Let's make this clear

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Powerman, Aug 17, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Powerman
    Offline

    Powerman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,499
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +39
    Intelligent design is not recognized as a science. Creation theory is not recognized as a science. Those are facts and I'll give you some sources on those in a minute.



    Now that we know that they are not science which we should have all known by now why does anyone want this taught in a classroom? If you are anti evolution you are for taking science out of a classroom because you won't be adding anything into it. Not any science anyways.

    Some info you all should read.

    From the link:
    Critics call ID an attempt to recast religious dogma in an effort to force public schools to teach creationism in schools, and ID features notably as part of a campaign known as Teach the Controversy. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is not science. While the scientific model of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and speciation, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates another cornerstone of the scientific method called Occam's Razor by creating an entity to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving outside help.

    http://www.answers.com/intelligent design


    Another thing we could all learn about is obsolete scientific theories. Most of these theories are theories that were never widely accepted or ones that were widely accepted and then were obsoleted by more elite theories.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/obsolete-scientific-theory?method=8

    Scroll down to Obsolete geographical and climatological theories...


    Creation science is on par with teaching that the earth is flat....

    You would also be well served to scroll down farther to approximate theories. These are theories that are not obsolete but are in danger of being obsoleted by more current theories. If you notice evolution didn't make the list. So it's standing pretty tall right now in comparison to most theories. And for those of you who don't think that gravity is a theory and claim it is a law you will notice that galileo's theory of gravity has obsoleted the prior theory of gravity which was proposed by aristotle.

    And if you notice Newtonian mechanics theories are in danger of being obsoleted. So that means that evolution is a more solid theory than Newtonian mechanics. And despite there not being any theory that is a close second many on this board claim it should not be taught to our children. Hell why teach them anything?


    If we are going to discuss this let's do it in a proper manner. I believe Hobbit told me that gravity was a law when I told him it was a theory. This stuff is well documented. If you are going to make a claim about something make sure you can back it up.
     
  2. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page