Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
i went to catholic schools almost exclusively between 4th-12th grade. . there was never a need to insert the notion of an intelligent designer into biology. i did have comprehensive religious education every year on top of what other schools taught. that's not ok for public schools, i guess, and i think they can do better to focus on the subjects they have, its indicated.
ID is a new concept and was arranged in an attempt to infiltrate science curriculum in public schools; its christian pedigree is pretty clear.
that people are and have always been thankful and awed by God, gods, and nature has little to do with the validity of ID as non-philosophical subject matter. ID would be a rewriting of history were someone to use that term to describe buddhist interpretations of nature, or that of any faith which does not subscribe explicitly to that brand-name. I hope history isn't next.
as a christian myself, i believe that God created us and the universe; as a chemical engineer, and with a BSc in biology, i've learned a bit about how. i have no use for ID, granted these facts. who does?
i hear what you are saying, fox. but the term 'Intelligent Design' is bound to a fraud of science and faith for me. remember my feelings about CO2?...bound to fraud. i hear it and i pull out a switchblade and say 'get back, i mean business!'
in that sense, because of my beliefs, i am an ID supporter to ID supporters who want to twist my beliefs for their fraudulent mandate. i'm an infidel to a guy plotting to blow himself up somewhere christian, too.
our faith and our knowledge are cornerstones of our identity. i don't want to be associated with that term because it does not describe what i believe about the phenomena of nature on which it is postulated, furthermore, i believe God the Father of Jesus Christ is the Creator, not an intelligent designer. i have no use for an unidentified deity concept. i have placed faith in One and am otherwise pretty atheistic, leaving the gods others have to be anthropological and historical topics. zeus, idesigner, vishnu...
are there parts of ID which have a role outside of bio-science? i know you dont advocate it as a science theory as it was proposed, but is there any more to it?
Should students not be taught of such thoughts from the great scientists of the past? Should students not be taught that science is an incomplete and ever evolving discipline and cannot yet answer many, even most questions yet to be answered? Should students not consider whether indeed everything happens by pure happenstance--something science cannot either prove or falsify--or is it possible that there is an intelligence and purpose behind it all?
this is the part that puzzles me. i see ID as a creationist theory with an anonymous deity, the designer. where is this observation, consideration and support?
i would have more respect for that shit if they maintained the christian faith basis of creation, instead of attempting the indignity of trying to smuggle God into public science classrooms.
i dont like the M.O. of many evangelical christian movements. gets under my skin.
this is the part that puzzles me. i see ID as a creationist theory with an anonymous deity, the designer. where is this observation, consideration and support?
i would have more respect for that shit if they maintained the christian faith basis of creation, instead of attempting the indignity of trying to smuggle God into public science classrooms.
i dont like the M.O. of many evangelical christian movements. gets under my skin.
First truth is evidence independent. In stone age, there's no evidence for the presence of black holes, it's far from saying that black holes did not exist in stone age.
Evidence is just for a human brain to recognise a truth (or rather for a belief system to believe that it is the truth). Something is evident to one may not be evident enough to someone else, because they possess a diffferent belief systems (brains).
Science is abit special. Science is the discovery of natural rules which predicts precisely for our brain/belief system to reckon them as the truth. Say, water decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen, this chemical rule allows you to predict precisely that water everywhere behaves so. You can predict this result before every single experiment, and every single experience when set up correctly can hardly falsify your prediction by using the rule. The rule is thus reckoned by human brains/belief systems as the truth.
Evidence is thus not a requirement by science. Evidence is a requirement by human brains because of human failure in dealing with the past. That is, we can't know the past for sure, that's why we need evidence to attempt to approach what truly happened. Humans brains/belief systems are thus required to subjectively give out mainly verbal explanations on how to interpret the so-called evidence presented. Various brains may give out various explanations. Perhaps till a certain consensus is reached by a certain group of brains. Then one of the results will be accepted as the 'truth'.
No doubt it is an efficient approach in reality for humans who are futile about the past to try to reach the truth. The limitation is that, no matter how evident things seem to be, there's still a chance that it's not a truth. And the approach itself relies heavily on verbal explanation from the subjective human brains, instead of the establishment of testable scientific rules.
Such an approach is commonly used in human law courts. Things are very evident to certain jury members may not be that evident to other jury members. A consensus will be reached and the case is ruled by the majority of the chosen jury members (human brains). Yet there will be innocents no matter how evident the cases are. And it's not science anyway. It is rather an efficient and practical method to reach truth, but unlike science nothing is guarranteed. Even when all the jury members voted guilty, there is still innocents. In the end, such a system is faith-based, which says "we believe at best that it is the case/truth".
This is not science because it doesn't bear the characteristic of preditability, falsifyability and repeated testability as required by the existing natural scientific rules discovered.
At most ToE is just to reflect one of the possibilities. Is it possible that God created everything in a way we don't know? Noone can rule out that possibility. At the same time, it says that in case God created everything, ToE can never find the truth. It says that it is possible that ToE is not true (in case God created everything). And it's not scientific at the moment anyway. ID is not scientific just as ToE, yet it bears a chance to find out the truth in case God created everything.
ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition.
this is the part that puzzles me. i see ID as a creationist theory with an anonymous deity, the designer. where is this observation, consideration and support?
i would have more respect for that shit if they maintained the christian faith basis of creation, instead of attempting the indignity of trying to smuggle God into public science classrooms.
i dont like the M.O. of many evangelical christian movements. gets under my skin.
And I would have more respect for the Athiest camp if they weren't so eager to eradicate any concept of ID from the realm of education by mischaracterizing it as "Christian".
The fact is that ID has been around for a much longer time than has Christianity. And Christianity only presents one concept within the much larger scope of ID.
There are several Buddhist sects for instance who have adopted theories close to the Platonian model of ID and as you know, Buddhist do not believe in supernatural dieties and Plato lived more than 400 years before Christian was even a word.
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, born 499 BC, developed maybe the first recorded 'big bang' theory in his supposition that once all matter existed all together and within this mass of matter 'nous' (or mind) set up a vortex in the center and gradually spun it into wider and wider circles in a reasoned manner.
Aristotle conceived of a world/universe that was uncreated but included at its center a 'mover' who was unaware of its role but which caused all matter to behave as it did--certainly an intelligence at work but one unaware that it was having the effect that it did. Not a deity to be worshipped but simply a 'mind' or 'force' that created order out of what otherwise would have been chaos.
There were so many such theories and concepts expressed from some of the greatest minds the world has ever known.
Should students not be taught of such thoughts from the great scientists of the past? Should students not be taught that science is an incomplete and ever evolving discipline and cannot yet answer many, even most questions yet to be answered? Should students not consider whether indeed everything happens by pure happenstance--something science cannot either prove or falsify--or is it possible that there is an intelligence and purpose behind it all?
How could any student be harmed, and what religious doctrine would be taught, by acknowledging that there are such thoughts out there and they are perfectly logical and perfectly rational and go back as far as recorded history itself?
Education is not to shield the student from all but what the teacher believes. Education is to introduce the student to all possibilities, to be able to think critically, and to understand that just because we don't have answers for something does not mean that an answer does not exist.
I don't want anything spoon fed except maybe the multiplication tables, spelling, and sentence structure, Antagon. I just don't want minds closed to all the possibilities out there. And I don't want anybody teaching anybody that if science can't verify or falsify it, then it just doesn't exist.
Perhaps though your post suggests you really don't know too much about what you're talking about here.
What difference does it make whether the Jew, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or any other religious group is right in this context? Do you have to reconcile differences of scientific opinion of which there are many before you can accept science as a reasoned discipline?
My whole point from the beginning of this discussion is that ID is not science in the sense that we usually define science.
And ID is not religion in the sense that we usually define religion at least so far as iit being necessary to include spiritual beings or dieties.
The honest and true scientists closes his mind to no possibilities and fully accepts that what he now knows may be perceived differently when new information or evidence is presented. The only way scientists can get ever closer to the truth is with open minds receptive to any new information that is yet to come.
And the same is true of ID which also presumes that there is far more to know than what is known and the only way to get closer to the truth is by an open mind receptive to any new information that is yet to come.
Therefore, for all we know there will be a merging of science and ID sometime in the future, but it is not now merged. But no scientist worth his credentials as a scientist would dismiss ID as an impossibility any more than any ID-er of reasoned intelligence would dismiss science out of hand just because it doesn't fit with some religious doctrine.
Perhaps none of us knows what they are talking about here, you included.
With an open mind, how does a scientist test a belief? Your assumption is prefaced with your opinion that all science is closed minded. However, you provide no supporting facts with that baseless conclusion.
Scientists test theories, not beliefs. ID is a belief only.
You can never disprove my religous beliefs. Ever. No science can ever disprove my religous beliefs. No science can ever prove my religous beliefs either.
Science proves and disproves theories on the hour. That is the difference.
I may not know what I'm talking about, but I at least do my best not to misrepresent what others post, and if I err in that regard, I fess up and acknowledge the error.
It is true that scientists don't test beliefs and I didn't even hint at such a thing. Scientists test theories which are ever evolving as a result of the testing, analysis, and interpretation of results. Your observation that I hold an "....opinion that all science is closed minded" is almost mind boggling in the face of what I actually posted. Do you generally have that much problem with reading comprehension?
I have not and would not attempt to disprove your religious beliefs, more especially since I don't have a clue what they are. I cannot imagine why you would include that in this discussion unless you again simply manufactured what you think the discussion is about.
I think science does not presume to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything but rather it seeks to verify and/or falsify. There is a subtle difference between these two things. Certainty is a very big word to a legitimate scientist and and one infrequently used.
ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition. Again, had you bothered to read what I posted, or perhaps if you were capable of understanding what you read, you would have seen that ID is not necessarily a concept within a religious belief.
this is the part that puzzles me. i see ID as a creationist theory with an anonymous deity, the designer. where is this observation, consideration and support?
i would have more respect for that shit if they maintained the christian faith basis of creation, instead of attempting the indignity of trying to smuggle God into public science classrooms.
i dont like the M.O. of many evangelical christian movements. gets under my skin.
And I would have more respect for the Athiest camp if they weren't so eager to eradicate any concept of ID from the realm of education by mischaracterizing it as "Christian".
The fact is that ID has been around for a much longer time than has Christianity. And Christianity only presents one concept within the much larger scope of ID.
There are several Buddhist sects for instance who have adopted theories close to the Platonian model of ID and as you know, Buddhist do not believe in supernatural dieties and Plato lived more than 400 years before Christian was even a word.
Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, born 499 BC, developed maybe the first recorded 'big bang' theory in his supposition that once all matter existed all together and within this mass of matter 'nous' (or mind) set up a vortex in the center and gradually spun it into wider and wider circles in a reasoned manner.
Aristotle conceived of a world/universe that was uncreated but included at its center a 'mover' who was unaware of its role but which caused all matter to behave as it did--certainly an intelligence at work but one unaware that it was having the effect that it did. Not a deity to be worshipped but simply a 'mind' or 'force' that created order out of what otherwise would have been chaos.
There were so many such theories and concepts expressed from some of the greatest minds the world has ever known.
Should students not be taught of such thoughts from the great scientists of the past? Should students not be taught that science is an incomplete and ever evolving discipline and cannot yet answer many, even most questions yet to be answered? Should students not consider whether indeed everything happens by pure happenstance--something science cannot either prove or falsify--or is it possible that there is an intelligence and purpose behind it all?
How could any student be harmed, and what religious doctrine would be taught, by acknowledging that there are such thoughts out there and they are perfectly logical and perfectly rational and go back as far as recorded history itself?
Education is not to shield the student from all but what the teacher believes. Education is to introduce the student to all possibilities, to be able to think critically, and to understand that just because we don't have answers for something does not mean that an answer does not exist.
Why is it that atheists are always identified by you as the leaders of the proponents of everything pro evolution and opponents of the teaching of ID as science?
Most of the scientists that believe ID is not science and is belief only are Christian or another religion.
Perhaps none of us knows what they are talking about here, you included.
With an open mind, how does a scientist test a belief? Your assumption is prefaced with your opinion that all science is closed minded. However, you provide no supporting facts with that baseless conclusion.
Scientists test theories, not beliefs. ID is a belief only.
You can never disprove my religous beliefs. Ever. No science can ever disprove my religous beliefs. No science can ever prove my religous beliefs either.
Science proves and disproves theories on the hour. That is the difference.
I may not know what I'm talking about, but I at least do my best not to misrepresent what others post, and if I err in that regard, I fess up and acknowledge the error.
It is true that scientists don't test beliefs and I didn't even hint at such a thing. Scientists test theories which are ever evolving as a result of the testing, analysis, and interpretation of results. Your observation that I hold an "....opinion that all science is closed minded" is almost mind boggling in the face of what I actually posted. Do you generally have that much problem with reading comprehension?
I have not and would not attempt to disprove your religious beliefs, more especially since I don't have a clue what they are. I cannot imagine why you would include that in this discussion unless you again simply manufactured what you think the discussion is about.
I think science does not presume to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything but rather it seeks to verify and/or falsify. There is a subtle difference between these two things. Certainty is a very big word to a legitimate scientist and and one infrequently used.
ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition. Again, had you bothered to read what I posted, or perhaps if you were capable of understanding what you read, you would have seen that ID is not necessarily a concept within a religious belief.
NO sir, I read you loud and clear. You are a fence sitter. You claim to have an open mind, and I believe you do in many areas as you appear to be intelligent, yet when presented with overwhelming evidence that that there is no evidence to support your claim that ID is maybe, possibly, could be or should be science your mind goes closed.
ID is for ignorant people, you have no clue so you say it must be ID.
And the earth is flat too, just ask the catholic church.
I may not know what I'm talking about, but I at least do my best not to misrepresent what others post, and if I err in that regard, I fess up and acknowledge the error.
It is true that scientists don't test beliefs and I didn't even hint at such a thing. Scientists test theories which are ever evolving as a result of the testing, analysis, and interpretation of results. Your observation that I hold an "....opinion that all science is closed minded" is almost mind boggling in the face of what I actually posted. Do you generally have that much problem with reading comprehension?
I have not and would not attempt to disprove your religious beliefs, more especially since I don't have a clue what they are. I cannot imagine why you would include that in this discussion unless you again simply manufactured what you think the discussion is about.
I think science does not presume to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything but rather it seeks to verify and/or falsify. There is a subtle difference between these two things. Certainty is a very big word to a legitimate scientist and and one infrequently used.
ID is far more than a belief. It is a concept supported by observation, reasoned consideration, and rational supposition. Again, had you bothered to read what I posted, or perhaps if you were capable of understanding what you read, you would have seen that ID is not necessarily a concept within a religious belief.
NO sir, I read you loud and clear. You are a fence sitter. You claim to have an open mind, and I believe you do in many areas as you appear to be intelligent, yet when presented with overwhelming evidence that that there is no evidence to support your claim that ID is maybe, possibly, could be or should be science your mind goes closed.
A closed mind says that ID will never be supported by science.
An open mind acknowledges that science cannot not verify or falsify ID concepts at this point in human evolvement, but leaves open that possibility at some point.
So which of us has the closed mind here?
I can suggest a good remedial reading course or two. You obviously have been incapable of reading what I write or at least comprehending what I have said multiple times now.
I addressed this in an earlier post. ID will NEVER be supported or falsified in science because science does not deal with that. See earlier post...A closed mind says that ID will never be supported by science.
An open mind acknowledges that science cannot not verify or falsify ID concepts at this point in human evolvement, but leaves open that possibility at some point.
The problem with these thick heads around here is that you have not identified WHAT ID is if it is not a science. In reality, it is RELIGION and that is why it does not belong in the classroom at any point, not just in science. ID does span virtually all religions and is not a Christian only concept but you are being slightly misleading by not mentioning that it IS a religious belief all the same. Nowhere should ID be taught in schools as there is nowhere that religion should be taught unless it is from a historic stance and ID would then be rolled into that as it currently is in schools that have a basic world religion course. There really is only one form of ID that is not religious and that is the ET form of ID and I should not need to explain why that does not need to be taught in school.Not only most scientists believe that ID is not science, but so do most non-scientists, myself included, believe that ID is not science. Again, I don't know how many different ways I can say that to get through a few apparently thicker-than-usual skulls around here.
And if most scientists believe the ID arises only out of Christianity or another religion, then they are woefully uneducated even in their own disciplines. That certainly is not the case as I have already taken considerable pains to illustrate.
You really do have a readong comprehension problem don't you.
I addressed this in an earlier post. ID will NEVER be supported or falsified in science because science does not deal with that. See earlier post...A closed mind says that ID will never be supported by science.
An open mind acknowledges that science cannot not verify or falsify ID concepts at this point in human evolvement, but leaves open that possibility at some point.
The problem with these thick heads around here is that you have not identified WHAT ID is if it is not a science. In reality, it is RELIGION and that is why it does not belong in the classroom at any point, not just in science. ID does span virtually all religions and is not a Christian only concept but you are being slightly misleading by not mentioning that it IS a religious belief all the same. Nowhere should ID be taught in schools as there is nowhere that religion should be taught unless it is from a historic stance and ID would then be rolled into that as it currently is in schools that have a basic world religion course. There really is only one form of ID that is not religious and that is the ET form of ID and I should not need to explain why that does not need to be taught in school.Not only most scientists believe that ID is not science, but so do most non-scientists, myself included, believe that ID is not science. Again, I don't know how many different ways I can say that to get through a few apparently thicker-than-usual skulls around here.
And if most scientists believe the ID arises only out of Christianity or another religion, then they are woefully uneducated even in their own disciplines. That certainly is not the case as I have already taken considerable pains to illustrate.
You really do have a readong comprehension problem don't you.
No matter how the ID idea is framed, it is religious in nature.
Hee hee. Our new friend JoLouis just neg repped me a whopping -1 for this post.
So much for freedom of expression or a free exchange of ideas.
No, it CAN be a religious tenent, but again, as I have explained in some detail, it does not need to be. ID is a concept, a theory if you prefer, that the complexity, symmetry, order of the universe and the things that are in it did not happen by pure happenstance or just randomly lucked out to be the way they are. It is a concept that there is an intelligence behind it, something that is ordering it or causing it to be the way it is. It is the same kind of phenomenon in what we can evidence in our own sometimes unexplainable reasoning processes or instinct that occurs outside of experience or appreciation for beauty or anything else that cannot be explained scientifically.
Such things exist though science cannot explain why. It is not a religious notion then to think that such intelligence could extend beyond that which we have experienced and is a force within it all. It does not require belief in a diety or any supernatural being. It only has to assume that everything hasn't happened by pure chance.
And that is absolutely a concept that should be part of the full education of every student. Had it been part of yours, explained in that way, you might not be doggedly insisting that ID is religion and couldn't be anything else. That is becoming repetitiously tedious as I am sure my attempts to explain it as I see it has no doubt become repetitiously tedious to others.
