school curriculum. From what I've been able to read about it, the highest status ID can muster is hypothesis, with really weak, if any, evidence to support it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You might have a reasonable argument there except you expect secular scientists to acknowledge the possibility of a creator but don't expect religious scientists to acknowledge the possibility there isn't one. It's a double standard.

Actually, I think I did state scientists should always consider BOTH possibilities. If I didnt, then I am correcting myself now.

Although, for many who believe in God, we have our personal experiences that "prove' to us there is a God. However, that experience cannot be translated to anyone else. So, that proof only exists for me, so if one has had such an experience, I wouldnt have a problem with them discounting the "there is no creator" possibility.

However, for anyone who hasnt had that personal experience, they cannot allow for the exclusion of the "there isnt a creator" possibility. My personal experience cannot be denied. Spirituality, and theology and logical deductivity has as much validity as science in proving something.

I am not prone to, nor in fact have ever hallucinated, and have always demanded "proof" of statements. In fact, I, more than your average person, am the perpetual kid asking "why?". I do ask that to statements that most, if not all, have accepted for time immemoral.

My disbelief in evolution came long after my conversion to Christianity.

I believe drugs should be legalized, both on the philosophical level of self determination and freedom, and, based on my belief it would help society overall. Many argue thats not true, that drug usage would increase, but I question that idea, and without hard evidence, I will continue to question it.

I have come to question when life ends. Christians traditionally believe we die, then have our day of judgement. One death, one chance at judgement. But a Biblical verse, which is actually quite astounding, and every Christian has read it numerous times, and when I ask them if they remember reading such and such, 98% say no, and even declare there is no such passage, untill I point it out to them. I was also one who read it, and didnt consider it much

But now, it makes me question exactly when death does occur. Is the Bible speaking to physical death, then the judgement, or spiritual death? Its possible all are still alive, just hibernating, or its possible our deaths occur while we are physically still alive.

The point is, I generally do not like to confine myself to rigid thinking. However, if evidence proves something, I will stick to it like a fly on shit, unless someone provides strong contrary evidence. Sometimes a person is accused of being stubborn and hard headed for that kind of reasoning, but I disagree.

So, for me, best is for science to consider, at all times, all possibilities. And I am now convinced that ID should be re classified under theology, but SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SIDE BY SIDE WITH EVOLUTION. We simply need to change the ciriculum to be a science/theology class.

 

[Gunny]

That was my point, it's not testable, with what we have. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered, just am questioning the venue for under college curriculum. Seems we are on the same page. I think that all kids should be exposed to the alternatives, just not calling something that is not amiable to scientific method, science. It may well be, someday, it's just not there yet.

I was a firsthand victim of the theory of evolution (which included the theory of man's descent from apes) being forcefed to us in school back in the late 60s. I never really understood the carnival-like atmosphere that surrounded the subject. My grandfather, a teetotalling Southern Baptist put it to me in a simple manner I could understand .....

You don't have to believe it. You just have to "render unto Ceasar what is his."

Too many closed minds on the subject and I argue against THAT more than anything else.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Evolution is taught in science classes as a theory, not a fact. It has been given the status of the leading theory because of the large amount of evidence gathered that supports it. If another theory should be forwarded with a substantial amount of evidence to support it, I would expect it to be included in school curriculum. From what I've been able to read about it, the highest status ID can muster is hypothesis, with really weak, if any, evidence to support it.

Much of the reason evolution has been given leading status, is because the only other alternative is religous. The seperation theorists, have had their way in eliminating any possiblity of God to be removed from the classroom. This removal gives evolution leading status.

I think this is wrong. The POSSIBILITY of a God creator should be EXPLORED side by side with evolution. If you teach the possibility of evolution, without any competing theories, then you are by default declaring there are no other theories, or, that your class is closed minded and not really up to snuff.

Now, we also know, that if kids are taugh only one thing, by the time they are old enough to question its validity on its own, may be too late, it may already be too engrained in their heads. Many parents dont, wont, cant give their kids exposure to ID unless it is given in the classroom. If you believe in seperation of Church and state, then I would suggest you either, make an exception for ID to be taught as a theological alternative to scienctific evolution, or, eliminate both from the classroom. Neither would be devastating, and would be more equitable and lacking in any "double standards".

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I was a firsthand victim of the theory of evolution (which included the theory of man's descent from apes) being forcefed to us in school back in the late 60s. I never really understood the carnival-like atmosphere that surrounded the subject. My grandfather, a teetotalling Southern Baptist put it to me in a simple manner I could understand .....

You don't have to believe it. You just have to "render unto Ceasar what is his."

Too many closed minds on the subject and I argue against THAT more than anything else.

concur

excellent sig by the way.....